Forum

89

Common Themes
Overall, what we hope you will take away from these essays is (1) the similarities and differences
between CP and evaluation and (2) how CP can inform evaluation practice. We think it is important to remember that CP and evaluation share similar roots with social justice a part of our respective ethos. To that end, each offers guidance for practice in the form of Guiding Concepts (CP) and
Guiding Principle for Evaluators (evaluation) which are both clear in their mandates.
Another similarity is that of cultural competence as outlined in CPs Guiding Concepts and evaluations Public Statement on Cultural Competence (AEA, 2011). Regarding the differences
between CP and evaluation, it is interesting to note that evaluation is part of a community psychologists training and is a core competency, yet CP is not part of evaluation training or a core competency save for evaluators use of empowering evaluation approaches in practice (e.g., community
psychology is foundational to empowerment evaluation). Likewise, when a community psychologist
conducts an evaluation, they are not value neutral in that the evaluator actually advocates on behalf
of program beneficiaries for the sake of social justice. By training or experience, we have come to
understand our role as being value neutral lest our biases contaminate the research enterprise.
References
American Evaluation Association. (2004). American Evaluation Association Guiding Principles for evaluators.
Retrieved from http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid51
American Evaluation Association (2009). Guiding principles for Evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation,
30(2), 121122.
American Evaluation Association (2011). Statement on Cultural Competence in Evaluation. Retrieved from
http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid92
Society for Community Research and Action. (n.d.). Guiding concepts. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from
www.scra27.org/about

Community Psychology,
Evaluation, and Social Critique

American Journal of Evaluation

The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098214014557694
aje.sagepub.com

Robin Lin Miller1

Abstract
Community psychology blends psychological science, a community-level perspective on social
issues, and a social justice orientation. Despite important difference between community psychology
and program evaluation, program evaluation is a key component of many community psychologists

Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI , USA

Corresponding Author:
Robin Lin Miller, Department of Psychology, 316 Physics Road, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Email: mill1493@msu.edu

90

American Journal of Evaluation 36(1)

practice and holds a central place in my own. In this essay, I reflect on the contributions of my
community psychology training to my evaluation practice, which has centered on social justice
issues primarily of HIV prevention and care and gay, bisexual, lesbian, and transgender concerns in
communities of color. I also highlight tension between being a community psychologist as an
advocate of justice and as an evaluator.

Keywords
community psychology, evaluation, social justice, social critique

Within psychology, community psychology occupies what might be labeled the social justice
branch of the field. Formalized as a new subdiscipline in 1965, community psychologys mission
is to create societies characterized by equality and wellness. From its beginning, community psychology was more than a psychological science of the individualcommunity interface. As Julian
Rappaport noted in a 2005 paper entitled Community psychology is (thank God) more than
science:
Community psychology begins with a vision of what ought to be. The vision is not a general one; it is
quite specific to a set of core values. Among these core values are notions of the just society. This
requires Community Psychology to be more than science. It does not stop it from using science; but
it is not a field delimited or defined by science. Therefore, community psychologists learn from, use, and
wish to contribute to the knowledge base of many disciplines and scholarly traditions, as well as to the
practices of many different action traditions. (Rappaport, 2005, pp. 236237)

Promoting the redesign of social systems to prevent disorder and promote well-being, particularly
for groups who have been ill served by society drives the field. To suit its social change agenda,
community psychologists have evolved unique perspectives on and approaches to community
research and action.
Identifying optimal social ecologies and creating social change to promote community wellbeing puts evaluative activity at the front and center of community psychology practice. Although
community psychologists conduct evaluations routinely, very little has been written on how training
in community psychology informs the way a community psychologist might practice evaluation.
Evaluators have a small number of examples of evaluation approaches and concepts that draw on
seminal work in community psychology, such as empowerment evaluation (Fetterman, 1994; Fetterman & Wandersman, 2005) and Kirkharts (1995) concept of multicultural validity or reflect elements of a kindred worldview (e.g., Mertens Transformative paradigm; Mertens, 2009).
Empowerment evaluation draws explicitly on seminal theoretical work by community psychologists
(e.g., Maton, 2000, 2008; Rappaport, 1981, 1987; Zimmerman, 1990, 2000; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Other concepts from community psychology, perhaps less well known outside the field,
are defining of community psychologists evaluation practice.
In the remainder of this essay, I highlight three features of community psychology that have had
an especially salient impact on my own evaluation practice. I also address what has been for me a
key tension in straddling community psychology and evaluation perspectives over the prior 27 years
of my evaluation career.

