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.
Glad you posted this, MH. The continuing discussion on the study should prove to be interesting.
The record shows that local government has repeatly attempted to
mitigate the negative impact of a massive influx of immigrants for
over a decade. Although a Federal and to a lesser degree state responsibility,
their inaction left local government to attempt to address the issues
and consequently be attacked by HUD, DOJ, their various
hired henchmen, the NYT and WaPo (talk about sloppy reporting),
ACLU, ultra-liberal bloggers, etc. . Manassas and Prince William aren’t
unique – this has played out the same way across America.
It flies in the face of history and common sense to now find local government
the primary culprit in this mess.
Poor, Poor Richard, why are you so defensive? This says nothing about how local government is a primary culprit. If you read what is posted above, the researcher is trying to find out how the ordinances have impacted the lives of ordinary citizens, both American-born and Latino.
It appears you’re too attached to Chumley’s conspiracy theory. Give it up. It’s a fiction that Chumley used to make this story sensational. It’s also a story that BVBL wants to keep pushing because it continues to divide the community.
Although I have to admit, the fact that they are talking to both sides should be sensational, and should make both sides happy.
Curious that Shutika is prepared to link to a previous essay and is willing to publically request an opporunity to do their own Op-Ed piece that gives their perpsective, but does not offer a link to the subject “research” or background data itself. There are ample numbers of folks in our area that can analyse that research regardless of whether the authors consider themsleves to be “scholars of immigration” or “advanced” scholars in Ethnography. Politics is politics and there are always statisticians looking at the polls – and constructing the questions to facilitate the end game of those polls. My sense is that this “research” is looking more and more like a politically driven poll.
Well that’s a thoughtful and clear statement.
I feel bad now. I’m a bit of a reactionary p**** who enjoys belittling what he does not approve of.
Anyway, I look forward to continued discussion of their work and I’ll try to be more civil.
I can imagine there’s value in their work. I’ve always thought that when the dust settles, it would be interesting to talk to some of the immigrants who actually moved out about their impressions of the experience.
I could conceive of a documetary 10-20 years down the road that interviews those who stayed here who had negative experiences like mine with illegal immigrants, those who stayed here that resented the debate and resolution, and those who moseyd away.
And Rick, one of your good points is you can be as uncivil as hell and then turn on a dime. And you know I will always stick up for you because of that.
I really wanted to find out more information. I will say now that Inhad been interviewed by a different group. (NOT this group) I found it to be a very interesting experience.
Deb sent me what she had posted on her blog. I was having technical difficulties lining up things between blogs. And my blog skills are …nothing to crow about.
Rick, I also have never discounted some of the difficulties people have had during all of this.
Maybe you will be the one to do the documenting. 😉
TP, I believe there are privacy issues, especially considering the topic. I would expect nothing else.
No way. I don’t need the names, I want the questions and the statistics.
Contact her and ask her. I don’t have that information. I can’t imagine why you feel you need to know the questions and statistics. Are you really that interested or are you taking issue with something printed on this blog, as usual?
You can link from the other post.
Excellent. That thread appears to give the survey the scholarly research label it should have carried from the beginning. I still say that the researchers should have known (and probably did know) what kind of answers they would get from those immigrants who were illegal and probably from those who were legal as well because of the intermixing of immigration status within families. For scholarly purposes, however, it is always good to get personalized reactions even to a question to which the answer is likely known and logical. It’s a good measure of intensity of feeling. The discussion above on the concomitant survey of non-immigrants serves to buttress the researchers’ criticism of the media.
Now it looks to me like the researchers were done in by their own institution (and the media) because the institution apparently chose to publicize the “logical” part of the results, making that action look like a partisan act on a hot button issue and not unexpectedly drawing wrath from the other side of the issue. Good move, Moon. Helps to clear the air.
” I honestly think that one of the major reasons why immigration has become
such a volative topic is because for too long resident’s compliants 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.”
Debra Shutka
Sarah Connor #3 – hopefully your reading for content hasn’t been fully
“terminated”. What do you think this says?
My respect for George Mason University, who I’ve avidly supported,
is greatly diminished by this poorly done and badly presented “study”.
Ms. Shutika and Ms. Cleaveland have wasted citizen’s time and money.
