University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The sources and Influences of cultural heterogeneity: examining the lives of African American and Latino teenagers in a low-income neighborhood

(USC Thesis Other)

The sources and Influences of cultural heterogeneity: examining the lives of African American and Latino teenagers in a low-income neighborhood

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE SOURCES AND INFLUENCES OF CULTURAL HETEROGENEITY:
EXAMINING THE LIVES OF AFRICAN AMERICAN AND LATINO TEENAGERS
IN A LOW-INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD

by

Randall F. Clemens

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Randall F. Clemens

ii
Epigraph
“There are those who still feel that if the Negro is to rise out of poverty, if the Negro is to
rise out of the slum conditions, if he is to rise out of discrimination and segregation, he
must do it all by himself. And so they say the Negro must lift himself by his own
bootstraps…It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a
cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.”
—Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

iii
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my brother David, for teaching me about life, death, and
everything in between.

And when their objection was reported to him—
That he had gone to bit and was leaving them
Nothing to hold on to, his first and last lines
Neither here nor there—

“Since when,” he asked,
“Are the first line and last line of any poem
Where the poem begins and ends?”

—Seamus Heaney, “The Fragment”

iv
Acknowledgments
At the end of my first semester as a doctoral student, dejected and disappointed, I
bought a one-way ticket to fly home from California to Maryland. I missed my friends,
my family, and mostly, my former students. The life of a Ph.D. student was not quite how
I envisioned it. After a month of introspection, I returned to the University of Southern
California where Bill Tierney offered to be my advisor. Three and a half years later, I
have a wife, a dog, a Ph.D., a career, a few more gray hairs, about 15 extra pounds, and a
renewed belief in the academy. In some way or another, I have all of those things because
of Bill. Working with him has been maddening, rewarding, and one of the best decisions
I ever made.
Along with Bill, the members of my dissertation and qualifying committees—
Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, Gib Hentschke, Sylvia Rousseau, and Darnell Cole—have
provided outstanding mentorship and support. Pierrette taught me how to gracefully
receive and give constructive feedback—and that graduate-level courses should always
end with a potluck lunch. Gib proved to me that ideas are important, and fun. Sylvia
reminded me of the importance of compassion during fieldwork. And, Darnell
highlighted the value of perspective.
Over the last four years, there are a number of people whom I wish to
acknowledge and thank. That list includes the members of my cohort—Megan Chase,
Kris de Pedro, Araceli Espinoza, Cait Farrell, Jonathan Mathis, Andrew McEachin, and
Dara Zeehandelaar. In particular, whether discussing the epistemological assumptions of
positivism or the social significance of The Clash, Dara has been my best friend and

v
counterpoint throughout the process. I have also benefitted from the support of many
friends and colleagues including June Ahn, Stefani Relles, Zoë Corwin, and Lisa Garcia.
And, of course, I am fairly certain I would not have graduated without the expertise of
Diane Flores and Monica Raad.
I have a list of friends and family members, especially Jason Nagy and Brendan
O’Neal, whom I have failed to call regularly since I moved to Los Angeles, and yet they
still love me. Stephen Cody merits special recognition. We started our first act as teachers
in Bladensburg and then our second act as roommates in Los Angeles. In both instances,
the beginnings were rough, but I survived because of him. Alex Platt has been equal parts
drum instructor and therapist. MacDuff and I were both rescue projects that found each
other, and I am glad we did.
I have benefitted from the support of my family. In particular, I thank my mother
for instilling in me the belief that I should go to college and the stubbornness to make it
through. Life has not always been easy and we have had a lot taken from us, but I hope I
have given you something back.
To Christine, sometimes words are not enough. I am a lot of things, and you
endure all of them. That is reason number 1,355,101

of why I love you. I also thank the
Lakers for winning game seven and the NBA championship; otherwise, our first date may
have ended with much more beer and much more glumly.
And lastly, to all of the amazing teenagers I have known as a teacher and
researcher, you have enriched my life beyond measure.

vi
Table of Contents

Epigraph
Dedication
Acknowledgments
List of Tables
List of Figures
Abstract
Chapter 1: Living and Learning in a Low-income Neighborhood
Chapter 2: Constructing a Theory of Cultural Heterogeneity
Chapter 3: Studying Teenagers and Neighborhoods
Chapter 4: Illustrating Cultural Heterogeneity
Chapter 5: Explaining Cultural Heterogeneity
References
Appendices
Appendix A: A Note about Structure and Culture
Appendix B: A Sketch of Hurston Park
Appendix C: Research Description Letter
Appendix D: Making Promises, Keeping Secrets: Ethical and Legal
Dilemmas of Conducting Research with Adolescents
Appendix E: Assent and Consent Forms
Appendix F: Study Participant Characteristics
Appendix G: Interview Protocol

ii
iii
iv
vii
viii
ix
1
25
64
96
205
258
294
294
296
310
311

317
329
336

vii
List of Tables

Table 1: Culture as Values versus Culture as Cognitive
Table 2: Classical Cultural versus Cultural Heterogeneity Perspectives
Table 3: Symbolic Capital in Context
Table 4: Sources of Neighborhood Capital
Table 5: Informant Profiles
Table 6: Reciprocity Schedule
Table 7: Data Collection Schedule
Table 8: Informant Summaries
Table 9: Digital Media Usage
Table 10: College Readiness and Cultural Capital
Table 11: Key Figures
Table 12: College and Career Aspirations
Table 13: Locations for Learning
Table 14: Context of Neighborhood Capital
Table 15: Non-Dominant Cultural Capital
Table 16: Participant Characteristics
Table 17: Participant Characteristics by School

38
40
57
59
81
83
83
168
173
173
174
175
177
201
223
329
335

viii
List of Figures

Figure 1: High School Enrollments by Year
Figure 2: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate, 1959-2009
Figure 3: Poverty Rate by Age, 1959-2009
Figure 4: A Theory of Cultural Heterogeneity
Figure 5: Map of Hurston Park and Key Locations
Figure 6: Forms of Neighborhood Capital
Figure 7: Racial Composition of Hurston Park, 2006-2008
Figure 8: Race by Age, 2006-2007
Figure 9: Hurston Park Poverty Levels by Age, 2006-2008
Figure 10: California Poverty Levels by Age, 2006-2008
Figure 11: Education Attainment by Poverty Status, 2006-2008
Figure 12: Education Attainment by Gender for 18-25 Year-olds, 2006-2008
Figure 13: Hurston Park Unified High School Snapshots, 2006-2008
Figure 14: California Standards Scores, Language Arts, Grades 9-11, by High
School
Figure 15: California Standards Test Scores, Geometry, by High School
Figure 16: Disaggregated California Standards Scores, Language Arts, Grades 9-
11, by High School
Figure 17: Dropout Rates by School, 2008-2009
Figure 18: Graduation Rates by High School

6
7
8
48
99
217
299
300
301
302
303
304
304
305

306
308

308
309

ix
Abstract
Since the publication of W.E.B. Du Bois’ (1996 [1899]) The Philadelphia Negro,
scholars have conducted neighborhood studies to examine a range of social issues
including crime, homelessness, and concentrated poverty. The present ethnographic study
continues this sociological tradition in order to examine how cultural heterogeneity—the
multiplicity of cultural beliefs, behaviors, and practices—affects the educational
outcomes of male teenagers in a low-income neighborhood. The purpose of this study is
to examine cultural heterogeneity vis-à-vis the sources and influences of neighborhood
social and cultural capital. In other words, when teenagers are not in school, where, with
whom, and for what purpose do they spend their time, and how do the exchanges
influence educational outcomes? The author’s argument is twofold: First, the
neighborhood houses vast amounts of cultural heterogeneity that explain inequitable
educational outcomes among teenagers. Second, a teenager’s access to and practice of
dominant social and cultural capital will increase his likelihood for positive academic
outcomes and the development of a college-going identity, defined as an individual’s
ability and willingness to navigate diverse social worlds.
The author’s goal is to illustrate the manifold pathways to and away from
postsecondary education that African American and Latino teenagers encounter as a
result of growing up in a low-income neighborhood. The study, using a surplus
perspective, emphasizes the diverse forms of capital teenagers possess, limited forms of

x
capital the educational system values, and the cultural mismatch that occurs as a result.
The study tests and refines a theoretical framework that better accounts for and explains
cultural heterogeneity in the 21
st
century.
1

Chapter 1
Living and Learning in a Low-income Neighborhood

“Education is that whole system of human training within and without the school house
walls, which molds and develops men.”
—W.E.B. Du Bois

“Boys,” Ms. Arnold exclaims, “Get in a circle. This is Randy. He’s going to tell
you why he’s here.”
1
After a brief period of commotion, 12 teenagers sit in a semi-circle
around me. Six identify as African American, five as Latino, and one as “mulatto,” from
Native American, African American, and Samoan ancestry. Eleven receive free or
reduced lunch. Grade point averages range from 1.9 to 3.6. They are all 12
th
-graders in
the high school’s Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) program. The
purpose of the program is to prepare average students to apply to and succeed in college.
I describe my dissertation, my research center’s mentoring program, and the forms the
students need to fill-out if they want to participate. One student frequently raises his hand
to ask questions.
Moving counter-clockwise around the circle, each student introduces himself. The
first, an African American, is an athlete with a football scholarship to San Diego State.
The next three students are Latinos. They all list California State University, Long Beach

1
All names and places are pseudonyms.

2
Aside from the removal of repetitive discourse markers, such as “uh,” “um,” and “like,” I
present interview data unchanged from the original verbatim transcriptions. During the few
instances when a participant’s speech does not conform to the conventions of Standard English, I

2

as their ideal school and criminal justice as their ideal major. Across from me, Chuck
says he wants to go to San Jose State to be a part of the Dirty Paintbrushes. I interrupt
him: “Um, Chuck is the ‘Dirty Paintbrushes’ code for something bad? I mean, do we all
need notes from our moms to hear about this club?” He laughs and says it is a paint club.
The inquisitive student goes last. Compared to his peers, he is tall with broad shoulders
and a sturdy frame. To a freshman, I think, he must be imposing. To me, he is lanky.
“Let’s see,” he says with a mischievous smile, “My name Matthew. Girls call me Matt.
Some girls call me Matty, the close ones. My homies call me Big Matt.”
2
Everyone
laughs. Matt continues, “I want to go to Syracuse, Tuskegee, or Clark Atlanta. I want to
be a police officer.”
Two days later, I arrive to begin interviewing. None of the teenagers have brought
the consent forms back. I ask if any students are 18. I smile as Matthew raises his hand.
We leave Ms. Arnold’s room to search for a quiet place to conduct the interview. We
stand in the courtyard looking at a dimly lit room and locked doors. “The library is
closed,” says an assistant principal as he helps a Latino student retrieve his soda from a
secured enclosure. Through the metal slats, a vending machine is visible. I joke with
Matthew: “Wow, your school really wants to protect the soda machine.” To be polite, he
laughs. The assistant principal tells us to go to the cafeteria. As we walk, Matthew talks
about his family: “Mom took drugs. Dad sold them. He also took them. At 11, I lost my
parents. The state took me and my sister away. At 13, I lost my grandmother. I live with

2
Aside from the removal of repetitive discourse markers, such as “uh,” “um,” and “like,” I
present interview data unchanged from the original verbatim transcriptions. During the few
instances when a participant’s speech does not conform to the conventions of Standard English, I
maintain the original transcription and do not indicate grammatical errors with “[sic].”
3

my aunt. Sometimes we get along.” He occasionally nods at passing students. As we
enter the cafeteria, he greets the custodian, a middle-aged black woman, by name.
We sit at a round table. Using a map of Hurston Park, Matthew acts as my tour
guide. I ask him to draw an “X” where he lives. “Oh, I can do this,” he states, “I learned
how to read maps in Explorers,” a program with the Police Department. He grabs my pen
and searches intently. “I’ve heard a lot about gangs,” I say, “but I don’t know what to
look for.” For the next ten minutes, he provides encyclopedic knowledge about all of the
gangs in his neighborhood. “I’m not gonna lie,” he admits, “Ninth grade, I was a gang
member. Tenth grade, I was a gang member. Eleventh grade, I sorta got out of the gang
life and then I got back in. And now, twelfth grade, I’m like, ‘I need to fix this.’
Something needs to change.”
Matthew is a former gangbanger. He also has a 3.0 grade point average,
participates in several after-school activities, and wants to attend college. “I don’t say I’m
successful yet,” he says, “but I’m getting there. I’m on the path to being successful. I’ve
had a lot of obstacles, but I don’t think they are out of the ordinary from a normal
person.” Just before the end of first period, we stop the interview. Matthew looks me in
the eyes and shakes my hand.
Purpose
The study illustrates the lives of African American and Latino teenage males, like
Matthew, who reside in Hurston Park, California, the neighborhood of study. I focus on
how cultural heterogeneity—defined as the multiplicity of cultural knowledge, beliefs,
and practices—affects educational outcomes among teenagers. Educational outcomes
4

refer to indicators such as reading levels, grades, and dropout, graduation, and college-
going rates; because all of the participants are in 12
th
grade, I emphasize the transition
from high school to college or career.
I examine cultural heterogeneity vis-à-vis the sources and influences of
neighborhood social and cultural capital. In other words, I ask where, with whom, and for
what purpose do adolescents spend their time, and how do these experiences influence
educational outcomes? Contrary to previous arguments that claim low-income
neighborhoods are isolated from dominant culture (Wacquant & Wilson, 1989a; Wilson,
1987, 1996, 2009), I view the neighborhood as a location of stores of both dominant and
non-dominant social and cultural capital (Carter, 2007).
3
Contrary to current policy
designs that concentrate primarily on learning in schools and classrooms (No Child Left
Behind, 2002), I focus on learning across the neighborhood.
My sample consists of 60 males between the ages of 15 and 19. Every participant
was a senior in high school. I conducted follow-up interviews and observations with 15
young men. I also interviewed parents, teachers, and mentors. From the teenagers in
Hurston Park, a wide range of educational outcomes is clear. What is not clear is why
some students succeed and others fail, and how living and learning in a low-income

3
Dominant social capital refers to the current or potential resources—information, influence,
social credentials, and reinforcement—that accrue from social ties with individuals connected to
mainstream institutions and resources (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1990; Lin, 1999, 2001;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997); non-dominant social capital refers to the current or potential resources
that accrue from social ties with individuals not connected to mainstream institutions and
resources. Dominant cultural capital refers to formal and informal knowledge and practices of
social groups who have historically controlled mainstream institutions (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu
& Passeron, 1977); non-dominant cultural capital refers to formal and informal knowledge and
practices of non-dominant social groups who have historically been excluded access to
mainstream institutions (Carter, 2007).
5

neighborhood mediates outcomes. My goal is to illustrate the manifold pathways to and
away from postsecondary education that African American and Latino teenagers traverse
as a result of growing up in a low-income neighborhood.
Significance
Education is entering a critical moment in relation to the significance of place.
Traditionally, scholars (Orfield & Lee, 2005; Rothwell, 2012; Wacquant & Wilson,
1989b; Wilson, 1987) have argued that the asymmetrical quality of and access to
institutions in low-income neighborhoods have exacerbated educational inequalities for
historically marginalized students. School choice and technology, however, are re-
defining the relationship between place and educational opportunity. First, an increase in
the number of schooling options has changed the role of neighborhood schools. Scholars
can no longer assume that low-income neighborhoods have underperforming schools.
4
In
Hurston Park, for instance, students have a variety of choices, ranging from large,
traditional high schools to small, private schools. A snapshot of enrollments at five
schools in the district highlights the changing landscape (Figure 1). Second, some
scholars (Castells, 2010; Jenkins, 2006; Wellman, 2001; Wellman, Haase, Witte, &
Hampton, 2001) believe digital connectivity and networks reduce, if not eliminate, the
physical constraints of location. Brick and mortar schools, they argue, will either be
replaced or supplemented by digital education (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008).
What, then, is the role of neighborhoods? While parents and students have more
schooling options, why are some parents and students staying at traditional public

4
In order to avoid negative connotations, I exclusively use the adjective “low-income,” rather
than “poor,” to modify individuals and neighborhoods.
6

neighborhood schools while others are leaving? Similarly, technology is rapidly
influencing the lives of teenagers in low-income neighborhoods; however, the effects are
not always clear. Why, for instance, do middle- and lower-class teenagers use different
social media, and how does use reinforce or change class-specific habitus (Ahn, 2011;
Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robinson, & Weigel, 2006)?

Most importantly, if the role of place is diminishing, why, over the past 40 years
in the United States, has concentrated poverty spread discriminately by class, race, and
ethnicity (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2010; Jargowsky, 1997; Massey & Denton,
1993; Orfield & Lee, 2005; Wacquant, 2008; Wilson, 2009) (Figures 2-3)? In Los
Angeles, for instance, one-third of all African American and Latino children experience
poverty (Blackwell & Pastor, 2010). Concentration is equally disproportionate. Fifty-nine
percent of all African American and Latino children, compared to twelve percent of white
children, live in low-income neighborhoods. By virtue of their address, these children are
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Figure 1. High School Enrollments by Year
Hurston Park High Central High Success Academy
Barack Obama Charter Brookline Continuation
Source: Education Data Partnership (2011)
7

more likely to experience poor health, low education attainment, and negligible social
mobility (Earls & Carlson, 2001; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn,
2000; Rothstein, 2004; Tienda, 1991). In short, in a globalizing world, the social
dislocation of working class and unemployed people to low-income neighborhoods is
increasing (American Community Survey, 2011; Jargowsky, 1997; Sampson, Morenoff,
& Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Wacquant, 2008; Wilson & Aponte, 1985). Understanding
how growing up in a low-income neighborhood influences the lives and educations of
teenagers is critical (F. Furstenberg & Hughes, 1997; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Small &
Newman, 2001).

In relation to public policy, debates about school reform often center on schools
and classrooms, teachers and students; legislatures and policymakers may acknowledge
the importance of neighborhoods and families, but current policy designs and assessment
measures prove that context is a footnote rather than a headline (Darling-Hammond,
Figure 2. Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate, 1959-2009
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. 2010)
8

2010; Henig, Hula, Orr, & Pedescleaux, 1999; Ravitch, 2010). As a result, a mismatch
occurs between the cultures present in a low-income neighborhood and the culture valued
in its public schools (J. Baratz & S. Baratz, 1970; S. Baratz & J. Baratz, 1970; Carter,
2007; Gutiérrez, Zitlali Morales, & Martinez, 2009; Moll, 1992; Yosso, 2005).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2002), the most recent reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, emphasizes accountability. Since the law's
passage, standardized test scores have dominated as the measure of academic and school
success or failure (Reese, 2011). Stated simply, a school progresses when standardized
test scores increase; a school underperforms when scores stagnate or decrease. Assessing
the shortcomings of the law, scholars and legislatures acknowledge problems with a
singular focus on testing and simplistic understanding of what is necessary for schools
and students to succeed (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Ravitch, 2010). Even more, the
requirements of NCLB have possibly hindered the progress of urban schools with large
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. 2010)
Figure 3. Poverty Rate by Age, 1959-2009
9

populations of historically marginalized students (Abedi, 2004; Fuller, Wright, Gesicki,
& Kang, 2007).
While considerations of family and neighborhood have had little to do with how
policymakers design reform or measure school success, sentiments about where to focus
educational change may be altering. Place-based reforms are becoming increasingly
prevalent (Ladd & Fiske, 2011, December 11). The popularity of Geoffrey Canada’s
Harlem Children’s Zone (Tough, 2008; Wilson, 2010) as well as the U.S. Department of
Education’s (2010) commitment to modeling Canada’s reform in cities across the country
suggest attention to neighborhood-based public policy will expand. Similarly, the
Children’s Aid Society (2010), who partners with the federal government, operates 21
full-service schools in New York and assists 15,000 community schools globally (The
Children's Aid Society, 2009). Realizing that households and neighborhoods may be just
as important as classrooms and schools, the notion of out-of-school factors has also
garnered attention among scholars (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Noguera, 2008; Rothstein,
2004). Even well-known education experts (see Henig & Reville, 2011; Ravitch, 2011;
Tough, 2011) have joined public debates to discuss the influence of out-of-school factors
on educational outcomes. In short, after the failed promise of No Child Left Behind
(Ravitch, 2010), researchers and policymakers may finally be ready to consider
alternative explanations for and solutions to the “educational debt” that exists among
historically marginalized students in general and African American and Latino males in
particular (Ladson-Billings, 2006).

10

Research Questions
The study examines the lives of African American and Latino teenage males who
live and learn in a low-income neighborhood. The overarching question is “What is the
conceptual and actual relationship between teenagers and their neighborhoods.” From
this initial question, four questions follow:
1. How, with whom, and for what purpose do teenagers spend their time after
school?
2. How do institutional agents, e.g. teachers, coaches, pastors, mentors,
peers, and even gang members, serve as resource brokers?
3. How, and for what purpose, do teenagers make sense of dominant and
non-dominant social and cultural capital?
4. Does cultural heterogeneity affect the educational outcomes of adolescents
and, if so, in what ways?
Poverty Research
The popularity and content of poverty research has often correlated to increases in
urban poverty and the vagaries of public and political concern. Researchers have
examined issues such as intergenerational poverty, neighborhood poverty, and
underclass, sometimes called subcultural, poverty (Jargowsky & Bane, 1990). Specific to
neighborhood poverty, they have applied a variety of terms to describe low-income
neighborhoods and the residents who inhabit them. Members of the first Chicago School
called them slums or ghettos (see Wirth, 1928; Zorbaugh, 1976 [1929]).
5
Kenneth Clark

5
Wirth (1928) categorizes the ghetto as an institution defined by social isolation.
11

(1965), a representative of race and poverty research conducted during the 1960s, called
low-income neighborhoods “dark ghettos.” He defined them as “social, political,
educational, and—above all—economic colonies. Their residents are subject peoples,
victims of greed, cruelty, insensitivity, guilt, and fear of their masters” (p. 11). The next
surge of poverty research, which occurred during the late 1980s and continued
throughout the early 1990’s, focused on the living conditions of the urban, or sometimes
called ghetto, underclass.
6
Scholars (Gephart & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Jencks & Peterson,
1991; Wilson, 1993) ascribed characteristics to the “urban underclass” such as
joblessness, social and spatial isolation, below average human capital, generational and
intergenerational poverty, and membership in the non-dominant ethnic group. Most
recently, Wacquant (2001, 2008) re-conceptualizes concentrated poverty as an institution,
defining it as the hyperghetto.
7
The hyperghetto consists of class and racial segregation,
factors detrimental to the market economy, state—as opposed to neighborhood—
controlled institutions, and the persistence of violence (Wacquant, 2001).
Neighborhood Models
Poverty scholars who adopt a sociological perspective assume that specialized
structural and cultural conditions in low-income neighborhoods uniquely organize
opportunities and socialize individuals, particularly children and adolescents. Theorists
hold a variety of beliefs about the specific ways in which to conceptualize

6
For reviews of literature about the urban underclass, see Marks (1991) “The Urban Underclass”
and Wilson and Aponte’s (1985) “Urban Poverty.”

7
Goffman’s (1961) total institutions and Foucault’s (1995 [1977]) complete and austere
institutions influence Wacquant’s conception of ghettos as institutions. For a critique of the ghetto
as an institution and a theoretical concept, see Small (2007, 2008).
12

neighborhoods; as a result, a surfeit of analytical lenses exists (see Burton, Price-
Spratlen, & Spencer, 1997; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Sampson et al., 2002; Small &
Newman, 2001).
In their oft-cited literature review of neighborhood effects, Jencks and Meyer
(1990) outline six models researchers use to understand the advantages and disadvantages
of neighborhoods. Three models highlight the benefits of growing up in advantaged
neighborhoods. First, epidemic models hypothesize that peers influence peers (Crane,
1991). In other words, behaviors and aspirations are contagious among children. Second,
collective socialization models suggest that adult role models such as neighbors, teachers,
coaches, and even strangers positively influence children (Wilson, 1987). Third,
institutional models examine the role of neighborhood institutions and the influence of
institutional agents (Gans, 1962; Sánchez-Jankowski, 2008; Suttles, 1968). Affluent
neighborhoods, for instance, attract more qualified teachers. Underlying these three types
of models is the belief that children attempt to imitate and appease peers, adults, and
parents.
Jencks and Meyer (1990), alternatively, describe three models in which children
do not benefit from growing up among wealthier neighbors. First, relative deprivation
models hypothesize that children judge themselves based on the people around them. In
other words, children react negatively to wealthier peers. Second, cultural conflict models
propose that subcultures form in relation to and conflict with dominant cultures (Fordham
& Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 2004). And third, competition models assume individuals compete
for scarce resources. Scholars use the metaphor of a big frog in a small pond versus a
13

small frog in a big pond (Goldsmith, 2010). Considering each of these three types of
models, conflict occurs when children socialize with wealthier peers. Researchers rarely
explore one single model. Often, aspects of multiple models are present in a study; their
value, however, is in providing a heuristic to understand the role of neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Effects
Neighborhood effects scholars empirically test the validity of neighborhood
models (see Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Sampson, 2012;
Sampson et al., 2002; Tienda, 1991). They hypothesize that students’ life chances are
different by living in a low-income neighborhood. Effects studies—the first examining
the relationship between socioeconomic status and college plans among graduating
seniors during the 1950s and 1960s—are often, but not exclusively, quantitative studies.
Effects studies differ from neighborhood studies to the extent that the former focuses on
the influence of a neighborhood on an individual whereas the latter focuses on an
individual nested within a larger structure (Harding, 2010).
After the publication of The Truly Disadvantaged (Wilson, 1987), the popularity
of effects studies grew (Sampson et al., 2002; van Ham, Manley, Bailey, Simpson, &
Maclennan, 2012). The peak of effects research occurred in the 1990s. The United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development sponsored the large-scale Moving to
Opportunity (MTO) experiment, which examined the effects on families of moving from
a low-income to more affluent neighborhood (Clampet-Lundquist & Massey, 2008;
Ludwig et al., 2008; Orr et al., 2003; Sanbonmatsu, Kling, Duncan, & Brooks-Gunn,
2006). Scholars continue to use the results of the controversial and frequently cited study
14

to either support or contest the findings of The Truly Disadvantaged (Wilson, 1987) and
the effects of living in a low-income neighborhood (Sampson, 2008, 2012). The
popularity of neighborhood effects led the Russell Sage Foundation to commission two
volumes (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997a, 1997b) and the MacArthur Foundation
funded another (F. F. Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, Elder, & Sameroff, 1999).
Over the last two decades, social scientists have developed increasingly advanced
quantitative methods to study neighborhood effects (Sampson et al., 2002). The academic
work has answered important questions, but also created new ones. Differing techniques
to address selection bias, for example, have created contradictory results (Harding, 2003).
Scholars continue to ponder the validity of available datasets, use of compositional
variables as proxies for structural and cultural factors, and appropriate research designs to
examine neighborhoods (Duncan, 1994; Duncan & Murnane, 2011; Duncan &
Raudenbush, 1999; Harding, Gennetian, Winship, Sanbonmatsu, & Kling, 2011;
Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Sampson et al., 2002; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999;
van Ham et al., 2012).
Neighborhood mechanisms, which I discuss in the subsequent section, are the
central focus of this study; however, effects studies merit a brief discussion. To say
contemporary neighborhood studies are a consequence of the effects research of the
1980s and 1990s is not quite right. After all, neighborhood studies precede effects studies
(see Drake & Cayton, 1993 [1945]; W.E.B. Du Bois, 1996 [1899]; Thomas & Znaniecki,
15

1958 [1918-20]; Whyte, 1993 [1943]; Zorbaugh, 1976 [1929]).
8
However, The Truly
Disadvantaged (Wilson, 1987) and subsequent literature (Jencks & Mayer, 1990;
Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Sampson, 2012; Sampson et al., 2002; Tienda, 1991),
by advancing theoretical and conceptual frameworks, enhanced the systematic study of
neighborhoods, including outcomes and processes. As a result, that era of scholarship
provides the fulcrum of contemporary neighborhood studies.
Neighborhood Mechanisms
Drawing from a sociological tradition, I examine neighborhood mechanisms, a
revitalized development of neighborhood research (Galster, 2012; Harding et al., 2011;
Small & Feldman, 2012; Small & Newman, 2001). From the abundance of neighborhood
effects studies during the 1990s and 2000s, scholars concluded that, although
neighborhoods matter, the ways in which they matter are often unclear and sometimes
controversial (Harding et al., 2011; Noguera, 2008; Small & Feldman, 2012; Small &
Newman, 2001). Attributing outcomes to living in low-income neighborhoods is
methodologically complex, especially considering the many layers—e.g. individual,
family, and neighborhood.
A study of neighborhood mechanisms allows for the comprehensive exploration
and examination of variables that often lead to conflicting findings. Scholars focus

8
The publication in 1899 of W.E.B. Du Bois’ The Philadelphia Negro signals the beginning of
modern-day neighborhood studies. W.E.B. Du Bois, acclaimed sociologist, used an innovative
combination of methods at the time—surveys, interviews, and participant observation—to
chronicle the plight of African Americans in the city. Du Bois’ study also coincided with an
increased awareness of urban poverty as a social problem (Wilson & Aponte, 1985). After the
Civil War and the country’s transition from an agrarian to industrial society, the movement of
populations from the country to the city led to poor living conditions and the proliferation of the
genre (Anderson, 1996; Reese, 2011; Tyack, 1974).
16

attention on the question of how neighborhoods influence individuals in general and
teenagers in particular (Harding, 2010; Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls, 1999; Small, 2004).
That is, while neighborhood effects studies focus on outcomes, mechanism studies
prioritize processes. Consider the study of teenage pregnancy. With an effects study, a
researcher regresses teenage pregnancy on a variety of variables. From the regression, he
or she analyzes estimates to determine relationships among variables. The purpose is to
understand the relationship between two phenomena; does living in a neighborhood
increase the likelihood of pregnancy among teenagers? With a mechanisms study, a
researcher compares teenagers within the neighborhood. From the data, he or she
examines possible explanations of teenage pregnancy such as cultural frames, peer
influence, knowledge of birth control, and access to health clinics. Qualitative data, in
particular, facilitates an examination of processes (Lamont & Small, 2008).
To study the influence of place on individuals, there are two types of
neighborhood mechanisms: place-based and interactional (Harding et al., 2011). Place-
based mechanisms highlight the physical and spatial aspects of neighborhoods. Place-
based mechanisms include environmental and health factors, job opportunities, violence,
and access to and use of institutions. First, environmental and health factors include a
freeway, industrial park, or airport near a neighborhood. Each example potentially causes
excess pollutants that influence a child’s well being. Parks, or the lack thereof, are also
important to the physical and mental health of children (Soja, 2010). Second, job
opportunities refer to the changing nature of work as well as work availability. Lack of
job opportunities, also known as “spatial mismatch,” have received the greatest amount
17

of academic attention (K. Newman, 1999; Venkatesh, 2006; Wilson, 1987, 1996, 2009;
Young, 2004). Third, neighborhood violence causes mental distress and restricts the
amount of time adolescents spend outside. Anderson’s (1978, 1990, 1999, 2011)
ethnographic research contributes substantially to understanding the impact of violence
on race relations in neighborhoods. Fourth, institutions and resource brokers, such as
after-school activities and institutional agents, provide students with access to structured
activities as well as social and cultural capital (Harding et al., 2011; Heath &
McLaughlin, 1994; McQuarrie & Marwell, 2009; Sampson et al., 2002; Vadeboncoeur,
2006). Martin Sánchez- Jankowski (2008) and Mario Small (2009b; Small, Jacobs, &
Peeples Massengill, 2008; Small & McDermott, 2006; Small & Stark, 2005) are the two
most prominent contemporary scholars who have studied neighborhood institutions.
Interactional mechanisms emphasize social and cultural relationships. Unlike the
conceptual clarity of place-based mechanisms, interactional mechanisms are considerably
less discrete. Collective efficacy and the cultural perspective are the two major types
(Harding et al., 2011). Collective efficacy is the mobilization of social ties by
neighborhood members to achieve a common goal (Sampson, 2012; Sampson et al.,
1999; Sampson et al., 2002). A neighborhood with common goals is able to assert more
social control. While I acknowledge the importance of an assortment of mechanisms, for
the purposes of this study, I examine the cultural perspective.
The cultural perspective, which I discuss in-depth in Chapter 2, consists of two
major theoretical points of view: the classical cultural perspective and the cultural
heterogeneity perspective. Both divide culture into two categories: mainstream culture
18

and non-mainstream subcultures (Fischer, 1975, 1995; Harding, 2010). Theorists use a
variety of terms, such as mainstream and ghetto-specific (Hannerz, 1969), mainstream
and oppositional (Ogbu, 1995a, 1995b, 2004), and dominant and non-dominant (Carter,
2007), to describe the categories. Both perspectives portray low-income neighborhoods
as containers where non-mainstream cultures form.
9

The primary difference between the two perspectives pertains to the dynamic
interactions, or lack thereof, of mainstream and non-mainstream cultures. The classical
cultural perspective posits that low-income neighborhoods are socially isolated from
dominant culture (Wilson, 1987), whereas the cultural heterogeneity perspective
hypothesizes the presence and combination of dominant and non-dominant cultures
(Hannerz, 1969; Harding, 2010).
In education, scholars and practitioners, often espousing a deficit approach, use
the classical cultural perspective to explain academic success and failure; students who
succeed exemplify a mainstream culture whereas students who fail represent an
oppositional culture. Unfortunately, such arguments, by “blaming the victim” (Ryan,
1976) and ignoring the cultural strengths of individuals, groups, and communities
(Ladson-Billings, 1995; Yosso, 2005), echo previous culture of poverty debates. The
perspective also ignores cultural fluidity and complexity that occurs as a result of
variables such as race, ethnicity, gender, class, and sexuality (Carter, 2007; Kelley, 1997;

9
For over 100 years, anthropologists and sociologists have studied culture in a variety of places
(Tierney & Clemens, forthcoming). Although there is much to learn from Malinowski (2002
[1922]) in the Trobriand Islands or Crapanzano (1980) in Morocco, I focus on culture in
contemporary neighborhoods. I do so to highlight the influence of the neighborhood on
educational outcomes.
19

Valenzuela, 1999). Cultural heterogeneity, an alternative to the classical perspective,
allows for a more complex and nuanced understanding of culture (Harding, 2010;
Harding et al., 2011; Suttles, 1968; Whyte, 1993 [1943]).
Cultural heterogeneity. Cultural heterogeneity describes the multiplicity of
cultural beliefs, knowledge, and practices in a neighborhood (Hannerz, 1969; Harding,
2010; Liebow, 1967; Wirth, 1938). From Louis Wirth (1938) to David Harding (2010),
scholars have examined cultural heterogeneity. Liebow (1967) chronicles the adaptive
strategies of streetcorner men in Washington, D.C. After attempting to realize the “goals
and values of the larger society, of failing to do this, and of concealing his failure from
others and from himself as best he can” (p. 222), low-income black men, Liebow
hypothesizes, develop a local set of cultural values that helps them navigate and manage
disappointments and relationships. The men who participate in his study employ
alternative cultural scripts in order to adapt to, and perhaps cope with, inhospitable living
conditions. The study emphasizes the lack of economic opportunities rather than the lack
of dominant culture. Hannerz (1969) examines four groups of ghetto residents:
mainstreamers, swingers, street families, and streetcorner men. He hypothesizes that the
ghetto is heterogeneous and people adopt cultural repertoires from a variety of sources:
“As we have seen, mainstream and ghetto-specific cultural items co-exist in the ghetto
and are shared to varying degrees” (p. 191). Anderson’s (1990) Streetwise displays the
effects of economic, racial, and social forces on culture. In one generation, compounded
by increased poverty and crime, the neighborhood deteriorates significantly. “Old heads,”
once venerated, are displaced by a new generation of black males who disregard the old
20

moral code. While the neighborhood still contains a segment of working-class families,
the long-time residents yearn for “the old days” (p. 239) when the neighborhood was safe
and orderly. Finally, in Slim’s Table, Mitch Duneier (1992), challenging stereotypes
about low-income black men, provides a rich ethnographic account of a small group who
neither reflect ghetto nor middle-class cultural beliefs. Each account evinces the cultural
heterogeneity present in low-income neighborhoods.
Cultural heterogeneity has significant implications for adolescent males (Harding,
2010). Carter’s (2007) study of African American and Latino youth in New York
highlights the diverse ways teenagers incorporate multiple cultures. In particular, the
students who successfully adopt and use mainstream and non-mainstream practices are
the most successful. Along with Carter (2007), Harding’s (2010) study of 60 adolescent
males across three Boston neighborhoods shows that one explanation for poor academic
outcomes is not that students and families devalue the importance of education; families
and adolescents of all class and racial groups believe education is essential to success.
Teenagers, instead, do not always set realistic goals or map viable pathways to attend
college or start a career. If a student struggles in high school, he drops out because he
believes a GED is just as valuable as a high school diploma. Similarly, a student-athlete
may perform poorly academically because he believes athletic success will lead to an
athletic scholarship regardless of grades. The primary issue, rather than oppositional
culture, is the abundance of information and competing cultural knowledge, beliefs, and
practices. Heterogeneity is critical to the choices teenagers make as well as the strategies
they develop to accomplish their goals.
21

Contemporary studies (Carter, 2007; Harding, 2010) contribute to the scholarly
understanding of cultural heterogeneity among teenagers; however, no ethnographic
studies exist that directly examine the sources and influences of cultural heterogeneity in
relation to education. Hurston Park, a socially, culturally, and economically diverse
neighborhood, provides an optimal site for the examination of the relationship between
cultural heterogeneity and educational outcomes. Moreover, South Los Angeles—in
contrast to pedestrian cities such as Boston, Chicago, New York, and Washington,
D.C.—provides a unique field site in that the sprawling geography of the city challenges
traditional understandings of neighborhood and community (see Liebow, 1967; Suttles,
1968; Whyte, 1993 [1943]).
Lastly, scholars drawing from a social organization theoretical perspective often,
either implicitly or explicitly, discuss cultural heterogeneity as negative (Shaw & McKay,
1942; Shaw, Zorbaugh, McKay, & Cottrell, 1929; Small, 2004; Wilson, 1987; Wirth,
1938). The neighborhood mechanism, causing weakened social ties and solidarity,
10

poses threats to the stability of social life and order in low-income neighborhoods (Wirth,
1938). While I acknowledge the theoretical history of social organization and cultural
heterogeneity, I adopt a positive view of cultural heterogeneity. That is, teenagers
demonstrate a wealth of cultural knowledge, beliefs, and practices, which the educational

10
Emile Durkheim (1997 [1933]) examined the effects of modernization on the social structure of
society. In particular, he focused on the relationship between individual and group. Several of his
main concepts—the division of labor and organic solidarity as well as the forced division of labor
and anomie—re-appear in the work of urban ecologists of the first Chicago School. Louis Wirth
(1938), in particular, reflects the influence of Durkheim. However, while Durkheim exhibited
optimism in his belief that organic solidarity would eventually result in the end of social
inequality, Wirth’s theory tends to focus on the negative effects of heterogeneity and weakened
social structures and the usefulness of theory to understand social issues.
22

system often does not recognize; the non-dominant cultural wealth contributes to positive
outcomes in the context of numerous and diverse systemic barriers to postsecondary
education.
Theoretical Framework
The study focuses on how cultural heterogeneity—defined as the multiplicity of
cultural knowledge, beliefs, and practices—affects educational outcomes among
teenagers (Hannerz, 1969; Harding, 2010; Liebow, 1967; Wirth, 1938). The theory
presumes that an abundance of both dominant and non-dominant cultures exist in a low-
income neighborhood. The surplus perspective emphasizes the diverse forms of capital
teenagers possess, limited forms of capital the educational system values, and the cultural
mismatch that occurs as a result (Carter, 2007; Delpit, 2006; Gutiérrez et al., 2009;
Harper, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Moll, 1992; Oakes, 2005; Oakes, Wells, & Jones,
1997; Valenzuela, 1999; Yosso, 2005).
To create a theory of cultural heterogeneity, I adopt Bourdieu’s (1977, 1986)
theory of practice, which explains how the dominant classes maintain power. While I
outline a comprehensive theory to explain student practice, I focus on the symbolic forms
of capital. Social capital is the information, influence, social credentials, and
reinforcement that individuals may acquire from social relations (Lin, 1999). Social
capital reproduces inequality due to its exclusionary nature (Bourdieu, 1986); in order to
gain access to a group’s resources, one must be a member of, or at least acknowledged
by, the group. Cultural capital is the social and cultural knowledge that allows individuals
to succeed among the dominant culture and is often not taught in schools (Carter, 2003,
23

2007; Lamont & Lareau, 1988; Lareau, 2003b; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; McDonough,
1997; Smrekar, 1996).
In the context of education, Bourdieu’s theory of practice (1977, 1986) explains
how and why some students succeed and others fail. However, the theory includes
several major shortcomings. First, scholars criticize the theory for being overly
deterministic and failing to infuse actors with agency (Giroux, 1983; Yosso, 2005).
Second, Bourdieu, with a focus on how dominant classes maintain power, devalues
alternative, non-dominant forms of symbolic capital (Lareau, 1987). In general, as I
elaborate in Chapter 2, I borrow from sociological theories regarding teenagers,
schooling, and neighborhoods in order to address the weaknesses of Bourdieu’s theory. In
particular, I expand social and cultural capital to include dominant and non-dominant
forms and contend that teenagers acquire and use capital in settings across the
neighborhood. The accrual and practice of capital after school relates directly to
academic performance during school.
Before proceeding, I offer a disclosure to the reader. One of the strengths of
qualitative research is its ability to illustrate the complexities of participants’ lives
(Tierney & Clemens, 2011). I develop a theoretical framework to help organize and
interpret these intricacies. Despite my best efforts to create a simple, parsimonious
framework, I employ a number of concepts, definitions, and distinctions, which may, at
times, frustrate the reader. I present the theoretical framework not as a glossary of terms
from which I will later test the reader; rather, the framework ought to serve as an
evolving heuristic to make sense of the rich lives of the teenagers in Hurston Park.
24

Organization of Dissertation
In Chapter 2, I describe the theoretical framework of the study. I begin with a
historical overview of the study of culture and neighborhoods and then present a theory
of cultural heterogeneity. In Chapter 3, I review the methodological framework and
introduce Hurston Park, the neighborhood of study. Chapter 4 includes the presentation
of data. I focus on the lives of six teenagers—Carlos, Chris, Jose, Matthew, Elmer, and
Chuck—who aspire to attend college. In Chapter 5, the final chapter, I analyze the
findings and discuss implications for future research, policy, and practice.
Teenagers like Matthew, whom I introduced at the beginning of the chapter,
demonstrate complex understandings of their social world, understandings that are deeply
impacted by the neighborhoods in which they live. The understandings, in turn, influence
their practices in and out of school. As I discuss in the subsequent chapter, cultural
heterogeneity provides a useful analytical tool to examine teenagers living and learning in
low-income neighborhoods.

25

Chapter 2
Constructing a Theory of Cultural Heterogeneity

“Straight-up, you got to brainwash them. College. College. College. It’s hard out there.
They’ve got all these distractions—bad neighborhood, messed up home lives, peer
pressure. We have to get these young men to college.”
—Ms. Arnold, a 12
th
grade AVID teacher
“If you don’t go to college, you are not going to be nothing.”
—Sean, a 17-year-old Latino

“Of course I want to go to college,” said an 18-year-old with a 0.9 grade point
average, “Who doesn’t? That’s how you become somebody.” At the time of the
interview, the teenager had neither passed California’s standardized exit exam nor taken
the SAT. His sentiments, however, echoed those of the majority of young men I
interviewed. In fact, of the 60 participants, 59 stated a desire to attend college. The one
exception responded, “I’m not sure. I thought about it, but I don’t know. I’m trying to
help out my parents with money. It’s tough.” These teenagers represent the hope and peril
of a “college-going ethos” (Deil-Amen & DeLuca, 2010). While a few will gain access to
and succeed in college, many will exit high school neither prepared for college nor a
career. What accounts for such poor educational outcomes among African American and
Latino teenagers in Hurston Park? Alternatively, in the context of such poor outcomes,
26

how do some students succeed? As I suggest in the first chapter, cultural heterogeneity
offers a possible explanation.
A theory of cultural heterogeneity presumes a diversity of dominant and non-
dominant cultures present in one low-income neighborhood. Cultural variation occurs as
a result of a range of compositional factors such as race, class, ethnicity, educational
attainment, and access to and quality of institutions, including underground economies
(Harding, 2011; Sánchez-Jankowski, 2008). Cultural heterogeneity contrasts with the
classical cultural perspective, which views low-income neighborhoods as isolated from
dominant culture (Wacquant & Wilson, 1989a; Wilson, 1987, 1996, 2009). While a
theory of social isolation may have been tenable during previous decades, I argue, an
increase in technology and school choice, along with concentrated poverty, demand
scholars identify new explanations for inequitable educational outcomes in a globalizing
world.
In this chapter, I outline a theory of neighborhood cultural heterogeneity. I
examine cultural heterogeneity vis-à-vis the sources and influences of neighborhood
social and cultural capital. I ask where, with whom, and for what purpose do adolescents
spend their time, and how do these experiences influence educational outcomes?
Contrary to Bourdieu (1977), who views the household and schoolhouse as the two
primary sources of pedagogic action, I extend learning to locations across the
neighborhood (Balsamo, 2011; Heath, 2012; Vadeboncoeur, 2006). My argument is
twofold:

27

• First, the neighborhood houses vast amounts of cultural heterogeneity—
understood as a multiplicity of cultural knowledge, beliefs, and
practices—that explain inequitable educational outcomes among
teenagers.
• Second, a teenager’s access to and practice of dominant social and cultural
capital will increase his likelihood for positive academic outcomes and the
development of a college-going identity, defined as an individual’s ability
and willingness to navigate diverse social worlds.
In the remainder of the chapter, I examine two interconnected concepts: culture
and low-income neighborhoods. I first review the classical cultural perspective, which
has dominated research and policy discussions over the past century. Next, I discuss the
cultural heterogeneity perspective, which provides a more complex understanding of the
relationship between culture and low-income neighborhoods. Using Bourdieu’s (1977,
1986) theory of practice, I conceptualize cultural heterogeneity vis-à-vis the sources and
influences of neighborhood social and cultural capital. The chapter concludes with a brief
discussion of two critical processes—resource brokerage and concerted learning—to the
development of a college-going identity.
Reviewing the Classical Cultural Perspective
In this section, I review the history of the classical cultural perspective. The study
of culture and low-income neighborhoods has undergone periods of popularity and
disfavor due to economic, intellectual, and political developments. As a result, I review
28

chronologically the perspective and, when necessary, focus on major figures and
movements.
The Chicago School (1910s-1930s)
A discussion of culture may begin in many places, from the islands of Trobriand
(Malinowski, 2002 [1922]) to the factories of Hammertown (P. Willis, 1977). Given the
neighborhood-based focus of this study, Chicago provides a logical starting place. With
the publication of The City (1967 [1925]), Robert Park, the prominent University of
Chicago figure, relocated the study of culture from faraway locales to nearby
neighborhoods.
11

Robert Park’s goal was to investigate “the customs, beliefs, social practices, and
general conceptions of life” (p. 3) in Chicago neighborhoods. Park drew from a Boasian
anthropological tradition that focused on culture as relative rather than universal. Boas
(2005 [1934]), who asserted “We must understand the individual as living in his culture;
and the culture as lived by individuals” (p. xxii), emphasized empirical, ethnographic
studies of culture in situ. The same focus was present in Park’s logic when he stated, “In

11
At the turn of the 19
th
century, Chicago provided an exciting laboratory for social reformers and
academics alike. Jane Addams (2009 [1912]) founded Hull House, the renowned settlement
house. Upton Sinclair (1906) published The Jungle. And, from the formation of the Department
of Sociology in 1892 to the immense wave of urban studies from 1915 to 1935 (Deegan, 2001;
Suttles, 1976), researchers at the University of Chicago, Robert Park and Ernest Burgess in
particular, established urban sociology as a Chicago tradition. The massive influence of the
University of Chicago’s Department of Sociology is evidenced by the percentage of Chicago
trained sociologist. Scholar Mary Jo Deegan (2001) reports that up to half of all sociologists in
the world in 1930 were trained at Chicago. For an elaborated explanation of the Chicago School’s
influence, see Sampson (2002a, 2002b). For examples of influential texts, see Thomas and
Znanieki’s (1958 [1918-20]) The Polish Peasant, Zorbaugh’s (1976 [1929]) The Gold Coast and
the Slum, Shaw’s (1966 [1930]) The Jack-Roller, Frazier’s (1932) The Negro Family in Chicago,
and Wirth’s (1928) The Ghetto. For an alternative and contemporary view of place-based
research, see Soja (1989, 2000, 2010).
29

the course of time every section and quarter of the city takes on something of the
character and qualities of its inhabitants. Each separate part of the city is inevitably
stained with the peculiar sentiments of its population” (p. 6). Ernest Burgess (1967
[1925]-a), Park’s colleague, offered a similar description of culture: “Local culture
includes those sentiments, forms of conduct, attachments, and ceremonies which are
characteristic of a locality, which have either originated in the area of have become
identified with it” (p. 145). To these scholars, culture inhered in the residents of a
neighborhood.
Consistent with the classical cultural perspective, Park and Burgess understood
culture as a unified system consisting of mainstream culture and non-mainstream
subcultures. While the two emphasized the role of place and context, their notions of
culture in neighborhoods were relatively homogeneous (Harding, 2010). The city
contained numerous “cultural communities” defined by ethnicity (Burgess, 1967 [1925]-
a). Each of the communities remained culturally distinct from its neighboring
communities, creating “a mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not interpenetrate”
(Park, 1967 [1925], p. 40).
For Park and Burgess (Park, Burgess, & McKenzie, 1967 [1925]), ethnic enclaves
organized subcultures, defined generally, as “a set of modal beliefs, values, norms, and
customs associated with a relatively distinct social subsystem (a set of interpersonal
networks and institutions) existing within a larger social system and culture” (Fischer,
1975, p. 1323). The subcultural concept allowed the two scholars to explain cultural
variation among neighborhoods with increased immigration and changing demographics.
30

The Influence of the Chicago School (1920s-1960s)
Shaw, McKay, and colleagues (Shaw & McKay, 1942; Shaw et al., 1929), who
extended the work of Park and Burgess, also focused on subcultures; however, they
created a model that accounted for cultural change. By mapping crime in Chicago, Shaw
and McKay (1942) refined a theory of social disorganization.
12
In a low-income
neighborhood, they argued, concentrated poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, and high mobility
caused ruptures in trust and the social order.
13
The multitude of subcultures made
communication and the ability to form shared meanings difficult, rendering universal
social order unsustainable. To compound the lack of organization, residents did not adopt
mainstream cultural values; while mainstream society prized economic productivity, low-
income residents had little means to achieve it. A lack of common ground diminished
subcultural, communal, and societal values. As a result, small groups adopted provincial
“attitudes and values” as well as “norms and standards of behavior” (Shaw & McKay,
1942, p. 171). Because of this fragmentation and the neighborhood’s inability to police
itself, residents were unable to assert effective control over the development of children.

12
Throughout the history of neighborhood studies, social disorganization theory has most often
been used to examine low-income neighborhoods. Social organization theory originates from
Chicago School’s ecological studies (Park et al., 1967 [1925]). Three factors—concentrated
poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential instability—define low-income neighborhoods of
study (Kornhauser, 1978; Park et al., 1967 [1925]; Sampson & Morenoff, 1997; Shaw & McKay,
1942; Shaw et al., 1929; Small, 2004; Thomas & Znaniecki, 1958 [1918-20]; Wilson, 1987). The
theory explains the social order of low-income neighborhoods and the residents’ ability to realize
common goals such as safety and education attainment.

13
Of note, members of the first Chicago School often use “ethnic heterogeneity” or
“heterogeneity” when they list the three main characteristics of low-income neighborhoods.
Ethnic heterogeneity, while certainly related, is not synonymous with cultural heterogeneity.
31

Delinquent behavior occurred and street gangs formed.
14
The cultural values and
behaviors of the gang then perpetuated among younger peer members.
Shaw and McKay’s model enjoyed a period of popularity from the 1940s to 1960s
among social scientists, including urban ethnographers and criminologists (Kornhauser,
1978). Three neighborhood ethnographies (Gans, 1962; Suttles, 1968; Whyte, 1993
[1943]), in particular, critiqued Shaw and McKay’s theory of social disorganization and
refined cultural explanations of low-income neighborhoods. William Foote Whyte (1993
[1943]), who studied corner boys and college boys in Boston’s North End, argued that
both ethnicity and poverty organized social life. In order to be socially mobile, Italian
immigrants chose between embracing their Italian culture or becoming “fully
Americanized” (p. 274). Whyte concluded, “[T]hey are blocked in two ways: by their
own organized society and by the outside world…If they broke away from these routines
[of action], they would be left hapless, without support. And, if a man wants to forget that
he is an Italian, the society around him does not let him forget it” (p. 274). Whereas Shaw
and McKay argued that subcultures dissolved and reformed on the basis of a group’s
inability to organize but desire for social order, Whyte hypothesized that the problem was
more complex. Immigrants were unable to succeed, in part, because of a division between
mainstream culture and non-mainstream subculture.

14
Thrasher (1927) provides a useful definition of street gangs: “The gang is an interstitial group
originally formed spontaneously, and then integrated through conflict. It is characterized by the
following types of behavior: meeting face to face, milling, movement through space as a unit,
conflict, and planning. The result of this collective behavior is the development of tradition,
unreflective internal structure, esprit de corps, solidarity, morale, group awareness, and
attachment to a local territory” (p. 57).
32

Herbert Gans (1962), who explored the lives of Italian Americans in a Boston
neighborhood, believed, like Park and Burgess (Park et al., 1967 [1925]), that culture
developed in response to local conditions. He stated, “The subcultures which I have
described are responses that people make to the opportunities and the deprivations that
they encounter” (p. 261). Gans developed a theory based on peer groups. In comparison
to contemporary theories of assimilation (Lopez, 2003; Portes & Zhou, 1993; Zhou, Lee,
Agius Vallejo, Tafoya-Estrada, & Xiong, 2008), Gans’ theoretical insights are outmoded.
However, in comparison to neighborhood studies at the time, he employed a conceptual
clarity previously absent (Sánchez-Jankowski, 2008). For instance, describing a class-
based subculture, he delineated between “routine-seekers” and “action-seekers” (p. 28).
He stated, “These [two groups], in turn, result in differences in rhythm of life, in the
patterns of family, relationships, work, leisure, religious behavior, attitudes toward
authority, and, indeed, in the very purpose of human existence” (p. 28). Although still a
codified system, Gans describes differences outside of and within neighborhoods.
Like Whyte and Gans, Gerald Suttles (1968) rejected the idea of disorganization.
His study of Chicago’s Near West Side extended Thrasher’s (1927) model of gang
formation and juvenile delinquency. He argued that, unable to adopt mainstream values,
groups formed their own social order: “[T]he residents are bent on ordering local
relations where the beliefs and evaluations of the wider society do not provide adequate
guidelines for conduct” (p. 4). Residents of slums created new standards of behavior
based on a range of characteristics including age, ethnicity, gender, and location. As a
33

result of this ordered segmentation, residents minimized conflict by associating with
people they knew.
The three scholars—Whyte (1993 [1943]), Gans (1962), and Suttles (1968)—
advanced scholarship about poverty and low-income neighborhoods. After nearly half of
a century, cultural understandings of low-income neighborhoods changed from culture as
immutable and ethnicity-based to culture as dynamic and a response to the demands of
mainstream and local society.
The Culture of Poverty and Public Policy (1960s-1970s)
The relationship between public discourse of and scholarly interest in
neighborhood poverty is no more apparent than the research and policy decisions during
the 1960s (Wilson, 2011).
15
Few academic terms have impacted public policy and
received as much attention as the term “culture of poverty,” which Oscar Lewis (1959)
introduced in Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty. Lewis
(1969) defined the culture of poverty as a set of traits that perpetuate from generation to
generation; these traits explain a cycle of poverty. The author (1959) wrote:
Poverty becomes a dynamic factor which affects participation in the larger
national culture and creates a subculture of its own. One can speak of the culture
of the poor, for it has its own modalities and distinctive social and psychological
consequences for its members. It seems to me that the culture of poverty cuts
across regional, rural-urban, and even national boundaries. (p. 2)

15
Acclaimed sociologist Gerald Suttles (1976) argues that social theorists often react to
contemporary conditions: “Despite this frequent reluctance to embrace abstract theory,” he states,
“ethnography has gone through fits and lapses of productive activity primarily because of the rise
or decline of some new theoretical impulse fired by social controversy rather than a plentitude or
dearth of novel empirical findings” (p. 2).
34

The culture of poverty argument resembled previous subcultural explanations in obvious
ways. A divide existed between mainstream society and the neighborhood, and class-
based conditions led to cultural transformations. Lewis’s conception, however, differed
critically in regard to scope. Lewis expressed a “Parsonian conception of culture,
whereby culture is a unitary and internally coherent set of attributes” (Lamont & Small,
2008, p. 7). To explain poverty, he presented a universal theory, which generalized across
neighborhoods and social groups.
Lewis’ scholarship influenced the direction of research and policy. Several years
after he presented the concept, Daniel Moynihan (1965) released his famous report,
which clearly bore the imprimatur of a culture of poverty argument. Moynihan named the
dissolution of African American families as the most important variable contributing to
“the weakness of the Negro community.” The paper’s (Moynihan, 1965) conclusion
illustrated the rhetoric that polarized scholars of poverty:
Three centuries of injustice have brought about deep-seated structural distortions
in the life of the Negro American. At this point, the present tangle of pathology is
capable of perpetuating itself without assistance from the white world… [A]
national effort towards the problems of Negro Americans must be directed
towards the question of family structure.
Moynihan highlighted structural conditions that caused social injustice. He also stressed
the creation of a self-perpetuating oppositional subculture (see Fordham, 1996; Fordham
& Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1995a, 1995b; Ogbu, 2004). However, he reinforced the culture of
poverty argument by suggesting that the solution to African American hardships was
through family (Gans, 2011; Stack, 1974). Legislators listened to Moynihan’s
35

suggestions, as a wave of public policy decisions introduced the War on Poverty and
augmented the welfare state.
16

Critics attacked the culture of poverty perspective (see Stack, 1974; Valentine,
1968). William Ryan (1976), one of the most prominent, accused both Lewis and
Moynihan of “blaming the victim.” Lamont and Small (2008) provide four critiques of
the culture of poverty, most importantly, “it assumed that a single culture categorized
very diverse people” (p.6). The intense criticism caused culture of poverty arguments to
retreat from academia and, coinciding with a focus on family- and individual-level
factors, neighborhood-based studies of culture fell into disfavor among theorists
(Patterson, 2006).
Structure and The Truly Disadvantaged (1980s)
William Julius Wilson’s (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged changed the landscape
of neighborhood research (Harding, 2010; van Ham et al., 2012). In the process, the
scholar solidified the manner in which people think and talk about poverty. Rather than
reducing the causes of the urban condition to a culture of poverty, Wilson created a full-
bodied explanation of urban poverty, with an emphasis on structural factors. He identified
employment changes, from manufacturing to service, which caused widespread
joblessness in the inner city. Simultaneously, African Americans with means relocated to

16
In President Lyndon Johnson’s speech to the nation, he argued for systematic reforms to defeat
poverty: “Very often a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptom. The
cause may lie deeper in our failure to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own
capacities, in a lack of education and training, in a lack of medical care and housing, in a lack of
decent communities in which to live and bring up their children” (1964, January 8). The former
President’s statements are interesting if only to remind readers of similar contemporary
arguments.
36

the suburbs, which caused institutional decay.
17
Concentrated poverty occurred as a result
and created “the underclass” (Auletta, 1982; Jencks & Peterson, 1991; Katz, 1995;
Massey & Denton, 1993; Morenoff & Tieda, 1997; Wilson, 1987).
Wilson (1987) developed two theories, social isolation and social
disorganization. Because of the compound forces influencing neighborhoods, social
isolation theory shared many of the same elements as social disorganization (Sampson &
Morenoff, 1997). Social isolation, where culture and structure intersect, was Wilson’s
theoretical response to the culture of poverty argument (1987, 1991). He focused on four
effects of social isolation: “job network isolation, role models, peers, and resource
deprivation” (Small & Newman, 2001, p. 33). Although Wilson attempted to distance
himself from the culture of poverty, his arguments often aligned closely. Consider this
passage about the effects of employment on work habits:
Inner-city social isolation also generates behavior not conducive to good work
histories. The patterns of behavior that are associated with a life of casual work
(tardiness and absenteeism) are quite different from those that accompany a life of
regular or steady work (e.g., the habit of waking up early in the morning to a
ringing alarm clock). In neighborhoods in which nearly every family has at least
one person who is steadily employed, the norms and behavior patterns that
emanate from a life of regularized employment become part of the community
gestalt. On the other hand, in neighborhoods in which most families do not have a
steadily employed breadwinner, the norms and behavior patterns associated with
steady work compete with those associated with casual or infrequent work. (p. 60-
61)
Rather than an immutable set of values, Wilson argued that culture was a response to
structural conditions. Newman (1992) states, “Though nowhere in the book is the notion
discussed in theoretical terms, it is clear that a particular view of its meaning is invoked:

17
See Black Picket Fences (Pattillo-McCoy, 1999) for a critique of Wilson’s (1987) out-
migration hypothesis.
37

culture is described primarily as a set of behavioral responses to structurally generated
options and secondarily as a set of aspirations or expectations that are warped by these
pernicious conditions” (p. 6-7).
Like the culture of poverty argument and the Moynihan Report, Wilson (1987)
attracted much criticism (K. Newman, 1992; Small & Newman, 2001). However, the
popularity of The Truly Disadvantaged (Wilson, 1987) led to an increase of
neighborhood effects studies, which often focused on structural conditions (Sampson et
al., 2002; van Ham et al., 2012). For an extended discussion of the relationship between
structure and culture, see Appendix A.
Returning to Culture: The Cognitive View (1980s-present)
Contemporary scholarship, influenced by symbolic interactionism (Goffman,
1959, 1974) and interpretive anthropology (Geertz, 1973b, 1983), has rapidly and
diversely influenced cultural understandings of urban poverty and rejuvenated the field of
study (Lamont & Small, 2008; Small, Harding, & Lamont, 2010). Most notably, present
scholarship benefits from a focus on culture as cognitive, rather than culture as values
(DiMaggio, 1997; Swidler, 1986). In other words, scholars view culture as fluid and
manipulable, composed of “disparate bits of information,” (DiMaggio, 1997, p. 263).
18

The shift to “culture in action” has five important implications for research
(Sampson & Bean, 2006; Swidler, 1986)(Table 1). First, scholars no longer treat culture
as a unified system within a social structure (Harding, 2011). Instead, culture and
structure intertwine to become part of a world-making process (Hays, 1994; Sewell,

18
Long before the newest generation of cultural research, Lowie (1920) provided a strikingly
prescient description of culture as “shreds and patches” (p. 441).
38

1992). Second, culture is cognitive-oriented, not value-oriented. DiMaggio (1997) states,
“recent work depicts culture as fragmented across groups and inconsistent across its
manifestations…culture as values that suffuse other aspects of belief, intention, and
collective life has succumbed to one of culture as complex rule-like structures that
constitute resources that can be put to strategic use” (p. 264-265). Third, rather than
culture inhering in individuals, culture is intersubjective, created among people through
social interaction (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). This view differs significantly from the
culture of poverty argument in which culture was innate and pathological (Moynihan,
1965). Fourth, culture is relational. In the past, scholars viewed culture as consensual; a
set of shared values guided action to achieve the common good (Sampson & Bean, 2006).
Recall a basic tenet of social organization literature: Neighborhoods achieve social order
through shared values (Sampson, 2012; Sampson et al., 1999; Sampson et al., 2002;
Shaw & McKay, 1942; Shaw et al., 1929). With a relational view of culture, rather than
culture as the “basis of social solidarity,” it becomes “the map that people use to position
themselves in social space” (Sampson & Bean, 2006, p. 23-24). The latter view is apparent
in Bourdieu’s (1977, 1986) theory of practice as members of the upper classes use culture to
Table 1. Culture as Values versus Culture as Cognitive
Culture as Values Culture as Cognitive
Worldview World-making
Value-rationality Affective-cognition
Personal Intersubjective
Consensual Relational
Authentic Performative
Adapted from Sampson and Bean (2006)
39

fortify their social positions. Fifth, culture is performative (Goffman, 1959). An
individual’s cultural identity, rather than being fixed, changes depending on the social
setting and audience. These five traits—culture as world-making, cognitive,
intersubjective, relational, and performative—have changed the manner in which scholars
understand and study culture (Small et al., 2010).
Aligning with the cognitive focus (Sampson & Bean, 2006; Swidler, 1986),
current research about culture and urban poverty has coalesced around six cultural
perspectives (Lamont & Small, 2008). First, cultural repertoires (Lamont & Small, 2008)
are “practices, beliefs, and attitudes that individuals call forth at the time of action (p. 12).
Swidler (1986) describes culture as a tool-kit that we use to navigate life. Hannerz (1969)
describes the repertoires of low-income people as a range from ghetto-specific to
mainstream. Second, frames determine how people organize experiences and view the
world (Goffman, 1974; Young, 2004). Both Small (2004) and Harding (2010) find
multiple, conflicting frames present in the neighborhoods they analyze. Third, narratives
as culture (Lamont & Small, 2008) describes choices made in relation to the stories
people tell themselves. For example, a black male’s personal narrative about social
mobility directs his choices despite the fact that a neutral party may not make the same
decisions (Young, 2004). Fourth, symbolic boundaries are “conceptual distinctions made
by social actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space”
(Lamont & Molnár, 2002). Anderson’s (1999) study of residents in a low-income
Philadelphia neighborhood illustrates how people distinguish boundaries between
“decent” and “street” people. Similarly, Newman’s (1999) study shows how fast food
40

workers in low-income neighborhoods create boundaries between themselves and others
who are not gainfully employed. Fifth, institutions are a popular unit of analysis to
explain how individual cultural attitudes adjust to match institutional culture (Lamont &
Small, 2008). Sixth, cultural capital answers the question of why the reproduction of
social positions occurs (Bourdieu, 1977, 1986). Both Lareau (2003b) and Carter (2007)
illustrate how cultural capital operates differently by class and race. The current study
uses cultural capital, along with social capital, in order to conceptualize cultural
heterogeneity.
Comparing the Classical Cultural and Cultural Heterogeneity Perspectives
There are three critical differences between the classical cultural and cultural
heterogeneity perspectives (Harding, 2010) (Table 2). First, the classical cultural
perspective explains variation within a city and across neighborhoods; however, it does
not always account for diversity within a neighborhood or across individuals (Harding,
2010). The classical perspective analyzes the processes between mainstream culture and
non-mainstream subcultures and, often, individuals’ failed attempts to reconcile the two.
Second, there is a fundamental shift in regard to how scholars conceptualize culture.
Table 2. Classical Cultural versus Cultural Heterogeneity Perspectives
Classical Cultural Perspective Cultural Heterogeneity Perspective
Culture as values Culture as cognitive
Dominance of non-mainstream subculture
Presence and combination of
mainstream and non-mainstream
cultures
Authentic cultural identity linked to peer,
ethnic, and class-based groups
Performative cultural identity linked to
social setting and audience
Adapted from Harding (2010)
41

Whereas culture used to describe a coherent value-based system, scholars now view
culture as cognitive and composed of “disparate bits of information and as schematic
structures that organize that information” (DiMaggio, 1997, p. 293). Third, the classical
view ignores cultural fluidity and complexity, which often varies depending on variables
such as race, ethnicity, gender, class, and sexuality (Carter, 2007, 2010; Kelley, 1997).
While the classical cultural and cultural heterogeneity perspectives have often
existed parallel to one another, the cultural heterogeneity perspective has failed to
achieve the same popularity as the classical perspective for three reasons: First, the
classical perspective is more consistent with the epistemological assumptions of culture
as values, the more popular paradigm for the majority of the last century. Second, with
the exception of Hannerz (1969) and Harding (2010), qualitative researchers in general
and ethnographers in particular have been less interested in defining a clear theory of
cultural heterogeneity and more concerned about presenting the lives of their participants
(Small, 2009a). Third, scholarly and public policy debates beginning in the 1960s
solidified the classical perspective as the dominant paradigm.
Despite the popularity of the classical cultural perspective, recent developments
suggest that the cultural heterogeneity perspective will assume a greater role in
scholarship (Small & Feldman, 2012). The perspective addresses the weaknesses of the
classical perspective and also accounts for an increasingly globalizing world where
technology increases exposure of diverse cultures to residents of low-income
neighborhoods (Harding, 2010). I now transition to an in-depth discussion of cultural
heterogeneity.
42

Toward a Theory of Cultural Heterogeneity
Although not always explicitly named, cultural heterogeneity emerged from the
first Chicago School. Louis Wirth (1938) provided a nascent description. He stated, “The
city has thus historically been the melting-pot of races, peoples, and cultures, and a most
favorable breeding-ground of new biological and cultural hybrids” (p. 10).
19
As I discuss
in Chapter 1 and in the previous section, while few have fully developed a theory of
cultural heterogeneity, numerous scholars have discussed elements from the cultural
heterogeneity perspective (see Anderson, 1999; Duneier, 1992; Hannerz, 1969; Harding,
2010; Liebow, 1967; Wirth, 1938).
Two scholars—Hannerz (1969) and Harding (2010)—provide the clearest
theories for the study of cultural heterogeneity in low-income neighborhoods. With the
publication of Soulside, an ethnography of residents near Winston Street in Washington
D.C., Hannerz (1969) presents the first explicit explanation of cultural heterogeneity. He
hypothesizes that residents in low-income neighborhoods adopt cultural repertoires from
a variety of sources: “As we have seen, mainstream and ghetto-specific cultural items co-
exist in the ghetto and are shared to varying degrees” (p. 191). Contrary to former
conceptions, he describes heterogeneity within the neighborhood and among people.
Harding (2010), drawing from Hannerz (1969) and recent cultural sociology (Swidler,
1986; Young, 2004), provides the most complete description of cultural heterogeneity to

19
Tönnies’ (2001 [1887]) theory of community and society, gemeinscaft and gesellschaft, is
highly influential to Wirth. Gemeinscaft refers to a focus on supporting primary ties and the
shared interests of community whereas gesellschaft describes a more self-interested perspective
in which secondary ties, in a quest to obtain personal gain, precede primary ties. An urban
neighborhood’s inability to establish a self-governing communal order highlights the shift from
small, close-knit community to a large, detached profit-oriented society.
43

date. He defines the concept “as the presence of a diverse array of competing and
conflicting cultural models” (p. 143). He contends that heterogeneity occurs at the
neighborhood level: “It is a characteristic of a neighborhood (or perhaps some other
social context, such as a school or firm) rather than an individual, though it has
consequences for the individuals embedded in that setting.” (p. 143).
Defining Cultural Heterogeneity
To define cultural heterogeneity, I draw from interpretive anthropology (Geertz,
1973b, 1983), symbolic interactionism (Goffman, 1959, 1974), and contemporary
cultural sociology (DiMaggio, 1997; Lamont & Small, 2008; Sampson & Bean, 2006;
Swidler, 1986). I define culture as “a historically transmitted pattern of meanings
embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by
means of which men and women communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge
about and attitudes toward life” (Geertz, 1973a). Borrowing from the major premises of
symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969),
20
I highlight the unique interpretive processes
that individuals undertake as they navigate social life.
I view cultural heterogeneity as a framework to understand both practice and
interpretation (Tierney, forthcoming). Unlike Harding (2010), I argue that cultural
heterogeneity occurs at the neighborhood and individual levels. At the neighborhood
level, cultural heterogeneity describes a diversity of dominant and non-dominant cultures
(Hannerz, 1969; Harding 2010). At the individual level, cultural heterogeneity describes

20
Blumer (1969) states, first, human beings ascribe meanings to every aspect of life, including
objects, people, feelings, institutions, and situations. Second, meanings develop from social
interaction. Third, the process of meaning making is interpretive.
44

the multiplicity of beliefs, knowledge, and practices as well as the unique processes of
meaning making among individuals (Hannerz, 1969; Liebow, 1967; Wirth, 1938).
Cultural sociologists identify a long list of conceptual units of study—e.g. values, beliefs,
attitudes, behaviors, traditions, preferences, languages, and linguistic patterns. Based on
the data, I limit my focus to beliefs, knowledge, and practices.
Contextualizing Cultural Heterogeneity
Why does cultural heterogeneity matter in low-income neighborhoods? Cultural
heterogeneity exists in wealthy, middle-class, and low-income neighborhoods. Residents
in affluent neighborhoods display a diversity of knowledge, beliefs, and practices related
to religion, politics, art, and fashion (Harding, 2010). The key differences, Harding
(2010) asserts, pertain to competing and, at times, conflicting cultural factors and the
divergent pathways that arise as a result. Recall the examples I provide in Chapter 1.
While most teenagers value education (Carter, 2007; Harding, 2010), they do not always
set realistic goals or map viable pathways. If a student struggles in high school, he drops
out because he believes a GED is just as valuable as a high school diploma. Similarly, a
student-athlete may perform poorly academically because he believes athletic success
will lead to a sports scholarship regardless of grades. These examples highlight the
significance of cultural heterogeneity to educational outcomes in particular and social
outcomes in general.
Three factors magnify the influence of cultural heterogeneity: neighborhood
composition, social control, and institutions (Harding, 2011). First, low-income
neighborhoods often house tremendous diversity due to variations including race, class,
45

ethnicity, educational attainment, and access to and quality of institutions, including
underground economies (Harding, 2011; Sánchez-Jankowski, 2008). A neighborhood
like Hurston Park, for instance, contains a mixture of races and ethnicities. Although
racial categories define broadly as African American and Latino, a plurality of ethnicities
exists as individuals identify as Jamaican or Ethiopian or Mexican or Salvadoran. Even
more differentiation occurs by the areas from which individuals originate. There are
important cultural distinctions between someone from the suburbs of Juanacatlán or an
urban neighborhood in Guadalajara. In addition, working class and middle class residents
live in the same neighborhoods (Pattillo-McCoy, 1999).
Second, social control, or the lack thereof, is part of the product and process of
cultural heterogeneity. In low-income neighborhoods, social organization theorists
contend that concentrated poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, and high mobility disrupt trust
and the social order (Burgess, 1967 [1925]-b; Harding, 2010; Park et al., 1967 [1925];
Pattillo-McCoy, 1999; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Sampson & Morenoff, 1997; Shaw &
McKay, 1942; Shaw et al., 1929; Small, 2004; Thomas & Znaniecki, 1958 [1918-20];
Wilson, 1987). Cultural heterogeneity complicates communication and the ability to form
shared meanings. As familiarity becomes key to preserving safety and stability, city
dwellers organize into smaller, segmented social groups that adopt provincial standards.
Because of this fragmentation, residents are unable to assert effective control over the
development of children (Sampson, 2012).

46

Third, quality of and access to neighborhood institutions potentially magnifies
cultural heterogeneity.
21
Neighborhood institutions are locally or non-locally controlled.
They sometimes reflect mainstream culture; other times they house non-mainstream
subcultures (Shaw & McKay, 1942). Shaw and McKay (1942), as a result, state,
“Children in such communities are exposed to a variety of contradictory standards and
forms of behavior rather than to a relatively consistent and conventional pattern” (p. 172).
Like Harding’s (2010) explanation of the effects of cultural heterogeneity, Shaw and

21
Neighborhood institutions are often a key focus of neighborhood studies (Gans, 1962; Sánchez-
Jankowski, 2008; Suttles, 1968; Whyte, 1993 [1943]). From the traditional de-institutionalism
perspective, low-income neighborhoods have poor quality institutions (Wacquant & Wilson,
1989a; Wilson, 1987). Four factors lead to institutional erosion (Shaw & McKay, 1942): First, the
ecological factors of social disorganization lead to inadequate institutional resources, including
money and human capital. Second, instability erodes institutions. Residents do not view slums as
permanent residences, so they do not expend effort to build institutions. Third, institutions lack
coordination among other institutions. Schools, for instance, are isolated from churches,
community centers, and other locations for after-school activities. Ineffective institutions further
lead to cultural heterogeneity as well as lack of control. The school, as an isolated institution with
few resources, cannot successfully inculcate a child to a certain set of values. Poor schools lead to
high dropout rates. The neighborhood loses control, and dropouts then join informal, unregulated
institutions such as gangs or the underground economy. Fourth, in low-income areas, institutions
represent a wide array of dominant and non-dominant attitudes and values.
While the de-institutionalism view prevails in neighborhood research, such a view treats
all low-income neighborhoods similarly and elides two key contextual differences. First, an
increase in poverty does not necessary correlate to fewer institutions (Small, 2007, 2008; Small &
McDermott, 2006). For instance, comparing low-income neighborhoods nationally, as the
proportion of black individuals increases, the number of establishments decreases. In contrast, as
the proportion of foreign-born individuals increases, the number of institutions increases as well
(Small & McDermott, 2006). Demographic shifts within neighborhoods, as a result, have
important implications for institutional composition. Consider Suttles’ (1968) observation that
institutions “either mirror the ethnic sections in the neighborhood or bring out the opposition
between them” (p. 41). Ethnically and culturally heterogeneous institutions have the potential to
cause racial tension as long-time residents may not have the same cultural tastes as new residents
(Charles, 2006). Second, the location of a neighborhood influences the number and types of
institutions (Sampson & Morenoff, 2006). Is a neighborhood next to another low-income
neighborhood, a pollution-emitting industrial park, or a thriving downtown? Until recently,
scholars have paid little attention to surrounding neighborhoods. As an alternative to de-
institutionalism, I propose that institutional surplus, not scarcity, exists in low-income
neighborhoods (Sánchez-Jankowski, 2008; Small, 2008).
47

McKay’s theory of social disorganization illustrates how low-income neighborhoods
expose adolescents to a variety of cultural beliefs, knowledge, and practices.
The importance of neighborhood institutions to adolescents is clear. First, the
unique configuration of institutions in a neighborhood has the potential to increase or
restrict a child’s development and opportunities for success. As a result, the availability,
quality, and use of institutions such as parks, schools, churches, restaurants, health
clinics, grocery stores, and hardware stores are key. Second, formal institutions act as
surrogates for parents (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993). High school is a time when teenagers
have more independence, more choices, and are more apt to explore their environment.
By enrolling their children in out-of-school activities, parents structure and control their
teenager’s behavior and activity (Kling, Liebman, & Katz, 2005; Mahatmya & Lohman,
2011). In low-income neighborhoods, however, the stress on parents is exacerbated when
they cannot afford, or do not have available to them, adult supervised extracurricular
activities (Lareau, 2003b). Third, recent scholarship (Small, 2009b; Small et al., 2008;
Small & McDermott, 2006) underscores the value of institutions as locations for
resources and institutional brokers (Small, 2009b). Organizational participation in a
school club, church group, or sports team all have the potential to increase social and
cultural capital (Wacquant & Wilson, 1989a). However, a diverse and shifting landscape
of institutions provides uneven access to social and cultural capital.
These three factors—neighborhood composition, social control, and institutions—
magnify the role of cultural heterogeneity. In the subsequent sections, I conceptualize
cultural heterogeneity using Bourdieu’s (1977, 1986) theory of practice. I consider how
48

the arrangement and use of diverse forms of social and cultural capital affect the practices
of adolescents in low-income neighborhoods.
Conceptualizing Cultural Heterogeneity
I use Bourdieu’s (1977, 1986) theory of practice in order to create a theory of
cultural heterogeneity (see Figure 4). Bourdieu’s theory describes how, in a society of
scarce resources, individuals compete for social positions and unknowingly reproduce
hierarchies (Swartz, 1997). In regard to education, the theory explains inequitable
outcomes among teenagers in low-income neighborhoods. As I mentioned previously,
this study examines dominant and non-dominant social and cultural capital; however,
before transitioning to an in-depth discussion of capital, I present a brief overview of the
entire theory of cultural heterogeneity. The forms of capital are involved in a complex
framework including identity and social setting. The below descriptions are not intended
to serve as exhaustive. Rather, they provide the reader with a primer to understand how
capital acts across settings and individuals.
49

Bourdieu uses three components—the forms of capital, habitus, and fields—to
examine action. First, key to power reproduction are economic and symbolic capital.
Economic capital forms the core of all capital transformations and most quickly converts
to other forms. Convertibility, Bourdieu theorizes, is critical. For higher social positions,
the conversion of capital is “least costly in terms of conversion work and of the losses
inherent in the conversion itself” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 25). The symbolic forms of capital,
including social and cultural, are important to the theory as they allow the upper classes
to dominate through symbolic violence, “the violence which is exercised upon a social
agent with his or her complicity” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 167). Second, a field
defines the rules of a social setting and shapes social relations (Bourdieu & Wacquant,
1992; Lareau, 2003a; Swartz, 1997). Fields provide a sophisticated understanding of
how, when, where, and why individuals value, access, and use different capital
(Bourdieu, 1977; Lareau, 2003a). Why does a student act differently in school, at home,
and around the neighborhood? Or, why does a student act differently from class to class
or peer group to peer group? Culturally savvy teenagers understand that capital does not
always have the same value in different settings (Carter, 2007; Lareau & Weininger,
2003). Third, habitus describes identity. Habitus situates social and cultural capital within
a larger framework (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Habitus coordinates individual action
within and among social structures (LiPuma, 1993). It also directs individuals to specific
sources and types of capital. Each component combines in unique combinations to
stimulate individual action: “[(habitus) (capital)] + field = practice (or action)”
(Bourdieu, 1984, p. 101; Musoba & Baez, 2009, p. 154).
50

Cultural capital. Cultural capital explains how cultural tastes and knowledge
correlate to social positions (Bourdieu, 1977, 1984; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). Cultural
capital reproduces through unintentional and intentional pedagogic action. Two primary
sources of pedagogic action are households and schools (Bourdieu, 1984). Parents, for
instance, implicitly or explicitly teach their children linguistic styles and cultural
dispositions; Lareau (2003b) calls this process concerted cultivation, which I discuss in a
subsequent section. Similarly, the education system teaches students how to act and
provides them with knowledge to enter determined class positions. For the study, I extend
pedagogic action to locations across the neighborhood, from churches to street corners.
Each place and the people that inhabit it have the potential to shape a teenager’s habitus.
Definitions of cultural capital divide broadly into two categories (Lareau &
Weininger, 2003). First, the most common definition involves knowledge of “high”
culture. Scholars use knowledge of works of art and visits to museums as proxies for
cultural capital (DiMaggio, 1982; DiMaggio & Mohr, 1985; Eitle & Eitle, 2002; Kalmijn
& Kraaykamp, 1996; Roscigno & Ainsworth, 1999). Second, the alternative definition
highlights the intangible, and possibly elusive, quality of capital: the social and cultural
knowledge that allows individuals to succeed among the dominant culture and is often
not taught in schools (Carter, 2003, 2007; Lamont & Lareau, 1988; Lareau, 2003b;
Lareau & Horvat, 1999; McDonough, 1997; Smrekar, 1996). Lamont and Lareau (1988)
include a practical list of examples, including:
[O]wning a luxury car or a large house [possession of a good], being thin and
healthy [preference and behavior], being at ease with abstract thinking [attitude],
knowing how to send signals of one's competence [behavior], being a good citizen
[attitude], knowing the appropriate range of topics of conversation in specific
51

settings [behavior], having upper-middle class speech patterns [behavior], and
having scientific expertise, and a well-rounded culture [formal knowledge]. (p.
156)
Cultural capital includes three forms (Bourdieu, 1986). First, the embodied state
refers to cultural capital inherent in oneself. Cultural capital augments the ways in which
an individual views the world. In addition, the more capital an individual acquires, the
more likely he or she is to acquire similar capital. Knowledge, language, and self-
presentation are examples of embodied capital. Because of the disguised ways in which
capital is acquired, it often appears as competence not capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Dumais &
Ward, 2009). Second, the objectified state refers to material objects. Digital media
qualifies as objectified capital as well. Any individual may acquire objectified capital
with economic capital; however, to consume it, he or she needs a conceptual
understanding of the possession. Paintings, works of literature, and instruments are
examples. Third, the institutionalized state refers to recognition by way of academic
qualifications including credentials and qualifications. Credentials sanctify cultural
competence. Institutionalized capital makes labor market transactions easier as academic
qualifications more readily convert to economic capital. Graduate degrees are a type of
institutionalized capital. In general, the education system is the sorting mechanism that
grants cultural capital to some and withholds it from others (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977;
Bowles & Gintis, 1976).
This study bolsters scholarship regarding cultural capital in three ways: First, in
relation to cultural heterogeneity, I examine how teenagers process and make use of
dominant and non-dominant cultural capital (Carter, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010; Lamont &
52

Lareau, 1988). Second, while studies often focus on families (Lareau, 2003b) or schools
(Carter, 2007) as sources of cultural capital, I extend the discussion to the neighborhood
(Ainsworth, 2002). Third, I target the role of institutions and institutional agents as
resource brokers of cultural capital (Lareau & Weininger, 2003; Lin, 2001).
Social capital. Social capital provides a way to analyze relationships within (and
outside of) low-income neighborhoods (Small, 2009b). Since Du Bois (1996 [1899]),
scholars have studied the architecture of social ties—primary and secondary, strong and
weak, public and private—in neighborhoods; however, social capital provides a new
angle to view social organization (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003; Morenoff, Sampson, &
Raudenbush, 2001; Small, 2004). Both theories—social capital and social organization—
share a fundamental belief that connectivity is beneficial (Ainsworth, 2002; Gephart,
1997).
Whether descriptions center on Tocqueville’s (2000 [1835]) associational ties,
Durkheim’s (1997 [1933]) organic solidarity, or in relation to neighborhoods, Jane
Jacobs’ (1992 [1961]) self-governing communities, a broad range of theorists have
contributed to the intellectual development of social capital (Farr, 2004; Field, 2008;
Halpern, 2005). The contemporary academic conception and popularity of social capital
is primarily due to three scholars: Pierre Bourdieu (1986), James Coleman (1988), and
Robert Putnam (2000). I focus on Bourdieu and Coleman’s conceptions of social capital.
Bourdieu and Coleman present distinct but broad definitions of social capital (B.
Fine, 2010). First, Bourdieu (1986) defines social capital as “the aggregate of the actual
or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less
53

institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition—or in other words,
to membership in a group—which provides each of its members with the backing of the
collectively owned capital” (p. 21). His definition emphasizes the role of networks and
institutional agents to reproduce class positions. He also underscores the role of social
context as a mediator of capital (Burt, 2005). This point has important implications for a
study of neighborhood social capital as teenagers navigate diverse settings. Second,
Coleman (1990) defines social capital as “the set of resources that inhere in family
relations and in community social organization and that are useful for the cognitive or
social development of a child or young person” (p. 300). His definition focuses on an
individual within a social network. Coleman (1990) also states that social capital is often
the unexpected result of participating in activities. That is, accumulation is nonpurposive.
Coleman’s conception of social capital is inherently positive; social capital helps children
develop. He ignores the negative aspects of group membership such as the pressure to
conform to group norms or the duty to reciprocate favors (Pattillo-McCoy, 1999; Wilson,
1987). While each scholar’s version presents unique nuances, at its core, social capital is
the “investment in social relations with an expected return” (Lin, 1999).
There are four unique resources of social capital: information, influence, social
credentials, and reinforcement (Lin, 1999, 2001). First, social ties facilitate the exchange
of information. In relation to teenagers, a teacher or counselor may provide information
about an internship or scholarship. Second, social connections may provide influence. A
family friend, for instance, may provide a recommendation for a teenager for
employment. Third, the social credentials of an individual may provide recognition of
54

another individual’s merit. A well-known high school coach may recommend one of his
players to a college coach. Fourth, social capital provides reinforcement. A youth pastor
increases a teenager’s self-esteem when he or she takes time to learn about a teenager
participating in a youth group. These four benefits, which I discuss in Chapter 5, imbue
social capital with significance in ways that economic and cultural capital do not.
This study enhances social capital scholarship in two ways. First, as the data
illustrates in Chapter 4, participation in after-school activities affects the types and
quality of social capital available to teenagers as well as its influence (Small, 2009b;
2006). Second, using Portes and Sensenbrenner’s (1993) definition of social capital—
“expectations for action within a collectivity that affect the economic goals and goal-
seeking behavior of its members” (p. 1323)—I examine the unique ways in which
different racial, ethnic, and peer groups acquire, maintain, and use social capital (Jarrett,
1997). Social capital represents a promising concept to explain the impact of low-income
neighborhoods on adolescents.
Non-dominant social and cultural capital. The symbolic forms of capital offer
an elegant metaphor to explain social reproduction and class inequality. Important to
Bourdieu’s (1986) conception is the ability of social and cultural capital to convert to
economic capital. A weakness of Bourdieu’s theory is his overstatement of dominant
capital and demotion of non-dominant capital, which fulfills a subservient and reactive
role (Giroux, 1983; Yosso, 2005). He treats non-dominant capital as homogenous and
ignores the ways in which factors such as race, class, and gender mediate the accrual and
use of it. Non-dominant capital highlights the diversity of beliefs, knowledge, practices,
55

and people in a neighborhood and provides an explanation for educational outcomes by
race, class, and ethnicity. In other words, dominant and non-dominant capital highlights
the difference between what cultures are present in a neighborhood and what culture is
valued in the classroom (J. Baratz & S. Baratz, 1970; S. Baratz & J. Baratz, 1970; Carter,
2007; Delpit, 2006; Gutiérrez et al., 2009; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Moll, 1992;
Valenzuela, 1999; Yosso, 2005). A discussion of the cultural dissonance between
dominant and non-dominant capital also illustrates that academic competencies are based
on cultural factors, not ability (Banks, 1993; Carter, 2007; Heath, 1983; Lareau, 2003b;
Shade, 1982). Such a perspective shifts the focus from minority students as deficient to
academic measures as culturally biased (Oakes, 2005; Oakes et al., 1997).
Prudence Carter (2007) examines the shortcomings of Bourdieu’s description of
cultural capital. Drawing from two popular cultural paradigms—oppositional culture and
cultural capital—she problematizes either / or descriptions. Carter (2007) identifies three
categories of adolescents. First, mainstreamers act most closely to the dominant white
group. Second, noncompliant believers adopt their own cultural beliefs (such as black or
Chicano) and reject the beliefs of the dominant group. Third, straddlers adopt
characteristics from a variety of groups. Straddlers achieve the most academic success in
school and social success out of school because they effectively acquire dominant and
non-dominant capital and deftly employ and traverse multiple social fields (Carter, 2010).
Their daily navigation of social structures highlights the situated, fluid nature of culture
as well as the capacity of teenagers to acquire and convert capital. Carter (2007)
reinforces the importance of dominant capital in regard to academic achievement;
56

however, she also positively valorizes non-dominant capital in regard to social
interactions. By viewing cultural capital and social capital as dominant and non-
dominant, the concepts become much more portable and extend to explorations of low-
income neighborhoods. In the following section, I define the various forms of
neighborhood capital. Rather than overwhelming the reader, my intent is to reveal the
complexities of the lives of teenagers and the neighborhoods in which they live.
Defining neighborhood capital. For the purposes of this study, dominant
cultural capital refers to formal and informal knowledge and practices of social groups
who have historically controlled mainstream institutions (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu &
Passeron, 1977); non-dominant cultural capital refers to formal and informal knowledge
and practices of non-dominant social groups who have historically been excluded access
to mainstream institutions (Carter, 2007). Dominant social capital refers to the current or
potential resources—information, influence, social credentials, and reinforcement—that
accrue from social ties with individuals connected to mainstream institutions and
resources (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1990; Lin, 1999, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 1997);
non-dominant social capital refers to the current or potential resources that accrue from
social ties with individuals not connected to mainstream institutions and resources.
Contrary to traditional social capital theories (Coleman, 1990; Lin, 1999, 2001), which
highlight the benefits of group membership, I emphasize both the positive and negative
aspects (Pattillo-McCoy, 1999; Wilson, 1987). Each of these forms of capital occurs in a
variety of social settings throughout the neighborhood (see Table 3). Each neighborhood
57

contains a unique configuration of dominant and non-dominant symbolic capital, which I
refer to as neighborhood capital.
The above definitions of dominant and non-dominant social and cultural capital
provide useful for understanding the overall constellation of symbolic capital. In order to
guide the reader and focus Chapters 4 and 5, I provide narrower definitions of dominant
and non-dominant cultural capital.
Scholars have a wide range of options to define cultural capital. For the study, I
focus on cultural capital that improves college readiness, defined as “as the level of
preparation a student needs to enroll and succeed—without remediation—in a credit-
bearing general education course at a postsecondary institution that offers a baccalaureate
degree or transfer to a baccalaureate program” (Conley, 2011, p. 1). There are four
dimensions of college readiness: cognitive strategies, content knowledge, academic
behaviors, and contextual skills and awareness (Conley, 2011). Cognitive strategies
Table 3. Symbolic Capital in Context
Location Primary Forms* Examples
School-based
Dominant Social Capital
Teachers, peers, administrators,
coaches, and college counselors
Dominant Cultural Capital
Cognitive strategies, content
knowledge, academic behaviors,
contextual skills, college knowledge
Family- and
Neighborhood-based
Dominant and Non-
Dominant Social Capital
Family members, peers, coaches,
pastors, and gang leaders
Non-Dominant Cultural
Capital
Family, aspirational, linguistic,
resilience, navigational, creativity, and
street capital
* Each location contains dominant and non-dominant forms of capital, but not all forms are recognized
as legitimate. For instance, knowledge of local street gangs does not translate to academic success.
Similarly, exceptions exist in relation to the primary forms of capital. For instance, a family may contain
higher amounts of dominant capital.
58

include intellectual curiosity, problem solving, and open-mindedness. Content knowledge
includes writing, reading, and mathematical literacy. Academic behaviors include self-
monitoring and study skills. Lastly, contextual skills and awareness include the
knowledge necessary to access and succeed in college. College knowledge, information
that is often not taught in schools, is the dominant knowledge and practices necessary to
gain access to and succeed in college (Conley, 2005). Each of the four dimensions
contributes to a college-going identity, which I discuss in a following section.
To define non-dominant cultural capital, I draw from the theory of community
wealth (Yosso, 2005), which recognizes the cultural strengths of non-dominant groups
and communities. The theory includes a range of non-dominant capital including
aspirational, familial, social, linguistic, resilience, and navigational. For the present study,
I focus on family, aspirational, and resilience capital. Family capital describes the
practices and knowledge transmitted through kinship bonds (Yosso, 2005). It includes “a
sense of community history, memory and cultural intuition” (p.79). Aspirational capital
describes the ability to envision a positive future, even when barriers arise (Yosso, 2005).
I classify the immigrant bargain—defined as “the expectation that children will redeem
their immigrant parents’ sacrifice through their own success” (Smith, 2008, p. 275)—as a
type of aspirational capital. Resilience capital describes the ability to endure difficult
circumstances. The type of capital draws from the theoretical history of inequality and
resistance (Freire, 2000; Giroux, 1983; McLaren, 1998; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal,
2001; P. Willis, 1977; Yosso, 2005).
59

As Yosso (2005) notes, the list of capital is not exhaustive. Even more, different
communities possess different forms of capital. As a result, I adopt two additional forms:
creative and street capital. Creative capital refers to creative, novel, and improvisational
capacity (Pressley McPhail, 2002). Street capital—which I define using Anderson’s
(1999) “code of the street”—describes the knowledge and practices necessary to navigate
the neighborhood. I focus on these five forms—family, aspirational, and resilience,
creative, and street capital—of non-dominant cultural capital.
The purpose of the study is to understand the sources and influences of cultural
heterogeneity as teenagers navigate manifold pathways to and away from postsecondary
education. In other words, where, with whom, and for what purpose do teenagers spend
their time, and how do the experiences influence education outcomes? I delineate four
sources of neighborhood capital: people, places, organizations, and media (Table 4).
People divide into three groups: family, peers, and resource brokers. Resource brokers—
individuals who have access to and link capital to teenagers—include coaches, tutors,
pastors, and even leaders of peer groups. Places include parks, schools, churches,
restaurants, health clinics, grocery stores, and street corners. I also include the Internet as
a location. Organizations include gangs, sports teams, after-school groups, and church
Table 4. Sources of Neighborhood Capital

Sources of Neighborhood Capital

People Places Organizations Media
Dominant
Capital

Non-Dominant
Capital

60

groups. Media ranges from music and movies to billboards and graffiti. Each category
contains both dominant and non-dominant capital.
Developing a College-going Identity
As I state at the beginning of the chapter, of the 60 African American and Latino
teenagers I interviewed, all but one expressed a desire to attend college. Contrary to the
stated aspirations of the participants, the percentage of male teenagers in Hurston Park
who graduate from high school and matriculate to college are disproportionately low
compared to peers in more affluent neighborhoods. In the context of poor educational
outcomes, what explains the success of a minority of teenagers? In addition, what factors
distinguish the students who access college from those who do not? I argue that the
concept of a college-going identity provides an explanation. A college-going identity is
an individual’s ability and willingness to navigate diverse social settings and use
appropriate dominant and non-dominant social and cultural capital. Despite the value of
non-dominant forms of capital to traverse various settings across the neighborhood,
academic success is largely due to a teenager’s ability to access and use dominant forms
of symbolic capital in order to negotiate the educational system. While most students
aspire to attend a postsecondary institution, a college-going identity—through the
cultivation of specific strategies, knowledge, behaviors, and skills and awareness
(Conley, 2011)—assists select students to actualize those aspirations.
Key to developing a college-going identity is access to select forms of capital as
well as opportunities to practice them. Hurston Park consists of both dominant and non-
dominant neighborhood capital. A teenager’s use of capital varies based on individual-,
61

family-, and neighborhood-level factors (Pattillo-McCoy, 1999). The social and cultural
contexts of each of these levels contribute to the adolescent’s access to and use of social
and cultural capital, which, in turn, influences identity development. I identify two
critical processes—resource brokerage and concerted learning—to explain identity
development. Resource brokerage describes the process that occurs when an institutional
agent links dominant and non-dominant capital to a recipient (Burt, 2005; Carter, 2007;
Small, 2009b). Related to formal after-school activities and neighborhood institutions, the
notion of linking social capital is critical (Halpern, 2005; Woolcock, 1998). Burt (2005)
states, “brokerage is the action of coordinating across the [structural] hole with bridges
between people on opposite sides of the hole, and [resource brokers] are the people who
build bridges” (p. 18). Key to the success of a resource broker is his or her ability as a
multicultural navigator, defined as an individual who “demonstrate[s] how to possess
both dominant and nondominant cultural capital and how to be adept at movement
through various sociocultural settings, where cultural codes and rules differ” (Carter,
2007, p. 150).
Concerted learning focuses on prolonged exposure to and practice of cultural
capital across the neighborhood. The intellectual origins of the concept stem from
Lareau’s (2003b) concerted cultivation. In Unequal Childhoods (Lareau, 2003b), the
scholar develops the idea of concerted cultivation, defined as the targeted development
and socialization of children through experiences and activities. She argues that concerted
cultivation—as opposed to natural growth—is a key parenting strategy. Different from
Lareau, I decouple the concept from parenting. I argue that concerted learning occurs in a
62

variety of settings across the neighborhood and with a number of individuals, including
peers and resource brokers.
In Chapter 1, I identify cultural heterogeneity as a neighborhood mechanism that
explains the influence of living and learning in a low-income neighborhood. Resource
brokerage and concerted learning, then, are more refined descriptions of the processes at
work in the daily lives of teenagers. Scholars critique studies of culture because they lack
definition (Gans, 2011; Hays, 1994). I discuss the two concepts in order to remove the
ephemeral qualities of the exchange and reproduction of culture. Furthermore, if scholars,
policymakers, and practitioners acknowledge educational success as the product of
cultural competencies—rather than innate abilities—then identifying the processes of
cultural exchange are critical to improving educational outcomes and developing college-
going identities.
Conclusion
A theory of cultural heterogeneity provides a framework to understand diversity
of dominant and non-dominant cultures and interpretive practices of male teenagers in a
low-income neighborhood (Tierney, forthcoming). Unlike the classical cultural
perspective, which views low-income neighborhoods as isolated from dominant culture
(Wacquant & Wilson, 1989a; Wilson, 1987, 1996, 2009), cultural heterogeneity
acknowledges and accounts for difference. I argue that cultural heterogeneity is critical to
understanding inequitable educational outcomes in low-income neighborhoods; during a
time when school choice and technology have seemingly eliminated barriers to secondary
and postsecondary education, the theory explains why opportunity continues to aggregate
63

to select groups. Moreover, over the past century, public policies based on the classical
cultural perspective have often been ineffective. Cultural heterogeneity offers a valuable
alternative (Sen, 2004). As Lamont and Small (2010) state, “[A] key to the eradication of
poverty lies not in encouraging the poor to adopt the beliefs of the mainstream (since the
mainstream and poor often do not differ substantially on average and also both hold self-
contradictory beliefs) but in better understanding and channeling heterogeneity” (p. 170).
I now transition to a discussion of the methodological framework.

64

Chapter 3
Studying Teenagers and Neighborhoods

“Our Otherness was not an ineffable essence, but rather the sum of different historical
experiences. Different webs of signification separated us, but these webs were now at
least partially intertwined. But a dialogue was only possible when we recognized our
differences, when we remained critically loyal to the symbols which our traditions had
given us. By so doing, we began a process of change.”
—Paul Rabinow, Reflections of Fieldwork in Morocco

The Smallwood Recreation Complex, located in the northwest corner of Hurston
Park, spans nine acres. The main feature of Smallwood is a multipurpose brick building
that houses a gymnasium, boxing ring, weight room, and dance studio. A playground,
soccer field, baseball diamond, and tennis and basketball courts dot the landscape behind
the building. Large eucalyptus trees line the outskirts of the park.
During the spring prior to this study, I conducted a pilot study of Hurston Park. I
visited parks, schools, and businesses and interviewed residents, teachers, and workers. I
conducted participant observations at Smallwood five times. During each visit, the setting
was often the same: Cars filled the parking lot. Adults, watching children on the
playground, sat at benches. Teenagers played basketball. Three to four men in their 20s
and 30s congregated at the building’s main entrance. An employee wearing a Parks and
Recreation polo sat in the office near the entryway. Children and teenagers walked in and
65

out of the building. After each visit, I often left feeling upbeat. Los Angeles is one of the
most park-poor metropolitan areas in the United States (Soja, 2010), but the young
residents of Upper Hurston Park had a nice place to play and exercise.
In the fall, I asked Matthew if I could go to Smallwood with him. I knew he often
boxed and played basketball at the park. On the morning of the scheduled visit, he said,
“Hey Randy, we can’t go. Not today.” Two days later, while driving Matt home, I
reminded him that we still needed to visit the park. “What?” he responded, “You want to
go at the worst time. Three gangs is battling.” A Latino gang member shot and killed
someone from a rival gang. The park, he said, was the hotspot. Matt continued, “They
shot up right where I live.” Later, I discussed Smallwood with Matt and his peers. To
them, the park and the surrounding neighborhood represented a contested territory, a
place where violence could occur suddenly.
How does a researcher make sense of such divergent experiences? Which
interpretation is correct? If, as Paul Rabinow (1977) says, fieldwork is a “cultural
activity,” my experiences highlight the dual processes of interpretation. I was both
making sense of the experiences of my participants as well as myself in the field. Indeed,
as I later returned, I began to question the meanings of common symbols. Were the police
officers, whose car I always saw in the parking lot, patrolling the park or coaching the
police-sponsored boxing program? Were the men in front of the building innocent
bystanders or dangerous criminals? Was Smallwood a family-friendly park or gang-
controlled territory?

66

These interpretive dilemmas pertain to trustworthiness in general and credibility
in particular. Plainly speaking, credibility—the first, and most important, criteria for
establishing trustworthiness—is truthfulness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). That is, how does a
researcher know his or her data and interpretations approximate the truth, and what
strategies did he or she use in order to ensure it? In regard to research with teenagers,
determining the truth, like so many other aspects of qualitative research, is anything but
straightforward. The above vignette highlights the types of challenges I confronted during
my study. In the remainder of the chapter, to address dilemmas I encountered as well as
questions the reader may have, I outline the methodological and axiological framework
of the study. I begin with the research design. Next, I discuss four methods—interviews,
participant observation, focus groups, and document analysis—used to collect data. I then
describe trustworthiness. I conclude with a brief discussion of policy-relevant
neighborhood research.
Research Design
Research questions prefigure research design (Creswell, 1998). In other words, a
scholar designs a study in order to yield data to resolve questions. Accordingly, I present
again the research questions. The overarching question is “What is the conceptual and
actual relationship between teenagers and their neighborhoods.” From this initial
question, four questions follow:
1. How, with whom, and for what purpose do teenagers spend their time after
school?
67

2. How do institutional agents, e.g. teachers, coaches, pastors, mentors,
peers, and even gang members, serve as resource brokers?
3. How, and for what purpose, do teenagers make sense of dominant and
non-dominant social and cultural capital?
4. Does cultural heterogeneity affect the educational outcomes of adolescents
and, if so, in what ways?
Discussing the study of neighborhood mechanisms, Harding and colleagues
(2011) state:
By interacting with individuals in their natural social contexts or talking to them
at length about their experiences and perceptions of those contexts, the
ethnographer or interviewer can understand in detail how neighborhoods structure
the who, when, where, and what of daily life and the content of the messages or
ideas that youth encounter in these contexts or from their peers. (p. 284)
As a result, qualitative research provides the best methodology to answer the above
questions, which focus on the relationship between teenagers and their neighborhoods.
Urban scholars have most often employed survey-based or ethnographic research
to study low-income neighborhoods. Quantitative studies are best at examining the
effects of living in low-income neighborhoods. As I discuss in Chapter 1, qualitative
studies are particularly useful at investigating the processes of living in low-income
neighborhoods (Lamont & Small, 2008; Small, 2004; Small & Feldman, 2012). There are
a large number of quantitative neighborhood studies exploring variables such as crime,
health, joblessness, birth rates, and marital status (see Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Leventhal
& Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Sampson et al., 2002; Tienda, 1991). However, few rigorous,
systematic qualitative studies of neighborhood mechanisms exist (Small & Newman,
68

2001). The few extant studies traditionally examine education in relation to neighborhood
institutions (see W.E.B. Du Bois, 1996 [1899]; Gans, 1962; Hannerz, 1969; Sánchez-
Jankowski, 2008; Suttles, 1968). Even fewer studies examine teenagers living in low-
income neighborhoods (see Harding, 2010; Jones, 2010; Rios, 2011). No neighborhood
studies ethnographically describe teenagers and their use of technology.
22
Considering
location, while numerous ethnographers have explored Chicago, New York, Boston, and
Washington, D.C., only three—Daniel Dohan (2003), Martin Sánchez- Jankowski
(2008), and Andrew Deener (2012)
23
—have conducted contemporary neighborhood
ethnographies in Los Angeles. As a result, a neighborhood ethnography of teenagers in
Los Angeles bolsters existing scholarship in two ways: First, the qualitative study
explores the influence of cultural heterogeneity and technology use among adolescents.
Second, the study provides neighborhood-level research specific to Los Angeles.
Ethnography
I employ ethnography to examine cultural heterogeneity in a low-income
neighborhood (Small, 2004). Ethnography, which refers to process and product, is the
study and presentation of lived experiences (Agar, 1980; Wolcott, 1995). The

22
Although danah boyd’s (2008) Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked
Publics does not reside in the genre of neighborhood studies, the author uses ethnographic data to
examine teenagers’ uses of social networks.

23
Dohan’s (2003) The Price of Poverty is a study of work, crime, and welfare in two barrios. He
conducted two years of fieldwork in East Los Angeles and San Jose, comparing the lives of first-
and second-generation Mexican Americans. With Cracks in the Pavement, Sánchez- Jankowski
(2008) conducted nine years of fieldwork in neighborhoods in New York (one in Brooklyn and
two in the Bronx) and Los Angeles (one in South LA and one in East LA). He focuses on four
local institutions: grocery stores, barbershops and hair salons, gangs, and high schools. Deener
(2012), who lived in Venice Beach for five years, focuses on cultural diversity and conflict
among five adjacent neighborhoods.
69

methodology coalesced at the beginning of the 20
th
century due to the work of cultural
anthropologists such as Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, and Alfred Radcliffe-Brown
(Creswell, 1998; Erickson, 2011).
24

Bronislaw Malinowski, of note, contributed a scientific gravitas to ethnographic
study. Stranded due to unforeseen events caused by the First World War, Malinowski
conducted field research on the Trobriand Islands and collected copious fieldnotes for
four years. The result is the pioneering ethnography Argonauts of the Western Pacific
(Malinowski, 1922). In the first chapter, “Subject, Method and Scope,” the anthropologist
proffers one of the first serious and influential definitions:
In Ethnography, the writer is his own chronicler and the historian at the same
time, while his sources are no doubt easily accessible, but also supremely elusive
and complex; they are not embodied in fixed, material documents, but in the
behavior and in the memory of living men. In Ethnography, the distance is often
enormous between the brute material of information…and the final authoritative
presentation of results. The Ethnographer has to traverse this distance in the
laborious years between the moment when he sets foot upon a native beach, and
makes his first attempts to get into touch with the natives, and the time when he
writes down the final version of his results. (p. 3)
His description of ethnography reflects the worldview of a 20
th
century anthropologist.
Sentences like “Imagine yourself suddenly set down surrounded by all your gear, alone
on a tropical beach close to a native village, while the launch or dinghy which has
brought you sails away out of sight” (p. 3) assert romantic, and perhaps paternalistic,
images of the intrepid anthropologist searching for truth among natives (Atkinson,
Coffey, & Delamont, 1999). They also contain vestiges of the travelogue genre from

24
Throughout the text, I use methodology to refer to the way one decides to inquire about an
object of study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Methods, then, are the specific procedures, e.g.
observations and interviews. Stated in another way, methodology is the toolbox a researcher
carries and methods are the tools inside.
70

which anthropologists like Malinowski tried to distance themselves (Behar, 1999).
Nevertheless, there is sophistication to his definition, which describes qualities of
ethnography that are still pervasive. To Malinowski, the ethnographer is “a multifaceted
entity who participates, observes, and writes from multiple, constantly shifting positions”
(Pratt, 1986, p. 39). Such a clarification of ethnography would not be out of place in 21
st

century classrooms.
Contemporary definitions of ethnography, building from Malinowski’s, are
diverse and range from the study of culture to the study of people (Erickson, 1984;
Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Wolcott, 1999). I adopt a
catholic definition: Ethnography is “the art and science of describing a human group—its
institutions, interpersonal behaviors, material productions, and beliefs” (Angrosino, 2007,
p. 14). The definition provides sufficient guidance to distinguish ethnography from other
methodologies, such as case study or phenomenology, and sufficient vagueness to allow
it to encompass a variety of ontological, epistemological, methodological, and narrative
styles.
25

While definitions vary, there are basic characteristics fundamental to all
ethnographic work, specifically going into the field, gaining access, and writing about the
first-hand experiences (Van Maanen, 1995). Others conventions include prolonged
engagement in the field and reflexivity in writing.
Multiple types of ethnography exist (G. A. Fine, 1993). Van Maanen (1995)
creates the simplest, most parsimonious typology (Creswell, 1998).

First, realist tales are

25
Further differences between ethnography, case study, and phenomenology include the use of
participant observation and the presentation of insiders’ perspectives.
71

traditional. The ethnographer writes the account in third-person, distanced and objective.
Second, confessional tales, in many ways, are a response to realism. Ethnographers
reflexively position themselves centrally in the text. The author is constantly aware of the
subjectivity and precariousness of his or her position. Third, impressionist tales allude to
the style of painting. Unlike realism, they are representations, not facsimiles, of the
subject of study. Unlike confessionalism, they present the performance of fieldwork, not
the performer, as central. The three types, while not an exhaustive list, represent the
major literary and rhetorical devices of ethnography. Van Maanen (1988) astutely notes
that each exists side-by-side. Realism is not an ossified relic of some bygone age, and at
some point, confessionalism became less avant-garde and too self-important. More than
just highlighting the changing nature of methodology, his typology illustrates the
changing nature of culture (Clifford, 1988; Clifford & Marcus, 1986).
26

The role of the researcher has progressed significantly since the purely realist
ethnographies of Margaret Mead (1928) and Bronislaw Malinowski (1922). “The
ethnographer, as a positioned subject, grasps certain human phenomena better than
others,” writes Rosaldo (1989), “He or she occupies a position or structural location and
observes with a particular angle of vision” (p 19). Age, race, gender, and membership
status are some of the factors that affect a researcher’s position. As a result, researchers

26
Another way of understanding methodological developments is through the eight “moments” of
qualitative research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Lincoln & Denzin, 1994; J. W. Willis, 2007).
Some of the most prominent periods include the traditional movement from 1900 to World War
II, the modernist movement from World War II to the 1970s, the blurred genres movement from
the 1970s to 1980s, and the crisis of representation movement from the 1980s to now. More
recently, a surge of different movements has occurred: postmodern, postexperimental,
methodological contestation, and science-based backlash.
72

observe and interpret culture in diverse ways. This view, to be sure, has profound
epistemological and ontological implications. Most obviously, truth is destabilized and
objectivity is questioned (Rabinow, 1986).
Methods
Contemporary ethnographies profit from a range of methods and data sources.
Because this study spans nine months—a short time period in relation to traditional
ethnographies—the strategic use of methods is essential. Participant observation and
interviews are foundational. Other notable methods of data collection include fieldnotes
and document analysis. Below I provide brief descriptions of each.
Participant observations. Participant observation, the foundation of
ethnography, is a systematic technique to collect data (Adler & Adler, 1994). Participant
observation is a researcher’s “commitment to adopt the perspective of those studied by
sharing in their day-to-day experiences” (Denzin, 2009, p. 185). Observation is more than
just seeing (Wolcott, 1992). It is about learning how subjects make sense of their worlds
(Burawoy et al., 1991). To do so, the researcher attempts to capture the lived experiences
of individuals by way of “local knowledge” (Geertz, 1983).
The researcher occupies the same social space as his or her subjects and assumes
a membership role, which depends on degree of participation (Merriam, 2009): A
complete participant is fully involved. He or she conceals his or her researcher identity in
order not to disrupt natural events. Participant as observer subordinates his or her role as
researcher in order to partake. Observer as participant involves substantial involvement
with the acknowledgement that the individual’s role as researcher is prioritized. The
73

complete observer does not participate; he or she is the researcher standing behind the
two-way mirror or sitting on the park bench. For this study, I most often participated as
observer as participant.
The ethnographer is uniquely positioned (Jones, 2010). By first participating in
events and later inscribing them with meanings, he or she is both a part of and apart from
the group of study (Clifford, 1986; Rosaldo, 1986). In other words, while the
ethnographer may experience the benefits of group membership, he or she also retreats to
a solitary place in order to write fieldnotes. The duties of membership are often
interrupted by the requirements of accurate documentation.
Observation sampling occurs when a researcher goes to locations where he or she
hopes to observe desired social phenomena; Luker (2008) calls these places “data
outcroppings” (p. 161). In order to ensure trustworthiness, a researcher ought to consider
not only spatial but also temporal sampling (Luker, 2008). That is, going to the same
place at different times. Observations range from unstructured to structured (Angrosino,
2008). The object of observation may be general such as children playing at recess or
specific—often guided by a checklist—such as the interactions among peer groups
(Gibbs, 2007).
Participant observation encompasses several caveats. First, researchers often
occupy awkward positions as they negotiate membership and researcher roles. Merriam
(2009) states, “Participant observation is a schizophrenic activity in that the researcher
usually participates but not to the extent of becoming totally absorbed in the activity”
(126). Second, the researcher’s presence may influence the setting (Merriam, 2009).
74

Third, subjectivity during participant observation is a concern (Lofland & Lofland, 1995).
How can one be sure of what he or she observes? Fourth and last, because of the intimate
nature of participant observation, researchers may focus too intently on local concerns.
Duneier (1999) states:
One of the greatest strengths of firsthand observation is also its greatest weakness.
Through a careful involvement in people’s lives, we can get a fix on how their
world works and how they see it. But the details can be misleading if they distract
us from the forces that are less visible to the people we observe but which
influence and sustain the behaviors. How do economic, cultural, and political
factors contribute to make these blocks a habitat—a place where poor people can
weave together complementary elements to organize themselves for subsistence?
(p. 10)
The challenge for a neighborhood study is to identify and recognize both internal and
external processes at work (Venkatesh, 2000).
Interviews. Interviews provide complimentary data to observations (Tierney &
Clemens, forthcoming; Wolcott, 1992). Most qualitative interviews are semi-structured
with a protocol that consists of open-ended questions (Kvale, 2007; Merriam, 2009).
Interviews may be one-to-one or with a focus group (Creswell, 1998). They may occur in
person or via technology. Over the period of approximately one hour, a researcher
progresses from grand-tour to specific, targeted questions (Seidman, 2006). Other types
of questions include follow-up, probing, specifying, direct, indirect, and structuring
questions (Kvale, 2007). Following the dictum to talk less and listen more (Seidman,
2006; Wolcott, 1990), even silence provides a useful questioning strategy to elicit data.
Kvale (2007) uses contrasting metaphors to describe two epistemological views of
the method. The interviewer as miner views knowledge as buried ore. The interview is a
process of digging in order to uncover hidden truths. The interviewer as traveler views
75

knowledge as a process. The interview is a journey between two people to co-construct
knowledge.
Focus groups provide an alternative social configuration to gather interview data
(Morgan, 1997). They have the potential, through group interactions, to yield data that
may not occur during one-to-one interviews (Hollander, 2004). Focus groups also
provide an opportunity to seek input about data and interpretations; they are useful to
discuss commonplace topics that are not often discussed explicitly (Merriam, 2009). In
such cases, the composition of the group ought to reflect the topic and the intent of the
focus group. For instance, a gender-mixed group of teenagers produces different data
than a gender-same group in regard to discussions of romantic relationships.
Teenagers often communicate concise answers during interviews, but that does
not mean they have little to say. The issue frequently is the relationship between
interviewer and interviewee. Thorne (2001) states, “To learn from children, adults have
to challenge the deep assumption that they already know what children are ‘like,’ both
because, as former children, adults have been there, and because, as adults, they regard
children as less complete versions of themselves” (p. 225). Issues such as rapport, trust,
and interview strategies are key (Weiss, 1994). As a result, strategies to elicit more
information from teenagers are vital. Previous studies illustrate the value of using
vignettes as well as asking adolescents to pretend they are neighborhood experts taking
the researcher on a tour (Harding, 2010; Kasinitz, Mollenkopf, Waters, & Holdaway,
2008). Acknowledging the different social positions of interviewer and interviewee,
having adolescents interview their peers may also yield rich data (Hecht, 1998).
76

Clydesdale (2007), sharing his experiences interviewing teenagers, presents four
suggestions (p. 214-215): First, teenagers, he says, are more likely to trust interviews
with whom they are at least a little familiar. Second, while teenagers provide rich,
detailed stories, sometimes second questions and probing are necessary. Third, teenagers
forget about scheduled interviews; as a result, they need reminders. Fourth, interviews are
superior to surveys because they allow teenagers to use their own language and
researchers to follow the thought processes of teenagers. During the study, I employed
these strategies to gather data.
Fieldnotes. Fieldnotes are a detailed record of fieldwork (Emerson, Fretz, &
Shaw, 1995). Lederman (1990) notes, “It is no wonder that fieldnotes are hard to think
and write about: they are a bizarre genre. Simultaneously part of the ‘doing” of fieldwork
and of the “writing” of ethnography, fieldnotes are shaped by two movements: a turning
away from academic discourse to join conversations in unfamiliar settings, and a turning
back again” (p. 72). They represent the first “textual representation” of the process of
ethnography (Atkinson, 2001). Fieldnotes serve a variety of purposes, including subject
portraitures, setting and event descriptions, and dialogue reconstructions (Bogdan &
Bilken, 2003).
Fieldwork requires attention to multiple levels (Corwin & Clemens, forthcoming).
At one level, an ethnographer participates with a group or individual. At another level, he
or she documents the events. These two actions create a dilemma. Does the researcher
stay attentive to the informant or group, or does he or she take a few seconds here and
there to jot down notes? Even more, if the purpose is to capture a culture (or cultures), are
77

a few seconds enough? As Duneier (1999) notes, “The meanings of culture are embodied,
in part, in the language, which cannot be grasped by an outsider without attention to the
choice and order of the words and sentences. Reversing the order in which words are
spoken, or getting the words wrong, allows the reader to come away with a meaning
different from what was intended” (p. 339). Duneier uses this logic to explain his use of a
tape recorder in the field. Although I recorded every interview, I did not record
participant observations. Instead, I relied heavily on fieldnotes. I often used my phone to
record notes. Students usually assumed I was sending text messages or checking the
Internet.
Document analysis. Documents include essays, transcripts, diaries, letters, and
photographs (Denzin, 1978; Plummer, 2001). As Tierney and Clemens (forthcoming)
note, “The use of documents is only limited by the researcher’s imagination” (p. 14).
With the popularity of social media, data analysis now encompasses an unprecedented
variety of print and digital data sources. The increase mandates creative uses of document
analysis. Like fieldnotes, document analysis during the study assumed a slightly different
guise because of technology.
I used these four methods—participant observations, interviews, fieldnotes, and
document analysis—to collect data in Hurston Park.
Research Method
Having explained the research design of the study, I now turn to a discussion of
research method.

