Ama Yates-Ekong Senior Thesis (4)

1
Spelman College
“AUC Students Perceptions/Attitudes towards Poverty.”
A Senior Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements
For the B.A. Degree in Sociology / Sociology & Anthropology
Sociology 432 Sociology Thesis
Advisor: Dr. Bruce Wade
Reader: Dr. Daryl White
December 8th, 2014
Submitted by
Ama Yates-Ekong

2
Table of Contents
I. Abstract ..............................................................................................................................................................................1
II. Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................................................................2
III. Literature Review.......................................................................................................................................................10
IV. Theory and Research Questions.............................................................................................................................15
V. Methodology, Scope and Limitations ........................................................................................................................23
a. Research Design..............................................................................................................................................................23
b. Interview Schedule.........................................................................................................................................................24
c. Sampling Methods and Limitations............................................................................................................................25
VI. Data Analysis..............................................................................................................................................................26
a. Online Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................................................26
i. Demographics..................................................................................................................................................................26
b. Focus Groups ...................................................................................................................................................................36
c. One on One Interviews .................................................................................................................................................36
d. How does religiosity and/or spirituality among students influence how they perceive poverty? ........37-48
e. How do students respond to specific images and representations of the poor in media? .........................45-49
f. How do students rationalize poverty?.................................................................................................................50-54
g. What are students’ views concerning social change and action?..................................................................55-60
VII. Findings and Implications ..................................................................................................................................61-62
VIII. Conclusion and Summary ........................................................................................................................................64
References .................................................................................................................................................................................65
Appendix A. Online Questionnaire.......................................................................................................................................69
Appendix B. Interview Schedule, Images and Video Link................................................................................................81

1
I. Abstract
This research study analyzed HBCU students’ attitudes and perceptions towards poverty. This study
examines the relationship between ideological views (religious, spiritual and political) and perceptions of those
living in poverty. Additionally, relationships between religiosity, spirituality and attitudes regarding anti poverty
policies and legislation were examined. A mixed methods approach was used to examine student perceptions
which included a 38 item online questionnaire with an 11 item Demographics section. A 17 item Interview
schedule was used for 1 focus group and 7 one on one interviews, which included an additional 7 item Image
Response Section and the analysis of a a documentary about the Working Poor. Additionally, a 7 item religiosity
scale and 4 item spirituality scale was tested for its reliability, created and used to construct correlations with
specific questions from the online questionnaire. This research shows that religiosity and spirituality may be
correlated with specific views of poverty as well as responses to questions concerning this issue. Additionally, it
shows that a diversity in framingthe issueideologically may vary from person to person.

2
II. Statement of the Problem
“What is riskier than livingpoor in America? Seriously,what in the world is riskier than beinga poor
person in America? I livein a neighborhood where people are shoton my street corner. I livein a neighborhood
where people have to figure out how to get their kid into school ………Being poor is what is risky.Wehave to create
a safety net for poor people. And when we won’t, becausethey happen to look different from us, it(we do not
create a safety net for poor people) is the pervasiveugliness!Wecannot do that!" (Melissa HarrisPerry 2012).On
a September 2012 segment of Melissa Harris Perry discussingpoverty,the news analystbreaks down the risk of
being poor in the United States by what Crunk Feminist commentators define as eloquent rage (Crunk Feminist
Collective2012). Poverty has been a consistentsocial issuethattouches every segment of society. The standard
definition of poverty is the condition of being without the adequate means for livelihood such as food,incomeor
shelter. In the United States, the government sets the measure for denoting whether an individual and/or family
are livingin poverty which is termed either the “poverty threshold” or “the poverty line”(Department of Health
and Human Services 2013).The U.S. government defines poverty by the total income received on a yearly basis.
For example, lastyear the government defined a family of four with a $23,050 annual incomeas livingin poverty
(Department of Health and Human Services,2013). Though this is the way in which poverty is defined by the
government, poverty is a relativeconcept in which its definition is dependent upon social contextand how specific
environments define poverty. Policy related alleviatingpoverty in the U.S. arerelated to countless events in history
that help inform issues related to worker’s rights, welfare assistance,educational policy and community oriented
programs related to servingthose livingin poverty.
Fifty years ago, PresidentLyndon B. Johnson used his firststateof the union addres s to declarea “war on
human poverty and unemployment in the United States”. This declaration of a war on poverty resulted in the
initiation of social policies such asthe creation of the Economic Opportunity Act, Food Stamp Act, Social Security
Act and Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Programs likeHead Start, Jobs Corps,Community Action
Program as well as Volunteers in Serviceto America (VISTA) are landmarks of the legacy of the War on Poverty
policy initiative.Pre-datingthe entry of War on Poverty policy was the Social Gospel movement of the late

