Bruce Mims Dissertation

____________________________________________________________________
SOCIAL CAPITAL, INSTITUTIONAL AGENCY, MINORITY OR LOW-
STATUS YOUTH EMPOWERMENT, AND AVID IMPLEMENTATION
by
Bruce Lamar Mims
A Dissertation Presented to the

FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements of the Degree

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2007

Copyright 2007 Bruce Lamar Mims

DEDICATION
First, I dedicate this project to Jason Cuneo, my loving partner whose
unwavering support has sustained me throughout this academic and emotional
journey. I also dedicate this project to my children, Steven and Stephanie Cuneo-
Mims. My children and their future are what inspired me to embark upon this
scholarly journey to better myself. To my parents, Joseph and Marceline Mims,
whose love, patience, support, and upbringing have made me the person that I am
today. To all of my relatives who are no longer with us, I always carry the spirit of
your memory close to my heart—especially my grandmother, Maudine and my Aunt,
Deloris: their radiant spirits always shine brightly on my life, and shower my family
with many blessings.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my chairperson and my committee whose support and
guidance made this all possible. I especially would like to thank my mentor, Dr.
Stacey Nickson. Her presence in my life has been the guiding force that has
motivated me to expand my professional and personal horizons. Her membership on
my dissertation committee is the culmination of our professional and personal
relationship together; and, I am eternally grateful for her continued friendship and
collegial support.
I would also like to thank personnel from the following entities for their
support throughout this project: Los Angeles County Office of Education AVID
Regional Office; the Rowland Unified School District; the Long Beach Unified
School District; the Escondido Union High School District; the Baldwin Park
Unified School District; and the Pomona Unified School District.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION……………………………………………………………. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………..iii

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………vi
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………viii
CHAPTER 1…..……………………………………………………………1

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………. …1

Problem Statement……………………………………………….....3

Purpose of the Study………………………………………………
Terms and Definitions………………………………………………17

..5

Research Questions………………………………………………....6

Significance of the Study…………………………………………...7

Delimitations of the Study………………………………………… 19

Assumptions and Limitations of the Study…………………………19

Conclusion…………………………………………………………..21

Organization of the Dissertation……………………………………21

CHAPTER 2………………………………………………………………...22

Community Based Intervention Programs and

Social Capital Theory in the Context of

Social Capital, Social Support, and

Theoretical Convergence and

CRITICAL SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE…………………………... 22

Introduction…………………………………………………………22

Theoretical Frameworks of Social Capital….................................... 23

The Plight of Minority and Urban Youth………………………… 33

Institutional Agency………………………………………………...44

Intervention and Institutional Agency………………………….... 55

Educational Outcomes……………………………………………... 62

Opportunities for Expanded Articulation…………………………...65

Conclusion…………………………………………………………..68

CHAPTER 3……………………………………………………………….. 70

METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………….. 70

Introduction…………………………………………………………70

Sample and Population…………………………………………….. 80

Instrumentation…………………………………………………….106

iv

Data Collection…………………………………………… 113

Data Analysis……………………………………………….115

Summary……………………………………………………116

CHAPTER 4…….…………………………………………………. 117

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS. 117

Introduction………………………………………………....117

Program Coordinator Participant Descriptions…………… 119

Analysis of the Findings in the Context of the Research

119

Questions…………………………………………….
Thematic Summary of Key Findings in the Analysis……. 141

CHAPTER 5…………………………………………………....….. 144

DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS, AND

Limitations of the Study…………………………………….159

RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………...144

Discussion of Key Findings in the Analysis……………… . 144

Implications of the Study……………………………… 156

Recommendations…………………………………………..160

Suggestions for Further Study…………………………….. 162

REFERENCES…………………………………………………….. 165

APPENDICES………………………………………………………171

Appendix A: Resources Domains and Essential Recourse and

Relationship Groupings……………………………………………172

Appendix B: Name Generator…………………………………….174

Appendix C: Position Generator…………………………………..182

Appendix D: Resource Generator…………………………………183

Appendix E: Guided Conversation Protocol………………………184

Appendix F: Guided Conversation Excerpts Concerning

Appendix G: Name Generator Survey…………………………….189

Appendix H: SEI Scores and Positional Status Relative to

Occupations Listed in the Position Generator

(Appendix D)……………………………………………………….190

AVID Training……………………………………………………..186

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Southland High School Enrollment by Ethnicity…………… 82
Table 2 Southland High School AVID Enrollment by
Ethnicity………………………………………………………84
Table 3 Pierce High School Enrollment by Ethnicity…………………86
Table 4 Pierce High School AVID Enrollment by
Ethnicity………………………………………………………87
Table 5 Pinnacles High School Enrollment by Ethnicity……………...89
Table 6 Pinnacles High School AVID Enrollment by
Ethnicity………………………………………………………90
Table 7 Canyon High School Enrollment by Ethnicity……………….92
Table 8 Canyon High School AVID Enrollment by
Ethnicity………………………………………………………94
Table 9 Valley Vista High School Enrollment by Ethnicity………..…96
Table 10 Valley Vista High School AVID Enrollment by
Ethnicity………………………………………………………98
Table 11 Shoreline Heights High School Enrollment by
Ethnicity………………………………………………………100
Table 12 Shoreline Heights High School AVID Enrollment
by Ethnicity …………………………………………………..101
Table 13 Parkview High School Enrollment by Ethnicity……………...103
Table 14 Parkview High School AVID Enrollment by
Ethnicity………………………………………………………105
Table 15 Program Coordinator Accessed Positions and
Positional Status………………………………………………121
vi

Table 16 Program Coordinator Resource Contacts and
Extensity of Weak Ties……………………………………….124
Table 17 Program Coordinator Network Range………………………..127
vii

ABSTRACT

This study isolated the salience of institutional agency within the context of a
specific intervention program called, Advancement via Individual Determination
(AVID), an untracking program designed to help low achieving students elicit
academic success.
Four primary research questions guided the study. First, to the degree those
efforts to engage in social capital mobilization are made, how might the program
coordinator’s accessible social capital play a prominent role? Second, to what extent
are AVID program coordinators able to mobilize their social capital to convey
information, resources, and opportunities to minority and low-status youth in the
context of program implementation? Third, what factors facilitate or constrain the
accumulation of accessible social capital and agency-oriented mobilization of social
capital (on behalf of program participants and/or program implementation)? Finally,
to what extent does AVID training identify the underpinning theoretical concepts and
processes of social capital theory; thus do AVID program coordinators understand
their role relative to the help-seeking and network-seeking orientations of
institutional agency?
This study incorporated both inductive and deductive methodologies within
the qualitative research design to accomplish in-depth cross-case analysis of the
range, quality, and nature of program coordinators’ individual networks and sources
of support. Furthermore, this methodology also determined their proclivity to excess
their individual networks and sources of support to convey essential resources,
viii

information, and opportunities to minority or low-status youth; thus facilitating their
academic and social mobility, and, hence, fostering their empowerment.
The study revealed insight and answers as it relates to the primary research
questions, and articulated the findings into (3) thematic summaries and discussion.
First, the study revealed that program coordinators have critical deficiencies in their
personal networks relative to the status of their positional contacts. Second, it
revealed that program coordinators are not engaged in active (institutional) agency as
counterstratification mechanism. Finally, the study revealed that AVID training does
not explicitly address agency as an intervention design relative to the resources
model of social capital.
ix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Urban Public Education: Crisis and Opportunity
Although public education continues to move forward in this era of increased
accountability, relative to “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB), states, districts, and
school-wide learning communities continue to struggle with its implications;
especially those situated in large urban areas, serving predominately low-status and
minority children. This is due in large part to the fact that the predominate policy
initiatives and research studies continue to analyze this dilemma through a deficit
paradigm, rather than considering variegated sociological, and social cultural, and
socioeconomic conditions, which either facilitate or hinder academic success
(Ladson-Billings, 2000; Singleton & Linton, 2005). Nevertheless, minority and low-
status students continue to lag behind their white middle-class counterparts, while
institutions assess and analyze their progress and shortcomings through normative
lenses. Institutions also engage in prescribing instructional interventions without
analyzing the nature of schools, schooling, and foundational pedagogy.
As bureaucratic policy pressures mount, many districts and schools struggle
for the answers and formulas to close the achievement gap between minority and
low-status children and their white middle-class counterparts. Some isolated school
settings, teachers, and classrooms, however, are uniquely poised to affect significant
positive change in student learning outcomes because they tacitly or explicitly equip
students with the skills and knowledge essential to elicit success. These isolated
1

settings are elucidating success within the context of the milieus, communities, social
cultural and socioeconomic situations, and challenges they face on a consistent basis.
Why does this happen in isolation? What have these pockets of powerful teaching,
learning, and student development discovered that public education it its entirety
cannot decipher and implement on a wide scale? Do these isolated pockets of
success reflect traditional or normative paradigms or pedagogies? On the other hand,
do these success stories afford entirely new insight into how institutional pedagogy
and public schooling can and should adapt to meet the needs of the demographics
they serve?
Success as the Exception
Districts and schools if not public education as a whole are gradually moving
toward a point of critical mass, whereas reform efforts imposing normative or
traditional means to improve student learning outcomes relative to minority children
are creating increasing levels of dissonance and discord within the communities they
serve. White middle class students excel, achieve, and advance relative to the people,
information, resources, and opportunities at their disposal and deployment. Their
minority and low-status student counterparts, however, lag behind because of
inadequate resources and facilities, poorly trained educators, curricular and
instructional disconnect, which results in alienation and internalized oppression.
Normative reform efforts such as standards-based and/or high-stakes testing and
standards-based instructional designs tend to perpetuate alienation and
disenfranchisement. As a result, minority student dropout rates increase, and fewer
2

