Mapping Cultural and Network Assets in Three

Chicago Communities

Hank GreenDepartment of Speech Communication

Team Engineering CollaboratorySONIC-Science of Networks in Communities

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

This research (CC 035) is supported by the Rockefeller Foundation’s Creativity and Culture Group

Acknowledgments

• Rockefeller Foundation

• The Field Museum, Chicago

– Center for Community Understanding and Change

• Science of Networks in Communities Research Group (SONIC)

• Field researchers from UIC, UIUC, UC, Northwestern

• UIUC Department of Speech Communication

Center for Cultural Understanding and Change

– CCUC is a science-in-action center of cultural and visual anthropologists at the Chicago Field Museum.

• research-informed

• participatory

• media-varied

• focused on how science can transform social landscapes.

– CCUC uses action-oriented research strategies and works collaboratively with:

• Chicago community-based organizations • City Agencies • Non-governmental Organizations in Latin America

The UIUC-Field MuseumCollaboration

• One-year rapid ethnography and network analysis

• Provides more comprehensive analysis of transnational migrant strategies.

• Brings network theory and social network analysis to bear on policy formulation for transnational immigrant communities

• Creates a visual tool that facilitates communication of research findings

So What if You Know Somebody Who Knows Somebody?

-Chicago Tribune

January 18, 2006

Examples of Enabling Networks

• Transnational Immigrant Networks, Rockefeller Foundation

• Emergency Response Networks, NSF

• Networks in Cybercommunities, NCSA/NSF

• Tobacco Surveillance, Research & Evaluation Networks, NCI/NIH

• Public Radio Exchange, Minnesota Public Radio

• Communities of Practice Networks, Procter &Gamble

• Food Safety Networks, UIUC Cross-campus Initiative, John Deere

• Global Supply Chain Infrastructure, Vodafone

Research Objectives

• Identify cultural, artistic, and networking capacities and assets of post-NAFTA Mexican migrants.

• Analyze how these capacities buffer challenges or obstacles faced by migrants as they traverse the transnational landscape. 

• Investigate how cultural knowledge is distributed throughout transnational migrant networks

• Understand new forms, new applications of existing forms, and emerging hybrids to explore identity formation, community building strategies, and creative potential of migrants.

Network Assets

• Network Content– Homophily, heterophily– Network Diversity– Organizational/Institutional Contacts– Transnational Contacts– Inter-Ethnic Contacts– Strength and Intensity of Relationships

• Network Structure– Multiplexity of Relationships– Density, Centrality, Centralization– Scanning, Absorptive Capacity, Robustness, Diffusion,

Vulnerability

Why do actors create, maintain, dissolve, and reconstitute network links?

• Theories of self-interest

• Theories of social and resource exchange

• Theories of mutual interest and collective action

• Theories of contagion• Theories of balance• Theories of homophily• Theories of proximity• Theories of co-evolution

Source: Monge, P. R. & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of Communication Networks. New York:Oxford University Press.

Transnational and Immigrant Networks:

Where do Cultural and Artistic Practices Engage?

Deciding to migrate

Making a Living

Making a ‘Better Life’

?

?

Deciding to MigrateThemes in Previous Research

• In most cases, individuals migrate – to improve their financial situation– as a result of connections to others (generally kin)

who have already migrated to the United States.

(See Phillips & Massey, 2000; Massey et al.,1994; Davis &

Stecklov et al., 2002)

Deciding to Migrate Themes in Previous Research

Key Theoretical Perspectives

• Neoclassical economics: international migration as a simple sum of individual cost-benefit decisions undertaken to maximize expected income through international movement

• Segmented labor market theory: immigration as demand-driven, built into the economic structure of advanced industrial societies

• World systems theory: international migration follows directly from the globalization of the market economy

• Network theory: interpersonal ties between migrants, former migrants, and non-migrants in origin and destination increase likelihood of emigration by lowering costs, mitigating risk, and increasing [expected] benefits

Source: Massey et al. 1994

Deciding to Migrate Themes in Previous Research

• Network theory of migration is a big improvement over existing push and pull theories of migration, including world systems theory.

(Source: Light et al., 1989)

Making a Living IThemes in Previous Research

• By being enmeshed in a multiplex social network, immigrants are able to compensate for low social and human capital.

