Our nation’s urban areas continue to be characterized by high levels of residential segregation. Massey and Denton argue that: "Residential segregation is the institutional apparatus that supports other racially discriminatory processes and binds them together into a coherent and uniquely effective system of racial subordination" (1993, p. 4). Their study documents considerable research on the causes and consequences of segregation. However, there is a substantial need for more research on the characteristics of stable, racially integrated communities and on what contributes to their sustainability (Lauber, 1991). This study advance our understanding of integrated communities by exploring how residents on an integrated block in Lansing, Michigan perceive a sense of residential community. It finds that the block, which is characterized by a positive sociability but with few primary ties, is quite open to residential racial and ethnic diversity.

One can study residential integration from a macro-structural perspective. Or one can focus on a micro setting to understand human relationships. Gilmore (1990) believes that both are appropriate to study social organization. He argues that the two approaches can ultimately be integrated by understanding the social world primarily as a process network of interpersonal interaction. The macro and the micro both reflect and reinforce each other. Therefore, theoretical knowledge concerning the one can contribute to theoretical knowledge concerning the other.

The study focuses on the micro setting of a single city block. The approach will be informed by the tradition of "symbolic interactionism." As developed by Herbert Blumer, and others, this tradition treats theory as emerging from a careful study of the empirical world of lived experience. The researcher constructs theory by interpreting the personal perspectives that both shape and arise from social interaction (McCall and Becker, 1990). Symbolic interactionism is generally associated with methods such as observation and interviews. To gather qualitative data concerning this interaction the author utilized semi-structured interviews.

However, the study also builds upon an earlier quantitative survey of the same city block. Whether it is appropriate to mix qualitative and quantitative methods has been the subject of debate. Quantitative studies generally employ a deductive, theory driven approach. Alternatively, qualitative studies generally employ an inductive, emergent approach to generating theory (Creswell, 1994). However, both Strauss and Corbin (1990) and McCracken, (1988) whose theories underlie much of the qualitative methodology in this study, argue that it is appropriate to combine these two types of methods. Moreover, Green et al. (1989) believe that this combination can contribute to rich and robust theory. They argue that a mixed methodology can help triangulate findings. It can also assist in identifying different facets of phenomenon. Furthermore, it can add scope and breadth to a study. Finally, a mixed methodology can serve a developmental purpose where the first method informs the second.

The quantitative phase is part of a larger study entitled the "Sense of Community Project in Lansing, Michigan" directed by John Schweitzer. Residents on 46 blocks were administered a questionnaire, in the summer of 1996, intended to measure their "sense of community." This "sense of community" is measured through six dimensions: connection, belonging, support, safety, empowerment, and participation. A "sense of connection" measures to what degree neighbors believe they know, socialize with, and trust each other. A "sense of belonging" measures whether neighbors think of their block as a community, feel committed to the block’s future, and whether they feel they belong on the block. A "sense of support" measures whether neighbors help each out in various ways and watch out for each other. A "sense of safety" measures whether neighbors believe that the block is a safe place to live. A "sense of empowerment" measures whether neighbors’ feel that they are working together to solve problems, are able to get things done on the block, and have a voice regarding important community issues. A "sense of participation" measures whether neighbors participate in organized block activities.

Questions were designed to measure respondents’ perceptions in relation to these six dimensions. (Additional demographic questions were also asked.) A five point Likert scale was utilized to indicate responses with 5 indicating a "very high sense of" and 1 indicating a "very low sense of" for each of the six concepts. A summary of the pertinent results is provided in this paper and is compared and integrated with the qualitative findings.

The qualitative phase was conducted through an approach generally associated with grounded theory. Here, theory is "inductively derived from the study it represents" (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p. 23). Grounded theory attempts to capture the complexity of social phenomenon. The researcher constructs theory through an evolving interpretation involving many concepts and linkages amongst them. Throughout this process the researcher acts as an instrument employing both his [or her] own theoretical and social understandings and experiences. He [or she] engages in a series of interpretive coding of the data. The researcher starts with "open coding" which is a detailed conceptual labeling of the data. These concepts are then grouped in categories. "Axial coding" is then employed to make connections between categories. Then through "selective coding" the researcher selects a core category and systematically relates it to other categories. In this manner a theoretical understanding of the social phenomenon is constructed (Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Strauss, 1987).

