I wrote this lecture for my senior level Sociology and Critical Criminology internship class to help students have a more Sociological understanding of their clients and the communities in our region. For this class, I use Public Sociology and Tattoos on the Heart as my main books. I supplement each week with academic articles, news stories, and policy papers.
“At Risk” – Why It’s in Quotes
This week, we are focusing on the “at risk” label. Informing
my lecture are the national and international research done by scholars listed
at the end of the lecture and my own
research in the Los Angeles inner-city community of South Central. I encourage
you to use at least one of these articles
and incorporate the material in your work this week.
What is
Wrong with “At-Risk”?
Most of you are working with populations that are considered
in need of support, help and/or intervention. We have many labels to describe
these populations: marginalized, underprivileged, disadvantaged, at-risk.
“At-risk” is particular troublesome for a number of reasons
and is the focus of our lecture.
But, please note, all terms
used to described people with considerable less resources, less power, and
more challenges should be given your laser-like focus. The key here is
thinking beyond the individual and looking at larger public issues that maybe
the root cause of what seemingly is a personal trouble, also known as using
your Sociological Imagination.
Your challenge as public sociologists and public
criminologists: Stating
picking up on what are the terms
that your colleagues use to describe your clients, whether they are dogs or
humans. Be sure to begin including this analysis and reflection in your
journals – this week and beyond.
The concept “at risk” is used widely in professional
settings, human services offices, schools, and even in some academic
disciplines. Yet, very few
have attempted to create a singular definition that is used across settings.
Instead, Foster and Spenser (2010) argue that the at-risk label has become “a label attached
to young people whose current behaviors and social
backgrounds predict, statistically, a later life of ill health, poverty,
criminality, or social disrepute” (130).
Therefore, Pica-Smith and Veloria (2012:34) argue that the
label of “at risk” must be deconstructed, interrogated, and problematized in
order…to develop a critical consciousness that extends beyond the individual
level of analysis.” This is based on their research in which they found that
for their participants, who were “predominantly white, middle-class women, the
term is understood as synonymous with students of color, poor youth, or youth
with disabilities. [They] demonstrate assumptions that other students are
inherently at risk based on their racial, class, and disability identities.”
So, one of the main problems
with this label is that entire groups of people get put into the label of “at
risk” without a critical perspective on recognizing the institutional and
structural forces that are shaping the realities for people.
Swadener (2010:9) writes that
individual-based labels such as “at risk” have an enduring effect: “Blaming the victim is one way of
locating pathology and deficiencies within the individual and/or family, and
has had the devastating effect of being
accepted as common sense…and a pervasive stereotype of those at the margins
of dominant culture. In reality, [research shows] the vast majority of
impoverished people are law abiding, resourceful, and willing to work.”
Side note: Test your own common sense notions versus Sociological research that is
posted in Cougar Courses. How did you score?
The “at-risk” label is extremely
individualistic at best and, at worst, connotes a sense of hopelessness.
Deficit Thinking
The other main issue that problematic for the “at risk” label
is that it based on “deficit thinking,” which means that you are looking at the
person as “less than” or “missing something” rather than beginning with their
strengths. Angela
Valenzuela calls it “subtractive thinking.” Many researchers, such as Jason
Irizarry,
write extensively critiquing this practice. While most academics in social sciences and educational fields agree that
deficit model thinking is not good, in practice, many out in the field –
working with clients like yours – practice this notion. Do you?
Another challenge this week
is for you to identify forms of deficit model thinking at your site.
My graduate student, Cynthia Arellano (2012), conducted an MA
thesis called, RELIENCY:
BEYOND THE REPORT CARD. Her research arose from her experiences / praxis as
an ELD middle school teacher in Poway. She wanted to understand the ways in
which the young immigrant males were labeled by the school community as “at
risk,” when she viewed them as quite resilient. She examined the previous
research on resiliency, which is grounded in the psychology field. While she
found the basic definitions of resiliency applicable to her population – young,
recently arrived, Latino immigrants – their experiences were not well
represented in the literature. Instead, her population seemed over-represented
in the field that examines (alleged) “at risk” youth. Cynthia was able to
critique both fields and then lead us to how she – in her scholarly analysis
and voice – wants resiliency to be utilized.
Cynthia used a method called “journal-elicitation
interviews.” She used the concept of photo-elicitation interviews (or
“photovoice”), where participants take photos and discuss them with the
interviewer. Cynthia created journals for her participants to draw and write.
She wanted to see how and if her participants would generate data that could
fit into a new resiliency model. Her method was quite successful and she found many forms of resiliency, along with many instances
of structural and institutional barriers that shape their opportunities and
experiences. Cynthia also drew upon “validation theory”
introduced by Dr. Laura
Rendon.
Alternative Perspectives
The articles that I present
and use this week all “interrogate” and deconstruct the notion of “at risk” and
also offer alternatives to that label. Here is an example from Foster and
Spenser’s article (2010:126): “Drawing on the stories relayed to us by 50 women
and men who frequented a youth drop-in center in downtown Ottawa and received
income support from the province of Ontario, we present an alternative way of analyzing and understanding the lives
of young people whose behavior and circumstances are framed as ‘negative
outcomes’ by the risk approach, and whose triumphs are deemed circumvented
risks by the resilience approach.”
Beth Blue Swadener (2010) wants us to use the term, “at promise” and bases her argument after
having “literally hundreds of conversations with parents-African American,
Latina/Latina, Native or indigenous American, Kenyan and South African, many of
whom are single parents living below the poverty line” (8). And she argues for
the term, at
promise, to truly encompass the potential in all children. She
elaborated this point here: “Getting out-of-school children back into school or
enrolled in vocational programs was a major agenda of our volunteer
organization, but I found that the arts program and the use of dance, drama,
song, and visual arts (drawing, painting, and wood carving) were powerful
antidotes to life of and on the streets. I use this brief example to underscore
my intent that we view all children as children "at promise," however
privileged or difficult their circumstances may be” (24).
Swadener ends her article by showing what being “at promise”
means by sharing a poem written by an 8 year old Mexican-American girl who was
participating in a bilingual family literacy program:
On the day l was born the earth shook and the angels wept.
On the day l was born the sky turned green, the clouds
turned orange.
On the day l was born, they discovered Atlantis.
And books overflowed my house.
On the day l was born the earth was clean and there was
peace.
On the day I was born my family scampered in to see me.
On the day I was born the sun fell in love with the moon.
Finally, in an article
entitled, “Gender and
being ‘bad’: Inner-city students’ photographs,” I compared the lives of two
elementary school children who were labeled as “bad” (Clark-Ibáñez
2008). Note, the entire
school in South Central contained kids who were allegedly “at risk” and so I
focused on the boy and girl who received the most negative labels in the class of 40 students. I found that the
using photo-elicitation interviews let me see their lives in a different light
AND it contradicted some of the notions of their deficits. I witnessed strength
where others saw peril. Yet, it was not equally experienced by both students.
The “bad boy” was actually in better shape that the “bad girl.” I won’t give away more because I invite you to read the
article.
I will “toot my own horn” and share with you an email I
received about this article that might entice you to read it as well! :-) It’s not
everyday you have such a nice, unsolicited compliment on your work!
|
Sent:
|
Monday, May 30, 2011 7:34 PM
|
|
To:
|
|
Dr.
Clark-Ibáñez:
I just finished reading your "Gender and Being 'Bad': Inner-City
Students' Photographs" chapter in Doing Visual Research with Children
and Young People.
I just wanted to compliment you on writing one of the BEST pieces I've ever
read about researching children in my 30+ years as a university instructor.
The two case studies you profiled were so elegantly and poignantly written--I
felt that I knew these two children so well after I finished the chapter.
This is a work that I want my own students to read. I'm in K-12 theatre
education and I teach qualitative research methods at ASU. Your piece is a
masterful exemplar of case study research and ethnography. To my knowledge,
this is my first exposure to your work, and I look forward to reading more
about your research in the near future.
I wish you a good summer. Thanks, again, for a great read!
Respectfully,
Johnny Saldaña, Professor
Arizona State University
|
Public
Sociology
This week’s case studies are about
how regional research – research done in your own community – can contribute to
social change and improvements. Our CSU system has nine regional /
public research institutes, including the one at Sacramento State University mentioned in
Case Study 3.4, that relate to our studies of public Sociology and regional
research. Every
one of you can find yourself and your site in these case studies!
Case Study 3.1
focused on “place” based research and trying to understand how to build and
focus research on places rather than people. I really liked the graph on the
income diversity of neighborhoods (page 124). What is the income diversity of
the communities you serve in your internship? Is it different than where your
actual site is located? Connected to our lecture and topic this week is their
“take” on resiliency, which is based on neighborhoods (pages 127-128) – which
communities bounced back from the housing market crash?
Case Study 3.2
is an inspiring explanation of how CSU professors in Sacramento have spent the
last decade creating a regional portrait of thoughts and trends in their area.
It motivated me to ask my colleagues about doing something similar for North
County! Check out the way that undergraduates are involves and getting amazing
experiences from this project. Our very own National Latino Research Center
is very similar to this organization in the scope and importance of projects.
Case Study 3.3
focuses on how using regional, state, and even national data helped improve
conditions for Oregon in the middle of a food crisis. It was interesting to see
how the state government dealt with its image of being the “highest hunger
rates” (page 138).
Case Study 3.4
explains how they created an online resource to combat poverty in North
Carolina. It seems like Dr. Leslie Hossfeld is a one-woman public scholar
running an important website to help practitioners around her state help
advocate for and identify those in need of resources. Loved the story about
visual mapping – GSI – and am
inspired to learn from my
colleagues at CSUSM who are beginning a program on this area.
The final Case Study 3.5, is an
amazing “biography” of Dr. Paul Luebke, a Sociology professor who became a
state legislator in North Carolina. It was pretty amazing to read how a
professor / activist become a lawmaker!
Another connection to the
readings and your internship site…Think how and when research is collected at your work. Ask
your supervisors if they have ever done a “needs assessment” or “evaluation”
research project at your site. Ask if they have ever written a report based on
their clients and services. What type of data did they use? Was it
quantitative, qualitative, or both? Did they collect the data or did they rely
on outside sources, such as county data sets, state-wide statistics, or Census
data? Read those materials and use this
or next week in your community forums or journals.
Tattoo
Tales on “Compassion” (Chapter 3, pages 61-82)
Once again, this chapter “hit home” in terms how lovely it
fit into your own internship sites and with broadening our understanding of “at
risk.” Compassion requires that you reject the “at risk” label and any other
language that dehumanizes, “others” and otherwise reduces the chances of
individuals.
This week, instead of my comments for each quote, I present
my favorite “stand outs” and leave it up to you to apply them to your
experiences and your internship site!
When he moved when saw folks who
seemed like “sheep without a shepherd.” He had room fro everybody in his
compassion. (page
63, paraphrased)
After Betito was shot, paralyzed, and
then died, they found those who did it. “When they were caught and I found that
I knew them, it was excruciating not to be able to hate them.” (page 66)
It is the highest honing of
compassion that which is hospitable to victim and victimizer both? (page 67)
Said to Looney, just out of camp,
scared, and alone. “I know you think you are in a deep, dark hole, pero la
neta, you’re in a tunnel. It’s in the nature of tunnels that if you keep walking,
the light’s gonna show up. Trust me, I can see it – I’m taller than you are.” (page 70)
“[He] didn’t seek the rights of lepers, he
touched the leper before he got around to curing him. He didn’t champion the
cause of the outcast, he was the outcast. He didn’t fight for the improved
conditions for the prison, he simply said, ‘I was in prison.’”(page 72, paraphrased)
The stink of the church hadn’t
changed, only how folks saw it. The people at Dolores Mission had come to
embody Wendell Berry’s injunction: “You have to be able to imagine lives that
are not yours.”
(page 74)
Compassion is “dismantling of
barriers that exclude” and “ripping off the roof of the place, and those
outside being let in.”
(page 75)
Matteo, crying, has the Montana
newspaper on his lap: “I just read this article again. I don’t know….It really
gets to me.” He puts his hand over his heart. “Makes me feel like I am
somebody.” I lean across and whisper, “Well, that’s because you are somebody.”
Matteo and Julian had never been inside before. Now, a new place of fellowship
had been forged, some roof in Montana has been ripped right open, and those
outside have been let in. (page 79-80, paraphrased)
What do you
do to rip off the roof? How and when does your internship site rip its roofs
off? What are the effects? If it does not (or you don’t), how could you
envision a new practice or approach of compassion?
Conclusion
Phew! I feel like I packed a lot into this lecture. :-)
I look forward to seeing your reflections and reactions of
what you “digested” in this lecture when you write your community forums and
journals. I gave you various hints and
suggestions for you to connect it all together. See the hyper links embedded in
this lecture and the items I poste as additional material to help you further.
References
for At-Risk Critiques
Cinzia Pica-Smith1 & Carmen Veloria. 2012. “At risk means
a minority kid:” Deconstructing deficit discourses in the study of risk in
education and human
Services. Pedagogy and
the Human Sciences, 2, 1, 33-48.
Clark-Ibáñez, Marisol. 2008. Gender and being ‘bad’:
Inner-city students’ photographs, pp. 95-113. In Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People: Stories from the
Field, editor, Pat Thomas. Routledge Press.
Foster, Karen and Dale Spenser. 2011. At risk of what?
Possibilities over probabilities in the study of young lives. Journal of Youth Studies, 14, 1, 125
-143.
Riele, Kitty te. 2006. Youth `at risk': further marginalizing
the marginalized?
Journal of Educational Policy, 21, 129-145.
Swadener, Beth Blue. 2010. "At Risk" or "At
Promise"? From Deficit Constructions of the "Other Childhood" to
Possibilities for Authentic Alliances with Children and Families. International Critical Childhood Policy
Studies, 3,1, 7-29.