3
nineteenth and twentieth century. The Social gospel was a religioussocial reformmovement: prominently made
up of Liberal Protestants; who advocated for social changeby applyingbiblical principles of justiceand charity
duringthe age of industrialization.TheSocial Gospel especially applied Christian principlesto issues of poverty,
inequality and racial tensions.This movement lead to the development of settlement houses from 1880s -1920s,
social reformprograms advocatingfor workers compensation and education programs that combatted inequalities
in learning.The social gospel is seen visibletoday in churches and organizationssuch as theAtlanta Mission and
Ebenezer BaptistChurch. The Atlanta Mission hasa religiousmotivation for endinghomelessness through job
attainment programs plus transitional and emergency. Ebenezer BaptistChurch hosts a financial literacy
empowerment program for the local community called the HOPE Fellowship.
The labor movement of the U.S. developed out of the necessity of protecting the shared interests of
workers, especially lowwageworkers. Predominately in the industrial sector,organized labor unions were formed
to fightfor better wages, reasonableworkinghours and safer workingconditions.From a Business standpoint,
labor was a commodity which makes wages dictated by supply and demand. As a resultof the labor movement,
unions advocated that workers have the right to voice their opinions on what their wages and working conditions
should be sincelabor is notjusta commodity, but a partof their social identity. Labor movements such as the
Knights of Labor, Atlanta Washer Women Strike in 19th century, National Textilestrikes of as well as Auto Workers
Strikes of the 20th century and most recently the fight for a LivingWage, all showthe growing resistancetowards a
structure of labor thatabuses citizens.The labor movements connect to this discussion of poverty as a resultof
most the participants beinglowwage workers. Though not all labor movements are connected by an ideological
framework such as Marxism/Communism,but over time most labor movements emphasize unions,collective
action and the demand for better workingconditions and treatment from employers as well as the government
through the implementation policies.Somelabor movements had connections to religious ideological frameworks,
such as the founders of the Knights of Labor, Catholic Labor Movement, The Poor People’s Campaign The Jewish
Workers Committee as well as March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom; others were predominately secular
such as the Communist Party of the USA, Trade Union Educational League and most recently Jobs with Justiceand
Raisethe Minimum Wage Advocacy Groups.

4
Despite the momentum of movements predominately led by low wage workers and those in solidarity
with those livingin poverty driven conditions,within the United States many ideals or characterizationsof the poor
existin public discoursethat label the poor as lazy,unmotivated and abusers of the welfare system. Also many
people; whether they are public figures in the political world,social workers or community leaders of non-profit
agencies,use specific terminology to define poverty. This terminology is more than likely framed by pre-existing
ideals.These ideals of what constitutes poverty includehow they view people livingin conditionsof poverty as
well as how they identify people who are impacted by this social issue.These ideals or concepts possibl y shapethe
methods public figures and community leaders useto engage the many dimensions of poverty. For example, the
story of the welfare queen caricatureof a real person named Linda Taylor,who was considered an American
criminal who committed welfare fraud.Taylor was given title of the “welfare queen” and her story was told by
former PresidentRonald Reagan in order to dismantlesocial programs.His story eventually convinced many voters
that an epidemic of welfare fraud existed, this in turn demonized the poor and influenced cuts in public assistance.
Therefore, some ideals can becounterproductive in the fight againstpoverty. For instance the notion that those
living in poverty are not deservingof a safety net or access to resources is linked to an ideology of self-sufficiency
that defines American culturein the U.S; can lead to dismantlingprograms thatactually help the poor.
David Hilfiker (2000);discussed howthis notion of improvingpeople was always connected to how people
thought about efforts to do something about poverty. This notion is rooted is in the application of this notion of
improved within in social work and connects to a longhistory in the United States. Early reformers connected to
Protestantismlinked extreme poverty to laziness,drunkenness and intoxication in which they employed public
policy and philanthropy to change the character of those livingin poverty. This notion however links to the idea
that the primary causeof poverty is the individual characteristicsof the poor themselves: laziness,lack of training,
poor character,too many children and sexual promiscuity (Hilifiker 2000).Ironically this typeof view pointis linked
to the history of engaging issues of a poverty in a culture that consistently emphasizes individualism.Also Massey
(1998) discusseshowthe persistenceof poverty among minorities;specifically African Americans,isconnected to
the deliberate segregation of those livingin poor conditions.Massey continues to state that even after the Fair
HousingAct in 1968;segregation of African Americans in urban centers was exacerbated by interconnectingset of

5
individual actions and governmental policies.This creation of segregation amongst African Americans causes an
underclass to be formed and deteriorates social aswell as economic conditions duringperiods of economic
downturn. This same concept connects to the same stereotypes of the poor correlated to the discussion of cuts in
social programs thatactually supportthepoor.
In a U.S. Census report on Poverty and Health Insurancein 2012,the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent
which is equivalentto 46.5 million peoplelivingin poverty and there was a 2.5 increaseof the official poverty rate
in comparison to the official ratein 2007.The poverty rate for the South remained unchanged at 16.5 percent, yet
people livingin poverty increased to 19.1 million in 2012 from18.4 million in 2011. Also between the years of
2011 to 2012 the poverty rate for people livingin the South did increase.The poverty rate for children under the
age of 18 in 2012 was 21.8 percent and for people between ages 18-64 was 13.4 percent. The poverty rates by age
and gender indicated thatfor each age group poverty rates among females were higher than rates for males.
Though Non-Hispanic whites accountfor 40.7 percent of the people livingin poverty,Blacks accountfor 27.2
percent of people livingbelowpoverty while whites and Hispanicsaccountfor 9.7 percent and 25.6 of those living
below poverty respectively (United States Census Bureau 2013).
Mallory Boyd (N.d.) stated in her study concerning the American public’s perceptions of poverty and
equality,that though there are various definitionsof poverty; few are accurate.This study discussed howU.S.
official standardsaredesigned so that the issueof poverty can easily beovercame; yet those standards
underestimate the reality of those actually impoverished.Ironically,thesestandards subjectthose really
impoverished to invisibility,which causes others to be unawareof the extent of poverty. Furthermore this study
delved into a discussion of how perceptions of poverty are influenced by socio-economic status,structural and
individualisticexplanations. Awkwardly,individual explanations dominatestructural explanations of poverty.
Additionally this study indicated thatpeople’s perceptions of poverty exacerbate the notion that the livingpoor;as
a class of people; are lazy,uneducated, unmotivated and primarily minorities.In fact,itis reported that for nearly
a quarter of the poor and non-poor, individualslivingin poverty are perceived as simply just“lazy”people. These
perpetuated ideals arepredominantly untrue characteristicsof those livingin poverty,and only work to l imitthe
possibility of change(Boyd N.d.). Also in a Salvation Army study on perceptions of poverty, they found that most

6
Americans believe that helping the poor is an important factor in alleviatingpoverty. Despite this fact, skeptical
beliefs such as”if people want a job they can find it”, “if you give out assistancepeoplewill take advantageof it” or
“people livingpoverty have low moral values” still pervadethe American society’s perceptions of the poor
(Salvation Army 2012) . In lightof this discussion,itcan beinferred that there is power in perceptions and attitudes
that translateinto how social issues likepoverty are viewed and the extent to which the public address them (Boyd
N.d.). Therefore, counterproductive views of those livingin the poor may serve to exacerbate the problem and
navigateaway from developing a constructiveunderstandingof poverty which could lead to improvingthe way it
is handled.
Contributor to Forbes magazine, Schawbel (2013), stated that there areover 80 milli on Millennials(born
from 1980S-early 2000s) thatmake up the population which makes them one of the largestgenerations compared
to others. Millennialsarecontinuingto impactour society through increased activism,technology and diversity
which is increasingly shapingour culturetoday. Schawbel indicated thatdespite the impact of a poor economy,
millennialsstill striveto make time to give back to the community. LikewiseSchawbel, stated that 81 percent of
them have donated money, goods and services to different causes.Also,millennials endeavor to choose causes
that align with their personal beliefs and values.Millennials,as proposed by this article,havesome sort of
influencein the reshapingof ideas thatconstruct the American soci ety (Schawbel 2013).
What I am interested in is millennials’increased involvement in the community through activismand
serviceas well as how they choose the causes they participantin.Specifically if they select issues thatwould align
to their own beliefs.This leads me to propose these questions:what are these guidingprinciples thatlead to
millennials’,specifically collegestudents’, involvement in activismand community servicework and could these
guidingprinciples beessential to reshapinghow we look at different social issues such as poverty? Therefore this
has led me to think critically and question whether ideologies play a particular rolein shapingopinionsor
perceptions of social phenomena. I choose to particularly look atideologies in my study because the morals, ethics
and principles within religious,faith based and spiritual worldviews suggestthe importance of helpingand
supportingothers as the rightthing to do. Therefore I want to research if this same mindset is atwork when
collegestudents choose to serve others and participatein activism.Correspondingly I proposethis question: how

