Download Full Text(PDF)

ISSN: 2347-7474
International Journal Advances in Social Science and Humanities
Available online at: www.ijassh.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Visualizing Self-segregation among African American and Hispanic
Students in Los Angeles, California, USA
Brett Wyatt*
Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
*Corresponding Author: E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
This analysis asks if the size of friendship-based ego networks can be used to identify a propensity to self-segregate.
This infers that self-segregation is dependent on an individual’s ability to establish friendships, which in part
reflects an individual’s social skills, such as the ability to negotiate the alternative world views of other ethnic
groups and thereby minimize misunderstandings. The results show that students who are unable to negotiate
alternative world views, as determined by the size of their friendship ego network, are highly likely to selfsegregate.
Introduction
It is well known that the problem of segregation
among students persists despite efforts to
integrate schools and classrooms. Simply placing
students of different ethnicities together in an
educational environment does not guarantee that
students will co-mingle and develop inter-ethnic
friendships. Although many studies use race as a
way to identify different student groupings, this
analysis used ethnicity because of the implied,
discursive attributes which come by using a
cultural
signifier.
Through
both
casual
observation and discussions with teachers it was
clear that many of the students at this school
demonstrated self-segregation. Segregated social
cliques created friction in the school and caused
disruptions in the classroom, especially during
group activities. The problem was that there
seemed to be no clear reason for self-segregation.
Why did some students stay tightly linked into
peer groups of their own ethnicity? The analysis
asks if the size of friendship-based ego networks
can be used to identify a propensity to selfsegregate. To answer this question a method was
developed using social network theory to examine
student friendship networks and analyze the
linkages based on ethnicity.
This research was conducted using data acquired
from 12th grade students during the academic
year 2011-2012 at a charter high school in the
South Central region of Los Angeles, California.
The study group came from high school seniors at
Locke High School, one of the most troubled
Brett Wyatt | October 2015 | Vol.3 | Issue 10 |01-08
schools in Southern California. Locke High School
had been re-organized many times under the Los
Angeles Unified School District ad then turned
over the Green Dot Charter School District, which
further re-organized and regrouped the school
into small-sized academies in an attempt to make
the school environment more manageable in size
and to promote school spirit and comradely. Even
with the best of modern management techniques,
self-segregation persisted. What could be
undermining the best efforts of dedicated teachers
and inspired management?
The underlying conceptual framework used in
this analysis to define friendship networks was
constructed using terminology from actor-network
theory. Friendship networks were conceptualized
as “ways of being in the world”, and the discourse
underlying friendship networks is assumed to
“carry social identity” by constituting "specific
actions, (performances), carried out by specific
individuals, performances which are amalgams of
words, values, thoughts, attitudes, gestures, and
props” [1]. Within the same conceptualization,
student ethnicity was defined as a form of social
identity. Discourse, as well as practice, creates
ethnic identity [2]. Ethnicity is complex,
performed, and generally not chosen by an
individual, unless the person is from a mixed
heritage. In this research, less than 1% of the
students declared multiple racial identify. It
follows that self-segregation is a form of
discursive practice. Students' identity within an
1
Available online at: www.ijassh.com
ethnic group comes from a mental model created
"as instantiations of shared social, representation"
based on familial, societal, and community
messages and reinforcements [3].
Literature Review
In a world without segregation we can expect
students in a multi-ethnic setting to have
friendship networks mirroring the ethnic
composition of the school [4]. In fact, some
researchers suggest that students will develop
“borderland discourses”, peer-based amalgams of
ways of being that allow for a blending of social
identities [1,3]. Students form discourse coalitions
[5] through the lending and re-interpreting of
their storylines and perceptions. It’s a blending of
individual discourses through friendships which
creates inter-ethnic links.
Discourse is conceptualized by the way imagined
realities emerge as actions made manifest within
the extent of our praxis, and as a way of
constituting the present by creating an imaginary
future of consensual events traced though the
construction of mutual, discursive interactions
resulting in structures of feeling, leading to
friendships [6-8]. Students unable to negotiate
alternative ideologies, meanings, assumptions
and world views of others will not be able to
establish links with students of other ethnicities
and will segregated ego-networks.
