See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227853461

Community Involvement: Theoretical Approaches and Educational Initiatives

Article  in  Journal of Social Issues · September 2002

DOI: 10.1111/1540-4560.00268

CITATIONS READS

47 7,183

2 authors, including:

Arthur Stukas
La Trobe University
70 PUBLICATIONS   4,341 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CSR and Social Risk View project

Meta-Analysis on Matching Volunteer Motivations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arthur Stukas on 19 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Community Involvement 1

Running head: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Community Involvement:

Theoretical Approaches and Educational Initiatives

Arthur A. Stukas Michelle R. Dunlap

La Trobe University Connecticut College

For publication: Please address correspondence to Art Stukas, School of Psychological

Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia. Email:

A.Stukas@latrobe.edu.au or to Michelle Dunlap, Department of Human Development,

Connecticut College, 270 Mohegan Ave., Box 5322, New London, CT 06320-4125. Email:

mrdun@conncoll.edu

Stukas, A. A., & Dunlap, M. R. (2002). Community involvement: Theoretical approaches and
educational initiatives. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 411-427.
 Community Involvement 2

Abstract

Efforts to increase involvement of citizens in their communities are now widespread.

We discuss key forms of community involvement, such as community service and

volunteerism, broadly, and educational initiatives that promote involvement (e.g., service-

learning courses), more specifically. There are benefits to be achieved by the promotion of

involvement but also potential drawbacks. As an example of one approach to investigating

community involvement, we review research on the interactive influence of person-centered

functional variables (e.g., motives) and situation-centered structural variables (e.g., program

features) on prosocial action. Ultimately, we call for greater attention to be paid to all of the

constituent groups in the community involvement spectrum and the necessarily respectful and

equitable relationships that must be forged between them.

 Community Involvement 3

Community Involvement: Theoretical Approaches and Educational Initiatives

Both nationally, within the United States, and internationally, an increasingly more

popular social trend is underway. Efforts to increase involvement of citizens in their

communities are now widespread, involving both top-down processes (i.e., government

initiatives) and bottom-up processes (i.e., grassroots organizing). Indeed, the focus on

motivating individuals to get involved is truly global in nature, with the year 2001 being

declared by the United Nations General Assembly as the International Year of Volunteers.

Within the US, both Presidents George Bush (the father) and Bill Clinton made community

service initiatives a central part of their domestic policy, with Bush signing the National and

Community Service Act of 1990 (incorporating the Points of Light Foundation and the

Commission on National and Community Service) and Clinton signing the National and

Community Service Trust Act (establishing the Corporation for National Service which funds

AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve America, among other programs). Internationally, efforts to

promote community involvement are reflected in a resolution arising from the 2000 Special

Session of the UN General Assembly in Geneva (as well as in participation in the

International Year). This resolution calls for member nations to “strengthen support for civil

society, including community organizations working with groups with special needs” (annex

III, article 51, p. 24) and to “promote the contribution that voluntarism can make to the

creation of caring societies” (annex III, article 54, p. 24), among other important and relevant

points (United Nations General Assembly, 2000).

Research in psychology and related disciplines has mirrored this growing public

interest in community involvement. At the June 2000 biannual SPSSI conference, action

research on volunteerism (e.g., Snyder, 2000) was highlighted. Also, a past issue of JSI on

grassroots organizing (i.e., Wittig & Bettencourt, 1996) spotlighted the “bottom-up”

processes involved in community action and activism. Clearly, there is widespread support

for community involvement across the ideological continuum—in general terms. Most
 Community Involvement 4

research has focused on why people get involved and how to get them to do so at higher rates,

for longer periods, and with greater comfort (e.g., Dunlap, 2000; Stukas, Clary, & Snyder,

1999; Zlotkowski, 1998). In partnership with educators, social scientists have helped to

design and refine educational initiatives to get students involved; such initiatives often take

place in the context of an academic course, e.g., " service-learning" (and sometimes

"experiential education") courses. Social scientists who study these programs have frequently

examined their benefits in their own classrooms; thus, some of the more experimental

research has focused on service components integrated into psychology and sociology courses

(e.g., Kendrick, 1996; Markus, Howard, & King, 1993). At a minimum, these service-

learning courses involve both community involvement activities and some degree of

connection to student educational goals. The extent to which this latter relevance to student

education is made explicit may determine the “learning” benefits that students can obtain

from such a course (Eyler, this issue). Over the past decade, such courses have become

widespread in educational institutions at all levels (Stanton, Giles, & Cruz, 1999).

However, there are critics of this new emphasis on the promotion of community

involvement (and particularly of governmental initiatives), critics who suggest that pushes for

increased voluntary and curriculum-based community work are merely disguised attempts for

governments to pull back from delivering social services to the public (e.g., Austin &

Hasenfeld, 1985; Olsen, 1986). Such criticism often fails to recognize that, in many cases,

community involvement can provide tangible benefits for individuals, communities, and

societies—and it may be that without some push toward increasing unpaid community

participation, available social services and support could diminish yet further, as governments

retrench without heed of community need (e.g., Owen, 1985). Other critiques of community

involvement initiatives focus on the methods used to get people involved, pointing out that

requirements to engage within community contexts may reduce intrinsic motivation to

perform such actions in the future, after the required service is over (e.g., Sobus, 1995;
 Community Involvement 5

Stukas, Snyder, & Clary, 1999). There may be solutions available to address these latter

criticisms, chiefly involving the provision of greater autonomy and choice for individuals in

such required programs (e.g., Stukas, Snyder, & Clary, 1999; Werner, Voce, Openshaw, &

Simons, this issue). Nevertheless, such criticisms, as a whole, do bring to our attention the

social structure that surrounds all acts of community service and challenge us to look at the

larger picture, at the societal changes, both positive and negative, that may result from the

promotion of community involvement.

Perhaps, though, it is important to take a step back from this debate and ask a few

questions. First, what do we mean by “community” within the context of this special issue?

And what do we mean by “involvement”? Inevitably, we must also ask why community

involvement should be promoted at all; that is, what outcomes can we expect from such

activities? In addressing such questions, we shall also need to deal with how individuals

should and should not get involved in or engage with their communities and the factors,

theoretical and practical, which may influence their involvement and its outcomes.

To begin, there is no clear consensus in the literature about just what the term

community means or what criteria are necessary to define a community (e.g., Garcia,

Giuliani, & Wiesenfeld, 1999). However, researchers have suggested that communities can be

broken down into “territorial” communities, referring to collections of people in geographical

areas like neighborhoods, towns, and cities, and “relational” communities, referring to the

social networks that people may form based on interests and skills. These latter networks may

be unrelated to physical locality (e.g., McMillan & Chavis, 1986), especially in the current

electronic age. In some ways, researchers have sidestepped the issue of the nature of

community by focusing instead on the psychological sense of community—that is, feelings of

attachment to a group (e.g., McMillan & Chavis, 1986). This variable is, perhaps, better

thought of as an outcome of community involvement, however. For the purpose of this

special issue, we (and most of the authors within) assume that communities are identifiable
 Community Involvement 6

and in place—they may be either territorial or relational, but, for the most part, a focus on the

territorial variety is implicit. Whether or not these communities want their members to be

more involved or would benefit from such involvement are open questions.

The definition of active “involvement” in a community also takes many forms. For

most authors and program architects, community involvement activities are conceived of as

virtually identical to the types of unpaid work activities traditionally engaged in by

volunteers, but may also involve civic participation such as working with nonprofit

organizations, serving on community boards and committees, and organizing block clubs.

Like volunteerism, community involvement is typically construed as prosocial in orientation,

but we should be careful to note that not all community involvement can properly be called

volunteerism, which is formally defined as “any activity in which time is given freely to

benefit another person, group, or organization” (Wilson, 2000, p. 215). Instead, volunteerism

should be recognized as only a subset of community involvement activities. Community

involvement may also include required service to benefit communities, often performed by

relatively captive groups such as students and criminals (e.g., McIvor, 1992; Stukas, Snyder,

& Clary, 1999). In keeping with this broad definition of community involvement, several of

the authors within this issue have moved beyond the domain of traditional volunteer work to

discuss such prosocial acts as principled organizational dissent (e.g., Piliavin, Grube, &

Callero, this issue) and sustained voluntary helpfulness in the workplace (e.g., Penner, this

issue). As should be clear, expanding the definition of community involvement to encompass

acts that go beyond those traditionally performed by volunteers brings elements of the social

structure surrounding such acts of community involvement to the foreground of discussion.

At the most basic level, community involvement has as a primary goal the betterment

of the community—such betterment can be achieved both directly, through action (for

example, by painting over graffiti or cleaning up a vacant lot), or indirectly, through the

building of social capital, defined as “connections among individuals—social networks and

 Community Involvement 7

the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Putnam, 2000, p. 19). As

Robert Putnam (2000) has suggested, social capital itself may help to combat social problems

and reduce tensions between various constituent groups in a community, perhaps by

providing an accessible network of resources and perhaps through the beneficial effects of

interpersonal contact across previously delineated group boundaries, such as those of race and

class (e.g., Pettigrew, 1998). Naturally, the assumption cannot be made that all constituent

groups in a community will or can come to consensus about what the goals of community

involvement should be and what kinds of end-states represent betterment of the community.

Piliavin, Grube, and Callero (this issue) discuss ways in which prosocial community

involvement may actually mean attacking and changing the status quo in the face of

resistance—and using one’s status as a member of a constituent group in the community to do

so.

Involvement in the community has both an individual and a collective aspect (e.g.,

Putnam, 2000)—that is, both individuals themselves and their communities can benefit from

community involvement. However, at least within social psychology and the growing

literature on service-learning, the bulk of the extant research has focused on the person who

engages in community service and his or her satisfaction and outcomes, as opposed to the

community itself and the benefits that do or do not accrue to it (e.g., Kraft, 1996).

Historically, social scientists studying prosocial behavior more generally (e.g., Batson, 1998)

have analyzed the behavior at hand by focusing on the individual (e.g., Penner, Fritzsche,

Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995), and frequently on how to motivate him or her to get involved

(e.g., Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Copeland, Stukas, Haugen & Miene, 1998). Such analyses often

take into account the effects of the situational context in which helpful acts occur and its

effects on individual motivation and behavior. Often, interactions between person-centered

processes and situational factors are proposed and found (e.g., Batson, 1998).
 Community Involvement 8

A brief example of recent work on community involvement using this social

psychological approach may clarify this perspective. Researchers focused on the individual

who gets involved in their community have recently taken a functional approach, which

involves examining the needs and goals, plans and motives that drive such behaviors (e.g.,

Snyder & Cantor, 1998; Snyder, Clary, & Stukas, 2000). Taking this perspective suggests that

individuals may actively choose situations and experiences that allow them to meet

fundamental goals; that is, individuals may operate on “agendas for action” (Snyder &

Cantor, 1998). Perhaps no area of behavior better exemplifies the usefulness of this approach

than the study of volunteerism and other forms of community involvement; such behaviors

are frequently freely chosen committed actions and as such may be more reflective of

personal goals and motivations than other more spontaneous behaviors (e.g., Snyder et al.,

2000). The literature on volunteerism, for example, has offered several typologies of

motivations (e.g., Batson, 1994; Clary et al., 1998; Omoto & Snyder, 1995; Serow, 1991),

suggesting that different individuals may engage in the same behavior for very different (and

sometimes multiple) reasons. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that individuals are

always trying to satisfy individual egoistic goals—as Batson (1994; Batson, Ahmad & Tsang,

this issue) points out, individuals often choose to get involved in their communities because

of the benefits that will be provided to other people or to the community itself. Omoto and

Snyder (1995) also cite community concern as a chief motivation underlying AIDS

volunteerism. Thus, a collectivistic perspective has been making inroads even in traditionally

person-centered research programs (see also Simon, Sturmer, & Steffens, 2000).

Researchers working in this functionalist tradition (Snyder & Cantor, 1998) focus on

individual differences in goals and motives as a way of predicting behavior. As such, it is in

keeping with, though by no means isomorphic with, other person-centered approaches such as

work on the prosocial personality (e.g., Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995; Rushton,

Chrisjohn, & Fekken, 1981) or on role-identity (e.g., Callero, Howard, & Piliavin, 1987). The
 Community Involvement 9

extent to which individual differences can predict community involvement has been

debated—and they may be entirely unrelated to decisions to get involved when such decisions

are dictated by educational institutions. They may, however, play a very important role in

predicting outcomes from community involvement or the quality of the behaviors enacted in

the context of involvement, but perhaps only in conjunction with other important situational

or organizational variables (see Penner, this issue).

Practically speaking, this interactionist premise leads directly from the question of “why”

people get involved in their communities to the specific question of “how” people get

involved and, from a functionalist perspective, what features of their experiences best allow

them to meet their goals (e.g., Snyder & Cantor, 1998). In other words, we must next ask

questions about which structural features of experience allow for the best possible outcomes.

In the case of community involvement, such structural features might include the types of

activities in which individuals engage, the length of time they do so, and the types of people

with whom they interact. Applied research on service-learning programs is often concerned

with the features of programs that best enhance positive outcomes for students (and, less

often, for community members) rather than the features of students that influence outcomes

(e.g., Eyler & Giles, 1997; Shumer, 1997). Indeed, a quick review of the possible outcomes of

community involvement suggests that different outcomes may be promoted by very different

program features (e.g., Stukas, Clary, & Snyder, 1999). For example, research has suggested

that active reflection by students about their experience may be central to achieving many

benefits, including greater understanding of themselves, their curriculum, and their

community (e.g., Eyler, this issue; Hatcher & Bringle, 1997). Others have pointed to the need

for autonomy to be given to participants (e.g., Werner et al., this issue). As well, a good fit

between the values of the community member and the values of the organization for which

they work may also be important (e.g., Grube & Piliavin, 2000). Different structural features

may afford individuals opportunities to meet very different goals and, from a functionalist
 Community Involvement 10

perspective, it may be the matching of person-centered goals and predispositions with

situational features that allow these needs to be met that may best predict positive outcomes

from community involvement (e.g., Clary et al., 1998).

Most service-learning programs are sponsored by educational institutions and are clearly

designed to help students by providing educational and psychological benefits to them

(Stanton, Giles, & Cruz, 1999). Such benefits (available to students as well as to other

community participants) may include a greater understanding of the diverse perspectives and

backgrounds present in the community (e.g., Yates & Youniss, 1996) and perhaps a sense of

humility stemming from a new recognition of the problems we face (e.g., Miller, 1997).

Naturally, a central focus of a great number of educational programs is to give students

specific opportunities to observe or to apply principles learned in the classroom outside in the

community (e.g., Eyler & Giles, 1997). Some community involvement initiatives are also

designed to promote the internalization of prosocial values and attitudes in students as they

take on the role of active community members (e.g., Sax & Astin, 1997). In many ways, these

goals are meant to be achieved by providing developmental opportunities that allow students

to have experiences that lead to personal growth (e.g., Rutter & Newmann, 1989; Singer,

King, Green, & Barr, this issue). The extent to which these goals of programs are attainable

may vary considerably according to characteristics of both the students and their involvement

activities. For example, it may be the case that students’ specific identification with their

academic institutions or departments (based perhaps on a congruence between the

institution’s values and those of the students) leads to more successful and beneficial helping

behavior (e.g., Grube & Piliavin, 2000). Without active reflection activities, however, none of

the benefits, particularly those associated with learning and cognitive development, may be

available for students of any kind, motivated or not (e.g., Eyler, this issue).

Community involvement (promoted by a community’s institutions, educational or

otherwise) may also further cement the bonds between institutions and the communities in
 Community Involvement 11

which they reside by providing help and support to those in need and by facilitating

interactions between members of the community who might not otherwise have contact (e.g.,

Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon, & Kerrigan, 1996). The mutual understanding that develops from

this contact is, thus, a chief benefit of involvement initiatives; such relationships (i.e., social

capital; Putnam, 2000) can be forged at the intergroup or inter-institutional level (see Bringle

& Hatcher, this issue), as well as at the interpersonal level. Of course, there are possible

downsides when different constituent groups in the community have different goals and

values; that is, understanding is not always an easy thing to generate. It is often important to

take stock of the relative power of each of the groups in the community to make sure that no

one party in the process is being exploited or ignored. Piliavin et al. (this issue) raise this

important issue by identifying the ways in which members of a certain role (for example,

students) may have that role used as a resource by other more powerful agents (for example,

academic institutions), perhaps in ways that do not mesh with the role occupiers’ own goals.

Nadler (this issue) also suggests that rejecting certain types of help may aid low status groups

in their efforts to attain social equality. Thus, it is important to recognize not only the ultimate

goal of betterment of the community, but also how each constituent group is represented and

treated in the process of attaining a mutually agreed upon better community.

Taking into account both the features of individuals and the features of programs that

best lead to positive outcomes could easily lead us to declare that an explicitly interactionist

perspective should yield the best understanding of the community involvement process. That

is, participants in the community involvement spectrum may have different goals and

different aspects of experiences may allow these goals to be met—with a good match leading

to the greatest benefits for those involved. Yet, in many ways, this person-by-situation

approach may not provide full understanding of the collectivist side of community

involvement. Throughout this introductory article, hints of the intergroup and societal

contexts surrounding prosocial action have repeatedly appeared. These hints will grow more
 Community Involvement 12

explicit in the articles that follow. It seems now, in many ways, that the person-by-situation

perspective has ignored the community itself and the individuals to whom prosocial acts may

be directed, individuals in need of help perhaps (Batson et al., this issue). Of course, there are

exceptions to this broad statement and a literature has grown up focusing on the experiences

of recipients of help (e.g., Nadler, 1991; Nadler, this issue; Nadler & Fisher, 1986).

However, it now seems clear that community involvement may be a process that could

be better understood by examining the benefits and risks that everyone involved gives and

receives. A focus upon the “volunteer” alone, his or her outcomes, and the "services" he or

she provides may neglect the contributions made by those usually termed "recipients" of help

(perhaps better identified as “community partners”). We believe that an adequate

understanding of community involvement can only be gained by examining the roles and

perspectives, needs and outcomes of all of the various constituent groups in the system.

Although a strong tendency to focus on the “volunteer” has been dominant (in tandem with an

emphasis on the immediate situational context), we need to move quickly to integrate such a

focus with a similar analysis of the community partner, the institutions and organizations

involved, and the community and society at large. The integration of these multiple

perspectives and multiple goals may prove to be the largest challenge for the study of

community involvement and its application in community involvement or service-learning

programs. The current issue hopes to take the first few steps in this direction, and, with hope,

chart a course for future work.

In some ways, such an integration should lead us to the rather common sense notion

that promoting positive relationships among members of the various constituent groups

should be of highest priority for those interested in promoting community involvement. This

is a central element of social capital as discussed by Putnam (2000)--the social networks that

foster norms of responsibility and reciprocity. Within the educational sector, research has

already suggested that the development of close collegial relationships between site
 Community Involvement 13

supervisors and students (e.g., Eyler & Giles, 1997) and between students/volunteers and

community partners (e.g., Dunlap, 2000; Omoto, Gunn, & Crain, 1998) may lead to better

outcomes for students/volunteers at least. It may be the case that true social progress and

social change may only occur to the extent that positive mutually-fulfilling relationships

among the constituent groups in a community are created. Such relationships should entail

mutual respect and understanding of the diverse backgrounds and experiences of all members

of our increasingly multicultural communities (e.g., Dunlap, 1998; 2000). Social scientists

should not find this idea hard to accept given the long history of the Contact Hypothesis in

social psychology (e.g., Allport, 1954) and its recent focus on empathy and friendship as

mediators of the effects of contact on positive intergroup attitudes (e.g., Batson, Polycarpou,

Harmon-Jones, Imhoff, Mitchener, Bdenar, Klein, & Highberger, 1997; Pettigrew, 1998).

Just a brief mention of the Contact Hypothesis brings to mind the conditions that

Allport (1954) set out as necessary for intergroup contact to have beneficial effects on

intergroup attitudes: equal status, cooperative contact, superordinate goals, and legitimacy

granted by authority figures. We suggest that these same factors may be necessary for

successful community involvement, particularly when such involvement brings individuals

from different social groups together. Several of the articles in this issue recognize implicitly

the need for respect and cooperation across group lines (e.g., Bringle & Hatcher, this issue;

Werner et al., this issue). As we will see, a helping situation does not often provide equal

status when members of the community are variously denoted as help-givers and recipients of

help (e.g., Nadler, 1991). This issue of status is made even more complex when “volunteers”

and “recipients” come from different social or cultural groups with traditionally unequal

levels of power (e.g., Dunlap, 1998, 2000; Nadler, this issue). The explicit emphasis on

empowerment, generativity, and civic responsibility that recurs throughout the service-

learning literature may be an implicit recognition of the often low power and status of the
 Community Involvement 14

student volunteer (e.g., Singer et al., this issue; Werner et al., this issue). Unfortunately, in

many (if not most) cases, similar recognition has not been granted to community partners.

So, although we have come quite some distance in our understanding of community

involvement, there is still much ground to travel. Our goals for this issue are to set forth on

this journey, trying to incorporate some of the lessons we have learned while focusing on

individuals and the immediate situations that surround their attempts to better their

communities, while also incorporating ideas generated from a wider, more collectivistic, view

of the community involvement process. At the same time, we hope to raise issues that can

guide future theorizing and future practical applications, particularly with regard to

educationally-based service-learning initiatives.

Organization of this Issue

We have divided the issue into two sections, focusing, first, on theoretical approaches

to understanding community involvement, and, second, on applied research designed to better

understand educational initiatives that seek to get students and community members involved.

Although this split follows the traditional boundaries of so-called “basic” and “applied”

research, we believe, like Lewin (1951), that these areas are mutually reinforcing—that the

theoretical promise developed in our first section can be integrated with the more applied

focus presented in the second. The educational domain may therefore be a place where theory

can be applied and expanded. This integration of theory and application may still reside

somewhere in the future, however a merger is in sight and we hope our special issue

contributes to a highlighting of the different standpoints that will need to be examined.

I. Theoretical Approaches

In the first section of this issue, we have selected four articles that offer broad

theoretical perspectives on why people get involved in their communities and the factors that

may be involved over the course of their involvement. Each uses a different theoretical

framework to suggest important influences on prosocial behavior, influences that are (in total)
 Community Involvement 15

dispositional, situational, interpersonal, intergroup, organizational, and societal. We hope

these articles complement the articles that follow by providing greater context to the

community involvement process.

In our first article, Batson, Ahmad, and Tsang (this issue) address the question of why

individuals would work to advance the common “public” good; that is, what goals are

individuals meeting through their community involvement? They compare and contrast four

“ultimate goals” achieved by working for the public good: egoism, altruism, collectivism, and

principlism. This typology is situated firmly in Lewin’s (1951) lifespace, suggesting that

different goals may be facilitated or restrained by the situational context. With an eye toward

increasing contributions to the public good, the authors assess the ultimate goals of helping

and evaluate whether varying motives or goals conflict with each other or result in different

quantitative or qualitative contributions to the public good. As a result, it becomes clear that

each goal or motive has strengths and weaknesses and may work best in tandem. Thus,

organizations seeking to increase community involvement may find it wise to tailor their

efforts toward facilitating two or more complementary goals in order to maximize

participation.

Continuing our explication of the factors that may lead to the initiation of community

involvement, Penner (this issue) provides a useful overview of research on the dispositional

and organizational variables that influence prosocial behavior, and a conceptual model to

integrate them. Indeed, Penner includes the organizational setting as a component in his

definition of community involvement (in this case, volunteerism, specifically), something that

is often excluded by others, even though the vast majority of prosocial acts do take place

under the auspices of community organizations. This model helps to explain both how people

get involved and why they may continue to stay involved. Penner’s interactionist perspective,

taking account of both dispositional variables (like personality or motives) and organizational

variables (like fairness of policies and tasks available), merges the traditional research focus
 Community Involvement 16

on the characteristics of volunteers with the growing literature on organizational

characteristics (see Rioux & Penner, in press) in order to better predict prosocial actions. As

such, Penner offers some much needed context to our understanding of how community

involvement may truly unfold.

Next, Piliavin, Grube, and Callero (this issue) use a more sociological perspective to

examine exactly what we mean by community involvement and whether traditional prosocial

actions (i.e., volunteerism) are enough to solve some of our most challenging problems—

which may be rooted more deeply in social structural features and ideologies. The concept of

“role” is used to denote both an identity that individual volunteers may adopt and a resource

that may be leveraged by these individuals and by other groups in the community, for varying,

even conflicting, purposes. Piliavin et al. further expand the definition of community

involvement to include more confrontational forms of involvement such as principled

organizational dissent, using as an example the facilitating and restraining factors surrounding

nurses’ decisions to report health care errors. Such an expansion places community

involvement activities squarely into their proper context in the larger social structure and

indicates how “betterment” of the community may sometimes need to be conceptualized as a

change to the status quo.

Closing our first section, Nadler (this issue) also examines the social structural

consequences of helping relationships, particularly the impact that helping relationships

established across social group lines may have on inter-group power relationships in the

larger society. His analysis seeks to extend our understanding of the often political dimension

of community involvement and the implications from the points of view of both the “helper”

and the “recipient of help.” As such, larger, often less discernible, factors are elucidated that

may impact both willingness to help and willingness to accept help. For example,

incompatible interpretations of the implicit goals of community service are given light by the

recognition that “service” from the ostensibly “powerful” to the ostensibly “powerless” can
 Community Involvement 17

be conceptualized as either promoting autonomy or as reifying dependency. The legitimacy of

existing power differences (in the eyes of both helpers and recipients) is suggested to be a

major contributing factor to types of help proffered and reactions to this help. Nadler’s

vantage point as an Israeli citizen offers an international perspective that places these issues in

high relief.

II. Educational Initiatives

In our second section, we have placed articles that specifically focus on the use of

community involvement initiatives in the educational system. These articles offer new and

interesting additions to what has become a large body of literature on educational programs.

In doing so, they make specific recommendations—derived from relevant theory—about how

to construct such programs to achieve maximal benefits for all of the constituencies involved.

As will no doubt be apparent, these recommendations all require hard work on the part of all

members of the community involvement spectrum—successful community involvement

clearly demands (and deserves) careful and consistent attention to detail, flexibility, and the

fair and equitable balance of effort and outcomes for all parties.

Bringle and Hatcher (this issue) adapt research on interpersonal relationships to apply to

relationships between institutions of higher education (who may instruct students to get

involved in the community) and the communities in which they reside—with a particular

focus on relationships that involve service-learning activities. They use a process model that

follows relationships from their initiation, through their development (including increasing

communication between the parties), to their final stages and dissolution. The analogy

between interpersonal relationships and relationships between such large groups as

communities and universities proves a good fit and provides insights otherwise unseen. In

expanding the analysis of the “helping relationship” beyond the individual level, larger social

structural variables of power and equity of exchange again make an appearance. Bringle and

Hatcher’s key point is that campus-community relationships require the same care and
 Community Involvement 18

attention to purpose, ongoing dynamics and benefits, and viability that interpersonal

relationships need to thrive. Specific advice to practitioners is offered based on these

analyses.

Eyler (this issue) takes a central feature of educational community service

opportunities, reflection, and examines it in depth and in the context of relevant theories of

learning and cognitive science as well as the voluminous research on education. As such, this

is a strongly Lewinian article—directly linking theory and practice in a way that advances

both. Eyler weaves the threads of a variety of studies into a matrix that provides insight into

the social context of reflection and its chronological location in the typical service experience.

The extent to which students have the cognitive resources to grapple with some of society’s

more intransigent problems—and whether and how service-learning programs can work to

develop those resources—is discussed. An emphasis on including community members in the

process and how that can assist learning through community involvement ties this article

nicely to the rest of the issue, as does the specific recommendation that students address their

expectations and preconceptions about recipients of help prior to the onset of their service.

Singer, King, Green, and Barr (this issue) report on a group of community action interns

that supplied “Rising to the Occasion” narratives after getting involved in different

communities. Such narratives demonstrate a key benefit to service-learning initiatives—that

students can and do experience personal growth through the often difficult developmental

opportunities with which they are confronted in their community involvement experiences.

Whereas the authors recognize (and demonstrate) that personal growth may be equally likely

as a result of other types of intensive internships, they highlight the explicit linking of this

personal growth with intentions for future community service and increased feelings about

generativity that really distinguishes service-learning students from those in other programs.

Singer et al. suggest that community involvement initiatives have the potential to inspire a

generation to continue to be involved and to shape their communities in the long term,
 Community Involvement 19

providing students (and future activists) with cherished personal narratives to be remembered

and retold for years to come.

Finally, Werner, Voce, Openshaw and Simons (this issue) provide three unique and

differing perspectives (that of a university professor, an elementary school teacher, and two

university students) on a specific service project that involved a group of university and

elementary school students building a nature study center for the elementary school. The

researchers articulate four philosophical principles that organized and motivated the project

and represent an integration of the unique needs of the different constituencies represented by

the authors. These perspectives are in agreement that empowerment of members of the

community (from all constituent groups) is a chief goal of involvement; such empowerment is

seen to be enabled by ensuring that control or autonomy over decision-making and

opportunities to increase efficacy and competence are provided to all. These notions are

derived directly from theories in social and community psychology as well as from actual

hands-on experience. The use of a case study methodology here provides qualitative findings

unavailable from the generalizations common to most social science work.

To close the issue, we invited Clary and Snyder (this issue) to offer a concluding

commentary. They have chosen to focus specifically on what it means to socialize adults to be

involved in their communities as opposed to the usual practice of socializing children. In

doing so, they review the central themes of the articles in this issue and offer a caution—the

promotion of community involvement may not always be as meritorious as is sometimes

suggested optimistically by our authors and others. That is, there are drawbacks and pitfalls

involved in designing service-learning programs and in the social construction of “community

involvement” in general. We agree with these authors that avoiding such pitfalls may be the

key to promoting community involvement and engagement successfully to adults—and

achieving positive outcomes for all involved.

 Community Involvement 20

Conclusion

Taken together, we hope that these articles provide a comprehensive, but not

exhaustive, sampling of some of the most recent trends in community involvement research.

We also hope that they will stimulate readers to think deeply and carefully about the complex

issues presented. Most importantly, though, we hope that research about, understanding of,

and carefully considered engagement in community involvement will be further inspired.

Postscript

The September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States occurred as this issue

was heading to press. As such, the majority of our authors did not have the opportunity to

address the implications of these attacks (and the subsequent increase in prosocial activity in

the US) for their models of community involvement. We agree with Penner (this issue), who

did have a chance to incorporate his thoughts on the legacy of this terrorism, that the

immediate influence of these events is akin to a strong situational intervention that can have

broad impact on helping behavior over the short-term. It remains to be seen whether a lasting

sense of community and sustained community involvement will result from these initial

commitments to prosocial action. We believe, however, that careful attention to (and

application of) the theoretical and empirical points made in this issue may help to make such

sustained involvement a reality.

 Community Involvement 21

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Austin, D. M., & Hasenfeld, Y. (1985). A prefatory essay on the future administration

of human services. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21, 351-364.

Batson, C. D. (1994). Why act for the public good? Four answers. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 603-610.

Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G.

Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 2 (4th ed., pp. 282-316). Boston,

MA: McGraw-Hill.

Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Tsang, J. (2002). Four motives for community

involvement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), xx-xx.

Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C.,

Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a

member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 72, 105-118.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The

terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), xx-xx.

Callero, P. L., Howard, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (1987). Helping behavior as role

behavior: Disclosing social structure and history in the analysis of prosocial action. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 50, 247-256.

Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1991). A functional analysis of altruism and prosocial

behavior: The case of volunteerism. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 119-148).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (2002). Community involvement: Opportunities and

challenges in socializing adults to participate in society. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), xx-

xx.
 Community Involvement 22

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., &

Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional

approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516–1530.

Dunlap, M. R. (1998). Voices of students in multicultural service learning settings.

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 58-67.

Dunlap, M. R. (2000). Reaching out to children and families: Students model effective

community service. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.

Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model

for service-learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community,

and institution. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 66–71.

Eyler, J. (2002). Reflection: Linking service and learning—linking students and

communities. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), xx-xx.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D., Jr. (1997). The importance of program quality in service-

learning. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), Service-learning: Applications from the research (pp. 57–

76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and

volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1108-1120.

Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (1997). Reflection: Bridging the gap between service

and learning. College Teaching, 45, 153–158.

Kendrick, J. R., Jr. (1996). Outcomes of service-learning in an introduction to

sociology course. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 72-81.

Kraft, R. J. (1996). Service learning: An introduction to its theory, practice, and

effects. Education and Urban Society, 28, 131-159.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.

 Community Involvement 23

Markus, G. B., Howard, J., & King, D. C. (1993). Integrating community service and

classroom instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis, 15, 410-419.

McIvor, G. (1992). Sentenced to serve: The operation and impact of community

service by offenders. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

Miller, J. (1997). The impact of service-learning experiences on students’ sense of

power. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 16-21.

Nadler, A. (1991). Help-seeking behavior: Psychological costs and instrumental

benefits. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 290-311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nadler, A. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or

challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues,

58(3), xx-xx.

Nadler, A., & Fisher, J. D. (1986). The role of threat to self-esteem and perceived

control in recipient reactions to aid: Theory development and empirical validation. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 81-123). New

York: Academic Press.

