A R T I C L E

CONTENT AND METHOD TRENDS

IN THE JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY
PSYCHOLOGY BETWEEN 2003
AND 2007
Tanya M. Graham and Tasneem Ismail
University of the Witwatersrand

Ongoing inquiry into the characteristics of published work and its synergy
with community psychology’s core principles is an important reflexive
endeavour in the field’s continuing development. This study examined
topic and method trends within the Journal of Community Psychology
during a 5-year period (January 2003–December 2007). Content
analyses were conducted on published abstracts during this period
(N 5 242). Most articles were empirical studies (61.2%) and most used
a positivist methodology (53.7%). Samples mainly comprised adults and
were mixed in terms of gender and ethnic/religious affiliation. The most
frequent topics were mental health and mental illness (33.5%), sense of
community and social support (24.4%), and dynamics of social exclusion
(22.7%). A large proportion of special issues was also noted. These
results illustrate contemporary trends in community psychology and
suggest that critical and participatory methods as well as socially
transformative epistemologies continue to be under-represented within
the field. C 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Since its formal emergence in the 1960s, community psychology has continuously
reevaluated its identity and development as a subdiscipline. In many respects,
community psychology represents the unique convergence of a diversity of fields, both
within and outside of psychology, with a wide range of ideologies and contextual

This publication was made possible (in part) by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The
statements made and views expressed are, however, solely the responsibility of the authors.
Correspondence to: Tanya M. Graham, Department of Psychology, University of the Witwatersrand, P.O.
Box 3, WITS, 2050, South Africa. E-mail: Tanya.Graham@wits.ac.za

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 39, No. 2, 121–135 (2011)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
& 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20420
122  Journal of Community Psychology, March 2011

influences informing its emphasis, theories and processes (Pretorius-Heuchert &

Ahmed, 2001). As such, it has been termed a ‘‘hybrid entity’’ (Ngonyama ka Sigogo
et al., 2004) and a ‘‘big tent’’ (Toro, 2005) that houses varied forms of knowledge,
which are in ‘‘constant dialogue’’ (Dalton, Elias, & Wandersman, 2007).
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).
Recently, there have also been debates as to whether community psychology is in a
period of crisis, especially in the United States (Toro, 2005), and renewed discussions
have emerged about the multiple directions that could be taken in the field’s future
growth (Fowler & Toro, 2008; Montero, 2005; Toro, 2005). A wider lens has been cast
on international developments in community psychology and their significance for the
field as a whole (e.g., Reich, Riemer, Prilleltensky, & Montero, 2007). This includes
their significance for low-income countries that continue to be plagued by conditions
of poverty, inequality, under-development, and social injustice, as well as a high
prevalence of social ills such as violence and HIV/Aids.
With the future of community psychology under speculation and pressing
contextual imperatives in the global landscape, the continual analysis of trends in
community psychology knowledge production remains an important enterprise.
Formal forums of knowledge production provide some insight into the types of
knowledge that are deemed significant in any field at a given point in time. Ongoing
critical and introspective scholarship on the nature of knowledge production in
community psychology is therefore a useful mechanism that can promote the
development of the field as a whole, as well as stimulate the types of social change it
seeks to create. It also becomes an important mechanism for evaluating the relevance
of the field across the globe, its responsiveness and representation of the diverse
conditions and groups in different regions, and it successes in drawing attention to and
addressing the plight of under-represented, marginalized and vulnerable populations
in communities, and the social conditions that affect them.
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), and Speer 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)

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

 Content and Method Trends in the Journal of Community Psychology  123

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.
This study examines broad publication trends in the Journal of Community
Psychology (JCP) during the 5-year period from January 2003 to December 2007. It
focuses on four main areas, namely, trends in publication type, methods employed,
participant characteristics, and article topics. The study aims to add to existing
research on patterns of knowledge production in community psychology and seeks to
highlight the extent to which contemporary trends suggest changes, absences, or
contradictions within published literature, relative to the broader aims of community
psychology. This study allows us to assess whether shifts are evident in the core foci
and methods of the field over time and may suggest important areas that are being
omitted or novel directions that are being pursued.
Journal articles have been noted as being ‘‘an important indicator of the ebb and
flow of community-relevant research and the people, places, events and ideas that
shape it’’ (Martin et al., 2004, p. 163). Journals, therefore, represent an important site
where knowledge that is generated from research and practice is subjected to academic
scrutiny before being disseminated publicly. This contributes to enhancing the rigor
and quality of work in a discipline and highlighting areas for further inquiry. The
theoretical debates and research findings presented in journals also ‘‘allow profes-
sionals and their peers, students and others to familiarize themselves with the nature of
the discipline and its dominant concerns’’ (Seedat, 1990, p. 24). The publications in
journals therefore collectively form a body of knowledge that defines the boundaries of
a disciplinary domain and also provide a site where the politics of knowledge
production play out.
Both the American Journal of Community Psychology (AJCP) and the JCP have been
extensively used in other studies on publication trends in community psychology and
are noted as being ‘‘journals reflective of the field of community psychology’’ (Loo
et al., 1988, p. 334) and the ‘‘best sources of representative research in community
psychology’’ (Angelique & Culley, 2003, p. 192). Both of these journals have been
instrumental in the formalization of the knowledge base in community psychology and
have played a powerful role in shaping what we call community psychology today.
The JCP was selected for the present study because of its international focus and
orientation. The JCP is one of the most eminent international journals of this area and
is therefore an applicable resource for accessing current published material in the
field.

