On intermediaries, mediators, (im)mobilities, and proximities #RaisingDissertation
It's not easy to see things in the middle, rather than looking down on them from above or up at them from below, or from left to right or right to left: try it, you'll see that everything changes. It's not easy to see the grass in things and in words" (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987).
Before you dive in, some key terms and concepts:
(Im)mobilities - as in effects, outcomes, events. Could be understood in terms of both resources and boundaries, as having the ability to move and as being forced to stay; as effects, outcomes, events that have political significance and relevance. (See also Pellegrino, 2011).
Proximity - as in relations. Could be understood in terms of nearness, farness, togetherness, and closeness to other actors; as physical, virtual, imaginative, and communicative travel of information. (See also Bissell, 2012).
Other key concepts: near-dwellers (Bissell, 2012); near-carriers (my term, 2015); ontology of belonging; institutional and peer surveillance (Jackson, 2012).
###
Somewhere in my literature review section might read this rumination on the everyday lives of young people, mostly Black and brown, living below the poverty line, and in-transition...
Intermediaries and Mediators
In Reassembling the Social (2005), Latour talks about the relationship between mediators and intermediaries as both human and non-human objects. Actor-Network Theory (ANT), describes an intermediary as a black box, or an object that can be viewed in terms of inputs and outputs without any knowledge of its internal workings. An intermediary, Latour writes, “transports meaning or force without transformation” (pg. 39). Mediators, unlike intermediaries, “transform, translate, distort, and modify the meaning or the elements they are supposed to carry” (pg. 39). In other words, objects that describe mediators transform meaning whereas objects that describe intermediaries do not transform.
But how do we decipher between mediators and intermediaries? For Latour, this is the first uncertainty in Actor-Network Theory; that is, whether or not objects behave as intermediaries or mediators, and it is also the source of all other uncertainties that follow.
Intermediaries and mediators lead researchers of associations into different territories. Intermediaries account for predictable outcomes, like for example, a large complex bureaucracy where objects perform repetitive and predictable tasks. Latour offers another example of an intermediary’s predictable behavior:
[A] highly sophisticated panel during an academic conference [that] may become a perfectly predictable and uneventful intermediary in rubber stamping a decision made elsewhere (pg. 39).
Mediators, unlike intermediaries are unpredictable. For example, a mediator may become complex and blow out in multiple directions like a banal conversation “where passions, opinions, and attitudes bifurcate at every turn” (pg. 39). Similar to Delueze’s rhizomatic concept, mediators point to the proliferations of objects and locates where these objects might connect to and expand toward. Mediators challenge us to follow flows rather than define containers.
ANT asks researchers of associations to treat all objects as mediators, as unpredictable and complex no matter how seemingly banal they may appear at first. This does not mean, however, that intermediaries cannot be studied nor recognized. In fact, as Latour suggests, intermediaries can become mediators and vice versa overtime. Rather than defining in advance what constitutes or makes up the social and cultural worlds we study, one approach to studying intermediaries and mediators, and their oscillating ways, is through description.
Enter: ethnography
I return now to an earlier discussion about intermediaries behaving in predictable ways. To further elaborate on the application of intermediaries in this research, I sought out other works aside from ANT and social theory where the concept of intermediaries was applied.
Yannakakis’ ethnohistorical study The Art of Being In-between (2008) explores indigenous resistance and colonial intermediaries of Sierra Norte of Oaxaca, a region of colonial Mexico. In Yannakakis work, we learn about native intermediaries, or those who “by virtue of their legitimacy among native peoples [helped to] administer colonial society” (pg. 2). Yannakakis’ study follows the trajectory of social rebellions and the rise of colonial intermediaries that became martyrs and some who were eventually declared saints centuries after their deaths. This ethnohistory provides another perspective about the ways intermediaries, in this case human actors, transport meaning from one group (natives) to another group (political elites). When citing Daniel Richter’s work on network theory and cultural brokers in the seventeenth-century (a concept synonymous with Yannakakis’ application of intermediaries), Yannakakis writes:
[Cultural brokers’] position in multiple networks and coalitions meant that they were both varyingly situated and not situated at all; they occupied an ‘intermediate position, one step removed from final responsibility in decision making [...] Participating in social networks from an intermediate position required not only considerable communicative skills but also a ‘tactical’1 sensibility (pg. 10).