minority students gain access to colleges and universities; thus, creating new cycles
of marginalization, disenfranchisement, and oppression.
The gathering maelstrom concerning accountability, coupled with
increasingly scarce resources, socioeconomic constraints is the backdrop that affords
scholars the opportunity to cultivate new areas of research to analyze the components
of schools and pedagogy that either foster or hinder positive human development
relative to minority or low-status youth. These components either promote success
or perpetuate failure in these milieus. Although the institutional structures that
circumscribe productive educational programs provide the foundations for positive
student learning outcomes, their success by no means ubiquitous (Conchas, 2001;
Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996). Success is systematic because
strategically placed individuals (e.g., teachers, program coordinators) have a
penchant to facilitate processes and provide support while embedding minority and
low-status youth into the relationships and networks, which translate into academic
and social support mechanisms. Empowering them with essential resources,
information, and opportunities is essential to their ability to navigate through and
overcome the institutional, social cultural and socioeconomic obstacles that typically
impede their progress or mobility.
Problem Statement
Many different types and/or categories of academic and social intervention
programs that exist pertaining to minority and low-status youth, a substantial body of
scholarly literature exists that implicitly or explicitly articulates the theoretical
3

mechanisms of social capital, while analyzing their efficacy relative to
implementation cycles. A substantial body of literature, however, does not exist that
theoretically articulates and analyzes exactly how teachers, youth workers, and other
institutional agents serving minority or low-status youth are able to empower these
youth along several simultaneous dimensions. These dynamics include complex
role-sets that such agents assume within the context of the school setting or an
intervention.
As it pertains to minority and low-status youth intervention programs, we do
not know enough about the dynamics of how program coordinators and/or staff
members assume the complex role-set of “institutional agents;” and, how they
acquire and mobilize social capital on behalf of program participants and how they
and serve as bridging agents. They connect youth to essential resources,
information, and opportunities controlled by “agents” in other networks and
institutional settings. This process enables minority and low-status to access
institutional mechanisms that facilitate academic and/or social mobility, which
routinely engineer the success and empowerment of white middle and upper-class
youth.
Scholarly literature beckons for an expanded articulation of those institutional
mechanisms that underpin social capital relative to minority and low status youth;
meaning, institutional mechanisms precipitate access to social capital. Whereas
social capital pertains to the institutional resources and support mechanisms
accessible through social ties to “agents,” who are strategically positioned in relation
4

to society’s stratification systems; thereby, facilitating academic or social mobility.
Therefore, examining the impact of “agency” relative to program efficacy and/or
learning outcomes, or other dynamic manifestations that precipitate academic or
social mobility in the lives of minority and low-status youth is essential to
understanding the salience of social capital as it pertains to their empowerment.
Purpose of the Study
Variegated depictions of programmatic success relative to minority student
achievement is largely descriptive in nature, I intend to isolate the salience of
institutional agency at the individual level, within the context of a specific
intervention program called, Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID).
AVID is an untracking program designed to help low achieving students elicit
academic success. Institutional agency refers to persons using their influence,
capacity, and resources in their own embedded networks to assist others, in this case
minority and low-status youth, in gaining access to networks, resources, information,
and opportunities essential for academic and social mobility (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
In addition, I will examine the manner in which the people, i.e., institutional
agents, involved in the intervention program convey essential skills, which empower
minority youth to overcome both institutional and societal obstacles and attain
academic success. Finally, using the two predominant conceptual frameworks of
social capital theory, coupled with empowerment, I will construct a theoretical
rationale to articulate the complexities of these empowering mechanisms and
behaviors in a scholarly manner that future educational studies related to institutional
5

or pedagogical reform might take into consideration when elucidating
recommendations. The primary focus of the study centers on how institutional
agents, who are members of privileged groups or classes in their complex and
evolving roles and mobilize, within the context of their own social networks, to
resources, information, and opportunities, and their social capital to support minority
and low-status students within the framework of an intervention program.
Research Questions
Primary
The following are the primary questions driving the research of this study:
1. To the degree those efforts to engage in social capital mobilization are
made, how might the program coordinator’s accessible social capital
play a prominent role?
2. To what extent are AVID program coordinators able to mobilize their
social capital to convey information, resources, and opportunities to
minority and low-status youth in the context of program
implementation?
3. What factors facilitate or constrain the accumulation of accessible
social capital and agency-oriented mobilization of social capital (on
behalf of program participants and/or program implementation)?
6

4. To what extent does AVID training identify the underpinning
theoretical concepts and processes of social capital theory; thus do
AVID program coordinators understand their role relative to the help-
seeking and
Significance of the Study
Re-Conceptualizing Youth Resiliency and Network Orientation
One of the most predominant and overarching ideologies, which permeates
our society, is individualism and meritocracy. On one hand, our society exalts and
reveres principles of individualism, independence, and self-reliance. For the most
part, individual success is commonplace for those persons who reflect the value
systems and background typical of the white middle-class ideals (Stanton-Salazar &
Spina, 2000). This ideal, however, does not take into account the inherent social
network structures that individuals (i.e., white and black middle-class) marshal, to
elicit and attain the information, resources, and forms of support that ensure their
success; hence, the paradox (Cochran et al., 1990; Spencer, 2001). Youth from
privileged backgrounds inherently benefit, tacitly and/or explicitly, from the
institutional and social structures embedded within their primary networks and
communities. Their network systems insulate them from failure and ecological
dangers relative to greater society, hence, facilitating their success. Meanwhile,
structural and institutional conditions seemingly transform individual circumstances,
pertaining to minority and low-status youth, into situations that may increase the
potential for failure. Stanton-Salazar (2001) terms such mechanisms as defensive or
7

self-protective help-seeking orientations; whereas, a lack of proximity relative to
adult kin, one-parent households, poverty, coupled with environmental conditions
typical of urban blight translates into embedded ness into social dynamics that fail to
buffer or insulate them from the burdens of racial stratification.
Against this backdrop, Spina (as cited in Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000)
suggests that popular notions of resiliency (e.g., success “against the odds”) are
misleading. In fact, popular culture inordinately romanticizes the concept. This
paradigm is plagued with biases, which, consequently, diminish and/or de-legitimate
the belief systems and practices of other cultural communities, i.e., minority or low-
status. These privileged communities perceive resiliency as an ideal related to the
adherence to traditions and natural support systems emanating from the family and
ethnic communities (Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000). Re-conceptualizing our notion
of youth resiliency is an essential component relative to shifting the popular
paradigm; it is a systematic developmental process that begins with the individual’s
(e.g., child or parent) ability to formulate optimal responses to adverse situations and
circumstances, as well as his or her perception that options and assistance, indeed,
exist (Spencer, 2001).
The quality and salience of youth and family relationships within the primary
support system, usually the family network, predicates cultivation and promulgation
of help-seeking tendencies outside of the primary relationship support system or
network. This is a critical supposition as it relates to relationship and support
network dynamics within communities comprised of minority, low-income
8

individual and family units (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001). Children and adolescents,
as well as their families and communities are constantly exposed and subject to
influences extending outside of the primary network or support systems. These
outward extensions are essential to healthy development, as well as access to
information and resources to guide and enhance their optimal response patterns
(Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000). They find themselves embedded in a myriad of
social dynamics outside of their primary networks. Otherwise, they become isolated
and disengaged from the mainstream; lacking available resources and information
essential to foster upward social mobility (Cochran et al., 1990; Granovetter, 1983;
Spencer, 2001).
From the onset of their school careers, minority children face complex and
evolving social cultural challenges as they endeavor to overcome the institutional
obstacles typically associated with urban public education, as well as those that
characterize or society; plagued by various constructs of oppression, which
seemingly conspire to perpetuate minority disenfranchisement and/or
marginalization (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). They must assume the burden of
socialization through acquiring essential coping skills that will enable them to
navigate the ecological perils of a highly racialized, and discriminatory society.
Conceptually speaking, most minority children are at-risk youth, although at
different degrees (Cochran et al., 1990). Therefore, we must begin to analyze
minority youth and family resilience within the scope of the developmental process
rather than an aberrant phenomenon (Spencer, 2001). As minority and/or low status
9

