Am J Community Psychol DOI 10.1007/s10464-013-9617-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Examining Relational Empowerment for Elementary School Students in a yPAR Program Regina Day Langhout • Charles Collins Erin Rose Ellison

•

 Society for Community Research and Action 2013

Abstract This paper joins relational empowerment, youth empowerment, and Bridging Multiple Worlds frameworks to examine forms of relational empowerment for children in two intermediary institutions—school and a youth participatory action research after-school program (yPAR ASP). Participants were twelve children, most of whom were Latina/o and from im/migrant families, enrolled in a yPAR ASP for 2 years. A mixedmethod approach was utilized; we analyzed children’s interviews, self-defined goals, and their social networks to examine their experiences of relational empowerment. We conclude that children experienced each of the five relational empowerment factors—collaborative competence, bridging social divisions, facilitating others’ empowerment, mobilizing networks, and passing on a legacy—in the yPAR ASP setting, and some factors in school. These experiences, however, were more pronounced in the yPAR ASP setting. Additionally, social network analyses revealed that a small but meaningful percentage of actors bridged worlds, especially home and family, but by year 2, also school and the yPAR ASP. Finally, most helpers for school-based goals came from school, but a sizable number came from family, friends, and home worlds, and by year 2, also came from the yPAR ASP. Implications range from theoretical to

R. D. Langhout (&) Psychology Department, University of California at Santa Cruz, 1156 High St., Santa Cruz, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. Collins University of Washington at Bothell, Bothell, WA, USA E. R. Ellison University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

methodological development, including the use of social network analysis as a tool to descriptively examine relational power in context. Keywords Children
Relational empowerment
Bridging Multiple Worlds
Social network analysis
yPAR
Latina/o

Introduction People learn about the social world though intermediary institutions, or physical settings that stand between society and individuals, like churches and schools (Cortes 2010). These institutions are critical to democracy because they are positioned to teach participatory skills. When these intermediary institutions function well they facilitate relationality (i.e., critical friendships), empowerment, and collective action for a rich public life (Cortes 2010). Intermediary institutions where people spend much time are salient for teaching democratic development. For children, school and after-school programs are salient (Cooper 2011). Our goal is to describe how twelve elementary school students experienced relational empowerment in a youth participatory action research after-school program (yPAR ASP) and at their school. We first synthesize three perspectives: relational empowerment (Christens 2012), youth empowerment, and Bridging Multiple Worlds (Cooper 1999, 2011). Then we consider children’s longitudinal perspectives by examining how their self-described experiences in the yPAR ASP and their goals in the yPAR ASP and school compare to relational empowerment factors. To assess how they mobilize their networks (a form of relational empowerment), we also examine their social

123

Am J Community Psychol

networks. We end with a discussion of results and implications. Empowerment Empowerment is often defined as ‘‘an intentional, ongoing process centered in the local community, involving mutual respect, critical reflection, caring, and group participation, through which people lacking an equal share of valued resources gain greater access to and control over those resources’’ (Cornell Empowerment Group 1989, p. 2). Because it is collaborative, there are implications for relationships fostered within intermediary institutions. Empowerment happens through relationships because power is relational; that is, individuals do not statically hold power (Christens 2012). How social divisions are bridged and how social capital is shared is central to relational empowerment. Specifically, relational empowerment includes five factors: collaborative competence, bridging social divisions, facilitating others’ empowerment, mobilizing networks, and passing on a legacy (Christens 2012). We take each factor in turn, integrating ideas with the youth empowerment literature to ensure the framework is contextually relevant for use with children. This step is necessary because (relational) empowerment is contextually mediated (Christens 2012) and children are socially situated differently than adults. There are five relational empowerment components. The first, collaborative competence, includes building relationships that enable group cohesion (Christens 2012). For children, social climate and creation of a ‘‘safer’’ space is key (Silva and Langhout, under review). The second factor is bridging social divisions, which occurs when trust is built across differences (Christens 2012; Watkins et al. 2007). To this, we add skills that enable youth to converse with others (Kirshner 2008; Mitra 2006; Ozer and Douglas, in press). A third dimension is facilitating other’s empowerment, or relinquishing control of decisions and aspects that enable leadership development (Christens 2012). Because children are not viewed as leaders in Western societies, we include adult–youth power sharing via decision-making (Dworski-Riggs and Langhout 2010; Kohfeldt et al. 2011; Ozer and Douglas, in press; Ozer et al. 2010; Zeldin et al. 2013). The fourth feature is network mobilization, such as turning out people for an action (Christens 2012). Because of children’s positioning, we include expanded social networks and increased social support (Ozer and Douglas, in press; Ozer et al. 2010). The fifth and final feature is passing on a legacy, or mentorship and collaboration that sustain the setting (Christens 2012). Again, due to children’s social positions, we include children learning skills that enable them to sustain the setting and create change (e.g., research skills, tools for making

