View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Sense of Community as Construct and Theory: Authors' Response to McMillan

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Sense of Community as Construct and Theory: Authors' Response to McMillan
Language: English
Authors: Nowell, Branda, Boyd, Neil
Source: Journal of Community Psychology. Nov 2011 39(8):889-893.
Availability: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Subscription Department, 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774. Tel: 800-825-7550; Tel: 201-748-6645; Fax: 201-748-6021; e-mail: subinfo@wiley.com; Web site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/browse/?type=JOURNAL
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 5
Publication Date: 2011
Document Type: Journal Articles
Opinion Papers
Descriptors: Behavior Problems, Beliefs, Psychology, Student Attitudes, Community, Responsibility, Journal Articles, Criticism, Theories, Measurement, Research, Writing (Composition), Feedback (Response)
DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20504
ISSN: 0090-4392
Abstract: In this article, we respond to criticisms posed by McMillan (2011) of our recent paper, "Viewing Community as Responsibility as well as a Resource: Deconstructing the Theoretical Roots of Psychological Sense of Community." We clarify that the focus of our article was to explore the macro theoretical frameworks and second-order assumptions that have guided the measurement and study of the psychological sense of community (PSOC) construct to date. We then correct McMillan's mischaracterization of our work as a normative theory by clarifying that our thesis was not that PSOC is a value--but rather that (a) people have values and belief systems, and (b) these belief systems may interact with aspects of a community context to evoke a sense of responsibility for a community to which one belongs. We conclude by reviewing key areas of shared agreement concerning responsibility aspects of PSOC that may serve as a foundation for guiding future research. (Contains 1 footnote.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 10
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: EJ955377
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG5qSyIHK6s_KsBMqkKcSjFAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDP_uLhcF2sBz6JpBGgIBEICBmhAwFE6RYTXoKRHu_K3-qXHgT4OUhgEwOY2vtsjytDfYoXBzN5rRRMrUyz9fmV86GRQbgUCHggCU3lPl8T16QANc1ELGg1duw5CzjxpwizHKnJPID6m-aJxltkPiXvo8vFgtr-v6gTcsiA2dozxsKO6qh9Hf9tBppoP68V8XhPdpSktgecrJeXviqGgURcBuzm_z4eVu8pxHOkg=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0066442920;59b01nov.11;2019May28.12:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0066442920-1">Sense of community as construct and theory: authors' response to McMillan. </title> <p>In this article, we respond to criticisms posed by McMillan (2011) of our recent paper, "Viewing Community as Responsibility as well as a Resource: Deconstructing the Theoretical Roots of Psychological Sense of Community." We clarify that the focus of our article was to explore the macro theoretical frameworks and second‐order assumptions that have guided the measurement and study of the psychological sense of community (PSOC) construct to date. We then correct McMillan's mischaracterization of our work as a normative theory by clarifying that our thesis was not that PSOC is a value – but rather that (a) people have values and belief systems, and (b) these belief systems may interact with aspects of a community context to evoke a sense of responsibility for a community to which one belongs. We conclude by reviewing key areas of shared agreement concerning responsibility aspects of PSOC that may serve as a foundation for guiding future research. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</p> <p>In his article, "Sense of Community, A Theory Not a Value: A Response to Nowell and Boyd," McMillan ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]) offers a critique of our recent article, "Viewing Community as Responsibility as well as a Resource: Deconstructing the Theoretical Roots of Psychological Sense of Community" (Nowell & Boyd, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref2">9</reflink>]). Vibrant discussion and debate are the heartbeat of an academic discipline and we appreciate McMillan's thoughtful consideration of our article. When we crafted our work, we hoped it would spark further dialogue and theoretical development of the sense of community construct. We are pleased to have the opportunity to continue the discourse in this response to the challenges posed by McMillan.</p> <p>As background, the focus of our 2010 article was to contribute to the conceptual development of the construct of psychological sense of community (PSOC) by exploring the second‐order assumptions of PSOC as represented in prevailing measures. We proposed human needs theory as a macro framework for representing the predominant definition and measurement of PSOC to date. We argued that prevailing measures of PSOC over the past 25 years have been dominated by a concern for capturing the extent to which one's community has served as a resource for fulfilling certain social and psychological needs (e.g., affiliation, inclusion, influence). For the purpose of contrast, we referred to this aspect of PSOC as <emph>community as resource</emph>. Based on our review of the extant empirical literature, we concluded that an implicit, or second‐order, assumption of PSOC emphasizes what one derives or extracts from a community as the key driver in understanding the relationship between PSOC and psychological well‐being and community engagement. While this hypothesis has received significant empirical support, we suggested that a purely human needs theory perspective on PSOC may have limitations and proposed that alternative theoretical lenses can inform further construct, measurement, and hypothesis development related to PSOC. Toward this end, we drew from March and Olsen's (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]) competing logics theory to suggest that one's sense of community may also be rooted in feelings of responsibility for a community and argued that this aspect of PSOC has been under theorized and measured in the empirical literature to date. We then applied March and Olsen's logic of appropriateness to develop propositions for understanding both the antecedents of PSOC as responsibility and the mechanism by which it influences psychological well‐being and community engagement.</p> <p>PSOC is one of the foundational concepts in the study of community psychology and its development has occurred through many paths. Our article was motivated, in part, in consideration of appeals from the field that scholars embrace standard measures of PSOC to facilitate theory development. This perspective was strongly articulated by Chipuer and Pretty ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>]) who argued that "continuing proliferation of PSC scales, in the absence of demonstrated theoretical commonalities and differences... can be disadvantageous to a variety of professionals working in the area" (p. 645). This perspective suggests that before we can advance research, theory, and practice concerning PSOC, we must first come to some consensus about what it is (and presumably what it is not). Toward this end, there has been considerable effort at developing validated measures of PSOC (e.g., SCI, BSCS, SCI‐2, COSOC1). We believe there is merit in a standardized measurement approach to advancing theory and concur that significant deviations from, or additions to, prevailing measures of PSOC be carefully considered. Specifically, how do new operationalizations relate to and advance our understanding of the construct? It is with this aim in mind that we set out to explore why community as resource aspects of sense of community have dominated our conception and measurement of PSOC to date and how responsibility aspects of sense of community might relate to these existing frameworks.