7
do political and faith based ideologies, socioeconomic statusas well as gender influencestudents’
perceptions/attitudes towards the concept of poverty? By political ideologies,I amreferringto political views on
policies and governmental agencies that connect to either conservatism,liberalismor feminism.Faith based
ideologies can be connected to a particular religiousinstitution or a particular spiritual outlook on life. Also does a
person’s religious or spiritual outlook play a rolein how they view the poor, how they feel issues of poverty should
be addressed and how they identify people livingin poverty? Furthermore, in relation to the concept of praxis,
how do students apply their perceptions to how they engage issues of poverty? By engage, I am referring to the
way students engaging thinking,discussingand participatingin civicwork related to poverty. Also, how do their
perceptions and social identities influencehow they define social justice? Additionally,whatarethe
similarities/differences in individuals’perceptions of poverty and poverty relief who operate from different
worldviews? The umbrella topic for this study seeks to understand what constitutes livingin poverty based on
definitions and governmental standards, and how AUC students define poverty. Furthermore, how students
organizeefforts to alleviatedimensions of poverty. Moreover I would liketo focus on the significanceof the
location of the Atlanta University Center in proximity to the West End and near other Fulton county
neighborhoods/communities in relation to actually dimensions of poverty that existwithin the metro Atlanta area.
As a child growingup in SaintLouis,MO, I had personal experience with the impactof engaging the issue
of poverty in my own community on a day to day basis especially resultingfromhavingparents who are morally
conscious and engaged this issuepersonally. As I gradually matured I noted narratives thatI lived by that spoke to
this issueon a persistent basis which camefrom engaging my faith in the Christian doctrine.I decided to research
this topic as a resultof wanting to bridge the gap between sociological paradigms such as conflicttheory and
symbolic interactionismand ideological beliefs thatI hold true. I wanted to find a way to study a specific
ideological belief in an objectiveway under the framework of sociology.Also my own social advocacy specifically
deals with the social issueof poverty, therefore I wanted to find a way to use this senior thesis as a way to frame
my own social justicepractices.My own religious background as a Christian has shaped theways in which I frame
my advocacy and social justiceactivities as well as whatmotivates my own actions and thoughts concerningthis
issue.As a Shepherd Intern for the Shepherd Poverty AllianceI worked in Charleston,WV with the Covenant House

8
which is a non-profitagency that advocates for those impacted by dimensions of poverty by helpingto alleviate
the financial,emotional physical and,social burdens experienced by those sufferingthrough these conditions. As I
resultof working at the Covenant House, I had the opportunity to consistently interactwith civic leaders and
people livingin conditions of poverty. In turn I engaged in personal,emotional and critical conversations with civic
leaders and those livingin poverty. Also working with non-profit agencies and churches in the Atlanta area such as
Atlanta Community Food Bank and Friendship BaptistChurch thatwork to alleviate issuesof poverty through food
drives and mentorship/educational services:has shaped my own ideals of the extent of this social issue.As a result
of these experiences, it has also impacted how I builtan understanding of the conditions poverty and the
importance of empathy towards those livingin poverty in the metro Atlanta community.
Within this study I will conducta questionnaireamongst AUC students to unveil the perspectives they
have about this topic.Also a content analysis will doneof both secular and religious non-profitwebsites work to
alleviateissues related to poverty in the metro Atlanta area.This analysis will beconducted in order to understand
existingideological viewpoints thatmotivate each agency’s serviceand advocacy plus whether or not these
differences in ideological views impactthe methods each organization uses to combat issues related to poverty.
Likewise, if each organization identifies whatconstitutes as poverty in different ways due to their ideological
differences. This content analysis will help with buildingthe research that I will conductwith students within the
AUC by outliningpre-existingmotives that guide public organizations’work and how they frame their actions,
ideas and attitudes about poverty. The research questions that will guidemy content analysiswill beas follows:
How does each organization definepoverty, what values/principles guidethe work they do, what arethe programs
they offer to mitigate poverty relief, arethere themes that areconsistenton each organizations websitewhich
includes images and languageadditionally whatis the prominent race/ethnicity of organization members (workers,
leaders) and the recipients?
My goal is to understand how AUC students connect their beliefs and values to the discussion of issues of
poverty. What makes this unitof analysisuniqueis thatthis particulartopic takes into accountAfrica n American
students’ opinions who are situated within an area where they areexposed to elements of poverty. This study not
only evaluates the views of a particular racial/ethnic group,but I also seeks to understand how classand

9
socioeconomic background can influenceAUC students’ views of the poor. Whatreligious ideologies influence
students’ perceptions of poverty? Consideringthe discussion of place, I would liketo understand how being
situated in a college; which is considered to be a siteof socialization,could potentially impactnarratives students
constructabout the existence and extent of poverty in their surroundingcommunity. Specifically,despitethe
existence of class differences amongstudents; they areall socialized to be inserted into a particularsocial class
throughout their matriculation which could impacttheir views on particular social issues likepoverty. This study
will add knowledge to poverty studies by focusing on African American college students who are situated within an
area where distinctelements of poverty exist.This study will also evaluate if there is an impactof religious and
spiritual ideologies on perceptions of the poor which includes howthey should be treated and the ways issues of
poverty should be addressed.In lightof sociology of religion,this study can show how social institutions,influence
individualsviews of social issues.This study is considered exploratory research, sinceitwill uncover what students
can offer to dialogueof issues of poverty particularly related to dominant dialogue/debatewithin the public arena
concerningthe issueof poverty.