123

change; Kohfeldt and Langhout 2012; Langhout 2014; Ozer and Douglas, in press). Although passing on a legacy may be conceptualized as attitudinal, the needed skill set is also important. Just as empowerment encompasses psychological and material shifts, passing on a legacy as a feature of relational empowerment should include the knowledge and desire to engage the task (Russell et al. 2009). Perhaps this relational understanding of power is why some organizing groups engage in relation-focused organizing (Christens 2010; Speer and Hughey 1995; Warren and Mapp 2011). Empirical examinations of relational organizing indicate a model of change whereby people: (a) organize within intermediary institutions, such as neighborhood groups, (b) discern shared stories across organizations, thereby strengthening power through relationships, and then (c) bridge with power brokers to create social change (Christens 2010; Speer and Hughey 1995; Warren and Mapp 2011). Power is built through relationship building to organize people. This method is effective. Indeed, as one comparative case study found, relational community organizing techniques, when compared to issue-based organizing, fostered higher levels of empowerment (Speer et al. 1995). This literature is fairly new. Although some attention has been paid to young people’s network mobilization (e.g. Watkins et al. 2007; Zeldin et al. 2013), these studies focus primarily on high school aged youth. Indeed, Zeldin et al. (2013) call for further research to include youth of different ages. We draw upon one research area that examines how children, particularly elementary and middle school aged children, use and mobilize their networks: Bridging Multiple Worlds (Cooper 1999, 2011). Children, Their Cultural Worlds, and Their Social Networks Bridging Multiple Worlds Theory focuses on how children’s worlds (e.g., family, school, peer) enhance or constrain their academic, cultural, and career identity development and staying on ‘‘the good path of life’’ (Cooper 1999, 2011). Individuals can be resources and/or challengers along children’s pathways. This theory has guided the design and improvement of family-schoolcommunity partnerships from preschool to college (Cooper 2011). The focus on children navigating their worlds and networks is consistent with relational empowerment, as relationship building is network change (Christens and Kirshner 2011). When children collaborate to reach goals, they mobilize networks and identify helpers and challengers. In relational organizing, potential goal blockers are identified (Warren and Mapp 2011). Organizers try to bring

Am J Community Psychol

blockers into relationship with them. When children expand their networks, they expand their social capital (Ozer et al. 2010), and enhance their understanding of and appreciation for diversity (Watkins et al. 2007). With Bridging Multiple Worlds Theory, social capital (e.g., emotional support, social networks, educational guidance) has been key for conceptualizing resources in and across worlds (Azmitia et al. 2009; Cooper 2011; Syed et al. 2011). Moreover, links between school and other settings can increase access to resources and alter role relationships, which are forms of relational empowerment. Studies with Bridging Multiple Worlds Theory have mapped linkages among family, peer, school, and community worlds. Typical actors include students, parents, siblings, teachers, program staff, and peers. In most worlds, students reported more helpers than challengers; peers often provide both in equal amounts (Azmitia and Cooper 2001). Parents assist with conflicts, considering the future, and homework; some students name teachers as resources, most often for schoolwork (Azmitia et al. 2009). Students receive emotional support and homework help from friends, but also teasing for being studious (Cooper 2011). Focusing on children’s networks is important because children can be agents who link their worlds. Even when parent interventions have been unsuccessful, children have been effective in bridging home, school, and community, such as when immigrant children serve as ‘‘language brokers’’ between their family and community worlds (Mitra 2006; Orellana 2001). Many young people are adept at mobilizing networks to achieve their goals. Situating children’s social networks in a relational empowerment framework enables researchers, policy makers, and practitioners to conceptualize students as savvy actors who access networks to gain control over resources (e.g., academic, material, interpersonal) that affect their lives. Intermediary institutions can facilitate and/or constrain these processes. This empowerment framework draws attention to structural inequities in students’ access to resources. Current Study In bringing together the relational empowerment, youth empowerment, and Bridging Multiple Worlds literatures, we ask one overarching research question with two parts: What does relational empowerment look like for children in a yPAR program? We focus on the yPAR ASP and school because they are intermediary institutions where power could be exercised collectively. Specifically, (1) How do children’s experiences in the yPAR ASP and their goals in the yPAR ASP and school compare to relational empowerment factors? This question enables us to hear from students and examine self-defined goals. Inspecting

their goals is important because it is a reminder that children have agency and their own goals. Also, (2) How do children mobilize their networks (a relational empowerment factor)? With this question, we examine bridges between worlds, and helpers and challengers over two years. These relationships are at the heart of transformative power because power is exercised through relationship structures (Neal and Neal 2010). Because empowerment is contextually mediated (Christens 2012), a holistic approach is appropriate (Langhout 2003). Specifically, the theory necessitates a thick description of process with the goal of achieving applicability rather than generalizability. Indeed, holistic studies (e.g., case analyses, path analyses, social network analyses) will assist researchers and practitioners with assessing which results are applicable to other settings.

Method Study Context Maplewood1 This study is based on data collected in a yPAR afterschool program. Participants attended Maplewood Elementary School during the 2009–2012 academic years. Maplewood residents face challenges in acquiring resources because it is unincorporated and therefore lacks a municipal government, public infrastructure, and community services. Maplewood Elementary School School accountability data indicate that Maplewood Elementary students are predominantly Latina/o (approximately 75 %). Other students are white (15 %), African American (2 %), and Asian (.5 %). Around 2/3 were designated as English language learners. The school serves primarily low-income students. More than 3/4 qualified for free or reduced price lunch. The school’s faculty are primarily white and few speak Spanish. The After-School Program During the school year, the yPAR ASP met weekly for 1 h at the school. The program also met four times a week, 4 h a day, for 1 month over the summer. Students enrolled in the program for 4th and 5th grade. A 5th grade teacher was also present at each session, and provided feedback on lesson plans and sessions. 1

All proper names have been changed.

123

Am J Community Psychol

The afterschool program focused on exploring and addressing student identified problems and taking action to address them. Students discerned that the school felt unwelcome to students and families (Kohfeldt and Langhout 2012). To address this issue, they created a mural. Mural content came from autoethnographic data via photovoice. They analyzed their data for common themes, surveyed other students, and created images to represent the themes. They then evaluated their mural and learned that many did not feel connected to it because they did not participate in making the mural. To address this, students made a second mural. The second mural’s content was based on focus group data from themselves, other students, teachers, parents, teens, and other adults. Data examined for this paper are from students who participated in at least one of the following activities: evaluated the first mural (i.e., focus group data collection and analysis), collected focus group data for the second mural, analyzed those data, discerned images to represent themes, or painted the second mural. Participants Participants are 12 students who completed 2 years of the yPAR ASP. Seven are girls (five Latina, one African American/white, and one African American) and five are boys (four Latino and one Latino/white). Many speak Spanish, are from im/migrant families, and participated in ASES, a state-wide after-school program for low-income students who are academically behind.

would you like to be in this world of the after school program?’’ World of Kids (WOK) Worlds of Kids is an interactive computer program used in Australia (Lawrence et al. 2007). The program examines student understanding of different settings, or worlds, in which they participate. Students generate diagrams of their worlds and populate them with people. The PI and two graduate students modified the program to be culturally relevant (e.g., including examples of worlds common for young people in the U.S., removing images of koala bears) and to address specific research questions related to the yPAR ASP. The WOK was administered two times: week 4 and the end of year 2. Students nominated worlds where they live and act. If they did not name the yPAR ASP and school, the program prompted them to do so. In year 1, six children were prompted to add the yPAR ASP and nine in year 2. One student was prompted to add the school in year 1, and two in year 2. The number of students prompted to add the yPAR ASP may indicate they were not concerned with impressing the researcher. Another possibility was that the yPAR ASP was not an important world to them; yet, SNA analyses revealed that this was not a likely explanation.2 Children chose adult, adolescent and child figures and gave names and relationships (e.g., friend, brother). They then named goals and selected people who helped and challenged them in reaching their school goals. For more information, see Brooker et al. (2008).

Procedure Data Analytic Technique Individual Interviews Qualitative Data At the end of their second program year, a graduate student or the PI interviewed students. They were asked questions about the yPAR ASP. Sample questions are: What was your favorite thing to learn in the after school program? What kinds of decisions or choices did you make? How did students and adults work together? How did the adults help you the most? Interviewer familiarity with the students and the program facilitated deep discussions. Eleven children were interviewed. One child unexpectedly moved before being interviewed. School and yPAR ASP Goals As part of the World of Kids (WOK) protocol (described below), children free-wrote up to three goals for school and the yPAR ASP. They distinguished between school and ASP worlds. The goals-related prompts were: ‘‘What would you like to be in this world of school?’’ and, ‘‘What

123

We analyzed student goals and individual interviews similarly. Three coders (one ‘‘insider,’’ one ‘‘outsider,’’ and one person on the PI’s research team who ran another yPAR program) independently coded the goals and interviews deductively against the relational empowerment factors. We then discussed codes. Disagreements were relatively easily resolved. With both sets of data, we took advantage of each coder’s positionality. The PI had knowledge about the curriculum and student experiences, and was able to share content when student responses were unclear. The outsider, who was unfamiliar with the implementation of yPAR, 2

Closeness centrality, which ranges from 0 to 100, was measured with the equation formulated in Freeman (1979). Lower scores indicate worlds are ‘‘closer’’ or more central in the network. yPAR ASP scores were 2.49 (year 1) and 1.11 (year 2), indicating they were influential.

Am J Community Psychol Fig. 1 Child goals for school and the yPAR ASP (frequencies)

25 20 15 10 5 0 Collaborative competence

Bridging social divisions

School Year 1

served as the skeptic to ensure coded data had face validity. The third coder was a former youth program evaluator and thus could assess student experiences against this knowledge base. Social Network Analysis (SNA) SNA provides a visual-spatial and statistical representation of relationships within and between settings (Luke 2005). The WOK had students describe their worlds and those in them; these are two-mode data. The WOK also had participants report the quality of their relationships regarding school goals. We used two-mode analytic techniques to identify with whom children interacted and in which worlds, and created composite indicators to examine children’s worlds, focusing on empowerment through relationships. We examined relative links between worlds by counting the number of individuals who bridged worlds. Finally, we summed ‘‘helpers’’ and ‘‘challengers’’ within each world.

Results and Discussion Comparing yPAR Student Experiences to Relational Empowerment Factors Research question one was, ‘‘How do children’s selfdescribed experiences in the yPAR ASP and their goals in the yPAR ASP and school compare to the key factors of relational empowerment?’’ We describe interview data and self-defined goals. Figure 1 provides frequencies for yPAR ASP and school goals. Collaborative Competence This factor includes skills and relationships needed to work as a group (Christens 2012). All students experienced collaborative competence building in the yPAR ASP, and this was the second most common factor mentioned (27.5 % of codes). Collaborative competence was often

Facilitating Mobilizing other's other's networks empowerment

School Year 2

yPAR ASP Year 1

Passing on a legacy

yPAR ASP Year 2

discussed as teamwork, a positive social climate, and for a few, emotional support. Teamwork included working with adults, as indicated by Danny, who said adults and students ‘‘communicated with each other […] some kids really communicated with the teachers.’’ Teamwork also encompassed collaboration with students. Vanessa, for example, described group decisions. ‘‘We decided that we wanted to paint the mural together […] We were gonna go through with it if, even if we had to do it through the summer.’’ Another aspect of collaborative competence was a positive climate. Fatima said there were ‘‘rules for everybody, so that when one person would be talking, they would listen to you, so it […] made me feel safe and that people would actually listen to me, not just whisper to each other and things.’’ This space helped Carmen ‘‘feel confident, […] like there’s no wrong answer.’’ Finally, a few students discussed receiving emotional support. Jayleen said the adults were helpful ‘‘by being there for me. Like, helping me […] when I got sad or mad, because me and Gwen [student] would fight.’’ Emotional support has garnered attention as essential to children’s empowerment (Silva and Langhout, under review). Teamwork, a positive social climate, and emotional support indicates the importance of a mutual support system for youth empowerment (Ozer and Douglas, in press; Russell et al. 2009; Silva and Langhout, under review). Results from students’ self-defined goals mirrored interview data. Most students cited collaborative competence building in the yPAR ASP setting in the first (N = 10) and second year (N = 8). Fewer cited these goals for school (year 1 N = 8; year 2 N = 4). Also, collaborative competence was the most cited code, making up 60 % of all relational empowerment codes, yet the frequency was much higher for the yPAR ASP than for school. Similar to the interviews, collaborative competence was frequently desired as teamwork and a positive social climate. Teamwork goals most often included helping others, being on task, participating in group activities, and having good ideas. Additionally, positive social climate goals included being friendly and being a good example.

