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

net/publication/316451077

Empowerment

Chapter · January 2010

DOI: 10.4135/9781412979337.n25

CITATIONS READS
16 67,610

1 author:

Douglas D. Perkins
Vanderbilt University
134 PUBLICATIONS   10,483 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Global Development of Applied Community Studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Douglas D. Perkins on 18 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 207

PERKINS, D.D. (2010). EMPOWERMENT. IN R.A. COUTO (ED.), POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: A
REFERENCE HANDBOOK (PP. 207-218). THOUSAND OAKS, CA: SAGE.

CHAPTER 25

EMPOWERMENT
Douglas D. Perkins
Vanderbilt University

Empowerment has been the subject of widespread and often thoughtful and careful theorizing, study, and application in
the fields of social work, community psychology, health promotion, and organizational studies. Unfortunately, it also
became an overused buzz-word in consulting, self help, and policy circles. To many, its frequently vague, meaningless
usage (sometimes, ironically, for the purpose of co-opting or placating people) has given empowerment a bad name. The
aim of this chapter is to dig past the misuse, and overuse, of the term empowerment to reveal, identify, and clarify its
utility and importance for political and civic leadership.

Definitions
So what does empowerment really mean? Empowerment has been defined and measured in many different ways. Aside
from the many politicians and others who use it without defining it at all, this is perhaps the greatest problem with the
concept. Empowerment has been defined as an intentional ongoing process centered in the local community, involving
mutual respect, critical reflection, caring, and group participation, through which people lacking an equal share of valued
resources gain greater access to and control over those resources; or a process by which people gain control over their
lives, democratic participation in the life of their community, and a critical understanding of their environment (Perkins &
Zimmerman, 1995).
The common elements in those definitions are that empowerment (a) is a process, (b) occurs in communities (and, I
would add, in organizations), (c) involves active participation, critical reflection, awareness and understanding (i.e.,
consciousness raising about the influence of powerful political and economic structures and interests), and (d) involves
access to and control over important decisions and resources. The only difference is that the second definition does not
mention creating a climate of mutual respect and caring, which may be especially important for political and civic leaders
to include in their understanding and practice of empowerment (Gutierrez & Ortega, 1991).
Empowerment is not only a process, however. It can also be thought of as the life and outlook-changing outcome of
such a process for individuals, organizations, and whole communities. This chapter is in the section on “Purposes of
Political and Civic Leadership,” and empowerment certainly is an important benefit, and for many, perhaps even a goal of
developing new leaders and of developing as a leader. Yet I prefer to view empowerment not as a goal or outcome of
participation or leadership but rather as a key part of the process of both developing and applying political and civic
leadership. The main reason for that preference is that far too many studies and writings have been about how to make
people feel empowered and too few have been about how to use empowerment strategies to gain and apply the actual
power needed to make important, material improvements in community conditions and people’s lives.

Overview
Empowerment is, by definition, a collective rather than just an individual process. It is no doubt important for individuals
to take control over their fears, addictions, and other self-destructive or socially disruptive thoughts and behaviors.
Psychologists call that individual trait by different names, such as self-efficacy, mastery, or internal locus of control. But
that is not empowerment, regardless of what self-improvement books may say. Empowerment through participatory
action with others is, in fact, one of the most effective ways to master one’s fears, obsessions, or disdain for self or others.
It has many important individual benefits, including greater health, wellbeing, life satisfaction, and happiness (Prestby,
Wandersman, Florin, Rich & Chavis, 1990; Wallerstein, 1993). But think of those as side benefits because empowerment
is mainly about working together for our shared interests, to improve our communities and institutions, and build a more
just society.
PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 208

Empowerment Phenomena and Approaches to Intervention

In the most grandiose sense, empowerment is about the theory, science, and action of (a) identifying and
understanding all forms and sources of oppression throughout society, and (b) liberating those individuals, groups, and
communities who are oppressed to reach their full potential, be they young or old, working or unemployed; housed or
homeless; male or female; urban or rural; gay, straight, or other; no matter their race, religion, or national origin.
In a more mundane, but real and important sense, empowerment is about the commitment it takes to do all the vital,
if not always exciting, activities that make groups and organizations effective and give their members at all levels “voice
and choice”—that is, real collective decision making and shared leadership. These are most commonly found in small-
scale grassroots organizations, such as block and neighborhood improvement associations, congregations and other faith-
based organizations, and 12-step and other mutual aid groups. But empowerment can also occur in larger organizations,
such as political movements and campaigns that help participants feel they are a part of large and important causes or
changes. It happens in some human service agencies, colleges, and businesses, while other bureaucracies, universities,
corporations, and even some churches can be disempowering to those who lack voice and choice, who are different, who
do not quite fit in, or who simply retreat, get lost, or give up.
Empowerment represents a paradigm shift in leaders’, scholars’, and ordinary people’s assumptions, attitudes, and
values: a shift from emphasizing professional or other forms of authority to equal and valued partnerships; from keeping
one’s distance from clients and subordinates to working closely and collaboratively; from dependency to self-help; from
illness to wellness, from ameliorating problems, deficits, or risk factors to transforming and liberating one’s self,
organization, and community toward competence; and from focusing on weaknesses and victim blaming to identifying
and developing strengths.