CONTENT AND METHODS OF PUBLISHED WORK

The increased publication of particular types of content or subject matter can be

reflective of a field’s commitment to that area (Loo et al., 1988). Thus, subject or topic
trends highlight the areas within a field that are of particular significance at specific
historical moments. Community psychology initially emerged because of the concern
regarding the consequences of the pervasive social issues of the time, the lack of
resources to deal with these issues, and how these were beginning to have an impact on
the individual psyche (Seedat, Cloete, & Shochet, 1988; Stevens, 2007). Over time,

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

124  Journal of Community Psychology, March 2011

community psychology publications have been concerned with defining not only
subjects and areas of work but also theories, methods, and practice approaches, and
the emphasis on social issues of relevance has varied.
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). 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). However,
there is notably an absence of social issues and concerns in the findings (Lounsbury
et al., 1979).
Speer et al. (1992) used the same major topic areas as Lounsbury et al. (1980),
which are also some of the most salient categories reported in Lounsbury et al. (1979).
Speer et al. (1992) focused on trends in the JCP and AJCP during the period
1984–1988 and compared these to those found by Lounsbury et al. (1980) in the
period 1973–1978. Speer et al. (1992) found that articles on mental health services and
programs decreased by 32% compared with results found by Lounsbury et al. (1980)
the previous decade. Articles dealing with the provision of human resources also showed a
decrease of 7%, and articles focusing on measurement and methodology increased slightly
by 4%, in response to some of the methodological criticisms of community psychology.
Articles categorized as dealing specific problem areas or issues showed an increase of 27%,
of which the most notable were studies that focused on the topic of social support (with
an increase of 22%) and prevention (with an increase of 11%; Speer et al., 1992). Notable
decreases were found for drugs and alcohol (9%) and attitudes/beliefs about mental illness
(12%). On the whole though, Speer et al. (1992) concluded that there was an upsurge
in research that showed a commitment to those affected by pressing social problems
and focused on ‘‘poor, minority or powerless populations.’’ This reflected a positive
development in the field as it showed a greater alignment with the core values of
community psychology as a subdiscipline.
More recently, Martin et al. (2004) reported on trends in the AJCP during the
1993–1998 period, focusing on the presence of epistemological strands of social action,
cultural diversity, and person-environmental fit, as these were argued to represent the
guiding principles of community psychology.
Social action is concerned with community mobilisation to shift unequal power
relations, create social transformation, and ensure the equitable distribution of
resources (Lazarus, 2007). Community psychology has, at its core, the fundamental
aim to ‘‘make mental healthcare more accessible, applicable and practicable to

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

 Content and Method Trends in the Journal of Community Psychology  125

a greater number of people, particularly to those in communities which are

structurally disempowered and marginalised’’ (Maw, 2002, p. 59). Martin et al.
(2004) argue that an increase in this epistemology can be noted in the 1993–1998
period, representing a move towards a closer alignment between this principle and
published work.
Related to the above principle, valuing human diversity and cultural relativity is
central to community psychology (Dalton et al., 2007; Lazarus, 2007) and reflects a
stance of embracing differences in communities and seeking to understand the unique
social and cultural aspects of communities (Martin et al., 2004). This includes
recognizing and understanding the experiences of marginalized or oppressed
population groups (Seedat et al., 2001) and the social institutions which shape these
experiences (Martin et al., 2004). Communities are stratified by various social
categories along the lines of culture, ethnicity, religion, and national affiliation, as well
as by race, gender, class, age, disability, health status, and sexual orientation, to name
but a few. Of the articles in their study, Martin et al. reported that 25% reflected a focus
on diversity issues. We found it intersting that diversity issues related to religion and
disability were not represented in this or in previous studies, and issues of sexual
orientation and age have only recently been included (Martin et al.). Overall, Martin
et al. indicate an increase in diversity-oriented articles compared with the results found
by Loo et al. (1988) in the years 1965–1985, as well as in the reviews by Lounsbury
et al. (1980) and Speer et al. (1992). For example, Loo et al. found that there was
an increase in the representation of articles devoted to cultural diversity during the
20 years they studied (5% to 11%). However, this study found that the representation
of cultural minorities fell below the proportion of these groups within the United
States. Similarly, Bernal and Enchautegui-de-Jesus (1994) examined the representa-
tion of the Latino and Latina community in the JCP and AJCP during the 1973–1992
period and found that only 3.7% of published articles focused on this group, which
falls far below the proportion of this group in the population of the United States
(Bernal & Enchautegui-de-Jesus, 1994). These authors note that the comparative
paucity of articles devoted to diversity issues, especially among specific underserved
groups, suggests a gap between the ideals and practice of community psychology,
which suggests that the ongoing examination of the extent to which community
psychology rhetoric of valuing diversity is translated into the focus of published work.
Moreover, when considering issues of diversity and the needs of marginalized groups,
it is also necessary to examine trends in group representation.
Person-environmental fit refers to the classic ecological understandings of
community functioning and reflects a focus on the dynamic interaction and mutual
influence between individual and context (Kelly, 2006; Martin et al., 2004; Orford,
1992). This epistemology examines diverse contextual influences on communities at
multiple systemic levels (Trickett, 1996) and aims to generate unique and diverse
solutions to community problems (Rappaport, 1981). Martin et al. noted a decline in
the proportion of articles with a focus on person-environmental fit. In relation to the
categories used by Lounsbury (1980) and Speer et al. (1992), a marked increase was
found by Martin et al. in the number of articles that focused on specific problem areas or
issues (82%), with some topics such as HIV/Aids and violence/victimisation and prevention
emerging as stand-alone categories. In addition, increases were found for the
representation of minority group concerns, research methodology, and community
development. By contrast, a decrease was noted in articles dealing with mental health
services and an absence was noted in articles dealing with the provision of human resources