10
III. Literature Review
There are many research studies that dive into the discussion of religiousideologies impacton
perceptions or views of social engagement, social copingand organizinggroups againstan issuesuch as poverty.
Additionally thereare articles/studies thatalso presentan opposingargument to the positiveinfluenceof
religious ideologies on poverty relief/alleviation. Preexistingand developingstudies of the concept of poverty and
the impactof religious ideologies on perceptions and attitudes towards ethics,confrontingchallenges,all eviating
poverty or perpetuating it will bereviewed.
a. Altruism
Within the review of literaturethere were three studies that looked atthe concept of altruismand
altruistic behavior.Thefirststudy conducted by Chang-Ho C. JI, Lori Pendergraft and Matthew Perry (2006) was
interested in measuringthe influenceof personal religion on altruisticbelief amongProtestant adolescents using
a multidimensional viewof personal religion which included the followingconcepts:extrinsic religiosity,intrinsic
religiosity,doctrinal orthodoxy and faith maturity. The second study was conducted by JacquelineS. Mattis et. al.
(2009) which focused on examiningwhat motivates altruismamongstindividualsfromlowincome, inner city
neighborhoods experiencingstrife, violenceand family breakdown. Lastly the third study which was conducted by
Vincent Jeffries et. al.(2006) which focused on supportinghow establishingtheconcept of altruismand solidarity;
which is the ability to relate or empathize with others, as a distinctfield of specialization in Sociology would bring
contributions to understandinghow these two positivephemenona structureinterpersonal,intergroup as well as
international relations.This third study did not specifically examinethe dimensions of altruismand solidarity in
research of individualswho either participated in this type of behavior nor did itexamine individual’s attitudes
towards these concepts. What makes this study distinctfromthe other studies I reviewed concerningthe concept
of altruism,itincludes sociological concepts such as AugustComte’s paired concept egoism-altruismto explain
the underliningmotives behind all social relationsand Durkheim’s discussion of altruism’s influenceas an
contention on social integration/disintegration in the caseof certain types of suicide.Italso discusses altruismas

11
encompassingtwo elements which includealtruisticmotivation and behavior.Italso highlights howaltruismcan
take many forms which range from egocentric accommodation to universal love. Unlikethe study conducted by
Chang-Ho et. al.(2006),the JacquelineS. Mattis et. al.(2009) study included a focus on the concept of social
capital which included social trustand the development of social networks as ways in which altruismoperated
within the study group. Although this study discussed howaltruisticbehavior can bemotivated by deeply rooted
ideological beliefs which varied fromreligious,political and humanistic values,this study unlikeChangHo. C JI, et
al.study, included discussion of other theories that explained the motivation behind altruistic behaviorwhich
included evolutionary theories connected to a biological altruismthatis pre-wired and highly dependent on
ensuringthe survival of groups who are similarto people genetically,economic theories that connect engagement
in altruismto a weighingof the personal and communal benefits of altruistic action againstthecosts,situational
conditions thatmotivate people to carefor others (natural disasters) and relational roots thatdiscussaltruism
being engaged by people who already have established positiverelationships with peoplein a particular
communities or social identity groups (JacquelineS.Mattis et. al.2009). The study on religiosity, altruismand
protestant youth was a largescalequestionnaireadministered to 16,000 6th to 12th students and was primarily
quantitative(Chang-Ho et. al.2006:156-178).The study on altruismamonglow income individualsin theinner
city employed qualitativetechniques such as in depth interviews with participants and ethnographic techniques
such as developingrelationshipswith community members over several months as well as allowingsome
community members to participatein refiningand rewritinginterview questions before administeringthem to
participants.
b. Extrinsic, Intrinsic religiosity
Similar to the Chang-Ho C. JI, et. al study,the study conducted by Shiou-Yu Chen and Chung-Chu in 2009
used Intrinsicreligiousorientation and extrinsicreligiousorientation as key concepts of their study, yet their
focus was on investigatingthe relationship between personal religiousorientationsand ethical ideologies.Both of
these studies defined extrinsic religiosity/orientation as individuals who participated in religiousactionsin hopeof
some sortof gain and intrinsicreligiousorientation acton accountof their convictions or beliefs.Both of these
studies use intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity as measures of religiosity through usinga similar Reli giosity Scale.