123

Am J Community Psychol

Mercedes summed up the link between teamwork and a positive social climate by saying, ‘‘keep voting because it’s fair and we don’t get into fights.’’ Bridging Social Divisions This dimension consists of strengthening skills to build trust and reciprocity across groups in order to bridge social capital (Christens 2012; Ozer and Douglas, in press). Seven students discussed bridging social divisions, comprising 18.3 % of the coded data. Activities included collecting focus group stories and creating dissemination products, namely their murals, a book, and a documentary. Children conducted focus groups with several groups, which by definition necessitated bridging social divisions. Fatima proclaimed, ‘‘My favorite thing to learn [was] how people gather information […] we did the [focus groups] and we gathered information to make the mural.’’ Children conducted focus groups by contacting parents, teachers, teens, other adults, and students. Also, when ending each focus group, children conducted member checks by describing the themes, similarities, and differences they heard across stories. In this way, children developed trust among themselves and other stakeholders. Children saw their dissemination products as important for communicating broadly and bridging social divisions. Considering mural construction, symbol selection was difficult: Edmund: When we had to do the sketches, sketches for the mural, I had to pick something; like either this one or that one, that would be good […] on the wall. Interviewer: And that was a tough decision to make, trying to (Edmund: Yeah) pick what symbol to put on the mural? (Edmund: Yeah.) This process entailed children determining symbols to represent common experiences, thus bridging social divides. Students also made sure viewers understood both murals. They organized unveiling ceremonies where they gave a ‘‘speech [to] tell [the] stories in the mural’’ (Edmund). With the first mural, they also created ‘‘a book about the mural […] the whole history’’ (Mercedes). In other words, students institutionalized their knowledge and made it available to the broader community, which is essential because youth are rarely positioned as knowledge producers (Russell et al. 2009). Overall, students participated in processes that helped them bridge social divisions among children, teachers, parents, teens, and adults. These results provide support for the conclusion that bridging social divisions enhances trust across difference (Watkins et al. 2007). Also, students were organizers and providers of knowledge. They strengthened skills that enabled them to communicate with others (Ozer

123

and Douglas, in press), which helped them bridge differences (Christens 2012). Students highlight these outcomes in their interviews. For example, Carmen said she liked the program because she got to ‘‘meet different people.’’ Additionally, at least some students developed trust in their ability to communicate with others. Specifically, Vanessa said that ‘‘ever since I started the program last year […] I’m not afraid to tell people stuff.’’ Facilitating Other’s Empowerment Because of children’s social positioning, it is important that this dimension include children having power. With this yPAR program, 7 of 11 students mentioned processes related to facilitating empowerment, comprising 11.1 % of codes. Decision-making was the most common way students discussed empowerment. They thought all students and yPAR adults had a voice and usually moved forward via consensus. When asked how they worked together, Jayleen said, ‘‘We worked together by, like, figuring out what to do together, as a group and some of us didn’t like that idea [our decisions, so] […] we have to find a new idea.’’ The decisions children made ranged from the mundane (e.g., ice breakers) to group actions, and the group made a commitment to make decisions jointly. As Vanessa explained, ‘‘We decided on what we were going to do next together, and we decided that […] doing things together always, made it easier, […] we decided that, we needed to make a change and we decided on what we were gonna make the change on together.’’ Besides making decisions jointly, students exercised power through shared knowledge construction. Mercedes explained, ‘‘We thought out ideas together. We…we saw different things happen, that we used together.’’ Children were positioned as experts. Luis touched on this when he said he got to know the community better because he had to ‘‘write about our community and I live in a community, so I know what our community looks like.’’ Considering children’s self-defined goals, relational empowerment comprised 14.1 % of the codes. More students named these goals for the yPAR ASP in year 2 than they did in year 1 or for the school. Unlike the interviews, the most common way students discussed facilitating others’ empowerment was in gaining leadership responsibilities. They appeared to take up leadership as they progressed through the program, yet these goals did not extend into the school. Christens (2012) relates this dimension to leaders sharing power with others in the organization. Yet, children are not socially and culturally constructed as holding power in Western society. Because of this reality, we modified this aspect of relational empowerment to include how adults

Am J Community Psychol

facilitate empowerment and how children take up and share power, which is consistent with the youth empowerment literature (Dworski-Riggs and Langhout 2010; Kohfeldt et al. 2011; Ozer and Douglas, in press; Ozer et al. 2010; Russell et al. 2009; Zeldin et al. 2013). Overall, children shared power with each other, and adults shared power with them via shared decision making, knowledge construction, and everyone holding expert status. Mobilizing Networks This factor included students being in contact with decision-makers, organizing people, and extending their networks (Christens 2012; Ozer and Douglas, in press). This code was used the least frequently (1.8 % of codes), with two students describing network mobilization. Carmen was one of these two students; she stayed involved in the yPAR program because she ‘‘wanted to make a mural [and] do focus groups.’’ Of the activities Carmen engaged in, these two put students in contact with people who they did not know, thus potentially extending their social networks. They also mobilized their networks by organizing focus groups. The other student, Fatima, discussed the negotiation of the symbols in the mural, which required the yPAR program to be in contact with the central administration. She explained: I presented the megaphone [to the yPAR group] but that idea didn’t really go in [the mural]. (Interviewer: Why?) ‘Cause some disagreed, like the superintendent and principal, ‘cause they thought it was too aggressive […] So we didn’t put that exact idea that I had in mind for it, but they did put [agree to] a megaphone, so that’s what I liked about it […] They picked another one [megaphone] that didn’t look that aggressive and that was friendly to other, the children. Fatima explained that the yPAR program and school administration had to come to agreement about the mural symbols, which put the program in contact with decision makers. In this case, it was the PI who was asked—by the superintendent—to negotiate the symbols, even though the PI requested the children do so. It is notable and not surprising that more students did not discuss mobilizing networks. At different points in the process, children were deeply engaged in mobilizing networks, whether through organizing adults and students to participate in focus groups, deciding which adults to invite to mural unveilings, getting permission and addressing the entire school at assemblies, or negotiating the symbols for the first mural directly with the principal. It is, however, unsurprising that this code was infrequently used; children are often not positioned as network mobilizers.

Passing on a Legacy It was rare for children to discuss mentoring other children or engaging in activities that would help sustain the afterschool program; these activities, however, are consistent with this dimension of relational empowerment (Christens 2012). Because of their social positioning, other children and adults infrequently viewed them as mentors. Therefore, to acknowledge this positioning and to be consistent with the youth empowerment literature, we also coded instances where students gained skills that would assist them in making social change, as social change is the passing on of a legacy (Kohfeldt and Langhout 2012; Langhout 2014; Ozer and Douglas, in press). Examples include learning research skills, engaging in systems-level thinking, and strengthening communication skills. Almost all (10 of 11) children spoke of passing on a legacy. In fact, this was the most frequent code (41.3 % of all codes). Almost all children named several ways they gained skills to pass on a legacy. Most discussed creating a mural as a legacy. For example, Mercedes said that she was in the program because ‘‘I wanted to make a sign of change, which we did last summer—the big mural.’’ Many also mentioned skill development and guidance they received. This expertise came through: (a) learning about research methods (Danny liked to learn ‘‘the sorting thing [I can sort…] anything […] I liked […] sorting stuff.’’ Carmen said she most liked to learn about ‘‘focus groups, like how to […] introduce a focus group question.’’), and (b) strengthening communication skills (Fatima shared that the yPAR adults ‘‘helped me more to say and share my ideas.’’). Considering self-defined goals, passing on a legacy made up 26.1 % of all relational empowerment codes. Like with other factors, more students named these goals for the yPAR ASP than for school. The most common forms of passing on a legacy goals were promoting systems-thinking, learning tools to make a change, and learning communication skills. Regarding promoting systems-thinking for example, Carmen said that one of her goals was to be ‘‘good at paying attention and understanding what we’re talking about.’’ In addition, students wanted to learn how to utilize tools to make change at their school, such as how to paint a mural. Finally, students said that they wanted to learn more communication skills so, according to Viola, they could be a ‘‘role model to younger students.’’ Although we cannot say with certainty, it is plausible that the slight uptick in passing on a legacy goals for school year 2 was due to student work in the yPAR ASP. After all, their work was designed to create school change, so they may have generalized this goal to the school. Expertise and skill building helped children gain skills for working in their community. Many students, like

123

Am J Community Psychol

Mercedes, said that the yPAR program ‘‘helps me know more stuff about the community.’’ The program also bolstered their confidence. Fatima explained, ‘‘This program is different from other programs ‘cause […] you gained confidence in yourself and in others, and other programs don’t really do that.’’ In the end, children felt they had the agency to create change in their community when they worked together. Vanessa said that ‘‘you needed to take things seriously, and that changing your community can be fun, also but it’s not just fun, it’s hard work.’’ Luis indicated a commonly held belief among the students; he discussed the unique opportunity the program presented when he said, ‘‘I knew that um, if I didn’t do this [I] wouldn’t really get a chance […] to help our community.’’ With the guidance of the program and skill development, some children gained even more; they reconsidered their relationship to the school. Fatima explained that: [The program] changed my image of the school cause I used to probably think, well I thought that, um, school wasn’t that important, but then this program made me feel that I belonged in the school, that I made a change, so I had to go to school, cause it helped me and it helped the school, a lot. Overall, children expressed several ways they engaged in relational empowerment through passing on a legacy. Many discussed the guidance they received to help them learn deeply about their community and create change, trust in themselves and other students, and how this changed their relationship to the school. We categorize these activities as passing on a legacy because students created change and left their mark (literally) on the school, which is a legacy. Children’s Links Among Worlds Few students positioned themselves as network mobilizers although the yPAR program provided these opportunities. To gain a better understanding of their network mobilization experiences, we conducted several descriptive and social network analyses. These analyses helped us examine research question two, ‘‘How and in what ways do young people’s worlds link?’’ First, a sum count of the number of worlds in which actors were named was calculated. A small but meaningful percentage of actors bridged worlds. Specifically in year 1, 35 % of all actors (N = 70) linked worlds and in year 2, that number decreased slightly to 24.1 % (N = 55). Moreover, friends and family were most likely to bridge worlds. Brothers (year 1 = 85.7 %; year 2 = 18.2 %), sisters (year 1 = 77.8 %; year 2 = 11.1 %), parents (year 1 = 71.4 %; year 2 = 32 %), and friends (year 1 = 54.8 %; year 2 = 53.7 %) were more common bridgers, compared to teachers (year 1 = 54.8 %; year 2 = 11.1 %) and others (year 1 = 54.8 %; year 2 = 0 %).

123

We then assessed who bridged worlds among the intermediary institutions of the yPAR ASP and school settings. Of the 72 people named in the yPAR ASP in year 1, 13.9 % (N = 10) were identified as bridgers, and this percentage increased in year 2 with 20.7 % (N = 12) of the 58 actors bridging at least two settings. Additionally, 31 of the 56 (55.4 %) people named in school bridged more than one setting in year 1. This decreased slightly in year 2 such that 44.4 % (28 of 56 people) linked the school to at least one other world. Over time, people in the yPAR ASP became more integrated across young people’s settings. In addition to examining actors who bridged multiple worlds, we used UCI-Net software to develop sociograms for both years, assessing relative links between worlds across actors (Borgatti et al. 2002). As Figs. 2 and 3 indicate, the greatest connections were between home and family worlds in year 1, with 12 actors linking them (compared to 0 in year 2). In year 2, intermediary institutions gain greater connection. For example, the bridges between school and other worlds were stronger; there were 13 actors who linked these worlds, or 6.5 % of all actors (5.3 % year 1). In examining the yPAR ASP, connections were maintained between it and school. In years 1 and 2, eight people (year 1: 4 % and year 2, 3.5 % of all actors) bridged these two settings—all of whom were children. Finally, we examined network densities. For year 1, the average density score was .47 (SD = 1.48), and the average weighted density was 10.35. For year 2, the density increased slightly to an average of .58 (SD = 1.65), with an average weighted density of 9.89. Over time, children’s social networks became more integrated. It is not surprising that children’s social networks became more integrated over time. Although the interview and goals codes did not provide a strong indication of integrated social networks, social network analysis provides a more global measure of integration. The yPAR ASP setting allowed children to engage with others (including adults), which provided opportunities to mobilize their social relationships, as these data indicate. Similarly, as Fatima’s quote above illustrates, children gained significant opportunities to engage in mobilizing efforts, influencing the decisions that were made in the school and yPAR ASP. Beyond simple links, it is important to assess who helped and challenged students in their worlds; this is a key aspect of relational empowerment because it is central to accessing resources and power. Indeed, participants need to make use of the resources in their bridged worlds. We assessed who helped and challenged participants in reaching their school goals through repeated measures ANOVAs. Specifically, we examined whether children and adults, males and females, and person type (e.g., brother, teacher, parent) were more likely to be named as helpers and/or challengers and if those ratings changed between the

Am J Community Psychol

Fig. 2 Sociogram of worlds. Top panel year 1; bottom panel year 2

two years. Considering gender, there was a main effect for time (F(1, 366) = 5.09, p = .025) where year 2 had more helpers (M = .25, SD = .44) than year 1 (M = .18, SD = .39). In assessing challengers, there was a significant interaction effect (F(1, 366) = 4.25, p = .04) where the likelihood of females being rated as challengers decreased over time (year 1: M = .07, SD = .26; year 2: M = .03, SD = .17), whereas the likelihood of males increased (year 1: M = .03, SD = .17; year 2: M = .06, SD = .23).

In assessing adults and children, there was a significant main effect in helping for time (F(1, 366) = 5.44, p = .02); year 2 had more helpers (M = .25, SD = .44) than year 1 (M = .18, SD = .39). Considering challengers, there was a main effect by group (F(1) = 19.13, p = .05). Children (M = .08, SE = .01) were more likely to be challengers than adults (M = .02, SE = .01). With respect to person type, there was a main effect by group (F(6) = 12.29, p \ .001). Helpers were brothers

123

Am J Community Psychol

Fig. 3 Helpers and challengers by worlds. Top panel year 1; bottom panel year 2

(compared to others); friends (compared to general family and others); parents (compared to brothers, general family, friends, sisters, teachers, and others); sisters (compared to others); and teachers (compared to general family and others). In examining challengers, there were significant main effects for time (F(1, 246) = 6.74, p = .01) and person type (F(1, 246) = 6.20, p \ .001), as well as an interaction between person type and time (F(6) = 4.61, p \ .001). Namely, those in year 1 (M = .11, SE = .02)

123

were more likely to be challengers compared to year 2 (M = .05, SE = .02). Additionally, challengers were brothers (compared to general family and teachers); friends (compared to general family and teachers); and sisters (compared to general family, friends, parents, teachers, and others). Means and standard deviations for helping and challenging by each person type and time are in Table 1. Finally, we examined each setting and whether people named were helpers or challengers in achieving school

Am J Community Psychol

Table 1 Means and standard errors for person type by helper Person type

Helpers

Challengers

Year 1

Year 2

Year 1

Year 2

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Brother

.25

.45

.17

.39

.17

.39

.08

.29

General family

.17

.38

.07

.25

.00

.00

.00

.00

Friend

.17

.38

.41

.50

.13

.34

.03

.17

Parent

.48

.51

.63

.49

.00

.00

.04

.19

Sister

.36

.51

.18

.41

.45

.52

.00

.00

Teacher

.30

.46

.25

.44

.01

.12

.03

.17

Other

.00

.00

.06

.23

.00

.00

.14

.35

goals. Unsurprisingly, in year 1 the majority of helpers were within the intermediary institution of school (N = 30), with 53.6 % of helpers being from school. This finding was similar in the second year, where 39 helpers were from school (61.9 % of all school actors). Challengers also tended to come from school, but to a much lesser extent. The first year included 11 challengers (19.6 %) from school and decreased in the second year, with four challengers (6.3 %). Although this number seems small, it is comparably larger when considering the small number of challengers among all actors—20 in year 1 and 15 in year 2. In analyzing the yPAR ASP, of the 73 actors named in the yPAR ASP, 12 were helpers (16.4 %) in year 1 and 13 of the 58 actors (22.4 %) were helpers in year 2. Sociograms presented in Fig. 3 highlight the connections between helpers and challengers across settings. The discussion of helpers and challengers in children’s worlds is an important one as helpers may assist in facilitating empowering processes related to network mobilization, whereas challengers can impede those processes. These data presented above are consistent with the finding of greater social network integration over time. Increasing the number of helpers children have in their worlds enhances the opportunities for children to mobilize their networks. Again, Fatima’s quote above highlights this issue. In this case, the school administration acted as a challenger, but through the mobilization of networks, and the assistance of a helper (the PI), Fatima and her peers were able to participate in decision-making. Overall, there were bridges between worlds, but perhaps not as many as researchers, policy makers, and practitioners would like. This is consistent with previous research, which finds home and family as the two worlds with the most bridges (Cooper et al. 2002). When considering intermediary institutions in year 1, school linked most with the yPAR ASP. There were also many links to the friends and family world. By year 2, school connections to family