Self-segregation, also known as ethnic homophily
[10, 11] can be described as a clustering of actors
limited to a single ethnic group within an
ethnically diverse community. Self-segregation is
defined as a preference that people exhibit when
choosing friends who are like themselves along
multiple dimensions [12-15]. Within social
network theories, self-segregation exists as
networks exhibiting community structures that
are naturally partitioned into two or more groups
of nodes with a preponderance of within-group
linkages, but relatively few linkages across groups
in self-organizing networks [16]. Previous
research
concerning
self-segregation
overwhelmingly focused on self-segregation
between White (Caucasian) groups and non-white
minorities.
Friendships are normally complex relationships,
differing greatly between persons. They are highly
contextualized but generally are based on some
kind of benefit by one friend or the other. They do
not have to be reciprocal [10, 17]. For this
analysis, a friendship need not be reciprocal (both
actors acknowledging the friendship), a link
between students was defined as a friendship if
one student accepted another student as a friend,
whether or not that friendship was returned. The
student doing the accepting established the
condition to not self-segregate. The procedure to
determine this relationship will be discussed in
detail in the methods section.
Unfortunately, friendship networks may be
contravened by external pressures which bias the
mutual negotiation borderland discourse. School
settings are controlled by numerous external
power structures. In a school setting, student
networks have been described as “networks-in-abox” [18]. The over-arching power structures
include the administrative directives of the school
district, local policies, classroom policies, and the
storylines and perceptions of the community, and
in this case, the underlying perceptions of ethnic
biases and racism within the community.
Racism is defined as "a complex system of social
inequality characterized by ideological social
representations, individualized mental models,
discriminatory discourse, institutional structures,
and unequal power relations [19]. This definition
delineates power relations between whites and
non-whites, but in this situation, it will be used to
describe the situation between two non-white
minorities. Most studies of racism in schools focus
on the separation of whites and other minorities.
A useful perspective for this analysis was gained
from examining "whiteness studies” which
concern themselves with "what it means to be
'white' in America, and whether or not 'whiteness'
is a unique identity." The framing of whiteness as
an ethnic identity further supports the
proposition that ethnicity is a social construct.
The use of a phonetically based characteristic
such as “race” negates a student’s personal view
of social identity. It may be that in educational
studies which examined social network ties
between African-American and White students
historical factors made race and ethnicity
indistinguishable, but within communities such
as Watts, in Southern California, both surname of
physical appearance do not always match the
ethnicity (as the category listed on enrolment
form) to the box checked from ethnic
identification. However, regardless of how
ethnicity is determined or the ethnic composition
of the student body, self-segregation is not a
phenomenon unique to white and non-white
students, but appears to be a social construct
expressed by all ethnic groups [20].
The hierarchical structure of the school further
imposes "meanings that maintain and reinforce
2
Brett Wyatt | October 2015 | Vol.3 | Issue 10 |01-08
Available online at: www.ijassh.com
the reigning social, economic, and political
arrangements as legitimate when in fact they are
entirely arbitrary” [21]. While social identity is
part imposed form the top, students also create
their own social identity. “Individuals and groups
of individuals serve as definers of reality” [22].
Inside "the box" students enact self-classification
and classification by others [23] Student’s
interpersonal friendships are pressured within
was one researcher called a "battleground where
this conformity is disputed and eventually
materializes amongst agents, thus creating social
differences and unequal structures” [24], creating
constraints on individual perception and action,
[25], weakening the ability to negotiate
borderland discourse. This line of research
demonstrates that race relations become
institutionalized and validate self-segregation [22,
26, 27].
Other research points to self-segregation as a
“maladaptive response” by the minority to the
perspectives and impositions on the part of the
dominant group, though these studies do not
account for self-segregation within "non-white"
groupings.
Another body of research using
conflict theory quantifies prejudice, and the
resulting self-segregation, as a "competition and
struggle over real or symbolic resources and
privileges" over limited student resources [28].
One particularly compelling theory of selfsegregation comes from the study of microaggressions or micro-inequities. These are:
"The comments, the work assignments, the tone of
voice, the failure of acknowledgement in meetings
or social gatherings. These are not actionable
violations of law or policies, but they are clear,
subtle indicators of lack of respect by virtue of
membership in a group and often associated
within non-white minorities" [29].
