This study set out to investigate the influence of psychological, social, and cultural experiences during community college on the college choice processes of Latina/o students who transferred to a selective university. Ten interviews with Latina/o respondents who had transferred to a selective university in California were conducted. The sample varied by baccalaureate degree status (five out of the ten respondents were recent college graduates), gender (five out of the ten respondents were female), and age (ranging from 21 to 32). To understand the complex educational experiences of respondents, this study employed the psychosociocultural (PSC) conceptual framework—a strength-based, holistic model used extensively to investigate educational persistence of Latina/o student groups (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007; Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000). The findings of this study led to the emergence of the following five themes: Motivation and Aspirations Fueled by Familismo, Validation from Faculty and/or Staff, College Knowledge from Faculty, Staff, and/or Peers, Encouragement from Parents, and Transfer Culture Created by the Community College. Additionally, two factors not currently captured by the PSC conceptual framework—Major Fit and University Prestige—emerged in this study. This research shows that to understand the function of community college on baccalaureate attainment of Latina/o students, a closer investigation into psychological, social, and cultural experiences during community college that contribute to college decision-making processes is necessary. Recommendations for best practices and suggestions for future research are discussed.

The increasing size of the Latino immigrant population in the United States underscores the need for a more complete understanding of the role that social context plays in influencing the health of immigrants and their children. This analysis explores the possibility that residential location influences the health-risk behaviors of Latino youth in Los Angeles County, California. The data come from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey. We apply multivariate, multilevel Rasch models to two scales of adolescent health-risk behaviors (substance use and delinquency). The findings suggest that residence in Census tracts characterized by above-county-average levels of Latinos and above-county-average levels of poverty is associated with increased odds of health-risk behaviors for Latino adolescents, particularly for those born in the United States. The findings lend support to the contention, put forth in the segmented assimilation literature, that disadvantaged urban contexts increase the risk that U.S.-born children of immigrants will experience downward assimilation.

The intensive use of hazardous pesticides in California agriculture disproportionately harms farmworkers and their families, the majority of whom are low-income, Latina/o immigrants. While many stakeholders, such as advocates and farmworkers, oppose existing pesticide use practices due to disparate pesticide-related health impacts, other stakeholders, such as agriculture representatives and government bureaucrats, defend existing practices. Addressing pesticide-related health disparities has involved intensive conflict and debate due to the diverse interests, competing demands, and uncertainties involved. Stakeholders in Ventura County have debated the legitimacy of local pesticide use practices for decades. I explore how stakeholders cope with pesticide-related health disparities and unpack the underlying dynamics that make it difficult to challenge power asymmetries in public debate and problem-solving efforts.

Through a qualitative, ethnographic case study of Ventura County, California, this study answers the following questions: 1) How do local stakeholders’ positionalities, claims, and rhetorical strategies around the legitimacy of existing pesticide use practices impact public debate and problem-solving efforts? 2) How do the interests and concerns of farmworkers and their representatives become obscured and disregarded in public debate? To answer these questions, I employed an interpretative, grounded theory approach to data collection and data analysis. I conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 91 agricultural health stakeholders, as well as over 200 hours of participant and non-participant observations. I also collected numerous archival materials. I analyzed the positionalities and discursive practices of four different stakeholder groups – advocates, farmworkers, agriculture representatives, and government bureaucrats.

I found that while all these stakeholders support reducing hazardous pesticide use to some extent, they also share a dominant discourse that depicts pesticide use as necessary for achieving high agricultural yield. This taken-for-granted assumption limits stakeholders’ capacity to envision pesticide use alternatives in agriculture. Furthermore, I found that the rhetorical strategies of dominant groups, including agriculture representatives and government bureaucrats, are effective at legitimizing established pesticide practices and reinforcing inequality by obscuring farmworkers’ experiences and realities, disregarding social and racial injustices, and concealing dominant ideologies. An advocate-grower partnership named the Miracle Group overcame some of these challenges by coproducing proposals related to farmworker health. They were able to acknowledge farmworker concerns, particularly in relation to the need for a hotline and expanded pregnancy leave options, by negotiating the use of different frames, claims, and rhetorical strategies in relation to specific projects. However, they did not resolve all the asymmetries and invisibilities that argumentation dynamics of pesticide use debates reinforce. For example, while the group members recognized concerns related to social inequality, they omitted language that would acknowledge inequality from their proposals in order to conserve the possibility of reaching agreement.

Chinatowns are historic ethnic enclaves that have persisted as important neighborhoods in the urban landscape. They are evolving spaces of community belonging for Chinese Americans who do not always live there and vary across generation and immigration experiences. But Chinatowns have also been targets for urban revitalization efforts throughout their history and are now part of contemporary gentrification debates. These trends challenge how they evolve as ethnic enclaves and what control the community has in these changes.

Through a case study of Los Angeles Chinatown, I examine how ethnic communities engage in the politics of development in older urban ethnic enclaves and the implications of this engagement for the neighborhood and ethnic community identity. This research includes data collected from ethnographic fieldwork and draws from political economy, immigration, and race theories to analyze the transformation of community politics in ethnic enclaves and how an ethnic community maintains control over neighborhood change as they face urban revitalization pressures. The themes that emerged from this study show that the ethnic political engagement to assert community control was expressed through the formation of new organizations, participation in spaces for community representation, and framings of neighborhood change and identity. Yet, differences that were complicating and redefining the understandings of the Chinese American community since the 1965 Immigration Act, especially in regard to class, generation, immigration cohort, and geography, were also expressed in this engagement, which shaped the planning and land use conflicts that determined the housing, economic, and cultural development for the neighborhood.

The community conflict over development in Chinatown is a part of a rearticulation of a Chinese American community identity that demands recognition of their socioeconomic and cultural complexities in policymaking. This has also led to a questioning about the community’s ongoing relationship to Chinatown, particularly who has the right to represent Chinatown and benefit from its changes. The political dynamics in Chinatown show that older urban ethnic enclaves continue to matter for ethnic community formation and ethnic groups to assert a political voice; however, this rearticulation also reflects the limits and possibilities of community power in equitable development.