Actually, given the kind of obviously “delicate” access these researchers claim they had to immigrants concerning the personal fears generated among them by the PWC “Resolution”, I would hope that they also discussed with these informants whether they had any understanding of some of the non-immigrant antipathy beyond the usual accusations of “racism” against Hispanics. Did the immigrants understand that the antipathy in many cases comes from the behavior of some within their own ethnic group with regard to many of the most basic laws and regulations concerning quality of life in our neighborhoods and local political entities? Do they understand this, and do they realize that certain course self-corrections in immigrant behavior might serve to lessen the hostility? I ask this question after just having witnessed an Hispanic family, visitors to the neighborhood, clean the trash out of their vehicle and dump it into the common area lawn right in front of my house.
“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.”
So how did they know the respondents were “documented” or not?
Emma, they did not ask. Usually the immigrants who were documented said they were…those who did not say one way or the other they assumed probably weren’t.
Deb Shutika volunteered that during our conversation.
Poor Richard, Why do you say that. What is it you feel they did wrong and what would you have done differently?
Wolverine, I don’t know the answer to your question. I don’t know those kinds of details. I would guess in an information gathering setting, the answer would be no. But what do I know.
I felt there was more to this story and was pleased to find out more of the facts.
All well and good, but it would still be more valuable to see their metrics and the structure of their actual questions before we can even begin to assume that even documented residents are living in fear.
I’ll go along with that distinction between illegal and legal immigrants. From my personal experience on Neighborhood Watch and in other community interactions, the documented immigrants often make sure you know their status right off the bat.
It’s also refreshing to see that Ms. Shutika approaches immigration topics with an open mind.
From her blog:
“It appears that Arizona’s leaders have suddenly woken up to the fact that the only people cheering the state’s xenophobic anti-immigration law and banning of ethnic studies tend to have buzzcuts and favor a certain 20th Century German political movement.”
I wonder what metrics she used to come up with that conclusion?
What do you care what her personal opinion is? I think it is irrelevant to the topic. No one enters into a project like this one without some interest in the subject. Could it be that her opinions were formed based on herfindings during the 15 years she has studied these topics.
Emma, how about just saying what’s on your mind rather than having to dip everything in a fresh dose of sarcasm? Of course, then there are just people who have to find something negative to say.
Emma, just out of curiosity, doesn’t it bother you somewhat that the local paper decided what you would see and what you would not see? Is the N & M the new Manassas Faux News? Why couldn’t Chumley just write a fair analysis of the study? If she felt it unworthy of her paper why didn’t she just say no to doing the story?
I feel like the truth, whether I like it or not, and that is irrelevant also, should be told.
We are all surrounded by people who want to put a spin on something…to influence how we think. I resent that. I don’t expect you will see Ms. Shutika’s letters to her readers on any other local blog either. Seeing her letter might just get in the way of the spin, the lies and the character assassination.
The N & M isn’t worthy of being a birdcage liner. THe reporters do very little research, they write at barely a fifth-grade level and have very little understanding of elementary grammar. I used to enjoy it for the community news, but since they’ve decided to show their ignorance by poorly-researched national stories and broadsides at their own community, I’ve discontinued my subscription.
They didn’t “decide” what I think about this story. I read your thread, read the comments, and did a little research on my own. And I believe her very vocal and public opinions do matter, and so do the metrics of her study.
I don’t much care about personal opinions. Ms. Shutika’s personal opinion has little influence what I think about this issue.
What bothers me is the attempt at filtering the news. That just annoys me to no end. Yesterday, I had no idea what the study was about. I was just highly annoyed that our chair decided to use it as another excuse to name call. Once my ‘reporters’ sent me all the local blog info, and I saw that the usual spin and character assassination had started, I decided I had better check things out.
So once again, the news becomes the news, Emma. Wasn’t it you who said that about Helen Thomas? (and sadly enough, no one gave another thought to what was really going on on the high seas.)
What would be news would be how many of our tax dollars funded this study.
M-H,
What a wonderful clarification for this very important topic. How dare someone try to be objective when it comes to the complexity of immigration, especially when the immigrants are spanish speakers. Thank you for being so dilligent in seeking the truth.
I would say shame on corey, but he has none!
Rick,
You really impress me sometimes. If we ever meet, I would love to buy you a beer, wine, mixed drink, soda, or whatever. 😉
better to have my tax dollars spent on bonified research then Corey’s use of immigration as a political election tool! How many millions did that resolution cost????
If we are going to have that discussion we would have to discuss if we have a line item veto on with OUR tax dollars. Once they are collected, they are no longer ours.
How many of my tax dollars went to fund Corey Stewart’s invitation to the community to come to a scheduled citizen’s time Oct. 16, 2007. I believe he spent about 30k. Of course that was to get him re-elected. The money sure didn’t come out of campaign funds.