This theory helps to understand the complexity of
self-segregation,
especially
in
a
school
environment.
Students
may
self-segregate
through a very personal, emotional level. Selfsegregation may be the result of a displacement of
anger rooted in personal achievement, economic
condition, or self-esteem. Racism, and consequent
self-segregation, may be the result of a too
simplistic understanding of human relationships
and the inability to resolve interpersonal conflicts,
or be empathetic to others with different outlooks
on life.
esteem, and empathetic qualities necessary to
maintain friendships, then self-segregation may
be dependent on the opportunity and ability to
make friends. In this case, students may choose
friends outside their ethnic group if they are in a
small minority. "If students wish to avoid having
no friends at all, then minority students may
appear to be willing to integrate more with the
majority in a more homogeneous school, even if the
preference for having same ethnicity friends has
the same strength in all schools... they also have a
baseline preference for having any sort of friend
rather than no friend at all." [30] Another
approach to this idea underscores the
"opportunity effect" and is described as follows:
“in a school where there are many minority
students, minority students may be able to find
their desired number of friends within the
minority friendship pool.” [4]. This study
advances this idea further by explaining that selfsegregation, as a choice, may be the result of
either the inability of a student to maintain an
average number of friends or by a lack of skills to
maintain friendships outside a student’s ethnic
discursive reality.
Moody's research implies that institutionalized
social structure sets the environment for selfsegregation. He states that "individuals choose
friends but do so within the opportunities and
constraints provided by the school context" [4].
Furthermore, “classes of persons are segregated to
the degree that their social relations are
restricted to members of their own class and do
not ‘cross over’ to members of the other classes”
[31]. The problem of self-segregation may not
limited only to ethnicity, but to other attributes of
social segregation, such as income, education,
religion, and other social construction which may
inhibit social interaction and further separate
people into different classes. However for this
analysis, all students, except those lacking legal
documentation to live in the United States, all
were categorized in the same socio-economic level.
In summary, there are many perspectives on how
racism and self-segregation are defined. Also,
school
environments
are
constructed
by
institutions that may impose a social framework
reinforcing racial differences. This study agrees
with the concept of micro-aggressions and
inequities as causation for self-segregation, and
that self-segregation is an outcome of a student’s
ability to negotiate the world-view within the
social construct maintained by the educational
institution.
If self-segregation can be explained as an
individual's choice based on social skills, self3
Brett Wyatt | October 2015 | Vol.3 | Issue 10 |01-08
Available online at: www.ijassh.com
Methods
The participants in this study were 215 high
school seniors between the ages of 17 and 19 at a
charter school located in South Central, Los
Angeles. The school was physically separated into
four academies. This analysis collected data from
“Academy B”. According to the charter website,
“Academy B” is 100% African-American or Latino
and 98% qualified for free lunch, the charter
district does not provide further differentiation for
minority students on the public website [32].
Another online source using statistics gathered
from the California State Department of
Education stated that “Academy B” consisted of
66% Hispanic and 33% African-American
students, with less than 1% claiming mixed race
and less than 1% of students identifying as
“White” [33]. Also, the Hispanic student
population has a diverse national origin. Informal
interviews with students revealed that the
majority of students originated from Mexico, and
the remaining students have national identity
with El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, in
that order. From 2010 to 2013, the API score of
Academy B dropped from 605 to 564, putting it in
the bottom 10% in California. Other demographic
indicators to help frame the educational
environment of Academy B include:
 GATE students: 0%
 English learners: 26%
 Reclassified as English proficient: 29%
 Eligible for free/reduced price lunch: 94%
 Special education within the past two years: 15%
 Parents without diploma: 47%
An initial analysis of ego-networks did not any
differentiation of ego networks based on special
education status which did not show any variation
in number of friends or likelihood to selfsegregate. The issue of legal status was not due to
issue regarding privacy. It is interesting to note
that students were on block schedules, spending
two hours in every classroom on alternating days.
Student free time was limited to a 20 minute
break, from bell to bell, and a forty minute lunch,
from bell to bell. Also, group activities were
encouraged by the administration and practiced
by all teachers. Overall, classrooms were ethically
balanced as per school enrolment to number of
Hispanics and African Americans, as well as by
males to females.
There were 248 students within the 12th grace of
Academy B, but only 141 Hispanic students, 72
African American students, and 2 White students,
for a total of 215 students correctly completed the
questionnaire. Of the two White students, one
transferred out of the school during the survey
period. The remaining White student was
eliminated from the study because he represented
a statistical anomaly. Referring back to Moody,
we would expect the ethnic composition of
friendship networks to be proportional to the
ethnic proportions of the school. Therefore, in a
school free of self-segregation, both African
American and Hispanic students would have 66%
of their friends as Hispanics and 34% of their
friends as African American.
The questionnaire used for this research was
designed by first identifying language that
students would clearly understand. Small groups
of students were asked how they would ask the
question, “Who are your closest friends at school?”
Most students responded that such as formal
question made them feel uneasy, that they felt
there would be a negative consequence to
answering the question. Within the lexicon of this
school, it was decided that the best way to ask the
question was “Who do you like to hang with?”
This is a variation of “hanging-out” which
connotes familiarity without a strong commitment
to the future or the past. A trial questionnaire
was given to one classroom of 32 students.
Students were asked to put a check mark by only
those students who “you like to hang with.”
Although students had no trouble understanding
the question, and in fact enjoyed completing the
survey, most students would not discriminate
between students who they considered to be their
friends and students who were connected to their
social group, though not directly connected as a
friend. Another problem occurred when students
knew each other in class, or students whose
friends questioned why they excluded someone.
The data provided by this instrument was highly
flawed because most students included all
students within their social sphere, so as not to
make someone feel unimportant. The problem
over over-identifying was brought to the informal
group and it was decided that students should be
given two choices for selecting friendship
relations. The first choice was to mark the box
with a 1 for students whom “you like to hang out
with a lot (often)” and a second choice of marking
the box with a 2 for students whom “you like to
hang out with sometimes.” This revised survey
was given to the entire 12th grade of Academy B.
Students felt at ease checking off as many
students as they wanted to with a 2, saving the
mark of a 1 for those whom they felt most close to,
this being a strong friendship.
4
Brett Wyatt | October 2015 | Vol.3 | Issue 10 |01-08
Available online at: www.ijassh.com
As a result of the questionnaire, relationship is
produced simply by the declaration of interest in
spending time with another student, regardless of
directionality. The questionnaire allowed students
to express interest as one of two values simply
stated as a lot and sometimes. These two values
were chosen to eliminate over selection due to
peer pressure seen in the sample survey. Adding a
weaker option allowed students to save face with
others by acknowledging “friends of friends”
without having to express a strong commitment.
These weak relationships gave more credibility to
the identification of strong relationships and were
not used in the analysis to create students’ ego
networks.
An ego network is defined as all direct linkages
between a student and all friends with a value of
one. Students were determined to be selfsegregated if their ego networks were
homogeneous with respect to ethnicity. The same
ego networks were also used to determine
students’ ability to negotiate the “world views” of
other students by determining tie-density, the
ratio of the number of connections between
particular groups of actors to the total number of
possible ties [34]. The ego networks of students
with few friends have a low tie density while
students with many friends have a high tie-
density. For example, in this study there were
1297 interconnecting ties between all 213
respondents, resulting in a tie-density of 6.09.
This value was assigned as the average number of
friends in an ego network for this analysis. Tie
density was also used to observe variation in
ethnicity.
The hypothesis was challenged using a standard
statistical parameter, namely the Student’s t-test.
If normal segregation can be explained by Moody’s
assertion that the ethnic composition of students’
friendship networks will approximate the ethnic
composition of the school, a strong deviation from
that distribution would show intentional selfsegregation.
The data was entered into a UCINET-VNA
format, a standard format for entering data into
visualization software.
Ego networks were
rendered using the social networking software;
Netdraw [34, 35] further analysis of simple
statistics was facilitated using Microsoft Excel.
Results
The survey group consisted of 213 respondents, of
whom there were 141 (66%) Hispanic students
and 72 (34%) were African-American students.
Figure 1: All African American (Left, Green) and Hispanic (Right, Brown) Student Ties, displayed to
show self-segregation
Note: The size of the blocks denotes the size of each ego network.
The data revealed a total of 1297 interconnecting
ties with a tie-density of 6.09, representing the
average tie-density (number of friendships) for
this study. As shown by Figure 1, it is clear that
there are distinctive clusters of both selfsegregated and integrated students within both
ethnicities. If this was not the case, and the
student population was fully integrated, there
would not be the segregated clusters as seen at
the top of figure 1. It is clear that self-segregation
exits within this student body. In fact, forty
percent of the student population self-segregates.
Though the figure does suggest indirect
relationships seen passing through students with
inter-ethnic ties, this research focused only on
first level friendships. Clearly this visualization
5
Brett Wyatt | October 2015 | Vol.3 | Issue 10 |01-08
Available online at: www.ijassh.com
speaks to the need to find solutions to selfsegregation.
There were 796 Hispanic-to-Hispanic ties
(approximately 61% of all social ties) with a tiedensity of 5.64. There were 327 African-American
to African-American ties with a tie-density of
4.54. In this analysis, Hispanic to Hispanic ego
networks have one more friendship relationship
when compared to the ego networks African
Americans to African Americans.
Sixty percent of students (128) belonged to
integrated friendship networks. Twenty-five out
of 72 African-American students, (34%), were selfsegregated, of which 13 students had ties to other
self-segregated, African-American students. Sixty
of the 151 Hispanic students, (42%) were selfsegregated students, of which 30 students had
ties only to other Hispanic students. This analysis
shows that there were 43 students, (20%) who
completely self-segregate from other minority
students at the first and second level. These are
students whose friends also do not befriend
students of other ethnicities.
Further analysis of the student group was
conducted by determining the size of each
student’s ego network was measured by the
number of ties, which ranged from 14 to 1 (no
friends). The average tie density for all students
was 6.09.
The ego-networks of self-segregated, African
American students had a tie density of 3.89,
smaller than the tie density for the ego network of
all African-American students. The ego-networks
of self-segregated, Hispanic students were 4.74,
also smaller than the ego-network of all Hispanic
students.
The ego-network of integrated students with other
integrated students had a tie density of 5.85.
However, the ego networks of integrated students
with all other students had a tie-density of 10.02.
This
evidence
further
strengthened
the
hypothesis that a student’s ability to negotiate
friendships is an indicator of the likelihood to not
self-segregate.
Although much can be visually inferred by social
mapping, a more rigorous test was needed to
determine that the data clearly demonstrated
self-segregation,
not
just
an
anomalous
distribution of friendships. To do so, the data was
re-aggregated into two basic sets, students with
inter-ethnic relations and those without. The data
was set-up in Microsoft Excel and then
transferred into a Student’s t-test calculator for
comparing distributions. The hypothesis to be
tested was “is there is a significant difference
between the numbers of ties of self-segregated,
student ego networks compared to the number of
ties of integrated student ego networks?” To
elaborate, the analysis asks if the size of
friendship-based ego networks can be used to
identify a propensity to self-segregate. This infers
that self-segregation is dependant on an
individual’s ability to establish friendships, which
in part reflects an individual’s social skills, such
as the ability to negotiate alternative world views
of other ethnic groups. This measurement was
achieved by comparing the size of the ego
networks of each student within the categories of
ethnicity, students who self-segregate, and those
who have integrated friendships.
First, a t-test was conducted to compare the
distribution of the overall number of ties between
Hispanic students and for all students in the
study group. The results gave a t-value of 0.6444
with a df value of 352 and standard error of
difference = 0.386. By conventional criteria, this
difference is considered to not be statistically
significant. Overall, the distribution of the size of
ego networks for Hispanic students did not differ
from the study group as a whole.
The same analysis was done for African-American
students compared to all students. The results
gave a t-value of 0.9828, with a df = 283 and a
standard error of difference = 0.495. Again, there
was no significant difference.
Next, the distribution of the size of the ego
networks of all African-American students and all
Hispanic students was also compared.