However, the methodology employed in this study differs from a "pure" grounded approach, in that, it starts from some of the concepts employed in the quantitative phase. This is possible since the concepts are theoretically complex rather than precise (which is consistent with the conceptual complexity of a grounded approach). The method of inquiry was the four-step process for designing and analyzing interviews outlined by McCracken. The first step is to review analytic categories from applicable theory and incorporate them into the interview design. The second step is to review potential cultural categories and incorporate these into the interview design. Here, the investigator utilizes their familiarity with the culture under study. In this process one needs to both familiarize and defamiliarize (or distance) oneself from these categories at the same time. The third and fourth steps relate to the interview themselves and their interpretation. In step three the investigator discovers cultural categories. In step four the investigator discovers analytic categories. In steps three and four the investigator utilizes a coding process similar to that employed in the grounded theory approach. (McCracken,1988 ). These four steps were reflected in the research design. The six dimensions served as the primary analytic categories that were incorporated into the research design. The interviews were coded using open coding. These categories were then coded based on the six dimensions. Common themes within and between these dimensions were then related using axial coding. "Positive sociability" and "openness to residential racial and ethnic diversity" were core categories that emerged from the coding process.

Methodological issues arise whenever one brings pre-selected categories (here the six dimensions) to bear upon qualitative data. One always needs to ask how well these categories correspond to concepts employed by the respondents. In this case there seemed to be a more than acceptable level of correspondence. The coding process was a fluid one. Each of the six dimensions is multifaceted enough that the respondent’s concepts fit well within them. Moreover, these dimensional categories are not so abstract as to be largely divorced from common language. In the case of the two core categories ("sociability," and "openness to racial and ethnic residential diversity") they were not pre-selected, but arose from the data and were integrated into analytical theory in a manner wholly consistent with the grounded theory approach.

McCracken (1988) suggests that eight interviews are appropriate for the type of qualitative study conducted here. Nine residents from eight different households were interviewed in depth. These included four Afro-American women, one Euro-American man, one Euro-American woman, one Euro-American couple, and one man of Vietnamese descent. In addition, two relatively short discussions were held with an Euro-American woman and an Euro-American man. Household heads (either male or female) living at the addresses responding to the quantitative survey were approached by the interview team and appointments were made with those willing and able to participate. The in-depth interviews were semi-structured and open-ended. They lasted 30 to 45 minutes. DeBrenna Agbenyiga, an Afro-American graduate student at Michigan State University, assisted the author by jointly conducting four of the interviews. The interviews were taped, transcribed and then coded utilizing the approach outlined above. The interviews were designed to explore how residents perceive a sense of community on the integrated study block. The concepts from the quantitative phase were incorporated into the interview design. The theoretical findings both from the qualitative and quantitative phase are reported, compared, and integrated in this study.

The question of reactivity inevitably arises with qualitative studies. In other words, did respondents generally answer questions honestly, or did they limit their responses to what they felt was socially acceptable to the researchers? It seemed that, in general, respondents were candid in their responses. An Afro-American woman and an Euro-American man (the author) jointly conducted four of the interviews. The other four were conducted solely by the author. Though there seemed to be a slightly higher comfort level with the team approach the responses to key questions were generally consistent. Moreover, the responses in both formats seemed to be largely spontaneous or thoughtful rather than highly guarded. Finally, there was a fairly high level of consistency between the overall responses gathered from the confidential quantitative surveys and from the face-to-face qualitative interviews. This was particularly true in relation to the core concepts of "sociability" and "openness to residential racial and ethnic diversity." It is possible that the attitudes of the respondents toward their neighbors have been might been more varied if they had experienced more intensive interactions with them. A different interview strategy might then have been necessary. However, the respondents seemed to be reasonably honest concerning the core concepts and the six dimensions given the existing level of interaction between neighbors.

The research setting is a two-sided block on the [….] side of Lansing, Michigan. Lansing is the state capitol, and has a population of around 100,000 residents. Its largest employer is General Motors. The block is […] in from a major road and is part of a neighborhood largely made up of one and two story homes constructed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The greater neighborhood seems to be economically mixed with little overt evidence of genuine poverty. Moderately priced multiple unit apartment buildings and very upscale homes are both located within 3/4 of a mile from the block. There is an elementary school nearby and a junior high school within walking distance. A number of churches border the neighborhood. There are two small shopping centers in the area; both about ¾ of a mile away.