youth learn to employ their help-seeking skills, they cultivate the ability to venture
beyond their primary networks seeking essential information and assistance relative
to situational decisions and responses; moreover, optimal response skill enhancement
increases the likelihood of upward social mobility (Spencer, 2001; Stanton-Salazar &
Spina, 2001).
Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2000) submit that minority and low-status youth
resiliency depends on the ability of persons to reach across social cultural borders to
foster positive help-seeking orientations, or attitudes and beliefs about the utilities of
individual networks to assist in the coping process concerning a life problem.
Subsequent network-orientations entail the proclivity towards strengthening
relationship dynamics to reach across social cultural borders and overcome
institutional barriers, seeking the assistance and support from relevant adults, agents,
or peers. This transformation is the process of strategic socialization, which
determines; (a) individual choices relative to cultivating various social relationships
in the face of structural circumstances; (b) whether individuals utilize those
relationships as sources of social and institutional support; and, (c) individuals’
facility relative to crossing conflictive social cultural borders to overcome
institutional barriers to facilitate mobility.
Institutional Agency and Complex Role Dynamics
Organizations and communities also entail forms of agency, and their agency
serves as a vehicle to assist members pertaining to some benefits precluded from
persons outside the community or organization. Institutional agency, however, as
10

depicted by Stanton-Salazar (1997) usually consists of a person who has the capacity
to act or operate in the face of opportunities, as well as constraints. In addition, their
degree of effectiveness is dependent upon the amount and diversity of the social
capital they can access; thus, the degree to which the program coordinator assumes
the role-set of institutional agent predicates the effectiveness of an intervention
program, such as AVID.
Although many scholars have tacitly conceptualized the role of institutional
agency in the context of their research and publications, it remains considerably
under-theorized. Yet, the institutional agency is an integral component underpinning
the development and resiliency of minority youth. Stanton Salazar (1997) posits that
institutional agents as those individuals in strategic positions who possess the
commitment and the capacity to facilitate or convey institutional resources, support,
and opportunities. The agents’ own embedded social networks are the nexus of their
ability to facilitate or convey resources and opportunities (Stanton-Salazar, 1997;
Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000). Thus, institutional agency pertains to an
individual’s evolving dynamic of complex relationships that, when accessed and/or
mobilized in the context of an intervention, convey essential resources, information,
and opportunities that facilitate growth and development. In this case, we are
referring to the social and academic mobility of minority or low-status youth, which
fosters their empowerment.
11

The institutional agent’s significance and efficacy lie in the fact that, not only
are they purveyors of resources and support, hence, social capital, to minority or
low-status youth, but also due in large part because their transactions represent a
“counter-stratification” mechanism defined in terms of Stanton-Salazar (2001).
When employed, it counterbalances the ill affects of differential privilege and
marginalization due to systemic biases and racial prejudice that plagues our society
(Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000). Institutional agents
mitigate potential alienated embeddedness depicting the typical experiences of
minority and low-status youth, as they navigate through the situational perils, which
they encounter throughout their adolescent lives. A person’s strategic and positional
relationships, resources, and their ability to access resources and information relative
to high-status or power positions predicate their ability to act as institutional agents.
If this is the case, then they have the ability to align their personal attributes and
traits with the dominant culture of power, i.e., white, middle-class, within the context
of their own social cultural experience (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001; Stanton-Salazar
& Spina, 2000).
Thus, their potential to empower youth relates to their ability to convey codes
or rules of power that dictate dominant institutional contexts; hence, enabling them
how to negotiate and, in some cases, subvert those rules to acquire power, while
attaining academic and social mobility within the dominant construct (Delpit, 1988).
It is important, however, to point out that the role of institutional agents and agency
itself constitutes both the capacity to act, as well as the decision to act. In short,
12

capacity or capability alone does not necessarily equate to agency. Agency is both a
socio psychological and a behavioral concept; and, program leadership does not
necessarily predicate agency, without action.
Understanding the role and responsibilities institutional agency entails is
essential to its effectiveness as a pedagogical construct. There are many academic
intervention programs endeavoring to implement innovative instructional designs to
elicit positive student learning outcomes. As the literature reflects, in many cases, the
programs elucidate positive student learning outcomes. Mehan, Villanueva,
Hubbard, and Lintz (1996), as well as Kahne and Bailey (1999) articulate the fact
that innovative instructional design is not necessary tantamount to program success
as evidenced in positive student learning outcomes. In fact, many of these
innovative intervention programs fail, or elicit variegated levels of success, and
create considerable acrimony relative to their implementation. This is why agency is
such an important concept to understand and manifest in the context of an
intervention design.
Institutional agency as it relates to program effectiveness entails that the
institutional agent consciously acts and successfully transitions between multiple and
evolving dynamic roles, relative to constructs which tend to empower minority and
low-status youth; hence, they are teachers, motivators, counselors, parents, mentors,
mediators, and, if necessary, disciplinarians (McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 1994).
Ironically, intervention programs that do not explicitly articulate the essential
dimensions and dynamics that institutional agency entails may affectively do more
13

harm than good, because implementation failure reinforces or perpetuates trenchant
embedded alienation relative to student learning outcomes. In other words, there is
no presupposing framework from which to analyze the overriding philosophical or
ideological constructs precipitating the underlying dissonance (Hernandez, 1995;
Singleton & Linton, 2005).
Social Capital Theory, Strategic Socialization, and Equity Pedagogy
Articulating the theoretical mechanisms that facilitate resiliency, relative to
minority and low status youth, in the context of a social capital framework is
imperative to the study. In fact, they are the lynchpin attribute that enables us to
intellectualize the social cultural and socioeconomic dynamics depicting systemic
biases plaguing our society and schools; and, consequently, marginalize cultures and
children (Delpit, 1988; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Moreover, social capital is a salient
theoretical lens that when catalyzed could adequately shift educational paradigms
and pedagogy towards equitable designs and practices. This theoretical mechanism
engages and empowers minority students to reach beyond the institutional and social
barriers they perceive as limiting, while using the mechanisms, i.e., social capital,
and moves them far beyond conditional marginalization and disenfranchisement
(Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000).
Understanding minority youth empowerment and institutional agency in the
context of a critically oriented social capital framework requires analyzing the
theoretical underpinnings of counter stratification efforts. On a visceral level,
however, individual agents’ perceptions of race and culture, in relation to their own
14

situational position or embedded networks, manifest in the proclivity towards
variegated institutional agency transactions, as well as the efficacy of their efforts
(Ladson-Billings, 1995). Therefore, individual belief systems, in the context of race
and culture, influence positional relationships to the extent that they either empower
or potentially impede social capital transactions, relative to minority and low-status
youth (Delpit, 1988; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000).
Positional relationships, pertaining to institutional agency, are the domain
where latent personal belief systems become factors into the analysis of social capital
transactions in the context of institutional agency; ironically, the discussions
regarding intervention efficacy frequently relegate this topic “non- discussable”
category to avoid controversy or acrimonious debate (Singleton & Linton, 2005).
Nevertheless, this topic is the philosophical lens, which obligates scholarly research.
In the very near future, student-learning outcomes, scholarly research, and
instructional pedagogy will reach a critical mass relative to the achievement gap that,
indeed, will compel them to consider conducting an open debate on this subject,
because successful programs frequently operate in isolation; and with variegated
results (Mehan et al., 1996).
Researchers, scholars, and educators must scrutinize this idea with great care
and concern if paradigms and pedagogies are to attain equity, because the
manifestations of inequity relative to student achievement unfolding in classrooms
on a daily basis are, indeed, a microcosm of the social capital, social cultural, and
institutional mechanisms by which racism and stereotypes operationalize in our
15

society. In his conversation on the subject, Dr. John Hope Franklin (2006) reminded
his audience that President Bill Clinton, in his 2003 commencement address at the
University of California, San Diego suggested that, “the time has come for America
to begin a dialogue about race” (p. 192); yet, in 2006 we still find ourselves marred
in a shroud of non-discussion (Franklin, 2006). Whereas, it is within this particular
dialogue, concerning race, culture, and equity that therein lays the greatest
understanding of how social capital operationalizes in our institutional practices
relative to instruction and student learning outcomes. Therefore, it is an imperative
that scholarly research becomes a conduit to facilitate this dialogue. Moreover, it is
the author’s hope that the study’s findings afford educational research an intellectual
platform from which to catalyze this discussion; hence, a paradigm shift.
Intervention and Explicit Theoretical Articulation
Explicit scientific and theoretical language relative to community-based or
academic intervention program not only affords those involved in the
implementation process the ability to articulate program rationale in a conceptual
framework, it also provides intervention designers and program implementers an
essential foundation from which to commence critical inventory relative to program
efficacy. Succinct theoretical language pertaining to program design brings clarity
and consistency to the sociological, as well as the sociopolitical ideologies that
inevitability underpins all community-based and academic intervention (Ladson-
Billings, 1995).
16

Youth engaged in an intervention design either connect or disconnect in the
context of a program implementation based on the social cultural relevance of
program components, whether the program is culturally competent or compatible.
However, youth also respond to program endeavors based on how they perceive the
ideologies and perceptions of institutional agents involved in the implementation
(Singleton & Linton, 2005); moreover, the ideological underpinnings relative to
agency usually manifest in tacit or implicit terms.
Terms and Definitions
A definitive understanding of the following terms is critical to the study,
because they are articulated and discussed extensively throughout its entirety:
• Complex Role Sets: Institutional agents whose contextual roles
interchange relative to situations and circumstances (Stanton-Salazar &
Spina, 2000).
• Counter Stratification: Social scaffolding efforts, which counterbalance
systemic or institutional biases that typically marginalize social cultural,
socioeconomic groups (Stanton-Salazar, 2001).
• Empowerment: A psychological state involving active participatory
processes by which individuals gain essential resources or competencies
to increase self-efficacy and accomplish set goals (Maton & Salem,
1995).
17