12
Although the Cheng and Chung Chu studied used a modified version of the Religiosity Scalewhich allowed them to
measure intrinsicand extrinsicreligiosity amongreligious and non-religiouspersons. Unlikethe Chang-Ho C. JI, el.
al study, the Cheng and Chung Chu study focused on ethical Ideology as two dimensions of moral philosophy
which were idealismand relativismwhich worked as guidingprinciplesfor ethical perceptions (principles that
shapetheir view of the world) and moral judgments (differentiatingbetween rightand wrong the source). Also
this study included participantsfrommultiplereligious and non-religiousbackgrounds who either attended
religious or secularinstitutions(Taoist,Christian,Buddhist,those that held civil beliefs (belief in multiplegod
worship of nature, souls and/or of the spirits of ancestors),Catholic,and the rest were nonreligious unlikethe
Chang Ho study where are participants wereadolescentProtestants from schools connected to Protestant
organizations and churches.In both studies demographic information such as sex,race and ethnicity were
discussed casually,butwere barely highlighted within the discussion.Also each of these studies discussed the
motivation behind rightaction,yet there was not an in depth discussion of how religious orientation or ethical
ideology is expressed in social behavior (pro-social behavior) and altruismif atall.Each of these studies were large
based survey questionnaireresearch was a missinga discussion of how the significanceof socioeconomic classof
study participants on actions thatcorrelated with altruismand pro-social behaviorswhich limits a morein depth
discussion of altruismand pro-social behavior amongstudents.Lastly there was no discussion if the
socioeconomic classof study participants had any influenceon actions thatcorrelated with altruismand pro-social
behaviors.
c. Religion and civic/voluntary involvement
There were two studied that focused solely on studyingreligion and its impacton servicework. The first
study was conducted I Mylek and P Nel (2010) engages in exploringwhat makes a religion an effective tool in
rallyingcivic leaders and actorsin transitional poverty relief and development concerningthe issueof global
poverty. Also this study is interested in exploringwhat motivates civil actorsfromthe Global North specifically in
New Zealand to engage in social justiceissuesin the different parts of the world and sense many of these civic
actors havereligious connections howthis factor influences their actions.The second study was done by
Christopher J. Einolf and was centered on examininghow religious values,idealsand languagepromote prosocial

13
behaviors.They study done by Mylek and Nel investigated four concepts which included global poverty,
sociological based theories likereligioussocial capital,contentand cultural Power.The theory of social capital was
operationalized as social networks that areof value,which is due to personal connections inherentthem and
norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness thatcome from them. The religious contentrelates to the beliefs,values
and norms present in religion thatlinks thought to action which can work as a source of inspiration for work one
does. Lastly religious cultural power refers to the ability of religious institutionsto influencepolitical activity
and/or outcomes by attractingcultural resources such assymbols,ideologies,moral authority and cultural
meanings which make messages relatableto bigger audiences which can generate tangibleresources such as
money, political supportand social connections (Myelk and Nel 2009). The study by Einolf focuses on subjective
religiosity,pro-social behavior instead of altruism,and helpingto study volunteering, charitable givingand serving
others through employment.
Each of these studies focused primarily on studyingChristians,thefirstresearch study used two non-
governmental Christian based organizations(World Vision NewZealand and TEAR Fund New Zealand) for analysis
and the second study randomly selected 94 individuals fromthe Mac Arthur Foundation’s MIDUS study in 1995.
Both studies included content analysis within their analysiswith Mylek and Nel analyzingcontent on each
organizations websitesuch as mission statements, religious practices,partnershipswith other organizations and
the study by Einolf examininglifehistory interviews in the survey by the study samplefocusingon respondents’
prosocial actionsin thespheres of family,politics,religion,paid employment, volunteer work, and charitable
giving.The study done by Einolf mentioned that some respondents were non-Christian which included one
atheist, seven agnostics and one Jew. In the study by Eniolf there was only a discussion of the complexity
surroundingsocial scientistsattempts to link religiosity and pro-social behavioras well as to measure, and how
previous sociological studies focus on the importance of social networks in explainingdifferences in religious
givingand discreditingsubjectivereligiosity.Yet, there was no discussion of previous studies thatdebunk the idea
of religiosity beinglinked to pro-social behaviors.However, the study by Mylek and Nel discussed the
secularization theory which presents the idea that religious institutions havelosttheir social significanceas a

14
resultof modernization in the twentieth century, which debunks the idea of religion beingan effective tool in any
sphere of public lifeincludingorganization around public issues such as poverty.
My research topic studied the concept of poverty, particularly African American Atlanta University
students’ perceptions/attitudes towards poverty which includes:what ideas shapetheir definitions of poverty,
how do they view the poor which examines the validity of the Oscar Lewis’theory of culture poverty amongst this
particulargroup of people. Also I have examined how students’ believe issues of poverty should be addressed in
policy,serviceand social justiceactivities.Additionally I studied how students identify those livingin poverty
through specific identifyingmarkers such as class,employment, income and residence etc. The overarchingtopic
address the concept of praxis,which means I asked questions to discover what religious ideologies existamong
AUC students and how these ideologies influencethe ways in which students thought about engaging issues of
poverty. Correspondingly,this looked to see if religious ideological frameworks also influencethe ways in which
students’ define the concept of social justice.Similar to Shiou-Yu Chen and Chung-Chu Liu as well as Chang-Ho C.
JI, et. al.studies,an Religiosity and Spirituality orientation scalewas used to measure attitudes and perceptions of
poverty in lightof ideological leanings which will takein accountfor persons who are also non-religious.Unlike
these studies,a mixed methods approach was used integratingthe use of focus groups, one interviews and an
onlinequestionnaire. Similarto the JacquelineS. Mattis et. al.ethnographic,a group of individuals within the
proximity of a low income area and from diversereligious as well as spiritual ideological backgrounds were
studied within my research. Unlikethe JacquelineS. Mattis et. al study,AUC students were from multiple
socioeconomic classbackgrounds and regions as a resultof conductingthis study on a college campus and these
differences were also taken into accountin this study. The concept of altruismand altruistic behavior will be
assessed in lightof studyinghow students define social justice,howthey think issues of poverty should be
engaged and addressed within the community. Comparableto I Mylek and P Nel’s study, a content analysiswill be
conducted from the transcribed notes collected from focus groups and interviews to understand religious
ideological terminology associated with views of the poor and engagement of helping those in need.