</p> <p>McMillan's ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref5">7</reflink>]) response raised several interesting questions but also misconstrued several areas that we would like to clarify. First, our intent was not to critique or "marginalize" (p. 508) any one scholar's body of work, but rather to review the current conceptualization of the nature of PSOC as represented in prevailing empirical measures. Accordingly, our analysis drew primarily from the empirical literature. Conceptualizing and operationalizing the construct of PSOC has been a pursuit shared by many scholars. Through measurement development efforts we, as a field, clarify the nature of phenomenon of interest, and through empirical research, we advance theory as it relates to that phenomenon. McMillan ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]) argued that "making assumptions about what [PSOC] theory contains from such short truncated measures as the SCI or BSCS is a distortion of the theory" (p. 512). However, we contend that conceptual understanding of what PSOC is and the measures we use to operationalize it are inextricably linked. Research cannot advance theory if we do not explicitly measure the theoretical concepts of interest. It is our premise that articulating and discussing the macro theoretical frameworks and second‐order assumptions that have shaped the study of PSOC to date is important to advancing the theory and identifying new avenues of research.</p> <p>Second, a significant portion of McMillan's critique of our article appeared to revolve around a fundamental mischaracterization of the basic premise of our discussion. Specifically, he portrayed the aim of our article as an effort to develop a "normative theory of SOC that would nurture and support community participation and engagement" (p. 513). He stated that we posit a theory of sense of community in which sense of community is viewed as a normative value in and of itself and critiqued our arguments as implying that "community norms trump individual needs" (p. 518). Our article sought to do none of these things. Our thesis was not to suggest that PSOC <emph>is</emph> a value, but rather to propose that (a) people <emph>have</emph> values and belief systems, and (b) these belief systems may interact with aspects of a community context to evoke a sense of responsibility for a community to which one belongs.</p> <p>The root of this misconception appears to stem from our use of the phrase "values‐based model" of PSOC, which McMillan interpreted as a normative assertion, whereas we intended it as an alternative theoretical lens to inform theory development of the PSOC construct. Specifically, we used this term in a discussion in which we explored how an alternative theoretical lens might suggest new insights into the antecedents of PSOC, and the mechanism through which it influences well‐being and motivates community engagement. Drawing from March and Olsen's notion of the logic of appropriateness (1998), we proposed that individuals develop personal values, norms, ideals, and beliefs about what is appropriate within a given social context through exposure to—and embeddedness within—various social institutions (e.g., families, churches, schools, neighborhoods, professional associations, social groups). As an individual engages with a social context, these personal belief systems subsequently serve to guide behavior as individuals seek psychological coherence between (a) what type of situation they think this is, (b) what kind of person they think they are, and (c) how a person like them <emph>should</emph> act in such a situation. In other words, cognition and behavior in this theory are viewed as driven by social identity and adherence to personal values and standards for what is appropriate behavior.</p> <p>In short, when we refer to a values‐based theory of PSOC, we are referring to a theoretical perspective that considers the role of personal belief systems applied to the construct of PSOC. If feelings of responsibility for one's community are to be considered relevant to our scholarly conception of PSOC, then we argue that such theoretical frameworks are valuable.</p> <p>Contrary to McMillan's contentions (e.g., p. 513), our propositions are entirely empirical. In our article, we do not assert that PSOC is a normatively good thing or that people <emph>should</emph> experience a sense of responsibility for their communit<emph>y</emph> (although, admittedly, we often wistfully wish that more people would)<emph>.</emph> We do not advocate, as McMillan suggests, for "each person to be robotically programmed by cultural expectations" and we are certainly not trying to support a "neoconservative political agenda" (p. 518). We simply review the literature of the field to propose that PSOC can be a significant motivator of community engagement and we posit that this relationship may be even stronger for those who feel a strong sense of responsibility for the well‐being of their community. We appreciate McMillan's reminder that PSOC can facilitate collective action toward undesirable ends as well as desirable ones.</p> <p>The above clarifications aside, we were heartened to see that there appears to be considerable consensus between McMillan and us on several important arguments that may serve as a foundation for moving the conversation forward. First, we both seem to concur that people can (and frequently do) experience a feeling of responsibility for the well‐being of a given community within which they are embedded. Further, we both posit that these feelings can serve as a motivator of behavior. Third, we both affirm that a sense of responsibility for one's community is not irrelevant or tangential to the construct of PSOC. Indeed, McMillan argues that "a person's sense of loyalty, responsibility, and commitment to the community" is "the most important part" of the influence dimension of sense of community (p. 511). Last, we appear to be in agreement that prominent tools used for measuring PSOC emphasize the psycho social resources that one receives from a targeted community and are not focused on (nor are they really intended to measure) the extent to which someone possess a sense of responsibility for a given community. As a result, there has been limited development toward understanding responsibility aspects of the experience of community.