Complicating Narratives: Defining and Deconstructing Ethical Challenges in Community Psychology

Abstract

In this concluding essay, we review the case studies presented in this Special Issue and examine whether community psychology has a distinctive approach to defining and resolving the core ethical canons of the Belmont Report (1979): Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice. For two of these Principles-Respect for Persons and Beneficence-community psychologists elaborate upon and extend their definitions to consider their meaning in community-based, social justice-oriented research. The field's approach to Respect for Persons is multilevel in nature; in addition to respecting individuals and their diverse identities, we also have obligations to respect our community partnerships, the communities with whom we work, and the populations and cultures represented in our work. Similarly, for community psychologists, Beneficence is a multilevel construct that considers risks and benefits at the group, community, and cultural levels of analysis. With respect to Justice, community psychologists' views of our ethical responsibilities are qualitatively different in meaning from the original Belmont Report and from disciplinary-specific interpretations of this principle in ethical guidance documents from psychology, sociology, and evaluation. Our valuing of social change demands that we contribute to individual and group empowerment and liberation, and in so doing, that we avoid collusion with oppressive systems. Thus, we define our ethical responsibilities for promoting Justice as more action-oriented than do other disciplines. The essay closes with an exploration of future directions for developing a comprehensive ethical framework for community psychology.

Toward an Ethical Reflective Practice of a Theory in the Flesh: Embodied Subjectivities in a Youth Participatory Action Research Mural Project

“…Silva's () autoethnography of a school‐based collaboration that culminated in the dismantling of a Latinx Student Union explicitly discusses the heart‐centered work of an ethical reflective practice in discerning how to approach research collaborations of contention and “unraveling.” Of significance, Silva () notes the dearth of ethnic and culturally diverse narratives of early career scholars in the discipline and how the omission of these voices is problematic for the future of community psychology. This observation is consistent with other writings that purport that heart work in community psychology must be discussed, theorized, and empirically documented especially as the discipline becomes more diverse, and committed to upholding diversity and inclusion (Campbell & Morris, ; Case, ; Langhout, ).…”

“…The scholarly literature focused on the professionalization of community psychologists has substantially discussed the resources for developing the thinking and doing of community psychology (Prilleltensky, ). Yet, less attention has centered on understanding or supporting the feeling(s) or emotions that often emerge in community psychology research and practice (Campbell & Morris, ; Case, ). Langhout's () discussion of community psychology competencies as “head, hand and heart work” parallels the process of thinking, doing, and feeling.…”

“…An ethical reflective practice encourages the community psychologist to problematize power and to intentionally reflect upon the re/actions that emerge in the research context. Reflexivity across multiple phases of the research process is crucial to a community psychology for liberation (Allen & Mohatt, ; Campbell & Morris, ; Gone, ; Langhout, , ; Schensul & Trickett, ; Tebes, ).…”

“…These values strongly align with and reflect the “Competencies for Community Psychology Practice” statement, as well as other empirical and personal writings that document the shifts within the discipline as a means to engage with the social, cultural, and political urgencies of our times (SCRA, ). In accordance with these competencies, Campbell and Morris (), Kelly (, ), Langhout (), Nelson, Poland, Murray, and Maticka‐Tyndale (), and Prilleltensky () have urged community psychologists to consider the underlying ethics that inform the discipline's epistemological, theoretical, and methodological orientations to engage in research and practice rooted in liberation and empowerment.…”

“…This paper contributes to the emerging literature on the values of engaging and processing heart work through an ethical reflective practice (Bond & Harrell, ; Gone, ; Langhout, ; Lykes & Crosby, ; Reyes Cruz & Sonn, ; Silva, ; Tebes, ; Trickett, , ). Moreover, it adds to the growing scholarship on community psychology competencies, the diversity of voices within the field, and the development of an ethical framework for our discipline – one that centers the researcher's embodied subjectivities (Allen & Mohatt, ; Bond, ; Campbell & Morris, ; Gone, ; Langhout, ; Silva, ), and the diversity of voices within the field.…”