The answer to that is, by that time those funds were Corey’s and not the taxpayers All I can do is sit back and call him a wastrel .
Frankly, I find that study highlights something both sides have in common – BOTH sides stated that they felt their HOME was turned into something foreign…something not “home”
So both sides felt their home atmosphere was taken from them. And what was the conclusion? LOCAL government ignored the issue and let it ignite.
If the feds won’t do anything, the state won’t do anything the BUCK STOPS at the local level. And as a soon-to-be FORMER Manassas Park resident (thank heavens for Stafford), I could not agree to do more. Fact is they saw tehir cash coffers fill up, despite who was paying and the civil unrest that ensued. I think the study is somewhat on the mark.
I believe when the localities did act, they acted often without thinking through to the consequences. Ex: definition of family, Resolution
Think of all the money that got wasted on the Resolution. How many times did the staff have to do new studies? Meanwhile, their regular work didn’t get done. We can’t invent time. Think of the animous in the community, the thousands spent of FOIA requests, the training of officers for something that never materialized. There really are no facts and figures to quantify the wasted resources, both human and financial.
How much more beneficial would it have been to pour money in to neighborhood services so that county folks could come out long before things festered? How many Spanish-speaking county agents are there other than the one? He can’t be but so many places at once. Practical ideas rather than chest thumping ideas would have been so much more helpful.
I agree. They wentb a step too far, but surely enforcing city codes wouldn’t have been to much of a step. And I also include HOA’s on that. As a former resident of Blooms, the HOA did ZILCH to enforce their rigid code of appearance. It is on this level that the city and the private “associations” failed. Not to mention the amount of mortgage fraud that was committed. I still recall the landscaper (not owner of landscaping firm) who was walking from his 300K townhouse mortgate because he couldn’t afford it once the ARM reset. There is also the culpability of Wall Street in the racial tension.
So many factors….and so few people to step up. It’s the Amerian Way that says to all…”your home is your castle” but it really comes with restrictions, no?
The City of Manassas sponsored five neighborhood improvement circles in 2009 — along with George Mason University and Unity in the Community — that brought people together to talk about those “practical ideas” rather than “chest thumping ideas,” and the results (in part) over the past year have included community yard sales and block parties with good participation, as well as the 1 By Youth project in Georgetown South. I think there are many, many benefits to these neighborhood pride type activities that start with simply sitting down in a circle and talking to your neighbors. Lynchburg, VA has an ongoing program called “Many Voices, One Community” that continues to engage citizens in meaningful discussions that lead to practical actions.
http://www.lynchburgva.gov/Index.aspx?page=4437
I think Cindy might be suggesting that what she has described is more cost effective than chest thumping ideas like ‘Resolutions’ that pit neighbor against neighbor and cost localities millions in dollars and untold amounts of reputation.
Cindy is also to be commended for her leadership role in those endeavors. She is certainly too modest to tell us that she was right out there in the forefront with much of that work. Lafayette is also to be commended for her efforts with this neighborhood enterprise.
We can all line up on our own side of the street and throw rocks at each other or we can bring a lawn chair and get to know our neighbors.
One thing is for certain-if you have a local newspaper that refuses to print the correct story and a chariman of the board of supervisors who calls members of an academic team investigating a problem (and anyone else he deems ‘sympathetic’) ILLEGAL ALIEN APOLOGISTS your community has a problem.
Local newspapers owe the community the truth, not their own version of what is happening. Elected officials such as Stewart need to be providing a leaderhip role that serves ALL of the constituents, rather than name-calling and alienating 20-25 % of the population of his county.
Successful blueprints are out there, with everything in down to the smallest detail. Just need some folks to step forward to partner with local government and take a leadership role. If you want smaller government, less taxes and conservative values, then step up to the plate and be part of the solution:
http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/suprnbhds/guidelines.htm
Cindy, perhaps you need to send that website to Mr. Stewart. Perhaps he is unaware of its existence. Maybe that is why he continues to call people names he doesn’t agree with. I seem to remember him calling the newly formed coffee party members loons and fruitcakes, in particular the veterans who were out there.
I’ll leave the drama to the politicians and share this information at the next county Neighborhood Leaders meeting with Pat Reilly, Connie Moser and others who are making headway in building community. Anyone who’s interested, please join us June 15. The subject is “drainage issues” but we share whatever our latest successes are as well.
http://www.pwcgov.org/default.aspx?topic=010013001280005276
Passed on from a fellow classmate in Leadership Prince William 2010, which graduated yesterday at a reception in the Hylton Performing Arts Center:
People are often unreasonable, illogical and self centered;
Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight;
Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough;
Give the world the best you’ve got anyway.
You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and your God;
It was never between you and them anyway.
— Mother Theresa
Mother T never lived in Prince William County. 🙄
there are 3 press releases on the GMU site and all 3 basically say the same thing that the reporter said. Why isn’t the reporter allowed to quote other people and how they feel about the study that there is no paper to see? They set themselves up for this. And they did the last 2 press releases because of the Arizona law.
@whatever
What other people? Some specifics please.
What is it that you want? You want to read her paper? Wait until she publishes.
I guess people do set themselves up for vicious attacks from various blogs if they dare to say something that isn’t the party line. Many of us here can relate to that. In fact, that kind of behavior is what led to the formation of this blog.
I am curious what it is that you think the researchers set themselves up for. Will the Gospel Club over on the dark screen go after their jobs like some of them did a certain reporter? Make that several different reporters. I don’t like thug politics so Ms. Shutika has an open invitation to post here. Our contributors can debate the issues in the open.
I think Ms. Shutika’s personal views really do matter here–they’re not exactly private, existing on a very public blog as they are. It’s no different than Al Gore conducting a study on attitudes about whether human activities cause climate change. There should be at least some semblance of impartiality on the part of a researcher, especially one being funded by public money.
whatever,
You are on target.
Note the GMU website story is focused only on Prince William County and
never mentions, for whatever reason, the bulk of their interviews were
in the City of Manassas neigborhoods of Weems and Sumner Lake. Odd.
Emma, have you ever been through one of those ethnographic interviews? I have, but not that particular survey by those researchers. I have no idea how the person who interviewed me felt about issues personally. She was professional. I did see her at several other activities that involved follow-up of sorts.
How can a person go into a job perfectly neutral? Where would your interest be? Would you feel better about this if Ms. Shutika hated immigrants? Would that be more acceptable?
If a person conducts a responsible, professional interview, personal feelings should not matter.
Where personal feelings would matter would be if you approached someone at the PWC Fair wearing a red button on your ‘help save’ shirt. Attendees might tell you what you wanted to hear just to avoid controntation.
Most professional people are certainly able to carry out their job regardless of personal opinion. That would be like me asking you if you would let an illegal immigrant die because you oppose illegal immigration. Of course, you wouldn’t and for me to imply otherwise would be insulting.
Why do people care what the results of a research project are? I am really trying to understand a few things. Is it important to agree with the results of all research? Perhaps people don’t think like I think they think. I don’t think I am going to attack the messenger.
I have seen some fairly vicious stuff being written about these researchers. I understand that the mail has been raunchy and insulting also. Why do people feel the need to do this?
Help me understand this attack mode. If people do thinks like that that I don’t like, I tend to give them their space and ignore them.
Emma, I don’t understand this interest in who paid for the research. All sorts of research goes on that I could care less about. I believe a community’s reaction to immigration, especially in light of the national debate is very much to the point.
You and I don’t get to chose the academic research that goes on, even though we are tax payers. And thank goodness. All sorts of important discoveries would have never been made if it were left up to me.
It isn’t like how many slugs live under a rock in the winter. Now that would be in my land of who cares.
I look forward to reading the Shutika/Cleveland study when it is finished. If I don’t agree with their results, perhaps it is because they and I travel in different circles.
Because they are publicly funded, they are accountable to VA taxpayers. If they are carrying on controversial research that casts the community in a bad light, it is reasonable to question who they are and what their methods involved. GMU has not been shy in the past about their biases regarding illegal immigration and economic issues (Dr. Fuller). Let’s see the metrics. If public funds were used to fund a study that concluded that illegal immigration was largely responsible for weakening the PWC economy, I think we’d be having an entirely different discussion.
Whatever, I went back and reread Shutika’s open letter and I now understand your question. Shutika felt that as a professional reporter, Chumley should have given them the chance to respond to specific allegations alleged by Stewart and Peacor. She did not.
Both of those people were critical of the GMU researcher’s academic credentials as well as their research. Neither of the people quoted, to my knowledge, have the creds themselves to be evaluating someone else’s academic work.
Actually, Shutika outlined her objections fairly clearly. They were done a disservice by the county but that does not surprise me in the least. Par for the course.