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

126  Journal of Community Psychology, March 2011

(Martin et al.). These authors similarly concluded that the field has moved closer to the
goals defined at its outset.
Assessing the method trends allows for the identification of preferred or dominant
methodologies in current community psychology research. On the whole, it has been
noted that methodological approaches in the field are consistent with its central
epistemologies (Martin et al., 2004). Here, there appears to be a varying level of
importance attributed to the conventional scientific method and the imperative to
achieve greater levels of social relevance and applicability. Early trend analyses of
mainstream community psychology journals (e.g., Loo et al., 1988; Lounsbury et al.,
1985; Novaco & Monahan, 1980) noted an overreliance on the traditional scientific
approach to research in published work. During the past few decades, however, there
has been a consistent decrease in the use of experimental research designs (Martin
et al.). Lounsbury et al. (1980) found that the experimental design was the dominant
research design during 1973–1978. Speer et al. (1992) found that correlational designs
were the most popular in the 1983–1988 period. Martin et al. found a dominance in
quasi-experimental research during 1993–1998. Martin et al. also found an emergence
of qualitative studies in published work, which represented 19% of all publications in
their sample. These suggest significant shifts in paradigms of choice in community
psychology research.

DATA SET

The data set comprised abstracts from the JCP during the period of January
2003–2007. The JCP published 254 articles within the specified time period. Only 242
article abstracts were included in the data set, including research reports,
commentaries, and introductory articles to special issues. Editorials, errata, announce-
ments, and memorials were excluded, as in similar trend analysis studies such as Loo
et al. (1988) and Novaco and Monahan (1980).
Abstracts were collated and coded manually by the second author and checked by
the first author. A combination of both inductive and deductive coding strategies was
used. Deductive coding, which involves coding data according to predefined categories
(Epstein & Martin, 2005), was used to code publication type and method, in line with
community psychology literature and previous trend analysis studies. Inductive
coding, which allows codes to emerge from the examination of the data (Epstein &
Martin), was used to code research topic and participant characteristics. The coding
methods are further elaborated in the results section.

DATA ANALYSIS

The data were analysed using content analysis. Content analysis is a useful method of
cataloguing content areas (Krippendorf, 2004; Seedat, 1988), as it allows for patterns
within data to be identified such that significant and meaningful trends can be derived
(Krippendorf; Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). These content areas represent the
‘‘central themes and subject matter covered’’ (Seedat, MacKenzie, & Stevens, 2004,
p. 602). This method systematically allows for the ‘‘compressing of many words of text
into fewer content categories based on explicit rules of coding’’ (Silverman, 1997, p. 1).
Thematic content analysis was used to derive the content categories for establishing

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

 Content and Method Trends in the Journal of Community Psychology  127

topics, ethods article types, and participant characteristics from the data, and
conceptual content analysis was used to tally the occurrence of the themes once
coding categories had been defined (Silverman; Wilkinson & Birmingham). Once all
the abstracts were coded, a database was created such that all the allocated numerical
codes could be combined for analysis. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed
to generate frequencies for publication type, method, and participant characteristics.
Multiple response frequencies were conducted for topic area as it was possible to code
multiple topics or content areas per abstract.

RESULTS

The data set comprised 40 abstracts from 2003 (16.5%), 44 abstracts from 2004
(18.2%), 46 abstracts from 2005 (19.0%), 50 abstracts from 2006 (20.7%), and 62
abstracts (25.6%) from 2007 (N 5 242). The results indicate a steady and gradual
increase in the number of articles published within the journal annually, with an
average of three articles more being published each year from 2003–2006. However,
the biggest increase is seen in 2007, whereby 12 more articles were published than the
previous year, indicating an increase of 22 articles since 2003.
During 2003–2007, the JCP published seven special issues. No special issues were
published in 2003, one was published in 2004, and two special issues were published
annually during 2005–2007. This suggests a gradual increase in publication of special
issues within the journal. Combined, the seven special issues comprised 62 abstracts,
representing 25.6% of the data set. This indicates a high proportion of special interest
areas, which also has implications for the trends that have been observed in this time
period.