78

Defining the Neighborhood
Neighborhoods are spatially and socially bounded.
27
A broad view of
neighborhoods includes sites, perceptions, networks, or culture (Burton et al., 1997).
Chaskin (1997) identifies four factors to consider: First, neighborhoods are socially and
historically negotiated spaces. Second, they are open systems influenced by myriad
factors including nearby neighborhoods and far-reaching political and economic forces.
Third, social ties within neighborhoods are critical to success and stability. And fourth,
individuals use and understand neighborhoods differently based on multiple
characteristics such as age, gender, class, and race.
Sociologists use a variety of strategies to identify neighborhoods. Census tracts
provide stable boundaries (Jargowsky, 1997; Wilson, 1996). However, they offer little
insight about how individuals understand and use their neighborhoods. Sampson and
Groves (1989) construct neighborhoods by asking respondents to list all of their friends
within a 15-minute walk. Jencks and Mayer (1990) propose that elementary school
catchment zones, due to their small size, provide the most accurate representations of
neighborhoods to residents. Others use housing projects (Rainwater, 1970; Venkatesh,
2000). While numerous options exist, being analytically clear about the neighborhood of
study is critical.

27
Although scholars often use the descriptors neighborhood and community interchangeably, the
two words have important distinctions. Simply stated, neighborhoods are real or imagined
geographical locations (Jencks & Mayer, 1990); communities are social networks (Small &
Newman, 2001). The distinction is more than pedantic. Numerous communities, for example,
may compose one neighborhood. In addition, physical space is not a prerequisite for
communities.
79

Hurston Park, California, a small city in South Los Angeles, is the location of the
research site. At the beginning of the study, I used the traditional public high school’s
catchment zone as the organizing principle. The reasons were fourfold: First, the
catchment zone provided an identifiable space. Second, the area included many of the
city’s neighborhood institutions. Third, the zone included both Latino and African
American parts of the city. Fourth, compared with Los Angeles Unified School District,
obtaining consent to do research was far simpler
In theory, the high school’s catchment zone provided logical boundaries. In
practice, two factors—urban sprawl and gang territories—made defining the
neighborhood methodologically challenging. Participants did not live in concentrated
areas. More importantly, for a majority of the 60 participants, gang territories governed
the construction of real and imagined boundaries. “Where you from?” was a common
refrain heard by teenagers in Hurston Park. The “from” referred to gang affiliation. When
territory is so contested, asking a teenager to define his neighborhood becomes an
exercise in diversity.
How, then, did I identify the neighborhood? Using the parlance of the Los
Angeles School (Davis, 2006; Dear, 2002; Soja, 1989), I defined Hurston Park as a
fractured neighborhood, a controlling site comprised of contested, and sometimes rival,
sub-sites. Such a view embraces the twin processes occurring as my participants identify
in particular with the street on which they live and in general with the city. Participants
often identified their neighborhood by referring to gang territories. At the same time, they
more generally thought of themselves as living in Hurston Park or, as they called it, “The
80

Park.” A fractured neighborhood perspective aligns with a theory of cultural
heterogeneity in that participants uniquely construct and interpret one neighborhood in
multiple fashions.
Three schools—Hurston Park High School (HPHS), Success Academy (SA), and
Brookline Continuation High School (BCHS)—served as the focal point of the study.
The schools were located within three blocks of each other. With the exception of Ervin,
Lorenzo, and Damion, all of the participants lived within three miles of the schools.
Forty-four students lived within a one-mile radius of the school. Thirteen students lived
in or near a cluster of housing projects known as “The Lows,” located two miles
southeast of the schools. For a detailed description of Hurston Park, see Appendix B.
Participant Selection
Neighborhood scholars use a range of strategies to recruit study participants.
Victor Rios (2011) recruited at community centers. Harding (2010) used advertisements
and community contacts. Newman (1999) focused on fast food restaurants. Jones (2010)
gained access via a hospital-based violence reduction program. During the pilot study, I
explored the possibility of recruitment at a variety of settings, including superstores,
grocery stores, fast food restaurants, and community centers. I chose to recruit
participants from three high schools—a traditional high school, a charter high school, and
a continuation high school. The reason for selecting these three types was to obtain a
diverse sample defined by academic performance. The charter school had the highest
performing students in the neighborhood; the traditional public school had high to low
performing students; and, the continuation school had the lowest.
81

My goal was to study a wide range of students. The 60 teenagers represented a
convenience sample. To lessen sampling bias—the most likely students to participate
would potentially be high achievers—choosing schools by achievement provided the
opportunity for a broader sample.
Informants. Informants facilitate access and information. They “provide a unique
inside perspective on events that the investigator is still ‘outside’ of; serve as a ‘sounding
board’ for insights, propositions, and hypotheses developed by the investigator; open
otherwise closed doors and avenues to situations and persons; and act as a respondent”
(Denzin, 2009, p. 202). Think of Primo or Caesar in Bourgois’ (2003) In Search of
Respect or Hakim Hasan in Duneier’s (1999) Sidewalk. For this study, I relied on a group
of 15 young men, highlighted in Table 5.
Table 5. Informant Profiles
Name School Age Race GPA
Free or
Reduced
Lunch
Parents or
Guardian
Occupation
Observed
Biruk SA 17
Ethiopian
American
3.40 No
Father: Cab
dispatcher
Mother: Nurse
Sept-Dec
Tashard SA 17
African
American
3.60 Yes
Mother:
Unemployed
Sept-Dec
Alberto BCHS 17 Latino 1.90 Yes
Father: Cook
Mother:
Housekeeping
Sept-Dec
Darius BCHS 18
African
American
1.40 Yes
Mother:
Hardware
store worker
Sept-Dec
Benny BCHS 17 Latino 0.00 Yes
Mother:
Housecleaner
Sept-Dec
Mario BCHS 18 Latino 2.00 Yes
Father:
Construction
Mother:
Housekeeper
Sept-Dec
Jesse BCHS 18 Latino 2.00 Yes Father: Cook Sept-Dec
82

Mother:
Unemployed
Hakeem BCHS 19
African
American
1.00 Yes
Cousin:
Babysitter
Sept-Dec
Jalen HPHS 17 Mulatto 2.87 No
Mother:
Airline
employee
Sept-Dec
Carlos HPHS 17 Latino 3.68 Yes
Mother:
Housecleaning
Father:
Handyman
Sept-May
Matthew HPHS 18
African
American
3.00 Yes
Aunt: Hotel
manager
Sept-May
Jose HPHS 17 Latino 3.37 Yes
Father: Valet
Mother:
Housecleaner
Sept-May
Chris HPHS 17
African
American
3.32 Yes
Mother:
Caregiver
Sept-May
Elmer HPHS 17 Latino 3.38 Yes
Mother:
Disabled
Sept-May
Chuck HPHS 17
African
American
1.96 Yes
Grandmother:
Retired
caregiver
Sept-May
To select the informants, I used stratified purposeful sampling, which facilitated
comparisons among subgroups (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Four criteria—race, academic
achievement, after-school activities, and rapport—guided my selections. First,
acknowledging most neighborhood scholarship focuses on African Americans (Small &
Newman, 2001), I sampled according to the demographics of Hurston Park, a split
between African American and Latino males. Second, in order to facilitate comparisons, I
selected three categories: high-, middle-, and low-achievers. Third, I included a
representative range of after-school activities. For instance, Jose participated in school-
sponsored activities nearly everyday. Benny was a gang member who spent his
afternoons on the block. Chris played basketball. Jalen worked at Taco Bell. Jesse was in
a tag crew. Alberto took classes at a nearby trade school. And Hakeem, who once
83

dropped out of school, spent his afternoons at friends’ houses. Fourth, I selected
teenagers with whom I got along.
Acknowledging that some teenagers would not follow through with scheduled
meetings, I oversampled. In particular, the teenagers at BCHS often did not show up to
pre-arranged meetings and were difficult to contact. I collected contact information;
however, either phone numbers were disconnected or messages went unreturned. Mario
and Jesse, for instance, rarely attended school. Benny received a series of suspensions.
Darius, a gang member, often hid in classrooms that were not his own in order to escape
rival gang members. I shadowed each one of the informants at least once; I relied most
heavily on the students from HPHS.
Access. To gain access, I visited the principals at HPHS and SA during the spring
prior to my study. I described my project and formally asked for permission to interview
students (see Appendix C). At HPHS, obtaining an audience with the principal was
difficult. After repeated visits, I received a telephone call from her administrative
assistant telling me that she wanted no distractions during May, when they prepared for
standardized testing. At SA, the principal promised access and allowed me to conduct
focus groups with students and interviews with teachers. In August, an assistant principal
from HPHS called me to inquire about my research. In September, I returned to SA to
make arrangements for interviewing. I also formalized a relationship with BCHS.
Two reasons helped me gain access. First, at HPHS and SA, I gained access
through my research center’s mentoring program, Increasing Access via Mentoring
(IAM) (see Table 6). At HPHS, the assistant principal introduced me to Ms. Arnold, the
84

Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) 12 teacher. I worked with the class
of 45, including 12 males, throughout the school year. Although I initially planned to
mentor five students, I mentored all of the males, with the exception of DeShea, who
committed to play football at a university and Jalen, who signed up to join the Marine
Corps. At SA, I conducted office hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays during October and
November. I mentored two students throughout the year.
Second, at BCHS, my English teaching credential helped me gain access. During
one of the first visits, Mrs. Rainard, an administrator and gatekeeper, looked at me
quizzically when the principal introduced me. “Before I say yes,” she said, “what can you
do for us?” I explained that I was credentialed to teach English in California. The next
week, I conducted a “CAHSEE Workshop” for students taking the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Afterwards, Mrs. Rainard allowed me to conduct
interviews. She later admitted, “At first, I wondered, ‘Oh Lord, what does this white boy
want?’ But, I think your nerd charm grew on me.” Throughout November and December,
I attempted to conduct tutoring sessions; however, student absences caused the sessions
to be unsuccessful. I often helped Mrs. Rainard with administrative tasks.
Access is a negotiated process. Emerson and Pollner (2001) write, “Not only is
‘the field’ a negotiated construct, so too is the identity of ‘fieldworker’: a researcher
seeking to establish a social place from which to do ethnography must secure and sustain
categorization and treatment as a ‘fieldworker’ in actual interactions with those whose
lives and circumstances are of interest” (p. 240). During the nine-month study, my
experiences were no different. At SA, many of the teenagers referred to me as the “USC
85

guy.” At BCHS, teenagers were at first skeptical. As the year progressed, they were more
and more cordial, informants often yelled my name and waved when they saw me walk
through the open courtyard. At HPHS, my identity changed the most. At first, I was an
interviewer from USC. Throughout the year, I interacted with students, teachers, and
administrators. To the degree that I was there every day during November and December,
I became a part of the school community. Ms. Arnold left the room while I was with the
students. Teachers asked me about students. Students asked me to help with college
applications and write letters of recommendation. Matthew even playfully nicknamed me
“G-dog,” after a few participant observations. For more about the ethical and legal
dilemmas of conducting research with teenagers, see Appendix D.
I was neither an insider nor under the presumption that I could be. Most
obviously, age separated me from the participants. As most high school teachers know,
teenagers, especially large groups of them, are equally exhausting and maddening. As an
ethnographer, I attempted to understand the cultural meanings behind chatting on
Facebook and listening to music for hours. As an impatient 31-year-old, I was regularly
bored and wondered how my participants were not. After five hours in the field, I was,
more often than not, tired and ready to go home.
I never was in danger of “going native” (Denzin, 2009). At the end of every day, I
returned home to a middle-class neighborhood where police were not, using the language
of my participants, “posted on every street corner.” While teachers and students labored
in classrooms, I wrote about them at my dining room table. Participants streamed songs
by Kendrick Lamar and Drake as I listened to vinyl records by Miles Davis. Difference,
86

more than similarity, defined relationships between participants and myself. However, as
time progressed, an increased degree of trust and care assuaged social divisions caused by
age, race, and class.
Table 6. Reciprocity Schedule
September October November December
January-
May
Hurston Park
Mentoring (3
hours / week)
Mentoring (3
hours / week)
Mentoring (5
hours / week)
Mentoring (5
hours / week)
Mentoring (2
hours /
month)
Succeed
Academy
N/A
Mentoring (2
hours / week)
Mentoring (2
hours / week)
Mentoring (2
hours / week)
Mentoring (2
hours /
month)
Brookline
Continuation
“CAHSEE
Workshop”
N/A
Tutoring (3
hours / week)
Tutoring (3
hours / week
“CAHSEE
Workshop”
Data Collection
Data collection occurred from August through May (see Table 7). The intense
period occurred from September to January. The table bellow summarizes how I
employed each of the methods.
Table 7. Data Collection Schedule
Method Participants Location Frequency Time Span
Informal
Observations
Hurston Park
residents,
teenagers in
particular
Neighborhood parks,
stores, and churches
Weekly
August-
May
Informal
Interviews
Hurston Park
residents
Neighborhood parks,
stores, and churches
Weekly
August-
May

Teachers,
coaches, and
other resource
brokers
A mutually agreed
upon location
Weekly (one
interview per week)
November-
January
Informants (10)
With informants
during participant
observation
Weekly (Meet with
two to three
students)
November-
January
Informants (6) With informants Weekly (one to two January-
87

during participant
observation
days in the field
with students)
March
Informants (6)
With informants
during participant
observation
Weekly (one day in
the field with
students)
April-May
Formal
Interviews
Senior students
(60)
Three high schools
Weekly (five
interviews per week)
September-
November
Focus
Groups
Senior students
(20)
Traditional high
school
Weekly January
Formal
Observations
Residents,
family, resource
brokers, and
students
Neighborhood parks,
stores, churches,
after-school
activities, houses
Weekly (two
informant
observations per
week)
September-
January
Informants (6)
With informants at
places they visit
Weekly (one to two
days in the field
with students)
January-
March
Informants (6)
With informants at
places they visit
Weekly (one day in
the field)
April-May
Document
Analysis
Senior students Digital Daily
September-
May
Interviews. I focused primarily on one-to-one in-person interviews with
teenagers. Prior to interviewing students 17 and under, I received parental consent; for all
students, I reviewed the informed consent forms and received assent or consent to
participate (see Appendix E). At HPHS and BCHS, I described my research to students
and gave them the requisite forms. At SA, the principal described my research and
distributed forms. Of note, obtaining parental consent forms was particularly challenging
and required follow-up reminders by myself and school personnel.
I conducted interviews with 60 students: 13 at the traditional public high school,
26 at the charter school, and 21 at the continuation school (see Appendix F). The students
at the traditional and charter school included a variety of high- and middle-achieving
students in the neighborhood. The students at the continuation school—most of whom
88

previously attended HPHS—represented the low-achievers. I oversampled at BCHS to
account for the lack of access to low-achievers at HPHS. The interviews occurred from
September through October. They followed a semi-structured format with an interview
protocol (see Appendix G). Interviews lasted an average of 32 minutes. From the 60
students, I conducted informal follow-up interviews with 15 informants. During January,
to ensure trustworthiness, I conducted four focus groups with male and female students at
HPHS. My involvement was less intensive after January. From January to March, I
conducted fieldwork one to two days a week. From April to May, I conducted fieldwork
one day a week.
Observations. I completed a total of 350 hours of observations, including 250
hours between August and December. Informal observations began at the end of August.
I shopped for groceries, attended church and high school sporting events, and exercised at
the neighborhood gym and parks. Formal participant observations occurred with 15
informants. Every week, I met with at least two informants. I observed them from the
time school concluded through the evening. Observations depended on the student. For
instance, if a student participated on the basketball team, I observed practice. If a student
spent time with friends at Carl’s Jr., I observed their interactions. Of the 15 students I
observed, I continued to observe and interview six after January. From April until the end
of the study, I retained contact with the informants, but only attended major events such
as birthdays and sporting events.
Document analysis. Traditionally, document analysis has referred to physical
documents. This study differs in that all of the documents—save student transcripts and
89

records—were digital. Documents included transcripts and records, personal statements
and class assignments, social media, websites, and maps. During November and
December, I read approximately 30 personal statements for college applications.
Beginning in September, I asked subjects to friend me on Facebook and I followed them
on Twitter. The purpose was to examine with whom and how students interact as well as
the content of the interactions. Because a limited number of participants used Twitter—
approximately one-third—I focused primary on Facebook. I included all of my Facebook
friends from Hurston Park on a single list. Every day, I checked the list and used screen
captures to document notable content. In total, I friended 87 male and female students.
Locating participants on Facebook and Twitter was often challenging as they did not use
their real names or used only a portion. Gang members often used their street names, a
fact that I did not learn until after I completed the 60 interviews.
Texting occupied a large part of my participants’ lives; all six of the participants
whom I studied throughout the year text messaged during the day, even when at school. I
asked subjects about texting; however, I did not systematically record text messages. In
addition, I gathered and read data from two types of websites. The first type included
news articles where Hurston Park was mentioned. I located them using keyword searches
with Google’s news feed. The second included websites that the students visited such as
worldstarhiphop.com. I also used Google Maps. I marked participants’ places of
residence as well as places I visited. Throughout the study, I used a range of documents,
which provided useful, complimentary data to my observations and interviews.

90

Data Analysis
Data analysis, which occurred concurrent to data collection, involved three stages:
data reduction, data display, and final interpretation and verification. First, data reduction
involved “selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data” (Miles
& Huberman, 1994). This process primarily included transcribing interviews, writing
fieldnotes and memos, and developing codes. I also contributed to a blog and consulted
with participants in order to explore ideas. I used Atlas.ti, computer assisted qualitative
data analysis software (CAQDAS), to organize, store, present, and map data efficiently
and uniquely. Second, data display, the graphical representation of data reduction,
facilitated interpretation. Gone are the days of sorting hundreds of index cards (see Glaser
& Strauss, 1967); software proved invaluable as it allowed me to effectively and
efficiently produce and experiment with graphical displays of data. Third, final
interpretation and verification occurred as I returned to original data sources as well as
employed strategies to improve trustworthiness. All three stages occur in a circular, not
linear, fashion (Corwin & Clemens, forthcoming).
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness, as mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, includes four
criteria for rigorous scholarship: credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability (Guba, 1981; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Lincoln, 1995, 2001; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). Each of the four criteria corresponds to positivist benchmarks established
for experimental studies. First, credibility, an alternative to internal validity, refers to the
plausibility and truthfulness of data and interpretations. In other words, how does a
91

researcher conduct and present believable research? Strategies to improve credibility
include triangulation, member checks, prolonged engagement, and constant comparisons
(Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Mathison, 1988). Second, transferability, an
alternative to external validity, refers to the ability of research to apply to other settings.
Transferability is the qualitative version of generalization; however, rather than the
researcher applying his or her findings to other settings, the researcher provides enough
description to allow receiving contexts to decide whether or not they want to use the
research. Strategies to improve transferability include thick description (Geertz, 1973c).
Third, dependability, an alternative to internal reliability, refers to the traceability and
logic of a research design. In other words, would another researcher conduct research and
interpret findings in the same manner? Strategies to improve dependability include
multiple researchers, accurate recording, inter-rater checks, and alignment between
research questions and design (Flick, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Fourth,
confirmability, an alternative to external reliability, refers to the transparency of research.
Could other researchers confirm each step of your project? Strategies include audit trails,
raw data, data reduction, data reconstruction, and process notes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Miles & Huberman, 1994). Qualitative research software facilitates confirmability.
Below are descriptions of two key strategies to improve trustworthiness and the
ways in which I employed them.
Triangulation. Triangulation is the combination of strategies to improve
trustworthiness (Denzin, 2009). Mathison (1988) identifies four strategies of
triangulation: First, data triangulation includes using multiple data sources based on
92

time, place, and people. For instance, a study of high school students’ attitudes about
college may include interviews of students at various points during their academic career.
Second, investigator triangulation involves using multiple researchers for data collection,
analysis, and presentation. Using the same study as an example, multiple researchers may
interview students and gather different data. In addition, multiple researchers improve the
dependability of a project. Third, theory triangulation includes comparisons among
multiple theories. Researchers rarely use this strategy. Fourth, methodological
triangulation includes the use of multiple methods to improve credibility. A researcher
may choose to conduct interviews, observations, and document analysis in order to
examine social phenomena.
Triangulation, particularly with data, was essential to gathering trustworthy data
during my study. I triangulated interviews, observations, and document analysis. In
addition, I interviewed a range of residents in Hurston Park, including students, parents,
coaches, and teachers. I observed students at different times and places.
Member checks. Member checks are a strategy to verify facts and interpretations
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). On the one hand, a member check may be as simple as asking
an informant to clarify factual details. On the other, a researcher may ask for advice about
interpretations. Mitch Duneier (1999) had his informants read excerpts of his book.
Researchers ought to be thoughtful about when to use member checks. First, informants
may be intentionally or unintentionally untruthful, or they may disagree with your
interpretations. Second, some facts or interpretations may be harmful to informants. In
93

such cases, an informant’s well being supersedes the researcher’s quest for
trustworthiness.
Member checks served a vital purpose to the study. I occupied a different social
position than my participants. As such, I frequently conferred with teenagers and adults
about data and interpretations. I conducted focus groups in order to review the study and
check interpretations. I also conducted member checks with my informants. When
appropriate, informants read text written about them. Most often, the participants did not
suggest changes. Matthew, for instance, solemnly read excerpts. At the end, he nodded
and slid the paper across the table. Elmer, in contrast, smiled the entire time. Member
checks frequently led to additional data. For instance, after reading an excerpt, Matthew
provided new details about the relationship with his parents.
Producing Policy-relevant Research
A discussion of trustworthiness naturally leads to questions of generalization.
During the current age of “science-based” research, the ability of research to generalize is
a critical concern (Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002; Shavelson, Phillips, & Feuer, 2003;
Towne, Shavelson, & Feuer, 2002). Generalization, however, does no reconcile with the
epistemological assumptions of modern theories of qualitative research (Becker, 1990;
Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Tierney & Clemens, 2011). In fact, qualitative researchers’
inability or hesitance to generalize their findings is a targeted critique of the paradigm
(Tierney & Clemens, 2011).
Whether a life history with an n of one or an ethnography with an n of 60, the
problem of generalization remains the same, what Lincoln and Guba (1985) call the
94

nomothetic-idiographic dilemma (p. 116). Generalizations are law-based (nomothetic)
statements. Generalizations gain their legitimacy when tethered to empirical facts—
temporally, spatially, and contextually bound facts. In other words, laws arrive from
particular (idiographic) individuals and data. The particulars, however, are never
equivalent. To apply findings from one situation to another is often an ill-considered
conquest, particularly for policy design involving marginalized populations (Schneider &
Ingram, 1997).
Neighborhood scholars adopt a mixture of stances in regard to generalization. In
Cracks in the Pavement, Sánchez-Jankowski (2008) argues for generalization. He states,
“[T]he results presented here are intended to be generalizable to other long-term low-
income neighborhoods in the United States” (p. 365). Liebow (1967) states that the goal
of his neighborhood study is to describe the lives of the men he studied and nothing more
(p. 14). Although Liebow’s purpose aligns with the epistemological views of qualitative
research, his perspective is of limited utility to public policy. Finally, Mario Small (2004,
2007, 2008) contends that one low-income neighborhood does not represent all low-
income neighborhoods. He provides an alternative to the first two perspectives; he states,
“[O]nly when neighborhoods are identified can they be thought of as concrete cases
depicting conditions in a meaningful location, which is key to the accumulation of
evidence and to the comparison of conditions in one case to another” (Small, 2004, p.
197). I embrace a similar stance.
Qualitative neighborhood research is essential to the production of socially just,
place-based public policy. The challenge is to conduct and produce neighborhood
95

scholarship that is of utility to policy-makers (Tierney & Clemens, 2011). Because I
promised confidentiality and anonymity to my participants, I do not identify Hurston
Park by its real name or my participants by exact details; however, I provide as much
detail as possible. The purpose of this study is to understand the sources and influences of
cultural heterogeneity as teenagers navigate manifold pathways to and away from
postsecondary education. The goal of the next chapter, then, is to use enough thick
description to allow the reader to understand Hurston Park as well as its relation to other
neighborhoods.
96

Chapter 4
Illustrating Cultural Heterogeneity

“Why do I want to go to college? Well when I look at people around here, and when I see
people when I go to restaurants and stuff like that, they look unhappy. I don't want to be
like them. When I see my parents working hard, like my dad, he doesn’t like his job but
he can't do anything about it. Same thing with my mom. I just don't want to be in that
situation. I don't want to be one of those people that had that many regrets in their life.”
—Octavio, an 18-year-old Latino
at Succeed Academy

In Hurston Park, a multitude of educational pathways exist. Some prepare
students to access and succeed in postsecondary education. The majority, however, lead
to failed preparation and blocked access. The problem is particularly acute among
African American and Latino male teenagers. What accounts for such divergent—and
inequitable—educational outcomes? I employ a cultural framework to answer this
question. In contrast to the classical cultural perspective (Harding, 2011), which
highlights the role of subcultures in low-income neighborhoods, I adopt the cultural
heterogeneity perspective, which emphasizes the role of dominant and non-dominant
cultures. The former attributes poor educational outcomes to cultural deficiencies. The
later presumes cultural surplus and unique meaning-making processes lead to diverse
educational outcomes.
97

The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the sources and influences of cultural
heterogeneity. I organize the chapter into two parts: The first provides snapshots of six
teenagers. All six want to attend college; however, each navigates unique pathways and
barriers to college access. In the second part, I more explicitly compare the participants
and expand the focus to locations across the neighborhood in order to illustrate the
geography of social and cultural capital. In doing so, I argue that teenagers imbue
locations with meanings, which in turn influence their practices.
In order to guide the reader, I offer a preview of the three major findings: First,
non-dominant social and cultural capital serves positive and negative purposes. Positive
aspects include safety from violence, belonging among peers, and aspirations to attend
college. Negative aspects include exposure to gangs and drugs and poor decision-making.
Second, teenagers in a low-income neighborhood have uneven access to and use of
dominant social and cultural capital. Third, students who access and use dominant social
capital are more likely to develop a college-going identity. Resource brokerage and
concerted learning, which I discuss in Chapter 2, are key to developing a college-going
identity.
Part 1: The Lives of Six Teenagers in Hurston Park
The following sections provide six participant profiles. For each teenager, I begin
with a brief introduction and then discuss three interrelated aspects of their life: home and
neighborhood, social life, and college readiness. I conclude with a description of an
average day before and after school. Following the six profiles, I summarize and compare
the data.
98

Carlos: “I Look at Everything in a Different Aspect”
Carlos, the shortest of his friends, often wears black large-framed glasses with no
lenses. On one side, a piece of tape reads “Charisma.” Throughout his senior year, several
teachers ask why he wears the glasses. With a slight lisp, he responds, “Because I like
them.” The glasses symbolize one of the most noticeable character traits: quirkiness. He
admits, “I look at everything in a different aspect.” Although he is well liked among his
classmates in general and Latino/a peer group in particular, most agree that he is
“different.” Of the six participants, he is the most studious in school and active in formal
activities after school.
Home and Neighborhood
Home. Carlos lives with his parents and three younger siblings. His parents,
undocumented immigrants from a small village in Mexico, know little English. Their
highest level of education is middle school. His mom is a housecleaner, and his father is a
handyman. Carlos’s relationship with his father is complicated. Describing his childhood,
he says, “I went through hell. He’s one of those strict dads. He would get drunk a lot and
would sometimes get abusive.” His dad now drinks once or twice a week when he visits
with relatives. Their relationship is improving. When Carlos was 14, his dad was
deported. The police pulled him over for a traffic violation: “He went to jail, and when he
was coming out, ICE [United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement] was there. I
had to live a month and a half without my father. Later, he came back. He said, ‘You
know what, that’s not going to stop me.’”

99

Carlos and his family live in a one-bedroom apartment in Hurston Park (see
Figure 5). Carlos shares a bed in the living room with his 16-year-old brother. “It’s ok,”
he admits, “[my brother] takes the sheets away though. When my sister went to Mexico, I
took over that bed. I was like 'That's mine!’ That was nice.” He is excited about living on
campus, where he will have his own bed. In January, he says, “They're going to demolish
the house. There’s supposed to be an upstairs. But, the manager just made it into an extra
apartment. The city found out and they looked at the blueprints. My dad said we are
going to have to move. It’s crazy, right?” The family stays in the small apartment
throughout the remainder of the year.

Figure 5. Map of Hurston Park and Key Locations
100

Neighborhood. Carlos lives in an area controlled by Treces, a Latino gang. He
begins a college application essay with, “Police sirens startle the neighborhood.
Neighbors peek out of their windows. Gang members gun down another innocent person.
This is my community. These are the obstacles that I face every day.” During an
interview, he exclaims, “It’s a horrible place! I live right next to the park, and I don’t
even feel safe walking around it at night. You see gang bangers and people smoking. It
used to be really bad. There was not one single day when you would not hear any police
sirens.” One time, while walking home from school, two teenage gang bangers attempted
to jump him: “They were like, ‘Oh, give me your stuff.’ I scared one of them though. I
said, ‘I recognize you. I know where you live.’ I didn’t. Then, someone in a house saw
and was going to call the cops. They ran away.”
Social Life
Peers. Carlos’s peer group consists of the highest achieving students at Hurston
Park High School (HPHS). Aside from one or two African Americans, everyone in the
group is Latino/a. They share the same classes and participate in the same after-school
activities. He often spends time with Jose, Elmer, and Diane. Jose is his best friend. They
play basketball or video games together. Speaking about Elmer, he admits, “We don’t
hang out a lot. Usually, he hangs out when it’s me and Jose. He’s just criticizes too much.
He says, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t do this or that.’ And then he does it. He just criticizes.”
Diane, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, is the senior-class valedictorian. She
and Carlos, who sit next to each other in their first period class, often discuss homework.
After school, they go to Carl’s Jr. or Subway. When together, the two draw attention to
101

each other’s height; at nearly six feet, Diane stands over six inches taller than Carlos.
Asked if he ever considers beginning a romantic relationship with his female best friend,
Carlos says, “No, we’re just friends. Plus, she’s too tall.”
Relationships. From ninth to twelfth grade, Carlos says he had four girlfriends.
He describes the relationships as “nothing serious.” None involved sexual activity. The
longest relationship lasted seven months. “That was a horrible seven months of my life,”
he says, “I got barely a peck, barely a peck. I usually just watched her play soccer.
Sometimes I’d kick the ball too.” When I ask Carlos’s best friend, about the relationship,
Jose responds, “That’s the first I’ve heard of that.”
Throughout his senior year, Carlos focuses on Christina. He discloses, “I feel a
strong connection with her. With other girls, we were just in that spot. This one is
different.” Over the summer, as part of College Summit, he spent six weeks at a nearby
university. During that time, he became friends with Christina: “We were texting one
night. I asked her to play a game: Truth or Dare. I asked who she liked. She said me. I got
butterflies. I was too immature. I was thinking of what to say and she asked me who I
liked, but I didn’t say the right thing. We spent six weeks together, and I didn’t figure out
until the end.” In October, Carlos asks her to Homecoming. “She said ‘yes,’” he says,
“The problem was her parents. They said ‘no.’ They found out I didn’t have a driver’s
license. I said, ‘I have a license from God.” Carlos was not allowed to see Christina
again.
For Valentine’s Day, he considers buying roses and candy for a prospective
girlfriend. He confesses, “I want to do it in person this time. Last time, I asked on
102

Facebook. That didn’t go well.” Instead, he decides to write her a poem and have a friend
hide it in a place where the potential girlfriend will be surprised. The female receives the
poem, but they never go on a date. On Facebook, Carlos posts, “Broken heart = broken
man :- (.” The next day, he says, “It didn’t go well. She said she wished I hadn’t said
anything and didn’t understand why I gave it to her.” I ask why he has not had a
girlfriend during his senior year. He responds, “Girls are immature and indecisive. I’d
rather meet someone in college.”
Drugs and alcohol. Carlos does not drink or do drugs regularly. He says, “There
was only one time where I drank, but it was by accident. I was at a family party. I was
tired from dancing this Mexican cowboy dance with one of my cousins. I went to get a
soda, and it was red. So I'm like, it's Coke. I opened it, drink it all the way, and then I'm
like, ‘What is this? It tastes funny!” Carlos recounts two other encounters with tequila.
During both occasions, he poured the liquor out of his glass. He confesses, “I’m a little
bitch with drinking. I was like ‘Yeah I drank it.’ Even in Mexico, I only drank the top
part and poured it out. I was like ‘How does my dad drink this shit?’” Over winter break,
he gets, “Pepsi wasted.” For every beer his parents drink, he drinks a soft drink. He
smiles, “It was a lot though, for real. I got dizzy.”
Digital media. Carlos carries a large laptop with him to school. During the day,
he uses it to work on class assignments. In Ms. Arnold’s class—the only place on
HPHS’s campus with Internet access—he checks his email and Facebook accounts. He
sends and receives text messages to and from his friends throughout the day. His use
depends on the class. In Advanced Placement Government, he texts the most. “We don’t
103

do anything in there,” he says. In English, he only replies to texts. In his favorite class
Psychology, he does not text.
At home, Carlos sends texts, checks Facebook, and uses Skype. He posts on
Facebook, where he has 700 friends, every two to three days. He uses his senior portrait
as his profile picture; the picture contains a “Do Not Copy” watermark. The content of
his posts often regards college. For instance, he writes, “I got my future planned! Double
Major: Criminal Justice and Political Science Minor: Psychology Career: Lawyer, CSI, or
FBI Agent Any comments or suggestions?” He uses Facebook to discuss homework
assignments and papers. He also uses the forum to reflect on love and relationships: “I
low key want a girlfriend but at the same time I don't because some girls here are way too
immature and undecisive. >.< I don't know what to do…”
Out-of-school activities. Carlos participates in after-school activities nearly
everyday of the week. He participates in two college access programs. His mother drives
him to Upward Bound, a college preparation program, on Mondays and Fridays. He stays
on campus one day a week for College Summit, a non-profit that facilitates peer
leadership. On Mondays and Wednesdays, he practices with the high school’s academic
decathlon and tennis teams. Two days a week, he volunteers at his church and teaches a
First Communion class to seven- and eight-year-olds. Youth United to Promote Action
(YUPA), which is after school on Tuesdays, is his favorite after-school activity. “I am
definitely a better person because of it,” he says. Since joining during his freshman year,
he has organized fundraisers, assembled food packages for homeless individuals, and led
104

workshops about the dangers of drug abuse. He also participates irregularly with the
Earth Club and Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlan (MECha).
Carlos’s routine on the weekend is different. On Saturdays, he usually wakes
around 9:00 and watches Yu-Gi-Oh! or Dragonball Z. He plays Call of Duty: Modern
Warfare 3 on the Xbox 360 for three or four hours. He often goes to the park to play
basketball or tennis with Jose and Elmer. Afterwards, he spends the evening with his
family. They either get Mexican food or visit a relative who lives nearby. On Sundays, he
follows the same routine and goes to Mass.
College Readiness
Academic achievement. Carlos has a 3.68 grade point average. Despite most of
his peers who opt not to take Advanced Placement Calculus, Carlos takes the class. “I
wanted a challenge,” he says. He also takes Advanced Placement Government. When he
struggles with difficult subjects, he attends tutoring sessions in Ms. Arnold’s classroom—
where he has AVID 12—during lunch or after school. In the spring, he and Jose take
three courses—all pertaining to criminal justice—at a nearby community college. At the
start of the semester, he posts, “First Day at West LA College with Jose Lopez lmao.” He
later comments, “There are a lot of adults in there. We are the only high schoolers. The
professor is very serious.”
College and career aspirations. When asked why he wants to attend college,
Carlos replies, “I'm doing it for my parents, because they were never able to go even to
middle school or high school, so it's like I'm doing it for them. Like, I'm going to
graduate for them. And I'm going to go to college for them, like I'm going to do the
105

things they couldn't do.” He intends to major in political science or criminal justice in
order to become a police officer—the same job to which Jose and Elmer aspire—or
lawyer. Two times—once in November and once in January—he asks about being a
lawyer: “What do you have to do? How many years of college?” When I suggest he
become a civil rights attorney, he replies, “Hmmmm, I like that idea. Maybe, I will.”
Throughout the spring, he talks more about becoming a lawyer and less about becoming a
police officer.
Application process. Carlos completes applications to 13 schools, including his
top choice, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
28
During the fall, he
works on applications at Upward Bound. He stays after school in Ms. Arnold’s classroom
two times per week to edit his personal statements. During October and November, I
meet with him after school once a week. An average meeting includes me reading his
personal statement and then quick exchanges between the two of us about grammar,
style, and rhetoric and how he may improve the essay. As we talk, his eyes widen and he
responds, “Oh, I like that. I like that!” or “That’s good. Can I use that?” An average
meeting lasts between one to two hours. Carlos never asks to leave or to end the
meetings. He stays as long as I stay. The only time he visibly checks the wall clock
occurs when he has another after-school activity following our meeting. At the

28
Each of the participants applies to a high number of schools relative to their peers. The number
is due to several factors: First, students such as Carlos and Jose are highly motivated. Second, Ms.
Arnold requires all of the AVID 12 students to apply to a minimum of four California State
University campuses, four University of California campuses, and two private universities. Third,
as their college mentor, I also help the teenagers to complete the applications. And fourth, due to
their economic status, each of the students qualifies for college application fee waivers, which
makes applying to colleges possible.
106

conclusion, Carlos often repeats “thank you” and says, “I’m gonna go home and work on
these tonight. Is it ok if I email you?”
We exchange three emails about personal statements. The emails, with the
statements attached as documents, contain the subjects “Prompts for UCs,” “Personal
Statements,” and “Questions.” In contrast to his loquacious personality in person, he
rarely types a message via email. After the final email, he replies, “Thank you! I did as
much as possible.”
Carlos attends two college fairs in the fall. He talks to the booth attendants and
collects brochures. In December, he attends the Gates Millennium Scholars Male
Initiative at a nearby high school. During the event, speakers advise students to work on
the multiple essays during winter break. Carlos applies to the scholarship a few days
early; however, he fails to get a recommender. He texts me the night before: “Randy Im
in trouble!!!!! I thought that the recommender and nominator were the same thing but
apparently it says im going to be disqualified if i dont get one. Can you please be my
nominator? If its not too much to ask.” I agree to nominate him and complete a letter of
recommendation. He also applies to the Dell Scholars Program. He becomes a
semifinalist for the Gates scholarship. During the winter and spring, he applies to
numerous scholarships. He and best friend Jose, sometimes during school, drive to
UCLA. During one visit, they explore the campus and buy UCLA sweatshirts from the
campus bookstore. Another time, they visit the dorms to see where they may live. When
asked about his biggest concern, Carlos replies, “Paying for college.”

107

An Average Day
Before school. “Despiertense, niños [Wake up, children],” yells Carlos’s mother
at 7:30 a.m., “¡Apurate [Hurry up]!” Carlos and his brother Mario remain under the
covers. At 7:40, their mother yells again. Carlos crawls out of bed. He puts on a black
and blue striped hoodie and worn black sweatpants and then and brushes his teeth. By
7:50, the family members load into the 1993 Chevy van and are on their way to pick up a
neighbor’s child who attends the same elementary school as Carlos’s eight-year-old
brother.
Carlos sits next to his mother. During the five-minute ride, she asks in Spanish,
“When is money for the SAT due?” They continue to talk about paying for college
applications and the SAT. She stops in front of the school. Carlos and Mario hurry out of
the van. Several days during the week, the brothers often return to the vehicle where their
mother gives them an option: Go to the auditorium and wait until second period or go
home, take a shower, eat, and then return when second period begins. The brothers
always choose to go back home. Today, however, the two make it through the school
gates just before the late bell rings.
After school. The last bell rings. Carlos exits his sixth period classroom. He does
not see any of his friends, so he texts Jose. The two meet in the college and career center,
where Jose is a peer counselor. They speak with Ms. Moreno, the college counselor. Jose
asks, “What do we have to do for transcripts?” After five minutes, they walk to the tennis
courts. Although the tennis team has no matches in the fall, they still practice. Carlos
108

does not change clothes. He plays with teammates until 4:45 p.m., when his mother
arrives.
Upward Bound is a five-minute drive from HPHS. Carlos has been a member of
the college preparation program since tenth grade when a friend asked him to sign up so
that they could room together on a college trip. He says, “It’s helped. The first time we
visited a college it was like culture shock. I didn’t sleep the whole night. Now, I’m not
scared of the environment and I already got used to white people.” He looks at me and
laughs as he completes the sentence.
Carlos exits the elevator on the fourth floor of a large building and walks to
Upward Bound’s office. After signing in, he goes to the computer lab and works on
college applications. Gabriella, a 27-year-old staff member, says, “Hi, Carlos." After
discussing the tasks Carlos needs to complete for college applications, they edit one of
his essays for the next 30 minutes. A few minutes before 7:00 p.m., he packs his bookbag
and leaves the office. His mother waits in her van. On the way to St. Joseph’s Catholic
Church, Carlos and his mother talk about him getting a driver’s license. Carlos concludes
the conversation by saying, “Well, you could just get me a car.” He smiles.
St. Joseph’s is the largest and oldest Catholic Church in Hurston Park. Carlos
volunteers for two hours on Mondays. He works in the office. On Friday nights, he also
assists a teacher with the seven- and eight-year-olds’ First Communion class. Tonight, the
director of the program asks Carlos to check the church grounds for students who may be
skipping their class. She hands him a flashlight. He diligently patrols the church grounds.
109

He jokes, “I’m like a detective. You should see their faces when they get caught. They’re
so worried.”
Even though the church is a ten-minute walk from his apartment, Carlos prefers
riding home with his mother. He says, “I walked home only once. I kind of got scared. I
walked around the park.” Tonight, his mother arrives at 9:00 p.m. For completing such a
long day of activities, she treats him to Chinese food on the way home.
Carlos plops on the couch in the living room. His parents sit at the kitchen table
with his youngest brother. His other two siblings are upstairs. He eats his Chinese food
from a Styrofoam container while watching a telenovela. When the show ends at 10:00
p.m., he changes to Criminal Minds. At 11:00, his father tells him to go to bed. He turns
the volume down on the television and watches another episode. Afterwards, he realizes
he has homework. He works on it for 15 minutes and then goes to bed.
Chris: “I Want to Be Different from My Brothers”
Chris is tall, thin, and handsome. He frequently wears a tight-fitting jean jacket
and jeans; both emphasize his slender frame. In groups and around adults, he is quiet;
however, an occasional quip belies his reserved nature. One of his classmates says Chris
has “dumb moments,” when he does not listen and then “says something stupid.” Of the
six participants, he is the most average student in relation to grades and participates the
least in formal after-school activities.
Home and Neighborhood
Home. Chris lives with his mother, two older brothers, and one younger brother.
His 19-year-old brother attended a university in Arkansas and played trombone in the
110

marching band. He dropped out after earning poor grades. His 24-year-old brother, who
briefly attended community college, works as a security guard. Chris’s mother works as a
caregiver for the elderly. Throughout November and December, she is unemployed. At
night, she takes college classes at a for-profit vocational school to become a nurse. When
Chris was a toddler, his father was imprisoned for murder. Although he admits to
wondering about life with a father figure, he does not want a relationship with his father.
“The last time I talked to him I was nine,” he says. When I ask if he would like to speak
to him, Chris curtly replies, “No.” Throughout the year, I return to the subject of his
father. He answers my inquiries with either a quick head nod or a comment like “I don’t
want to see him.”
Chris and his family have lived in their two-bedroom apartment in Hurston Park
for ten years. Chris and his younger brother share a bedroom with bunk beds. Chris
regularly sleeps on the living room sofa. He says, “I just like my own space.”
Neighborhood. Chris lives on a street lined with apartment buildings in Upper
Hurston Park (see Figure 5). He likes the city: “I feel comfortable here. I’ve been living
here for so long. This is my city.” He acknowledges the negative stereotypes of the area,
but wishes to overcome them. In one college essay, he states:
People don’t brag about my neighborhood some won’t even step foot in my
neighborhood when dark. People assume I come from a city of failures, losers,
soon to be dropouts, rappers, and or basketball players, but they have it all wrong
I come from the city of Hurston Park also known as the city of achievers. I do
play basketball but I am no failure I will not drop out I am a person who wants to
succeed in life I want to break away from all of the negative expectations that are
brought upon my community.
29

29
Grammatical errors remain unchanged from the original essay.
111

Throughout the year, in essays for college and scholarship applications, Chris returns to
the theme of overcoming negative expectations.
Although he admits gangs are a problem in the neighborhood, they are not as
visible on his block: “They're not around where I live, but there are a lot of them. It’s not
as bad as they used to be. Before, in my neighborhood, someone probably would get shot
every four months and you would hear. I don't really think nothing of it because it's not
someone I know.” He concedes that he receives certain benefits from being affiliated
with family and friends who are gang members. He says, “I mean, I’m not going to join a
gang. But, it’s good to have a friend or someone in a gang. [Gang members] don’t mess
with you.”
Social Life
Peers. Chris has a core group of friends, including Sean, Morris, and Terrance.
“We’ve known each other since third grade,” he says. Sean, like Chris, is an average
student whose grade point average benefits from low academic standards of many
teachers at HCPS. The two discuss the college application process when they are alone
together. Morris and Terrance are both under-achievers. Morris hopes to attend
community college. Mid-way through the senior year, school administrators transfer
Terrance to Brookline Continuation High School (BCHS). All three of Chris’s “crew”
smoke marijuana daily. Even though Chris has many friends, he often walks to and from
class alone. Occasionally, while passing friends, he shakes hands with his male friends or
hugs his female friends.
112

Relationships. Chris’s longest relationship, lasting four months, occurred in tenth
grade. During the summer before his senior year, he had sex for the first and only time.
“We did it at my friend’s house,” he says. Females like Chris; however, his living
conditions make intimacy difficult. He admits, “It’s just, I could, but like so many people
is in my house, when I have someone over, my little brother comes in the room.”
Drugs and alcohol. Although Chris regularly goes to parties, he does not drink in
excess. He states, “I may have one drink.” He recalls an event from his junior year:
I stopped [drinking a lot] last year. One football player had a party at Shakey’s in
Beverly Hills. I had passed out. I was asleep, like, the whole party. I ripped my
pants. I ripped the whole leg part off. And, like, one of my friend's mom picked us
up. And, like, she's cool. I sat at the back of the car to sleep. I couldn't even talk.
And then when I got home, I just went straight to my room and my mom didn't
even notice because it was so dark in the house and my pants is ripped and I just
went into the room.
When Chris is with friends Sean, Morris, and Terrance, he smokes marijuana. However,
he says, “I don’t smoke like they smoke. They smoke all of the time. I just do like a puff.
You know. They all watching me.” As he speaks, he pretends to hold a joint, presses it to
his lips, inhales deeply, and then coughs imaginary smoke. He concludes, “That’s what I
do.”
Digital media. Chris uses Twitter everyday. He has 251 followers and 1,986
tweets. He follows 194 people. In his profile picture, he wears a black polo shirt and does
not smile. His description is “Your Local DJ/Bartender I Dream Like I Live Forever But
Live Like Theres No Tomorrow.” He uses social media to post clever thoughts. For
instance, after a fight outside of the high school, he writes “NBA is where amazing
happens. Hurston Park is where a nigga get knocked.”
113

He often uses the social media to communicate with his friends. Over the course
of several minutes on one Saturday, Chris discusses playing NBA 2k12, a video game,
with Sean and planning for the evening with his friend Ervin:
Chrisdidyamoms: Damn that nigga @SeanGetsNeck is to real in 2k
Chrisdidyamoms: @Readyforheady what you doing tonight
Readyforheady: @Chrisdidyamoms I might go to the Crenshaw Dorsey game
iono what else going on tonight
Chrisdidyamoms: @Readyforheady they play on Saturday’s and shit
Readyforheady: @Chrisdidyamoms just for the Crenshaw Dorsey games they
think it’s safer but really it’s worst b
Chris has a Facebook profile with over 1,700 friends. He posts once every few weeks.
More often, he peruses other peoples’ statuses. Throughout the day, he also uses his
iPhone to text friends. When in class, he places the phone on his desk or in his lap and
checks it every few minutes.
Out-of-school activities. When the bell rings, Chris most often goes to the
courtyard where his friends gather. Afterwards, Morris, Sean, and he drive to Terrance’s
apartment. There they socialize until 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. Although Chris loves basketball,
he does not participate regularly in any after-school activities throughout the year. When
we first meet, he practices with the basketball team. I ask if he starts. He replies, “I come
off the bench. Coach has a seven man rotation.” He lists the University of Arizona as his
top choice because of their basketball program. Later in the fall, Ms. Arnold, a former
high school and college athlete, pulls him aside: “It’s time to stop thinking you are going
114

to play college ball. It’s a wrap. You’re a nerd. You’re good at being a nerd. Focus on
that.” Nearly a week later, the basketball coach suspends Chris from the team for
breaking team rules. Chris explains the suspension: “You’re not supposed to be with girls
during practice. He says he saw me in the stands.” As he finishes the sentence, he shakes
his head in disagreement. Despite playing for the school team in past years, Chris does
not play during his senior year. He still attends every home game.
On the weekends, Chris spends time with his friends. During the fall, they attend
football games. In the winter, they watch basketball. Other activities include going to the
mall, watching movies, playing video games, and going out to eat with friends.
College Readiness
Academic achievement. Chris performs well academically compared to his
friends. He earns a 3.3 grade point average; however, he enrolls in no Advanced
Placement classes. Essays often contain grammatical errors including fragments and
misspellings. He does not complete homework. When he tells me, I shake my head.
“Come on,” I say, “You have to do homework.” He replies, “I haven’t did homework
for—I don’t really get homework—I just get Ms. Smith. But, she gives it on the
weekends.” Chris receives homework in Ms. Castillo’s Spanish II class; however, he
copies from other students during first period. One assignment requires drawing objects
to represent Spanish words. He asks Chuck to complete the assignment. When finished,
Chuck returns the paper, and Chris slides a five-dollar bill across the table. After school
one day, I tell him to stop copying homework. He jokes, “Randy, what business you
know don’t make it from copying. McDonald’s got Burger King. Jack in the Box got
115

Carl’s Jr. Taco Bell got El Pollo Loco.” I reply, “Those are businesses. You are not. If
you don’t start taking it seriously, then you are going to end up in college remediation. If
you do that in college, you’ll get kicked out.” While his friends laugh, he becomes
serious. “Really?” he asks.
College and career aspirations. Chris’ primary motivation to attend college is
money. He states:
I want to get the experience of being away from home. Like, I want to get to grow
up, like, I just want a good job. Well, I want a career. I know you don’t need to go
to college because some people have not went to college and they're doing okay.
But I think college is the key to life. So, it's like without it, you'd probably be
living pay check to pay check like my mom. Like, if she probably went to a four-
year university she'll be doing good than what she's doing right now.
Both of Chris’s older brothers did not complete college. As a result, he feels extra
pressure to make his mother proud. He says, “My mom, she’s always been on my head
about college. I’m the only person that’s been on the honor roll and stuff like that. She’s
been harder on me. She wanted me to major in engineering. It’s too much math. It’s too
much.” He worries about not finishing college. He admits, “I worry about classes and
money, like what if they’re to hard or if I can’t pay?”
Application process. Chris completes applications to 14 schools, including his
top choice, the University of California, Santa Barbara. Although Chris lists business and
marketing as his major, he does not have clear college or career goals. As we walk to his
friend’s house one day, I ask why he chose business. He says, “It just sounded good. I
don’t really know what I want to do.” He also considers being a sports’ agent. “It seems
like a lot of competition though,” he says, “like it’d be hard to sign players.”
116

During the fall, he works on applications in Ms. Arnold’s class. He stays after
school in her classroom once a week with Sean to complete applications, edit his personal
statements, and check application statuses. He jokes with Ms. Arnold, “Yo, me and
Randy, we gonna hook this [essay] up later.” I meet with him after school once a week
and exchange emails about personal statements. He arrives to one meeting with a few
paragraphs and states, “I don’t know what to write.” As I discuss ideas for the essay, he
scribbles quickly on his paper. “What was that last part?” he asks. Two weeks later, he
sends an email with the subject “Has to be at least 250 words how can i add on?” In the
body of the text, he includes a paragraph. After three exchanges in which I suggest
additions and he sends revised texts, he replies, “your good at this lol but thanks alot
Randy.” After one meeting, he asks, “Are you gonna follow me next year too? That’s
when I think I’ll really need help.”
Chris attends two college fairs in the fall. He wears a snug fitting blazer to the
first fair. On the way, Sean teases him about the jacket: “Boy, who dress you? You gonna
have a lot of action from the jcs [junior colleges] tonight.” In December, he attends the
Gates Millennium Scholars Male Initiative at a nearby high school. Chris and Sean stand
at the exit of the auditorium. A tall, well-dressed man wearing a University of Oklahoma
championship ring speaks to them both. He works for the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). He gives them his card and tells them to go
to a website: “Gates is a great opportunity, but not everyone gets it. Go to this site. We
have a lot of scholarships.” Chris does not apply to the Gates scholarship; however, he
does use the link to search for scholarships. Chris also participates in the Bridges
117

Program, which selects 60 African American male teenagers to participate in a series of
workshops and fundraisers. Participants meet every Saturday and receive mentorship
about a range of topics from finances to sexual activity. If participants complete every
step, each receives a $2,000 scholarship.
An Average Day
Before school. Chris wakes just before 6:00 a.m. when his mother turns on music
in the kitchen. After rolling over on the living room sofa to go back to sleep, his mother
yells, “Get up.” Chris goes to the bathroom where he brushes his teeth and takes a
shower. He dresses in black track pants, a t-shirt, and red track jacket. Shorts are visible
above his loose fitting pants. After dressing, he watches the last ten minutes of Fresh
Prince of Bel-Air. He watches the first 15 minutes of Tyler Perry’s House of Payne and
then his brother calls out, “Let’s go.”
In the car, Chris gets out his headphones and iPhone. He listens to Kendrick
Lamar’s “Hol’ Up.” Chris’ brother, the 24-year-old security guard, also listens to music.
The two sit in silence until they arrive at McDonald’s for breakfast. They order the food
to go. A few minutes later, Chris’s brother drops Chris off at the front of the school.
When asked if they always remain silent while driving, he says, “He has headphones and
I have my headphones. We don’t really talk like that. We’re not that close. My mom tells
him to take me to school.” Chris finishes his breakfast sandwich while walking to class.
After school. Chris and his friends gather at an empty square planter in between
the courtyard and tennis courts. Of the ten friends, a mixture of males and females, only
one is Latino. In small groups, the friends chat and joke about the day’s events. Just as
118

Chris asks, “Hey, have you all seen Morris or Sean,” the two become visible from beyond
a nearby corner. For the next 30 minutes, the group members interact. New teenagers join
as others leave. When the group starts to dwindle, Chris, Sean, and Morris decide to
leave. They walk to the school’s parking lot.
Chris contorts his body to reach the backseat of Morris’s 1998 two-door purple
Honda Civic. Sean pushes the seat back into position and slides on to the front seat. As
they exit the school, Morris rolls down the windows, and Sean cranks the volume. The
noise from the Lil Wayne song causes people walking on the nearby sidewalk to notice
the car. As a teenage female cranes her neck, both Morris and Sean look at her and then
smile. Sean smacks Morris’ arm and exclaims, “Yeah, bro!” At the next stoplight, two
elderly women wait to cross the street. Sean turns the volume down. “We gangsta, but we
got manners,” he says. Chris laughs. The light turns green, and Sean turns the music up
again. The two teenagers mouth the song’s lyrics as they drive. After ten minutes, they
arrive at Burger King where a friend who works there gives them a discount on their
order. Chris decides to go to Taco Bell instead. Once they get their food, they depart for
Terrance’s apartment.
To get to Terrance’s apartment, after parking on a nearby street, the teenagers
walk through an alley. Morris bangs on a steel door. A Spanish-language song is audible
from a neighbor’s television. Terrance, who attends Brookline Continuation High School,
opens the door. He lives by himself. His mother died earlier in the year. Friends help pay
for the apartment. Chris’s mother pays the gas bill.
119

The teenagers enter the apartment. Ashes, dice, and fast food wrappers litter the
floor. Although Terrance does not have cable, he has a flat screen television and Xbox
360 that he and Sean play. Morris rolls and lights a joint. The teenagers pass it around.
Chris takes a puff. He later admits that he smokes in order to fit in with his friends.
Morris and Terrance smoke everyday. The teenagers laugh as they recount stories from
the day. Occasionally, one friend teases another. They then shoot dice. They huddle in a
circle and place bets. Chris says they can win or lose up to $200 dollars in a night. Just
before 7:00 p.m., the friends decide to leave. Morris drops Chris off at his apartment.
In the apartment, Chris’s ten-year-old brother King plays in their bedroom.
Chris’s mother, who is completing coursework to become a nurse, is still at school. Chris
takes a shower. Afterwards, he sits on the sofa in the living room and turns on the
television. As he watches the Lakers play, he sends and receives text messages. At 10:30,
he falls asleep on the sofa.
Jose: “I Want to Repay All the Hard Work My Dad Has Put In”
Jose, who has a thick moustache like his father’s, often wears a blue hoodie with
“Berkeley” emblazoned in gold letters across the front. He is handsome and slightly
overweight. In the ninth grade, he lost over 50 pounds. He says, “It was from JROTC. I
lost a lot of weight. Before that, I had really bad self-esteem. I was self-conscious.” Of
the three Latino participants, he is the most outgoing, always talking with friends during
class and arranging outings after school. Of all the participants, he discusses college the
most often.

120

Home and Neighborhood
Home. Jose, who lives approximately two blocks away from Carlos and Chris
(see Figure 5), resides with his parents in a one-bedroom apartment. His parents,
undocumented immigrants from Guadalajara, Mexico, both have AIDS. Before Jose’s
birth, his mother contracted HIV during an extramarital affair. Jose says, “I am a miracle.
To this day, I don’t have it.” He raises his hand, looks up, and says, “Thank God.” In the
fall, Jose’s father develops a severe toothache. Without insurance, he struggles for two
months to find a dentist; many free clinics refuse care because he has AIDS. During the
eight-week span, even during extreme pain, he works six days a week.
In middle school, Jose’s mother left his father. The event caused the father and
son to bond. He says, “We just became really close. We had each other.” Jose still has not
forgiven his mother and admits to not having a good relationship with her. “I don’t talk to
her,” he states. In his college essays, he describes his parents as divorced. He also has a
20-year-old sister who lives in Mexico. He says, “My grandparents came and took her
when she was three. I’m not close to her. I don’t want to be.”
Jose sleeps on a bed in the living room. A row of parakeets rests above the
television. Occasionally, a daring bird flies away from the group only to return moments
later. He points to the white bird: “I like his color. He’s different.” On the opposite side
of the room as the birds is a twin bed where Jose sleeps. Above the bed are framed
certificates recognizing his academic achievements. A couch rests perpendicular to the
bed. The television sits on a dresser. His clothes hang from a closet in the kitchen.
121

Neighborhood. Describing the neighborhood, Jose says, “It depends on who
you’re with and where you’re at to see how things go.” Like Carlos, he lives in an area of
the neighborhood dominated by the Treces, a Latino gang. In a college essay, he writes,
“To this day, all I’ve ever wanted in life is to not worry about what color clothes I wear.”
During an interview, he tells me, “Sometimes they kill people in front of my house. But,
they never get involved with me. Usually, I don’t learn about the shootings until the next
morning.” Asked if he has ever been pressured to join a gang, he responds flatly, “No,
never. I don’t talk to gang members.” His dad echoes the same sentiment: “I’d rather he
be anything in life, just not a gang member.” He pauses for a second and then says, “I’d
even rather he be gay.” After laughing, he confesses, “I’m just kidding.”
In February, after the third time criminals break into his mother’s car, Jose states,
“It gets frustrating. You can’t do anything. If you walk down this street they offer you
weed. If you walk down this street, there are gangsters bothering you, saying things like
‘Where you from?’ You leave your car parked for five minutes and they break in.” He
raises his arms in frustration: “It’s so stupid!”
Social Life
Peers. Jose and Carlos, who describe each other as brothers, share the same peer
group. Popular among male and female friends, Jose serves as a critical member of the
group. He often coordinates outings. For instance, on one Friday, he convinces a group of
five of his friends to drive with him to the beach. They post pictures of themselves
hugging and smiling as the sun sets in the background. On a Saturday, Jose persuades
Carlos and Edgar to go on an “adventure.” The three young men pedal their bikes nearly
122

six miles to the Ballona Creek bike path in Culver City, a more affluent, primarily white
neighborhood. When they reach the bike bath, they continue towards the beach. As Elmer
retells the story, he says, “We were sweaty, really sweaty. But, we rode all the way to
Venice. It was fun.”
As a member of numerous clubs, Jose’s peer group extends to students across
grades and academic performance levels. For instance, he met Eduardo, a senior, in
Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) during his freshman year. He credits
Eduardo as being a mentor and providing advice to get to college.
Relationships. Jose and Mayra dated during ninth grade. Many of their friends
think they will date again. They were sexually active. Jose recalls, “We only did it once.
Then, I had to come back home. We did it in the bedroom.” Aside from Carlos, Jose
spends the most time outside of school with Mayra. Frequently, they spend time at each
other’s apartments watching television, listening to music, or checking Facebook.
Jose travels to Mexico during winter break. He says, “I had a girlfriend for about
a month. My cousin hooked us up. The girl didn’t know I was from America. I told her
right before I left. I said, ‘I’m from America, and I’m leaving Saturday.’ She took it
pretty well. I stupidly said we’d do a long distance relationship.” He smiles, “She was a
tease. But, she gave me a preview.” He pretends to lift up his shirt: “When I came back,
Mayra saw pictures. She asked, ‘Who’s that bitch?’ I pressed delete. Delete. Delete.
Delete.”
Drugs and alcohol. During the fall, Jose drinks alcohol twice. The day after
Halloween, he has a hangover from too much wine. He puts his head on his desk during
123

YUPA. When Jason asks him to participate, he snaps at the director. Carlos laughs and
says, “He’s grouchy.” While in Mexico, Jose drinks until he is inebriated every day. He
often posts on Facebook about his activities. After he returns to Hurston Park, he recalls a
story from his time in Mexico: “It was crazy. I got so drunk. I went out with my cousin to
walk around. We couldn’t even find our way back home. It was fun, but it’s Mexico. I
don’t do that here.”
During his freshman year, Jose experimented with marijuana. He says, “I was
with JROTC. We did it in class.” He also admits to trying cocaine: “I did a little piece of
it. It just altered my senses. I did it in JROTC too. My friend had it. It was his birthday.”
Digital media. Jose texts often in and out of school. He says, “I’ll just be texting
all the time. I text about everything: ‘What are you doing?’ ‘Did you hear about what
happened in school?’” Jose, who has 462 friends, posts on Facebook every day or two. In
his profile picture, he wears aviator glasses and a short-sleeve dark blue button-up shirt.
The topics of his posts include females, college, and the Lakers. While working on a
college essay, for instance, he writes, “Discuss the subjects in which you excel or have
excelled. To what factors do you attribute your success? so um yeah what do u guys
think im good at lolz i'm guessing it has to be academic? lolz.” He posts pictures of his
acceptance letters when they arrive in the spring. During his trip to Guadalajara from
December 10, 2011 to January 6, 2012, he posts often about alcohol. He writes, “Funny
my cuzin cant handle the way i prepare vodka hehe” and “Haha I think i har a few
toooooo many hahahaha xD now I realize this fuuuuk u bitch! haha xD.”
124

Out-of-school activities. Jose participates in after-school activities every day
during the week. He states, “Monday, I go to tennis at Hurston Park. Tuesdays, I have
YUPA. On Wednesday, I have academic decathlon. On Thursday, that’s church. Friday,
when there’s a football game, I do that. Or, I go eat with my friends at Carl’s Jr.” Jose is
also in Forensics, Earth Club, and College Summit. He is an active member in JROTC.
He highlights Sargent Frank, his instructor, as an important role model: “Thanks to him I
actually changed my way of being, I lost a bunch of weight, like 40 pounds. He has
helped me through every aspect of life.” In February, he attends a weekend retreat for
YUPA in the mountains of San Diego. He confides, “It was great. I didn’t want to come
back. Hurston Park isn’t the same. Doing something like that and going somewhere else
just makes me realize how much I want to leave. I just realize what other places are like,
and I can’t wait to leave for college.” After a pause, he smiles and says, “It was also great
because of the cute girls there. I’m in love with Asian girls now.”
Because Jose has a driver’s license and access to his mother’s 1998 Toyota
Camry, Friday nights vary, including trips to the mall or beach. Jose works with his father
one Saturday during a month. He either tends to customers or washes cars. Occasionally,
he helps his mother clean houses. His father pays him eight dollars per hour; his mother
gives him $20 total. If he does not work, he spends the morning “being lazy,” when he
lies on his bed and plays FIFA 12, a soccer game for which he eagerly awaited and saved
money to buy. “Sometimes,” he says, “I play it for hours.” Two weeks later, I ask if he
bought Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, a game many of his peers play online and
125

discuss with friends. He replied, “I’m not made of money, Randy. I live in Hurston Park.
This is the ghetto.”
Saturday afternoon is the time to “just kick it with friends,” Jose says. He goes to
Greenwood Park where he plays basketball with Carlos and Elmer. They play for two to
three hours and then eat at a fast food restaurant. Jose makes sure he is home by 5:00
p.m., the time Chivas plays its soccer match. During halftime, Jose’s father arrives home
from work. They watch the second half together. Sunday is “father-son time.” In the
morning, they clean the apartment. His father asks Jose what he wants to do. Before Jose
completes his sentence, his father interrupts: “It doesn’t matter. We’re getting something
to eat.” After eating, the two do an activity together. The activity ranges from shopping at
the mall to visiting with relatives.
College Readiness
Academic achievement. Jose maintains a 3.37 grade point average. The amount
of time he spends on homework depends on his level of interest. “When I care, I do
everything that’s necessary. When I don’t, I’ll spend 30 minutes and still get an A,” he
says while laughing. He takes two Advanced Placement classes—English and
Government. During the spring, he enrolls in three college courses at West Los Angeles
College. A month into the semester, he posts, “Man i learned a lot today in class o.0.”
College and career aspirations. Jose aspires to be the first college graduate in
his family. He says:
I want to be the changer for my family. Not just my mom, dad, and sister, and
me—I will be the first one in all of my family. They either dropped out or they
graduate but they never did the next step and they’re stuck working at Burger
126

King. I want to be successful. I want to repay all the hard work my dad has put in.
I want to get a master’s in criminology and work for the FBI and support him.
Three separate times throughout the year, he says, “I want to do this for my dad.” Like
Carlos, he wants to major in criminal justice or political science in order to become a
police officer. Throughout the year, he also contemplates joining the Marines: “I could go
into the Marines and they pay for my college.” His friends in JROTC support the
decision. Elmer disagrees, saying, “It’s bullshit. We’re just numbers. Mexicans go
straight to the front lines. When one of us dies, they replace us. ‘Ramirez, you go there.
Replace Lopez.” Jose chuckles.
Application process. Jose applies to 18 colleges and lists the University of
California, Irvine as his favorite. During the fall, he works on applications during lunch
and after school in Ms. Arnold’s classroom. He also works on them at home. Of all his
peers, he is the first to finish his applications. I meet with him once every week. When he
shows me essays for the first group of submitted applications, I notice typos and
grammatical errors. As the fall progresses, Jose sends me his essays before submitting
them. The essays often discuss how growing up as the son of undocumented immigrants
who have AIDS has inspired him to succeed. One essay for the University of California
system begins, “Being a miracle for my family has made me realize that I can accomplish
great things for my community. Coming from parent who have unfortunately be
diagnosed with AIDS has taught me that I can be a strong role model for anyone under
the same condition.”
Jose attends two college fairs in the fall. In December, he attends the Gates
Millennium Scholars Male Initiative at a nearby high school. He applies to the
127

scholarship while visiting family in Mexico. He waits until three days before the due date
to begin the essays. He sends them to me to revise and asks me to be his recommender.
He also applies to the Dell Scholars Program. He does not receive either scholarship.
During the winter and spring, he applies to numerous scholarships. He complains that
they are difficult to locate and worries about paying for college. He posts, “I NEED
SCHOLARSHIPS!!! ANY ONE KNOW SOME??” A former summer camp counselor
posts a link and tells him to focus on scholarships, not loans. He replies, “i am...like
google everything that comes to mind y nada and i know imma wait and see what
happens if not then imma get a loan in the fall.”
An Average Day
Before school. Jose’s father leaves for work at 6:00 a.m. One hour later, Jose’s
alarm rings. After snoozing for ten minutes, Jose gets out of bed. He walks ten feet to the
bathroom where he gets ready for school. Afterwards, he goes to the kitchen where a
dresser stores his clothing. He dresses in jeans, a College Summit t-shirt, and a black and
white striped hoodie. He grabs his backpack and iPad—which Jose’s father won at a
contest at work—and exits the apartment.
The trip to school takes 20 minutes. On the way, Jose listens to his playlist that
includes The Fray’s “Over My Head.” In an understated manner that does not draw
attention from onlookers, he sings along with the song: “And suddenly I become a part of
your past / I'm becoming the part that don't last / I'm losing you and its effortless /
Without a sound we lose sight of the ground.” He arrives to school and waits outside of
his first period class. He chats with five of his friends, all of whom are Latino/a. They
128

smile and laugh.
After school. During sixth period, Jose serves as a peer counselor in the college
and career center. He assists students with their college applications. When the bell rings,
he talks to Ms. Moreno about a fee waiver. Carlos walks in the room after a few minutes.
Ms. Moreno answers the question, and the two teenagers exit the building and meet
friends near Ms. Arnold’s classroom. Members of the group either leave or enter Ms.
Arnold’s. Wednesdays are Jose’s “lazy days,” when he does not have any official after-
school activities.
Jose, Carlos, and Diane walk into the classroom. Jose alternates between editing
an essay and checking Facebook. Carlos wants me to read an essay. Diane completes a
homework assignment. At the same time, Chris and Sean work on computers nearby. The
two groups do not interact.
While checking Facebook, Jose makes a comment about being friends with a
female Carlos likes. Jose says, “You always like the weirdest girls.” Carlos begins to
reply, “No, it’s because…” He stops, and they all laugh. Thirty minutes pass. Jose and
Diane decide to get something to eat from a nearby fast food restaurant. Carlos stays to
work on his essay.
Jose and Diane walk five minutes to Subway. There are a number of fast food
restaurants near the school. Recently, Jose and his friends have chosen to go to Subway:
“There are fewer underclassmen.” The majority of their conversation at the restaurant
regards future plans. They discuss which colleges they want to attend. Diane says, “I
don’t know, which college do you see me at?” Jose answers, “Hmmm, that’s a good
129

question. Well UCLA is nice, but I see you at Berkeley.” Diane favors Berkeley;
however, because she is undocumented, she has to attend a university that offers financial
assistance. Pending acceptance, she has received a scholarship to UCLA. The two
complete their meals and leave. After walking a block, Diane and Jose parts ways.
Jose arrives home at 5:30 p.m. Both of his parents are at work. He collapses on
his bed and stares at the ceiling. He later says, “That’s my calm time.” When he gets up,
he goes to the kitchen and grabs a banana. He sits on the couch, turns on the television,
and retrieves his homework from his bookbag. He works for nearly 45 minutes. During
the entire time, he responds to texts.
Just after 7:30 p.m., Jose’s dad walks through the door. He says, “¿Qué onda,
cholo? [What’s happening, gangster?]” Later, I ask Jose about the greeting; he says,
“He’s always done that. It’s just funny.” The father and son exchange stories about work
and school. Jose’s dad exits the room. He returns ten minutes later and they watch the
Lakers’ game. At 11:00 p.m., Jose lays on his bed. He texts with Mayra for 30 minutes
and then falls asleep.
Matthew: “I Wanna Get That Money. It’s My Outlet from This Hell”
Introduced in the first chapter, Matthew is the lanky teenager who aspires to
become a police officer. During our first interview, he says, “I’m to myself mostly.” He
identifies as a reformed gangbanger. As the year progresses, the former ward of the state
stops participating in after-school activities and returns to the gang life. He daily sells and
smokes marijuana. Of the six participants, Matthew is the only gang member and has the
most turbulent home life.
130

Home and Neighborhood
Home. Matthew is the son of two drug addicts. His father sold them, and both
parents took them. At age 11, he became a ward of the state. He says, “I’m one of five
kids. I split up with my little sister when I was 11. The state took us away; they separated
us. I took care of my little sister from like seven ‘till ten and a half. That’s when they
took her away.” Later, he discusses caring for his sister and the effect of being her
primary caretaker for three and a half years: “I think the reason [I’m stubborn] is being a
young person growing up and feeling like I got to fill the shoes of my father and take care
of my little sister. Even when I first moved out here, my main goal was to get back [to
Oakland] and take care of [my sister]. Man, it was hard for someone. It’s always hard for
someone. But, I didn’t let that put me down.”
Although he tells people his parents are dead, they both are alive and reside in
Oakland. His mother becomes sick during the winter and goes in and out of the hospital.
Matthew wants to visit her; however, his aunt cannot afford the trip. He states, “I asked
her to buy me a ticket. She said she was going to Vegas and couldn’t afford both.” He
shrugs his shoulders.
Matthew lives with his aunt, who is a hotel manager, and two younger cousins.
Neither are the children of his aunt. At the beginning of the year, Matthew says he likes
his aunt, but they “bump heads a lot.” He states, “She tries to be strict like my
grandmother, but she’s not my grandmother.” By January, the relationship deteriorates.
He complains, “I hate her. She be in my business all the time.”
131

Before living with his aunt, his grandmother took care of him. He was 13 when
she died. One day, while walking to Explorers, a police-sponsored after-school activity,
he tells me a story about his grandmother:
She was strict, but it was a good kind of strict. You know what I mean? In middle
school, I used to play basketball right there at that gym [he points to the middle
school gymnasium]. For some reason my grandma didn’t want me to play. I don’t
think she wanted me to be out on the street. But, we were in the championship
game. I snuck out and then she called my phone during halftime. I had to leave
before the game even finished. But, that was my grandma.
After a few minutes, he concludes, “Man, I miss her.”
Matthew lives in a two-bedroom apartment. He shares a bedroom with his
middle-school aged male cousin. In the fall, another of his aunts moves into the
apartment. She previously lived with the family; however, Matthew’s aunt kicked her out
because she was unemployed. Matthew tells me, “All she do is sleep, eat, and shit.”
Because of the crowded apartment, Matthew spends more time at the park.
Neighborhood. Matthew’s apartment is located in Upper Hurston Park near
Smallwood Recreation Complex (see Figure 5). The Bloods, an African American gang,
use the park as their focal point. Describing the visibility of gang members, he says,
“Well, I see them everyday. They’re outside my house. You’ll see them in their red
Chucks.”
Matthew joined the neighborhood gang in ninth grade. He says, “I started
gangbanging because I needed someone around. I needed a family. And that’s what the
gang life brought to me: family life.” To become a part of a gang, a teenager needs to
complete “missions” such as petty theft or drug deliveries. After six months of missions,
an apprentice gang member gets “put on.” Matthew recounts his initiation: “The rules to
132

being put on are simple. In a bathroom. No kicking. No biting. That’s the person that
being put on. The other guys can do whatever they want. I fought five. First, two one-on-
one. Then, they all came. But, I wouldn’t go down. I got my name then.” His gang name
is T-Wo, which stands for “Taking Wetbacks Out.”
Matthew often discusses two gang members: his big homie—the person who
sponsored him—and his gang leader. Rival gang members murder Matthew’s big homie
mid-way through the year. He says, “Three gangs is battling. The park is the hotspot.
They shot up right where I live. I was pissed and grieving. It’s ok. We got ‘em back.”
Aside from his big homie, Matthew looks up to Bigs, the leader of his neighborhood
gang. He says:
I known him since the first time I came out to LA. I know him for like three years
before I got put on. He see me playing basketball and all the sports. I first met him
when I was waiting for basketball and I was kicking it and playing pool while he
was watching TV. He was kinda mad when I got put on but he was happy to.
That’s my homie. I trust him, but I don’t. He’s been in the pen, so they all got that
grimy mindset. We watch each other backs.
Bigs provides Matthew with a variety of resources: “He helps with everything. He can
tell when I haven’t been eating. He gives me five dollars and I go get some fries. And he
keeps me safe out here too. He didn’t have to give me the knowledge he give me. He
learned a lot of shit.” The gang leader also provides Matthew with a gun, which he keeps
in a bookbag. I ask if it was free. He responds, “No. I mean, he got the hook-up, but I got
to pay for it.”
As a result of being in the gang, Matthew navigates the neighborhood
differently—and more carefully—than the other participants. He states:
133

It depends who I am with. If I’m worth person who has a future, I change it up. If
I’m around a gangbanger, I tend to be more conscious of my surroundings. But, if
I’m with my girlfriend or something, I’m changing my whole little swagger. I got
a button up shirt on. My belt is black. There’s no bright color. I’m switching up
the way I walk. That’s how I am. I switch up everything when I’m around certain
people.
Discussing living in Hurston Park, he confides, “I wanna get that money. It’s my outlet
from this hell I live in.”
Social Life
Peers. Apart from gang members, Matthew’s closest friends are Tiara, Robby,
and Theresa. All three attend HPHS. Tiara, who underperforms in school, lives close to
Matthew. They share classes and sometimes walk home together. Robby, who dates
Tiara, lives in a rival gang neighborhood. They often talk about music and smoke
marijuana together. Matthew stops by Robby’s when he goes to see Theresa, his best
friend and occasional girlfriend.
Relationships. Theresa and Matthew have dated sporadically throughout their
high school careers. Theresa, who is a good student and positive influence, is his closest
friend. They are sexually active. He says, “We been doing it for a year. She don’t do it
too much. But, when I want it and I ask her, she like ‘yeah.’” In the fall, Matthew cheats
on Theresa with a female who performs oral sex with him. When Theresa finds out, they
break-up. He frequently says, “Girls are trouble.” He indicates that he wants sex without
the relationship. He exclaims, “I’m trying to play all those bitches!”
Matthew estimates that he has had 15 sexual partners. Excluding Theresa, the
encounters are brief and often involve drugs or alcohol. He says, “You go to the parties
and the ‘hood functions. The ‘hood functions is where you have the drunk lady homies
134

and they low key like you so you just get with them. In the next morning you wake up
and just don’t care.” I ask if he wears condoms. “Yes,” he responds.
Drugs and alcohol. Matthew drinks alcohol occasionally and smokes marijuana
daily. Asked what he drinks, he answers, “Whatever is there.” He smokes marijuana
everyday, which “gets [his] nerves down.” He often smokes with Robby: “I trust him. He
won’t lace my blunt, so I don’t trip out too much. I’ll lose my fucking mind.” Matthew
occasionally smokes marijuana in the morning. “I do it when my aunt gets on me,” he
admits. He uses the stash he keeps in his house, the same stash he sells for Bigs. I wonder
how that works. He says, “I have to replace it.” Asked if he worries about becoming
addicted to drugs like crack or heroin, similar to his parents, he quickly replies, “All the
time.”
Digital media. Matthew receives and sends text messages approximately every
30 minutes throughout the day. He frequently flips open his cell phone to check
messages. He rotates the phone slightly to read them through cracked glass, a reminder of
the time he verbally fought with Theresa and threw his phone. He receives texts from
friends and customers.
Matthew irregularly uses Facebook. Like the other participants, however, when
Matthew meets someone, he friends them on Facebook. Like other participants, because
he often interacts with people at school and around the neighborhood, he quickly amasses
friends on Facebook. He has 582 friends. Matthew’s peer group, along with Carlos, Jose,
and Elmer’s, refer to people who constantly use Facebook and friend people in order to
135

increase their friend totals as “Facebook whores.” Matthew does not identify as one; he
states, “Man, I’m just on there doing my business. I don’t have time for all of that.”
From November to January, he posts on Facebook every day. He sits at his laptop
at the end of the day and sorts through posts and friends’ pages. In February, he does not
post. In March, he writes, “Haven't been on here in a while inbox me if you want to talk.”
The content of Matthew’s posts often pertain to conflicts. For instance, he writes, “This
question is to the women, how do you get the trust back of a women.” A few days later,
he writes, “Old Matthew back i don’t care.” From April to May, he again does not post.
Matthew aspires to be a famous rapper. He uploads songs to Reverbnation, a
website that allows independent musicians to share music. His page has 158 visits and 4
fans. The biography reads, “Born in Oakland, California Matthew "Phresh" Jackson has
used his music as a way to get away from the streets of Hurston Park. Phresh is a new
face and style to the hip-hop world. Giving his all into music his destiny will be bright
due to the new style of music he brings to the table for the hip hop world. Being
mentored by various art...” Throughout the fall, he posts songs to the account. Topics
include success, fame, money, and Christianity.
Matthew does not use Twitter. He says, “Twitter be getting people killed, for
real.” He describes peers who incurred retribution after using the social media to slander
other gangs. He also mentions a peer who tweeted “Fuck Crabs [the slang name for the
Crips street gang].” He says, “He got like 200 followers after that.”
Out-of-school activities. In the fall, Matthew participates in several after-school
activities. He boxes at Smallwood as part of the police department’s after-school
136

program. He also participates at College Summit. He is most proud of being a Police
Explorer, a teenager who participates in law enforcement training. He says, “We do
everything cops do except carry a gun.” Matthew shows me his binder. Inside, his writing
is neat and uniform. On one page, he receives a point reduction for spelling “business” as
“buinsess.”
Matthew writes and records music at home and at a studio, where he gets free
time through a gang connection. One day in November, he excitedly announces the date
of his album: “My mixtape drops soon. December 4
th
, Randy.” Everyday afterwards, he
reminds me of the upcoming day. On the day before, he posts on Facebook, “I had a day
dream I bought a Rolex, laptop, and gold earrings o yeah and a red mustang with white
interior what red letters on the seats :-).”
As the year continues, Matthew becomes more active with his gang. In January,
Matthew stops participating in supervised after-school activities. Instead, he visits the
park everyday for up to five hours.
On weekends, Matthew hangs out with friends or goes to the park. At night, he
attends “’hood functions” or “kickbacks.” ‘Hood functions take place at a nearby hotel.
The attendees consume large amounts of drugs and alcohol. He says, “Females be like
extra’d out [acting wildly] where they be getting naked.” He admits, “When it gets too
crazy, I go somewhere else. I only smoke and drink; I’m not about the other drugs.”
Kickbacks, which are “more relaxed,” include a mix of gang and non-gang members.
Participants smoke marijuana and drink alcohol. On Sundays, he attends Western Bible
137

Church, a well-known megachurch. It is the only activity he does regularly throughout
the year. He says, “I got to repent. God don’t like ugly.”
College Readiness
Academic achievement. Matthew earns a 3.0 grade point average. Despite the
relatively high average, he will almost certainly require remediation at the college level.
He reads and writes below grade level.
Matthew’s academic identity often conflicts with his life outside of school. The
majority of his gang member peers have dropped out of school. He regularly attends
school; however, from day to day, his performance in class varies. One day he is engaged
and personable; he walks around class and talks and jokes with peers; the next day he is
removed and despondent; he sits outside the classroom on a park bench with his hood up.
One of his teachers confides, “I just don’t know what’s up with Matt.” Despite the
moodiness, he prides himself on balancing the demands of school, neighborhood, and
home. Reflecting on his high school career, he says:
Everything outside of class was crazy. I was the one doing the, ‘Blood this. Blood
that.’ But then, I’m in class with honors kids. I’ve never really felt like school was
the problem. When people look at me, the first thing they judge me on is me being
a gangbanger. That’s how they are. When people meet me, they’re like, “Oh,
that’s a sweet guy.” If you introduced me to one of your parents, I’m quiet. I’ve
got manners. I’m respectful. I’m confident, not cocky. I’m confident. If there’s
something I want, I’ll get it. That’s why I know I’m going to college, because I’m
going to get it.
On a spring day, just before the deadline to submit college application fees, he presents a
different perspective. Sitting with his back to a group of peers, I ask, “Big Matt, you ok?”
He mumbles “yeah” twice. He then begins, “It’s life, man. It’s…” Before he finishes the
sentence, he looks down. “I’m fine,” he says quietly.
138

College and career aspirations. Matthew identifies education as a way to escape
Hurston Park and earn a successful career. He says:
When I see Hurston Park, I see, I don’t want to end up here. In ninth grade, all my
gang friends went here. I would do everything with them. College, really for me,
it wasn’t always there. I didn’t always think about it. But now that I am, it’s
something I know I can get into. It’s just another step of being independent and
getting my feet into the door of success. Right now, some people are requiring the
college degree and you wouldn’t even think. A police officer’s focus is to enforce
the law. You don’t need a degree, but you want to get one to be competitive for
after that. What if you get injured? I know that I’m not the most positive person,
but I’m real. If I get injured, what am I going to fall back on? My college degree.
That’s what I’m gonna fall back on.
He admits that older gang members look forward to him attending college. He notes, “I’ll
be the first to go to college.” Contrary to the support from gang members, his aunt does
not always agree with Matthew’s aspirations:
Her head’s up her ass. Every time we talk, we argue. She want me to do her route.
She want me to go to a vocation school for national security or guard or
something. I try to tell her, but she don’t listen. I talk about political science, but
she ask what I’m gonna do with that. Then I say law, and she want to know what
I’m gonna do with that. She say you want to be a police officer you should go to
vocational school and it’s only a year and a half and you can be done.
As a result of the disagreements, Matthew does not readily share information about
college applications or scholarships with his aunt.
Application process. Matthew completes applications to 17 schools, including
his top choice, the University of California, Santa Barbara. He wants to major in political
science. His short-term career aspirations are to become police chief of Hurston Park.
Long-term, he would like to be president on the United States. During the fall, he works
on applications in Ms. Arnold’s class. He stays after school in her classroom once a
week. I meet with him during class and he emails personal statements. In one, he writes:
139

Growing up was different than the average 9 year old, while most kids are
running around getting dirty. I was running around trying to provide shelter and
avoid my younger sister and niece from homelessness. I had to learn the ropes
early as a kid, providing my younger siblings with food and protection. If it was a
green piece of paper I had to have it and I did multiple things to get it like stealing
money out of a purse.
Although I provide feedback and comments, Matthew does not revise the essays before
submitting.
Matthew attends two college fairs in the fall. He participates in the Bridges
Program for a month; however, he drops out when they require $350. He says, “My
auntie wouldn’t give me the money.” In January, Matthew begins talking about college
differently than he did in the fall. He is not confident and questions the benefit of college.
He confides, “I just don’t know.” Another time, he says, “I think I might take a year off.”
He also says, “If I get into Harvard, boy, that is a life changer.” He worries most about
paying for college.
An Average Day
Before school. Matthew sleeps below a large poster of Tony Montana—the main
character in Scarface—and smaller pictures of N.W.A. and Snoop Dogg. A ski mask
hangs nearby. When I ask about the reason for the ski mask, referring to criminal activity,
he says, “It reminds me of how I’m gonna get it.”
Matthew wakes up just after 5:00 a.m. and lies in bed for the next hour. He checks
his phone for text messages. He says, “The only people I care about early in the morning
are my best friends and customers.” When he finally gets up, he passes his younger
cousin who sleeps on the other side of the room. Pictures of Ciara and Gucci Mane cover
his wall. Matthew washes his face and brushes his teeth in the bathroom. In his bedroom,
140

he dresses in baggy jeans, a large maroon t-shirt, and an oversized USC hoodie. He then
finds and puts on a long necklace with wooden beads. A rectangular piece of wood at the
end displays a picture of Jesus.
Matthew walks to the kitchen where he fixes toast. His aunt greets him by saying
“We need to talk.” She gives him a list of chores. He nods his head. She repeats the list.
“I got it,” he says curtly. Matthew grabs his bookbag and tells his female cousin, a
sophomore who excels academically at HPHS, to hurry. The walk to school takes 30
minutes.
Once at school, Matthew sits on a bench by himself while his classmates gather
near Ms. Arnold’s door. With his face barely visible because of his hood, he checks his
phone. Theresa jokingly smacks Matthew as she walks to class. He grabs for her, but she
is just out of reach. He returns to his phone until Ms. Arnold unlocks her classroom. He is
the last one to enter.
After school. Matthew walks from his last class to the police station. At the busy
intersection next to HPHS, a man hands small bibles to students as they wait to cross.
Matthew looks the other way to avoid receiving a bible. “I got enough of those at home,”
he says as we start to cross. He jokes that he does not want to throw them away. As he
enters the station to change clothes, he flashes an ID to the police officer in the lobby.
She buzzes him into the secured area, where he quickly changes into a grey Police
Explorers polo shirt. As he exits the building, he turns his navy blue windbreaker inside
out so that “Police” is not visible. He walks five minutes to the nearby middle school. He
141

occasionally passes other teenagers whom he knows. He slaps hands with each of them.
He says, “See. This why I’m always late. Popularity is a job.”
On his way to the middle school, a Hurston Park police officer texts to meet her
just outside of the main entrance. Matthew helps the officer carry five pizzas to one of the
classrooms where 20 female middle school students who are at-risk for joining a
neighborhood gang receive anti-gang interventions. Two female police officers and two
female high school students—including Theresa—facilitate the event. One officer asks,
“So, how can you own a color or a neighborhood?” “You can’t,” responds one girl, “Only
a government can.” Another girl chimes in, “But, that’s not what my brother says.”
After a ten-minute question and answer section, the officer asks Matthew to
discuss the different types of gangs. At one point, a police officer interrupts Matthew to
talk about the difference between good and bad boyfriends:
You see these boys out there and they got some money ‘cause they’re hustling.
So, they can buy you stuff. Then, you see someone like Matthew who goes to
class and gets good grades and is going to college. You pick the boy who gives
you stuff. Only, in a couple of years, he’ll be in jail and you’ll have his baby.
Matthew will be graduating from college and making $70,000. Which do you
think is the good boyfriend?
The girls giggle. Matthew blushes and resumes his lesson. When the girls begin to talk
loudly, Matthew yells, “Shut up.” Using a quieter voice, he instantly says, “Sorry, but
you got to be quiet.” The girls hiss in disapproval. A police officer intervenes to make
peace among them. After 15 minutes, one of the police officers thanks him. He leaves the
middle school on his way back to the police station.
Matthew participates at the Explorers for the next three hours. After a brief
uniform inspection, he and nine other teenagers go to a classroom and receive instruction
142

for traffic violations. He takes meticulous notes. At the end of class, he changes back into
his street clothes and walks home.
Once home, Matthew grabs a snack from the kitchen. He passes the aunt who
recently moved back in with them. She lies on the couch. They do not say anything to
each other.
In his room, he tells his cousin, “Get out!” After a brief argument, the cousin
leaves. Matthew sits on his bed, listening to his songs. In “Legendary,” his favorite song,
he raps, “Money’s in my pocket. My pocket all swoll. The sky is the limit. My hands in
the clouds. Music is my heart and my feet are on the ground.” His head bobs to the
music. After 20 minutes, his cousin re-enters the room. Matthew uses headphones to
listen to some beats that a Facebook friend emailed to him. He reviews his lyrics. He later
admits, “I write in class. Ms. Smith get on me—if I'm paying attention. I say ‘Yes,’ then I
use her vocab in my songs.” While listening to music, he chats to friends on Facebook.
Just before 11:00 p.m., Matthew goes to bed.
Elmer: “My Sister Is Sick with Lupus”
Elmer is thin, athletic, and of average height. On Fridays, he sometimes wears a
Lakers t-shirt and Spider-man pajama bottoms. He smiles often and giggles when he is
nervous. His friends joke that he is “the blackest Latino” they know. He shaves designs
into his hair and cites Tupac as the greatest rapper ever. Compared to the other five
participants, Elmer is a naturally talented student who tends to procrastinate.

143

Home and Neighborhood
Home. Elmer lives with his mom, two sisters, niece, and Lucy the dog. Elmer’s
mom, whose highest level of education is middle school, originates from Veracruz,
Mexico. Throughout her life, she has had multiple health problems including anemia,
paralysis, and cancer. She is blind in her right eye. At her sickest, she weighed less than
50 pounds; friends called her “the walking dead.” In addition, one of Elmer’s sisters has
lupus. Hospital trips occur every month. Elmer’s mother drives her sick daughter when
possible: “Ambulances are expensive. They charge extra to turn the siren on.” Elmer
loves his sisters, but describes them as “bitches.” He says, “They’re protective, especially
towards my girlfriends.” During the fall, his other sister’s boyfriend lives in the small
apartment with his two pit bulls.
In the living room, which also doubles as a bedroom, a large bag full of
prescription bottles balances precariously on top of a dresser. Elmer’s mother points to
the bag, “All of those are for Elmer’s sister.” Another bag, with letters from hospitals and
insurance companies, sits next to it. Adjacent to the dresser and next to the bed is a
motorized chair. Elmer often lazily reclines in it. At the opposite end of the room is a
large, old widescreen television. Next to the television is a shrine of religious statues.
Near the statues are numerous pictures with glitter. One is a Disney cartoon. Another is a
classic picture of Jesus. Elmer’s mother makes and sells the pictures for extra money.
Elmer notes, “It gives her something to do.”
Elmer sleeps on the floor in a bedroom with his seven-year-old niece. He does not
mind; although, his dog sometimes has accidents next to him:
144

“She sleeps next to me. Sometimes I wake up and she is peeing right next to my
head,” he says.
I ask, “Do you clean it up or go back to bed?”
He laughs, “I go back to bed.”
Neighborhood. Elmer lives on a block with small apartment buildings and single-
family homes. Compared to the area surrounding Matthew’s apartment, which is
predominantly African American, or the southwest portion of Lower Hurston Park, which
is primarily Latino, Elmer’s neighbors are a mixture of African American and Latino
families (see Figure 5). One day, as a car passes, loud music causes car alarms to sound.
Elmer says, “That happens all the time. Nice neighborhood, huh?” For the most part,
Elmer and his family do not have trouble with neighbors. His mother says, “[African
American neighbors] wave when we walk by.” She concludes, “They don’t bother us,
and we don’t bother them.”
Elmer says there’s a lot of activity on the street. “Not as much as there used to be,
but still activity. When I hear the yelling, I tell my mom to go get the popcorn. It’s
always about stupid stuff. Sometimes it’s like pimps and, you know. Other times, it’s
about dumb stuff like parking spots.” Elmer recounts instances of neighborhood violence:
“A couple of years ago there was a drive-by on Christmas. My mom was outside. The
door was locked and she was hurrying to get in. At Jose’s, there was a murder. Someone
got shot at the liquor store. Carlos lives near the park, so one time we were playing
basketball. I shot. I yelled, ‘Kobe.’ Just then, shots went off. We all fell to the ground.”
Elmer’s mother remembers one instance when two gangbangers almost attacked Elmer:
145

“They were just outside the window. I could hear them. One said, ‘You see him?’ The
other said, ‘Are you ready?’ I knew Elmer was walking to school and I thought, ‘Oh, no!’
I ran out there and I grabbed my phone and told the little one,” she points to her
granddaughter, “to smile. I took a picture. I didn’t want to take a picture. They ran away.”
Elmer tells another story:
Actually, it happened when I was a sophomore. I was walking to school and this
gangbanger comes out of nowhere. He threatens to kill me with a gun. Like, at
10:15 in the morning, I was still waking up, and he wanted my iPod. I was still
waking up, and I was like, “Really? You’re going to shoot me.” Honestly, I’m not
a person that’s like afraid of other people. If I have to defend myself, I will. I
knew he didn’t have a weapon. It’s 10:15 in the morning. Who’s gonna carry a
gun then? And then he just walked away. He didn’t bother me. As I was walking
away, it hit me. What if he did have a gun?”
Elmer dislikes gangs, but he likes Hurston Park: “I like the city, but I don’t like the gang
violence. To me, it’s retarded. You’re fighting over territory that’s not yours. It’s idiotic.
You fight over a cap. It’s stupid. I’ve been in some altercations. Those aren’t good. But,
other than that, I was born here. What’s not to like about it?”
Social Life
Peers. Elmer shares the same peer group with Carlos and Jose. He mostly
associates with high-achieving Latino/as. He is also a close friend with Brian and Carl,
two under-achieving seniors at HPHS, with whom he smokes marijuana. When I ask if
Jose is his best friend, he clarifies: “Well, I don’t really have a best friend. I have close
friends.” He continues, “I just don’t get that close with people. They’re my good friends,
but they’re not best friends.”
Relationships. Elmer spends the majority of his time after school with girlfriends.
During his junior year, Elmer dated Maria. The two were sexually active. Elmer admits
146

that they snuck into classrooms to have sex after school. Jose jokes, “He’d just disappear.
We’d be like, where’s Elmer? Then, he’d show up an hour later with a smile on his face.”
Maria and Elmer separated at the end of the year. The breakup was difficult for Elmer:
“Well, my ex always told me ‘I’ll always be there for you.’ Then, I give her my trust.
That’s hard to do. Then, she came up to me and said, ‘Oh, we’ll have to cut it.’ I thought,
‘Wow, that’s what I get for trusting.’ We went out for a year and four months. And she’s
with all of our friends. It’s been rough.” When the two share classes or participate in the
same after-school activities, they sit on opposite sides of the room. One of Elmer’s
teachers states, “They went out for a long time. You can tell it got to Elmer after the
break up, but Maria doesn’t mess around. I don’t put them in groups together.” Carlos
says, “It sucks because we are all friends with Elmer, and we are all friends with Maria.
You have to choose. Usually, it’s Elmer.”
During his senior year, Elmer asks Yessica, a junior, to Homecoming. Afterwards,
he says, “I’m not sure if I want to date. I just got out of a long relationship.” In
December, the two start dating. He splits time between his girlfriend and his other
friends. Elmer’s friends call her “The Vampire,” after he shows up to school with a large
hickey on his neck. Elmer has not been sexually active with Yessica. He says, “There’s
been instances where stuff happens. We try to calm it down. She wants to have sex but
she wants to get married.” When I ask him what “stuff” means, he explains, “You know
how it is, Randy. You’re there. You’re with a girl. You start kissing and touching. The
next thing you know, you have to stop.”
147

Drugs and alcohol. Elmer does not drink. During the fall, he smokes marijuana
once or twice a week with Brian and Carl at Birth Park, a nearby park. He stops when he
starts dating Yessica. He says, “I’m clean. I’m off it.”
Digital media. Elmer’s digital media use is sporadic due to uneven Internet
access. He uses Facebook, where he has 482 friends. In most of his pictures, he squints
his eyes and does not smile. In his profile picture, he wears a blue hoodie and holds his
puppy Lucy near his face. When he has access, he posts on Facebook regularly and
frequently. He often posts links to songs. For instance, he posts Bruno Mars’ video “It
Will Rain,” with the caption, “Got this song stuck in my head ♥ she really has me <33.”
At other times, Elmer uses social media to express his feelings about Yessica. After a
fight, he writes, “Wowwwwwww -_- people now a days that can deliver but they can't
take jokes whatever.” Yessica and Elmer use comments to publicly discuss their feud.
Several of Elmer’s friends also comment. She responds, “Wtff babe?? I wasnt even
mad??? -.- w.e latess this is fkn stupid.” A month later, he posts, “I love this girl she is
the best she makes my days and nights shes on my mind 100% of the time...nd did I
mention I love her :) she made my day laker game + Girlfriend= a night to remember ♥
— with Yessica.”
Out-of-school activities. Elmer commits irregularly to after-school activities.
Throughout the year, he participates on the tennis and soccer teams as well as YUPA.
While most of his friends acknowledge Elmer is good at sports, he sporadically attends
practices for the junior varsity soccer team. Despite liking basketball, he does not play for
the school: “See, this is what it is, I don’t want to be the only Hispanic on the bench.” In
148

January, coinciding with Elmer’s romantic relationship, he stops attending YUPA
meetings. The director confronts him one day. Elmer says he has soccer practice. The
director admits to the group, “When you care for someone and they don’t care back, it
hurts.” During the spring, due to poor attendance, the tennis coach dismisses Elmer from
the team. He says, “I don’t care. It was stupid anyway. What do I need tennis for?”
Elmer spends weekends at home or with friends. During the fall, on Friday nights,
he socializes with Jose and Carlos. They visit fast food restaurants and then attend the
high school’s football game at nearby Cherokee Field (see Figure 5). During the spring,
he walks Yessica home. They talk and kiss for hours in front of her apartment. Elmer
calls the time, “intimate make-out sessions.” On Saturdays, he plays basketball at the
park with Carlos and Jose. He also goes to the store with his mother. On Sundays, he
attends a Catholic church in a neighboring city with Yessica and her family. Afterwards,
he goes home and chats on Facebook. If the Lakers play, he watches the basketball game.
College Readiness
Academic achievement. Elmer earns a 3.38 grade point average. When asked
about his biggest weakness, he says, “I procrastinate.” Throughout the year, Elmer waits
until the night before to begin five-page essays for his history and English classes. After
working all night, he smiles and states, “I work better under pressure.” He takes two
Advanced Placement courses—Physics and English.
College and career aspirations. Elmer wants to attend college, stating, “I’m
trying to be someone. Not just for me, but I need to support my family. They’re in a
rough place. I need to get a job and make money.” The application to my research
149

center’s mentoring program reads, “A main issue that is important to me, besides going to
college, is my family. I need to go to college to obtain a good job to help them. The fact
that my sister is sick with lupus it makes it hard for us already. That’s why I need to go to
college.”
Application process. Elmer completes applications to eight universities,
including his top choice, the University of California, Berkeley. Ms. Arnold, his AVID
teacher, requires all of the students to apply to public and private universities. Each
private university requires an additional essay. He confesses, “I don’t want to write
another essay.” When I ask him to apply, he says, “I can’t. I haven’t had Internet access.”
Later, he responds, “I just don’t like privates.” I ask him to clarify. He says, “I just have
always wanted to go to a public; I don’t like privates. They’re expensive and the people
are weird.”
Elmer wants to major in criminal justice and philosophy and become a police
officer. Jose says, “[Elmer] doesn’t know what he wants to do. He just copies [me and
Carlos].” Elmer chooses philosophy because he wants to “improve [his] critical
thinking.” He continues, “I just have always liked philosophy.” In January, he also adds
kinesiology to the list of potential majors. He says, “If the police thing doesn’t work out,
at least I can become a P.E. teacher. That’s better than McDonald’s.”
Elmer works on applications after school and at Jose’s house. While I meet with
him and discuss his personal statements, he never provides copies for me to edit. As
college deadlines approach, he gives me essays he wrote for an English assignment.
When I ask how long he spent on the essays, he says, “Yeah, I’m sorry. I wrote those in,
150

like, 30 minutes.” While working on applications, he often becomes distracted and says,
“I’ll do it later.” A day before the University of California application deadline, he posts
on Facebook, “I’m fuckin up. Need to get it together.” Over the next hour, he posts a
stream of music videos. He submits his applications on the day of deadline.
Elmer attends two college fairs in the fall. At the first college fair, he and Carlos
see who can collect the most pens. On the third lap around the college booths, he waves
and smiles: “I got a brochure from Harvard, Randy! When they learn you are a minority,
the doors open up.” In December, he attends the Gates Millennium Scholars Male
Initiative. He does not apply to Gates—although he qualifies—or any other scholarships.
An Average Day
Before school. After the second wake-up attempt, Elmer’s mother yells, “You’re
walking to school!” A few minutes later, at 7:40 a.m., he gets up from his makeshift bed,
a collection of sheets and blankets on the floor. His niece, with whom he shares the
bedroom, sleeps on the bed. On his way to the bathroom, Elmer passes a wall of Lakers
memorabilia—a key chain, hat, and Kobe Bryant jersey. Elmer returns to the room and
dresses in a sweater vest, collared shirt, and jeans. Before he follows his mother out of
the door, he places an Orlando Magic cap on his head. He does not like the team, but the
blue matches his shirt. In the old van, used to transport his paralyzed sister, Elmer listens
to J. Cole on his iPod. He starts listening to Drake just as his mother pulls in front of the
school. She tells him to have a good day. Already seven minutes late, he receives a tardy
note and walks to his first period classroom.
151

After school. Like Jose, Elmer serves as a peer counselor during sixth period.
When the bell rings, he talks to Ms. Moreno about a scholarship and then walks to the
courtyard to meet Yessica, his girlfriend of three months. The two sit together holding
hands on a bench for 15 minutes.
Yessica participates in an after-school club. Elmer walks with her to the
classroom. Since he will wait for her anyway, he decides to stay. They sit together in the
classroom for the next hour. At the end of the club, the two wander out of sight in
between two buildings. There they hug and kiss. Afterwards, Elmer walks her home.
They talk about the school day. In front of the apartment, the two hug and kiss again.
After 30 minutes, Elmer walks home.
Once home, Elmer eats a sandwich. His mom tells him to help with his sister;
they are going to the store. He lifts his sister into her wheelchair. He then unfolds two
steel ramps over their front steps and pushes her to the van. The task is something Elmer
performs daily. He casually says, “It’s just something I have to do.” The family drives to
the nearby 99¢ Store where they buy groceries. After helping unload his sister from the
van, Elmer pushes her across the parking lot. A car crosses in front of them. He jokes,
“Uh oh, I’m going to let you go!” She yells at her brother. He laughs.
At home, Elmer goes into his bedroom. He tells his niece to go to the living room.
While sitting on the floor, he alternates between homework and texting. Around 9:00
p.m., Yessica calls. The two talk for the next hour. Afterwards, he listens to music and
chats on Facebook. He goes to bed at 11:00 p.m.

152

Chuck: “I Have a Fan Base”
When I first visit Chuck’s house, he flips through a folder of artwork in his
bedroom. His shirt covers a hodgepodge of tattoos on his upper body including an outline
of a cityscape and a skull and crossbones version of Bart Simpson. Chuck, who loves to
dance, draw, and skateboard, finds the drawing he wants to show me. It is a carefully
drawn head of a goblin. I smile, and he rotates the page 180 degrees. Another goblin
becomes visible. “It took a long time to get that right,” he says as he proudly displays his
creation. Of the six participants, Chuck is the most creative, outgoing, and
entrepreneurial. Throughout the year, he receives several clothing sponsorships for
dancing and skateboarding. Compared to the other five participants, he is also the most
under achieving as defined by his grades, standardized test scores, and the rigor of his
coursework.
Home and Neighborhood
Home. Of all of Chuck’s tattoos, the most significant one is the date he stumbled
from a wrecked car to discover his mother dead in the driver’s seat. He describes the
accident:
We were in a car accident, heading on our way to Arizona, somehow I guess the
car flipped over six times. The next thing I know I had to bust out of the
passenger side window and get out the car, and there’s a whole lot of blood. I
guess the firefighter and stuff was here and I’m like, “Is everybody okay?” But I
was puking up sand and blood, but I was still trying to ask is everybody okay. I go
by and last thing I remember of my mom is seeing her head busted in the steering
wheel.
After the accident in 2006, Chuck’s grandmother, who lives on a fixed income of
$15,000 per year, took custody of him and his 11-year-old brother. His grandmother
153

states, “After the accident, Chuck sort of shut down. He stopped talking, and he would
cry all of the time. My whole thing was, ‘What am I gonna do? Can I handle this?’ I had
to pick up the pieces where she left off. It was really hard. The first year was crazy. If you
mentioned her name, we’d start crying. But, it got better. We went to therapy. That
helped.” While watching skateboarders at a park one afternoon, Chuck confesses, “I wish
I had more therapy. Sometimes when I want to express myself, sometimes, I don’t really
have anybody that I want to talk to like that.”
Chuck and his brother and grandmother suffered massive injuries from the
accident. All three were transported by helicopter to nearby hospitals. His grandmother
experienced the worst wounds. Chuck says, “When the accident occurred, my
grandmother, instead of the glass hitting us it hit her in her arm because she covered me
and my little brother from getting killed. So it’s like she has this big metal rod in her arm
and she could barely move her arm like she wants to. I help her out with like putting on
her shoes and stuff.”
In April, Chuck receives a settlement for his mother’s accident. When I begin to
discuss the settlement around other students, he quickly stands from his seat and asks me
to talk outside of the classroom. In the courtyard, he pulls a tattered receipt from his
wallet. The balance reads $58,710. “That’s my checking,” he says, “I have $60,000 in
savings too. You and Ms. Arnold are the only two people at school that know.”
Chuck’s grandmother drives Chuck wherever he wants to go and often waits in
her car. She says, “Once, he went to some club. I sure did wait there the whole time. The
doormen thought it was funny. He started checking on me. I just sat there with a book,”
154

she points to her other grandson, “and he had his Nintendo DS and a blanket.” The trips
usually include drives to a skate park or fast food restaurant. Every weekday in the
spring, after Chuck receives the settlement money, his grandmother drives Chuck and his
best friend Tommy to a skate shop and park near Mid-City Los Angeles.
Chuck’s 35-year-old father, who dropped out of high school to pursue a career as
a rapper, lives with his wife and two children five miles away from Hurston Park. He is a
reformed gang member who was featured in Crips and Bloods: Made in America, a
documentary narrated by Forest Whitaker. While driving to Back-to-School Night at
HPHS, he tells a story about violence among gangs in the 1990s. “No one was safe,” he
concludes. When I joke about that not boding well for a white researcher from USC, he
says, “You straight out here though. These are my boys. You safe.” Chuck did not have a
relationship with his father until his mother passed away. He visits his father
approximately once a week; the two talk about how Chuck is doing in and out of school
or play video games.
Chuck refers to his house as “the mansion.” Of all the participants, he is the only
one to live in a detached house and have his own bedroom. Pictures of skateboarders
serve as wallpaper on one of his bedroom walls. The glossy photos came from X Games’
programs. Last summer, his grandmother took him to see the event in downtown Los
Angeles. Above the pictures are three skateboard decks; each commemorates an
important event. He points, “I did my first ollie with that one.” His bed rests beneath a
shelf holding a collection of ten books, including SAT and California High School Exit
Examination (CAHSEE) study guides. T-shirts fill his closet, and shoes line the floor.
155

Cartoons and words cover the blue wall next to his closet. A large flat screen television—
a present from his uncle—and Xbox 360 sit atop a small desk. The original note from his
uncle is taped to the side of the television. It reads, “Next time, you buy Starbucks. Love,
Uncle Frank.” Chuck clarifies, “He loves Starbucks, so he wanted it for buying me the
TV.”
Neighborhood. Unlike the other participants, Chuck lives in Lower Hurston Park
(see Figure 5). Although he lives one block away from “The Lows”—an area of
deteriorating housing projects known for harboring gang members and drug addicts—his
street contains well-kept single-family homes. As we drive home from night school one
day, he asks if I saw Boyz in the Hood. “This is where they shot the movie,” he says, “It’s
based on the gang here.” As we drive up a hill to his house, he laughs, “It’s funny. People
say we look down on them.” I ask if gangs are a big part of his life: “Not really, They’re
not even major, it’s like whatever.”
Chuck likes Hurston Park, but he believes his peers are too provincial. He says,
“Hurston Park, the actual city, you would think that it’s big but it’s not really that big,
like everyone pretty much knows each other from either Facebook or MySpace or
something. We all pretty much connect. But me, I leave and go places. I think it’s sad
when people just stay here.”
Social Life
Peers. “I have a fan base,” says Chuck, “I’m a dancer. I have a lot of networking
skills.” He defines networking as “getting business cards, talking to people on Facebook,
and getting sponsorships.” Despite 3,116 Facebook friends, Chuck lists two best friends:
156

Tommy and Maria. “I’m picky with my friends,” he says, “A lot of people I guess get
jealous because of my popularity, or just the fact they see me on TV they want to actually
go try to talk me and they’re like, ‘You think you’re too good and stuff.’ But they don’t
even know me,” he pauses, “Sometimes I come to school like I don’t fit in here.”
Tommy, whose real name is TréShawn, is a year younger than Chuck. He
approached Chuck after seeing a dance video. Chuck’s grandmother says, “Tommy stays
here more than he stays at home.” Because of the frequent overnight stays, Chuck’s
grandmother bought Tommy his own mattress, which slides from under Chuck’s bed.
Throughout the year, Tommy smokes marijuana more and more. Chuck says, “He has a
lot of problems. His mom is never home. He’s alone a lot.” During January, Tommy’s
brother goes to prison with a 107-year sentence.
Relationships. Chuck estimates that he has had 25 girlfriends. Monique was the
most serious. Chuck confesses, “I had a crush on her since sixth grade. We started going
out in sophomore year.” Chuck posts about girls on Facebook. He writes, “LMS if your a
white girl, Hispanic girl, or a Asian girl :),” or, “I want all these pretty bitches on
Facebook to post GoodMorning on my fuckin wall hahahaha.”
In January, he starts dating CeeCee, a junior who attends a nearby high school.
They see each other in person rarely but interact daily through video chat, text messages,
and Facebook. They post about their relationship. After dating for two weeks, Chuck
posts, “Dear Girlfriend, I'm not a fuckin simp but you know how this goes, I tell you how
I love you & don't give a shit about these other hoes. When I sniff your weave I damn
near cum in my pants an when I kiss your lips my brain starts to blow up. I use to think a
157

girl who loves me was a fairy tale but every since I met you I feel loved :) ♥ -- with
CeeCee.” After four people like the post, she comments, “I really wish the bitches that
obviously like you, stop liken shit as if their happy for us -_-.” A week later, Chuck posts,
“Lms if your a girl that's bi :) I posted this for a reason,” and then, “Things I like in a
girl Like: I like those pretty thick bitches wit a slim waist (no gut), nice ass weave,
piercings (nipples & septum), & a bangin ass personality that will make me want her. I
just like those different type of girls Ps...I love tits ♥ if your bi Comment or inbox me :).”
During February, he changes his relationship status from “in a relationship” to “single.”
CeeCee comments, “You can faithfully tell fb everything. Your quick to change the
relationship status, but when all iwant is for my ‘bf’ to check on me once and a while it’s
a fuckn problem? Get on then smh.” Two days later, he changes his status to “it’s
complicated.” I ask about the relationship. He responds, “Oh, that? That wasn’t even
serious.”
In May, Chuck starts a relationship with a new girl. The two frequently post
pictures of themselves smoking marijuana together. She sends him a picture to post on
Facebook. The picture contains two frames. In the left frame, she smiles for the camera.
In the right frame, her back is to the camera. She wears pink underwear and a shirt with
Chuck’s name printed on the back. The relationship lasts for two weeks.
Chuck has been sexually active with ten girls. When asked where they have sex,
he replies, “Their houses.” After pausing, he continues, “One time, between me and you,
everyone was home. My granny was walking around. We got a little quicky in.” He
laughs.
158

Females often post on Chuck’s Facebook page. He says, “Since I’m popular and
have a pinch of fame, girls throw themselves at me. There was one Saturday when I was
networking heavy. This girl on webcam called me and was like ‘Hi.’ And she was pretty.
She asked if I was going to the party. Then at the party she started dancing on me. Then,
we went to the bathroom and got head. It was crazy.” In May, he posts to Facebook, “I
smashed [had sex with] a girl from Facebook the first day I met her because I am very
ratchet.” He defines a ratchet as someone who is promiscuous. I ask why he and his
friends use the word ratchet. He responds, “I guess it’s because they’re dirty like
ratchets.”
Drugs and alcohol. At the beginning of the year, Chuck smokes marijuana or
drinks alcohol one to two times a week. However, in January, coinciding with his 18
th

birthday, his drug and alcohol use increases to everyday. I ask what his grandmother
thinks. He says, “She doesn’t like it. But, like when I turned 18, my aunt and uncle really
wanted me to smoke with them.”
He posts often about smoking:
Damn this is my first status I'm postin today haha an I'm Faded Af lol [February
2, 2012, 6:09 p.m.]
I swear bein faded in the assistant principals office is hard af hahahaha I slipt &
called her retarted in a way lol [February 1, 2012, 11:27 a.m.]
Munchies + Faded = Time to eat hahaha [February 4, 2012, 4:41 p.m.]
In March, Chuck reduces his alcohol and drug use to one to two times per week. The
change is noticeable in his disposition and work ethic, as he re-dedicates himself to
159

schoolwork. He shows me a book with meticulous notes written on Post-Its. He says,
“I’m trying to focus on school.”
After he receives the settlement money for his car accident, he resumes smoking
marijuana everyday. In one picture on Facebook, he holds a joint near the camera.
Tommy exhales a cloud of smoke in the background. The caption reads, “time to get real
buck!!!—with Tommy.” He smokes marijuana before school with Tommy in April. He
posts on Facebook just before the start of school, “Im higher then a fat bitches sodium
^__^.” During first period, with his mouth agape, he stares straight ahead. I ask Ms.
Arnold if she has noticed that before. She says, “No.” I ask Chuck about the incident the
next day; he replies, “Man, that’s the last time I smoke before Ms. Arnold’s class. She
went hard on me when I saw her later in the day.”
Out-of-school activities. Chuck rarely participates in formal, supervised after-
school activities. Instead, he skateboards almost daily, often before night school, which
he takes for math remediation. He also dances. Driving home one day, we pass a popular
dance club. He says, “That’s Club Main. The craziest thing happened there one time. The
place was packed. Girls were wearing stilettos and mini skirts. Everyone was dancing.
Then, the wall came down and girls and heals went everywhere. Some were trying to go
over the pool tables. Glasses broke on tables. It was crazy.”
Capitalizing on his networking skills, Chuck forms skateboard and dance groups.
One group is named Movable Parts; they use the name to distinguish themselves on
YouTube in particular and in media in general. The group is known for “jerkin’,” a style
of street dancing. He says, “I taught myself and I watch videos like YouTube that I made,
160

and I enhance my dance moves. I danced on MTV and BET before, and I had little gigs
with Snoop Dog and stuff.”
Chuck parlays YouTube views into dancing sponsorships in order to receive free
clothing. In one video, entitled “Jerk Battles: DC vs. Chuck,” he competes against a
friend. The person who posted the video wrote, “One of the best jerk battles
around…Vote or Die…LOL.” The video lasts for seven minutes. The two, who exchange
dance moves, perform the battle on a sidewalk in front of a graffiti-decorated concrete
wall. After the first exchange, a bell rings and “Round Two” flashes across the screen.
“Play Your Cards Rite,” a song by two local musicians, begins playing. Chuck starts. At
the end of his turn, he tosses an imaginary ball in the air and hits it with an imaginary bat.
The video receives over 105,122 views and 393 comments. The majority of viewers
select Chuck. One writes, “Chuck all day DC didnt even jerk.” Another posts, “Chuck kid
go hrd.”
Chuck plans and looks forward to the weekend. Tommy spends the entire
weekend at Chuck’s house. On Fridays, they often go to Chili’s with Chuck’s family.
Afterwards, they go to a party or club. On Saturdays and Sundays, Tommy and Chuck
skateboard. Occasionally, they watch special events organized by skateboard companies
at nearby skate parks. Chuck’s grandmother also drives the two teenagers to Hollywood
or Mid-City Los Angeles, where they shop. At home, they spend time watching movies
or playing video games. On Sunday mornings, they go to IHOP or Roscoe’s Chicken and
Waffles.
161

Digital media. Of the six participants, Chuck is the most active user of social
media. He averages three posts a day on Facebook, where he has 3,150 friends. The
content of his posts includes thoughts about skating, smoking, and females. His statuses
also reflect his feelings about school. For instance, he writes, “I really need to start on my
Christmas break assignments for AP English.” The attached picture is of carefully
organized assignment sheets and Toni Morrison’s Beloved. Within two hours, he posts,
“I'm not even sweatin about My Finals cause I'm intelligent but that doesn't mean I still
don't prep myself,” and then, “My ap final is makin me nervous af man lol I mean I'm an
excellent writer but got damn 3 5 page essays & a meeting.”
Chuck posts about having and spending money. For instance, he states, “I'm glad
that I'm one of those kids who always has had cash, clothes, & fly shit I mean I'm not
even an asshole just cause I don't let my popularity & shit get to my head.” Every day for
a week after he receives the settlement money, he posts pictures of bags of merchandise
from boutique skateboard shops near Mid-City. One caption reads, “Just got home an my
bags speak for where I been an how expensive my taste is.” When I ask about the
purchases, he admits, “I know the owner. You know the pictures of me with the white
guy on Facebook? Yeah, that’s the owner. He even gives me free stuff.” In May, he posts
a picture in which he wears removable gold fronts on his teeth and bites a long gold
chain. The caption reads, “Young dumb nigga with a mouth full of gold :D 14k.” After
purchasing a white iPad from Target, he posts a picture of a cash register display with the
total $1,020.33. He writes, “Just ball tf [the fuck] out in target. haha don’t ask me why
:).” Three weeks later, he posts, “Prom is tomorrow an I got my grill & my Christian
162

Louboutin red bottom loafers. Just bought a Versace Jacket $$$ ^__^ phone convos?
LMS [Like my status].” A day later, he writes, “You know what I'm fuckin proud of
myself just because I payed about $4,000 bucks for a majority my prom shit! So goodjob
for me man.”
Chuck posts often about buying items for friends and family and giving items
away to Facebook friends. For instance, he writes about buying Tommy shirts when they
visit Mid-City. Another time, he posts, “Bout to treat my fam to Roscoes [a restaurant]
right now #Livin Lavish $$$.” Later in the afternoon, he posts, “got stacks wit no plans
so hmu [hit me up] wit some :).” The next week, he posts a picture of three rows of t-
shirts placed on his bed; he writes, “Its that time again ^__^ Chuck's Shirt Giveaway an I
only have 8 lol So if your a girl who wants one of my shirts LMS & the prettiest girl that
likes gets a Diamond tee ;).” Chuck later tells me that he gives the t-shirts away to
promote for a skateboard clothing company.
Chuck uses social media to promote parties and earn money. He sells tickets to
club events in Hurston Park. Starting two weeks before prom, he posts, “I got them after
prom tickets for $20 flat out HMU [hit me up] or LMS [Like my status] if you want to
cop [buy] I only got 50.” A week later, he writes, “I only got a few Extreme LA after
prom Tickets Left & they only $10 So Cop before I run out!” and “Attention!!!
Tomorrow is the last day to purchase the All the Way LA after prom tickets. The tickets
are $10 an I'm almost out so if you need em hit me.”
After winter break, Chuck posts a picture of a girl in one of his classes. He
comments, “Those jeans be strugglin.” The girl sees the post and tells an assistant
163

principal. Chuck receives no punishment; however, he says, “I learned my lesson. Cyber
bullying isn’t right.” A month later he posts a picture of an overweight teenage girl. The
caption reads, “Hahahaha I took this she smelt musty.” Twenty-three friends comment.
One posts, “You are an ass Chuck.” He responds, “hahaha, why?”
As the year progresses, Chuck increasingly uses Twitter. On Facebook, he posts,
“follow Me @Iamwhaledick :) ill follow back just mention me so drop Twitters.” He
quickly amasses 277 followers and 1,900 tweets.
College Readiness
Academic achievement. Chuck earns a 1.96 grade point average. He did not pass
the math California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) during his sophomore
year and must re-take the test during his senior year. Although he has a low grade point
average, he acknowledges the importance of academics. He earns praise from Ms.
Brown, his Advanced Placement English teacher—whom he cites as his favorite
teacher—in regard to several homework assignments. He says, “I had bad teachers, but I
can do good. I just need people to show me.” Chuck engages in and excels at activities
that involve creativity. For instance, after Ms. Arnold announces an AVID 12 t-shirt
design contest, he posts six designs on Facebook and tags all of his classmates. On the
following day, his classmates vote unanimously for his design.
Although he wants to go to college and be successful, Chuck is mischievous in
school. He draws in class and posts pictures of the drawings on Facebook. In December,
he posts a drawing entitled, “I’d Rather Do What I Love Than be Unsatisfied.” Under the
title, it reads, “Chuck the Fuk’n Bear.” He sketches a bear with a skateboard. Five
164

thought bubbles hover near the mischievous looking bear’s head: “Money. Popularity.
Education. Love. Cumshots.” Each thought bubble has a related picture.
One day in class, a teacher uses his computer to project instructions on to the
white board. When the teacher walks away, Chuck changes the instructions:
TAKE OUT PAPER TO TAKE NOTE ON THE VIDEO
PAIR UP TO DO THE ATOMIC THEORY LAB FUCK YOU BITCH SUCK
MY DICK LONG TIME BASE GOD
YOU WILL BE DROPPING A MARKER RANDOMLY ONTO A TARGET TO
EMULATE ELECTRONS PASSING THROUGH A SCREEN
Eleven friends like his status when he posts a picture of the instructions on Facebook. A
friend comments, “lmfao [laughing my fucking ass off].” Chuck responds, “Haha ima
thug.”
College and career aspirations. At the beginning of the year, Chuck wants to
major in fine arts or psychiatry. He says, “I want to help teens and know what they’re up
to, like if they have problems I could help them. After my mom passed, I needed help,
that’s why I had a therapist, and I want to do the same thing.” He wants to attend college
to have fun and network: “When I go to college I’m going to have as much fun as I can
because I want to major in something that I love to do, that way it really won’t be work
but it will be a challenge.” During the spring semester, he changes his desired major to
digital media and photography. He says, “I want to be like a skateboard photographer or a
video director—someone who makes a lot of money.”
Application process. Because Chuck receives poor grades and fails to meet
several college requirements, he cannot apply to top-ranked universities. In the fall, Ms.
Arnold worries that he will not be accepted into a college: “His only hope is to get into an
165

EOP [Educational Opportunity Program] at a Cal State.” Despite her pessimism, Chuck
remains upbeat. In December, the AVID 12 teacher asks students to write down their top
choice for college and explain why. She selects Chuck. He stands and reads from his
paper: “I chose the University of California, Los Angeles. There are a lot of
opportunities.” Ms. Arnold shakes her head. Later she says, “He’s just too fantastical.
He’s living in this fantasy.”
Chuck completes applications to four California State universities, including his
top choice San Jose. He also applies to three for-profit schools: Otis College of Fine Arts
and Design, Full Sail University, and The Arts Institutes. He later changes his mind about
all three: “I decided not to go, since they suck you out of your money.” He does not apply
for scholarships. In February, he sits for the math CAHSEE to fulfill graduation and
college requirements. He does not, however, obtain grade changes for the classes that he
failed in ninth grade. As a result, he is not eligible to attend any of the California State
Universities. In March, he adds Santa Monica College, a local community college, to his
list.
An Average Day
Before school. At 6:00 a.m., Schoolboy Q’s “Blessed” begins playing on Chuck’s
phone. The 17-year-old, wearing Xbox pajamas, checks his smartphone for messages and
then gets out of bed. After going to the bathroom, he returns to his room. Voted “best
dressed” by his senior class peers, Chuck spends 30 minutes picking an outfit. After
selecting and dressing in several wardrobes, he finally settles on a black sweater, white
button-up shirt, jeans, and bow tie. He walks into the kitchen, fixes three chocolate chip
166

Eggo waffles, and then returns to his room. He searches Xbox Live to find an opponent
for Skate 3, a skateboard video game. As soon as he starts a game, his grandmother
comes down stairs to drive him to school. On the ride to school, two scantily clad women
cross the street at an intersection. Chuck’s grandmother snaps at him: “If I catch one of
those nappy headed girls sucking on you, I’m gonna grab her by her ponytail and smang
her!” They both laugh. After the ten-minute ride, Chuck exits the car and walks to the
school’s courtyard where he meets Tommy, who comments about a Twitter post he just
read.
After school. Chuck, Tommy, and Maria stand in front of the school. They joke
and smile while waiting for their rides. The school’s sprinklers start spraying water across
the lawn. A teenager screams and moves off of the grass. A moment later, Chuck’s
grandmother arrives and Chuck and Tommy get in the car. On their way home, they stop
at Taco Bell. Chuck orders a five layer beefy burrito, empanada, and large Mountain Dew
drink. By the time they arrive home, the food is gone and Chuck and Tommy walk to the
bedroom.
Chuck has Advance Placement English homework. When Tommy starts talking,
Chuck says, “I got homework to do. Sit in that corner and shut up.”
Tommy replies, “You not gonna tell me what to do, but you better get to that
annotation.”
“You know what,” begins Chuck. He pauses and shakes his head. He removes
Under the Feet of Jesus from his bookbag and begins reading.

167

“Yeah, good job ChuChu,” says Tommy.
“Ok, Tretre.”
As Chuck reads, he leaves notes, including meticulously drawn pictures, on Post-
its. He works for an hour. During that time, Tommy uses his Blackberry to tweet. Chuck
closes his book and the two decide to skateboard. In front of the house, Tommy tapes
Chuck completing a trick. They post it to Facebook.
After returning inside, the two best friends grab drinks from the kitchen and return
to Chuck’s room. They play video games for the next two hours. During Tommy’s turn,
Chuck browses through videos on YouTube. He tells his friend to pause the game. They
watch a video entitled “Crackhead in Compton.” In the video, a male adult acts erratically
while standing in the middle of passing traffic. They watch a few more videos. Tommy
returns to the video game while Chuck checks Facebook.
The two teenagers decide to watch a movie before going to bed. They select Step
Brothers. Tommy slides his mattress from under Chuck’s bed. The two fall asleep just
after 11:00 p.m.
Reconsidering the Lives of the Six Participants
As the above sections highlight, although the six participants live in the same low-
income neighborhood, their lives differ considerably. Before proceeding to Part 2, using
the categories I employ for each participant, permit me to summarize the above data.
Home and Neighborhood
The family backgrounds vary significantly among the participants (see Table 8).
The three Latino participants are all second-generation immigrants with differing family
168

structures. Carlos lives with both of his parents, who are undocumented immigrants from
Mexico, and three younger siblings. Jose lives with his parents, who are also
undocumented immigrants. Their marital status is precarious. In fact, their separation,
when Jose was in middle school, led him to attend after-school activities so he did not
have to stay in the apartment. Elmer lives with his single mother, two older sisters, and
niece. During the year, sister’s boyfriend also lives in the three-bedroom apartment.
The three African American participants share even fewer family characteristics.
Chris lives with his mother and three brothers. His father was convicted of murder when
Chris was a toddler. Matthew lives with his aunt and two cousins. An unemployed aunt
also resides in the apartment during the winter; she sleeps on the couch in the living
room. Both of his parents, who struggle with drug dependency, live in Oakland. Since the
death of Chuck’s mother in middle school, Chuck and his younger brother have lived
with their maternal grandmother. They reside with extended family in a five-bedroom
house. Chuck visits his father, a reformed gang member, once per week.
Table 8. Informant Summaries

Age
Race
GPA
Family
Residence
Parents or
Guardians’
Level of
Education
Parents or
Guardians’
Employment*
After-school
Activities
Carlos 17 Latino 3.68
Father,
mother, two
brothers, and
one sister
Two-
bedroom
apartment
Middle
School
Father
(Handyman) and
Mother
(Housecleaning)
YUPA,
College
Summit,
Academic
Decathlon,
Upward
Bound, Earth
Club, Tennis,
Church
Chris 17
African
American
3.3
Mother and
three
Two-
bedroom
High
School
Mother
(Caregiver)
Basketball
169

The home lives of each of the six participants have positive and negative
implications to college access. First, while Chuck’s grandmother is the only parent or
guardian with a college degree and direct experience with the application process, several
parents provide support to their sons in alternative ways. Carlos’s mother, whose highest
level of education is middle school, drives Carlos to all of his after-school activities.
Providing transportation is time consuming and also risky. Being an undocumented
immigrant, she could be deported after a routine police stop. Jose’s father regularly
encourages his son to attend college. Leaving before sunrise and arriving home after
sunset, he also sets a standard of hard work that Carlos emulates. In addition, despite
having AIDS and being undocumented, Carlos’s father remains positive. Jose states,
“Look at all he’s been through. The least I can do is go to college.” Similarly, Elmer’s
brothers apartment
Jose 17 Latino 3.37
Father and
mother
One-
bedroom
apartment
Middle
School
Father (Valet)
and Mother
(Housekeeper)
YUPA,
College
Summit,
Academic
Decathlon,
Upward
Bound, Earth
Club
Matthew 18
African
American
3.0
Two aunts
and two
cousins
Two-
bedroom
apartment
High
School
Aunt (Hotel
Manager)
College
Summit,
Explorers,
Boxing, and
Rapping
Elmer 17 Latino 3.38
Mother, two
sisters,
niece, and
one sister’s
boyfriend
Three-
bedroom
apartment
Middle
School
Mother
(Disabled)
YUPA,
Soccer
Chuck 17
African
American
1.96
Grandmothe
r, brother,
uncle, aunt,
and great
grandmother
Five-
bedroom
house
College
Grandmother
(Retired)
Skate-
boarding,
Dancing, and
Drawing
* All of the parents or guardians earn less than $20,000 per year
170

mother encourages her son. Despite her own health problems and those of her daughter,
she supports him, stating, “I will do whatever I have to for him to go to college.”
Family expectations provide motivation. Elmer and Chris both have older siblings
who accessed and failed at higher education. Earning high grades heightened their
mother’s expectations. Of all the young men, Matthew receives the least support from his
guardian. After listening to teachers—Ms. Arnold in particular—cite the importance of
attending a four-year university, Matthew parrots the information to his aunt. Although
she is at times supportive, such as driving him to a college fair or giving him financial
information to complete FAFSA, she also second-guesses his decision to attend an
expensive four-year university. Why, she asks, if he wants to become a police officer,
should he not go to a for-profit two-year program like the one she attends? Similarly,
when Matthew needs money to participate in the Bridges Program, she declines. The
aunt’s comments and actions, while not drastic, reinforce a history of indifference from
family members.
Familial support does not always lead to positive outcomes. Aside from Matthew,
the other five teenagers are generally affable and respectful towards their parents or
guardians. Such qualities—oftentimes, along with good grades—purchase much freedom.
Carlos’s mother allows him to go to school late or not go at school at all. Similarly,
Chris’s mother allows him to spend his time at places where drugs and gambling are
present. In short, while the parents or guardians often inculcate high expectations, they do
not always instill the skills and behaviors that align with college readiness.
171

Lastly, the living conditions of each of the teenagers affect their social lives. For
all of the adolescents except Chuck, they either sleep in the living room or share a
bedroom with a sibling. As a result, they gravitate to places where they have more
privacy or space. Chris stays at friends’ houses. Matthew associates with gang members
at the park. In contrast, where parents or guardians grant privacy, teenagers gather. Jose’s
living room and Chuck’s bedroom provide examples of popular gathering places.
Views toward the Hurston Park vary significantly. Carlos and Jose both dislike
the neighborhood and want to leave. They cite drugs, gangs, and violence as the major
reasons. Chris acknowledges problems; nevertheless, he always speaks positively of the
neighborhood. Chuck adopts a similar stance, but critiques peers for not venturing outside
of Hurston Park. Matthew describes the neighborhood as his “hell.”
Social Life
All of the participants maintain active social lives. They tend to socialize with
teenagers of the same race. Carlos, Jose, and Elmer share the same peer group. Elmer’s
participation lessens significantly when he starts dating Yessica. Chris’s friends under-
achieve in school and smoke marijuana after it, but he often discusses the college
application process with Sean. Matthew mostly fraternizes with peers from his
neighborhood, including gang members. Chuck diverges the most in terms of peer
groups. Tommy, his best friend, is a junior. He meets other friends through
skateboarding, dancing, and social networking.
The six teenagers vary in relation to relationships and sexual activity. Carlos has
the least experience with romantic relationships. Throughout the senior year, Elmer has
172

the longest, most stable relationship. Both Jose and Chris have had one sexual partner.
Matthew and Chuck have had numerous. With Matthew, sexual encounters have often
involved drugs and alcohol.
Participants’ drug and alcohol use varies. Carlos has the least experience. Jose
drinks regularly during his winter trip to Mexico. Chris smokes marijuana to fit in with
friends. Chuck’s use of alcohol and marijuana fluctuates from month to month. And,
Matthew smokes marijuana daily.
After-school and weekend activities differ. Carlos and Jose are the most active in
school events. Chris spends the majority of his time with friends. Elmer drifts from one
activity to another. His participation occurs as a result of spending time with his friends
or girlfriend. At the beginning of the year, Matthew participates in boxing and Explorers.
By January, he abandons those activities in order to spend time at the park. Chuck dances
and skateboards.
Lastly, all of the participants use digital media (see Table 9). Each of the
participants sends and receives text messages extensively. Elmer is the most irregular
technology user due to an old phone and uneven Internet access. Chuck is the most active
on social media. He views networking as essential, especially since his clothing
sponsorships depend on popularity. Carlos and Jose are the most likely to use Facebook
as a forum to discuss college and school. Chris, whose friends use Twitter, is the only
participant to regularly use the social media.

173

College Readiness
Although the six participants all attend HCPS and aspire to matriculate to a four-
year university, their college readiness differs markedly. Returning to Chapter 2, I define
college readiness using four dimensions: cognitive strategies, content knowledge,
academic behaviors, and contextual skills and awareness (Conley, 2011). Based on that
Table 9. Digital Media Usage
Primary Digital
Media
Secondary Digital
Media
Access
Hours per
day*
Carlos
Facebook and
texting
Skype Phone and laptop 6
Chris Twitter and texting Facebook iPhone and laptop 3
Jose
Facebook and
texting
Twitter and Skype
iPad, phone, and
laptop
4
Matthew
Texting and
Facebook
Reverbnation Phone and laptop 5
Elmer
Texting and
Facebook
Twitter Laptop 3
Chuck
Facebook and
Texting
ooVoo and Twitter Phone 8
*Estimates based on participant observation and interview data. Amounts include time spent throughout
the day such as checking Facebook or replying to texts during class.
Table 10. College Readiness and Cultural Capital

Cognitive
Strategies
Content
Knowledge
Academic
Behaviors
Contextual
Skills and
Awareness
Ranked
from
highest
to lowest
1. Carlos Carlos Carlos Carlos
2. Jose Elmer Jose Elmer
3. Elmer Matthew Chuck Matthew
4. Chris Jose Matthew Jose
5. Matthew Chris Chris Chris
6. Chuck Chuck Elmer Chuck
174

definition, Carlos, Elmer, and Jose are the most college ready; Chuck and Chris are the
least (see Table 10).
One measurement of college readiness is the people with whom the teenagers
interact. Carlos and Jose socialize with individuals who support their goal to attend
college (see Table 11). In contrast, Chris, Matthew, and Chuck associate with a range of
individuals. While the individuals may promote college going, they also support
Table 11. Key Figures
School Teachers
and Staff
Out-of-School
Mentors
Family Closest Friends
Carlos
College
Counselor (Ms.
Moreno) and
Teacher (Ms.
Arnold)
Upward Bound
mentor
(Gabriella),
YUPA Director
(Jason) and
College Mentor
(Randy)
Mother
Jose, Elmer, and
Diane
Chris
Teacher (Ms.
Arnold)
College Mentor
(Randy)
Mother
Sean, Morris, and
Terrance
Jose
College
Counselor (Ms.
Moreno) and
Teacher (Sgt.
Frank)
Mentor (Former
Camp Counselor),
Former Student
(Eduardo), and
College Mentor
(Randy)
Father
Carlos, Elmer, Mayra,
Diane, Itzel, and
Eduardo
Matthew
Teacher (Ms.
Arnold) and
College
Counselor (Ms.
Moreno)
Gang Leader
(Biggs)
Grandmother
(deceased)
Theresa, Tiara, and
Robby
Elmer
College
Counselor (Ms.
Moreno)
N/A Mother
Jose, Carlos, Yessica,
Brian, and Carl
Chuck
Teacher (Ms.
Arnold)
Grandmother Grandmother Tommy and Charlie
175

detrimental behaviors such as drug use or gangbanging. The negative influences most
often originate from peers. Chris, as an example, spends most of his time after school
with friends who gamble and smoke.
Despite varying degrees of college readiness, the participants all benefit from
participating in AVID 12, a college preparatory course. Ms. Arnold embeds steps of the
college application process into the curriculum and the students’ grades. She mandates
that all students attend college fairs. She frequently invites university representatives to
speak to the class. During those days, she asks students to “dress for success.” Lastly, she
expects each student to apply to at least ten universities, including four California State
University campuses, four University of California campuses, and two private
universities (Table 12).
Table 12. College and Career Aspirations
Applied Accepted Major Career
Carlos
Cal State Dominguez Hills / Cal
State Los Angeles / San Diego
State / Cal State Long Beach /
UCLA / UC Irvine / UC Berkeley /
UC Santa Barbara / Harvard
University / Cornell University /
Notre Dame de Lemur University /
Tiffin University / Northern
Arizona University
Cal State Dominguez
Hills / Cal State Los
Angeles / San Diego
State/ Cal State Long
Beach / Notre Dame de
Lemur University /
Tiffin University /
Northern Arizona
University / UC Irvine /
UCLA / UC Santa
Barbara
Criminal
Justice or
Political
Science
Police
Officer,
Lawyer,
and Judge
Chris
Cal State Los Angeles /
Cal State Northridge / Humboldt
State / San Jose State / UC Merced
/ UC Riverside / UC Santa Barbara
/ UC Santa Cruz / St. John’s
University / Clarkson University /
Benedict College / Lincoln
University / Paine College /
Virginia State University
Cal State Los Angeles /
Humboldt State / San
Jose State / Lincoln
University / Virginia
State University / Paine
College / Clarkson
University / Benedict
College / UC Merced /
UC Santa Cruz
Business
and
Marketing
Unsure
176

Jose
Cal State Long Beach / Cal State
Fullerton / San Francisco State /
San Diego State / UCLA / UC
Berkeley / UC Santa Barbara / UC
Irvine / St. John’s University /
Whittier College / Menlo College
College / University of La Verne /
Lewis and Clark /
University of Southern California /
Notre Dame de Lemur University /
University of the Pacific / Clarkson
University / Lawrence University
San Diego State / Cal
State Long Beach / San
Francisco State / St.
John’s University /
Whittier College /
Notre Dame de Namur
University / UC Irvine /
UC Santa Barbara
Criminal
Justice or
Political
Science
FBI Agent
or Police
Officer
Matthew
Cal State Dominguez Hills / Cal
State Northridge / Cal State Fresno
/ Cal State Chico / UC Santa
Barbara / UC Berkeley / UCLA /
UC Santa Cruz / University of
Miami / Drexel University /
Harvard University / University of
Redlands / Syracuse University /
Clarkson University / Paine
College / Lincoln University /
Virginia State University
Cal State Dominguez /
Cal State Northridge /
Cal State Fresno / Cal
State Chico / Paine
College / Lincoln
University / Virginia
State University /
Clarkson University /
UC Santa Cruz
Political
Science
Police
Chief of
Hurston
Park and
President
of the
United
States
Elmer
Cal States Northridge / Cal State
Fullerton / San Diego State / Cal
State Long / UCLA / UC Berkeley
/ UC Santa Barbara / UC Irvine
Cal State Northridge /
Cal State Fullerton /
San Diego State / Cal
State Long Beach / UC
Santa Barbara / UC
Irvine
Criminal
Justice and
Philosophy
or
Kinesiology
Police
Officer
Chuck
Cal State Los Angeles / Cal State
Dominguez Hills / Cal State
Northridge / San Jose State / Otis /
Full Sail / The Arts Institute /
Morris College
Morris College
Digital
Media and
Photography
Skateboard
Photograph
er or Video
Director
A Day in the Life
Observing an average day in the life of each of the six participants illustrates the
diversity among them. Carlos, with the help of his mother, travels from one after-school
activity to another. Chris, unlike the other five teenagers, has access to a friend with both
a license and vehicle. As a result, he traverses a larger geographic area, but also is
177

dependent on Morris to take him home. Jose, even on a so-called “lazy day,” spends
much of his time around college-going individuals and discusses education-related topics.
Matthew’s day highlights the conflict between his college-going and gang identities.
Elmer drifts from place to place depending on his peers. Lastly, Chuck exhibits massive
amounts of creative energy; however, he undertakes activities that do not always
contribute to college readiness.
Having presented the lives of six teenagers, I now turn to the second half of the
chapter and a discussion of the locations the participants frequent in Hurston Park. The
data in the following sections provides explicit comparisons of the participants’ activities
after school and illustrates the relationship among place and social and cultural capital.
Part 2: The Geography of Cultural Heterogeneity in Hurston Park
Where do teenagers go after the last school bell rings? At the end of school,
teenagers have a variety of options to occupy their time (see Table 13). Many
Table 13. Locations for Learning*
Digital Physical
Formal and
Supervised
Online Classes
Class-related Websites
Community College
Church
School- and Community-based After-
school Clubs (e.g. YUPA and Upward
Bound)
Technical school
Night school
Informal and
Unsupervised
Social Media (e.g. Facebook,
Twitter, Tumblr)
Text Messages
Sporting or Music Events
Fast Food Restaurants
Malls
Friends’ Houses
Parks
In-transit (e.g. walking or driving with
friends)
* Locations based on interviews and participant observations with participants in Hurston Park.
178

teenagers—even though they experience the locations in different ways—visit the same
places such as parks, sporting events, and fast food restaurants (see Figure 5). At other
times, teenagers visit different locations, such as after-school activities and friends’
houses. The number of options multiplies due to several factors. First, older age often
correlates to increased freedom. In addition, parents or guardians in low-income
households are likely to work extended hours. Second, in urban neighborhoods, teenagers
have access to a variety of locations and neighborhood institutions. Friends’ houses,
parks, fast food restaurants, and public transit are all within walking distance. Teenagers
are not dependent on rides from parents or older siblings. Recall, in Chapter 2, the
discussion of the context of cultural heterogeneity; the above two factors align with the
theoretical conditions—diverse neighborhood composition, weakened social control, and
uneven access to and quality of institutions—that magnify cultural heterogeneity.
From participating in after-school activities to socializing with friends, what
teenagers do and the people with whom they interact either reinforce or detract from
college readiness and access. Meaningful after-school activities provide extended
learning opportunities and engender college-going behaviors. That knowledge and those
behaviors even extend to informal activities such as playing basketball or eating at a fast
food restaurant with friends. During those times, teenagers discuss a range of issues
including choosing and paying for college. In contrast, informal activities such as
gangbanging or doing drugs have the ability to derail college access. Poor choices out of
school lead to poor grades in school. Not only are the teenagers participating in illicit
179

activities, the conversations differ starkly from those of more academically engaged
teenagers.
While the participants often conceive of their social worlds in a limited manner,
they have a number of options available to them. Each of these options potentially
amplifies the role of cultural heterogeneity as each provides access to different types of
social and cultural capital. In this section, I examine key locations across the
neighborhood. Throughout the year, I visited a variety of places. Due to limited space, I
present a sample of locations that illustrate the typical experiences of the six participants.
I divide them into three categories: neighborhood capital on the school campus,
neighborhood capital with friends, and neighborhood capital at the park. By highlighting
the relationships among place and social and cultural capital, these vignettes supplement
the data I present in the first half of the chapter.
Neighborhood Capital on the School Campus
All of the participants stay on HPHS’s campus after school (see Figure 5). Aside
from Chuck, the school is within walking distance to where they live, which facilitates
staying after school and socializing with friends. While the three vignettes all take place
at school, the settings, activities, level of supervision, and participants’ interpretations
vary. For Carlos, Youth United to Promote Action (YUPA) is a place to interact with
friends and assume leadership roles. For Chris, mentoring is a place to work on and gain
information for college applications. For Chuck, night school is a school-required waste
of time.
180

Carlos and Youth United to Promote Action (YUPA). Carlos has attended
YUPA meetings every Tuesday since his freshman year. Meetings often focus on
activities to enhance drug awareness. The club conducts outreach at the school. During
the meetings, Carlos is an active participant and assumes leadership roles. He regularly
attends with his brother Mario and his best friend Jose. Friend Elmer irregularly attends
the meetings.
An average day. YUPA club members convene in the AP Government teacher’s
room, which is located across the courtyard from Ms. Arnold’s classroom. Posters about
grammar and writing decorate the walls. Dates and events for the seniors cover the white
board. Stacks of books and papers conceal the teacher’s desk. A cart full of potato chips
and sodas, which student government members sell during lunch and after school, rests in
the corner.
Fifteen club members fill the large, cluttered room. Except for one female
African-American teenager, the members are all Latino/a. All but two members are
juniors or seniors. Jason, who works as a community organizer in Hurston Park, directs
YUPA. He paces in front of the classroom, speaks in loud, short sentences, and tosses a
tennis ball at students when he wants them to speak. During the meetings, he frequently
discusses issues such as race, gender, and social justice. He is open about being of mixed
race and jokes about having a white grandmother. During breaks, he often asks me about
the University of Southern California’s graduate school program; he considers applying
to the American Studies doctoral program.
181

Before the meeting begins, Jason asks the members to form a circle. In front of
him is a typed agenda. He begins each session with an icebreaker. Today, he starts by
playing “Two Truths and a Lie.” Jason tells Elmer to begin. He laughs and, speaking
softly, asks, “What do I do? I don’t know what to say?” Jason tells him to speak louder.
“Ok, ummmm, I have two sisters,” says Elmer, “When I was in Mexico, a club team
wanted me to play soccer with them. And, ummmm, I like the Jaguars.” Everyone starts
clamoring; they know the third fact is a lie. One frustrated female exclaims, “Oh, come
on!” Jose and Carlos follow Elmer. They are equally terrible at the game. The female
students become restless. Another says, “The boys suck at this. Let me go.” Ms. Pond,
the AP Government teacher, stands to the leave the room. She declares, “You all need to
do this right. Listen: I went to Catholic school. I like alternative music. And, I graduated
from Cal State Pomona. Which one is the lie?” The students guess incorrectly. The full-
figured teacher says, “It’s alternative music. You all don’t know how to do it. I can’t say,
‘I’m black, female, and skinny.’ Everyone knows that’s a lie.” The students laugh.
After the icebreaker, Jason discusses an upcoming weekend retreat. The group
will travel by bus to a house in the mountains near San Diego. Students ask questions
about clothes, showers, and food. Itzel, a close friend of Carlos, Jose, and Elmer,
expresses concern: “Oh, nooooo,” she exclaims, “It’s like a horror movie! We go into the
woods. We’re all teenagers. Think about it, you all.” Everyone, discussing the
possibilities, gets off-topic for the next five minutes. Who will live? How will people die?
Who will be the murderer? Jose concludes that the first person to die is always the
blackest. Carlos says, “That’ll be Elmer.” The friends laugh.
182

Jason re-orients the conversation. A student says “shhhhh!” to another. Jason
replies, “We don’t do that. I appreciate you respecting me. I know you want to listen, but
we don’t shhhhh people.” He pauses and then begins talking again with a slightly raised
voice: “They just figure out eventually to stop talking.”
While Jason talks, Carlos’s brother draws. Every couple of minutes Mario touches
his phone to look at a picture of Sonic the Hedgehog, who he sketches on his paper.
Carlos chastises him in a hushed command: “Put that away!” Mario listens for a few
minutes and then goes back to drawing. When he turns away, Carlos takes Mario’s
eraser. Mario notices. He wants to flip a coin to get the eraser back. Carlos, frustrated,
ignores him. Mario takes the eraser.
“Ok,” says Jason, “We have to create a banner to raise drug awareness.” He asks
for volunteers. Edith, a precocious eleventh grader, raises her hand. Jason tells her no:
“You volunteered last time.” Carlos raises his hand. “Alright,” says Jason, “You’re
Supreme Commander.” Others have to make red ribbons, small and big. Jason asks for a
leader. Edith raises her hand again. “Ok,” says Jason. He then asks when they are going
to have classmates sign the banner. The students cannot do it on Friday. Maria, Elmer’s
former girlfriend, says, “We have a pep rally.” Elmer looks disinterested as she talks. On
Thursday, they have Earth Club. Jason asks why they have to go to Earth Club. Elmer
smiles, “To pass the green.” Jose starts laughing. They high-five.
Carlos leads Jose, Elmer, and a few other students as they create the banner. They
get paper, paint, and brushes. Jason asks if they know what they are painting. In an
unenthused chorus, they all answer, “It's up to me to be drug free.” Jason says, “Supreme
183

commander, make sure they don't mess up.” Carlos nods.
Elmer and Jose talk. During the school today, Elmer wrote “Thug Life” across his
knuckles. Jose says, “If I get into Irvine, I'm not taking Hurston Park with me.” Jason
says, “You can take the person out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of
him.” Carlos looks at his two friends and says, “Ok, we have to get back on task.”
At the end of the meeting, Jason repeats instructions for the upcoming retreat.
Students leave the classroom in bunches. Carlos, one of the few remaining students, asks,
“Hey Randy, can you look at my essay?” I nod, and he gives me two. The first begins,
“My poetry is a weapon.” It is about using writing, not violence, to address problems in
his neighborhood. The second is about gang violence. We talk about the essays. He gets
excited: “Can I have your email? I might have time tonight to work on this.”
Chris and mentoring. Ms. Arnold, who teaches AVID 12, Advance Placement
World History, and American History, stays after school everyday until 6:00pm. Once a
week throughout the fall, Chris—often with best friend Sean—visits Ms. Arnold’s
classroom. The visits do not occur on the same weekday or at set times. Chris uses the
time to complete college applications and receive help from Ms. Arnold and myself.
An average day. In Ms. Arnold’s, the door closest to the front of the room
remains shut. An imposing security gate guards against unwanted intruders. An old,
raggedy tan office chair props open the door closest to the back. While teenagers enter
and exit the room, Ms. Arnold, who frequently wears a diamond-studded pin that reads
“Believe,” occupies her time by sorting through students’ papers and looking for the next
day’s lesson plans. On the wall near her hangs a framed newspaper with a headline
184

celebrating a women’s basketball Final Four; the picture shows a younger Ms. Arnold
fighting for a rebound. The six foot and one inch tall teacher was once a star basketball
player for HPHS and then a major Division I university. Her first job at the school was as
the women’s basketball coach. She often talks to DeShea, a student in her AVID 12 class
and three-star football recruit, about the pressures of being a student athlete. “College
athletics are a business,” she says to DeShea and the rest of the class, “you’ve got to get
your education.” She regrets choosing to focus on athletics over academics during her
college years. “I wish I would have studied abroad,” she says, “That’s what I try to get
these young people to do. It’s just opens your eyes to so much.” A devout evangelical,
she admits, “At night, my mission is to save people’s souls. I’m kind of trying to the
same thing for these young people during the day.”
Ms. Arnold’s room divides into two spaces. The first space includes students’
desks. The arrangement depends on the day’s activities. For instance, one day she asks
the students to move the desks into concentric circles in order to conduct a Socratic
Circle. Another day, she configures the desks into groups of four. Above the desks are
hangers adorned with paper squares. Each square contains a picture or fact about a major
figure—such as Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, and Confucius—in United States or
World History. Two large tables and a large, worn desk divide the front and back of the
classroom. The second space contains 12 Dell computers lined along two walls in an L-
shape. A non-profit organization donated the computers last year. Students sit at office
chairs; some are missing armrests.

185

Chris and his best friend Sean meander into the classroom 15 minutes after the
end of school. The two sit at available computers. Next to them, two juniors take pictures
of themselves using the computer’s camera. One raises his shirt to expose a tattoo on his
chest. Ms. Arnold sees the students uploading the pictures to Facebook. She yells, “Um,
excuse me, you are not to use those computers for that!” They finish uploading the
pictures and leave the classroom to attend basketball practice.
Both Sean and Chris listen to music and sort through emails and university
applications. While they work, teenagers wait for open computers in order to complete
homework or check emails. Occasionally, a friend looks in the room, sees Chris, and
walks in to greet him. Following the brief exchange and handshake, he returns to his
applications. When he has a question, he taps Sean on the shoulder. If the two cannot
solve it, they call for me to help.
When finished with his applications, Chris walks to the table where I sit and asks
for help with an essay. He does not know what to write. His essay begins:
Having two older brothers that decided to drop out college has really made me
think on a different level. I realized that I would have to make wise decisions in
order to graduate high school and surpass on to college. During college, my
brothers decided to party all night, they would be absent from school didn’t study
they believed that college was just to hard they failed to realize that their negative
habits were the reasons why they couldn’t excel in college.
As I provide feedback, he says, “Oh, that’s good. Say that one more time.” I speak slowly
as he scribbles sentences. He returns to the computer to revise the personal statement.
Sean sees the corrections, turns in his seat, and yells to me, “Yo Randy, hook a brother
up! What if I slide you a five and you help me with this essay?” He walks over to my
table. Ms. Arnold talks to Chris about his college applications and informs him of
186

upcoming scholarships. A little over an hour passes. Chris and Sean collect their
belongings and leave.
Chuck and night school. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, Chuck attends night
school. His classmates are a mixture of students from Brookline Continuation High
School (BCHS) and Hurston Park High School (HCPS). They attend for a variety of
subjects including algebra, geometry, and California High School Exit Examination
(CAHSEE) remediation. After school, Chuck skateboards from 3:00 to 5:30. He then
returns to campus for class. He tells me, “[Night school] sucks. I don’t learn anything.”
An average day. Before class, Chuck sits on his skateboard and video chats with a
female friend. He sees me and holds out the phone: “Randy, do you want to say ‘Hi’?”
The friend on his telephone screen giggles. At 6:00 p.m., a substitute walks out of the
classroom: "Ms. Wallace will be here soon. Go inside and start your work." Chuck
reluctantly enters the classroom. He tells me that Ms. Wallace, the teacher, habitually
arrives an hour late. While she is absent, a substitute watches the class.
Of the 20 students, most have their books opened on their desks. Half of the
students work on an assignment. A boy doodles on his paper. Another eats Hot Fries. He
gives some to the teenager behind him. Half of the students listen to music. They use
their phones or iPod Touches. One student puts his head down. Music blares from a
student’s headphones. The substitute says, "Hey, I shouldn't be able to hear it."
Chuck sends text messages. His feet rest on his skateboard. He wears a khaki
military jacket and corduroy pants. He pulls out his notepad and says, "This is all I do in
187

high school." He starts drawing and concludes, “This class is a waste of time." When I
ask why he does not work, Chuck responds, “I have to get the book from the teacher.”
A female’s phone rings. A few students near her turn their heads. "Why everyone
gotta look at me?” she says. She answers and tells the person she will call back.
The classroom is a rectangle with opaque windows running along the top of two
walls. The chairs are in rows. At the front of the room are two faded posters with
classroom rules and consequences. On the board are remnants from the day’s class: the
topic, objective, and standard of the day.
At 6:30 p.m., there is yelling outside. The substitute exits the classroom to
investigate the disturbance. Two students enter moments later. One was already in the
classroom and left for the bathroom 20 minutes ago. The other, a short, hefty teenager
wearing a black t-shirt and gold chain, goes to the teacher’s desk and writes his name on
the sign-in sheet. He is about the height of Chuck and wears big, blue headphones. Chuck
later tells me that the two students were smoking marijuana.
The students’ chatter gradually increases. The substitute snaps at the class:
"Excuse me! Did I tell you to take a break?"
At 6:45 p.m., Ms. Wallace enters the classroom. She calls to Chuck. I follow him.
She asks a series of questions: “Do you have your spiral notebook? How many times
have you been here?” Chuck responds, “Two.” She turns to me: “See. I teach 8
th
graders.
I only have to tell them once. See what I have to deal with? These kids.” She shakes her
head and gives him a copy of an old CAHSEE. A staple precariously holds the stack of
worn copies together. “I’m going to check on you every five minutes,” she says to Chuck.
188

Chuck returns to his seat. He looks at the first problem in the exam booklet and
taps his pencil. He copies the problem on his paper along with the answers. The question
pertains to scientific notation. The teacher calls him over. He returns, smiles, and says,
“Oh yeah, I got this.” He writes down “C,” the wrong answer. I shake my head. He says,
“They be, like, trying to trick you.” The next problem causes him to struggle too.
I ask, “What is ten times ten?”
Chuck responds, “20.”
When I tell him to multiply, not add, he smiles: “Oh, yeah.” I ask him to solve the
problem. He does not. I go through it. He says, “I’m gonna take notes. Hold on.” After a
moment, he concludes, “I think I need a tutor.”
We work through several more problems. He has trouble with percentages. “It’s
either B or C,” he says. For each question, he guesses incorrectly. When we finish
reviewing a problem, he nods his head. I ask if he understands. He replies, “Yes.” I give
him a problem similar to the one he just answered. He correctly solves the problem.
Chuck returns from another visit to the teacher. Rather than working on the
problems, he replies to text messages. He says, “I’m gonna have my uncle buy me one of
those books. You know the SAT one on my shelf? Yeah, like that.”
The teacher sits at her desk. She flips through a magazine. Two young men
behind Chuck talk about a female. A student attempts to plug his phone charger into the
wall. He does not find the outlet. “Nigga, it ain’t rocket science,” says a nearby teenager.

189

At 8:35, the teacher says, “Ok, students, pack up.” Chuck completed six of the
problems in the exam booklet. As we walk out of the classroom, he says, “See. This class
stupid.”
Neighborhood Capital with Friends
For the six teenagers in the study, socializing with friends forms the core of life
outside of school. In this section, I describe three places where the participants visit often.
First, Jose’s living room serves as the gathering place for his peer group. Friends watch
television, use social media, and play music and video games. Second, for Chuck and his
friends, Chuck’s bedroom serves as their retreat. They watch movies, use social media,
play music and video games, and smoke marijuana. Third, Chris goes to his friend
Terrance’s house. There they play video games, gamble, talk, and smoke marijuana. With
Jose and Chuck, adults sporadically supervise the teenagers. At Terrance’s, there is no
adult supervision. While conversation fulfills an important role at all three locations, the
content varies widely.
Jose and Elmer. Jose’s apartment—although small—serves as the gathering
place for his peer group (see Figure 5). Throughout the year, Jose has several large get-
togethers. On Halloween, for instance, a group of six friends watch scary movies and
share a bottle of wine. The gatherings often feature food and movies. Although alcohol is
sometimes present, it is not the focus of attention. More often, Jose hosts one or two
friends such as Elmer or Carlos. Discussions cover a range of topics, frequently including
college.
190

An average day. Elmer and Jose sit on the couch in the living room. The room
features a wide screen television. Next to the television is a stuffed animal wearing an
Anaheim Angels’ jersey. Jose’s father bought it for his son when they went to a game for
Jose’s birthday last year. When I ask his father about the stuffed animal, he replies, “Oh, I
asked him what he wanted for his birthday. He said he wanted to go to a baseball game. I
thought, ‘Oh, I’m glad I asked early. I’m gonna have to save for this one.’” Across from
the television are a large couch and twin bed.
The two friends talk about sports and reminisce about a recent goal celebration by
Javier Hernández Balcázar, their favorite Mexican soccer player. His nickname is
Chicharito. “It actually stands for little pea,” says Jose, “How funny is that?” After a
period of silence, Elmer poses a question: “Who is better: Kobe or Messi?” They debate
the greatness of the two sports figures. While bantering back and forth, they check
Facebook. Jose uses his iPad; Elmer uses a laptop.
The conversation shifts to school and college. Jose says, “I can’t wait to leave.”
Elmer responds, “School is like prison, for real. They’re just trying to control us.”
Jose interrupts, “Yeah, but it’s gotten better. The gangs aren’t as bad as they were
before. In the 90s, they had riots, like that fight on Cinco de Mayo. The Hispanics and
blacks wouldn’t even talk to each other.”
“But, it’s still segregated,” says Elmer. After a pause, he resumes: “There’s
differences between us and blacks. The Latinos are different. Their parents have nothing.
They have to work for everything. Blacks get stuff. Those Dr. Dre headphones are
191

expensive.” Jose nods his head and continues to type on his iPad. Elmer increases the
volume on his computer after selecting a favorite song.
A few minutes later, the two friends talk about an English assignment. They are
reading Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” in Ms. Brown’s class. “It was
funny,” says Jose, “Because no one got it. And then, Diane said she thought it was about
abortion. Then everyone was like, ‘Ohhhhh.’”
“Of course, Diane got it,” jokes Elmer.
The two chat and browse Facebook. The scene continues for two hours. Then,
Elmer receives a text message from his mother. “I gotta go,” says Elmer, “I have to help
my mom.” He and Jose informally shake hands. Elmer exits the apartment and rides his
bike home.
Chuck and Tommy. Throughout the year, Chuck invites friends to his house (see
Figure 5). He posts on Facebook, “LMS [Like my status] if you want to come over to the
mansion” or “LMS if you want to chill wit me today.” The friends usually visit on
Saturday or Sunday. The exception is Chuck’s best friend Tommy, who visits two to
three times a week. As I state in a previous section, Tommy stays over often enough that
Chuck’s grandmother bought him a mattress. The best friends watch movies, use social
media, play music and video games, and occasionally smoke marijuana. On the days
when they want to smoke marijuana, they go to the skate park or outside of the house.
Chuck says, “We respect grandma. We don’t do it in the house.” The two occasionally
discuss college. Unlike Carlos, Elmer, and Jose, who discuss college often, Chuck and
Tommy do not talk about the details of the college application process.
192

An average day. After school, Chuck and Tommy stay in Chuck’s room where he
has a television and Xbox 360. The two play Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe, a fighting
game. The teenagers tease each other loudly, drawing the attention Chuck’s 11-year-old
brother. He enters the room to watch. Soon after, their grandma enters.
“Grandma, you want to play?” asks Tommy. He hands the controller to her.
“Come on, Grandma,” says Chuck, “I’m Green Lantern. You’re the Flash”
They fight. Her character falls down: “Oh, you think you’re doing something!
Watch me get up! Watch me get up!” Her character attacks Green Lantern: “Oh, you
talking smack? Watch me get you ghetto-style!” Green Lantern falls and Chuck and
Tommy erupt in noise and laughter.
“You won!” yells Tommy.
“Oh yeah,” says grandma, “I was just pushing buttons.” When the celebration
ends, Chuck’s grandmother and brother leave the room.
Chuck and Tommy talk about a recent party while playing the video game. Chuck
asks, “Did you see that one with the big booty?” Tommy responds, “Oh, she ratchet.”
Ratchet is a derogatory term used to describe a promiscuous teenager.
After a pause, the conversation shifts. Chuck asks, “What do you think it’s going
to be like when I’m at college next year?”
Tommy replies, “You’ll be doing your thing. I’m just gonna stay here and do my
thing. Then, I’ll be there next year.”
As they continue playing, the two check Facebook and text message
intermittently. Bored, Chuck writes, “LMS [Like my status] to receive a shout-out from
193

me and Tommy.” As friends like the status, Chuck makes comments to Tommy and then
writes the names on a list. When ten people like the status, he makes the video. Sitting in
front of his computer, he works his way down the list. For Anthony, he says, “Wasssup
Anthony, it’s been a minute since we seen each other. You’re cool though.” After a few
more shout-outs, he stops at Betty. “Betty,” he says as he makes a face, “To be honest, I
don’t even know who you are. Who are you? Well, wassup anyway?” The video lasts for
over five minutes. He uploads it to Facebook. Chuck types, “LMS if you want to get
stuuuuupid faded [high] ^__^.” Afterwards, the two walk to the living room and ask
Chuck’s grandmother to take them to the skate park.
Chris and his crew. Chris—with Sean and Morris—visits Terrance’s apartment
everyday after school (see Figure 5). Terrance, who attends Brookline Continuation High
School (BCHS), lives by himself. Like Morris, he aspires to attend community college.
At Terrance’s, the teenagers play video games, gamble, talk, and smoke marijuana. They
rarely discuss college and, when they do, they tease each other about attending
community college. As the reader may remember, I discussed an average gathering at
Terrance’s when I described Chris in the first section. Below, I present a brief snapshot to
remind the reader of the setting.
An average day. Chris, Morris, and Sean arrive at Terrance’s apartment building.
Terrance, who gets out of school 30 minutes before his three friends, opens the door. The
apartment smells like smoke. After greeting each other, the friends sit down and share a
blunt. Morris and Terrance smoke every day. Sean smokes a little less. Chris smokes the
least.
194

Sean jokes, “Boy, I’m about to take that money.” He turns on the Xbox 360 to
play NBA 2k12, a basketball game. Sean and Chris select teams and bet $20 on the game.
As they play, they tease each other. Sean exclaims, “Boy, you some garbage!” as he
makes a three-point field goal. The teenagers continue to play against each other for the
next two hours. As they play, they recount stories from the day as well as tease one
another. Topics include the day’s events, females, and basketball.
At 6:00 p.m., Chris receives a call from his mother. Before answering, he tells his
friends to be quiet. After the brief call, he asks Morris to drive him home. He says, “My
brother is home alone. She gets upset when no one’s there to watch him.” The two
teenagers leave.
Neighborhood Capital at the Park
The park provides an unsupervised place to socialize with friends. Compared to
the participants’ apartments, which are often crowded with family members, the park
offers freedom and space. However, the ways in which the participants interact in and
interpret the parks varies. First, Jose, Carlos, and Elmer go to the park to play basketball.
They avoid gang members. Second, Chuck visits the park to skateboard. He occasionally
smokes marijuana. Although not in a gang, he is familiar to local gang members. Third,
Matthew goes to the park to hangout with friends and gang members. He also uses and
sells marijuana.
Jose, Carlos, and Elmer at Greenwood. Greenwood Park, the largest park in
Hurston Park, rests in the northeast corner of the city (see Figure 5). To Jose, Carlos, and
Elmer, the park has both positive and negative connotations. To all three teenagers, when
195

they are together, the park represents a place for camaraderie and recreation. To Jose and
Carlos, the park is also potentially a dangerous place. Jose, for instance, does not go to
Smallwood Recreation Complex. He says, “I haven’t been to Smallwood ever since
eighth grade. They killed my friend there,” he shakes his head, “I don’t go there.”
Similarly, even though the park is a block away, Carlos does not visit or walk through
Greenwood at night. Jose, Carlos, and Elmer play basketball or tennis at the park once a
week on Saturdays. During visits, they discuss their social lives, college, and aspirations
for the future.
An average day. On Saturday afternoon, Jose meets Carlos at Carlos’s house. The
two walk five minutes to Greenwood where they meet Elmer who holds a basketball.
Trees enclose large swaths of grass. At one end of the park is a small skate park. At the
other end are basketball courts, playground equipment, and a soccer field. Parked cars
overlook the fields. After school, families sit on the grass. African American and Latino
male teenagers skateboard at the skate park. On weekends, the soccer field bustles as
families watch their children play. Neighborhood residents walk on a nearby path. The
majority of park attendants are Latino/as.
Carlos, Jose, and Elmer walk to an open basketball court. On the other side of the
court, three African American men play. The three friends take turns shooting. Before
shooting, each teenager presents a hypothetical situation. Jose refers to the fortune-telling
diversion as the “Game of Luck.” Before Jose heaves the ball into the air, he says, “If I
make this basket, Carlos will go out with Diane.” As he shoots, Arnold shouts, “Kobe!”
196

Jose misses and the teenagers laugh. Next, Elmer dribbles twice and says, “If I make this
basket, Jose will get into Irvine.” He makes the basket and all three teenagers cheer.
Carlos watches Jose shoot. He asks, “Which one do you think is better: UCLA or
Irvine?” He continues, “Well, even if I get rejected from UCLA, the people from EAOP
[Early Academic Outreach Program] will appeal for me.” The friends debate the pros and
cons of both schools. Carlos and Jose then discuss living together off-campus and
commuting to UCLA. They plan to rent a house and then rent rooms in order to make
money.
The friends play basketball and talk for three hours. The conversation focuses on
the remainder of their senior year and their plans for college. Afterwards, they walk to
McDonald’s to eat.
Chuck at Birch. Birch Park is located in the southeast corner of Hurston Park
(see Figure 5). Because of the park’s location, only two of the participants—Chuck and
Elmer—regularly visit the park. Elmer, with friends Brian and Carl, visits the park during
the fall to smoke marijuana. Chuck, often with Tommy, visits the park three to four times
a week. He skates for two to three hours. During that time, he also talks to friends, posts
to Facebook, and smokes marijuana.
An average day. Birch Park contains large green spaces dotted with playground
equipment, basketball courts, and a skate park. Crowds of teenagers amass around the
skate park and the basketball courts. The groups differ considerably. The basketball
players are predominantly African American and wear baggy shirts and shorts. The
skateboarders are a mix of African Americans and Latinos. They wear skinny jeans and
197

baggy tees or flannel shirts. Many wear hats with the bills turned upwards at the ends.
Chuck wears a Volcom hoody, which he takes off after getting hot, a college summit t-
shirt, and a hat with a pin that reads, “If it weren’t for pot, I would be a serial killer.”
Skaters flash across the park on their boards. Every once and a while, two
narrowly avoid collisions. They stop, look at each other, and keep moving. Chuck skates
around. He ollies. He does manuals. Occasionally, he rides off the edge of a jump. He
listens to his iPod while he skates. His playlist includes local artists including Tyler the
Creator, a rapper whom Chuck knows through one of his dance groups.
The park becomes increasingly crowded. A group of skaters walks to the corner
of the park. They hold black bags. One Latino boy opens a 40-ounce Miller High Life
beer. They skate around. Every once and a while they return to take gulps from the beer
can.
After a few minutes, Chuck tires. He and Tommy sit on the corner of a ramp.
They discuss their performances. Chuck gives tips to Tommy. Chuck comments about
another skater’s shoes. He is envious. A few friends arrive. They slap hands and then
Chuck and Tommy resume skating. A similar pattern of skating and then breaking and
talking occurs for the next two hours until Chuck’s grandmother arrives.
Matthew at Smallwood. Smallwood Recreation Complex rests in the northwest
corner of Hurston Park (see Figure 5). During the fall, Matthew visits the park twice a
week. He boxes or plays basketball at the gymnasium. During the winter and spring, he
visits the park every day for two to three hours. He interacts with peers and smokes or
sells marijuana. He describes his time at the park as his “job.”
198

An average day. The walk from HPHS to Smallwood Recreation Complex takes
ten minutes. Outside of the high school, Matthew calls to Darius, a fellow gang member.
Darius repeatedly jumps around as he approaches Matthew. “It’s on! It’s on!” he says,
“We banging today. It’s on!” A car pulls up. Darius runs to the car. He tells Matthew to
call him later and then disappears around the corner. Matthew says, “Wow, it’s poppin’
today. They really tryin’ to bang.”
After crossing the busy intersection, Matthew passes the police station where he
used to participate as an Explorer. He then walks next to the middle school where his
cousin attends. The Prince Street train tracks demarcate an important boundary. Matthew
says, “This is our turf. Nobody come in here, especially after last week.” Twenty or so
gang members fought ten members of a rival gang: “The police broke it up,” he says,
“I’m glad I wasn’t here. I’m not trying to go to jail.”
Matthew swings his backpack around as we near the park. He holds out a folding
knife with a three and a half inch blade. “Take this,” he says, “You might need it.” I
refuse. Tiara, one of two friends who walk with Matthew, gets excited: “Oh no, Randy
gangster. Just remember, if they press you, you got to get crazy.” She yells, “Nigga, I’m
Randy. I’ll cut you!” They laugh. Matthew warns me about one of his gang members:
“He’s big. Big. If he press you, you got to press back hard.”
Matthew and Tiara talk about school. Matthew says he needs to improve his
grades in Spanish before he goes back to boxing or Explorers. Tiara asks if the Spanish
teacher knows that Matthew is a gangbanger. He responds, “She does now after Mario [a
rival gang member] came in there. That was instant action. He wouldn’t sit next to me.
199

We both had to go to Ms. June [an assistant principal]. She’s wanted me out of school
since I was a freshman.”
Matthew enters the park. A man walks across the baseball diamond. Matthew
exclaims, “Who the fuck is that?”
Tiara comments, “Oh, get ready for different Matthew. He’s with his homies now.
He’s a different person. Watch him switch.”
Matthew continues, “No, really, who the fuck is that? He walking with glasses
and a hat like he not trying to be seen.” Matthew walks ahead of us. His stride is
exaggerated.
We near the skate park. Tiara, with her friend Asia, walks over to the swings.
Matthew walks into the bathroom. After a few moments, seven young men exit. One is
Samoan; the others are Latinos. The Samoan, whose name is Rob, smokes a joint. The
other teenagers return to the skate park. Matthew looks at a nearby wall where someone
painted over his gang graffiti. “Man,” he says, “Someone always be covering my spot. I
need a marker.”
In the community center, Matthew shakes the hands of people as we pass them. A
group of five men play basketball. In one room, a middle-aged man sits on a metal
folding chair and watches television. Behind him sits a man in his early 20s; tattoos cover
his neck and arms. Behind him are two pool tables. Four males, ranging from their late
teens to early 20s, play. Matthew says, “Bigs, this is Randy.” The man shakes my hand
and then returns to watching the television. We leave the room. Matthew says, “G-dog,”
the nickname he calls me, “do you know who you just shook hands with? That’s the
200

Devil. That’s Bigs. He run this whole place.” Later, Matthew tells me that Bigs does not
live in Hurston Park. He lives in a four-bedroom house in a nearby, more affluent
neighborhood. “He has a lot of pitbulls,” he says, “Did you feel his hands? They’re
rough. You don’t fuck with him.”
Matthew stands outside near the skate park. I ask about all the teenagers standing
around. “They all dropped out,” Matthew says, “They come here and skate and smoke
dope. That’s their lives.” Rob the Samoan approaches. Matthew says he is thinking about
robbing some people. He needs money.
The conversation switches to females. “They’re a lot of ratchets up here,” says
Rob. Just then, a teenager walks by the skaters. She hands one of them a package and
walks away with her friend. Matthew yells out, “Hey! Hey!” The skater walks over. “Yo,
what’d she give you?” asks Matthew. The boy shrugs his shoulders: “Nothing.” Matthew
tells him to walk away. “I’m going to talk to him later,” he says, “He thinks we didn’t see
that. They trying to sell around here. They can’t do that. They got to pay taxes.” The
skaters pay to skate at the park.
Rob walks away. He holds his hands as he walks. Matthew says, “He’s a warrior.
That means he fights. He holds his hands so people know. Either they do that or they put
their hands down here.” He places his hands near his belt: “That means they’re holding.
They’re the ones that got guns.”
Two teenagers from HPHS approach Matthew. They are en route to a friend’s to
smoke marijuana.
“You coming?” one asks.
201

“Nah, Dee’s grandma crazy,” says Matthew.
Next, a teenage boy approaches. “What’s up?” he says. Matthew nods. The two
exchange small talk.
“We sparred. Remember?” says the boy.
“Oh yeah, where you go?” asks Matthew.
“I go to an arts school in Hollywood. I got kicked out of like three schools.”
“Man, you got to keep them academics straight,” says Matthew, “That’s what I
know. I fucked around. I don’t even know what I’m doing. Academics is the way out.”
“Yeah, you holding?” the boy asks.
“Yeah, but you got to wait for big homie to come up here.”
“You got weed?”
“Yeah, I got kush. How much you trying to get?”
“My brother told me to get 1/8
th
. How much is it?”
“It’s $35, and that’s good.”
“Yeah, you pay $50 at the medical marijuana places.”
The boy says he will return in a few minutes. In a moment of retrospection,
Matthew concludes, “Well G-dog, this is it. This is the life of a banger, a lot of standing
around and doing nothing. Niggas go to jail for this.”
The Relationships among Context, Capital, and College Access
College readiness and access is the product of the places a teenager visits, the
people with whom he interacts, and the manner in which he interprets the contexts (see
Table 14). However, as the above examples evidence, the relationships among
202

individuals, places, and contexts are complex. In the following sections, I summarize
briefly the main points of the relationship between place and social and cultural capital.
Table 14. Context of Neighborhood Capital

Activity Adults Peers
Drugs
Present
Discuss
College
Hours
per
Week
On School Campus
Carlos YUPA
Director
(Jason)
High
achieving
No Often 3
Chris Mentoring
Teacher (Ms.
Arnold) and
College
Mentor
(Randy)
High
achieving
No Often 1
Chuck Night School
Teacher /
Substitute
Low
achieving
Often Rarely 6
With Friends
Jose
TV / Video games /
Music / Social
Media
Jose’s father
High
achieving
Rarely Often 20
Chuck
TV / Video games /
Music / Social
Media
Chuck’s
grandmother
Low
achieving
Sometimes Sometimes 16
Chris
Video games /
Gambling
N/A
Low
achieving
Often Rarely 15
At the Park
Carlos,
Jose, and
Elmer
Basketball N/A
High
achieving
Never Often 3
Chuck Skateboarding N/A
Low
achieving
Often Sometimes 12
Matthew
Hanging out /
Selling drugs
Gang Leader
(Bigs)
Low
achieving
/ dropouts
Always Rarely 20
Same places, different capital. As I elaborate in Chapter 5, even when teenagers
live in the same spaces, their experiences and interpretations vary due to individual,
family, and neighborhood factors. Although Carlos, Chris, and Chuck all stay after
203

school, the purposes of their stay and the people with whom they interact differ. Carlos
associates with high achieving peers and assumes leadership responsibilities. Chris
receives mentorship during the college application process. While both Carlos and Chris
benefit from staying after school, Chuck does not receive the instruction he needs and
interacts with underperforming peers.
The park provides another example of how teenagers interpret the same place in
divergent ways. Carlos and Jose ignore the negative elements including drugs and gang
violence. Elmer ignores them when he is with Carlos and Jose; however, he smokes
marijuana with Brian and Carl. Chuck skates and smokes marijuana. Matthew embraces
the gang life. He both uses and sells drugs at the park. The teenagers demonstrate how the
people with whom teenagers interact as well as manner in which they interpret a setting
affect their actions.
Different places, different capital. The divergent experiences of teenagers in
different places illustrate the dynamic nature of social and cultural capital. Jose, Carlos,
and Elmer demonstrate how college-going teenagers discuss college even when they are
away from school. Chris illustrates the negative role of peers as he associates with
underachievers who regularly use drugs. Similarly, gang members and role models stunt
Matthew’s college readiness and illustrate negative examples of resource brokerage as his
gang leader provides him with drugs and a gun.
Taken together, the above examples highlight two important features of
developing a college-going identity. First, social capital, including peers and resource
brokers, is paramount to reinforcing select forms of cultural capital. Second, teenagers
204

with opportunities to practice dominant cultural capital reinforce it in a variety of
settings.
Chapter Summary
Throughout the chapter, I present the lives of six teenagers in order to illustrate
the sources and influences of cultural heterogeneity. The adolescents share certain
characteristics, namely race, class, and location. However, differences among individual-,
family-, and neighborhood-level factors contribute to the multitude of educational
pathways and barriers available to teenagers. These pathways and barriers augment based
on the teenagers’ unique meaning-making processes. I argue that learning takes place at
all times in a variety of settings. From participating in after-school activities to
socializing with friends, what adolescents do and the people with whom they interact
either reinforce or detract from college readiness and access.
In the final chapter, I return to the aims of the study and the research questions. I
review the major points of the study’s methodology and the theoretical framework. I then
synthesize and discuss the data. I conclude with implications for policy, practice, and
research.
205

Chapter 5

Explaining Cultural Heterogeneity

“If you grow up in the South Bronx today or in South Central Los Angeles or Pittsburgh
or Philadelphia, you quickly come to understand that you have been set apart and that
there's no will in this society to bring you back into the mainstream.”
—Jonathan Kozol

“Why are so many young men underachieving at Hurston Park?” asks Ms. Arnold
to her Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) 12 students. After a moment
of silence, Matthew responds: “I think it because we got other concerns. It’s not just
about school. It’s about survival. It’s about getting that respect, becoming known.” As he
talks, Theresa, who sits next to him, rolls her eyes.
“Well,” Carlos begins, “I’ve been studying the ninth graders.” Classmates laugh.
He continues, “They just don’t know what they’re doing. They don’t have any
aspirations. I ask, ‘What do you want to do?’ They say, ‘Play basketball.’ I ask, ‘Well,
academically, what do you want to do?’ They don’t have an answer. They never even
think about it. I think we need to spend time with them. To become their friends and give
them guidance.”
Jose interjects, “Well, I think it’s No Child Left Behind, which passed in 2002.
It’s social promotion. They just pass students to the next grade.”
206

“I don’t think that true,” responds Chris, “I mean, like, what do you want? You
want a 15-year-old in a fourth grade class. All the kids gonna look at him and be like,
‘Why he here?’”
“So,” interrupts Ms. Arnold, “What’s the answer, Chris? Every Saturday you
spend time with high-achieving students who go to fancy private schools for the Bridges
Program. What do they have that you don’t?”
“I just think it’s the parents. Like, everyone expects them to go to college. And
they always be doing stuff. Even when they’re not in school, they do stuff. And here, we
got other things to worry about. We got to deal with the ghetto. And, we never really
think about nothing past the neighborhood.”
Across from Chris, a female’s face contorts. “That’s bull!” she exclaims, “If you
want to be something, then you be something. People use too many excuses. All of us got
reasons not to make it. All of us raised by our grandma or mom. We all live here. We’re
going to college.”
As the conversation continues, I listen to the group of teenagers unknowingly
rehash common debates among scholars, practitioners, and policymakers. Why do some
African American and Latino male teenagers in low-income neighborhoods succeed
while a disproportionate number underachieve? As the data from the previous chapter
illustrate, numerous reasons exist that explain both success and failure. Scholarly
discussions often coalesce around arguments such as structure versus culture, school
versus home, and structure versus agency (Carter, 2007; Harding, 2010; Harding et al.,
2011; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Lareau, 2003b; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Noguera,
207

2008; Rumbaut, 2011; Small & Newman, 2001). For this study, I apply a cultural
framework to refocus attention to teenagers living and learning in a low-income
neighborhood.
Understanding how growing up in a low-income neighborhood influences the
lives and educations of teenagers is a critical, yet understudied, aspect of educational
research (F. Furstenberg & Hughes, 1997; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Lamont & Small,
2008; Small & Newman, 2001). Over the past four decades in the United States,
concentrated poverty has increased discriminately by class, race, and ethnicity (DeNavas-
Walt et al., 2010; Jargowsky, 1997; Massey & Denton, 1993; Orfield & Lee, 2005;
Reardon, 2011; Wacquant, 2008; Wilson, 2009). Although reformers argue that school
choice and technology are lessening the role of place and increasing educational
opportunity, a surfeit of neighborhood effects studies demonstrates the stratification of
opportunity that occurs as a result of growing up in a low-income neighborhood (Earls &
Carlson, 2001; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Rothstein,
2004; Tienda, 1991; Wilson, 1987).
By focusing on the lives of college-going teenagers during their senior year, the
study highlights the sources and influences of cultural heterogeneity as teenagers
navigate manifold pathways to and away from postsecondary education. Five research
questions guide the study. The overarching question is “What is the conceptual and actual
relationship between teenagers and their neighborhoods.” From this initial question, four
questions follow:
208

1. How, with whom, and for what purpose do teenagers spend their time after
school?
2. How do institutional agents, e.g. teachers, coaches, pastors, mentors,
peers, and even gang members, serve as resource brokers?
3. How, and for what purpose, do teenagers make sense of dominant and
non-dominant social and cultural capital?
4. Does cultural heterogeneity affect the educational outcomes of adolescents
and, if so, in what ways?
In this final chapter, I revisit the major elements of the study and examine the
data. The remainder of the text includes five sections. First, I summarize the study.
Second, I discuss the research design and limitations. Third, I review a theory of cultural
heterogeneity and emphasize the forms of neighborhood capital. Fourth, I synthesize the
data into three findings and discuss them in relation to cultural heterogeneity. Fifth, I
conclude with a discussion of implications for policy, practice, and research.
Summary of Study
The study examines the lives of African American and Latino teenage males in a
low-income neighborhood. Drawing from a sociological tradition, I explore the role of
neighborhood mechanisms, a revitalized development of neighborhood research (Harding
et al., 2011; Small & Newman, 2001). From the abundance of neighborhood effects
studies during the 1990s and 2000s, scholars concluded that, although neighborhoods
matter, the ways in which they matter are often unclear and sometimes controversial
(Harding et al., 2011; Noguera, 2008; Small & Newman, 2001). A study of neighborhood
209

mechanisms allows for the comprehensive exploration and examination of variables that
often lead to conflicting findings. Scholars focus attention on the question of how
neighborhoods influence individuals in general and teenagers in particular (Harding,
2010; Sampson et al., 1999; Small, 2004).
I focus on how cultural heterogeneity—defined as the multiplicity of cultural
knowledge, beliefs, and practices—affects educational outcomes (Hannerz, 1969;
Harding, 2010; Liebow, 1967; Wirth, 1938). I develop a theory of cultural heterogeneity
based on the sources and influences of neighborhood social and cultural capital. In other
words, I asked where, with whom, and for what purpose do adolescents spend their time,
and how do these experiences influence educational outcomes? Contrary to previous
arguments that claim low-income neighborhoods are isolated from dominant culture
(Wacquant & Wilson, 1989a; Wilson, 1987, 1996, 2009), I view the neighborhood as a
location of stores of both dominant and non-dominant social and cultural capital (Carter,
2007). Counter to current policy designs that concentrate primarily on learning in schools
and classrooms (No Child Left Behind, 2002), I focus on learning across the
neighborhood.
Research Design and Limitations
In order to examine cultural heterogeneity as a neighborhood mechanism, I
employed ethnography, which refers to process and product of research. Ethnography is
the study and presentation of lived experiences (Agar, 1980; Hammersley & Atkinson,
1995; Wolcott, 1995). Data collection included four methods—participant observations,
210

interviews, fieldnotes, and document analysis. Of note, document analysis occurred
entirely with digital data.
Hurston Park, California, a small city in South Los Angeles, was the location of
the research site. I initially identified the neighborhood using high school catchment
zones (Jencks & Mayer, 1990). However, two factors—urban sprawl and gang
territories—made defining the neighborhood methodologically challenging. Participants
did not live in concentrated areas. More importantly, for a majority of the 60 teenagers,
gang territories governed the construction of real and imagined boundaries. As a result,
drawing from the Los Angeles School (Davis, 2006; Dear, 2002; Soja, 1989), I defined
Hurston Park as a fractured neighborhood, a controlling site comprised of contested, and
sometimes rival, sub-sites. Participants uniquely constructed and interpreted one
neighborhood in multiple fashions. The neighborhood was composed of physical and
symbolic obstacles. Symbolic boundaries explained why some teenagers went to a park
or walked down a street while others did not.
Three schools—Hurston Park High School (HPHS), Success Academy (SA), and
Brookline Continuation High School (BCHS)—served as the focal points of the study.
The schools were located within three blocks of each other. My goal was to study a wide
range of students. The 60 teenagers who participated in interviews represented a
convenience sample. To lessen sampling bias—the most likely students to participate
would potentially be high achievers—choosing schools by achievement provided the
opportunity for a broader sample. To select the informants for participant observation, I
used stratified purposeful sampling, which facilitated comparisons among subgroups
211

(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Four criteria—race, academic achievement, after-school
activities, and rapport—guided my selection.
Data collection occurred from September through May, with the most intensive
period occurring from September to January. In general, collection occurred in two
waves. During the first wave, I interviewed 60 students. Concurrently, I conducted
observations at key sites across Hurston Park. During the second wave, I conducted
follow-up interviews and observations with 15 students, eventually focusing more and
more on six teenagers. In addition, I interviewed important figures, including parents,
teachers, and resource brokers. Document analysis occurred throughout the study.
Data analysis, which occurred concurrent to data collection, involved three stages:
data reduction, data display, and final interpretation and verification (Miles & Huberman,
1994). Data reduction included transcribing interviews, writing fieldnotes and memos,
and developing codes. Data display, the graphical representation of data reduction,
facilitated interpretation. I used Atlas.ti, computer assisted qualitative data analysis
software (CAQDAS), to organize, store, present, and map data. Final interpretation and
verification occurred as I returned to original data sources as well as employed strategies
to improve trustworthiness.
To ensure trustworthiness (Tierney & Clemens, 2011), I relied on four main
strategies: triangulation, member checks, peer review, and thick description.
Triangulation included using interview, observations, and document analysis; I also
collected data at multiple times and across multiple sites. Member checks included asking
participants as well as trusted adults in the neighborhood for feedback. For peer review, I
212

asked colleagues to review my interpretations and writing. Lastly, because
trustworthiness pertains to both the process and product of research, I employed thick
description to facilitate transferability.
Limitations
The study includes four primary limitations. The first limitation pertains to the
size and scope of the sample. I interviewed 60 of approximately 250 male seniors at the
three high schools. I conducted participant observations and follow-up interviews
throughout the year with six teenagers. I focused in-depth on a narrow sample of
informants. All six attended the same school and aspired to matriculate to a four-year
university. Therefore, the sample is not representative of all male seniors at the three high
schools. In addition, I did not include high school dropouts or teenagers who attended
charter schools in neighboring areas.
The second limitation concerns the length of the study. I focus on the lives of
teenagers during their senior year, a critical nine-month period. However, adolescence is
a time of rapid change. Significant transformations may have occurred from ninth to
twelfth grade as parents and guardians granted the teenagers more freedom to explore the
neighborhood and surrounding areas. Similarly, I did not chronicle the teenagers’
transitions from high school to college, when their understandings of their neighborhood
and their relationship to it may again have changed. As a result, the trustworthiness of the
data is limited in regard to length of the study.
The third limitation relates to the generalizability of the research. As I note in
Chapter 3, qualitative research does not generalize. Although scholars and policymakers
213

often discuss low-income neighborhoods as if they are all the same, stark and subtle
differences exist among them (Small, 2004, 2007, 2008). Transferability offers a more
appropriate alternative to generalizability (Lincoln, 2001; Tierney & Clemens, 2011).
Rather than the researcher applying his or her findings to other settings, she or he
provides enough description to allow receiving contexts to decide whether or not they
want to use the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Considering the federal government’s
Promise Neighborhoods (U. S. Department of Education, 2010), the distinction between
generalizability and transferability is critical as reformers seek to replicate the success of
Harlem Children’s Zone, a place-based reform model, in cities across the country.
The last limitation regards the relationship between the participants and myself.
The social position of a researcher affects every aspect of a study, from design to
presentation. I am a white male who conducts research with African American and Latino
teenagers. Certainly, in terms of trustworthiness of research, I have to consider how my
race, class, gender, and age affect the data I gather. Does a 17-year-old black male
respond differently to me than someone of a different race or class? Considering my
interpretations, how is what I write different than, what Robin D. G. Kelley (1997) calls,
the “ghetto ethnographies” of the 1960s? Am I refuting or reinforcing stereotypes? To
improve trustworthiness, I implemented a host of strategies, which I discuss in Chapter 3.
However, the data is limited in that I did not include investigators with diverse social
backgrounds.

214

Revisiting a Theory Cultural Heterogeneity
The study examines cultural heterogeneity as a neighborhood mechanism. Recall
from Chapter 2 the major differences between the classical cultural and cultural
heterogeneity perspectives. First, the classical perspective examines differences between
mainstream culture and non-mainstream subcultures whereas the cultural heterogeneity
perspective accounts for diversity across and within neighborhoods and individuals
(Harding, 2010). Second, while the classical perspective often construes culture as a
coherent value-based system, the cultural heterogeneity perspective views culture as
cognitive (DiMaggio, 1997; Swidler, 1986). Third, cultural heterogeneity highlights
cultural dynamism and complexity, which often vary depending on variables such as
race, ethnicity, gender, class, and sexuality (Carter, 2007, 2010; Kelley, 1997). Despite
the past popularity of the classical cultural perspective in neighborhood research, the
three key differences suggest that the cultural heterogeneity perspective will assume a
greater role in future scholarship (Small & Feldman, 2012).
To create a theory of cultural heterogeneity, I adopt concepts from Bourdieu’s
(1977, 1986) theory of practice, which explains how, in a society of scarce resources,
individuals compete for social positions and unknowingly reproduce hierarchies. In
particular, I use cultural heterogeneity as a vehicle to examine the sources and influences
of social and cultural capital.
Bourdieu’s theory of practice (1977, 1986) describes how and why some students
succeed while others fail; however, it includes several shortcomings. First, Bourdieu
ignores the role of non-dominant capital (Giroux, 1983; Yosso, 2005). Although not
215

always recognized in school, non-dominant social and cultural capital is critical to the
lives of teenagers (J. Baratz & S. Baratz, 1970; S. Baratz & J. Baratz, 1970; Carter, 2007;
Delpit, 2006; Gutiérrez et al., 2009; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Moll, 1992; Valenzuela,
1999; Yosso, 2005). As a result, I examine both dominant and non-dominant social and
cultural capital (see Figure 6).
I define a variety of forms of social and cultural capital. While I present a number
of categories (see Figure 6), the data in Chapter 4 illustrate that the distinctions are
sometimes facile. Consider, for instance, the ways in which peers serve as sources of both
dominant and non-dominant social capital. A classification of peers as either dominant or
non-dominant fails to capture their dynamism. As a result, I offer the following
definitions as a theoretical tool to understand the data and also acknowledge the
limitations of using typologies to interpret the myriad, and sometimes singular,
experiences of teenagers (Kelley, 1997).
Dominant social capital refers to the current or potential resources—information,
influence, social credentials, and reinforcement—that accrue from social ties with
individuals connected to mainstream institutions and resources (Bourdieu, 1986;
Coleman, 1990; Lin, 1999, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 1997); non-dominant social capital
refers to the current or potential resources that accrue from social ties with individuals not
connected to mainstream institutions and resources. Dominant cultural capital refers to
the formal and informal knowledge and practices of social groups who have historically
controlled mainstream institutions (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977); non-
dominant cultural capital refers to formal and informal knowledge and practices of non-
216

dominant social groups who have historically been excluded access to mainstream
institutions (Carter, 2007). Each neighborhood contains a unique configuration of
dominant and non-dominant symbolic capital, which I refer to as neighborhood capital.
Because scholars use a variety of definitions for cultural capital, I narrowly define
dominant and non-dominant cultural capital. To define dominant cultural capital, I use
the four dimensions of college readiness: cognitive strategies, content knowledge,
academic behaviors, and contextual skills and awareness (Conley, 2011). For non-
dominant cultural capital, I draw from the theory of community wealth (Yosso, 2005),
which recognizes the cultural strengths of non-dominant communities. I focus on five
forms: family, aspirational, and resilience, creative, and street capital. I return to a
discussion of these forms of dominant and non-dominant cultural capital in the findings.
Lastly, I describe a college-going identity as an individual’s ability and
willingness to navigate diverse social worlds. The development of a college-going
identity increases the likelihood that a student will not only aspire to attend college but
also cultivate the strategies, knowledge, behaviors, and skills and awareness necessary to
gain acceptance to and succeed in postsecondary education (Conley, 2011). I use resource
brokerage and concerted learning—both of which I discuss in Finding 3—to describe the
processes of capital exchange throughout the neighborhood. Resource brokerage
describes the process that occurs when an institutional agent links dominant and non-
dominant capital to a recipient (Burt, 2005; Carter, 2007; Small, 2009b). Concerted
learning focuses on prolonged exposure to and practice of cultural capital (Lareau,
217

2003b). Both processes either contribute to or detract from the development of a college-
going identity.

Findings
The data in the previous chapter illustrate the pathways and barriers to college
access for teenagers in low-income neighborhoods. I synthesize the data into three major
findings, which underscore the research questions and inform a theory of cultural
heterogeneity:
Figure 6. Forms of Neighborhood Capital
Neighborhood
Capital
Social Capital
Dominant
Information
Influence
Social
Credentials
Reinforcement
Non-dominant
Cultural Capital
Dominant
Cognitive
Strategies
Content
Knowledge
Academic
Behaviors
Contextual Skills
and Awareness
Non-dominant
Family Capital
Aspirational
Capital
Resilience
Capital
Creative Capital
Street Capital
218

1. Non-dominant social and cultural capital serves both positive and negative
purposes.
2. Teenagers in a low-income neighborhood have uneven access to and use
of dominant social and cultural capital.
3. Students who access and use dominant social and cultural capital are more
likely to develop a college-going identity.
The following sections expand on each of the three findings. I focus on the micro-actions
of teenagers as they pertain to neighborhood capital. While the findings include a number
of references to the data and theoretical framework, rather than overwhelming the reader
with factoids and concepts, my overall goal is to explore the relationship between cultural
heterogeneity and the educational practices and outcomes of African American and
Latino male teenagers. Although some scholars dismiss cultural explanations as
ambiguous and ineffectual (Hays, 1994), college access is the product of deliberate and
discernable cultural processes in and out of school. To understand these processes is to
appreciate the challenges teenagers encounter in low-income neighborhoods and
acknowledge the inequitable arrangement of opportunity in educational systems.
Finding 1: Non-dominant Social and Cultural Capital Serves Both Positive and
Negative Purposes.
Non-dominant social capital. As the data from Chapter 4 illustrate, non-
dominant social capital serves both positive and negative purposes. Recall that non-
dominant social capital refers to the current or potential resources that accrue from social
ties with individuals not connected to mainstream institutions and resources (Lin, 1999,
219

2001; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). In what follows, I discuss the four major resources of non-
dominant social capital—information, influence, respect, and belonging; I organize the
categories based on the data as well as resources typically associated with dominant
social capital (Lin, 1999, 2001).
Information. The exchange of information is the most basic and common
resource. There were two major features of the information exchanges. First, participants
constantly exchanged information among their peer groups, more than any other group
such as teachers or family members. What is the homework for Ms. Brown? What time is
the football game? When is the deadline for the Gates Scholarship? Should I work during
college? The questions were most often simple, but important. In addition, technology
facilitated the information exchange. Both peers and information were available at all
times via digital media.
Second, while participants exchanged information frequently, the information was
not always correct. For instance, when discussing matters pertaining to college, the
participants often provided misinformation. The largest discrepancies between correct
and incorrect information occurred among the highest and lowest achievers. An important
element of the exchange concerned the ability to question the validity of information.
Comparing Carlos and Chuck, for instance, the difference between the two regarded their
facility to access and use dominant capital. When seeking information, Carlos asked
people with dominant capital. Chuck preferred to network with his peer group. He rarely
verified information with dominant capital holders. Whereas Carlos actively questioned,
220

Chuck passively accepted information. The ability to access and assess information
created disparities during the college application process.
Influence. The data from Chapter 4 demonstrate the multiple ways in which non-
dominant social capital yielded influence. Influence produced both positive and negative
results. It was also bi-directional. In other words, while a teenager may have benefited
from the prestige of another, he also may have conceded to the pressure of group norms
or the duty to reciprocate favors (Pattillo-McCoy, 1999; Wilson, 1987).
Positive examples of influence include one friend redirecting another. Elmer often
benefitted from the studiousness of Carlos and Jose. As deadlines approached, Elmer
went to Jose’s apartment to work on applications. Similarly, many of the participants
stayed after school to participate in formal and supervised activities because their friends
remained after school. Recall Chris and his best friend Sean. Although they socialized
with a large group of friends after school, when alone together, they often meandered into
Ms. Arnold’s classroom to receive help with college applications.
Negative examples include distractions and mischief. The level of distractions
varied among participants. For Carlos, Jose, and Elmer, rather than completing college
applications, diversions included five- or ten-minute discussions about a post on
Facebook or if Carlos will find a date for prom. For Matthew and Chuck, the distractions
were more severe. For instance, in the winter, when Chuck turned 18, he smoked
marijuana frequently. He cited his uncle as a primary influence. Chuck continued using
drugs with friends for the rest of the school year. He also received positive reinforcement
from peers for his unique behaviors such as visiting skate shops every day and spending
221

money on both clothing and friends. Similarly, Matthew sold marijuana and completed
“missions,” in part, as a result of the pressure to fulfill gang obligations.
Respect. Respect, which often generated safety, was a concern for all of the
participants. I discuss street capital as a non-dominant form of cultural capital in a later
section; however, the concept, which draws from Elijah Anderson’s (1999) work on the
“code of the street,” is important for social capital as well. The code of the street provides
“a set of informal rules governing interpersonal public behavior, particularly violence.
The rules prescribe both proper comportment and the proper way to respond if
challenged” (Anderson, 1999, p. 33).
Critical to the code of the street is respect, which serves as an alternative to
money (Anderson, 1999). On their way to and from school and friends’ houses, the
participants traversed multiple gang territories. Each of the participants recounted stories
of being asked by older peers to identify their gang affiliation. As such, knowledge of the
informal rules and codes as well as influential people was critical.
Both Matthew and Chris admitted to receiving benefits from gang members.
Matthew, a gang member, received respect for completing missions. When in his
territory, the color red signified protection. Chris avoided gang membership; however, he
admitted that benefits accrued from knowing gang members. He stated, “[I]t’s good to
have a friend or someone in a gang. [Gang members] don’t mess with you.”
Carlos, Jose, and Elmer reacted against the code of the street and gang
involvement. When asked about gangs, Jose responded, “I don’t talk to gang members.”
His dad echoed the same sentiment: “I’d rather he be anything in life, just not a gang
222

member.” Different from Matthew, who found safety and respect with the gang members
in his neighborhood, Carlos, Jose, and Elmer forged their own group. Whether at school,
home, or locations around the neighborhood, they often stayed together. After school, the
friends walked home in pairs. Similarly, the friends visited the park together. They
provided a positive example of non-dominant social capital that arises from group
membership.
Belonging. The participants received belonging primarily from friends and
family. Peer groups formed based on factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, achievement
level, interests, and identity. For the six participants, peer groups were first divided by
race. Carlos, Jose, and Elmer shared the same peer group, which consisted of Latino/a
high achievers. The group members supported each other’s goal of matriculating to
college. Chris, Matthew, and Chuck each shared separate peer groups, all were
predominantly African American. When in school, Matthew’s peer group consisted of
high achievers; however, outside of school, his peer group included primarily gang
members from his neighborhood. When his mother became sick and he fought with his
aunt, he sought the camaraderie of his gang peers. Chris’s peer group of Sean, Morris,
and Terrance knew each other since third grade. And, Chuck’s peer group included
skateboarders and dancers. Each of the participant’s peer groups reinforced their own
cultural identities as well as the types of social and cultural capital to which they
gravitated.
Non-dominant cultural capital. The following sections discuss the role of non-
dominant cultural capital. I use the terms present in Chapter 2. As I previously state, the
223

list of non-dominant capital is not exhaustive; I focus on the five types that the
participants most exhibited (Table 15). The examples below emphasize the cultural
mismatch between the forms of capital that the participants possess and what the
educational system values.
Table 15. Non-Dominant Cultural Capital
Family
Capital
Aspirational
Capital
Resilience
Capital
Creativity
Capital
Street
Capital
Ranked
from
highest
to lowest
1. Carlos Carlos Jose Chuck Matthew
2. Jose Matthew Matthew Matthew Chris
3. Elmer Jose Chuck Chris Chuck
4. Chuck Chuck Elmer Jose Elmer
5. Chris Elmer Chris Elmer Jose
6. Matthew Chris Carlos Carlos Carlos
Family capital. Family capital describes the practices and knowledge transmitted
through kinship bonds (Yosso, 2005). It includes “a sense of community history, memory
and cultural intuition” (p.79). Of the six participants, only Chuck’s grandmother
graduated from a four-year university. From a traditional perspective, the parents’ have
little value in terms of dominant forms of symbolic capital. The parents’ level of
education is high school or less. They have scant knowledge of the college application
process or the skills necessary to succeed in postsecondary education. And yet, many of
the participants’ stories highlight the positive role of parents and family history. The three
Latino participants exhibited a strong connection to Mexico. All three discussed trips to
their home villages. They also revealed strong family ties. When discussing the daily
chores Elmer completed for his ailing sister, he plainly stated, “It’s just something I have
224

to do.” Jose warmly recounted the Sunday mornings he spent with his father. Chuck’s
family illustrated a strong sense of togetherness as four generations lived in the same
household. In addition, Chuck’s grandmother dedicated her time to driving Chuck to
events and then waited in the car until they finished. Chris’s mother helped her son’s
friend Terrance pay for his apartment after the death of his mother; Chris expressed the
same kinship bonds with his friends, particularly Sean. Although Matthew did not often
receive support from his aunt, he frequently discussed the influence of his deceased
grandmother as well as longing to reunite with and care for his sister. Viewing the
teenagers’ families from a traditional cultural capital lens ignores the rich histories of the
families and the positive results of strong family ties.
Aspirational capital. Aspirational capital describes the ability to envision a
positive future, even when barriers arise (Yosso, 2005). Aspirational capital primarily
stemmed from hardships endured in the household and seen around the neighborhood.
Although Chuck acknowledged grieving for his mother, he exuded a positive attitude
when he encountered setbacks. He performed the lowest academically of all six
participants and failed to pass the CAHSEE; still, he aspired to attend college and
maintained an optimistic outlook about his prospects.
Both Chris and Matthew discussed the importance of being the first in their
family to succeed, to refute stereotypes. Both of Chris’s older brothers dropped out of
college. Chris stated, “My mom, she’s always been on my head about college. I’m the
only person that’s been on the honor roll and stuff like that. She’s been harder on me.”
He also expressed a desire to be different than the African American men, including his
225

father, who achieved poor outcomes in the neighborhood. As a result, Chris aspired to
attend college. Matthew cited his grandmother and sister as critical to his motivation to
attend college. He named the negative examples of his parents as reasons why he wanted
to succeed. Daily observations also served as a source of aspirational capital. Both
Matthew and Chris provided examples from their neighborhood such as older peers who
worked low paying jobs and homeless individuals who asked for change.
Among the three Latino students, similarities existed. Insofar as each was a
second-generation immigrant, the manner in which they developed aspirational capital—
which I refer to as the immigrant bargain, “the expectation that children will redeem their
immigrant parents’ sacrifice through their own success” (Smith, 2008, p. 275)—differed
from the three African American participants. With Carlos, Jose, and Elmer, the
immigrant bargain was a central theme to their educational success. All three cited their
parents’ lack of opportunities as motivation to attend and succeed in college. Recall what
Jose said about wanting to attend college: “I want to be the changer for my family. Not
just my mom, dad, and sister, and me—I will be the first one in all of my family. They
either dropped out or they graduate but they never did the next step and they’re stuck
working at Burger King. I want to be successful. I want to repay all the hard work my dad
has put in.” Elmer discussed a similar motivation when talking about his sister with
lupus: “A main issue that is important to me, besides going to college, is my family. I
need to go to college to obtain a good job to help them. The fact that my sister is sick
with lupus it makes it hard for us already. That’s why I need to go to college.” For all
226

three of the participants, they felt a duty to repay through education the hardships their
parents and family members endured.
Resilience capital. Resilience capital describes the ability to endure difficult
circumstances. The type of capital draws from the theoretical history of inequality and
resistance (Freire, 2000; Giroux, 1983; McLaren, 1998; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal,
2001; P. Willis, 1977; Yosso, 2005). All of the participants and their families exemplified
resilience capital. Recall the deportation of Carlos’ father. Rather than conceding, his
father responded, “You know what, that’s not going to stop me.” Chris’s mother worked
and raised four boys after her husband was convicted of murder. Jose’s father worked a
full-time job even while suffering medical illnesses complicated by having AIDS.
Matthew accumulated resilience capital as someone who confronted numerous barriers
including his parents doing drugs and him becoming a ward of the state. Elmer’s mother
and sister both combatted terminal illnesses and mounting insurance costs. And, Chuck
and his family suffered mentally and physically after the death of his mother. In addition,
numerous participants, whether discussing being stopped by police officers, jumped by
gang members, or prejudiced against by other races, cited the dangers of being either
African American or Latino in Hurston Park and around Los Angeles. All of these
examples highlight the wealth of resilience capital among the participants.
Creativity capital. Creativity capital describes a creative, entrepreneurial, or
improvisational capacity. Chuck, the most creative of all the participants, spent class time
doodling on notebook paper. The walls of his bedroom served as a canvas on which he
drew his ideas. He used his ingenuity to earn sponsorships from dancing. By promoting
227

sponsors and parties, he also parlayed popularity on social media into money. Chris
provided unconventional examples of creativity capital. Recall the day he paid Chuck to
complete his homework. Chris capitalized on Chuck’s artistic ability. While readers may
find Chris’s act dishonest, it also demonstrated improvisation and cleverness. Matthew
demonstrated a similar type of creativity capital when he used the underground economy
to earn money. He applied his creativity capital to solve a problem. Although creativity
capital is rarely recognized in mainstream educational institutions, these are examples of
non-dominant cultural capital that the school system fails to leverage.
Street capital. Each of the participants displayed degrees of street capital. Street
capital—which I define using Anderson’s (1999) “code of the street”—describes the
knowledge and practices necessary to navigate the neighborhood. An awareness of gang
territories was common among all of the participants. They knew gang colors and
locations. Carlos avoided walking through Greenwood Park at night. Similarly, Elmer
selected his route to and from school based on where gang members “posted up.”
Matthew, of all the participants, displayed the most street capital, since he was in a gang.
Of all the forms of non-dominant capital, street capital translated the least to educational
outcomes.
Just as with safety and respect as a form of social capital, Carlos, Jose, and Elmer
reacted against the code of the street. Because of the real or imagined threat of danger, all
three had street capital. They knew where and when to avoid areas of the neighborhood.
They knew with whom not to speak. However, they also coopted some of the signs and
codes of street capital. In fact, Jose and his father lampooned gang members. When
228

Jose’s father arrived home from work, he asked, “¿Qué onda, cholo? [What’s happening,
gangster?]” Elmer intentionally wore gang colors, even when in rival areas. Lastly, the
three often subverted the role of gangs by joking. For example, when drawing college
posters for AVID, Jose drew an anteater, the University of California, Irvine’s mascot.
Elmer and Jose then called it an “antkiller” and thought it should wear a gold chain and
red Chuck Taylor’s. Such jokes indicate the teenagers’ ability to manipulate several
different cultures and reimagine them together; they also highlight a degree of creativity
capital.
Finding 2: Teenagers in a Low-income Neighborhood Have Uneven Access to and
Use of Dominant Social and Cultural Capital.
In the following sections, I discuss the uneven access to and use of dominant
capital. A theory of cultural heterogeneity presumes the presence of both dominant and
non-dominant social and cultural capital. The theory also postulates that individuals
undertake a unique meaning-making process when they encounter different forms of
capital. In other words, teenagers interact with and appropriate capital differently. While
non-dominant forms of capital serve vital roles in the lives of teenagers, dominant capital
is necessary to access postsecondary education. I narrowly define dominant cultural
capital as the four dimensions of college readiness: cognitive strategies, content
knowledge, academic behaviors, and contextual skills and awareness (Conley, 2011).
These four dimensions are critical to developing a college-going identity. While essential,
dominant capital is not evenly distributed throughout the neighborhood. In Chapter 2, I
provide a guide to the sources of neighborhood capital, including people, places,
229

organizations, and media (see Table 4). Based on the data, I reconfigure the sources to
include the three main sources: peers, after-school activities, and social media. With each
source, I consider how each of the participants accessed and used dominant capital.
Peers. Peer membership served a variety of purposes. With non-dominant social
capital, peers provided a sense of belonging even if the membership did not always yield
positive results. In this section, I focus on the role of peers as resource brokers of
dominant capital. The biggest difference among the six participants involved peer
membership. Carlos and Jose shared the same peer group, which included high-achievers
who aspired to attend college. Elmer belonged to the peer group, but was less connected
for two reasons. First, he seemed less trusting of friends than Carlos and Jose. Remember,
he stated, “I don’t really have a best friend. I have close friends.” When discussing his
ex-girlfriend, he admitted, “[M]y ex always told me ‘I’ll always be there for you.’ Then, I
give her my trust. That’s hard to do. Then, she came up to me and said, ‘Oh, we’ll have to
cut it.’ I thought, ‘Wow, that’s what I get for trusting.’” Second, he spent a majority of
his time with or thinking about Yessica, his girlfriend.
The three African American participants belonged to divergent peer groups. Chris
spent the majority of his time with his “crew,” including Sean, Morris, and Terrance. As
the second section of the previous chapter indicated, Chris spent a considerable amount
of time—approximately 15 hours—with his best friends. Activities involved playing
video games, gambling, and smoking marijuana. The exception included his time with
Sean, who aspired to attend college. While discussions during group gatherings rarely
included the exchange of dominant capital, Chris and Sean often discussed college and
230

exchanged important information when they were alone together. Like Chris, Matthew
did not regularly trade dominant capital with his peer group; however, he did discuss
college with Theresa.
Chuck accessed the smallest amounts of dominant capital through peer
membership. Although he discussed college with Tommy, the discussions rarely included
information necessary to access postsecondary education. They envisioned themselves at
college, but they did not discuss the college access process. Similar to after-school
activities, Matthew represented extremes in terms of access to and use of dominant and
non-dominant capital. The results indicate the importance of networks during the
exchange of capital and also that not all peers groups were connected equally to dominant
capital.
After-school activities. Perhaps different from the common definition of after-
school activities, based on the examples in Chapter 4, I understand after-school activities
as a range from formal and supervised to informal and unsupervised learning activities.
The study participants completed a range of after-school activities, from participating in
school clubs to neighborhood gangs. Considering the activities as sources of social and
cultural capital, they ranged from supervised opportunity to unsupervised mischief. For
the six adolescents, what they did after school often mirrored their performance in school.
Recall the after-school activities of each of the participants in Chapter 4. Carlos
traveled from one after-school activity to another where he accessed dominant capital.
Jose participated in a similar, if slightly less rigorous, process. Elmer provided an
example of a teenager who stayed on the high school campus and attended a variety of
231

activities where dominant capital was present; however, he attended the activities
infrequently. In contrast, Matthew, Chris, and Chuck participated irregularly in after-
school activities where dominant capital was present. The activities show how valuable
the three hours after school were for accessing dominant capital and a reinforcing cultural
identity.
Matthew provides an example of the influence of different after-school activities.
During the fall, he participated in boxing at Smallwood Recreation Complex and Police
Explorers at the local police department. At the same time, he exhibited a positive
temperament and engaged in school. During the spring, he spent approximately 20 hours
a week at Smallwood either visiting with gang members or selling drugs. His access to
and use of dominant capital changed drastically from fall to spring. The comparison
illustrates the value of engagement in supervised after-school activities.
After-school activities served a critical purpose in that they facilitated both
resource brokerage and concerted learning, which influenced educational outcomes.
While discussing Finding 3, I examine in more detail the role of after-school activities in
relation to resource brokerage and concerted learning.
Social media. Technology provided a means to access dominant capital such as
information to complete homework and scholarship applications. First, not all
participants had equal access to technology. Although survey research indicates that
access to technology has increased (Lenhart, 2012), the study illustrates that disparities
still exist.
30
Four of the six participants used pay-for-use cellphones. Elmer did not have

30
Jenkins and colleagues (Jenkins et al., 2006) refer to the inequalities among teenagers’
232

access to the Internet for weeks at a time when his mother could not afford the Internet or
cellphone bill.
Second, technology use served a variety of roles, from instrumental to expressive
(Carter, 2003, 2007). A clear division occurred between Carlos, Jose, and Elmer and
Chris, Matthew, and Chuck. The first three participants—Carlos and Jose, in particular—
were much more likely to engage in academic discussions via social media. Jose, for
instance, regularly posted on his Facebook wall statements like “Discuss the subjects in
which you excel or have excelled. To what factors do you attribute your success? so um
yeah what do u guys think im good at lolz i'm guessing it has to be academic? lolz.”
Carlos carried his computer with him to school. He used it to take notes and complete
homework assignments.
Chris used social media for instrumental purposes that most often included
communication and planning with his friends. Recall his exchange with a friend on
Twitter about their plans for the weekend. In contrast, Matthew and Chuck used
technology for expressive purposes; both created digital media—Matthew produced
music and Chuck created videos. They rarely used technology for academic purposes.
The teenagers demonstrate the divergent uses of technology.
Two of the six teenagers’ uses of technology challenge definitions of digital
literacy for educational contexts. Chuck exhibited numerous digital competencies. He
demonstrated creativity and problem-solving skills as he produced digital media and used
social media to increase traffic to his YouTube videos and earn sponsorships (Jenkins et

technology access and use as the participation gap.
233

al., 2006). Similarly, Matthew used his friends drumbeats to create songs that he then
uploaded to a website. Both Chuck and Matthew’s non-dominant cultural capital,
however, did not translate to the classroom because their teachers did not provide them
with opportunities to demonstrate their competencies.
Finding 3: Students Who Access and Use Dominant Social and Cultural Capital Are
More Likely to Develop a College-going Identity.
The second and third finding serve as two parts of the same assumption. That is,
without discounting the value of non-dominant capital, with the current educational
system, students who access and use dominant social and cultural capital are more likely
to produce positive educational outcomes and access college. Whereas the previous
finding emphasizes access to capital, this finding underscores the processes that infuse
capital with meaning and contribute to the development of a college-going identity. As I
discuss in Chapter 2, I define a college-going identity as an individual’s ability and
willingness to navigate diverse social settings and use appropriate dominant and non-
dominant social and cultural capital. The concept explains how, in the context of poor
educational outcomes among peers in low-income, underachieving high schools, select
students gain acceptance to and succeed in postsecondary education.
I use two concepts—resource brokerage and concerted learning—to describe the
processes of capital exchange throughout the neighborhood. An individual requires
access to forms of capital as well as opportunities to practice it. Resource brokerage
describes the process that occurs when an institutional agent links dominant and non-
234

dominant capital to a recipient. Concerted learning focuses on prolonged exposure to and
practice of cultural capital.
In the following section, I discuss both processes in order to explain how they
contribute to the transmission of capital and development of a college-going identity.
Dominant social capital. I begin with dominant social capital because, in most
instances, it preceded cultural capital. As I discuss in Chapter 2, dominant social capital
yields four benefits: information, influence, social credentials, and reinforcement (Lin,
1999, 2001). Low-income teenagers frequently lack dominant social capital critical to
education success and college access (Corwin, Colyar, & Tierney, 2005; Stanton-Salazar,
1997). While this study focuses on the role of both dominant and non-dominant capital,
dominant capital is essential to navigating educational institutions and obtaining positive
educational outcomes including college access.
Resource brokerage. Resource brokers link dominant or non-dominant social and
cultural capital (Burt, 2005; Carter, 2007; Small, 2009b). They serve a vital role for low-
income teenagers (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). As my discussion of non-dominant capital
demonstrates, resources differ based on the form of social capital, i.e. dominant or non-
dominant. While non-dominant capital most often serves family- and neighborhood-
specific purposes, dominant capital improves educational outcomes and college access.
Among all six participants, particularly during the fall, Ms. Arnold was the most
influential resource broker in regard to the college application process. Her goals for the
students were clear. She stated bluntly, “Straight-up, you got to brainwash them. College.
College. College. It’s hard out there. They’ve got all these distractions—bad
235

neighborhood, messed up home lives, peer pressure. We have to get these young men to
college.” Although not all of the participants—Jose and Arnold, in particular—liked Ms.
Arnold’s aggressive and honest demeanor, all of the young men benefitted from her
determination and persistence to get them to matriculate. A surface level indicator of her
success was the number of colleges to which each of the participants applied (see Table
12). Other examples included mandating attendance at two college fairs as well as the
Gates Millennium Scholars Male Initiative. As a result of her information and influence,
both Matthew and Chris learned about and then gained entrance to the Bridges Program,
which selected 60 African American male teenagers to participate in a series of
workshops and fundraisers. Although Matthew did not complete the program because his
aunt would not pay one of the fees, Chris earned a $2,000 scholarship.
As a college access mentor, I provide a second example of resource brokerage. I
met with each of the participants from one to two times per week to discuss the college
application process. I edited college and scholarship application essays. I wrote letters of
recommendation for four of the six young men, including Carlos and Jose when they
applied to the Gates Millennium Scholarship. Every week, I sent participants a college
access newsletter including links to scholarships and financial aid information.
Exchanges among peer groups provide a third example of resource brokerage. I
discuss the importance of peers in Finding 2. Traditionally, resource brokers include
institutional agents who link capital. While that was true of Ms. Arnold and myself, the
participants and their peer groups linked capital as well. Carlos, Jose, and Elmer
depended on one another to exchange capital. Chris and his best friend Sean relied on
236

each other. For Carlos, Jose, and Matthew, their participation in College Summit—an
after-school activity that trained the students to be peer leaders—enhanced their value as
resource brokers. Each of these examples illustrates the critical process of resource
brokerage wherein an individual links dominant and non-dominant capital to a recipient.
For peers as resource brokers, the process assumed an increased role. Past
descriptions of brokerage often take place at specific institutional settings, e.g. schools or
childcare centers (Carter, 2007; Small, 2009b). For the participants of this study, the
exchanges took place across the neighborhood whenever the teenagers socialized.
Consider, for instance, Chris and Sean walking home or Carlos, Jose, and Elmer playing
basketball. Ordinary experiences became important exchanges of dominant capital.
Dominant cultural capital. As I discuss in Chapter 2, a number of definitions for
dominant cultural capital exist. I define dominant cultural capital broadly as the formal
and informal knowledge and practices of social groups who have historically controlled
mainstream institutions. In order to focus the study, I examine a narrower definition
based on the four dimensions of college readiness: cognitive strategies, key content
knowledge, academic behaviors, and contextual skills and awareness (Conley, 2011).
Cultural capital is essential to college access (Conley, 2005); however, in the case of
developing a college-going identity, cultural capital exchanges require repeated and
prolonged exposure.
Concerted learning. Concerted learning draws from the concept of concerted
cultivation (Lareau, 2003b). Whereas concerted cultivation focuses on parents implicitly
or explicitly teaching their children linguistic styles and cultural dispositions, concerted
237

learning focuses on prolonged exposure to and practice of cultural capital across the
neighborhood. Through exposure to dominant cultural capital, a teenager develops and
refines a college-going identity.
Participants who accessed and practiced dominant capital in high frequencies
were more likely to develop a college-going identity. Consider Jose and Matthew. Both
accessed dominant capital through their AVID class. Their lives after school and the
people with whom they associated, however, differed drastically. On the one hand, Jose
and his peer group continued to discuss dominant capital even when they ate at a fast
food restaurant or played basketball at the park. By continuing to practice dominant
capital, they reinforced its influence. On the other hand, Matthew and his peer group
more frequently used non-dominant capital. They discussed gangs or drugs. As a result,
Matthew did not practice dominant capital and its effects were diminished.
Elmer offers a unique example of concerted learning. He participated in after-
school activities, but his participation depended on the people with whom he spent time
after school. In the fall, he attended Youth United to Promote Action (YUPA) with
Carlos and Jose. When he started dating Yessica, his attendance at YUPA became
sporadic as he spent more time with his girlfriend. Elmer’s involvement in after-school
activities also disturbed the notion of concerted learning. He highlighted the difference
between attendance and engagement. While he visited YUPA, he rarely engaged. He
benefited from not being exposed to the deleterious aspects of the neighborhood such as
gangs and drugs. Given his vacillation, it was not clear if he fully benefited from
participating in after-school activities.
238

Chris provides an example of the potential conflict that arises from concerted
learning. Throughout the year, he participated in activities that developed a college-going
identity. He stayed after-school with Ms. Arnold and myself. He attended college fairs,
information sessions, and college preparatory workshops. Each activity reinforced
college going and provided an opportunity to practice a college-going identity. He also
spent a number of hours gambling, playing video games, and smoking marijuana with his
friends. Each of the activities conflicted with the college-going identity. The schism
between the two types of activities complicated the effects of concerted learning.
Technology use serves an important role in regard to concerted cultivation. A
variety of factors including race, class, and parenting styles influence how teenagers’ use
technology (Horst, Martinez, & Sims, 2010; Watkins, 2009). The Internet serves as a
space where teenagers develop and practice identities (Buckingham, 2008). Along with
playing video games at a friend’s house or receiving tutoring after school, the ways in
which teenagers engage in digital media and access capital either reinforces or conflicts
with the development of a college-going identity.
As the data highlights, technology use among the six participants varied widely.
Carlos used the Internet for academic purposes. He completed homework assignments
and checked for scholarships online. Matthew used it for expressive purposes. He both
listened to and distributed music. Chuck demonstrated a more complicated scenario. He
posted pictures on Facebook of his homework assignments, but he did not possess the
dominant capital necessary to complete them. He also constantly interacted with peers in
a purposive manner in order to gain and maintain non-dominant capital, which he then
239

used to make money. Each example of technology use either reinforced or detracted from
a college-going identity.
Discussion
Having presented the three major findings, I return to a discussion of the five
research questions.
RQ1: What Is the Conceptual and Actual Relationship between Teenagers and
Their Neighborhoods?
The data from Chapter 4 reveal a mixture of relationships between teenagers and
their neighborhoods. Recall in Chapter 3, I discuss Hurston as a fractured neighborhood,
a controlling site comprised of contested, and sometimes rival, sub-sites. The six
participants uniquely constructed and interpreted Hurston Park in multiple fashions. For
instance, even though Jose and Chris lived within blocks of one another, their
interpretation diverged significantly. Jose disliked his neighborhood and wanted to leave.
Chris liked the area and identified it as his home. The ways in which each participant
constructed the neighborhood depended on a range of individual and contextual factors.
Similarly, the fractured neighborhood perspective explained how the teenagers had
ambivalent feelings toward Hurston Park. On the one hand, they critiqued the negative
aspects such as crime and gang activity. On the other hand, they cited their friends and
family as positive aspects. Carlos spoke negatively about the neighborhood and positively
about his peer group; he compartmentalized aspects of Hurston Park as he made sense of
different social settings.
240

The actual relationship between teenagers and their neighborhoods was similarly
intricate. The neighborhood—whether the participants associated or disassociated with
it—influenced the practices of the six teenagers. All spent the majority of their time in a
small geographic area around their school and homes. They fashioned their social worlds
based on their experiences in that small area. Their perspectives were also augmented by
short trips outside of the neighborhood. Recall Jose’s trip to San Diego; after his return,
he said, “I didn’t want to come back. Hurston Park isn’t the same. Doing something like
that and going somewhere else just makes me realize how much I want to leave. I just
realize what other places are like, and I can’t wait to leave for college.” Similarly, when
partaking in weekend activities, he often drove to neighboring places. Chuck expressed a
similar sentiment when he said, “But me, I leave and go places. I think it’s sad when
people just stay here.” The interactions outside of the neighborhood—along with
sentiments reinforced by friends—augmented their interpretations of Hurston Park as
well as their place within it.
RQ2: How, with Whom, and for What Purpose Do Teenagers Spend Their Time
after School?
As with the first research question, the answer to how, with whom, and for what
purpose teenagers spent their time is dependent on the individual teenager, his peer
group, and his family. Teenagers undertook a variety of activities after the last school bell
rang. Activities most often focused around staying after school, going home or to a
friend’s house, or visiting the park.
241

The school campus offered a variety of activities, from formal and supervised to
informal and unsupervised. Jose and Carlos, for example, went to after-school clubs.
Elmer often spent time with his girlfriend wherever they found a secluded location. Chris
socialized with his friends. The large size and open layout of the campus coupled with a
lack of supervision allowed the participants a large degree of freedom.
Just as staying at school, going home or visiting a friend’s house offered a range
of possibilities. Matthew secluded himself in his room to work on his music whereas Jose
welcomed his friends to visit and play video games. Chris spent time at Terrence’s
apartment, where there was no adult supervision, while Elmer and Yessica kissed in front
of her house. Because residences were often crowded, teenagers gravitated to places
where they had privacy.
All of the teenagers organized their time around social life. The differences
among the participants often related to how each teenager scheduled time after school.
Carlos socialized with peers and adults during after-school activities. His time was
relatively regimented. Chris and Elmer both followed less strict schedules in which their
activities were dependent upon their peer group.
RQ3: How Do Institutional Agents, e.g. Teachers, Coaches, Pastors, Mentors, and
Even Gang Members, Serve as Resource Brokers?
For the majority of the teenagers, resource brokers—particularly of dominant
capital—served instrumental purposes. Although I initially construed institutional agents
as adults, the data illustrate the large degree to which peers served as resource brokers.
242

The teenagers spent the majority of their time with peers, with whom they were culturally
connected, and they fulfilled a vital role in the exchange of resources.
As I discuss previously, resource brokerage is key to developing a college-going
identity. Ms. Arnold, the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) teacher,
and myself, a college mentor, served as resource brokers throughout the teenagers’ senior
year. We both linked the adolescents to social and cultural capital and provided access to
resources that were previously unavailable. Ms. Arnold required the teenagers to attend
various functions including college fairs and information workshops. She also mandated
the teenagers attend after-school mentoring and apply to a variety of universities. I met
with the male students as a group and individually once a week. I helped with college and
scholarship applications, wrote letters of recommendation, and provided transportation to
college fairs and events. Three factors facilitated our roles as brokers: specialized
knowledge about the college application process, availability during and after school, and
rapport with the students. Of the three factors, rapport was the most difficult to establish
and maintain. Matthew, for example, did not ask for help with his college applications
until after four weeks of weekly meetings with me.
A key to Ms. Arnold’s success and rapport with the students was her role as a
multicultural navigator, defined as an individual who “demonstrate[s] how to possess
both dominant and nondominant cultural capital and how to be adept at movement
through various sociocultural settings, where cultural codes and rules differ” (Carter,
2007, p. 150). As an African American woman who graduated from Hurston Park High
School (HPHS), she had knowledge of both dominant and non-dominant forms of capital
243

(Carter, 2007). This knowledge allowed her to connect with the teenagers, particularly
the African Americans, while also challenging them to traverse new social settings. Not
all of the students bonded with Ms. Arnold. Jose and Arnold, in particular, bristled at
their teacher’s straightforward and confrontational personality.
Ms. Arnold and I both illustrate the unsystematic distribution of resource brokers
within the school and across neighborhood institutions. Recent scholarship (Small,
2009b; Small et al., 2008; Small & McDermott, 2006) suggests that the context of a
neighborhood may not be as important as the institutions and institutional agents
available in the neighborhood. Ms. Arnold as the AVID teacher demonstrates the
potential for one resource broker to assuage the negative effects of living in a low-income
neighborhood. She also proves that even within an underperforming high school one
individual may link individuals to valuable resources. And yet, while she improved
college access for a select group of students, her position also illustrates the unsystematic
arrangement and limited amount of resources and resource brokers within the
neighborhood. Even more, she was successful as a resource broker, in part, because of
her ability to locate and use resources, including myself as a mentor affiliated with an
established mentoring program. Her success complicated the idea of brokerage. At the
classroom level, she improved access for her students. At the institutional and
neighborhood levels, through the uneven distribution of resources, she reproduced social
inequality (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977).
Not all institutional agents improved college access. Matthew’s gang leader
provided the most obvious example. While he supported Matthew’s attempts to
244

matriculate to college, his influence hindered Matthew. Rather than disassociating with
illegal activities, Matthew continued to sell and smoke marijuana. Similarly, Chris spent
time gambling money and smoking marijuana with his friends. These activities
demonstrate the conflicting signals teenagers received as they attempted to access
postsecondary education.
RQ4: How, and for What Purpose, Do Teenagers Make Sense of Social and Cultural
Capital?
As the findings indicate, the participants’ interpretations and practices of social
and cultural capital varied dramatically. One of the most predictive factors of a teenagers’
academic success or failure was his interpretation and use of neighborhood capital. In
most instances, the teenagers’ use of capital was individual- and context-dependent.
Matthew states:
It depends who I am with. If I’m worth person who has a future, I change it up. If
I’m around a gangbanger, I tend to be more conscious of my surroundings. But, if
I’m with my girlfriend or something, I’m changing my whole little swagger. I got
a button up shirt on. My belt is black. There’s no bright color. I’m switching up
the way I walk. That’s how I am. I switch up everything when I’m around certain
people.
Jose conveyed a similar sentiment: “It depends on who you’re with and where you’re at
to see how things go.” Each of the teenagers understood that different settings required
different capital. As a result, all of the participants were “cultural straddlers” (Carter,
2007).
A participant’s access to and use of select forms of social and cultural capital
improved educational outcomes. The difference between participants like Carlos and
Chuck was the concerted cultivation process that took place after school. Whereas Carlos
245

attended numerous after-school activities that reinforced the use of dominant capital and
practice of his college-going identity, a disjuncture occurred between the types of capital
Chuck used during and after school. In school, he accessed and used dominant cultural
capital. After school, he used non-dominant social capital and cultural capital in order to
gain notoriety and sponsorships through social media. In addition, both teenagers—in
different ways—benefited from resource brokerage, which expanded their awareness of
different forms of capital.
As I discuss in Chapter 2, cultural processes are ongoing and recursive. The
accumulation of capital contributes to identity development and often directs an
individual to similar forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Continuing to use the examples
of Carlos and Chuck, both highlight the dynamic nature of capital. As the college
application process progressed, Carlos thought and learned more and more about college,
including selecting a major and career. He received acceptance letters from colleges and
increasingly discussed the possibility of attending graduate school and becoming a
lawyer. At the same time, he enrolled and succeeded in three community college classes.
Chuck, who exerted himself at the beginning of the college application process, followed
a different path. He could not apply to the same universities as his peers in AVID because
he did not meet admission requirements. He attended night school where the teacher
habitually arrived one to two hours late. After several failed attempts to succeed at
school, his focus shifted from academics to out-of-school activities. He concentrated on
and succeeded at social networking and gaining sponsorships. The development of his
college-going identity stalled. In both instances, the interpretation of capital assumed a
246

key role towards the further accumulation of capital. When Carlos achieved positive
results, he continued to accumulate dominant capital. Alternatively, when Chuck
experienced hardship, he gravitated to the forms of capital that converted more easily to
suit his purposes.
RQ5: Does Cultural Heterogeneity Affect the Educational Outcomes of Adolescents
and, if So, in What Ways?
All six participants affirmed the presence of cultural heterogeneity as they
uniquely made sense of both dominant and non-dominant capital and navigated
educational structures. Even when teenagers lived in the same spaces, their experiences
and interpretations varied due to individual, family, and neighborhood factors. As I
discuss in Chapter 4, although Carlos, Chris, and Chuck all stayed after school, the
purposes of their stay and the people with whom they interacted shaped their experiences.
Carlos illustrates the most positive example of resource brokerage and concerted
learning. High achieving peers as well as Jason, a positive role model, surrounded Carlos.
He assumed leadership responsibilities and practiced behaviors that will benefit him in
college. Chris demonstrated another example of resource brokerage and concerted
learning as he received mentorship during the college application process. While both
Carlos and Chris benefited from staying after school, Chuck’s experiences differed
during night school. He did not receive the instruction he needed and interacted with
underperforming peers. Consider the difference between Carlos and Chuck staying after
school. Carlos voluntarily attended after-school clubs whereas Chuck involuntarily
attended night school. Carlos viewed his participation as a chance to exercise leadership
247

abilities whereas Chuck viewed it as a mandated chore. Cultural heterogeneity caused the
participants to interpret settings and capital differently.
The park provides another example of how teenagers interpreted the same place in
divergent ways. Carlos and Jose ignored the negative elements including drugs and gang
violence. Elmer ignored them when he was with Carlos and Jose; however, he smoked
marijuana with two other friends. In contrast, Matthew embraced the negative elements
as he attempted to fulfill a void left by his home life. The teenagers demonstrate how the
people with whom teenagers interacted as well as manner in which they interpret a setting
affected their actions.
The divergent experiences of teenagers in different places validate the importance
of social and cultural capital. Jose, Carlos, and Elmer revealed how college-going
teenagers discussed college even when they were away from school. Chris illustrates the
negative role of peers as he associated with underachievers who regularly used drugs.
Similarly, negative peers and role models stunted Matthew’s college readiness and
illustrated negative examples of resource brokerage as his gang leader provided him with
drugs and a gun.
The data demonstrate the importance of the dual processes of resource brokerage
and concerted learning to develop and reinforce a college-going identity. First, social
capital, including resource brokers and peers, is paramount to accessing dominant
cultural capital. Second, the practice of dominant cultural capital in a variety of settings
reinforces cultural identity.

