I N T R O D U C T I O N

A CHALLENGE FOR COMMUNITYRESEARCH AND ACTION: ANINTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIALISSUE

J. R. Newbrough and Paul W. SpeerPeabody College of Vanderbilt University

Raymond P. LorionTowson University

The crux of the thesis advanced in this special issue is that by merging thepsychological with the political, community psychology can, and should, explicitlyaddress social power. This thesis is advanced by Isaac Prilleltensky, who, in the leadarticle (pp. 116–136), discusses the central role of power in research on wellness,oppression, and liberation. He has become concerned that the work of communitypsychology has little effect on the basic problems of humankind and further assertsthat this limited impact is because the field has not worked directly with power at thecollective level. Empowerment, the field’s major phenomena of interest, seemstypically to be constrained in both definition and measurement at the person level.With the concept of psychopolitical validity, Prilleltensky proposes measuring thepsychological and political simultaneously. When an intervention is valid—bothpsychologically and politically—he hypothesizes that forces yielding ill-health andoppression will be diminished and those that enhance wellness and liberation will beincreased. He offers two types of psychopolitical validity and describes how he wouldapproach each empirically: Epistemic approaches integrate psychological and politicalpower into community psychology studies; and transformative approaches moveintervention beyond ameliorative efforts towards structural change. This conceptua-lization is set forward to share his thinking about what is central and important incommunity psychology.

Psychopolitical validity is a strategy for bringing a research criterion—validity—into a substantive rather than just a methodological domain. That is, an importantdimension to the validity of a research study is not just the process applied to studying

Correspondence to: J.R. Newbrough, Peabody ] 6, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203. E-mail:bob.newbrough@vanderbilt.edu or paul.w.speer@vanderbilt.edu.

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, VOL. 36, NO. 2, 113–115 (2008)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

& 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20224

a phenomenon of interest, but the ways in which it attends to how a substantive issue—social power—is operating in the community settings studied. This assertion is offeredby Prilleltensky as a tactic for addressing our historical struggles as a discipline—it is acall that is anchored in critical theory and to our field’s fundamental essence of valuesand action.

As we take stock of our field’s impact on social change, our successes are dwarfedin the face of increasing health disparities, resegregation of schools and communities,mounting wealth inequities, and the expansion of violence locally and war globally. Inthe face of neoliberal political and economic policies at this historical juncture,Prilleltensky has proposed that the construct of psychopolitical validity can offer a wayfor Community Psychology to make more effective contributions to social change. ForPrilleltensky, social change means increasing wellness, reducing oppression, andpromoting liberation. Most people are supportive of such goals, but what is it aboutpsychopolitical validity that can lead to such lofty ends? The history of communitypsychology has identified other admirable approaches for community psychology tomore effectively create social change, such as competent community (Iscoe, 1974),sense of community (Sarason, 1974), the ‘‘third position’’ (Newbrough, 1995), socialregularities (Seidman, 1990), and empowerment (Rappaport, 1981, 1987). Willpsychopolitical validity be any more successful in leading our field to social changethan these other valuable constructs?

This assertion is exciting, yet it surfaces a multitude of questions and dilemmas:Can we measure change? Can we measure change in the power structure? Can wemake change in the power structure from our position in the academy? Importantly,psychopolitical validity is building on community psychology’s important work onempowerment and explicitly moving it in the direction of community in a political,external, action-oriented direction. In this endeavor, we see Prilleltensky bridgingsome traditional critiques within our discipline through his construct. The majorcritique of empowerment has been that it has been psychological in the extreme, thatis, an over-emphasis on a perception or sense of empowerment rather than a concreteor tangible manifestation of empowerment. By combining the psychological with thepolitical, Prilleltensky explicitly elevates both. Psychopolitical validity demands that weattend to the psychological dimensions of people working in communities as well as theconcrete and measurable expressions of social power and the way such social powerbecomes exercised through political machinations in everyday life.

On the face of it, this seems a wholly appropriate avenue for communitypsychology to pursue. Nevertheless, the contributions that follow this hypothesis onpsychopolitical validity begin to consider it more critically. Some contributionsconsider how psychopolitical validity might be applied (Christens & Perkins,pp. 214–232; –>Partridge, pp. 161–172; Reich, Pinkard, & Davidson; pp. 173–186;Speer, pp. 199–213), others attempt to apply how the construct might address specificcommunity problems (Jones & Dokecki, pp. 148–160; Nation, pp. 187–198; Williams,pp. 137–147), and still others offer reflections and critique on the construct fromtheoretical bases (Angelique, pp. 247–254; Fisher & Sonn, pp. 262–269; Fox,pp. 233–238; Fryer, pp. 239–246; Lorion & McMillan, pp. 255–261).

This special issue of the Journal provides for an examination of the construct ofpsychopolitical validity. Certainly, we all would like psychopolitical validity, no less thanany other construct offered before, to be a device for improving our discipline’s impacton the many pressures and problems of communities—in the United States andthroughout the globe. The contributions in this issue take different perspectives on

114 � Journal of Community Psychology, March 2008

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

psychopolitical validity as, collectively, they consider the possibility for this construct tolead to the promised land of social change.

REFERENCES

Angelique, H.L. (2008). On power, psychopolitical validity, and play. Journal of CommunityPsychology, 36, 247–254.

Christens, B., & Perkins, D.D. (2008). Transdisciplinary, multilevel action research to enhanceecological and psycho-political validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 214–232.

Fisher, A.T., & Sonn, C.C. (2008). Psychopolitical validity: Power, culture, and wellness. Journalof Community Psychology, 36, 262–269.

Fox, D. (2008). Confronting psychology’s power. Journal of Community Psychology, 36,233–238.

Fryer, D. (2008). Power from the people? Critical reflection on a conceptualization of power.Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 239–246.

Iscoe, I. (1974). Community psychology and the competent community. American Psychologist,29, 607–613.

Jones, D.L., & Dokecki, P.R. (2008). The spiritual dimensions of psychopolitical validity: Thecase of clergy sexual abuse crisis. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 148–160.

Lorion, R.P., & McMillan, D.W. (2008). Does empowerment require disempowerment?Reflections on psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 255–261.

Nation, M. (2008). Concentrated disadvantage in urban neighborhoods: Psychopolitical validityas a framework for developing psychology-related solutions. Journal of CommunityPsychology, 36, 187–198.

Newbrough, J.R. (1995). Toward community: A third position. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 23, 9–37.

Partridge, W.L. (2008). Praxis and power. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 161–172.

Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise ofpsychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 116–136.

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention.American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1–25.

Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory ofcommunity psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121–148.

Reich, S.M., Pinkard, T., & Dadson, H. (2008). Including history in the study of psychologicaland political power. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 173–186.

Sarason, S.B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a communitypsychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Seidman, E. (1988). Back to the future, community psychology: Unfolding a theory of socialintervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 3–24.

Speer, P.W. (2008). Social power and forms of change: Implications for psychopolitical validity.Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 199–213.

Williams, B.N. (2008). From the outside looking in: The praxis dilemma of linkingpsychopolitical validity with community policing. Journal of Community Psychology, 36,137–147.

Introduction � 115

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop