of community building (Chavis, 2000; Nowell &. Boyd, 2010; Townley ... guiding community building are thus framed by par- ...... doâin relation to the construction of manhood) has been ..... Health Assets Programme Conference, Cape Town,.
Chapter 13
RV
ED
Community Building: Challenges of Constructing Community
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
the development of individuals, and highlighted the need to understand how people and social systems affect one another. Other perspectives (e.g., critical theory) reveal different assumptions about how change occurs, and therefore focus on other strategies. The concept and key principles and values guiding community building are thus framed by particular ideologies and paradigms, which influence the way community building is practiced. This chapter focuses on identifying and understanding key principles and values of community building, how these relate to dominant approaches to community building, and how these “lenses” guide research and practice. A central thrust of this chapter is to highlight the importance of recognizing our location within particular paradigms and therefore ways of seeing and being within community psychology. Although different perspectives are acknowledged, we emphasize a critical community psychology perspective, providing a particular critique of and contribution to community building. We begin with a discussion of key concepts and definitions. This is followed by an overview of historical trends highlighted in relevant literature on community building, with a particular emphasis on developments in community psychology and social work which constitute the main disciplines and areas of practice contributing to community building theories and practice. The main perspectives underpinning community building initiatives are then identified and explained, and linked to key principles and values of community building. This is followed by a selected literature review focusing
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
SS
Community psychology has played a key role in contributing to both understandings and practices of community building (Chavis, 2000; Nowell & Boyd, 2010; Townley, Kloos, Green, & Franco, 2011). Community building has been presented as an important strategy to operationalize the values of community psychology, particularly as a focus for addressing social issues such as violence and disorder, drug abuse, and poverty, and for promoting social justice and basic human rights, and the health and well-being of all people (McNeely, 1999; Nowell & Boyd, 2010; Townley et al., 2011; Weil, 1996; Yuanzhu, 2008). Community building promotes social transformation and a sense of agency and responsibility; fosters citizen and political participation; improves social structures; creates economic, vocational, and educational opportunities; supports families and youth; develops community spirit and consciousness; and fosters a “sense of community” and connectedness (Austin, 2005; Bettez, 2011; Mannani & Fedi, 2009; Ridings et al., 2008; Townley et al., 2011). Community building constitutes an important approach to systemic and social change (Rappaport, Alegría, Mulvaney-Day, & Boyle, 2008). Social change is, however, recognized as being an ambiguous and complex concept (Sarason, 2000), with the way in which we view the “person in society” influencing our assumptions as well as the way in which we approach change. For example, Kelly, Ryan, Altman, and Stelzner (2000), in discussing the ecological approach to change, emphasized the need to change systems to have a positive impact on
H
TS
RE
SE
Sandy Lazarus, Mohamed Seedat, and Tony Naidoo
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14954-013 APA Handbook of Community Psychology: Vol. 2. Methods for Community Research and Action for Diverse Groups and Issues, M. A. Bond, I. Serrano-García, and C. B. Keys (Editors-in-Chief) Copyright © 2017 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
215
Lazarus, Seedat, and Naidoo
an undifferentiated identity, with an emphasis on unity, spontaneity, reasoning and cohesion. For example, Bettez (2011) argue that an understanding of community as the experience of belonging, with an emphasis on harmony, consensus, and agreement, is a self-centered approach. Bettez and others (e.g., Nowell & Boyd, 2010; Townley et al., 2011) noted that community is an individualistic and collective concept, meeting the needs of individuals as well as providing an opportunity for promoting responsibility and contributing to the well-being of all. Several authors (e.g., Bettez, 2011; Mannani & Fedi, 2009; Seedat & Lazarus, 2011; Townley et al., 2011) have also argued that the goal of harmony, unity and sameness usually embedded in understandings of community is overly optimistic. Chavis (2000) defined community development as “the machinery for the bottom-up approach to social change” (p. 770), which can promote personal growth and enhance the community. Chavis referred to a set of criteria relating to community development, including stimulating opportunities for membership so that people can have influence over their community, having needs met, and developing and sharing emotional ties and support. These core aspects constitute what McMillan and Chavis (1986) referred to as a psychological sense of community. Community psychology’s contribution to community building theory and practice has been strongly represented through the development of the concept of sense of community (SOC) which refers to the strength of bonding among community members, including aspects such as cohesion and attachment (McMillan, 2011; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). There has been a great deal of debate around the work of McMillan and Chavis (1986), with Nowell and Boyd (2010) recently levelling a strong critique of their approach. Nowell and Boyd argued that the theory of SOC is simplistic, overemphasizes satisfaction of individual physiological or psychological needs and excludes responsibility. McMillan (2011) is therefore criticized for only seeing community as a resource for people (to meet needs of affiliation, power and affection) rather than as an entity toward which people feel responsible to engage and support one another. Nowell and Boyd
SE
RV
ED
on research and practice in the area of community building, in which insights and experiences from various countries and contexts are discussed. The key principles and values of community building identified earlier are then used as a framework for discussing one promising practice in South Africa. We conclude with suggestions for future directions for community building practice.
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
TS
H
G
RI
LL
.A
N
TI O
CI A
O
SS
L
A
This discussion is predicated on the understanding that there is no one way of defining the central concepts linked to this focus on community building (Bullen, 2007), that definitions are linked to particular perspectives and paradigms, and that these terms can be put into different relationships with one another. We will draw attention to these aspects in the discussion, and indicate our preferences in the usage of particular terms. Definitions of community usually make reference to constituent common component elements (e.g., individuals, physical contexts, activities) as well as to processes that occur among the components (including psychological, social, and cultural aspects; Townley et al., 2011). Mannani and Fedi (2009) emphasized both the tangible physical entity and the relational and affective aspects whereas Townley et al. (2011) referred to Tonnies’s wellknown distinction between gemeinschaft (the communal solidarity of preindustrial village life) and gesellschaft (instrumental relationships to pursue individual goals). Volume 1, Chapter 13 of this handbook provides an in-depth analysis of this multifaceted concept, through the identification of seven core dimensions: psychological–emotional, relational, action, time–space, motivational, cultural, and social identity. Despite this conceptual diversity, community psychologists often use this concept without questioning its implicit ambiguity and complexity, particularly in the context of modernization and globalization (Bettez, 2011; Mannani & Fedi, 2009; Seedat & Lazarus, 2011; Townley et al., 2011). Critiques of the different meanings of this concept have been raised by many who argue that the main problem is the assumption that community implies
RE
Key Concepts and Definitions
216
Community Building
RE
Historical Perspective
SE
RV
ED
built on reciprocity, interaction and mutual respect, the inclusion of a participatory approach and a mutual decision-making process helping to address imbalances, with collaborators (who may include university staff, service providers to communities, community role players, and students) recognizing the value that each partner brings to the relationship (Strier, 2011).