The block contains 18, generally one story, homes. Respondents from fourteen households returned surveys in the summer of 1996. Of these, five were Afro-American, eight were Euro-American, and one was Latino. At the time of the qualitative phase, seven were Euro-American (44%), six households were known to be Afro-American (38%), one was headed by an Afro-American-Euro-American couple (6%), one was Asian American (6%) and one was Latino (6%). The block was comprised of entirely Euro-American residents until 1974 when the first Afro-American family moved in. Respondents noted that the block has become somewhat more racially and ethnically diverse in the last five years. The survey results indicate that the residents are generally middle to lower-middle income.

In this section findings related to the six "sense of community dimensions are reported. In addition, the respondent’s experience of "sense of community" on the block is related to a more extended "sense of community." Finally, the impact of ethnic and racial diversity on the respondent’s "sense of community" is explored.

A "sense of connection" measures the degree to which neighbors believe they know, socialize with, feel connected to, and trust each other. The mean Likert score for this dimension was 3.61. The block ranked high in comparison to the other blocks surveyed. It ranked 8^th out of 46 blocks (82^nd percentile).

Though the neighbors seemed to connect largely in positive ways the interviews indicate that these connections are limited in intensity. The most predominant form of interaction seems to be casual outdoor communication. When asked why he felt that there was a sense of community on the block, Tom (an Euro-American in his 30’s) gave this response that was fairly typical for the block:

Most of the interaction seems to occur outdoors. Explicit mention of informal indoor socializing was limited to a Euchre party. Angela (an Afro-American in her thirties) commented on some of this outdoor interaction:

Cassandra (an Afro-American in her early thirties) and Tom (EA) mentioned that their families had developed casual friendships with people on the block that had children who were about the same age. Two women respondents with school age children, Cassandra (AA) and Mary (EA) believed that families with children interacted more both on the block and in the neighborhood. This generally seemed to be Tom’s (EA) experience too. Though she did not have children, Lillian (AA) also mentioned that she believed that this was the case. Other respondents did not comment on this issue one way or another.

The interviews tentatively suggest that men interact more extensively with their neighbors. Moreover, Tom (EA) and Tim (ASA) seemed more enthusiastic about the extent of socializing on the block than most of the women did. Cassandra (AA) and Joyce (an Afro-American in her late twenties) did seem to form a casual friendship through their young children. Mary (EA), Alice (EA) and Angela (AA) all stated that there was not as much indoor socializing than they had experienced in their younger years (and were perhaps expressing a degree of wistfulness). They all attributed this to their belief that people were busier than they had been some years ago.

The interviews seemed to indicate that there were few close friendships on the block. Tom talked about a close friendship with a family with both Afro-American and Euro-American members that had lived next door. However, this family moved out of state about a year before the interview. Positive relationships had been built with Tim’s (ASA) family (the new next door neighbors) but they did not seem to be as strong yet.

Mary (EA) felt that her current neighbors interacted less than her former neighbors did when she was growing up:

A "sense of support" measures the degree to which neighbors perceive themselves helping each other out and watching out for each other. The mean Likert score for this dimension was 3.84. The block ranked above average in comparison to the other blocks surveyed. It ranked 16^th out of 46 (63^rd percentile).

Assistance seemed to be an important way of connecting on the block. It formed a basis for continuing casual interaction. However, while assistance seemed to be common, it also was limited in its intensity.

All of the interview respondents mentioned forms of assistance on the block. Snow clearing seemed to be particularly appreciated, with some respondents even seeming to enjoy extra work. As Cassandra (AA) put it:

A "sense of participation" measures the degree to which neighbors believe they participate in organized block activities like group yard sales, organized block parties, as well as the Lansing curbside-recycling program. The mean Likert score for this dimension was 3.45. The block ranked somewhat below average in comparison to the other blocks surveyed. It ranked 28^th out of 46 (39^th percentile).

The interview respondents indicated that organized social activities were infrequent. They did mention a housewarming party, a birthday party, and some group garage sales. A few years back they did have a large block party, and evidently these types of events were more frequent some years ago. On the whole, the quantitative survey and the qualitative interviews both seem to indicate a modest level of organized participation.

The housewarming party had about 40 people in attendance and was quite diverse. As Tom (EA) described it:

The block used to have a leader who organized a well-attended block party. The Euro-American couple, who are longtime residents, also mentioned that block events were much more prevalent in the 1970’s. Respondents seem to reflect back upon events fondly, but there has been little recent initiative to increase this level of formally organized activity. However, there may have been a slight rise in informally organized activities like housewarming and birthday parties during the prior year.

