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. 

Social Altruism: Is it Good for Your Health? (Chapter 9 Response)

In this chapter, Sampson studies how collective efficacy, social altruism , and cynicism affect communities. By examining previous research, along with his own research, Sampson discovers that there is a definite link between these three issues. Sampson discovers that in the best communities, levels of collective efficacy and social altruism are high, while social cynicism is low. In struggling communities of poverty, these levels tend to be reversed. I found it interesting to read about the CPR and lost letter experiments and how the results from these experiments correlated with the collective efficacy Sampson had mapped for various neighborhoods throughout Chicago. 

The issue that I found of particular interest was that of social altruism. In this chapter, Sampson discovers that the communities with high levels of social altruism typically had better health and over all wellbeing. He illustrates this concept in figure 9.2 of the text. Homicide and teenage birthrates are significantly lower in communities with strong social altruism. Based on Sampson's findings, I decided to look up articles that research the link between strong social altruism and good health. 

My first source, from the Journal of Gerontology, examines how altruism relates to the health of ethnically diverse adults. The study examines the belief that social support and high social altruism results in lower morbidity rates, across various ethic groups. In the article titled, "Altruism Relates to Health in an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Older Adults", researchers collected data through face-to-face interviews with 1,118 older adults from Brooklyn, New York. The researchers produced data by using a demographic questionnaire, the CARE (Comprehensive Assessment and Referral Evaluation  instrument, and various databases. Through the analysis of  the compiled data, they were able to show that there is a positive link between the giving of social support and low morbidity. Interestingly enough, the researchers also state that "reciprocity was not a significant predictor of morbidity." This is an interesting highlight of the study. It suggests that issuing social altruism is much more significant in prolonging life than receiving social altruism. 

My second source examines the effects of social altruism on mental health. I decided that the mental side of health would be an interesting avenue to explore, considering how much mental health has been cited in recent criminal acts across the country. In the article titled, "Altruistic Social Interest Behaviors Are Associated With Better Mental Health", the researchers mail out questionnaires to participants selected from various religious communities to collect their data. This study found that both giving and receiving help correlated with better metal health. Like the previous study, the link between giving help was a more significant predictor of better overall health. In the discussion of this study, they state the following, "Our findings suggest that helping others is associated with higher levels of mental health, above and beyond the benefits of receiving help and other known psychospiritual  stress, and demographic factors." 

Both of the studies I reviewed find, like Sampson, that communities benefit from high levels of social altruism. However, the studies I researched suggest that the benefits might not be from what you'd expect. The more substantial benefit is connected to the giving of altruistic behaviors rather than receiving them. This was somewhat surprising to me. This suggests that when neighbors within a community are helping other people in their community, they are in turn helping themselves most. I can definitely see how this could foster a positive environment for the growth of collective efficacy and trust within a community. All of these things in turn can contribute to better community health overall, as Sampson simply illustrates at the end of the chapter in figure 9.3. 

Refrences: 

Brown W, Consedine N, Magai C. Altruism Relates to Health in an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Older Adults. Journals Of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences [serial online]. May 2005;60B(3):P143-P152. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 30, 2013.

"Altruistic Social Interest Behaviors Are Associated With Better Mental Health ."Psychosomatic Medicine . N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/65/5/778.full>

The Theory of Collective Efficacy

Deep into the depths of Sampson's research surrounding his collective efficacy theory (CET), it's nice to finally reach the chapter where he (more or less) explains this theory. As most of you should be aware by now, collective efficacy is the gem of Sampson's research in Chicago. The collective efficacy theory is Sampson's belief that collective efficacy is a significant (if not the most significant) factor in establishing specific, desirable shared norms within a community. In turn, the establishment of these specific norms within a neighborhood allows one to perceive the level of trust and shared expectations that exist within their community, regardless of the strength of their ties to the community. 