• Institutional Agent (Agency): Persons who use their influence, capacity,
and resources relative to their position to assist others in gaining access to
networks, resources, information, and opportunities essential for social
mobility (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
• Network Orientation: An array of individual propensities or proclivities
pertaining to one’s beliefs and attitudes that informs or motivates
personal initiatives towards engaging in various social relationships or
group affiliations (Stanton-Salazar, 2001).
• Positional Resources: Influence and salience of tangible or intangible
assets possessed within the context of one’s individual embedded network
relative to their status in a social hierarchical structure (Lin, 1999).
• Reciprocity: Individuals engaged in social exchanges of resources,
information, and opportunities that elicit mutual benefit (Granovetter,
1983; Lin, 1999).
• Resiliency: Psychosocial mechanisms of individuals, representing
traditionally marginalized social cultural groups; used to overcome
institutional or systemic barriers and elicit the assistance necessary to
sustain overall physical, mental, and emotional well-being (Spencer,
2001).
• Social Capital: Acquirable tangible and intangible assets of social
position or status converted into individual or communal benefit or profit
(Bourdieu, 1988; Lin, 1999).
18

Delimitations of the Study
The author will apply critical case study approach to examine the functions of
a high school site-based AVID program, and draw research findings from a critical
ethnography. This process incorporates both inductive and deductive methodologies
to elucidate generalizations regarding the efficacy of AVID, relative to the role of the
institutional agents. Critical ethnographic case study is essential to draw inferences
relative to a historical background of the site-based AVID program development as it
pertains to the program coordinator and other institutional agents involved in the
implementation cycles. Mixed methods are essential to formulate generalizations
regarding the salience of institutional agency in the context of the AVID program,
and formulate relevant connections to the literature; as well, as to triangulate findings
in a manner that facilitates broader discussion about the efficacy of AVID relative to
the roles of institutional agents as it pertains to implementation.
Assumptions and Limitations of the Study
The author assumes that all persons engaged in the implementation of AVID
program components, i.e., senior leadership, regional and site-based program
coordinators, teachers, have attended and/or participated in at least one Summer
Institute, the primary training component of AVID core-principles and practices;
meaning, all relevant personnel are adequately trained in AVID principles.
Furthermore, the author assumes that all persons engaged in school site-based AVID
program implementation participate in mandated ongoing professional development
relative to AVID program principles, instructional designs, and curricular
19

implementation, which is a stipulation relative to maintaining certification as an
AVID school-site program.
The nature of the study renders the findings subjective, and, therefore open to
variegated interpretation, because the issues at hand are both salient and potentially
volatile. Race and culture are visceral constructs underpinning the mechanisms and
manifestations of our society; yet, those who enjoy privilege or power relative to the
dominant culture are the least likely to acknowledge or validate their dominant
positions (Delpit, 1988; Singleton & Linton, 2005). The results may also be a direct
reflection of the experience, or lack thereof, pertaining to the particular AVID
program coordinator or teacher involved in the implementation process.
Thus, the study’s findings may not portray an entirely accurate depiction of
present paradigms and practices from which to elucidate broader generalizations
pertaining to the mechanisms of institutional agency operationalized in a social
capital framework, given the realities of systemic biases that foster pervasive social
cultural marginalization and social stratification. Nevertheless, the study intends to
lend intellectual and theoretical insight into this complex dynamic in a manner that
may catalyze further, broader, and deeper discussions concerning institutional
agency, equity pedagogy, and other relevant constructs, as well as their salient
affects pertaining to student achievement and/or learning outcomes.
20

Conclusion
In summation, the importance of this study lies in the fact that disparities in
academic and social outcomes between minority or low-status youth and their middle
class counterparts result from the fact that middle class or privileged youth are
embedded in the social networks of their parents or community. In other words,
their access to social capital, by means of institutional resources, are a function of
their parent’s social capital, as well as the school’s; by means of the their networks
or positional resources. In contrast, minority or low-status youth, by definition of
what it means to be “working class” or “working poor,” do not have access to social
capital under normal circumstances. Thus, when program leaders assume role-sets,
typical of middle and upper class backgrounds, they can potentially serve as bridging
agents who link minority and low-status youth access to social capital, and
facilitating the process of counter stratification.
Organization of the Dissertation
The author has organized this study into five interrelated chapters. Chapter 1
introduces the purpose of the study, the rationale relative to its significance, research
questions, terms and definitions, as well as the study’s assumptions and limitations.
Chapter 2 depicts a topic organized critical synthesis of literature relevant to the
study. Chapter 3 outlines the research methodology, rationale, sampling strategy,
instrumentation and related studies, data collection, and, finally, data analysis and
related rationale. Chapter 4 depicts the research findings relative to the collected
data. Chapter 5 is a discussion of research implications.
21

CHAPTER 2

CRITICAL SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE
Introduction
The goal of this chapter is to capsulate a critical synthesis of literature that
conceptualizes the content in a manner that is relevant to the overall study, while
transforming systemic or normative intellectual frameworks entailing
institutionalized biases into operational consciousness. Furthermore, my alternative
insight through an intellectual articulation of “institutional agency,” as it
counterbalances systemic and ideological biases that perpetuate the alienation and
marginalization of minority youth is an essential component of moving the
theoretical mechanisms of social capital the forefront of the discussion concerning
the salient affects of agency relative to academic or social mobility. Therefore, this
analysis of literature embeds opportunities for new paradigms, while providing a
critique of several dominant or mainstream discourses that historically have
accounted for the pervasive, disproportionate, and chronic underachievement that
plagues minority and low-status student learning outcomes.
In addition, this depiction of an alternative analytical framework draws
primarily from theories of social capital. This framework also draws upon critical
race, and empowerment theories, because it is important to highlight aspects of
inequality and privilege as it pertains to differential access to essential institutional
resources. This reality, coupled with the seminal impact of institutional support, e.g.,
connections to gatekeepers who guide youth and their families through channels and
22

resources relative to college enrollment, are essential to understanding how their
marshaled affects facilitate academic and social mobility. Thus, I intend to
thematically articulate elements of paradigm shift into the intellectual and scholarly
dynamic, as well as the resulting inferences entailed in the literature advanced
throughout the critical synthesis of literature. Critical understanding or insight
pertaining to particular components of paradigm shift underpins the imperative
nature of the study, which examines the effectiveness of institutional agents relative
to programs such as Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID).
Theoretical Frameworks of Social Capital
Theoretical camps of social capital are the integral lens of analysis relative to
each dynamic intervention depicted throughout this synthesis of literature. Although
the predominant theoretical camps of social capital offer distinct and, sometimes,
contrasting rationales, they are the foundation that bind additional theoretical
concepts into a coherent platform to analyze and articulate the salient constructs of
agency, as well as empowerment. Despite many distinct contrasts, each camp has
various strengths and weaknesses; yet, employing elements of both camps towards a
rationale that articulates empowerment, various opposing principles become
congruent and integral constructs through which to analyze the salience of
institutional agency.
Functionalism and Social Closure
The primary supposition driving James Coleman’s (1988) conceptualization
of social capital is defined and, therefore, analyzed as a matter of what it actually
23

does, rather than what it is; hence, its function. Ideologically speaking, the primary
social psychological processes revolve around collective social structure through the
enforcement of norms and sanctions. Whereas, this normative or integrative mindset
presupposes that individuals are bound to the collective via belief systems,
commitment to common values, community engagement, which fosters attachment
(Portes, 1998, 2000; Lin, 2004). Therefore, the perceived value of membership,
hence, social capital, is relative to resources it enables participants to access pursuant
to their personal interest. It consists not of a single entity or construct, but of a
variety of entities bounded by two common denominators: (a) they all exist within
the context of a social structure; and (b) they all facilitate certain actions between
participants within the structure. The underpinning aspect of which is the fact that
membership in the collective is productive and allows attainment of certain ends that,
in its absence, would not be feasible (Coleman, 1988).
Trustworthiness and obligation within the context of a social environment are
the seminal underpinnings of social capital. In fact, without a high degree of
trustworthiness among members of the group, the institution could not sustain itself;
it is within this notion that Coleman (1998) rationalizes the plight of large urban
areas as social capital deficit relative to the high degree of mobility within these
environs. Members frequently exit the social structure, which leaves these
communities blighted, considerably disorganized, and/or void of social capital.
Coleman adds that he could never foresee credit associations flourishing in large
urban areas, due to the lack of trust and social cohesion. Obligation, he states, must
24