Yannakakis applies the concept of intermediaries somewhat differently than Latour does in Reassembling. Throughout In-between, Yannakakis refers to intermediaries as bridges and brokers or those that “played a considerable role in connecting the colonial state to localities” (pg. 33). Yannakakis implies a bidirectional transfer of meaning (what goes through comes back) whereas Latour’s illustration of intermediaries depicts a unidirectional model of transfer (what goes in come out). However, where Yannakakis and Latour’s concept of intermediaries intersect is in how the transfer of meaning moves; that is, in predictable ways.
It is at this intersecting point in Latour and Yannakakis’ analyses that I enter into a discussion about the proximities (or relations) between human actors (near-dwellers) and non-human actors (near-carriers) as mediators and intermediaries, and how these proximities might constitute young peoples’ (im)mobilities.
Enter: a study of (im)mobilities and proximities in the lives of ‘disconnected’ youth
Through a mapping of (im)mobilities and proximities, I construct a visual representation of relations and events between research participants, technologies, institutions, as well as locate assemblages, entanglements, ruptures, flows, and discontinuities therein. Stripped of the abstract, this work essentially constitutes a story of everyday life for teens and young adults grappling with where and how to belong; when to stay, how to leave, when to log on, how to search, when to watch, and how to recognize when one is being surveilled. It is also a story about the politics of nearness and distance and how power relations are constantly reshaped between young people, key adults in their lives, unanticipated neighbors, police officers, technologies, and institutions.
My argument in this work goes without saying: Disconnected youth are far from disconnected. In fact, they dwell near, within, and among people, places, and things in foreseen and unexpected ways. For young people in transition from adolescence to adulthood, where they exist “in-between” jobs and schooling, their experiences also constitute paradoxical encounters. Where belonging on the block meets suspicion in the neighborhood, where animosity in the projects meets ambivalence in the city, where support at the cafe meets uncertainty at school, where curiosity online meets disinterest offline, where loss at home meets hope for the future. When blown a part these encounters reveal an apparatus of always-becoming, of always-in between.
###
Currently reading:
Bissell, D. (2012). Pointless mobilities: Rethinking proximity through the loops of neighbourhood. Mobilities, 8 (3), 349-367.
Fassin, D. (2015). Enforcing order: An ethnography of urban policing. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Goffman, A. (2014). On the run: Fugitive life in an American city. New York, NY: Picador.
Lewis-McCoy, R.L. (2014). Inequality in the promised land: Race, resources, and suburban schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Pellegrino, G. (2011). Studying (im)mobility through a politics of proximity. In G. Pellegrino, ed. The politics of proximity, 1-14. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Further reading:
Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2012). Mobile technologies of the city. Routledge.
Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Polity Press.
Urry, J. (2002). Mobility and proximity. Sociology, 36 (2), 255-274.
Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. Routledge.
Never stopped reading:
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
1 I apply Yannakakis’ definition here: “‘Tactics’ are the subtle, everyday actions undertaken by individuals to navigate, resist, and subvert authority” (pg. 33).
On Disconnected Youth, Place, and Nepantla
(Photo by Tara)
The process of place-making also describes a process of identity (re)formation. For young people traversing city spaces and who seek a sense of grounding or ‘permanence’ amongst the “instabilities of motions” (Henry, 1996, p. 262) characteristic of these urban landscapes experience what Glora Anzaldua calls nepantla. As *disconnected or vulnerable youth transition from adolescence to adulthood with limited resources and support they inhabit a threshold of spatio-temporal awareness and place, one described through liminality and in-betweenness.
Nepantla is a period of struggle, but also a reflective place of possibility where transformation can occur. While experiencing nepantla one is confronted with conflicting realities and questions. This threshold moment breaks down boundaries, whether material or metaphorical. Familiar ways of identifying no longer work. Categories rupture. Place dwellings destabilize. A young person not attending school is no longer considered a student. So she asks, what am I learning? A young adult without a job is no longer a worker, and so she asks, who do I work for?
The tingling consequence of a capitalism is not ignored here; this system is prone to crisis and relentlessly intent on redefining social organization. Capitalism manifests ‘instabilities of motions’. But the young person transforms despite this systematic betrayal because now she exists “between worlds, between realities, between systems of knowledge” (Keating, 2000, p. 268). She resides at a crossroads, a metaphorical fork in the road that reveals a new way of perceiving the world and her place in it.
Through this anxiety-inducing process of discerning and questioning, disconnected youth experience a "perpetual perishing" of place ( (Henry, 1996, p. 261). A re-dying of permanence with which they once identified.
*Disconnected youth are characterized as teens and young adults, ages 16 to-24 years old who are not working or attending school (Mastin, Metzger, and Golden, 2013).
References
Harvey, D. (1996). Social justice and the geography of difference. London: Blackwell.
Keating, A. (2000). Interviews/entrevistas. New York: Routledge.
Mastin, Metzger, and Golden (2013). Foster care and disconnected youth. Report.
#RaisingDissertation is a way to keep me sane and connected to the outside world while working, at times in isolation, on my dissertation research. From time to time, and depending on my mood, I will post draft excerpts from my dissertation research to this public blog. I welcome dialogue from subscribers, readers, and lurkers. I acknowledge that ideas belong to the universe. That said, however, if you wish to write about my research elsewhere, you must cite my work here. For those in the press reporting about the media and technology uses among ‘disconnected’ youth, and youths involved in foster care and juvenile justice systems, feel free to contact me directly. I’d love to share my research with you; this should not to be confused with doing your research for you. For others researching in this area, I also welcome your insights here. As always, I’m happy to connect.
Prologue to the Research #RaisingDissertation
#RaisingDissertation is a way to keep me sane and connected to the outside world while working, at times in isolation, on my dissertation research. From time to time, and depending on my mood, I will post draft excerpts from my dissertation research to this public blog. I welcome dialogue from subscribers, readers, and lurkers. I acknowledge that ideas belong to the universe. That said, however, if you wish to write about my research elsewhere, you must cite my work here. For those in the press reporting about the media and technology uses among 'disconnected' youth, and youths involved in foster care and juvenile justice systems, feel free to contact me directly. I'd love to share my research with you; this should not to be confused with doing your research for you. For others researching in this area, I also welcome your insights here. As always, I'm happy to connect.
The following is an excerpt from an ever-growing dissertation involving the mediated lives of vulnerable or 'disconnected' youth in New York City.
Prologue to the Research
While I was completing a master’s degree in Women’s Studies I spent long hours in my room reading and writing about people dislocated from their communities as a result of natural disaster and social conflict. Also during this time I was taking care of my father whose health was deteriorating. Throughout graduate school and while living with my father in rural North Texas, I became isolated and somewhat disconnected from the local community. Because of these social and familial circumstances, I retreated into reclusively, and likely as a result, I found affinity with a Macbook computer and online social networks.
Media were tools that I used to not only document research but they also provided a means of escaping, albeit temporarily, from the grind of graduate school and the solitude of caring for a dying parent. In 2006 I posted my first YouTube video online. There was something about performing in front of a digital camera and then uploading a four-minute video to a social media site (SNS) for strangers to comment on and ridicule that provided me with a sense of community and place. While locked in my room researching one day, my father, who was checking-in on me asked, "What are you writing on your computer?" His question, imbued with both care and wonder, has stayed with me years after his death.