History of the Concept

This multi-faceted, but related set of paradigm shifts has been in progress under various names, theories, and
movements starting at least as far back as the social and political upheavals of the 1950s and 1960s era of civil rights in
the United States and human rights, liberation, and independence movements around the globe. It was not until Barbara
Solomon’s 1976 book Black Empowerment: Social Work in Oppressed Communities that the term “empowerment”
appeared in its current usage. That was soon followed in 1977 by an influential American Enterprise Institute monograph
by Peter Berger and Richard Neuhaus entitled To Empower People: The Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy.
Berger and Neuhaus provided an important focus on voluntary associations, churches, and other community
organizations, which serve to mediate between individuals or families and impersonal and unresponsive mass society
institutions, such as large government agencies and corporations, but the authors also had a clear Conservative, small
government agenda (Perkins, 1995). Berger and Neuhaus foresaw increased citizen participation (or at least control, for
example, in the form of school or child care vouchers) in many policy areas, including law enforcement, education,
mentoring, housing, human services, and health care. But their essay is less about policy making or power or even
empowerment (let alone a specific analysis of ways in which mediating structures may be involved in those policy areas)
than it is about the idea of supplanting government-sponsored programs and policies with supposedly less intrusive, more
sensitive, and less costly local voluntarism and community control. Berger and Neuhaus claim nonpartisanship and,
indeed, community service and community control can have all those advantages and is supported by Liberals as well as
Conservatives. But their essay was funded by, and written as a rallying cry for, the neo-Conservative movement, which
adopted the term empowerment. The difference is that Berger and Neuhaus argued for true, as opposed to token,
decentralization of power whereas the aim of many neo-Conservatives is to garner and maintain power at the most
centralized levels of government and commerce.
Thus, from the beginning, the concept of empowerment has been inherently political and ambiguous--its
interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. A right-wing think tank and lobby organization titled Empower America was
created in 1993 by conservative Republican political leaders and a few of their wealthiest donors. At the same time,
“empowerment” was also co-opted by neo-Liberals for overtly political purposes (Perkins, 1995). Unfortunately, all of
these uses of empowerment language by political leaders have tended to be ideologically, rather than theoretically or
scientifically, based, and thus remain vague, superficial to the point of meaningless, and thus unhelpful.
For deeper, more meaningful theories, studies, and applications of empowerment, we must look to the literature in
social work, business administration, health education and promotion, and especially community psychology (Perkins &
Zimmerman, 1995). Julian Rappaport (1981) is most credited with promoting the paradigm shifts outlined above. He
argued that expert-driven and professionally managed prevention and intervention programs and services tend to view
people in distress as personified needs, as if they are simply passive, child-like objects who cannot act effectively in their
own best interest. He called for policy-makers, program leaders, and scholars to move away from a paternalistic emphasis
on people’s needs, and even away from advocacy on behalf of people in distress, toward an empowerment model that, on
both social justice and practical grounds, recognizes that, while people may occasionally need assistance, information, or
PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 209

expert advice, they should play as active a role as possible in designing and controlling their own help and
destiny.
The next important publication on empowerment was a 1984 special issue (Vol. 3, issue 2-3) of the journal
Prevention in Human Services, which included a life-span human developmental analysis of citizen leaders in grassroots
organizations, a study of empowerment in a religious setting, a case study of environmental justice in which a Native
American tribal community organized politically to avoid the loss of their homeland due to a proposed dam, an
organizational structure and process analysis of the feminist movement, a demonstration project on help seeking and
receiving in urban ethnic neighborhoods, a description of new ways human service professionals can create and apply
social technologies to facilitate empowerment, a case study of the strengths and limitations of empowerment in a colonial
context (Serrano-Garcia, 1984; see international examples, below), and a cross-cultural comparison of synergistic
community healing resources. This early volume thus set or predicted much of the agenda for empowerment theory,
research and interventions to follow as, a few years later, it would explode into literally thousands of articles, books,
projects and programs across many social science disciplines and professional and policy sectors (Perkins & Zimmerman,
1995).
That explosion of interest in empowerment showed that theorists and researchers were already grappling with some
complex and difficult problems with the concept and with the observation that efforts at empowerment were often
constrained (Couto, 1989), limited, or failed altogether. Early on, Rappaport (1981) recognized that empowerment
involved certain paradoxes that required less linear and more dialectical thinking.1 Empowerment dialectics include the
following:
(a) simultaneously emphasizing both personal and collective (and, for some, spiritual) control, (b) the
paradoxical requirements of leadership, order, and organization in helping others to help themselves (i.e., to
counteract disempowering institutional constraints; Gruber & Trickett, 1987), (c) people's needs for both
individual and community identity within empowering organizations and (d) for both change and stability at all
levels…, (e) the personal and organizational benefits of greater empowerment along with its risks and challenges
(e.g., burnout, disappointment), (f) a political orientation embraceable by Big Government progressives and
Small Government conservatives alike…, and (g) an approach to theory and research on empowerment that
allows for both deductive and inductive logic.” (Perkins, 1995, p. 789)
In addition, empowerment dialectics include the discovery of both specific, practical information and universal principles.
There began to be more careful theory, measurement, and empirical validation of psychological empowerment
(Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Applied fields that had developed a rich body of practical experience with
empowerment, such as community organizing and development, were studied for clues to empowerment (Friedmann,
1992; Perkins, Brown & Taylor, 1996; Pigg, 2002; Saegert & Winkel, 1996; Speer & Hughey, 1995). Empowerment
strategies quickly spread to other applied fields, such as health education and promotion (Wallerstein & Bernstein, 1988),
education (Cherniss, 1997), youth development (Maton, 2008), substance abuse prevention (Fawcett et al., 1995), and
violence prevention (Webster & Perkins, 2001). Empowerment may have lost some of the political luster it had in the
1990s, but it remains a very popular topic in both the social science and professional literatures to this day.

Exploration of Empowerment
This section will explicate empowerment as a collective, multilevel phenomenon. It will then review issues in leadership
and empowerment across several different sectors, including grassroots community organizations, community health and
other coalitions, human service agencies, and business. The section concludes by considering the global reach of
empowerment.