permeate the society and bind it together. When members come and go, however,
vacuums exist that undermine their salience.
Coleman (1998) submits that social relations are healthy and productive
when people adhere to the norms and values the social structure prescribes. People
adhere to those norms because they share a common interest, and this is what
sustains the structural collective. These norms and values are the powerful, but
precarious social capital, which binds the structure; deviance from these norms
warrants sanction or alienation from the benefits entailed through participation in the
collective or detrimental impact upon one’s reputation, hence, their trustworthiness.
Therefore, it is sanctions, or the fear of such, that constrain members from engaging
in behaviors or actions detrimental to the collective. Portes (1998) conceptualizes
this aspect of norms and sanctions as, enforceable trust. Enforceable trust, as an
extension of social capital manifests for recipients when it facilitates access to
resources from the collective; for donors, the transaction guarantees against
malfeasance relative to the threat of ostracism and sanctions from the collective
(Portes & Landolt, 1996).
Thus, Coleman suggests that (social) network closure is an essential
component predicating the efficacy of norms and sanctions. Network closure as it
pertains to family and community or intergenerational dynamics, is a necessary
condition to elicit trustworthiness. He uses this rationale to advance his analysis of
the conditions and outcomes of families and communities using a deficit model,
which compares the dropout rates between Catholic school and Public school
25

students. He asserts, that Catholic high school communities comprised of “nuclear,”
i.e., two-parent, families are embedded in networks that also entail intergenerational
closure, based upon the common practices entailed by membership, participation,
and interaction within these complex and closed networks. Portes (2000) expands
this proposition, when he asserts that social capital is an asset exclusively afforded to
intact families and communities, attributable to embedded networks of traders of
resources; and, thus, explains why entire cities are well governed and prosperous,
while others are not.
Stanton-Salazar (2004) cautions that Coleman’s normative framework exists
in a sociopolitical vacuum (p. 24), and does not take into account institutionalized or
hierarchical structures that deny access to opportunities based upon race, class, or
gender (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001). According to Morrow (1999) Coleman does
not adequately contextualized his framework into a socio-economic and social
cultural history, given the dissonance that comprises cross and inter-cultural relations
in the United States. Lopez and Stack (2001) expand the argument as they assert that
studies of urban change, as it relates to social capital, indicate that such works with
and on behalf of states and markets rather than supplanting them. Enforcement
procedures, i.e., social closure, also perpetuates cultural dissonance by positioning
sources of social power in segregated (i.e., white middle-class) suburbs, severing all
paths of positive interaction between whites and minorities.
26

Lin (1999), however, suggests that social closure denies the significance of
weaker network ties, bridges, or structural holes; meaning, that weak ties are the
conduit that facilitates access to positional resources vertically higher in the social
hierarchy. Furthermore, Granovetter (1983) emphasizes that network density or
social closure, as it relates to low-income and/or a minority community alienates
them from access to resources that facilitate mobility. Both authors do not consider
social inequality as a critical component or factor in their assertions. Ironically,
resource exchanges between neighbors in minority or low-status neighborhoods,
indeed, comprise the alienated networks. Their networks primarily facilitate these
reciprocal exchanges as a means for survival, which perpetuates or solidifies their
embedded alienation.
Noguera (1999), however, sees utility in social closure when contextually
implemented as a pedagogical vehicle to mobilize traditionally marginalized
communities into informative action and proactive oversight relative to parent-school
relations and student learning outcomes. Maeroff (1998) alludes to social closure as
inner-city school intervention programs endeavor to build sustainable learning
communities, incorporating his four prescribed tenets as a means of promulgating
social capital to minority youth. Meanwhile, Kahne and Bailey (1999) depict the
manner in which social closure, adherence to norms, and effective sanctions serve as
the underpinning foundation that catalyzes trusting relationships and the
informational, i.e., social capital, interchanges entailed within the collective
27

structure. Social capital relative functional utility is useful when it is effectively re-
conceptualized and, therefore, compatible in the context a social cultural milieu.
Social Reproduction, Social Support, and Network Theory
Social reproduction presupposes that privileged access to resources fosters
differential utility relative to social capital; thus, domination and exploitation
reproduces the power structure in perpetuity. Whereas, Bourdieu (1986)
conceptualizes capital as into three fundamental components; hence, their efficacy is
commensurate to the relative value of convertibility. First, economic capital, is
convertible into money and institutionalized in the form of property rights; secondly,
cultural capital, is convertible into economic capital and institutionalized in the form
of education or credentials; and, finally social capital, which is comprised of
obligations or connections and convertible into economic capital; thus,
institutionalized in the form of nobility.
Cultural capital is the primordial lynchpin that facilitates the relationships
under girding social capital, because it is acquirable and projects the power and
prestige commensurate with its value relative to economic capital. Embodied, it is
an essential component of persona and cannot be transmitted or purchased because it
requires specific competence closely linked to the individual, bound to a cultural or
class community; objectified, it separates the dominant from those who are
marginalized; institutionalized, it predisposes value and qualification for possession,
hence exclusivity.
28

Social capital relative to the exclusivity entailed by group membership is the
actualized or aggregate potential for resources linked to possession or access to a
durable network of institutionalized relationships; whereas, group membership
predicates access to the resources. Membership in the group entitles them to the
collectively owned, “capital” group. Meaning, the degree or amount of social capital
possessed by any particular member of the group depends primarily on the vastness
of the network connections that one can mobilize, as well as the volume of personal
(economic or cultural) capital possessed by those within the network. Group
members predicate their ability to extract benefits, i.e., profits, from ownership on
the cohesion that originally formulates endeavors to sustain the group. Network
connections, however, are not an aberrant occurrence; rather, they are the product of
ongoing institutional efforts to produce and reproduce durable bonds to secure
material or symbolic benefits or profits. Thus, the network of relationships is the
product of strategies contrived to solidify and/or reproduce social relationships that
have short or long-term utility.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) underscores the importance of these networks and
focuses much attention on embedded network alienation relative to marginalized
social cultural groups. Low-status or minority networks organize for the purposes of
conservation and survival based on scarcity, while cosmopolitan or middle-class
groups orient their networks to maximize individual access to institutional resources,
privileges, mobility, social advancement, and political empowerment. Formulating
supportive relationships with institutional agents or gatekeepers is essential
29

concerning minority or low-status youth, particularly those within a school setting,
because, while pathways and conduits to privilege are ubiquitous for (white) middle-
class youth, entrapments and barriers for minority youth are just as ubiquitous.
Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) primary proposition focuses on the role and salience of the
“institutional agent” relative to the resources within their own individual social
networks, which they marshal while transmitting resources, information, and
opportunity to minority and low-status youth.
Although social capital lies within the context of the instrumental or
supportive relationships as it pertains to the institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar,
1997), he cautions, however, that the possession of social capital is not necessary
tantamount to the utilization of such; but, rather, the potential for utilization.
Therefore, he posits that success in public education milieus is not simply a matter of
cognitive learning and performing skill sets, but also the challenge of learning how
to “decode the system.” This entails an explicit or implicit understanding of the rules
governing social or, in this case scholastic advancement within the context of the
dominant, i.e., white middle class, discourse; meaning it is incumbent upon the
institutional agent to convey the codes of power (Delpit, 1988). Unfortunately,
social cultural, economic, and institutionalized barriers inhibit consistency and
opportunity for routine exchanges relative to agency.
Stanton-Salazar (2004) expands upon his argument pertaining to institutional
agents and instrumental relationships. He asserts that academic success, as it relates
to minority or low status youth does not depend on their ability to internalize
30

normative values and identities, but the salience of their connectedness pertaining to
resources. Meaning, relationships are positional within the context of social
structure; furthermore, social structure is the lynchpin that advances relationships,
and their utility or ability to endure. He posits that cultural schemas and procedures
delineate power dynamics, as well as domains of influence that dictate social
structure, guide, and sustain social interaction. He also submits that resources or
influence sustains social relations; thus, groups are either empowered or
disempowered relative to the enduring social practices comprising school milieus,
government, workplaces, as well as economic institutions.
Society, he states, is a complex myriad of hierarchies; thus, social capital
pertains to how agents link, within their own networks, to more extensive forms of
resources and organizations in a society, whose schemas and structures implicitly
delineate access to power, and privilege based on race, class, and gender. Society
also establishes the mechanisms by which minority or low-status members cultivate
connections and formulate relationships to position themselves toward upward
mobility. However, attaining these positional relationships requires the ability to
successfully negotiate the barriers or conditions, preclude equitable access to the
resources essential to success within the institution. This underscores the need for
strategically placed individuals capable poised to marshal systems of support, while
drawing from their own social capital in the context of their own networks.
31

Meanwhile, Lin (1999) posits that investments in social relations that produce
expected returns, i.e., resources, are tantamount to social capital. To identify a
construct as social capital, it must contain three essential components: (a) resources
embedded in a social structure; (b) individual accessibility to those embedded
resources; and, (c) individual mobilization of resources for purposeful action.
Embedded resources and network locations are an integral component of productive
power; furthermore, they are only as salient as they are accessible through the
strength of weak ties, bridges, and structural holes within one’s one embedded
network (Granovetter, 1983). Social closure in Coleman terms, along with the
network density that it entails, is not conducive to mobility because density may
produce or reinforce embedded alienation. Social reproduction, however, as it
pertains to the exclusivity and convertibility of cultural capital, in terms of Bourdieu,
is insufficient rational because the general population may also reap benefits or profit
from such returns on acquisition (Lin, 2001).
Thus, while Stanton-Salazar’s social capital framework primarily focuses on
relationships, in the context of agency, as conduits to resources, information, and
opportunities that facilitate social and academic mobility, Lin (1999, 2001), is
primarily interested in the contextualized productivity of network mobilization
pertaining to benefit and profitability, in the context of the positional resource
proximity relative to power and influence. The closer those embedded networks
have access to power and influence, via weak ties (Granovetter, 1983), the greater
the likelihood they will produce individual benefit.
32

The Plight of Minority and Urban Youth
Predominant paradigms concerning race and culture, as well as cultural
nuances, which characterize minority and low-status youth developmental processes
must be positioned and understood in a socio-historical context; hence, critical
analysis is essential to situating these underpinning themes into an operational
framework relative to social capital and empowerment. Their salience pertaining to
agency is a powerful overriding supposition that predicates the efficacy of the
institutional agency relative to an intervention program.
Critical Race Theory and the Uniqueness of the Minority Cultural Experience
In their article, Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) suggest that race remains a
salient factor influencing the interactions and determining the outcomes for
participants in U.S. society. Several generations of scholars have developed
historical accounts, and conceptual frameworks of race and racism in the United
States. Yet, its salience relative to education remains underplayed and poorly
articulated. Articulating race as an extensive theoretical concept is imperative to
understanding how it perpetuates systemic inequities in education; meaning, it
depicts the underpinning mechanisms, which result in academic disparities between
minority and low-status youth, and their white middle-class counterparts. Ladson-
Billings and Tate (1995) submit three assumptions pertaining to critical race theory,
social inequities, and schooling as a contextual milieu. First, race continues to be a
significant factor in determining overall (social) inequity in the United States.
Second, property rights are an underpinning philosophy driving U.S. society. Finally,
33

the confluence of race and property creates an analytical lens that enables or
enhances scholarly analysis of social, hence school, inequity.
Predominant or popular notions of race as, an ideological construct, abjectly
dilutes the reality of how living in a racialized society affects the everyday lives of
“raced” people (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, p. 48). However, if one thinks of
race as an entirely objective condition, it impairs the perspective of race as a
problematic construct that describes the variegated manners depicting human
grouping. Race as a theoretical construct struggles for salient legitimacy in scholarly
circles against a backdrop of predominately White, i.e., White Marxist, authors who
oversimplify notions of race by convoluting their arguments into tautologies
interlaced with issues of ethnicity, class, and gender. As Singleton (2005) also
submits, race must be analyzed and discussed as an isolated concept if is to
effectively examine its workings relative to social and economic hegemony; and,
thus contextualizing its potency in the spectrum of social inequity (Noguera, 1999).
The second proposition juxtaposes race with principles of democracy. Upon
its founding, the United States re-contextualized democracy into a customized
concept to include capitalism as an economic and philosophical ideal. In other
words, from its onset, economic hegemony has been the underpinning force
formulating governmental principle; hence, the advancement of the country depicts
the pursuit, protection, and proliferation of property rights (Cochran et al., 1990;
Harris, 1995; Noguera, 1999). Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) submit that civil
rights accrue largely in part through the evolution and modification of property
34

rights; meaning, individual property rights are the historical nexus of tensions
between ethnic minorities, and their Western European, i.e., white, counterparts upon
whose principles that founded this country, e.g., slavery, Native American removal,
Japanese Internment. As it relates to education, property is a determining factor
pertaining to the quality and quantity of resources of public education. Moreover, its
value begets affluence, power, and entitlement; hence, social benefit and better
resources (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).
The cornerstone of critical race theory lies within the third proposition: the
confluence between race and property rights. This paradigm is the critical lens,
which will enhance scholarly analysis and understanding of social and/or school
inequity. The authors suggest that the benefits, value, and entitlement relative to
property exist in a continuum of, “whiteness” (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).
Property ownership and/or its entailed entitlement beget the rights of disposition
measured (and rewarded) against a backdrop of white norms and sanctions. The
rights of enjoyment are transferable in a context of white privilege, while the
reputation and status entailed by ownership are contrasts with an image of
“blackness,” which is referred to as a source of defamation. Finally, property
ownership entails the absolute right to exclude, measurable relative to an absence of
blackness. As a result, systemic inequities manifest in the quality of programming,
as well as learning outcomes between minority groups and their white counterparts.
35

Although the authors advance a philosophical argument that resonates
through the reader’s consciousness, they wholeheartedly admit that their arguments
contain empirical inconsistencies, which are limited to subjective interpretation;
nevertheless, many aspects of their propositions are, indeed, measurable, as well as
qualitatively plausible. It is important to understand the philosophical complexity
relative to critical race, to understand how institutional agents, working on behalf of
minority and low-status youth counterbalance the salient affects of systemic biases,
which comprise public education milieus, as well as contextualized instructional
pedagogy.
Ladson-Billings (2000) isolates the African American experience as a unique
phenomenon that warrants individual analysis from other experiences, which
comprise typically marginalized social cultural groups in our society. The author
suggests that teacher preparation literature and other scholarly writing inordinately
portrays the African American dilemma within a deficit paradigm; this practice
unfortunately typecasts unique constructs, deserving unique critical analysis, into a
one universal perspective, regardless of the economic or social circumstance. As a
result, its salience is lost in the discussion of issues relative to equity, and convoluted
with discussions pertaining to language and culture; in short, the dominant culture
dilutes and dismisses the African American experience as an aberrant corruption of
the predominant paradigm as it pertains to social justice and school reform.
36

The author posits that the experiences of other cultures who encounter racism
and oppression are by no means any less significant and important to the overall
discussion of equity, social justice, and/or teaching pedagogy. Ladson-Billings
(2000), however, juxtaposes the experiences of other races and cultures against that
of African Americans and suggesting that the experiences of the latter group are
seminal. In other words, they are the only non-indigenous cultural group, relevant to
the discussion, brought to the American continent under the auspices of racial
slavery (Franklin & Moss, 1988). The prevailing issues comprising the African
American experience from the onset of its Western European (i.e., white) history, are
a complex and evolving multidimensional dynamic. African Americans and their
cultural experiences typically find themselves polarized, from other cultures and
ethnic groups who attempt to align themselves in relation to constructs of the
dominant culture (King, 1994; Morrison, 1991).
The inequities surrounding the plight of African American students and their
culture are distinctive, and warrant focused discussion as it relates to rectifying
educational disparities; meaning remedy is uniquely prescriptive (Boykin & Tom,
1985; Hollins & Spencer, 1990). The author submits that future scholarly literature
must re-conceptualize research to address pedagogy, and considers the unique
cultural experiences of individual racialized groups; otherwise, additional
frameworks run risk of becoming generic or generalized tautologies of pedagogical
perspective. Pedagogical research and/or teacher preparation courses must foster the
thought process as it relates to the relationship between the educator and the distinct
37

social cultural groups, which comprise the school community, rather than
unsubstantiated perceptions of generalized, cultural, and cognitive, deficiency
(Ladson-Billings, 2000).
This argument resonates throughout various other dimensions of literature,
which address this notion; its salience underscores the significance of explicit
complex role sets of the institutional agent, as a purveyor of various aspects of social
capital. Ream (2005) reminds us that individual cultural groups, as well as various
sub-cultural groups within an ethnic group, elicit variegated or disparate value
pertaining to the convertibility of social capital (Portes & Landolt, 1996). As
Stanton-Salazar (1997) posits, mainstream institutional agents must possess or
acquire adequate cultural knowledge to facilitate student engagement:
The central problem at the core of analysis of relationships
between minority children and adolescents and institutional
agents is the construction of interpersonal trust, solidarity, and
shared meaning in the context of the institutional relations,
which are defined, on the one hand, by hieratical relations of
power and institutional “barriers,” and, on the other, by
institutionalized dependency. Given that working-class
minority children and youths are structurally more dependent on
non-familial institutional agents for various forms of
institutional support, the problematics of interweaving extended
trust and solidarity become ever so salient, especially because in
the absence of such solidarity, institutional support rarely occurs
(p. 17).
Re-conceptualizing Models of Minority Child Development
Providing an alternative conceptual framework pertaining to minority youth
development patterns is essential to understanding how predominant theoretical
paradigms concerning child development, coupled with societal tendencies can
38

seemingly conspire to perpetuate the embedded alienation of minority and low-status
youth. Thus, underscoring the importance of the institutional agency as a
counterstratification mechanism, whereas individuals endeavor to convey essential
resources, information, and opportunities that facilitate the academic and social
mobility of minority and low-status youth; hence, fostering their empowerment. This
understanding is essential byproduct of the intervention program’s effectiveness
because the developmental process as it pertains to minority or low status youth is
unique or different from their white, middle-class counterparts. Persons involved in
minority or low-status youth intervention designs must, furthermore, mobilize their
social capital with this awareness in mind in order to be effective.
Spencer (1990) submits that trained researchers advance their studies
depicting the interactive stages of child development based on obsolete models,
because they fail to incorporate the affects of socioeconomic status and race into
their analyses of children, relative to developmental milestones. In addition, the
author juxtaposes the notion of “normative” development against her assertion that
researchers measure such standards in a Eurocentric paradigm (Ogbu, 1985); and,
thus, conceptually flawed because they do not account for the cultural nuances
entailed that must be situated in a social historical context. Meaning, if there are
widely-shared cultural practices relative to parenting among working class African
Americans, those practices developed as an historical process, in the context of white
domination and exploitation; hence, the adaptive modes, which comprise minority
parenting. Spencer (1990) also posits the idea that analyzing learning styles without
39

conceptualizing variegated cultural nuances conflicts assumes that all cultural
experiences are neutral rather than unique. “Colorblindness” is not a viable lens with
which to view individual developmental dynamics within a social-historically
contextualized paradigm. To disavow the impact of minority experiences from the
analysis of developmental dynamics is to dismiss the impact of popular images and
negative stereotypes on the individual self-concept and responses of minority
children.
By adolescence, many minority children have acquired a complex array of
coping or defense mechanisms to mitigate the complexities of societal inequities
relative to their individual self-concept. Normative, stage-related developmental
analyses shortchange the ability of the researcher to understand identity formation
relative to minority youth, as well as the establishing accurate causal connections
between identity formation and life outcomes. Child development, as well as
education will suffer egregiously if fails to acknowledge or address constructs
pertaining to racial prejudice and/or societal inequities. The author presupposes this
rationale to advance the idea that society must begin to rethink dominant culture or
majority-oriented teaching methods and cognitive interpretation paradigms, given
that minority family dynamics are constantly evolving relative to ever-changing
societal pressures and realities.
On one hand, Spencer’s (1990) argument pertaining to the adaptive modes of
minority parenting are philosophically plausible, but somewhat underdeveloped.
Nevertheless, they are salient propositions that yield insight into existing
40

deficiencies, which require considerable modification if contemporary research
models are to retain their field relevance. The underdeveloped conceptualization
relative to the adaptive modes of minority parenting, however, creates ambiguous
connections between prevailing child development models and educational practices.
This conceptual weakness lends itself to undermining scrutiny, because the primary
premise demands additional empirical articulation.
Van Ausdale and Feagin (2002) surmise that race and racial dynamics
manifest in the interactions between children, as well as those between children and
adults from the onset of school and schooling; contrary to predominant notions of
early childhood development. As the authors point out, rather than waiting for a
natural stage or cycle to activate that allows them to systematically process
contextualized experiences, children observe, process, and experiment with their
surrounding world based on their own interactions as well those by adults; hence,
their social connections.
Garcia-Coll et al. (1996) also assert that contemporary researchers and
scholars have yet to propose or adopt an understanding that explains the variegated
developmental patterns of minority children as they navigate through their unique
experiences of social inequity (p.1892). In addition, the authors introduce the idea
that minority family and kin networks help minority children mitigate the negative
affects of socioeconomic hardship, and racial oppression. They also suggest that
researchers need to incorporate a contextual understanding of minority family
41

networks to gain greater insight as to how these relationships mitigate the ill affects
of social positioning, relative to the developmental dynamic.
Although the authors admit that there is no theoretical or empirical evidence
to rationalize variations in developmental processes between minority children and
their white counterparts, there are distinct differentiations unique to ecological
circumstances that either promote or inhibit the cognitive development of minority
children. The authors submit, as does Spencer (1990), that if traditional or normative
methodologies are to be reliable, then they need to account for these variations
and/or developmental adaptations, which do occur. The work of Stanton-Salazar and
Spina (2000) is a critical bridge fortifying this argument, because they offer insight,
in contrast to conventional paradigms relative to minority youth resiliency. Youth
resiliency is a systematic process where agents facilitate acquisition of coping skills
to counterbalance the affects of systemic and/or institutional bias. Meaning, they
marshal support, and positional resources that enable minority youth to cope,
overcome, and transcend barriers.
The strength of Garcia-Coll et al.’s (1996) argument lie in the fact that they
introduce a conceptual framework from which traditional models can broaden the
theoretical foundation of knowledge. The authors posit their integrative model based
upon two important suppositions. First, that the constructs salient to children of
color explain unique variations in the developmental processes; secondly, although
many of these constructs are also relevant to the developmental processes of other
42

populations, i.e., white, variations occur because of differentiation concerning the
affect of these constructs on a particular individual.
Garcia-Coll et al. (1996) categorize their propositions into two distinct
variable discussions: (a) social positioning; and, (b) social stratification mechanisms.
Social positioning refers to the salient effects of race, in terms of skin color, i.e., skin
tones or shades. Van Audsale and Feagin (2002) surmise that in terms of proximal
development this aspect of identity, indeed, may be one of the first distinctions
affecting racial consciousness; social class, in terms of economics and/or value
considerations pertaining to affluence; ethnicity, as it relates to cultural distinctness;
and gender, in terms of role appropriation. It is important to note, that the authors
discuss race, as a separate or isolated entity, from that of class, ethnicity, and gender.
Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) suggest that such is essential to a fundamental
understanding of its salience as a construct. Social stratification mechanisms include
racism, whereas, the acquisition of wealth or higher social status may buffer its ill
affects.
Noguera (1999), however, cautions that acquisition of wealth, i.e., cultural
capital, may mitigate some of the affects of racial bias and/or discrimination, it does
not necessarily guarantee its alleviation. Prejudice, refers the manner of how
children acquire self and group concepts based upon racial and ethnic constructs;
thus, discrimination in treatment, manifests through prejudice. Oppression is the
relevant in terms of how individual children and groups internalize the
manifestations of prejudice (Garcia-Coll et al., 1996). Van Ausdale and Feagin
43

(2002) also submit that children make these distinctions from the onset of their
interactions with each other, from the colors they choose to associate their affinity
towards, in the context of an activity, to those they impose on one another relative to
their own preliminary perceptions of identity.
Finally, Garcia-Coll et al. (1996) discuss how residential, economic, social,
and psychological segregation are salient factors, which mediate between social
positioning variables and developmental outcomes. On the one hand, they submit
empirical evidence that these constructs indeed have inhibiting factors as they
manifest in schools, neighborhoods, and health care relative to “normative”
environments, ideologically speaking, as well as resource limitations. The authors
highlight, however, that many of these segregated networks also have promoting or
protecting aspects to them, which enable children to adapt internal mechanisms
enabling them to mitigate the dissonance between home and school environments.
Nevertheless, Garcia et al. (1996) conclude that a paradigm shift in research on how
these factors manifest in the developmental patterns, variations, and/or adaptations of
children of color is essential to a broader understanding of the cognitive
developmental complexity, relative to cultural nuance.
Community Based Intervention Programs and Institutional Agency
Empowerment is the product, which fosters academic and social mobility,
while institutional agency in a social capital framework is the vehicle that facilitates
the empowerment process. Many successful community based intervention
programs implicitly infer many theoretical constructs depicting the complex role
44

dynamics pertaining to institutional agents, as purveyors of social capital; hence,
empowering processes, facilitating the academic and social mobility relative of
minority and low-status youth.
Some intervention programs underestimate the critical role of the institutional
agent, as a facilitator of empowerment. Understanding the role of the institutional
agent, in terms of their ability to strategically mobilize resources and elicit assistance
from other agents, on behalf of minority and low-status youth is a critical link that
lends insight into the processes by which agents successfully fulfill the task of
socializing youth in manners that are authentically empowering. For minority or
low-status youth, who grow-up amidst racialized and class-stratified social
structures, it would seem that extraordinary forms of empowerment would be
necessary to foster academic and social mobility. Theoretical frameworks that
articulate this process are only now beginning to emerge in scholarly literature.
Thus, institutional agency as articulated in a critical social capital framework could
be an important analytical vehicle for understanding the empowerment process.
Empowerment Theory
Empowerment applies much of the same rationale articulated by scholars
who portray depictions of social closure in the context of an intervention program or
relative to instructional pedagogy, implemented in a manner that instills a sense
collective efficacy and elicits positive student learning outcomes. One drawback that
undermines the salience of empowerment literature is the fact that much of it fails to
corroborate theoretical conjecture with research-base outcomes. This leaves much of
45

the interventions relative to empowerment without a framework conceptualization;
juxtaposed to circumstances that find us without empirically grounded theoretical
frameworks that articulate social stratification versus counter-stratification (Perkins,
1995).
Zimmerman (1995) posits that empowerment embodies different forms
relative to context, populations, and developmental stages; thus, mechanizing or
measuring empowerment constructs in the scope of a single circumstance, albeit
other situational conditions, is a tenuous exercise. He submits that universal
constructs or measures of empowerment are unfeasible. Nevertheless, he endeavors
to isolate values, processes, and outcomes into separate theoretical discussions in an
effort to formulate measuring criteria. Although they are interdependent, separate
analysis of each construct contextualized in the dynamic of an intervention lends
credibility to supposition concerning generalizations of empowerment constructs.
In their qualitative study of Community-Based intervention designs, Maton
and Salem (1995) surmise that organizations and programs that instilling a sense of
personal and collective efficacy relative to participants predicates group productivity
and/or individual outcome-based success. Their analysis involves the dynamics of a
religious fellowship, a mutual help program for the mentally disabled, and an
educational program for urban African American youth. Similar to Coleman (1998),
belief systems shape the group setting structures, as well as goals and norms that
govern individual behavior, group conformity, and/or social closure. Meanwhile,
opportunity role structure facilitates reciprocal exchanges that foster individual
46

growth and self-esteem. Support systems afford individual members access to
resources within their embedded networks; thus, fortifying their ability to be resilient
when facing adversity. Finally, effective leadership provides the inspiration and the
vision necessary to accomplish organizational goals; meaning, (institutional) agency
is tantamount to efficacious leadership.
Maton and Salem (1995) surmise that empowerment is the process of
enabling individuals through participatory exchanges, while endeavoring to achieve
common goals. These constructs are observable across their case studies, and allow
them to deduce four key organizational characteristics relative to empowerment.
Their argument is somewhat limited because they do not advance their propositions
across other settings, such as an analysis of those constructs, which are conducive to
disempowering results and outcomes; thus, they cannot generalize their findings into
a conceptual framework.
Rich, Edelstein, Hallman, and Wandersman (1995) employ a
multidisciplinary analysis to various constructs of empowerment, by separating and
conceptualizing each construct as an independent component; hence, constructing a
model for analysis. Formal or structural empowerment refers to the political context,
in which the decision-making process facilitates local control. Intrapersonal
empowerment is a measurement of confidence and/or competence, contextualized
according to dynamics of the specific situation in question, while instrumental
empowerment refers to action facilitated through individual participation in the
47

context of the collective or citizen body. Finally, organizational empowerment is a
substantive measurement of effective action by the collective or citizen body.
The authors use these constructs to examine both public and private policy
implementations relative to the efficacy of a collective or community and their
efforts to mobilize for the purposes of influencing policy outcomes. Thus, they
measure the implications of partnership dynamics in the context of community
building for the purposes of decision-making, which in this case involves
environmental politics and policies. The authors’ premise, however, assumes that
these constructs exist in a culturally neutral or static environment, which does not
consider the salient affects of social cultural and socioeconomic marginalization.
Therefore, eliciting generalizations applicable to alternative milieus becomes a
tenuous exercise, because they do not account for the disempowering aspects of race,
culture, and economics.
Speer, Jackson, and Peterson’s (2001) mixed methods study relative to social
cohesion strengthens the tenuous argument endeavoring to link theoretical constructs
of empowerment to corroborated research. The authors expand upon Zimmerman’s
(1995) work, by examining and measuring the psychological constructs of
empowerment (i.e., interpersonal, interaction-related, and behavioral). Their study
of empowerment, in the context of social cohesion, expands upon the hypothesis that
pervasive inequality undermines the social fabric; and, disparity within specific
populations, consequently, leads to negative outcomes relative to health and
wellness. In the first phase of their study, they measure empowerment, in the context
48

of connectedness and participation, while the second phase of their study examines
the relationship between social cohesion and empowerment, in the context of
unconnected non-participation.
Although the first phase of their study replicated previous scholarly
examinations of intrapersonal empowerment, it also enhanced its findings by
extending the line of inquiry into an examination of empowerment in the context of
interaction; hence, confirming the strong correlation between participation and
interpersonal empowerment, as well as a strong correlation between participation,
interaction, and empowerment. The second phase of their study, though,
interestingly revealed that despite a low perception of community some subjects
retained a high sense of empowerment relative to their level of participation;
meaning, that the two empowerment constructs need further examination together,
relative to social cohesion, rather than as separate isolated entities. The findings
suggest that while participation may be more important than a sense of community
for intrapersonal empowerment, a sense of community is more essential to
interaction-related empowerment rather than participation. Again, however, the
findings were not without limitations. The authors cautioned that data collection
methods, as well as cultural overrepresentation relative to sample selection hamper
the ability to generalize about large-scale group dynamics. Nevertheless, this work
affords future researchers tangible design methods by which to measure
empowerment in the context of social cohesion.
49

Intervention and Agency
McLaughlin, Irby, and Langman (1994) offer in-depth narratives of various
individual leaders committed to improving the lives and conditions of inner-city
youth, as they endeavor to implement intervention programs tailored to address the
unique needs of the communities and youth they serve. The author’s surmise that in
each particular depiction, what each individual leader or, “wizard” does, as opposed
to how they do it, is an integral component relative to the overall efficacy of program
implementation efforts. They infer elements functionalism, such as social closure,
collective trust and cohesion, norms and sanctions, as the primary social capital
mechanism, which underpin each intervention cycle; meaning, they, indeed,
exemplify the role of the institutional agent as an essential element of program
success, without necessarily discussing (institutional) agency as an isolated
construct. Ironically, they also submit that these individual efforts do not lend
themselves to program replication or universal treatments. Nevertheless, these
individuals commit themselves, while channeling their knowledge and resources to
tap into and redirect local networks so that program efficacy may extend beyond the
boundaries of their communities; hence, inner city youth can gain access to
resources, institutions, and opportunities in society’s mainstream.
Interestingly, “social closure” in terms of Coleman (1988) is a typical aspect
of each program; indeed, they underscore the importance of cultivating trusting
relationships, establishing and/or advancing group (or community) norms and values,
reciprocity in exchange, while maintaining cohesion through enforcement of
50

sanctions (Coleman, 1988; Portes, 1998). Significantly, within the scope of each
program, the leaders re-contextualize group norms and values in a manner that is
relevant to the situational social cultural dynamics that characterize the specific
communities they serve; hence, there are no underlying dissonance constructs
undermining implementation efficacy (Kahne & Bailey, 1999; Maeroff, 1998;
Noguera, 1999).
Many of the individual programs also seek to bridge relationships and
resources between the communities they serve and mainstream components that
facilitate social mobility, while teaching youth the codes of power and/or “rules of
the game” (Delpit, 1988; Granovetter, 1983; Lin, 1999). Many programs portrayed
in this depiction tacitly infuse healthy balances of social closure, as well as resource
and network orientation in a manner that fosters program efficacy and, thus, youth
empowerment; yet, the depictions of program implementation, unfortunately,
overlook the deeper dimensions of the leaders as it pertains to their roles as
institutional agents. The narratives seemingly yearn for a broader, deeper intellectual
and/or theoretical discussion to draw out the salient affects of these amazing
individuals as they endeavor to improve the lives of inner-city youth.
Williams and Kornblum (1985) portray the experiences of resilient children
who, despite multiple risk factors such as abject poverty, and harsh or dangerous
environmental surroundings seemingly overcome adversity and advance themselves
toward social mobility. The authors use the term, “superkids” to illustrate the
descriptions of these youth relative to the vicissitudes they must surmount. Yet, the
51

authors also submit that the common denominator throughout their depictions of
youth prevailing over tribulation is at least one significant adult in the child’s family
or proximal networks, supporting them in a manner that facilitates their ability to
navigate through social cultural and socioeconomic barriers and achieve academic
success.
Unfortunately, the authors’ characterization of the support mechanisms or
people underpinning the success of these youth, despite overwhelmingly negative
environs and circumstances, remains superficially descriptive and, mainly,
underdeveloped. The actions of those individuals who position themselves to
support these “superkids” exemplify the nomenclature of institutional agency; thus,
their role beckons thorough and comprehensive analysis. The notion that these
exceptional youth are, indeed, superkids is somewhat misleading; rather,
characterizing them as youth possessing efficacious support systems in the context of
positional resources is an accurate description of their relationship dynamics,
considering the outcome of their learning and mobility endeavors.
Meanwhile, Hernandez’s (1995) study cautions that well-intentioned
interventions involving implicit socialization efforts, if implemented without proper
network and/or comprehensive support mechanisms, also generate dissonance and
discord, rather than positive results. His depiction of prospective socialization
efforts relative to grouping Latina female youth in the Hispanic Mother-Daughter
Program (HMDP) and successful Latina businesspersons portrays a single
52

intervention entailing three separate interfaces, coupled with survey analysis of the
participants’ individual locus of control and self-concept.
Results following the intervention revealed that the students had high goals
and aspirations; therefore, participants found the career information they received as
particularly useful. The manner in which role models portrayed success, as an “all or
nothing phenomenon” (p. 261), left youth participants with the perception that
success entailed extraordinary or “superhuman” effort; therefore, highly unlikely.
Meaning, role models seemingly inferred that determination and a hard-work ethic,
coupled with familial re-socialization into an pro-academic value system predicated
success; all while ignoring the fundamental processes of institutional support and
social capital development as means of overcoming socioeconomic and social
cultural constraints, which play an integral role relative to success.
Importantly, the role models did not employ their embedded networks to
avail positional resources and information to the youth participants on a consistent
basis resulted in disconnect, rather than discourse. Additionally, Hernandez (1995)
submits that interventions such as HMDP, undertaken in a social cultural or gender-
based context, must be comprehensive and ongoing to elicit positive outcomes
relative to inspiration, self-efficacy, and self-confidence. Hernandez (1995) implies
that programs, such as HMDP require theories of change, which explicitly articulate
the empowering results relative to instituting mechanisms targeted to enhancing
social capital of youth participants, as well as program leaders, hence, fostering the
empowerment of both. Meaning, that program leaders may effectively assume the
53

Bruce Mims Dissertation

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Bruce Mims Dissertation

Semelhante a Bruce Mims Dissertation (20)

Mais de Bruce Mims

Mais de Bruce Mims (10)

Último

Último (20)

Bruce Mims Dissertation