and/or home had decreased and were about as common as the yPAR ASP links to family. The links between school and friends, however, remained strong. Finally, although school was a pivotal intermediary institution, teachers were uncommon bridgers. These results are consistent with other studies, which report that children increase their connections to peers as they mature and that teachers are less common bridgers (Cooper 2011). Given the importance of people who bridge intermediary institutions for relational empowerment, the results are somewhat discouraging. The yPAR ASP especially should increase its focus on building bridges between worlds. Yet, there is also room for hope. Having strong connections between intermediary institutions is a positive sign, as bridging of public institutions can help build collective action and transform power relationally. Additionally, the network was slightly denser in year 2, indicating that there was an increase in bridging. The analysis of helpers and challengers in reaching school goals is one way to examine resource networks and network mobilization—important aspects of relational empowerment. These students listed far more helpers than challengers. Further, the number of helpers increased over time, whereas the number of challengers decreased. These results are consistent with previous studies (Azmitia et al. 2009; Brooker et al. 2008). Considering worlds, most helpers for school-related goals came from the school intermediary institution. Yet, a sizable number of helpers came from family, friends, and home worlds. By year 2, the yPAR ASP also included many helpers. Additionally, children increased their network mobilization by year 2. This resource bridging across worlds is an important aspect of relational empowerment, and the fact that children are able to access these resources bodes well for their ability to identify resources, build relational power, and reach their goals. Limitations, Future Directions, and Implications As no study is without limitations, we discuss three areas for improvement. Our sample size is small. Because this examination was more descriptive than inferential, and because empowerment is contextually mediated (which makes applicability rather than generalizability more appropriate), the small sample size is less of a limitation as it would be otherwise. Indeed, even with this relatively small sample size, the children’s interviews, goals and sociograms tell a rich and detailed story about their desires and experiences. A second limitation was that children nominated helpers and challengers in school-based goals only. It would be beneficial to collect these data regarding the yPAR ASP, as this is also an intermediary institution. Future research should ask about goals and helpers and challengers in

123

Am J Community Psychol

multiple worlds, with an emphasis on other intermediary institutions because this is where democratic ideas are likely to be developed and practiced. These data would shed more light on empowerment, especially relational empowerment. Although this study focused on empowerment, it was not a direct examination of how power (collective or individual) was exercised within settings. Because of modifications we made to the facilitating empowerment factor of relational empowerment, however, we did examine power sharing within the yPAR ASP, but this was not the main focus. Instead, we focused on the relational aspect of young people’s power within these settings. Future research could directly investigate issues of power within these settings. Even with these limitations, there are implications worth noting. First, the synthesis of the relational empowerment, youth empowerment, and Bridging Multiple Worlds literatures provides a theoretical and empirical foundation for the growing body of research on relational empowerment. Specifically, the addition of Bridging Multiple Worlds and the subsequent methodology help us understand the mobilizing networks dimension of relational empowerment. Indeed, without this method, the information about mobilizing networks for these children would be sparse because it was not a frequently raised area in interviews or in self-generated goals. Additionally, this study demonstrates that Latino/a children contribute collaboratively to community endeavors in ways that suggest relational empowerment processes in multiple life domains. Yet, in this examination, we made little mention of Latinas/os as a cultural group. We felt it was inappropriate to do so because we did not collect data specifically about the broader cultural context of children’s everyday lives in their families or communities. We can, however, highlight previous research on children from Mexican and Central American communities (areas from where most of our students’ families immigrated) that might explain the salience of the collective and participatory nature of the yPAR program for our students. Children from many rural communities in Mexico and Central America are integrated in community life and expected to make contributions (Rogoff 2003). Mexican and Central American immigrant children living in California actively contribute to household functioning and economies, and assist parents in community life though translation (Orellana 2001). Although we do not have data for the students’ experiences in their family and community spheres, Latina/ o youth may have familiarity with a social organization that supports their participation. Specifically, we see glimpses of this possibility in their network data; many helpers and bridgers are children. Thus, future research

123

should collect data about these experiences to further contextualize conclusions. Our results have implications for practitioners and policy makers. It may be beneficial for ASP practitioners to provide opportunities for young people to bridge connections between ASPs and other intermediary institutions. Considering relational empowerment, these opportunities may bridge social divisions, enhance youth’s ability to mobilize their networks, and strengthen their collaborative competence. Additionally, although a direct link cannot be disentangled with this investigation, providing greater opportunities for youth to bridge multiple worlds may enhance outcomes across worlds. For example, school goals may have the greater potential to be met through participation in a yPAR ASP. As the results of this study indicate, it may be important for practitioners and policy makers to implement programming and opportunities for young people to bridge connections across worlds as a means to relational empowerment. This paper also has implications for community psychology methods. Luke (2005) called on the field to utilize methods to capture context. Goals of community psychology are sometimes holistic and explanatory, and methods such as social network analysis provide another way to describe and explain phenomenon, even with a small sample size (Langhout 2003). Indeed, this is a strength of social network analysis—it can be used with a very large sample or a sample as small as one, making it a flexible tool and therefore useful across a variety of study types. Another implication comes from the longitudinal examination of student goals and networks. Few studies are longitudinal, which is a necessary methodology if we are to understand how these processes develop. Student goals and networks both changed over time, and student yPAR ASP goals were better aligned with relational empowerment than were school goals. Also, there was an uptick in student school goals for passing on a legacy for year 2, which may be related to their work in the yPAR ASP. Future empowerment research should continue to take a developmental perspective—for children and adults—because these processes are dynamic. Additionally, our results may point to transferability of relational empowerment goals across settings, and this warrants future study. Relatedly, research should examine how children develop their goals for settings and why they change them. Finally, Christens (2012) calls for the study of relational empowerment. This investigation uses a promising method for examining relationships: social network analysis. Here, we used it to examine bridges between worlds, and relationships that increased access to resources, which is an essential aspect of empowerment. We also linked the results to intermediary institutions because if we are to have a vibrant democratic culture, we need to assess the

