Final Presentation [DRAFT]

Here is the first draft of my final presentation.
As always, I am open to your feedback and constructive criticism.

Future Neighborhoods in the 22nd-century

What is a 21st-century neighborhood? How tied is it to the past? Why? What will a 22nd-century neighborhood look like? Is community dying, thriving, or just bumbling along, about the same now as always? Answer the above questions and be ready to talk in class about your final thoughts on Sampson's Chicago research and its relevance to communities generally.

Along with most of the students in the class, I am also relieved to be finished with this book. It was a challenging read, no doubt. However, I actually really enjoyed this chapter. It was short and sweet. I feel like the first chuck of this chapter could have even been inserted at the beginning of this book. It was nice to finally get a bigger picture as to the reason why Sampson wrote this book. I felt like I was navigating this book in the dark, but Sampson finally turned on the light in this chapter!

A 21st-century neighborhood is what Great American City is all about. These are the neighborhoods that exist today. Like Sampson covers throughout his book, these neighborhoods are deeply impacted by the past. Sampson argues that these neighborhoods are stable and the attitudes are constant. A lot of this has to do with the reputations of specific neighborhoods, and the existing perceptions of disorder. 

Sampson has high hopes for the neighborhoods of the 22nd century. In this chapter it becomes clear that he is passionate about his research for this reason. He hopes that his collection of data will be beneficial to the future development and restoration of communities. Sampson strongly believes that the time for change in now. The current approach to these social issues hasn't worked, and a more holistic approach is needed. If Sampson's hope is realized, then I would expect neighborhoods of the 22nd century to be more focused on community intervention and collective efficacy. There would be less crime because the community would help foster children in a positive way at a much younger age, and there would also be a better community-police relationship. 

After reading this book, I've come to the conclusion that indeed, community is not dying... but it's not necessarily thriving either. One thing is for certain though--it is changing, for better or for worse. The objective becomes more clear as research is conducted and data is collected. Interventions need to be made at the community level if social change is the goal. If we desire less violence within our communities, then our communities are where the change needs to take place. Sampson points out that there is this tendency to focus in on the individual, but really, the individual is just a product of the surrounding social structures. 

After the Storm: Chicago After the 2008 Financial Crisis

This was a lengthy chapter that covered a lot of ground. Basically, Sampson did a lot of summarizing from previous chapters and then integrated this material with the Chicago of 2010. In this chapter, I felt like Sampson was arguing that the aftermath of the 2008 economic crises had mixed results on the city. Sampson is saying that in a way, the impact of the 2008 economic crises has been bittersweet. In this chapter, Sampson asserts that "without challenge, efficacy loses meaning" (p. 400). With the data that Sampson provides in this chapter, I feel like I would have to agree with this belief. The economic crisis provided the communities of Chicago with a challenge--some communities became elevated, while other declined.  A little further on in the chapter, Sampson argues that "collective efficacy and organizational capacity reflect a deeply social and non-reductionist form of community well-being" (p. 403-04). In other words, I feel like Sampson is saying that how well a community is capable of coming together during a crisis reflects the health of that community. This seemed to be the key with various communities that Sampson examined. The communities that were capable of coming together with strong collective efficacy found themselves better off than those communities that remained disjointed and unorganized.

The additional source I found is an article taken from the Chicago Tribune that discusses how a non-profit organization was making an attempt to benefit from the 2008 crisis. The article talks about how a Chicago based Habitat for Humanity was able to buy pricier pieces of property for less thanks to the housing crisis. Again, this seemed a bit paradoxical to me. The housing crisis left thousands of people homeless, yet it also made it possible for this non-profit organization to buy land to build home for the disadvantaged. Is this part of the viscous cycle Sampson often talks about? It sounds like it to me. The article goes on to say how the real challenge for this organization was to get donations from struggling companies during this crisis. For the first time, the organization finds themselves capable of buying pricier land, yet they lack the resources to build homes on the purchased property. 

Mary Ellen Podmolik. "Housing Crisis Affords an Opening: Lower Values Help Habitat for Humanity's Efforts to Buy Land to Build Homes, but Donations are Drooping." Chicago Tribune: 1. 2008. Print.
In this chapter, Sampson asks the question, "why does violence unhinge some communities and draw others closer together?" I've given some thought to this question, but I haven't be able to come up with a solid answer. Again, I think it has a lot to do with the inner dynamics of the community facing the challenge. It would make sense that the communities with high collective efficacy would demonstrate more elasticity to issues such as violence. These are the communities containing activists with strong voices and deep concern for their communities. These are the communities with a strong resolve to get back up when they get knocked down. Put simply, these are the densely connected communities that refuse to give up.

