The status of community psychology as a discipline has been the subject of much speculation but little empirical inquiry. Based on the seminal work of Thomas Kuhn, an ecological and developmental conceptual framework waf-formulated to guide empirical inquiry. An overview of the framework is presented, specifying "stages" of disciplinary growth and operational parameters for defining those stages. Data from two empirical studies, operationalizing aspects of the framework through survey questionnaire and archival methodologies, are presented. Results of these studies show (a) lack of a consensus among community psychologists, (b) continuing ties of community psychologists to clinical psychology, and (c) structural deficits within the discipline that may impede professional development unless rectified. Implications of the data for the future of community psychology, particularly with the increasing pressures for licensing and credentialing, and suggestions for further study are discussed.

Community psychology presents a microcosm of the "academic vs. applied" conflict in psychology. To study this conflict, however, it is necessary to understand historical-developmental trends within the discipline as well as environmental influences on professional activity. In this article, research on the nature of community psychology is reviewed within a conceptual framework based on Kuhn (1970). Results are reported from a survey of academic, nonacademic, and academic-exemplary groups within community psychology. Differences appeared between these groups in interests, professional activities, nature and salience of environmental constraints on community activity, and opinions regarding the state of community psychology. The academic-exemplary group seems potentially 'We acknowledge with deep appreciation the intellectual challenges provided by our most enduring mentors in the study of community psychology, Reuben M. Baron and George J. Allen. Helpful comments on our work were also received from Brenna Bry, Anthony Broskowski, Richard Ashmore, and our initial anonymous reviewers. very influential in charting the future course of community psychology, yet is rather homogeneous and unrepresentative of nonacademic respondents. Developmental implications of these findings are discussed, and recommendations are made for speeific actions within the discipline.As a conversation with colleagues or a perusal of the American Psychologist or APA Monitor reveals, psychology again is experiencing controversy regarding the divergence of "academic" and "applied" interests within the discipline. This tension between the growth of research-based knowledge and application of that knowledge to pressing social problems is heightened by the current political climate of fiscal austerity. The field of community psychology acutely reflects the dynamics of this tension. Fishman (1982) suggests that the formal organizational structure of community psychology, Division 27 of the American Psychological Association (APA), contains two subcommunities which he labels as academics and professionals. These groups seem to differ along numerous dimensions, particularly type of problems considered, methodology used to address the problem, and the desired outcome of the work carried out. Recently, a committee was established in Division 27 to enhance collaboration between members in academic and applied settings (Broskowski & Bry, Note 1). The purpose of this article is to provide a conceptual framework and greater data base for understanding this academic-practitioner tension. While our focus is on community psychology, our conceptual framework and methods have implications for other discil~lines and psychological specialties.

In a recent article in this journal, we reported data indicating that a substantial tension exists between community psychologists whose primary affiliation is with academic settings and those whose primary affiliations are elsewhere. The implications o f these findings are explored in light o f three articles commenting on our work. I f the distinctiveness o f community psychology stems in part f r o m the collaborative and setting-based nature o f research and intervention processes, then the present tension within the field should be seen as more harmful than healthy. Several sources o f this tension are examined in some detail. It is argued that p r o a c t i v e efforts must be made to improve communication and contact among community psychologists f r o m diverse settings if we are to avoid having our work poorly informed by the existing knowledge bases in research a n d practice.

No abstract