University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

"There are enough people here to wage that war:" a communication infrastructure theory approach to identifying factors of anti-gentrification mobilization

(USC Thesis Other)

"There are enough people here to wage that war:" a communication infrastructure theory approach to identifying factors of anti-gentrification mobilization

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

"THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE HERE TO WAGE THAT WAR:"
A COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE THEORY APPROACH
TO IDENTIFYING FACTORS OF ANTI-GENTRIFICATION MOBILIZATION

by

Marina Litvinsky

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
(COMMUNICATION)
May 2020

Copyright 2020 Marina Litvinsky

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the individuals who have been on this
doctoral journey with me.
Dr. Sandra Ball-Rokeach you have been an incredible mentor and guide. Taking your
Research, Practice and Social Change course changed the trajectory of my research and teaching
career, and I could not be more thankful for this deviation from what I thought was my path.
Your guidance throughout my time at Annenberg and Meta has made me a better teacher,
researcher, writer and activist. Thank you for encouraging my interest in gentrification, for
believing in me and pushing me forward.
I am extremely grateful to my other committee members. Dr. Larry Gross, thank you for
your insight and kindness. Thank you for making your classroom such an open space for the
exchange of ideas. You have helped me to see that there is more than one way to be a professor.
Dr. Manuel Pastor, thank you for setting an example as a scholar/activist. Thank you for insights
on gentrification and social justice.
Thank you to my friends and colleagues at the Metamorphosis Project, especially
Deborah, Chi, Briana, Evelyn and Stella. This dissertation would not be possible without your
tireless work, ideas and inspiration. I will fondly remember the time we spent in Lincoln Heights.
Thank you for encouraging me and for lending your ears and shoulders when I needed to talk.
My dear friend, Deborah, thank you for all of your help. You opened my eyes to the beauty of
statistics and I will be forever grateful.
To my other colleagues and friends at Annenberg, thank you for your support and
solidarity on this journey. Thank you for answering random questions and helping in any way

iii
you could. Dr. Barbara Osborn, thank you for introducing me to community research. Thank you
for your advice and help.
To my family and friends, thank you for always supporting my endeavors, no matter how
far-fetched they seemed to you. Thank you for believing that I could do this, even when I was
not so sure. My little bean, thank you for changing my life. Maybe you will read this someday.
Last but not least, thank you to the participants of the Lincoln Heights Neighborhood
Change Study. You invited us into your community, your homes, and freely shared your
thoughts and ideas. Thank you for making this research possible.

This dissertation research was carried out with funds from the USC Annenberg School for
Communication and Journalism and The Metamorphosis Project.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
List of Images ix
Abstract x

Introduction 1
Why I Study Resistance to Gentrification 2
Studying Gentrification 4
Studying the Gentrified 6
Displacement 6
Gentrification Effects 8
Residents’ Opinions of Gentrification 9
Anti-Gentrification Mobilization 14
Resistance to Gentrification in Boyle Heights, Los Angeles 15
Resistance to Gentrification Research 15
Studying the Lack of Resistance to Gentrification 18
Overview of Chapters 19

Chapter One: Why Some Communities Do Not Resist Gentrification 21
Why Some Communities Do Not Resist Gentrification 21
Model for Neighborhood Mobilization 23
Critique of Henig’s Model and An Alternative Approach 24

Chapter Two: Area of Study 32
Lincoln Heights History 32
Lincoln Heights Today 33
University of Southern California and Lincoln Heights 34
The Brewery Artists’ Lofts 35
Gentrification in Lincoln Heights 35
Why Lincoln Heights? 36

Chapter Three: Theoretical Framework 42
Communication Infrastructure Theory 42
The Storytelling Network 43
Communication Action Context 45
Civic Engagement 47
Communication Infrastructure Theory and Demographic Factors 49
Communication Infrastructure Theory and Gentrification 52
Worry 53

Chapter Four: Research Design 58
Survey 58
Recruitment 58

v
Participants 60
Focus Groups 62
Recruitment 62
Survey Measures 64
ICSN 64
Number of Changes Noticed 64
Worry 66
Collective Efficacy 67
Civic Participation 68
Demographic Variables 69
Business Owner Survey 69
Methodological Concerns 71

Chapter Five: Preliminary Findings and Research Questions 72
Observations and Secondary Dataset Information 72
Business Owner Interview Findings 73
Lincoln Heights Communication Infrastructure 76
Research Questions 82
RQ1 – ICSN and Civic Engagement 83
RQ2 - ICSN and Worry 85
RQ3 - Interpersonal Discussion and Worry about Gentrification Changes 86
RQ4 - Civic Participation and Worry about Gentrification Changes 88

Chapter Six: Results - Data Analyses 89
Research Questions 90
RQ1 – ICSN and Civic Engagement 90
RQ2 - ICSN and Worry 92
RQ3 - Interpersonal Discussion and Worry about Gentrification Changes 96
RQ4 - Civic Participation and Worry about Gentrification Changes 101
Summary of Findings 102
Moderation by Structural Variables 104

Chapter Seven: Discussion and Implication of Findings 106
Summary and Implications of Findings 106
Communication Predictors of Civic Engagement 106
The Storytelling Network and Worry 110
Interpersonal Discussion and Worry 111
Past Civic Participation and Worry 112
Moderation by Homeownership/Residential Tenure 113
Focus Group Findings 118
Discussion About the Lack of Resistance to Gentrification in LH 126
Contribution to Communication Infrastructure Theory Research 129
Contribution to Gentrification Research 130
Limitations and Directions for Future Research 131

References 134

vi

Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Recruitment Script 149
Appendix B: Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Change Survey 152
Appendix C: Consent Form and Information Sheet 187
Appendix D: Focus Group Protocol 189
Appendix E: Business Owner Interview Questions 192
Appendix F: Typology Variable Explanation 206

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Comparison of study sample with 2016 American Community Survey data

60
Table 2: Additional demographics of the survey participants

61
Table 3. Regression analysis for ICSN (IV) predicting the civic engagement
components (DV).
91

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Communication infrastructure: storytelling network set in its
communication action context

42
Figure 2: Mediation Model: ICSN, Number of Gentrification Changes Noticed and
Worry about Gentrification Changes.

93
Figure 3: Moderated Mediation Model: ICSN, Number of Gentrification Changes
Noticed, Worry about Gentrification Changes and Homeownership.

95
Figure 4: Moderated Mediation Model: ICSN, Number of Gentrification Changes
Noticed, Worry about Gentrification Changes and Residential Tenure.

96
Figure 5: Mediation Model: Frequency of Interpersonal Discussions about Things
Happening in LH, Number of Gentrification Changes Noticed and Worry about
Gentrification Changes

98

Figure 6: Moderated Mediation Model: Frequency of Interpersonal Discussions
about Things Happening in LH, Number of Gentrification Changes Noticed, Worry
about Gentrification Changes and Homeownership

99
Figure 7: Moderated Mediation Model: Frequency of Interpersonal Discussions
about Things Happening in LH, Number of Gentrification Changes Noticed, Worry
about Gentrification Changes and Homeownership
100

ix
LIST OF IMAGES
Image 1: Map showing Lincoln Heights and nearby neighborhoods that are
considered gentrified

38
Images 2-4: Restaurants at 2927 and 2929 ½ N. Broadway before and after
gentrification

39
Images 5-6: Former and current restaurants at 2118 N. Broadway. 40

x
ABSTRACT

Residents’ reactions to the changes of gentrification happening in many of their
neighborhoods vary from acceptance and welcoming, to confusion and outright rejection.
Existing literature points to this division of opinions as based on demographics, concluding that
those certain groups who reject gentrification, renters, long-time residents, make the decision to
resist and follow-through, or not, depending on their likelihood of success. However, such work
misses a crucial component: residents’ interactions with each other and the neighborhood, which
may influence their capacity to resist. This dissertation utilizes Communication Infrastructure
Theory to examine community and individual factors, specifically, communications dynamics
within the neighborhood storytelling network, that might facilitate or hinder residents’ potential
to collectively resist gentrification. I add worry about gentrification changes to the framework to
privilege the assessments and concerns of the neighborhood residents. Surveys administered to
the residents of Lincoln Heights, CA, a neighborhood with little collective resistance to
gentrification, provide the main data for analysis. Field observations and secondary data, such as
interviews with business owners and social media analysis, also inform the research findings.

1
INTRODUCTION
Gentrification is understood here as the process of the changing of a neighborhood along
cultural, racial, ethnic and or socio economic lines due to increased investment, property values
and or speculation, often resulting in physical and or social displacement (Barton, 2016; Butler,
2007; Hwang, 2016; Lees et al., 2008; Steinmetz-Wood et al., 2017; Zukin, 1987). Gentrification
was coined in 1964 by British sociologist Ruth Glass (1964) to refer to the movement of the
middle classes into formerly working-class neighborhoods in London. This led to displacement
of residents and changes in the neighborhoods’ character. It has now become a ubiquitous and
inevitable process in many of the world’s big cities, from Berlin to Sao Paulo (Atkinson &
Bridge, 2004; Ellen & Ding, 2016; Richardson et al., 2019;). Studied for over 50 years,
gentrification intensified in the U.S. in the 1990’s and has become a topic of academic and public
concern (Hackworth, & Smith, 2001; Hwang, 2016; Freeman & Braconi, 2004; Wyly &
Hammel, 1999). Neighborhoods in the U.S. are now gentrifying at twice the rate of the 1990s
(Maciag, 2015).
While debates on how to identify gentrification or what exactly causes it are important,
from a practical standpoint, it is crucial to understand its effects on local residents, especially the
low-income, people of color who are often the most detrimentally affected. As I look at
gentrification over the last several decades, the common thread among all the cities and
occurrences is the marginalization of the indigenous residents. The often low-income people of
color, whether they are displaced or not, have no say in the changes to their communities.
However, as gentrification becomes a common term and process, more and more communities
become aware of its negative effects and show their opposition. Media (Carroll, 2016; Fragoza,
2016; Koester, 2015; Lazo, 2012; Medina, 2016; Mejia, 2016; Mejia, & Saldivar, 2016; Miranda,

2
2016, 2018; Romero, 2013; Sanchez. 2019) and academic (Henig, 1982; Levy, 1980; Martinez,
2010; Newman & Wyly, 2006; Pearsall, 2013; Perez, 2004; Schmelzkopf, 2002; Smith, 1996;
Wherry, 2011; Wilson, Wouters, and Grammenos, 2004) research is beginning to highlight acts
of resistance, from rent strikes to protests. However, there are many more neighborhoods that do
not, or cannot, resist (Sullivan, 2010).
I am interested in what facilitates or hinders such resistance. Why do some communities
resist while others do not? I believe the answer lies at both the individual and community levels,
and involves the communication infrastructure of the neighborhood. By examining the factors I
propose, including residents’ connections to the neighborhood’s story telling network, worry
about gentrification related changes and their civic engagement, we can see residents’ potential
for community mobilization to resist gentrification. With this research I add a layer of
understanding to gentrification that goes beyond documentation of actions but rather probes the
lack of action and what factors might cause it. My research adds to knowledge about why
resistance does not happen in every gentrifying neighborhood and sheds light on the importance
of communication in the mobilization process. This research is important as gentrification
intensifies across the world and as people continually feel left out of the decision making
processes at the local (and national) level. By knowing the factors that prevent residents from
mobilizing to express their disapproval, scholars, community organizations, media and
government representatives can work to fill in these specific gaps and empower communities to
mobilize.
Why I Study Resistance to Gentrification
My own interest in gentrification and, more specifically, in how residents of different
communities react to the gentrification of their neighborhoods, comes from my scholarly and

3
activist work in Venice, California. While there, I had the privilege to work with the
organization, POWER (People Organized for Westside Renewal), to organize community
meetings and actions and document people’s experiences with the gentrification that had rapidly
taken over the once bohemian, low-income and diverse beach enclave. I met people who had
resided in Venice for 30+ years and were unceremoniously evicted from their homes. I also met
homeowners who were appalled at the influx of capital onto the formerly gritty streets and were
willing to use their resources to help Venice hold on to the culture that had made in famous. I
witnessed Venice residents undertake a multitude of actions to express their concern and rage at
gentrification, including form their own community groups, raise money for legal feel and sue
developers, write letters to all levels of government, speak out at city council meetings and stage
marches in protest. Some of these actions were successful, in terms of saving someone from
getting evicted or preventing a developer from building another super-sized mansion in place of
a bungalow. In the big picture, however, gentrification has enveloped Venice and it has and
continues to change to suit the tastes of a much higher income population. The residents who
participated in these resistance activities probably knew that many of their actions would not
succeed in keeping Venice what it once was. They resisted anyway.
As I studied other neighborhoods, especially Lincoln Heights, which is the subject of this
dissertation, I saw that resistance, for the residents, is not necessarily about success, though that
is of course the desired outcome. Resistance to gentrification, as a collective with their
neighbors, allows residents to feel a sense of control over their neighborhood – a right to their
city – in a neighborhood process that very much leaves them out (Harvey, 2003). Such
expression is rarely available through formal means, especially for people with little means or
knowledge of government and its processes. New developments in a neighborhood, housing, as

4
well as retail or restaurants, are undertaken by private interests, as opposed to government-
funded projects, which require some kind of community input. Though formal evictions are
contested in court, as I enumerate further in the chapter, many evictions are informal and tenants
have no say in the matter. The aim of this research is not to show that gentrification is bad, I
leave that for future research, but to show that those who are concerned about their and their
neighborhood’s future at the hands of gentrification have a right to collectively voice their
position. Their capacity to do so, and what factors in their community hinder or facilitate this, is
what is examined here.
Studying Gentrification
Understood as a complex process, there have been many approaches to the study of
gentrification. Qualitative studies have looked at changes in economic and racial compositions,
as well as the character of neighborhoods, to identify and track the extent of gentrification
(Anderson, 1990; Boyd, 2008; Curran, 2007; Freeman & Braconi, 2004; Hamnett and
Whitelegg, 2006; Maurrasse, 2006; Mele, 2000; Smith, 1996; Zukin et al., 2009). Quantitative
studies have focused on demographic changes using census data, non-census based measures,
such as coffee shops or crime rates, and systematic social observation through Google Street
View (Barton, 2016; Hammel & Wyly, 1996; Hwang & Sampson, 2014; Kreager et al., 2011;
Papachristos et al., 2011; Wyly & Hammel, 1999).
These various methods naturally have their disadvantages and critiques. For example,
Barton (2016) points out that relying solely on qualitative methods, some gentrifying
neighborhoods were overlooked when identifying gentrification, while using only quantitative
methods made it difficult to differentiate between gentrification and naturally occurring
improvements. Because there are so many factors to consider and different ways to measure

5
them, academic and public understanding of gentrification, its causes and effects, has at times
diverged. For example, several quantitative studies, using census data and other national surveys,
have shown that the commonly held belief that gentrification results in the displacement of low-
income households is misguided and such displacement is relatively rare (Ellen & O’Regan,
2011; Freeman & Braconi, 2004; McKinnish et al., 2010; Vigdor et al., 2002). However, a mixed
methods approach has shown that displacement occurs at a significantly higher rate (Curran,
2004; Newman & Wyly, 2006; Slater, 2004). Furthermore, the news is filled with reports of
entire buildings being evicted in gentrifying neighborhoods to make way for higher rents
(Florida, 2015; Hudson, 2015; Kloc, 2014).
Sullivan (2010) points out that researchers using ethnography “focus mainly on
outspoken proponents and detractors of gentrification.” (p. 596). While descriptive, this approach
does not confirm or deny whether these residents represent the opinions of local residents, most
of who do not protest the changes in their neighborhood. Sullivan (2010) calls for survey
research to complement ethnography “to ask a more representative group of residents what they
think about changes in their neighborhood” (p. 596). He further points out that survey research
can advance gentrification research by using statistical analysis to examine which demographic
characteristics - socioeconomic status, race, length of residence, or tenure status - are correlated
most strongly with residents’ opinions about gentrification (Sullivan, 2010). There is a clear need
for quantitative and qualitative research into gentrification to “seek a common object of analysis”
that would encompass both the demographic and neighborhood character changes, as well as the
lived experiences of gentrification (Brown-Saracino, 2016, p. 220).

6
Studying the Gentrified
While scholars remain fascinated by gentrifiers and what motivates them to move, there
are fewer studies that focus on the complex experiences of the indigenous residents of
gentrifying neighborhoods, beyond measuring demographic variables, as well their reactions to
the process (Freeman, 2011; McGirr, 2015; Slater, 2006; Slater et al., 2004; Sullivan, 2010;
Valli, 2015 are exceptions). Much of the research into long-term residents in gentrifying
neighborhoods is concerned with displacement – whether it is caused by gentrification or not
(Freeman, & Braconi, 2004; Newman & Wyly, 2006; Valli, 2015). Renters are obviously most at
risk of displacement, the most pronounced, and therefore, the most studied gentrification effect
(Freeman, & Braconi, 2004; Newman & Wyly, 2006; Valli, 2015). Displacement can be direct
through eviction or indirect by being priced out of their home or neighborhood (Wyly and
Hammel, 1999).
Displacement. Physical displacement can be the direct eviction of tenants, often in order to raise
the rent (Marcuse, 1985). Such evictions may occur through legal means or informally,
sometimes offering tenants a sum of money to leave (Freeman, 2011). In gentrifying
neighborhoods this can happen when property values increase, and owners know they can collect
higher rents from newcomers. Sometimes apartment buildings are sold, and the new owners wish
to renovate to justify higher rents and so evict existing residents through no fault evictions
(Rodriguez-Dod, 2012). In 2016, there were 3,255 lawful evictions in Los Angeles, compared to
36,343 in New York City (“Eviction Rankings,” n.d.). In addition to these formal evictions
where tenants are evicted after a court judgement, there are also informal evictions, where
tenants are told to vacate their home by their landlord without due process (“Our Methodology
Report,” n.d.). Physical displacement may also be indirect (Marcuse (1985) terms this economic

7
displacement): when rents increase and existing residents cannot afford to stay in their home or
anywhere else in the neighborhood (Freeman, 2011). Some cities have rent control laws – Rent
Stabilizations Ordinance (RSO) - that specify allowable rent increases. For example, in Los
Angeles, the RSO applies to rental properties that were first built on or before October 1, 1978.
The allowable rent increase for these properties is 3% per year. No-fault evictions under the RSO
require the payment of relocation assistance. “The amount of relocation assistance depends on
whether the tenant is an Eligible or Qualified tenant, the length of tenancy, and the tenant’s
income” (“Rent Stabilization Update,” n.d.).
Social or cultural displacement (Marcuse (1985) calls this displacement pressure) occurs
when existing residents in a gentrifying neighborhood are replaced, in terms of prestige and
power, by newcomers (Chernoff, 1980). This may include influence over decision making and
politics of the neighborhood and recognition by outsiders as the representatives of the
neighborhood. Social or cultural displacement also occurs as the neighborhood changes
according to the tastes and desires of the new residents, i.e. higher priced shops and restaurants
in place of mom and pop establishments (Betancur, 2002; Chernoff, 1980; Fraser, 2004; Levy
and Cybriwsky, 1980; Martin, 2007). Such marginalization may cause residents to be less
involved in the neighborhood and even to leave (Chernoff, 1980; Fraser 2004; Levy and
Cybriwsky 1980; Martin, 2007). Furthermore, research has shown that gentrification-induced
social mixing - the arrival of a different ethnicity or ethnicities into an ethnically homogeneous
community - can worsen the quality of life of existing residents, threatening their support
networks (Atkinson, 2000; Betancur, 2002; Cheshire, 2006; Lees, 2008; Smith, 1996).

8
Gentrification Effects. Because of these different types of negative effects that long-time
residents may be subjected to, they are often viewed as victims of gentrification (Freeman,
2011). These negative effects, however, are not inevitable for all long-term residents. A recent
study showed that “many original resident adults stay and benefit from declining poverty
exposure and rising house values. Children benefit from increased exposure to neighborhood
characteristics known to be correlated with economic opportunity, and some are more likely to
attend and complete college” (Brummet & Reed, 2019, p. 1). It should be noted that this study
used only quantitative methods. From Census and American Community Survey data researchers
noted individual’s block of residence and block of work (if working), employment and income,
homeownership status, rent paid or house value, and demographic characteristics, including
education, age, race/ethnicity and household type (Brummet & Reed, 2019).
A complex process that may look differently from neighborhood to neighborhood,
gentrification affects residents differently, depending on a host of factors, such as the residents’
demographic characteristics. Because longer-term residents are likely to be of a lower social
class, constitute a different ethnic and racial community, be of an older age group and be more
connected to the neighborhood than new residents, they are more likely to be affected negatively
by gentrification, economically and culturally (Henig 1984; LeGates & Hartman 1986; Spain
1980; Sullivan, 2010; Zukin, 1987). As previously mentioned, existing residents who are renters
may be priced out of the housing market or evicted. Because of their lower social status, lower
education and or advanced age, they may have no way to increase their income in order to stay in
the neighborhood. In addition, existing retail spaces may often meet critical economic, cultural
and socioemotional needs (McLean, Rankin & Kamizaki, 2015). Especially for those who lack
mobility and or income, the loss of such spaces may be felt at a heightened level. For example, a

9
small Mexican restaurant in a gentrifying neighborhood is forced to close because there is more
competition and less demand or because the rent is too high. Spanish speakers, especially those
who are older and or have no access to transportation will have not only lost a familiar,
affordable place to eat, but also a meeting place where neighborhood information is discussed.
The new retail spaces that come to the neighborhood cater to the interests and needs of a new and
usually very different population – more educated, younger and more well off – and therefore do
not fill the gap for long-time residents (Zukin, 1987).
The negative economic effects of gentrification are lessened, however, when existing
residents are more well-off, particularly homeowners. Overall, more advantaged residents of
gentrifying neighborhoods see a larger gain in financial well-being than less well-off residents
(Ding and Hwang, 2016). Homeowners are obviously not at risk for increased rent or eviction.
Therefore, they are less likely to feel vulnerable to being displaced (Sullivan, 2010). For them,
an increase in property values is a positive (Logan & Molotch 1987; Zukin, 1987). While they
are still at risk of being socially displaced, as Zukin (1987) writes, “In economic terms, they
forsake sentiment, or attachment to the community, for exchange values” (p. 133). They have the
option to sell their home and move to a neighborhood that is more in line with their beliefs or
interests. One potential disadvantage of gentrification to homeowners may be an increase in
property taxes, which differs by state (Sullivan, 2010).
Residents’ Opinions of Gentrification. Although residential satisfaction in a gentrifying
neighborhood has not been studied a great deal, the varying degrees of effects mentioned infer
that residents’ opinions about gentrification may be as varied as their experiences of it (Freeman,
2004; McGirr, 2015; Nachmias and Palen, 1986). Levy (1980) explains that,

10
Some (residents) distrust and resent the presence and style of the affluent young. But
many others admire and welcome the physical improvements. Some are enraged by the
changing market realities, while some seize the chance to make a quick profit or finally to
pick up and flee (305).
As previously mentioned, homeowners and renters have different interests and therefore
perceptions of the gentrification in their neighborhood (Levy, 1980). A 2015 survey of two
gentrifying Toronto sub-neighborhoods found that long-term residents, those who lived in the
neighborhoods nine years or more, mostly homeowners (90%), were satisfied with the changes
in their community (McGirr et al., 2015). This is a very high percentage of homeowners, which
at least partly accounts for the satisfaction. Additionally, even among the renters, there is no
mention of the fear of displacement. The authors acknowledge that even though their findings
depict gentrification, “as a conflict free process welcomed by long-term residents,” (p. 1), this is
in part due to rent controls that allow landlords to raise rents to market levels only after a tenant
leaves voluntarily. Such findings obviously cannot be generalized to any other neighborhoods
without a similarly high number of homeowners and rent control protections.
Sullivan (2010) similarly found that the majority of residents were happy with the
changes to their gentrifying neighborhood of Alberta in Portland, Oregon. However, when
demographic characteristics were examined, a marked difference was apparent between
homeowners and renters. Sullivan (2010) surveyed over 200 randomly selected residents to
examine their opinions about changes in their neighborhood and to determine whether
socioeconomic status, race, length of residence or tenure status is most important in
understanding these opinions. He found that homeowners were significantly more likely to
approve of neighborhood changes than renters. He also found that homeowners were more

11
optimistic (85%) than renters (73%) that the neighborhood would get better (Sullivan, 2010).
Sullivan (2010) also found little difference in opinions of gentrification between gentrifiers (0 –
7 years in the neighborhood) and long-time residents (seven or more years in the neighborhood).
This work supports the findings of Freeman’s (2004; 2011) prolific study of
gentrifying Clinton Hill and Harlem in New York City. His previous work, based on
quantitative research, famously showed no causal relationship between gentrification and
displacement (Freeman, 2011; Freeman & Braconi, 2004). Further, after interviewing 65
residents who resided in one of the two neighborhoods for at least three years
1
, Freeman
(2011) found that many viewed gentrification as positive. Many homeowners, mostly in
Clinton Hill (19% of the sample were homeowners), expressed satisfaction with the
increase in housing values, seeing their homes as investments (Freeman, 2011). Many
long-time residents expressed positive sentiment about some of the new amenities in their
neighborhoods, especially the ones that impacted their daily lives, such as grocery and
drug stores, because of the improved convenience (Freeman, 2011). At the same time,
some residents expressed concern about the displacement of residents and mom and pop
stores because of increasing rents (Freeman, 2011). Their concerns about displacement
were more general, in reference to other people, as few residents reported fearing that
they personally would be displaced (Freeman, 2011). Freeman (2011) attributes this to
“the housing situation of the persons I spoke with and just plain luck (respondents were
homeowners or lived in rent-regulated or government-subsidized apartments)” (p. 75).
These studies point to the nuances of the gentrification process in each
neighborhood and the importance of examining the demographics of a neighborhood,

1
Median residential tenure was 17 years (Freeman, 2011).

12
especially residential tenure and homeownership status, in order to assess long-time
residents’ feelings and opinions about changes. One thing these studies do not show is
how residents feel over time as they do not capture the attitudes that may change with the
stages of gentrification (Levy, 1980). While certain residents may be able to afford the
initial rent increases and enjoy the new amenities, as gentrification in their neighborhood
intensifies, they may be displaced by even wealthier residents (Kerstein, 1990). Levy and
Cybriwsky (1980), in their study of the Fairmount and Queen Village neighborhoods in
Philadelphia, showed that long-time residents were at first ambivalent about
gentrification but then became angry about the rising housing prices. Additionally, after
Freeman’s (2011), study several journalists lamented the loss of “black Harlem,” opining
that it was being remade for wealthier white people (Adams, 2016; Hackman, 2015).
Reverend Mike Walrond, of Harlem’s First Corinthian Baptist Church says that,
Older church members are struggling with higher rents, and some have been
forced to move. ‘Harlem has never been the buildings, it’s never been the place.
It’s been the people, the connection, the relationships. As those things begin to
fade, something of the identity of the community is going to fade as well. That is
a great fear of mine’ (Hackman, 2015).
As far as negative perceptions and reactions to gentrification, fear of displacement, both
physical and social, is naturally the most common. This is enumerated in Valli’s (2015) research,
which finds that for lower-income, long-time residents of the Bushwick neighborhood in New
York City, encounters with newcomers often triggered feelings of displacement. From in-depth
interviews with 20 residents Valli (2015) found that they felt othered by newcomers and by the
new shops in their neighborhoods that do not cater to their tastes and incomes. They in turn

13
othered the newcomers by referring to them as stereotypical representations of “hipsters” (Valli,
2015). This is echoed in Danley and Weaver’s (2018) study of Camden, New Jersey residents.
Through ethnographic and interview data from 30 residents
2
they find that residents felt excluded
and unwelcomed by the new, white developments. Hyra (2015) looked at the revitalization of
Washington, DC’s Shaw/U Street neighborhood in a four-year (2009 – 2012) ethnographic case
study and similarly found that residents felt that the changing businesses and services no longer
catered to them.
Such fears of physical or social displacement can cause various feelings and responses.
Using census data, Gibbons (2019) found that seeing the signs of gentrification in one’s
neighborhood can cause stress, worry or uncertainties that make residents more likely to search
for support or information about changes (Gibbons, 2019). More specifically, he found that
gentrifying tracts marked by increases in white residents and declines in non-whites were more
likely to report above-average stress (Gibbons, 2019). The study also examined a stress buffer,
community connection:
Community connection’ refers to ones sense of trust of their neighbors, willingness to
cooperate with their neighbors, and sense of belongingness to their neighborhood
(Gibbons & Yang, 2016). A person’s sense of community connection is a resource they
can draw upon to manage local stressors (Kawachi and Berkman, 2003, Ross and
Mirowsky, 2009, Thoits, 1995). For example, social support from neighbors can offset
one’s insecurity about housing costs (Desmond, 2016). Further, residents with strong
community connection are more likely to monitor and dissuade stress-causing social
disorder in their neighborhoods (Sampson, 2012, Shaw and McKay, 1942) (p. 3).

2
“These subjects were sorted into strata that included: 10 unaffiliated residents, 10 activists, and 10 elites from the
policy, nonprofit, and political communities” (Danley and Weaver, 2018, p. 5).

14

Gibbons (2019) found community connection to be negatively related to above-average
stress. Stress can motivate residents to action, to keep the community as they know it intact.
Based on the above mentioned feelings of being othered, long-time residents may exhibit hate or
discrimination against newcomers. This is most clearly exhibited in several incidents in the
Boyle Heights neighborhood in Los Angeles, where , over the past several years, anti-
gentrification activists have forcibly evicted a bicycle tour and a mobile opera from the area; as
well as vandalizing art galleries and a coffee shop (Carroll, 2016; Fragoza, 2016; Koester, 2015;
Lazo, 2012; Medina, 2016; Mejia & Saldivar, 2016).
Anti-Gentrification Mobilization
The potential negative impacts on themselves and their neighbors provide incentive for
the residents of a gentrifying neighborhood to mobilize to slow down or stop specific changes or
gentrification in general (Henig, 1982). Some scholars opine that resistance to gentrification is
on the decline in the U.S., and gentrification has not been as sharply contested as it was in the
1980s and 1990s because of the increase of police presence in low income neighborhoods, the
dispersal of the working class and the eviction of activists from the central city (Hackworth &
Smith, 2001; Lees et al, 2013; Martinez, 2010; Slater, 2008). However, recently, groups across
the country, including in Los Angeles, have made headlines with their actions and protests in
response to the forced changes to their communities, in Venice, Highland Park and, as
mentioned, Boyle Heights, CA (Carroll, 2016; Community Event, 2016; Fragoza, 2016; Housing
Rights Activists, 2012; Koester, 2015; Lazo, 2012; Medina, 2016; Mejia, & Saldivar, 2016;
Romero, 2013)
3
.

3
I mention examples from Los Angeles here to add context to my study area.

15
Resistance to Gentrification in Boyle Heights, Los Angeles. Incidents in response to
gentrification in Boyle Heights, a neighborhood east of Downtown Los Angeles, have garnered a
great deal of media attention. Several activist groups and individuals formed the Boyle Heights
Alliance Against Artwashing and Displacement (BHAAD) and staged rather militant actions to
protest several art galleries and a coffee shop recently opened in the area. At a gallery opening, a
crowd of activists, some wearing bandanas with the communist hammer and sickle over their
faces, shouted “Fuera! (Out!) at patrons (Miranda, 2016). Several days later, another gallery’s
gate was tagged with the words “Fuck White Art.” The Los Angeles Police Department was
investigating this incident as a hate crime (Mejia, 2016). Since then, seven galleries in the area
have closed their doors, several citing the militant opposition as the reason (Miranda, 2018;
O'Brien, Vilchis & Maritescu, 2019; Sanchez. 2019). From my own attendance at a couple of the
group’s meetings and several interviews with members, I found that the core members are young
Latinos, some college-graduates, who lived in Boyle Heights for only a few years. They feel a
kinship with the long-time residents of Boyle Heights along racial and ethnic lines and want to
use their education and knowledge about gentrification to protect the longer-term residents from
being displaced, either directly or indirectly (Michael,
4
Personal interview, Nov. 4, 2016). It is
difficult to determine who in the neighborhood supports the group, but from what I have seen at
events and videos of actions, attendees were mostly in their teens and twenties.
Resistance to Gentrification Research. Anti-gentrification mobilizations have been
documented in the research literature (Levy, 1980; Martinez, 2010; Newman & Wyly, 2006;
Pearsall, 2013; Perez, 2004; Schmelzkopf, 2002; Smith, 1996; Wherry, 2011). These descriptive
studies portray resistance in many forms, from large media events to everyday acts, such as not

4
BHAAAD member. Names of private individuals have been changed for their privacy.

16
patronizing new businesses. Early anti-gentrification mobilizing was facilitated by neighborhood
organizations and was aimed at fighting displacement (Levy, 1980), Strategies included
posturing, rallies, boycotts and lobbying the public sector (Levy, 1980; Cordova, 1981).
Later, Martinez (2010) and Schmelzkopf (2002) write about the 1990s resistance
movement by mostly Puerto Rican gardeners and artists to stop the government sale to private
developers of community gardens in the Lower East Side of New York City. These studies
follow a fairly homogenous movement fighting gentrification of their community by trying to
protect one specific space, the gardens. Similarly, Pearsall (2013) looks at a mixed-income
community’s resistance to the redevelopment of a brownfield (contaminated site) in the
Gowanus Canal neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York City. While the Mayor’s office and
developers pushed for the conversion of contaminated properties along the Canal into residential
and commercial spaces, residents disagreed for aesthetic and environmental reasons, fearing
gentrification. The resident activists succeeded, through lobbying for the addition of the canal to
the U.S. National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous sites, which rendered the site less
attractive to developers (Pearsall, 2013).
Perez (2004) writes about a majority Puerto Rican movement resisting the changes of its
Wicker Park neighborhood in Chicago, through protest. Wherry (2011) recounts how the Porto
de Oro residents in Philadelphia circumvent the redevelopment of their Latino neighborhood by
rebranding it and, thereby, directly controlling its perception by outsiders. Wilson, Wouters and
Grammenos (2004) looked at how community-based coalitions in the Chicago working-class
neighborhood of Pilsen tried to resist gentrification through discourse. Specifically, activists
painted developers as villains and Pilsen as supportive for indigenous residents but as dangerous

17
for newcomers. The aforementioned Boyle Heights resistance has also been analyzed in
academic literature, with one of the activists as a co-author (O'Brien et al., 2019).
These resistance to gentrification studies mostly describe what the residents do in their
efforts, not necessarily what motivates and equips them to engage in those efforts; aside from
opposing specific changes. Aside from a general description of the demographics of the
neighborhood, these studies have not specifically examined any community characteristics that
may facilitate resistance. An exception is Martin’s (2007) study of four gentrifying Atlanta
neighborhoods and how they responded to political displacement as a result of gentrification. She
finds that three of the neighborhoods, Lakeside, Belleview and Tyler Hill, mobilized resistance
efforts through their respective neighborhood organizations, by forming new organizations, to
combat the increased influence of new residents and, thereby, the loss of power and sense of
belonging of long-time residents. The members of a neighborhood organization in High Point,
the other neighborhood studied, however, did not mobilize. While the influx of new members
(gentrifiers) caused long-time residents to splinter to form their own neighborhood groups
separate from newcomers in Lakeside, Belleview and Tyler Hill, in order to maintain political
power, long-time residents in High Point did not form their own, new organization. Martin
(2007) attributes this lack of forming a new organization to organizational characteristics and
legitimacy, namely the High Point residents’ strategic decision to maintain a racial balance in the
organizational leadership of the existing neighborhood organization. Because of this, long-time
residents felt represented and did not need to splinter off. It is important to note here that all
neighborhoods in the study had neighborhood organizations before and/or during gentrification.
Martin (2007) points out that gentrifiers are more likely to mobilize than long-time residents and

18
may take over indigenous organizations or start their own countermovement, separate,
organizations.
Studying the Lack of Resistance to Gentrification
Aside from the aforementioned neighborhoods whose residents mobilized against
gentrification, there are of course far more gentrifying neighborhoods around the world that have
not experienced anti-gentrification resistance. Based on the findings about the negative effects
previously mentioned, both documented and predicted, of gentrification, I venture to assume that
it is not always because residents are content or even neutral about the changes. The aim of my
research is to better understand why more resistance is not happening, or, rather, what may be
preventing it. I aim to understand why residents who are worried about changes to their
neighborhood brought on by gentrification do not translate that concern into action. I argue that
these residents do not have the capacity to mobilize because of certain conditions in their
community, which I explain below. I propose here conditions, a combination of individual level,
psychological and community level factors, which, if present, may facilitate or inhibit residents’
mobilization.
The psychological factor that I focus upon, worry about gentrification changes, points to
the level of residents’ fear for their future in the neighborhood, signaled by the changes.
Mobilization against gentrification is of course a personal issue fueled by one’s stake in or
attachment to the neighborhood and a fear that gentrification will somehow interfere with this.
The desire to mobilize arises out of one’s concern about the negative effects the changes may
bring on a personal or community level (Henig, 1982). There is of course the fear of
displacement previously mentioned, which extends both to the self and one’s friends and family.
People also fear social and cultural changes to their neighborhood, which may prevent certain

19
people from participating in the community and thereby marginalize them. The other individual
level factors are implicated in Communication Infrastructure Theory (CIT). These are the parts
that make up residents’ civic engagement: their sense neighborhood belonging, perceived
collective efficacy and their previous engagement with issues of public concern. Neighborhood
mobilization to resist gentrification is also a community issue, at the very least because it
involves more than one person, but also because it is affected by aspects of the community, such
as the communication infrastructure that allows residents to story tell the neighborhood. The
community level factors I examine are assessments of residents’ communicative ties to the
neighborhood, their depth and strength. I explain all of these factors in the theory chapter. When
present together, these factors may reveal conditions which may facilitate or prevent residents
from taking action against gentrification. In the next chapter, I examine the factors that may
prohibit residents in gentrifying neighborhoods from resisting.
Overview of Chapters
There are seven chapter in this dissertation. In the Introduction (this chapter) an overview
of gentrification research, in terms of its effects and residents’ reactions to it, is presented. This
provides context to the research problem: the lack of a study of both individual and community-
level factors that may hinder or facilitate residents’ collective mobilization in resistance to the
gentrification of their neighborhood.
In Chapter One a previously devised model for neighborhood mobilization is discussed,
and an alternative, informed by the study of a neighborhood’s communication infrastructure, is
proposed.
Chapter Two presents the study area, Lincoln Heights, California, its history, unique
attributes and why it was selected.