Social Regularities
Within the history of the field, my lineage traces to Edward Seidman, a close collaborator of Julian
Rappaport. I was among Seidmans original New York-based research assistants when he started the

Forum

91

Adolescent Pathways Project. In that project, Seidman and his colleagues Larry Aber, LaRue Allen,
and Christina Mitchell followed roughly 1,400 urban youth longitudinally across their transitions
from elementary school to middle school or from middle school to high school. The youth came
from three different cities in the Northeast. All lived in neighborhoods that were racially or ethnically homogeneous (White, Latino, and Black) and that were also characterized by concentrated
poverty. The project evaluated the impact of school transitions on youth behavioral, cognitive,
social, and emotional outcomes. On that project, I was responsible for recruiting the participating
schools and students who were in the studys primarily Black New York City neighborhoods and
for tracking those youth over time as they moved from school to school. Seidman supervised my
masters thesis, which was my first large solo evaluation of a school-based contraceptive education
program offered by a Planned Parenthood affiliate based in New Jersey.
In 1988, Seidman introduced the concept of social regularities to his evolving theory of social
intervention. Social regularities capture the idea that a constancy of relationships exists within and
between systems over time, place, and ecological level (Seidman, 1988). Seidman suggested that
there are patterned transactions between people and their contexts and that it is these patterns that
must be altered to promote durable changes in wellness and equality. Seidmans thinking was
influenced by Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fischs (1974) book on creating sustainable change,
in which they point out that accepting the rules and assumptions of the system in which one intervenes is unlikely to produce meaningful and lasting change. Formative action research experiences studying efforts to divert juveniles from becoming enmeshed in the juvenile justice
system (e.g., Davidson et al., 1977) and mutual help organizations for persons with psychiatric
disabilities (e.g., Salem, Seidman, & Rappaport, 1988) were also critical in the development of
his ideas.
As a graduate student training under Seidman at New York University at the time that he developed his first paper on social regularities, I was taken by the idea that an intervention could fail to
produce any long-term effect because it focused on creating first-order changesthose that accept
the rules and assumptions of a system, rather than second-order changesthose that alter the rules
and operate from a different set of assumptions than those that are in force. According to Seidman,
first-order changes will fail to alter the social regularities that produce a social issue.
In classes, Seidman drew on the seminal works of Roger Barker, Kurt Lewin, and of a number of
system theorists to make his point. He was especially fond of using Seymour Sarasons work to illustrate the pieces of his evolving theory. He would use Seymours description of an alien observing an
elementary school to identify the regularities in classrooms: One big person spends the bulk of his
time with many small persons and little if any time with other big persons; the big person asks the
majority of the questions over the course of time. Seymours larger point (and Seidmans) was that
you cannot learn how to improve settings such as schools if you focus solely on the attributes of the
people in those settings. Instead, it is the frequency and pattern of interaction among actors and their
environment over time that will point you to the regularities in social interactions that maintain those
settings status quo. In his 1998 essay, Seidman held up Kurt Lewins definition of discrimination as
one example of a social regularity that demonstrates the value of paying close attention to social
transactions and their constancy. Seidman quotes Lewin:
He defined the degree of discrimination as the: number of refusals and permissions, orderings and
yieldings, which indicate open and closed possibilities for individuals in their daily living . . . .We are
dealing with a process which, like a river, continuously changes its elements even if its velocity and
direction remain the same. (Seidman, 1998, p. 10)