248

Implications for Policy and Practice
The study reveals the abundance of individual and contextual—i.e. family, school,
and neighborhood—factors that influence success in secondary education and access to
postsecondary education. While current policies (No Child Left Behind, 2002) focus on
educational reforms at the school level, previous research (Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Noguera, 2008; Rothstein, 2004) as well as the findings from this study highlight the
utility of comprehensive neighborhood-based such as the Harlem Children’s Zone
(Tough, 2008; Wilson, 2010) and Promise Neighborhoods (U. S. Department of
Education, 2010). Wide-ranging place-based reforms serve a vital role to improving the
educational outcomes of teenagers in low-income neighborhoods. However, due to the
scope of the study, I offer two targeted interventions to improve college access for
African American and Latino teenagers in low-income neighborhoods.
31

My first recommendation is to create extended learning opportunities (ELOs).
The National Education Association defines ELOs as “a broad range of programs that
provide children with academic enrichment and/or supervised activities beyond the
tradition school day and, in some cases, beyond the traditional school year” (p. 1).
Although ELOs may include traditional after-school programs, they consist of a much
larger and more flexible variety of options such as before- and after-school tutoring,
internships, and summer enrichment programs. Districts or service partners such as non-
profit organizations or universities may provide ELOs.

31
Four approaches to reform exist: (1) interventional, (2) programmatic, (3) comprehensive, and
(4) systematic (Rumbaut, 2011).
249

Previous research (Heath & McLaughlin, 1994; Vadeboncoeur, 2006) and the
data from Chapter 4 emphasize the value of engaging teenagers in school- and
neighborhood-based organizations immediately after school. First, ELOs provide
structured supervision where adults act as mentors and resource brokers (Bursik &
Grasmick, 1993; Small, 2009b). High school is a time when teenagers have more
independence, more choices, and are more apt to explore their environment. By enrolling
their children in out-of-class activities, parents and guardians structure and control their
teenager’s behavior and activity (Kling et al., 2005; Mahatmya & Lohman, 2011). After-
school activities not only protect teenagers from delinquency but also improve student
grades, participation, and self-confidence (Cooper, Valentine, Nye, & Lindsay, 1999;
Eccles & Templeton, 2002). Second, ELOs may provide access to culturally relevant
curricula (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and multicultural navigators, who are essential to
resource brokerage (Carter, 2007; Small, 2009b; Small et al., 2008). While large-scale
changes to the curricula are necessary and important, they are also expensive and unlikely
during the current recession (Zeehandelaar & Clemens, 2010). ELOs present a practical
option to provide a structured setting, culturally relevant curricula, and resource brokers
in order to provide access to social and cultural capital and foster college-going identities
among students.
My second recommendation is to embed college preparation into after-school
activities. Although I focus on the lives of six teenagers, data collection included
interviews with 60 high school seniors. Even though the majority of the students lived
250

within walking distance to Hurston Park High School, the teenagers’ levels of college
knowledge differed drastically across schools.
Of the 60 participants, 59 aspired to attend college. Only 12—the students in Ms.
Arnold’s Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) class—had access to a
college preparatory program. The six young men in the study all benefitted from
participating in AVID. The purpose of the program was to prepare average students to
apply to and succeed in college. The program accomplished the goal by teaching skills
such as college knowledge and distributing information regarding how to navigate every
aspect of the college application and enrollment process. Ms. Arnold as a resource broker
was critical to the success of the class.
For the students who participate in college preparatory classes like AVID, an
after-school program reinforces cultural capital accessed during school and provides
access to additional social capital after school (Heath & McLaughlin, 1994). Students like
Chuck and Matthew would have benefitted greatly from additional college preparation
opportunities. For the students in schools without college preparatory courses, an after-
school program supplies the necessary social and cultural capital in order to improve
college readiness and access.
Directions for Future Research
A dearth of qualitative studies exists that examine the relationships among
teenagers, neighborhoods, and educational outcomes (Harding et al., 2011). The present
study demonstrates the value of a cultural heterogeneity perspective vis-à-vis the sources
and influences of neighborhood social and cultural capital. Future studies ought to
251

consider additional cultural lenses—i.e. frames, repertoires, narratives, symbolic
boundaries, and institutions (Lamont & Small, 2008)—to explore cultural heterogeneity.
The study also illustrates multiple avenues for rigorous research including the ability of
extended learning opportunities (ELOs) to build on the cultural capacities of
neighborhood residents, the role of culturally responsive resource brokers, and the
potential of neighborhood partnerships to offer cradle to career services. Below, I provide
two targeted recommendations for future research.
The first recommendation is to conduct a qualitative neighborhood study to
examine the geographic distribution of opportunity across a neighborhood. Just as
qualitative research provides the opportunity to examine the lives of individuals, it offers
the chance to examine the idiosyncratic features of neighborhoods. Recall that a cultural
heterogeneity perspective emphasizes diversity both outside and inside the neighborhood.
That is, even within a neighborhood, differences among class, race, and ethnicity exist
(Harding, 2010). The findings of the study demonstrate the unique influence of place.
How would Matthew’s life have been different if he lived in another area of Hurston
Park? Would he have joined a neighborhood gang? Even more, how would the lives of
the six teenagers differ if they lived in the dense neighborhoods of New York City rather
than the sprawling neighborhoods of Los Angeles? The majority of the participants either
drove themselves or rode along with friends and family members to locations around the
neighborhood and across the city. The geography of the city significantly altered their
experiences in and perceptions of the neighborhood.
252

The spatial layout of a neighborhood, including access to and quality of
neighborhood institutions, is critical to the lives of teenagers. So to is the distribution of
groups by race and ethnicity. As the findings illustrate, the African American and Latino
teenagers in this study navigate their neighborhoods differently. Future studies ought to
consider how the spatial and demographic layout of a teenager’s neighborhood—
including schools, housing, parks, and gangs—affect educational opportunity.
The second recommendation is to conduct a longitudinal neighborhood study. As
I discuss in the limitations section, the study focuses on a critical nine-month span.
However, throughout the study, the experiences of the participants as well as my own
experiences as a mentor and researcher reminded me of the importance of both time and
circumstance. Adolescence is a period of great change. During high school, male
teenagers experience incredible growth. Even within the year, I witnessed significant
changes among the adolescents. Of the teenagers who I present, Carlos more and more
assumed a college-going identity. Matthew experienced highs and lows. Elmer’s focus
shifted when he started a relationship with Yessica. A longitudinal study would provide
added context to better understand the lives of teenagers and their neighborhoods. The
study would also provide a useful companion to studies such as The Minds of
Marginalized Black Men (Young, 2004), Tally’s Corner (Liebow, 1967), and The Price
of Poverty (2003), three texts that discuss the marginalization process that occurs among
African American and Latino males during their early twenties as they attempt to
integrate into mainstream society and obtain gainful employment. Future studies ought to
examine how teenagers’ practices and interpretations of their neighborhood change over
253

time, i.e. from middle to high school and high school to college or career. In addition,
given my discussion of the importance of ELOs, scholars ought to consider a longitudinal
study that examines the effectiveness of interventions.
Conclusion
“Either they don’t know, don’t show, or don’t care about what’s going on in the
'hood,” says a character in Boyz n the Hood (Singleton, 1991), a movie set in South
Central Los Angeles in the 1990s. The quote highlights the disjunction that occurs
between the lives of male teenagers in low-income neighborhoods and the beliefs of
mainstream society. It also reinforces a central theme of this study: There is cultural
mismatch between the forms of capital the participants possess and what the educational
system values.
A surplus of cultures exists in low-income neighborhoods such as Hurston Park.
And yet, current research, policy, and practice often assume a deficit perspective. I have
argued, instead, for a surplus perspective. Such a perspective refocuses discussions from
what African American and Latino teenagers lack to how the educational system can
better leverage extant strengths (Oakes, 2005; Oakes et al., 1997). It also facilitates a
discussion of the types of cultural competencies that the educational system does and
does not value. Scholars use a variety of vocabularies—including “funds of knowledge,”
(Moll, 1992) “community cultural wealth,” (Yosso, 2005) and “community capacity”
(Chaskin, 2001; Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh, & Vidal, 2001)—to describe community-
based strengths; the cultural heterogeneity perspective is consistent with previous cultural
work about recognizing difference and realizing potential. Cultural heterogeneity is a key
254

component to harnessing the strengths of students, families, and communities in low-
income neighborhoods (Lamont & Small, 2010; Sen, 2004).
For this study, my goal has been to understand the sources and influences of
cultural heterogeneity as teenagers navigate manifold pathways to and away from
postsecondary education. Society asks much of African American and Latino teenage
males in low-income neighborhoods. They are tasked with seamlessly navigating
multiple cultural worlds and the pressures that each befits. We often ask why, compared
to other populations of students, such disproportionate amounts of African American and
Latino teenage males fail. Given the number of educational and societal barriers these six
young men have overcome, perhaps we should wonder how so many succeed.
Afterward
In the spring, I meet Carlos after school in his AVID classroom. He wants me to
review a financial aid package from one of the schools that accepted him. For most of the
meeting, he talks to himself, posing hypothetical questions and then answering them
moments later. “I could save money,” he says, “I looked at cars. You can get a 2012 Fit
for like $10,000. That’s cheap.”
Across from where we sit, a red border frames the large bulletin board. Letters
spell out “AVID 12 2012: Excellence Personified.” Below the letters are three by five
index cards. Each index card belongs to a student and includes the colleges to which he
or she was accepted. Carlos looks up at the board. “Oh!” he exclaims, “I have to add
UCLA!” He walks to the board and adds the school. Ms. Arnold says, “I’m proud of you,
little guy.” They high-five.
255

In two weeks, the hypothetical questions Carlos asks himself change. Just after
the first period bell rings, he quietly calls to me. “Randy,” he says, “I’ve got to talk to
you.” He shakes his head: “Man, it’s…it’s not good.” We walk outside of the classroom.
Carlos wears a black leather jacket, t-shirt, and sweatpants. A small Band-Aid covers a
scabbed pimple on his nose. As he swirls his oversized backpack around to reach for
something, I hope the news is not too bad. He hands me a folder. The letter inside
indicates that he was chosen as a Gates Millennium Scholar, a recognition that includes
full funding for his entire postsecondary education, from undergraduate to graduate
school. Instead of wondering how he will save money, he now wonders in what he should
get his Ph.D. After my Ph.D. hooding in May, I show Carlos and Jose the office where I
work. Carlos holds the hood up to the length of his body. The ends of the hood drape the
office floor. “Hmmmm,” he says, “I wonder if they make these for short people.” The
two young men laugh. Until he won the Gates scholarship, he never spoke of earning a
doctoral degree. Now, he often intersperses conversations with inquiries about graduate
school.
As we return to the classroom, I recall our first interview. I started with a simple,
open-ended question: “Tell me about yourself.” After a pause, he responded, “I’m a first-
generation student. I’m like one of those kids that would look at everything in a different
aspect. I’m optimistic.” He discussed his parents, both undocumented immigrants who
earn less than $20,000 per year: “I'm doing it for my parents, because they were never
able to go even to middle school or high school, so it's like I'm doing it for them. Like,
I'm going to graduate for them. And I'm going to go to college for them, like I'm going to
256

do the things they couldn't do.” In the fall, he will attend the University of California, Los
Angeles as a Gates Millennium Scholar.
At the end of the class, I search Ms. Arnold’s bulletin board for the names of the
other participants.
Chris has been accepted to ten colleges. In the fall, he plans to attend the
University of California, Santa Cruz. He chose Santa Cruz because the University of
California, Merced “is boring, no parties.” He also completes the Bridges Program, which
includes a $2,000 dollar scholarship. On the day of the ceremony, he posts on Twitter
pictures of himself in the tuxedo.
Jose has been accepted to 14 colleges. In April, while visiting the University of
California, Irvine, he texts me: “Randy!! Im in love!!! Lmao xD.” He plans to attend the
university and live in a co-ed suite with Mayra, his former girlfriend, and Itzel, a close
friend. I ask if that is a wise decision. He replies, “I doubt anything will happen with
Mayra. If anything maybe things with Itzel will start.” After a few moments, he says,
“The incoming freshmen are cute.” I shake my head. He concludes, “Naw Randy, I’m
gonna keep my head in the game.”
Matthew has been accepted to seven schools. He chooses between Clarkson
University and the University of California, Santa Cruz. He fights with his aunt about the
decision. She does not support him moving away from California. Matthew says, “I gotta
get out of here. I gotta.” Before the May 1
st
deadline, he calls an admissions officer at
Clarkson and explains his situation. The officer places him on a payment plan and
257

increases his financial aid. A day later, he submits the intent to register form. In June, he
admits, “I’m excited. My auntie’s buying me a plane ticket for August.”
Elmer has been accepted to six schools, including his top choice, UCI. He
procrastinates throughout the six-week window to turn in the Statement of Intent to
Register (SIR). Jose says, “I don’t think he’s serious about it.” A day before the deadline,
he submits the deposit to UCI. He laughs and admits, “I gotta wait ‘til the last minute.
Why not?” He intends to live in a co-ed suite with Jose and their friends.
Chuck’s card remains blank. During May, Ms. Arnold advises him to use the
settlement money from his car accident to attend Morris College, a historically black
university in South Carolina. He applies and receives acceptance. He posts a picture of
the letter on Facebook and writes, “I fuckin did it! Got accepted to Morris College :D.” I
ask if he is going to attend. He nods his head and smiles. “Oh yeah,” he answers, “I’m
leaving August 14. My grandma’s happy, so is my dad. He wants me to get out of here.” I
ask about his brother. “My brother’s sad,” he replies. After a moment, he waives his
hand, “He’ll be fine though.”
258

References
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners:
Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.
Addams, J. (2009 [1912]). Twenty years at Hull House. Lexington, KY: Feather Trail
Press.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377-392). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Agar, M. H. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ahn, J. (2011). The effect of social network sites on adolescents' social and academic
development: Current theories and controversies. Advances in Information
Science, 68(2), 1435-1445.
Ainsworth, J. W. (2002). Why does it take a village? The mediation of neighborhood
effects on educational acheivement. Social Forces, 81, 117-152.
Alonso, A. (2010). Out of the void: Street gangs in black Los Angeles. In D. Hunt & A.
Ramón (Eds.), Black Los Angeles: American dreams and racial realities (pp. 140-
167). New York: New York Univeristy Press.
American Community Survey. (2011). Areas with Concentrated Poverty: 2006-2010.
American Community Survey Briefs. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-17.pdf
Anderson, E. (1978). A place on the corner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anderson, E. (1990). Streetwise: Race, class, and change in an urban community.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
259

Anderson, E. (1996). Introduction. The Philadelphia negro: A social study (pp. ix-xxxv).
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence and the moral life of the inner
city. New York: Norton.
Anderson, E. (2011). The cosmopolitan canopy. New York: Norton.
Angrosino, M. V. (2007). Doing ethnographic and observational research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Angrosino, M. V. (2008). Recontextualizing observation: Ethnography, pedagogy, and
the prospects for a progressive political agenda. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 161-184). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Atkinson, P. (2001). Ethnography and the representation of reality. In R. M. Emerson
(Ed.), Contemporary Field Research. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., & Delamont, S. (1999). Ethnography: Post, past, and present.
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(5), 460-471.
Auletta, K. (1982). The underclass. New York: Random House.
Balsamo, A. (2011). Designing Culture: The technological imagination at work. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and
practice. Review of Research in Education, 19, 3-49.
Baratz, J., & Baratz, S. (1970). Early childhood intervention: The social scientific basis
of institutionalized racism. Harvard Educational Review, 39, 29-50.
Baratz, S., & Baratz, J. (1970). Negro ghetto children and urban education: A cultural
solution. Social Education, 33, 401-405.
260

Becker, H. S. (1990). Generalizing from case studies: Commentary on the papers by
Donmoyer and by Schofield. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative
inquiry in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Behar, R. (1999). Ethnography: Cherishing our second-fiddle genre. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 28(5), 472-484.
Bennett, D. (2010). Looking for the 'hood and finding community: South Central, Race,
and Media. In D. Hunt & A. Ramón (Eds.), Black Los Angeles: American dreams
and racial realities (pp. 215-231). New York: New York University Press.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Blackwell, A. G., & Pastor, M. (2010). Let's hear it for the boys: Building a stronger
America by investing in young men and boys of color. In C. Edley & J. R. d.
Velasco (Eds.), Changing places: How communities will improve the health of
boys of color (pp. 3-33). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Boas, F. (2005 [1934]). Introduction. In R. Benedict (Ed.), Patterns of culture (pp. xxi-
xxiii). New York: First Mariner Books.
Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (4th ed. ed.). New York: Pearson Education
Group.
Bonacich, E., Cuevas, L. S., Morris, L., Pitts, S., & Bloom, J. (2010). A common project
for a just society: Black Labor in Los Angeles. In D. Hunt & A. Ramón (Eds.),
Black Los Angeles: American dreams and racial realities (pp. 360-381). New
York: New York University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
261

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice,
Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital (R. Nice, Trans.). In J. E. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of theory of research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258).
New York: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction: In education, society and culture
(R. Nice, Trans.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bourgois, P. (2003). In search of respect: Selling crack in El Barrio (2nd ed.). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and
the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic.
boyd, d. m. (2008). Taken out of context: American teen sociolity in networked publics.
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, J. L. (Eds.). (1997a). Neighborhood poverty:
Context and consequences for children (Vol. 1). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, J. L. (Eds.). (1997b). Neighborhood poverty:
Policy implications in studying neighborhoods (Vol. 2). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Buckingham, D. (2008). Youth, identity, and digital media. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), The
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and
Learning (pp. 1-24). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
262

Burawoy, M., Burton, A., Ferguson, A. A., Fox, K. J., Gamson, J., Gartrell, N., et al.
(1991). Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burgess, E. W. (1967 [1925]-a). Can neighborhood work have a scientific basis? In R. E.
Park & E. W. Burgess (Eds.), The city: Suggestions for investigation of human
behavior in the urban environment (pp. 142-155). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Burgess, E. W. (1967 [1925]-b). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research
project. In R. E. Park & E. W. Burgess (Eds.), The city: Suggestion for
investigation of human behavior in the urban environment (pp. 47-62). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of
effective community control. New York: Lexington Books.
Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Burton, L. M., Price-Spratlen, T., & Spencer, M. (1997). On ways of thinking about and
measuring neighborhoods: Implications for studying context and developmental
outcomes for children. In G. Duncan, J. Brooks-Gunn & L. Aber (Eds.),
Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children (Vol. II). New
York: Ruseell Sage Foundation.
California Department of Education. (2011a). Dataquest. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2011b). Standardized testing and reporting (STAR)
results. Retrieved from http://star.cde.ca.gov/
Carter, P. L. (2003). "Black" cultural capital, status positioning, and schooling conflicts
for low-income African American youth. Social Problems, 50(1), 136-155.
Carter, P. L. (2006). Straddling boundaries: Identity, culture, and school. The Sociology
of Education, 79(3), 304-328.
263

Carter, P. L. (2007). Keepin' it real: School success beyond black and white. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Carter, P. L. (2010). Cultural flexibility among students in different racial and ethnic
school contexts. Teachers College Record, 112(6), 1529-1574.
Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Charles, C. Z. (2006). Won't you be my neighbor: Race, class, and residence in Los
Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chaskin, R. J. (1997). Perspectives on neighborhood and community. The Social Service
Review, 71(4), 521-547.
Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitinonal framework and case
studies from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review, 36(3),
291-323.
Chaskin, R. J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A. (2001). Building community
capacity. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine.
Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C. W., & Horn, M. B. (2008). Disrupting class: How
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw.
Clampet-Lundquist, S., & Massey, D. S. (2008). Neighborhood effects on economic self-
sufficiency: A reconsideration of the Moving to Opportunity experiment.
American Journal of Sociology, 114(1), 107-143.
Clark, K. B. (1965). Dark ghetto: Dilemmas of social power (2nd ed.). New York: Harper
Torchbooks.
264

Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds.),
Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1-26). Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century ethnography,
literature, and art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of
ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clydesdale, T. (2007). The first year out: Understanding American teens after high
school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American
Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Conley, D. T. (2005). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed
and what we can do to get them ready. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conley, D. T. (2011). Redefining college readiness (Vol. 5). Eugene, OR: Educational
Policy Improvement Center.
Cooper, H., Valentine, J. C., Nye, B., & Lindsay, J. J. (1999). Relationships between five
after-school activities and academic achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91(2), 369-387.
Corwin, Z. B., & Clemens, R. F. (forthcoming). Analyzing fieldnotes: A practical guide.
In S. Delamont (Ed.), Edward Elgar handbook of qualitative research in
education.
Corwin, Z. B., Colyar, J. E., & Tierney, W. G. (2005). Engaging research and practice:
Extracurricular and curricular influences on college access. In W. G. Tierney, Z.
265

B. Corwin & J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective
outreach (pp. 1-12). New York: SUNY Press.
Crane, J. (1991). The epidemic theory of ghettos and neighborhood effects on dropping
out and teenage childbearing. The American Journal of Sociology, 96(5), 1226-
1259.
Crapanzano, V. (1980). Tuhami: Portrait of a Moroccan. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment
to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
Davis, M. (2006). City of quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles. London: Verso.
Dear, M. (2002). Los Angeles and the Chicago School: Invitation to a debate. City &
Community, 1(1), 5-32.
Deegan, M. J. (2001). The Chicago School of ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S.
Delamont, J. Lofland & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 11-25).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deener, A. (2012). Venice: A contested bohemia in Los Angeles. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Deil-Amen, R., & DeLuca, S. (2010). The underserved third: How our educational
structures populate an educational underclass. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 15, 27-50.
Delpit, L. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York:
Norton.
266

DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2010). Income, poverty, and health
insurance coverage in the United States: 2009. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Census
Bureau.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K. (2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture
participation on the grades of U. S. high school students. American Sociological
Review, 47(2), 189-201.
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263-187.
DiMaggio, P., & Mohr, J. (1985). Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital
selection. American Journal of Sociology, 90(6), 1231-1261.
Dohan, D. (2003). The price of poverty: Money, work, and culture in the Mexican
American Barrio. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Drake, S., & Cayton, H. R. (1993 [1945]). Black metropolis: A study of negro life in a
northern city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903). The talented tenth. In B. T. Washington (Ed.), The negro
problem: A series of articles by representative American negroes of today (pp.
31-75). New York: James Pott & Company.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1996 [1899]). The Philadelphia negro: A social study. Philadelphia,
PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
267

Dumais, S. A., & Ward, A. (2009). Cultural capital and first-generation college sucess.
Poetics, 38(3), 245-265.
Duncan, G. J. (1994). Families and neighbors as sources of disadvantage in the schooling
decisions of white and black adolescents. American Journal of Education, 103,
20-53.
Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. (Eds.). (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality,
schools, and children's life chances. New York: Russel Sage.
Duncan, G. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Assessing the effects of context in studies of
child and youth development. Educational Psychologist, 34(1), 29-41.
Duneier, M. (1992). Slim's table: Race, respectability, and masculinity. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York.
Durkheim, E. (1997 [1933]). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.
Earls, F., & Carlson, M. (2001). The social ecology of child health and well-being.
Annual Review of Public Health, 22, 143-166.
Eccles, J., & Templeton, J. (2002). Extracurricular and other after-school activities for
youth. Review of Educational Research, 26, 113-180.
Eitle, T. M., & Eitle, D. J. (2002). Race, cultural capital, and the educational effects of
participation in sports. Sociology of Education, 75(2), 123-146.
Emerson, R. M. (2001). Fieldwork practice: Issues in participant observation. In R. M.
Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: Perspectives and formulations (2nd
ed., pp. 113-152). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. L., & Shaw, C. R. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
268

Emerson, R. M., & Pollner, M. (2001). Constructing participant / observation relations. In
R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field relations: perspectives and
formulations (2nd ed., pp. 239-259). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Erickson, F. (1984). What makes school ethnography 'ethnographic'? Athropology and
Education Quarterly, 15, 51-66.
Erickson, F. (2011). A history of qualitative inquiry in social and educational research. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research
(4th ed., pp. 43-60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Farr, J. (2004). Social capital: A conceptual history. Political Theory, 32(1), 6-33.
Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational
research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.
Field, J. (2008). Social capital (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Fine, B. (2010). Theories of social capital: Researchers behaving badly. New York:
Pluto Press.
Fine, G. A. (1993). Ten lies of ethnography: Moral dilemmas of field research. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 267-294.
Fischer, C. S. (1975). Toward a subcultural theory of urbanism. American Journal of
Sociology, 80, 1319-1341.
Fischer, C. S. (1995). The subcultural theory of urbanism: A twentieth-year assessment.
American Journal of Sociology, 101, 543-577.
Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fordham, S. (1996). Blacked out: Dilemmas of race, identity, and success at Capital
High. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
269

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the
"burden of 'acting white'". The Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.
Foucault, M. (1995 [1977]). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (2nd ed.).
New York: Vintage Books.
Frazier, E. F. (1932). The negro family in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E. (2007). Gauging growth: How to judge No
Child Left Behind? Education Researcher, 36(5), 268-278.
Furstenberg, F., & Hughes, M. E. (1997). The influence of neighborhoods on children's
development: A theoretical perspective and a research agenda. In J. Brooks-Gunn,
G. Duncan & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences
for children (Vol. 1, pp. 23-47). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. H., & Sameroff, A. (Eds.). (1999).
Managing to make it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Galster, G. C. (2012). The mechanism(s) of neighborhood effects: Theory, evidence, and
policy implications. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson & D.
Maclennan (Eds.), Neighborhood effects research: New perspectives (pp. 23-56).
New York: Springer.
Gans, H. J. (1962). The urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans.
New York: Free Press.
Gans, H. J. (2011). The Moynihan Report and its aftermaths: A critical analysis. Du Bois
Review, 8(2), 315-327.
Geertz, C. (1973a). The growth of culture and the evolution of mind. The interpretation
of cultures (pp. 55-86). New York: Basic Books.
270

Geertz, C. (1973b). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic.
Geertz, C. (1973c). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The
interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3-32). New York: Basic.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology (3 ed.).
New York: Basic Books.
Gephart, M. A. (1997). Neighborhoods and communities as contexts for development. In
J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty:
Context and consequences for children (Vol. 1, pp. 1-43). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Gephart, M. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Introduction. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J.
Duncan & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences
for children (Vol. 1, pp. xiii-xxii). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Giddens, A. (1994 [1979]). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and
contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the
opposition. Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1961). On the characteristics of total institutions. Asylums: Essays on the
social situation of mental patients and other inmates (pp. 3-124). Garden City,
NY: Doubleday Anchor.
271

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldsmith, P. R. (2010). Coleman revisited: School segregation, peers, and frog ponds.
American Educational Research Journal, 20(10), 1-28.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75-91.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-
117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Zitlali Morales, P., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy:
Culture, difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities.
Review of Research in Education, 33, 212-245.
Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (Vol. 2nd).
New York: Routledge.
Hannerz, U. (1969). Soulside: Inquiries into ghetto culture and community. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Harding, D. J. (2003). Counterfactual models of neighborhood effects: Poverty on
dropping out and teenage pregnancy. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3),
676-719.
Harding, D. J. (2010). Living the drama: Community, conflict, and culture among inner-
city boys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
272

Harding, D. J. (2011). Rethinking the cultural context of schooling decisions in
disadvantaged neighborhoods: From deviant subculture to cultural heterogeneity.
Sociology of Education, 84, 322-339.
Harding, D. J., Gennetian, L., Winship, C., Sanbonmatsu, L., & Kling, J. (2011).
Unpacking neighborhood influences on education outcomes: Setting the stage for
future research. In G. Duncan & R. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising
inequality, schools, and children's life chances (pp. 277-298). New York: Russell
Sage.
Harper, S. R. (2012). Black male student success in higher education: A report from the
National Black Male college achievement study. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education.
Hays, S. (1994). Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture. Sociological
Theory, 12(1), 57-72.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, S. B. (2012). Seeing our way into learning science in informal environments. In
W. F. Tate (Ed.), Research on schools, neighborhoods, and communities: Toward
civic responsibility (pp. 249-267). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Best of both worlds: Connecting schools and
community youth organizations for all-day, all-year learning. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 30, 278-300.
Hecht, T. (1998). At home in the street: Street children of northeast Brazil. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Henig, J. R., Hula, R. C., Orr, M., & Pedescleaux, D. S. (1999). The color of school
reform: Race, politics, and the challenge of urban education. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
273

Henig, J. R., & Reville, S. P. (2011). Why attention will return to non-school factors.
Editorial Projects in Education. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/05/25/32henig_ep.h30.html
Hollander, J. A. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 33, 602-637.
Horst, H., Martinez, K. Z., & Sims, C. (2010). Families. In M. Ito et al (Ed.), Hanging
out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media
(pp. 149-194). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hunt, D. (2010). Introduction: Dreaming of black Los Angeles. In D. Hunt & A. Ramón
(Eds.), Black Los Angeles: American dreams and racial realities (pp. 1-17). New
York: New York University Press.
Hurston Park Unified School Distrct. (2010). School facts and accountibility information,
2009-2010. Retrieved from http://www.hpusd.net/
Jacobs, J. (1992 [1961]). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage.
Jargowsky, P. A. (1997). Poverty and place: Ghettos, barrios, and the American city.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Jargowsky, P. A., & Bane, M. J. (1990). Ghetto poverty: Basic questions. In L. E. Lynn
& M. G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-city poverty in the United States (pp. 16-67).
Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Jarrett, R. L. (1997). African American family and parenting strategies in impoverished
neighborhoods. Qualitative Sociology, 20(2), 275-288.
Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor
neighborhood. In L. E. Lynn & M. G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-city poverty in
the United States (pp. 111-186). Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Jencks, C., & Peterson, P. E. (Eds.). (1991). The urban underclass. Washinton, D. C.:
Brookings Institution.
274

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York:
New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006).
Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st
century. Chicago, IL: The MacArthur Foundation.
Johnson, L. B. (1964, January 8). Annual message to the Congress and the state of the
union.Unpublished manuscript, Washington, D. C.
Jones, N. (2010). Between good and ghetto: African American girls and inner city
violence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Kalmijn, M., & Kraaykamp, G. (1996). Race, cultural capital, and schooling: An analysis
of trends in the United States. Sociology of Education, 69(1), 22-34.
Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J. H., Waters, M. C., & Holdaway, J. (2008). Inheriting the
city: The children of immigrants come of age. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Katz, M. B. (1995). Improving poor people: The welfare state, the "underclass," and
urban schools as history. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Kelley, R. D. G. (1997). Yo' mama's disfunktional! Fighting the culture wars in urban
America. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
King, M. L. (1968, March). Remaining awake through a great revolution. Speech
presented at the National Cathedral, Washington, D. C.
Kling, J. R., Liebman, J. B., & Katz, L. F. (2005). Bullets don't got no name:
Consequences of fear in the ghetto. In T. S. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful
pathways in children's development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and
family life (pp. 343-382). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic
models. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
275

Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in social disorganization theory.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 374-402.
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ladd, H. L., & Fiske, E. B. (2011, December 11). Class matters. Why won't we admit it?
The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/the-unaddressed-link-between-
poverty-and-education.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Ladson-Billings, G. J. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Education Research Journal, 35, 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. J. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt:
Understanding achievement in U. S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-
12.
Ladson-Billings, G. J. (2009). The dream-keepers: Successful teachers of African
American Children (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in
recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 153-168.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual
Review of Sociology, 28, 167-195.
Lamont, M., & Small, M. L. (2008). How culture matters for the understanding of
poverty: Enriching our understanding. In D. Harris & A. Lin (Eds.), The color of
poverty: Why racial and ethnic disparities exist. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Lamont, M., & Small, M. L. (2010). Cultural diversity and anti-poverty. International
Social Science Journal, 61(199), 169-180.
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The
importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60(2), 73-85.
276

Lareau, A. (2003a). Theory: Understanding the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Unequal
childhoods: Class, race, and family life (pp. 275-278). Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Lareau, A. (2003b). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA:
University of Berkeley Press.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race,
class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education,
72(1), 37-53.
Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2003). Cultural capital in educational research: A critical
assessment. Theory and Society, 32, 567-606.
Lederman, R. (1990). Pretexts for ethnography: On reading fieldnotes. In R. Sanjek (Ed.),
Fieldnotes: The making of anthropology (pp. 71-91). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens, smartphones & texting. Washington, D. C.: Pew Research
Center.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of
neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological
Bulletin, 126(2), 309-337.
Lewis, O. (1959). Five families: Mexican case studies in the culture of poverty. New
York: Basic Books.
Lewis, O. (1969). The culture of poverty. In D. P. Moynihan (Ed.), On understanding
poverty: Perspectives from the social sciences (pp. 187-200). New York: Basic
Books.
Liebow, E. (1967). Tally's corner: A study of Negro streetcorner men. Boston: Little,
Brown and Company.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22, 28-51.
277

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275-289.
Lincoln, Y. S. (2001). Varieties of validity: Quality in qualitative research. In J. Smart &
W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp.
25-72). New York: Agathon Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (1994). The fifth moment. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 575-586). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). The only generalization is: There is no
generalization. In R. Gomm (Ed.), Case study method (pp. 27-44). London: Sage.
LiPuma, E. (1993). Culture and the concept of culture in a theory of practice. In C.
Calhoun, E. LiPuma & M. Postone (Eds.), Bourdieu: Critical perspectives (pp.
14-34). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative
observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Lopez, L. (2003). Hopeful girls, troubled boys: Race and gender disparity in urban
education. New York: Routledge.
Lowie, R. H. (1920). Primitive society. New York: Liveright Publishing.
Ludwig, J., Kling, J. R., Katz, L. F., Sanbonmatsu, L., Liebman, J. B., Duncan, G. J., et
al. (2008). What can we learn about neighborhood effects from the Moving to
Opportunity experiment. American Journal of Sociology, 14(1), 144-188.
278

Luker, K. (2008). Salsa dancing into the social sciences: Research in an age of info-glut.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mahatmya, D., & Lohman, B. (2011). Predictors of late adolescent delinquency: The
protective role of after-school activities in low-income families. Children and
Youth Services Review, 33, 1309-1317.
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: Dutton.
Malinowski, B. (2002 [1922]). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native
enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea.
London: Routledge.
Marks, C. (1991). The urban underclass. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 445-466.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the
making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure
opportunitiy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
McLaren, P. (1998). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the
foundations of education. New York: Longman.
McQuarrie, M., & Marwell, N. P. (2009). The missing organizational dimension in urban
sociology. City and Community, 8(3), 247-268.
Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa. Oxford: Morrow.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
279

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into
Practice, XXXI(2), 132-141.
Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. (2001). Neighborhood inequality,
collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39,
517-559.
Morenoff, J. D., & Tieda, M. (1997). Neighborhoods in temporal and ecological
perspective. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
551, 59-72.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Moynihan, D. (1965). The negro family: The case for national action. Washington, D. C.:
Office for Family Planning and Research, U. S. Department of Labor.
Musoba, G., & Baez, B. (2009). The cultural capital of cultural and social capital: An
economy of translations. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of
theory and research (Vol. XXIV, pp. 151-182). New York: Agathon Press.
Myers, D. (2002). Demographic dynamism in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and
Washington, DC. In M. J. Dear & J. D. Dishman (Eds.), From Chicago to L. A.:
Making sense of urban theory (pp. 17-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newman, K. (1992). Culture and structure in The Truly Disadvantaged. City and Society,
6, 3-25.
Newman, K. (1999). No shame in my game: The working poor in the inner city. New
York: Vintage.
280

Newman, K. S., & Peeples Massengill, R. (2006). The texture of hardship: Qualitative
sociology of poverty, 1995-2005. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 423-446.
No Child Left Behind. (2002). Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425.
Noguera, P. A. (2003). The trouble with black boys: The role and influence of
environmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African
American Males. Urban Education, 38(4), 431-459.
Noguera, P. A. (2008). The trouble with black boys. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven,
CN: Yale University Press.
Oakes, J., Wells, A. S., & Jones, M. (1997). Detracking: The social construction of
ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform. Teachers College Record, 98,
482-510.
Ogbu, J. U. (1995a). Cultural problems in minority education: Their interpretations and
consequences--part one: Theoretical background. The Urban Review, 27(3), 189-
205.
Ogbu, J. U. (1995b). Cultural problems in minority education: Their interpretations and
consequences--part two: Case studies. The Urban Review, 27(4), 271-297.
Ogbu, J. U. (2004). Collective identity and the burden of "acting white" in black history,
community, and education. Urban Review, 36, 1-35.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational
inequality. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
Orr, L., Feins, J., Jacob, R., Beecroft, E., Sanbonmatsu, L., Katz, L. F., et al. (2003).
Moving to Opportunity interim impacts evaluation. Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
281

Park, R. E. (1967 [1925]). The city: Suggestions for the investigation of human behavior
in the urban environment. In R. E. Park & E. W. Burgess (Eds.), The city (pp. 1-
46). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., & McKenzie, R. (1967 [1925]). The city. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Patterson, O. (2006). A poverty of the mind. The New York Times.
Pattillo-McCoy, M. (1999). Black picket fences: Privilege and peril among the Black
middle class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Plummer, K. (2001). Documents of life 2: An invitation to a critical humanism. London:
Sage.
Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the
social determinants of economic action. The American Journal of Sociology,
98(6), 1320-1350.
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and
its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
530, 74-96.
Pratt, M. L. (1986). Fieldwork in common places. In J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds.),
Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 27-50). Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Pressley McPhail, I. (2002). Culture, style, and cognition: Expanding the boundaries of
the learning paradigm for African American learners in the community college. In
L. Jones (Ed.), Making it on broken promises: African American male scholars
confront the culture of higher education (pp. 107-132). Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Punch, M. (1994). Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 83-95). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
282

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rabinow, P. (1977). Reflections of fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Rabinow, P. (1986). Representations are social facts: Modernity and post-modernity in
anthropology. In J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics
and politics of ethnography (pp. 234-261). Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Rainwater, L. (1970). Behind ghetto walls. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing
and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic.
Ravitch, D. (2011). Waiting for a school miracle. The New York Times.
Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the
poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G. Duncan
(Eds.), Whither opportunity?: Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances of
low-income children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.
Reese, W. J. (2011). American public schools: From the common school to "No Child
Left Behind". Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rios, V. M. (2011). Punished: Policing the lives of black and Latino boys. New York:
New York University Press.
Robinson, P. (2010). Race, space, and the evolution of black Los Angeles. In D. Hunt &
A. Ramón (Eds.), Black Los Angeles: American dreams and racial realities (pp.
21-59). New York: New York University Press.
Rosaldo, R. (1986). From the door of his tent: The fieldworker and the inquisitor. In J.
Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of
ethnography (pp. 77-97). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
283

Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture & truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Roscigno, V. J., & Ainsworth, J. W. (1999). Race, cultural capital, and educational
resources: Persistent inequalitites and achievement. Sociology of Education,
72(3), 158-178.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform
to close the achievement gap. Washington, D. C.: Economic Policy Institute.
Rothwell, J. (2012). Housing costs, zoning, and access to high-scoring schools.
Washington, D. C.: Brookings.
Rumbaut, R. W. (2011). Dropping out: Why students drop out of high school and what
can be done about it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage.
Sampson, R. J. (2002a). Studying modern Chicago. City & Community, 1(1), 45-48.
Sampson, R. J. (2002b). Transcending tradition: New directions in community research,
Chicago style. Criminology, 40(2), 213-230.
Sampson, R. J. (2008). Moving to inequality: Neighborhood effects and experiments
meet social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 114(1), 189-231.
Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood
effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Bean, L. (2006). Cultural mechanisms and killing fields: A revised
theory of community-level racial inequality. In R. Peterson, L. Krivo & J. Hagan
(Eds.), The many colors of crime: Inequalities of race, ethnicity and crime in
America (pp. 8-38). New York: New York University Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-
disorganization theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774-802.
284

Sampson, R. J., & Morenoff, J. D. (1997). Ecological perspectives on the neighborhood
context of urban poverty: Past and present. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. Duncan & J. L.
Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children (Vol.
1, pp. 1-22). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sampson, R. J., & Morenoff, J. D. (2006). Durable inequality: Spatial dynamics, social
processes and the persistence of poverty in Chicago neighborhoods. In S. Bowles,
S. Durlauf & K. Hoff (Eds.), Poverty traps (pp. 176-203). Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial
dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review,
64(5), 633-660.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing "neighborhood
effects": Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of
Sociology, 28, 443-478.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. (1999). Systematic social observation of public
spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. Annual Review of
Sociology, 94, 774-802.
Sanbonmatsu, L., Kling, J. R., Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Neighborhoods
and academic achievement: Results from the Moving to Opportunity experiment.
Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 649-691.
Sánchez-Jankowski, M. (2008). Cracks in the pavement: Social change and resilience in
poor neighborhoods. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Sen, A. (2004). How does culture matter? In V. Rao & M. Walton (Eds.), Culture and
public action (pp. 37-58). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
285

Sewell, W. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American
Journal of Sociology, 98, 1-29.
Shade, B. J. (1982). Afro-American cognitive style: A variable in school success? Review
of Educational Research, 52(2), 219-244.
Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education
design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25-28.
Shaw, C. R. (1966 [1930]). The Jack-roller: A delinquent boy's own story. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Shaw, C. R., Zorbaugh, H. W., McKay, H. D., & Cottrell, L. S. (1929). Delinquency
areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sides, J. (2006). L.A. city limits: African American Los Angeles from the Great
Depression to the present. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sims, C. (2003). In Los Angeles, it's South-Central no more. The New York Times.
Sinclair, U. (1906). The jungle. New York: Doubleday, Page & Company.
Singleton, J. (Writer). (1991). Boyz n the Hood: Columbia Pictures Corporation.
Small, M. L. (2004). Villa Victoria: The transformation of social capital in a Boston
Barrio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Small, M. L. (2007). Is there such thing as 'the ghetto'? The perils of assuming that the
South Side of Chicago represents poor black neighborhoods. City, 11(3), 413-421.
Small, M. L. (2008). Four reasons to abandon the idea of 'the ghetto'. City and
Community, 7(4), 389-398.
286

Small, M. L. (2009a). "How many cases do I need?": On science and the logic of case
selection in fieldbased research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5-38.
Small, M. L. (2009b). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday
life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Small, M. L., & Feldman, J. (2012). Ethnographic evidence, heterogeneity, and
neighborhood effects after Moving to Opportunity. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N.
Bailey, L. Simpson & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighborhood effects research: New
perspectives (pp. 57-78). New York: Springer.
Small, M. L., Harding, D., & Lamont, M. (2010). Reconsidering culture and poverty. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 6, 6-27.
Small, M. L., Jacobs, E., & Peeples Massengill, R. (2008). Why organizational ties
matter for neighborhood effects: A study of resource access through childcare
centers. Social Forces, 87(1), 387-414.
Small, M. L., & McDermott, M. (2006). The presence of organizational resources in poor
neighborhoods: An analysis of average and contextual effects. Social Forces, 84,
1697-1724.
Small, M. L., & Newman, K. (2001). Urban poverty after The Truly Disadvantaged: The
rediscovery of the family, the neighborhood, and culture. Annual Review of
Sociology, 27, 23-45.
Small, M. L., & Stark, L. (2005). Are poor neighborhoods resource-deprived? A case
study of childcare centers in New York. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 1013-1036.
Smith, R. C. (2008). Horatio Alger lives in Brooklyn: Extrafamily support, intrafamily
dynamics, and socially neutral operating identities in exceptional mobility among
children of Mexican immigrants. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 620, 270-290.
Smrekar, C. (1996). The impact of school choice and community: In the interest of
families and schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
287

Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social
theory. New York: Verso.
Soja, E. W. (2000). Postmetropolis: Critical studies of cities and regions. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Solórzano, D. G. (1992). An exploratory analysis of the effects of race, class and gender
on student and parent mobility aspirations. Journal of negro education, 61(1), 30-
44.
Solórzano, D. G., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Critical race theory, transformational
resistance and social justice: Chicana and Chicano students in an urban context.
Urban Education, 36, 308-342.
Stack, C. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a black community. New York:
Basic Books.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review,
67(1), 1-40.
Starr, K. (2005). California: A history. New York: Modern Library.
Suttles, G. D. (1968). The social order of the slum: Ethnicity and territory in the inner
city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Suttles, G. D. (1976). Urban ethnography: Situational and normative accounts. Annual
Review of Sociology, 2, 1-18.
Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological
Review, 51, 273-286.
288

The Children's Aid Society. (2009). National center for community schools. Retrieved
from http://nationalcenterforcommunityschools.childrensaidsociety.org/
The Children's Aid Society. (2010). Community schools. Retrieved from
http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/community-schools
Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1958 [1918-20]). The Polish peasant in Europe and
America. New York: Dover Publications.
Thorne, B. (2001). Learning from kids. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field
research: Perspectives and formulations (2nd ed., pp. 224-238). Long Grove, IL:
Waveland Press.
Thrasher, F. M. (1927). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Tienda, M. (1991). Poor people and poor places: Deciphering neighborhood effects on
poverty outcomes. In J. Haber (Ed.), Macro-micro linkages in sociology (pp. 244-
262). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tierney, W. G. (forthcoming). Danny’s fight for life: Cultural flexibility and identity
formation en route to college.
Tierney, W. G., & Clemens, R. F. (2011). Qualitative research and public policy: The
challenges of relevance and trustworthiness. In J. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.),
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 26, pp. 57-83). New
York: Springer.
Tierney, W. G., & Clemens, R. F. (forthcoming). The uses of life history. In S. Delamont
(Ed.), Edward Elgar handbook of qualitative research in education.
Tocqueville, A. (2000 [1835]). Democracy in America (H. C. Mansfield & D. Winthrop,
Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tönnies, F. (2001 [1887]). Community and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
289

Tough, P. (2008). Whatever it takes: Geoffrey Canada's question to change Harlem and
America. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Tough, P. (2011). No, seriously: No excuses. The New York Times.
Towne, L., Shavelson, R. J., & Feuer, M. J. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in
education. Washington, DC: National Research Council Committee on Scientific
Principles in Education Research
Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
U. S. Census Data. (2011). 2006-2008 American community survey 3-year estimates.
Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/
U. S. Department of Education. (2010). Promise neighborhoods. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/index.html
Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2006). Chapter 7: Engaging young people: Learning in informal
contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 239-278.
Valentine, C. A. (1968). Culture and poverty: Critique and counter-proposals. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U. S. - Mexican youth and the politics of
caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
van Ham, M., Manley, D., Bailey, N., Simpson, L., & Maclennan, D. (2012).
Neighborhood effects research: New perspectives. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N.
Bailey, L. Simpson & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighborhood effects research: New
perspectives (pp. 1-22). New York: Springer.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
290

Van Maanen, J. (1995). An end to ethnography: The ethnography of ethnography. In J. V.
Maanen (Ed.), Representation in ethnography (pp. 1-35). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Venkatesh, S. A. (2000). American project: The rise and fall of a modern ghetto.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Venkatesh, S. A. (2006). Off the books: The underground economy of the urban poor.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Venkatesh, S. A. (2008). Gang leader for a day: A rogue sociologist takes to the streets.
New York: Penguin.
Wacquant, L. J. D. (2001). Deadly symbiosis: When ghetto and prison meet and mesh.
Punishment & Society, 3(1), 95-133.
Wacquant, L. J. D. (2008). Urban outcasts: The comparitive sociology of advanced
marginality. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Wacquant, L. J. D., & Wilson, W. J. (1989a). The cost of racial and class exclusion in the
inner city. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 501,
8-25.
Wacquant, L. J. D., & Wilson, W. J. (1989b). Poverty, joblessness and the social
transformation of the inner city. In D. Ellwood & P. Cottingham (Eds.),
Reforming welfare policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watkins, S. C. (2009). The young & the digital: What the migration to social-network
sites, games, and anytime, anywhere media means for our futire. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interview studies. New York: The Free Press.
Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227-252.
291

Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the internet increase,
decrease, or supplement social capital?: Social networks, participation, and
community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 436-455.
Whyte, W. F. (1993 [1943]). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum
(4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public
policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1991). Studying inner-city dislocations: The challenge of public agenda
research. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 1-14.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New
York: Knopf.
Wilson, W. J. (2009). More than just race: Being black and poor in the inner city. New
York: Norton.
Wilson, W. J. (2010). Why both social structure and culture matter in a holistic analysis
of inner-city poverty. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science(629), 200-219.
Wilson, W. J. (2011). Reflections on a sociological career that integrates social science
with social policy. The Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 1-18.
Wilson, W. J. (Ed.). (1993). The ghetto underclass: Social science perspectives. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
292

Wilson, W. J., & Aponte, R. (1985). Urban poverty. Annual Review of Sociology, 11,
231-258.
Wirth, L. (1928). The ghetto. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. The American Journal of Sociology, 44(1),
1-24.
Wolcott, H. F. (1990). On seeking--and rejecting--validity in qualitative research. In E.
W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing
debate (pp. 121-152). New York: Teachers College Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L.
Millroy & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education
(pp. 3-52). New York: Academic Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1995). Making a study 'more ethnographic'. In J. V. Maanen (Ed.),
Representation in ethnography (pp. 79-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Press.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical
synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151-208.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-92.
Young, A. A. (2004). The minds of marginalized black men: Making sense of mobility,
opportunity, and future life chances. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zeehandelaar, D. B., & Clemens, R. F. (2010). Government spending on education:
Reactions to economic crisis. World Studies in Education, 11(2), 29-47.
Zhou, M., Lee, J., Agius Vallejo, J., Tafoya-Estrada, R., & Xiong, Y. S. (2008). Success
attained, deterred, and denied: Divergent pathways to social mobility in Los
293

Angeles's New Second Generation. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 620, 31-67.
Zorbaugh, H. W. (1976 [1929]). The gold coast and the slum: A sociological study of
Chicago's Near North Side. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

294

Appendix A. A Note about Structure and Culture
Although early neighborhood studies (Gans, 1962; Shaw & McKay, 1942; Shaw
et al., 1929; Suttles, 1968; Whyte, 1993 [1943]) examined structure and culture together,
neighborhood scholars over the last three decades have more often focused on either
structural or cultural explanations of neighborhood poverty (Noguera, 2003).
Structuralists focus on “the way social positions, social roles, and networks of social
relationships are arranged in our institutions, such as the economy, polity, education, and
the organization of the family” (Wilson, 2010, p. 201). They examine topics such as
family organization, job opportunities, and access to and use of institutions like churches
and schools. Cultural theorists, in contrast, explore beliefs, norms, values, and meaning-
making among individuals, families, or communities (Noguera, 2003).
A number of social theorists view the dichotomy between culture and structure as
specious (Giddens, 1986, 1994 [1979]; Hays, 1994; Sewell, 1992). Sharon Hays (1994)
notes the trouble with comparisons between the two concepts:
The key problem with this usage, of course, is its implication that culture is not
structured. Additionally, this contrast is also often entangled in a set of
dichotomies that produce, for example, an image of social structure as objective
and material, while culture is subjective and ideal; of social structure as hard,
while culture is soft; of social structure as external, publicly-accessible, and open
to scientific observation, while culture is internal, hidden, and requiring
interpretation…[S]tructure is treated as the concept with the muscle, while agency
and culture become its weak-kneed younger cousins. (p. 58)
Sewell (1992) highlights the inextricable relationship between structure and culture:
“Structures shape people’s practices, but it is also people’s practices that constitute (and
reproduce) structures” (p. 4). In other words, neighborhood institutions and social
structures marshal daily activity and interactions, and the activity, in turn, influences
295

institutions and social arrangements. Giddens (1986, 1994 [1979]) discusses a similar
motif. He (1986) states, “the structural properties of social systems are both medium and
outcome of the practices they recursively organize” (p. 25).
As I discuss in Chapter 2, in recent years, neighborhood scholars have
increasingly retuned to cultural explanations of neighborhood poverty (Small et al.,
2010). Nevertheless, not all scholars agree with the limited theoretical focus (Kornhauser,
1978). Herbert Gans (2011) provides one of the most trenchant critiques of the recent
“cultural turn.” He states:
I find it difficult to understand why the effects of slavery, long term male
unemployment, low wages, poverty, and racial discrimination should be defined
as cultural, especially since cultural sociologists cannot agree on a definition of
culture…When employed in poverty and antipoverty policy research, cultural
analyses that downplay the relevance of economic, political, and related
“structural” factors can be used to undermine the need for economic and other
policies to fight poverty and discrimination. Still, connecting culture and poverty
enables conservative thinkers and apolitical researchers to avoid research and
policy issues relevant to the struggle against poverty. (p. 223-224)
While Gans’ may disagree, the systematic factors that perpetuate concentrated poverty as
well as the processes and outcomes of living in low-income neighborhood are complex
and dynamic (Lamont & Small, 2008).
The newest generation of neighborhood research provides rich descriptions of
both the daily lives of individuals as well as the worlds they inhabit. It also indicates that
academics, as they attempt to reconcile the two concepts, are more interested in creating
research and policy that explains and alleviates neighborhood poverty, rather than
upholding theoretical divisions (see Harding, 2010; Jones, 2010; Noguera, 2003; Rios,
2011; Wilson, 2009, 2010).
296

Appendix B. A Sketch of Hurston Park
Neighborhood studies often include rich, vivid accounts of the historical
formation of the area of study (Drake & Cayton, 1993 [1945]; W.E.B. Du Bois, 1996
[1899]; Small, 2004). The reason is straightforward: Compound forces—social, political,
economical, and historical—impact neighborhoods. In other words, to study a
neighborhood now, a researcher ought to be conversant in the factors that have shaped it.
A study of Hurston Park, California, the neighborhood of study, is no different. In some
regards, history means little to a 17-year-old male in South Los Angeles. Asked about the
Great Migration or Watts Riots, he may shrug his shoulders. The influence of these
events, and others, is important nonetheless. They have shaped structural and cultural
conditions. As a result, the purpose of the following sections is to examine major
developments in concentrated poverty nationally and locally over the last 70 years.
National Developments
The current state of concentrated urban poverty emerges from events occurring
since the Great Depression. During the 1940s, in an effort to increase homeownership,
the federal government subsidized the building and financing of homes. Discriminatory
practices such as redlining and restrictive housing covenants, however, precluded African
Americans and other racial minorities from home ownership (Massey & Denton, 1993;
Wilson, 2009). During the 1950s, segregation continued as freeways and government
incentives caused suburbs to flourish. At the same time, the Housing Act of 1949 resulted
in the demolition of urban slums and creation of massive, federally subsidized inner-city
public housing units such as Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago and Pruitt-Igoe in St.
297

Louis (Rainwater, 1970; Venkatesh, 2000). The government filtered prospective residents
to include only the families with the lowest household earnings. While whites migrated to
the suburbs, African Americans migrated to cities. To put the shift in perspective, from
1940 to 1970, the percentage of African Americans living in cities rose from 50 to 80
percent (Sides, 2006). Conditions worsened during the 1970s and 1980s. Economic
changes, particularly the de-industrialization of cities, resulted in extreme joblessness
among African Americans (Wilson, 1987, 1996). Discrimination along with reduced
housing options had the cumulative effect of creating inner-cities segregated by race,
ethnicity, and class (Massey & Denton, 1993; Wilson, 2009).
Local Developments
From World War II until the 1960s, five million African Americans migrated
from Texas, Louisiana, and other southern states to Los Angeles, California (Sides,
2006). While harsh racial attitudes and exclusions existed (Hunt, 2010; Starr, 2005), to
members of the “Great Migration,” Southern California also represented job opportunity.
After all, during the war, the government awarded over $11 billion in war contracts to
Los Angeles manufacturers. (Bonacich, Cuevas, Morris, Pitts, & Bloom, 2010; Sides,
2006). By producing ships, planes, and steel, the city, second only to Detroit, became a
booming manufacturing center in the United States (Sides, 2006).
African Americans mainly settled in two areas of Los Angeles. Central Avenue
became the center of African American life for the first half of the 20
th
century (Bonacich
et al., 2010). After the Supreme Court’s Shelley v. Kraemer ruling in 1948, which banned
race-based restrictive covenants, middle-class African Americans began moving
298

westward to the Leimert Park / Crenshaw District. The court ruling had a dramatic affect
on the spatial patterns of racial groups in the city. On one hand, African Americans left
over-crowded neighborhoods on the eastside. On the other, whites began to leave central
Los Angeles; from 1950 to 1956, 125,000 exited the inner-city (Robinson, 2010). The net
result was a “new consolidated black ghetto” (p. 43) with the most affluent African
Americans living on the margins. The area became known as South Central Los Angeles,
named after the road that passed through the cultural and commercial center of black life
(Hunt, 2010).
The 1960s marked a new era for South Central. Manufacturing firms either
moved to Los Angeles suburbs or dissolved. Jobs became fewer and fewer and
unemployment increased (Sides, 2006). A year after President Johnson declared a War on
Poverty, frustration, inferior living conditions, and racial tension combined to create the
setting for the Watts Riots of 1965.
32
The riots drew national attention and contributed to
a burgeoning national discourse (Gans, 2011).
After the riots, the few remaining white families, along with a large contingent of
middle-class African Americans, left the area. Living conditions continued to worsen
from the 1960s to 1990s. Opportunities in the formal economy decreased; gang activity,
crimes, and an underground economy increased (Alonso, 2010).
Contemporary Hurston Park. “South Central has never merely existed” writes
scholar Dionne Bennett (2010), “It has been invented and imagined, erased and

32
Only five months before the riots, Daniel Moynihan (1965) released his famous report,
chronicling the dissolution of the nuclear family among African Americans as well as the dangers
of the “tangle of pathology.” The author warned readers that African American youth were the
most in danger of being persuaded by living in the ghetto.
299

resurrected through an intersection of competing names, narratives, images, and
geographic spaces, some real and some merely represented” (p. 217). Consequently, it is
of little surprise that, in 2003, the Los Angeles City Council renamed South Central to
South Los Angeles (Sims, 2003). After two riots and decades of prejudiced
representations in movies and music branded the sixteen-square-mile neighborhood as a
volatile, dangerous urban ghetto (Davis, 2006; Sides, 2006), the new name, to the
Council, represented an opportunity for a new reputation.
Hurston Park rests on the edge of South LA. To some in the neighborhood,
Hurston Park is a heterogeneous community with established black middle-class families
along with a growing Latino population. To others, Hurston Park is a temporary stop on
the way to a better place. Many African Americans aspire to move to more affluent areas
nearby (Charles, 2006; Davis, 2006).
Figure 7. Racial Composition of Hurston Park, 2006-2008
White
African Amer.
Latino
Asian
Other
Source: Mapping LA (LA Times, 2011)

300

Hurston Park is experiencing drastic demographic shifts. African Americans and
Latinos each compose 46 percent of the population (Figure 7).
33
The shifts are
influencing social relations and neighborhood institutions.
34
Racial tensions, in particular,
are a neighborhood reality as some African Americans feel they are being displaced by
Latinos (Charles, 2006). A survey of race and ethnicity by age shows Latinos are the
majority group between ages 0 to 9 and 30 to 39. African Americans represent the
majority in all other age groups (Figure 8).