Through more research, Sampson supports his theory with surveys and data. In his survey, Sampson asks 5 questions concerning the shared expectations about social control within a neighborhood. I went ahead and answered these five questions to determine my perception of the neighborhood I inhabit. Corresponding with each question, my responses are as follows:

1. If children were skipping school and hanging out on the street corner, I do not feel like my neighbors would intervene.
2. If children were seen spray painting graffiti on a local building, I do believe that my neighbors would intervene.
3. If children were seen showing disrespect to an adult within the community, I feel like the responses would vary depending on the degree of disrespect. If the disrespect was minimal, I don't think most of my neighbors would take much notice.
4. If a fight broke out if front of one of my neighbors houses, I strongly believe that they would take action by calling the police.
5. If the fire station closest to home was threatened by budget cuts, I don't think that there would be much support from my neighbors to help raise funds.

In chapter seven, Sampson states that "research has demonstrated that an individual's socioeconomic status is positively linked to his or her sense of personal control, efficacy, and even biological health." Sampson goes on to suggest that "a similar process might work on a community level." 

By mapping the trends of collective efficacy in various communities throughout Chicago, Sampson is able to show the connection between collective efficacy and socioeconomic issues such as poverty and crime. In figure 7.4, Sampson is able to illustrate the correlation between poverty and collective efficacy. Areas with high poverty in the 70's correspond with the lowest scores of collective efficacy in 1995. 

Further on in the chapter Sampson demonstrates how collective efficacy "appears to exert a protective factor in confronting change." In figure 7.6, Sampson shows the trajectory of homicide decline in Chicago neighborhoods from 1996 to 2006. The results show that the neighborhoods that increased the most in collective efficacy and decreased the most in concentrated poverty showed the strongest decline within the span of ten years. On the other hand, the neighborhoods that experienced a decline in collective efficacy and a rise in concentrated poverty showed the weakest decline. These findings weren't surprising to me, because they supported what Sampson has been saying all along about the importance of collective efficacy. 

In this chapter, Sampson explains that the research done in Chicago has been expanded and replicated internationally in several cities around the world. I took a closer look at the results of the mentioned research being done in Brisbane, Australia. 

In The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, I found a study titled: Community Variations in Violence: The Role of Social Ties and Collective Efficacy in Comparative Context. This study was put together by Lorraine Mazerolle, Rebecca Wickes and James McBroom and originally published online in 2009. In this study, the researchers surveyed 2,859 people from 82 different communities in Brisbane and combined their results with police records to produce graphs similar to those that Sampson shows in chapter 7. In this particular study, the researchers note that certain variables are very significant, such as gender and age. Both older people and women were found to report higher levels of collective efficacy within their communities. They also show that just like in Sampson's research, higher household incomes and owning one's house result in higher collective efficacy. Although the total rate of reported crime in Brisbane is three time lower than Chicago, and two and a half time lower than Stockholm, the correlations between spatial variations in crime correlated with both of these other studies. In conclusion, these researchers note that their research (along with the research in Stockholm and Chicago) "does point to a possible converging of cross-national differences in the collective control of crime problems in contemporary society."

What I found to be most interesting part of this chapter is the link Sampson mentions between collective efficacy and health issues such as asthma and AIDS.  With an emphasis in biology, these concepts are of more interest to me. Since collective efficacy theory seems to have an effect on issues outside the scope of crime and poverty, the results of Sampson's research could end up being far more important than he once imagined. I'm excited to read more research on how collective efficacy influences health issues like these in our society!

Works Cited: 

Mazerolle L., Wickes R., McBroom J., Community variations in violence: The role of social ties and collective efficacy in comparative context (2010) Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,  47  (1) , pp. 3-30.

The Appearance of Disorder

Chapter 6, from Great America City, was one of the more enjoyable chapters that I've read from this book. This is likely due to the fact that I happen to have more background knowledge on the "Broken Windows Theory." Because of this, it was easier for me to follow along and understand what Sampson was talking about, which was a nice change. 

In this chapter, it quickly becomes apparent that Sampson doesn't subscribe (at least not completely) to the theory of "Broken Windows". However, it takes a while to understand his reasoning. I personally had embraced this theory before reading the chapter, so  at first, I was reluctant to throw it out. 

Sampson argues that it's not so much disorder itself that is the main causal factor for public issues such as crime. Instead, Sampson suggests that its the appearance of disorder that plays a more crucial role.  It is in this idea of the perception of disorder, in which Sampson places his thesis.  His thesis proposes that "perceptions of disorder constitute a fundamental dimension of social inequality at the neighborhood level and perhaps larger areas." 

As the chapter continues, Sampson begins to back up his thesis with buckets of data. For me, I found the data illustrated in figures 6.4 and 6.6 to be especially interesting. Figure 6.4 shows the differences in perceived disorder from black vs whites and immigrants in neighborhoods of varying race ratios. I was surprised to learn that perceived disorder  increases with increased ratios of black or immigrant within a neighborhood, across the spectrum. Sampson's research reveals that blacks and immigrants also perceive higher levels of disorder in neighborhoods that have more immigrants or black individuals. I would not have expected such a blatant portrayal of inequality in a modern America city such as Chicago.  

In figure 6.6, Sampson illustrates how socially perceived disorder can accurately predict later poverty on the community level. The graph clearly demonstrates the legitimacy of perceived disorder within local communities. Prior to reading this chapter, I never would have thought that perception could have such a powerful impact on social issues. 

After finishing this chapter, I searched Google for an article on the subject, and found an article titled, Can You Tell How Dangerous A Neighborhood Is From Just A Picture?. The article explains a fascinating research project currently being done involving Google Maps. César A. Hidalgo from MIT has created a web tool that shows users various images of New York neighborhoods (taken from Google Maps). The tool compares images of different neighborhoods while asking users questions that reveal the users perception of the pictures shown.  In some ways, the research being compiled by this program brings validity to the broken windows theory. The author of the article explains:

"Hidalgo’s team actually found a strong correlation between incidence of violent crime and perceptions of danger based on visual cues, which could support BWT, or perhaps the inverse--that people avoid unattractive neighborhoods, making them unsafe. 'There’s not a unique explanation of the correlation that will serve,' Hidalgo explains. 'Both explanations are perfectly reasonable. There could be a third variable that is causing this correlation,' he adds."

In a way, Hidalgo's research supports Sampson's theory and the broken windows theory at the same time. I also like how he suggests that there could be a third variable causing the correlation. I'm interested to see how this research will develop and how it might support or influence future research for Sampson. 

Finally, I consider my major emphasis, Biology and Sociology and how they can relate to this research. In this chapter I was able to make clear connections to both. Making the connection to Sociology is relatively easy since most of the issues being studied are social issues. Although I don't fully comprehend all of the reading, I feel like Sampson's research is a good intro into sociology for me. It's fascinating to see how the cohesion of different communities affect surrounding neighborhoods as a whole. It's more difficult for me to relate biology to these issues, but when I consider the connections a community shares, it becomes a little easier. Perhaps the evolution of communities can be compared to the evolution of species, where the best characteristics will produce the most beneficial results. Sampson hints towards the end of this chapter that collective efficacy could be one of these beneficial characteristic. 

Blog Response #3 - Poverty Traps

For this response, we were asked to read chapter 5 from "Great American City" as well as the NYT article: The Death and Life of Chicago. These two sources provide very different frames of reference for the same issue of "poverty traps". After reading the material, I've come to realize that there's more than one way to approach the problem, and no single approach will successfully fix it all.

In Chapter 5 of "Great American City," Sampson never really subscribes to a specific approach for facing the issue. Rather, Sampson explores the various dynamics of "poverty traps" and carefully outlines the variables associated with these traps.  Sampson states that although change is definitely occurring, "inequality is stubbornly persistent". With the data provided, it is clear to see that, for the most part, small changes are insignificant in long run. Sampson argues that often times, a greater power  (such as government) is needed to make a lasting difference in these poverty trapped communities. It was with this mindset that I dug into the NYT article, The Death and Life of Chicago.

Like some of my classmates, I too felt a sense of frustration as I read about J.R. and his noble activism in Chicago. Here we read about an individual who rises up to the challenges he sees within his community. Instead of analyzing data and theorizing about possible solutions, J.R. faces these problems head on. I'm impressed with the progress he's been making on a local scale. However, if we assume the data Sampson presents with his research is correct, then it's only a matter of time before this progress J.R is making in the community reverts back to what it once was. 

It is frustrating to know that all of the hard work done by these people could be in vain. Yet, I don't believe that it is all in vain, even if these areas remain in poverty. The article mentions how these projects are getting the people in these communities involved. In other words, the Anti-Eviction Campaign is building collective efficacy within these communities. People are starting to take pride and ownership in their neighborhoods... now if only they had a way to keep the ball rolling. As stated in the article, companies like Citibank are starting to take notice, and this leaves me hopeful. 

After reading these articles, I feel like a grassroots movement such as the Anti-Eviction Campaign is the right way to get things started. Get the communities passionately involved with the work, then slowly begin to integrate assistance from larger entities such as government to help support the progress being made. 

Alright, now lets move on to the most "blighted neighborhood" I've ever known...

I'm not sure if this will qualify, but the most blighted neighborhood I've ever known is not found in the US, rather in the Philippines. A few years ago I spent a few months in a the city of Tarlac, located on the main island of the Philippines, north of Manila. This city was by far the most blighted city I've ever visited. I'd have to say a major factor to this was the general state of poverty around the city. Another key factor seemed to be the disorganized, corrupt political groups managing the city. Interestingly enough, despite the prevalent poverty, this city also contained the most interconnected networks of people that I've ever seen. Based on what I observed during my visit, I think that solving the poverty traps of this city would definitely require an organized approach on a larger governmental scale. That being said, the people of the neighborhoods would definitely need to be engaged in the rebuilding process for a permanent change to be achieved. 

Developing a collective efficacy within communities is essential to developing a lasting change. Without it, what's to stop these neighborhoods from falling back into the "poverty traps" we've discussed? 

Alright, Here We Go!

My name is Garett Smith. I was born in the Ogden valley and grew up in a small city just west of Ogden known as West Haven. After graduating high school, I happily swapped the snowy winter mountains for the scorching summer sun of St. George. This is my third year at Dixie State, and I look forward to completing this year and inching closer to my degree. After I finish my Bachelor's degree, I plan on applying to medical school to study ophthalmology. Instead of majoring in Biology like the majority of pre-med students, I've decided to major in Integrated Studies with an emphasis in Biology and Sociology!

 Anyway, that's a little about me, now let's jump to the blog response...


When I think about a neighborhood, I think of a specific geological area where a group of people live.  Other than sharing a physical location, a group of people that live within a neighborhood don't necessarily have to have a lot in common. These people might not even associate with one another very frequently. On the other hand, people within a community may be farther apart physically, but tend to interact with each other more often. A community sometimes consists of neighborhoods, but not exclusively. Communities can be large or small, and are formed for a variety of reasons. However, all communities exist as a way for individuals to interact with other's who share similar interests and/or goals. 

After reading the Discover Magazine article and the forward to Sampson's book, I was intrigued about the topic of community.  It's fascinating to read about Sampson's research and the emphasis he puts on this sense of collective efficacy. It's interesting to think about the influence neighborhoods can have on a community as a whole. The more individuals care about their communities as a whole, the more it influences the neighborhoods they inhabit. It appears that when neighborhoods successfully become close knit communities, trust develops and negative aspects such as violence rapidly decline.