No abstract

This narrative outlines our challenges in studying power and power structures within an individual-level ethical framework. Taking a social ethics perspective, we share the story of our "sticky situation" (Campbell, ) that transpired during a multi-year community partnership. We were asked, by our community partners, to help collect interview data without informed consent. As a team of community-engaged university researchers, we were faced with a seemingly easy ethical situation (no consent, no research) that had unexpectedly complicated and long-lasting consequences. This experience revealed to us how community-engaged research and action, under a traditional ethics framework, can often work to protect those in positions of power and offer little to disrupt the status quo. Reflecting on the tension between individual and social ethics, we discuss the limitations of an individual-level framework, including the definitions for respect for persons, justice, and beneficence, on our ability as a field to understand, critique, and contribute to the dismantling of oppressive power structures.

The majority of work occurring in human service organizations (HSOs) today, is ameliorative in nature, leaving the original sources of problems in our communities or society unchanged. The current tendency is to unreflectively reproduce these ameliorative practices that at best are superficially addressing a problem, and at worst are perpetuating the issues our communities face. In this paper we bring in two key concepts from Organizational Theory to inform Community Psychology theory and practice: reflective practice and organizational learning. We demonstrate the necessity of critically reflective practice in HSOs to promote learning, critical consciousness and critical community practice, in order to create more transformative rather than ameliorative practices. Utilizing our learning from three case studies, we propose the use of a Transformation‐team (T‐team) model as an enabling structure for reflective practice and organizational learning. Outlining benefits as well as eight necessary conditions of a successful T‐team, we delve into the possibilities that such an organizational structure can offer our HSOs.

What does it mean to practice critically in community settings? How do counselors, psychologists, social workers, community development workers, and other human service practitioners get beyond patching up the wounded and sending them back to contend with the toxic conditions in communities and society? What individual and organizational beliefs and practices would support those in need while simultaneously contributing to changing social conditions? This paper explores a model of critical community practice that highlights the theoretical underpinnings, practical applications, and organizational implications of community practice that is more radical and transformative. It also serves as an introduction to the four papers that follow in this special section.

No abstract