Search results

Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.
Self-published

Getting It “Right”: Educators’ Experiences With School Diversity in a Gentrifying Neighborhood (ICPSR 223601)

Released/updated on: 2025-03-19
Time period: 2019-01-01--2020-01-01
Schools in gentrifying neighborhoods often experience demographic changes in enrollment. The purpose of this qualitative holistic case study is to describe how leaders and teachers in a diversifying elementary school in a gentrifying neighborhood perceive and experience diversity. Drawing on Turner’s (2017) value of diversity framework, we use inductive coding to analyze interviews and also use documents to inform our findings. Although Greenleaf was striving to be intentionally diverse, consensus did not exist about the meaning of “diversity” or the desired form of diversity. Challenges associated with decentering Whiteness and resisting upholding the racial contract existed as educators worked to establish a shared mission, ensure diverse staff voice and representation with a White leader, and navigate complications of power and privilege among White families. Educators highlighted the value of diversity for developing students’ multicultural capital and global cosmopolitanism as well as the collective benefit of reducing divisiveness for our nation.
Curated

Investigating Community and Social Capital (ICPSR 163)

Released/updated on: 2006-09-27
Investigating Community and Social Capital is an instructional resource that teaches online data analysis. Using Robert D. Putnam's "Bowling Alone", it introduces students to quantitative social science research with a case study on social capital. Some of the concepts illustrated include replication, unit of analysis, level of measurement, analysis over time versus cross-sectional analysis, crosstabulation, creating an index, and correlation. It is designed as an instructional tool that can be easily integrated into social science courses in disciplines such as political science, public administration and policy, and sociology.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

New York City Longitudinal Survey of Well-Being (Poverty Tracker), 2012-2015 (ICPSR 37406)

Released/updated on: 2021-03-03
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 2012-01-01--2015-12-01

The New York City Longitudinal Survey of Wellbeing (NYC-LSW) also known as the Poverty Tracker (PT) is a study of disadvantage in New York City. Launched in 2012, the Poverty Tracker surveys a representative sample of New Yorkers every three months collecting data on the dynamics of poverty and other forms of disadvantage. The Poverty Tracker covers two distinct panels. The first panel collected from 2012-2015 following 2,286 New Yorkers and the second panel which follows 3,909 New Yorkers. Collection of the second panel of data began in 2015 after respondents took the Community Health Survey with the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYC DOHMH).

In the first panel (n=2286) the majority of respondents were recruited by landline and mobile phone using RDD (n = 2002). Landline phone numbers from zip codes where more than 20% of residents live in poverty based on the 2000 US Census were oversampled. An additional sample (n = 226) was recruited from 14 social service agencies randomly selected from a list of all agencies funded by the Robin Hood Foundation. The agency sample allowed the oversampling of low-income persons who utilize social services. An additional sample (n=58) of respondents randomly selected from homes in zip codes affected by Hurricane Sandy were also recruited. Respondents who joined the panel study were surveyed at baseline in late 2012 and early 2013. Follow-up interviews were conducted in English and Spanish every 3 months over a 2-year period. Surveys were 10-20 minutes in length. Persons recruited from social service agencies who did not have a stable telephone number were offered cell phones and paid phone service in lieu of monetary compensation.

The second panel (n=3909), was collected in Spring 2015 after respondents participated in the Community Health Survey administered by the NYC DOHMH, which was also sampled using RDD (n=3403). Again, this sample contains an additional subsample (n=506) from 26 randomly selected Robin Hood-funded social service agencies designed to provide an oversample of New Yorkers engaged in social services. Follow-up interviews were conducted in English and Spanish every 3 months over a 4-year period. Surveys are 10-25 minutes in length. Persons recruited from social service agencies who did not have a stable telephone number were offered cell phones and paid phone service in lieu of monetary compensation.