Publication Type
Publication type was coded using the categories outlined by the American Psycholical
Association (APA, 2009), which also appear in previous studies of this nature (e.g., Loo
et al., 1988; Novaco & Monahan, 1980). Abstracts were deemed to be empirical if they
pertained specifically to original research in which data collection took place, or which
presented a novel secondary analysis of data (APA). Therefore, if an abstract indicated
an introduction, method, results, and discussion, it was deemed to be an empirical
study (APA). An abstract was coded as a literature review if it contain a synthesis of
previous research or a critical evaluation of published research studies (APA). Abstracts
were considered to be methodological if they contained ‘‘new methodological
approaches, modifications of existing methods or discussions of quantitative or data
analytic approaches’’ (APA, p. 10). Abstracts were coded as being theoretical when they
specifically focused on the promotion, discussion, and advancement of a particular
theoretical issue (APA).
The majority of published articles were empirical in nature (61.2%; n 5 148);
15.7% were theoretical (n 5 38), 14.0% were reviews (n 5 34), and 9.1% were
methodological (n 5 22). These results indicate that there are more empirical articles
published than any other type. Aside for this disparity, roughly the same amount of
review and theoretical articles were published. Methodological articles, however,
yielded the lowest frequency of publication.

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

128  Journal of Community Psychology, March 2011

Methods
In line with Swart and Bowman (2007), method was coded as being positivist if their
methodology involved numerical measurement, correlational, experimental or quasi-
experimental research designs, quantitative data collection methods, and statistical
data analyses. Articles were coded as being interpretive when the methodology
employed was not numerically driven but rather involved the understanding of
subjective experiences and the nonjudgemental derivation of meaning through
qualitative data collection methods (e.g., unstructured interviews and participant
observation) (Swart & Bowman, 2007). Mixed method studies incorporating an
interpretive component were also included within this category. Articles were coded as
being critical if they utilized an approach primarily aimed to uncover and rectify unjust
power asymmetries (Swart & Bowman, 2007). Studies were coded as applied if they
used a community needs analysis, policy research, participatory action research, or
program evaluation, which are all action-oriented forms of community research.
Positivist methods were most common, representing 53.7% of the empirical
research studies (n 5 130). Of the articles, 29.3% were interpretive or mixed method
(n 5 71), 10.8% were critical (n 5 26), and 6.2% used applied methods (n 5 15). Of those
that used applied methods, 4.1% (n 5 10) were studies using participatory action
research, and 1.7% (n 5 4) and 0.4% (n 5 1) were program evaluation and policy
research studies, respectively. No needs analysis studies were identified. Thus, the
most commonly used applied research method is participatory action research, with
negligible publication of program evaluation and policy research.
Participant Characteristics

Participant characteristics were divided into three categories: (a) gender, (b) age, and
(c) ethnicity/nationality/religious affiliation. Seventy-seven articles were excluded from
this analysis because they did not contain human samples (N 5 165).
The gender of participants was coded as all-female, all-male, and mixed gender. The
majority of abstracts in the data set (79.4%; n 5 131) indicated the use of a sample of
mixed gender. Of the studies, 17.6% (n 5 29) used an all-female sample, compared
with 3.0% (n 5 5), which used an all-male sample.
Age of participants was coded as adults (older than 18 years), adolescents (13–18
years), children (0–12 years), and mixed age group. In terms of age, the majority of
abstracts (51.5%) indicated the use of an all adult sample (n 5 85), 22.4% of the studies
used an adolescent sample (n 5 37), 17.0% used a mixed age sample (n 5 28), and 9.1%
utilized only children (n 5 15). The majority of abstracts used an adult sample, but the
frequency attained for the adolescent group is also relatively high. Because an entire
special edition of the journal was dedicated to youth and adolescent development,
there may be a slightly elevated result for the adolescent age category than is
customary for this journal.
Participants were further differentiated by ethnicity/religious affiliation for US-
based studies and national/ethnic/religious affiliation for participants from other
countries. Although not all of the abstracts specified the ethnic/religious affiliation of
the participants, specific population groups identified within the abstracts are
indicated for descriptive purposes. The majority of abstracts (54.5%, n 5 90) used a
sample with a mixed ethnic, cultural, national, or religious affiliation. Of the abstracts,
14.5% indicated that the sample was drawn from a minority group in the United
States, including the African-American and Latino/Latina groups (n 5 24), 17.6% of

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

 Content and Method Trends in the Journal of Community Psychology  129

studies did not specify an ethnic/religious group (n 5 29), and 4.2% used Jewish/Arab
samples in the United States (n 5 7). Collectively, few articles included samples outside
the United States (9.1%, n 5 15). That is, 3.6% that used a Latino sample (n 5 6), 1.8%
that used a Chinese sample (n 5 3), and 0.6% (n 5 1) used a Russian, Hindu, Belgian,
Navajo, Aborigine, or black South African sample, respectively.