33
Mapping LA (2011) uses census data as well as updated neighborhood boundaries. As a result,
their data represents the most accurate snapshot of the city. The difference in boundary setting,
however, significantly influences demographics. Comparing the population of whites, for
instance, shows a great disparity between Mapping LA (4%) in 2011 and the American
Community Survey (17.6%) between 2006-2008 (U. S. Census Data, 2011).

34
Dowell Myers (2002) describes this phenomena as “demographic dynamism.” Dynamism
refers not only to demographic shifts in a city but also attitudinal changes of individuals within
the city.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80>
Figure 8. Race by Age, 2006-2008
White Black Latino Asian Native Amer. Other / Mixed
Source: IPUMS American Community Survey (Ruggles et al., 2010)
301

The city experiences above average crime and gang activity compared to other
areas in Los Angeles. Three groups—Crips, Bloods, and Treces—define the three major
gangs. The Bloods occupy an area known as Upper Hurston, which sits north of the
school. The Treces occupy the area surrounding Hurston Park High School (HPHS) along
with Greenwood Park, which is north of HPHS and east of Upper Hurston. One interview
respondent summed up the difference between Watts, a nearby city, and Hurston Park: “I
went from cockroaches in the ghetto to gangs in the Park. I’m not sure which is worse.”
The city experiences high segregation and poverty and low education attainment.
Looking at the spatial concentrations of racial groups, African Americans primarily live
in the northwest or east while Latinos reside on the west side, south of Upper Hurston. A
view of household incomes reveals significantly more concentrated poverty where
Latinos, especially foreign-born populations, reside. And finally, considering higher
education, residents living in the highest areas of poverty have the fewest percentage of
college graduates.

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80>
Figure 9. Hurston Park Poverty Levels by Age, 2006-2008
0-99 100-149 150-199 200-299 300-399 400-499 500>
Source: IPUMS American Community Survey (Ruggles et al., 2010)

302

An examination of poverty and education attainment data yields four important
facts. First, the highest levels of poverty occur from birth to 19 years of age (Figure 9).
Second, poverty levels in Hurston Park exceed the state at every age group (Figure 10).
Third, poverty correlates to poor education attainment; the majority of people living
below the poverty line have a high school diploma or less (Figure 11). Fourth, young men
who receive a high school diploma or less (69%) fare considerably worse than women
(48%).

Education. Although low-income families value the role of education (Carter,
2007; K. Newman, 1999; Solórzano, 1992; Young, 2004), the academic outcomes of
students in low-income, segregated neighborhoods are bleak (Ainsworth, 2002; Orfield &
Lee, 2005). Hurston Park is no different (Figure 12). There are two traditional four-year
public high schools in Hurston Park Unified School District (HPUSD): Hurston Park
(HPHS), which enrolls 1,627 students, and Central (CHS), which enrolls 1,323 students.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80>
Figure 10. California Poverty Levels by Age, 2006-2008
0-99 100-149 150-199 200-299 300-399 400-499 500>
Source: IPUMS American Community Survey (Ruggles et al., 2010)

303

Both schools are in the fifth year of Program Improvement (PI) status (Hurston Park
Unified School Distrct, 2010); Title I schools enter PI when they do not meet yearly
performance benchmarks. Both HPHS and CHS have been in PI since 1998. HPUSD
includes one charter high school, Succeed Academy (SA), which enrolls 456 students.
For the 2009-2010 school-year, the school met all requirements for the Adequate
Performance Index (API), a state ranking of students’ test scores, and Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP), a score based on API and requirements set forth by state and federal
mandates (see Figure 13). There are two other high school options in Hurston Park;
Brookline Continuation High School (BCHS), which is part of HPUSD and enrolls 144
students, and Barack Obama Charter (BOC), which enrolls 545 students. I include the
two schools when possible. Due to BCHS’s small size, however, data are not always
available or descriptive. Similarly, Barack Obama is not governed by HPUSD, so the data
are not always available.

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Below poverty
line
0-50% above 50-99% above 100-199%
above
200-299%
above
300-399%
above
500% and
greater
Figure 11. Education Attainment by Poverty Status, 2006-2008
H.S. Diploma or Less Some College Associate's Bachelor's Master's Plus
Source: IPUMS American Community Survey (Ruggles et al., 2010)

304

Numerous indicators, including financial solvency, student achievement, and
enrollment and graduation rates, exist to gauge the health of a school district. At the
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Male Female
Figure 12. Education Attainment by Gender for 18-25 Year-olds,
2006-2008
Did Not Graduate
H.S. Diploma
Some College
Associate's
Bachelor's
Master's Plus
Source: IPUMS American Community Survey (Ruggles et al., 2010)

Black
Enrollme
nts
Latino
Enrollme
nts
Low
Income
English
Lang
Learners
Parents
w/ Some
College
Parents
w/
College
Degree
AYP
Lang.
Arts
Proficien
t
AYP
Math
Proficien
t
Hurston Park 42 56 73 18.8 28 11 33.6 27.2
Central 36 63 86 26.7 20 6 33.1 32.3
Success 58 39 54 0.2 49 16 77.7 68.1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 13. Hurston Park Unified High School Snapshots,
2006-2008
Source: Education Data Partnership (2011)
305

district level, HPUSD experienced a budget shortfall for the 2010-2011 school year. In
order to prevent a state takeover, the superintendent substantially decreased teaching and
staff positions by approximately 30 percent. Heated exchanges between parents, teachers,
custodians, and board members occurred at bi-monthly school board meetings over the
last five months of the 2010-2011 school year. At the same time, school officials
expressed concern over declining enrollments as more and more parents enroll their
children in charter schools (Figure 1). During the year, total enrollments dropped by over
31 percent. Despite fewer students, classes often included 40 or more students.

At the school level, test scores highlight poor performance. The California
Standards Tests (CST) are a part of California’s Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) program (California Department of Education, 2011b). Each spring, students
take CSTs. The assessments, particularly in high school, may be grade- or subject-level
specific. Students in grades 2-11, for instance, take a grade-specific English / language
Hurston Park Central Success
Barack Obama
Charter
State
2009-2010 24 27 72 52 49
2008-2009 22 24 74 44 46
2007-2008 22 27 73 46 44
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Figure 14. California Standards Scores, Language Arts, Grades
9-11, by High School
Source: California Deparment of Education (2011)
306

arts CST at the end of the school year. Similarly, all tenth-graders take the life sciences
test. Other CSTs, such as algebra and geometry, are subject-specific. The two charter
schools often outperform the traditional public schools (Figures 14-15). In general, on the
CST for language arts, African American and Latino males perform the worst (Figure
16).

Dropout and graduation rates illustrate below average education outcomes in
HPUSD. Dropout rates at all schools, except SA, exceed the county and state averages
(Figure 17).
35
BCHS (99.7%) contributes substantially to the district’s dropout rate. Both
HPHS (80.6%) and CHS (73.9%) have relatively high graduation rates; however, the
district’s graduation rate (67.9%) is considerably lower due to the amount of students

35
The four-year derived dropout rate, based on the definition provided by NCES, uses one year of
data to provide an estimate of how many students would dropout during a four-year period. The
four-year derived rate equals (1-((1-(Reported or Adjusted Gr. 9 Dropouts/Gr. 9 Enrollment))*(1-
(Reported or Adjusted Gr. 10 Dropouts/Gr. 10 Enrollment))*(1-(Reported or Adjusted Gr. 11
Dropouts/Gr. 11 Enrollment))*(1-(Reported or Adjusted Gr. 12 Dropouts/Gr. 12
Enrollment))))*100.
Hurston Park Central Success
Barack Obama
Charter
State
2009-2010 2 13 5 22 24
2008-2009 3 12 1 7 24
2007-2008 2 12 1 21
0%
10%
20%
30%
Figure 15. California Standards Test Scores, Geometry, by High
School
Source: California Department of Education (2011)
307

who do not graduate from BCHS (Figure 18).
36
Of the district’s 192 students who
dropped out during the 2008-2009 school year, 130 attended BCHS. The school’s
graduation rate (1.9%) indicates that it is the last option for students most at-risk not to
graduate (California Department of Education, 2011a).
Conclusion
Hurston Park is a heterogeneous neighborhood, and the diversity is not limited to
culture. Like other low-income neighborhoods, middle-class families and individuals live
within walking distance of the working-poor and unemployed (Harding, 2010, 2011; K.
S. Newman & Peeples Massengill, 2006; Pattillo-McCoy, 1999). As Harding (2011)
notes, “disadvantaged neighborhoods contain a diversity of individuals with different
occupational statuses, incomes, education levels, reliance on public assistance,
involvement in crime, and the like” (p. 327). And yet, trends still exist. Of the 21 young
men I interviewed at BCHS, where the average grade point average was 1.39, only one
individual reported that one of his parents had a bachelor’s degree. Of the 26
interviewees at SA, where the average grade point average was 3.45, five students
reported a parent with a bachelor’s degree (Table 17). Relatedly, the students at BCHS
moved more frequently and lived in lower-income households. Hurston Park is a
heterogeneous neighborhood; however, even in the context of such variation, inequality
aggregates discriminately and unjustly.

36
The graduation rate, based on the definition provided by National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES), is computed by dividing the number of graduates in year four by the sum of
graduates in year four plus dropouts from ninth through twelfth grade.
308

Males Females
Low
Income
Not Low
Income
Black
Black
Low
Income
Latino
Latino
Low
Income
Hurston Park 23 25 25 22 20 22 27 26
Central 22 32 27 28 25 24 28 29
Success 71 73 78 62 66 69 81 84
Barack Obama Charter 49 53 51 58 43 40 55 54
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 16. Disaggregated California Standards Scores, Language
Arts, Grades 9-11, by High School
Source: California Department of Education (2011)
Hurston Park Central Success District County State
All Students 25.8 36 6.1 40.8 24.3 21.5
Males 25.6 38.9 8.3 43.8 27.2 24.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Figure 17. Dropout Rates by School, 2008-2009
Source: California Departments of Education (2011)
309

81%
74%
97%
68%
76%
79%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Hurston Park Central Success District County State
Figure 18. Graduation Rates by High School
Source: California Department of Education (2011)
310

Appendix C. Research Description Letter
Date

Dear Principal,

I am a researcher from the University of Sothern California. This September, I will begin
research for my dissertation, a study of 12
th
-grade Latino and African American males in
Hurston Park. In particular, I am interested in what teenagers do when they are not in
school and how that impacts academic achievement. Data collection includes observation
of and interviews with students.

The purpose of my letter is to explore the possibility of conducting interviews at your
school this fall. The process requires little classroom disruption. If permitted, in
September, I will spend five minutes in front of each 12
th
-grade English class describing
my research and the rights of participants. I will then pass out the consent form for
students and parents to read and sign. If the parents and student agree, they email me, and
we schedule an interview time.

I come to you very humbly, acknowledging that my success depends on the support of
administrators, teachers, students, and families in Hurston Park. As such, I will do
everything I can to give back to the schools and community, which includes mentoring
the students that participate in the study as well as providing a summary of findings to
inform professional development for HPUSD educators. I want to stress that my ultimate
goal is to conduct research that will inform interventions as well as systemic reforms to
help students, families, and Hurston Park; integral to that process is protecting the
identities of the people gracious enough to support my endeavors. Any data collected will
be stored on a password-protected laptop in a locked office. Just as important, all names
and identifiers will remain anonymous and confidential. In addition, I will summarize all
of my findings for leadership and faculty at Hurston Park High.

Before becoming a PhD student, I taught English to ninth- through 12
th
-grade students at
a public school near Washington, D.C. I have an up-to-date teaching credential for
California public schools. In addition, I have a graduate degree in administration and
supervision and spent one year as an assistant principal intern. Lastly, I am a researcher
for the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, which focuses on college access for
urban students. I have volunteered for three years as a mentor to high school seniors in
LAUSD to help them with the college application process as well as taught seminars for
our high school to college bridge program.

Sincerely,

Randy Clemens
Dean’s Fellow in Urban Education Policy
311

Appendix D. Making Promises, Keeping Secrets:
Ethical and Legal Dilemmas of Conducting Research with Adolescents

“We ethnographers cannot help but lie, but in lying, we reveal truths that escape those
who are not so bold.”
—Gary Fine, “Ten Lies of Ethnography: Moral
Dilemmas of Field Research”

I.
The tone and content of my interview with Biruk, the fifth student I spoke with at
Succeed Academy (SA), diverged significantly from his four classmates. Fred, Derrick,
Chris, and Kingsley talked indifferently about the negative aspects of the surrounding
neighborhood. For them, gang members served as the scenery that they passed on their
way to home, school, or extracurricular activities. Biruk, in contrast, presented
ambivalent feelings. For him, the neighborhood served a more integral role. Many of his
friends from middle school became gang members or drug addicts. When answering
questions, the 17-year-old Ethiopian American often prefaced his statements with, “If I’m
being real.” He then told vivid, detailed stories about illicit topics such as gangs, parties,
and drugs. At the end of the interview, I asked Biruk if I could shadow him after school.
In a cool, relaxed manner, he waved his hand and said, “Sure. Why not?”
A month later, Biruk and I met in the college center. We chatted while looking
online at college admissions information. He recently got into trouble. The district sent a
312

letter home listing a number of tardies. His parents, as a result, meted out a list of
restrictions. “They took my phone and wouldn’t let me leave the house,” he said, “It was
awful, like prison. I just paced back and forth in my room all weekend.” Later in the
week, his parents were going to meet with principal.
Biruk’s educational background exacerbated the situation. Starting at a nationally
recognized private school and ending at SA, he attended five high schools over the span
of three years, Smart but disrespectful, the outspoken teenager was dismissed from each
school for disciplinary reasons. During his junior year, his parents, tired of the discipline
problems, transferred him from SA to a traditional public school. “It was terrible,” he
said, “All those things you hear about inner-city schools are true. Kids did drugs. One
teacher would go to sleep. Another one read the answers to a test during the test. He
actually read the answers.” Biruk paused, “I knew, if I was going to go to college, I had
to get out. I came up to Succeed and begged the principal. I begged her.”
A few minutes later, I asked Biruk to think of place he could take me to get a
sense of a teenager’s life in Hurston Park. “I was thinking about that,” he replied, “I’ve
got a place.” He then described a house where he and his friends go to “just chill.” The
owner of the house and father of Biruk’s friend allowed teenagers to hang out and smoke
marijuana after school. After describing the setting, he said, “I just don’t want you to
judge me based on them. I mean, they’re my friends, but I’m not like them. It’s just…I’ve
known some of them since middle school. You can’t change who your friends are.” Still
self-assured, for the first time, he seemed hesitant and vulnerable. At the end of our
meeting, we both left the college center. As I walked away, I heard Biruk’s voice.
313

“You aren’t going to tell no one at school, are you?”
“No,” I replied.
“Ok. Cuz, I don’t want to get anyone in trouble. You’re not gonna tell my
parents?”
“No, don’t worry.”
I walked to my car and hoped the meeting between his parents and the principal went
well.
A week later, I waited to meet Biruk. At 3:00 p.m., crowds of teenagers erupted
from their classrooms. Some gathered with friends. Others walked home. I searched for
Biruk. After five minutes, the amount of students dwindled. After ten minutes, I checked
my phone for an email or text. After 20 minutes, I wondered why he did not show. The
next day, I received an email from Biruk:
sorry i had a meeting with [the principal] and my parents after school. they
printed out how many times i wasnt in class and my parents went crazy. they
think that all those times i was doing something horrible and now i'm on even
more of a tougher punishment, as if it wasnt enough already. they took it too
seriously in my opinion. alot of students got that letter but i dont think all of their
parents did this, my mom was even crying -_- . they yelled till they couldnt any
more. saying i dont care about them and i'm a lost cause, etc.. it just got really
bad. and they really dont know about how succeed is so i dont blame them, but i
guess its just the burden i bare. here is my number to reach me so we can contact
each other easier.
My experiences with Biruk juxtapose two extremes. On the one hand, Biruk knew
about and had access to important—and restricted—social settings. He attended parties,
knew gangbangers, and understood the “code of the street” (Anderson, 1999). He was an
insider with whom I had excellent rapport. On the other hand, Biruk was 17. Despite
attending parties, knowing gangbangers, and seeing events that most never will, he was
314

the son of two concerned parents. He was also a student with potential and I mentored
him.
II.
What are the ethical and legal obligations of an ethnographer? Before entering the
field, I received approval from the University of Southern California’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB) and satisfied all ethical and legal obligations outlined by my
university and profession. I submitted a long, detailed application to conduct research
with human subjects. In it, I outlined recruitment and research procedures. I provided
interview and observation protocols. In the field and afterwards, I obeyed all of the
governing principles—with a focus on protecting the identities of my participants—
documented in my application. And yet, during my time in the field, I experienced a
number of unforeseen ethical and legal issues.
Numerous theorists have expounded about the ethical challenges of fieldwork:
Punch (1994) states, “I recognize, however, that this area is a swamp and that I have
provided no map. Each individual will have to trace his or her own path. This is because
there is no consensus or unanimity on what is public and private, what constitutes harm,
and what the benefits of knowledge are” (p. 95). Denzin (2009) writes, “[E]thics (as all
plans of action) are symbolic meanings subject to the most complex political arguments.
Hence, when I speak of values and ethics in the scientific process, I refer to meanings that
are subject to negotiation and redefinition. What is ethical in one period, one university,
one profession, or one group may be unethical in another” (p 331-332).
315

As Duneier (1999) notes, “Fieldwork can be a morally ambiguous enterprise” (p.
336). At a basic level, fieldwork often includes deceit or misdirection (Emerson, 2001).
At a more complex level, fieldwork occasionally presses against a researcher’s ethical or
legal standards. When doing research with individuals who participate in the underground
economy, for instance, what is the role of the researcher? Does the quest for knowledge
usurp basic standards of right and wrong? Sudhir Venkatesh’s (2000, 2006, 2008)
experiences in the Robert Taylor Homes provide a useful, if extreme, example of a
researcher who knowingly breaks the law. The “rogue sociologist” embraces the image of
a researcher who goes native. But, were his transgressions worth it? At the risk of
equivocation, scholars may argue both sides. First, researchers have the duty to report
illegal activity, especially when it involves the welfare of minors. Second, obtaining
knowledge for the greater good may unseat legal mandates.
Through the use of literary conventions, an author has the ability to cast himself
or herself in a variety of roles even if he or she never assumed them in the field. In order
to do so, the writer selects and arranges particular bits of data. My goal is not to depict
myself as either a hero or villain. Throughout the nine-month study, I constantly
questioned the line between right and wrong, intervention and acquiescence. I worked
with and got to know numerous teenagers. Some were undocumented immigrants or
domestic violence victims; others were taggers, drug users, or gang members. They
sometimes—but not always—confided in me. I helped some teenagers access college, but
I also watched others break the law.
316

Ethnography involves keeping secrets. That is not always easy. I promised 60
teenagers that they would experience no discomfort or harm as a result of participating in
my study. I kept that promise, even if it meant I had to tell a few lies along the way.

317

Appendix E. Assent and Consent Forms
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 701D
Los Angeles, CA 90089

ASSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
FOR YOUTH (AGES 12-17)

How Do Neighborhoods Influence Education? Examining the Lives of Teenagers

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Randall F. Clemens,
MSEd and Dr. William G. Tierney at the University of Southern California, because you
are a male teenager living in Hurston Park. Your participation is voluntary. You should
read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand,
before deciding whether to participate. Your parent’s permission will be sought;
however, the final decision is yours. Even if your parents agree to your participation by
signing a separate consent document, you don’t have to participate if you don’t want to.
Please take as much time as you need to read this form. You may also decide to discuss it
with your family or friends. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to sign this
form. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to understand what you do when you are not in school. In
other words, where, with whom, and for what purpose do you spend their time, and how
do these experiences influence your experiences in high school and hopes for college?
The study involves interviewing 40 students as well as 20 parents and influential adults,
like coaches, tutors, and pastors, in Hurston Park. Of the 40 students, the researcher will
conduct follow-up interviews and observations with 10 students. The specific reason the
study is being conducted is to understand how growing up in Hurston Park affects
education. The general reason is to conduct research that will improve public policy.
Oftentimes, education reforms only consider what occurs in the schoolhouse. The
researcher believes, in order to improve education for all students, a better understanding
of all the factors that affect the lives of teenagers is necessary.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in an
interview lasting approximately 20-30 minutes this fall. The researcher will ask questions
about your neighborhood, what you do when you are not in school, and your thoughts
about high school and college. The researcher will also ask you about how you use
technology, including texting, web surfing, and social media. If you have a Facebook or
Twitter account, the researcher will ask if it is ok to friend you on Facebook and/or
318

follow you on Twitter. The purpose is to observe the way you interact with others and
what you talk about. Again, everything will be confidential.

The interview will take place at school during a pre-arranged date and time this fall. The
day before the interview, the researcher will contact you with a reminder. Before the
interview, the researcher will review your rights as a participant as well as ask you to be
audio-recorded. Importantly, the researcher will be the only one to listen to the recording,
and it will be kept on a password-protected computer. Audio-taping is completely
optional. At any time during the interview, you may decline to answer a question.

After the interview, the researcher may ask you if you would like to participate in a
follow-up interview or observation. Follow-up interviews will cover topics discussed
during the first interview, like what you do when you are not in school. In addition, the
researcher may ask if it’s ok to spend time with you when you are not in school. This
means, if you are on the soccer team, the researcher will meet you after school and
observe soccer practice. If you babysit your younger brother or sister, the researcher will
spend time with you at home. The purpose is to get a better idea of your life, who you
are, and what you do.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no potential risks or discomforts.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The ultimate goal of the study is to conduct research that will inform interventions as
well as systemic reforms to help students, families, and Hurston Park. Interventions
include mentoring students who participate in the study as well as providing a summary
of findings to principals to inform professional development for HPUSD educators. In
particular, of the students who agree to follow-up interviews and observations, the
researcher will mentor those students for college during their senior year. The researcher,
Randall Clemens, is a former high school English teacher who holds an English /
Language Arts credential to teach in California and has mentored high school students in
LAUSD for the past three years as part of his research center’s mentoring program.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
No monetary compensation will be provided to you. However, the first 40 students to
contact the principal investigator by email (rclemens@usc.edu), schedule an interview,
and return the parent consent form at the interview will be entered into a raffle to win a
free iPod. After the 40th interview, the researcher will randomly select a winner. He will
then contact the student's parents via the contact information provided in order to
schedule a date and time to drop off the iPod.

For the 10 students who agree to follow-up interviews and observations, the researcher
will mentor those students for college during their senior year if they so choose.
319

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored on the researcher’s password-protected laptop computer. All
interviews will be transcribed on that computer. During transcription, all identifiers such
as names and places will be removed. In addition, the researcher will code the transcripts
by a number, not your name. The number will correspond to your name but will be kept
in a separate Word document. In other words, there will be no way to identify you as the
subject of the interview. Lastly, the data will be kept on the researcher’s computer for a
required three years and then deleted permanently.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in the study, you may
withdraw at any time without any consequences. You may also refuse to answer any
questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Randall Clemens by phone, text, email, or mail.

Randall Clemens
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 701D
Los Angeles, CA 90089
(443) 655-7279
rclemens@usc.edu

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
you may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have
questions about the research and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to
talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park IRB
(UPIRB), Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room
224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

320

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions.
My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this
study. I have been given a copy of this form.

□ I agree to be audio-recorded

□ I do not want to audio-recorded

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

321

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 701D
Los Angeles, CA 90089

CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
FOR TEENAGERS (AGES 18-19)

How Do Neighborhoods Influence Education? Examining the Lives of Teenagers

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Randall F. Clemens,
MSEd and Dr. William G. Tierney at the University of Southern California, because you
are a male who is 18 of age or older living in Hurston Park. Your participation is
voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you
do not understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as
you need to read this form. You may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends.
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy
of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to understand what you do when you are not in school. In
other words, where, with whom, and for what purpose do you spend their time, and how
do these experiences influence your experiences in high school and hopes for college?
The study involves interviewing 40 students as well as 20 parents and influential adults,
like coaches, tutors, and pastors, in Hurston Park. Of the 40 students, the researcher will
conduct follow-up interviews and observations with 10 students. The specific reason the
study is being conducted is to understand how growing up in Hurston Park affects
education. The general reason is to conduct research that will improve public policy.
Oftentimes, education reforms only consider what occurs in the schoolhouse. The
researcher believes, in order to improve education for all students, a better understanding
of all the factors that affect the lives of teenagers is necessary.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in an
interview lasting approximately 20-30 minutes this fall. The researcher will ask questions
about your neighborhood, what you do when you are not in school, and your thoughts
about high school and college. The researcher will also ask you about how you use
technology, including texting, web surfing, and social media. If you have a Facebook or
Twitter account, the researcher will ask if it is ok to friend you on Facebook and/or
follow you on Twitter. The purpose is to observe the way you interact with others and
what you talk about. Again, everything will be confidential.

The interview will take place at school during a pre-arranged date and time this fall. The
day before the interview, the researcher will contact you with a reminder. Before the
322

interview, the researcher will review your rights as a participant as well as ask you to be
audio-recorded. Importantly, the researcher will be the only one to listen to the recording,
and it will be kept on a password-protected computer. Audio-taping is completely
optional. At any time during the interview, you may decline to answer a question.

After the interview, the researcher may ask you if you would like to participate in a
follow-up interview or observation. Follow-up interviews will cover topics discussed
during the first interview, like what you do when you are not in school. In addition, the
researcher may ask if it’s ok to spend time with you when you are not in school. This
means, if you are on the soccer team, the researcher will meet you after school and
observe soccer practice. If you babysit your younger brother or sister, the researcher will
spend time with you at home. The purpose is to get a better idea of your life, who you
are, and what you do.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no potential risks or discomforts.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The ultimate goal of the study is to conduct research that will inform interventions as
well as systemic reforms to help students, families, and Hurston Park. Interventions
include mentoring students who participate in the study as well as providing a summary
of findings to principals to inform professional development for HPUSD educators. In
particular, of the students who agree to follow-up interviews and observations, the
researcher will mentor those students for college during their senior year. The researcher,
Randall Clemens, is a former high school English teacher who holds an English /
Language Arts credential to teach in California and has mentored high school students in
LAUSD for the past three years as part of his research center’s mentoring program.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
No monetary compensation will be provided to you. However, the first 40 students to
contact the principal investigator by email (rclemens@usc.edu), schedule an interview,
and return the parent consent form at the interview will be entered into a raffle to win a
free iPod. After the 40th interview, the researcher will randomly select a winner. He will
then contact the student's parents via the contact information provided in order to
schedule a date and time to drop off the iPod.

For the 10 students who agree to follow-up interviews and observations, the researcher
will mentor those students for college during their senior year if they so choose.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.

323

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored on the researcher’s password-protected laptop computer. All
interviews will be transcribed on that computer. During transcription, all identifiers such
as names and places will be removed. In addition, the researcher will code the transcripts
by a number, not your name. The number will correspond to your name but will be kept
in a separate Word document. In other words, there will be no way to identify you as the
subject of the interview. Lastly, the data will be kept on the researcher’s computer for a
required three years and then deleted permanently.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in the study, you may
withdraw at any time without any consequences. You may also refuse to answer any
questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Randall Clemens by phone, text, email, or mail.

Randall Clemens
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 701D
Los Angeles, CA 90089
(443) 655-7279
rclemens@usc.edu

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
you may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have
questions about the research and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to
talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park IRB
(UPIRB), Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room
224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

324

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions.
My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this
study. I have been given a copy of this form.

□ I agree to be audio-recorded

□ I do not want to audio-recorded

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

325

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 701D
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
PARENTAL PERMISSION

How Do Neighborhoods Influence Education? Examining the Lives of Teenagers

Your child is invited to participate in a research study conducted by Randall F. Clemens,
MSEd and Dr. William G. Tierney, from the University of Southern California. Your
child’s participation is voluntary. Please read the information below, and ask questions
about anything you do not understand before deciding whether to participate and/or allow
your child to participate. Take as much time as you need to read the consent form. Your
child will also be asked his/her permission and given a form to read, which is called an
assent form. Your child can decline to participate, even if you agree to allow him. Your
child may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If your child decides to
participate, you will be asked to sign this form, and your child be asked to sign the assent
form. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to understand what teenagers do when they are not in school.
In other words, where, with whom, and for what purpose do teens spend their time, and
how do these experiences influence their experiences in high school and hopes for
college? The study involves interviewing 40 students as well as 20 parents and influential
adults, like coaches, tutors, and pastors, in Hurston Park. Of the 40 students, the
researcher will conduct follow-up interviews and observations with 10 students. The
specific reason the study is being conducted is to understand how growing up in Hurston
Park affects education. The general reason is to conduct research that will improve public
policy. Oftentimes, education reforms only consider what occurs in the schoolhouse. The
researcher believes, in order to improve education for all, a better understanding of all the
factors that affect the lives of teenagers is necessary.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to allow your child to participate, your child will be asked to participate in an
interview lasting approximately 20-30 minutes this fall. The researcher will ask questions
about his neighborhood, what he does when he is not in school, and his thoughts about
high school and college. The researcher will also ask your son about how he uses
technology, including texting, web surfing, and social media. If your son has Facebook or
Twitter accounts, the researcher will ask if it is ok to friend him on Facebook and/or
follow him on Twitter. The purpose is to observe the way your son interacts with others
and what they talk about. Again, everything will be confidential.

326

The interview will take place at school during a pre-arranged date and time this fall. The
day before the interview, the researcher will contact your son with a reminder. Before the
interview, the researcher will review his rights as a participant as well as ask if he agrees
to be audio-recorded. Importantly, the researcher will be the only one to listen to the
recording, and it will be kept on a password-protected computer. Audio-recording is
completely optional. At any time during the interview, he may decline to answer a
question.

After the interview, the researcher may ask if your son would like to participate in a
follow-up interview or observation. Follow-up interviews will cover topics discussed
during the first interview, like what you do when you are not in school. In addition, the
researcher may ask if it’s ok to spend time with your when he is not in school. This
means, if he is on the soccer team, the researcher will meet him after school and observe
soccer practice. If he babysits, the researcher will spend time with him at home. The
purpose is to get a better idea of his life, who he is, and what he does.

Lastly, if the researcher conducts follow-up interviews and observations with your son,
he may ask you to participate in a 20-30 minute interview as well. The researcher will ask
questions about your role as a parent in Hurston Park as well as your thoughts on your
son and education. During such a case, the researcher will provide you with a separate
consent form in order to inform you of your rights as a participant of the study.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no potential risks or discomforts.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The ultimate goal of the study is to conduct research that will inform interventions as
well as systemic reforms to help students, families, and Hurston Park. Interventions
include mentoring students who participate in the study as well as providing a summary
of findings to principals to inform professional development for HPUSD educators. In
particular, of the 10 students who agree to follow-up interviews and observations, the
researcher will mentor those students for college during their senior year. The researcher,
Randall Clemens, is a former high school English teacher who holds an English /
Language Arts credential to teach in California and has mentored high school students in
LAUSD for the past three years as part of his research center’s mentoring program.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
No monetary compensation will be provided to you or your son. However, the first 40
students to contact the principal investigator by email (rclemens@usc.edu), schedule an
interview, and return the parent consent form at the interview will be entered into a raffle
to win a free iPod. After the 40th interview, the researcher will randomly select a winner.
He will then contact you via the contact information provided in order to schedule a date
and time to drop off the iPod.

327

For the 10 students who agree to follow-up interviews and observations, the researcher
will mentor those students for college during their senior year if they so choose.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored on the researcher’s password-protected laptop computer. All
interviews will be transcribed on that computer. During transcription, all identifiers such
as names and places will be removed. In addition, the researcher will code the transcripts
by a number, not your son’s name. The number will correspond to your son’s name but
will be kept in a separate Word document. In other words, there will be no way to
identify your son as the subject of the interview. Lastly, the data will be kept on the
researcher’s computer for a required three years and then deleted permanently.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your son’s participation is voluntary. Your child’s refusal to participate will involve no
penalty or loss of benefits to which you or your child are otherwise entitled. You may
withdraw your consent, and your child may withdraw his assent, at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You, or your child, are not waiving any legal
claims, rights or remedies because of your child’s participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATORS CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Randall Clemens by phone, text, email, or mail.

Randall Clemens
3470 Trousdale Parkway, WPH 701D
Los Angeles, CA 90089
(443) 655-7279
rclemens@usc.edu

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
you may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have
questions, concerns, complaints about the research and are unable to contact the research
team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact
328

the University Park IRB (UPIRB), Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement,
Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF PARENT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions.
My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to have my son
participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

□ I agree to allow my child to be audio-taped.

□ I do not want my child to be audio-taped.

Name of Participant

Name of Parent

Signature of Parent Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and his/her parent(s), and answered all of
their questions. I believe that the parent(s) understand the information described in this
document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

329
Appendix F. Study Participant Characteristics

Table 16. Participant Characteristics
Name
School
Age
Race
Grade Point
Average
Facebook Friend
Free or Reduced
Lunch
Birthplace
Years at
Current Address
Years in
Hurston Park
Household
Members
Language at
home
Parents'
Country of
Origin
Parents’ or
Guardians’
Occupation
Interview
Length
(Minutes)
Fred SA 17
African
American
3.70 No No Pomona, CA 3 17
Father,
mother,
brother, and
sister
English
United
States
Father:
Telecomm
Mother: Mail
Carrier
30
Derrick SA 17
African
American
3.60 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
3 7
Mother,
sister, and
brother
English
England /
Jamaica
Mother: Nurse 51
Chris SA 17
African
American
3.80 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
7 15
Father and
mother
English
United
States
Father:
Unemployed
Mother: Teacher
20
Kingsley SA 17
Nigerian
American
3.10 Yes No Nigeria 3 3 Mother
English /
Two
Nigerian
language
s
Nigeria Mother: Nurse 60
Biruk SA 17
Ethiopian
American
3.40 No No
Hurston
Park, CA
9 17
Father,
mother, and
sister
English /
Ethiopia
n
Ethiopia
Father: Cab
dispatch
Mother: Nurse
60
John SA 16
African
American
3.50 Yes Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
5 14
Father and
mother
English
United
States
Father: Store
manager
Mother:
Government
employee
40
Noah SA 17
African
American
3.30 Yes No
Los Angeles,
CA
2 13
Father,
mother, and
sister
English
United
States
Declined to
answer
20

330
Damion SA 16
African
American
3.57 No No
Torrance,
CA
7 N/A Mother English
United
States
Mother: School
administrator
20
Jack SA 17
African
American
3.60 Yes No
Los Angeles,
CA
7 17
Mother, two
sisters, and
one sister's
husband
English
United
States
Mother: Bank
manager
30
LeRon SA 17
African
American
2.60 Yes No
Harbor City,
CA
1 1
Mother and
brother
English
United
States
Mother: Law
enforcement
30
Anthony SA 17
African
American
3.00 Yes No
Los Angeles,
CA
15 15
Mother, two
brothers, one
brother's wife
and three
children
English
United
States
Mother: Nurse 30
Enrique SA 17 Latino 3.10 Yes Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
7 17
Father,
mother,
brother, and
sister
Spanish /
English
Mexico Unable to answer 15
Tashard SA 17
African
American
3.60 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
4 17
Mother and
sister
English
United
States
Mother:
Unemployed
50
Lorenzo SA 17 Latino 3.87 No Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
17 N/A
Father,
mother,
brother, and
sister
English /
Spanish
Mexico /
El
Salvador
Father:
Maintenance
Mother: Food
service
30
Manny SA 18 Latino 3.67 Yes Yes
Torrance,
CA
16 16
Father,
mother, and
sister
Spanish Mexico
Father: Gardener
Mother:
Housecleaner
30
Julio SA 17 Latino 3.70 Yes Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
10 17
Father,
mother, and
sister
Spanish /
English
Mexico
Father: Flooring
Mother:
Supervisor
30
Octavio SA 18 Latino 3.60 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
3 18
Father,
mother, four
brothers, and
sister
English /
Spanish
Mexico
Father: Gardener
Mother: Airline
employee
40
Edwin SA 17 Latino 3.60 No Yes
Santa
Monica, CA
17 17
Father,
brother, and
sister
English /
Spanish
Mexico
Father: Clothing
factory employee
50
Salvator SA 17 Latino 3.80 Yes Yes Hurston 17 17 Grandmother, Spanish Mexico Grandfather: 20

331
Park, CA grandfather,
and sister
Mechanic
Grandmother:
Secretary
Hugo SA 17 Latino 3.10 Yes No
Hurston
Park, CA
1 10
Father,
mother, and
grandmother
Spanish /
English
Mexico
Father: Mechanic
Mother:
Unemployed
45
Jerome SA 15
African
American
3.00 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
5 15
Mother and
brother
English Nigeria Mother: Nurse 40
Brett SA 17
African
American
3.20 Yes No
Westwood,
CA
3 7
Mother,
brother, and
sister
English
United
States
Mother:
Administrator
11
Stephen SA 16 Latino 3.50 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
16 16
Father,
mother,
brother, and
sister
Spanish /
English
United
States
Father: Custodian
Mother: Court
clerk
30
Manuel SA 17 Latino 3.56 Yes Yes Mexico 12 12
Mother,
brother,
cousin, and
cousin's baby
Spanish /
English
Mexico
Mother: Hair
stylist
20
Jesus SA 17 Latino 3.30 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
16 17
Father,
mother, two
brothers, and
sister
English /
Spanish
United
States
Father: Janitor
and teaching
assistant
Mother: Nurse
40
Oscar SA 16 Latino 3.87 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
16 16
Mother,
brother, and
sister
English /
Spanish
Costa
Rica
Mother:
Childcare
provider
30
Trevon
BC
HS
17
African
American
1.80 No Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
0.08 16 Mother English
United
States
Mother:
Unemployed
45
Smith
BC
HS
17
African
American
1.80 No Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
5 17
Mother, step-
father, and
uncle
English,
Creole
Haiti
Mother: Grocery
store manager
Step-father:
Security Uncle:
Grocery store
worker
20
Alberto
BC
HS
17 Latino 1.90 Yes Yes Mexico 4 11
Father,
mother,
brother, and
English,
Spanish
Mexico
Father: Cook
Mother:
Housekeeping
35

332
two sisters
Jorge
BC
HS
19 Latino 2.30 Yes Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
2 19
Mother,
brother, three
sisters, and
cousin
English /
Spanish
Guatemal
a
Mother: Airline
worker
30
Wilson
BC
HS
17
African
American
1.50 No No
Hurston
Park, CA
15 17
Mother,
brother, and
two sisters
English
United
States
Mother: Airport
worker
25
Darius
BC
HS
18
African
American
1.40 No Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
6 8
Mother, step-
father, and
brother
English
United
States
Mother:
Hardware store
worker
20
Fred
BC
HS
18 Latino 1.30 No Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
6 18
Father,
mother, and
three sisters
Spanish Mexico
Father:
Metalwork
Mother:
Housekeeping
30
Tomas
BC
HS
18 Latino 2.0 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
2 18
Father,
mother,
brother, and
two sisters
English /
Spanish
United
States /
Mexico
Father: Cook
Mother:
Unemployed
15
Benny
BC
HS
17 Latino 0.00 No Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
2 2
Mother and
brother
English Honduras
Mother:
Housecleaner
60
Eduardo
BC
HS
18 Latino 1.80 Yes No
Los Angeles,
CA
18 18
Father and
mother
Spanish /
English
Mexico
Father: Airport
employee
45
Mario
BC
HS
18 Latino 2.00 Yes Yes Mexico 18 18
Father,
mother, and
sister
Spanish /
English
Mexico
Father:
Construction
Mother:
Housekeeper
25
Eric
BC
HS
18
African
American
1.10 Yes Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
7 18
Mother and
step-father
English
United
States
Mother: Nurse
Stepfather: Office
supply chain
employee
25
John
BC
HS
18
African
American
/ Haitian
1.00 No Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
4 18
Mother,
brother, and
sister
Creole,
English
Haiti
Mother:
Unemployed
13
Ronald
BC
HS
17 Latino 1.30 Yes Yes El Salvador 9 9
Mother, two
brothers, and
sister
English /
Spanish
El
Salvador
Mother: Dry-
cleaning
30

333
Russell
BC
HS
18 Latino 0.90 No Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
2 18
Grandmother
or mother and
brother
English
Unable to
answer
Unable to answer 30
Jesse
BC
HS
18 Latino 2.00 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
2 14
Father,
mother,
brother, and
sister
Spanish /
English
United
States
Father: Cook
Mother:
Unemployed
45
Jeff
BC
HS
19
African
American
1.00 No Yes Michigan 0.17 2 Cousin English Unknown
Cousin:
Babysitter
30
Vincent
BC
HS
18 Latino 1.00 No Yes
Torrance,
CA
10 10
Father,
mother, and
brother
English Mexico
Father:
Warehousing
Mother:
Unemployed
20
Herberto
BC
HS
17 Latino 1.00 Yes Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
7 7
Mother,
brother, and
sister
English Mexico Mother: Painter 27
Eddie
BC
HS
18 Latino 1.00 No Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
1 1
Father,
mother,
grandmother,
and two
brothers
Spanish /
English
Mexico
Father: Busboy
Mother:
Housecleaner
11
Sergio
BC
HS
17 Latino 1.00 No Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
3 3
Father and
mother
English /
Spanish
Mexico
Father: Mechanic
Mother:
Housekeeper
15
Matthew
HP
HS
18
African
American
3.00 Yes Yes Oakland, CA 8 8
Aunt, niece,
and nephew
English
United
States
Aunt: Hotel
manager
40
Jose
HP
HS
17 Latino 3.37 Yes Yes
Westwood,
CA
5 5
Father and
mother
English /
Spanish
Mexico
Father: Valet
Mother:
Housecleaner
45
Elmer
HP
HS
17 Latino 3.38 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
17 17
Mother, two
sisters, and
niece
English /
Spanish
Mexico Mother: Disabled 30
Carlos
HP
HS
17 Latino 3.83 Yes Yes
Westwood,
CA
6 6
Father,
mother, two
brothers, and
sister
Spanish /
English
Mexico
Father:
Handyman
Mother:
Housekeeper
50
Miguel HP 17 Latino 3.29 Yes Yes Hurston 17 17 Father, Spanish / Mexico Father: Shipping 25

334
HS Park, CA mother, and
two brothers
English and freight
Mother: Disabled
Chuck
HP
HS
17
African
American
1.96 Yes Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
7 17
Grandmother,
brother, aunt,
uncle, great-
grandmother
English
United
States
Grandmother:
Retired caregiver
45
Chris
HP
HS
17
African
American
3.32 Yes Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
10 10
Mother and
brother
English /
Jamaican
Jamaica /
United
States
Mother:
Caregiver
40
DeAndre
HP
HS
17
African
American
2.56 Yes Yes
Sacramento,
CA
9 9
Mother, step-
father, step-
sister, and
half-sister
English
United
States
Mother:
Unemployed
Step-Father: Set
construction
42
Jalen
HP
HS
17 Mulatto 2.87 Yes No
Los Angeles,
CA
17 17
Mother and
brother
English
United
States /
South
Pacific
Mother: Airline
employee
30
DeShea
HP
HS
17
African
American
2.80 Yes Yes
Westwood,
CA
2 2
Mother and
step-father
English
United
States
Mother:
Unemployed
Step-father:
Telecommunicati
on
30
Ervin
HP
HS
17
African
American
2.59 Yes Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
17 N/A
Father,
mother,
brother, and
sister
English
United
States
Father: HVAC
Mother: Real
estate
30
Cesar
HP
HS
17
Latino /
Mexican
3.40 No Yes
Hurston
Park, CA
16 17
Father,
mother, and
sister
Spanish Mexico
Father:
Unemployed
Mother:
Unemployed
40
Sean
HP
HS
17 Latino 3.30 Yes Yes
Los Angeles,
CA
3 11 Mother Spanish Honduras
Mother:
Unemployed
30

335
Table 17. Participant Characteristics by School
School Participants Age
African
American
Latino
Grade Point
Average
Facebook
Friend
Free or
Reduced
Lunch
Succeed 26 (43%) 16.85 14 (54%) 12 (46%) 3.45 21 (81%) 16 (62%)
Brookline 21 (35%) 17.71 7 (33%) 14 (67%) 1.39 9 (43%) 19 (90%)
Hurston
Park
13 (22%) 17.08 7 (54%) 6 (46%) 3.05 12 (92%) 12 (92%)
Total 60 (100%) 17.20 28 (47%) 32 (53%) 2.64 42 (70%) 47 (78%)
School
Two-Parent
/ Guardian
Household
Foreign-
born Parent
Some
College or
More
Bachelor’s
or More
Years at
Current
Address
Years in
Hurston
Park
Length of
Interview
(minutes)
Succeed 14 (54%) 14 (54%) 13 (50%) 5 (19%) 8.54 13.79 33.54
Brookline 12 (57%) 14 (67%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 5.87 12.48 28.38
Hurston
Park
7 (54%) 8 (62%) 6 (46%) 1 (8%) 10.31 11.33 36.69
Total 33 (55%) 36 (60%) 21 (35%) 7 (12%) 7.99 12.79 32.42
336

Appendix G. Interview Protocol

Hi, my name is Randy Clemens. I’m getting my Ph.D. from the University of Southern
California. My dissertation is about how growing up in Hurston Park influences
teenagers and their education. In other words, I am interested in what teens do when they
are not in school and how that influences education outcomes, like grades and
graduation rates. Before we start, I want to walk through the consent form you signed, so
you are aware of your rights and my responsibilities [go through form]. Do you have any
questions?

Is it ok if I audiotape this interview?

If you don’t mind, I’m going to ask some simple questions. You don’t have to answer
them if you don’t want but they may help me make sense of all these interviews.
Remember, all answers will be confidential and anonymous.

Participant ID: ______________ Int. Location: ______________
Date: ______________ Age: _____ Race / Ethnicity: __________________
GPA: _______ FRL: ________ Internet at home: _____ For how long: _____
Cell: _____ Internet on phone: _______
Do you have a job? ____________ Do you have a girlfriend or boyfriend? ______________
Were you born in the United States? Where? ______________________________________
How long have you lived at your current address? ________ Hurston Park? ________
Will you mark with an X on the map where you live?
Who do you live with? _______________________________________________________
What language do you and your family members speak at home? _____________________
Were your parents born in the United States? ________ Income? ______________
What do your parents do for a living? ____________________________________________
What is their level of education? ________________________________________________
Do you want to go to college? Where? ___________________________________________
What’s the best way to contact you? _____________________________________________

1. That’s it with the basic questions, now for a more general one: Could you tell me a
little about yourself?
337

2. Tell me about the neighborhood (probe about boundaries, stores and restaurants, and
income, i.e. low-, middle-, high-income).
3. Pretend your cousin is visiting from somewhere else. What do you do? Where do you
go?
4. Tell me about the schools in Hurston Park (i.e. regular, charters…)
5. What kind of a student are you?
6. What do you do after school?
7. [If after school activities] Tell me about the coach / pastor / tutor. What kind of
advice does s/he give?
8. List five adults that you know who aren’t teachers. You don’t need to give me names.
Tell me who they are in relation to you, like uncle, pastor, coach? Why are they
important?
9. Tell me about your friends. What do you talk about? What do you do to have fun?
10. If I asked them about you, what would they say?
11. Do you text your friends? What do you text about? Do you text with anyone else?
Parents? Coaches?
12. How do you access the Internet? Why do you go on the Internet?
13. Tell me the top five websites you visit? How’d you hear about them?
14. Who do you interact with on the Internet? Are they in or out of the neighborhood?
15. Do you play video games? What kind? With anyone? Online?
16. Do you want to go to college? Why?
17. What do you have to do to get to college?
338

18. What’s something you haven’t told anyone, but you think about a lot?
19. What do you want to tell me? What didn’t I ask that’s important?
20. Part of the study is following students throughout the year. That means more
interviews and spending time with you outside of school. How does that sound to
you?
21. What is the best way to contact you? Do you use Facebook or Twitter? Do you mind
if I friend you?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Since the publication of W.E.B. Du Bois’ (1996 [1899]) The Philadelphia Negro, scholars have conducted neighborhood studies to examine a range of social issues including crime, homelessness, and concentrated poverty. The present ethnographic study continues this sociological tradition in order to examine how cultural heterogeneity—the multiplicity of cultural beliefs, behaviors, and practices—affects the educational outcomes of male teenagers in a low-income neighborhood. The purpose of this study is to examine cultural heterogeneity vis-à-vis the sources and influences of neighborhood social and cultural capital. In other words, when teenagers are not in school, where, with whom, and for what purpose do they spend their time, and how do the exchanges influence educational outcomes? The author’s argument is twofold: First, the neighborhood houses vast amounts of cultural heterogeneity that explain inequitable educational outcomes among teenagers. Second, a teenager’s access to and practice of dominant social and cultural capital will increase his likelihood for positive academic outcomes and the development of a college-going identity, defined as an individual’s ability and willingness to navigate diverse social worlds. ❧ The author’s goal is to illustrate the manifold pathways to and away from postsecondary education that African American and Latino teenagers encounter as a result of growing up in a low-income neighborhood. The study, using a surplus perspective, emphasizes the diverse forms of capital teenagers possess, limited forms of capital the educational system values, and the cultural mismatch that occurs as a result. The study tests and refines a theoretical framework that better accounts for and explains cultural heterogeneity in the 21st century.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Promising practices to promote and sustain a college-going culture: a charter-school case study

PDF

Federal loan borrowing in community colleges: examining the decision making processes of non‐traditional community college students

PDF

First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university

PDF

Defining the mobilization of social capital for low-SES minority youth participants in the Summer Bridge program by program leaders

PDF

Cultural resources and health among Asian Americans: results from the National Latino and Asian American Study

PDF

His story: African-American male college students’ journey to success

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

The lived experience of first-generation latino students in remedial education and navigating the transfer pathway

PDF

Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent

PDF

Finding home: the migration and incorporation of undocumented, unparented Latino youth in the US

PDF

The role of family and ethnic identity in the college choice process for first-generation Latinas

PDF

AB 705: the equity policy – race and power in the implementation of a developmental education reform

PDF

A case study on African American parents' perceptions of Mandarin Dual Language Immersion Programs and the role social capital plays in student enrollment

PDF

The underrepresentation of African Americans in information technology: an examination of social capital and its impact on African Americans’ career success

PDF

Personal agency and educational decision-making: insights from middle- and emerging-middle-income school parents in Costa Rica

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

How do teacher beliefs shape the approaches used to support low-income, Black, White, and Latino students in Advanced Placement English?

PDF

Immigrated Latino/a students' general education teachers' mind frames and pedagogy

PDF

An intersectional examination of inequity in Black Bahamian men’s employment experience: a critical theory and social cognitive perspective

PDF

As the world turns: being Black and gay on campus in the 21st century

Asset Metadata

Creator Clemens, Randall F. (author)

Core Title The sources and Influences of cultural heterogeneity: examining the lives of African American and Latino teenagers in a low-income neighborhood

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 08/09/2012

Defense Date 07/05/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag African American students,at-risk students,Bourdieu,college access,college-going identity,concerted cultivation,concerted learning,cultural capital,cultural diversity,cultural heterogeneity,cultural homogeneity,cultural mismatch,cultural surplus,culture,document analysis,dominant symbolic capital,ethnography,high school males,identity,interviews,Latino students,low-income neighborhoods,male achievement,neighborhood ethnography,Neighborhoods,non-dominant cultural capital,non-dominant social capital,non-dominant symbolic capital,OAI-PMH Harvest,participant observations,Poverty,qualitative research,resource brokerage,resource brokers,secondary education,social capital,surplus perspective,symbolic capital

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tierney, William G. (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert (committee member), Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette (committee member)

Creator Email rfclemens@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-90445

Unique identifier UC11289363

Identifier usctheses-c3-90445 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ClemensRan-1151.pdf

Dmrecord 90445

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Clemens, Randall F.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA