Toward a community psychology transformative praxis: A descriptive review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a descriptive review of the foundational components of transformation-the starting places and gaps-in a move toward synthesizing current works into a Community Psychology Transformative Praxis. This review focuses on published work identified in North American Community Psychology journals (namely two United States based journals)-a review from the belly of the neoliberal and imperial beast. We reviewed and categorized seven foundational dimensions for beginning and sustaining transformative praxis and which represent how Community Psychology (CP), in the United States publishing context, is engaging in transformative efforts. In Part 1, we present three dimensions of transformative process, focused on early and iterative practices that develop and enact shared (1) values, (2) visions of a just world, and (3) critical problem frames. In part 2 we present four additional dimensions of transformative action; the considerations that inform action in a given transformative process or intervention including (4) planning for the long-term nature of transformation, (5) targeting multiple levels of analysis, (6) engaging in solidarity with those most impacted by injustice, and (7) identifying and resisting power holders and/or power structures that prevent transformation and maintain the status quo. In Part 3, we review the relationship between process and action, where processes can be understood as driving, directing, and bounding the types of actions or interventions taken or imagined in a particular transformative intervention. We close the paper with critical reflections and calls to action to further develop the transformative potential of CP praxis and name the tendency of settling for ameliorative solutions to problems needing transformative solutions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".