Am J Community Psychol (2006) 38:23–25
DOI 10.1007/s10464-006-9058-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
At a Crossroad: Standing Still and Moving Forward
Janet L. Smith
Published online: 11 July 2006

C Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006
Abstract Reading the article, “Community psychology
at the crossroads: Prospects for interdisciplinary research”
(Maton, Perkins & Saegert, this issue), there is a sense that
community psychology is at a crossroad with regard to be-
ing an interdisciplinary field. This paper aims to offer insight
and guidance to proponents of interdisciplinary research in
the community psychology field by drawing on experiences
in urban studies, which shares similar origins and interdisci-
plinary claims.
Keywords Interdisciplinary research . Urban studies .
Multi-method
In reading the article, I asked: who is the intended audience?
Is it academics and researchers already committed to inter-
disciplinary community psychology but in need of further
support, to provide a more firm foundation for their cur-
rent work and a vision of what is needed to advance the
field? Is it the more traditional researchers in the community
psychology field that may not be doing interdisciplinary re-
search but are open-minded and therefore likely to join the
interdisciplinary ranks? Or, is it “purest” researchers who
oppose—or at least doubt the benefits and legitimacy of—
interdisciplinary approaches to research? I sense the authors’
aim is all three.
J. L. Smith (
)
Urban Planning and Policy Program,
412 S. Peoria Street (MC348), Chicago, Illinois 60607
e-mail: janets@uic.edu
J. L. Smith
Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community
Improvement, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs,
University of Illinois at Chicago
As someone outside the field of community psychology,
I am not sure how any of these readers will react, but I can
offer my own reaction based on my interdisciplinary aca-
demic training. Urban studies is a field that has no single
disciplinary home in the academy to either struggle to be
free of or to cling to in times of uncertainty. Of course, this
has both benefits and costs. I want to share some of these,
as a heuristic of sorts, to frame some questions that I hope
will help those working to advance an interdisciplinary ap-
proach to community psychology. In particular, this includes
better articulating the benefits of multiple frameworks for
understanding problems and solutions grounded in interdis-
ciplinary research; seeing the challenges of using different
research methods concurrently; and perhaps most impor-
tantly, thinking about what “community” means in the con-
text of research, who this includes and how these people are
included in shaping the research and then putting it to use.
First some background. As with community psychology,
urban studies’ traces its origins to the 1960s. Simply
stated, it is a field born out of necessity to “solve urban
problems.”1 Today, urban studies can be described as a
field that examines all aspects of urban space and urbaniza-
tion by weaving together traditional disciplines including
economics, political science, sociology, anthropology, archi-
tecture, engineering, and education, and newer or emerging
interdisciplinary fields including women’s studies, African
American studies, Latino studies, and even community
psychology. A benefit of drawing on so many disciplines is
the seemingly lack of boundaries that can restrict inquiry,
though, as will be discussed here, this does not preclude
1
Phillips, E. Barbara. City Lights: Urban-Suburban Life in the Global
Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996 (second edition),
p. 33.
Springer
24
epistemological challenges rooted in the many disciplines
from which urbanists draw.
A clear benefit of being so interdisciplinary is the ability
to understand urban problems by not only drawing on differ-
ent disciplines—each with its own particular lens—but also
by using different scales (individual, community, state, na-
tion, etc.) to investigate cause and effect. I personally think
that scale is an important aspect of interdisciplinary research
that is under-appreciated (or at least under-recognized). The
ability to see a problem using multiple scales of reference as
well as through multiple disciplinary lenses adds dimension
and depth that is needed to understand complex problems
like “poverty” and “homelessness.” Not only can we see
how the individual experiences and contributes to the prob-
lem but also we can see environmental, economic, social and
political factors too, operating at all levels of government,
in different types of institutions and across different types of
urban space. Of course, this creates the challenge of isolating
and identifying cause and effect, which can make interdisci-
plinary research complicated. At times, it can feel like you
are trying to solve many simultaneous equations where a
variable for one comes from another and so on.
Another significant challenge for interdisciplinary re-
search is the issue of method. A particular challenge is
the lingering if not continued dominance of the enlighten-
ment period.2 Regardless of where you stand, most if not
all contemporary social science disciplines continue to teach
methods that rely on human reason, science and hypothesis
testing to find universal laws about how our world works.
While there has been reaction to and outright rejection of
enlightenment traditions in some disciplines, we have not
seen the elimination of (nor the necessity to eliminate) this
way of thinking about the world and what we know about it.
And while this is not the place to advance the debate, it is
important to point out that adherence to method—whether
scientific or not—can often be the Achilles heal of interdis-
ciplinary research.
Particular tensions arise when discussing what makes the
research “rigorous” (e.g., how large a sample size, is it rep-
2 why not consider benefits of following several paths concur-
A good overview of this issue in the field of urban planning can
be found in Leoni Sandercock’s Towards Cosmopolis (Wiley, 1998),
which outlines the “epistemological politics” underpinning the inter-
disciplinary field of urban planning. She illustrates how despite the
inclusion of more voices and the addition of “post-modern” theory and
critiques, the scientific method continues to be privileged. Her concern
is that this affects what voices are heard and who is qualified to listen
and overall what is considered valid in the production of knowledge.
She then offers guidance toward “an epistemology of multiplicity” that
does not discard “these scientific and technical ways of knowing” but
rather adds to it by offering at least six other ways of knowing: 1)
knowing through dialogue, 2) knowing from experience, 3) learning
from local knowledge, 4) learning to read symbolic and non-verbal ev-
idence, 5) learning through contemplative or appreciative knowledge,
and 6) learning by doing, or action planning.
Springer
Am J Community Psychol (2006) 38:23–25
resentative, etc.) and if the findings are “generalizable.” This
is particularly sticky when looking at research in and about
communities, which often is in the form of case studies that
offer a deep understanding of a particular place or group but
cannot necessarily be assumed generalizable. Whether this
is true or not will depend on how you judge the knowledge
produced by a case study method. The point here is not to
dismiss the importance of rigor and producing generalizable
data, but rather to remind us that as with all good research,
we should judge the method on how well it fits the research
question and interpret the results with the limits of method
in mind.
One way to address this problem is to move from sim-
ply having an interdisciplinary collaboration to one that is
transdisciplinary. As discussed by the authors, the idea is to
“work jointly to develop and use a shared conceptual frame-
work that draws together discipline-specific theories, con-
cepts, and methods to address a common problem (p.xxx).”
There clearly is a conceptual difference between the different
levels/types of collaborations outlined in the article (multi,
inter, trans). I think what is important for the field now is ap-
preciating the differences between each and why one might
be preferred over another depending on circumstances.
However, these levels also suggest a hierarchy and that
the aim is to have all research be transdisciplinary. Assum-
ing the goal is to open up the possibilities for all modes
of “interdisciplinary” research, then, it seems important to
give each an equal position along the continuum so as to
not privilege any one approach. Still, if the goal is to move
toward the transdisciplinary mode of collaboration, then I
would caution against “generically” classifying any collab-
oration as simply interdisciplinary (p.xxx), since this has the
potential to over or under state how the field is progressing
along the continuum. In either case, there clearly needs more
discussion about what the goal is when pushing community
psychology to be (even) more interdisciplinary.
Standing at a crossroad is usually a symbolic way of say-
ing we have to choose which path to follow, and implicitly it
says there is only one path that you can choose when moving
forward. I want to suggest that more than one path exists so
rently. Push research to be more interdisciplinary but also
focus your energy on improving the quality and experiences
of collaboration so that there is truly a synergistic effect,
which is the promise and intent of interdisciplinary research.
Here I want to offer some cautions and thoughts about what
it means to be interdisciplinary as it pertains to research and
action.
The beauty of the collaborative transdisciplinary route is
the common conceptual framework. However, this can also
miss seeing the multiple dimensions and scales of problems
that can only come with looking at the world through dif-
ferent frameworks simultaneously. For example, I have my
Am J Community Psychol (2006) 38:23–25
students do an exercise using three different conceptually
based lenses—urban economics, human ecology and neo-
Marxism—to examine how and why communities change.
The first speaks in terms of transaction costs and utility.
Human ecology looks to natural forces that trigger reac-
tions to similarity and differences among people, while neo-
Marxists look at how structure via the state and owners of
capital shape the circuits of capital that in turn produce or
prevent change. It is in the juxtaposition of these frameworks
that they begin to understand how each can help to explain
community change when applied to a real place. They also
see that these frameworks are neither mutually exclusive nor
complimentary, and that when used together, can offer more
information than might otherwise be found if they used just
one framework.
I offer this example because in urban planning (my teach-
ing home) and urban studies (my theoretical home), we often
forget our disciplinary roots sometimes because we are “a-
disciplinary.” While we may tip our hats to foundational
pieces, we often do not revisit them. My point here is not
so much nostalgia for the past but rather a reminder to keep
in touch with your scholarly roots since they usually con-
tinue to shape contemporary thinking even after the scholar
is gone.
Another dimension to consider is how to bring practition-
ers into the fold. While I do not offer an answer for commu-
nity psychology, I can offer what I have observed over the
years in my own area. One reason often sighted for why aca-
demics and practitioners do not easily mix is that the former
is too abstract and the latter is too concrete. Obviously, this
is an overgeneralization. Nonetheless it is an important point
to keep in mind, since the perception can stymie productive
collaboration. I think that unfortunately, this is particularly
true of how academics are seen by practitioners. If the goal
is “action,” then this perception of academics—whether real
or not—needs to be addressed. As many before me, I have
come to understand that research that promotes action must
be presented in ways that make it relevant to practitioners.
This means it has to be accessible and relevant to them. A
community activist, for example, is not likely to pick up
this journal and read it, but they may find the discussion
interesting if they read or heard it elsewhere. The challenge
then is to first figure out what is relevant to this audience,
then package and get the contents into the activists’ arena.
This may be at conferences or in reports, journals or mag-
azines, or it may be through other means such as websites,
blogs, and newspaper columns and interviews on radio or
television.
25
A related and important question to ask of all action-
oriented research in the community-psychology field is how
will it benefit community and the people in communities?
This has a lot more to do with how research is put to use
rather than simply its intended use. A challenge is to move
research from having good intentions to research that in-
tentionally tries to make a difference. This might require
changing what drives the research agenda and who shapes
the research questions, and definitely means the research
should not just be interdisciplinary but also participatory. It
definitely requires researchers to move from treating com-
munity as an object of study to being an active participant
in its design, implementation and analysis. This also means
re-examining just what we mean by community. Community
is one of those terms that is as Wittgenstein said: “Something
that we know when no one asks us, but no longer when we
are supposed to give an account of it, is something that we
need to remind ourselves of.” In teaching and working with
people in communities, we need to grapple with the symbolic
use and abuse of this word. In particular, I draw attention to
the boundaries that using the term creates (e.g., us/them, this
community/that community) creating distinctions that sepa-
rate and compartmentalize people. From the perspective of
a researcher, the community is a site for investigation, often
identified by geographic boundaries, socioeconomic charac-
teristics in common, or both. Obviously, researchers know
that community is not that precisely defined or contained, but
when the boundaries become fixed, we also fix the contents
and create an identity that is likely to over or under state the
experiences of everyone involved.
At this crossroad, I encourage you to think most about
what community means to you and how it shapes what
you research, develop theory about and act on. To be truly
interdisciplinary—whether it is urban studies or community
psychology—I think it is important use the different perspec-
tives each discipline offers to benefit the study of community
and the communities you study. This includes looking criti-
cally in the mirror at your methods and assumptions, to see
the limits but also the potential harm that certain disciplinary
positions might have on the study of community. Most impor-
tantly, you need to keep vigilant in your search for methods
and ways of collaborating that will produce good and reliable
data and knowledge that will benefit community.
Reference
Maton, K. I., Perkins, D. D., & Saegert, S. (this issue). Community psy-
chology at the crossroads: Prospects for interdisciplinary research.
American Journal of Community Psychology.
Springer