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
H
TS
Community psychology has made a major contribution to our understanding of community building. In particular, Sarason’s perspective on the creation of settings (1972) provided us with useful insight into the early history of community psychology as it applies to community building in the United States. Sarason noted the dramatic increase in new social programs in the United States after World War II, with a focus on creating new settings, including new mini-societies (like communes), to move toward some form of utopia. During the 1960s mental health professions experienced a growing urge for change, with service-delivery approaches being focused on the development of comprehensive community mental health centers to reach underserved communities. In tracing the history of community building within social work community practice, Weil (1996) has referred to social work’s two major areas of community practice, linked to particular historical trends. One branch of this practice emerged from the settlement movement in social work, and involved direct community work focusing on organizing, social planning, and economic and social development. The other main branch, growing out of the charity organization or societies, focused on interorganizational work for the purposes of providing services to communities. Austin (2005) also highlighted these two trends. She referred to the late 1880s and early 1900s in the United States where settlement house workers worked with immigrant communities to address social and economic inequities. Within this context the interdependence of the community and families was recognized, and, during the 1930s, the government came closer to families by providing social
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
SS
(2010) argued for an alternative lens: “a normative sense of responsibility for the well-being of the community” (p. 837). McMillan’s (2011) response to Nowell and Boyd’s critique is that responsibility is built into the main domains of SOC, and that there is a need for “third position thinking” to undo false dichotomies between the logic of responsibility versus the logic of individual needs. Chavis (2000) stated that recent strategies in the field of community development which focus on addressing the social, economic, physical, and political needs of a community are often called community-building initiatives and that community development is often used interchangeably with community building, reflecting a historical shift toward the latter term (Bullen, 2007; Chavis, 2000). Community building, a term that cuts across several disciplines, is a concept that is used to unite common successful threads, including drawing on individual and collective assets, mobilizing community residents to address concrete issues, sustaining community members’ participation, expanding their capacity, and promoting positive connections between individuals, groups and organizations within communities (Bullen, 2007; McNeely, 1999; Ridings et al., 2008; Weil, 1996). In the Chinese context, Yuanzhu (2008), a sociologist, talked about community spirit as being the essence of community, and that community building is aimed at cultivating community consciousness or spirit. Yuanzhu argued that this should be linked to addressing social problems, especially those of an economic nature. Finally, and relevant to this discussion, is the concept of community engagement which is used in higher education contexts as an umbrella term to include various activities pursued in partnership with local communities (Lazarus, Taliep, Bulbulia, Phillips, & Seedat, 2012; Seedat, 2012). Universities and communities are increasingly forming partnerships to address various social needs while offering students the opportunity to engage in community or civic activities, gain practical experience and link theory to practice in their specific field of study (Göransson, Maharajh, & Schmoch, 2009; Suárez-Balcázar, Harper, & Lewis, 2005). A central requirement is that the partnership should be
217
Lazarus, Seedat, and Naidoo
SS
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
H
TS
RE
SE
RV
ED
perspectives can be and have been used in the resistance to legislation (e.g., resistance to laws implementing Apartheid policies) which has led to the use of alternative structures and spaces. The emergence of community psychology in South Africa was one response to the government’s oppressive policies and actions (Seedat & Lazarus, 2011). This brief historical journey has highlighted a common trend in the history of community building that appears to cross geographical boundaries. It seems that direct community work, with an emphasis on community empowerment around social and economic inequities, was more evident in the earlier part of the 20th century, with underserved or marginalized communities being a particular focus for interventions. In the latter part of the last century, and still evident today, is a clear move toward interorganizational work and collaborative partnerships, with an emphasis on working with social networks and social capital to build communities. This move reflects a movement away from problems toward identifying and working with community strengths and assets. These trends should be considered in the light of the theoretical frameworks that are briefly outlined in the following section.
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
grants. In 1964, the “war on poverty” was declared, and community participation was seen as a new avenue for the provision of services, although it was limited by reduced funding. In the 1980s the prevention and intervention programs that had emerged over the previous two decades were viewed as inadequate as they often did not involve communities or work with community assets. In the 1990s the focus was on investing in community stakeholders to build communities, with an emphasis on the development of collaborative relationships. The emphasis in recent years has been on the expansion of social networks through community building. These historical trends in community building initiatives in the United States are evident in other national contexts too. For example, Bullen (2007) refers to the history of community development within Australia, stating that in the 1960s and 1970s community development had a political action orientation, often associated with social movements. In the 1980s community development reflected a “community self-help” philosophy. With the rise of economic rationalism in the 1980s and 1990s, the government’s support of community development decreased, although there was some support from the national government for building grassroots organizations for and with people with disabilities. In the late 1990s, there was a re-focus on community, particularly through social capital being put on the policy agenda. This led to the new language of community building and community capacity building. There has also been a move toward community engagement in government circles in that context. It is important to note that changing the term does not always reflect a change in internal content. There is a tendency for those in power, and those resisting power, to “colonize” or coopt certain terms for their own benefit. South Africa provides an important example of how this cooptation has occurred in recent history, with the Apartheid government specifically using the term community development to formally enact race divisions for separate development. This segregation is an example of how a community approach to development can be hijacked by governments to implement particular policies. The South African case also highlights how these very same concepts and 218
Theoretical Frameworks It is clear from the previous discussion on the key concepts linked to community building, and the way in which community building has developed over time, that there are different approaches, reflecting different paradigms, which inform the operationalization of community building. In this section, we discuss two dominant perspectives: a critical perspective and an ecological approach. Although not discussed here, it is important to note that community building is also informed by other perspectives and sets of theories. For example, cultural theories, which particularly address issues of human diversity and cultural relativity (e.g., Townley et al., 2011), and behaviourism (see Sarason, 1972). Given our particular lenses, and given the broader social and political macrocontexts within which communities and community building are situated, an overview of a critical approach to community psychology, and community building more
Community Building
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
H
TS
RE
SE
RV
ED
literature, which could be a reflection of one of the main shortcomings of this approach: putting theory into practice. The ecological perspective, often used to guide community building strategies (see Kelly et al., 2000; Ohmer, 2010), focuses on understanding and working with the ‘person-in-context’, and assumes that the community system impacts on and influences human development, with the concept of interdependence being central. Kelly and colleagues (2000) highlighted that this perspective helps one understand the interrelationships of social structures and social processes of groups, organizations, and communities. The concept of structure includes personal resource potentials, social system resources, social settings, and system boundaries, whereas process includes reciprocity, networking, boundary spanning, and adaption. Kelly and colleagues argued that these eight concepts should guide the implementation of interventions. The ecological approach provides a basis for holistic understanding and comprehensive multilevel action, which is recognized as being important for any intervention aimed at community or social change (Naidoo & van Wyk, 2003). However, this broad-based approach often creates a sense of being overwhelmed, and raises the challenge of working intersectorally, and drawing from different disciplines and professions. A further critique of this approach, particularly when it is linked to systems theories, is that an artificial separation between levels is created when trying to understand and respond to complex social issues. This is so, despite the point made by Bronfenbrenner (1979) that these system influences are viewed as being nested, interdependent, and reciprocal in nature. Although both the critical and ecological perspectives focus on “the person in context”, the way in which this relationship is understood varies. The dynamic nature of this relationship, and the way in which social structure constitutes the personal, are generally not adequately addressed in systems and ecological theories, whereas the role, use, and effect of power is often ignored. The role of critical historical analyses, which includes consideration of past and present forms of colonialism, and the ultimate goal of social justice, are also not at the forefront
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
SS
specifically, will be foregrounded. Ratele, Suffla, Lazarus, and van Niekerk (2010) highlighted the following key characteristics of a critical approach: adoption of a human rights perspective; focusing on actively transforming society, with social justice as a central goal; utilizing a historical and contextual approach to understand persons in context; focusing on various issues of power and oppression, with a particular emphasis on racial, class, and gender dynamics, and inclusion of analyses of colonialism; and engaging with and mainstreaming marginalized voices, including indigenous and communityembedded knowledges (see also Kagan, Burton, Duckett, Lawthom, & Siddiquee, 2011; Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2010; Watkins & Shulman, 2008). Bettez (2011), in her critical approach to community building, advocated for critical communities which are defined as “interconnected, porously bordered, shifting webs of people who through dialogue, active listening, and critical questioning assist each other in thinking through issues of power, oppression, and privilege” (p. 109). A critical community building approach provides troubling knowledge, builds support networks, promotes a sense of agency and responsibility, and questions dominant norms and goals, particularly around issues of power, oppression, and privilege (see Bettez, 2011). The process of reflexivity is considered to be central to critically-oriented community building. Theories relating to empowerment and self- and collective efficacy are often drawn on in critical community building. Ohmer (2010) describes selfefficacy as a person’s self-judgment about his or her capabilities to organize and execute actions to achieve desired goals, arguing that residents who believe in their capabilities are more likely to exercise some control over their lives. Citizen participation is directly linked to this capacity-building of residents’ sense of personal control and empowerment (Ohmer, 2010). The promising practice discussed in some detail at the end of this chapter provides one example of research and practice that reflects a critical perspective to community building. It is interesting to note that there are not many examples of critical community building interventions in community building
219
Lazarus, Seedat, and Naidoo
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
H
TS
RE
Drawing on Austin’s (2005) work on the Child Welfare Think Tank (U.S.), key principles and values of community building could be categorized into three clusters: (a) cross-system collaboration which is integrated, comprehensive, and holistic; (b) a community-based strengths orientation which focuses on assets, capacity building and mobilizing community resources; and (c) brokering and building local power through strong institutional partnerships (see Figure 13.1). Collaboration as used here includes the building of and working together of various partnerships, coalitions, and networks for the purposes of developing a holistic understanding of and comprehensive and focused response to community building. Many authors argue that fostering collaboration, developing coalitions, creating networks, and developing social capital are all central to community building (McNeely, 1999; Yuanzhu, 2008). A strengths-orientation within community building, which includes the identification and mobilization of community assets, drawing on community views, knowledge and wisdom, and focusing on positive points of leverage to facilitate change, is considered to be a central principle of community building (Rappaport et al., 2008; Ridings et al., 2008; Townley et al., 2011). However, the need for community building to include a focus on addressing social and community needs and issues is also recognized. Linked to a strengths approach is the focus on developing a sense of community or a community spirit, including social cohesion, which is considered to be a central thrust in community building (Lindblad, Manturuk, & Quercia, 2012; McMillan, 2011; Nowell & Boyd, 2010). Another related principle focuses on being inclusive, with the importance of recognizing differences and diversity being emphasized by Bettez (2011). Townley and
SS
L
A
IC
G
LO
O
PS Y CH
CA N
ER I
M
A
17
20 ©
220
RV SE
Key Principles and Values of Community Building
ED
negotiations and planning, it is important that we identify and embody the relevant principles and values to guide our collective practices. In the next section, key principles and values emerging from the literature on community building are outlined.