Empowerment as a Collective, Multilevel Phenomenon

Much of the research on empowerment, probably too much of it, has focused on the individual psychological level.
Scholars have distinguished different components of psychological empowerment, including intrapersonal (domain-
specific perceived control, self-efficacy, motivation to control, perceived competence, and mastery), interactional (the
understanding people have about their community and related sociopolitical issues), and behavioral (actions taken to
directly influence outcomes; Speer, 2000), although the latter has generally been measured and studied separately as
citizen participation, civic engagement, or social capital (see below and Chapter 36: Citizen Advocacy and Civil Society,
Chapter 42: Community Organizing; and Chapter 69: Social Capital).
As noted above, however, empowerment must be understood to differ from control-related psychological phenomena

1
A dialectic is a systematic form of reasoning in which oppositional paradoxes are resolved, usually by taking a new
perspective, without denying either contradictory idea.
PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 210

at the individual level, such as internal locus of control, self-efficacy, social learning expectancies, hardy
personality, problem-focused (vs. emotion-focused) coping style, mastery, or learned hopefulness. Like those
intrapsychic concepts, empowerment applies to both processes and outcomes (Fawcett et al, 1995; Pigg, 2002). If
empowerment were simply about individual control, however, we would not need a separate concept for it, for all of
those theories above would more than suffice.
Thus one of the most important and defining characteristics of empowerment is that it is assumed to operate at
multiple ecological levels-- individuals, groups and organizations, and whole communities (See Table 25.1; Schulz,
Israel, Zimmerman & Checkoway, 1995). At the individual level, people participate in a variety of grassroots community
organizations and, in so doing, develop greater perceived control over local civic and political issues and activities and
develop important resource mobilization skills. At the next level, groups and organizations that engage in meaningful
collective decision making and shared leadership processes realize various organizational and network development
outcomes and enhanced policy leverage. Finally, communities and networks of people and organizations also engage in
collective action in order to access resources, which results in greater political impacts and civic improvement through
coalition building, enhanced pluralism and diversity, and access to resources.

Table 25.1 Levels, Processes, and Outcomes of Empowerment

Levels Processes Outcomes
Individual Participation in community organizations Perceived control and resource mobilization skills
Organization Collective decision -making, shared Organizational development, networks, policy
leadership leverage
Community Collective action to access resources Pluralism, coalitions, accessible resources
Source: Adapted from Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995.

An alternative empowerment typology, which also reflects its multilevel nature, comes from community
organizing for environmental justice. Rich, Edelstein, Hallman and Wandersman (1995) identify these types of
empowerment: intrapersonal (situation-specific individual-level confidence and competence), instrumental (effective
action via citizen participation at the individual to group levels), substantive (effective action at the organizational or
community levels), and formal (at the structural or societal level, where the larger political system allows for meaningful
local control).
A related concept that, like empowerment, has arguably been over-exposed and not always used with precision,
clarity, and consistency is social capital. My own theory is that empowerment, or collective efficacy, is the cognitive
component of social capital, which along with neighboring, sense of community and citizen participation constitute social
capital at the individual level and lead to the bridging, linking and networking that make social capital effective at the
community level (see Perkins, Hughey & Speer, 2002). The literature on social capital is now so vast, I can only refer
readers to the above sources and Chapter 69 in this volume.
The closest concept to empowerment that does not yet suffer from overuse is collective efficacy, or perceived
efficacy of collective action (Perkins et al, 1996).2 Those interested in empowerment should be sure to study collective
efficacy as that is the term and concept that has continued to be more carefully researched—empowerment is used too
loosely and is more often invoked for vague practical or political purposes in the literature.

Leadership and Empowerment in Grassroots Community Organizations

Much of what we know about leadership of empowering organizations and how to empower people to become
effective leaders comes from studies and practical experience of grassroots community organizations and voluntary
associations (Homan, 2008; Kahn, 1991; Pigg, 2002; see also http://ctb.ku.edu/). These small-scale, low-budget
organizations work for members’ collective self-interest, are typically independent and locally and nonprofessionally
self-governed, and as such are akin to self-help or mutual aid groups, which have also been a major focus of
empowerment research. Grassroots organizations address community development (Perkins et al., 1996), housing
(Saegert & Winkel, 1996), environmental (Rich et al, 1995), social and any other issues that arise.

2 To avoid confusion, note that this psychological conception of “collective efficacy” is different than the same
sociological term as used by Robert Sampson and others. Theirs is a combination of what community psychologists and
criminologists have studied and called neighboring behavior, informal social control, and sense of community. To clarify
matters, some distinguish between organizational collective efficacy (empowerment through organized collective action) and
neighborhood collective efficacy (informal social control, neighboring, etc.).
PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 211

We know that leaders are, not surprisingly, more psychologically empowered than nonleaders
(Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988), although that begs the question of whether empowered individuals become leaders or
whether holding leadership positions empowers people. Almost certainly, both are true—leadership and empowerment
are mutually reinforcing.
More useful perhaps is research showing that even those in oppressed circumstances, with few personal human
or material resources and little training or education have become empowered and effective leaders. That suggests that
virtually anyone can be empowered and become a leader. For example, Saegert (& Winkel, 1996) has for many years
studied the experiences of low-income residents, predominantly minority women, in limited-equity co-ops in some of the
most challenging neighborhoods of New York City. She not only found them able to lead and develop their grassroots
housing organizations but also found that their empowerment fostered greater personal well-being and development, and
increased their ability to achieve various work and child rearing goals. It even led to material improvements, such as
better physical conditions in their building and neighborhood, improvements which are important as as they take
empowerment effects beyond mere internal feelings of control (see below “On the Distinction Between Power and
Empowerment”). These effects, in turn, led to further empowerment at the individual and group level and to more
engagement with civic and political life, such as voting behavior.
Another study with practical implications, of individual and organizational empowerment among members and
leaders of block associations in New York City, applied social exchange and political economy theories (Prestby et al.,
1990). Similar to Saegert’s work, this study found that the most active participants reported more communal and personal
benefits. This study also looked at costs of participation and found them to significantly hinder participation. By
effectively managing participatory costs and benefits, leaders of these voluntary associations were able to facilitate
greater participation and empowerment among members. Those who did not try as much, or who were unable, to increase
incentives or reduce costs of participation found themselves leading less active, less effective organizations. Many of
those eventually became dormant or defunct, which is unfortunately all too common among grassroots organizations. A
study of those same organized blocks and a sample of nearby nonorganized blocks identified a variety of social and
environmental factors, including collective efficacy or empowerment, that were predictive of both individual and block-
level participation (Perkins et al, 1996).
A study of how to train, support and empower grassroots leaders in Israel found that social support and self-
esteem predicted different components of psychological empowerment among lower-income urban community activists.
Support from family and self-esteem contributed to leadership competence, that is, to confidence in one’s leadership
skills, whereas a sense of mastery, self-esteem, and the support of friends contributed to policy control, or confidence in
one’s ability to influence policy decisions (Itzhaky & York, 2003).
It must be acknowledged, however, that as important as community empowerment strategies are, grassroots
organizing at the community or neighborhood level is usually limited to addressing problems that do not require
substantial resources or expertise. According to Dreier (1996),
The major obstacle to successful community organizing is the lack of training in leadership development and
organizational capacity building. The primary strategy recommended for overcoming this obstacle is to help
community organizations take advantage of intermediary organizations such as organizing networks and training
centers. (p. 121).
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Industrial Areas Foundation, Pacific Institute for
Community Organizing, the Midwest Academy, Highlander Research and Education Center, the Community Tool Box,
and the Center for Community Change are all examples of such organizing networks and training centers.3

Challenges of Empowerment through Community Coalitions

The main way for small, under-resourced community organizations to gain the power needed to solve larger
problems is through forming and developing organizational coalitions. Coalitions are generally organized to
comprehensively engage multiple social systems (families, schools, workplaces, media, civic organizations) in solving
shared and intractable social, psychological, and health problems, such as the prevention of alcohol and other drug
problems or of youth violence. Coalitions pose unique challenges for civic and political leadership for they constitute
large numbers of agency leaders, each with their own needs, egos, values, politics, styles, and agendas, any or all of
which may conflict.
Community coalitions have been around for many decades, as long as local groups and organizations have
recognized the greater and wider impact they can have by standing together and sharing information, resources, and
especially the political clout that comes with greater numbers. They were rarely the focus of research, however, until the

3
Each has a website with more information; see also Homan (2008) and Kahn (1991).
PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 212

late 1980s after coalitions began forming in response to the crack cocaine epidemic. Anti-drug coalitions
began to receive funding and organizational support from foundations, city governments, and the U.S. Center for
Substance Abuse Prevention, which was the real engine for their regional and national expansion (including the forming
of coalitions of coalitions) and study starting in the early 1990s. Fawcett et al (1995) identified 33 specific enabling
activities or tactics within four general strategies for promoting community empowerment in the context of community
substance abuse prevention and health promotion coalitions: (1) enhancing experience and competence of members and
leaders; (2) enhancing group structure and capacity; (3) removing social and environmental barriers to participation,
empowerment and development; and (4) enhancing environmental support and resources for coalitions. Community
leadership, shared decision making, connections to other organizations, and a positive organizational climate are critical
factors in member satisfaction and participation in such coalitions (but are unrelated to the quality of coalition plans;
Butterfoss, Goodman & Wandersman, 1996).
There was much early optimism about the ability of health promotion coalitions to both empower communities
and measurably improve population-wide health (Butterfoss et al, 1996), neither of which was clearly achieved in hardly
any careful evaluation studies, although those too were too rare. As often happens with large and popular new policies,
about a decade after the community coalition boom began, more independent and critical observers began to question
how representative, participatory, empowering (e.g., in terms of decision-making), grassroots, community-change-
oriented, and effective coalitions really are (Couto, 1998). Leadership can make a difference, but their empowering
potential is often limited, rather than enhanced, by their close ties to, even dependency upon, foundations and government
agencies that may support citizen participation as long as it does not question key assumptions or policies, such as the
social equity and justice of healthcare spending and the emphasis on individual treatment and behavior change rather than
community or policy-level healthy environment-healthy business interventions and universal healthcare. If health
coalitions were organized using grassroots organizing and popular education (Wallerstein & Bernstein, 1988) strategies to
challenge those structural issues, that really could be empowering.
Couto (1998) reviews the full range of community coalitions as instruments of social policy and program
implementation and identifies nine types of community-based organizations, differences in representation and
participation, a difference between community organizing and community development change efforts, and four forms of
empowerment: (1) direct, group psychopolitical empowerment (e.g., tenants organizations and local chapters of
grassroots organizations), (2) direct, individual psychosymbolic empowerment (e.g., 12-step self-help groups and other
grassroots services), (3) advocacy for group psychopolitical empowerment (the goal of which would be to reform of
public policy and programs, ostensibly one of the main purposes of many coalitions, although Couto identified no clear
examples of this form of empowerment, perhaps because coalitions ironically tend to avoid issues seen as too political),
and (4) advocacy for individual psychosymbolic empowerment (adaptation of programs to groups with special needs,
e.g., voluntary organizations, services and professional associations). Couto argues that community coalitions whose
member groups share the same forms of representation and participation and pursue similar forms of empowerment and
change at least have a chance at success. It is difficult to establish and maintain truly active and effective community
coalitions even under the best circumstances; when their member values or expectations differ or their agenda is too
broad or unclear, it poses even greater challenges. They must be flexible and adapt to new or changing issues, but that too
can threaten the coalition’s solidarity, so the tendency is to play it safe, which does not lead to either empowering or
effective results.
So where does that leave community coalitions as a focus of empowering civic and political leadership? Despite
the above cautions and track record, let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Coalitions can still be a powerful
tool for community change, especially if they resist funding and political pressures and adopt a grassroots participatory
empowerment orientation, teach their members about root causes including political, economic and environmental ones,
mobilize their membership effectively, work well with media, and are able to collaborate effectively. Foster-Fishman,
Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson and Allen (2001) identified processes at four different levels to help coalitions and other
networks develop their collaborative capacity: (1) individual members' collaborative capacity can be improved by
teaching them skills and knowledge, and fostering positive attitudes and motivation, for working in collaboration; (2)
relational capacity can be enhanced with positive internal relationships among members as well as external relationships
with other networks; (3) organizational capacity comes with sufficient resources and effective leadership,
communication, and procedures; and (4) programmatic capacity depends on following realistic goals driven by
community needs and on culturally competent program designs.

Leadership and Empowerment in Human Service Agencies

Leadership has always been important in administration of public and nonprofit human service agencies. Such large
and often impersonal organizations have rarely been thought of as empowering, however, for their staffs, clients, or even
their leaders. In an effort to change that, community psychologists have studied examples of empowering processes and
PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 213

structures in a variety of service organizations. For example, Bond and Keys (1993) analyzed group
dynamics on the board of an agency serving people with developmental disabilities and found that the board, which
included both parents and other community members, could be empowered when the board culture promoted
inclusionary group processes and activation of member resources. Collaboration between empowered groups occurred
when the board culture encouraged (a) awareness, respect, and appreciation of the values, history, and norms of each
group and interdependencies between groups (the strengths of diversity) and (b) the development of individuals and
structures spanning the boundaries between groups. Empowerment and collaboration of both groups synergized board
functioning which enabled the organization to accomplish more than when one group dominated.
One of the more revealing studies of empowerment across different human services contexts was by Maton and
Salem (1995) who analyzed a religious fellowship, a mutual help organization for severely mentally ill persons, and an
education program for urban African-Americans. Spirituality and faith-based settings, communal ritual and celebrations,
and individual, organizational and community narratives are all especially vital to community empowerment, solidarity,
and cultural identity (Rappaport, 1995). They identified consistent empowering characteristics across the different
organizational settings, including positive group belief systems that challenged but motivated members, meaningful
opportunity role structures that capitalize upon members' different strengths, an array of economic and social supports,
and organizationally and interpersonally talented leaders. Maton (2008) recently extended those observations by
identifying some of the leadership characteristics, pathways and processes through which empowering community
settings-- in the domains of adult well-being, positive youth development, locality development, and social change--
influence members’ development and empowerment, the surrounding community, and the larger society (see Table 25.2).

Table 25.2 Characteristics of Empowering Settings

Leadership Group Climate
Inspirational (vision, role model) Shared events, celebrations, ritual
Talented (interpersonally, organizationally) Peer-based social support systems
Shared (multiple leaders, open to expansion) Appreciating and managing diversity, interdependencies,
Committed (to setting, to members) conflict
Empowered (autonomy, resources) Boundary spanning

Resource Cultivation Task Functioning

Activating of personal resources Inclusive efforts to define community issues, resources
Opportunity role structure, participatory niches Structured, clear goals and tasks
Increasing benefits, reducing costs of member Inclusive, democratic decentralized decision-making
participation Subgroups for specific tasks or sectors of community
Mentoring Learning focused (responsive & adaptive reflection,
communication, collaboration)
Belief System
Group based, transcending self-concern
Individual, organizational, community narratives
Focus on strengths of members
Fosters critical awareness among members
Source: Adapted from data in Maton & Salem, 1995; Maton, 2008.

Leaders can greatly influence organizational culture, and in human service bureaucracies, multiple competing
cultures can influence the critical preconditions for worker empowerment. Large bureaucratic systems, especially public-
sector ones, often contain many cultural elements inconsistent with an empowering work culture. That can be overcome,
however, by a local site subculture that promotes employee and client empowerment. This line of research shows that
empowerment can take on multiple forms across employees and between employees and leaders (Foster-Fishman, Salem,
Chibnall, Legler & Yapchai, 1998). Different and shifting ecologies cause employees' empowerment experiences to vary
and fluctuate over time. Empowerment is thus a more dynamic, highly individualistic, context-dependent process than
originally theorized.
Organizational learning, which has been studied in both the for-profit and human service sectors, is an important
aspect of organizational empowerment and vice-versa (Perkins, Bess, Cooper, Jones, Armstead & Speer, 2007). Learning
organization characteristics include, not only a culture and structures promoting rapid communication, continuous
learning, and knowledge generation and sharing, but also greater participation and accountability by all stakeholders—
staff, clients, volunteers, and the wider community. Core learning organization practices include, not only providing
strategic leadership for learning, promoting inquiry and dialogue and creating systems to capture and share learning, but
PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 214

also encouraging critical reflection, collaboration and team learning and empowering people toward a
collective vision.
Perkins et al (2007) present a three-dimensional framework of organizational learning and empowerment structures
and processes in terms of first-order (incremental or ameliorative) and second-order (transformative) change at the
individual, organizational, and community levels. Case studies of a participatory neighborhood planning organization, a
grassroots faith-based social action coalition, and a larger community-based human service agency show that
organizations that empower staff and volunteers through opportunities for learning and participation at the individual
level are better able to succeed in terms of organization-level learning and transformation. Community-level changes are
harder to find and must be made a more explicit goal of human services.
Learning that can lead to second-order change at each level must help participants engage in critical analysis of
(a) the organization's demonstrated goals and values, (b) the power relationships implicit in decision-making at
each level, (c) the interdependent role of participant stakeholders and organizations as part of a complex,
community-wide (or larger) system, and (d) how to work toward transformative change of all the above. (Perkins
et al., 2007; pp. 303-304)

Leadership and Empowerment in the Business Sector

Although empowerment in the public and nonprofit sectors is more relevant to civic and political leadership,
empowerment in the corporate context may also hold lessons (Bachrach & Botwinick, 1992). Much of the research on
business employee and manager empowerment has been done by Spreitzer (1995) who found that intrapersonal
empowerment (seeing one’s job as meaningful and important; work-related confidence and mastery; autonomy, a sense
of control and impact in one’s department) mediates the relationship between the social structural context (role
ambiguity, sociopolitical support, access to strategic information and resources, work unit culture) and behavioral
innovation. She also found that empowerment was directly related to effectiveness as assessed by subordinates. Thus,
contextual constraints, opportunities, and supports are important, but psychological empowerment can make or break
individual, and ultimately organizational, innovation and effectiveness.
Leadership has also been a major focus of management theory and research. Traditionally, leadership has been
vertical—that is, one person “in charge.” As work becomes more complex, and as individual managers and executives are
unable to keep up with that complexity, work has become increasingly team based even at middle and higher levels of
companies. Consistent with empowerment principles, leadership can be effectively shared within teams, either with joint
decision making or by rotating leadership depending on who has the most knowledge, skills, and experience for the issue
at hand. Research shows that dominating team leaders have poorer performing teams while shared leadership leads to
higher performance (Pearce, 2004). It is important to note that this does not argue for always using shared leadership, let
alone a completely horizontal organizational structure, which is usually inefficient. The key questions then are (a) how to
combine the best of vertical and shared leadership, (b) when is leadership most appropriately shared, and (c) how is
shared leadership developed? (Pearce, 2004).

Empowerment’s Global Reach

The voluminous attention to empowerment theory and research has been concentrated more in the Unite States than
any other country. However, applications of empowerment concepts, and the study of those applications, have spread
widely throughout the globe. As empowerment is a response to oppression, it is not surprising that scholars and
community and resistance leaders in many troubled parts of the world have begun to borrow and adapt empowerment
ideas to their own circumstances. Outside the United States, Latin America has provided the greatest wealth of literature
on empowerment. One of the first and best studies was by Serrano-Garcia (1984) who found that empowerment could be
illusory in the context of colonialism and rural development in Puerto Rico. She describes a community development
intervention that used empowerment strategies and tactics (modeling of collaborative roles, explicit verbalization of
values, questioning, providing information, musical interventions) to facilitate residents’ ideological and skill
development. Although participants were empowered, on an ideological level, Serrano-Garcia concluded that
empowerment was only an illusion in that the dominant culture and its institutions were still conservative, capitalist,
individualistic, pro-United States, and that participants remain part of that culture and are heavily influenced by its
values. Globalization has no doubt made that even truer today than it was 25 years ago.
Empowerment has become a core principle of international community development. Friedmann (1992) defines
poverty not only in economic terms, but also as social, political and psychological powerlessness. He sees empowerment
as an alternative to the overemphasis of international development agencies and many national governments on purely
economic policies, which have been found wanting. Development interventions, he argues, should empower and mobilize
poor households and communities for political participation on a wider scale. Only if people control their own destinies
can long-term progress occur.
PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 215

That is not to suggest that political empowerment is easily achieved, either in the developed or
developing world. Kroeker (1995) worked with a Nicaraguan agricultural cooperative and observed relationships across
levels of organization that were complex and not always reciprocal. It met the material needs of its community. Its
organizational structure and consciousness-raising processes promoted broad participation in decision making. Those and
the national co-op movement fostered psychological empowerment at individual level. However, leaders tended to be
autocratic and members feared speaking in meetings and could not face crises, and outsiders thought the co-op was
poorly organized. Thus, there was mixed evidence of empowerment within the organization, and outsiders and the
macropolitical context hindered empowerment. Empowerment work and research in less developed and war-torn
countries is vitally important but difficult and often dangerous. A colonial history and current hegemony contribute to
dependency. The level of political and economic oppression may make meaningful empowerment and substantial and
lasting material gains virtually impossible.
Business and economic development in China has received attention for several decades, but what is new and
exciting is the focus by scholars, both within and outside China, on local community social and political development,
citizen participation, resistance, democratization, and empowerment (Xu, Perkins & Chow, 2010). Those delivering and
studying empowerment programs must be careful to not overtly criticize the government and especially the central party,
but rather to show that the goal is to work collaboratively with local leaders to make government and nascent community
organizations more effective and responsive in addressing the serious social, economic, health, education, and
environmental problems that still plague many countries in Asia, Latin America, and especially Africa.
The biggest research gap on civic and political leadership and empowerment is in international and cross-cultural
comparative studies. There are plentiful examples of empowerment-based interventions and research around the globe
(Friedmann, 1992; Itzhaky & York, 2003), but more systematically coordinated and comparable data and sharing of data
and information are needed. That will require concerted efforts to create and standardize comparable indicators of
empowerment and related concepts in different languages and cultures (Ibrahim & Alkire, 2007), and to organize
international data collection.

Applications of Empowerment Theory and Research

On the Distinction between Power and Empowerment
The range of empowerment-based applications is described in the preceding sections. What deserves more attention
is the importance of distinguishing between empowerment as it is too often researched and discussed, as a purely
psychological outcome, and actual power or influence. The definitions offered at the start of this chapter do imply real
power in the sense of control over valued resources, but too many researchers (and possibly civic leaders too) equate
feelings of empowerment with actual power or influence over key decisions.
Grassroots community, issue, and labor organizing are particularly revealing contexts for promoting both
empowerment and power and for distinguishing the two. One must view empowerment from an ecological (multilevel,
contextual, interdependent, dynamic) perspective, as Speer and Hughey (1995) do in describing the relationship between
empowerment and power in a national community organizing network. They find that empowerment can be realized at
the individual and organizational levels in a dialectic of action and reflection, but that social power is built on the strength
of interpersonal relationships, both internal and especially external to the group. Speer also uses a real-life example of
praxis (the process in which theory and practice are synthesized by each informing the other) with a local faith-based
inner-city grassroots coalition to illustrate the intentional exercise of power (Speer et al., 2003). The organization's team
of leaders operated from a clear understanding of power and what they sought to accomplish and leveraged their power
creatively to solve serious problems in one of the poorest, most troubled cities in the United States. Speer et al (2003)
conclude that “fashion in social science--such as empowerment and social capital--often insinuate action, movement and
practice, but too often the action in these orientations is in their conceptualization rather than their implementation…” (p.
399).
Empowering organizations generally focus most on participatory practices within the workplace, but they will only
address, alter, and use power relationships by challenging their current operating paradigm or mission, attend to the social
justice needs of their wider communities, and engage community participation in new, more overtly political ways
(Perkins et al, 2007). Many nongovernmental and public organization leaders, both, mistakenly believe they cannot
engage in any political lobbying or advocacy, a belief which is generally not the case. There is wide latitude for issue-
focused public education and lobbying; and although U.S. tax laws prevent nonprofit organizations from working directly
to influence elections, people are generally free to engage in any political activity as private individuals. The real
constraints arise only in the context of repressive governments (see preceding section) and in democratic societies, fear of
losing funding. Thus, civic, political, and philanthropic leaders must also challenge those who hold the public and private
purse strings to support work correcting social, economic, and political injustices, and if that is not possible, at least not
punish organizations doing such work.
PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 216