• Strong ties are of much greater importance for immigrants

than the general population because of low levels of social and human capital that these individuals typically possess. (Waldinger, 1999)

• It is the spatial concentration of immigrants that leads to an increased reliance on people of similar origin for survival and the reciprocity implicit in the exchange of social capital that allows immigrant networks to aid members (Coleman, 1988; Portes, 1995; Rogers & Henning, 1999).

Making a Living IIThemes in Previous Research

• Migration networks feed information to immigrants.• The information flows follow the migration network for

natural reasons. • The migration network is a frequently used channel of

communication along which all kinds of messages easily and inexpensively flow.

• The migration network’s messages are credible because of the relationships of mutual trust that link members.

• Migration networks also provide access to various kinds of mutual aid and assistance other than and in addition to information.

(Light et al., 1989)

Making a Living IIIThemes in Previous Research

• Networks improve the efficiency of searches or increase the actual supply of opportunities, or both. Improving searches enables migrants to find jobs and housing faster, more reliably, and with less effort.

• Improving searches either brings immigrants into unfilled vacancies in the job market or it transfers opportunities from natives to immigrants.

• Such a service makes the networks an ethnic resource of the immigrant population.

(Light et al., 1989)

Making a “Better Life” IThemes in Previous Research

• As migrants develop more [socio-economically] diverse networks, they gain access to better paying jobs, thus more financial security.

(Dominguez & Watkins, 2003)

Making a “Better Life” IIThemes in Previous Research

• Individuals with homogeneous networks (like many Latinos in the United States) may have trouble accessing resources and information they need to succeed.

(Schweizer et al., 1998; Fitzgerald, 2004; Raijman & Tienda, 2003; Mirowsky, 1984; see also Fernandez-Kelly, 1990)

Making a “Better Life” III Themes in Previous Research

Bridging and BondingA concept from Ferdinand Tonnies’ On Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (1963)

• Bonding refers to building relationships with people like one’s self (a.k.a. Gemeinschaft).

• Bridging refers to building relationships with people different from one’s self (a.k.a Gesellschaft).

Cultural and Artistic Practices Themes in Previous Research

• Participation in formal and informal arts practice diversifies a participants' social network.

(Wali et al., 2001)

Network Composition Hypotheses

• Individuals’ Artistic and Cultural Practices will be positively correlated with– Network Heterophily– Network Heterogeneity– Strength and Intensity of Relational Ties– Organizational Ties– Income Level– Employment– Educational Attainment

Network Structure Hypotheses

•Social Networks of Culturally and Artistically Active People will be more

– Multiplex– Connected to external sources of information– Able to distribute information quickly– Likely to maintain relational ties– Able to withstand loss of links or nodes

Organizational Network Hypotheses

• Artistic and Cultural Organizations will link individuals to each other, and will tie individual to other important organizations such as social services, schools, labor organizations, etc.

• Artistic and Cultural activities may comprise a large part of ‘bridging and bonding’ activities.

MIA Methods

• 3 Focus groups • Extended interviews with 50+ key informants

from focus groups• Participant observation at approximately 75

public events, social gatherings, work places and domestic milieus

• Ethnography and network elicitation (targeting 120 respondents)

• Network visualization and analysis• Multi-media results presentation

(see Agar, 1996: The Professional Stranger)

Focus Groups

• Conduct focus groups to generate lists of key people, places, and events in the Mexican/Mexican-American community in Chicago

• places where recent immigrants ‘bridge’ and ‘bond’

• Ethnographers follow up focus groups by interviewing key informants

Participant Observation

• Ethnographers conduct participant observation in three Chicago neighborhoods

• South Chicago• Albany Park (North Side)• Aurora (Western Suburb)

Three Chicago Communities

Albany Park

South ChicagoAurora

Network Asset Mapping Exercise: NAME

• Ethnographers contact participants and administer network questionnaire with tablet PCs.

• Ethnographers conduct interviews about network assets.– Institutional/Organizational Ties– Personal contacts

Organizational NAME

• Conducted with 25 key organizations in the Chicago Mexican Community– Based on a list derived from focus groups,

ethnographers’ notes, and CCUC research (the list contained 159 organizations).

– Organizations chosen to reflect the relative frequencies of each type of organization in the list. (PPS)

• Churches, schools, social services, artistic and cultural organizations, informal organizations, social clubs, labor organizations, etc.

– Sample is non-random, to facilitate the ‘rapid ethnography’ approach.

Organizational NAME

• Organizational Social Networks

– Providing Resources

– Receiving Resources

– Reasons for Not Collaborating

– Organizational Demographics

Individual NAME

• Conducted with 77 informants chosen in a stratified approach– 2/3 chosen using randomized spatial approaches

developed for the locations determined to be key for Mexican immigrant activity

• Churches• Sporting Events• Workers’ Rights Groups• Social Services• ESL Classes• Arts/Cultural Events

– 1/3 chosen by ethnographers from their key informants

Individual NAME

• Immigrant social networks– Who immigrants talk with

• cultural participation, jobs, social services, church, informal artistic activities

– Which events they attend– What organizations they contact– What technologies they use

• Compare across respondents• Innovative visual data entry approach

Substantive Outcomes

• Baseline data on Chicago immigrant networks and cultural practices to supplement data on economic, and political dimensions of social life

• Explore network assets of recent Mexican Immigrants– Content– Structure

• Understand how arts and cultural activities enable (and are enabled by) network assets, leading to “Better Lives”

Methodological Outcomes• Integrate qualitative ethnographic research

methods, network analysis, and geographical information into a new research tool

• Introduce a scalable methodology for mapping cultural and network assets

• Develop metrics analyzing cultural and network assets to better inform policy decisions

• Create a multi-media research report incorporating visual and audio documentation, network graphs, and asset maps.

Initial Findings

Overall Summary of MIA Activities

Arts and Culture Activities

Organizational Connections

Organization Name None Some Alot AnyOrganization Type

El Valor 7 14 3 17 Social Service

Mexican Fine Arts Center Museum 9 10 5 15 Arts/Culture

Mujeres Latinas en Accion 9 9 6 15 Social Service

Centro Comunitario Juan Diego 11 11 2 13Community Center

Hoy 11 10 3 13 Media

Centro sin Fronteras 11 9 4 13 Social Service

Progreso Latino 11 9 4 13 Social Service

Casa Aztlan 11 8 5 13Cultural Association

Alivio Medical Center 12 7 5 12 Social Service

Little Village Community Development Corporation 12 5 7 12

Neighborhood Association

Distribution of Organizational Ties

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89 100 111 122 133 144 155 166 177 188 199 210 221 232 243 254 265 276 287 298

Organizations

Men

tio

ns

Organizational Interaction Summary

ACTIVITYPercentage of Organizations

Publicize cultural or social events for 50.00%

Refer clients to 42.93%

Provide information 33.84%

Plan and organize social or cultural events 26.92%

Provide expertise 20.23%

Provide meeting space 17.68%

Volunteer time 15.27%

Provide materials and equipment 9.16%

Donate funds 6.82%

Help raise funds for 6.45%

Provide transportation 3.05%

Reasons for No Collaboration

REASON Percentage

Don't know of organization 68.89%

No reason to collaborate 18.58%

No personal contact 7.20%

Other reasons 3.49%

Geographic constraint 1.42%

Disagree with mission 0.28%

Personal Problem 0.11%

Bad Experience 0.03%

Respondent Demography

• 100% are Mexican Immigrants• 69% are female• Most respondents live in

– South Chicago (16%)– Rogers Park (11%)– Back of the Yards (8%)

• Most respondents worked in– South Chicago (11%)– Cicero (8%)– Pilsen (8%)– Rogers Park (8%)

• 59% have some college education or a college degree• 50% of respondents are married, 33% are single

– 100% of married individuals report a spouse living in the US

Artistic and Cultural Practices

INDIVIDUAL ARTS ACTIVITY YES NO RANK

Attend informal artistic or cultural activities? 77.61% 22.39% 1

Attend formal artistic or cultural activities? 71.64% 28.36% 2

Participate informal artistic activities? 70.15% 29.85% 3

Participate in formal artistic and cultural activities? 56.72% 43.28% 4

Create arts or crafts? 56.72% 43.28% 5

Artistic and Cultural Linkages

Attending Artistic and Cultural Practices with Friends

• 77% of the social relationships that respondents reported involved attending artistic and/or cultural activities (n=379)

• Of that 77%– 46% involved attendance a few times a year– 26% involved attendance a few times a month– 13% involved attendance a few times a week

Other Activities

• 87% report learning artistic or cultural practices from their friends

• 57% report participating in informal artistic activities

• 44% report attending work or union meetings with friends

• 37% report participating in formal artistic or creative activities

Contacts’ Perceived Knowledge

ACTIVITY None Some Lots Any

Schools 20.62% 49.05% 30.33% 79.38%

Outdoor activities and open public spaces 20.97% 54.77% 24.26% 79.03%

Jobs and employment 22.18% 49.74% 28.08% 77.82%

Artistic and creative activities 24.96% 45.41% 29.64% 75.04%

Financial issues, loans, and/or transfers 28.08% 46.27% 25.65% 71.92%

Health and social services 28.08% 50.26% 21.66% 71.92%

Adult education or ESL language classes 28.94% 44.54% 26.52% 71.06%

People and events in Mexico 29.46% 44.54% 26.00% 70.54%

Neighborhood information or organizing 31.72% 42.11% 26.17% 68.28%

Church and religious information 32.06% 43.85% 24.09% 67.94%

Citizenship and immigration services 32.76% 42.81% 24.44% 67.24%

Contacts’ Perceived Organizational Connections

ORGANIZATION TYPEPercent of Total Possible Contacts with Connections

Schools 54.22%

Parks 47.19%

Churches 46.88%

Social clubs 39.69%

Arts centers 38.13%

Informal arts groups 36.56%

Cultural centers 35.31%

Community centers 34.69%

Social service providers 32.81%

Healthcare 32.03%

Banks 31.41%

Work and workers rights 26.56%

Businesses 25.47%

News media 25.00%

Neighborhood assns 24.06%

Hometown associations 14.69%

Respondents’ Contacts Summary

• Communication and Travel– 73% were known before the respondent moved to the US

(generally talking a few times a week)– 57% maintain contact with Mexico (generally talking a few times a

month)– 56% report not visiting Mexico since immigrating.

• Of those that do, most only go once a year

• Ethnicity– 88% are Hispanic– 9% are White

• Gender– 56% are female

• Employment/SES– 76% are employed

Initial Policy Suggestions

• Support institutions that serve as critical sites for cultural translation, and the individuals within them who are bridges between recent Mexican immigrants and the Chicago community.

• Convene gatherings Mexican Federations and other Mexican-serving organizations in Chicago as way to support their work and increase awareness in the community.

• Support already identified successful informal arts and culture activities involving recent Mexican immigrants in the Chicago area, most in churches, schools, etc.

• Increase formal arts opportunities for teachers, parents, and children.

Key Contributions of This Project

• Integrate quantitative and qualitative methods - social network and ethnographic analyses

• Focus on creative, artistic, and cultural practices

• Highlight activities in Chicago• Combine skills of UIUC with The Field

Museum’s Center for Cultural Understanding and Change

Other Modes of Dissemination

• Report to Rockefeller and the Chicago Community

• Community Activities– Arts Activities

• Murals• Plays• Store-front Displays

• Interactive Web Site– Asset Maps– Interactive Ethnography

Asset Map

Albany Park

South ChicagoAurora

Interactive Network Ethnography

Personal Information

Interactive Network Ethnography

NetworkAssets

Interactive Network Ethnography

Ethnographic Vignettes

Interactive Network Ethnography

Photographs

Interactive Network Ethnography

Organizational Information

Interactive Network Ethnography

Network Assets

Interactive Network Ethnography

Organizational Vignettes

Interactive Network Ethnography

Events, Photographs,

Resources, Web Links

Interactive Network Ethnography

Linkage Knowledge: Relation Type,

Intensity, Frequency, Direction of Flow

Organization Type Total Percentage Sample Size

arts center 6 3.773584906 1.886792453 2

bank/financial inst 1 0.628930818 0.314465409 0

business 6 3.773584906 1.886792453 2

church 16 10.06289308 5.031446541 5

community center 6 3.773584906 1.886792453 2

community leader 14 8.805031447 4.402515723 4

cultural assn 25 15.72327044 7.86163522 8

home town assn 3 1.886792453 0.943396226 1

informal assn 4 2.51572327 1.257861635 2

labor organization 10 6.289308176 3.144654088 3

media 5 3.144654088 1.572327044 2

neighborhood assn 11 6.918238994 3.459119497 4

parks 1 0.628930818 0.314465409 0

school 12 7.547169811 3.773584906 4

social club 2 1.257861635 0.628930818 0

social service 35 22.01257862 11.00628931 11

Grand Total 159 50