Critical Review of ‘From Nowhere: Space, Race, and Time in How Young Minority Men Understand Encounters with Gangs’ by Randol Contreras
In his study Contreras looks at young Black and Latino men in the Los Angeles areas Compton and South Central, and how they interpret gang encounters as non-gang members. He uses an overt participant observation method with interviews with certain individuals for further depth. Contreras attempts to fill a gap in sociological research in looking at non-gang members and how their ethnicity, the gang’s ethnicity, the state of interethnic gang conflicts and a space’s ethnic makeup are related to their encounters (*pp 264). The following critical review will evaluate Contreras’ decisions on overall research design and methodology in particular, analysing strengths and weaknesses of over participation generally and specifically to this study. Then it will consider his interpretations of his data and the role of theory in his decisions. To conclude, this review will state that the study produces great specific insight into non-gang member’ experiences in gang encounters in the Los Angeles area. However, it is heavily context dependent to space and time of Compton and South Central in 2018.
The study shows a strong research design due to its clear organisation and focused discussion. In the abstract he clearly outlines the purpose of the study, to examine ethnic minorities who are non-gang members to exhibit a different insight to gang culture. In opposition to other sociological research which focuses on crime and violence (*). The study never outlines a specific research question but has a clear research topic which he outlines clearly and answers throughout. Contreras begins with giving detailed historical context into the racial tensions of Los Angeles where he describes wider social, political and economic factors trickled down into individual lives. He therefore writes this study with the overarching knowledge of the ethnic tension, taking it as a given that the Black and Latino communities are struggling against each other. This deductive reasoning strategy means that the data engages narrowly around this premise. There are downsides to using deductive research strategies as it can create blind sighted research, in the way of only collecting data that supports the argument. This can be seen throughout the article with the interviews that are cited all support his research question. However, this does not necessarily devalue the conclusions or make them any less truthful. As his research supports his research question and shows that there is a gap in wider sociological research in looking at non-gang members. The article itself gives extensive historical reasoning to the ethnical tensions and thus is not just Contreras’ interpretation of the communities, giving validation to these conclusions.
In terms of sampling Contreras is brief in describing his methods. He uses a non-probability method of convenient samples. He outlines that he asked students and colleagues at his own university to gain access to Black and Mexican communities (*). Due to the qualitive nature of his research this method is the best used as his hypothesis is specific to these communities, researching for example white women in New York would not be constructive. Nevertheless, this means the conclusions will not be representative of wider society and cannot be used for generalisations. In all Contreras only observed and interviewed 23 participants in their late teens to early 50s (* pp 269), only three had bachelor’s degrees and he highlights that they all lived in Compton and South central which are “stigmatized spaces with high poverty and crime” (* 268). All the same to formulate generalisations is not usually the aim for qualitive research where deeper understanding is more significant. Thus, a strength in this work is the choice of suitable sampling to the research question. Furthermore, by having links into the community through a personal network it establishes an initial level of trust into the group which is valuable when studying hard to access groups such as gangs.
Contreras used field observations and interviews to study the young Black and Mexican men. He outlines that he spent a great deal of time with the groups, observing them separately in parks and other public spaces. To collect the data, he overtly used a digital recorder and asked for verbal assent before recording new people. By doing this his research is ethically appropriate. Overt participation is one of the easiest research methods to gain insight into a particular group. For Contreras’ hypothesis then this is the best fit research method as it allows him to interact overtly with individuals and to further question behaviour. However, using an overt method does bring up problems such as the Hawthorne Effect. First described by Henry Landsberger in the 1950s, it is a term used to depict the way people change their behaviour when they know they are being watched. In studying gangs this is a crucial element to consider, as a group who partakes in criminal activity the group are likely to change their behaviour when presented with new people. Contreras addresses this by expressing his outsider status but adding that he shares commonalities. He outlines that he changes his language around the two different groups, speaking Spanish to the Mexican groups and using a “shared phenotype and urban English slang” (*268) with the Black groups. By doing this he can create a rapport with the groups and this means that he can get greater understanding of the actions of the groups. Subsequently, overt participation is a good method for understanding this specific group but does bring up problems of truthful behaviour which covert observation could fix.
Furthermore, throughout the body of the article Contreras cites his own interviews in text to further his argument. Although he does not make it clear these interviews, in my interpretation, are unstructured. Contreras outlines that he knew of the ethnic tension in the communities (*) but little else, therefore his research was guided by what he saw in his observations. This method of interviewing is advantageous to qualitive research as it means the researcher has freedom to obtain more data on what they feel is most important. Contreras speaks to individuals both Black and Mexican to highlight how both groups were feeling the same way about the gangs in those areas (* several pages probably). Unstructured interviews have their limitations in time, practicality and representativeness. In this article most of the interpretations made is from the individual interviews Contreras conducted. He states that most of these interviews were “unplanned conversations” (*) that he was able to record because of the rapport he had built with these groups. Together both field observations and interviews allow for in depth understanding of individual or group behaviour, for the qualitive research Contreras was seeking to conduct these methods are the most apt. Both methods have their weakness is generalisability and representativeness but are just as valid. The insight into these groups that had previously not been researched give wider understanding to how gangs operate in these areas and produce valid reasonings.
In Contreras’ study he makes use of Garot’s 2007 work on Gang Identity. He often quotes “where you from?” (* pp xxx) to support his own work on the loss of space that these non-gang members experience (* pp 271-272). He outlines it is an “exception” (*) to his point that there is little sociological research surrounding this area. Most of the research Contreras gathers is around this “loss of space” (*) and space having its own “ethnicity” (*) and Garot’s work on performance identity of gang culture (*). Contreras’ work navigates narrowly around Garot’s but further delves into why these young men do not feel like that have their own space and the personal effect that gang territory has on their daily lives (*). In sociology, generally theorist’s work is constantly being reworked and expanded, Contreras study does well in exploring the individual’s experience of gang encounters using Garot’s research of gang identity.
Finally, Contreras maintains himself that his work has limitations. Specifically, in his lack of research on women and how they struggle to navigate public spaces (* pp 279). He does however state “the women I spoke with, though, never mentioned a fear of gangs or street victimization (* 279). Contreras concludes that it is because he is a man and perhaps there is a mistrust, this is in line with the reason he gives for the young men being so open with him, because they can relate to him being a minority himself and a man. Moreover, the main limitation is his work is context-dependent. He asserts “it depends on time, on interethnic gang truces, on changing demographics” (* pp 278). The ethnic tensions his work is dependent on can be changed and influenced by many factors. This limits his work as it is not representative of everyone’s experience, and perhaps not the experience of the same groups ten years ago. The research gives great detail and a new perspective in to gang culture in these areas but is limited to its specificity.
In his study Contreras attempts to research a group of people that he considers have been left out of previous sociological research. The study outlines a clear purpose which he fulfils through his extensive field observations and immersed interviews with individuals. His research design is clear and methodology appropriate to the qualitive understanding he was aiming to conduct. Although, field observations and unstructured interviews can bring up issues such as the Hawthorne Effect and interviewer bias. Overall the study is successful in achieving what Contreras set out to do but as he outlines himself, the ethnic tensions that his work is based off are context-dependent and not entirely representative.