Seidman wanted his students to attune themselves to the velocity and direction of the pattern of such
elements (e.g., plotting cumulative income growth by income percentile over 30 years) rather than to

92

American Journal of Evaluation 36(1)

focus on elements and individuals in a nontransactional matter. He believed doing so would aid us to
think about what might be required to alter enduring and unjust social patterns successfully.
As an evaluator, I use the concept of social regularities as an overarching sensitizing concept to understand an evaluand and what it has the potential to achieve, as well as a lens by which to critique it. I try to
follow Seidmans suggestion to pay particular attention to examining the time-based rates and ratios that
reflect person-setting transactions, as these provide clues to identifying the regularities in force. In a
recent evaluation of a program to facilitate access to medical care for HIV-positive persons being
released from state prisons, Seidmans ideas proved critical to our evaluation approach. As in many other
states, HIV-related reentry services focus on the initial 30 days following an ex-offenders release
because ex-offenders on highly active antiretroviral treatment are released with only that much antiretroviral medication. These men and women have a very short time window to connect with an infectious
disease specialist for a new prescription and establish or reestablish medical and medication assistance
benefits before they are at risk of treatment interruption. Treatment interruption has significant negative
health consequences for persons living with HIV and for others with whom they might have unprotected
sex or share needles.
The natural inclination in an evaluation of reentry services is close focus on the first 30 days to determine what proportion of persons can gain access to a new prescription before those 30 days are over; the
proportion of persons accessing care anywhere from 60 days to 6-months postrelease is also often used as
an indicator of success in linking ex-offenders to care because of how complicated it is for these men and
women to establish benefits while also dealing with the basic tasks of reestablishing a life outside of
prison. However, constancy of carethe rate of routine accessing of care over extended periods of
timeprovides a better indication of the social regularities surrounding access to treatment
and is a predictor of achieving the objective of viral suppression (Crawford, Sanderson, & Thornton,
2013). Constancy of care provides an indication of whether reentry services change the regularities
governing access to care in an enduring way. Constancy of care also better represents the notion that
accessing care is a transaction that unfolds over time between an individual who might benefit from
care and the multiple individuals and systems that facilitate or impede her access and use.
In the evaluation we conducted, the indicators of short-term linkage (e.g., the 30-day linkage rate
and initial 6-month linkage rate) provide a much more positive picture than is gained by taking a
social regularities perspective and examining rates over time. The proportion of persons accessing
care in the first 6 months after release, slightly more than half the population, was atypical of the
pattern over the subsequent 42 months. A very stable and undesirable pattern characterizes the longer series: In any single 6-month period, only about a third of the population accessed HIV-related
care. The dominant pattern was inconsistent use of HIV care over time, which helped us to explain
why reasonable rates of immediate linkage to care were not followed by low rates of mortality and
good mental and physical health over the 3 years following release.
This finding describes only one of the regularities we observed that independently and in combination undermine the ability of HIV-positive ex-offenders to access care, comply with medical
regimens, and live healthy, satisfying lives in the community. The reentry service, although perceived as helpful, did not alter the complex regularities that impact on long-term health care access
and use; the status quo of the systems with which ex-offenders interact in the community was
allowed to continue to operate as always. Michigans Departments of Community Health and Corrections are currently working together to use insights from our work to attempt to alter some of the
key social regularities that negatively impact HIV-positive ex-offenders health after release.