15
IV. Theory and Research Questions
The central idea of my thesis is this notion of “engagement” with a particularissuesuch as poverty and
the impactof social identities thatmay inform discussion and action.The theoretical framework that will be
employed is an analysisof the relationship between belief and engagement. How does an individual’s ideological
viewpoint influencehow they think about poverty or the poor? What identities do college students in particular,
bringinto the discussion of poverty that informhow they conceptualizeand engage the issue? Workingthrough a
method of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967),an overview of debates about poverty within sociological,
anthropological and governmental contexts was conducted. Additionally,thefollowingquestion was investigated:
how do religious and political views informstudent discourseaboutpoverty? Furthermore, how does spirituality
informstudents’ attitudes about poverty? Also,do factors of race,gender and socioeconomic status construct
discourseaboutpoverty within academic,public and governmental sites? Within the analysisof soc iological
debates vs. students about poverty, divergent views of poverty was investigated.Also this analysis will bringin the
discussion of cultureof poverty within the domain of anthropological study as well as studies on stratification and
power.
Within the sociological circles vs.students,the existence and persistenceof poverty was explained
through the lenses of two frameworks; individualisticexplanationsand structural explanations.Individualistic
explanations for the existence and sustainment of poverty focus more on the intrinsic behaviorsof individuals
being the focal pointof the marginalized economic and social despair.Structural explanationstracethe choices of
those livingin poverty, to outsidestructural sources thathelp to shapeand sustain poverty (Carl 2010).Thus,
structural theories traceback poverty to the actions and behaviors of governments, corporations,wealthy social
groups and other economic conditions thatnurture inequality (Carl 2010.).Within thesecategories there are seven
theories that explain the existence of poverty which areas follows: Oscar Lewis’Neo-Marxisttheory of Culture of
Poverty (1959),Charles Murray’s The Underclass (1990),MikeO’Brien’s discussion of New Right distinctions of the
Deserving and Underserving Poor (1997),Max Weber’s Three Component Stratification Theory ([1922]2005),C
WrightMills’EliteTheory (1956) and Karl Marx’s Theory of Class Conflictand Capitalism(1867).In relation to this
research project, the examination of these theories assisted with framingstudent discourseand attitudes about

16
poverty. Especially in theway that they rationalized poverty and linked its causes to either to systematic and
structural issues,associated its causes to individual decisionsor a mixture of both frames.
In the Culture and poverty: Critque and Counter Proposals, specifically theSelf-Perpetuating Social Class
chapter, it traces the orientation of individualistic doctrines thatperpetuate the act of blamingthe victimto one
African American social thinker,E. Franklin Frazier (Valentine1968:17-18).The followingpassageshows his
ideological framing;which is Nathan Glazer’s foreword of Frazier’s The Negro Family in the United States:
The Negro is applauded for survivingin a society based on laissezfaireand competition, for his strivings,
for the curbingof individual desires and impulses,for assimilatinga new mode of life[white middleclass patterns].
By contrastof course his failureto striveand curb his impulses would be seen as his failurerather than society’s
failure,though society—history---would certainly haveto sharea good partof the blame(Glazer 1966: xvi).
Charles Valentine; an anthropologistwho critiqued the Culture of Poverty thesis, argues that much of
writingof “lower class”or “underclass”cultures comes from studies of Black Americans.The Frazierian Tradition of
tracingtheir economic and social failureto moralistic denigration is reproduced in the writings of Nathan Grazer
and Daniel P. Mohyian (Valentine 1968: 20-37).Due to the portrayal of a cultureof poverty in Frazier’s works as
well as Glazer and Mohyian;this prompted the advent of national policy discourse embedded with the doctrine of
a deviant subculture(Valentine 1968:20-37)... This deviates from a discussion of health and welfare of the
marginalized,centers discourseon conformity to respectability politics(Valentine1968:20-37).
Overviewing discourseand theorizingaround poverty in sociological,anthropological and political circles,
in turn builds an understandingof how issues areframed and the ways in which they are address.Thus an
overview of the governmental discoursesurroundingpoverty is needed to understand the ways in which
narratives haveconstructed public policy. Over the courseof more than 50 years, the ways in which poverty was
discussed,combatted through the implementation of policy,alleviated or escalated has changed over time. When
President Lyndon B. Johnson (term-1963-1969) firstintroduced the “War on Poverty”, in his speech he discussed
how every citizen should haveshared opportunities to develop and grow their capacities as well as theneed to
destroy barriers thatcausepeople to be trapped in poverty such as racial injusticeand “squalid”and hostile
environments (Johnson 1964). Additionally healso mentions how citizens need a decent education and the impact
of negative health outcomes (Johnson 1964).Some political writers statethat his exposureto extreme poverty in
duringchildhood in Stonewall,Texas, where he lived in fear that the bank would take away his home and lacked