My father was born in 1930; one year after the U.S. stock market crashed that subsequently gave rise to The Great Depression. He never used a computer, and it was only during his late sixties and throughout his seventies that he used a cell phone. He would have never described his relationship with a cell phone through affinity, but rather perceived the mobile artifact as an inconvenient sign of the times. As I reflect back to that moment when he asked me about what I was writing on the computer, I think about his orientation to technology. At the time, I would not have described what I was doing on my computer as writing. However, my father’s way of knowing how a computer functioned was intuitive, and in fact true. I do write on my computer, as in mark, produce, and compose—just not with a led pencil or ink pen.
Thinking too about my father, who was a writer and oil painter, and his relationship to the pen and paintbrush, these were technologies through which he found catharsis, just as the button and mouse are instruments through which I can connect digitally with others and express myself. As a child of the Great Depression, and a nomad of this digital world, my father and I, respectively, used the technologies and media of our generations to write our ways into knowing, participate in culture, and to find a sense of place in the world.
When I first began to work with young people who were involved in foster care and juvenile justice systems, I noticed that they too were finding ways to connect with others using social, digital, and mobile media. They were composing on and connecting to publicly mediated networks, engaging in what Alice Marwick, Ph.D. calls ethnography of display[1]. Some of these young people had lost parents at an early age, transitioned in and out of school, and had difficulty finding work. Despite lacking supportive ties to family, school, and work, these young people still managed to find ways to digitally participate in the circulation of culture and knowledge, even with limited access to computers, cell phones, and the Internet. I spent time working closely with young people who, when given access to borrowed computers and Internet WiFi (wireless technology that enables connection to the Internet) would log on to Facebook or WordPress (a popular blogging web platform), connect with friends and share media artifacts like digital pictures and videos. These young people were not simply consuming media, but also participating—despite their circumstances, in the meaning making processes through relatively public and mediated social networks.
As I approach this research, I am again drawn back in time to the question my seventy-year-old father asked me nearly ten years ago. A question that at its core wants to know: What do we do with media and networked technology, and why do we do it, particularly during episodes in our lives when we seem dislodged from support networks that are meant to ground us? MIT specialist, Sherry Turkle writes in her book Alone Together (2011) that “[t]he network is seductive [and] if we are always on, we may deny ourselves the rewards of solitude” (pg. 3). While it may be true that relentless connection to networked technology can impose new communication challenges for people and our relationships, one might consider how networked technology can mediate information-seeking practices and connection, particularly for those who, during moments of difficult transition, find solitude a nuisance, whose offline supportive ties are scarce commodities, and for those whose privacy is complicated by federal legislation and institutional regulations.
This subtle consideration about our relationship to/with each other and networked technology, along with the question that asks what is it that we do with media guides this research. I am compelled to know more about how young people who are characterized as disconnected and vulnerable might find a sense of community and place, if at all, through media and technology. Furthermore, I think about what these findings might reveal about the organization and space of their social ties and networks. My inquiry here is motivated by care for and wonder about the lives of young people I have had the privilege of working with for nearly two years. This exploratory research is also an ode to my father’s loving question years before. And as Cris Beam writes in her book about youth in foster care, To The End of June (2013), this research is a way for me to look.
[1] On February 20, 2014 during a presentation at Teachers College, Columbia University, Alice Marwick, Assistant professor of Communications and Media at Fordham University described the writing and producing that we do via web media as “ethnography of display”. Marwick noted that during the earlier days of blogging and online journaling, text was the primary mode of displaying information. The current web landscape complicates what it means to write our ways into knowing and being because of visual media like images and video. The term “ethnography of display” encapsulates both how people produce publicly online and how these practices overtime tell a story about self-presentation.
Preview of My Upcoming #RLR2014 Talk
On Monday, October 14th from 6-8pm I'll be presenting at this year's first Racial Literacy Roundtable at Teachers College, Columbia University. I'll be discussing my current research that involves working with court-involved youth in NYC to develop a mobile platform using participatory design and ethnographic methodologies.
Highlights of the talk include:
- An open letter to participants
- An overview of TXT CONNECT
- Definitions and meanings of "court-involved youth"
- Definitions and meanings of participation
- Sharing challenges related to working, designing, and researching in collaborative environments with multiple community stakeholders
- Researcher's reflections
Intended Audience
Anyone working with and learning from young people and underrepresented communities; this could be researchers, educators, any adult in the life of a child/teenager, designers, and mediamakers. I also invite audience members to engage in a reflexive group activity with the hopes of generating meaningful discussions about participation, youth cultures, and civic technology.
Questions?
If you'd like to submit questions for the talk on Monday, please feel free to leave them below in the comments section. I especially welcome questions about issues related to participatory design and working with court-involved youth in New York City.
If you are unable to attend, the talk will be streamed live on Ustream.
Stay in touch using the Racial Literacy Roundtable hashtag #RLR2014 and follow me on Twitter @taralconley
Resources
Pilot Study Bibliography: Participatory Design, CI Youth, & Mobile Tech
The following is an ever growing alphabetized bibliography (you're welcome) of my current doctoral research involving participatory design, court-involved youth, and mobile technology.
Update #2: 4/19/15 - Welcome #AERA15! Feel free to peruse the pilot study bib below. Keep in touch on Twitter @taralconley!
Update #1: 9/25/14 - Welcome #ONA14! Feel free to peruse the bib below. Keep in touch on Twitter @taralconley!
Welcome #RLR2014 participants! Please take a moment to fill out a very brief questionnaire about Monday's presentation. Your feedback is greatly appreciated! Click here to take survey
References
Abu-Lugod, L. (1990). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women and Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory, 5(1), 7-27.
Anzaldúa, G.A. (1987). Borderlands/la frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute.
Anzaldúa, G.A. (2002). now let us shift…the path of conocimiento…inner work, public acts. this bridge we call home: radical visions for transformation. In Eds. G.A. Anzaldúa and A. Keating (Eds.), (pp. 540-578). New York, NY: Routledge.
Anzaldúa, G.A. (2002). (Un)natural bridges, (un)safe spaces. this bridge we call home: radical visions for transformation. In Eds. G.A. Anzaldúa and A. Keating (Eds.), (pp. 1-5). New York, NY: Routledge.
Asaro, P.M. (2000). Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design. Accounting Management and Information Technologies, 10, 257-290.
Bernard, R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.
Bohannon, L. (1954). Return to laughter. New York, NY: Harper.
boyd, d. (2008). Friendship. In I. Mizuko, S. Baumer, M. Bittanti, d. boyd, R. Cody, B. Herr, H. A. Horst, P. G. Lange, D. Mahendran, K. Martinez, C.J. Pascoe, D. Perkel, L. Robinson, C. Sims, and L. Tripp. Hanging Out, Messing Around, Geeking Out: Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bustamante Navarro, R. (2013). Participatory design Guide for Mental Health Promotion in prisons. Revista española de sanidad penitenciaria, 15(2), 44-53.
Capetillo-Ponce, J. (2006). Exploring Gloria Anzaldúa's methodology in Borderlands/La frontera-the new mestiza. Human Architecture, 4, 87-94.
Center for an Urban Future. (2009). A need for correction: Reforming New York’s juvenile justice system, 18.
Communities United for Policing Reform. (2012). About the Community Safety Act. Retrieved from http://changethenypd.org/about-community-safety-act. Accessed on Aug. 5, 2013.