20
Chapter Three presents the theoretical framework employed in this research,
Communication Infrastructure Theory (CIT). The psychological factor of worry is also discussed
as a pertinent variable to studying resistance to gentrification.
Chapter Four introduces the methodology used in this research. Sampling, data collection
methods and the key variables are discussed.
Chapter Five presents preliminary findings from ethnographic observations in the study
area. These inform the research questions, which are also presented here.
Chapter Six presents the results for the research questions. Linear regression and
mediation/moderation models are employed in the analyses.
Chapter Seven draws conclusions from the research findings in terms of the study area.
This chapter contains a discussion of the contributions of this research to CIT and gentrification
literature.

21

CHAPTER ONE: WHY SOME COMMUNITITES DO NOT RESIST
GENTRIFICATION
Gentrification is brought on by private and public capital investment in, usually,
disinvested, low-income neighborhoods of color. For those who are unhappy or fearful by what
the changes may mean for them or their neighbors, there are few options for expressing their
fears or resisting these changes. Collective action through community mobilization remains one
of the only strategies for residents to possibly mitigate or stop the change(s). While such
mobilizations seem to be more prevalent of late, especially in large cities, as mentioned in the
previous chapter, they are still rare. The aim of my research is to better understand why more
resistance against gentrification is not happening, or, rather, what may be preventing it. I aim to
understand why residents who are worried about changes to their neighborhood brought on by
gentrification do not translate that worry into action, and I argue that these residents do not have
the capacity to mobilize because of certain conditions in their community outside of their
control. In this chapter I critique a model of neighborhood mobilization proposed by Henig
(1982b) and introduce an alternative: a set of factors, at the individual and community level, that
I believe are better suited to explaining a lack of neighborhood mobilization to resist
gentrification.
Why Some Communities Do Not Resist
It is important to study non mobilization because “Nonmobilized groups are excluded
from consideration by methodological design” (Henig, 1982a, p. 14). Usually researchers study
the presence of, in this case, a neighborhood group and their gentrification resistance activities.
Those who do not mobilize do not exist as a collective or are rather seen as a failure. Studying
something that did not occur may be seen as lacking scientific objectivity (Henig, 1982a). There

22
is also the question of meaning, as in, how does one identify which nonmobilization is
meaningful and which is not (Henig, 1982a)?
Although the critiques are valid, they do not answer the need to understand the varied
effects and responses to gentrification by different neighborhood residents. I would argue that all
nonmobilization is meaningful because, behind it, is a story of the neighborhood residents, their
opinions and experiences. As gentrification becomes more widespread, and collective actions
against it increase, this provides an opportunity to differentiate and examine the lack of
mobilizations in the different neighborhood contexts. In learning the differences between the
neighborhoods, based on the set of factors I propose below, we are able to understand individual
residents’ and communities’ views of the gentrification taking place in their neighborhoods,
positive, negative and ambivalent, as a function of their unique discursive dynamics and
neighborhood characteristics. This is in opposition to treating each community as if it were the
same and only focusing on the gentrification process and the effects of subsequent changes. My
proposed inquiry may elicit the most obvious reason for why neighborhoods do not resist:
residents are happy with, or at the very least not concerned, about the changes. For those
residents who are concerned, there is first a need to understand who they are, their relationship
with the neighborhood and with each other. Detailed study of the environment and the
relationships of its residents will shed light on the communicative dynamics that individuals are
set in. Then, we may be able to more accurately pinpoint factors, at the individual and
community-level, that may prevent those concerned residents from expressing their worry, which
perhaps inhibit their collective action. While Henig (1982a & b) presents several factors for
neighborhood mobilization against redevelopment and gentrification in a model, I believe his
factors are too broad and make assumptions about the neighborhood of study which may not

23
always be present. He also focuses on individual residents and not the community as a whole,
ignoring the relationships of the individuals to their community. My research presents an
alternative, ecological approach, focused on the communication infrastructure of the
neighborhood and the level of worry residents feel about gentrification changes.
Henig’s Model for Neighborhood Mobilization
Writing about neighborhood redevelopment, gentrification and community response,
Henig, (1982b) presents a four-stage model for neighborhood mobilization. In referring to
neighborhood mobilization I use Henig’s (1982a) definition:
Neighborhood mobilization can be viewed as the process by which the energies, material
resources, loyalties, and political power potentially available to the residents of a specific
neighborhood are stimulated and fused into a collective response consistent with their
shared interests (p. 10).
The first stage of his model is perception: residents must be aware of the forces and conditions
affecting their interest. The second stage is evaluation. It implies that in order to mobilize
residents must accurately assess the “extent to which their shared interests are at stake” (Henig,
1982b, p. 346). The third stage, calculation,
involves weighing the expected benefits of collective action against the
likely costs and comparing these to the anticipated costs and benefits of
alternative investments of time, energy, and money. If success is unlikely
or the commitment demanded too great, neighborhood residents may
conclude that mobilization is an irrational response (p. 346).
The fourth step is implementation. “Lack of organizational skill and political know-how - the
ability to motivate, to gain public attention, to cultivate political allies, to run an effective

24
meeting— can deflate a neighborhood's effort even after the decision to attempt mobilization has
been made” (p. 346-7).
Critique of Henig’s Model and An Alternative Approach
Henig’s (1982a) model of neighborhood mobilization in response to redevelopment and
gentrification while relevant and interesting, makes broad assumptions and does not account for
several factors. First of all, all of the stages refer only to the judgments and skills of individual
residents. The model does not consider factors of the neighborhood and how those might affect
its mobilization. Research has shown that that place matters – where we live impacts who we are
(Sampson, 2012). In the same vein, the neighborhood and its attributes can affect how and why
residents mobilize or do not. For example, the presence of community organizations already
working on gentrification issues can facilitate residents’ mobilization to resist it. If such
organizations do not exist, residents must organize on their own. This may fall under Henig’s
(1982b) last stage, implementation, which assumes that such organizations are either in place, or
that residents have the resources and capacity to mobilize without them. With his model,
implementation either takes place or not, there is no examination of the reasons. However, if a
neighborhood assessment is done that includes examining the presence of local organizations, or
lack thereof, a researcher may already hypothesize about reasons for residents’ lack of
mobilization. Furthermore, looking at the neighborhood and the kinds of relationships residents
have with and to it may reveal more nuanced explanations around Henig’s (1982a) stages. For
example, if there is not a great deal of opportunities for residents to meet with and talk to each
other, they may not feel they have any shared interests with their neighbors. Looking at this
through Henig’s (1982a) model would simply tell the researcher that residents do not evaluate
the situation of gentrification of their neighborhood as a shared interest and therefore see no need

25
for mobilization. While this may or may not be true, this kind of understanding is shallow and
does not provide much of an understanding behind the residents’ perceptions. It is more helpful
to study how and which residents communicate with each other, and the topic of their
discussions, to get a better idea of the reasons behind their evaluations. This gives more context
to the residents’ responses and gives researchers a set of factors that may be compared across
different neighborhoods.
Henig’s (1982a) model also takes for granted the interactions between residents, how
connected residents are to each other and how they feel about one another. These interactions
and relationships may influence residents’ awareness of the situation and the way that they
evaluate the need to mobilize. Residents’ attachment to their neighborhood can influence their
participation in collective action (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). This attachment, or belonging,
encompasses how residents feel about their neighbors, as well as how many neighbors they can
count on to help in various situations (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). If residents have positive
feelings about their neighbors, they are more apt to see their shared interests in the neighborhood
and to mobilize with them. Furthermore, research has shown that social ties generally have a
positive effect on collective action (McAdam & Paulsen, 1993; Oliver, 1984). “Strong or dense
interpersonal networks encourage the extension of an invitation to participate and they ease the
uncertainty of mobilization” (McAdam & Paulsen, 1993, p. 644). Henig’s (1982a) model studies
residents individually, apart from their possible relationships with their neighbors. This excludes
the contribution such relationships have to residents’ joining mobilizations, or even realizing the
need to mobilize. Such an approach also ignores the sense of collective efficacy, or the belief that
neighbors will come together to solve collective problems, that is a component of collective
action (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). This could fall under Henig’s (1982b) calculation stage,

26
though he only considers weighing the costs and benefits of collective action for individuals. His
model assumes that residents join neighborhood mobilizations without any thought about their
neighbors’ perspectives or actions. Residents’ assessment of success as unlikely is not attributed
to their neighbors’ lack of concern or sense of collective efficacy.
Henig’s (1982a) model does not account for the many structural factors that may
influence the neighborhood’s mobilization. He does mention the often-studied factor of socio-
economic status. Henig (1982a) shows that class is not a sufficient explanation for neighborhood
mobilization because low-income neighborhoods are just as capable as the middle class of
mobilization. He does not touch on any other factors, most importantly, residents’
homeownership status and residential tenure. Residents’ homeownership status and the number
of years they have lived in their neighborhood is an important differentiating factor in a
neighborhood, especially in the context of gentrification, where residents are often divided
according to their time and (economic and social) ties to the neighborhood. Homeownership and
residential tenure may have an effect on residents’ attachment to the neighborhood and the
feelings they have about their neighbors (Rohe & Stewart, 1996). Research shows that
homeowners are more likely than renters to belong to neighborhood organizations, for example
(Oliver (1984; Rohe & Stewart, 1996). Those residents who are more invested in the
neighborhood, in terms of owning a home and or the number of years they have lived there, may
be more likely to be involved in collective actions to resist gentrification. Henig (1982a), in his
model, treats all residents equally, examining only their mobilization or lack of it, at a fairly
general level.
In terms of the stages of his model, I concur with Henig (1982b) that a resident must first
be aware of the conditions of their neighborhood and how they might affect them. He, however,

27
does not elaborate how a resident might become aware of gentrification and how to interpret it.
The Henig model (1982a & b) does not consider the residents’ sources of information, such as
local media and organizations. There is also no mention of residents talking to each other or if
those conversations are actually about neighborhood issues. Residents’ awareness of the situation
and the subsequent opinion they form is at least somewhat informed by the source of
information. Not considering the source and instead focusing on awareness or lack thereof
assumes that everyone has access to and receives the same information, and therefore view of the
neighborhood issue. Henig (1982a) does mention that, “Neighborhoods that are bombarded with
misleading information or are denied important information by officials or other elites may fail
to mobilize because they never realize the nature and extent of the threats they face” (p. 49).
While a possibility, this assumes that elites are the only sources of information for residents. This
again is a lack of consideration of other information sources in the neighborhood and their
possible interaction with residents. While it may have been more so the case at the time of
Henig’s (1982a and b) study, the internet has broadened neighborhood residents’ access to
information. How that information is presented is also important, as it influences the residents’
formation of their own opinions and interpretations of the situation. A lack of knowledge of the
source of information and the way the source presents neighborhood information, may mean the
researcher(s) miss a reason for why someone participates or not. Noting a lack of information
sources here is also crucial in understanding residents’ views of neighborhood concerns. This
leads into Henig’s (1982b) next stage, evaluation.
I agree with the inclusion of evaluation in the model of neighborhood mobilization,
though, I believe evaluation has a neutral tone that does not convey the negativity that must be
associated with gentrification in order to resist it. If a resident does not believe that they or their

28
neighbors will be affected negatively, they will not be concerned enough to mobilize to resist.
There has to be a certain level of worry about one’s future, which implies evaluation, to stimulate
one’s desire to slow down or stop gentrification changes from happening (Jeffres & Dobbos,
1984). Worry, as enumerated further in the Theory chapter, is “defined broadly as repetitive
thought activity, which is usually negative and frequently related to feared future outcomes or
events” (Gladstone & Parker, 2003, p. 347). Worry may be functional, that is, it can be useful in
motivating and problem-solving (Gladstone & Parker, 2003). Worry implies evaluation of the
situation and adds an affective element that better conveys a concern for one’s future. I think this
is a more telling motivator and indicator of potential for mobilization.
The amount and quality of neighborhood knowledge at a resident’s disposal, and whether
or not they discuss it with others, may influence their level of worry about gentrification changes
and either incapacitate them or influence them to resist. The more information a resident has
about the neighborhood by tapping into media, organizations and interpersonal relationships, the
more they may know about changes taking place, and the more fearful they might be for their
future. On the other hand, that knowledge can also make residents feel positive about their future
and that of their neighborhood. The key here is that knowledge about neighborhood issues, such
as gentrification, through local, relevant sources may affect residents’ evaluation of the
neighborhood changes – what they might mean for their future. The discussion of these
neighborhood issues may, in turn, affect the way residents decide to respond, or not, to these
issues. Evaluation, an individual psychological factor as conceived by Henig (1982b), must be
considered in the context of the neighborhood, where communication resources may affect
residents’ awareness and understanding of the situation.

29
Henig’s (1982b) next step is calculation, weighing the costs and benefits of mobilizing,
which determines whether or not residents mobilize. I think there are more complex and
community level factors at play here. Prior to this calculation residents must know that
mobilization is an option. They gain this knowledge from information they get from the media,
local organizations and their neighbors. They may also gain it from their past experiences.
Residents must have some idea of what a neighborhood mobilization could entail and see it as a
possible solution for their neighborhood concern(s). Also, Henig’s (1982a) calculation implies an
individual decision and, again, does not consider factors that might influence that decision, such
as the relationships residents have with each other and their neighborhood. As Henig (1982a)
states, in order for a neighborhood mobilization to take place, residents must have similar
concerns and views on how to address them. This knowledge comes from knowing residents’
sources of information about neighborhood issues and whether or not residents discuss these
neighborhood issues. As mentioned, residents must have a certain level of attachment to the
neighborhood to want to mobilize. Additionally, neighborhood mobilization is a collective
process. In order to participate, residents need to trust in their neighbors’ problem solving ability,
to believe that their neighbors will also come together around neighborhood concerns, or
collective efficacy. Once residents are sufficiently informed and concerned about gentrification
changes in their neighborhood, they have to believe that others not only share their concern, but
are also willing to come together to tackle this problem. Without these conditions residents
cannot feel that mobilizing to resist is a viable undertaking because it has to be a collective
action. Though they may feel that resistance is the greatest expression of their individual fears
and concerns, they must also be aware that a collective action with their neighbors is bound to
have more impact towards their goal. Inherent in this is the belief that, together, residents have

30
the power to resist gentrification in their neighborhood. Then, residents can weigh the costs and
benefits, to them and to their neighbors, of mobilizing.
Henig’s (1982b) fourth and final stage, implementation, assumes that residents have the
capacity to mobilize if they decide to, and that there are neighborhood organizations in place to
facilitate this, or residents are able to act on their own. This capacity to act independently to
mobilize must be examined first, as there are factors at the community level which can inhibit
organizing – such as the lack of neighborhood discussions about concerns. One factor that may
bring to light whether residents will organize is residents’ civic participation, as this points to
their level of experience in local activities. Because past behavior is indicative of present or
future behavior (Aarts, Verplanken & Van Knippenberg, 1998; Skinner, 1938), it is worthwhile
to consider residents’ past experience with general civic activities, like voting in a local election,
and in activities that might mirror those often undertaken in anti-gentrification actions, like
taking part in a protest. Past experience with similar efforts may encourage such actions in the
future. Such participation is also related to one’s access to neighborhood information (Kim &
Ball-Rokeach, 2006). Through certain channels, residents are able to find information about
relevant neighborhood issues, as well as how to solve them. If those channels are not available,
their civic participation may be hindered. Therefore, residents who are move involved civically
are more likely to mobilize against gentrification in their neighborhood. Taking this a step
further, residents who have knowledge or experience of certain civic actions are more likely to
participate again and maybe even recruit others. Such information is an important component in
understanding a neighborhood’s mobilization potential and capacities – something Henig
(1982a) does not elaborate upon.

31
The model structure as used by Henig (1982a) is useful in explaining the steps to
mobilization, however, based on the reasons mentioned above, it assumes and takes for granted
processes that must be in place before evaluating a neighborhood based on the model’s stages.
Interaction and discourse between neighborhood actors, especially those who are sources of
neighborhood information, is crucial and must be considered. This determines how residents
might view neighborhood issues and whether or not they will feel the need to mobilize. Further,
examining interactions and relationships between actors in the neighborhood will point to
individual residents’, as well as the neighborhood’s, capacity to undertake collective action
against gentrification. Although there is certainly a process to neighborhood mobilization, it is
more important to look at not whether or not the steps in that process exist, but rather, what
factors may facilitate or hinder that process from happening at all.

32
CHAPTER TWO: AREA OF STUDY
Lincoln Heights History
Lincoln Heights, CA, originally named East Los Angeles, is in North East Los Angeles
and is one of the city’s oldest neighborhoods. Lincoln Heights began to grow in 1889 when the
Los Angeles Cable Railroad opened a viaduct over the Los Angeles River and the tracks of the
Southern Pacific Railroad to connect the riverside neighborhood with central Los Angeles
(Masters, 2011). At the start of the 20th century Lincoln Heights was home to many Italian
Americans. The neighborhood was popular for its Eastlake Park (now Lincoln Park), the Luna
Park Zoo and the California Alligator Farm (Masters, 2011). Lincoln Heights was home to many
notables, including the commanding general of the Confederate States Army, Albert Sidney
Johnston, predecessor of Robert E. Lee, and John Griffin, known as the “Southern fathers of Los
Angeles.” Victorian mansions, protected under a historical designation, as well as streets named
after these famous families, still remain. In 1917, neighborhood improvement groups eager to
cultivate the neighborhood’s image proposed to rename the neighborhood after the martyred
president. Voters renamed it Lincoln Heights (Masters, 2011).
As construction boomed along the main commercial thoroughfare, North Broadway,
wealthy residents moved away and more immigrants, including Italian, Irish and French
Americans, as well as poor white Americans from the Great Plains, settled in the area by the
1930s. The oldest producing winery in L.A. was founded by Italian immigrant Santo Cambianica
in 1917 in Lincoln Heights, where it still operates today (“Our History” n.d.). The Mexican
American population increased into the 1960s (Masters, 2011). Another historic Lincoln Heights
landmark, the Church of the Epiphany, built in 1886, is the oldest functioning church in the

33
Diocese of Los Angeles (“History,” 2015). The Church was the center of Latino cultural and
social justice work.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the Church of the Epiphany served as the Los Angeles base
for Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers movement; it was the home of La Raza,
the Chicano civil rights movement (the newspaper, La Raza, was printed in the
basement); the home of the Chicano Students Movement, it was East Los Angeles
headquarters for Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign. The Brown Berets
were founded and met there (“Our History,” n.d.).

Lincoln Heights Today

Currently, Lincoln Heights’ population is predominantly Latino (68%), with Chinese and
Vietnamese as the second largest ethnic group (Asian 24%) (American Community Survey,
2016). (See Table 1 in the next chapter for other demographics). Lincoln Heights is known for
being home to various predominantly Latino street gangs, including Lincoln Heights (LHTS),
East Side Clovers, East Lake Locos and Happy Valley Riva.
5
In 2007, the City Attorney of Los
Angeles filed a gang injunction against Clover, Eastlake and Lincoln Heights gangs in the
Lincoln Heights area
6
.

5
This information comes from the website streetgangs.com and cannot be verified.
6
A gang injunction is a civil court order that prohibits a gang and its members from conducting certain specified
activities within a defined geographic area known as a “safety zone.” Prohibited activities include: associating with
other gang members; using gang hand signs and/or wearing gang colors and attire; using, possessing, selling or
transporting illegal drugs; drinking or possessing alcohol; owning, using or possessing any dangerous or deadly
weapons; committing graffiti/vandalism and/or possessing graffiti/vandalism tools; and intimidating, threatening or
harassing people. Violating the terms of the injunction is a criminal misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in
jail and/or a $1,000 fine (“Important Facts to Know About Gang Injunctions,” n.d.).

34
University of Southern California and Lincoln Heights. It should be noted that the University
of Southern California’s Health Sciences Campus, which houses the Keck School of Medicine,
the Keck Hospital, the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and Hospital, the School of
Pharmacy, research facilities for the Ostrow School of Dentistry and various physical and
occupational therapy programs, is situated in Lincoln Heights and neighboring Boyle Heights.
The L.A. County + USC Medical Center is also located in Boyle Heights. In 2011, USC released
its Health Sciences Campus Master Plan, which called for more than three million square feet of
new development over the next 25 years. Some of the projects include the 200-room Hyatt
House Hotel, construction of which began in January 2019 and the Norris Healthcare Center,
which opened in January 2018 (Kruzman, 2019; Zhang, 2019). The construction of 95 units of
graduate housing, located directly across the street from Lincoln Park, which was not part of the
original plan, began in March 2019 and was met with protest from community members (Zhang,
2019). Led by a coalition of community groups from the area, Eastside L.E.A.D.S., community
members expressed their worry about being displaced from the neighborhood due to rising rents
and criticized the University’s lack of getting community input about the project. USC has said
that the lack of student housing on-campus is what actually displaces residents and the new
student housing would combat this (Kruzman, 2019; Zhang, 2019). In January 2019, USC and
American Campus Communities, the developer for the graduate student housing project, reached
an agreement with Eastside L.E.A.D.S., which includes a $100,000 job training program, a 25
percent local hire rate within a three-mile radius of campus for construction jobs and an
agreement to reserve at least 10 percent of the jobs for disadvantaged workers (Escutia, 2019;
Zhang, 2019).

35
The Brewery artists’ lofts. Lincoln Heights is also home to the Brewery Artists Loft Complex,
a collection of live/work spaces rented only to artists. Converted from the former Pabst Blue
Ribbon Brewery in 1982, it was (and still claims to be) considered the “world’s largest art
complex” (Carrier, 1999). An estimated 600 artists live and work at the Brewery. In addition to
the work spaces/residences, the space also has a bar/restaurant and a climbing gym. The artists
hold a Brewery Artwalk twice a year, where more than 100 artists open their studios to the public
to show and sell their art. Based on our observations, the artists at the Brewery have not been the
first wave of gentrification, as is sometimes the norm (Kerstein, 1990). The Brewery is isolated
from the rest of the neighborhood, physically and socially. It sits in an industrial area near a rail
yard. From what we have seen, despite being home to over 600 artists, their presence is not felt
in Lincoln Heights outside of the Brewery. Some of the non-artists we spoke with had no idea
the Brewery existed. We have also heard from artists living at the Brewery that they are not
really involved in the neighborhood nor interact much with Lincoln Heights residents.
Gentrification in Lincoln Heights
Lincoln Heights is one of several neighborhoods in Northeast LA and nearby that has
recently been affected by increasing home and property prices, sparking talk of gentrification, as
per discussions on a Lincoln Heights Facebook page
7
. Many of its surrounding communities
(e.g., Boyle Heights, Highland Park, and Downtown L.A.) have been experiencing gentrification
more rapidly, pointing to Lincoln Heights as the next, inevitable neighborhood to gentrify
(Image 1 below shows Lincoln Heights and its surrounding neighborhoods). Additionally,
Lincoln Heights’s high poverty and renter rates make the neighborhood a prime target for
developers, speculators and house flippers, who are often implicated in bringing gentrification.

7
The examination of Lincoln Heights-related social media pages was part of the preliminary research for the project
and is elaborated in Chapter Five.

36
Lincoln Heights’ inevitable position on the cusp of gentrification was also highlighted in in a
four-part feature series (March 29 - April 6, 2018) in the Los Angeles Times.
Median home prices in Lincoln Heights have increased over 70 percent over the last five
years (Real Estate Market Trends). According to assessments of median household income and
median home value, Lincoln Heights has one census tract that is considered gentrified because it
has experienced increases in the top third percentile for both inflation-adjusted median home
values and percentage of adults with Bachelors’ degrees (Los Angeles Gentrification Maps and
Data). I have also observed several new businesses on Broadway in the last two to three years.
These include a cafe (B24), a sandwich and beer shop (The Heights Deli & Bottle Shop), a bar-
restaurant (Lincoln Kitchen & Tap) and a recently opened and shuttered taco stand (Masa
Tacos). Interestingly, these establishments are owned by the same group of people, at least one
of who resides in Lincoln Heights (Elliot, 2017; Holmes, 2019). These new businesses are quite
different from the other establishments on Broadway, the main shopping and dining street in the
neighborhood: numerous discount stores (99 cent store, Dollar Tree) and mom and pop ethnic
food eateries and small shops offering everything from shoes to international money transfers.
The new businesses cater to a much younger population and embody the symbols of
gentrification: artisanal coffee, craft beer and higher prices (Hubbard, 2016). (Several of the new
businesses mentioned, as well as the previous restaurants at the locations can be seen in Images
2-6s below).
Why Lincoln Heights?
Lincoln Heights was chosen as the area of study because the research team considered it
in the beginning stages of gentrification, unlike its previously mentioned neighbors. Similar to
McGirr et al., 2015 (who studied two gentrifying Toronto sub-neighborhoods, as mentioned in

37
the Introduction) we wanted to see how long-time residents, who still very much remember how
Lincoln Heights was several years before, see their neighborhood now. We wanted to understand
residents’ perceptions of and reactions to the changes they were seeing around them. For the
purposes of my research, I wanted to be present to witness any potential community
mobilizations in their early stages; which presumably would happen alongside or shortly after
gentrification-related changes.

38
Image 1. Map showing Lincoln Heights (red star) and nearby neighborhoods that are considered
gentrified (outlined in black).

39
Image 2, 3 and 4. Restaurants at 2927 and 2929 ½ N. Broadway before and after.

Photo credit: Yelp, c. 2011

Photo credit: Yelp c. 2018

40

Photo credit: Masa Tacos, 2019

Images 5 and 6. Former and current restaurants at 2118 N. Broadway.

Photo credit: Metamorphosis Project

41

Photo credit: Lincoln Kitchen & Tap

Photo credit: Lincoln Kitchen & Tap

42
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Communication Infrastructure Theory
I use Communication Infrastructure Theory (CIT) to look at community level factors
which may facilitate or hinder resident mobilization against gentrification. According to CIT,
residents of a geographical community are situated in a storytelling network, as shown in Figure
1, which includes storytelling agents at the meso and micro levels, set in its communication
action context (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001). The storytelling agents, geo-ethnic and local media,
community organizations and the community residents set in their interpersonal networks, create
and disseminate neighborhood stories and everyday conversations. Residents of a neighborhood
construct their perspectives and views of their environment through interaction with these
storytelling agents (Ball-Rokeach & Jung, 2009). They are helped or hindered by the resources,
or lack thereof, of the neighborhood.
Figure 1. Communication infrastructure: storytelling network set in its communication action
context.

43
Storytelling network. Meso agents are locally based organizations and geo-ethnic and local
media that focus on a particular part of the city and/or particular residents of a certain ethnicity,
class, gender or lifestyle. The Internet is considered a meso-level storytelling agent (Matei &
Ball-Rokeach, 2003). Geo-ethnic media is distinguished from mainstream media based on the
subject of its stories (referent) and its imagined audience (Kim et al., 2006). Geo-ethnic media
are geographically and or ethnically specific in their focus and content (Kim et al., 2006;
Matsaganis et al., 2011). An example of geo-ethnic media is a Korean language newspaper
produced for the residents of Koreatown in Los Angeles, that may have stories about happenings
in Korea as well as LA. Geo-ethnic media may influence its consumers’ knowledge based on the
stories that are told. If there is mostly information about an ethnic group’s home country and
very little local information, then residents who do not consume any other media and only
discuss information with others like them may be unaware of local happenings.
Community organizations are the second meso-level storytelling agent. They can range
from informal grassroots groups to established non-profit organizations (Kim and Ball-Rokeach,
2006a). Local organizations may engage local media to cover neighborhood issues and concerns.
They may also elaborate local media stories to construct related community stories (Kim and
Ball-Rokeach, 2006a). Local organizations can serve as a resource for residents and encourage
them to get involved in response to those issues.
Individual residents in their informal, grassroots neighborhood networks are the micro
agents that share the community’s stories with each other. Local media that tell stories about the
neighborhood may stimulate interpersonal conversations, which can reinforce, filter or challenge
the stories’ meanings (Ball-Rokeach & Jung, 2009). Community organizations may tie into these
local stories and offer ways and encourage residents to get involved in their neighborhood.