A
of community building interventions guided by ecological frameworks. Furthermore, one of the main principles of ecological theory, that of adaptation, emphasizes the adaptation of the individual to the environment which implicitly suggests that the power held by the state be accepted rather than critically addressed. This is in contrast to a critical perspective which focuses on fostering troubling knowledge through active listening and critical questioning, with the often resulting conflict being seen as a positive rather than negative dynamic. Additionally, the tendency of approaches that draw on systems theories to foreground the belief that it is possible to predict and control social dynamics, through systems management, is problematic, as it lends itself to social engineering of communities, often to suit the needs of those in power. Despite this critique, and the apparent differences between these approaches, it is important to note that there are some common principles which cut across these perspectives on community building. Both approaches emphasize interconnections, collaboration, and the need to build support networks and work with webs of people. Both approaches also emphasize the importance of fostering citizen and community participation, with a focus on promoting self- and collective efficacy. It is also important to note that researchers and practitioners often draw from more than one paradigm and set of theories, using a “bricolage” or eclectic approach (Guba & Lincoln, 2005), combining different aspects to construct meaning, and providing an opportunity to address the weaknesses of all theories and recognize the value of different perspectives. The promising practice discussed at the end of this chapter reflects such an approach. Such an integrated approach reflects the complexities of theorizing about communities and their nested levels of interdependent influences. How do the key issues of the different approaches to community building influence our thinking on and practice of community building? The central challenge, we believe, is to be critical and reflexive: to examine (and re-examine) our assumptions and to locate our own position within the process. Having clarified our worldview and theoretical stance, and made this visible in all relevant
Community Building
Fostering community participation
Supporting diversity and cultural relativity
Building leadership
SE Promoting agency
TS
Drawing on community knowledges
Supporting self-and collective efficacy
H
Fostering collaboration, developing coalitions, creating networks, and building social capital
ED
Mobilizing community strengths and assets
RE
Comprehensive, holistic, and integrated approach
Building Local Power
RV
Strengths Orientation
Collaboration
RI LL
Capacity building
.A
Addressing social and community needs
G
Fostering belonging and connectedness, and promoting social cohesion
CI A
TI O
N
Fostering a sense of responsibility
SS
O
Figure 13.1. Key principles and values of community building.
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
colleagues (2011) emphasized the need to work with opposing forces, valuing, embracing and using differences, and putting difference and polarities to good use. The third set of values and principles outlined in Figure 13.1 focuses on various aspects of empowerment as it has been defined and explored within community psychology (e.g., Zimmerman, 2000; see also Volume 1, Chapter 10, this handbook, and Chapter 11, this volume). This cluster of values and principles includes centralizing community involvement (Yuanzhu, 2008) and fostering and sustaining community participation (Mannani & Fedi, 2009; McNeely, 1999; Nowell & Boyd, 2010). The need to build local power, supporting self-reliance and self- and collective efficacy, has also been identified by many (Austin, 2005; McNeely, 1999; Ohmer, 2010), with the promotion of agency being considered to be particularly important (Bettez, 2011; Rappaport et al., 2008). Fostering a sense of responsibility and accountability in community building has also been emphasized (see Bettez, 2011; Omiunu & Omoruyi, 2012). Such fostering includes the need to reframe views, helping community to see
themselves differently, and moving from a position of dependence to one of responsibility and empowerment. Processes of empowerment include various forms of capacity building, of both professionals and communities, which have been recognized as being important in community building (Mohamad et al., 2012). Those who draw on critical theories to inform community building emphasize the importance of addressing issues of power, oppression and privilege, including self-reflexivity (Bettez, 2011; Lazarus, Duran, Caldwell, & Bulbulia, 2012). This includes addressing racism, cultivating cultural humility, and being ongoing learners within community building processes (Rappaport et al., 2008). In Figure 13.1, particular principles or values identified in the literature on community building have been linked to each of the three main areas previously discussed. It is important to note that a critical approach to community building, emphasized in this chapter, would underscore the following principles and values, which may, in some instances, create conflicts with some of the other principles identified previously: (a) giving primacy to the goal of 221
Lazarus, Seedat, and Naidoo
RV
SE
RE
TS
H
LL
.A
N
TI O
CI A
O
SS A
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
In this section we briefly review examples of community building initiatives that reflect the main approaches and key principles and values discussed previously. It should be noted that this selected review is limited to a few examples of community building initiatives, with a more detailed engagement with key principles and issues being explored in the promising practice example later on in this chapter. It should also be noted that many projects do not indicate their specific paradigmatic positioning, often include aspects of more than one approach, and focus on more than one set of values and principles. This complexity makes it difficult to accurately categorize the projects described in the following section. The first set of initiatives focuses primarily on collaboration, with a particular focus on coalition building, and building social capital. The second set of projects focuses on a strengths orientation, including the identification and utilization of community assets and resources, with a particular emphasis on leveraging sport to promote a sense of community. Finally, we refer to two community building strategies that focus particularly on promoting local power through community participation.
RI
G
Research and Practice
Promoting Collaboration Collaboration appears to be a common strategy among many programs. In this section we look at three initiatives. The first program focuses on community coalition building through the Communities 222
That Care (CTC) model (see Gomez, Greenberg, & Feinberg, 2005; Hawkins, 1999; HernándezCordero, Ortiz, Trinidad, & Link, 2011). The next initiative focuses on building social capital to address substance abuse in one community (Hughey & Speer, 2002). The final example focuses on the development of university–community partnerships (Naidoo & van Wyk, 2003; Pieterse, Howitt, & Naidoo, 2011). The CTC model is a rigorously evaluated interdisciplinary coalition-based community prevention system, guided by a social development model of community intervention which has been implemented in many contexts. Most of these initiatives have focused on identifying factors that promote or prevent adolescent problem behaviours, including substance abuse and violence. The CTC theory of change focuses on coalition processes and the development of collaborative partnerships within communities to enable communities to implement action. The model focuses on community mobilization and training to promote community empowerment. The CTC model, which uses a multilevel approach to service coordination, includes five stages: (a) community mobilization and creation of a prevention board, (b) assessment of risk factors, (c) prioritization of risk factors, (d) selection and implementation of evidence-based programs to address these priority risk factors, and (e) ongoing monitoring of outcomes and changes. Evaluation studies have revealed that the main lessons from this work emphasize the importance of community readiness, a working partnership, and good project management and coordination. The CTC initiative reflects many of the values and principles identified in the previous section (see Figure 13.1), with a particular focus on the first cluster which focuses on the development of partnerships to provide comprehensive programs that focus on all levels of the system—reflecting an ecological view of social change. This approach emphasizes the development of coalitions as a strategy for social change, with an emphasis on community mobilization and empowerment. There is therefore clearly an emphasis on the third cluster of values and principles which focus on the promotion of local power.
ED
transformation for social justice; (b) identifying and mobilizing around social needs, with a particular emphasis on any form of inequity; (c) addressing issues of power, oppression and privilege, with an emphasis on promoting agency; (d) providing opportunities for self-reflexivity; and (e) drawing on community-embedded knowledge within an active listening and critical questioning framework. Adherence to these “critical” principles and values could act as an antidote to prevent the misuse of community building methods, as mentioned previously in this chapter.
Community Building
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
H
TS
RE
SE
RV
ED
The last program constituting a focus in this section on collaboration is reported on by Naidoo and van Wyk (2003) who described the development, implementation and adaptation of a university–community interaction project in Jamestown, South Africa, which evolved in response to a request for psychological services at the primary health clinic. Guided by a conceptual model of mental health intervention, and drawing from several overlapping and inclusive conceptual and theoretical frameworks (including community psychology perspectives and community-based participative action research), several multilevel interventions were developed at the primary health clinic, local schools, and in the broader community addressing the identified needs within the setting. Innovative youth development programs were designed with local residents receiving training as mentors (Pieterse et al., 2011). Through initial joint planning and training, community volunteers have developed capacity to run youth programs, program graduates have returned to become mentors, and the project has evolved into a nonprofit organization with local residents at the helm. Despite many success stories within this initiative, this project has highlighted the need to engage actively with power differentials linked to university–community partnerships.
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
SS
The concept of social capital is central to many community building initiatives (see Saegert, 2006), and is directly linked to asset approaches and the way in which SOC has been developed within community psychology. Social capital refers to a process whereby people gain access to resources through interacting with others in a social network (Austin, 2005). Townley et al. (2011) referred to Putman’s definition of social capital as pertaining to networks, norms and trust that enable participants to act together to pursue shared objectives. Two central concepts within social capital are bonding and bridging: Although bonding creates ties to increase emotional support and belonging within groups, bridging allows for the creation of links and mobility between groups. Volume 1, Chapter 14 of this handbook refers to the use of this concept within community psychology and community sociology. Townley et al. (2011) recognize that social capital can be defined in different ways, informed by different perspectives and theories, but that most seminal definitions conceptualize it as a property of social networks, with members both benefitting and contributing in an effort to pursue and achieve personal and collective goals. Townley and colleagues (2011) referred to a project (Hughey & Speer, 2002) which was aimed at strengthening bridging capital to address substance abuse in one community in the United States. This project drew from social psychology and cultural theoretical perspectives to address sense of community and diversity tensions. Social capital was used as a frame for addressing the community-diversity dialectic, balancing the need for sense of community with the benefits of human diversity. The project used a social network analysis to note gaps and strengths and to build relationships and increase connections between groups and community members. The researchers facilitated and improved the bridging of connections between the police and the community, including the Mayor who made local government resources for community policing available. The success of coalition building and the building of social capital to address community issues in this project was linked to the uncovering of and working creatively with differences and polarities that exist between subcommunities.
Strengths-Based Approaches In this section we review two initiatives which reflect and emphasize a strengths approach to community building (see Figure 13.1). This includes an overview of community asset mapping projects (Kramer, Amos, Lazarus, & Seedat, 2012) and a focus on the role of sports in building a sense of community (Warner, Dixon, & Chalip, 2012). An asset-based model assumes that untapped skills can be found if communities are approached from an asset or strengths perspective, and proposes that communities should be assisted to define and mobilize their assets to address needs and enhance well-being (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). Kramer and colleagues (2012) referred to community asset mapping as a process of documenting the tangible and intangible resources of a community through the lens of the community as a place with strengths or assets. They argued that an asset-based approach 223
Lazarus, Seedat, and Naidoo
SS
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
H
TS
RE
SE
RV
ED
administrative decisions, leadership, social spaces, and voluntary action. The authors argued that sports draw people together and thereby created community. Sports also provided an opportunity for leadership development and action, which is a central factor in building SOC, but the success of sports as a strategy for community building was dependent on how they are structured and managed. Keim (2006), drawing on her experiences of sports programs in South Africa, also referred to the important role of sports in community development and peace building. She highlighted the following advantages of sports as a channel for community building: (a) they provide a non-verbal means of communication (important in diverse language communities); (b) sports’ occasions provide opportunities for collective experiences and direct physical contact; (c) they provide a medium for transcending social class and race divisions; (d) they can be used as an instrument of culture building; and (e) sports constitute an important strategy for healing, considered important in the context of historical trauma linked to structural violence (e.g., Apartheid in South Africa). Although it is evident that sports, particularly team sports, can play a positive role in promoting health, education, development, and peace, they can also create several obstacles that may undermine their utility as a development and community building strategy: lack of adequate resources, competition among stakeholders for limited funding, insufficient monitoring and evaluation to gauge the effectiveness of programs, the increasing cost of participating in sport and excessive focus on sport for the talented, regional imbalances, and an undeveloped sports and physical education infrastructure (Beutler, 2008).
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
provides communities with an opportunity to reframe themselves as being inherently resourceful, resilient, and cohesive. This constructive framing, as argued by Shaw and McKay of the Chicago School of Sociology in the early 1900s, is based on the belief that the community is the cause and the cure of its problems (Keys, 1987). A strengths and asset-based approach is built into many community building initiatives. Five community asset mapping programs, described in some detail by Kramer et al. (2012), include the following: Asset-Based Community Development; Participatory Inquiry Into Religious Health Assets, Networks, and Agency; Community Health Assets Mapping for Partnerships; Sustainable Livelihoods Approach; Planning for Real; and approaches using Geographic Information Systems. Kramer, Seedat, Lazarus, and Suffla’s (2011) critical analysis of these programs revealed the effectiveness of an assetbased approach, including its importance within community building because this approach meets the criteria of inclusiveness, colearning, collaboration, capacity building, equity, responsiveness, sustainability, and empowerment. However, Kramer et al. cautioned against reading this perspective as an exclusion of needs, which are often used as the basis for community action. Drawing from a critical perspective, Kramer and colleagues also argued that this approach is underpinned by specific assumptions of community which may mask the significance of conflict and competition, and underemphasize the complex nature of community dynamics. One other project that could be used as an example of a strengths approach, with a particular focus on the role of sports in building a sense of community in the United States, was reported on by Warner et al. (2012). Warner and colleagues’ (2012) aim was to examine sports participants’ experiences of sense of community in two different sports systems on university campuses in the United States. In this study, eight focus groups were conducted with 39 sports participants representing 19 different sports in university settings. The results highlight seven factors that appear to be important in building a sense of community: administrative consideration, common interest, competition, equity in 224
Building Local Power Through Community Participation Ohmer (2010) referred to research that reveals the direct link between participation and the development of personal control and empowerment. In this section, we briefly examine two initiatives that have focused primarily on promoting participation in particular communities, for the purposes of building local power (Omiunu & Omoruyi, 2012; Ridings et al., 2008). This links directly with the
Community Building
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
H
TS
RE
SE
RV
ED
development. Their study, emerging out of a need to address local citizens’ notion that community development is the government’s responsibility, investigated the most appropriate measure for ensuring sustained community development participation. A questionnaire survey was conducted with the adult populace (600 respondents) from 12 communities in three local areas in Edo State, Nigeria. Participants’ responses revealed strong support for a variety of measures to increase community participation; very high agreement with the view that attitudinal reorientation of local people can influence the level of participation, and a high agreement that increased awareness can influence the level of local participation in community development. From these findings, Omiunu and Omoruyi (2012), from the education faculty at the University of Benin in Nigeria, highlighted the importance of motivation and attitudinal reorientation in community building. Principles and strategies guiding their work include education, leadership, capacity building, partnerships and collaboration, and participatory methodologies. They argued that community development (building) should empower people through capacity building and partnerships to promote self-reliance. Participation should focus primarily on ensuring that residents are involved in decision-making processes in the planning, implementation and evaluation of community initiatives. Specific strategies used to increase participation highlighted by the authors include sensitizing and conscientizing, selfhelp, networking, publicizing local initiatives, using grassroots participatory approaches, inclusion in policy formulation, and motivation. These authors highlight that needs should be both identified and addressed, and that successful experiences are important. They argue for the importance of ensuring that the citizenry see community development as an internal process initiated by the people themselves, and not as government’s duty.
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
SS
third cluster of values and principles presented in Figure 13.1. The first initiative is a planning and evaluation project that used concept mapping to promote community building in an African American context in Chicago, IL (Ridings et al., 2008). The aim of this program, driven by a large not-for-profit organization, was to strengthen and develop African youth, particularly men. The concept mapping strategy, based on the work of Kane and Trochim (2007), aimed to build local power through optimal community participation, with a focus on active engagement of community members to change problematic conditions and influence policies and programs that affected their lives. The strategy adopted constituted an integrated approach that included brainstorming, statement analysis and synthesis, unstructured sorting of statements, multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis, and generation of interpretable maps and data. This was a process which followed steps to develop initial, intermediate, and long-term priority outcomes to develop programs. Key principles that guided this process included facilitating understanding and the value of the program, building on assets within families and communities, and utilizing methods to promote participation. Strengths of this model included a structured process that facilitated collaboration, the provision of evidence in the process of prioritizing issues, as well as generating community ownership and facilitating community participation. Challenges experienced included lack of direct involvement from donors and legislators, difficulties around the use of outcomes in program building, and the need for more time to execute the project optimally. Lessons highlight the importance of conducting stakeholder analyses to bring in the appropriate resources to address issues, the need to create a holding environment to facilitate sharing, and the need to continuously share results and get feedback from the community. In a second project, Omiunu and Omoruyi (2012) discussed community development participation for sustainable development in Nigeria. As with the example discussed previously, this project focused on participation of target populations in development activities, which is argued as being a central strategy for promoting local control and
One Promising Practice: CommunityBased Participatory Research as a Strategy for Building Community Rappaport et al. (2008), reporting on a review of community-based participatory research (CBPR), 225
Lazarus, Seedat, and Naidoo
SS
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
H
TS
RE
SE
RV
ED
a specific focus for safety and peace promotion out of a recognition that masculinity (a set of beliefs and expectations about what men should and should not do—in relation to the construction of manhood) has been identified as a major risk area (Lazarus et al., 2011), with direct links being found between violence and the way that manhood or masculinities are constructed. Focusing on positive aspects of masculinities to promote safety and peace is recognized as being a potentially powerful protective factor to address violence (Barker & Ricardo, 2005). The main research question of this project is this: How can the mobilization of community assets, with a focus on spiritual capacity and religious assets, promote safety and peace, particularly through the promotion of positive forms of masculinity, in a local low-income community in South Africa? The SCRATCHMAPS project team comprises community psychologists with particular expertise in safety, peace and health promotion research, research interns, and community members. Two local community structures were established to manage and conduct the SCRATCHMAPS research in the local community in the Western Cape: an advisory committee (comprising community leaders and members, and service providers), and a community research team (including ten local residents, all of whom are un- or underemployed, representing both genders, half of whom are considered to be youth). The local community is situated in the Helderberg Basin in the province of the Western Cape in South Africa. There are roughly 164 houses and approximately twice as many backyard dwellings in this low-income community. The residents are mostly Afrikaans speaking, and were previously categorized as “colored” by the Apartheid regime. More than half of the residents are younger than 40 years old, have a high percentage of low educational levels, and almost half of the population earn an income that is considered to be below the poverty line. Although there have been housing and other forms of social service interventions in this community, initiatives have been fragmented, and currently the community is struggling to survive. The SCRATCHMAPS research design, which formally spans a 5-year period (2011–2015) includes the following phases: (a) preparation,
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
argued that CBPR methods are an effective means of developing and integrating sustainable interventions, including community building, helping to build partnerships, combining knowledge and action, and developing sustainable interventions. Despite these positive claims, these authors highlighted that there is limited evidence bearing on the mechanisms by which community building is successfully achieved, and the ingredients for successfully building collaborations for the purposes of building community. The promising practice, described in some detail in the following section, responds to this challenge, providing an example of this strategy for community building. In this section we describe the Spiritual Capacity and Religious Assets for Transforming Community Health Through Mobilizing Males for Peace and Safety (SCRATCHMAPS) project to illustrate the principles of community building in action. Drawing on the discussion on theoretical frameworks, and using the framework outlined in the section on key community building values and principles in this chapter, we focus on how key principles have been operationalized, highlight positive aspects of this process, note and discuss challenges that have emerged, and share how these have been addressed. Where possible, examples give flesh to the case description.
PS Y CH
O
Description of Project Aims, Objectives, and Methodology
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
SCRATCHMAPS arose out of a recognition of the context of high levels of violence in South Africa (Seedat, van Niekerk, Jewkes, Suffla, & Ratele, 2009), and the overrepresentation of men as both perpetrators and victims of violence globally (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002; Lazarus, Tonsing, Ratele, & van Niekerk, 2011). The focus on mobilizing spiritual capacity and religious assets to promote safety and peace in this context arose out of recognition that religion and spirituality are relatively unexplored resources for addressing social problems, including violence prevention, in general, and in the South African context (African Religious Health Assets Programme, 2006; Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; Lazarus, Seedat, & Naidoo, 2009). The promotion of positive forms of masculinity became 226
Community Building
(b) community asset mapping and action planning, (c) development and implementation of an intervention focusing on mobilizing spiritual capacity and religious assets to promote positive forms of masculinity, and (d) outcomes evaluations. Running across all phases is process evaluation which focuses primarily on the community engagement process, and the development of a conceptual and theoretical framework.
SE
RV
ED
partners, characterized by joint learning and comanagement (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi, & Herremans, 2010). This approach focuses on affirming all knowledges, active listening, engaging in dialogue, critical reflexivity focusing on power differentials, and the promotion of community agency (Lazarus, Bulbulia, Taliep, & Naidoo, 2015). SCRATCHMAPS is proactively using a CBPR approach to facilitate maximum participation, focusing on involving community members in the planning, implementation and overall assessment of the project, as well as engaging in ongoing critical reflexive activities to ensure that unequal power relations are contested, and empowerment engendered.
H
G
RI
LL
.A
Stories of Community Building in Action
O
CI A
TI O
N
The discussion that follows provides a snapshot of stories that reveal how SCRATCHMAPS is attempting to operationalize the key principles of community building outlined previously in this chapter (see Figure 13.1).
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
SS
The SCRATCHMAPS research is guided by a critical and participatory meta-theoretical perspective and a developing conceptual framework that encompasses the concepts of health, safety, and peace promotion; masculinity and violence prevention; and spiritual capacity and religious assets. The project is guided by the values and principles of a CBPR approach which is used as the primary strategy for community building within the SCRATCHMAPS project. The following values and principles of CBPR have been noted by experts in the field (Israel, Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2005; Wallerstein & Duran, 2008): (a) The community is the unit of focus; (b) community engagement occurs at all levels of the research process; (c) the research is relevant to the community; (d) this approach builds on the strengths and resources of the community; (e) there is a commitment to action research, which emphasizes a dynamic relationship between theory and practice (praxis); (f) the research is on the basis of a partnership between the research institutions and community members; (g) the process promotes colearning and coconstruction of knowledge; and (h) this kind of research is a long-term process, with commitment to ownership and sustainability. The CBPR principles are congruent with the values and principles of community engagement which are aimed at building, strengthening and sustaining communities (Lazarus, Taliep, et al., 2012; Nation, Bess, Voight, Perkins, & Juárez, 2011). Given the critical perspective which guides the project, the SCRATCHMAPS community engagement strategy reflects a transformative approach to community engagement which includes a twoway process between university and community
TS
RE
SCRATCHMAPS Community Building Strategy
Promoting collaboration. The SCRATCHMAPS project is guided by an ecological approach which, by virtue of its attention to different components of the social system, aims to understand the community holistically, and to develop strategies that focus on the community comprehensively. This approach includes working with the whole geographical community, and ensuring that analysis and interventions reflect systems principles. To this effect we have used analytical frameworks that locate both needs and assets within the different ecological levels (individual, relationships, community, and society). This includes the development of a mentorship intervention which includes activities focused on individuals (with personal development of mentors and mentees being a central focus), relationships (with men and women mentoring girls and boys in the community), community (mobilization of community resources such as religious leadership, and conducting community campaigns), and society (with an emphasis on promoting positive values and norms, to change societal values and norms). With regard to collaboration and coalition building, the SCRATCHMAPS community asset mapping 227
Lazarus, Seedat, and Naidoo
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
RV
SE
RE
TS
H
G
RI
LL
.A
N
TI O
CI A
O
SS
L
A
A strengths orientation. As mentioned previously, SCRATCHMAPS is guided by a strengths approach, and has intentionally used a community asset mapping strategy in its phased process. The community asset mapping workshops conducted in 2012 were geared toward giving voice (of views and feelings) to the community and acknowledging and engaging with community-embedded knowledges. These workshops included three community workshops (including 74 community members across the three workshops), the service providers’ workshop (including 18 service providers from various government and nongovernmental organizations), and a combined community/service providers’ action planning workshop (including 21 service providers and 20 community leaders). Key factors or assets identified as central in promoting safety and peace in the local community included community cohesion (with an emphasis on respect, love, working together and unity), churches, religion and spirituality, employment, presence of the police and Neighborhood Watch, sport, education, housing, and basic amenities. It is important to note the
emphasis on both people and structures in this set of findings, the importance that has been placed on various values and conditions relating to community cohesion, and the role of religious assets and spiritual capacity to achieve this. Emphasis was placed on the role of promoting positive values by specific community organizations in the community that were seen to be central in fostering safety and peace, such as churches, nongovernment organizations and schools. Although the SCRATCHMAPS project reflects a strong strengths orientation, it is important to note that the identification of issues and problems was included in the process to ensure that priority actions identified for community building were linked to real needs (Ridings et al., 2008). From a critical perspective, this is particularly important as these needs and challenges form the basis for transformative action. Initial engagement focused on negotiating a proposal from the research organizations managing the project, in a general community meeting. The meeting participants comprised 30 different stakeholders, including representatives of various government departments, nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations, and general members of the local community concerned. The stakeholders were very happy to proceed with the project, particularly given the recognized need for violence prevention. This initial acceptance of the research agenda was accepted on trust, but further negotiations around the project’s objectives and activities have been pursued through the two structures developed to operationalize and manage the project: the local research team and the project advisory committee. In addition to keeping the research and action agenda open throughout the process, it was agreed that the research team would be guided by the needs, and assets, identified in the community asset mapping and action planning processes. Priorities for action identified through the community asset mapping workshops supported the initial proposal to focus on violence prevention. This included a particular focus on mobilizing spiritual capital and religious assets to promote positive forms of masculinity to create safety and peace. But other key issues in the community were also highlighted
ED
workshops played a key role in helping to identify individual and organizational assets in the community. In addition, the workshop held with service providers (including 15 different stakeholder sectors) included a specific activity focused on developing a “spidergram” (SCRATCHMAPS, 2012). This refers to a particular form of network analysis which identifies key stakeholders and role players involved in providing services within the local community, including an analysis of how they currently work together and would like to work together to provide an effective service to the community. The actions prioritized through the community asset mapping workshops conducted, including substance abuse and unemployment as priority areas, have subsequently been picked up by the project—and are being included as part of the formal intervention. These priorities also constitute a focus for the newly established local community committee which is in the process of building partnerships with government and nongovernment structures to address key issues, including basic infrastructure development and maintenance.
228
Community Building
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
H
TS
RE
SE
RV
ED
dynamics and conflict, pursued particularly through the reflexivity processes within the local research team. In this regard, challenges relating to addressing racial prejudices, dealing with age discrimination, engaging with different religious and cultural worldviews and practices, accepting different work styles and abilities, and addressing negative stereotyping relating to sexual preferences, have had to be addressed. For example, racial prejudices have had to be managed in the team, particularly given that some of the academic researchers are White, in a context of a Black group and community. This challenge, as with other forms of prejudice, have been dealt with through group sharing and conflict management strategies that are based on ongoing trust building processes. Given the focus on gender in this project (with an emphasis on masculinities in particular), gender issues are also regularly uncovered, both within the local research team, and within the broader community meetings and workshops. In addition to dealing with diversity issues within the research team, the project as a whole attempts to be inclusive through its “open door, open chair” policy which has been in place from the beginning. This means that the advisory committee and other community members often participate in the research team meetings (particularly when it has a particular training focus), and that the advisory committee meetings are inclusive of anyone from the community, although there are a core of community representatives and service providers who attend and participate.
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
SS
(e.g., unemployment and substance abuse) which have been included in the broader community building plan. With regard to the argument that one needs to work toward concrete, priority outcomes, take small steps, and show success (Bettez, 2011; McNeely, 1999), the project has had to remain very vigilant in ensuring that action, that is seen to and does address real needs, is pursued. One of the ways in which this action has been structurally incorporated into the project is through the specific action plans that have been developed. This includes specific actions for the planning and implementing of the proposed violence prevention intervention, as well as plans of action around general community building. A formal process of program and action planning capacity building has been built into the project, allowing the local team and advisory committee to go through concrete steps to plan to achieve identified goals. The SCRATCHMAPS team has intentionally focused on fostering belonging and connectedness through the two local community structures guiding and conducting the research and action. The regular meetings, which are held within a supportive environment, constitute a crucial strategy for providing opportunities for belonging and connectedness. This is evident in team members’ comments on the value of this “space”, and their reference to the group as “family” (SCRATCHMAPS, 2015b). However, it should be noted that this space is not without its group dynamic challenges, which have to be facilitated on an ongoing basis. This includes dealing with dominant personalities, and interpersonal conflicts between members of the team, as well as broader community conflict which spills into the project from time to time. Although the development of belonging and connectedness in the project team and committee has been relatively successful, a great deal of work is still needed to facilitate this same sense of belonging and connectedness at the community level. The challenge of recognizing differences and diversity, and being inclusive (Bettez, 2011; Townley et al., 2011), is evident and has been addressed in various ways in SCRATCHMAPS. This includes acknowledging one’s own location within the power
Building local power. Within SCRATCHMAPS, all plans and activities are judged against their capacity to promote community participation and involvement. Participatory strategies that are used include setting up of local community structures (research team and advisory committee), which have had the responsibility of managing the project; delegation of responsibilities to members of the local research team to develop and implement plans of action, and to take responsibility for the project; and the use of workshops to facilitate discussions and interactive activities (e.g., the community asset mapping and action planning activities). 229
Lazarus, Seedat, and Naidoo
SS
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