The Ecological Metaphor

James G. Kelly, a founding father of the field and one of its most important guiding spirits, pushed
community psychologists to view people in communities using an ecological metaphor grounded in

Forum

93

natural sciences (Kelly, 1966, 1968). Kelly argued that human ecologies are dynamic systems, constantly adapting to events and recycling and redistributing resources. He urged paying close attention
to these dynamic processes. As articulated by Kelly, the ecological metaphor positions evaluands as
events that occur in systems. Penny Hawe and her colleagues have argued persuasively for applying
the ecological perspective to evaluands. Hawe notes:
An intervention may then be seen as a critical event in the history of a system, leading to the evolution of
new structures of interaction and new shared meanings. Interventions impact on evolving networks of
person-time-place interaction, changing relationships, displacing existing activities and redistributing
and transforming resources. This alternative view has significant implications for how interventions
should be evaluated and how they could be made more effective. (Hawe, Shiell, & Riley, 2009, p. 267)

As an evaluator, the notion of evaluands as events in systems focuses attention on the interaction
between evaluands and their contexts. Evaluating the consequences of evaluands requires more than
examining changes at the individual level of analysis, even if it is at the individual level where
desired consequences are principally directed.
The ecological metaphor and the perspective that evaluands are events in systems prefigure the
integration of concepts from systems thinking and the techniques associated with system dynamics
modeling into my evaluation practice and have deepened my appreciation of attempts to integrate
evaluation and systems thinking (e.g., Williams & Imam, 2007). Although I use the latter principally
as a formative exercise to improve my own thinking about contextevaluand interactions, the
insights from the ecological metaphor stimulate me to pose questions about how evaluands change
settings and respond to events in settings in terms of factors such as resource dynamics. I have
found ecological thinking to be especially productive to guide planning evaluations in which contextevaluand interactions and contextual consequences are of interest (e.g., Miller, Forney, Hubbard, & Camacho, 2012: Miller, Levine, McNall, Khamarko, & Valenti, 2011; Reed, Miller, &
Francisco, 2014). I adopt an ecological perspective routinely and have come to appreciate how much
community psychology has to offer evaluation when it comes to thinking about context and crosslevel relationships. In addition to the ecological metaphor articulated by Kelly and elaborated on by
Edison Trickett, my dissertation advisor Marybeth Shinn has made particular contributions to advancing cross-level theory and measurement (Shinn & Rapkin, 2005) and applying these ideas to her
own work in the area of homelessness policies and practices (Shinn, 1992, 2007).
Kellys ideas have had noteworthy influence on how community psychologists conduct ourselves
in the settings in which we do our work, on how we form relationships to the people in those settings,
and on our tendency to include first-hand observation in our work. Kelly urged community psychologists to engage in careful reconnaissance to understand the settings in which they are engaged and
to do so for its own sake, rather than as prelude to something else (Campbell, 2012; Campbell,
Patterson, Fehler-Cabral, 2010; Kelly, 1988). Kelly also championed the importance of humility
in carrying out ones work. In a classic 1970 essay, he observed:
The spirit of the community psychologist is the spirit of a naturalist who dotes on his environment; of the
journalist, who bird-dogs his story; and of the conservationist, who glows when he finds a new way to
describe mans interdependence with his environment. The recommended way to prevent professional
extinction is participation in the local community; the preferred antidote for arrogance is an ecological
view of man. (Kelly, 1970, pp. 524)

In this essay, Kelly goes on to wonder whether his interest in communities occurs in spite of his
training, as he sees that part of becoming professionally trained can have the consequence of making
the communities we desire to serve seem beneath us. He admonishes that we often become too
hung up on ourselves. Although it is not always possible to engage his ecological metaphor fully

94

American Journal of Evaluation 36(1)

in a single project, it is always possible to recognize that reconnaissance occurs throughout the life of
an evaluation, and to adopt an ecological view that situates oneself as person and evaluator in the
scene as a basis for reflective practice.