44
Ideally, storytellers at the meso and micro levels offer resources to help individuals understand
the environment around them and construct their identity as residents. If the communication
resources address the issues and concerns of residents and encourage each other to discuss the
neighborhood, then they enable and support residents’ collective actions to find solutions to
community problems and improve their environment (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001; Kim & Ball-
Rokeach, 2006b; Nah et al., 2016; Wilkin, 2013).
Strong discursive links between the interpersonal, community organizations and local
media agents in the storytelling network, or integrated connectedness to a storytelling network
(ICSN), enables neighborhood residents to participate in collective action for community change
(Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001; Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006b). integrated connectedness to a
storytelling network (ICSN) is measured as the summation of the three interaction terms between
local media connectedness, scope of connections to community organizations, and intensity of
interpersonal neighborhood storytelling (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006b). The strength of the
connections between storytelling agents is of utmost importance for the storytelling network to
function well. The extent to which connections to one storyteller increase the likelihood of
connections to the other two storytellers is measured as the degree of integration (Kim & Ball-
Rokeach, 2006b).
A high level of integrated connectedness to a storytelling network (ICSN) indicates that
neighborhood storytelling agents are discussing shared issues and concerns and relevant
information about the neighborhood with residents and each other and encouraging other agents
to discuss and take action in the community. An ideal integrated connectedness to a storytelling
network (ICSN) is one in which a connection to one storytelling resource helps to strengthen
connections to another (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006a). A community is constructed or imagined

45
through storytelling (Anderson, 2006). So, when each storyteller prompts the other to tell stories
about their community, residents begin to imagine themselves as a community – they story tell a
shared vision of their community identity and concerns. If local media are talking about the
neighborhood, then the residents are more likely to engage in this process as well. When
residents have discussions with their neighbors, they are more likely to talk about the
neighborhood if they hear about issues and events from local media and organizations. Through
these shared neighborhood stories they develop a sense of belonging, an attachment to the
neighborhood (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001; Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006b). When community
organizations take up neighborhood stories they may offer residents a way to become involved in
ameliorating their shared issues. With a feeling of belonging residents may feel that their
neighbors will come together around neighborhood problems because they have discussed their
shared concerns. Because they see that others share their concerns and have ways for addressing
them, they may develop a sense of collective efficacy, which may increase the likelihood that
they will participate in collective problem solving (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006).
Communication action context. The storytelling network is situated within the communication
action context (CAC), the physical, psychological, sociocultural, economic, and technological
characteristics of a geographical area that facilitate or inhibit open communication (Ball-
Rokeach et al., 2001). The communication action context elaborates on the features of the
environment that affect the strength of the storytelling network. The interaction between the
storytelling network and the communication action context facilitates or constrains neighborhood
storytelling (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). The communication action context is described along
a dimension of openness to closedness, based on whether it encourages or discourages
neighborhood storytelling. A more open communication action context allows for and stimulates

46
discussion around shared neighborhood issues and concerns. It affects the kinds of stories the
media tell about the neighborhood, as well as the success or failure of community organization
outreach efforts (Ball-Rokeach & Jung, 2009). A communication action context analysis may
identify factors that facilitate communication within a community, like the existence of public
spaces, also referred to as hotspots, where residents gather to engage in everyday conversations,
perhaps about community issues (Villanueva et al., 2016). In some neighborhoods parks are
hotspots, whereas in others, parks are dangerous because of criminal activity that takes place
there and so prevents residents from gathering. In the latter example, the communication action
context is more closed and hinders functioning of the storytelling network. Comfort zones,
businesses and community institutions in which residents feel comfortable, as if they belong,
may also be identified as part of the communication action context (Villanueva et al., 2016). In
comfort zones residents’ interactions develop a sense of familiarity over time. Some comfort
zones may also be hotspots if people meet and have discussions there. A communication action
context analysis may also identify any social, cultural or economic obstacles that may prevent
residents from accessing communication resources, such as multiple jobs or long commutes that
do not allow residents much time to participate in the community.
Another way to look at the communication action context is through the lens of spatial
justice (Harvey, 2003; Marcuse, 2009; Soja, 2010a, b). Focusing on the spatial nature of social
interactions, Soja (2010a, b) links spatial justice to the inequalities that are produced and
reproduced through spatial relationships. When certain elements of the communication action
context that facilitate open discussion and encourage civic engagement, such as local media and
organizations, are absent from a community, this can be considered spatial injustice. In a
neighborhood where local media and organizations are absent residents do not see active

47
discussion and action around neighborhoods issues, such as gentrification. The lack of social
interaction around gentrification prevents the discursive formation of an anti-gentrification
movement. Whereas in neighborhoods in which local media and organizations are present,
residents see and experience discussion and civic action and are thereby encouraged to take a
collective stance against gentrification, if they disagree with what is happening. The difference in
neighborhoods in elements of the communication action context, elements residents may have no
control over, may be seen as an inequality. Just by living in a certain neighborhood, sometimes a
decision based on socio-economic status, residents have access to the storytelling resources of
that neighborhood that may inform and encourage them to act. When those resources are lacking,
residents do not have that same information and motivation to action, through no fault of their
own.
Civic Engagement. The aforementioned storytellers are critical factors in residents’ civic
engagement (Kim and Ball-Rokeach, 2006). When storytellers in the community encourage each
other to talk about the neighborhood, thereby constructing their community, residents are more
likely to feel a sense of belonging, develop a sense of collective efficacy and participate in civic
actions to address those problems. These three components make up civic engagement.
Communication Infrastructure Theory analyses show that integrated connectedness to a
storytelling network (ICSN) is the most important factor in civic engagement (Kim & Ball-
Rokeach, 2006).
Belonging is objective and subjective attachment to the neighborhood (Kim & Ball-
Rokeach, 2006). The first part encompasses how many neighbors residents know well enough to
ask for help in various situations (e.g. watching their home, giving them a ride, helping them
with a repair). The other part considers how residents feel about their neighbors (e.g. How

48
interested are they in getting to know them? Whether they enjoy meeting and talking with them).
A high level of belonging is predicated upon the number of neighbors a resident feels they can
count on to help them and positive feelings about getting to know and interacting with them. A
resident’s integrated connectedness to a storytelling network (ICSN) is the critical factor in
neighborhood belonging. If a resident is able to and connects to an integrated storytelling
network they are more likely to have a high level of belonging (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006).
Perceived collective efficacy is a resident’s perception of the willingness of their
neighbors to come together to solve neighborhood problems (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). This
is a community level factor that brings to light residents’ conception of “we,” as a community.
This conception comes directly from connections to the storytelling agents because residents
learn it from symbolic environments. By connecting to and discussing the neighborhood with
their neighbors, for example, residents see that they can collectively do what they need to do to
solve neighborhood problems (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). The integrated connectedness to a
storytelling network (ICSN) is important to this process as a high level of integration enables
residents to discuss neighborhood issues and see the shared identity between themselves and
their neighbors. The more residents see themselves and their neighbors as a community, the more
they feel they can collectively come together to address neighborhood problems (Kim & Ball-
Rokeach, 2006).
Civic participation is a resident’s investment of time, money, knowledge or experience in
the community decision-making process (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). Included in this are
behaviors involved in local policy-making and community opinion-making processes, such as
attending a neighborhood council meeting or signing a petition. The integrated connectedness to
a storytelling network (ICSN) is important in encouraging civic participation (Kim & Ball-

49
Rokeach, 2006). When residents connect to an integrated storytelling network they are informed
about what they can do and stimulated to take action around neighborhood issues. An integrated
storytelling network provides information and resources that increase the potential for residents
to get involved in solving neighborhood concerns.
Communication Infrastructure Theory and Demographic Factors
Communication Infrastructure Theory researchers have pointed to several demographic
factors that influence integrated connectedness to a storytelling network (ICSN) and its
relationship to collective efficacy and civic participation. Residents’ connections to storytelling
agents may be predicted by structural variables, such as ethnicity, residential tenure and
homeownership. Communication Infrastructure Theory researchers have found that residents of
different ethnicities use different communication channels to stay informed about their
community and the world around them (Matsaganis et al., 2011). Immigrants to the U.S. who
speak English, for example, are able to tap into the mainstream local media for information.
Those who only speak the language of their home country cannot access English language media
and must rely on geo-ethnic media for information, which, in some cases, may only cover news
from their home country (Lin & Song, 2006). Because these residents do not have certain
knowledge about their local community, they may be excluded from neighborhood happenings
or discussions and, in turn, may be hindered from participating civically. The exception to this
has been the advent of ethnic social media, or social media channels in languages other than
English. To the extent that such channels have relevant local information, this is one way non-
English language speakers can be informed about happenings in their community.
The importance of integrated connectedness to a storytelling network (ICSN) as a factor
in civic participation is greater in areas characterized by ethnic heterogeneity and low residential

50
stability (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). Having neighbors unlike themselves as well as living in a
residentially unstable neighborhood may cause people to rely more on their storytelling network
to be informed about and motivated to participate in their community. Ethnic heterogeneity is
also negatively related to collective efficacy (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). This suggests that
residents who live in an ethnically diverse neighborhood feel that it would be difficult to
mobilize with neighbors unlike themselves to solve community problems (Kim & Ball-Rokeach,
2006). There were no direct effects of residential stability or ethnic heterogeneity on civic
participation (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006a).
Kim & Ball-Rokeach (2006) found that residential stability (length of residential tenure
and homeownership) has a significant positive effect on integrated connectedness to a
storytelling network (ICSN), collective efficacy and belonging (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). As
residents spend more time in the neighborhood, they get to know their neighbors, form
relationships, as well as learn about and use resources to story tell the neighborhood. This also
positively influences their confidence in the neighborhood’s collective capability. Longer
residential tenure was found to be related to more memberships in community organizations,
more frequent use of local media and the presence of interpersonal discussions about local issues
(Nah et al., 2016). Longer term residents also had a stronger integrated connectedness to a
storytelling network (ICSN) as they had more time to develop an interest in and access to the
resources of the storytelling network (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001; Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006).
The longer a resident has lived in their neighborhood the more involved they appear to be in the
neighborhood’s storytelling network and, thereby, the construction of the neighborhood’s
identity.

51
Similarly, homeownership was found to be positively related to the presence of
connections to community organizations (Nah et al., 2016). Homeowners have more economic
investment in the neighborhood than renters because of their mortgage. They are also not as
easily displaced, through eviction, as mentioned in the Introduction. It would follow that because
they know they will be in the neighborhood for a while, they are more apt to join community
organizations. Because they have more invested in the conditions of their neighborhood, they
may seek out neighborhood information from local media and organizations and therefore be
presented with opportunities to participate civically.
In a fragmented storytelling network, where meso-level storytellers are not present or are
not discussing relevant neighborhood concerns, residents cannot access the information they
need from local media and organizations and may not be encouraged to solve neighborhood
problems. They must rely on each other to bring up neighborhood issues and concerns. Without
prodding from meso-level storytellers, residents may not feel prepared or motivated to discuss
certain neighborhood topics, such as eviction or rent increase. This may weaken the relationship
of their integrated connectedness to a storytelling network (ICSN) to the elements of civic
engagement. Because residents must rely on themselves to bring up neighborhood issues and
concerns, they may discuss these issues and concerns much less with neighbors than if they were
informed and prompted by local media or organizations. Because of this, they may not perceive
that their neighbors can come together to solve neighborhood problems, especially if they do not
see examples of this from local media and organizations. With no meso-level agents creating
information about what they can do, residents may not act to resolve neighborhood issues. When
a neighborhood’s storytelling network is fragmented, residents will be less likely to bring up,
discuss and act on neighborhood concerns, such as the changes brought on by gentrification.

52
Communication Infrastructure Theory and Gentrification
While a Communication Infrastructure Theory approach was recently applied to
understand the opinions and attitudes of North East Los Angeles residents about the LA River
revitalization (Villanueva et al., 2017)
8
, Communication Infrastructure Theory has not been
previously applied to the context of gentrification and neighborhood change. It is important to
examine a neighborhood’s communication infrastructure in a gentrifying neighborhood because
the physical and social changes of gentrification affect the environment of the neighborhood, or
the communication action context. Considering the contextual variables mentioned above,
especially residential tenure and homeownership, may account for if and how different types of
residents are affected. With gentrification, physical spaces where residents meet for discussions,
such as a mom and pop restaurant, which may be both a hotspot and a comfort zone, may
disappear, eliminating a crucial resource for neighborhood information. Similarly, residents may
also be forced out due to increased rent, leaving possible gaps in neighbors’ interpersonal
networks. As gentrification often brings visible changes to the built environment and residents
may not understand how they will be affected, they are expected to depend more on their
storytelling network to find information and orient themselves (Ball-Rokeach, 1973, 1985).
Depending on the strength of the integrated connectedness to a storytelling network (ICSN) and
the openness of the communication action context, this information may not be readily available
or useful. In a fragmented storytelling network, where meso-level storytellers are not present or
are not discussing relevant neighborhood concerns, residents cannot access the information they

8
The research presented in this paper sought input on LA River and community revitalization from storytelling
networks made up of residents, small businesses, and local media in several North East Los Angeles neighborhoods,
including Lincoln Heights. Residents were asked about problems in their neighborhoods as well as what
improvements to the LA River would make them want to spend more time there.

53
need from local media and organizations and may not be encouraged to solve neighborhood
problems. They must rely on themselves and each other to bring up and discuss the changes
brought by gentrification. This may prevent them from taking collective action. In a gentrifying
neighborhood, where changes to the built environment are becoming apparent to residents, the
storytelling network may be a crucial source of information and can encourage residents to
discuss the changes and form an opinion. When that storytelling network is lacking elements,
residents may not be able to interpret what this means for them and they may be worried about
their future. As I discuss below, such worry may cause them to be more or less inclined to
mobilize to resist the changes brought by gentrification.
Worry
Residents in a gentrifying community such as Lincoln Heights, where gentrification signs
are slowly starting to appear, may feel a sense of pervasive ambiguity. Pervasive ambiguity is an
affective and cognitive problem that occurs when people or groups cannot define a social
situation (Ball-Rokeach, 1973). Pervasive ambiguity can produce stress or tension from the
frustration arising out of one’s need to define the situation or environment being threatened
(Ball-Rokeach, 1973). This ambiguity is resolved when people or a group define the
environment or situation through communication – discursive construction of a definition of the
situation (Ball-Rokeach, 1973). While residents’ pervasive ambiguity may be resolved when the
situation is defined, if they do not know how to act or deal with that situation, they may then feel
a sense of focused ambiguity. While pervasive ambiguity is cognitive, focused ambiguity deals
with action – one does not know how to behaviorally respond to or deal with a particular
situation (Ball-Rokeach, 1973). With focused ambiguity people may understand the situation but

54
do not directly know how to interact with it and therefore their capacity to engage in social
action is hindered (Ball-Rokeach, 1973).
Ball-Rokeach (1973) writes,
Many kinds of social contexts may give rise to pervasive ambiguity. Some
examples are: (a) culture shock, such as an immigrant encountering a new society;
(b) novel situations, such as a farm boy's first encounter with a large city; (c)
unexplainable events, such as a scientist faced with an anomaly; (d) confusing or
chaotic environments, such as societies in periods of rapid social change or the
aftermath of war; or (e) situations of role marginality or role conflict (p. 379-80).
From the situational examples above, gentrification may fall into the culture shock
scenario, as well as a period of rapid social change or a situation of role marginality, relating to
social displacement. In a gentrifying neighborhood such as Lincoln Heights ambiguity stems
from the fact that the changes residents see, such as a new coffee shop or restaurant, may be seen
as positive for them because it is nice to have a variety of places to eat, for example. However,
the new eateries may not be affordable for everyone, or they may hear about neighbors’ rents
increasing, which can cause concern for their and their neighbors’ future in the neighborhood.
This may bring up questions about what is happening in their neighborhood - pervasive
ambiguity. In order to resolve their pervasive ambiguity and define the changes they are starting
to see in their neighborhood residents may look to their storytelling network. As Ball-Rokeach
(1973) writes, the media have the greatest impact when their audiences are experiencing
ambiguity. However, what happens when crucial elements of their storytelling network, that is,
local media or organizations, are missing or provide inadequate information? Residents are left
with only their and their interpersonal networks’ observations and views of the changes to define

55
the situation. Because gentrification is a pervasive phenomenon and term, seen and spoken about
in neighborhoods all across Los Angeles, this pervasive ambiguity may be resolved through
discussion with neighbors, who may define the changes occurring as gentrification. For some
this may be threatening or worrisome, due to the negative effects of gentrification as discussed in
the Introduction.
Gibbons (2019) found that residents, especially those of color, in gentrifying
neighborhoods report an increase in stress. Especially for those who feel threatened or stressed,
the question of action to reduce the threat of gentrification arises. If residents do not know how
to act on their own they may turn to their storytelling network for help and information. If those
communication resources are lacking or absent, residents may feel a sense of focused ambiguity.
Suspecting that gentrification may be in process in their neighborhood and that they may be at
risk of its negative consequences, such as eviction, residents may be stressed. Further, not
knowing how to act in this situation, feeling helpless to do anything to stop it, will make
residents worried for their or their loved ones’ future.
Worry is “defined broadly as repetitive thought activity, which is usually negative and
frequently related to feared future outcomes or events” (Gladstone & Parker, 2003, p. 347).
Worry was found to be either debilitating or motivating. Worry may be functional, that is, it can
be useful in motivating and problem-solving (Gladstone & Parker, 2003). People believe
worrying increases the desire to have control over ambiguous events or their consequences, and
can motivate them to seek out solutions to individual or collective problems (Birrell et al., 2011;
Dugas et al., 1997; Flores-Gonzalez, 2001; Freeston et al., 1994; Gladstone & Parker, 2003;
Jackson & Gray, 2010; Santos & Buzinde, 2007; Tallis et al., 1994). At the same time, worry is
also related to poor problem-solving orientation, or one’s assessment of their ability to solve

56
everyday problems (Dugas, et al., 1995). However, worriers do not lack problem solving skills
(Dugas, et al., 1995). That is, although worriers may have poor problem-solving confidence and
perceived control over the problem-solving process, they still possess problem-solving skills
(Davey, 1994; Dugas et al., 1995, 1997). They may know what to do but have difficulty applying
it.
The above indicates that a resident’s worry that gentrification may be occurring in their
neighborhood may encourage them to take action to resist those changes. As previously
mentioned, gentrification related worry about the loss of housing, neighbors, businesses and
culture has motivated residents to mobilize (see Introduction), especially if they have help in
resolving their pervasive and focused ambiguity. Jeffres & Dobos (1984) also found that fear of
gentrification, or viewing gentrification as a problem
9
, stimulated residents to join community
organizations in order to be involved in controlling their environment. Residents who feared
gentrification were able to resolve their focused ambiguity around gentrification with help from
community organizations (Jeffres & Dobos, 1984). From this it becomes clear that worry about
gentrification changes may be an individual level component of mobilization against
gentrification. A resident must evaluate gentrification changes negatively and be afraid for their
and the neighborhood’s future in order to be motivated to mobilize to resist them. This may
encourage them to join local organizations’ resistance efforts. But, in the absence of such
organizations, are residents worried enough to mobilize on their own?
No study, to my knowledge, has systematically measured residents’ level of worry about
gentrification related changes. Previous studies, as mentioned in the Introduction, have been

9
Although Jeffres & Dobos (1984) looked at fear about gentrification, I believe it is closely related to worry about
gentrification related changes, because both elicit the same type of affective negativity towards gentrification and
concern for one’s future for those who think it might have negative effects.

57
concerned with the resulting resistance actions that were taken, not so much the psychological
motivations behind them. Furthermore, these studies have not included an examination of the
ecological factors which may have led the residents to mobilize - the aspects of their
communication infrastructure which facilitated their actions of resistance. In regard to
Communication Infrastructure Theory research, there has not been any work around worry as it
relates to integrated connectedness to a storytelling network (ICSN) and civic engagement. I am
curious if worry about gentrification related changes may be related to residents’ storytelling
network and, thereby, their levels of civic engagement. Certain of the civic engagement
components – neighborhood belonging, perceived collective efficacy, civic participation – on
their own, may be enough, in combination with worry, to stimulate collective action. While
worry can motivate resistance, there is no examination of how these community factors may
facilitate or prevent this process. In Lincoln Heights, a community whose storytelling network is
missing the meso-level components, which I elaborate upon in the next chapter, is individual
level worry about gentrification changes enough to motivate residents to mobilize against
gentrification?

58
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN
Data for this dissertation were collected as part of a multi-method, community-based
research study that captures residents’ observations, opinions and experiences with
gentrification-related changes in Lincoln Heights by the USC Metamorphosis Research Group
from January 2017-September 2018. The members of the research team are: Dr. Sandra Ball-
Rokeach, Chi Zhang, Deborah Neffa Creech, Brianna Ellerbe and myself, as well as several
undergraduate student workers and project assistants. The study was performed using mixed
methods: surveys, focus groups, observations, online information searches and photography. The
research was divided among the Metamorphosis group members and project assistants according
to their availability and interest. I was involved in all aspects of the planning, data collection and
analysis of the project, including moderating the focus groups. Data from the surveys and focus
groups are analyzed for this dissertation and are detailed later in this section. The Metamorphosis
study was approved by the USC Institutional Review Board (UPIRB#: UP-16-00749).
Survey
Recruitment. Convenience sampling and multiple methods were used for recruitment to capture
a demographically-diverse sample. Members of the Metamorphosis group recruited in person
near Lincoln Heights storefronts at different times of the day and at events sponsored by local
organizations. We also recruited online via a Facebook group for Lincoln Heights residents,
where we posted an announcement and directions (in English and Spanish) to participate in the
survey. Research assistants fluent in Spanish and in Cantonese helped to recruit non-English-
speaking residents in person. To stay consistent across research assistants, recruiters followed a
script (See Appendix A). Potential recruits were told that we were conducting research on
resident’s experiences and thoughts about living in Lincoln Heights. They were told they would

59
receive $50 for taking the survey. If they were interested in participating, their eligibility was
then assessed with several questions. To be eligible to participate, residents had to be at least 18
years old, currently live in Lincoln Heights (zip code 90031), and speak English, Spanish, or
Cantonese fluently. If they met these criteria, the research assistant took down their contact
details to schedule the best day and time for them to take the survey. Research assistants later
contacted (by phone or email) recruits to schedule the survey.
We encountered challenges recruiting Cantonese-speaking residents since their overall
engagement in the community appeared lower than that of Latinos, as was their interest to
participate in the study. Speaking to other researchers who have also performed work in North
East Los Angeles, we heard similar challenges recruiting in this population. To address this, our
native Cantonese-speaking research assistant spent three months building relationships with
residents and local organizations likely to attract Asian residents (i.e., American Vietnam
Chinese Friendship Association (Temple). We successfully recruited more participants by
snowball sampling and attending Temple events.
Two-hundred twenty Lincoln Heights residents were surveyed January-December 2017
in person in the residents’ preferred language (i.e., English, Spanish, or Cantonese) by research
assistants fluent in the language. Trained research assistants read the questions out loud and
wrote down residents’ answers verbatim. Survey interviews lasted on average one hour and took
place in a Lincoln Heights location selected by the resident (usually their home or a business,
like a coffee shop). The survey appointments were attended by two research assistants (for safety
purposes). One research assistant administered the survey while the other took notes when
needed. Residents were given an IRB information sheet detailing their rights as research subjects

60
and signed an informed consent form (See Appendix B). Residents received $50 for their
participation and signed a receipt to acknowledge that they had received the remuneration.
All completed surveys were entered into digital format by the author and the other
research assistants. A guideline was created to ensure consistency of coding. Researcher
assistants communicated frequently to discuss and resolve any coding issues, including those
related to handwriting issues in the open-ended questions.
Participants. Per Table 1, the demographics of our sample of residents from the survey (N =
220) is comparable to those reported in the 2016 American Community Survey, with exception
of education and the Asian population.

Table 1. Comparison of study sample with 2016 American Community Survey data.

Metamorphosis Study ACS (2016)*
Latino ethnicity 67.7% 67.8%
Asian ethnicity 18.6% 23.6%
< HS degree 21.4% 43.4%
Median household income $30K-$40K $36,801
Median age (yrs.) 38.5 35.6
Gender (F) 56.8% 50%
Homeowner 29.5% 31.9%
Note. Lincoln Heights population (per ASC, 2016) = 38,940. The Metamorphosis study sample
comprised 220 residents.
* American Community Survey samples are based on five-year estimates (2012-2016)

61
Below is a more detailed summary of the demographic background of the sample of 220
Lincoln Heights residents interviewed.

Table 2. Additional demographics of the survey participants.

Ethnicity
Latino/Hispanic 67.7
Asian 18.6
Caucasian 9.1
African American 0.9
Other/Mixed 3.6
Education level completed
High school graduate or less 41.8
Completed some or graduated from trade/technical school (2-year) 4.5
Completed some or graduated from college/university (4-year) 43.6
Completed some or graduated from graduate school 10
Residential tenure
0 – 1 years 7.3%
2 – 3 years 7.3
4 – 10 years 16.8
11 – 15 years 12.7
16 – 20 years 10.9
21 - 25 years 11.4
26 – 30 years 11.4
31+ years 22.7

62
Homeownership
Own 29.5
Rent 66.8
Other 3.6
Employment situation
Employed 46.3
Self-employed 16.5
Unemployed 11.5
Income
≤$30,000 37.7
$30,001 – $50,000 18.2
$50,000 – $100,000 22.7
>$100,000 7.7
Immigrant generation (who came to U.S. first)
Children came first 0.05
First (self, spouse, siblings) 11.1
Second (parents, aunts, uncles) 51.2
Third (grandparents or earlier) 32.7
Other (multiple generations came together) 4.6

Focus Groups
Recruitment. At the end of the survey interviews, residents were asked about their willingness
to participate in focus groups. Those who agreed and provided a phone number and/or email

63
address were contacted. To be eligible, residents had to still be current residents of Lincoln
Heights and speak English fluently. Only English-language focus groups were performed
because the number of only Spanish-speaking or only Cantonese-speaking survey participants
was too low (26 and 20 residents, respectively) for successful recruitment into integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) -based focus groups.
In September 2018, three focus groups with a total of 24 Lincoln Heights residents who
had completed the survey portion of the study were performed. Because we were interested in
residents’ integrated connectedness to their storytelling networks (ICSN), and the influence this
may have on their perceptions of gentrification-related changes, we separated participants into
low-, medium-, and high-ICSN groups
10
. (We captured residents’ ICSN levels from their survey
responses). We were mindful of the demographic compositions of the groups and made sure
there was a good mix of male and female residents of varying age and residential tenure.
Participants signed an informed consent form, agreeing to be audio and video recorded
during the focus group. They were given an IRB information sheet detailing their rights as
research subjects. Prior to the discussion participants were asked to fill out a short questionnaire,
prompting them to think about their community. The questions included the: How long have you
lived in Lincoln Heights? Do you own or rent your home? When you think of Lincoln Heights,
what words or images first come to mind? Please share up to five (5) words. On a scale of 1 to 5,
how confident are you that you will be able to afford to live in Lincoln Heights five years from
now? I was the focus group moderator for all three groups. Focus groups lasted on average 1.5
hours and took place in the Lincoln Heights Branch Library. We video- and audio-recorded each

10
We standardized ICSN levels, with the mean value being zero. We took the range of standardized values and then
divided by three to come up with low, medium, and high values.

64
focus group and then digitally transcribed the discussions. Participants were compensated $75
for their time and signed a receipt acknowledging that they had received this remuneration.
After transcription codes based on our questions were devised, the author and three other
research assistants coded the focus groups in NVivo 12. The focus group protocol can be found
in the Appendix D. Findings and observations from the aforementioned focus groups are
employed minimally in this dissertation, to inform the survey findings. Further analysis of the
focus groups will be conducted in future publications.
Survey Measures
ICSN. Integrated Connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) is the weighted summation
of the measurements of scope of connections to the local media, scope of connections to
community organizations, and intensity of interpersonal neighborhood storytelling (Ball-
Rokeach, Kim, & Matei, 2001). The survey asked residents about their level of involvement with
community organizations (CO), their use of the Internet to find out information about Lincoln
Heights (INT), and their discussions with neighbors about Lincoln Heights happenings (NEI).
See details of each below. As we saw from our initial data analysis and observations that there is
almost no local media in Lincoln Heights, for the purposes of this research, the scope of
connections to the local media refers to Lincoln Heights residents’ use of the Internet. Because
these three storytelling agents are best analyzed as an integrated network (Kim & Ball-Rokeach,
2006), they were combined to form the ICSN variable: 1) interpersonal discussion x connections
to community organizations; 2) interpersonal discussion x connections to local media; and 3)
connections to community organizations x connection to local media or (√INT x CO) + (√INT x
NEI) + (√CO x NEI). With removal of one outlier with an ICSN value of 19.14, the variable has

65
good distribution (M = 8.17, SD = 3.93), with answers ranging ranges from 1 (low ICSN) to
17.87 (high ICSN).
To determine the scope of connections to local media, residents were asked about their
use of the Internet to search for information about Lincoln Heights. According to
Communication Infrastructure Theory, the Internet is a meso-level storyteller (Matei & Ball-
Rokeach, 2003). From observations and preliminary data analysis, it was determined that the use
of Internet variable was a better representation of Lincoln Heights residents’ connection to local
media than the geo-ethnic variable (commonly used to calculate scope of connections to local
media) because of the scarcity of local media in Lincoln Heights. Specifically, they were asked
how often (1 = never, 5 = very often) they use the Internet to: 1) communicate with other
residents, 2) look up Lincoln Heights news or information, 3) post comments about Lincoln
Heights on a website or blog, 4) find information about a local official or local organization, and
5) read posts or comments about Lincoln Heights on social media or local media websites. An
exploratory factor analysis showed that all items loaded onto one component, which together had
high Cronbach’s alpha (α = .86). Items were summed and averaged, with the final variable
showing good distribution (M = 2.95, SD = 1.30).
The scope of community organization connections was determined by asking residents
whether they or anyone in their household was involved in any sport or recreational, cultural or
ethnic, church or religious, neighborhood or homeowners’ association, educational or school-
based, or any other organizations or clubs (0 = No, 1 = Yes). Answers were summed and then
broken into three categories due to high positive skew: 0 = 0 organizations (31.7% of responses),
1 = 1 organization (40%), and 2 = 2-7 organizations (28.3%). An exploratory factor analysis
showed that all items loaded onto one component, which together had a medium Cronbach’s

66
alpha (α = .55). Items were summed and averaged, with the final variable showing good
distribution (M = 1.69, SD = 1.29).
To measure interpersonal connections, residents were asked to indicate on a 10-point
Likert scale (1= never, 10= all the time): “Thinking about both online and offline conversations,
including face-to-face conversations, how often would you say you have discussions with your
neighbors about things happening in Lincoln Heights? Those that indicated a number greater
than one were asked to list the kinds of things they talked about with their neighbors.
11
The item
showed good distribution (M = 5.21, SD = 2.91).
Number of Changes Noticed. First, residents were asked about their level of awareness of
gentrification-related changes. They were asked whether they noticed changes in the following:
1) types of people who live in Lincoln Heights; 2) way people in Lincoln Heights get along; 3)
types of restaurants, cafes or coffee shops; 4) amount of traffic; 5) cost of rent; 6) level of crime;
7) development of new condos or large homes; and 8) appearance of their neighborhood (0 = No,
1 = Yes). Answers were summed and ranged from 0 to 8 changes noticed (M = 5.32, SD =
1.94).) Most residents (56%) noticed between 5-7 changes.
Worry. From the previous measure about how many changes residents noticed, for the changes
which residents indicated that they saw, they were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale (0=
not at all worried, 4 = worried very much): “How worried do the changes make you feel?” A
principle components factor analysis using Promax rotation revealed that residents' worries fell
into two components. Worries about more visible changes were related (fell into one
component): traffic, development of new condos, appearance of neighborhood, types of people

11
Participants could mention more than one topic of conversation. The most talked about topics include:
shopping/promotional deals/dining/restaurants; housing and buildings development/downtown revitalization;
crime/safety/gangs/drugs; neighborhood problems; gentrification/changes. These data will not be used in this
research

67
moving to Lincoln Heights, and restaurants, cafes or coffee shops (Eigenvalue = 4.15, 52% of
variance, with each item loading at < .54). These five items have strong reliability (α = .84). The
second component was changes that residents may hear or read about but that may not be as
noticeable in their daily lives (i.e., changes in the way people get along, level of crime, and cost
of rent). These items also have strong reliability. (α = .676). The five “observable changes” items
were averaged to create a worry variable.
About 26% of residents have noticed changes in all five observable items, 52% have
noticed changes in at least four observable items, 73% in at least three observable items, 88% in
at least two observable items, and 96% in at least one observable item. Because Lincoln Heights
is a neighborhood on the cusp of gentrification, it is not surprising that the majority of residents
have only noticed a few of these changes. In fact, 35% - 42% of residents reported not noticing
any changes in three of the five items. As such, residents who reported noticing changes in at
least two observable items were retained for analysis (N = 193). The five items were summed
and averaged for each participant, with answers ranging from 0 to 4 (M = 1.55, SD = 1.18).
About 12% of cases in the worry variable are missing data. This can be explained by the
structure and order of the two questions regarding gentrification changes and worry about them.
Participants were first asked whether they noticed specific changes, as mentioned above, and
then, if they answered yes, how worried they were by them. Those that did not mention noticing
a particular change were not asked the question about worry. Therefore, their answer for that
question is marked missing, showing that they did not notice that particular change.
Collective Efficacy. Residents were asked, “How many of your neighbors do you feel could be
counted on (0= None; 1= Few; 2 = Some; 4= Most; 5 = All) to do something if: 1) A stop sign or
a speed bump was needed to prevent people from driving too fast through your neighborhood? 2)

68
There were dangerous potholes on the streets where you live? 3) The sports field or park that
neighborhood kids want to play on has become unsafe due to poor maintenance or gangs, for
example? 4) A child in your neighborhood is showing clear evidence of being in trouble, or
getting into big trouble? 5) The trees along the streets in your neighborhood were uprooting the
sidewalks, making them unsafe? 6) A builder has applied for a permit to build a large apartment
building on your street? An exploratory factor analysis was performed and all six items loaded
onto one factor at > .47. “A builder has applied for a permit to build a large apartment building
on your street” loaded at the lowest loading, with .473. The next highest loading value was, “A
child in your neighborhood is showing clear evidence of being in trouble or getting into trouble,”
with .604 The items were summed and averaged (M = 3.01, SD = .99). Cronbach’s alpha for all
six items = .806
Civic Participation. Residents were asked whether they have in the past two year done the
following (0 = No, 1 = Yes): 1) Attended a city council meeting, public hearing, or neighborhood
council meeting? 2) Written a letter or sent a postcard or an email to the editor of a newspaper,
television station, or magazine or called a radio station to voice your opinion? 3) Contacted an
elected official about a problem? 4) Talked to a community leader or an official, such as a school
administrator or a police officer, about a policy or local issue? 5) Signed a petition? 6) Taken
part in any demonstration or protest? 7) Voted in an election to elect local officials? 8) Boycotted
any product, brand or store? 9) Volunteered for a social cause or neighborhood initiative, like a
neighborhood clean-up project, a school event, meals-on-wheels programs, or a community
cultural festival? 10) Donated to support a political, social or charitable cause? (These could
include donations to a political candidate, a charity run, or an environmental conservation
campaign) 11) Participated in any meeting or activities dealing with renters’ or tenants’ rights?

69
An exploratory factor analysis was performed and all 11 items loaded onto one factor at > .43.
“Donated to support a political, social or charitable cause” loaded at the lowest, with .437. The
items were summed and averaged (M =.43, SD = .301). Cronbach’s alpha for all 11 items = .851.
Demographic Variables
Residential tenure. Residents were asked: “How many years have you lived in Lincoln
Heights?” Interviewers wrote down residents’ responses, which ranged from 1 year to 71 years.
There was a positive skew in the distribution of answers, although there was generally good
distribution (M = 20.90, SD = 15.72).
Homeownership status. Residents were asked “Do you own or rent your home?” Nearly 67% of
residents in our sample rent the house or apartment they live in, while 29.5% own their home.
Eight answers (3.6%) were marked as “Other” since residents responded with non-typical
answers such as living rent-free with their homeowner parents. These answers were considered
“missing” for purposes of analyses.
Business Owner Survey
As part of ethnographic and background research about Lincoln Heights and its
stakeholders, in Summer, 2017, with funding from the Annenberg Summer Research grant, I
recruited and interviewed 15 business owners from 16 businesses based in Lincoln Heights (See
Appendix E for full survey). The study of Lincoln Heights business owners considers that, in
addition to its residents, businesses are another vibrant component of a neighborhood. As places
of business are the sites of residents’ daily activities, any changes that they undergo affect the
communication dynamics in the neighborhood. It is also understood that business owners have a
unique perspective on and stake in Lincoln Heights. Their interests and goals for the direction of
the neighborhood may or may not align with those of residents. These interests may also differ

70
according to their tenure in and relationship to the community. Because of these differing stakes
in the neighborhood, business owners may or may not support resistance to gentrification
mobilizations in Lincoln Heights.
Survey questions were informed by the Lincoln Heights resident survey and a previous
Metamorphosis project survey of business owners, as part of the Northeast Los Angeles
Riverfront Collaborative (Villanueva, 2014). Recruitment was done face-to-face, usually
stopping into various businesses around Lincoln Heights and inquiring if the business owner was
present and if he or she would like to participate in the survey at a later time. Appointments were
scheduled with business owners at a day and location, in Lincoln Heights, of their choosing.
Most surveys took about 30-45 minutes to complete and participants were paid $50 for their
time. Participants signed an informed consent form and were given an IRB information sheet
detailing their rights as research subjects
In total, 15 business owners with 16 businesses participated in the survey. The businesses
include: three restaurants, two gyms, two real estate brokers, two tattoo shops, a clothing store,
an internet business, a pool hall, a printing company, a market, a hair salon and a furniture store.
They are all small businesses with less than 10 employees, some having none except for family
members. Most of the businesses were long-time establishments - eleven of them have been in
Lincoln Heights for 7 or more years, with 60 years being the oldest - while the others were there
for three years or less. The business owners were majority Latino and all but one lease their
location. While most of the businesses’ employees do not live in Lincoln Heights, the majority of
their customers do. Many owners described their typical customers as Latino and long-time
residents. Relevant findings from this survey are detailed in the next chapter.

