Community psychology: Boundary problems, psychological perspectives, and an empirical overview of the field.

Content and method trends in the Journal of Community Psychology between 2003 and 2007

“…These authors found that the majority of studies in the sample focused on the effects of social systems on individual functioning, included psychological variables and processes as the most frequent dependent variables, and examined the effects of programs, policies, and interventions on mentally ill individuals (Lounsbury et al, 1979). Issues related to the conceptualization of the field, training imperatives, and improving the situation of mentally ill are particularly reflective of the priorities related to the emergence of the field of community psychology in the United States during this time period, namely, the decentralization of mental health services and the training of a new brand of psychologist to lead mental health initiatives at community level (Dalton et al, 2007;Pretorius-Heuchert & Ahmed, 2001).…”

“…In a random subset of articles in the AJCP and JCP between 1973 and 1977, Lounsbury et al (1979) found that 37% of publication topics were related to social systems (e.g., mental health facilities, schools, and the criminal justice system), 24% were related to specific problems or issues (e.g., work, individual adjustment, drugs or alcohol, and attitudes to mental health/illness), 16% were related to the provision of human resources for community psychology (e.g., training, use of volunteers/ paraprofessionals), 11% were related to measurement and research methodology, 8% were related to general definitions of community psychology, and 19% comprised other topics. These authors found that the majority of studies in the sample focused on the effects of social systems on individual functioning, included psychological variables and processes as the most frequent dependent variables, and examined the effects of programs, policies, and interventions on mentally ill individuals (Lounsbury et al, 1979).…”

“…Several studies of trends in published research have been conducted on the most established journals in community psychology and community mental health (Angelique & Culley, 2003;Bernal & Enchautegui-de-Jesus, 1994;Loo, Fong, & Iwamasa, 1988;Lounsbury, Cook, Leader, Rubeiz, & Meares, 1979;Lounsbury, Leader, Mears, & Cook, 1980;Martin et al, 2004;Novaco & Monahan, 1980;Speer, Griggs, Gibson, Lubin, & Hughey, 1992). However, studies of this nature have been particularly scarce in the last decade, and no studies examining data sets of articles published in community psychology journals in the 2000s were identified.…”

“…Existing trend analysis research in community psychology can be broadly categorized into two subtypes: First, those that review general epistemological and methodological trends during a comparatively shorter time period (5-10 years) such as Lounsbury et al (1979), Lounsbury et al (1980), Martin et al (2004), andSpeer et al (1992); second, those that provide an in-depth review of specific predetermined focal areas such as cultural diversity (Bernal & Enchautegui-de-Jesus, 1994;Loo et al, 1988) or gender issues (Angelique & Culley, 2003), and these typically examine longer time periods (20-30 years). The present study falls into the former category whereby general theory and method trends were identified; but the present study also touches on some of the more specific focal areas related to gender and culture that have been addressed in previous long-term studies.…”

“…For decades, it has been notoriously difficult to distinguish what strictly ''belongs'' within community psychology and the specific components that define the boundaries of the field (Lounsbury, Cook, Leader, Rubeiz, & Meares, 1979;Martin, Lounsbury, & Davidson, 2004). With just over 40 years having passed since community psychology's official inception, a growing imperative has emerged to ''take stock'' of how the field is currently positioned, reflect on its achievements, and evaluate its progress in meeting its initial goals, including its efficacy in promoting social change for maginalized groups, respect for cultural diversity, and ecological understandings of well-being (Martin et al, 2004).…”