Social Justice
Community psychologists are principally concerned with meeting community wellness goals on
behalf of traditionally underserved and socially disenfranchised populations. Most of us meet this
goal, in part, by focusing on a particular social issue (e.g., violence against women, GBLTQ [gay,
lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer] rights), a community setting that is or can be a resource to promote social justice (e.g., newcomer schools for immigrant and refugee youth, community organizing
and advocacy entities), or by developing tools that enable community self-determination (e.g., The
Community Toolbox developed by Stephen Fawcett and his colleagues at the University of Kansas).
My personal experiences and beliefs, coupled with community psychology training, have led me
to focus my career on evaluands that address health disparities, HIV in particular. In the areas of the
world where my evaluation work is focused (the United States and Eastern Caribbean), HIV disproportionately impacts people of color and gay and bisexual males. Stigma associated with HIV and
the people who are most affected by it has impeded effective national responses to the epidemic in
these parts of the world, as it has in many other countries. I want to improve efforts to undo the systematically unjust distribution of HIV in these societies and evaluation provides me a useful tool to
accomplish this. Similar to Donna Mertens transformative evaluation approach (Mertens, 2009), in
my evaluations I attempt to serve the needs, interests, and concerns of the disenfranchised communities who bear the burden of HIV. I do so by making particular effort to reflect the perspective of
HIV-affected people in every evaluation, whether I use participatory methods or not, and by the
kinds of programs I evaluate. Most of my work has focused on programs to reduce exposure to HIV
among high-risk males, specifically young Black gay and bisexual men and male sex workers.
I have been lucky that some of my work has succeeded in promoting social justice. For example,
in 2007, the American Psychological Association (APA) established a Task Force on Therapeutic
Responses to Sexual Orientation. The five-member Task Force was charged with recommending
to APA a policy position on how clinicians should intervene when confronted with people who are
experiencing distress over their same-sex sexual attractions. The Task Force was asked to consider
whether APA needed a new resolution on this issue and, if so, to develop that resolution. The political stakes surrounding the Task Force were high, as it was quite possible that the practice of conversion and reparative therapies could be deemed unethical by the Task Force, which, some feared,
might jeopardize the professional standing and licenses of those psychologists who engage in these
practices. The Task Forces work had the potential to position APA in opposition to conservative
religious ministries that advocate curing gay, lesbian, and bisexual people of their same-sex
attractions.
In light of the brewing controversy and high political stakes associated with this Task Force, the
then APA president, Sharon Stephens Brehm, appointed me as a 6th Task Force member to bring
evaluation expertise to the work. The other members brought substantive clinical or research expertise.1 I was specifically charged with the responsibility to assess the available evidence on the benefits and harms that are experienced by those who undergo reparative and other therapies designed to
change a persons sexual orientation and underlying sexual attractions. In this role, I evaluated the
evidence produced over a roughly 50-year period on reparative therapy and related therapeutic
approaches. We found no credible evidence to support the use of reparative therapy and some evidence of harm.
The APA adopted the Task Force report and its associated resolution in 2009, after a period of
extensive review. When the report was released in August 2009, it received widespread attention

Forum

95

in domestic and international news media. Since that time, the report has been widely used, and,
most recently, it was cited as providing a basis for legislation banning the practice of reparative therapy with minors in the states of California and New Jersey. The California Law held up under appeal
in August 2013. The report has also influenced key policy position statements on the topic by leadership organizations around the globe including the Pan American Health Organization. The reports
careful grounding in available evidence and balanced reporting has been characterized as fair by
advocates on both sides of the issue, although it certainly does not please everyone, as few reports
would be likely to meet with universal approval.

The Tension
In the piece I cited at the beginning of this essay, Rappaport argued that community psychology is
both science and social critique. He said:
I want to emphasize that although community psychologists can and do use science, I do not think Community Psychology is only a science: thus, my title. In my view, Community psychology is a unique
blend of science and social criticism. It is a field of practice with explicit goals that might be thought
of in Freires (1996, 1998) terms as critical consciousness. Combining the goals of fostering critical consciousness with the methods of science makes for an unusual combination (Rappaport, 2005, pp. 233).

Evaluation also blends systematically gathered evidence with critique to achieve a better world. Perhaps this is one reason why community psychologys theory and practice literature mirrors many
aspects of evaluations literature or at least reflects overlapping interests in promoting social change,
appreciating diversity in perspective and values, engaging in collaborative practice, and insuring the
relevance and utility of gathered evidence. However, there are significant tensions between the two.
Although my training as a community psychologist informs my evaluations, there are critical differences in perspective among evaluation, writ large, and community psychology, and key differences
in practice.
Theories of evaluation and community psychology differ on how evaluators and evaluations
influence social justice. For community psychology, pursuit of social justice is the overarching aim
of science and practice. Our vision of a just society points us to where to act and on whose behalf.
We are advocates for particular social causes and groups and taking direct action on social issues is
part of our practice. We are as likely to read community organizer Saul Alinskys Rules for Radicals
(1971) in our first year of training as we are a text on field experiments. In our official vision statement for our APA division, the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA), we say that
we promote social justice for all people by fostering collaboration where there is division and
empowerment where there is oppression. Community psychologists advocate for equality and
we play many roles in pursuit of social justice outcomes as part of our professional practice. We are
prescriptive in our valuing and openly advocate our value positions.
SCRAs vision appears to be harmonious with arguments that evaluation is a moral activity
(House, 1980). However, in practice, SCRAs vision contrasts with the visions set forth by many
evaluation theorists of how professional evaluators fulfill their moral function. For many evaluation
theorists, although not all, evaluators facilitate just outcomes by contributing fair and impartial evidence to democratic debate and dialogue, by advancing well-reasoned and warranted claims about
evaluands, and by transparently considering diverse value positions in a balanced fashion. Evaluators support the ability of others to act by providing useful evidence to inform their thinking about
what course to take. It is in this sense that community psychology and many theories of evaluation
differ in their assumptions about how one influences social change through the production and use of
evidence and how to enact ones moral professional responsibilities. The Task Force on which I

96

American Journal of Evaluation 36(1)

served proved itself a good example of the potential for tension between acting credibly as a community psychologist and as an evaluator as prescribed in many theories of evaluation practice.
The Task Forces consideration of what to do when confronted with a person who is distressed by
their same-sex attractions had to take into account the values of very diverse constituencies who
have opposing views on homosexuality and who remain deeply at odds with one another. In taking
on the evaluator role for the Task Force, the credibility of my work rested on my willingness to see
the issue from all of those viewpoints. It rested on my willingness to say that therapeutic efforts to
change a persons sexual orientation work and do more good than harm, should the evidence support
me in arriving at such a conclusion. It rested on my ability to represent the range of value positions
on the issue and particularly those in diverse orthodox faith traditions who believe strongly that eliminating a persons same-sex sexual attractions is the right and best thing to do. Obviously, finding
evidence that reparative therapy eliminated same-sex sexual attractions (which no solid evidence
suggests it can accomplish) and never harmed people (which evidence suggests these practices can
do) might put an evaluator in an unenviable position, depending on her own beliefs. But she could be
viewed in a defensible position by having contributed an impartial synthesis of evidence to a larger
dialogue about whether psychologists ought to be in the business of trying to change a persons sexual attractions at all. Would she be viewed as having compromised her role as a community
psychologist?
I am not convinced, given the moral position community psychology takes on human rights and
sexual orientation, that I would have interpreted how best to carry out my moral professional duty on
the Task Force in quite the same manner as I did approaching the work with the lens of an evaluator.
Yes, I would consider the empirical evidence in nearly the same way, but given community psychologys prescriptive value position, I may not have been cued to invest in understanding why eliminating same-sex attraction was so important to some people and why reparative therapists care so
passionately about what they are trying to accomplish. My training as an evaluator outside of community psychology signaled me to understand that worldview as respectfully and as well as I possibly could and to write about our findings in a manner that reflected that understanding. I was also
pushed to view the task in this way by the APA president who, at our first meeting, leaned over and
whispered in my ear that it was my individual responsibility to make sure that the work remained
impartial and grounded in whatever available evidence might show. I suspect that she grasped what
would be required to move a resolution in the APA council successfully, given the diverse ideological positions on the topic and interests in the particular therapeutic practices within and outside the
profession. I think the experience reinforced for me that how community psychology and evaluation
each function to support social critique in democratic society may and perhaps should differ. Each
offers different means to a similar end.
The Task Force took careful account of the perspectives of those from conservative religious
backgrounds in reaching conclusions about the meaning of the evidence. I think, though I cannot
prove it, that the care that we took to be balanced and fair to the evidence allowed our work to
be influential in democratic debate in ways that would not have occurred had we taken the partisan
approach that was originally envisioned by some and feared by others. Indeed, in addition to influencing policy, I think our balance and fairness allowed us to contribute to an environment that influenced Dr. Robert Spitzer to publicly request that his research be retracted from the Archives of
Sexual Behavior because of its serious methodological flaws and the papers ongoing misuse to support reparative therapy, and Exodus International, the largest ex-gay ministry in the world, to disassociate itself with reparative therapy. Exodus International announced that 99.9% of the ex-gays
they once believed they had helped are still same-sex attracted. (The evidence suggests that people
who undergo these treatments continue to have same-sex attractions, even if some learn strategies to
ignore their attractions.) Exodus International decided to shut its doors as an ex-gay ministry in the
summer of 2013, after issuing an apology for the trauma and suffering it had caused.

Forum

97

Conclusion
Engaging in evaluations raises important dilemmas for community psychologists, as our role as evaluators requires commitment to the evidence whether we like that evidence or not, whereas our role
as community psychologists requires commitment to evidence in the service of our fields prescriptive values. We place priority on social critique and activism in carrying out our work, activities to
which many evaluators are strongly averse and believe compromises evaluations credibility. Evaluators do advocate, but we advocate for rigorous evaluations, for the findings produced in evaluations that meet standards of professional quality, and for the use of evaluation processes and results.
Each field, one through its advocacy for evaluation and the other through its advocacy of justice and
empowerment, has carved out very different pathways to serving the development of a better
society.
What protections must the community psychologist observe when she takes on the role of evaluator in order to avoid compromising the evaluator role and the credibility of evaluation as an
impartial evidence-driven profession? I have only two suggestions, both borne out of my experiences straddling these two fields. Perhaps most obvious, when a specific evaluation opportunity
presents itself, community psychologists may want to engage in self-reflective exercises in which
they anticipate how easy or difficult it will be for their team to produce and disseminate evidence
that runs counter to the fields values. Consciously engaging in this kind of self-assessment by
imagining their worst-case values scenario may help community psychologists to identify when
they are at risk of producing a compromised evaluation or compromising on values beyond what
they can tolerate professionally. Community psychologists might then be able to develop specific
strategies to increase their ability to manage an impartial evaluation process successfully. Selfassessment of this kind might also highlight that the value positions and perspectives that are most
vulnerable to underrepresentation are not necessarily those that come first to mind or signal to the
evaluator that she must make special note that these positions and perspectives are absent from and
did not inform the evaluation. And, if nothing else, such an exercise might help the community
psychologist to be clear about when they ought to pass on specific evaluation work for valuesbased reasons.
It may also help community psychologists who do evaluations to recognize that there is a
critical difference between backpedaling on their core values and using evaluative evidence to
create opportunities for dialogue among diverse stakeholders about differences in what may be
valued. To that end, community psychologists might establish a series of interdisciplinary
charrettes in which seasoned evaluators from diverse policy and practice arenas, applied
researchers from diverse disciplines oriented around solving social problems, and community
psychologists come together to address the challenges and problems of advocacy and prescriptive valuing in evaluation. Cross-disciplinary interaction may lead to insights on what makes
an evaluation socially just and could lead to improved theories of practice on how we can contribute to the creation of better societies by producing evaluations that are assets to societal
improvement processes.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

98

American Journal of Evaluation 36(1)

Note
1. The other Task Force Members were Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD (Chair), Lee Beckstead, PhD, Jack
Drescher, MD, Beverly Greene, PhD, and Roger L. Worthington, PhD.

