REVIEW ARTICLE Why Clinical Psychology Needs to Engage in Community-Based Approaches to Mental Health Paul Rhodes , 1 and Cynthia Langtiw 2 1 Clinical Psychology Unit, University of Sydney, and 2 Department of Clinical Psychology, Chicago School of Professional Psychology The aim of this article is to advocate for clinical psychology to engage with community-based approaches to mental health. This engagement will be challenging given community work is antithetical to the individualism that defines much of clinical psychology. It would also result in a direct challenge to the core tenets of our profession, including an emphasis on individualism, psychopathology, and expert-driven interven- tion. We need clinical psychology, however, to decolonise itself to respond to the needs of Aboriginal communities and those from non- Western collectivist cultures. We also need clinical psychology to consider the sociopolitics of human distress and lend itself to social action for complex problems. Specific examples of community-based practices will be provided, focusing specifically on those that relate to mental health. Implication for the reform of research methodologies and classroom pedagogies will also be discussed. Key words: community psychology; critical psychology; cultural responsiveness. What is already known on this topic 1 Clinical psychology focuses on individual treatment conducted in the therapy room. 2 Clinical Psychology focuses on psychopathology and expert-driven treatments. 3 Clinical Psychology must decolonise it’s practices to form alliances with Aboriginal communities and respond to those from non-dominant cultures. What this paper adds 1 Community-based approaches to mental health rely on relational, strength-based and participatory practices. 2 Community-based approaches provide culturally valid means by which we can engage with critical challenges in Australian society. 3 We need to transform our practices, pedagogy and research methods if we are to engage with Indige- nous, refugee and recovery communities. One of the strengths of clinical psychology has been its distinct identity, built on the scientist-practitioner model and the needs of the individual experiencing mental health problems. From its very origin in the late 19th century, the field was defined by Witmer, student of Wundt, in reference to the solitary agent as “the study of individuals, by observation or experimentation, with the intention of promoting change” (Compas & Gotlib, 2002, p. 42). The most prominent traditions in clinical psychol- ogy have centered on understanding and treating intrapsychic processes. From Freud’s psychoanalysis, to Skinner’s behav- iourism, the dominance of cognitive behaviour therapy and now acceptance and commitment therapy, we have focused on the workings of the mind (Routh, 2010). This focus, however, has meant for the relative exclusion of other conceptualisations of distress, beyond the needs of the individual person to wider familial and societal processes. Family therapy has developed outside of the field of clinical psychology prioritised interper- sonal formulations (Rhodes & Wallis, 2011), originating outside of the field of clinical psychology, through the disciplines of anthropology, psychiatry, social work, and critical psychology (Hoffman, 2002). These practices have helped to ameliorate a wide variety of problems, including paediatric anorexia nervosa (Rhodes, 2003), adolescent depression (Diamond, Siqueland, and Diamond (2003), adolescent substance abuse (Slesnick, Gizem, Bartle-Haring, & Brigham, 2013), and child maltreat- ment (MacKinnon, 1999). They reject exclusively intrapersonal formulations in favour of those that position solutions within the structures, interactional patterns, hidden strengths, or libera- tive discourses in families (Carr, 2000). Community psychology goes further, though, considering wider local and national, cul- tural, and political contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). From this perspective, psychopathology can be reconstructed, beyond both phenomenology and interpersonal dynamics, as a by-product of marginalisation and social disadvantage (Macleod, 2004; Correspondence: Paul Rhodes, Clinical Psychology Unit, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia. Email: p.rhodes@sydney.edu.au Accepted for publication 17 April 2018 doi:10.1111/ap.12347 Australian Psychologist (2018) © 2018 The Australian Psychological Society 1