A "sense of empowerment" measures whether neighbors’ feel that they are working together to create solutions to problems, are able to get things done on the block, and have a voice regarding important community issues. The mean Likert score for this dimension was 3.39. The block ranked somewhat below average in comparison to the other blocks surveyed. It ranked 26^th out of 46 (44^th percentile).

The qualitative phase seems to indicate a low level of block participation on community issues. All of the respondents stated that there was no current organized activity on the block regarding community issues. At one time there was an active Neighborhood Watch. The resident leader mentioned above organized this. He has since moved. Phil and Alice (EA) described his efforts:

Several respondents speculated regarding this lack of activity. Phil (EA) indicated that he felt that: "People kind of keep their thoughts to themselves these days, I think." Tom (EA) felt it was due to diversity. When asked whether people on the block ever got involved in community issues he responded:

A "sense of safety" measures whether neighbors believe that the block is safe to walk at night and whether it is a safe place to live. The mean Likert score for this dimension was 3.96. The block ranked above average in comparison to the other blocks surveyed. It ranked 20^th out of 46 (55^th percentile).

When asked in the interviews whether they felt the block was safe the respondents all gave a positive response. No one indicated any distrust of other block residents. Some indicated that they felt a high level of safety. Others expressed some concerns. Tim (ASA) felt a high level of security:

The interview respondents all stated that they generally felt safe on the block. They did not feel that any of their neighbors posed a threat. However, they did differ as to the general risks that they were willing to take. Some were willing to take what might be considered a high risk (i.e. leaving radios out, or doors open while walking the block) while others took greater precautions (i.e. locking their doors when they were alone inside). Several of the respondents wondered whether they were so comfortable with the block that they took excessive risks. Several respondents compared their block favorably in terms of safety to other nearby blocks. It is unclear whether this perception fit with the actuality of risk. It could be related to an attempt on the part of the respondents to feel in control in their immediate surroundings. It could also be related to a generalized fear of strangers in urban areas. Or it could have been due to other perceptual factors such as poor lighting or less well kept homes. Finally, it could be a relatively accurate perception. Two respondents had previously lived on nearby blocks. Both had experienced incidents at those locations. One of these respondents felt that their current block was safer while the other felt they were both about the same. A more extensive study would be necessary to probe some of the issues raised here.

A "sense of belonging" measures whether neighbors think of their block as a community, feel committed to the block’s future, and whether they feel they belong on the block. The mean Likert score for this dimension was 3.89. The block ranked relatively high in comparison to the other blocks surveyed. It ranked 16^th out of 46 (65^th percentile).

On the whole the qualitative interviews seem to indicate that the respondents feel comfortable on the block. Adjectives that were used frequently to describe the block were "well-kept" and "quiet." Neighbors were invariably described as "nice" and "friendly." As Joyce (AA) put it:

The interview respondents seemed to feel comfortable on the block. Most seemed committed to staying indefinitely. Two respondents, though expressing satisfaction with the block, planned to move to larger houses within the next five years. The respondents also felt that the block was a community in terms of considerate interactions, but not in terms of extensive close ties.

Church was mentioned as an important source of community by several of the respondents. They attended regularly and participated in a number of activities. Tim (ASA) invited members of his church to his housewarming party. Cassandra (AA) felt that her church contributed to the local neighborhood:

Schools often are important centers of communities. However, only four (of the fourteen known) families on the block have school age children. Tom (EA) sends his kids to parochial school and states that he is very active there. Cassandra (AA) has met people from the neighborhood at her son’s school. She also developed a closer relationship with a parent living across the street at a school function:

The majority of the survey respondents believed that the diversity on the block did not affect the sense of community on the block either or positively negatively. When asked on the survey, "do race relation affect the sense of community on this block?" eight answered "no." Of the six that answered "yes", three said that it affected it positively and three negatively. Of the three that said it affected it negatively, two (both Euro-American households) have moved from the block since the survey.

The other survey respondent who gave a negative response was "concerned…because of a drop in property values. This person did rate race relations on the block as "generally good." Moreover, the respondent, who was one of those later interviewed, stated then that: I think everyone feels that it is a good neighborhood. The Real Estate does too. They feel that it’s holding its own." So it seems that the concerns of this respondent were alleviated. Joyce (AA) also mentioned that the property values were appreciating.

The survey respondents were also asked to rate race relations on the block using a 3 point scale (with 3 indicating "generally good," 2 indicating "neutral, neither good nor poor," and 1 indicating "generally poor.") The mean score was 2.7, which indicates that the respondents tended to believe that race relations were "generally good." Moreover, the mean score for the eleven respondents who still lived on the block at the time of the interviews was 2.83. Ten of these respondents marked "generally good" while one marked "neutral." The only survey respondent (Euro-American) who believed that race relations were generally poor has since moved. Another Euro-American respondent who moved marked "neutral." The Afro-American respondent that moved marked "generally good."

The interview respondents generally expressed a universalistic ethic when to came to race relations on the block. Alice (EA) stated that: "I think people are more caring for one another not as afraid as they used to be of different races and everything. But I think it’s the way a person is inside. And if they keep their places up." She also stated: We’ve got a lot of different nationalities on our street now which we didn’t have and…we get along well." When asked whether the diversity affected the sense of community on the block in any way Cassandra (AA) answered: "I don’t know. I don’t see that it really does. I think that people are pretty open-minded. And, you know, that my neighbors are nice or my neighbors are not nice." Tim (ASA) stated that: "we have not experienced any racist or you know, different treatment from each, you know, each ethnic background. So we’ve not seen any of that around." He compared this favorably to his former home, several blocks away, where he had felt less welcome. When asked to compare the block to other blocks Lillian (AA) stated:

The block has become more diverse in the last five years. However, there does not seem to be a rapid change in the overall racial composition. The property values seem to be stable or increasing. Two residents moved who had dissatisfaction with the increasing diversity on the block, though it is unclear if that is the reason they moved. One of these homes was bought by an Euro-American household and the other by an Afro-American household. The remainder of the survey respondents expressed satisfaction with the level of diversity on the block.

The qualitative interview phase contributed to a more in-depth understanding of the "sense of community" dimensions. For instance, concerning the block’s "sense of connection" dimension it became clear that people had positive informal ties with a number of their neighbors, but there were few primary relationships on the block. There are few close friendships and no evident extended kinship relationships on the block. Moreover, most socializing seemed to take place outdoors. Unger and Wandersman (1985) distinguish between sociability and socioemotional support. Sociability refers to friendly casual interaction between neighbors. Socioemotional support refers to the more intensive psychological support that can come from close friends and kin. The block seems to exhibit a relatively high level of sociability. It also seems to exhibit a lower level of socioemotional support. Finally, little evidence of overt conflict surfaced. It is possible that residents felt uncomfortable talking about it with researchers. Still, it is probably unlikely that so little evidence of it would surface if it was a prevalent problem on the block. Merry (1984) suggests that more intensive forms of neighboring can be more judgmental and conflictual than less intensive forms. Franck (1983) suggests that high concentrations of primary ties can lead to resentments. The conflict on the block may have been minimized by the fact that sociability was the most common form of interaction.

Another "sense of community" dimension examined was "sense of support." Neighbors on the block help out with outdoor work and watch out for each other. This too, largely relates to the outdoors. Moreover, there was little evidence of more intensive forms of assistance such as child care or extensive care of the elderly. Nor was there any evidence of monetary assistance.

Much of the socializing on the block seemed to happen outdoors and was often associated with tasks. Rubin, (1976), among others, suggests that men and women socialize differently. She argues that men tend to socialize more through tasks while women are more likely to engage in intimate communication. Gender differences were not explored in-depth in the study and it is possible that a male researcher had less access to the women’s experiences. Therefore, the following suggestions are highly tentative. The interview responses do suggest that men on the block interact more through outdoor tasks. Women with school age children seemed to interact more with each other than they did with other neighbors. However, they did not seem to support each other extensively on indoor tasks. There were few evident intimate friendships developed by either women or men. Men, on the whole, perhaps had more extensive relationships. More research would be necessary to explore whether the women or the men generally had more intensive relationships.

There were some sporadic organized block activities mentioned. Informally organized events have increased slightly in the year before the interviews, while larger more formally organized ones seem to have declined. The block currently lacks the active leader that can serve as a catalyst for the later types of activities. The block is not active in any community issues as a unit. This may be due, as one resident suggested, to a diversity of cultural viewpoints. Or it may be due, as he also suggested to a lack of compelling issues seem as directly affecting the block. The residents generally felt safe on the block, but they had some concerns about the greater neighborhood. It is unclear whether their concerns about surrounding blocks were unfounded or not.

Residents felt a sense of belonging in terms of feeling welcome on the block. They also felt satisfied with the physical upkeep of the block. Feeling welcome and physical upkeep may be related. (For instance, in one study Greenbaum and Greenbaum {1981} have found that there can be a positive association between high ratings of upkeep and the development of "personal acquaintances" between neighbors.) Satisfaction with the block’s upkeep may have contributed to the high levels of sociability found here. One can also speculate that this satisfaction contributed to a sense of belonging in that the respondents were comfortable with their environment. In terms of commitment to staying on the block the interview respondents varied. The majority either expressed a commitment to staying indefinitely or expressed no plans of leaving. Two respondents, while expressing satisfaction with the block, planned to move when their families "outgrew" the size of their homes.

Those who lived on the block at the time of the interviews expressed a high comfort level with residential racial and ethnic diversity. The surveys indicated a high level of satisfaction with the race relations on the block. The interview respondents generally expressed a universalistic ethic regarding racial and ethnic diversity amongst their neighbors. They seemed more concerned that their neighbors were "nice" and that they kept up their properties than they were about their racial or ethnic identities. It is possible (but not certain) that this would change if they felt the need to interact at a more intensive level.

Fischer (1981) suggests that urban dwellers often develop satisfying relationships with people in their private sphere and distrustful relationships with strangers. The term "stranger, in Fisher’s sense, includes both literal strangers and those whom people are uneasy with because they appear different or unconventional. Fischer believes that those of different racial or ethnic groups are often placed in this stranger category by urban dwellers. The qualitative interviews provide some evidence that the respondents both trust their neighbors and demonstrate some unease in relations to strangers. However, the respondents have been able to include people of different racial and ethnic groups into the semi-private category of "nice neighbor." The respondents evidentially did not automatically place those of other racial or ethnic groups into the category of distrusted stranger. Instead, they were quite willing to welcome them as neighbors.

In summary, the block seemed very open to residential racial and ethnic diversity. The friendly, casual interaction seems to make newcomers feel welcome. Furthermore, it is an interaction that evidently seemed to be at least overtly non-discriminatory. Moreover, newcomers are evidently neither stepping into nor feeling the need to develop strong primary ties. This combination of positive sociability and limited expectations of intensive socioemotional support may facilitate openness to ethnic and racial diversity. However, there is no evidence that this diversity has clearly contributed to the dispersal of people with strong primary ties. Moreover, it does not suggest that socioemotional support is necessarily unlikely in a diverse community. The findings of this study suggest that residents on this block are not necessarily searching for close ties with their neighbors, and that they are comfortable with residential ethnic and racial diversity.

Creswell, J.W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub.

Fischer, C.S. 1981. The public and private worlds of city life. American Sociological Review. 46 (June) 306-316.

Franck, K.A. 1983. Community by design. Sociological Inquiry. 53 (2/3) 289-313.

Gilmore, S. 1990. Art worlds: developing the interactionist approach to social organization. In H.S. Becker and M.M. McCall (ed.) Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Greenbaum, P.E. and Greenbaum, S.D. 1981. Territorial personalization: group identity and social interaction in a Slavic-American neighborhood. Environment and Behavior. 13. 574-589.

Greene, J.C., V.J. Caracelli, and W.F. Graham. 1989. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 11 (3) 255-274. Cited in Cresswell, 1994.

Lauber, D. 1991. Racially diverse communities: a national necessity. In P.W. Nyden and W.W. Wiewel (ed.) Challenging Uneven development: An Urban Agenda for the 1990s. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.

McCracken, G. 1988. The Long Interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press.

Massey, D.S amd N.A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

Merry, S.E. 1984. Toward a general theory of gossip and scandal. In D. Black (ed.) toward a General Theory of Social Control. New York: Academic Press.

Rubin, L.B. 1976. Worlds of Pain: Life in the Working-Class Family. New York: Basic Books.

Strauss, A.L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Strauss, A.L. and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative research: Grounded Theory procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Pub.

Unger, D. and A. Wandesman. 1983. The importance of neighbors: the social, cognitive and affective components of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology. 13 (2) 139-169.