Olsen, M. R. (1986). Integrating formal and informal social care—The utilization of

social support networks. British Journal of Social Work, 16 (supplement), 15-22.

Omoto, A. M., Gunn, D. O., & Crain, A. L. (1998). Helping in hard times:

Relationship closeness and the AIDS volunteer experience. In V. J. Derlega & A. P. Barbee

(Eds.), HIV & social interaction (pp. 106–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation:

Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 671-686.

Owen, D. (1986). Opening address: Social formal and informal patterns of care.

British Journal of Social Work, 16 (supplement), 5-14.

 Community Involvement 24

Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained

volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), xx-xx.

Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. R. (1995). Measuring the

prosocial personality. In J. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality

assessment (Vol. 10). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49,

65-85.

Piliavin, J. A., Grube, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (2002). Role as resource for action in

public service. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), xx-xx.

Rioux, S., & Penner, L. A. (in press). The causes of organizational citizenship

behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology.

Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality

and the Self-Report Altruism Scale. Personality & Individual Differences, 2, 293-302.

Sax, L. J., & Astin, A. W. (1997). The benefits of service: Evidence from

undergraduates. Educational Record, 78, 25-32.

Serow, R. C. (1991). Students and voluntarism: Looking into the motives of

community service participants. American Education Research Journal, 28, 543-556.

Shumer, R. (1997). What research tells us about designing service learning programs.

Nassp Bulletin, 81, 18–24.

Simon, B., Sturmer, S., & Steffens, K. (2000). Helping individuals or group

members? The role of individual and collective identification in AIDS volunteerism.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 497-506.

Singer, J. A., King, L. A., Green, M. C., & Barr, S. C. (2002). Personal identity and

civic responsibility: “Rising to the Occasion” narratives and generativity in community action

student interns. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), xx-xx.

 Community Involvement 25

Snyder, M. (2000, June). Doing good for self and others: Volunteerism and the

psychology of individual and collective action. Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the

Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Minneapolis, MN.

Snyder, M., & Cantor, N. (1998). Understanding personality and social behavior: A

functionalist strategy. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social

psychology: Vol. 1 (4th ed., pp. 635-679). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Snyder, M., Clary, E. G., & Stukas, A. A. (2000). The functional approach to

volunteerism. In G. R. Maio & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes

(pp. 365–393). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sobus, M. S. (1995). Mandating community service: Psychological implications of

requiring prosocial behavior. Law and Psychology Review, 19, 153-182.

Stanton, T. K., Giles, D. E., Jr., & Cruz, N. I. (1999). Service-learning: A movement’s

pioneers reflect on its origins, practice, and future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stukas, A. A., Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). Service learning: Who benefits and

why. Social Policy Report, 13, 1-19.

Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. G. (1999). The effects of “mandatory

volunteerism” on intentions to volunteer. Psychological Science, 10, 59–64.

United Nations General Assembly (2000). Further initiatives for social development.

Resolution (A/RES/S-24/2) adopted at the Special Session of the United Nations General

Assembly, Geneva, 26 June-1 July. Available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/geneva2000/.

Werner, C. M., Voce, R., Openshaw, K. G., & Simons, M. (2002). Designing service-

learning to empower students and community: Jackson Elementary builds a nature study

center. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), xx-xx.

Wittig, M. A., & Bettencourt, B. A. (Eds.). (1996). Social psychological perspectives

on grassroots organizing [Special issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1).

 Community Involvement 26

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996). A developmental perspective on community service

in adolescence. Social Development, 5, 85-111.

Zlotkowski, E. (1998). Successful service-learning programs: New models of

excellence in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker, Inc.

 Community Involvement 27

Author Biographies

Arthur A. Stukas (Ph.D., University of Minnesota) recently moved from the USA to

Melbourne, Australia, to take up a lectureship in social psychology at La Trobe University's

School of Psychological Science. Previously, he served as an assistant professor in the

Department of Psychology at the University of Northern Colorado and as a postdoctoral

research associate at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. His research interests focus

on the personal and situational factors that underlie value-expression and goal-directed

behavior, including such varied behaviors as volunteerism and community involvement,

organ and tissue donation, principled stands against prejudice, and active disconfirmation of

erroneous interpersonal expectations. He is a member of the Society for the Psychological

Study of Social Issues, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the Society of

Australasian Social Psychologists, and the American Psychological Society.

Michelle R. Dunlap (Ph.D., University of Florida) is a social psychologist who

specializes in social and personality development as an associate professor of human

development at Connecticut College. She has served in various professional capacities with

the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), the Association for Women in

Psychology (AWP), Campus Compact, the New England Psychological Association (NEPA),

and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI). She has written

extensively about college students working in urban community settings, intergroup relations,

and multicultural child-rearing issues. She is author of Reaching Out to Children and

Families: Students Model Effective Community Service, and coeditor of the forthcoming

book, Charting a New Course for Feminist Psychology.

View publication stats