H
TS
RE
SE
RV
ED
plans of action referred to previously, but also the generation of a debate around community building itself—where the literature informing this chapter has been made available to members of the community, in both academic and public modes. Various strategies are also used to ensure that the local research team take leadership and management roles in the project, and that accountability for all the work of SCRATCHMAPS is given to the local advisory committee. This includes providing a transparent financial management system which encourages members of the research team and advisory committee to make decisions relating to how the grant is budgeted and spent. SCRATCHMAPS places a great deal of importance on capacity building, including the local community members in the two project structures (research team and advisory committee), the broader community, and the academic members in the project. The approach to capacity building in SCRATCHMAPS is one of multilateral or colearning, which recognizes that skills and knowledge are being shared and exchanged within the team context. This approach is built into the program at all levels, and is pursued through formal and informal strategies including on-the-job mentoring, skills workshops, and seminars. For example, the local community members in the research team work alongside the academic researchers, learning research skills on the job, and, in the process, the academic researchers learn about what works and what doesn’t work in the field. The community researchers have also been given opportunities to develop innovative methods that suit the communication methods of the local community, and have thereby made a major contribution to the overall methodology and research design developed during the project. They have also been centrally involved in the development of the conceptual framework guiding the project. A focus on building leadership has been emphasized by a number of authors (e.g., Austin, 2005; Seedat et al., 2012; Omiunu & Omoruyi, 2012; Sarason, 1972). This challenge has been addressed in various ways within SCRATCHMAPS, including a focus on leadership development within the local research team, as well as formal leadership training
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
In line with the critical perspective guiding SCRATCHMAPS, there is a great deal of emphasis on promoting agency and self-empowerment (Bettez, 2011; Rappaport et al., 2008). This is pursued through personal capacity and confidence building, which has been highlighted as a major outcome by the local research team members (SCRATCHMAPS, 2015b). It is also pursued through reflexive processes which focus on understanding personal location within power dynamics, and how to move from a position of powerlessness to power (discussed in more depth following). This includes both the academics and local community research team members. This same awareness is fostered within the advisory committee, and within community workshops. The focus on developing agency, and in particular, collective empowerment, is also pursued through supporting collaboration and coalition building around particular issues in the community, for example, substance abuse. Before moving on to the next principle, it is interesting to note that Bettez (2011), Rappaport et al. (2008), and Ridings et al. (2008) emphasized the need to provide support when focusing on promoting a sense of agency. Support has been offered in SCRATCHMAPS in a number of ways. One consistent form of support provided in this program has been enacted through weekly meetings of the local research team, facilitated by one or more of the academic researchers who have been trained in counselling and group facilitation skills. This space has provided all concerned with regular opportunities, over the full research period, for personal sharing and intergroup engagement, including debriefing linked to specific project activities. Those who support a critical approach to community building (e.g., Bettez, 2011) also emphasize the importance of fostering responsibility. This is an ongoing challenge within SCRATCHMAPS, particularly given the history of this community which has been decimated by Apartheid, and continuously undermined by current socioeconomic challenges. One key strategy that is used to address this challenge, at least in the local research team and advisory committee, is to promote capacity building in areas identified as central to successful community building. This includes the specific development of 230
Community Building
O
CI A
TI O
N
.A
LL
RI
G
H
TS
RE
SE
RV
ED
unexpressed, principle of SCRATCHMAPS. Members of the local research team have on numerous occasions indicated how this has been their biggest challenge and learning within the project (SCRATCHMAPS, 2015b). This kind of listening has been recognized as central to the research work, as well as the healing work within and between themselves, and within the broader community. A specific request for community healing has been expressed at various points in the process. One practical way in which this was pursued within the project was through a wilderness retreat including the research team and the local community mentors participating in the mentorship program. This retreat focused on providing men and women with a space in nature to confront and share their historical and current pain and trauma, for the purposes of moving forward with new understandings and compassion for themselves and others in the community. It is hoped that this core group or critical mass of community members will continue to look at ways of facilitating similar healing experiences for the community as a whole—supported by the research and other relevant organizations. Analyses of the SCRATCHMAPS project has confirmed the reality of a number of challenges relating to community building, and attempts pursued to address these challenges (Lazarus, Taliep, et al., 2012; Lazarus, Duran, et al., 2012; SCRATCHMAPS, 2015a, 2015b). This includes challenges relating to power relations, idealistic and overly optimistic views of community and community building, interpersonal dynamics and collaboration, and financial and structural arrangements. Despite these challenges, the SCRATCHMAPS project has reaped the benefit of long-term university–community engagement and commitment. One of the evidences of the relative success of the project was the retention of all ten local community researchers for the full period of the project. Although it is difficult to estimate the long term community building success of the project’s focus on building a safe and peaceful community, there is no doubt that a critical mass of community leaders has benefited from this work, and can use their individual and joint capacities to continue to build their community.
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
SS
workshops conducted for the mentors (involved in the intervention) and general community leaders. The challenge of addressing issues of power oppression and privilege, particularly through processes of self-reflexivity, was considered central to the SCRATCHMAPS project. The overarching goals of social transformation and social justice are embedded in the motivation for and the proposed outcomes of the project. This includes acknowledging, overtly and covertly, the damage that Apartheid has done to this community, and to ourselves as actors in the process of social change. The latter depends on the operationalization of the principle of reflexivity, which is pursued in very practical ways in the project. This includes the regular use of journaling or recording of feelings, thoughts and activities in diaries kept by the academic researchers in the team, as well as the ten local community researchers. Regular team reflections, in the weekly meetings in the local community, are also used to discuss how we see ourselves located within the power dynamics in the team and community; how we engage with our history of Apartheid; how we see the influence of this history in the local community; and how we think we can transform ourselves, each other, and the community. Finally, strategies for building critical communities, highlighted by Bettez (2011), are useful as a focus for reflection here, particularly given the critical lens directing the SCRATCHMAPS project. These strategies include listening actively; providing support to facilitate agency; asking the right questions; addressing issues of power, oppression, and privilege; including self-reflexivity, openness, and inclusivity; maintaining an open, porously bordered web of connections; and commitment coupled with accountability. The previous discussion suggests that SCRATCHMAPS attempts to enact these strategies, and thereby attempts to enact a critical community psychology and community building approach. One aspect highlighted by Bettez (2011) that deserves some comment here relates to the role of active listening: “Listening, understanding at a deeper level than is being expressed, is the action that creates a restorative community” (p. 4). This focus on listening has proved to be a central, yet
231
Lazarus, Seedat, and Naidoo
Conclusion
References
We have highlighted a number of key principles and values which could usefully guide community building initiatives. These principles have emerged from best practices noted in various contexts, and center around three ideas: crosssystems collaboration, a strengths orientation, and building local power (Austin, 2005). From our experience, these three clusters of principles capture realistic areas of possibility and challenge when engaged in community building. We therefore endorse these principles, but emphasize that there is a need for ongoing criticality given that communities and the underlying socio-political contexts are dynamic and fluid, and that the dangers of cooptation and colonization discussed previously need to be constantly addressed. There is a need, therefore, to locate community building endeavors within a transformative approach (Bowen et al., 2010; Seedat, 2012) and to constantly remain mindful of the challenges inherent in community building. The pursuit of further theory-building, research and practice in the broad area of community building is a central challenge within community psychology. At a theoretical level, there is a particular need to draw from different knowledge systems, including community-embedded and indigenous knowledges, to conceptualize community building, as well as the particular areas or social issues constituting a focus for such work. This raises the central importance of acknowledging and addressing unequal power relations in knowledge construction. With regard to research and practice, it appears that there is a dearth of practical applications that draw on a critical perspective. Given the important role that this perspective brings to community building practice, more focused projects that explore the intrapersonal, interpersonal and community power dynamics and political processes would help us make a radical contribution to personal and community transformation. This is particularly important in contexts that are still oppressed and experiencing various forms of colonization, but it is also important for those contexts that appear to be less affected by these global dynamics.
African Religious Health Assets Programme. (2006, October). Appreciating assets: The contribution of religion to universal access in Africa. Report for the World Health Organization. Cape Town, South Africa: Author.
RV
ED
Austin, S. (2005). Community-building principles: Implications for professional development. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 84, 105–122.
RE
SE
Barker, G., & Ricardo, C. (2005). Young men and the construction of masculinity in sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for HIV/AIDS, conflict, and violence. Washington, DC: World Bank.
H
TS
Bettez, S. C. (2011). Critical community building: Beyond belonging. Educational Foundations, 25(3–4), 3–19.
LL
RI
G
Beutler, I. (2008). Sport serving development and peace: Achieving the goals of the United Nations through sport. Sport in Society, 11, 359–369.
CI A
TI O
N
.A
Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 297–318. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s10551-009-0360-1
SS
O
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
©
20
17
A
M
ER I
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
A
Bullen, P. (2007). Community development models and language [Unpublished manuscript]. Retrieved from http://www.mapl.com.au/ComDevModel.pdf
232
Chavis, D. M. (2000). Community development and the community psychologist. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 767–771). New York, NY: Plenum. Gomez, B. J., Greenberg, M. T., & Feinberg, M. E. (2005). Sustainability of community coalitions: An evaluation of Communities That Care. Prevention Science, 6, 199–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11121-005-0003-4 Göransson, B., Maharajh, R., & Schmoch, U. (2009). New challenges for universities beyond education and research. Science and Public Policy, 36, 83–84. http:// dx.doi.org/10.3152/030234209X406872 Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hawkins, J. D. (1999). Preventing crime and violence through Communities That Care. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 7, 443–458. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008769321118 Hernández-Cordero, L. J., Ortiz, A., Trinidad, T., & Link, B. (2011). Fresh start: A multilevel community
Community Building
mobilization plan to promote youth development and prevent violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 43–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10464-010-9420-z
challenges and possibilities of community-based participatory research. In J. Maddock (Ed.), Public health: Social and behavioral health (pp. 309–324). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
Hughey, J., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Community, sense of community, and networks. In A. T. Fisher, C. C. Sonn, & B. J. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 69–84). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-46150719-2_4
RV
ED
Lazarus, S., Seedat, M., & Naidoo, A. V. (2009, July). Mobilising religious health assets to build safe communities. Paper presented at the African Religious Health Assets Programme Conference, Cape Town, South Africa. Lazarus, S., Taliep, N., Bulbulia, S., Phillips, S., & Seedat, M. (2012). Community-based participatory research: An illustrative case of community engagement in one low-income community. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22, 511–519.
RE
SE
Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2005). Methods in community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
TS
Kagan, C., Burton, M., Duckett, P., Lawthom, R., & Siddiquee, A. (2011). Critical community psychology. London, England: Wiley–Blackwell.
G
H
Lazarus, S., Tonsing, S., Ratele, K., & van Niekerk, A. (2011). Masculinity as a key risk and protective factor to male interpersonal violence: An exploratory and critical review. African Safety Promotion, 9, 23–50.
RI
Kane, M., & Trochim, W. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
LL
Lindblad, M. R., Manturuk, K. R., & Quercia, R. G. (2012). Sense of community and informal social control among lower income households: The role of home ownership and collective efficacy in reducing subjective neighborhood crime and disorder. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 123–139.
N
TI O
CI A O
Mannani, T., & Fedi, A. (2009). Multiple senses of community: The experience and meaning of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 211–227.
A
SS
Kelly, J. G., Ryan, A. M., Altman, B. E., & Stelzner, S. P. (2000). Understanding and changing social systems: An ecological view. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 133–159). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-14615-4193-6_7
.A
Keim, M. (2006). Sport as an opportunity for community development and peace building in South Africa. In Y. Vanden Auweele, C. Malcolm, & B. Meulders (Eds.), Sport and development (pp. 97–106). Tielt, Belgium: Lannoo Campus.
McMillan, D. W. (2011). Sense of community, a theory not a value: A response to Nowell and Boyd. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 507–519.
Kramer, S., Amos, T., Lazarus, S., & Seedat, M. (2012). The philosophical assumptions, utility and challenges of asset mapping approaches to community engagement. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22, 539–546.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.
Kramer, S., Seedat, M., Lazarus, S., & Suffla, S. (2011). A critical review of instruments assessing characteristics of community. South African Journal of Psychology, 41, 503–516.
Mohamad, N. A., Abu Talib, N. B., Bin Ahmad, M. F., Mad Shah, I. B., Leong, F. A., & Shakil Ahmad, M. (2012). Role of community capacity building construct in community development. International Journal of Academic Research, 4, 172–176.
CA N
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
IC
A
L
Keys, C. B. (1987). Synergy, prevention and the Chicago School of Sociology. Prevention in Human Services, 5, 11–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J293v05n02_02
A
M
ER I
Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research.
©
20
17
Krug, E., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Lazarus, S., Bulbulia, S., Taliep, N., & Naidoo, A. V. (2015). Community-based participatory research as a critical enactment of community psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 43, 87–98. Lazarus, S., Duran, B., Caldwell, L., & Bulbulia, S. (2012). Public health research and action: Reflections on
McNeely, J. (1999). Community building. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 741–750.
Naidoo, A. V., & van Wyk, S. B. (2003). Intervening in communities: Combining curative and preventive interventions. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 25, 65–80. Nation, M., Bess, K., Voight, A., Perkins, D. D., & Juárez, P. (2011). Levels of community engagement in youth violence prevention: The role of power in sustaining successful university–community partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 89–96. Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky, I. (2010). Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation and well-being (2nd ed.). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. 233
Lazarus, Seedat, and Naidoo
Nowell, B., & Boyd, N. (2010). Viewing community as responsibility as well as resource: Deconstructing the theoretical roots of psychological sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 828–841.
SCRATCHMAPS. (2015b). Process evaluation of the implementation of the SCRATCHMAPS Building Bridges mentorship programme. Cape Town, South Africa: Violence, Injury, and Peace Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council & University of South Africa.
RV
Ohmer, M. L. (2010). How theory and research inform citizen participation in poor communities: The ecological perspective and theories on self- and collective efficacy and sense of community. Journal of Human Behavior and the Social Environment, 20, 1–19.
SE
Seedat, M. (2012). Community engagement as liberal performance, as critical intellectualism and as praxis. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22, 489–500.
RE
Omiunu, S. E. Y., & Omoruyi, F. E. O. (2012). Community development participation for sustainable development in the 21st century Nigerian communities. Journal of Educational Review, 5, 107–110.
G
H
TS
Seedat, M., & Lazarus, S. (2011). Community psychology in South Africa: Origins, developments and manifestations. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 241–257.
Pieterse, A. L., Howitt, D., & Naidoo, A. V. (2011). Racial oppression, colonization, and identity: Towards an empowerment model for people of African heritage. In E. Mpofu (Ed.), Counseling people of African ancestry (pp. 93–109). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
.A
LL
RI
Seedat, M., van Niekerk, A., Jewkes, R., Suffla, S., & Ratele, K. (2009). Violence and injuries in South Africa: Prioritising an agenda for prevention. Lancet, 374, 1011–1022.
N
Strier, R. (2011). The construction of university– community partnerships: Entangled perspectives. Higher Education, 62, 81–97.
TI O
Rappaport, N., Alegria, M., Mulvaney-Day, N., & Boyle, B. (2008). Staying at the table: Building sustainable community-research partnerships. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 693–701.
CI A
O
SS
PS Y CH
O
LO
G
Ridings, J. W., Powell, D. M., Johnson, J. E., Pullie, C. J., Jones, C. M., Jones, R. L., & Terrel, K. J. (2008). Using concept mapping to promote community building: The African American Initiative at Roseland. Journal of Community Practice, 16, 39–63. Saegert, S. (2006). Building civic capacity in urban neighborhoods: An empirically grounded anatomy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28, 275–294.
CA N
Sarason, S. B. (1972). The creation of settings and the future societies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17
A
M
ER I
Sarason, S. B. (2000). Barometers of community change: Personal reflections. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 919–929). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-46154193-6_37
©
20
SCRATCHMAPS. (2012, June). Community asset mapping workshop for service providers. Paper presented at the service provider workshop for Violence, Injury, and Peace Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council & University of South Africa, Strand, South Africa. SCRATCHMAPS. (2015a). Outcomes evaluation of the SCRATCHMAPS project. Cape Town, South Africa:
234
Suárez-Balcázar, Y., Harper, G. W., & Lewis, R. (2005). An interactive and contextual model of university–community collaborations for research and action. Health Education and Behaviour, 32, 84–101.
A
IC
A
L
Ratele, K., Suffla, S., Lazarus, S., & van Niekerk, A. (2010). Towards the development of a responsive, social science-informed, critical public health framework on male interpersonal violence. Social Change, 40, 415–438.
ED
Violence, Injury, and Peace Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council & University of South Africa.
Townley, G., Kloos, B., Green, E. P., & Franco, M. M. (2011). Reconcilable differences? Human diversity, cultural relativity, and sense of community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 69–85.
Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2008). The theoretical, historical, and practice roots of CBPR. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Communitybased participatory research for health (2nd ed., pp. 25–46). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Warner, S., Dixon, M. A., & Chalip, L. (2012). The impact of formal versus informal sport: Mapping the differences in sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 983–1003. Watkins, M., & Shulman, H. (2008). Toward psychologies of liberation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Weil, M. O. (1996). Community building: Building community practice. Social Work, 41, 481–499. Yuanzhu, D. (2008). Community building in China: Issues and directions. Social Sciences in China, 29, 152–159. Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43–63). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_2
