Weaving Feminism and Community Psychology: An ... - Springer Link

American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 5, 2000

Weaving Feminism and Community Psychology: An Introduction to a Special Issue Meg A. Bond University of Massachusetts Lowell

Jean Hill New Mexico Highlands University

Anne Mulvey University of Massachusetts Lowell

Marion Terenzio The Sage Colleges

Much of the ideology that provides a foundation for community psychology as a field runs parallel to the principles that guide feminist work (Mulvey, 1988, Oliver & Hamerton, 1992; Swift, Bond, & Serrano-Garcıá, 2000). However, work that bridges community psychology and feminist theory and practice is not as visible as many of us would hope (Angelique & Cully, in press; Bond & Mulvey, 2000; Swift et al., 2000). This current special issue of the American Journal of Community Psychology (AJCP) on feminism and community psychology represents an effort both to document existing feminist-based work within the field and to challenge the field to further appreciate the opportunities feminist theories and approaches provide for community psychology research, practice, and theory development. When we sent out our original call for papers, we encouraged manuscripts that would analyze some of community psychology’s ‘‘sacred concepts,’’ such as sense of community, empowerment, and prevention using feminist perspectives. We sought discussions of methodological challenges and descriptions of action projects demonstrating the synergistic relationship between feminism and community psychology. We particularly encouraged papers that would show the intersections among gender, race, class, 585 0091-0562/00/1000-0585$18.00/0  2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

586

Bond, Hill, Mulvey, and Terenzio

and community. The results are two special issues that span these areas (Volume 28, Numbers 5 and 6) and that demonstrate the multitextured nature of the relationship between feminist analyses and community psychology. We are pleased not only with the range of topics, but also with the diversity among authors included in this two-part collection. Although most articles are written by professors and researchers in academic settings, the authors also include a mix of students and professionals working in applied settings. The papers include perspectives from people beyond the boarders of the continental United States. About one-quarter of the articles are written by people whose primary affiliation is outside of community psychology—including people in fields other than psychology—which provides a healthy infusion of interdisciplinary critique. At the same time, we are keenly aware of what is missing, including more in-depth coverage of ethnic and racial diversity among women (e.g., African American women, Asian American women), lesbian perspectives, and broader international perspectives. There are other special AJCP issues on each of these concerns either recently published (e.g., Wilson, 1998) or in the planning stages (e.g., Schneider, Harper, & Waldo on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities; Roosa & Gonzales on minority issues in prevention intervention and research; Watts & Serrano-Garcıá on oppression), but we, nonetheless, feel their relative dearth here. The idea for this special issue on feminism and community psychology originally emerged within the Women’s Committee of the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA). The project was proposed at the 1993 SCRA Biennial Conference on Community Research and Action and initiated by Jean Hill and Marion Terenzio who were Chairs of the Women’s Committee at that time. Although there was tremendous enthusiasm for the project, soliciting appropriate articles initially proved more difficult than any of us would have anticipated. After the addition of two new coeditors (Meg Bond and Anne Mulvey) and concerted proactive efforts, we ultimately received about 40 articles from which to build the special issue. With the help of some very dedicated and thoughtful reviewers and the participation of authors who were wonderfully open to working with us on shaping their manuscripts to the requirements of the special issue, we are now able to include enough articles to constitute not one but two special issues. In this introductory article, we will first give an overview by outlining the two special issues and briefly describing the substance. Then, we will introduce some of the conceptual threads that we see as uniting community and feminist perspectives and discuss the articles in this first issue in more depth as they relate to those threads. A guiding image for the two-part

Weaving Feminism and Community Psychology

587

collection is that of a woven tapestry. Feminist and community psychology theories and methods can be seen as resources or raw materials of different yet compatible textures and colors. When woven together, they can create a more enriched, more complex, and sturdier fabric than either alone. A goal of both special issues, then, is to demonstrate some of the ways community and feminist analyses can be interwoven to encourage more just, vibrant, and multitextured communities.

OVERVIEW OF THE TWO SPECIAL ISSUES Part I: Feminism and Community Psychology This issue (Part I, Volume 28, Number 5) includes articles that grapple with the intersections of community psychology and feminist theories in relation to some vexing social problems such as violence against women and the development of empowering settings for women and girls. The issue is divided into three sections: (1) historical context, (2) feminist theory and community psychology, and (3) settings for women and girls. The article in the first section orients readers to the historical context for the special issue. Meg Bond and Anne Mulvey trace the history of women’s involvement in community psychology and the emergence of feminist analyses within the field. The second section includes three articles that explore intriguing intersections between feminist theory and community psychology. Stephanie Riger and Maryann Krieglstein analyze the shifting context for women living with poverty and domestic violence and look at the contributions feminist theories make toward understanding the potential impact of welfare reform efforts on women. Sherry Hamby illustrates how rates of domestic violence vary across groups of American Indians depending on matrilinear versus patrilinear traditions and addresses the ways violence against women is affected by such varied gender-related cultural patterns and values. Using an analysis that is based in feminist standpoint theory, Joey Sprague and Jeanne Hays, both sociologists, critique current concepts that guide community theory and practice with people with developmental disabilities. In the final section, we have included two articles that address the challenges of creating safe and empowering spaces for women and girls. Lynne Bond, Mary Belenky, and Naomi Weinstock describe an intervention that builds on feminist and community psychology principles to help poor, rural, young, white mothers develop confidence and skills while celebrating the unique ways that they are already central to the development of their

588


communities. Corrine Bertram, Julia Hall, Michelle Fine, and Lois Weis describe two qualitative case studies of community contexts designed for women and/or girls that address the relationship between feminist and antiracist work.

Part II: Special Issue on Feminist Methods The second issue (Part II, Volume 28, Number 6) will focus on the important topic of methods for a feminist community psychology. Community and feminist researchers have grappled with many overlapping questions about the values implicit in our research and intervention methods and the possibilities of alternative approaches. Part II will include papers that investigate the feminist content in the published community psychology literature, explore the potential synergy of feminist and community psychology methods, and critically analyze the roles of culture, privilege, ethics, and narratives in community work.

UNITING THREADS Building on the image of a weaving or tapestry, we see feminist and community psychology perspectives as providing synergistic resources of diverse colors and textures. Before a weaving process can begin, warp threads must be mounted on the loom. These are the vertical threads that are ultimately invisible but provide the foundation upon which each tapestry is built. Once the warp is in place, there are infinite tapestries that can be woven onto the same warp, representing variations in local cultures and traditions. For the feminist community psychology weavings we are discussing here, these vertical threads consist of the overlapping contexts and values that guide both feminist and community psychology work. These values are the essential elements that the varied weavings have in common. The textures, colors, and vibrancy of individual weavings come from the horizontal or woof threads. Both feminist and community psychology analyses provide a variety of vibrant horizontal threads that can be combined in different ways to create a range of tapestries. Thus, as we selected articles for this project, we identified seven themes that connect feminism and community psychology, and, in essence, provide the warp upon which varied tapestries reflecting feminist community psychology can be woven. These foundational threads include (1) integrating contextualized understandings, (2) paying attention to issues of diversity, (3) speaking from the standpoints of oppressed groups, (4) adopting collab-


589

orative approaches, (5) utilizing multilevel, multimethod analyses, (6) adopting reflexive practices, and (7) taking activist orientations. While these themes served as criteria for selecting articles for both issues, here we discuss the threads of context, diversity, and standpoint as they relate to Part I. In Part II, the threads of collaboration, multileveled and multilayered analyses, reflexivity, and activism will be explored because they are closely related to feminist and community psychology methods (Hill, Bond, Mulvey & Terenzio, in press). Both issues explore elements of the whole cloth created by this interweaving of perspectives.

Contextualized Understanding Community psychology and feminist approaches both emphasize the need to situate our analyses of social problems in an understanding of structure and social context (Collins, 1990; Haraway, 1988; Kelly & Hess, 1986; Landrine, 1995; Trickett, 1996). The challenge here is at least twofold: to avoid the victim blaming that comes with viewing people out of context and to avoid universalizing, which comes from assuming social phenomena can be generalized from one context to another without considering unique setting and situational forces. All articles in this special issue actively address interconnected dimensions of context that are critical for understanding women’s lives, for example, the gendered nature of power differentials, economic and political forces, and the structures and values of local communities. Two articles that push our understanding of contextual forces forward in particularly unique ways are (1) an analysis of contexts that influence the development of feminist ways of thinking within our field (Bond & Mulvey) and (2) an analysis of potential contributions of feminist understandings of context to social policy development (Riger & Krieglstein). Analyzing the overarching professional context of our work, Bond and Mulvey (2000) reflect on the ways that the contexts of the field of community psychology have sometimes hindered and sometimes facilitated the incorporation of feminist perspectives. They note that while the field has been increasingly successful in supporting women’s professional development and entry into leadership roles, there has been less success in terms of incorporating feminist analyses. Reflecting on the history, they look for ways to understand this historical disjuncture between professionalism and support for feminist values consistent with community psychology. They illustrate how internal settings supporting interconnections among women who are interested in developing feminist frameworks and external forces supporting attention to such issues have been crucial to increasing feminist

590


community understandings. They conclude with some challenges and dilemmas for the field in crafting a distinctively feminist community psychology, including the importance of keeping the ‘‘interlocking systems of oppression related to gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, and class’’ (p. 625) central to our community work. The ways in which oppression and dominance are shaped by the context of gendered traditions, roles, and values is, however, often left out of analyses of social problems, and work within community psychology is no exception. Riger and Krieglstein (2000) challenge us to keep concerns about power and dominance in women’s lives central to analyses that inform the development of social policies. In their analysis of welfare reform, the authors discuss the different predictions that exchange theory and feminist backlash theory make about the impact of increased economic resources on levels of domestic abuse of women by male partners. Exchange theory suggests that a woman’s increased economic independence could increase her power in her intimate relationship and thereby reduce her risk of abuse. Backlash theory, however, predicts increased violence in response to this shifting of power. Through the analysis of evidence for each theory, the authors effectively illustrate the importance of incorporating deeper feminist understandings of the dynamics of gendered power differentials in intimate relationships and describe how intertwined these dynamics are with economic factors. If this important contextual backdrop of women’s lives is ignored, social policies for poor women that shift the balance of power in intimate relationships can have significant negative consequences—including increased violence—for the women they are designed to help. The gendered contexts of women’s lives are intertwined with other aspects of community context. The ways in which settings are shaped by the unique cultural, economic, and political conditions of the communities in which they are embedded is addressed by several others in this special issue. Particularly critical to both feminist and community analyses are the contexts of diversity.

Attention to Diversity Respect for diversity has been claimed as central to community psychology since the beginning of the field (Anderson et al., 1966; Dohrenwend, 1978; Rappaport, 1977; Scribner, 1997). Although the field has not been as successful in implementing those core values in relation to our research and action work as many would have hoped (Angelique & Cully, in press; Bond, 1997; Leidig, 1977; Mulvey, 1988; Myers & Pitts, 1977), it nonetheless


591

remains a cornerstone value that many in the field are working to more clearly articulate and operationalize (Bond, 1999; Kelly, Azelton, Burzette, & Mock, 1994; Serrano-Garcıá & Bond, 1994; Trickett, 1996; Trickett, Watts, & Birman, 1994; Watts, 1992). Similarly, feminist writings have articulated values for diversity, been called to task for falling short of actualizing those values, and worked to define new paradigms that better incorporate diversity (e.g., Collins, 1990; Fine & Gordon, 1989; Harding, 1998; Landrine, 1995). Attending to diversity involves respecting the cultural influences that shape people’s lives and expanding our definitions of ‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘normative’’ to include variations rooted in different backgrounds, life and relational choices, and value systems. It also involves attending to issues of differential access to power and privilege that are rooted in histories of oppression and biased societal practices. One constraint identified by both feminists and community psychologists is that past psychological research on diversity has largely focused on assessments of group differences, that is, addressed how groups that vary by gender, culture, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and/or class differ on some behavior or experience (Landrine, 1995). Trickett (1996) has challenged community psychologists to go beyond comparative studies to explore how varied expressions of competence for diverse groups are shaped by contextual influences. Feminists have challenged us to attend to the interplay of gender influences with all other dimensions of diversity (Amott & Matthaei, 1996; Fine, 1992; Lykes, Banazizi, Liem & Morris, 1996; Reid & Kelly, 1994). The papers in this special issue help to move our understanding forward by paying attention to two underdeveloped perspectives: (1) the importance of attending to diversity within groups (Hamby) and (2) the ways in which dominant discourses influence relations among groups (Bertram, Marusza, Fine, & Weis). Both feminist and community literatures about diversity have increasingly emphasized the importance of considering diversity within groups (e.g., Green, 1997; Riger, 1993; Serrano-Garcia & Bond, 1994) Through describing variations in the gendered nature of power and control among American Indian groups, Hamby (2000) demonstrates the importance of understanding the tremendous diversity among nations. She summarizes evidence that rates of domestic violence are quite high in most native groups, and that rates seem to have increased with the poverty and the economic and social marginalization that accompanied the introduction of Western European influences. Perhaps even more central to the understanding of diversity, she explores the fact that rates of violence against women can vary considerably from tribe to tribe. Hamby describes how varied community structures, values about gender roles, and the gendered distribution of power within family and community structures affect the