De Souza e Silva, Adriana. (2006). Interfaces of hybrid spaces. In A.P. Kawoori & N. Arceneaux (Eds.), The cell phone reader: Essays in social transformation (pp. 19-44). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Dinerstein, J. (2006). Technology and its discontents: On the verge of the posthuman. American Quarterly. 58(3), 569-595. DOI: 10.1353/aq.2006.0056
Faber, J., Bensky, L., & Alpert, L. (2009). The long road home: A study of children stranded in New York City foster care. Children’s Rights. 1-230.
Fitch, D. (2012). Youth in foster care and social media: A framework for developing guidelines. Journal of Technology in Human Services. 30(2), 94-108, DOI: 10.1080/15228835.2012.700854
Flango, V.E. & Sydow, N. (2011). Educational well-being: Court outcome measures for children in foster care. Future Trends in State Courts: A Special Focus on Access to Justice. Report.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc.
Gailey, C.W. (1998). Feminist methods. In H.R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology (pp. 203-234). Walnut Creek, California: Alta Mira Press.
Goodman, D.J. (2013). Bloomberg vetoes measures for police monitor and lawsuits. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/nyregion/bloomberg-vetoes-measures-for-police-monitor-and-lawsuits.html?_r=0. Accessed on Aug. 4, 2013.
Gordon, J. (2006). The cell phone: An artifact of popular culture and a tool of the public space. In A.P. Kawoori & N. Arceneaux (Eds.), The cell phone reader: Essays in social transformation (pp. 45-60). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hicks, S., Duran, B., P.H., Wallerstein, N., P.H., Avila, M., P.H., Belone, L., Lucero, J., & Hat, E. W. (2012). Evaluating community-based participatory research to improve community-partnered science and community health. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 6(3), 289-99.
Holone, H., & Herstad, J. (2013). Three tensions in participatory design for inclusion. Proceedings from CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives. Paris, France.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century [White paper]. Retrieved from digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/.../JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF
Latour, B. (1991). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-82). Washington, DC: APA.
Leone, P. & Weinberg, L. (2010). Addressing the unmet educational needs of children and youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Center for Juvenile Justice Reform. Georgetown University. Report.
Levinson, P. (2004). The little big blender: How the cellphone integrates the digital and the physical, everywhere. In A.P. Kawoori & N. Arceneaux (Eds.), The cell phone reader: Essays in social transformation (pp. 9-18). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Light, A., and Luckin, R. (2008). Designing for social justice: People, technology, and learning. Futurelab.
Lounsbury, K., Mitchell, K.J., and Finkelhor, D. (2011). The true prevalence of “sexting”. Crimes Against Children Research Center. University of New Hampshire.
Lustria, M.L.A., Kazmer, M.M., Glueckauf, R.L., Hawkins, H.P., Randeree, E., Rosario, I.B., McLaughlin, C., Redmond, S. (2013). Participatory design of a health informatics system for rural health practitioners and disadvantaged women. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(11), 2243-2255.
McAllister, J. (2008). Overcoming system failure to help youth find and sustain positive relationships. Fostering Perspectives, 13(1).
McPherson, T. (2012). U.S. operating systems at mid-century: The intertwining of race and UNIX. In L. Nakamura & P. Chow-White (Eds.), Race after the internet (pp. 21-37). New York, NY: Routledge.
Muller, M. J. & A. Druin. (2002). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In J. A. Jacko and A. Sears (Eds.), The Human Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications (pp. 1051–1068). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
New York City Family Court. (2010). New York City family court annual report. Report.
NYC.gov. (2013). Mayor Bloomberg signs legislation merging the Department of Juvenile Justice into the Administration for Children’s Services. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/html/pr_archives/pr10_12_07.shtml
Peterson, S.B. (2010). Examining the referral stage for mentoring high-risk youth in six different juvenile justice settings. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Report.
Pollock, M., & Amaechi, U. (2013). Texting as a channel for personalized youth support: Participatory design research by city youth and teachers. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32(8), 128-144.
Priest, D. (2013, Aug. 8). Piercing the confusion around NSA’s phone surveillance program. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-08/world/41198127_1_phone-records-phone-surveillance-program-metadata-program
Rainie, L. & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.
Ringrose, J., Gill, R., Livingstone, S., Harvey, L. (2012). A qualitative study on children, young people, and ‘sexting’. NSPCC.
Ruderman, W. (2013). To stem juvenile robberies, police trail youths before the crime. The New York Times. Accessed on Aug. 4, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/nyregion/to-stem-juvenile-robberies-police-trail-youths-before-the-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Accessed on Aug. 4, 2013.
Scheindlin, S.A. (2013) Case 1:08-cv-01034-SAS-HBP Document 373. New York, New York.
Simmel, G. (1903). The metropolis and mental life. The sociology of Georg Simmel, ed. Kurt Wolff.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1950), 409-424. Social Services Information Systems (SSIS) (2004). Federal definitions of foster care and related terms. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Spinuzzi, C. (2006). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52(2), 163-174.
Stald, G. (2008). Mobile identity: Youth, identity, and mobile communication media. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, Identity, and Digital Media (pp. 143-164). The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.143
Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice (TFTJJ). (2009). Charting a new course: A blueprint for transforming juvenile justice in New York state. Report.
Telerivet. (2012) www.telerivet.com
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. (2008). Sex and tech: Results from a survey of teens and young adults. Washington, DC.
The New York City Administration for Children’s Services. (May 2013). Flash Report. New York, New York.
The New York City Administration for Children’s Services. (July 2013). Flash Report. New York, New York.
Triantafyllakos, G., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Tsoukalas, I.A. (2010). Fictional characters in participatory design sessions: Introducing the “design alter egos” technique. Interacting with Computers, 22(3) 165-175.
Visweswaran, K. (1994). Defining feminist ethnography. In K. Visweswaran (Ed.), Fictions of Feminist Ethnography (pp. 17-39). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Wheately, M. & Frieze, D. (2006). Using emergence to take social innovations to scale. Margaret Wheately. Retrieved from http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/emergence.html. Accessed on March 12, 2013.
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
Yamauchi, Y. (2012). Participatory design. In T. Ishida (Ed.), Field Informatics (pp. 123-138). Welwyn, United Kingdom: Springer.
Additional References
Cannon, A., Aborn, R., Bennett, J., and Segal, C.P. (2010). Citizens crime commission of New York City: Guide to juvenile justice in New York City. Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, Inc.
Checkoway, B. (2011). What is youth participation? Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 340-345.
Empire State Coalition of Youth and Family Services. (2011). The New York City association of homeless and street-involved youth organizations: State of the city's homeless report.The New York City Association of Homeless and Street-Involved Youth organization.
European-American Collaborative Challenging Whiteness. (2005). Critical humility in transformative learning when self-identity is at stake. Sixth International Transformative Learning Conference, Michigan State University, Oct. 6-9.
General Assembly (1989). Conventions on the rights of the child. Retrieved from http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/uncrc.asp#Twelve
Lewin, K (1946). Action research and minority problems. The Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
New York State Office of Children and Family Services. (2010). Monitoring and analysis profiles with selected trend data: 2006-2010.
Oakes, J., Rogers, J., & Lipton, M. (2009). Learning power: Organizing for education and justice. John Dewey Lecture. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rousseau, J.J. (1968). The Social Contract, Cranston, M. (trans), Penguin Books.
Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. CRC Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schultz, K. (2010). After the blackbird whistles: Listening to silences in classrooms. Teachers College Record, 112(11), 2833-2849.
The New York City Administration for Children’s Services. (Sept. 2013). Flash Report. New York, New York.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2000 Census Public Law 94-171 Files and 1990 STF1
Walker, A. (2011). When gangs were white: Race, rights, and youth crime in New York City, 1954-1954. Saint Louis University School of Law, 55(1369), 1369-1379).