The
results gave a t-value of 1.42 and a df value of
211, there was no significant difference in the
distribution of the size of the ego networks
between African Americans and Hispanic student.
The results of all three tests showed that the
distribution in the size of ego networks is not
significantly different based on ethnicity.
Having eliminated ethnicity as a factor
determining the size of ego networks, the data
was organized to compare the distribution of the
size of ego networks of all students who selfsegregate compared to those who have at least
one node of different ethnicity. A t-test was
performed on this data resulting in a t-value of
6.1973, with a df value of 208 and a standard
error of difference of 0.455. This t-test revealed
that the two data sets were significantly different
to the .0001 level. By conventional criteria, this
6
Brett Wyatt | October 2015 | Vol.3 | Issue 10 |01-08
Available online at: www.ijassh.com
difference is considered
statistically significant.
to
be
extremely
As shown earlier, the ego networks of students
who self-segregate are smaller than those who
have integrated ego-networks. The t-test provides
further evidence that the difference in
distribution of size shows very strong statistical
variation, supporting the hypothesis that students
who can’t negotiate alternative world views of
other ethnicities will have smaller ego networks.
Clearly, the inability to establish friendships
appears to have a strong influence on a student’s
decision to self-segregate.
Discussion
This analysis concludes that students who selfsegregate have significantly smaller friendshipbased, ego networks than students who have
inter-ethnic friendships. The analysis also
determined that there was no significant
difference in the size of friendship-based, ego
networks for Hispanics or African American
students.
This analysis looks to the concept of negotiating
world views and thereby minimizing microaggressions as a key reason for the difficulty of
self-segregated
students
in
establishing
friendships. This assumption is based on the fact
that ethnicity alone was the main criteria for
distinguishing self-segregated students. Taken as
a whole, there was not significance in the
difference in size of friendship networks based on
ethnicity. Other indicators, such as gender and
special education status were also looked at and
found to be insignificant. What was particularly
compelling about the results is that students who
self-segregate have difficult in establishing
friendship ego-networks in general, and appear to
be able to establish friendships along paths of
least resistance, resulting in self-segregation, and
with other students who also have difficulty in
establishing friendships.
The scope of this analysis did not examine the
complex social behaviors required to establish
friendships. Other factors, such as if students
were “loners”, or had specific family problems at
home, were not evaluated. However, the results of
this analysis call for more detailed research to
isolate the causes behind the inability for some
students to establish more friendships than
others, which appears to be a key determinate in
self-segregation.
References
1. Gee James Paul (2005) Social Linguistics and Literacies. London:
Routledge, p.127-168.
12. Hallinan MT, Williams RA (1989) “Interracial friendship choices
in secondary schools.” American Sociological Review, 54:67-78.
2. Fairclough Norman (1990) Language and Power. London:
Longman Press, p.38.
13. Kandel DB (1978) “Homophily, selection, and socialization in
adolescent friendships.” American Journal of Sociology, 84:42736.
3. Van Dijk, Teun A (2000) Ideologies, Racism, Discourse: Debates
on Immigration and Ethnic Issues. In Comparative Perspectivas
on Racism, Ter Wal, Jessika and Verkuyten, Maykel (Eds.), p,
91-116, Aldershot, Ashgate Pub Ltd, p.90-95.
14. McPherson JM, Smith-Lovin L (1987) “Homophily in Voluntary
Organizations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face to
Face Groups.” American Sociological Review, 52:370-79.
4. Moody James (2001) “Race, school integration, and friendship
segregation in America.” American Journal of Sociology,
107(3):532-716.
15. Tuma NB, Hallinan MT (1979) “The effects of sex, race, and
achievement on school children’s friendships.” Social Force,
571(4):1265-85.
5. Hajer Maarten (1993) Discourse Coalitions and the
Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Great
Britain. In Fischer, Frank/Forester, John (Hrsg.): The
Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning.
Durham/London. S. 43-67.
16. Henry Adam, Douglas D, Mitsche, P. Pralat (1991) Homophily,
contagion and the decay of community structure in selforganizing
networks.
An
unpublished
paper
at
http://www.math.ryerson.ca/~pralat/research.html.
