Sense of community: A definition and theory

Abstract

For several years many of us at Peabody College have participated in the evolution of a theory of community, the first conceptualization of which was presented in a working paper (McMillan, 1976) of the Center for Community Studies. To support the proposed definition, McMillan focused on the literature on group cohesiveness, and we build here on that original definition. This article attempts to describe the dynamics of the sense‐of‐community force — to identify the various elements in the force and to describe the process by which these elements work together to produce the experience of sense of community.

Thriving and Adapting: Resilience, Sense of Community, and Syndemics among Young Black Gay and Bisexual Men

“…These two samples of men had drastically different experiences with the gay community, with men who avoided syndemics appearing to have experienced all of the benefits associated with a positive sense of community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). As such, research on the psychological sense of community may prove a useful framework through which to view these data.…”

“…Research suggests that there is a bidirectional relationship between a stronger sense of community and proactive involvement in that community (Florin & Wandersman, 1984;McMillan & Chavis, 1986). As men are afforded opportunities for social action consistent with their emerging identities as GBM, it may promote a higher sense of community; relatedly, a more positive sense of community may promote social action.…”

“…Stall's conceptualization of the benefits that come along with participation in the gay community aligns with the concept of the sense of community. Community involvement may confer a feeling of belonging, shared emotional connection with other men, and a fulfillment of their needs-a sense of community that we would expect to be associated with positive outcomes (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). On the other hand, participation in the gay community may require breaking linkages to other support, confer added risk, and create difficulties in creating new social networks.…”

Identity and Oppression: Differential Responses to an In‐Between Status

“…The first study was retrospective focusing specifically on the shared understandings and experiences participants had of their South African communities. The SOC framework comprises the elements of membership, integration and fulfillment of needs, influence, and shared emotional connection (McMillan & Chavis, 1986) and provided a framework to guide inquiry into participants' understandings and experiences of their Identity and oppression 12 South African communities. In the second study we explored how these understandings, experiences, and SOC are translated into the Australian context, and the implications for ethnic identity and psychological wellbeing.…”

“…The interview guide was developed to assess the elements of the SOC framework (McMillan & Chavis, 1986), and also drew on the findings of previous research into this group (Sonn, 1991). Two people (one Australian and one South African) read the interview schedule to ascertain the face validity, specificity, and clarity of the questions.…”