Academic and nonacademic community psychologists: An analysis of divergence in settings, roles, and values

Abstract

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.

Divergence between community psychologists in academic and nonacademic settings: A closer look at the implications

“…In our recent, article, "Academic and Nonacademic Community Psychologists: An Analysis of Divergence in Settings, Roles, and Values," we reported data suggesting that a substantial distance exists between community psychologists whose primary affiliation is with academic settings and those whose primary affiliations are in the community (Elias, Dalton, Franco, & Howe, 1984). Three responses to our article (Dorr, 1984;Heller & Takemoto, 1984;Kelly, 1984) generally reinforced our concern and suggested constructive steps that community psychologists should be taking to address a potentially divisive rift.…”

“…For this to occur, however, we must take the initial steps of frankly recognizing differences in our folkways and organizational constraints, while also emphasizing our common values and assets. The largest threat to the field is external constraints from university and clinical service settings on the work that represents community psychology (Elias et al, 1984). If we are divided or uninformed in the face of these environmental presses, we will never create the adaptive niche that community psychology needs to survive.…”

“…In our program of research, we have used a broader range of indices for examining interconnection, communication, and visibility within community psychology than we have seen in any related studies. These included participation in convention symposia (Dalton et al, 1985) and nominations by survey respondents (Elias et al, 1984). Yet, we could discern no group within those community psychologists primarily affiliated with settings outside of academia that demonstrated a meaningful degree of ongoing collaboration and likelihood of having a strong impact on community psychology as a whole.…”

Improving the continuity between undergraduate psychology and graduate community psychology: Analysis and case study

“…A far more disquieting theme, however, is a tone of increasing pessimism about whether any manner of organizing graduate education in community psychology can meet this challenge (Glidewell, 1966(Glidewell, , 1977(Glidewell, , 1983Zolik, 1983). One factor that has been proposed as placing a limit on the growth of the field is the lack of a critical mass of well-trained, graduate-level community psychologists in applied and academic settings (Elias, Dalton, Franco, & Howe, 1984;Zolik, 1983). In the literature on professional socialization, a critical mass of adherents is regarded as necessary to enrich the base of knowledge and practice and to provide visibility for a field's activities and purposes (Elias, Dalton, & Howe, 1981;Parker & Paisley, 1966).…”

The academic/nonacademic squabble: An even closer look

“…In my initial reaction to Elias et al (1984) I did use the term exemplar in its colloquial sense because that is precisely how the authors defined it in the manuscript that was available to me, "the emergence of a definable group within the data that we labeled as 'exemplary'...scientists [italics added] whose work seems to embody significant elements of a field's paradigm" (Elias et al, 1984, p. 287). Please note that the earlier definition of exemplar by Elias et al (1984) differs from the later definition. The earlier definition states that exemplars are scientists," the later definition states that exemplars are works, a distinction that is essential to an understanding of this debate.…”