Research Update: 

To be honest, my research hasn't changed much since last week. I find it difficult to focus on the research for my presentation while being expected to do my readings and post my blog responses. Trying to balance both can be challenging. Professor Jeffreys has suggested that I look into "before and after" studies that examine how smoking cessation has impacted the general community. I feel like this could be a good lead for my presentation, and intend to follow up with this research in the future. 

10th Blog: Research Updates

This week we've been asked to build a bibliography with sources that we can use in our future presentations. Professor Jeffreys, you've asked us to provide commentary on four different sources, two for each of our possible presentations. Since my research topic tends to integrate both of my emphases (Biology and Sociology) together, I was not sure how to proceed with this assignment. Because of this, I've decided to list the four sources I've found using the Summon search engine that apply to both of my emphases. 

For my presentation, I've decided to research how community characteristics (such as collective efficacy) influence smoking cessation efforts within the community. 

1. Social Norms, Collective Efficacy, and Smoking Cessation in Urban Neighborhoods.
   This journal article discusses how smoking is one of the most preventable causes of death in the modern world. It is well known that community support plays an important part in smoking cessation. Taking this a step further, researchers from this article examine the relationship between both social norms and collective efficacy with smoking cessation in urban neighborhoods. Participants were selected using a "random-digit-dial telephone survey of households in the 59 community districts across New York City." The results to this study were somewhat surprising to me. Researchers found that smoking cessation had less to do with the collective efficacy of local communities, and more to do with the social norms of the local communities. Smoking cessation was found to be more likely in neighborhoods where smoking was considered to be unacceptable, but no significant link was found between levels of collective efficacy and smoking cessation. To me, this research hints that collective efficacy might not be the magical "cure all" drug that Sampson tends to claim it is in "Great American City". 
   
   Karasek D, Ahern J, Galea S. Social norms, collective efficacy, and smoking cessation in urban neighborhoods. American journal of public health. 2012;102:343-e9.
   
   
2. Neighborhood smoking norms modify the relation between collective efficacy and smoking behavior
   
   
   After reading into this article, I found that this research is connected to the first source I've cited and includes some of the same researchers, but seems to have come before the article I cited above. I've decided to include this article, because it sheds more light on the possible link between collective efficacy and social norms in communities in relation to smoking cessation. The interesting thing I found in this article was that when the social norms of a community take a more passive, higher levels of collective efficacy were associated with more smoking. And on the other hand, when there were strong social norms against smoking, collective efficacy was associated with less smoking.  I feel like this association found between collective efficacy and social norms validates Sampson's research on the subject. Sampson states in "Great American City" that collective efficacy can be either a positive or a negative thing. This study demonstrates that well. 
   
   
   Ahern J, Galea S, Hubbard A, Syme SL. Neighborhood smoking norms modify the relation between collective efficacy and smoking behavior. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2009;100:138-145.
   
   
3. "Evaluating community-based programs for eliminating secondhand smoke using evidence-based research for best practices."
   
   This article goes off in the direction of secondhand smoke. I selected this article because secondhand smoke is an important topic to consider when talking about how smoking affects the overall health of a community. This article takes a look at the effectiveness of various community-based programs in eliminating second hand smoke. The researchers found that the highest increase for support in tobacco free establishments came from an increased acknowledgment of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke on children. This finding suggests a possible link between social altruism and smoking within communities. 
   Cramer, M., Roberts, S., & Xu, L. (2007). Evaluating community-based programs for eliminating secondhand smoke using evidence-based research for best practices.Family & Community Health, 30(2), 129-143. doi:10.1097/01.FCH.0000264410.20766.45
   
   
4. "Smoking in 6 Diverse Chicago Communities -- A Population Study."
   
   One of the reasons why I was drawn to this article is because it examines various communities in Chicago. In this study, researchers look at levels of variation in smoking for 6 diverse Chicago communities. They found that in wealthiest, mainly white community, smoking rates were around 18% and as high as 39% in the poorest, mostly black, community. The article goes on to discuss how less than 4% of the funds awarded to the state of Illinois from the Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement are currently being used towards tobacco prevention programs.  This shocked me, because the program I was previously involved in was also funded through MSA funds awarded to Utah (and we were running out of funds). This article suggests that "understanding community-level smoking rates could improve the allocation of resources and assist the shaping of culturally meaningful prevention efforts." This is of particular interest to me. 
   
   Dell, J. L., Whitman, S., Shah, A. M., Silva, A., & Ansell, D. (2005). Smoking in 6 diverse chicago communities--a population study. American Journal of Public Health, 95(6), 1036.
   
   

Leadership Elites: Like the Neurons in Your Brain

As I suggested in the reading assignment, I'd like you to post an entry putting forward your own responses (or positions) about the role of leadership elites in community contexts. Demonstrate familiarity with Sampson's chapter, but also express your own opinions clearly. When you're done with that part of the post, append a paragraph discussing how your own research for your presentation is going.

Leadership elites are found in every community, but the influence of these elite members is usually overlooked. As Sampson states in this chapter, we often think of the top roles such as President of the United States when thinking about elite leaders, but in reality there are countless other elite leaders networked together just below the role of President. I am in agreement with Sampson as to the strong influence elite leaders have on the communities around them.

Earlier on in Great American City, Sampson discusses the positive correlation that exists between the presence of organizations and collective efficacy within a community. Well, at the head of these various organizations sits one or perhaps several leadership elites. Taking this into consideration, it is not surprising to see a very similar correlation between elite leadership ties and collective efficacy within communities (see figure 14.4). 

Not everyone is destined to become an "elite" leader, which is why such leaders are considered to be elite. Leadership elites are few in number when compared to the population of the larger community, yet they often contribute more to the group than the average person. I feel like elite leadership ties within and between communities can be compared to the network of neurons within the brain that are responsible for proper function. Leadership elites all play different roles within a community, but collectively they create a synergy that either helps or harms the communities around them. Borrowing from the social journalist Malcolm Gladwell's book, The Tipping Point, I think of leadership elites as what Gladwell would call the "connectors" of society. These are the people that connect communities and contribute to the flow of communication between them. As Sampson states in this chapter, "where leadership connections are concentrated or less fragmented, we find better health and lower violence across the city. "  I feel like this is largely due to the increased flow of communication between the sociological institutions within the community. Like a well oiled machine, when all these institutions are communicating, larger goals can be accomplished. I assume that the well-being of the citizens within the community would be one of major concerns for these various institutions. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Research for my final presentation is going fairly well.  I feel like I've finally honed in on a specific topic to research and present for the class. Previous to college, I was involved with an anti-tobacco advocacy group, and the subject has always been of interest to me. By taking the topic of this class and blending it with my emphases in biology and sociology, I feel like I could come up with a solid presentation about smoking. I'm interested in how the presence of collective efficacy and social altruism impact tobacco smoking within the community. Sampson has given us all this data stating that better health is linked to collective efficacy, etc. Taking what we already know, I want to be more specific and find out how these factors influence tobacco cessation efforts within a community. 

Blog Response #8: Mobility and Division in Chicago

For me, I thought chapter 12 was more of a "duh" chapter. I didn't really feel like I gathered a whole lot of new info from this chapter, and I felt like a lot of it was self explanatory. When Sampson's data suggests that people are influenced to move based on the disorder and violence around them, I just though to myself "well, duh." What I did find interesting was the influence that the African American population has on a community. In chapter 12, Sampson states the following: 

The large effect of increases in percentage black on moving out was restricted to whites and Latinos  however, a modern day form of white but also Latino flight. Blacks did not move in response to changes in the percent black (or Latino), a clear indicator that racial composition of the neighborhood is less important for blacks than for other groups, an interpretation consistent with research showing that blacks are the group most willing to live in integrated communities (Sampson, 2012).

This quote really spoke to me. I was fairly surprised to that race is still such a significant factor in the development of communities. It's sad to realize that even though black's might be willing to live in integrated communities, the majority of Latinos and whites are not yet willing to do so. This no doubt has a negative impact on the collective efficacy within a community. In biology you learn that diversity is a sign of strength throughout nature. Diversity allows organisms to survive and better thrive under their given conditions. Organisms that are more exclusive tend to suffer and even become extinct in the long run. 

When it comes to humans, I suppose the issues become more complex. As discussed in chapter 6,  perceived disorder increases with increased ratios of blacks or immigrants within a neighborhood. Sampson's research revealed that blacks and immigrants also perceive higher levels of disorder in neighborhoods that have more immigrants or black individuals. Taking this into consideration, the reason why people chose to move to different neighborhoods becomes a little more clear. From a biological perspective, we know that survival is one of the fundamental goals for a species. Therefore, it makes sense that most humans will select neighborhoods where there is less perceived disorder. People (like other animals) tend to move to areas where they can reap the highest amount of benefit for themselves and their families. Those benefits might include security, financial stability, educational resources, etc.

We all feel strongly about our independence and the ability we have to make individual choices. However, according to Sampson in chapter 12, this idea of individual choice is more or less an illusion in relation to the bigger picture of community. Sampson argues that an individual's choices don't really have much sway towards the shaping of a neighborhood. This is the reason why most neighborhoods are able to hold on to their defining characteristics, regardless of who moves in or out of the area. It's still difficult for me to completely understand the reasons behind this, because I feel like the reactions of individuals within a community are personal decisions that in fact do influence and transform the communities they leave or enter. 

Blog Response #7: Prospective Presentation Sources

This week we've been asked to find a pair of sources for each of our emphases-- mine are Biology and Sociology. After spending some time on the Summon search engine, I dug up a few sources that I feel could lend a hand in my final presentation. 

Source #1:

Mitschow, Mark C.. Unfocused Altruism: The Impact of Iconography on Charitable Activity. Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 23, No. 1, Fifth Annual International Conference Promoting Business Ethics (Jan., 2000), pp. 73-82

This article explores the possible negative effects altruism can have on society if the altruism is unfocused. Researchers note the recent surge in societal concern for the disadvantaged and discuss the various measures being taken to help alleviate these disadvantages. The authors of this article note that while many programs have been successful in their aim to help resolve these issues, several have fallen short of the mark. The main point of this article is to show how "altruism without rigorous analysis can be dangerous to those in need of assistance" (Mitschow, 2000). I feel like this article highlights an important necessity for the success of social altruism within communities. On a macro level, social altruism requires careful planning and organizing to be successful. This lends to the Functionalist perspective of society within the science of Sociology. 

Souce #2: 

Nelissen, Rob M.A..The price you pay: cost-dependent reputation effects of altruistic punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 4, (July 2008), pp 242–248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.001

This article examines the cost-dependent reputation effects of altruistic punishment within today's society. The researchers conduct two experiments to test their prediction that the more one sacrifice to help others, "the greater their ensuing benefits" (Nelissen, 2008). I believe the research discussed in this article can help me show how strong social altruism within a community can greatly benefit that community. This is the second source I plan on using to help integrate my emphasis of sociology with community. 

Source #3:

Pottenger, L., et al. Altruism in Surgery of AIDS Patients. Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 9-18.

This source explores a more biological side of altruism and how it relates to surgery of patients with AIDS. Researchers examine the force that drives surgeons to perform elective procedures on asymptomatic AIDS patients. Legally, they are not required to perform elective procedures on such patients, and by opting to do so, but themselves and their team at risk for becoming infected. The force that compels these surgeons to operate is recognized as altruism, or compassion for the needs of others. I find the topic of this article to be fascinating and relevant to my desire to become a surgeon myself. I currently work in the operating room as a surgical technologist, so I am a part of the surgeon's surgical team that is put at risk during such surgeries. 

Source #4:

B Angel, et al. "Altruism Motivates Participation In A Therapeutic HIV Vaccine Trial (CTN 173)." AIDS Care 22.11 (2010): 1403-1409. CINAHL with Full Text. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.

This source examines another component of altruistic behavior relating to biology and HIV. The researchers for this article talk about the importance of fostering an altruistic response to HIV research so that there will be more of a willingness from volunteers to trial possible HIV vaccines. They note that most of those willing to participate note some level of personal risk by participating, but are willing to participate for the greater good of HIV research. I feel like this is an interesting study to examine because it examines how the altruistic motives of individuals can benefit humanity on a larger scale. 

Bonus Source:

Israel, S., et al. "Oxytocin, but not vasopressin, increases both parochial and universal altruism". Psychoneuroendocrinology, Vol. 37, No. 8 (August 2012) pp 1341-1344. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453012000546.

I decided to include this final source, because I feel like it can also contribute to a presentation involving my biology emphasis. Researchers examine how the administration of both oxytocin and vasopressin affect cooperation on local and global levels.  The resulting data shows a positive correlation between oxytocin levels and altruistic behavior, but not for vasopressin. They states that "oxytocin causes an increase in both the willingness to cooperate and the expectation that others will cooperate at both levels" (Israel, 2012). This study is interesting to me because it focuses more on the actual chemicals that influence altruistic behaviors in society. With further research in this area, Biology could eventually offer a substantial contribution towards the methods used boost social altruism within communities.