Topic Trends
Inductive coding was used to code content or topic areas. All of the titles and abstracts
were examined, and their main topics and keywords were extracted. Keywords and
related concepts were grouped together and condensed into broad content areas.
Categories were refined in an iterative coding process.
Table 1 presents the rank-ordered analysis of topics. The topics are listed in rank
order, as follows.
* Mental health and mental illness (33.5%) is the most represented topic, which
included indicators of wellness, adjustment, and psychopathology.
* Sense of community and social support topic (24.4%) refered to all studies that
promoted or examined the effects or components of sense of community or
social support.
* Dynamics of social exclusion (22.7%) included the situation of socially margin-
alized groups, interaction between socially marginalized and powerful groups,
or social dynamics related to dimensions of diversity (based on age, gender,
race, religion, culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status).
* Child, youth, and family development (22.3%) included articles that refered to
children, adolescents, and families in all spheres of life, including development
and outcomes.

Table 1. Topic Trends

Rank order Frequency %

1. Mental health and mental illness 81 33.5
2. Sense of community and social support 59 24.4
3. Dynamics of social exclusion 55 22.7
4. Child, youth and family development 54 22.3
5. Intervention execution and evaluation 50 20.7
6. Abuse and violence 36 14.9
7. Neighbourhood characteristics 33 13.6
8. Civic participation 30 12.4
9. Substance use and abuse 18 7.4
10. Trauma 13 5.4
11. Sexual outcomes and HIV/Aids 10 4.1
12. Physical health and illness 9 3.7
13. Media use and effects 9 3.7
14. Crime and fear of crime 8 3.3
15. Scale development and testing 6 2.5
16. Disasters and national emergency 5 2.1
Total 476 196.7

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

130  Journal of Community Psychology, March 2011

* Intervention execution and evaluation (20.7%) referred to the description or

evaluation of interventions.
* A big gap is then seen with 6% separating the abuse and violence (14.2%) topic,
which included the use or consequences of interpersonal violence or abuse, be
it a physical or sexual nature.
* Neighbourhood characteristics (13.6%) included the description or effects of
geographical, neighbourhood, and wider community-level features.
* Civic participation (12.4%) referred to the participation and involvement of
citizens in decisions affecting them and in effecting community transformation
or change.
* This was followed by another gap of 5% until the substance use and abuse (7.4%)
topic, which related to the use or abuse of substances such as alcohol or drugs,
or the treatment thereof.
* Trauma (5.4%) included exposure to and symptoms or effects of trauma.
* Sexual outcomes and HIV/Aids (4.1%) included sexual practices and their effects,
such as teenage pregnancy and HIV/Aids.
* Media use and effects (3.7%) referred to articles that mentioned the use or
impact of the media (e.g., newspaper or television).
* Physical health and illness (3.7%) referred to all aspects of physical or medical
illness or health, including injury.
* Crime and fear of crime (3.3%) was characterized by the occurrence, incidence, or
consequence of crime or attitudes regarding crime in communities.
* Scale development and testing (2.4%) referred to the review, development, or use
of any psychological or community-based scale.
* The smallest proportion were articles on disasters and national emergency (2.1%),
which included topics relating to widespread devastation caused by a natural
disaster (e.g., flood or earthquake) or man-made incidents of national
emergency (e.g., 911 terror attack).

DISCUSSION

In examining the implications of this study, there is a clear indication that the subject
matter of published work is being influenced by the increasing inclusion of special
issues, with an increase of almost 10% in the number of articles published within the
journal. This suggests an increased level of interest or capacity in community
psychology scholarship. However, the proliferation of special issues may be a response
to an underrepresentation of particular knowledge domains. For instance, Loo et al.
(1988) found that studies relating to certain minority groups were marginally
documented but received increased attention in a period that boasted three special
issues. Loo et al. concluded that such a drastic inclusion may be an attempt to address an
under-represented area and represent ‘‘some form of ‘outreach’’’ (Loo et al., p. 341),