References
Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New York, NY: Random
House.
APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. (2009). Report of the task force
on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Campbell, R. (2012, October). How can community psychology inform evaluation in terms of relationships?
Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Fehler-Cabral, G. (2010). Using ecological theory to evaluate the effectiveness
of an indigenous community intervention: A study of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 263276.
Crawford, T. N., Sanderson, W. T., & Thornton, A. (2013). A comparison study of methods for measuring
retention in HIV medical care. AIDS and Behavior, 17, 31453151.
Davidson, W. E., Seidman, E., Rappaport, J., Berck, P. L., Rapp, N. A., Rhodes, W., & Herring, J. (2007).
Diversion program for juvenile offenders. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 13, 4049.
Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 115.
Fetterman, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Hawe, P., Shiell, A., & Riley, T. (2009). Theorizing interventions as events in systems. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 43, 267276.
House, E. R. (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kelly, J.G. (1966). Ecological constraints on mental health services. American Psychologist, 21, 535539.
Kelly, J. G. (1968). Toward an ecological conception of preventive interventions. In J. R. Carter (Eds.),
Research contributions from psychology to community mental health (pp. 7599). New York, NY:
Behavioral Publications.
Kelly, J. G. (1970). Antidotes for arrogance: Training for community psychology. American Psychologist, 25,
524531.
Kirkhart, K. E. (1995). 1994 conference theme: Evaluation and social justice seeking multicultural validity:
Postcards from the road. Evaluation Practice, 16, 112.
Maton, K. I. (2000). Making a difference: The social ecology of social transformation. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 28, 2557.
Maton, K. I. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development, community betterment, and positive social change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 421.
Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 9, 125.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121147.
Rappaport, J. (2005). Community psychology is (thank God) more than science. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 231238.
Salem, D. A., Seidman, E., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Community treatment of the mentally ill: The promise of
mutual help organizations. Social Work, 33, 403408.
Seidman, E. (1988). Back to the future, Community Psychology: Unfolding a theory of social intervention.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 321.

Forum

99

Shinn, M. (1992). Homelessness: What is a psychologist to do? American Journal of Community Psychology,
20, 124.
Shinn, M. (2007). International homelessness: Policy, socio-cultural and individual perspectives. Journal of
Social Issues, 63, 657677.
Shinn, M., & Rapkin, B. D. (2005). Cross-level research without cross-ups in community psychology. In
J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 668696). New York:
Plenum.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York, NY: Norton.
Williams, B., & Imam, I. (Eds.). (2007). Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology. Point Reyes, CA:
EdgePress.
Zimmerman, M. (1990). Taking aim on empowerment research: On the distinction between individual and psychological conceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 169177.
Zimmerman, M. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman, (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 4364). New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen empowerment, perceived control, and psychological
empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725750.

More Than the Beatles:

The Legacy of a Decade
for Community Psychologys
Contributions to
Evaluation Ethics

American Journal of Evaluation

The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098214014557808
aje.sagepub.com

Michael Morris1

Abstract
This essay explores the implications of the zeitgeist that emerged in the United States during the
1960s for the conceptualization of ethical issues in evaluation and community psychology, and how
perspectives from the latter field might enhance ethical practice in the former. Special attention is
paid to articulations of social justice, professional standards, and cultural competence, and how
general exhortations for ethical, just behavior in evaluation can be translated into more specific,

University of New Haven, West Haven, CT, USA

Corresponding Author:
Michael Morris, Department of Psychology, University of New Haven, 300 Boston Post Road, West Haven, CT 06516, USA.
Email: mmorris@newhaven.edu