Am J Community Psychol

outcomes of face-to-face contacts within these settings so that we know if people are gaining more access to power through their relationships as they build a rich public life. Acknowledgments The authors thank Catherine Cooper, Jeanette Lawrence, and Hugh Campbell for their assistance with this research. We also thank our student participants and the UCSC Community Psychology Research and Action Team, especially Danielle Kohfeldt, Sarah Grace, Jesica Ferna´ndez, and Angela Nguyen. This research was funded by a grant to the first author from University-Community Links and by a grant to Catherine Cooper from the Kellogg Foundation. The second author was funded through a King-Chavez-Parks Fellowship. The third author was funded through a Eugene Cota Robles Fellowship.

References Azmitia, M., & Cooper, C. R. (2001). Good or bad? Peer influences on Latino and European American adolescents’ pathways through school. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 6(1–2), 45–71. Azmitia, M., Cooper, C. R., & Brown, J. R. (2009). Support and guidance from families, friends, and teachers in Latino early adolescents’ math pathways. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(1), 142–169. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Brooker, A. M., Lin, Y. H., Albert, N., Karantzas, K. M., Dodds, A. E., & Lawrence, J. A. (2008). Children of African refugee families fitting into the local school scene. Paper presented at Social Inclusion and Exclusion of Culturally Diverse Communities: Strategies and Experiences, Launceston. Retrieved from http://www.bridgingworlds.org/modelsandmetrics/Brooker,%20Lawr ence%20et%20al.pdf. Christens, B. (2010). Public relationship building in grassroots community organizing: Relational intervention for individual and systems change. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 886–900. Christens, B. (2012). Toward relational empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 114–128. Christens, B. D., & Kirshner, B. (2011). Taking stock of youth organizing: An interdisciplinary perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(134), 27–41. Cooper, C. R. (1999). Multiple selves, multiple worlds: Cultural perspectives on individuality and connectedness in adolescent development. In A. S. Masten (Ed.), Cultural processes in child development: The Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 25–57). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cooper, C. R. (2011). Bridging multiple worlds: Cultures, identities, and pathways to college. New York: Oxford University Press. Cooper, C. R., Cooper, R. G., Azmitia, M., Chavira, G., & Gullatt, Y. (2002). Bridging multiple worlds: How African American and Latino youth in academic outreach programs navigate math pathways to college. Applied Developmental Science, 6(2), 73–87. Cornell Empowerment Group. (1989). Empowerment and family support. Networking Bulletin, 1(1), 2–12. Cortes, E. (2010). Rebuilding our institutions. Chicago: ACTA. Dworski-Riggs, D., & Langhout, R. D. (2010). Elucidating the power in empowerment and the participation in participatory action research: A story about research team and elementary school change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 215–230. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.

Kirshner, B. (2008). Guided participation in three youth activism organizations: Facilitation, apprenticeship, and joint work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 60–101. Kohfeldt, D. M., Chhun, L., Grace, S., & Langhout, R. D. (2011). Youth empowerment in context: Exploring tensions in schoolbased yPAR. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 28–45. Kohfeldt, D. M., & Langhout, R. D. (2012). The 5 whys: A tool for defining problems in yPAR. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 316–329. Langhout, R. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing quantitative and qualitative methods: A case study dealing with place as an exemplar. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 229–244. Langhout, R. D. (2014). Photovoice as a methodology. In X. Castan˜eda, A. Rodriguez-Lainz, & M. B. Schenker (Eds.), Migration and health research methodologies: A handbook for the study of migrant populations. Berkeley: UC Press. Lawrence, J. A., Dodds, A. E., Campbell, H., & McInnes, A. (2007). The Worlds of Young People [Computer Program]. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. Luke, D. (2005). Getting the big picture in community science: Methods that capture context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3), 185–200. Mitra, D. L. (2006). Youth as a bridge between home and school comparing student voice and parent involvement as strategies for change. Education and Urban Society, 38(4), 455–480. Neal, J. W., & Neal, Z. P. (2010). Power as a structural phenomenon. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 157–167. Orellana, M. F. (2001). The work kids do: Mexican and Central American immigrant children’s contributions to households and schools in California. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 366–390. Ozer, E., & Douglas, L. (in press). Assessing the key processes of youth-led participatory research: Psychometric analysis and application of an observational rating scale. Youth and Society. doi:10.1177/0044118X12468011. Ozer, E. J., Ritterman, M. L., & Wanis, M. G. (2010). Participatory action research (PAR) in middle school: Opportunities, constraints, and key processes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 152–166. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Russell, S. T., Muraco, A., Subramaniam, A., & Laub, C. (2009). Youth empowerment and high school gay-straight alliances. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 891–903. Silva, J.M., & Langhout, R.D. (under review). Creating an empowering first grade classroom: Possibilities for social action. Speer, P. W., & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to empowerment and power. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 729–748. Speer, P. W., Hughey, J., Gensheimer, L. K., & Adams-Leavitt, W. (1995). Organizing for power: A comparative case study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(1), 57–73. Syed, M., Azmitia, M., & Cooper, C. R. (2011). Identity and academic success among underrepresented ethnic minorities: An interdisciplinary review and integration. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 442–468. Warren, M. R., & Mapp, K. L. (2011). A match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school reform. New York: Oxford University Press. Watkins, N. D., Larson, R. W., & Sullivan, P. J. (2007). Bridging intergroup difference in a community youth program. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 380–402. Zeldin, S., Christens, B. D., & Powers, J. (2013). The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3–4), 385–397.

123