Interactional theory in practice: Introduction

In March 2023, the University Press of Colorado published a new edition of The Community in Rural America by Kenneth P. Wilkinson (2023). For readers who may be unfamiliar with the book, The Community in Rural America is a theoretical treatise in which Wilkinson articulated the interactional approach to the study of the community in rural areas. The interactional theory of the community – often referred to in the extant literature as interactional field theory, community field theory, or the field theoretical approach – is one theoretical perspective used to assess the personal and social organization within local communities. At its core, the interactional theory of the community provides a framework for examining the connections and interactions among people within a local community (and beyond) and the extent to which such connections/interactions are organized into locality-oriented processes and structures. It also offers a general strategy for addressing local problems through a particularly defined process of community development – a process that, according to Wilkinson, only occurs in community actions (i.e. collective actions with considerable locality orientation).

Dr. Mark Brennan – UNESCO Chair for Community, Leadership, and Youth Development and professor of leadership and community development at the Pennsylvania State University – and I wrote a Foreword for the book in which we detailed selected key concepts in Wilkinson’s interactional theory and highlighted several of his background assumptions. We suspect that the new Foreword will be beneficial for both seasoned and new readers of The Community in Rural America, and we hope it will encourage enlightened discussions among researchers and practitioners on the applicability and potential shortcomings of the interactional theory of the community.

From that Foreword to this special issue on interactional theory in practice

The idea for this special issue emerged as Dr. Brennan and I commenced work on the Foreword for the new edition of The Community in Rural America. Prior to any actual writing, Dr. Brennan and I reflected on how we have used interactional theory to frame our community research and guide our applied community development programs and/or projects throughout our professional lives. Early in our careers, Dr. Brennan and I each had appointments with the Cooperative Extension Service. While working in those roles, we presented information on local community development topics at public workshops, meetings, and other educational events, both independently and in conjunction with collaborators. We also provided technical assistance, coordination, and leadership for applied educational programs in community development. Furthermore, we planned, implemented, and evaluated applied community development research and educational programs, and we assisted county Extension agents, community leaders, and local elected officials with resource identification and acquisition. Working separately, we have written and published several educational materials designed specifically to be used by Extension personnel when called upon to provide programming in the area of community development (Brennan, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d; Brennan & Regan, 2005; Marcus & Brennan, 2005; Theodori, 2003, 2004, 2009).

Although neither of us currently has a formal Extension appointment, we continue to engage in outreach activities and are often called upon by agency personnel and/or local community leaders to design and administer community development educational and technical assistance programs. I, for example, regularly facilitate my community-based planning process detailed in Preparing for the Future: A Guide to Community-Based Planning (Theodori, 2009). Upon implementation, the process of community-based planning described in the guidebook has the potential to strengthen the engagement of individuals and organizations in the civic life of their communities and to assist community members in developing sound strategies for addressing challenges associated with growth and development. Specifically, engagement in the process allows for the promotion of active and representative participation of all community members as they shape their collective future; the engagement of community members in learning about and understanding community issues and the economic, social, environmental, and political impacts associated with alternative courses of action; the incorporation of diverse interests and beliefs in the community development process; the enhancement of the leadership capacity of county Extension agents, elected officials, and other community members; the long-term sustainability and wellbeing of communities; and the establishment of indicators for measuring progress toward community goals. Similarly, Brennan works through UNESCO and his partnerships with non-governmental organizations and Cooperative Extension to move research to application. His Community and Youth Capacity Building Program (Brennan, 2020) has been delivered to numerous local communities by the University of Florida and Penn State Extension faculty and staff. Focusing on collective local visioning, community organizing, decision-making, and actively engaging diverse residents, this program builds capacity to foster social wellbeing. It also emphasizes the engagement and empowerment of youth. Recent estimates indicate that youth – those individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 – currently represent 15.5% of all global citizens and have become a focal population for the policies and programs of the United Nations (United Nations, 2020). In Brennan’s applied programs, youth are viewed as key agents of community change and sustainable development; they learn to lead community-building efforts and become directly engaged in local actions and decision-making (Malcolm et al., 2020).

Our early Extension programs and publications were rooted in interactional theory, as are our current outreach educational and technical assistance programs and/or projects. Also, like us, many of our Extension and practitioner-oriented colleagues incorporate interactional theory into their applied community development programs and/or projects. It immediately dawned on both of us that we should propose a special issue of a journal to showcase how interactional theory has been used to frame research in local communities and incorporated into applied community development programs and/or projects. Also, knowing that the “local” matters in interactional theory, we could not think of a more appropriate publication than Local Development & Society.

Unfortunately, due to several commitments, Dr. Brennan had to forego work on this special issue. I sallied forth and invited several colleagues to draft papers in which they described how they use interactional theory in their work. In “Interactional theory as a keystone of creativity, innovation, democracy, and learning in action,” Michael Fortunato and Theodore (Ted) Alter demonstrate how they have applied interactional theory throughout their professional careers as community and economic development practitioners. The authors illustrate the application of interactional theory using a plurality of examples, including their work on (a) enhancing local innovation through diversity, (b) using storytelling as a technique for deliberative practice, (c) supporting antifragility as a technique for continuous adaptation and local improvement, (d) fostering an everyday politics that builds the local capacity for democratic action, (e) building knowledge systems where learning is a cornerstone of community, and (f) addressing interdependence, conflict, and power in community affairs.

In “Expanding engagement, connecting social fields: The hometown collaborative initiative,” Lionel (Bo) Beaulieu and Maria Wiltse introduce readers to the Hometown Collaborative Initiative (HCI), a community capacity-building program targeted at cities, towns, and counties in Indiana with resident populations of 25,000 or less. The primary goal of the HCI is to develop and strengthen civic engagement in Indiana’s rural communities. After providing some background information on the genesis of the HCI, defining the three phases of the initiative, and presenting an overview of various projects launched as part of the HCI, Beaulieu and Wiltse explain how interactional theory serves as an underlying framework for many aspects of the HCI.

In “Using the field theoretical/interactional community perspective in student projects to promote the development ‘of’ community,” Eric Larson describes how he and his students put interactional theory into practice. After providing some background information on the courses he teaches and the types of students who enroll in such courses, Larson explains how he and his students coordinate and engage with local stakeholders to create community development projects aimed at promoting the individual, social, and economic wellbeing of community residents. He details how increased interaction across stakeholder groups generally leads to increased community capacity and action. From the interactional perspective, Larson argues, increased community capacity and action promote greater possibilities for the emergence and development “of” community in future efforts.

In “The interactional approach to adaptive capacity: Researching adaptation in socially diverse, wildfire prone communities,” Travis Paveglio outlines how he and his colleagues have incorporated elements of interactional theory into their theoretical and empirical work on the ways socially diverse communities adapt to wildfire. He also explains how their previous and ongoing community fire adaptation research in rural and urban areas of the western United States extends interactional theory by advancing systematic means for documenting, characterizing, and tailoring fire adaptation efforts in local communities grappling with wildfire management challenges.

In “Community-oriented action and wellbeing: Looking back to look forward,” Courtney Flint, Sarah Wilson, and Hua Qin examine the associations between/among measures of community-oriented action and wellbeing using data gathered in nine studies. Findings from their comparative analyses reveal a positive and statistically significant association between measures of community-oriented action and wellbeing in six of their nine data sets. The authors frame their analyses and situate their discussion of the results within interactional theory. Flint et al. conclude their paper by offering recommendations for future research on community-oriented actions and wellbeing, including the need to examine changes in community-oriented actions and wellbeing relationships over time and across diverse contexts.

In “Aiming for clarity while embracing ambiguity: The LIFE framework of interactional community,” Paul Van Auken extends interactional theory by rooting the concept of community in landscape. Building upon the landscape interactional field extension (LIFE), which proposes replacing locality with landscape in Wilkinson’s interactional theory, Van Auken presents a framework that treats environmental and human dynamisms as fundamentally interactive in places. With Wilkinson’s interactional theory as the foundation, the LIFE framework aims to bring together common assertions about what community is and how it forms, how people experience and feel about the idea of community, and what can result from it. Three illustrative vignettes are then employed to demonstrate the LIFE framework’s application to sociological analysis and local development.

In short, I believe – as do the authors of these six papers – that interactional theory has much to offer when it comes to encouraging and promoting local and community development. May the illustrations of the application of interactional theory in this collection of papers inspire a new generation of community researchers and/or applied community development practitioners.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.