</p> <p>Where we appear to differ most greatly concerns the question of whether it is productive to consider the mechanism through which PSOC motivates behavior through an alternative theoretical lens than human needs theory. We are moved by theorists like Morgan who argue that "all theory is metaphor" and that "metaphor is inherently paradoxical. It can create powerful insights that also become distortions, as the way of seeing created through a metaphor becomes a way of not seeing" (Morgan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>], p. 5). We suggest that complementary theoretical frameworks that emphasize the role of personal belief systems and their interaction with community context may be fruitful for informing future research. However, we see this as an empirical question that will bear out under investigation and future debate.</p> <ref id="AN0066442920-2"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> For example, Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, & Wandersman (1986); Long & Perkins, (2003); Peterson, Speer, & McMillan (2008); Chavis, Lee, & Acosta (2008); Hughey, Speer, & Peterson (1999).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0066442920-3"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Chavis, D.M., Hogge, J., McMillan, D., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of community through Brunswick's lens: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 24 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Chavis, D.M., Lee, K.S., & Acosta, J.D. (2008). The sense of community (SCI) revised: The reliability and validity of the SCI‐2. Paper presented at the Second International Community Psychology Conference, Lisboa, Portugal.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Chipuer, H.M., & Pretty, G.M. (1999). A review of sense of community index: Current uses, factor structure, reliability, and further development. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 643 – 658.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Hughey, J., Speer, P.W., & Peterson, N.A. (1999). Sense of community in community organizations: Structure and evidence of validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 27 (1), 97 – 113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Long, A., & Perkins, D. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the sense of community index and development of a brief SCI. Journal of Community Psychology, 31 (3), 279 – 296.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> March, J., & Olsen, J. (1998). The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization, 52 (4), 943 – 969.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> McMillan, D. (2011). Sense of community, a theory not a value: A response to Nowell and Boyd. Journal of Community Psychology, 39 (5), 507 – 519.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref7" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref2" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Nowell, B., & Boyd, N. (2010). Viewing community as responsibility as well as resource: Deconstructing the theoretical roots of psychological sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 828 – 841.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, N., Speer, P., & McMillan, D. (2008). Validation of a brief sense of community scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 36 (1), 61 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Branda Nowell and Neil Boyd</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ955377
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Sense of Community as Construct and Theory: Authors' Response to McMillan
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nowell%2C+Branda%22">Nowell, Branda</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Boyd%2C+Neil%22">Boyd, Neil</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Community+Psychology%22"><i>Journal of Community Psychology</i></searchLink>. Nov 2011 39(8):889-893.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Subscription Department, 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774. Tel: 800-825-7550; Tel: 201-748-6645; Fax: 201-748-6021; e-mail: subinfo@wiley.com; Web site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/browse/?type=JOURNAL
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 5
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2011
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Opinion Papers
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beliefs%22">Beliefs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychology%22">Psychology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community%22">Community</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Responsibility%22">Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Journal+Articles%22">Journal Articles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Criticism%22">Criticism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Theories%22">Theories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measurement%22">Measurement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research%22">Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jcop.20504
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0090-4392
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this article, we respond to criticisms posed by McMillan (2011) of our recent paper, "Viewing Community as Responsibility as well as a Resource: Deconstructing the Theoretical Roots of Psychological Sense of Community." We clarify that the focus of our article was to explore the macro theoretical frameworks and second-order assumptions that have guided the measurement and study of the psychological sense of community (PSOC) construct to date. We then correct McMillan's mischaracterization of our work as a normative theory by clarifying that our thesis was not that PSOC is a value--but rather that (a) people have values and belief systems, and (b) these belief systems may interact with aspects of a community context to evoke a sense of responsibility for a community to which one belongs. We conclude by reviewing key areas of shared agreement concerning responsibility aspects of PSOC that may serve as a foundation for guiding future research. (Contains 1 footnote.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 10
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ955377
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ955377
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jcop.20504
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 5
        StartPage: 889
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beliefs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Community
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Journal Articles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Criticism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Theories
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measurement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Sense of Community as Construct and Theory: Authors' Response to McMillan
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nowell, Branda
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Boyd, Neil
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2011
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0090-4392
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Community Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1