People may not like my politics but I do try to represent what goes onto this blog honestly. I think it is only fair to share this post from Debra Shutika’s blog with the contributors on our blog. It explains a great deal about the study that they did. Apparently, the News and Messenger also set the stage for some very bad press.
These women worked hard and deserve to have their point of view heard without the filter of those with not-so-hidden agendas. If residents of the greater Manassas area truly want to have their community problems solved, it makes sense, at least to me, to talk with people who at least will listen to you, such as these to researchers. Please read the entire post before commenting:
From Debra Shutika:
To my readers:
Yesterday a local Virginia newspaper ran a story in response to a a press release regarding research that I and my colleague, Carol Cleaveland, had conducted in Manassas in 2008 and 2009. We are ethnographers, which means we utilize ethnography as our primary research method. Ethnography is a research method often used in the social sciences, particularly anthropology, folklore and sociology, but also in a variety of other fields. The goal of ethnography is to gather data that is in-depth and from a small group of people. Usually this would be a local community, a neighborhood, or even a small town. Data collection is done a number of ways: participant observation (where the researcher lives alongside his or her informants and documents day-to-day life and activities), but also interviews and questionnaires. The purpose of an ethnographic account is to describe those who are studies (i.e., the people or ethnos) and to document this through writing, thus the term, ethnography.
We began our work in Manassas in the Weems neighborhood and Sumner Lakes in March 2008. During that period, we interviewed 100 household that were randomly selected. These households were non-immigrant households. The householder had to be able to speak English fluently to participate. The summary of that research is highlighted this statement that I made earlier this year:
“Our research suggests that the changes that have taken place in Manassas in the last 20 years have been unsettling for some residents,” says Debra Lattanzi Shutika, assistant professor of English at Mason. “Many of these residents seemed to be experiencing what I have identified as a type of ‘localized displacement’—they feel out of place in their home community. In some cases, residents told us that they found it difficult to adapt to the changes taking place around them, and that these changes that made their ‘home’ seem unfamiliar.”
Throughout this phase of the research, we asked residents about a number of changes in their community. What we found is that Manassas had changed significantly over the last 20 years, and many residents viewed those changes as unsettling. We also discovered that a majority of the people we talked to had strong negative feelings about immigrants. We interviewed 103 households and then went back and did an additional 30 in-depth interviews. These ranged from 1-3 hours in length, depending on the informant.
In the second phase of this study, we went into two predominantly Latino neighborhoods and interviewed a non-random sample of residents. There we interviewed 60 people. These residents reported feeling alienated from the community, and in some cases, extreme fear. What I told Ms. Chumley when I spoke to her on Monday was, although it was not surprising that an undocumented person would feel frightened by the law, we were not expecting DOCUMENTED LATINOS, of which there are many in the area, to feel this way. In fact, the responses of the documented indicated that they were just as likely to fear leaving their homes or sending their children out to play as others. [Note: for reasons of confidentiality, we did not directly ask people about their documentation status. However, those who were documented were forthcoming about their residency status.]
When I read Ms. Chumley’s article, I was disappointed with her report because she clearly misrepresented our work. For instance, both Prof. Cleaveland and I told her that we understood the frustrations of Manassas residents who were distressed with changes in their neighborhoods, such as having neighbors who did not cut their grass, had too many cars parked around their homes, and left trash unattended around their homes and on their laws. For my part, most of the work that I have done in the last 15 years with immigration has focused equally on American-born residents in new destinations of Mexican migration. I recently published an essay on this, which is linked here.
In short, I may disagree with some of my informants about their perspectives on immigration, but that is not to say that I don’t think their perspectives should be ignored. I honestly think that one of the major reasons why immigration has become such a volatile topic is because for too long residents complaints about the changes to their communities and the legitimate problems that come with a rapid increase in an immigrant population have been ignored by their local government.
And please note: Prof. Cleaveland and I did not have to go into Weems or Sumner Lakes and do interviews. We could have followed the path of many of our colleagues and only focused on the perspectives of Latinos. We could also have simply published our work in peer-reviewed journals and no one would have questioned us regarding why we did not talk to American-born residents. However, we decided that, in light of the ordinances, the people in these communities deserved to have a say, and we gave them the opportunity to share their perspectives.
Getting back to the article written by Ms Chumley yesterday, there were a number of errors in it, and in places she clearly misrepresented us. Prof. Cleaveland and I wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper, and to date we have not had a response from the editor or Ms. Chumley. Below is a excerpt from that letter:
We agreed to an interview with Cynthia Chumley on the assumption that as a reporter, she would adhere to basic principles of fairness. Reporters are taught early on in journalism programs to offer subjects of an article the chance to respond to allegations–especially those that can harm the reputation of people either professionally or personally. This reporter has quoted two public officials, including one who made serious allegation about the scientific merits of our research.
This reporter made no effort to allow us the opportunity to respond.
The following are our concerns:
- Though we stated repeatedly in our interviews that our work also focused on non-Latino views of the situation in PWC and Manassas, and that we both understood and sympathized many resident frustration, she chose to leave these comments out of the article.
- This reporter never allowed us the opportunity to respond to allegations that our work is not scientific and our methodology is flawed
- This reporter quotes a public official who does not appear to have the credentials to evaluate scientific research, and gives him a platform for alleging that our work has no merit.
- Chumley describes one researcher as a “professional social worker,” which appears to be a deliberate effort to ignore the fact that Cleaveland has a Ph.D. in the field, and is therefore a social scientist.
- She also questions the use of ethnographic methodology, a method of inquiry developed at the University of Chicago in the 20th century, and which continues to be practiced and refined by social scientists.
- It is apparent from the article that Ms. Chumley’s intention was to created a controversy about our work, specifically by characterizing our research as having a specific agenda–to oppose the PWC ordinances–which we clearly and repeatedly told her in the interview as not the case.
- Although we strongly disagree with Ms. Chumley’s methods and characterization of our work, we would like the opportunity to share our research with your readers. We are willing to write a brief op-ed piece that accurately describes our methods, purpose and findings to set the record straight.
- As scholars of immigration, and as advanced scholars in our prospective fields, we both recognize that some readers will disagree with our research and our findings. However, we cannot allow your publications to mischaracterize our work and allow those claims to go unchallenged.
In general,
Each time Corey passes along a colleague’s personal email, criticizes an employee in open forum, calls a constituent a loon or a fruitcake or an illegal alien apologist, he will have even more explaining to do when he wants to be re-elected. He has been around just long enough to show his true colors and many in his own party now see him for what he is. I expect there will be lots of crossing party lines in 2011. And our files are thick and open to his opponent.
Emma, I would hope that any college or university would be more interested in publishing the truth than what people wanted to hear. I grew up in the shadows of UVA, right off Rugby Road as a matter of fact. I roller skated around the Cabell Hall. Colleges aren’t under some sort of contract to cave to the community.
Let me site an example: Charlottesville was one of the 4 Virginia localities ordered to desegregate. The governor because of massive resistance state laws, shut the schools down. UVA had all sorts of things to say about integration and civil rights, for years. I doubt seriously that many of the Old Guard of Charlottesville liked hearing the UVA opinion much at all. It certainly didn’t tone down the college. They were highly critical of Charlottesville’s southern ways and most students and professors called the local paper the Daily Regress.
Now, moving past the fact that colleges really have so many layers between them and the rest of the world with a board of visitors acting as a gatekeeper, I don’t believe that either of the GMU professors were critical of anything in the area. They talked to people and recorded their thoughts and opinions.
I don’t think colleges are particularly accountable to Virginians. I think you have a much better chance of getting a football coach fired than a professor.
After reading some of the local blogs, I really have to ask myself what people are afraid of.
“Rick, You really impress me sometimes.”
At our wedding, when describing what she loved about me, my wife cited my ability to admit when I’m wrong. I do remember hearing some women go “awww”, I guess it’s a relatively rare trait among men?
If anyone sets up a get-together that is not a pro-illegal immigration event, I’d like to come meet some of you.
Having read a bit of the personal blog in question, I did find some of the opinions there more than a little over the top and uber-emotional with regard to the conflict over illegal immigration. Nevertheless, it is always possible that someone can separate their private, partisan persona from their professional work. That takes real personal discipline.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, academia has often betrayed itself in recent times by directing or appearing to direct the results of research toward the proof of a supposition already made (precisely the debate over those leaked East Anglia University e-mails on the global warming issue). As a result, many now assume that this is true even if it may not really be the case. I think that is what is happening here. Read the blog. Read the available press on the conclusions of the study. Put the two together and assume that the study is slanted because of the known views of the author on the subject.
The only true way to resolve the issue is to look at the actual studies when available, especially at the conclusions drawn from evidence presented, and make up your own mind at that point as to the objectivity and usefulness of the author’s work. But an author has to understand that, when you make strongly partisan statements on an issue in other venues and then try to claim that your professional work on the same issue is unbiased, there will always be a percentage of the audience which will not believe you.
Yes Rick, it is almost unheard of. It makes you a prince amongst men.
Wolverine, can you imagine anyone dedicating themselves to that kind of work who doesn’t have an interest? I think it goes hand in hand with ethnography. And we are talking about cultural research, not climate change research, which depends on millions of recorded meaurable bits of data.
Additionally, what became of the opinion that the results of the study were not surprising. Did we expect the latino community to like the Immigration Resolution? Were we surprised that American born people who didn’t live in communiities heavily populated by immigrants had preconceived ideas?
Studying culture has always had unique problems. Let’s pretend just for argument sake that someone was studying holocaust survivors using ethnography. The researcher would probably have a keen interest in the subject and I find it difficult to imagine someone who wouldn’t have some subjective feelings about the survivors.
What I find unique about Shutika’s research is that the American born people who live in the non-immigrant communities had as strong anti immigration feelings as they did. Perhaps when the study is published, the why will be revealed.
I had previously thought that one’s opinion was pretty much tied to how personally impacted they were by immigration. Those living next door to houses where 20 men lives might be expected to have stronger opinions. Those who lived at ground zero would have stronger opinions than those who lived in neighborhoods without heavy concentrations of immigrants.
Those types of conversations will be important. Additionally, Cleaveland and Shutika did not have to talk to those people to validate their study. It doesn’t matter where the study came from, ie which neighborhood. Political boundaries have little to do with a community’s tone and feelings.
Ha ha. I wonder how many people were upset with GMU when it was reknown for its conservative Economics department. It’s all relative.
Moon, I still hold to the view that the answers to the questions posed to immigrants, especially those believed to be illegal, were a given. Questions posed to legal immigrants, especially Hispanic, not quite as much.
But the part that would interest me more with regard to the true value of this particular study is how the authors handled the questions posed to non-immigrants. If the authors simply reported back the unvarnished results, abetted by a statistical recap, without adding any value judgements, then the study gains considerable credibility despite any known partisan feelings on the part of the authors themselves. That in particular is what I would look for in this case.
As for the locations of the non-immigrants questioned during the survey? Well, I think you might have to take into account that, while the respondents were not currently living in an impacted area, they may well have moved or “fled” from impacted areas in the past. If the authors interviewed someone like myself, for example, they would get a good “impacted area” perspective. But they could also get a good one from others who sold out and left Sterling to move to Ashburn or Brambleton or South Riding or Countryside just to escape the impact.
Not sure anyone could move out. I don’t know of anyone who was able to move. The housing crunch had crunched. I am familiar with both neighborhoods and I would guess that they were already in place. Of course, what I don’t know is how much of the attitudes there were from osmosis–just living in the area.
I do know that the researchers didn’t ask Latinos about status. I was told that often the legal status was volunteered.
I haven’t figured out why this story that evaluates the attitudes of Latinos after the Immigration Resolution has taken on a life of its own . I saw no surprises. We do these types of studies for posterity. It is a means to organize data and information for those who come after us.
I was a kid during Jim Crow. It is informative to go back now and look at some of the research. Much has changed since those times. Thank goodness it was recorded.
The BVBL is currently focusing on a thread of some kind on the Old Dominion Watchdog blog in which a member of the board of directors from Literacy Volunteers of America posited that, according to anecdotal evidence received by them, legal immigrants are beginning to feel safer and more secure when the level of illegal immigrants diminishes. I was not familiar with that blog, and a brief glance suggests it is largely conservative in tone. However, this does add a measure of greater importance to the study under discussion here. Now I for sure would like to see those results of the Shutika-Cleaveland study which pertain particularly to those immigrants identified by them as probable legals. That gives you a chance to make comparisons and possibly call for a study in even greater depth to see exactly what we have here.
Wolverine, if that member of the board of directors from Literacy Volunteers of America is relying on anecdotal info that he or she acquired while working in that field or from some other volunteers who work in that field, I’d have to say that his conclusion is a no-brainer as well. As an adult acquires the ability to read – either for the first time or in a second language – his confidence grows, his ability to contribute to his community increases (along with resulting positive feedback from others), and he would feel safer and more included in his community.
Wolverine, I am not sure that I think one person’s statement is really a good indicator of the discussion at hand. I would say that an executive director probably doesn’t come in contact with any more immigrants than you or I do. In fact, I would listen to you a lot faster than I would that dude. You are right there in your own little ground zero, from what you have said.
I did go look at the Watchdog article. I also added it to our blog roll. However, I am wondering who Elizabeth Hillsgrove is and what her creditials are. It appears that the article relied on gathering facts from reports, which of course, is a perfectly acceptable method of gathering info (and what most of us do).
That being said, I don’t think we can compare her report to the findings of Dr. Shutika. Dr. Shutika’s upcoming report is based on personal research and standardized methodology. Hllgrove wrote a report.
Another huge difference we need to take in to consideration– Ms. Hillgrove referred to the final form of the PWC resolution which was based on physical arrest. Many of the people associated with this blog had lobbied supervisors to change abandon probable cause being used as a reason to ask for documentation of status. Most of us were pleased at the physical arrest, tied to our 287(g) program. We don’t want criminals in our neighborhoods either. However, this ordinance was not actually enacted until July 1, 2008. There was a great deal of rumor and fear out in the immigrant community based on the components of the original July 10, 2007 resolution which was actually light years away from the final product of July 1, 2008.
What the immigrant community saw and acted upon was a 12-13 hour marathon citizens’ time at the BOCS where they saw all 8 supervisors vote to enact laws that were based on probable cause. The immigrants saw that their pleas were not taken into consideration. It is no wonder those in the Latino immigrant community worried. And frankly, that was a big part of the plan. If you corner any on the major movers and shakers who participated in the Immigration Resolution, most would admit that was the original intent: to scare those who were not legal in to leaving on their own. I believe they refer to it as self-deportation.
Dr. Stutika’s preliminary reseach certainly contains no surprises to those of us who even have slight contact with the immigration community. It basically organizes and validates that which most of us knew. The GMU reseach will archive how people felt. Archives are what we call history as we move further from that point in time.
M-H,
Looking forward to the full Shutika-Cleaveland study being published
and learning more about the nature of their questioning. Unless
great care is taken, a bias of the individuals conducting the interviews
will have a huge impact on the results.
– Once again, Prince William County and the City of Manassas are two
separate jurisdictions. The tendency to attack the PWC “Resolution”
and then start slapping around Manassas to respond to PWC shows a profound
ignorance of basic facts. Fernandex, many on this blog including you
and now Stutika and Cleaveland seem to think it is OK to disregard
the distinctions between two independent jurisdictions.
FYI, Corey isn’t Mayor of Manassas.
Why were Weems and Sumner Lake in Manassas chosen as study areas
if the purpose of the study was to examine the impacts of the
PWC resolution? PWC is ten times larger than the City in population.
– If there is such a “climate of fear”, why has the City of Manassas
Hispanic population continued to grow so rapidly when are are numerous
other places to live?
There is clear prejudice being shown – against the City of Manassas and
its citizens.
How has Sumner Lake been impacted by the PWC resolution? And I’m not even thinking about the fact that it’s not in PWC. It’s a relatively upscale HOA community, isn’t it? So I’d have to wonder why these so-called “researchers” targeted that area, rather than nearby Point of Woods, which was heavily impacted by the influx of illegal immigrants.
You are correct Emma. Sumner Lake seems an odd choice for
more than one reason.
All the “ethnography” or publicly available interviews that i see with illegal immigrants focuses on difficulties in their lives and discomfort they feel.
I’d like to see them asked :
Do you feel guilty about sneaking in here, paying drug dealers to sneak you in?
Do you feel guilty about possibly taking jobs from Americans, or lowering their wages? Do you think most Americans are lazy?
Do you understand what makes America different from your home country?
Do you think Americans have a right to deport you?