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

 Content and Method Trends in the Journal of Community Psychology  131

but this may not fundamentally resolve the long-standing neglect of knowledge areas
or the reasons why this occurs.
Empirical studies were overwhelmingly and consistently the most published type
of article in this study. However, the overall proportion of empirical articles suggests a
decline from levels noted in earlier trend analyses. Although exact comparisons are
difficult because of methodological differences, tentative comparisons are useful. For
instance, Loo et al. (1988) found that 74% of articles published between the years 1965
and 1985 in the JCP were empirical. As Yen (2008) suggests, the overrepresentation of
empirical studies in the field is necessary for the promotion of action and, hence, the
development of community psychology. Thus, an overall decline in empirical studies
may provide evidence to support the existence of a period of stagnation within
knowledge production in the field. However, the types of knowledge being produced
are important to consider further.
Methodological trends found within the journal in this time period indicated that
positivist methods were most common. This suggests an underrepresentation of
methods that promote contextually bound, critical-political or interpretive views of
communities, and the continued dominance of positivist paradigmatic choices.
Psychology has historically strived to be seen as an objective natural science that
examines universal processes (Mkhize, 2004). However, the relevance of these ideals is
questionable in a field that seekes to promote the acknolwdgement of subjectivity,
diversity, and cultural relativism (Lazarus, 2007). Gordon and Musser highlight that
‘‘many of the core propositions upon which the sciences rest, such as objectivity,
positivism and empiricism are cultural bound products’’ (in Seedat, 1990, p. 40). This
indicates that these very principles that are thought to be value-free are themselves
implicitly bound within that culture and represent an imposition of a specific cultural
ideal. Community psychology is founded on the understanding that individuals can be
understood only in relation to their social context (Trickett, 1996). Therefore,
methodological choices should reflect elements of subjectivity, relativity, and socio-
political locatedness. In addition, they should foreground relations of power and
inequality that operate in communities (Gibson & Swartz, 2004). Mixed-method
approaches are ideally positioned to achieve these aims (Bhana & Kanjee, 2001) and
have the potential to reflect the complexity within community settings (Martin et al.,
2004) but are still largely under-represented in the field (Speer et al., 1992). This was
also evident in the current study.
In addition, the use of action-oriented or applied research methods was scarce.
This is concerning because it potentially signals a trend in which research in
community psychology is employing traditional research methods, instead of
participatory approaches, even when focussing on community interventions. This
suggests that research is being conducted for traditional scientific or academic
purposes. This departs from approaches that view research as being a tool for
establishing relationships with communities, participation, reciprocal influence,
inclusiveness, and community transformation (e.g., Brodsky et al., 2004). It could
signal that published work is becoming divorced from its links to social and community
based action and intervention. This trend echoes the emerging divide between
‘‘academic’’ and ‘‘real world’’ community psychologists (Wolff & Swift, 2008). The
paucity of action-orientated research methods in published work may provide further
support for the existence of this divide, and raises questions related to the generation
of knowledge as a form of power, that is linked to fiscal gain or status. The separation
of research and action has serious implications for perpetuating the situation of

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

132  Journal of Community Psychology, March 2011

marginalized communties and raises ethical issues about the approaches used in
community psychology. This is also not an observation that has gone unnoticed in
marginalized communities. Community members are sometimes reluctant to
participate in research initiatives because they feel little benefit of such endeavours
in their daily lives but notice that research is used to advance the academic careers of
researchers. This suggests an uneasy tension between the research community and
community research.
The top five topics in the current study were mental health and mental illness
(33.5%), sense of community and social support (24.4%), dynamics of social exclusion
(22.7%), child, youth and family development (22.3%), and finally intervention
execution and evaluation (20.7%). Although some have viewed the high occurrence of
mental health-related articles as being a disappointing trend that has surfaced in
previous trend analyses (e.g., Seedat, 1990), others have argued that this focus is
indicative of the uniquely psychological component of community psychology, in
comparison to allied fields (e.g., Lounsbury, et al., 1979). On the whole, this
trend suggests that the mental health model remains one of the dominant theoretical
models utilized, as identified in previous research (e.g., Seedat et al., 1988). If mental
health continues to be the desired goal, then the ultimate focus of community
psychology continues to lie within the individual; and this runs contrary to models that
focus on community well-being and locate this within the context of power
asymmetries within societies, insufficient resources, or the abilities of communities to
create their own transformative processes. This is further supported by the
comparatively low proportion of articles dealing with the topic of civic participation
(12.40%), which includes empowerment, citizen participation in community, and
political structures and forms of social action. The present study, thus, confirms the
presence of social action (Martin et al., 2004) or empowerment (Toro, 2005) as an
important epistemological trend in community psychology publications. However, it
appears that this strand is far less prominent in contemporary articles than the
emphasis on mental health and mental illness, which is linked to epistemologies of
prevention and promotion (Toro, 2005).
It is also significant to note the comparative prominence of mental health/illness
concerns in relation the underrepresentation of social issues, and it has implications for
the relevance of published work for many low-income countries. For example, in
South Africa, violence, poverty, and HIV/Aids would be among the most pertinent
social issues to which community psychology research would need to respond. From
this perspective, it is disheartening to see that mainstream psychological foci, such as
mental health and illness, are so highly represented. However, psychological sense of
community, dynamics of social exclusion and intervention execution, and evaluation
are also highly represented. Other notable findings are the low representation of
articles that deal with abuse, sexual outcomes, and crime. This may suggest that
community psychology is attempting to define itself outside of specific social issues, in
terms of its general approach, core constructs, values, or epistemological emphasis.
Nevertheless, it is interesting that certain social issues, such as substance abuse, have
continued to be consistently represented to a greater extent in community psychology
journals, while others, such as HIV/AIDS, continue to be omitted (Yen, 2008).
Toro (2005) further discusses a focus on diversity and marginalized groups as
being a core epistemological strand in community psychology—a strand which is
clearly evident in the topic of dynamics of social exclusion. This category includes
intergroup relations, acculturation, discrimination, sexism, racism, and other forms of

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

 Content and Method Trends in the Journal of Community Psychology  133

prejudice, as well as the differential access to rights and resources among different
population groups. This topic emerged as one of the focal areas in the study, although
its presence was inconsistent. Its prominence appears to have been significantly
influenced by the inclusion of special issues on the topic. In this regard, another
interesting trend to note is that ethnic, cultural, national, religious, or gender markers
were not used as variables in the majority of empirical abstracts sampled. This suggests
that many studies are not distinguishing their samples according to diversity
characteristics, or examining these as central variables in empirical studies. Although
dynamics of social exclusion is generally well represented as an epistemological trend
within article topics, this is not always the case in the variables within empirical
research. This possibly suggests that more review and theoretical articles may focus on
this strand, instead of this being a core focus of empirical work.
Community psychology advocates a focuses on socially disempowered and
marginalized groups so that equality, transformation, and liberation can occur.
However, Loo et al. (1988) caution that the ‘‘fear and vulnerability [of community
psychologists may] constrain them to studying only the familiar, accessible, and ‘‘safe’’
(p. 345). Greater than 60% of the abstracts in this study did not specify having worked
with a marginalized group, based on religion, culture, race, nationality, or ethnicity.
Further, the use of women as a focal group in empirical studies was minimal. Angelique
and Culley’s (2003) analysis of the gender consciousness of publications in the JCP
from 1973–2000 corroborate that only a few articles related to women’s issues can be
found. Despite this, these authors noted that the range of material covered was
deemed impressively diverse (Angelique & Culley, 2003). However, they found that
there appeared to be an increase in the publication of such articles. Although the
current study acknowledges this, there is still insufficient research that focuses directly
on women (17.6%), as well as an exclusive emphasis on male partcipants (3.0%). Often,
studies include a mixed gender sample as a matter of reporting sample demographics,
without focusing on gender-based issues and their implications. This study, therefore,
supports the notion that issues of diversity require greater attention in empirical
studies to ensure that the foundational values of the subdiscipline are included in
scholarly work (Angelique & Culley, 2003).
An ecological focus is a further defining aspect of community psychology (Martin
et al., 2004; Toro, 2005). Some evidence can be found for the presence of this theoretical
strand in the prominence of the topic of child, youth and family development. However, this
topic reflects a micro and meso systemic focus. Broader systemic levels were included in
the topic of neighbourhood characteristics, which referred to the community or
neighbourhood level of analysis or influence, which was far less prominent. This
suggests that contemporary published work in community psychology research appears
to be more closely aligned to the ecological levels of focus in other fields within
traditional mainstream psychology (e.g., clinical, counselling, educational), rather than
primarily being orientated to a broader ecological orientation or analysis.

CONCLUSION

Community psychology is a dynamic field and is still very much on the path of self-
discovery. This article presents trends that are evident in the data set, highlighting some
apparent discrepancies in emphasis within the content and methods of published work
in comparison to the core theories and principles of community psychology.

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

134  Journal of Community Psychology, March 2011

In particular, publications that advocate participatory, social action, and transfor-

mative approaches to theory, research and intervention appear to be under-represented
in contemporary published work. This has relevance for the advancement of socially
marginalized groups in both the United States and internationally. Knowledge
production is continuous and consistent efforts are needed to understand trends in
this area to ensure greater consensus about emergent issues affecting the development
of the field (Fowler & Toro, 2008). Although community psychology has seen many
successes, ongoing reflexive research is needed to ensure that the theories, methods,
principles, and values it purports are adequately translated in both its published and
practised work and that the relationship between these elements is strengthened.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological

Association (6th ed.). New York: APA.
Angelique, H.L., & Culley, M.R. (2003). Feminism found: An examination of gender consciousness
in community psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3), 189–209.
Bernal, G., & Enchautegui-de-Jesus, N. (1994). Latinos and Latinas in community psychology:
A review of the literature. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22(4), 531–557.
Bhana, A., & Kanjee, A. (2001). Epistemological and methdological issues in community
psychology. In M. Seedat, N. Duncan, & S. Lazarus (Eds.), Community psychology: Theory,
method and practice (pp. 135–158). N1 City: OUP.
Brodsky, A.E., Rogers Senuta, K., Weiss, C.L.A., Marz, C.M., Loomis, C., Arteaga, S.S., et al.
(2004). When one plus one equals three: The role of relationships and context in
community research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(3/4), 229–241.
Dalton, J.H., Elias, M.J., & Wandersman, A. (2007). Community psychology: Linking individuals
and communities. United States: Thomson Wadsworth.
Epstein, L., & Martin, A.D. (2005). Coding variables. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopaedia
of social measurement (Vol. 1, pp. 321–327). Oxford: Elsevier Academic Press.
Fowler, P.J., & Toro, P.A. (2008). The many histories of community psychology: Analyses of
current trends and future prospects. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(5), 569–571.
Gibson, K., & Swartz, L. (2004). Community psychology: Emotional processes in political
subjects. In D. Hook, P. Kiguwa, N. Mkize, A. Collins, I. Parker, & E. Burman (Eds.), Critical
psychology (pp. 465–486). Cape Town: UCT Press.
Kelly, J.G. (2006). Becoming ecological: An expedition into community psychology. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Kelly, J.G., & Chang, J. (2008). Pluralistic inquiry for the history of community psychology.
Journal of Community Psychology, 36(5), 675–691.
Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
Lazarus, S. (2007). Assumptions and values of community psychology. In N. Duncan,
B. Bowman, A. Naidoo, J. Pillay, & V. Roos (Eds.), Community psychology: Analysis,
context and action (pp. 67–83). Cape Town: UCT Press.
Loo, C., Fong, K.T., & Iwamasa, G. (1988). Ethnicity and cultural diversity: An analysis of work
published in community psychology journals, 1965–1985. Journal of Community
Psychology, 16, 332–349.
Lounsbury, J.W., Cook, M.P., Leader, D.S., Rubeiz, G., & Meares, E.P. (1979). Community
psychology: Boundary problems, psychological perspectives, and an empirical overview of
the field. American Psychologist, 34(6), 554–557.

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

 Content and Method Trends in the Journal of Community Psychology  135

Lounsbury, J.W., Leader, D.S., Meares, E.P., & Cook, M.P. (1980). An analytic review of research
in community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8(4), 415–441.
Martin, P.P., Lounsbury, D.W., & Davidson, W.S. (2004). AJCP as a vehicle for improving
community life: An historic-analytic review of the journal’s contents. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 34(3/4), 163–173.
Maw, A. (2002). The consultation relationship: Reflections on a psychological consultation
partnership. In L. Swartz, K. Gibson, & T. Gelman (Eds.), Reflective practice:
Psychodynamic ideas in the community (pp. 57–72). Cape Town: HSRC.
Montero, M. (2005). Between person and society: Community psychology’s voyage into
complexity. In G. Nelson & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Community psychology: In pursuit of
liberation and well-being. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Ngonyama ka Sigogo, T., Hooper, M., Long, C., Lykes, M.B., Wilson, K., & Zietkiewicz, E. (2004).
Chasing rainbow notions: Enacting community psychology in the classroom and beyond in
post-1994 South Africa. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1/2), 77–89.
Orford, J. (1992). Community psychology: Theory and practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Pretorius-Heuchert, J.W., & Ahmed, R. (2001). Community psychology: Past, present, and
future. In M. Seedat, N. Duncan, & S. Lazarus (Eds.), Community psychology: Theory,
method and practice (pp. 17–36). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(1), 1–21.
Reich, S.M., Riemer, M., Prilleltensky, I., & Montero, M (Eds.). (2007). International community
psychology: History and theories. New York: Springer.
Seedat, M. (1990). Programmes, trends and silences in South African psychology 1983–1988.
In L.J. Nicholas & S. Cooper (Eds.), Psychology and apartheid: Essays on the struggle for
psychology and the mind in South Africa (pp. 22–49). Johannesburg: Vision Publications.
Seedat, M., Cloete, N., & Shochet, I. (1988). Community psychology: Panic or panacea.
Psychology in Society, 11, 39–54.
Seedat, M., MacKenzie, S., & Stevens, G. (2004). Trends and redress in community psychology
during 10 years of democracy (1994–2003): A journal-based perspective. South African
Journal of Psychology, 34(4), 595–612.
Silverman, D. (1997). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London: Sage.
Stevens, G. (2007). The international emergence and development of community psychology. In
N. Duncan, B. Bowman, A. Naidoo, J. Pillay, & V. Roos (Eds.), Community psychology:
Analysis, context and action (pp. 27–50). Cape Town: UCT Press.
Swart, T.M., & Bowman, B. (2007). Activating action: Aims, methods and imperatives of research
in community psychology. In N. Duncan, B. Bowman, A. Naidoo, J. Pillay, & V. Roos (Eds.),
Community Psychology: Analysis, context and action (pp. 433–449). Cape Town: UCT Press.
Toro, P.A. (2005). Community psychology: Where do we go from here? American Journal of
Community Psychology, 35(1/2), 9–16.
Trickett, E.J. (1996). A future for community psychology: The contexts of diversity and the
diversity of contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(2), 209–235.
Wilkinson, D., & Birmingham, P. (2003). Using research instruments: A guide for researchers.
London: Routledge.
Wolff, T., & Swift, C. (2008). Reflections on ‘‘real-world’’ community psychology. Journal of
Community Psychology, 36(5), 609–625.
Yen, J. (2008). A history of community psychology in South Africa. In C. van Ommen &
D. Painter (Eds.), Interiors—A history of psychology in South Africa (pp. 385–412).
Pretoria: UNISA Press.

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop