community dynamics and community action essay

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

Importance of Local Community Action in Shaping Development

Introduction

The need for local participation and the organization of local residents to meet the challenges facing their communities is of increasing importance. Extension professionals and policy-makers are more frequently faced with the task of establishing programs in settings characterized by conflict among different groups of stakeholders with very different needs, values, and policy preferences. In many communities, these conflicts are often rooted in differences between groups that seek to protect community quality and those that seek to exploit local resources (especially the local workforce and natural resource base) as a means of achieving economic development. Equally common is the consistent transfer of responsibilities for services from government agencies to the private community sector. Such conditions have resulted in local residents taking on a greater role in providing services and planning for future needs. 

In response to the pressures and changes in our communities, activists, grassroots social change organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and coalitions of concerned community groups have emerged to shape and guide the development process. Similarly organized local residents have played instrumental roles in identifying new development options in localities that historically were presented with few such options. Small-scale civil society organizations (SCSOs) sometimes develop in communities with holistic responses to community needs (McGovern, 2013; Olson and Brennan, 2018; Olson and Brennan, 2017). These and other types of community-based action in these and other settings is seen as essential to community development and to the social and economic well-being of the locale.

Community and the Action Process

The emergence of community involves both interaction among residents and community action.  Community action refers to the process of building social relationships in pursuit of common community interests and maintaining local life (Wilkinson, 1991).  Community action is seen as being the foundation of the community development process because it encompasses deliberate and positive efforts designed to meet the general needs of all local residents.  This process represents multiple and diverse interests in the locality, and consequently provides a more comprehensive approach to community development (Wilkinson, 1991). Therefore, the action process is intended to benefit the entire community and to cut across divides that may exist (class, race, social), often arising from an emotional or social need (Phillimore & McCabe, 2015).

In the process of community development, local action focuses on the improvement of social well-being and involves people working together in pursuit of their general interests.  This power is manifested in the ability of individuals to come together and work toward common goals. When diverse individuals and their organizations interact with one another, they begin to mutually understand the needs and wants that are common to all residents (Wilkinson, 1991; Bridger, Brennan, and Luloff, 2011; McGovern, 2013; Phillimore & McCabe, 2015).  Such action provides local residents with the ability to retain community identities, maintain local control over decision-making, and address their own development needs. It is a central component of community and social well-being.

The existence of community action directs attention to the fact that local people acting together often have the power to transform and change their community (Gaventa, 1980; Bridger, Brennan, and Luloff, 2011; Olson and Brennan, 2018; Olson and Brennan, 2017; McGovern, 2013). Community action and corresponding development can be seen as the process of building relationships that increase the adaptive capacity of local people within a common territory.  This adaptive capacity is reflected in the ability of people to manage, utilize, and enhance those resources available to them in addressing their local issues (Wilkinson, 1991; Bridger, Brennan, and Luloff, 2011; Luloff and Bridger, 2003; Phillimore & McCabe, 2015; McGovern, 2013). As long as people care about each other and the place they live, every community has the potential for such collective action.  This ability allows distinctions to be made between simple aggregates of people and actual communities.

The Community Action Process

To impact social well-being, community action must seek the development of community, not simply the individual elements within it (Summers, 1986; Christenson and Robinson, 1989; Wilkinson, 1991; McGovern, 2013; Olson and Brennan, 2018; Olson and Brennan, 2017). The community action process can be seen as containing far more than simple individual actions and efforts (Wilkinson, 1991; Seyfang & Smith, 2007; McGovern, 2013). Most effective action efforts proceed through a series of steps that focus on solving specific problems and bringing residents closer together.  Five stages of accomplishment, including initiation, organization of sponsorship, goal setting, recruitment, and implementation, can be identified within this process (Wilkinson, 1970; Wilkinson, 1991):

The first stage, initiation, focuses on promoting awareness of the issue related to the action. Initiation and spread of interest occur when community members recognize and define an issue as being a problem or need, and begin to discuss it as a potential focus for group action.

The second stage focuses on the organization of sponsorship. This step addresses the structures, organizations, and resources available within and outside of the community.  Such factors are important in relation to assessing community needs and the development of action efforts to address perceived problems.

The third stage is goal setting and strategy development. This stage develops targets for action and identifies strategies for achieving community-decided goals.

The fourth stage is recruitment and mobilization of needed resources including people, money, and materials.  Community members possess a variety of experience, skills, funding, materials, networks, and other resources vital to achieving desired community goals.  Organizing and maximizing these resources significantly impacts the success of community action efforts.

The final stage involves the application of these resources in the implementation of plans to achieve the desired goals.  At this stage, specific actions are taken, assessed, adjusted, and implemented again.

Community action and the emergence of community should not be seen as representing romantic or idealized notions of local harmony and solidarity (Wilkinson, 1991; Bridger, Brennan, and Luloff, 2011; Luloff and Bridger, 2003; McGovern, 2013; Olson and Brennan, 2018; Olson and Brennan, 2017). The truth is that focused and deliberate action represents something far different. Action emerges out of interaction between diverse social groups, who often have clashing or at least distinctly different points of view. Interaction facilitates the coming together of such groups to assess their common and general needs. From this they form plans for action that benefit all involved, and ultimately the community in general.

The importance of organizing diverse local residents to help shape local development cannot be overstated.  By providing a comprehensive assessment of local conditions that represents all segments of the community, more efficient and successful programs can be developed.  The input and guidance from local residents allows development to build on the unique conditions and character of the community and allow local decision making to remain in the locale.  All of these create an environment where active local residents directly shape the community and its well-being.

Bridger, J.C., Brennan, M.A., and Luloff, A.E. 2011. "The Interactional Approach to Community", Chapter 9, p. 85-100 included in J. Robinson and G. Green (eds.), New Perspectives in Community Development. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Christenson, J. A. and J. W. Robinson. 1989. Community Development in Perspective. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Gaventa, J. 1980. Power and Powerlessness:  Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Luloff, A.E., and J. Bridger. 2003.  Community Agency and Local Development.  Pp. 203-213 in, Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century, edited by D. Brown and L. Swanson. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

McGovern, Pauline. 2013. "Cross-sector partnerships with small voluntary organizations: some reflections from a case study of a mutual support group." Voluntary Sector Review 4 (2): 223-240.

Olson, B. and Brennan, M.  2018. "From Community Engagement to Community Emergence: The Holistic Program Design Approach."  International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement. 5(1): 5-19. 

Olson, B. and Brennan, M. 2017.  "From Community Engagement to Community Emergence:  A Conceptual Framework and Model to Rethink Youth-Community Interaction".  In:  The Comprehensive Handbook for Community Development. R. Phillips and B. McGrath, Editors. Taylor & Francis Publishers. 

Phillimore, J., & McCabe, A. 2015. Small-scale civil society and social policy: the importance of experiential learning, insider knowledge and diverse motivations in shaping community action. Voluntary Sector Review, 6(2), 135-151.

Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental politics, 16(4), 584-603.

Summers, G. 1986. "Rural Community Development." Annual Review of Sociology. 12:341-371.

Wilkinson, K. 1970. "Phases and roles in community action." Rural Sociology. 35 (1): 54-68.

Wilkinson, K. 1991. The Community in Rural America. New York, NY: Greenwood Press, 1991.

Useful Websites and Resources

Center for Economic and Community Development

Center for Regional Development

The Community Development Society

Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

Southern Rural Development Center

UNESCO Chair in Community, Leadership, and Youth Development Program at Penn State

• Community and Leadership Development
• International Development
• Research Methods and Statistics
• Social Change/Social Movements
• Rural Sociology
• Environmental/Natural Resource Sociology

You may also be interested in ...

Susquehanna County Ag Day

Extension Memories of the Twentieth Century

Grant Writing: How to Find Funds and Write a Winning Proposal

Gender in Agricultural Programs: Filling the GAP

Agriculture: Working for You

Positive Youth Development / Strategies for Creating a 4-H Welcoming Environment

The Farmer Stress Management Toolbox Part 2

How to Become a Community Leader

The Joy of Farm Watching: A Roadside Guide to Pennsylvania Agriculture

Best Practices for Managing and Moderating Community Social Media Groups

Personalize your experience with penn state extension and stay informed of the latest in agriculture..

Module 25: Ecology of Living Things

Community structure and dynamics, learning outcomes.

• Identify different species roles that structure communities
• Describe community dynamics as the changes in community structure that take place over time

Community Structure

Communities are complex entities that can be characterized by their structure (the types and numbers of species present) and dynamics (how communities change over time). Understanding community structure and dynamics enables community ecologists to manage ecosystems more effectively.

Foundation Species

Figure 1. Coral is the foundation species of coral reef ecosystems. (credit: Jim E. Maragos, USFWS)

Foundation species are considered the “base” or “bedrock” of a community, having the greatest influence on its overall structure. They are usually the primary producers: organisms that bring most of the energy into the community. Kelp, brown algae, is a foundation species, forming the basis of the kelp forests off the coast of California.

Foundation species may physically modify the environment to produce and maintain habitats that benefit the other organisms that use them. An example is the photosynthetic corals of the coral reef (Figure 1). Corals themselves are not photosynthetic, but harbor symbionts within their body tissues (dinoflagellates called zooxanthellae) that perform photosynthesis; this is another example of a mutualism. The exoskeletons of living and dead coral make up most of the reef structure, which protects many other species from waves and ocean currents.

Biodiversity, Species Richness, and Relative Species Abundance

Biodiversity describes a community’s biological complexity: it is measured by the number of different species (species richness) in a particular area and their relative abundance (species evenness). The area in question could be a habitat, a biome, or the entire biosphere. Species richness is the term that is used to describe the number of species living in a habitat or biome. Species richness varies across the globe (Figure 2). One factor in determining species richness is latitude, with the greatest species richness occurring in ecosystems near the equator, which often have warmer temperatures, large amounts of rainfall, and low seasonality. The lowest species richness occurs near the poles, which are much colder, drier, and thus less conducive to life in Geologic time (time since glaciations). The predictability of climate or productivity is also an important factor. Other factors influence species richness as well. For example, the study of island biogeography attempts to explain the relatively high species richness found in certain isolated island chains, including the Galápagos Islands that inspired the young Darwin. Relative species abundance is the number of individuals in a species relative to the total number of individuals in all species within a habitat, ecosystem, or biome. Foundation species often have the highest relative abundance of species.

Figure 2. The greatest species richness for mammals in North and South America is associated with the equatorial latitudes. (credit: modification of work by NASA, CIESIN, Columbia University)

Keystone Species

Figure 3. The Pisaster ochraceus sea star is a keystone species. (credit: Jerry Kirkhart)

A keystone species is one whose presence is key to maintaining biodiversity within an ecosystem and to upholding an ecological community’s structure. The intertidal sea star, Pisaster ochraceus , of the northwestern United States is a keystone species (Figure 3).

Studies have shown that when this organism is removed from communities, populations of their natural prey (mussels) increase, completely altering the species composition and reducing biodiversity. Another keystone species is the banded tetra, a fish in tropical streams, which supplies nearly all of the phosphorus, a necessary inorganic nutrient, to the rest of the community. If these fish were to become extinct, the community would be greatly affected.

Invasive Species

Figure 4. Aquatic invasive species in the United States: (a) purple loosestrife and (b) zebra mussel. (credit a: modification of work by Liz West; credit b: modification of work by M. McCormick, NOAA)

Invasive species are non-native organisms that, when introduced to an area out of their native range, threaten the ecosystem balance of that habitat. Many such species exist in the United States, as shown in Figures 4–6. Whether enjoying a forest hike, taking a summer boat trip, or simply walking down an urban street, you have likely encountered an invasive species.

Invasive species like purple loosestrife ( Lythrum salicaria ) and the zebra mussel ( Dreissena polymorpha ) threaten certain aquatic ecosystems (Figure 4).

Some forests are threatened by the spread of common buckthorn ( Rhamnus cathartica ), garlic mustard ( Alliaria petiolata ), and the emerald ash borer ( Agrilus planipennis ) (Figure 5).

The European starling ( Sturnus vulgaris ) may compete with native bird species for nest holes.

Figure 5. Invasive species in US forests: (a) common buckthorn, (b) garlic mustard, and (c) the emerald ash borer. (credit a: modification of work by E. Dronkert; credit b: modification of work by Dan Davison; credit c: modification of work by USDA)

Community Dynamics

Community dynamics are the changes in community structure and composition over time. Sometimes these changes are induced by  environmental disturbances such as volcanoes, earthquakes, storms, fires, and climate change. Communities with a stable structure are said to be at equilibrium. Following a disturbance, the community may or may not return to the equilibrium state.

Succession describes the sequential appearance and disappearance of species in a community over time. In primary succession , newly exposed or newly formed land is colonized by living things; in secondary succession , part of an ecosystem is disturbed and remnants of the previous community remain.

Primary Succession and Pioneer Species

Figure 6. During primary succession in lava on Maui, Hawaii, succulent plants are the pioneer species. (credit: Forest and Kim Starr)

Primary succession occurs when new land is formed or rock is exposed: for example, following the eruption of volcanoes, such as those on the Big Island of Hawaii. As lava flows into the ocean, new land is continually being formed. On the Big Island, approximately 32 acres of land is added each year. First, weathering and other natural forces break down the substrate enough for the establishment of certain hearty plants and lichens with few soil requirements, known as pioneer species (Figure 6). These species help to further break down the mineral rich lava into soil where other, less hardy species will grow and eventually replace the pioneer species. In addition, as these early species grow and die, they add to an ever-growing layer of decomposing organic material and contribute to soil formation. Over time the area will reach an equilibrium state, with a set of organisms quite different from the pioneer species.

Secondary Succession

A classic example of secondary succession occurs in oak and hickory forests cleared by wildfire (Figure 7). Wildfires will burn most vegetation and kill those animals unable to flee the area. Their nutrients, however, are returned to the ground in the form of ash. Thus, even when areas are devoid of life due to severe fires, the area will soon be ready for new life to take hold.

Before the fire, the vegetation was dominated by tall trees with access to the major plant energy resource: sunlight. Their height gave them access to sunlight while also shading the ground and other low-lying species. After the fire, though, these trees are no longer dominant. Thus, the first plants to grow back are usually annual plants followed within a few years by quickly growing and spreading grasses and other pioneer species. Due to, at least in part, changes in the environment brought on by the growth of the grasses and other species, over many years, shrubs will emerge along with small pine, oak, and hickory trees. These organisms are called intermediate species. Eventually, over 150 years, the forest will reach its equilibrium point where species composition is no longer changing and resembles the community before the fire. This equilibrium state is referred to as the climax community , which will remain stable until the next disturbance.

Figure 7. Secondary succession is shown in an oak and hickory forest after a forest fire.

• Biology 2e. Provided by : OpenStax. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected] . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/biology-2e/pages/1-introduction

Advertisement

A Reflection on Community Research and Action as an Evolving Practice

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 12 November 2021
• Volume 30 , pages 535–544, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Stephen B. Fawcett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4572-4208 1  

3538 Accesses

10 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Community research and action is an evolving field of practice with multiple influences. Its varied ways of knowing and doing reflect recombined elements from different disciplines, including behavioral science, community psychology, public health, and community development. This article offers a personal reflection based on my evolving practice over nearly 50 years. The focus is on three types of influence: (a) engaging with different communities, fields, and networks (e.g., discovering shared values, diverse methods); (b) building methods and capabilities for the work (e.g., methods for participatory research, tools for capacity building); and (c) partnering for collaborative research and action, locally and globally. This story highlights the nature of the field’s evolution as an increasing variation in methods. Our evolving practice of community research and action—individually and collectively—emerges from the recombination of ideas and methods discovered through engagement in a wide variety of contexts.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Potential of (Participatory) Action Research for School Leaders, Local Policy Makers, and University-Based Researchers

Action Research

Community-Based Participatory Action Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Gradually, the observer realizes that these organisms are connected with each other, not linearly, but in a net-like, entangled fabric. —Alexander von Humboldt, German naturalist and explorer

In our professional lives, we follow branches from a field of origin—perhaps behavioral science or public health—into other related fields. In exchanges with others with different training and experience, we share ideas and methods that alter our practice and enrich our collective work. Like the “entangled life” of fungi (Sheldrake, 2020 ), we are connected in a web of relationships through which ideas and methods are shared and recombined in novel forms.

Community research and action is an evolving practice with multiple influences. Its varied activities result from exposure to, and selection for, different ways of knowing and doing. Recombined elements of research and practice reflect influences from different disciplines, including applied behavioral science, community psychology, public health, applied anthropology, urban planning, and community development, among others. For instance, if we are trained in behavioral science, we may especially value systematic methods of measurement and intervention. Exposure to community-oriented disciplines, such as community psychology or community development, may add an emphasis on participatory approaches, as represented in community-based participatory research and community engagement in designing and implementing strategies for action. Subsequent exposure to public health methods may add systems approaches and methods for changing conditions that affect health and health equity.

This article offers a reflection on the evolving practice of community research and action. Illustrated with my 50-plus years of experience, it focuses on three important mechanisms: (a) engaging with different communities, fields, and networks; (b) building methods and capabilities for the work; and (c) partnering for collaborative research and action.

Background and Context for Learning and Contributing

Personal background.

Personal backgrounds shape our openness to engaging people and seeing issues and concerns, as well as the possible ways of addressing them. My family and cultural background as an Irish Catholic led to exposure to Catholic social teaching. This called for a preferential option for the poor, solidarity with those who are marginalized, and a duty to pursue justice and address inequities. My undergraduate training in biology led to a lifelong interest in understanding mechanisms—how things work—including how community processes can produce changes in community conditions and outcomes.

After college, I joined the Volunteers in Service to America, where I lived and worked in low-income public housing in Kansas City. Going door to door, I met with and listened to people talk about what mattered to them. Through the kindness and wisdom of local guides (especially community leaders Myrtle Carter, Leotha Pinckney, and Freddie Coleman), I was led to see the community’s strengths and weaknesses, threats to progress, and opportunities for improvement through collective action. Together, we organized a tenants’ association to address community-determined concerns related to housing, education, violence, and building a good community for raising children. This experience in community organizing led to an appreciation for understanding the felt concerns of people in communities and their reality-based ideas for taking action.

During subsequent graduate/PhD training in applied behavioral science, I studied methods for measuring behavior and creating interventions and environmental conditions that can promote socially important behaviors and outcomes. I learned about methods to analyze personal and environmental factors contributing to problems and goals, and to design and implement effective interventions. Guides and mentors (e.g., Mont Wolf, Todd Risley, Jim Sherman, Keith Miller, and Dick Schiefelbusch) helped me see how the field could further systematic work in community research and action.

Each of us has our own combination of background, training, and experience that prepare us for the work of community research and action. However, curiosity and a desire for impact may lead us to search for additional methods that complement those acquired in early training and experience.

Context and Base for Learning and Contributing

Each of us has a different context for learning and contributing to community well-being. For many of us, this involves work at the individual level, listening and caring for family members, neighbors, and coworkers. Others may have public service roles or professional responsibilities related to improving conditions at the level of organizations, whole communities, or broader systems.

My professional mission has been to help understand and improve how people and organizations can work together to change conditions for improved health, well-being, and equity (Fawcett, Schultz, et al., 2010b ). In my role as a professor in a research university, I had the privilege of working in the field of community research and action. In my teaching, I tried to guide students in their learning about applied behavioral research and building healthy communities. With colleagues, I established an undergraduate program in community health and development and a joint PhD/MPH program (PhD in applied behavioral science, master’s in public health).

My primary base for learning and contributing was as founding director (in 1975) of the Work Group/Center for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas (KU; https://communityhealth.ku.edu/ ). With generations of graduate students and colleagues, we sought to achieve the center’s mission of promoting community health and development through collaborative research, teaching, and public service. Since 2004, our KU center has valued its designation as a World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Community Health and Development, thereby connecting us with global partners with whom to exchange, learn, and contribute.

Mechanisms for Evolving Practice: Engagement, Methods Building, and Partnerships

Community work fosters humility. This is true because we so often fall short of the desired goal of achieving improved conditions and outcomes. This may lead us to search for people and methods to achieve a better result and to have a broader impact. In this section, I consider three such mechanisms for evolving practice: (a) engaging with different communities, fields, and networks; (b) building methods and capabilities; and (c) partnering for collaborative research and action.

Engagement With Different Communities, Fields, and Networks

Through involvement in varied contexts, we are exposed to different people and ideas, values, and methods. In my own work, I have had the opportunity to learn from and with communities locally, nationally, and globally. We see countless examples of people working together to improve conditions and outcomes. For instance, we can learn from those working in community organizations throughout the United States (Fawcett, 1999 ) or from community health workers engaged in different parts of the world (Fawcett, Abeykoon, et al., 2010a ). Working in solidarity with these colleagues, we note shared values in community work—for engagement, empowerment, equity, and attention to broader determinants of health and well-being.

Engagement with different disciplines and fields brings exposure to diverse methods for community research and action. If we bring only a critical eye from narrow training in a single discipline, we may fail to see the potential contribution of new methods to help understand the situation and improve conditions. By contrast, if we bring an appreciative stance, we can see how methods found in other contexts and disciplines can expand our approaches for engagement, assessment, planning, intervention, and evaluation of efforts.

My own experience reflects a layering of disciplinary influences over time. From 1969 to 1971, work in community organizing brought an appreciation for starting with the felt needs of local people and other valuable approaches in community development. Beginning in 1975, my teaching and research were grounded in PhD training in applied behavioral science. Particular strengths of this field include methods to measure behavior and assess conditions, analyze personal and environmental factors contributing to problems and goals, and design and implement effective interventions.

In pursuit of additional methods to inform community work, I sought out potential guides in the field of community psychology. Beginning in the late 1970s, this has been a career-long engagement, with attempts to integrate work in behavioral community psychology (e.g., Fawcett et al., 1980 ). Through the generosity of guides in community psychology (e.g., Lenny Jason, Rick Price, Tom Wolff, and Bill Berkowitz), I discovered inspiring people and work and new methods for community research and action. By seeking an integration of the fields of applied behavioral science and community psychology—a form of behavioral community psychology—we tried to bridge important values and standards of these two disciplines (Fawcett, 1990 , 1991 ).

Beginning in the early 1990s, our work with the Kansas Health Foundation and a subsequent endowed professorship reoriented our center’s work to the field of public health. Through guides in public health (e.g., Marni Vliet, Larry Green, Marshall Kreuter, Michael McGinnis, and Bobbie Berkowitz), we discovered the shared values of social justice, evidence-based practice, and commitment to creating conditions for health and equity that are the pillars of this discipline.

Beginning in 2004 and still ongoing, our center was designated by the WHO as a Collaborating Centre for Community Health and Development. This allowed us to learn and contribute with colleagues from around the world, with encouragement and support from guides in global health (e.g., Bill Foege, Gauden Galea, Alfonso Contreras, Gerry Eijkemans, Peter Phori, and Rima Afifi). The WHO Collaborating Centre’s two primary objectives—building capacity for the work of community health and development and expanding the evidence base for collaborative action—continue to be a focus for our broader KU center.

These and other disciplines, and related interest groups and networks, have created a rich web of opportunities for many of us to learn how to engage in community research and action.

Building Methods and Capabilities for the Work

Every practitioner seeks to discover and adapt methods to make the work of promoting community health and development more effective. We develop tools and protocols, such as for assessment or intervention, to make the work easier for ourselves and others. We build capabilities, such as for workforce development or participatory evaluation, to enable others to do this work—without us, in their different contexts, long after we are gone.

Our KU center has focused its development efforts on two strategic capabilities: (a) tools for capacity building and (b) methods for participatory research and monitoring and evaluation.

Tools for Capacity Building: The Community Tool Box and Action Toolkits

In 1995, a team of colleagues (myself, Jerry Schultz, Vincent Francisco, Bill Berkowitz, and Tom Wolff) began building the Community Tool Box ( http://ctb.ku.edu/ ). That work continues with our KU center, under the leadership of Christina Holt. The Community Tool Box is now a massive (over 7,000-page), free, and open-source collection of tools for building capacity for this work. It features hundreds of learning modules—including task analyses, rationales, and application examples—for skills related to promoting community health and development. Learning modules aim to build capacity for core competencies in community research and action, including engagement, assessment, planning, intervention, advocacy, and evaluation. Available in English and Spanish, and partially in Arabic and Farsi, the open-source Community Tool Box reached over 6,000,000 unique users last year.

In recent years, we have also developed customized capacity-building resources, known as Action Toolkits, with a number of different partners. These online resources mix other content sources with curated content from the Community Tool Box—including its task analyses—to build skills for implementing a partner’s framework for action. For instance, the African Health Action Toolkit ( https://who-afro.ctb.ku.edu ), developed with partners at the WHO Regional Office for Africa, is intended to build capacity for addressing social determinants of health and furthering sustainable development goals in the region. The Healthy Cities Action Toolkit ( https://paho.ctb.ku.edu/ ), developed with the WHO/Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Regional Office for the Americas and available in English and Spanish, aims to support efforts to promote healthy cities in the Americas. Partnering with a state health department, we built the Kansas Healthy Communities Action Toolkit ( https://ksactiontoolkit.ctb.ku.edu/ ) to further health-equity work. Other partnerships have produced an array of Action Toolkits, including those for improving community health, promoting racial justice, strengthening democratic action, and promoting compassionate communities.

Methods for Participatory Research and Monitoring and Evaluation

Our center also invested in developing a capability for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) that would allow us to work with partners locally and globally. The technology for this M&E system, known as the Community Check Box Evaluation System, supports the documentation of the intervention and participatory sensemaking to reflect on patterns in the data (Fawcett et al., 2017 ). With partners, we have used this M&E system to help understand and improve a variety of collaborative efforts.

Participatory M&E—a form of participatory action research—holds promise for understanding and addressing a variety of health and development issues. Capabilities that make this easier can be helpful in facilitating partnerships for community research. For instance, we have used this methodology to support evaluations of initiatives to (a) promote community health and development (e.g., Fawcett et al., 2016 ), (b) enhance care coordination for those with low incomes (e.g., Hassaballa et al., 2015 ), (c) prevent the spread of Ebola in Liberia (e.g., Munodawafa et al., 2018 ), (d) provide a health-systems response to COVID-19 (Holt et al., 2021 ), and (e) respond to COVID-19 in the WHO Africa Region. For instance, in the latter example, the WHO Regional Office for Africa used the M&E system to document the unfolding of COVID-19 response activities in African countries, support country partners’ reflections on patterns, and adjust its technical support for country efforts (Phori et al., manuscript under revision ).

The sensemaking protocol of the M&E system enables stakeholders—including those most affected and those responsible—to construct their own meaning of the data. They do so by systematically reflecting on (a) what we are seeing (i.e., in data patterns), (b) what it means (e.g., identifying factors and critical events associated with increases/decreases in measures), and (c) what the implications for adjustment and improvement are. We have seen the value of protocols for participatory M&E, and the related use of the Community Check Box Evaluation System, in an array of partnerships.

By building tools and platforms for making the work easier and more effective—and more participatory—we can strengthen engagement with partners and extend the learning, reach, and impact of our efforts.

Partnering for Collaborative Research and Action

Collaborative partnerships involve a sharing of resources, responsibilities, risks, and rewards (Himmelman, 2002 ). This requires trust and the experience borne of respectful engagement with different communities and fields. Capabilities that make the work easier and more effective, such as those for capacity building or evaluation, make it more likely that partners will choose to work together.

Our center has had the privilege of working with an array of partners on a variety of initiatives, typically in the roles of training, technical support, and evaluation. For instance, locally, in an over decade-long partnership with the Latino Health for All Coalition, we have provided technical support and evaluation for the coalition’s efforts to promote physical activity, healthy nutrition, and access to health services (e.g., Collie-Akers et al., 2013 ), including enhancing health access and culturally competent health services (Fawcett et al., 2018 ) and enrolling underserved groups in affordable health insurance (e.g., Fawcett, Sepers, et al., 2015b ). In a partnership with a state health department, we designed and supported the implementation of a maternal and child health M&E system to document and improve system changes related to improving conditions for population-level maternal and child health.

Nationally, we have used this systematic M&E capability to document and characterize the intensity of community efforts to prevent childhood obesity in the national Healthy Communities Study that involved over 300 communities (Fawcett, Collie-Akers, et al., 2015a ; Frongillo et al., 2017 ; Strauss et al., 2018 ). As evaluators of the Bristol Meyers Squibb Foundation’s national Together on Diabetes Program, we also used this M&E system to support the accountability and quality improvement of multiple partners working to address equity issues in diabetes care (e.g., Hassaballa et al., 2015 ).

Globally, in partnership with the WHO Regional Office for Africa, we have worked to expand the evidence base for how communities and countries respond to communicable disease outbreaks such as Ebola (e.g., Munodawafa et al., 2018 ). In a current project, the Community Check Box serves as the infrastructure for a WHO AFRO effort to document and better understand country-level responses to COVID-19 within the Africa region. This project uses the participatory sensemaking protocol to identify factors that enabled and impeded the response and associated effects on new cases of COVID-19 (Phori et al., manuscript under revision ).

Locally, and globally, the Community Tool Box—with over 6,000,000 unique users—has the broadest reach of the center’s projects and capabilities (Holt et al., 2013 ). It builds capacities to provide training and technical support for the workforce, including assessment, planning, intervention, advocacy, and evaluation. Its free and open-source materials support the work of millions of learners and practitioners from over 200 countries—including those working in their own communities and organizations, and in government, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society. Action Toolkits, based on the Community Tool Box, help serve the customized capacity-building needs of partners with extensive reach, such as the WHO’s Regional Office for the Americas/PAHO ( https://paho.ctb.ku.edu/ ), Regional Office for Africa ( https://who-afro.ctb.ku.edu ), and Regional Office for the Western Pacific ( https://who-wpro.ctb.ku.edu/engage/ ).

Conclusion: Our Shared Story of Exchange and Variation

This article posits three mechanisms by which community research and practice evolves: (a) engaging with different communities, fields, and networks; (b) building methods and capabilities for the work; and (c) partnering for collaborative research and action. This personal reflection tells a story of evolution—of change and adaptation, of selection and recombination of elements, and ultimately of variation. This process of evolution seems to hold for us individually, and collectively as a community of practitioners developing and adapting ways of doing the work.

As with biological evolution, chance and opportunity play an important part in variation. For instance, although we may seek guides to help show the way in different communities and fields, they may not be available to us. Although we might hope to build capabilities to make the work easier, we may not find the resources to do so. Despite our interest in partnerships, our modest relationships and limited experience may not enable us to forge them. In addition, as with biological mutations, not all variations in community methods are good; there is a risk that change may not equal improvement.

Paleontologist and evolutionary scientist Stephen Jay Gould ( 1996 ) noted in Full House that the story line for biological evolution is more variation than progress. Chance events and related differential exposures, vulnerabilities, and capabilities lead to life-forms of great variety. Evolutionary history shows more evidence of variation than improved functioning. This might also apply to the field of community research and action. Analogously, rather than look for one approach as the pinnacle, we might do better to appreciate the accumulating variation that emerges from our collective engagements, methods building, and partnerships.

This personal reflection highlights the mechanisms that increase variation—and perhaps some progress—in the field of community research and action. Our evolving practice emerges from exchange among partners and the recombination of ideas and methods discovered through engagement with different communities and fields. This is the work of seekers—those with curiosity and openness to new methods and adaptations that may have a relative advantage. May we have “entangled” lives, ones that are enriched by a web of relationships through which we learn, change, and improve our collective contributions to community health, development, and equity.

Collie-Akers, V. L., Fawcett, S. B., & Schultz, J. A. (2013). Measuring progress of collaborative action in a community health effort. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública/Pan American Journal of Public Health, 34 (6), 422–428.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fawcett, S. B. (1990). Some emerging standards for community research and action. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. E. Jason (Eds.), Researching community psychology: Integrating theories and methodologies (pp. 64–75). American Psychological Association.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Fawcett, S. B. (1991). Some values guiding community research and action. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24 , 621–636.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fawcett, S. B. (1999). Some lessons on community organization and change. In J. Rothman (Ed.), Reflections on community organization: Enduring themes and critical issues (pp. 314–334). F. E. Peacock Publishers.

Google Scholar  

Fawcett, S. B., Fletcher, R. K., & Mathews, R. M. (1980). Applications of behavior analysis in community education. In D. S. Glenwick & L. A. Jason (Eds.), Behavioral community psychology: Progress and prospects (pp. 108–142). Praeger.

Fawcett, S., Abeykoon, P., Arora, M., Dobe, M., Galloway-Gilliam, L., Liburd, L., & Munodawafa, D. (2010a). Constructing an action agenda for community empowerment at the 7th Global Conference on Health Promotion in Nairobi. Global Health Promotion, 17 (4).

Fawcett, S., Schultz, J., Watson-Thompson, J., Fox, M., & Bremby, R. (2010b). Building multisectoral partnerships for population health and health equity. Preventing Chronic Disease, 7 (6), Article A118 http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2010/nov/10_0079.htm

Fawcett, S. B., Collie-Akers, V., Schultz, J., & Kelley, M. (2015a). Measuring community programs and policies in the Healthy Communities Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49 (4), 636–641.

Fawcett, S. B., Sepers, C. E., Jones, J., Jones, L., & McKain, W. (2015b). Participatory evaluation of a community mobilization effort to enroll residents of Wyandotte County, Kansas residents through the Affordable Care Act. American Journal of Public Health, 105 (S3), S433–S437.

Fawcett, S. B., Schultz, J., Collie-Akers, V., Holt, C., & Watson-Thompson, J. (2016). Community development for population health and health equity. In P. Erwin & R. Brownson (Eds.), Scutchfield and Keck’s principles of public health practice (4th ed., pp. 443–460). Cengage Learning.

Fawcett, S. B., Schultz, J., Collie-Akers, V., Holt, C., Watson-Thompson, J., & Francisco, V. (2017). Participatory monitoring and evaluation of community health initiatives using the Community Check Box Evaluation System. In N. Wallerstein, B. Duran, J. Oetzel, & M. Minkler (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health (3rd ed., pp. 399–404). Wiley.

Fawcett, S. B., Torres, J., Jones, L., Moffett, M., Bradford, K., Ramirez Mantilla, M., Cupertino, A. P., & Bravo de los Rios, J., & Collie-Akers, V. (2018). Assuring health access and culturally competent health services through the Latino Health for All Coalition. Health Promotion Practice, 19 (5), 765–774.

Frongillo, E. A., Fawcett, S. B., Ritchie, L. D., Arteaga, S., Loria, C. M., Pate, R. R., John, L. V., Strauss, W. J., Gregoriou, M., Collie-Akers, V. L., Schultz, J. A., Landgraf, A. J., & Nagaraja, J. (2017). Community policies and programs to prevent obesity and child adiposity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 53 , 576–583.

Gould, S. J. (1996). Full house: The spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin . Three Rivers Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hassaballa, I., Ebekozien, O., Ogungbadero, A., Williams, F., Schultz, J., Hunter-Skidmore, J., Fawcett, S., & Watson-Thompson, J. (2015). Evaluation of a diabetes care coordination program for African-American women living in public housing. Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management, 22 (8), 365–372.

Himmelman, A. (2002). Collaboration for a change . Himmelman Consulting.

Holt, C. M., Fawcett, S. B., Schultz, J. A., Berkowitz, B., Wolff, T., & Francisco, V. T. (2013). Building community practice competencies globally through the Community Tool Box. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 4 (4), 1–8.

Holt, C. M., Fawcett, S. B., Hassaballa-Muhammad, R., Partridge, D., & Jordan, S. (2021). Participatory monitoring and evaluation of the COVID-19 response in a local public health system. Health Promotion Practice, 22 (6), 750–757.  https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399211041085

Munodawafa, D., Moeti, M., Phori, P. M., Fawcett, S. B., Hassaballa, I., Sepers, C., DiGennaro Reed, F., Schultz, J., & Chiriseri, E. T. (2018). Monitoring and evaluating the Ebola response effort in two Liberian communities. Journal of Community Health, 42 , 321–327.

Phori, P. M., Fawcett, S. B., Nidjergou, N. N., Silouakadila, C., Hassaballa, R., & Kakule, S. D. (manuscript under revision). Participatory monitoring and evaluation of the COVID-19 response in the Africa region.

Sheldrake, M. (2020). Entangled life: How fungi make our worlds, change our minds, and shape our futures . Random House.

Strauss, W. J., Nagarajal, J., Landgraf, A. J., Arteaga, S. S., Fawcett, S. B., Ritchie, L. D., John, L. V., Gregoriou, M., Frongillo, E. A., Loria, C. M., Weber, S. A., Collie-Akers, V. L., McIver, K. L., Schultz, J., Sagatov, R. D., Leifer, E. S., Webb, K., & Pate, R. R. (2018). The longitudinal relationship between community programmes and policies to prevent childhood obesity and BMI in children: the Healthy Communities Study. Pediatric Obesity .

Download references

Author Note

I am grateful to the many wonderful students, colleagues, and partners who were my teachers in this work. My academic home, the Department of Applied Behavioral Science at the University of Kansas, was a fine place to grow as a teacher and researcher. My research center home, the Work Group/Center for Community Health and Development and the Live Span Institute, at the University of Kansas, continues to provide a terrific base for learning, exploration, and contribution. Current and recent colleagues at the center—including Vincent Francisco, Christina Holt, Jerry Schultz, Vicki Collie-Akers, and Jomella Watson-Thompson—still make me feel appreciated in the role of senior advisor. Finally, thanks to my many guides in different communities and fields; you welcomed me, protected me, and showed me around. Your generosity allowed me to see the many and varied forms of community research and action. These gems of engagement remain available for our enchantment, selection, and reinvention for the common good.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Community Health and Development, Life Span Institute, University of Kansas, 4082 Dole Center, 1000 Sunnyside Ave, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA

Stephen B. Fawcett

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen B. Fawcett .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fawcett, S.B. A Reflection on Community Research and Action as an Evolving Practice. Behav. Soc. Iss. 30 , 535–544 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-021-00083-x

Download citation

Accepted : 15 October 2021

Published : 12 November 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-021-00083-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Community research
• Participatory research
• Capacity building
• Behavioral science
• Community psychology
• Public health
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Importance of Understanding Community Dynamics and Community Action

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

17.26: Community Structure and Dynamics

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 44799

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

• Identify different species roles that structure communities
• Describe community dynamics as the changes in community structure that take place over time

Community Structure

Communities are complex entities that can be characterized by their structure (the types and numbers of species present) and dynamics (how communities change over time). Understanding community structure and dynamics enables community ecologists to manage ecosystems more effectively.

Foundation Species

Foundation species are considered the “base” or “bedrock” of a community, having the greatest influence on its overall structure. They are usually the primary producers: organisms that bring most of the energy into the community. Kelp, brown algae, is a foundation species, forming the basis of the kelp forests off the coast of California.

Foundation species may physically modify the environment to produce and maintain habitats that benefit the other organisms that use them. An example is the photosynthetic corals of the coral reef (Figure 1). Corals themselves are not photosynthetic, but harbor symbionts within their body tissues (dinoflagellates called zooxanthellae) that perform photosynthesis; this is another example of a mutualism. The exoskeletons of living and dead coral make up most of the reef structure, which protects many other species from waves and ocean currents.

Biodiversity, Species Richness, and Relative Species Abundance

Biodiversity describes a community’s biological complexity: it is measured by the number of different species (species richness) in a particular area and their relative abundance (species evenness). The area in question could be a habitat, a biome, or the entire biosphere. Species richness is the term that is used to describe the number of species living in a habitat or biome. Species richness varies across the globe (Figure 2). One factor in determining species richness is latitude, with the greatest species richness occurring in ecosystems near the equator, which often have warmer temperatures, large amounts of rainfall, and low seasonality. The lowest species richness occurs near the poles, which are much colder, drier, and thus less conducive to life in Geologic time (time since glaciations). The predictability of climate or productivity is also an important factor. Other factors influence species richness as well. For example, the study of island biogeography attempts to explain the relatively high species richness found in certain isolated island chains, including the Galápagos Islands that inspired the young Darwin. Relative species abundance is the number of individuals in a species relative to the total number of individuals in all species within a habitat, ecosystem, or biome. Foundation species often have the highest relative abundance of species.

Keystone Species

A keystone species is one whose presence is key to maintaining biodiversity within an ecosystem and to upholding an ecological community’s structure. The intertidal sea star, Pisaster ochraceus , of the northwestern United States is a keystone species (Figure 3).

Studies have shown that when this organism is removed from communities, populations of their natural prey (mussels) increase, completely altering the species composition and reducing biodiversity. Another keystone species is the banded tetra, a fish in tropical streams, which supplies nearly all of the phosphorus, a necessary inorganic nutrient, to the rest of the community. If these fish were to become extinct, the community would be greatly affected.

Invasive Species

Invasive species are non-native organisms that, when introduced to an area out of their native range, threaten the ecosystem balance of that habitat. Many such species exist in the United States, as shown in Figures 4–6. Whether enjoying a forest hike, taking a summer boat trip, or simply walking down an urban street, you have likely encountered an invasive species.

Invasive species like purple loosestrife ( Lythrum salicaria ) and the zebra mussel ( Dreissena polymorpha ) threaten certain aquatic ecosystems (Figure 4).

Some forests are threatened by the spread of common buckthorn ( Rhamnus cathartica ), garlic mustard ( Alliaria petiolata ), and the emerald ash borer ( Agrilus planipennis ) (Figure 5).

The European starling ( Sturnus vulgaris ) may compete with native bird species for nest holes.

Community Dynamics

Community dynamics are the changes in community structure and composition over time. Sometimes these changes are induced by environmental disturbances such as volcanoes, earthquakes, storms, fires, and climate change. Communities with a stable structure are said to be at equilibrium. Following a disturbance, the community may or may not return to the equilibrium state.

Succession describes the sequential appearance and disappearance of species in a community over time. In primary succession , newly exposed or newly formed land is colonized by living things; in secondary succession , part of an ecosystem is disturbed and remnants of the previous community remain.

Primary Succession and Pioneer Species

Primary succession occurs when new land is formed or rock is exposed: for example, following the eruption of volcanoes, such as those on the Big Island of Hawaii. As lava flows into the ocean, new land is continually being formed. On the Big Island, approximately 32 acres of land is added each year. First, weathering and other natural forces break down the substrate enough for the establishment of certain hearty plants and lichens with few soil requirements, known as pioneer species (Figure 6). These species help to further break down the mineral rich lava into soil where other, less hardy species will grow and eventually replace the pioneer species. In addition, as these early species grow and die, they add to an ever-growing layer of decomposing organic material and contribute to soil formation. Over time the area will reach an equilibrium state, with a set of organisms quite different from the pioneer species.

Secondary Succession

A classic example of secondary succession occurs in oak and hickory forests cleared by wildfire (Figure 7). Wildfires will burn most vegetation and kill those animals unable to flee the area. Their nutrients, however, are returned to the ground in the form of ash. Thus, even when areas are devoid of life due to severe fires, the area will soon be ready for new life to take hold.

Before the fire, the vegetation was dominated by tall trees with access to the major plant energy resource: sunlight. Their height gave them access to sunlight while also shading the ground and other low-lying species. After the fire, though, these trees are no longer dominant. Thus, the first plants to grow back are usually annual plants followed within a few years by quickly growing and spreading grasses and other pioneer species. Due to, at least in part, changes in the environment brought on by the growth of the grasses and other species, over many years, shrubs will emerge along with small pine, oak, and hickory trees. These organisms are called intermediate species. Eventually, over 150 years, the forest will reach its equilibrium point where species composition is no longer changing and resembles the community before the fire. This equilibrium state is referred to as the climax community , which will remain stable until the next disturbance.

Contributors and Attributions

• Biology. Provided by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected] . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computer Science and Game Theory

Title: dynamics and contracts for an agent with misspecified beliefs.

Abstract: We study a single-agent contracting environment where the agent has misspecified beliefs about the outcome distributions for each chosen action. First, we show that for a myopic Bayesian learning agent with only two possible actions, the empirical frequency of the chosen actions converges to a Berk-Nash equilibrium. However, through a constructed example, we illustrate that this convergence in action frequencies fails when the agent has three or more actions. Furthermore, with multiple actions, even computing an $\varepsilon$-Berk-Nash equilibrium requires at least quasi-polynomial time under the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH) for the PPAD-class. This finding poses a significant challenge to the existence of simple learning dynamics that converge in action frequencies. Motivated by this challenge, we focus on the contract design problems for an agent with misspecified beliefs and two possible actions. We show that the revenue-optimal contract, under a Berk-Nash equilibrium, can be computed in polynomial time. Perhaps surprisingly, we show that even a minor degree of misspecification can result in a significant reduction in optimal revenue.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access only $1 for 4 weeks.

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, ft professional, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• FT App on Android & iOS
• FirstFT: the day's biggest stories
• 20+ curated newsletters
• Follow topics & set alerts with myFT
• FT Videos & Podcasts
• 20 monthly gift articles to share
• Lex: FT's flagship investment column
• 15+ Premium newsletters by leading experts
• FT Digital Edition: our digitised print edition
• Weekday Print Edition
• Videos & Podcasts
• Premium newsletters
• 10 additional gift articles per month
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Everything in Premium Digital

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• 10 monthly gift articles to share
• Everything in Print
• Make and share highlights
• FT Workspace
• Markets data widget
• Subscription Manager
• Workflow integrations
• Occasional readers go free
• Volume discount

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

Follow Puck Worlds online:

• Follow Puck Worlds on Twitter

Site search

Filed under:

• Kontinental Hockey League

Gagarin Cup Preview: Atlant vs. Salavat Yulaev

Share this story.

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Gagarin Cup Preview: Atlant vs. Salavat Yulaev

Gagarin cup (khl) finals:  atlant moscow oblast vs. salavat yulaev ufa.

Much like the Elitserien Finals, we have a bit of an offense vs. defense match-up in this league Final.  While Ufa let their star top line of Alexander Radulov, Patrick Thoresen and Igor Grigorenko loose on the KHL's Western Conference, Mytischi played a more conservative style, relying on veterans such as former NHLers Jan Bulis, Oleg Petrov, and Jaroslav Obsut.  Just reaching the Finals is a testament to Atlant's disciplined style of play, as they had to knock off much more high profile teams from Yaroslavl and St. Petersburg to do so.  But while they did finish 8th in the league in points, they haven't seen the likes of Ufa, who finished 2nd. 

This series will be a challenge for the underdog, because unlike some of the other KHL teams, Ufa's top players are generally younger and in their prime.  Only Proshkin amongst regular blueliners is over 30, with the work being shared by Kirill Koltsov (28), Andrei Kuteikin (26), Miroslav Blatak (28), Maxim Kondratiev (28) and Dmitri Kalinin (30).  Oleg Tverdovsky hasn't played a lot in the playoffs to date.  Up front, while led by a fairly young top line (24-27), Ufa does have a lot of veterans in support roles:  Vyacheslav Kozlov , Viktor Kozlov , Vladimir Antipov, Sergei Zinovyev and Petr Schastlivy are all over 30.  In fact, the names of all their forwards are familiar to international and NHL fans:  Robert Nilsson , Alexander Svitov, Oleg Saprykin and Jakub Klepis round out the group, all former NHL players.

For Atlant, their veteran roster, with only one of their top six D under the age of 30 (and no top forwards under 30, either), this might be their one shot at a championship.  The team has never won either a Russian Superleague title or the Gagarin Cup, and for players like former NHLer Oleg Petrov, this is probably the last shot at the KHL's top prize.  The team got three extra days rest by winning their Conference Final in six games, and they probably needed to use it.  Atlant does have younger regulars on their roster, but they generally only play a few shifts per game, if that. 

The low event style of game for Atlant probably suits them well, but I don't know how they can manage to keep up against Ufa's speed, skill, and depth.  There is no advantage to be seen in goal, with Erik Ersberg and Konstantin Barulin posting almost identical numbers, and even in terms of recent playoff experience Ufa has them beat.  Luckily for Atlant, Ufa isn't that far away from the Moscow region, so travel shouldn't play a major role. 

I'm predicting that Ufa, winners of the last Superleague title back in 2008, will become the second team to win the Gagarin Cup, and will prevail in five games.  They have a seriously well built team that would honestly compete in the NHL.  They represent the potential of the league, while Atlant represents closer to the reality, as a team full of players who played themselves out of the NHL. 

• Atlant @ Ufa, Friday Apr 8 (3:00 PM CET/10:00 PM EST)
• Atlant @ Ufa, Sunday Apr 10 (1:00 PM CET/8:00 AM EST)
• Ufa @ Atlant, Tuesday Apr 12 (5:30 PM CET/12:30 PM EST)
• Ufa @ Atlant, Thursday Apr 14 (5:30 PM CET/12:30 PM EST)

Games 5-7 are as yet unscheduled, but every second day is the KHL standard, so expect Game 5 to be on Saturday, like an early start. 

Loading comments...