Summary
Remaining Questions and Future Directions
It should be clear by now that empowerment, for all its strengths and promise, is no panacea. Riger (1993) argued
that an empowerment orientation raises expectations for real power, which are unrealistic and rarely achieved. She also
suggested that empowerment's emphasis on autonomy only increases competition within and among groups and, thus,
overshadows more cooperative or communitarian approaches that women's or other groups might take. Both concerns
still have validity, but all social movements raise expectations of power. Riger’s emphasis on group solidarity, while
laudable and useful, ignores the fact that groups must also be empowered at both the individual and organizational level
to deal with group-level power and resource disparities. The threat of disappointment and disempowerment is why it is
important to start small and build. Whether or not the danger of empowered people competing with each other is
significant, Riger's caution does highlight the importance of collaboration within organizations (Bond & Keys, 1993) and
effective coalition building among them (Fawcett et al., 1995).
Riger’s feminist critique of empowerment is ironic given that empowerment-oriented self-help groups tend to attract
more women than men (except for Alcoholics Anonymous and even it is changing). Indeed, the women's consciousness-
raising group is one of the best examples of self help as part of an empowering social and political movement (as Riger
herself wrote in the 1984 special issue of Prevention in Human Services). Similar to empowerment, consciousness raising
involves the shift in one's world view that results from recognizing one's inferior social and economic position in society.
A better understanding of gender and other differences in the experience of and reaction to power disparities (Bookman
& Morgan, 1988) is just one of the many ways self help and consciousness raising can inform our understanding of
empowerment and vice versa.
In management circles, contrary to Riger, empowering structures and processes such as shared leadership represent a
new, more feminist leadership paradigm.
Increased accessibility of information, cross-functional workplace challenges and financial belt-tightening have
led organizations since the 1990s to consider a collaborative leadership style where leaders embrace teamwork
and empower staff through motivation rather than wielding traditional authoritarian power. For females in
particular, a collaborative style fits with feminist principles of relationship/consensus building and power
sharing. (Fischbach, Smerz, Findlay, Williams & Cox, 2007, p. 30).
Empowerment has also become an important orientation for social researchers and program evaluators (Fetterman &
Wandersman, 2005). Just as with empowerment programs and policies, however, it is critical that planners,
administrators, and researchers focus, not just on psychological empowerment, but on actual power relationships and
tactics across (a) multiple levels of intervention and analysis (from individuals through, especially, institutions,
communities, and society), (b) various states of oppression, liberation and wellness, and (c) domains of environment or
capital (sociocultural, political, economic, and physical; Christens & Perkins, 2008). To do this, they must be prepared to
engage in action research and collaborate broadly and effectively across disciplinary and sectorial divides.

Recommendations to Political and Civic Leaders

Perkins (1995) offered 10 recommendations to policy-makers, program planners and researchers based on a critical
review of empowerment-oriented programs and policies. They are as valid today as they were then and apply equally well
to civic and political leaders:
1. Attend to different levels of empowerment, particularly beyond individual to collective conceptions
commensurate with solving group, organizational and community problems.
2. Smaller is better. Beyond the local community and organizational level, higher levels of policy-
making result in more ambiguous less effective uses of empowerment. Large social movements can be
empowering but usually through their local grassroots efforts.
3. The first two recommendations illustrate the validity and utility of a dialectical analysis of
empowerment (see examples above under “History of the Concept”).
4. Because feeling empowered is not the same as wielding power, focus on empowering behaviors--
such as citizen participation in the community, workplace, and government.
5. Go beyond isolated community programs to empower through policy changes, which require civic
and political leaders at all levels to work with empowerment experts, both scholarly and practical
(community leaders, advocates).
6. Identify those who can make or affect empowering policies; determine their interests; find
information relevant to their interests; provide that information in the most valid, clear and compelling
ways.
PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 217

7. Be proactive, not only in the planning and evaluation stages, but throughout the process, from
agenda formation and policy adoption to policy implementation and review.
8. Be a co-learner/collaborator rather than a detached or passive leader, expert, or recipient; leadership
training and higher education must adapt to that shift.
9. Cultivate information channels within the policy-making bureaucracy, choosing multiple target
audiences (e.g., legislators, voters, interest groups), and share practical information about empowerment,
tailored to each one's unique perspective, focus and style.
10. Seek and use personal, organizational and community narratives and other qualitative knowledge
about real-world empowering processes. Grassroots community organizing principles of leadership and
organizational structure, climate, processes, development and momentum can also inform
institutionalized applications of empowerment.

References and Further Readings

Bachrach, P., & Botwinick, A. (1992). Power and empowerment: A radical theory of participatory democracy.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy. Washington,
D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Bond, M.A., & Keys, C.B. (1993). Empowerment, diversity, and collaboration: Promoting synergy on community boards.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 37-57.
Bookman, A., & Morgan, S. (Eds.)(1988). Women and the politics of empowerment. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Butterfoss, F. D., Goodman, R. M., & Wandersman, A. (1996). Community coalitions for prevention and health
promotion: Factors predicting satisfaction, participation, and planning. Health Education Quarterly, 23(1), 65-79.
Cherniss, C. (1997). Teacher empowerment, consultation, and the creation of new programs in school. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8(2), 135-152.
Christens, B., & Perkins, D. D. (2008). Transdisciplinary, multilevel action research to enhance ecological and psycho-
political validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(2), 214-231.
Couto, R.A. (1989). Catastrophe and community empowerment: The group formulations of Aberfan’s survivors. Journal of
Community Psychology, 17, 236-248.
Couto, R. A. (1998). Community Coalitions and Grassroots Policies of Empowerment. Administration & Society, 30(5),
569-602.
Dreier, P. (1996). Community Empowerment Strategies: The Limits and Potential of Community Organizing in Urban
Neighborhoods. Cityscape, 2(2), 121-159.
Fawcett, S.B., Paine-Andrews, A.L., Francisco, V.T., Schultz, J.A., Richter, K.P., Lewis, R.K., Williams, E.L., Harris,
K.J., Berkley, J.Y., Fisher, J.L., & Lopez, C.M. (1995). Using empowerment theory in collaborative partnerships for community
health and development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 677-697.
Fetterman, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.). (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York: Guilford
Press.
Fischbach, L. M., Smerz, C., Findlay, G., Williams, C., & Cox, A. (2007). Co-CEOs: A new leadership paradigm for social
service agencies. Families in Society, 88(1), 30-34.
Foster Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. A. (2001). Building Collaborative
Capacity in Community Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2),
241-261.
Foster Fishman, P. G., Salem, D. A., Chibnall, S., Legler, R., & Yapchai, C. (1998). Empirical support for the critical
assumptions of empowerment theory. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(4), 507-536.
Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment: The politics of alternative development. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Gruber, J., & Trickett, E.J. (1987). Can we empower others? The paradox of empowerment in an alternative public high
school. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 353-372.
Gutierrez, L. M., & Ortega, R. (1991). Developing methods to empower Latinos: The importance of groups. Social Work
with Groups, 14(2), 23-43.
Homan, M. S. (2008). Promoting community change: Making it happen in the real world (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole-Wadsworth/Thompson.
Ibrahim, S., & Alkire, S. (2007). Agency and Empowerment: A Proposal for Internationally Comparable Indicators. Oxford
Development Studies, 35 4, 379-403.
Itzhaky, H., & York, A. S. (2003). Leadership competence and political control: The influential factors. Journal of
Community Psychology, 31(4), 371-381.
Kahn, S. (1991). Organizing: A guide for grassroots leaders. Silver Spring, MD: National Assoc. of Social Workers.
PART III. PURPOSES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP: 25. EMPOWERMENT 218
Kroeker, C.J. (1995). Individual, organizational, and societal empowerment: A study of the processes in a
Nicaraguan agricultural cooperative. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 749-764.
Maton, K. I. (2008). Empowering Community Settings: Agents of Individual Development, Community Betterment, and
Positive Social Change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 4–21.
Maton, K.I., & Salem, D.A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community settings: A multiple case
study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 631-656.
Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work.
Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47-57.
Perkins, D.D. (1995). Speaking truth to power: Empowerment ideology as social intervention and policy. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 765-794.
Perkins, D. D., Bess, K., Cooper, D. G., Jones, D. L., Armstead, T., & Speer, P. W. (2007). Community organizational
learning: Case studies illustrating a three-dimensional model of levels and orders of change. Journal of Community Psychology,
35(3), 303-328.
Perkins, D.D., Brown, B.B., & Taylor, R.B. (1996). The ecology of empowerment: Predicting participation in community
organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 85-110.
Perkins, D. D., Hughey, J., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Community psychology perspectives on social capital theory and
community development practice. Journal of the Community Development Society, 33(1), 33-52.
Perkins, D.D., & Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 23, 569-579.
Pigg, K. E. (2002). Three Faces of Empowerment: Expanding the Theory of Empowerment in Community Development.
Journal of the Community Development Society, 33(1), 107-123.
Prestby, J.E., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., & Rich, R.C. (1990). Benefits, costs, incentive management and participation in
voluntary organizations: A means to understanding and promoting empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology,
18, 117-149.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 9, 1-25.
Rappaport, J. (Ed.)(1984). Studies in empowerment (Special Issue). Prevention in Human Services, 3, 2-3.
Rappaport, J. (1995). Empowerment meets narrative: Listening to stories and creating settings. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 23, 795-807.
Rich, R.C., Edelstein, M., Hallman, W.K., & Wandersman, A.H. (1995). Citizen participation and empowerment: The case
of local environmental hazards. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 657-676.
Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 279-292.
Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1996). Paths to community empowerment: Organizing at home. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 24, 517-550.
Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., Zimmerman, M. A., & Checkoway, B. N. (1995). Empowerment as a multi-level construct:
Perceived control at the individual, organizational and community levels. Health Education Research, 10(3), 309-327.
Serrano-Garcia, I. (1984). The Illusion of Empowerment: Community Development within a Colonial Context. Prevention
in Human Services, 3 (2/3), 173-200.
Solomon, B. B. (1976). Black empowerment: Social work in oppressed communities. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Speer, P.W. (2000). Intrapersonal and interactional empowerment: Implications for theory. Journal of Community
Psychology, 28, 51-61.
Speer, P.W., & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to empowerment and power. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 729-748.
Speer, P. W., Ontkush, M., Schmitt, B., Padmasini, R., Jackson, C., Rengert, C. M., et al. (2003). The intentional exercise
of power: Community organizing in Camden, New Jersey. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 399-408.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace.
Amercian Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 601-629.
Wallerstein, N. (1993). Empowerment and health: The theory and practice of community change. Community Development
Journal, 28(3), 218-227.
Wallerstein, N., & Bernstein, E. (1988). Empowerment education: Freire's ideas adapted to health education. Health
Education Quarterly, 15(4), 379-394.
Webster, L., & Perkins, D. D. (2001). Redressing structural violence against children: Empowerment-based interventions
and research. In D. J. Christie (Ed.), Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (pp. 330-340). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Xu, Q., Perkins, D. D., & Chow, J. C.-C. (2010). Sense of Community, Neighboring, and Social Capital as Predictors of
Local Political Participation in China. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 259-271.
Zimmerman, M.A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725-750.

View publication stats