592


dynamics surrounding domestic violence, particularly among American Indians living on reservations. Her analysis illustrates some of the challenges of applying feminist analyses of violence against women to diverse cultural groups by showing how we must attend to variations within groups in terms of cultural traditions, locale (on versus off reservation), and historical influences. Another often-overlooked element in the analysis of diversity dynamics is the importance of understanding constructions of ‘‘the other’’ (Herek, 1998; Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 1996). Through a juxtaposition of two settings for women and girls, Bertram, Hall, Fine, and Weis (2000) look at how settings can influence discourses about gender, race, and racism. They describe great contrasts between the two settings based on the organizations’ histories and origins, the transitional nature of the surrounding neighborhood, and dominant community values about outsiders and newcomers. One setting is a girl’s club in an urban community center that serves primarily poor, white neighborhood youth. The other setting is a New York Citybased antiviolence center that was founded on an explicit commitment to being a ‘‘feminist, antiracist, and lesbian-positive space’’ (p. 742). The authors explore how each setting creates some safety for the participants from the community and from domestic violence, and how each group establishes caring networks that foster a positive sense of self. They also examine quite different conditions within each setting that shape their discourses about race—in one case encouraging racism and, in the other, challenging or resisting racism. In the case of the girl’s club, they authors suggest that as the surrounding neighborhood has shifted away from its white immigrant origins to become more multiracial, a particular discourse has emerged among some whites that allows them to distance and blame violence and neighborhood deterioration on people of color. Alternatively, the explicit commitment of the antiviolence center combined with leaders’ direct actions to ensure inclusion across differences has helped in fostering a more inclusive and respectful discourse. This comparative case study challenges us to place the intersection of feminist and antiracist work at the center of feminist community psychology. The articles by both Hamby and Bertram et al. illustrate the interplay of forces that are missed by approaches that simply compare diverse groups. These authors illustrate the importance of situating our analyses of diversity within the particular community contexts in which social problems occur. When we pay attention to community values about gender and race, the complexities of position and privilege integral to understanding diversity surface more clearly. Such analyses also highlight how critical it is to attend to and incorporate the perspectives of lesserheard community members.


593

Speaking from the Standpoints of Oppressed Groups Both community and feminist theories emphasize the importance of understanding the experiences of oppressed groups. Some analyses from both perspectives, however, go further to emphasize the centrality of viewing social phenomena through the eyes of people at the margin or bottom of the social hierarchy. Feminist standpoint theories emphasize the way in which positions in society (i.e., based on gender, race, class, sexual orientation, disability) shape interpretations of reality (Bartky, 1990; Harstock, 1998; Nielson, 1990; Westkott, 1990). This perspective is compatible with the phenomenological stance suggested as a central element of the ecological paradigm within community psychology (Bond & Pyle, 1998; Holahan & Spearly, 1980; Kingry-Westergaard & Kelly, 1990). Both perspectives challenge the positivist notion of a single truth and emphasize that people’s experiences of events are more central to understanding social phenomena than are external observations and interpretations of events. Two particular articles in this issue directly address the need to speak, understand, and listen from the standpoint of the oppressed. One describes how our approach to an issue like disabilities is transformed when we challenge the standpoint of those who have traditionally defined our goals and, instead, adopt the perspective of those we strive to serve (Sprague & Hayes). The other describes a multifaceted intervention program built upon careful consideration of the standpoint of the women involved (Bond, Belenky, & Weinstock). Sprague and Hays (2000) emphasize the need to reevaluate our approaches to people with disabilities by more fully appreciating the perspectives of those very individuals. They argue that most present services are based on conceptualizations of disability that emphasize independence and stem from the standpoint of those who have traditionally controlled institutional resources. The emphasis on such external definitions of goals tends to ignore the complexity of people’s needs and strengths and to downplay or devalue social connection and interdependent relationships. The authors propose a shift to a greater emphasis on social connection and the incorporation of a deeper appreciation of the relationships and social structures that underlie expressions of competence in the lives of people with disabilities. They argue that ‘‘self-determination’’ and ‘‘a sense of self’’ (typically construed as individual accomplishments) are socially constructed, and that empowerment (often viewed as an individual’s ability to make things happen) is a characteristic of the social relationships that facilitate that ‘‘self’’-determination. They analyze the way that current conceptualizations are rooted in the standpoint of those with privilege, which tends to objectify and decontextualize our understanding of people with developmental disabilities.

594


The Listening Partners program designed by Bond, Belenky, and Weinstock (2000) creates settings for young, poor, rural women (i.e., women who ‘‘reported feeling chronically unheard and unseen’’ [p. 699]). Listening Partners emphasizes the women’s naming of their own experience through such processes as reflective dialogue and generating ‘‘growth stories’’ (both their own and their children’s), and all activities are anchored in the women’s own experiences. The program is designed to help the women to develop a greater sense of their own voices, to attain increased skills and confidence to question current social arrangements, and, thereby, to become more active participants in their own families and communities. The intervention also emphasizes the strengthening of natural helping systems and the development of what the authors’ refer to as ‘‘developmental leadership,’’ which includes activities that are not typically defined as leadership yet are central to the development of community through fostering inclusive settings where all participants are heard. We found the notion of ‘‘developmental leadership’’ particularly compelling because, in its emphasis on nurturing the development of others, it both includes activities that are syntonic with the lives of these isolated women and expands the value of these activities. The emphasis on standpoint extends the contextualist emphasis on situating our understanding of social problems in gendered analyses of power differentials and contexts of diversity to also include how those differences influence the meanings oppressed peoples attach to their experiences and the value those meanings have for our understanding for social problems. Feminist theories are generally more explicit than community theories in the primacy they place on the standpoint of oppressed groups for enriching our understanding of social problems. The articles included here demonstrate that if we begin our inquires by trying to understand the subordinate group’s experience, the limits of conceptual frameworks based on the dominant group’s experiences can be revealed (Riger, 1990, 1992) and a fuller, more ‘‘multifocal’’ understanding developed (Riger, 1992, p. 734).

CONCLUSION This first special issue demonstrates the synergy of community psychology and feminist analyses. Through critically examining some of the paradigms and conceptualizations that have shaped approaches to the poor, to American Indian peoples, and to people with developmental disabilities, the articles included here explore intriguing ways that community psychology applications can be enriched by feminist analyses. Through studies of both professional and community settings, the articles demonstrate the impor-


595

tance of placing gendered analyses of power and dominance at the center of community work. The articles also provide exemplars we hope will renew the feminist and community psychology commitments to the development of alternative paradigms that address the intersections of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, and class. The potentials for the interweaving of feminism and community psychology are vast and varied. Possible topics of interest, methods of inquiry, and areas of application are numerous. What holds the interweaving together are core understandings and assumptions that are shared by both perspectives, likened here to the warp or foundational threads of a loom. The core values related to the importance of integrating contextual understandings, attending to diversity dynamics, and considering the standpoints of the oppressed are discussed here. The effort to articulate uniting threads will continue in the next issue of AJCP where we explore the importance of collaborative approaches, multilevel and multi-method analyses, reflexive practices, and activist orientations (Hill, Bond, Mulvey, & Terenzio, in press). The ongoing challenge for the development and support of feminist community psychology will be both the weaving of new tapestries and the further articulation and exploration of foundational threads.

REFERENCES Amott, T., & Matthaei, J. (1996). Race, Gender and Work. Revised Edition. Boston: South End Press. Anderson, L. S., Cooper, S., Hassol, L., Klein, D., Rosenblum, G., & Bennett, C. C. (1966). Community psychology: A report on the Boston conference on the education of psychologists for community mental health. Boston: Department of Psychology, Boston University. Angelique, H., & Cully, M. (in press). Searching for feminism: An analysis of community psychology literature relevant to women’s concerns. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(6). Bartky, S. (1990). Femininity and domination. New York: Routledge Press. Bertram, C., Hall, J., Fine, M., & Weis, L. (2000). Where the girls (and women) are. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 731–755. Bond, L. A., Belenky, M. F., & Weinstock, J. S. (2000). The Listening Partners Program: An initiative toward feminist community psychology in action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 697–730. Bond, M. A. (1997). Race, gender, and community: Creating contexts for diversity within community psychology. The Community Psychologist, 30, 3–7. Bond, M. A. (1999). Gender, race, and class in organizational contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 327–355. Bond, M., & Mulvey, A. (2000). A history of women and feminist perspectives in community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 599–629. Bond, M. A., & Pyle, J. L. (1998). The ecology of diversity in organizational settings: Lessons from a case study. Human Relations, 51, 589–623. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought. New York: Routledge. Dohrenwend, B. S. (1978). Social stress and community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 6, 1–14.

596


Fine, M. (1992). Disruptive Voices: The possibilities of feminist research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Fine, M., & Gordon, S. (1989). Feminist transformations of/despite psychology, In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.). Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag. Green, B. (Ed.). (1977). Ethnic and cultural diversity among lesbians and gay men. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hamby, S. L. (2000). The importance of community in a feminist analysis of domestic violence among American Indians. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 649–669. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–598. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural: Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Hartsock, N. (1998). Feminist standpoint revisited and other essays. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Herek, G. M. (Ed). (1998). Stigma and sexual orientation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hill, J., Bond, M., Mulvey, A., & Terenzio, M. (in press). Methodological issues and challenges for a feminist community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(6). Holahan, C. J., & Spearly, J. L. (1980). Coping and ecology: An integrative model for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 671–685. Kelly, J. G., Azelton, S., Burzette, R., & Mock, L. (1994). Creating social settings for diversity: An ecological thesis. In T. Trickett, D. Birman, & R. Watts (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 424–451). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kelly, J. G., & Hess, R. (1986). The ecology of prevention: Illustrating mental health consultation. New York: Haworth. Kingry-Westergaard, C. & Kelly, J. G. (1990). A contextualist epistemology for ecological research. In P. H. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds.), Researching community psychology: The integration of theories and methods (pp. 23–31). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Landrine, H. (1995). Introduction: Cultural diversity, contextualism, and feminist psychology. In H. Landrine (Ed.), Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Leidig, M. (1977). Women in community psychology: A feminist perspective. In I. Iscoe, B. Bloom, & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Community psychology in transition (pp. 274–277). Washington DC: Hemisphere Publishing. Lykes, M. B., Banuazizi, A., Liem, R., & Morris, M. (Eds.). (1996). Myths about the powerless: Contesting social inequalities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Mulvey, A. (1988). Community psychology and feminism: Tensions and commonalities. Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 70–83. Myers, E., & Pitts, H. (1977). Community psychology and racism. In I. Iscoe, B. Bloom, & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Community psychology in transition (pp. 267–270). Washington DC: Hemisphere Publishing. Nielson, J. (1990). Feminist research methods: Exemplary readings in the social sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Oliver, P., & Hamerton, H. (1992). Women, peace, and community psychology: A common agenda for social change. D. Thomas & A. Veno (Eds.), Psychology and social change (pp. 55–73). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press. Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Reid, P. T., & Kelly, E. (1994). Research on women of color: From ignorance to awareness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 477–486. Riger, S. (1990). Ways of knowing and organizational approaches to community research. In P. H. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds.), Researching community psychology: The integration of theories and methods (pp. 23–31). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.


597

Riger, S. (1992). Epistemological debates, feminist voices. American Psychologist, 47, 730–740. Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2, 279–293. Riger, S., & Krieglstein, M. (2000). The impact of welfare reform on men’s violence against women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 631–647. Scribner, S. (1997). What is community psychology made of? In E. Tobach, R. Falmagne, M. Parlee, L. Martin, & A. Kepelman (Eds.), Mind and social practice: Selected writings of Sylvia Scribner (pp. 31–38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Serrano-Garcıá, I., & Bond, M. A. (1994). Empowering the silent ranks: Introduction. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 433–445. Sprague, J., & Hayes, J. (2000). Self-determination and empowerment: A feminist standpoint analysis of talk about disability. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 671–695. Swift, C., Bond, M. A., & Serrano-Garcıá, I. (2000). Women’s empowerment: A review of community psychology’s first twenty-five years. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of Community Psychology. New York: Plenum Press. Trickett, E. (1996). A future for community psychology: The contexts of diversity and the diversity of contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 209–234. Trickett. E., Watts, R., & Birman, D. (Eds.) (1994). Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Watts, R. (1992). Elements of a psychology of human diversity. Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 116–131. Westkott, M. (1990). Feminist criticism of the social sciences. In J. M. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods: Exemplary readings in the social sciences (pp. 58–67). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (Eds.) (1996). Representing the other: A feminism and psychology reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wilson, M. (1998). Special issue on women of color: Social challenges of dual minority status and competing community contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25.