6. Pilario DF (2005) Back to the Rough Grounds of Praxis:
Exploring Theological Method with Pierre Bourdieu. Leuven,
Belgium: Leuven University Press, p.101.
7. Latour Bruno (1996) Soziale Welt, 47:369-381, English web
edition
at
http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P67%20ACTOR-NETWORK.pdf.
8. Bourdieu, Pierre, John Thompson (1991) Language and Symbolic
Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p.166.
9. Thrift NJ (1996) Spatial Formations. London: Sage, p.258.
10. Burgess, Simon, Eleanor Sanderson and Marcela Umana-Aponte
(2011) School ties: An analysis of homophily in an adolescent
friendship network. CMPO Working Paper Series No. 11/267. At
http://www.bris.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2011/wp267.pdf.
11. Wimmer Andreas, Kevin Lewis (2010) Beyond and below racial
homophily erg models of a friendship network documented on
facebook. American Journal of Sociology, 116(2):583-642.
Brett Wyatt | October 2015 | Vol.3 | Issue 10 |01-08
17. Ennett Susan T, Bauman Karl E (1996) Adolescent Social
Networks: Friendship Cliques, Social Isolates, and Drug Use
Risk. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11(2):194-215.
18. Kadushin Charles (2011) Understanding Social Networks:
Theories, Concepts, and Findings. New York: Oxford University
Press.
19. Van Dijk, Teun A (1999) Media, Racism and Monitoring. In
Nordenstreng, Kaarle & Griffin, Michael (Eds.), International
Media Monitoring. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 307-316.
20. Guess Teresa J (2006) The Social Construction of Whiteness:
Racism by Intent, Racism by Consequence. Critical Sociology,
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden 32(4):650.
21. Worsham Lynn (1993) “Emotion and Pedagogical Violence.”
Discourse, 15(2):119-48.
22. Berger
Peter
L,
Thomas
Luckmann
(1966)
The
Social
7
Available online at: www.ijassh.com
Construction of Reality.
Doubleday, p.108,116.
New
York,
NY:
Anchor
Books
23. Weininger Elliot B (2005) Foundations of Pierre Bourdieu's Class
Analysis. In Wright, Online, ed. Approaches to Class Analysis,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 82-118.
24. Navarro Z (2006) ‘In Search of Cultural Interpretation of Power’,
IDS Bulletin, 37(6):11-22.
25. Wacquant Loic (2013) Symbolic power and group-making: On
Pierre Bourdieu’s reframing of class. Journal of Classical
Sociology, 1-18.
26. Durrheim K, Dixon J (2004) Attitudes in the fiber of everyday
life: The discourse of racial evaluation and the lived experience of
desegregation. American Psychologist, 59:626-636.
30. Flache Andreas, Tobias Stark (2008) Preference or opportunity?
Why do we find more friendship segregation in more
heterogeneous schools? Paper presented at 103rd Annual
Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA). Boston,
August 4, 2008. At ar Xiv:0901.2825 [physics.soc-ph].
31. Freeman LC (1972) “Segregation in Social
Sociological Methods andResearch 6:411-30.
Networks.”
32. Green Dot Public Schools (2013) Animo Locke II College
Preparatory
Academy.
At
http://www.greendot.org/page.cfm?p=3659.
33. Public Schools K12 (2013) Animo Locke Charter High School #2
Information, Athttp://publicschoolsk12.com/high-schools/ca/losangeles-county/062271012306.html.
27. Tatum B (1997) Why are all the black kids sitting together in the
cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic
Books.
34. Hanneman Robert, Mark Riddle (2005) Introduction to social
network
methods.
Online
at
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/C4_netdraw.html#node
s.
28. Bobo Lawrence D, Fox Cybelle (2003) Methods, and theory in
social psychological research, Social Psychology Quarterly,
66:4(3)19-332.
35. Prell Christina (2012) Social Network Analysis: History, Theory
and Methodology. London: Sage.
29. Rowe MP (1990) Barriers to equality: The power of subtle
discrimination to maintain unequal opportunity. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 3(2):153-163.
8
Brett Wyatt | October 2015 | Vol.3 | Issue 10 |01-08