71
Methodological Concerns
Over the past several years, there has been a heightened concern of immigration raids
across the country, especially among Latinx populations, such as in Lincoln Heights (Cortes,
2019). Although we did not ask about participants’ immigration status, we assume that in
communities with large populations of first- and second-generation immigrants it is likely that
some residents are undocumented. These worries over immigration raids may have contributed
to some residents choosing not to participate in our survey. Such fears, coupled with worries
about gentrification, could have also added to residents’ stress and feelings of ambiguity
(explained further in Chapter Three) about the situation in Lincoln Heights.
In addition, while we did our best to recruit participants and conduct interviews in the
language they were most comfortable with, we had limited resources and were only able to speak
in English, Spanish or Cantonese. We acknowledge that there may be other residents of Lincoln
Heights, such as members of the Vietnamese population, who we could not recruit or interview
because of this limitation.
While the participant sample comes close to the demographics of Lincoln Heights, per
the American Community Survey, as seen in Table 1, it was not randomly produced. Our
sampling methods included convenience and snowball sampling. These, as well as our
recruitment methods, may have built in biases, such as the under-representation of a subgroup
(i.e., members of the Vietnamese population). There were no indications of interviewer effects.

72
CHAPTER FIVE: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Observations and Secondary Dataset Information
I discuss here my preliminary findings about Lincoln Heights that afford part of the
rationale for my research questions that follow at the end of this chapter. In order to better
understand Lincoln Heights and how it is seen by community members, prior to implementation
of the resident survey and focus groups in Lincoln Heights, I conducted several interviews with
community members, business owners and real estate agents
12
, surveyed the landscape of local
community organizations and local media and observed several new businesses. The
Metamorphosis project team looked at real estate listings on the website Trulia, where properties
are listed for sale and rent, looked at the changes in businesses in the USA References Database
and monitored several Facebook pages about Lincoln Heights. We also took photos of the
neighborhood, as documentation of the changes in the built environment and to serve as a
baseline for future photographic study.
In addition to the visible signs of gentrification already mentioned in Chapter Two, rising
real estate prices and new, more expensive businesses, the photography showed homes under
construction or renovation, another sign of gentrification. Real estate agents mentioned that
“Lincoln Heights is next to gentrify.” Reasons they mentioned include the sharp increase in
housing prices in the area. Lincoln Heights’ neighboring communities, such as Highland Park,
Downtown LA and Chinatown, were attractive for lower income buyers at one point, but are
now in later stages of gentrification, and therefore unaffordable for those buyers who did not

12
Interviewees included the Director of Community Organizing at Women Organizing Resources, Knowledge and
Services (WORKS) Affordable Housing; an artist and member of the activist group North East Los Angeles
(NELA) Alliance; a gallery owner in Highland Park; the Executive Director of the Lincoln Heights Benefit
Association; 15 owners of businesses in Lincoln Heights, selected through canvassing and snowball sampling; and
two real estate agents working in the North East Los Angeles area.

73
have a chance to buy in (Mejia, Mozingo, & Castillo, 2018). The present (Sept. 2019) median
home value in Lincoln Heights is $566,200 and has increased 60% over the past five years
(“Lincoln Heights Los Angeles CA Home Prices & Home Values,” n.d.). By comparison, the
median home value in nearby Highland Park is $795,800 (“Highland Park Los Angeles CA
Home Prices & Home Values,” n.d.). Investors are also attracted by Lincoln Heights’ proximity
to downtown, which in the last decade has seen an increase in development, both commercial
and residential. Agents pointed out that Lincoln Heights is more attractive than neighboring
Montecito Heights because it has a walkable commercial center on North Broadway (Mejia
Mozingo & Castillo, 2018). The 1.5 mile stretch, from 18
th
St. to Mission Blvd. includes clothing
stores, markets, restaurants and other amenities that are within walking distance to many of the
residents who live on the streets leading to N. Broadway. An agent mentioned that home buyers
in Lincoln Heights are a mix of investors, singles and families - renters from Silver Lake, Culver
City and Echo Park, already gentrified neighborhoods in LA, who cannot afford to buy there. As
of July 2019, the median rent price in Lincoln Heights was $2,497, while average rent in LA was
$3,495 (“Real Estate Overview for Lincoln Heights, Los Angeles,” n.d.). These observations
indicated that Lincoln Heights is not as gentrified as other areas, such as neighboring Highland
Park or Downtown L.A. As indicated by our and our sources’ observations, there are, however,
notable signs of gentrification that residents may notice.
Business owner survey findings. Commercial establishments may be the most visible signs of
gentrification, and, as mentioned in Chapter Two, there are several new, visible businesses in
Lincoln Heights. Because of this, I spoke with 15 Lincoln Heights business owners, to better
understand their perspective on the neighborhood and gentrification. The two main concerns for
Lincoln Heights business owners was the increasing homelessness in the area, which everyone

74
mentioned, and attracting customers, especially in the context of a low-income community where
residents do not have a lot of disposable income. A couple of respondents spoke about people in
Lincoln Heights having a “poverty mentality,” where residents did not feel that they deserved
better than what they had. Business owners’ main issues with the neighborhood were, again,
homelessness, and a lack of policing. Several people lamented the recent loss of police foot
patrols. Many business owners in the survey expressed a desire for improvements to the
neighborhood, like more lighting, cleaned up streets and a bigger variety of businesses, including
chain stores. Several people expressed negativity about the proliferation of 99 cent-type discount
stores. Others were eager to see new restaurants with non-Mexican cuisine. Several owners even
mentioned that they wanted gentrification to take place, or that it was not happening fast enough.
Despite many business owners noting that rents were increasing, everyone was confident they
would be able to afford to rent their business space five years from now.
Though there has not been a great deal of inquiry into how business owners feel about the
changes associated with gentrification (Sutton, 2010 is an exception), it is fair to assume that the
capital investment which often flows into a gentrifying neighborhood would be seen as a positive
by most business owners, as they would equate this with an increase of new and higher income
customers. At the same time, as gentrification means rising rents for both residential and
commercial properties, I would also expect some fear on the part of business owners. It was
surprising, however, that no one mentioned any negative effects associated with gentrification
related changes, like displacement, especially since almost none of them own their properties and
could very well be replaced by someone willing to pay a higher rent. There was also no
connection spoken of between the arrival of chain stores and the subsequent displacement of
mom and pop shops (Deener, 2007), or the loss of neighborhood identity that is associated with

75
the arrival of large chain stores (Sutton, 2010; Halebsky, 2004; Zukin et al., 2009). This might
have to do with the fact that the owners do not make this connection and only think about
displacement in the residential sense, as this is how gentrification is classically portrayed in the
national news. Since many of them do not live in Lincoln Heights perhaps displacement is not a
concern. No one spoke of the need to change one’s merchandise or price points to fit in with the
changing neighborhood, as this is what some stores do to stay relevant (Zukin et al., 2009).
While allowing the business to survive, this risks losing their old customers. Since most of the
owners spoke highly of long-time residents, it is clear that this is not something in their purview.
It would also seem that, because many of the business owners interviewed are not residents, they
are not investing in the community. This disconnection is highlighted by the fact that many
owners I interviewed do not take part in community activities or events. This goes against
previous research, which found that the neighborhood store was a community institution and the
business owners were “revered civic leaders” (Sutton, 2010).
Another interesting insight from this study was the revelation that changes in Lincoln
Heights, especially in businesses, have not been incentivized by government policies or
initiatives. Whereas gentrification is historically described as at least somewhat attributable to
government intervention – an example of this is the redevelopment of Mariachi Plaza in Boyle
Heights, which made the area more attractive to businesses – this is not the case in Lincoln
Heights thus far (González & Waley, 2013; Wang, 2011; Zukin, 1987). In fact, many businesses
owners wished that local government would improve the business climate in Lincoln Heights by
making it easier to obtain business licenses and help them to attract customers. Several were also
critical of councilmember Gil Cedillo’s lack of action and attention to making improvements in

76
the area. The business owners’ lack of faith in government to improve the neighborhood suggests
their approval of private interests taking on this role.
Lincoln Heights Communication Infrastructure
As far as the strength of the Lincoln Heights communication infrastructure is concerned,
what I have heard about and witnessed leads me to believe that Lincoln Heights has a
disintegrated storytelling network. There are virtually no local media, apart from individually
managed social media pages with a relatively small audience. For community news, residents
rely on each other or these individually managed Facebook pages, whose content is curated by
individual Lincoln Heights residents without any identifiable guidelines for posts. To my
knowledge, the most popular Facebook page, in terms of daily posts and interactions, “Lincoln
Heights,” is managed by one person. The page’s cover photo is a young boy holding a sign that
reads, “This rent increase is an eviction for my family” (“Lincoln Heights,” n.d.). This is an
obvious show of the page owner’s stance on gentrification and, possibly, its impact on Lincoln
Heights. The posts on the page include stories about traffic, weather, general information for LA
residents and other topics deemed of importance by the page administrator. News stories about
Lincoln Heights that are referred to on the page are often crime related and from national
publications, such as the Los Angeles Times. There have also been links on the page to news
stories in the local L.A. media when one of the new businesses in Lincoln Heights is announced.
These usually garner quite a few replies. For example, a post from April 26, 2017 about the new
B24 coffee shop had 233 comments, while regular posts get an average of 5 comments. The
responses were mixed, some applauding the new business and added variety of food, others
lamenting its high prices and the hipsters and gentrification that they felt it would bring. While
the internet is seen as a meso-level agent, per Communication Infrastructure Theory, because this

77
Facebook page is actually run by one person with the discretion to post whatever they like, this
page is not an unbiased resource of information but more a manifestation of this person’s
interpersonal discussions, and obvious anti-gentrification stance. The other Facebook page of
note is called, “People of Lincoln Heights,” and posts similar information with much less
interaction from others. The reach of these two Facebook pages is very limited to those who
follow the pages and speak/read English (though there are occasional links to articles in
Spanish).
Another social media network to mention here is Nextdoor, a private network where
people join based on the neighborhood they live in. People join their neighborhood by verifying
their address either online or by mail. For the Lincoln Heights network, there are 399 members
(as of Sept. 22, 2019) of the Lincoln Heights Southwest and 513 members in the Lincoln Heights
North group (“Nextdoor,” n.d.). The members do not post a great deal. The majority of posts are
announcements from public agencies, such as the Los Angeles Fire Department and the Los
Angeles Police Department and sponsored posts about homes for sale from real estate agents.
The posts from members are about lost dogs, offering or looking for services, such as a
handyman, and crime-related happenings in the area, such as helicopters overhead or police cars
and thefts. Such postings get no or very few comments.
Per Communication Infrastructure Theory, local media, a vital meso-level storyteller, are
missing from Lincoln Heights’ communication infrastructure. There is very little neighborhood
knowledge from unbiased local sources. This results in a lack of encouragement for residents to
discuss neighborhood issues with each other. While we see residents, or at least Facebook users,
because many do not identify themselves as Lincoln Heights residents, discussing some
neighborhood concerns on the aforementioned Facebook pages, there is no way for these

78
discussants to turn their conversations into any kind of collective actions. This indicates that
local media, or in this case, a lack thereof, do not for the most part prod residents to have
conversations about any particular issues in Lincoln Heights.
As far as the other meso level storyteller a la Communication Infrastructure Theory, local
organizations in Lincoln Heights, there are several churches in various denominations, including
the Church of the Epiphany, which is known for serving as the LA base for Cesar Chavez and
the United Farm Workers movement and La Raza, the Chicano civil rights movement (the
newspaper, La Raza, was printed in the basement) during the 1960s and 1970s (“History,” n.d.).
The Church hosts events, such as the Free Clinic for Tenants at Risk of Eviction, which the
church holds every Saturday. A Metamorphosis group member attended one in July 2017, at
which four households were present. Lincoln Heights councilmember Gil Cedillo’s office has
also hosted several renters’ rights workshops in the last few years. They are announced in
Cedillo’s weekly emails to those who subscribe on the councilmember’s website.
13
Such
workshops are useful for the majority renter community and provide relevant information to
discuss and tools for action. However, when there is no other relevant information available from
any other sources, such as local media, it might cause residents to worry about their future.
Without giving residents any context around why these workshops are held or general
information about the sale of buildings, which might make their tenants at risk of eviction, these
workshops offer help for a particular problem for individual residents. They do not provide
anything in the way of preventing evictions from occurring in their neighborhood. Certainly
better than nothing, especially in a neighborhood lacking in meso-level agents, such workshops,

13
I have not personally attended any of the workshops and do not know the attendance.

79
however, do not offer proposals or examples of how residents might take collective actions to
address neighborhood problems, to perhaps prevent evictions in the first place.
The most notable non-religious local organization in Lincoln Heights is the Lincoln
Heights Neighborhood Council, which holds consultative status to the Los Angeles City Council
and Lincoln Heights’ councilmember Gil Cedillo. From my own observation of several
meetings, attendance is poor, usually a handful of residents, if any. Four years ago, the Council,
with help from a grant from USC, helped to establish the Lincoln Heights farmer’s market. From
my own attendance, as well as from interviews with the Executive Director of the Lincoln
Heights Benefit Association (explained below), which supports the farmer’s market, the market
has low attendance by Lincoln Heights residents. Not many people shop there and, as a
consequence, some vendors are no longer there. There is also the Lincoln Heights Farmers’
Market Facebook page (“Lincoln Heights Certified Farmers Market,” n.d.). The posts are mostly
announcements of the weekly farmers market with several likes and rare comments from
Facebook users. According to the page, the farmers’ market often hosts other organizations and
events, such as health fairs or holiday events and promotes that it accepts EBT (Electronic
Benefit Transfer, commonly known as food stamps).
Two other organizations worth mentioning here are the Lincoln Heights Benefit
Association (LHBA) and the Lincoln Heights Chamber of Commerce. The LHBA is a non-profit
organization made up of property owners in Lincoln Heights, who pay a special assessment for
services like clean up and private security. The LHBA seems to mostly be concerned with
beautification and safety around the main shopping street, N. Broadway Membership in the
Chamber is open to anyone who owns a business in Lincoln Heights. It is difficult to ascertain
what the Chamber actually does because there is virtually no news about it. Its website has no

80
content (as of my last review on Sept. 7, 2019, the website is no longer online). I interviewed the
presidents of both organizations and found that many of the members of these organizations are
not residents of Lincoln Heights. Neither organization publicizes any news about Lincoln
Heights to residents. They also seem to be governed by individuals who are more concerned with
their own (economic) interests, rather than neighborhood issues. From this it would follow that
the members of these organizations would actually gain from the gentrification of Lincoln
Heights, specifically the increase in property values and more expensive businesses. Even if
these meso-level agents did publicize news about Lincoln Heights for residents, they would be
unlikely to spread information or encourage collective action against gentrification.
The artists’ residences, known as the Brewery (detailed in Chapter Two), while not an
organization is part of the neighborhood’s communication action context, the sociocultural
geography that directly constrains or facilitates neighborhood storytelling. As artists are
sometimes known to be civically and politically active, the Brewery, with its estimated
population of over 600 artists, could be a collective agent; if its residents felt worried by
gentrification. However, from my observation, the artists at the Brewery are quite removed,
physically and socially, from the neighborhood. The negative effects associated with
gentrification, especially rent increases, do not seem likely to touch the artists. The Brewery is
owned by one company and, from my interviews, rent is kept at slightly less than market rate so
that creatives can afford it. Even if rents increase, this would not necessarily be a community
issue, but solely a Brewery concern. The Brewery artists more likely could benefit from the
changes brought on by gentrification, such as the appearance of higher income people who can
afford their art and new businesses who cater to a more educated clientele able to purchase their
art. So, while the large population of artists might have been a precipitant for gentrification

81
resistance akin to the experience of other areas undergoing gentrification, they do not play this
role in Lincoln Heights.
Other elements of the communication action context in Lincoln Heights also hinder
residents’ information seeking and participation. While Lincoln Heights is predominantly Latinx
and therefore fairly homogenous, its residents are also majority renters. Per Communication
Infrastructure Theory research, this would indicate that they would be more encouraged to tap
into the meso level resources of their storytelling network; that is, community organizations and
local media. Because those resources are lacking, many residents do not have the information
they need to make sense of what is going on in their neighborhood and how it will affect them.
The communication action context also restricts people from devoting more time and
energy to seeking out news and information on community issues like gentrification. As
described in Chapter Two, Lincoln Heights is a majority working class, immigrant community
with a high percentage of non-English speakers. As far as I can tell, the Neighborhood Council,
which could be a source of community information, does not put out information in languages
other than English. The general council meetings occur every month, Thursdays at 6 p.m. The
agenda is posted on the council’s website and sent out by email to anyone who has signed up on
the website. For those not able to attend, there is no video streaming of the meeting and rarely is
information sent out afterward. The social media channels mentioned above, Facebook and
Nextdoor, rarely have information in languages other than English.
Though they are not as prevalent as in some neighboring communities, like Highland
Park, the aforementioned changes in the built environment of Lincoln Heights signal the
beginnings of gentrification. Seeing this might make some residents worry about their and their
neighbors’ future in the neighborhood. This may encourage residents to seek information and

82
possibly take action in regard to neighborhood issues. However, the absence of critical meso-
level storytellers – local media and organizations – means that residents are left without a
coherent narrative of what the future holds for them in Lincoln Heights and, therefore, most
likely in a state of ambiguity. According to Communication Infrastructure Theory, such an
environment, with critical elements of the storytelling network missing, would hinder Lincoln
Heights residents from engaging in collective actions, and therefore prevent a resistance to
gentrification movement from developing. Residents can of course form their own community
group in order to mount some kind of collective resistance to gentrification. However, this
process may be hindered by the lack of meso-level storytellers. Because there is not a great deal
of information and modeling behavior about collective mobilization, due to the lack of local
media and community organizations, residents must seek this out and organize on their own.
Especially with the constraints on their time and finances, as described above, this may be an
unlikely endeavor.
Research Questions
This leads me to my first set of research questions, testing to see if, despite the absence of
critical meso-level storytelling agents, integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN) still has a positive effect on the civic engagement elements
14
: neighborhood belonging,
perceived collective efficacy and civic participation. I would also like to see if Communication
Infrastructure Theory researchers’ previous findings about the role of homeownership and
residential tenure, as discussed in the previous chapter, hold true in Lincoln Heights.

14
It must be noted that while the integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) of participants was
weak, there are still variations in levels: low, medium and high. This is illustrated in the Methods chapter.

83
RQ1: Does integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) predict the civic
engagement components (belonging, collective efficacy and civic participation)?
RQ1a: Is homeownership a moderator between integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) and the civic engagement components?
RQ1b: Is residential tenure a moderator between integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) and the civic engagement components?
Next, I would like to explore if the psychological factor of worry about the gentrification
residents see might act as a motivator for collective action against gentrification. Worry, as
mentioned, is negative thought activity related to feared future outcomes (Gladstone & Parker,
2003). With the lack of meso-level storytellers, residents in Lincoln Heights may have weak or
no connections to those agents: local media and organizations. This presumed lack of available
information about neighborhood concerns and encouragement to solve those concerns may
prompt residents to be either more or less worried by them. Because worry is seen as a precursor
and motivator to collective action it is important to understand where worry about gentrification
changes comes from. Although Lincoln Heights’ storytelling network is fragmented, if it predicts
worry about gentrification changes, that means that Lincoln Heights residents may still have the
potential to mobilize against gentrification. The examination of this relationship, between
integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and worry about gentrification
changes, also shows the individual, psychological effects of the storytelling network on Lincoln
Heights residents. Is there a connection between the information about Lincoln Heights residents
have access to and their level of worry about the future outcomes of gentrification?
The level of worry residents feel about gentrification may also depend on what the
residents see in their neighborhood. Specifically, the changes brought on by gentrification, such

84
as new people or increasing rents. Their level of awareness of these changes may depend on their
level of integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN). Lincoln Heights residents’
integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN), the strength of which rests mainly
on their connections to other residents, may predict how worried they are by the gentrification
changes. Those with a higher integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) may
have more information about Lincoln Heights at their disposal and have a heightened awareness
of their neighborhood and the changes brought on by gentrification. This might heighten their
sense of worry about those changes. The opposite might be true for those with a lower integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN). With less connections to their storytelling
network, residents may not be very aware of gentrification changes in their neighborhood and so
be less worried about those changes.
I also want to explore whether or not, based on the research about differences in the
negative effects of gentrification between homeowners and renters, homeownership plays a
moderating role between the number of changes noticed and worry about those changes. That is,
will homeowners have less worry because of their greater economic interest (on account of their
property values) in the neighborhood? In a similar vein, are those who have been in the
neighborhood longer, and therefore are likely to have a stronger integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN), more or less worried? Rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods have big
population turnover, they tend to lack stability. Lincoln Heights, at present, has many residents
who have lived there a long time, and newcomers are just starting to trickle in. Is there a
difference in worry level based on integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN)
level and residential tenure?

85
RQ2: Does integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) predict worry about
those changes?
RQ2a: Does the number of gentrification changes noticed mediate the relationship
between integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and worry about
those changes?
RQ2b: Does homeownership moderate the relationship between the number of
gentrification changes noticed and worry about those changes in the mediated model in
RQ3?
RQ2c: Does residential tenure moderate the relationship between the number of
gentrification changes noticed and worry about those changes in the mediated model in
RQ2a?
Per Communication Infrastructure Theory, in the absence of meso level storytellers, the
micro level is tasked with storytelling the neighborhood’s issues and concerns. This lack of local
media and organizations in Lincoln Heights means that residents themselves must discuss the
changes brought on by gentrification amongst their interpersonal networks, without prompting
from local media or organizations. Their discussions may encourage each other to resist those
changes and initiate a collective resistance. The motivation to resist gentrification in Lincoln
Heights is likely to be initiated at the individual level and prompted by the psychological factor
of worry. I will explore if this can be captured in the level of worry about gentrification related
changes residents see in Lincoln Heights. Residents may be sources of information about
neighborhood issues and, likewise, are possible motivators for solving those issues. In order to
discuss collective action against gentrification, residents must first talk about their neighborhood,
in general, which may prompt them to worry about gentrification. This worry must come before

86
collective action, as stated previously, because residents must feel uneasy about the future of the
neighborhood in order to be motivated to take action. This sense of worry may come from their
discussions about Lincoln Heights with their interpersonal networks. This relationship examines
a community-level factor, interpersonal discussions, in light of the fragmented storytelling
network, and its effect on the individual factor of worry to see if Lincoln Heights residents may
have the potential to mobilize against gentrification.
Discussing Lincoln Heights with their personal networks may also first cause residents to
notice changes related to gentrification, which might then cause them to worry. The more
gentrification changes they notice, the more worried they may be by gentrification, and this
worry about gentrification changes may be the catalyst for collective action. So, my next
questions deal with how often residents discuss things in Lincoln Heights in general and whether
the more they discuss Lincoln Heights, this signifies being more aware of gentrification related
changes and being worried by them. I also look here whether homeownership effects the strength
of the relationship between noticing the number of gentrification changes and worry about those
changes. While homeowners may notice gentrification changes, they may not worry as much as
renters because they may feel more stable and less at a risk of being displaced from the
neighborhood. It is also interesting to see if residential tenure has an effect on noticing
gentrification changes, based on their interpersonal discussion about Lincoln Heights, and worry
about them. Long-time residents might discuss Lincoln Heights more, but do they also notice
more changes and in turn worry?
RQ3: Does the frequency of interpersonal discussions about things happening in Lincoln Heights
predict worry about gentrification changes?

87
RQ3a: Does the number of gentrification changes noticed mediate the relationship
between interpersonal discussions about Lincoln Heights and worry about those
changes?
RQ3b: Is homeownership a moderator between the number of changes residents notice
and worry about those changes in the mediated model in RQ3a?
RQ3c: Is residential tenure a moderator between the number of changes residents notice
and worry about those changes in the mediated model in RQ3a?
In turn, if residents are worried by the changes they see in their neighborhood, they are
more likely to talk with people in their interpersonal networks about their concerns and, possibly,
act on these individual worries. In Lincoln Heights’ limited storytelling network, this might take
the form of expressing their opinions on a Facebook page and or speaking with their neighbors.
Is this enough to encourage collective action? In qualitative studies mentioned previously, worry
has been shown as a motivator to resist gentrification. Those previous studies, however, did not
examine the various neighborhoods’ communication infrastructures. Here I would like to see if
residents in Lincoln Heights are worried enough about the gentrification changes they see to
become engaged in their community to solve the issues of gentrification on their own; that is,
without sufficient meso-level communication resources? In the relative absence of the meso-
level storytellers, as described above, previous civic participation, along with worry about
gentrification related changes may act as a facilitator to collective mobilization that would reflect
a predisposition to participate in gentrification resistant behaviors. In looking at residents’ civic
participation, I use it as a predictor of their possible future behavior in collective resistance to
gentrification in Lincoln Heights (Aarts, Verplanken & Van Knippenberg, 1998; Skinner, 1938).

88
Are those who have higher levels of past civic participation more worried about gentrification
changes and, therefore, have the potential to participate in collective action to resist the changes?
Previous research showed no direct effects of residential stability (residential tenure) on
civic participation (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006a). However, per the Introduction, research has
shown that homeowners and those who have spent more time there have more invested in the
neighborhood, which may affect their level of worry about gentrification change. I would like to
examine if homeownership and residential tenure act as moderators between previous civic
participation and worry about gentrification changes.
RQ4: Does past civic participation predict worry about gentrification changes?
RQ4a: Is homeownership a moderator between past civic participation and worry about
gentrification changes?
RQ4b: Is residential tenure a moderator between past civic participation and worry
about gentrification changes?

89
CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS - DATA ANALYSES

SPSS 26 was used for the following analysis of the research questions. Simple linear
regression was used to test the predictive relationships of the independent to the dependent
variables in all of the research questions. Independent and dependent variables are enumerated in
each research question analysis. Then, to test the moderation and mediation models mentioned,
Hayes’ PROCESS macro was used (Hayes, 2017). PROCESS Model 1, which allows testing of
the moderating relationship with bootstrap confidence intervals for an interaction, was used to
test RQ1a, RQ1b, RQ4a and RQ4b (the moderating role of homeownership or residential tenure
between the relationship of integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and the
three components of civic engagement (RQ1a and RQ 1b), and between the level of past civic
participation and the level of worry about gentrification changes (RQ4a and RQ4b). PROCESS
Model 4, which tests the mediating relationship with bootstrap confidence intervals for an
indirect effect, was used to test RQ2 and RQ3 (the mediating role of the number of gentrification
changes noticed in the relationship between integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN) and Worry about those changes (RQ2), and the frequency of interpersonal discussions
about Lincoln Heights and worry about those changes (RQ3)). To test whether this indirect path
(i.e., integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN)) à number of gentrification
changes à Worry about changes; and frequency of interpersonal discussions about Lincoln
Heights à number of gentrification changes à Worry about changes) is contingent upon
homeownership or residential tenure (RQ2a, RQ2b and RQ3a, RQ3b, respectively), I tested
PROCESS Model 14. This macro uses bootstrap confidence intervals to estimate conditional
indirect relationships in which the indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent
variable through the mediating variable is contingent on the moderator variable.

90
RQ1: Integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and Civic Engagement
RQ1: Does integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) predict the civic
engagement components (belonging, collective efficacy and civic participation)?
A simple linear regression was performed, separately, to test if integrated connection to
the storytelling network (ICSN) the independent variable, significantly predicts each of the civic
engagement components: belonging, collective efficacy, and civic participation (the dependent
variables) (See Table 3). A simple linear regression was calculated to predict neighborhood
belonging based on ICSN, β = .413, t (216) = 6.671, p = .000. A significant regression equation
was found, (F(1, 216) = 44.5, p = .000 with an R
2
of .171. It was found that integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) significantly predicted neighborhood
belonging. A simple linear regression was calculated to predict collective efficacy based on
ICSN, β = .004, t(216) = .052, p = .958. A significant regression equation was not found, (F(1,
216) = .003, p = .958 with an R
2
of 0. It was found that integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) did not significantly predict collective efficacy. A simple linear
regression was calculated to predict civic participation based on ICSN, β = .642, t(214) = 12.235,
p = .000. A significant regression equation was found, (F(1, 214) = 149.702, p = .000 with an R
2

of .412. It was found that integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN)
significantly predicted civic participation. A significant positive relationship exists between the
survey participants’ integrated connections to the storytelling network (ICSN) and their
neighborhood attachment (belonging) and level of experience engaging in civic activities (civic
participation). Knowing one’s integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) may
help predict their level of belonging and civic participation. This was not the case with integrated

91
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and the level at which participants think their
neighbors will come together to solve neighborhood problems (collective efficacy).
Table 3. Regression analysis for integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN)
(IV) predicting the civic engagement components (DV).

B SE B β t p
Neighborhood
Belonging
.091 .014 .413 6.671 0
Collective Efficacy .001 .017 .004 .052 .958
Civic Participation .048 .004 .642 12.235 0

RQ1a: Is homeownership a moderator between integrated connectedness to the storytelling
network (ICSN) and the civic engagement components (belonging, collective efficacy, civic
participation)?
Based on the findings in RQ1, using PROCESS Model 1, homeownership was examined
as a moderator of the relationship between the level of integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) and two of the civic engagement components: belonging and civic
participation. It was found that homeownership is not a significant moderator between integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and belonging, F(1, 206) = 0.03, p = .860, DR
2

= .0001. It was found that homeownership is also not a significant moderator between integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and civic participation, F(1, 204) = .24, p =
.63, DR
2
= .0006. Being a homeowner or renter does not influence the relationship between
integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and belonging or civic participation.
RQ1b: Is residential tenure a moderator between the level of integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) and the civic engagement components (neighborhood belonging,
collective efficacy, and civic participation)?

92
Based on the findings from the regression in RQ1, using PROCESS Model 1, residential
tenure was examined as a moderator of the relationship between integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) and two of the civic engagement components: belonging and civic
participation. For both belonging and civic participation, the interactions were not significant,
though nearing significance at p < .05. Residential tenure is not a significant moderator between
the level of integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and the level of
neighborhood belonging F(1, 214) = 3.2, p = .07, DR
2
= .01. As with homeownership, residential
tenure is also not a significant moderator between the level of integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) and the level of civic participation, F(1, 212) = 2.88, p = .091, DR
2
=
.008. The number of years someone has lived in Lincoln Heights does not affect the relationship
between integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and belonging or civic
participation.
RQ2: Integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and Worry
RQ2: Does integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) predict worry about
gentrification changes?
A simple linear regression was calculated to predict worry about gentrification changes,
the dependent variable, from ICSN, the independent variable, β = .3, t(190) = 3.81, p < .001. A
significant regression equation was found (F(1, 190) = 18.75, p < .001 with an R
2
of .090. It
was found that integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) significantly
predicted worry about gentrification changes.
RQ2a: Does the number of gentrification changes noticed mediate the relationship between
integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and worry about those changes?

93
Based on the findings in RQ2, the number of gentrification changes noticed was
examined as a mediator between integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN)
and the level of worry about those changes using PROCESS Model 4. The results of this
relationship are shown in Figure 1. Results showed that integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) level had a positive influence on the number of gentrification
changes noticed (β = .11, t(183) = 4, p < .001) as well as worry about those changes (β = .07,
t(182) = 3.11, p < .01). The number of gentrification changes noticed also has a direct effect on
worry about those changes (β = .16, t(182) = 2.78, p < .01). Further mediation analysis based on
the bootstrapping method indicates that the effect of integrated connectedness to the storytelling
network (ICSN) on worry about gentrification changes is explained by the number of
gentrification changes noticed. The indirect effect was .02, 95% CI [0.003, 0.035].

Figure 2. Mediation Model: ICSN, Number of Gentrification Changes Noticed and Worry about
Gentrification Changes.

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
**p < .01 ***p < .001

ICSN Worry
Number of Changes
.11**
*
.16**
.09**

94
RQ2b: Does homeownership moderate the relationship between the number of gentrification
changes noticed and worry about those changes in the mediated model in RQ2a?
Based on the findings in the regression in RQ2, PROCESS Model 14 (Hayes, 2018) was
used to examine whether the mediated relationship of integrated connectedness to the storytelling
network (ICSN) to worry about gentrification changes through the number of gentrification
changes noticed, as shown in RQ2a, is dependent upon some level of homeownership - whether
a participant is a renter (coded as 0) or a homeowner (coded as 1). Figure 2 presents the results of
the moderated mediation model. The results show that integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) has a positive influence on the number of gentrification changes
noticed (β = .12, t(177) = 4.27, p < .001) and worry about those changes (β = .07, t(174) = 3.33,
p = .001). Number of changes noticed also has a positive influence on worry about those changes
(β = .2, t(174) = 3.07, p < .01). However, the interaction between number of gentrification
changes seen and homeownership is not significant, β = -.11, t(174) = -.92, p = .359. There is no
moderated mediation by homeownership status because the confidence interval crosses zero,
95% CI [-.458, .0136]. The relationship of integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN) to worry about gentrification changes through the number of gentrification changes
noticed is not contingent upon homeownership status.

95
Figure 3. Moderated Mediation Model: ICSN, Number of Gentrification Changes Noticed,
Worry about Gentrification Changes and Homeownership.

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
**p < .01 ***p < .001

RQ2c: Does residential tenure moderate the relationship between the number of gentrification
changes noticed and worry about those changes in the mediated model in RQ2a?
Based on the findings in the regression in RQ2, PROCESS Model 14 (Hayes, 2018) was
used to examine whether the mediated relationship of integrated connectedness to the storytelling
network (ICSN) to worry about gentrification changes through the number of gentrification
changes noticed, as shown in RQ3, is dependent upon level of residential tenure – the number of
years a participant has lived in Lincoln Heights. Figure 3 presents the results of the moderated
mediation model. The results show that integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN) has a positive influence on the number of gentrification changes noticed (β = .11, t(183)
= 4, p < .001) and worry about those changes (β = .07, t(180) = 3.12, p < .001). Number of
changes noticed also has a positive influence on worry about those changes (β = .16, t(180) =
2.82, p < .01). However, the interaction between number of gentrification changes seen and
residential tenure is not significant, β = -.001, t(180) = -.4, p = .670. There is no moderated
mediation residential tenure because the confidence interval crosses zero, 95% CI [-.0011,
ICSN Worry
Number of Changes
.12***
.2**
.07**
*
Homeownership
-.11

96
.0008]. The relationship of integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) to worry
about gentrification changes through the number of gentrification changes noticed is not
contingent upon the number of years a participant has lived in Lincoln Heights.

Figure 4. Moderated Mediation Model: ICSN, Number of Gentrification Changes Noticed,
Worry about Gentrification Changes and Residential Tenure.

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
**p < .01 ***p < .001

RQ3: Interpersonal Discussion and Worry about Gentrification Changes
RQ3: Does the frequency of interpersonal discussions about things happening in Lincoln Heights
predict worry about gentrification changes?
A simple linear regression was calculated to predict worry about gentrification changes,
the dependent variable, from interpersonal discussions about Lincoln Heights, the independent
variable, β = .34, t(191) = 4.98, p < .001. A significant regression equation was found (F(1, 191)
= 24.67, p < .001 with an R
2
of .114. It was found that interpersonal discussions about Lincoln
Heights significantly predicted worry about gentrification changes.
ICSN Worry
Number of Changes
.11***
.16*
*
Residential
Tenure
-.001
.07***

97
RQ3a: Does the number of gentrification changes noticed mediate the relationship between the
frequency of interpersonal discussions about Lincoln Heights and worry about those changes?
Based on the findings in RQ3, the number of gentrification changes noticed was
examined as a mediator between the frequency of interpersonal discussions about things
happening in Lincoln Heights and worry about those changes using PROCESS Model 4. The
results of this relationship are shown in Figure 4. Results showed that level of frequency of
talking to neighbors about things happening in Lincoln Heights had a positive influence on the
number of gentrification changes noticed (β = .11, t(183) = 1.94, p < .01) as well as worry about
those changes (β = .11, t(183) = 4,04, p < .001). The number of gentrification changes noticed
also has a direct effect on worry about those changes (β = .16, t(183) = 3.03, p < .01). Further
mediation analysis based on the bootstrapping method indicates that the effect of level of
frequency of talking to neighbors about things happening in Lincoln Heights on worry about
gentrification changes is mediated by the number of gentrification changes noticed. The indirect
effect was .02, 95% CI [0.0028, 0.0377]. Since the interval does not cross zero, the effect is
significant. As with the integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN), the
relationship between the frequency with which someone speaks with their neighbors about things
happening in Lincoln Heights and their worry about gentrification changes is affected by the
number of gentrification changes they see.

98
Figure 5. Mediation Model: Frequency of Interpersonal Discussions about Things Happening in
Lincoln Heights, Number of Gentrification Changes Noticed and Worry about Gentrification
Changes

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
**p < .01 ***p < .001

RQ3b: Is homeownership a moderator between the number of changes residents notice and
worry about those changes in the mediated model in RQ3a?
Based on the findings in the regression in RQ3, PROCESS Model 14 (Hayes, 2018) was
used to examine whether the mediated relationship of frequency of talking to neighbors about
things happening in Lincoln Heights to worry about gentrification changes through the number
of gentrification changes noticed, as shown in RQ4, is dependent upon some level of
homeownership - whether a participant is a renter (coded as 0) or a homeowner (coded as 1).
Figure 5 presents the results of the moderated mediation model. The results show that frequency
of talking to neighbors about things happening in Lincoln Heights has a positive influence on the
number of gentrification changes noticed (β = .13, t(178) = 3.31, p = .001) and worry about those
changes (β = .11, t(175) = 3.9, p < .001). Number of changes noticed also has a positive
influence on worry about those changes (β = .17, t(175) = 3.17, p < .01). However, the
interaction between number of gentrification changes seen and homeownership is not significant,
Frequency
Discussion re:
Lincoln
Heights
Worry
Number of Changes
.11**
.16*
*
.11**
*

99
β = -.11, t(175) = -.98, p = .331. There is no moderated mediation for those who own a home
because the confidence interval crosses zero, 95% CI [-.0491, .0127]. This means that the
indirect effect of integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) on worry about
gentrification changes through number of gentrification changes noticed is not contingent on
homeownership status.

Figure 6. Moderated Mediation Model: Frequency of Interpersonal Discussions about Things
Happening in Lincoln Heights, Number of Gentrification Changes Noticed, Worry about
Gentrification Changes and Homeownership

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
**p < .01 ***p < .001

RQ3c: Is residential tenure a moderator between the number of changes residents notice
and worry about those changes in the mediated model in RQ3a?
Based on the findings in the regression in RQ3, PROCESS Model 14 (Hayes, 2018) was
used to examine whether the mediated relationship of frequency of talking to neighbors about
things happening in Lincoln Heights to worry about gentrification changes through the number
of gentrification changes noticed, as shown in RQ4, is dependent upon level of residential tenure
– the number of years a participant has lived in Lincoln Heights. Figure 6 presents the results of
Frequency
Discussion re:
Lincoln
Heights
Worry
Number of Changes
.13**
*
.17*
*
.11**
*
Homeownership
-.11

100
the moderated mediation model. The results show that frequency of talking to neighbors about
things happening in Lincoln Heights has a positive influence on the number of gentrification
changes noticed (β = .11, t(184) = 2.94, p < .01) and worry about those changes (β = .11, t(181)
= 4.05, p < .001). Number of changes noticed also has a positive influence on worry about those
changes (β = .16, t(181) = 3.05, p < .01). However, the interaction between number of
gentrification changes seen and residential tenure is not significant, β = -.001, t(181) = -.44, p =
.653. There is no moderated mediation with residential tenure because the confidence interval
crosses zero, 95% CI [-.0011, .0008]. The relationship of frequency of talking to neighbors about
things happening in Lincoln Heights to worry about gentrification changes through the number
of gentrification changes noticed is not contingent upon the number of years a participant has
lived in Lincoln Heights.
Figure 7. Moderated Mediation Model: Frequency of Interpersonal Discussions about Things
Happening in Lincoln Heights, Number of Gentrification Changes Noticed, Worry about
Gentrification Changes and Homeownership

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
**p < .01 ***p < .001

Frequency
Discussion re:
Lincoln
Heights
Worry
Number of Changes
.11**
.16*
*
.11**
*
Residential Tenure
-.001

101
RQ4: Civic Participation and Worry about Gentrification Changes
RQ4: Does past civic participation predict worry about gentrification changes?
A simple linear regression was calculated to predict worry about gentrification changes,
the dependent variable, from past civic participation, the independent variable, β = .26, t(189) =
6.84, p < .001. A significant regression equation was found (F(1, 189) = 13.65, p < .001 with an
R
2
of .067. It was found that past civic participation significantly predicted worry about
gentrification changes.
RQ4a: Is homeownership a moderator between past civic participation and worry about
gentrification changes?
Based on the above findings, using PROCESS Model 1, homeownership was examined
as a moderator of the relationship between past civic participation and worry about gentrification
changes. It was found that homeownership is a significant moderator between the level of past
civic participation and worry about gentrification changes, F(1, 180) = 4.71, p = .03, DR
2
= .02.
The relationship between level of past civic participation and worry about gentrification changes
partially depends upon homeownership status.
RQ4b: Is residential tenure a moderator between past civic participation and worry about
gentrification changes?
Based on the above regression findings, residential tenure was examined as a moderator
between the level of past civic participation and worry about gentrification changes. It was found
that residential tenure is not a significant moderator between the level of past civic participation
and worry about gentrification changes, F(1, 187) = .017, p = .897, DR
2
= .0001. The number of
years someone has lived in Lincoln Heights has no significant effect on the relationship between
past civic participation and worry about gentrification changes.

102
Summary of Findings
The results for RQ1 indicate that integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN) predicts both belonging and civic participation, per previous Communication
Infrastructure Theory findings. This is, however, not the case for collective efficacy, as it is not
predicted by ICSN. In this case, one’s connection to the storytelling network does not predict
their feelings about whether or not their neighbors will come together around neighborhood
problems. Ideally, one’s integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) should
have a positive effect on collective efficacy, as well as the other two civic engagement
components. When all three storytelling agents discuss the neighborhood and encourage such
discussion and involvement, residents feel attached to their community and their neighbors and
participate in collective problem solving. Collective efficacy is a crucial component of civic
engagement, especially in this research about collective resistance to gentrification. This lack of
a connection between integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and collective
efficacy highlights the holes in the storytelling network, especially the lack of sufficient meso-
level storytellers and access to them, as mentioned in the Preliminary Findings chapter.
The results for RQ2 indicate a relationship between integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) and worry about gentrification changes through the number of
gentrification changes noticed. This means that those participants with a higher integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) may have more information and discussion
about Lincoln Heights at their disposal, and therefore have a heightened awareness of their
neighborhood and the changes brought on by gentrification. The more changes they see, the
more they might be worried about them. As worry is a component of participation in collective
mobilization against gentrification, those who are more worried, on account of their heightened

103
awareness of changes because of their connection to the storytelling network, have more
potential to be involved in such mobilization.
RQ3 results show that the relationship between the frequency of interpersonal discussion
about things happening in Lincoln Heights and worry about gentrification changes is partially
explained by the number of gentrification changes noticed. The more a participant discusses
things in Lincoln Heights with their interpersonal network, the more gentrification changes they
notice and the more worried they are by them. Again, as worry has been shown to be a catalyst
for collective action, the more discussions about Lincoln Heights a participant takes part in,
resulting in worry by way of being more aware of gentrification changes, the more potential they
have to participate in collective resistance. The unstandardized regression coefficient for the
frequency of interpersonal discussion about things happening in Lincoln Heights predicting
worry about gentrification changes (β = .11, p < .01) is slightly higher than integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) predicting to worry about gentrification
changes (β = .09, p < .001). This shows that the micro-level storytelling agent of the storytelling
network, interpersonal discussions, is a stronger predictor of worry on its own, then when
combined with the meso-level storytelling agents, local media and organizations. This highlights
the paucity of the meso-level in the Lincoln Heights storytelling network.
The results in RQ4 show that past civic participation significantly predicted worry about
gentrification changes. That is, one’s involvement in civic activities, such as voting in a local
election or participating in a demonstration, predicts their worry about gentrification changes.
This means that those who have previously been involved civically are more likely to worry
about gentrification and, therefore, have higher potential to repeat similar actions in a collective
mobilization to resist gentrification in Lincoln Heights.

104
Moderation by Structural Variables. All except for one moderation relationship in the
research questions were not significant. Neither homeownership status or residential tenure
moderate the relationships between integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN)
and belonging or civic participation in RQ1a and RQ1b. This means that whether a participant is
a homeowner or renter does not have an effect on the relationship between their connections to
the storytelling network and their level of neighborhood attachment or their past participation in
civic activities. The number of years a participant has lived in Lincoln Heights also has no effect
on the previously mentioned relationship. In a gentrifying neighborhood, residents’ opinions are
often defined and delineated according to their owning a home or not and or the number of years
in the neighborhood. These groups of people (homeowners, renters, long-timers and newcomers)
have differing interests in the neighborhood and its future, as previously mentioned. However, in
this case, homeownership status and residential tenure have no bearing on one’s connection to
the storytelling network and its relationship to neighborhood belonging or civic participation.
This means that homeowners or long-timers are no more likely than renters or newcomers to
have a stronger relationship to the storytelling network and, thereby, higher levels of
neighborhood attachment or participation in past civic activities.
RQ2a and RQ2b further show that neither homeownership status or residential tenure has
an effect on the relationship between number of gentrification changes noticed and worry about
those changes in the mediation model in RQ2. Once again, owning a home or the number of
years someone has lived in Lincoln Heights has no influence on seeing changes brought on by
gentrification and being worried by them. This points to the lack of difference among
participants along the lines of homeownership or residential tenure in terms of who is more
likely to see changes and worry about them, as a result of their connections to the storytelling

105
network. The potential to join a collective mobilization on account of being worried by
gentrification changes does not rest on one’s homeownership or residential tenure. Similarly to
RQ2a and RQ2b, the analysis for RQ3a and RQ3b show that neither homeownership status nor
residential tenure has an effect on the relationship between number of gentrification changes
noticed and worry about those changes in the mediation model in RQ3.
For RQ4a and RQ4b, in the relationship between past civic participation and worry about
gentrification changes, homeownership status is a moderator, but residential tenure is not. That
is, the relationship between past civic participation and current worry about gentrification
changes is stronger for homeowners than renters. Homeowners are more likely to be worried
about gentrification changes because of their previous civic experience. The number of years one
has lived in Lincoln Heights does not have the same kind of influence on the relationship. This
confirms previous Communication Infrastructure Theory research which found no connection
between residential tenure and civic participation (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006a). Long-timers do
not have more potential than newcomers to mobilize, based on their worry about gentrification
changes as a result of their previous civic participation.

106
CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION & IMPLICATION OF FIDNINGS

Summary and Implication of Findings

The goal of this dissertation was to understand what factors hinder or facilitate resistance
to gentrification in the gentrifying neighborhood of Lincoln Heights, where public resistance has
been minimal. I identified the communication infrastructure of the neighborhood as a crucial
component in residents’ information seeking and civic engagement. Understanding the depth and
breadth of the communication resources available to the residents was an important first step. In
fact, understanding the neighborhood’s history and dynamics was a precursor, as it helped to
better understand the residents and their experiences. Then, it was important to identify and
understand the factors, both at the individual and community level, that contribute to residents’
potential to collectively resist the gentrification of their neighborhood. This chapter summarizes
the research findings and discusses implications of the findings for further research and
knowledge of both Communication Infrastructure Theory, activism and gentrification, as well as
its limitations.
Communication Predictors of Civic Engagement
RQ1: Does integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) predict the civic
engagement components (belonging, collective efficacy and civic participation)?
Findings from RQ1 revealed that integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN) predicts neighborhood belonging and civic participation, but does not predict collective
efficacy. In other words, the more connections an Lincoln Heights resident has to the Lincoln
Heights storytelling network, and the more the storytelling agents (residents, community
organization and local media) are discussing relevant neighborhood issues and encouraging
residents to get involved through examples and opportunities, the higher their levels of

107
attachment to their neighborhood and their participation in civic activities. Greater and deeper
connection to the storytelling network, however, does not translate to a greater sense that one’s
neighbors will come together to solve neighborhood issues – collective efficacy. This deviates
from some of Communication Infrastructure Theory research, which has found integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) to be a predictor of the three civic engagement
components: belonging, collective efficacy and civic participation (Ball-Rokeach, 2006a, b).
Collective efficacy, as stated earlier, is a crucial component in neighborhood mobilization.
Without believing that one’s neighbors will join in efforts to stop or hinder gentrification in
Lincoln Heights resident who wants to mobilize may feel alone in their worry and desire for
action.
The lack of relationship between integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN) and collective efficacy contributes to understanding why the residents in Lincoln Heights
have not mobilized in a collective gentrification resistance - the lack of meso-level storytellers in
the storytelling network that discuss the neighborhood. Because these storytellers - local media
and organizations - are key in modelling and encouraging residents to get involved around
community issues, when they are lacking, community members may feel a sense of focused
ambiguity – they do not know what action to take in response (Ball-Rokeach, 1973). An example
of this is seen in a discussion about a new coffee shop on the Lincoln Heights Facebook page
(Lincoln Heights, 2018)
15
. This was one of the most reacted to posts in the page’s history, with
110 reactions (clicking a thumbs up or angry/happy face) and nearly as many comments. Some
commenters engaged in discussions with each other. While many of the commenters expressed
their differing opinions on the page, there was no encouragement or call to engage in any kind of

15
As of November 2019, the post has been removed from the page.

108
collective action in support of their positions. Those who read and took part in the comments
were informed, but they may not have known how to act in support of their views or did not see
how their individual views could lead to collective action. The aforementioned post and
comments on Facebook certainly provided some residents with a way to express their opinions,
and even discuss them with others. However, because there are very little meso level storytellers
in Lincoln Heights, residents may not have had the knowledge to resolve their focused ambiguity
of how and what to do collectively to resist this coffee shop off-line.
The above example about the coffee shop can be contrasted with a similar situation in
neighboring Boyle Heights, a gentrifying neighborhood with several resistance groups, as
mentioned in the Introduction. Starting in June, 2017 several activist groups, including Defend
Boyle Heights, Unión de Vecinos, L.A. Tenants Union, and Boyle Heights Alliance Against
Artwashing and Displacement have engaged in online communication, mostly on Facebook, and
actions, such as several protests, a picket line preventing customers from entering and
vandalism
16
, of a new coffee shop (Defend Boyle Heights, 2017; Elliott, 2017; Kruzman, 2019).
These actions are an example of what happens in a more ideal storytelling network. Boyle
Heights residents may have heard about or even seen the coffee shop, they may have then seen
the activists’ opposition to it online, perhaps already having seen the groups’ resistance activities
online and in the neighborhood, and may have been invited to a protest in front of the coffee
shop through a Facebook post. The activist groups provided information and a frame through
which Boyle Heights residents could view the new business, as well as modeled and encouraged
them to act in a certain way if they agreed. In contrast, in Lincoln Heights, there is some

16
As of February 2019, the coffee shop has been vandalized nine times, including its front window broken,
according to its owners (Kruzman, 2019). There is no confirmation who vandalized the shop or whether these
incidents were connected to any of the activist groups.

109
discussion online in opposition to gentrification changes, but, there does not seem to be an
Lincoln Heights-based group or individual who has engaged in resistance activities or has
proposed what residents can do about it, so the discussions have not manifested into a collective
action.
The lack of a relationship between integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN)and collective efficacy does not mean that Lincoln Heights residents lack it. In the survey,
the responses for collective efficacy amongst survey participants were evenly distributed (M =
3.01, SD = .993). In fact, as evidenced in the focus group conversations, all of the participants at
all three levels of integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) (low, medium and
high) believed that Lincoln Heights residents could come together around neighborhood issues.
This is enumerated upon in the below section detailing focus group participants’ response.
Because of the few meso-level storytellers in Lincoln Heights, residents’ feelings of
collective efficacy may not be related to interactions with these actors, or even micro-level
storytellers: individuals with whom participants discuss the neighborhood, as Communication
Infrastructure Theory research has shown in other neighborhoods (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006a).
Information from storytelling network may be lacking or insufficient for residents to feel
informed or encouraged to act. Residents may base their feelings about neighbors coming
together on something else, perhaps from their connections to mainstream, national or global
media. It may be said that, because there is not a great deal of reporting on Lincoln Heights by
national media, there is not a significant link between mainstream (macro-level) and local (meso-
level) media. Participants may see reports of actions against gentrification in other
neighborhoods in national or global media and feel that, in general, their neighbors would come
together around gentrification issues. However, because they do not have a great deal of local

110
information and opportunities for involvement in their own community, they cannot resolve their
focused ambiguity - they do not know where or how to become involved in Lincoln Heights
specifically. Because gentrification is a fairly new issue in Lincoln Heights, residents do not have
similar past experiences or recollection of neighbors coming together around this issue, and so
may not believe their neighbors would mobilize.
The Storytelling Network and Worry
RQ2: Does integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) predict worry about the
number of gentrification changes noticed?
RQ2a: Does the number of gentrification changes noticed mediate the relationship between
integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and worry about those changes?
In RQ2 and RQ2a, findings show a relationship between integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) and worry about gentrification changes through the number of
gentrification changes noticed. Connection to the storytelling network positively influences the
number of gentrification changes participants notice, which positively influences how worried
they are by them. As mentioned previously, worry is a necessary component in motivating
residents to mobilize against gentrification. These results show that worry is tied to one’s
connection to the storytelling network, that is, worry comes from a heightened sense of
awareness (exhibited by noticing more gentrification changes), which is a result of information
from the storytelling network, and residents’ own observations. Those who are more connected
are more worried about gentrification changes and, therefore, more likely to resist gentrification
because of their concern about the future. This also shows that the information discussed by the
limited local news and community organizations, as well as among interpersonal networks, is
enough to make participants more aware of gentrification changes. Although there is no way to

111
tell from this analysis whether or not the information encourages mobilization, which will be
discussed in the limitations section, it certainly encourages worry, which may be a motivator for
mobilization.
RQ2 and RQ2a look at the combination of community-level and individual-level,
psychological factors, primarily worry, in Lincoln Heights. The awareness of the number of
gentrification changes is also an individual-level factor, which privileges the experiences of
residents. What is revealed is that, despite the fragmentation of the storytelling network, 86% of
survey participants said they discuss the neighborhood, and this, as shown in Chapter Six, adds
to their awareness of changes, which leads to worry
17
. There is enough relevant information
being discussed among the actors in the neighborhood storytelling network that it increases
residents’ awareness of different changes going on around them and even stimulates feelings of
worry about their own or their neighborhood’s future. Residents might act on this worry but are
however faced with focused ambiguity and do not know how to respond, and lack the collective
efficacy to mobilize with their neighbors.
Interpersonal Discussion and Worry
RQ3: Does the frequency of interpersonal discussion about things happening in Lincoln Heights
predict worry about gentrification changes?
RQ3a: Does the number of gentrification changes noticed mediate the relationship between
interpersonal discussion about Lincoln Heights and worry about those changes?
With the knowledge that the meso-level storytellers are limited in Lincoln Heights, RQ3
and RQ3a focused only on the micro-level of the storytelling network to see whether it predicted
worry on its own. Findings show a relationship from interpersonal discussion about Lincoln

17
Eighty-one percent of survey participants were worried about one or more gentrification changes.

112
Heights and worry about gentrification changes through the number of gentrification changes
noticed. This means that talking about things happening in Lincoln Heights with one’s
interpersonal network heightens one’s awareness of the neighborhood, specifically changes it is
undergoing, and subsequent worry about those changes. The more residents discuss Lincoln
Heights with each other, the more likely they are to be worried by gentrification and the more
potential they have to participate in collective resistance. These findings show the power of
interpersonal discussion about Lincoln Heights to heighten residents’ awareness of the
neighborhood and to encourage, in this case, the probability of worry about the future. In
isolating the micro-level storytelling agent here, I was trying to understand whether this was
enough of an impetus for worry and therefore potential to mobilize to resist gentrification. This
says that if meso-level storytelling agents are lacking, the micro-level may be sufficient to
encourage worry, which may lead to action. However, because there has not been much
collective mobilization against gentrification in Lincoln Heights, perhaps worry is not enough,
absent other important factors, specifically, storytelling agents which encourage and model
collective action. In Lincoln Heights, worry seems to lead to focused ambiguity, where residents
are aware of changes but do not know what to do to resist them.
Past Civic Participation and Worry

RQ4: Does past civic participation predict worry about gentrification changes?
The findings from RQ4 show that past civic participation significantly predicted worry
about gentrification changes. That is, one’s past involvement in civic activities, such as voting in
a local election or participating in a demonstration, positively influences their worry about
gentrification changes. This means that those who have previously been involved civically are
more likely to worry about gentrification and, therefore, have higher potential to resist, that is,

113
repeat similar actions in a collective mobilization against gentrification in Lincoln Heights. Their
past experience acts as an impetus to worry.
As a component of civic engagement, civic participation has a positive relationship with
the integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN). The results from this research
question and RQ1 show that a higher integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN) leads to awareness of more gentrification changes, resulting in a higher level of civic
participation and belonging and a higher level of worry about gentrification changes. Those with
high levels would have the most potential to mobilize to resist because of their knowledge,
experience and concern. However, even this has not proven enough in Lincoln Heights for a
collective mobilization. The only missing component in terms of Communication Infrastructure
Theory is the connection of integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) to
collective efficacy. Residents’ connection to the storytelling network does not lead them to
believe that their neighbors will come together to solve neighborhood issues. So, perhaps even
those who are likely to mobilize do not because they do not have much opportunity or belief that
others would come together to resist gentrification.
Moderation by Homeownership/Residential Tenure
RQ1a: Is homeownership a moderator between integrated connectedness to the storytelling
network (ICSN) and the civic engagement components (belonging, collective efficacy, civic
participation)?
RQ1b: Is residential tenure a moderator between the level of integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) and the civic engagement components (neighborhood belonging,
collective efficacy, and civic participation)?

114
RQ2b: Does homeownership moderate the relationship between the number of gentrification
changes noticed and worry in the mediation model in RQ2?
RQ2c: Does residential tenure moderate the relationship between the number of gentrification
changes noticed and worry in the mediated relationship from RQ2?
RQ3b: Is homeownership a moderator between the number of changes residents notice and
worry in the mediated relationship from RQ3?
RQ3c: Is residential tenure a moderator between the number of changes residents
notice and worry in the mediated relationship from RQ3?
RQ4a: Is homeownership a moderator between the level of civic participation and the level of
worry about gentrification changes?
RQ4b: Is residential tenure a moderator between the level of civic participation and the level of
worry about gentrification changes?
As for moderation by homeownership and residential tenure, homeownership was found
to only moderate the relationship between civic participation and worry about gentrification
changes (RQ4a), and residential tenure was not a moderator for any of the proposed relationships
(RQ1a - RQ4b). Previous Communication Infrastructure Theory research found homeownership
to be positively related to the presence of connections to community organizations (Nah et al.,
2016), and longer residential tenure to be positively related to a stronger integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001; Kim & Ball-
Rokeach, 2006), more memberships in community organizations, more frequent use of local
media and the presence of interpersonal discussion about local issues (Nah et al., 2016). The
findings from this research, however, indicate that homeownership status does not affect the
relationship between integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) and

115
neighborhood belonging or civic participation (RQ1a). Thus, homeowners are not more likely to
have a stronger integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN), or more attachment
to Lincoln Heights on the basis of owning a home. Though homeowners are expected to be more
connected to the neighborhood communication infrastructure, this lack of a difference might be
due to the paucity of local organizations and local media in Lincoln Heights. Those Lincoln
Heights residents, regardless of homeownership status, who are connecting to the storytelling
network in some way are connecting to a fragmented storytelling network, and therefore are
disadvantaged in terms of neighborhood information and encouragement to collective action.
The same goes for residential tenure – the number of years one has lived in Lincoln Heights
(RQ1b). Considering that survey participants’ residential tenure ranged from one to 71 years, this
does not affect the relationship between integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN) and neighborhood belonging or civic participation. This is interesting because those who
have lived in the neighborhood longer are thought to be more likely to be attached, involved and,
therefore, take part in collective action. This shows that even those who have lived in Lincoln
Heights very few years - as little as one year – are just as likely as long-timers to feel attached to
Lincoln Heights and have previously participated in civic activities as a result of their connection
to the storytelling network.
Findings from RQ2a and RQ2b show that neither homeownership status nor residential
tenure has an effect on seeing changes brought on by gentrification and being worried by them
when this is influenced by the integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) (the
relationship in RQ2). Neither homeowners nor renters are more likely to be worried by the
gentrification changes they see as a result of their connections to the storytelling network. The
number of years in Lincoln Heights also does not affect this relationship. Although they may

116
have a greater economic interest in the neighborhood, Lincoln Heights homeowners are not more
likely than renters to be worried by gentrification changes as a result of the number of changes
they notice and their connection to the storytelling network. This could be because both renters
and homeowners have worries, though different ones, about gentrification changes. Renters may
be worried about physical displacement, while homeowners may be more concerned with
cultural displacement or the changing appearance of the neighborhood. This is in line with other
findings from the Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Change Study by the Metamorphosis group (of
which this research is a part), showing that, when asked how they felt about newcomers to
Lincoln Heights, one of the signs of gentrification, some survey participants took a clear stance
of acceptance or rejection, for economic, cultural and/or appearance/safety reasons, while some
others (about 26% of the 149 non neutral respondents) were ambivalent
18
. They might feel the
newcomers were good for the neighborhood because they were infusing money into the local
economy, but bad because they would erase the ethnic culture by bringing in whitewashed
establishments. This shows that gentrification is experienced differently and at multiple levels –
there may not be clear winners and losers, at least in terms of the residents. While people may
not themselves be evicted, and their property values may even increase, eviction might happen to
their neighbors or their favorite restaurant. This is reflected in the worry residents may feel about
gentrification changes they notice, regardless of their economic investment or years in the
neighborhood.
The moderation relationship between civic participation and worry about gentrification
changes shows that homeowners are more likely to be worried about gentrification changes
because of their previous civic experience (RQ4a). This ties into other findings about

18
More detailed information on this survey question and its analysis can be found in the appendix.

117
homeowners’ greater ties to the neighborhood through their involvement in local, civic activities
and that this makes them more worried about gentrification. This does not mean that renters are
less worried then homeowners, in fact 68% of those who are worried by gentrification (N = 151)
are renters. This means that renters’ worry about gentrification may not be predicted by their past
civic participation as strongly as for homeowners. Again, this may tie into the origin of the
different kinds of worries various residents may have about gentrification. The economic worries
of renters may be more directly personal and may come from a sense of knowing that their
housing is not secure. Homeowners’ worries about gentrification may be more indirectly related
to their future by way of unwanted changes to their neighborhood’s environment and culture.
With regard to residential tenure, the present research is consistent with prior research (Kim &
Ball-Rokeach, 2006a). Long-timers do not have more potential than newcomers to mobilize,
based on their worry about gentrification changes as a result of their previous civic participation.
The finding that worry, and, thereby the potential for collective action, does not
necessarily depend on homeownership or residential tenure shows that, although, they may have
different interests and attachments to the neighborhood, residents are not necessarily divided
along these more obvious lines when it comes to concern for the future of the neighborhood. The
divisions are more subtle and depend on, as shown, the neighborhood information, or lack
thereof, residents have access to and discuss. This opens up the idea that residents who are
worried about their future may not engage in collective action against gentrification not because
they do not want to but because they lack the knowledge and resources to do so. They may be
worried, but they cannot resolve their focused ambiguity in order to take collective action.

118
Focus Group Findings
Focus group discussion findings help to explain some of the findings from RQ1, which
show a lack of connection between the integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN) and collective efficacy, as well as give a deeper understanding of participants’ views
about neighborhood changes, which are referred to in RQ2 and RQ3.
As far as the storytelling network in Lincoln Heights and the integration of its agents:
residents, local media and community organizations (ICSN), participants from all three focus
groups, which were split according to low, medium and high levels of integrated connectedness
to the storytelling network (ICSN) (explained in Chapter Four), said they received most of their
local news by word of mouth and social media, mostly Facebook. Some expressed that they did
not like the information on social media because there was a lot of conflict between users and
because they did not feel the information was objective since anyone can post. Participants also
pointed out that many older residents of Lincoln Heights did not use the internet and so did not
have access to the information available online.
Part of the problem of the long timers here in Lincoln Heights is the lack of
communication. A lot of the especially older families are not on Facebook, not on
Nextdoor, they are not on anything. It’s only through word of mouth. (David,
19
high
integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) group, September 8, 2018).

This is underscored by the lack of ethnic media in Lincoln Heights, as mentioned in
Chapter Five. According to the American Community Survey, in 2016, 12.5% of Lincoln
Heights residents were 65 years or older and 37.6% of residents lived in a limited English
speaking household. There are no news sources about Lincoln Heights in languages other than
English offline or online, though there are occasional Facebook posts in Spanish. Although
findings have shown that ethnic media tends to feature a large amount of news from the home

19
Names have been changed to protect focus group participants’ privacy.

119
country (Lin & Song, 2006), they also include a small number of geo-ethnic stories, that is,
stories about the local community, which Lincoln Heights residents miss out on because of this
lack of ethnic media. Citing the fact that many older residents in the neighborhood did not access
neighborhood news and information online, several participants pointed out that word-of-mouth
and flyers posted around the most trafficked areas were the best way to communicate
information.
But that lack of communication for the older folks that have been in this
neighborhood is real. They don’t - the young crowd, you are online, but the old ladies, the
abuelos and abuelitas, they are not doing anything, they are not communicating, they
don’t know what’s going on. That’s part of the reason why developers can take advantage
of the neighborhood, because this neighborhood is not well organized. People do not
know what’s going on. Our best way for meetings, honestly, because we have social
media, we have Facebook and all that stuff for the neighborhood council. What works
best is flyers. When we put flyers out, have them posted on Broadway, the schools, that’s
how we get our turnout. We have to go old school to get the message out. So this
community is very - it is very slow in terms of finding out about things happening here.
(Jose,
20
high integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) group,
September 8, 2018).

The above touches on another aspect that several participants felt strongly about:
a lack of communication to and with the community, especially from local government.
Several people expressed their discontent with the current councilmember for Lincoln
Heights, Gilbert Cedillo. They said he does not listen or respond to inquiries and that they
feel unrepresented in government.
Speaking to communication, the neighborhood council invited [Cedillo] to speak to the
community probably 8 to 9 times, sent him letters, sent him emails, did everything we
were supposed to do, and he refused every single time. One time he did send his people
and spoke as best as he could. But in the end he said I am not the councilman I can only
give you the bit of information I have. He refused and refused. He decided to do the
meeting himself where it wasn’t a meeting. It was a talking session to us. He talked to his
supporters, and the rest of us he basically flipped us all the bird. (Jose, high integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) group, September 8, 2018).

20
Names have been changed to protect focus group participants’ privacy.

120
As far as the lack of connection between integrated connectedness to the storytelling
network (ICSN)and collective efficacy, mentioned above, the majority of focus group
participants at the low, medium and high levels of the integrated connectedness to the
storytelling network (ICSN) believed that Lincoln Heights residents could come together around
neighborhood issues. Participants mentioned past examples of residents coming together, such as
during particular incidents of crime, and answered positively when asked whether they thought
similar mobilizations could happen now. However, they also mentioned the lack of local
organizing (meso level actors) to initiate any kind of mobilization against gentrification. No one
was aware of any local groups or individuals advocating for collective resistance against
gentrification in Lincoln Heights.
I think that people get very suspicious because they don’t feel represented, because they
don’t feel heard. Because there’s not, and you and I talked about when we met last year,
how there is a lack historically of neighborhood cohesion in this part of town. There’s not
a vital organizing principle amongst all the people that live here. And maybe it's because
we’re all busy trying to make a living, I think that has a lot to do with it. So, it’s tough.
(Michelle,
21
medium integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) group,
September 8, 2018).

I feel like, it’s just like, oh we’re not seeing someone take up the mantle or the name and
the organization of the community doesn’t exist. What’s actually happening through the
gentrification is that power is being pulled away and dissolved, right? With every family
you pull out of the neighborhood it gets weaker. So it’s there, the stuff that makes good
community it's there, it’s just that there’s no organization happening. That’s my theory.
(Juan,
22
medium integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) group,
September 8, 2018).

As seen above, participants mentioned a couple of reasons for the lack of organizing, aside
from not having a community organization to initiate the process. This included the fact that
some participants did not have time to attend meetings or activities outside of work. This is part
of the communication action context - the physical, psychological, sociocultural, economic, and

21
Names have been changed to protect focus group participants’ privacy.
22
Names have been changed to protect focus group participants’ privacy.

121
technological characteristics of a geographical area that facilitate or inhibit open communication
(Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001). Lincoln Heights residents’ long working hours are a feature of the
working-class, low-income community, which weaken the strength of the storytelling network
because community members cannot attend meetings and receive neighborhood news and
information. Coupled with a lack of meso-level actors that may offer residents different ways of
accessing neighborhood information, online and offline, this gives a clearer picture of the
communication environment in Lincoln Heights and why there has not been a vocal and or
visible resistance to gentrification changes.
Another reason for the lack of organizing is that Lincoln Heights residents keep to
themselves, which may have to do with the neighborhood’s history of gangs and violence. Focus
group participants mentioned that because Lincoln Heights residents may be accustomed to
having little interaction with neighbors and going out in the neighborhood, especially at night,
that many would not think to initiate a neighborhood action or would be apprehensive to
participate in one. Although gang violence and culture in Lincoln Heights is not as present as it
once was, some residents may still feel afraid to talk to others for fear of being seen as a snitch.
Furthermore, Lincoln Heights residents may distrust authorities, especially the police, who focus
group participants said are not much help in the neighborhood and not there when you need
them.
From the above findings it follows that focus group participants based their sense of
collective efficacy – the belief that residents in Lincoln Heights would come together around
neighborhood issues - on their knowledge of past actions, none of which were gentrification
related. The current information, or lack thereof, that they have access to via their storytelling
network, is not sufficient for them to trust that neighbors will come together to solve

122
neighborhood issues, as evidenced by the survey findings from RQ1. Generally speaking,
Lincoln Heights residents believe that members in their community would come together, but
because of the lack of catalytic agents and enough relevant information about neighborhood
issues, they do not know what to do: how to organize to express their collective views and take
action.
A recent incident mentioned by several focus group participants is worth noting here as it
illustrates Lincoln Heights residents’ desire to come together to solve neighborhood problems
and their lack of capacity and empowerment to do so. In January 2018, residents in Lincoln
Heights began hearing about a city plan to turn five public parking lots near the shops and
restaurants of North Broadway into homeless shelters and apartments buildings for people of
various income levels (Blank, 2018). It was later learned that these developments would be low
income affordable housing. Participants of the focus group said they felt blindsided and duped by
these developments that completely left them out of the conversation. In response, residents
started The Coalition to Protect Lincoln Heights with an accompanying Facebook page. The
Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Council held a meeting, which, according to a Metamorphosis
Project member in attendance, garnered unprecedented attendance, to discuss the five lots. Focus
group participants mentioned that the meeting did not provide assurance because the
Neighborhood Council did not have much information and there was little response from
government, namely councilmember Cedillo.
It could be any number of ways, but some of the things we attempted to do with him is
we sent him questions, and just send us back the answers to them, and I can read them
off, put them on a PowerPoint. We will do it for you. You want to do a video, go for it,
we will play it for you, to get the message out to the community. Answer the question of
the community, not what you want to throw at us, but the things we want to ask you, we
are afraid of. Because originally, we didn’t know, all we heard was homeless housing, all
five lots. Because that’s what his original plan was. That’s what made people scared. We
have all lived here for a very long time, and our kids are here. Look I have said from the

123
very beginning, I have no problem with one building. We have to do our part for the city
of Los Angeles. But the way they did that, dumping 5 out of 12 projects in the entire city,
was ridiculously wrong. They only did that because we are not organized in the
community (Jose, high integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN)
group, September 8, 2018).

Almost two years later, there has been very little information shared among Lincoln
Heights residents about the development of the five lots because it is not readily available. Since
October 2019, the Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Council has been administering a New
Community Survey online and at businesses on North Broadway in English, Spanish, and
Mandarin. The purpose of the survey is “to update our community and gather meaningful
community engagement on housing, to determine if the Stakeholders (those who live or work in
Lincoln Heights) have had an opportunity to voice their concerns” (Lincoln Heights
Neighborhood Council). The survey asks questions related to participants’ views about the five
lots project, as well as what types of housing they think Lincoln Heights needs. This serves as an
example of Lincoln Heights’ residents’ worry for the future of their neighborhood and a desire to
be informed and act around neighborhood issues. However, they lack the information ahead of
time to be able to anticipate such changes initiated by outside forces and lack the catalytic agents
to do something about them. The Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Council seems to have taken
steps to be that agent in order to inform and organize residents to the best of its ability.
As for focus group participants’ views about gentrification-related changes, they were
both positive and negative, adding detail to the responses about survey participants’ levels of
worry about gentrification changes. Participants at all three levels of the integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) expressed some positive thoughts about the
new businesses and less crime, but questioned what increasing rents and prices meant for the
many low income Lincoln Heights residents.

124
Although there are, I mean, I’m much older, I’m kind of beyond the “what’s the cool place to
eat” or “what’s the coolest restaurant”. But I see these little eateries pop up where there’s a
lot of you know, younger generation there. And then I’m reminded, oh, that was the old
seafood restaurant you know, what happened? And I wonder and I reflect on what happened
to that owner or the lease or how did those changes come about. And it’s a good thing, you
know, change is good, but I always reflect on, well what’s the other side of this change that
may look really great and trendy for the youth, but there’s another side to that story. Because
perhaps people got displaced from this big apartment building or houses or a business and
people were not able to renew the lease because you know, what’s the word? Capitalism - the
money is there, and they can always make more money, so let’s hike up this rent, and the
current owners rent - not owners but tenants - can’t afford to pay the new rents. So I’ve got
mixed feelings about the changes. (Athena,
23
low integrated connectedness to the storytelling
network (ICSN) group, September 8, 2018).

I completely understand, it’s a torn feeling growing up here and seeing this as my home and
community. But then also, I hear a lot of you saying like, oh, there’s not much to do in
Lincoln Heights. And sometimes it’s nice to have friends come over and be like, oh yeah, we
can go over here and have a burger. Like it’s a good burger, not just McDonald’s. Or some
fast food place. So I completely agree. It’s mixed feelings and a fine line of too much but
then still keeping the culture and the originality of Lincoln Heights. So it’s tough, yeah. It’s
mixed feelings. (Jennifer,
24
low integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN)
group, September 8, 2018).

The above views reflect an ambivalence towards gentrification by some Lincoln Heights
residents. They are not opposed to changes that gentrification may bring, especially new
restaurants or grocery stores that Lincoln Heights seems to lack. At the same time, they are
keenly aware that such new businesses may not cater to the lower income and or older
population of Lincoln Heights. They also understand that the arrival of such new businesses
could mean rising rents, which may disproportionately affect the lower income and or older
population. In the context of the findings from RQ2 and RQ3, which show a positive relationship
between the integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) or interpersonal
discussions about things happening in Lincoln Heights, the number of gentrification changes
noticed and worry about those changes, these focus group discussions may explain residents’

23
Names have been changed to protect focus group participants’ privacy.
24
Names have been changed to protect focus group participants’ privacy.

125
worry about the changes they see. The more information and discussions about the neighborhood
the residents have, the more aware they are of changes, which elicit both positive and negative
feelings. In this case, as evidenced by the survey data, many Lincoln Heights residents have a
heightened sense of worry because of the negative consequences they associate with these
changes for their neighbors.
These focus group findings support survey findings about Lincoln Heights residents’ lack
of access to sufficient neighborhood information to activate and participate in collective action
against gentrification. Residents do discuss neighborhood changes, the ones that they see and the
few that they are informed about, and have a sense that they can come together to solve
problems. However, the fragmented storytelling network, which lacks both local media and
organizations, hinders some from access to relevant information and others from coming up with
solutions to neighborhood issues. While some residents may be willing to act to stop
gentrification, without local actors modeling or initiating responses that they might take, these
residents do not know how to respond and may feel helpless. They are further disadvantaged by
elements of Lincoln Heights’ communication action context. Because residents work long hours
it may be far easier for them to read or discuss neighborhood issues online than to attend a
meeting or join an action. Such involvement online is limited to those who speak English, have
internet access and know where to find relevant information online. Discussion and worry do not
lead to action. While some Lincoln Heights residents may be worried about gentrification as a
result of their discussions with others, and even believe that their neighbors can come together to
oppose these changes, many do not have the capacity or opportunity to express their worry
through resistance actions.

126
Discussion About the Lack of Resistance to Gentrification in Lincoln Heights
RQs 2 - 4 show that elements of the storytelling network are related to worry. That is,
one’s connections to the storytelling network, and the integration of those connections, predicts
worry about gentrification. Findings show that the majority of Lincoln Heights residents (81% of
survey respondents) are worried about one or more gentrification changes, and more importantly,
that worry comes from a heightened awareness about these changes, as a result of their
connections to the storytelling network. This may result in collective resistance, but this has not
happened in Lincoln Heights. The hindrance to collective mobilization in Lincoln Heights is in
part due to a community level factor: collective efficacy. While interpersonal discussion around
things happening in Lincoln Heights is present to some degree, and so is worry about
gentrification, these are on the individual level. The crucial component of collective efficacy, as
it relates to the integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN), is not there. This
might be an explanation for why worry does not translate into action in Lincoln Heights.
Results show that more access to relevant information and experience with community
involvement leads to more awareness and worry about gentrification, a needed precursor to
collective resistance against gentrification. Those who are most worried are more likely to resist
and to mobilize. While many Lincoln Heights residents are worried as a result of the information
they receive, and homeowners’ civic experience, they do not get a sense of collective efficacy
from this information. Residents, individually, worrying and perhaps desiring to resist
gentrification, is not enough for a collective mobilization, there must be a sense that others will
stand with them. Lincoln Heights residents who are worried may have resolved their pervasive
ambiguity in their assessment that gentrification will have negative effects for their and their
neighborhood’s future, but they cannot resolve their focused ambiguity – they do not know how

127
to act on this worry. This is where the paucity of meso-level storytellers – local media and
organizations, is most evident. Residents who discuss Lincoln Heights with their interpersonal
networks tend to be more worried, showing that these discussions may resolve their pervasive
ambiguity about what is going on in the neighborhood, classifying gentrification as possibly
harmful to their futures. However, these discussions do not seem to define the next steps to
collective action, something local media and organizations, if present and engaged in working on
this issue, may do. The lack of connection between integrated connectedness to the storytelling
network (ICSN) and collective efficacy may be explained by the fragmented storytelling
network, as discussed in Chapter Five. There must be resources residents can rely on to convey
relevant information about the neighborhood and resistance organizing, as well as model such
actions. When this is available, residents can have more opportunities to be on the same page: to
have the same information, attend events and activities, and, at the very least, meet each other to
discuss the changes in the neighborhood. Those who are worried may get the sense that they are
not the only ones who are concerned by the changes, and some may be willing to take action.
When this is in place, some may choose to engage in, or even initiate, some kind of collective
mobilization to resist gentrification.
Lack of difference between homeowners and renters, as well as residential tenure, in all
but RQ4, might also point to reasons for a lack of resistance in Lincoln Heights. Anti-
gentrification resistance is often waged by certain groups of people: mostly long-time residents;
and, although I do not have data on this, I assume, renters, because they stand to lose the most
economically by way of physical displacement. The lack of difference in homeownership status
in terms of potential to resist shows that residents at all levels of residential tenure may worry
about gentrification changes and have the potential to resist. As for homeowners, they are more

128
likely than renters to be worried by gentrification as a result of their past civic participation.
Perhaps, through their previous involvement in local activities, they have more concern for the
future of the neighborhood, and at the same time, a willingness to resist. As previous research
has shown, homeowners are often more likely to join or be involved in community organizations,
and this might be the case in Lincoln Heights. However, because there are not many
organizations in Lincoln Heights focused on neighborhood issues, all residents in Lincoln
Heights, regardless of their homeownership status, lack opportunities to be involved in their
neighborhood.
This research also shows that Henig’s (1982a & b) model for mobilization, as I argue in
Chapter One, leaves a great deal of room for elaboration and refinement. The assumption that all
residents are equally aware of the conditions or changes in their neighborhood is presumptuous,
especially without examining how they become aware. This also assumes that all residents
interact with the neighborhood in the same ways, and thereby make the same assessments about
the neighborhood changes. This could lead to conclusions that those residents who do not resist
gentrification are either in favor of it or deem resistance too costly, in terms of time and money,
or success unreachable. These are of course very likely scenarios, but they assume that resistance
is an individual choice and option for residents. My findings show that, in studying the
interaction of residents with their neighborhood, through the storytelling network, we have to go
deeper than Henig’s (1982a & b) model. We need to first understand the neighborhood and its
communication resources, and whether they facilitate neighborhood discussion and engagement.
Henig (1982a & b) also does not consider the interaction between residents, which is crucial for
heightened awareness about gentrification and greater concern about the neighborhood’s future.

129
While making the decision to engage in collective action may be individual, the information,
motivation and encouragement to do so must come from a viable communication infrastructure.
Contribution to Communication Infrastructure Theory Research
This study contributes to Communication Infrastructure Theory with the addition of the
individual-level, psychological factor of worry as a predictor of potential to mobilize for
collective resistance. Worry adds to the community-level story that Communication
Infrastructure Theory examines by considering residents’ individual assessments of their
neighborhood and, in this case, the changes they notice brought by gentrification. In
understanding the relationship between integrated connectedness to the storytelling network
(ICSN) and worry about gentrification changes, we see how one’s connection to their storytelling
network might contribute to more worry by making them more aware of changes. This shows the
importance of access to neighborhood information to one’s awareness and knowledge of the
neighborhood, to resolve their pervasive ambiguity, as well as their possible decision to take
action, to resolve their focused ambiguity. Looking at worry as a result of integrated
connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN) also privileges the opinions of residents in
showing the process of their reactions to the changes.
This study also highlights the importance of discursive dynamics at both the community
and individual levels in motivating collective action. Mobilizing to resist gentrification is not
only a question of whether residents support or agree with the actions or not, but whether they
are aware of and understand the possible, negative effects of gentrification enough to want to
resist it. The exposure to such information depends on whether they discuss the neighborhood
and its changes, something Communication Infrastructure Theory research prioritizes. Looking
at Lincoln Heights’s storytelling network in the context of gentrification, adds a specific

130
neighborhood setting to Communication Infrastructure Theory research. It cements the point that
place matters and that residents have different interaction with their neighborhood. Adding
gentrification to the Communication Infrastructure Theory framework allows for researchers to
better understand residents’ unique experiences and circumstances, as well as how they might or
might not discuss them. This highlights the need for studying neighborhood changes through the
discursive dynamics of residents.
Contribution to Gentrification Research
Gentrification literature has not looked at discursive communication dynamics. The
application of Communication Infrastructure Theory to the study of gentrification reveals that
understanding collective resistance against gentrification requires an understanding of both the
community, its residents and their dynamic interactions. As mentioned in the Introduction,
gentrification research has often relied on demographic variables to understand people’s
experiences within the process. As gentrification becomes more and more commonplace, with
some cities now experiencing higher stages of gentrification, it is important to find a more
precise and detailed understanding of the processes that underlie residents’ reactions to it. By
measuring worry and its relationship to the neighborhood’s storytelling network, this
Communication Infrastructure Theory-guided, multi-methods, research captures residents’
feelings, of worry or lack thereof, about specific changes of gentrification. The results present a
more profound picture than just concluding that certain kinds of residents have positive feelings
about changes, while other kinds of residents feel negatively about them. This research looks at
the process through which residents may form their responses to gentrification, or lack thereof,
which privileges the experiences of individual residents instead of looking at gentrifications’
consequences on racial/ethnic and/or socioeconomic groups.

131
This research also attributes agency to residents, presenting them as capable of making
their own assessments of gentrification changes, rather than victims of the workings of larger
forces. When the worry about gentrification changes variable is examined as a result of
integrated connectedness to the storytelling network (ICSN), we see how residents assess the
changes around them, how they see their environment as a function of the information about
their neighborhood that is available to them. We see the importance of discussion about
neighborhood issues, which may very well be an impetus to collective action, if there are enough
meso level resources and encouragement. We also see the importance of these discussions,
between both the meso and micro storytellers, to fostering a sense of collective efficacy.
A mixed method approach shows that not everyone is aware of the same changes and not
everyone is affected by them in the same way. Looking at the number of changes people see
privileges their experiences and assessments of the gentrification of their neighborhood over
those of the researcher or literature. This underscores the varied nature of gentrification and
allows this to be part of the story. This research shows that it is important to study the absence of
resistance, not just for the sake of comparison, but to better understand the individual and
community-level hindrances that may be preventing it from happening.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
It must be noted that, in the past year (2019), a group of residents from several buildings
in Lincoln Heights formed the tenant association, Los Inquilinos Unidos de los Cinco Puntos
(United Tenants of Five Points) and staged a rent strike in response to their landlord’s plan to
raise their rents to around $2,000 by the end of the year despite mold, rodent and insect
infestations (Solis & Macias, 2019). The residents, helped and supported by the Los Angeles
Tenants Union, Chinatown Community for Equitable Development, Democratic Socialists of

132
America - Los Angeles, North East Los Angeles Alliance, Pasadena Tenants Union and
Socialists of Caltech, all non-Lincoln Heights-based organizations, have undertaken various
actions, including several visits to the landlord’s home to demand a negotiation. The landlord
initiated evictions for several of the tenants and all of the cases were dropped (Solis & Macias,
2019).
This case shows that Lincoln Heights residents are capable of organizing, albeit with help
from experienced, non-local, tenants’ rights activists. Also, these tenants mobilized out of worry
around a specific issue that was affecting them – a fear and very present danger of being evicted.
This might mean that the worries about gentrification changes measured in the survey are too
broad or do not affect residents enough for them to mobilize. Perhaps, mobilization happens
when the problem not only pertains to community but is personal? It may mean that since
Lincoln Heights is in the early stages of gentrification, not enough changes have happened that
really worry residents and or touch many of them personally.
Furthermore, this research was done at one point in time. It would of course be beneficial
if the same participants were surveyed in a year or two, to see if their connections to the
storytelling network or worries for the future have changed. A longitudinal study would help to
understand the sentiments of residents over time, as perhaps gentrification had intensified. It
would also be helpful to see if any kinds of resistance actions have taken place.
This research does not examine residents’ feelings about resistance, whether or not they
believe resistance is futile. Do residents believe that through collective mobilization they have
the power to prevent or stop gentrification changes? As Henig’s (1982a & b) model points out,
the evaluation of possible success could be a reason residents do not resist. That is a complex
question and must be looked at on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. However, focus group

133
participants did agree that Lincoln Heights residents would come together around neighborhood
issues, as they did in the past. This implies that the resistance is not only about success but
perhaps also about mobilizing to express their views.
Future research into residents’ levels of pervasive and focused ambiguity could provide a
better understanding of residents’ knowledge and experiences of gentrification in their
neighborhood and how those are defined by their storytelling network. This may more precisely
point out whether the lack of resistance to gentrification in Lincoln Heights may be attributed to
a lack of understanding the situation or a lack of understanding how and what action to take. This
may also shed light on residents’ thoughts and feelings about the likelihood of a mobilization’s
success.
Because of the lack of meso-level storytellers, additional research into residents’ patterns
of connections to non-local media may be helpful to understanding their reactions to
gentrification. Knowing that perhaps residents rely heavily on national media, for example,
which reports a great deal on the negative effects of gentrification around the U.S., may shed
light on their level of worry about gentrification changes in Lincoln Heights. There is also a need
to understand the lack of moderation effects of homeownership status and residential tenure on
the relationships in RQ1 - RQ4. A future survey may ask additional questions about the reasons
behind residents’ worries about gentrification changes and seek to draw conclusions based on
homeownership status and residential tenure.

134
REFERENCES
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predicting behavior from actions in
the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit? Journal of applied social
psychology, 28(15), 1355-1374.
Adams, M. H. (2016, May 27). The End of Black Harlem. The New York Times. Retrieved June
19, 2019, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-black-
harlem.html.
Atkinson, R. (2000). The hidden costs of gentrification: Displacement in central London. Journal
of housing and the built environment, 15(4), 307-326.
Atkinson, R., & Bridge, G. (Eds.). (2004). Gentrification in a global context. Routledge.
Average Rent in Los Angeles & Rent Prices by Neighborhood - RENTCafé. (n.d.). Retrieved
July 29, 2019, from https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/los-
angeles/
Baldonado, K. (2016, May 22). Documentary Explores Boyle Heights’ History. Retrieved
December 3, 2016, from http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/documentary-history-
will-i-am-Life-Connected-Boyle-Heights-380431841.html
Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1973). From pervasive ambiguity to a definition of the
situation. Sociometry, 378-389.
Ball-Rokeach, S. and Jung, J. (2009). The evolution of Media System Dependency Theory. In
Nabi, R. L., & Oliver, M. B. (Eds.). (2009). The SAGE handbook of media processes and
effects. Sage.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Kim, Y. C., & Matei, S. (2001). Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to
belonging in diverse urban environments. Communication Research, 28(4), 392-428.

135
Barton, M. (2016). An exploration of the importance of the strategy used to identify
gentrification. Urban Studies, 53(1), 92–111.
Betancur, J. J. 2002. The politics of gentrification: The case of West Town in Chicago. Urban
Affairs Review 37(6): 780–814.
Lank, B. (2018, December 30). Plans to build housing on Lincoln Heights parking lots stir up
opposition. The Eastsider.
https://www.theeastsiderla.com/real_estate/development/plans-to-build-housing-on-
lincoln-heights-parking-lots-stir/article_b40ed816-3eee-5ff9-a1b6-08047ee7bfff.html
Butler, T., & Lees, L. (2006). Super‐gentrification in Barnsbury, London: globalization and
gentrifying global elites at the neighbourhood level. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, 31(4), 467-487.
Defend Boyle Heights. (June 19, 2017).
https://www.facebook.com/defendboyleheights/?__tn__=kC-R&eid=ARDHBkwYx-
b0HKQw7w_CNPTd_yeEkG2TvQtXtTgeU9xsvGCXgibXVBy73Q0DLjFRXEg4CeuL2
XdNvkSL&hc_ref=ARTPecJMp796idWX1MkoQJTRW7hm7dW8iT5-
OPGJc20h2r4fT4RtTeY3hBFP65GEfdI&fref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARAEFmCQAo5LpIT
jIMnfv4bZF0uaPA5_j7UieMb28_8UfN_5NwDJeU88NkPQmcsdAHk-
PjnuwER5T7uRPk5qsayK0jYLE2LYQa1I4G6gxBLkaK_Uo19xXP5Rzwy7m9047GlHY
8adxhcK1OpmpsWOLPg0OipiBke2B92QEVCV4oGxMRMj1Hy_tXyvsEI-
Yz_fBxAZQ7npx7GWEKZHLLGMUQ2CQKVNcBeOftftEjhxNtoA5T4tI-
_xKtqLGlmCelpj4jZiFhyhIg98RID5iDnGf0qa9L8TV97_Bv0eVPT-
4_PT_RukEaAc24e9L1K7CEO2Gck_9D9PObE7EhmKK9XultAKqg [Facebook
update].

136
https://www.facebook.com/defendboyleheights/photos/a.938615952922066/1319754511
474873/?type=3&permPage=1

Brown-Saracino, J. (2016). An Agenda for the Next Decade of Gentrification Scholarship: An
Agenda for the Next Decade of Gentrification Scholarship. City & Community, 15(3),
220–225.
Carroll, R. (2016, April 19). “Hope everyone pukes on your artisanal treats”: fighting
gentrification, LA-style. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/19/los-angeles-la-gentrification-
resistance-boyle-heights
Chernoff, M. 1980. Social displacement in a renovating neighborhood’s commercial district:
Atlanta. In Back to the city: Issues in neighborhood renovation, edited by S. Laska and
D. Spain, 204–19. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Cordova, T., Nyden, P. W., & Wiewel, W. (1991). Community intervention efforts to oppose
gentrification. Rutgers University Press.
Cortes, G. (2019, July 14). Lincoln Heights Churchgoers Say Threat Of ICE Raids Is Scaring
People Away. Retrieved September 25, 2019, from LAist website:
https://laist.com/2019/07/14/lincoln_heights_churchgoers_say_threat_of_ice_raids_are_s
caring_people_away.php
Curran, W. (2004). Gentrification and the Nature of Work: Exploring the Links in Williamsburg,
Brooklyn. Environment and Planning A, 36(7), 1243–1258.
Davey, G. C. (1994). Worrying, social problem-solving abilities, and social problem-solving
confidence. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32(3), 327-330.

137
Ding, L., & Hwang, J. (2016). The consequences of gentrification: A focus on residents'
financial health in Philadelphia. Cityscape, 18(3), 27-55.
Dugas, M. J., Freeston, M. H., Doucet, C., Provencher, M., & Ladouceur, R. (1995). Intolerance
of uncertainty and thought suppression in worry. In annual meeting of the Association for
Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Washington, DC.
Dugas, M. J., Freeston, M. H., & Ladouceur, R. (1997). Intolerance of uncertainty and problem
orientation in worry. Cognitive therapy and research, 21(6), 593-606.
Ellen, I. G., & Ding, L. (2016). Guest Editors' Introduction: Advancing Our Understanding of
Gentrification. Cityscape, 18(3), 3-8.
Ellen, I. G., & O’Regan, K. M. (2011). How low income neighborhoods change: Entry, exit, and
enhancement. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41(2), 89–97.
Ellen, I. G., & Ding, L. (2016). Guest Editors' Introduction: Advancing Our Understanding of
Gentrification. Cityscape, 18(3), 3-8.
Ellen, I. G., & O’Regan, K. M. (2011). How low income neighborhoods change: Entry, exit, and
enhancement. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41(2), 89–97.
Elliott, F. (2017, July 19). LA Times Asks Why Boyle Heights Coffee Protesters Don’t Also
Boycott Starbucks. Eater Los Angeles. Retrieved from
https://la.eater.com/2017/7/19/15994836/boyle-heights-weird-wave-coffee-gentrification-
starbucks
Elliott, F. (2017, December 28). Lincoln Kitchen & Tap helps drive a craft beer revolution in
Lincoln Heights. Retrieved October 8, 2019, from Eater LA website:
https://la.eater.com/2017/12/28/16826812/lincoln-kitchen-tap-lincoln-heights-bar-
restaurant-open

138
Escutia, M. (2019, January 11). Commitments by the University of Southern California.
Retrieved from https://www.eastsideleads.org/latest-news/2019/1/21/commitments-by-
the-university-of-southern-california
Eviction Rankings. (n.d.). Retrieved June 14, 2019, from Eviction Lab website:
https://evictionlab.org/rankings/
Florida, R. (2015, September 16). This Is What Happens After a Neighborhood Gets Gentrified.
The Atlantic. Retrieved from November 5, 2016,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/this-is-what-happens-after-a-
neighborhood-gets-gentrified/432813/.
Fragoza, C. (2016, July 20). Art and Complicity: How the Fight Against Gentrification in Boyle
Heights Questions the Role of Artists. Retrieved September 13, 2016, from
https://www.kcet.org/shows/artbound/boyle-heights-gentrification-art-galleries-pssst
Fraser, J. C. 2004. Beyond gentrification: Mobilizing communities and claiming space. Urban
Geography 25(5): 437–57.
Freeman, L. (2004, August). There Goes the’Hood: The Meaning of Gentrification to Long-
Term Residents. In American Sociological Association Conference, San Francisco.
August (pp. 14-17).
Freeman, L., & Braconi, F. (2004). Gentrification and displacement New York City in the
1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 39-52.
Freeman, L. (2011). There goes the hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up. Temple
University Press.
Glass, R. (1964). Aspects of change. The gentrification debates: A reader, 19-30.

139
Gibbons, J. (2019). Are gentrifying neighborhoods more stressful? A multilevel analysis of self-
rated stress. SSM-population health, 7, 100358.
Hackman, R. (2015, May 13). What will happen when Harlem becomes white? The Guardian.
Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2015/may/13/harlem-gentrification-new-york-race-black-white.
Harvey, D. (2003). The right to the city. International journal of urban and regional research,
27(4), 939-941.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
Henig, J. R. (1982a). Neighborhood mobilization: Redevelopment and response. Rutgers Univ
Pr.
Henig, J. R. (1982b). Neighborhood response to gentrification – conditions of mobilization.
Urban Affairs Review, 17(3), 343-358.
Highland Park Los Angeles CA Home Prices & Home Values. (n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2019,
from Zillow website: https://www.zillow.com:443/highland-park-los-angeles-ca/home-
values/
History. (2015, May 6). Retrieved September 18, 2019, from The Historic Church of the
Epiphany website: https://epiphanyla.net/history-2/
Holmes, M. (2019, April 2). New Lincoln Heights taco spot serves grilled carne asada with a
side of craft beer. Retrieved October 8, 2019, from Eater LA website:
https://la.eater.com/2019/4/2/18292547/lincoln-heights-taco-restaurant-mexican-food-
opening
Hubbard, P. (2016). Hipsters on our high streets: Consuming the gentrification
frontier. Sociological Research Online, 21(3), 1-6.

140
Hudson, A. (2015, March 19). As Gentrification Persists in San Francisco, Evictions Take New
Forms. Retrieved November 5, 2016, from http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29737-as-
gentrification-persists-in-san-francisco-evictions-take-new-forms
Hwang, J. (2016). While Some Things Change, Some Things Stay The Same: Reflections on the
Study of Gentrification: While Some Things Change, Some Things Stay the Same. City
& Community, 15(3), 226–230.
Hyra, D. (2015). The back-to-the-city movement: Neighbourhood redevelopment and processes
of political and cultural displacement. Urban Studies, 52(10), 1753-1773.
Important Facts to Know About Gang Injunctions. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2019, from
L.A. City Attorney website: http://freepdfhosting.com/2e2129c11e.pdf
Jeffres, L. W., & Dobos, J. (1984). Communication and neighborhood mobilization. Urban
Affairs Quarterly, 20(1), 97-112.
Kerstein, R. (1990). Stage models of gentrification: an examination. Urban Affairs
Quarterly, 25(4), 620-639.
Kim, Y. C., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2006a). Civic engagement from a communication
infrastructure perspective. Communication Theory, 16(2), 173-197.
Kim, Y. C., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2006b). Community storytelling network, neighborhood
context, and civic engagement: A multilevel approach. Human Communication
Research, 32(4), 411-439.
Kim, Y. C., Jung, J. Y., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2006). “Geo-ethnicity” and neighborhood
engagement: A communication infrastructure perspective. Political
Communication, 23(4), 421-441.

141
Koester, M. (2015, June 8). Three Highland Park Residents on Their “Hood”s Inescapable
Gentrification. Retrieved December 7, 2016, from
http://la.curbed.com/2015/6/8/9953302/highland-park-gentrification
Kloc, J. (2014, April 25). Tech Boom Forces a Ruthless Gentrification in San Francisco.
Retrieved November 5, 2016, from http://www.newsweek.com/2014/04/25/tech-boom-
forces-ruthless-gentrification-san-francisco-248135.html
Kruzman, D. (2019, January 26). Construction begins for new hotel on USC’s Health Sciences
Campus. Retrieved October 8, 2019, from Boyle Heights Beat website:
https://boyleheightsbeat.com/construction-begins-for-new-hotel-on-uscs-health-sciences-
campus/
Kruzman, D. (2019, February 15). Weird Wave Coffee reports ninth vandalism. Boyle Heights
Beat. Retrieved from https://boyleheightsbeat.com/weird-wave-coffee-reports-ninth-
vandalism/
Kwak, N. H. (2018). Anti-gentrification Campaigns and the Fight for Local Control in California
Cities. New Global Studies, 12(1), 9-20.
Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and social mixing: towards an inclusive urban
renaissance?. Urban studies, 45(12), 2449-2470.
Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. K. (Eds.). (2010). The gentrification reader (Vol. 1). London:
Routledge.
Levy, P. (1980). 19 - Neighborhoods in a Race with Time: Local Strategies for Countering
Displacement. In Back to the City (pp. 302–317).

142
Levy, P. R., & Cybriwsky, R. A. (1980). The hidden dimensions of culture and class:
Philadelphia. In J. Brown-Saracino (Ed.), The Gentrification Debates (pp. 286–303). New
York: Routledge.
Lin, W. Y., & Song, H. (2006). Geo-ethnic storytelling: An examination of ethnic media content
in contemporary immigrant communities. Journalism, 7(3), 362-388.
Lincoln Heights [Fan Page]. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2019, from
https://www.facebook.com/LincolnHeights90031
Lincoln Heights. (2018, April 18). Lincoln Heights gets in on the hip Eastside coffee movement.
https://www.facebook.com/LincolnHeights90031/timeline?lst=533890491%3A18390287
29%3A1574723563 [Facebook update].
Lincoln Heights Certified Farmers Market [Fan Page]. (n.d.). Retrieved September 22, 2019,
from https://www.facebook.com/LincolnHeightsCFM/
Lincoln Heights Los Angeles CA Home Prices & Home Values. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21,
2019, from Zillow website: https://www.zillow.com:443/lincoln-heights-los-angeles-
ca/home-values/
Los Angeles Gentrification Maps and Data. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2017, from
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/los-angeles-gentrification-maps-demographic-
data.html
Maciag, M. (2015). Gentrification in America report. Governing. Retrieved from http://www.
governing.com/gov-data/census/gentrification-in-cities-governing-report.html
Marcuse, P. (1985). Gentrification, abandonment, and displacement: Connections, causes, and
policy responses in New York City. Wash. UJ Urb. & Contemp. L., 28, 195.
Marcuse, P. (2009). From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City, 13(2-3), 185-197.

143
Martin, L. (2007). Fighting for control: political displacement in Atlanta's gentrifying
neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 42(5), 603-628.
Masters, N. (2011, November 10). Who Moved East L.A.? Retrieved April 2, 2019, from KCET
website: https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/who-moved-east-la
Matsaganis, M. D., Katz, V. S., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2010). Understanding ethnic media:
Producers, consumers, and societies. Sage.
McAdam, D., & Paulsen, R. (1993). Specifying the relationship between social ties and
activism. American journal of sociology, 99(3), 640-667.
McGirr, E., Skaburskis, A., & Donegani, T. S. (2015). Expectations, preferences and satisfaction
levels among new and long-term residents in a gentrifying Toronto
neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 52(1), 3-19.
McKinnish, T., Walsh, R., & Kirk White, T. (2010). Who gentrifies low-income neighborhoods?
Journal of Urban Economics, 67(2), 180–193.
McLean, H., Rankin, K. & Kamizaki, K. (2015). Inner-suburban neighbourhoods, activist
research and the social space of the commercial street. ACME: An International E-
Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(4), 1283–1308.
Medina, J. (2016, November 5). Gentrification Protesters in Los Angeles Target Art Galleries.
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/us/los-
angeles-gentrification-art-galleries.html
Mejia, B. (2016, November 3). LAPD investigating Boyle Heights vandalism as possible hate
crimes sparked by gentrification fight. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-boyle-heights-20161102-story.html

144
Mejia, B., Mozingo, J., & Castillo, A. (2018, April 3). As gentrification closes in, immigrants in
Lincoln Heights find their American dream slipping away. Retrieved July 29, 2019, from
www.latimes.com website: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-a-dream-displaced-
gentrification/
Mejia, B., & Saldivar, S. (2016, August 4). Boyle Heights activists blame the art galleries for
gentrification. Retrieved September 13, 2016, from
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-self-help-graphics-20160718-snap-
story.html
Miranda, C. A. (2018, August 8). The art gallery exodus from Boyle Heights and why more
anti-gentrification battles loom on the horizon. Retrieved May 2, 2019, from
latimes.com website:
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/miranda/la-et-cam-gentrification-
protests-future-of-boyle-heights-20180808-story.html
Nachmias, C., & Palen, J. (1986). Neighborhood satisfaction, expectations, and urban
revitalization. Journal of Urban Affairs, 8(4), 51-62.
Nah, S., Namkoong, K., Chen, N. T. N., & Hustedde, R. J. (2016). A communicative approach to
community development: the effect of neighborhood storytelling network on civic
participation. Community Development, 47(1), 11-28.
Nextdoor. (n.d.). Retrieved September 22, 2019, from nextdoor.com website:
https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/
Newman, K., & Wyly, E. K. (2006). The right to stay put, revisited: gentrification and resistance
to displacement in New York City. Urban Studies, 43(1), 23–57.

145
O'Brien, K., Vilchis, L., & Maritescu, C. (2019). Boyle Heights and the Fight against
Gentrification as State Violence. American Quarterly, 71(2), 389-396.
Oliver, P. (1984). " If You Don't Do it, Nobody Else Will": Active and Token Contributors to
Local Collective Action. American sociological review, 601-610.
Organize! The Lessons of the Community Service Organization. (2010). Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMaR0fspdk
Our History. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2019, from San Antonio Winery website:
https://sanantoniowinery.com/history-3/
Our Methodology Report. (n.d.). Retrieved September 26, 2019, from Eviction Lab website:
https://evictionlab.org/updates/research/our-methodology-report/
Papachristos, A. V., Smith, C. M., Scherer, M. L., & Fugiero, M. A. (2011). More coffee, less
crime? The relationship between gentrification and neighborhood crime rates in
Chicago, 1991 to 2005. City & Community, 10(3), 215-240.
Pearsall, H. (2013). Superfund me: a study of resistance to gentrification in New York
City. Urban Studies, 50(11), 2293-2310.
Pérez, G. M. (2004). Near Northwest Side Story. Berkeley, U.S.: University of California Press.
Real Estate Market Trends for Lincoln Heights, Los Angeles, CA - Trulia. (n.d.). Retrieved April
5, 2019, from https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Lincoln_Heights-
Los_Angeles/7254/market-trends/
Real Estate Overview for Lincoln Heights, Los Angeles, CA - Trulia. (n.d.). Retrieved July 29,
2019, from https://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Lincoln_Heights-Los_Angeles/7254/
Rent Stabilization Update. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.cesinaction.org/Portals/0/July2017RentStabilizationUpdate.pdf

146
Richardson, J., Mitchell, B., & Franco, J. (2019). Shifting neighborhoods: Gentrification and
cultural displacement in American cities. National Community Reinvestment Coalition.
Rodriguez-Dod, E. C. (2012). But My Lease Isn't up Yet: Finding Fault with No-Fault
Evictions. UALR L. Rev., 35, 839.
Rohe, W. M., & Stewart, L. S. (1996). Homeownership and neighborhood stability. Housing
Policy Debate, 7(1), 37-81.
Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect.
University of Chicago Press.
Sanchez, J. (n.d.). Boyle Heights gallery targeted by gentrification opponents moves to a new
home. Retrieved August 13, 2019, from TheEastsiderLA.com website:
https://www.theeastsiderla.com/neighborhoods/boyle_heights/boyle-heights-gallery-
targeted-by-gentrification-opponents-moves-to-a/article_4ea9641e-bd23-11e9-abf1-
efcd4c284fdc.html
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York, NY: Appleton- Century-Crofts.
Slater, T. (2004). North American gentrification? Revanchist and emancipatory perspectives
explored. Environment and Planning A, 36(7), 1191-1213.
Slater, T., Curran, W., & Lees, L. (2004). Gentrification research: new directions and critical
scholarship. Environment and Planning A, 36(7), 1141-1150.
Slater, T. (2009). Missing Marcuse: On gentrification and displacement. City, 13(2-3), 292-311.
Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban
strategy. Antipode, 34(3), 427-450.
Soja, E. W. (2010a). Seeking spatial justice (Vol. 16). U of Minnesota Press.
Soja, E. (2010b). Spatializing the urban, Part I. City, 14(6), 629-635.

147

Solis, N., & Macias Jr., M. (2019, June 17). LA Renters Fight Rent Hikes in Court to Avoid Life
on the Streets. Retrieved from Courthouse News Service website:
https://www.courthousenews.com/la-renters-fight-rent-hikes-in-court-to-avoid-life-on-
the-streets/
Sullivan, D. M. (2006). Assessing residents’ opinions on changes in a gentrifying neighborhood:
A case study of the Alberta neighborhood in Portland, Oregon. Housing Policy
Debate, 17(3), 595-624.
Valli, C. (2015). A sense of displacement: Long‐time residents' feelings of displacement in
gentrifying Bushwick, New York. International Journal of Urban and regional
research, 39(6), 1191-1208.
Vigdor, J. L., Massey, D. S., & Rivlin, A. M. (2002). Does gentrification harm the poor? [with
Comments]. Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs, 133-182.
Villanueva, G. (2014, November 11). A vision plan for the LA River and Northeast Los Angeles:
Engaging local communities and place-based planning. Retrieved from
http://metaconnects.org/project/vision-plan-la-river-and-northeast-los-angeles-engaging-
local-communities-and-place-based-pl
Villanueva, G., Broad, G. M., Gonzalez, C., Ball-Rokeach, S., & Murphy, S. (2016).
Communication asset mapping: An ecological field application toward building healthy
communities. International Journal of Communication, 10.
Wherry, F. F. (2011). The Philadelphia Barrio : The Arts, Branding, and Neighborhood
Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

148
Wilson, D., Wouters, J., & Grammenos, D. (2004). Successful protect-community discourse:
spatiality and politics in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood. Environment and Planning
A, 36(7), 1173-1190.
Wyly, E. K., & Hammel, D. J. (1999). Islands of decay in seas of renewal: Housing policy and
the resurgence of gentrification.
Zhang, A. (2019, April 4). As USC expands its medical campus, neighborhood residents fight to
have a say. Retrieved October 8, 2019, from Daily Trojan website:
http://dailytrojan.com/2019/04/04/hsc-development/
Zukin, S. (1987). Gentrification: culture and capital in the urban core. Annual review of
sociology, 13(1), 129-147.

149
APPENDIX A: Survey Recruitment Script

Hello, my name is _________ and I am from the USC Metamorphosis Project. We are a community
research team trying to learn more about Lincoln Heights. We are not selling anything and this is not a
promotion or contest. We are conducting surveys about the experiences and thoughts of residents living in
Lincoln Heights. At this time, we can determine if you are eligible to take the survey. If you are, we
would meet with you at a later date and somewhere convenient for you. You would receive $50.

I have a few questions to help determine if you qualify for the survey:

Q1. Do you live in Lincoln Heights (LH)?

[IF YES]: Continue to Q2.

[IF DON’T KNOW]: Is your home zip code 90031?
[IF YES]: Continue to Q2.
[IF NO]: At this time we are looking to speak only with residents
in the 90031 zip code area. Thank you for your time. (END)

[IF NO]: At this time we are looking to speak only with residents of LH. Thank you for your time
(END)

[REFUSED TO ANSWER] Thank you for your time (END)

Q3. Thank you for your answers. Would you be willing to be interviewed for a study to discuss the issues
facing LH and your experiences living here? Again, we would come to your home or meet you at a
location convenient for you. The interview would take between 45 minutes to 1 hour. For your time, you
would earn $50 at the end of that survey.

[IF YES]: GO TO Q4
[IF NO]: Thank you for your time (END)
[IF DON’T KNOW]: Thank you for your time (END)
[IF REFUSED TO ANSWER]: Thank you for your time (END)

**[IF YES, BUT STRONGLY EXPRESSES WANTING TO DO THE INTERVIEW ON THE
SPOT, REMIND THEM]: The interview takes 45 minutes to 1 hour, and we would
prefer to do it somewhere quieter and would not want to rush you. If you share your contact
information, someone from our research team will be in touch to schedule the survey in the next
few days. The team member will talk with you to determine a place and time that are convenient
for you to do the interview. They can meet you in your home, or somewhere else in LH.

Hotspot Location:_____________________________________ Date of Recruitment:
_________________________________

150

Research Team Member Name:______________________

Q2. How long have you lived in LH? _______________ YEARS ________________ MONTHS

Q4.1 Full name: ______________________________________________________

Q4.2 Best phone number to reach you: ____________________________

Q4.2a Is this a cell-phone? ____YES ____NO
[IF NO]: Can you tell me what this number is?
(e.g. Home? Work? Someone else’s cell phone?)______________________

Q4.3 Email: ___________________________________________________

[IF REFUSE TO SHARE EITHER EMAIL OR PHONE NUMBER, DISMISS WITH THANKS (END)]

Q4.4 Language you are most comfortable speaking? [CHECK ONE ONLY]
a. English Only
b. Spanish Only
c. Both English and Spanish
d. Mandarin Only
e. Both English and Mandarin
f. Cantonese Only
g. Both English and Cantonese
h. Vietnamese only
i. Both English and Vietnamese
j. Other Language Only: _________________________
k. English and other language not listed above: _________________________

Q5. Days of the week that work best to do the interview: [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]
Mon: ___________ Sat: ___________
Tues: ___________ Sun: __________
Wed: ___________
Thurs: ___________
Fri: ___________

Q6. Times during the day that work best to do the interview: [WRITE TIME SLOTS. TRY TO GET
SPECIFIC TIMES, EVEN IF IT’S AN ESTIMATE. IF NOT TIME, CHECK IF MORNING
AND/OR AFTERNOON]

Morning: ______________________________ Afternoon:
_____________________________________

Other Demographics (DO NOT READ, PLEASE MARK)

151
Gender: _________________ Approx. Age Range: ________________________________

Thank you. A member of our research team will contact you by phone or email in the next few days to
schedule the survey. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may call our office at:
213-740-1260. We look forward to speaking to you.

152
APPENDIX B: Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Change Survey

USC LINCOLN HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE STUDY
Fall 2016/SPRING 2017

SURVEY FOR LINCOLN HEIGHTS RESIDENTS

Survey Sections

01. Prior Community
02. Lincoln Heights Disclosure

03. Communication Infrastructure Theory (CIT) Components
a. Neighbor Discussion
b. Organization Membership
c. Media Connections
04. Civic Engagement in Lincoln Heights
a. Belonging
b. Collective Efficacy
c. Civic Participation
05. Communication Action Context (CAC)
a. Communication Hotspots
b. Comfort Zones
06. Activities Inside and/or Outside of Lincoln Heights
07. Like/Dislike About Lincoln Heights
08. Attitude Toward/Perception of Lincoln Heights Residents
09. Neighborhood Change Stress
10. Health
a. Access
11. Demographics
12. Own or Rent
13. Fear of Displacement

153
SCRIPT

GREETING:

[Researchers to meet participants in their homes or other location of participants’ choosing]

FOR HOME

Hello, is [PARTICIPANT’S NAME] home? OR Hello, are you [PARTICIPANT’S NAME]?

• YES – GO TO PROMPT
• NO – Do you know when [PARTICIPANT’S NAME] will be home?
o YES – GO TO PROMPT
o NO – GO TO PROMPT FOR OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
• DON’T KNOW – Thank you for your time (END)

FOR OTHER LOCATION

Hello, are you [PARTICIPANT’S NAME]?

• YES – GO TO PROMPT
• NO – Thank you. Apologies for the confusion.
• DON’T KNOW – Thank you for your time (END)

PROMPT:

Hello, my name is ______, and I am from the USC Metamorphosis Project. We are a community research
team trying to learn more about Lincoln Heights and the important issues that residents face in their
community. We are conducting surveys about resident’s experiences and thoughts living in Lincoln
Heights.

Based on your answers to a few questions before, you are eligible to participate in another survey. This
survey will take between 45 minutes to 1 hour and you will receive $50 cash for your time. We will not
share your contact information with anyone and will keep all of your responses confidential.

Are you still interested in participating in the survey?

• YES – SHARE INFORMED CONSENT FORM. ONCE SIGNED, BEGIN SURVEY.
• NO – Thank you for your time (END)
• DON’T KNOW – Thank you for your time (END)

154
PROMPT FOR OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER:

Hello, my name is ______ and I am from the USC Metamorphosis Project , we are a community research
team trying to learn more about Lincoln Heights and the important issues that residents face in their
community. We are conducting surveys about resident’s experience and thoughts living in Lincoln
Heights. If you are eligible to take the survey we can meet with you at a place and time that is convenient
for you, or you can take the survey now, if you have time. The survey will take 45 minutes to an hour, and
we will give you $50 for your time. I have a few questions to help determine if you qualify for the survey.
Would you like to see if you are eligible, it will only take five minutes?

• YES – CONDUCT SCREENER SURVEY. IF ELIGIBLE, SHARE INFORMED
CONSENT FORM AND, ONCE SIGNED, PERFORM SURVEY. OR, SCHEDULE
FOR ANOTHER TIME.
• NO – We understand. Thank you for your time. We will be in touch with
[PARTICIPANT’S NAME] again to find another time to meet to take the survey.
• DON’T KNOW – Thank you for your time (END)

155

Resident Name: ______________________________________
Interview Date:_________________________________
Interviewer Names:________________________________________________________________
Years in LH: _______________________

PRIOR COMMUNITY

1) What were some of the reasons you moved to Lincoln Heights? (DO NOT READ; CIRCLE ALL
THAT APPLY)
01. Affordable housing (includes placement in Section 8/subsidized housing)
02. Up-and-coming area
03. Better schools
04. Safer neighborhood
05. I like the neighborhood/community
06. My family already lives here
07. My friends already live here
08. My spouse/partner/parent/family wanted to move here
09. Closer to work
10. To be closer to the LA River/parks/outdoor recreation
11. From Lincoln Heights originally/lived in LH my whole life (GO TO Q4)
12. Other: ___________________________________
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

2) Where did you live before moving to Lincoln Heights? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: __________________________________________________
(IF “LINCOLN HEIGHTS”, GO TO Q4; Write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

3) How involved would you say you were in community activities in [PRIOR COMMUNITY]? Using a
five-point scale, where 1 = “not at all involved” and 5 = “very involved”, where would you place
yourself? (CIRCLE ONE)
01. Not at all involved
02.
03.
04.
05. Very involved
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

4) How many of your friends or family members would you say live in Lincoln Heights? (READ
OPTIONS; CIRCLE ONE)
01. None
02. Few
03. Some

156
04. Most
05. All
88. Don’t Know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)
LINCOLN HEIGHTS DISCLOSURE

5) When someone from Los Angeles asks where you live, what do you tell them? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: __________________________________________________
(IF DOES NOT SAY “LINCOLN HEIGHTS”, GO TO Q5a; Write “Don’t know” or “Refused”
if
appropriate)

5a) Is there a reason why you don’t say “Lincoln Heights”? (DO NOT READ; CIRCLE ALL
THAT APPLY)
01. People wouldn’t know where it is
02. Lincoln Heights has a bad reputation
03. Don’t want to tell people too much about where I live (privacy concerns)
04. Other: _________________________________________
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE THEORY (CIT) COMPONENTS

We’d like to ask you about conversations you might have with neighbors and also about any clubs or
organizations you or others in your household might belong to.

Neighbor Discussions

6) Thinking about both online and offline conversations, including face-to-face conversations, how often
would you say you have discussions with your neighbors about things happening in Lincoln Heights?
Using a 10-point scale, where 1 = “never” and 10 = “all the time”, where would you place yourself?
(CIRCLE ONE)
01. Never
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.
07.
08.
09.
10. All the time
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

157

IF ANSWERS 2-10

6a) What kinds of things do you talk about with your neighbors? (DO NOT READ; CIRCLE
ALL THAT APPLY.)
01. Family
02. Friends/neighbors
03. Health
04. Driving/transportation/parking/traffic
05. Travel/vacations
06. Schools/education
07. Religion/church
08. Weather/simple greetings
09. Neighborhood problems (general)
10. Neighborhood improvements
11. Housing and building/development/downtown revitalization
12. Crime/safety/gangs/drugs
13. Pollution/environmental
14. Recreation/cultural activities/entertainment/celebrity/sports
15. Gardening/yard work
16. Politics/current events
17. Shopping/promotional deals/dining/restaurants
18. Personal economic or employment concerns
19. Costs of living in your neighborhood
20. Economic concerns
21. Pets
22. Other 1: ________________________________________
23. Other 2: ________________________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

Organization Membership

7) Do you or does anyone in your household participate in any sport or recreational organizations or
clubs?
01. Yes
02. No
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERS “YES”:

7a) Can you tell me the names of the organizations or clubs you or other household
members go to most often? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

158
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

7b) What cities or communities are these in? (DO NOT READ; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Lincoln Heights
02. Boyle Heights
03. Montecito Heights
04. Glassell Park
05. Atwater Village
06. Highland Park
07. Eagle Rock
08. Mt. Washington
09. Cypress Park
10. NorthEast LA (NELA)
11. Other/Outside of NELA: ___________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

7c) How involved would you say that you or others in your household are in this organization or
club? Using a five-point scale, where 1 = “not at all involved” and 5 = “very involved”, where
would you place yourself? (CIRCLE ONE)
01. Not at all involved
02.
03.
04.
05. Very involved
88. Don’t Know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

8) Do you or does anyone in your household participate in any cultural or ethnic organizations or
groups?
01. Yes
02. No
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERS “YES”:

8a) Can you tell me the names of the organizations or clubs you or other household
members go to most often? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ______________________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

8b) What cities or communities are these in? (DON’T READ; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Lincoln Heights

159
02. Boyle Heights
03. Montecito Heights
04. Glassell Park
05. Atwater Village
06. Highland Park
07. Eagle Rock
08. Mt. Washington
09. Cypress Park
10. NorthEast LA (NELA)
11. Other/Outside of NELA: ___________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

8c) How involved would you say that you or others in your household are in this organization or
club? Using a five-point scale, where 1 = “not at all involved” and 5 = “very involved”, where
would you place yourself? (CIRCLE ONE)
01. Not at all involved
02.
03.
04.
05. Very involved
88. Don’t Know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

9) Do you or does anyone in your household participate in any church or religious organizations or
groups?
01. Yes
02. No
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERS “YES”:

9a) Can you tell me the names of the organizations or clubs you or other household
members go to most often? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ______________________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

9b) What cities or communities are these in? (DON’T READ; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Lincoln Heights
02. Boyle Heights
03. Montecito Heights
04. Glassell Park
05. Atwater Village

160
06. Highland Park
07. Eagle Rock
08. Mt. Washington
09. Cypress Park
10. NorthEast LA (NELA)
11. Other/Outside of NELA: ___________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused
9c) How involved would you say that you or others in your household are in this organization or
club? Using a five-point scale, where 1 = “not at all involved” and 5 = “very involved”, where
would you place yourself? (CIRCLE ONE)
01. Not at all involved
02.
03.
04.
05. Very involved
88. Don’t Know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

10) Do you or does anyone in your household participate in any neighborhood group or homeowners
association?
01. Yes
02. No
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERS “YES”:

10a) Can you tell me the names of the organizations or clubs you or other household
members go to most often? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ______________________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

10b) What cities or communities are these in? (DON’T READ; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Lincoln Heights
02. Boyle Heights
03. Montecito Heights
04. Glassell Park
05. Atwater Village
06. Highland Park
07. Eagle Rock
08. Mt. Washington
09. Cypress Park
10. NorthEast LA (NELA)

161
11. Other/Outside of NELA: ___________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

10c) How involved would you say that you or others in your household are in this organization or
club? Using a five-point scale, where 1 = “not at all involved” and 5 = “very involved”, where
would you place yourself? (CIRCLE ONE)
01. Not at all involved
02.
03.
04.
05. Very involved
88. Don’t Know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

11) Do you or does anyone in your household participate in any political organizations or groups?
01. Yes
02. No
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERS “YES”:

11a) Can you tell me the names of the organizations or clubs you or other household
members go to most often? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ______________________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

11b) What cities or communities are these in? (DON’T READ; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Lincoln Heights
02. Boyle Heights
03. Montecito Heights
04. Glassell Park
05. Atwater Village
06. Highland Park
07. Eagle Rock
08. Mt. Washington
09. Cypress Park
10. NorthEast LA (NELA)
11. Other/Outside of NELA: ___________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

162
11c) How involved would you say that you or others in your household are in this organization or
club? Using a five-point scale, where 1 = “not at all involved” and 5 = “very involved”, where
would you place yourself? (CIRCLE ONE)
01. Not at all involved
02.
03.
04.
05. Very involved
88. Don’t Know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

12) Do you or does anyone in your household participate in any educational or school-based
organizations or groups?
01. Yes
02. No
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERS “YES”:

12a) Can you tell me the names of the organizations or clubs you or other household
members go to most often? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ______________________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

12b) What cities or communities are these in? (DON’T READ; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Lincoln Heights
02. Boyle Heights
03. Montecito Heights
04. Glassell Park
05. Atwater Village
06. Highland Park
07. Eagle Rock
08. Mt. Washington
09. Cypress Park
10. NorthEast LA (NELA)
11. Other/Outside of NELA: ___________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

12c) How involved would you say that you or others in your household are in this organization or
club? Using a five-point scale, where 1 = “not at all involved” and 5 = “very involved”, where
would you place yourself? (CIRCLE ONE)
01. Not at all involved

163
02.
03.
04.
05. Very involved
88. Don’t Know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

13) Do you or does anyone in your household participate in any other organizations or groups?
01. Yes
02. No
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused
IF ANSWERS “YES”:

13a) Can you tell me the names of the organizations or clubs you or other household
members go to most often? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ______________________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

13b) What cities or communities are these in? (DON’T READ; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Lincoln Heights
02. Boyle Heights
03. Montecito Heights
04. Glassell Park
05. Atwater Village
06. Highland Park
07. Eagle Rock
08. Mt. Washington
09. Cypress Park
10. NorthEast LA (NELA)
11. Other/Outside of NELA: ___________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

13c) How involved would you say that you or others in your household are in this organization or
club? Using a five-point scale, where 1 = “not at all involved” and 5 = “very involved”, where
would you place yourself? (CIRCLE ONE)
01. Not at all involved
02.
03.
04.
05. Very involved
88. Don’t Know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

164

Media Connections

The next few questions are about the media that you use in your daily life.

14) First, we’ll talk about the Internet. Do you use any social media websites to help you connect with
other people, like Facebook, Twitter, or Next Door?
01. Yes
02. No (GO TO Q16)
88. Don’t Know (GO TO Q16)
99. Refused (GO TO Q16)

15) When you are on the Internet, what types of social media do you use? These could be websites or
phone apps. Again, some examples are Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Next Door. (DO NOT READ;
CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Facebook
02. Twitter
03. LinkedIn
04. Google Plus (Google+)
05. Pinterest
06. Snapchat
07. Instagram
08. Next Door
09. Other: ______________________________________________________
10. Does not use any social media websites
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

16) We’re also interested in learning how much time you usually spend with different kinds of media,
both online and on paper. (READ QUESTIONS AND ANSWER OPTIONS)

Approximately
how many hours do
spend, on an
average week…

None Less
than 1
hour
1-3
hrs.
4-6
hrs.
7-9
hrs.
10-12
hrs.
13-15
hrs.
> 15
hrs.
DK
(Don’t
Read)
RF
(Don’
t
Read)
a) Reading major
English language
newspapers like the
LA Times?

b) Listening to
major English
language radio
stations like KPCC,
KNX, or KISS
FM?

165
c) Watching major
English language
cable and TV
channels like ABC,
NBC, CNN, or
Netflix?

17) For the next question, please think only about those kinds of television stations, radio stations, and
newspapers that are produced especially for your area or for your ethnic group, both online and offline.
(READ QUESTIONS AND ANSWER OPTIONS)

Approximately
how many hours do
spend, on an
average week…

None Less
than 1
hour
1-3
hrs.
4-6
hrs.
7-9
hrs.
10-12
hrs.
13-15
hrs.
> 15
hrs.
DK
(Don’t
Read)
RF
(Don’
t
Read)
a) Reading
newspapers that are
produced for your
area or your ethnic
group?

b) Listening to
radio stations that
target your area or
are produced for
your ethnic group?

c) Watching TV
and cable channels
that target your
area or are
produced for your
ethnic group?

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN LINCOLN HEIGHTS

Belonging (Note: Neighbor is whatever they define it to be).

18) The next few questions are about your neighbors. (READ QUESTIONS ONLY)

How many of your neighbors
do you know well enough to
ask them to…

Write #
(number)
Don’t
know
(DON’T
READ)
Refused
(DON’T
READ)
a) Keep watch of your house or
apartment?

166
b) Ask for a ride?
c) Talk with them about a
personal problem?

d) Ask for their assistance in
making a repair?

19) Now, I’d like to read you statements about the relationship between you and your neighbors. For the
following statements, I would like to know if you “strongly agree,” “agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,”
“disagree,” or “strongly disagree.” (READ QUESTIONS AND, IF NECESSARY, ANSWER
CATEGORIES)

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Agree
Don’t
know
(DON’T
READ)
Refused
(DON’T
READ)
a) You are interested in
knowing what your neighbors
are like.

b) You enjoy meeting and
talking with your neighbors.

c) Your neighbors always
borrow things from you or
your family.

d) It’s easy to become friends
with your neighbors

Collective Efficacy

20) (READ QUESTIONS AND ANSWER OPTIONS)

How many of your neighbors do you feel
could be counted on to do something if…
None Few Some Most All Don’t
know
(DON’T
READ)
Refused
(DON’T
READ)
a) A stop sign or a speed bump was
needed to prevent people from driving too
fast through your neighborhood?

167
b) There were dangerous potholes on the
streets where you live?

c) The sports field or park that
neighborhood kids want to play on has
become unsafe due to poor maintenance or
gangs, for example?

How many of your neighbors do you feel
could be counted on to do something if…
None Few Some Most All Don’t
know
(DON’T
READ)
Refused
(DON’T
READ)
d) A child in your neighborhood is showing
clear evidence of being in trouble, or
getting into big trouble?

e) The trees along the streets in your
neighborhood were uprooting the
sidewalks, making them unsafe?

f) A builder has applied for a permit to
build a large apartment building on your
street?

Civic Participation

21) These next few questions are about some activities you may do online or offline. These answers are
strictly confidential and will be used by our team only for this study. (READ QUESTIONS ONLY)

During the past two years, have you… Yes No Don’t
Know
Refused

a) Attended a city council meeting, public hearing, or
neighborhood council meeting?

b) Written a letter or sent a postcard or an email to the editor of
a newspaper, television station, or magazine or called a radio
station to voice your opinion?

c) Contacted an elected official about a problem?
d) Talked to a community leader or an official, such as a
school administrator or a police officer, about a policy or local
issue?

e) Signed a petition?
f) Taken part in any demonstration or protest?

168
g) Voted in an election to elect local officials?
h) Boycotted a product, brand, or store? (A boycott involves
refusing to go to a certain store or to use or buy a product from
a particular brand, as a form of protest)

During the past two years, have you… Yes No Don’t
Know
Refused

i) Volunteered for a social cause or neighborhood initiative,
like a neighborhood clean-up project, a school event, meals-
on-wheels programs, or a community cultural festival?

j) Donated to support a political, social or charitable cause?
(These could include donations to a political candidate, a
charity run, or an environmental conservation campaign)

k) Participate in any meetings or activities dealing with renter’s
or tenant’s rights?

22) For the next few questions, I am going to ask you to answer on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = “never”
and 5 = “very often.” (READ QUESTIONS ONLY)

Since you’ve lived in Lincoln Heights,
how often have you used the Internet
to…

1
(Never)
2 3 4 5
(Very
Often)
Don’t
know
Refused

a) Communicate with other Lincoln
Heights residents?

b) Look up news or information about
Lincoln Heights?

c) Post a comment about Lincoln
Heights on a website or a blog?

d) Find information about a local
official or local organization?

e) Read posts or comments about
Lincoln Heights on a social media sites,
like Facebook or Twitter, or on local
media websites like “Eastsider”?

COMMUNICATION ACTION CONTEXT (CAC)

Communication Hotspots

169

The next questions are about places in Lincoln Heights where you and other residents might go
to.

23) What is one place in Lincoln Heights where residents in general meet and chat? (DO NOT
READ; CIRCLE ONE)
01. None
02. Supermarket/large grocery store
03. Farmer’s Market
04. Mini mart/corner store/liquor store
05. Laundromat/common laundry area in apartment building
06. School
07. Daycare
08. Library
09. Park
10. Bus stop
11. Hair dresser/barber shop
12. Community organization
13. Church/temple
14. Gym/recreational center
15. Restaurant/coffee shop
16. Bar
17. Business (non-food)
18. Other: _____________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

IF ANSWER 2-18:

23a) What is the name and/or location of this place? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ___________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

Comfort Zones

24) Think about the places that you visit regularly in Lincoln Heights and how you feel about them. These
could be places for eating, getting services, and enjoying recreation, for example. What are some places
that make you feel like you belong there? (DO NOT READ; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. None
02. Supermarket/Large grocery store
03. Farmer’s Market
04. Mini mart/corner store/liquor store
05. Laundromat/common laundry area in apartment building
06. School
07. Daycare

170
08. Library
09. Park
10. Bus stop
11. Hair dresser/barber shop
12. Community organization
13. Church/temple
14. Gym/recreational center
15. Restaurant/coffee shop
16. Bar
17. Business (non-food)
18. Other: _____________________________
89. Don’t know
99. Refused

IF ANSWER 2-18:

24a) What is the name and/or location of this place? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: _______________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

25) Are there any places where you used to feel comfortable but no longer do?
01. Yes
02. No
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERED “YES”:

25a) What places are those? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: __________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

25b) Why do you no longer feel comfortable? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS; CIRCLE ALL
THAT APPLY)
01. People who go there
02. Change in management/ownership
03. No longer feel safe
04. It has become more expensive
05. Other: ________________________________
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

171

ACTIVITIES INSIDE AND/OR OUTSIDE OF LINCOLN HEIGHTS

26) Now, we would like to ask you about whether you usually do various activities in Lincoln Heights or
outside of Lincoln Heights. (READ STATEMENTS AND ANSWER OPTIONS; MARK ALL THAT
APPLY)

Where do you do most of the following? Or
do any of these not apply to you?
In LH Outside
of LH
Both In
and Out
of LH
Don’t do
this, N/A
(DON’T
READ)
Don’t
Know
(DON’T
READ)
Refused
(DON’T
READ)
a) Get together with family or friends
b) Seek out entertainment (movies, theater,
music, etc.)

c) Attend religious services
d) Buy medications for you or your family
e) Go to a restaurant, café, or coffee shop
f) Buy groceries
g) Go to a Farmers Market
h) Take your kids to school

LIKE/DISLIKE ABOUT LINCOLN HEIGHTS

27) Generally speaking, how do you feel about your neighborhood? This would be from a scale of 1 to 5,
where 1 = “dislike it very much” and 5 = “like it very much.”
01. Dislike it very much
02.
03.
04.
05. Like it very much
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

28) Generally speaking, how proud do you feel about living in Lincoln Heights? This would be from a
scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = “not at all proud” and 5 = “very proud.”
01. Not at all proud
02.
03.

172
04.
05. Very proud
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

29) What are some things you like most about Lincoln Heights? (DO NOT READ OPTIONS; CIRCLE
ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Affordability
02. The people (GO TO 29a)
03. Food-related businesses
04. Non-food related businesses
05. Farmers Market
06. The history
07. The culture
08. Proximity to Downtown LA
09. Access to mass transit (e.g., metro rail, buses)
10. Nature/River/Parks
11. Traffic/parking/commuting
12. Schools
13. Library
14. Churches
15. Gyms/Recreation centers
16. Family or friends live here
17. Politics
18. Housing issues/problems
19. Crime/gangs
20. Pollution/environmental concerns
21. Other: _____________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERED #2, “The People”:

29a) Whom do you mean, more specifically? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ___________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

30) What are some things you like the least about Lincoln Heights? (DO NOT READ OPTIONS;
CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Affordability
02. The people (GO TO 30a)
03. Food-related businesses
04. Non-food related businesses
05. Farmers Market
06. The history

173
07. The culture
08. Proximity to Downtown LA
09. Access to mass transit (e.g., metro rail, buses)
10. Nature/River/Parks
11. Traffic/parking/commuting
12. Schools
13. Library
14. Churches
15. Gyms/Recreation centers
16. Family or friends live here
17. Politics
18. Housing issues/problems
19. Crime/gangs
20. Pollution/environmental concerns
21. Other: _____________________________
89. Don’t know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERED #2, “The People”:

30a) Whom do you mean, more specifically? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ___________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

ATTITUDE TOWARD/PERCEPTION OF LINCOLN HEIGHTS RESIDENTS

The next questions are about residents in Lincoln Heights and your general thoughts about them.

31) Generally speaking, what do you like or dislike about the newer residents who have moved into
Lincoln Heights in the last few years? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ____________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

32) Do you know any new residents?
01. Yes
02. No
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERED “YES”:

32a) How do you know them? (DO NOT READ OPTIONS; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. They are my friends
02. They are my neighbors

174
03. Met them through family/friends/neighbors
04. Knew them before they moved to Lincoln Heights
05. Met them dog-walking
06. Met them through work
07. Met them at child(ren)’s school
08. Other: _______________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

33) Generally speaking, what do you like or dislike about the people who have lived in Lincoln Heights
for a longer time? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ____________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

34) Do you know any long-time residents?
01. Yes
02. No
89. Don’t know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERED “YES”:

34a) How do you know them? (DO NOT READ OPTIONS; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. They are my friends
02. They are my neighbors
03. They are friends of my friends or of my neighbors
04. Knew them before they moved to Lincoln Heights
05. Met them dog-walking
06. Met them through work
07. Met them at child(ren)’s school
08. Other: _______________________________
89. Don’t know
99. Refused

NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE STRESS

35) Now, I am going to read you a list of changes that some people have seen in Lincoln Heights and ask
you if you are worried about any of them.

Yes IF “YES”: On a scale from 1 to 5,
where 1 = “not at all” and 5 = “very
much,” how worried do the changes
make you feel? (CIRCLE ONE)
No DK RF
a) Have you noticed
changes in the kinds of
people who live here?
01. Not at all
02.
03.

175
04.
05. Very much
88. DK (DON’T READ)
99. RF (DON’T READ)
Yes IF “YES”: On a scale from 1 to 5,
where 1 = “not at all” and 5 = “very
much,” how worried do the changes
make you feel? (CIRCLE ONE)
No DK RF
b) Have you noticed
changes in the kinds of
restaurants, cafes, or
coffee shops people can
go to?
01. Not at all
02.
03.
04.
05. Very much
88. DK (DON’T READ)
99. RF (DON’T READ)

c) Have you noticed
changes in how much
traffic there is?
01. Not at all
02.
03.
04.
05. Very much
88. DK (DON’T READ)
99. RF (DON’T READ)

d) Have you noticed
changes in the cost of
rent, for houses or
apartments?
01. Not at all
02.
03.
04.
05. Very much
88. DK (DON’T READ)
99. RF (DON’T READ)

e) Have you noticed
changes in how well
people get along?
01. Not at all
02.
03.
04.
05. Very much
88. DK (DON’T READ)
99. RF (DON’T READ)

f) Have you noticed
changes in the level of
violence or crime?
01. Not at all
02.
03.
04.
05. Very much
88. DK (DON’T READ)
99. RF (DON’T READ)

g) Have you noticed
changes in the
development of new
condos or large homes?
01. Not at all
02.
03.
04.
05. Very much
88. DK (DON’T READ)
99. RF (DON’T READ)

176
h) Have you noticed
changes in the way your
neighborhood looks?
01. Not at all
02.
03.
04.
05. Very much
88. DK (DON’T READ)
99. RF (DON’T READ)

36) Do you see yourself living in Lincoln Heights 5 years from now?
01. Yes
02. No
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERS “NO”:

36a) Why not? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: __________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

The next few questions are about how living situations may have changed over the years for you or your
family and for other people who live in Lincoln Heights.

37) (READ QUESTIONS ONLY)

In the last two years, have you or any
of your friends or family or someone
else you know in Lincoln Heights…
Yes IF “YES”: Who
was that? (CIRCLE
ALL THAT
APPLY)
No DK RF

a) Been evicted? Yes 01. Self (live alone)
02. Self & partner
03. Self, partner, &
child(ren)
04. Grandparents
05. Parents
06. Aunts/uncles
07. Siblings
08. Cousins
09. Friend
10. Neighbor
11. Co-worker
12. Acquaintance
13. Other:
________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused
No DK RF

177
b) Moved out because of rent
increases?
Yes 01. Self (live alone)
02. Self & partner
03. Self, partner, &
child(ren)
04. Grandparents
05. Parents
06. Aunts/uncles
07. Siblings
08. Cousins
09. Friend
10. Neighbor
11. Co-worker
12. Acquaintance
13. Other:
________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused
No DK RF

c) Been forced out by foreclosure? Yes 01. Self (live alone)
02. Self & partner
03. Self, partner, &
child(ren)
04. Grandparents
05. Parents
06. Aunts/uncles
07. Siblings
08. Cousins
09. Friend
10. Neighbor
11. Co-worker
12. Acquaintance
13. Other:
________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused
No DK RF

d) Moved to another apartment or home
in Lincoln Heights because the first
property or living environment was
unsafe or run-down?
Yes 01. Self (live alone)
02. Self & partner
03. Self, partner, &
child(ren)
04. Grandparents
05. Parents
06. Aunts/uncles
07. Siblings
08. Cousins
09. Friend
10. Neighbor
11. Co-worker
12. Acquaintance
13. Other:
________________
No DK RF

178
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

HEALTH

We have only a few more questions and should be finished soon. We now would like to ask you some
questions about your health.

39) Which of the following best describes the one place that you go most often when you need
healthcare? (READ OPTIONS; CIRCLE ONLY ONE)
01. Doctor’s office
02. Healer other than a medical doctor
03. County clinic (i.e., government subsidized)
04. Community clinic (i.e., pay per visit)
05. Hospital outpatient clinic
06. Hospital emergency room
07. Pharmacy
08. Other: _____________________
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

40) What city or community is that in? (DO NOT READ; CIRCLE ONE)
01. Lincoln Heights
02. Boyle Heights
03. Montecito Heights
04. Glassell Park
05. Atwater Village
06. Highland Park
07. Eagle Rock
08. Mt. Washington
09. Cypress Park
10. NorthEast LA (NELA)
11. Other/Outside of NELA: ___________________________
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

Access

41) How easy or difficult is it for you to deal with your personal or your family’s healthcare needs using
resources in Lincoln Heights? (READ OPTIONS)
01. Very difficult
02. Somewhat difficult
03. Somewhat easy
04. Very easy
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

179
IF “VERY DIFFICULT” OR “SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT”:

41a) What medical resources do you find are most difficult to access? (DO NOT READ
OPTIONS; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Primary care (medical doctor’s office)
02. Healer other than a medical doctor
03. County clinic (i.e., government subsidized)
04. Community clinic (i.e., pay per visit)
05. Hospital
06. Emergency care
07. Urgent care
08. Mental health
09. Dentist
10. Eye care
11. Dermatology
12. Pharmacy
13. Other: __________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

41b) Why are these resources difficult to access? (DO NOT READ OPTIONS; CIRCLE ALL
THAT APPLY)
01. They don’t exist
02. Too expensive
03. Location is too busy/can’t get appointment
04. Don’t have insurance
05. Location is too far
06. Can’t accommodate a physical impairment (sight, hearing, wheelchair)
07. Don’t speak my language
08. Don’t trust the medical providers
09. Poor quality services
10. Other: ____________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

42) How easy or difficult is it for you to get quality and affordable healthy food, such as fruits and
vegetables, in Lincoln Heights? (READ OPTIONS)
01. Very difficult
02. Somewhat difficult
03. Somewhat easy
04. Very easy
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

43) Would you say you are someone who gets exercise regularly, by walking, riding a bicycle, or doing
other type of physical activity? Would you say you are… (READ OPTIONS; MARK ONE)

180
01. Not active at all
02. Active 1-2 days of the week
03. Active 3-4 days of the week
04. Active 5 days or more per week
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

IF “YES”:

43a) How easy or difficult is it for you to exercise in Lincoln Heights? (READ OPTIONS)
01. Very difficult
02. Somewhat difficult
03. Somewhat easy
04. Very easy
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

43b) When you do exercise, what kinds of places do you most often go to exercise in Lincoln
Heights? (DO NOT READ OPTIONS; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Park
02. Gym/recreation or sports center
03. School
04. Sidewalks/streets (walking)
05. Playground
06. Wildlife preserve
07. Parking lot
08. In the home
09. Other: ___________________________________
10. Do not exercise
11. Do not exercise in Lincoln Heights
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

DEMOGRAPHICS

Thank you very much for all your responses to our survey. We now will finish with a few questions about
your ethnic and educational background, and other similar questions.

44) How do you usually describe your ethnicity? (CIRCLE ONE; READ OPTIONS ONLY IF
NECESSARY. IF DON’T PROVIDE NATIONALITY, ASK FOR ONE.)
01. Latino / Hispanic
• 011 Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano
• 012 Puerto Rican
• 013 Cuban
• 014 Salvadorean

181
• 015 Dominican
• 016 Guatemalan
• 017 Other:___________________________________
02. Asian/Pacific Islander
• 021 Chinese
• 022 Japanese
• 023 Korean
• 024 Filipino
• 025 Guamanian or Chamorro
• 026 Vietnamese
• 027 Native Hawaiian
• 028 Samoan
• 029 Other Asian:________________________________
• 0210 Other Pacific Islander:_____________________
03. Caucasian or White
04. African American or Black
05. Native American, American Indian or Alaska Native
06. Other: __________________________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

45) What language or languages are usually spoken in your home? (DO NOT READ OPTIONS;
CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. IF RESPONDENT NAMES ONE LANGUAGE ONLY, FOLLOW
UP BY ASKING IF THERE IS ANOTHER LANGUAGE ALSO SPOKEN AT HOME)
01. English Only
02. Spanish Only
03. Both English and Spanish
04. Mandarin Only
05. Both English and Mandarin
06. Cantonese Only
07. Both English and Cantonese
08. Vietnamese only
09. Both English and Vietnamese
10. Other Language Only: _________________________
11. English and other language not listed above: _________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

46) Who in your family first came to the United States? (Which generation?) (DO NOT READ
OPTIONS; CHOOSE ONE; IF MULTIPLE MENTIONS, CHOOSE CODE 7 AND SPECIFY)
01. Child/niece/nephew
02. Me/spouse/sibling
03. Parents/aunt/uncle
04. Grandparents
05. Great grandparents or earlier

182
06. Other: ____________________________________
07. Multiple family members: _______________________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

47) In what country were you born? (DO NOT READ OPTIONS; CIRCLE ONE)
01. United States
02. Mexico
03. Puerto Rico
04. Cuba
05. El Salvador
06. Dominican Republic
07. Guatemala
08. China
09. Hong Kong
10. Taiwan
11. Japan
12. Korea
13. Philippines
14. Guam
15. Vietnam
16. Other:________________________________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

48) What was your age on your last birthday? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: __________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

49) [IF PARTICIPANT GENDER IS NOT OBVIOUS] How would you describe your gender? (DO
NOT READ RESPONSES; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
01. Female
02. Male
03. Other: ___________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

50) What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed? (DO NOT READ OPTIONS;
CIRCLE ONE)
01. 8
th
grade or less
02. Some high school
03. High school graduate
04. Some trade or technical school
05. Graduate of trade or technical school
06. Some college/university

183
07. College/university graduate
08. Some graduate study
09. Graduate degree
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

51) Which one of the following best describes your current employment situation? (READ OPTIONS;
CIRCLE ONE; IF BOTH EMPLOYED OR SELF-EMPLOYED AND A STUDENT, HIGHER
CATEGORY (EMPLOYMENT) TAKES PRECEDENCE)
01. Employed (GO TO 50a & b)
02. Self-employed (GO TO 50a & b)
03. Temporarily laid off /Unemployed
04. Homemaker
05. Retired
06. Student
07. Disabled
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

51a) In what city or community is your primary place of work? (DON’T READ; PICK ONE)
01. Lincoln Heights
02. Boyle Heights
03. Montecito Heights
04. Glassell Park
05. Atwater Village
06. Highland Park
07. Eagle Rock
08. Mt. Washington
09. Cypress Park
10. NorthEast LA (NELA)
11. Other/Outside of NELA: ___________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

51b) How do you usually get to your primary place of work? (DO NOT READ; CIRCLE ALL
THAT APPLY)
01. Walk
02. Ride a bicycle or other non-motorized vehicle
03. Drive self, with personal motorized vehicle
04. Get dropped off by others, with personal motorized vehicle
05. Carpool with others, in another person’s motorized vehicle
06. Take public/mass transit
a. Metro/train
b. Bus
07. Other: ________________________________
88. Don’t know

184
99. Refused
52) Thinking of the combined income for all people in your household, what is your best estimate of your
household income last year? For instance, less than $10.000, between $10,000 and $20,000, between
$20,000 and $30,000? (DO NOT READ OPTIONS; CIRCLE ONE)
01. No income ($0)
02. Less than $10,000
03. $10,001 to $20,000
04. $20,001 to $30,000
05. $30,001 to $40,000
06. $40,001 to $50,000
07. $50,001 to $60,000
08. $60,001 to $70,000
09. $70,001 to $80,000
10. $80,001 to $90,000
11. $90,001 to $100,000
12. More than $100,000
13. Other: _________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

53) Including yourself, how many people currently live in your household? (WRITE IN NUMBER)

Answer: ___________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

IF ANSWERS MORE THAN “1”:

53a) How many children, if any, 17 years or younger currently live in your household? (WRITE
IN NUMBER)

Answer: __________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

54) Thinking about how you identify with political issues in general, would you say you are more liberal
or conservative? On a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 = “very liberal” and 7 = “very conservative,” where
would you place yourself? (CIRCLE ONE)
01. Very liberal
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.
07. Very conservative
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

185

OWN OR RENT

55) Do you own or rent your home? (CIRCLE ONE)
01. Rent/lease
02. Own
03. Other: ___________________________
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

56) What is the monthly cost of rent or mortgage for your home? (READ OPTIONS; CIRCLE ONE)
01. $0/no monthly payment
02. $1-$499
03. $500-$999
04. $1,000-1,499
05. $1,500-$1,999
06. $2,000-$2,499
07. $2,500-$2,999
08. $3,000 or more
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

FEAR OF DISPLACEMENT

57) How confident are you that you will be able to afford to live in Lincoln Heights five years from now?
Where would you place yourself, on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = “not at all confident” and 5 = “very
confident”? (CIRCLE ONE)
01. Not at all confident
02.
03.
04.
05. Very confident
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

186
FOCUS GROUP PROMPT

Thank you very much for your time and for helping us with this survey. We plan to conduct a focus group
to discuss some community issues, especially those that concern your thoughts on changes taking place in
Lincoln Heights.

If you are eligible and agree to participate in this focus group, you would receive $75 cash for the 1.5
hours discussion, and the focus group will meet at a convenient location in Lincoln Heights.

If you are eligible, would you be willing to participate?

1=YES (GO TO A)
2=NO (GO TO B)
8=DON’T KNOW (GO TO B)
9=REFUSED (GO TO B)

A. Thank you. So that we can contact you by phone and mail in the next several months for the focus
group discussion, can you confirm your full name? __________________________________________

I’d like to confirm that your phone number is (###) ### - ####.

[IF THEY DO NOT VERIFY THIS NUMBER] What is the number I can call?
_________________________________

Can I confirm that I have your correct address in case we need to send you information about the focus
group? [REPEAT ADDRESS]

B. We want to thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey.

187
APPENDIX C: Consent Form and Information Sheet

University of Southern California
Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism
3502 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Change Study

Thank you for your interest in participating in this focus group conducted by the USC Annenberg
School for Communication and Journalism. Before we proceed, the following provides a
comprehensive explanation of your rights as research participants.

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Sandra Ball-Rokeach, Ph.D. at the
Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California.
You are invited to participate in this study because you have indicated that you are a resident of
Lincoln Heights and you are aged 18 or over. Your participation is voluntary.

Please 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 the following
information.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Our research team is trying to learn more about Lincoln Heights and the important issues that
residents face in their community. For this study, we are hoping to learn more about residents’
experiences and thoughts about living in Lincoln Heights.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will participate in a focus group discussion. The group
discussion will take about 90 minutes to complete. Due to the nature of focus groups, your
confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. However, your responses during the discussion will not be
identified with your personal information.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation. You do not have to answer any question(s)
you do not want to.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive $75 cash for your time. You do not have to answer questions you do not wish to
answer. The money will be given to you when you have been asked all of the questions in the

188
focus group.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your
responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The data will
be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office for three years after the study
has been completed and then destroyed.

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.

At the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed and de-identified data will be
retained for future research use. If you do not want your date is future studies, you should not
participate.

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

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Principal
Investigator Dr. Sandra Ball-Rokeach via email at ballrok@usc.edu or phone 213-740-1260.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
IF you have questions, concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general 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 Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

189
APPENDIX D: Focus Group Protocol
Introduction (15 minutes)

(Just a reminder to please turn off your cell phones, thank you)

Thank you for taking our survey and for coming here today to discuss how you feel about the changes
happening in Lincoln Heights.

Our research is different from a lot of studies of gentrification because we are trying to understand how
you, the residents, feel. By the end of this, we will put together a summary report of how different
residents feel about the changes they are seeing in Lincoln Heights.

We will share our report, your views and your voices with local and city policymakers and your
neighborhood council.

Everything you say is confidential. This means that nobody but our research team will be able to link your
name or identity to anything that you say. Please feel that you can speak freely and honestly. There are
no right or wrong answers.

Because of time, I may ask someone to hold off on their response or call on someone who has not spoken
yet. Please do not take it personally. We are interested in hearing everyone's perspective.

Also, I would like to add that we do not in any way represent the interests of USC. Our discussion today,
including the video and the tape recording, will not be shared with anyone at USC outside of our
research group.

Does anyone have any questions or concerns about being here, or about any of the recordings?

To start off our conversation, let me tell you a little bit about my background and why I am involved in
this project.

Convener: As I said, my name is Marina. I am a PhD student in Communication at USC. I
am interested in neighborhood change and how different changes affect the neighborhood
residents. I am interested in LH because I am from LA and because of of its history.

(We would have name cards in front of each participant.)

Now, We will now go around the room and ask each of you to tell us how long you have lived in Lincoln
Heights and to name one of your favorite things to do in Lincoln Heights.

Transition: Thank you for sharing. Over the years, there have of course been many changes in your
neighborhood. Now, we will talk about how things have changed in Lincoln Heights in the last few years.

190
Changes (15 minutes)

What changes have you noticed in Lincoln Heights in the last few years, and how do you feel about them?

[If the responses speak only to personal daily life and not the effects on the community, ask prodding
question]

Follow-Up: How do you think these changes have affected/will affect your daily life?

Follow-up: How do you think these changes have affected/will affect Lincoln Heights?

Maybe: Why do you think these changes are happening?

Transition: Now, we would like to ask you how you find out about these changes.

Conversations Around Changes (10 minutes)

Aside from seeing them with your own eyes, what are the other ways you find out about changes in
Lincoln Heights? For example, do you talk to others either in person (where?) or online?

If in person: Where do these conversations with others take place?

Prod: If you read about them online, what websites do you find most helpful in telling you about changes
in Lincoln Heights? Ask which outlet if they do not mention it.

Maybe: Do you wish there are more ways to find out about changes in Lincoln Heights?

Overall Reactions to Changes (15 minutes)

In general, would you say that people are for or against these changes, or both?

How would you describe the kinds of reactions that you find in the online media discussions?

How would you describe people who are for the changes? How would you describe those who are against
the changes?

Prod: Among residents who are against the changes, do you know if they are doing anything to stop the
changes from happening? Or are they just expressing an opinion?

Feelings about Anti-Gentrification Groups (15 minutes)

We would like to know how you, as residents, feel about groups that may be trying to fight some of the
neighborhood changes. For example, groups trying to strengthen laws around rent control or to prevent
the development of new condos and businesses.

191

We would like to add that we do not in any way represent the interests of any of these groups. We are just
interested in your reactions to them.

In general, how do you feel about these groups?

Do you think these groups will be successful fighting gentrification in Lincoln Heights? Why or why not?

Do you know people in these groups?

Prod: Have you participated in these groups?

Transition: Now, we would like to leave the question of changes that are happening and ask you more
general questions about how people in your neighborhood react to problems that occur – that could be
any problem – from trash on your street to loud neighbors or, problems in the schools.

Collective Efficacy (10 min)

Can you think of a time when a problem in your neighborhood got solved by neighbors coming together
to do something about it?

Can you tell me more about that?

Has that happened recently? Do you think that would be possible now? Why or why not?

If no one says that that has occurred, ask why they think that neighbors don’t come together to
solve a problem.

Great! Well, that concludes our questions. Thank you so much for your time and
for participating in our focus group!

192
APPENDIX E: Business Owner Survey Questions

USC LINCOLN HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE STUDY
Fall 2016/SPRING 2017

SURVEY FOR LINCOLN HEIGHTS BUSINESS OWNERS

1. Business Information
a. Why Lincoln Heights
b. Business Changes
2. Customers
a. New vs. Long-time residents
3. Perception of New vs. Long-time residents
4. Involvement in Lincoln Heights community
a. How they stay informed about community
5. Like/Dislike about Lincoln Heights
a. City recommendations
6. Demographics

193
PROMPT:

Hello, my name is ______, and I am from the USC Metamorphosis Project. We are a community research
team trying to learn more about Lincoln Heights and the important issues that residents and business
owners face in their community. We are conducting surveys about business owner’s experiences and
thoughts doing business in Lincoln Heights.

Based on your answers to a few questions before, you are eligible to participate in this survey. This
survey will take between 45 minutes to 1 hour and you will receive $50 cash for your time. We will not
share your contact information with anyone and will keep all of your responses confidential.

Are you still interested in participating in the survey?

89. YES – SHARE INFORMED CONSENT FORM. ONCE SIGNED, BEGIN
SURVEY.
90. NO – Thank you for your time (END)
91. DON’T KNOW – Thank you for your time (END)

194
Business Owner Name: ______________________________________
Business Name: ______________________________________
Business Address: ___________________________________
Interview Date:_________________________________
Interviewer Name:________________________________________________________________

BUSINESS RELATED

1. What is the mission of your business?

2. How long has this business existed? (__________) years / months (CIRCLE ONE)
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

3. How long has your business been operating in Lincoln Heights? (_______) years /
months (CIRCLE YEARS OR MONTHS)
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

4. How many locations does your business have? _____________________

4a. IF more than 1: Where?______________

5. What were some of the reasons you started your business in Lincoln Heights? (DO NOT
READ; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
09. Affordable rent
10. Up-and-coming area
11. Safer neighborhood
12. I like the neighborhood/community
13. My family lives here
14. My friends live here
15. Close to my residence
16. From Lincoln Heights originally/lived in LH my whole life
17. Other: ___________________________________
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

6. Do you own, rent or lease this business location?
01. Own
02. Rent/lease
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

195
6a. If rent/lease, how much is your monthly rent? _________________
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

6b. If rent/lease, does your landlord live in Lincoln
Heights?__________________________________________

88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

7. How did you find your space? ________________________________

88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

8. Were there any recent changes in your lease? Please explain (Contractual,
Financial)?__________________________

88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

9. In the next 12 months, is your business considering any of the following [READ
RESPONSE OPTIONS; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]:
01. Expanding
02. Relocating
03. Downsizing
04. Closing
05. No
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

9a. If Expanding: will this expansion be [READ RESPONSE OPTIONS]:
01. Within your current facility
02. In LH
03. Not LH, but within Los Angeles City
04. Outside of Los Angeles City
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

9b. If Relocating: will this relocation be [READ RESPONSE OPTIONS]:

196
01. In LH
02. Outside of LH, but within Los Angeles City
03. Outside of Los Angeles City
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

9c. If Downsizing/Closing: Why? __________________________

88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

10. What are the two most important issues facing your business? (Concerns, problems,
threats, worries)

01. ___________________________

02. ___________________________

88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

11. Do most of your employees live in Lincoln Heights? Or somewhere else?
01. LH
02. Somewhere else
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

CUSTOMERS

12. Do most of your customers live in Lincoln Heights? Or somewhere else?
01. LH
02. Somewhere else
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

13. How would you describe your typical customer (gender, ethnicity, race, age,
residential tenure, anything else)?

88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

197

14. Would you say your customers are mostly new or long-time LH residents? Or do you
feel you get an equal number of newer and longer-term residents?
01. New
02. Long-time
03. Same
04. Not LH residents
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

15. Do you notice any differences between new and long-time customers? (behavior,
attitude, what they buy)
Explain________________________________________________________________
____

88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

16. How do you get word out to your current and potential customers about your
business? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY]
01. Television
02. Newspaper
03. Radio
04. Internet
05. Brochures
06. Community orgs/groups
07. Word of mouth
08. None
09. Other: ____________________________
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

ATTITUDE TOWARD/PERCEPTION OF LINCOLN HEIGHTS RESIDENTS

The next questions are about residents in Lincoln Heights and your general thoughts about them.

17. Generally speaking, what do you like or dislike about the newer residents who have
moved into Lincoln Heights in the last few years? They may be customers or others
you have seen, encountered. (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ____________________________________________________

198
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

18. Generally speaking, what do you like or dislike about the people who have lived in
Lincoln Heights for a longer time? They may be customers or others you have seen,
encountered. (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: ____________________________________________________

88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN LINCOLN HEIGHTS

We’d like to ask you about conversations you might have with other Lincoln Heights business owners.

19. Thinking about both online and offline conversations, including face-to-face
conversations, what kinds of things do you talk about with other business owners?
(DO NOT READ; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.)
11. Family
12. Friends/neighbors
13. How business is going
14. Health
15. Driving/transportation/parking/traffic
16. Travel/vacations
17. Schools/education
18. Religion/church
19. Weather/simple greetings
20. Neighborhood problems (general)
21. Neighborhood improvements
22. Housing and building/development/downtown revitalization
23. Crime/safety/gangs/drugs
24. Pollution/environmental
25. Recreation/cultural activities/entertainment/celebrity/sports
26. Gardening/yard work
27. Politics/current events
28. Shopping/promotional deals/dining/restaurants
29. Personal economic or employment concerns
30. Costs of rent in your neighborhood
31. Economic concerns
32. Pets
33. Other 1: ________________________________________
34. Other 2: ________________________________________
11. Don’t know
99. Refused

199
20. We'd like to know the ways you stay on top of news about Lincoln Heights,
community and businesses. These could include, but are not limited to, face-to-face
or phone conversations, the Internet or email, TV, radio, newspapers, books,
magazines, newsletters, movies, leaflets or folders, text messages, organizations,
neighborhood meetings or other channels of communication. What would you say are
the ways you stay on top of your community? (Circle all that apply)

01. Face to face conversations
02. Phone conversations
03. The Internet
04. Email
05. TV
06. Radio
07. Newspapers
08. Books
09. Magazines
10. Newsletters
11. Movies
12. Mailers
13. Leaflets or folders
14. Text messages
15. Organizations
16. Neighborhood meetings
17. Other channels of communication (Specify ___________________________)
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

21. Which, if any, business associations (e.g. Chamber of Commerce) is your business
affiliated with?
01. Lincoln Heights BID
02. Chamber of Commerce
03. Other_________________________
04. N/A
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

21a. How involved would you say that you are in this business association? Using a five-point
scale, where 1 = “not at all involved” and 5 = “very involved”, where would you place yourself?
(CIRCLE ONE)
01. Not at all involved
02.
03.
04.
05. Very involved
88. Don’t Know (DON’T READ)

200
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

22. Do you participate in other activities in Lincoln Heights, personally or as a business
owner?
01. Yes
02. No
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

22a. What are these activities?_____________________________

88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

LIKE/DISLIKE ABOUT LINCOLN HEIGHTS

23. Generally speaking, how do you feel about Lincoln Heights? This would be from a
scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = “dislike it very much” and 5 = “like it very much.”
01. Dislike it very much
02.
03.
04.
05. Like it very much
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

24. What are some things you like most about Lincoln Heights? (DO NOT READ
OPTIONS; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
06. Affordability
07. The people (GO TO 29a)
08. Food-related businesses
09. Non-food related businesses
10. Farmers Market
11. The history
12. The culture
13. Proximity to Downtown LA
14. Access to mass transit (e.g., metro rail, buses)
15. Nature/River/Parks
16. Traffic/parking/commuting
17. Schools
18. Library
19. Churches
20. Gyms/Recreation centers
21. Family or friends live here
22. Politics

201
23. Housing issues/problems
24. Crime/gangs
25. Pollution/environmental concerns
26. Other: _____________________________
22. Don’t know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERED #2, “The People”:

24a.) Whom do you mean, more specifically? (OPEN ENDED)
Answer: ___________________________________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

25. What are some things you like the least about Lincoln Heights? (DO NOT READ
OPTIONS; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
06. Affordability
07. The people (GO TO 30a)
08. Food-related businesses
09. Non-food related businesses
10. Farmers Market
11. The history
12. The culture
13. Proximity to Downtown LA
14. Access to mass transit (e.g., metro rail, buses)
15. Nature/River/Parks
16. Traffic/parking/commuting
17. Schools
18. Library
19. Churches
20. Gyms/Recreation centers
21. Family or friends live here
22. Politics
23. Housing issues/problems
24. Crime/gangs
25. Pollution/environmental concerns
26. Other: _____________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

IF ANSWERED #2, “The People”:

25a. Whom do you mean, more specifically? (OPEN ENDED)
Answer: ___________________________________________________

88. Don’t know

202
99. Refused

LINCOLN HEIGHTS ISSUES

26. Previously, I asked about issues facing your business. Now I’m going to ask a similar
question but about the LH community more generally. What do you think is the most
important issue facing Lincoln Heights currently?
________________________________________

88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

27. Is there anything that the city government can do to improve the business climate in
this neighborhood? [DON’T READ OPTIONS; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY; IF
PROMPT: Such as physical improvements or policies?]
01. Streetscaping
02. Facade improvements
03. Lighting
04. Marketing
05. Vacancies
06. Parking
07. Maintenance
08. Improving public transit services and facilities
09. Sidewalks
10. Bike Paths
11. OTHER (SPECIFY): ___________________________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

28. What types of new businesses would you like to see in Lincoln Heights? [DON’T
READ RESPONSE OPTIONS; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]
01. Restaurants
02. Retail
03. Office
04. Manufacturing
05. Nightlife entertainment/ bars
06. OTHER (please specify): ________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

28a. Why?

DEMOGRAPHICS

203
Thank you very much for all your responses to our survey. We now will finish with a few questions about
your ethnic and educational background, and other similar questions.

29. What is the zip code of your primary residence (home)? ___________________
88. Don’t Know
99. Refused

30. How do you usually describe your ethnicity? (CIRCLE ONE; READ OPTIONS
ONLY IF NECESSARY. IF DON’T PROVIDE NATIONALITY, ASK FOR
ONE.)
01. Latino / Hispanic
• 011 Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano
• 012 Puerto Rican
• 013 Cuban
• 014 Salvadorean
• 015 Dominican
• 016 Guatemalan
• 017 Other:___________________________________
02. Asian/Pacific Islander
• 021 Chinese
• 022 Japanese
• 023 Korean
• 024 Filipino
• 025 Guamanian or Chamorro
• 026 Vietnamese
• 027 Native Hawaiian
• 028 Samoan
• 029 Other Asian:________________________________
• 0210 Other Pacific Islander:_____________________
03. Caucasian or White
04. African American or Black
05. Native American, American Indian or Alaska Native
06. Other: __________________________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

31. In what country were you born? (DO NOT READ OPTIONS; CIRCLE ONE)
89. United States
90. Mexico
91. Puerto Rico
92. Cuba
93. El Salvador
94. Dominican Republic

204
95. Guatemala
96. China
97. Hong Kong
98. Taiwan
99. Japan
100. Korea
101. Philippines
102. Guam
103. Vietnam
104. Other:________________________________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

32. What was your age on your last birthday? (OPEN ENDED)

Answer: __________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

33. [IF PARTICIPANT GENDER IS NOT OBVIOUS] How would you describe your
gender? (DO NOT READ RESPONSES; CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
08. Female
09. Male
10. Other: ___________________________
88. Don’t know
99. Refused

FEAR OF DISPLACEMENT

34. How confident are you that you will be able to afford for your business to stay in
Lincoln Heights five years from now? Where would you place yourself, on a scale
from 1 to 5, where 1 = “not at all confident” and 5 = “very confident”? (CIRCLE
ONE)
03. Not at all confident
04.
05.
06.
07. Very confident
88. Don’t know (DON’T READ)
99. Refused (DON’T READ)

IF ANSWERS 3, 2, 1:

34a) Why not? (OPEN ENDED)

205
Answer: __________________________________________________
(Note: write “Don’t know” or “Refused” if appropriate)

206
FOCUS GROUP PROMPT

Thank you very much for your time and for helping us with this survey. We plan to conduct a focus group
to discuss some community issues, especially those that concern your thoughts on changes taking place in
Lincoln Heights.

If you are eligible and agree to participate in this focus group, you would receive $75 cash for the hour
and one half discussion, and the focus group will meet at a convenient location in Lincoln Heights.

If you are eligible, would you be willing to participate?

1=YES (GO TO A)
2=NO (GO TO B)
8=DON’T KNOW (GO TO B)
9=REFUSED (GO TO B)

A. Thank you. So that we can contact you by phone and mail in the next several months for the focus
group discussion, can you confirm your full name? __________________________________________

I’d like to confirm that your phone number is (###) ### - ####.

[IF THEY DO NOT VERIFY THIS NUMBER] What is the number I can call?
_________________________________

Can I confirm that I have your correct address in case we need to send you information about the focus
group? [REPEAT ADDRESS]

B. We want to thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey.

207

APPENDIX F: Typology Variable Explanation

In the survey, we asked participants about their attitudes toward newer residents using the following
open-ended question: “Generally speaking, what do you like or dislike about the newer residents who
have moved into Lincoln Heights in the last few years?” We quantified respondents’ answers and
developed a typology in order to select focus group participants and to better understand of how attitudes
toward newer residents may be related to other variables.

After a thorough review of all 220 responses, we developed the following ordinal-level categories: 1)
Share only dislikes of newer residents; 2) Mainly dislike newer residents, but share some likes; 3) No
opinion or neutral answers; 4) Mainly like newer residents, but share some dislikes; and 5) Share only
likes of newer residents.

Four coders underwent two rounds of coding to assign respondents to one of the five categories. Coders
were split up into pairs via random selection, with coders paired with different partners for each round of
coding (e.g., for round one, coders 1 and 3 were paired, and for round two, coders 1 and 4 were paired). In
each round, each pair of coders was assigned 55 quotes, for a total of 110 quotes coded per round. This
allowed for a review of the coding process after round one to ensure no great discrepancies were
encountered.

The pairs achieved good reliability in each round, per Krippendorff’s alpha (ordinal level):
• Round One
o Pair 1: 93.5%
o Pair 2: 92.5%
• Round Two
o Pair 1: 92.3%
o Pair 2: 93.2%

Coders disagreed on 12 quotes, which were reviewed and categorized as a team. The final categories were
as follow:
1. Dislike - 43 quotes (19.5%)
2. Dislike mainly, but some likes - 23 quotes (10.4%)
3. No opinion or neutral - 71 quotes (32.3%)
4. Like mainly, but some dislikes - 25 quotes (11.4%)
5. Like - 58 quotes (26.4%)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A multilevel communication approach to understanding human trafficking prevention behaviors in Indonesia

PDF

Understanding normative influence of neighborhoods: a multilevel approach to promoting Latinas’ cervical cancer prevention behaviors in urban ethnic communities

PDF

Supper and segregation: navigating difference through food in Chicagoland

PDF

Pathways to immigrant civic engagement: the storytelling network and church participation

PDF

Food is the medium: food movements, social justice and the communication ecology approach

PDF

The impact of engaged communication scholarship on the re-imagination of space and place in South L.A.

PDF

Tokens, ledgers, and rails: the communication of money

PDF

Political coming-of-age in the era of WeChat: understanding the ethnic media ecosystem and group politics of first-generation Chinese Americans

PDF

A question of identity: the rhetoric and argument of conspiracy theories

PDF

Cosmopolitan logics and limits: networked discourse, affect, and identity in responses to the Syrian refugee crisis

PDF

The role of social control in promoting healthy eating behavior among Chinese immigrants: an ecological approach

PDF

Hard to argue against coherence: a metacognitive approach to correction of misinformation

PDF

Self-evident truth that all men are not perceived equally: examining perspectives of African American male college graduates who have been criminalized

PDF

The evolution of multidimensional and multilevel networks in online crowdsourcing

PDF

Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success

PDF

Examining internal communication practices to improve teachers’ motivation to use ICTs in instruction: a case study of Peruvian secondary schools

PDF

The women’s rights movement of today: how social media is fueling the resurgence of feminism

PDF

Social media in community policing: a vehicle for communication

PDF

Digital discourse in the fashion industry

PDF

From worldbuilding to worldblending: transmedia rhetoric, identification, and immersion in storyworlds

Asset Metadata

Creator Litvinsky, Marina (author)

Core Title "There are enough people here to wage that war:" a communication infrastructure theory approach to identifying factors of anti-gentrification mobilization

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Publication Date 04/08/2020

Defense Date 04/06/2020

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

Tag activism,collective resistance,communication infrastructure theory,gentrification,Los Angeles,multiple methods research,neighborhood mobilization,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ball-Rokeach, Sandra (committee chair), Gross, Larry (committee member), Pastor, Manuel (committee member)

Creator Email litvinsk@usc.edu,mlitvinsky@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-280352

Unique identifier UC11674900

Identifier etd-LitvinskyM-8252.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-280352 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LitvinskyM-8252.pdf

Dmrecord 280352

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Litvinsky, Marina

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