This data constitutes the first panel in the survey series. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, household relationships, and income.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

New York City Longitudinal Survey of Well-Being (Poverty Tracker), 2015-2018 (ICPSR 38062)

Released/updated on: 2021-08-11
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 2015-01-01--2018-01-01

The New York City Longitudinal Survey of Wellbeing (NYC-LSW) also known as the Poverty Tracker (PT) is a study of disadvantage in New York City. Launched in 2012, the Poverty Tracker surveys a representative sample of New Yorkers every three months collecting data on the dynamics of poverty and other forms of disadvantage. The Poverty Tracker covers two distinct panels. The first panel collected from 2012-2015 following 2,286 New Yorkers and the second panel which follows 3,908 New Yorkers. Collection of the second panel of data began in 2015 after respondents took the Community Health Survey with the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

In the first panel (n=2286) the majority of respondents were recruited by landline and mobile phone using random digit dialing (n=2002). Landline phone numbers from zip codes where more than 20% of residents live in poverty based on the 2000 US Census were oversampled. An additional sample (n=226) was recruited from 14 social service agencies randomly selected from a list of all agencies funded by the Robin Hood Foundation. The agency sample allowed the oversampling of low-income persons who utilize social services. An additional sample (n=58) of respondents randomly selected from homes in zip codes affected by Hurricane Sandy were also recruited. Respondents who joined the panel study were surveyed at baseline in late 2012 and early 2013. Follow-up interviews were conducted in English and Spanish every 3 months over a 2-year period. Surveys were 10-20 minutes in length. Persons recruited from social service agencies who did not have a stable telephone number were offered cell phones and paid phone service in lieu of monetary compensation.

The second panel (n=3908), began collection in Spring 2015 after respondents participated in the Community Health Survey administered by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which was also sampled using random digit dialing (n=3403). Again, this sample contains an additional subsample (n=505) from 26 randomly selected Robin Hood-funded social service agencies designed to provide an oversample of New Yorkers engaged in social services. Follow-up interviews were conducted in English and Spanish every 3 months over a 6-year period. Surveys are 10-25 minutes in length. Persons recruited from social service agencies who did not have a stable telephone number were offered cell phones and paid phone service in lieu of monetary compensation.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) in nine European Countries, 2009-2012 (ICPSR 37137)

Released/updated on: 2019-02-12
Geographic coverage: Sweden, Czech Republic, Turkey, Belgium, Europe, England, Italy, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Germany
Time period: 2009-05-01--2012-04-30

PIDOP, Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation, was a multinational research project that was funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme. The project examined the processes which influence democratic ownership and participation in nine European countries - Belgium, Czech Republic, England, Germany, Italy, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Sweden and Turkey. The project drew on the disciplines of Psychology, Politics, Sociology, Social Policy and Education to examine macro-level contextual factors (including historical, political, electoral, economic and policy factors), proximal social factors (including familial, educational and media factors) and psychological factors (including motivational, cognitive, attitudinal and identity factors) which facilitated and/or inhibited civic and political engagement and participation.

The project had a distinct focus on the psychology of the individual citizen and the psychological processes through which macro-level contextual factors and proximal social factors exert their effects upon citizens' civic and political engagement and participation. Young people, women, minorities and migrants were examined as four specific groups at risk of political disengagement. The research explored the differences as well as the overlap between civic and political engagement, and both direct and representative participation. The data were collected in three phases: Phase 1 (Focus Groups), Phase 2 (Individual Interviews), and Phase 3 (Quantitative Survey). Qualitative focus group and interview data are not included as part of this data collection at this time. Data included as part of this collection includes one dataset with 8197 cases for 198 variables. Demographic variables include: age, gender, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, education-level, occupation, marital status, children, income, and political ideology.

Self-published

Toward Answerable Research Practice Partnerships: Co-Designing Learning Spaces Accountable to Place and People (ICPSR 307854)

Released/updated on: 2026-07-09
Geographic coverage: Hawaii, United States
Time period: 2022-01-01--2026-07-09

This manuscript is a conceptual piece and does not include empirical data. It is inspired in part, by data from an ongoing empirical project that asks: How does one Kanaka-led RPP in occupied Hawaiʻi answer to the educational and social needs, desires, and aspirations of one Kanaka ʻŌiwi community?