17
food as well as duringhis career as a teacher in Texas teacher informed his introduction of policy on Poverty
(Boundless n.d.). Also this advent of national publicpolicy under the umbrella of “War on Poverty” took place
during the momentum of the Civil Rights Movement with the signingof the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Increased
societal awareness of the social illsof inequity based on race; helped to supportthe introduction of LBJ’s policy.
Even after LBJ’s Presidency,his predecessor President Richard Nixon partially embraced the War on Poverty policy
by addingan automatic cost-of-livingadjustment (COLA) in 1972 as well as playinga lead rolein the
implementation of the Supplemental Nutritional AssistanceProgram(SNAP) and Supplemental Security Income.
Yet, Nixon tightened requirements for welfare, dismantled the Office of Economic Opportunity as well as altered
Community Action agencies which further hindered upward mobility.Although, as a resultof War on Poverty
measures, many citizens were lifted from extreme levels of poverty; a cultureshifttowards conservatismtook
placewhere the popularity of poverty alleviatingprograms dwindled (Public BroadcastingService2014)
When PresidentRonald Reagan came into officein 1981, he focused on cutting spending. For instance,
duringhis inaugural addresshis top priority was theeconomic turmoil of the United’s and the principlesolutions
he advocated were limited government and promotion of privateenterprise. He attempted to do so by cutting
domestic programs that helped working class citizens which greatly impacted the poor, yet he increased the
military budget. Although, some citizens sawhis presidency as a period of economic growth for the country; it was
a constrainingmoment for workingclass citizens (Dreir 2004).Incometaxes for the rich were slashed in half while
income taxes for the working class wereraised which he defined as “Trickledown Economics”. Trickledown
Economics was the idea that tax breaks for business and upper class citizens would help poorer citizens by
stimulatingthe economy. President Reagan and his administration continuously madeattacks on the US Welfare
System, specifically WelfareEntitlePrograms additionally,the gap between the rich and the poor widened,
citizens below the poverty level increased and homelessness spiked in urban centers around the nation (Drier
2004).What supported his policy actionswas the ideology of self-sufficiency,which goes back to individualistic
explanations for poverty. Such statements as the following:“the homeless make their own choiceof stayingout
there” (Roberts 1988). The four pillarsof Reaganomics which were reducinggovernment spending, income and
capital gainstax and government regulation as controllingthemoney supply by decreasinginflation;were what
drove his policies(Amadeo 2014) .

18
President Bill Clinton (term -1993-2001) entered the presidency duringthe economic boom of the 1990s,
yet poverty still persisted at a rate of 15%. Although Bill Clinton was a Democrat, he took a conservativetake on
governing, specifically in workingwith Republicans to drastically transformthe welfare system by tightening
working requirements. Yet in still,healthcarewas expanded duringhis term with the Child Health Insurance
Program (CHIP) which enabled children in households a littleabovethe poverty lineto receive healthcare(On the
Issues 2014).The followingmantra supported his actions,“Peoplewho work hard, and play the rules shouldn’tbe
poor” (On the Issues 2014).This ideological viewmerged traditionally held views of personal initiativeand self-
sufficiency,with liberal ideasof help.Georgia W. Bush duringhis term; 2004-2008,itwas a moment of increased
government spending on wars in both Iran and Afghanistan,but also on an expensive expansion of Medicaid for
MedicareD. This expansion was included a drugprogram for seniors which installed to subsidizethe costof
expensive prescription drugs and itfitwith his ideological viewpointof passionateconservatism(On the Issues
2014). Under the veil of this philosophy was a goal to help people help themselves by creatingpolicies that
supported this view. This view connects to individualistic ideology which advocates those“pullingthemselves up
by their boot straps.”Also, Bush discussed loweringtaxes for singlemothers and he put an emphasis on home
ownership among lowincome individualsas well as focusingon the No Child Left behind Act as a jobs act(On the
Issues).Also,he expressed the importance of faith based voluntary/community serviceagencies changinglives
over secular institutions,yet atthe sametime proposingto cut 1/3 of Section 81.
President Barrack Obama (term-2008-2016) stepped into his presidency duringa time of economic
upheaval,the Recession of 2009 was in full effect. Throughout his presidency many discourses has been attached
to himsuch as him being the “Food Stamp President”, “Socialist”and a Communist based on certain reforms he
has developed around healthcarereform with the AffordableCare Act, immigration reform as well as with
advocatingfor increased government spendingin general. The unemployment rate grew from 4.7% in 2007 to 10%
in 2009,job growth was uneven and there was a lack of regulatory controls on the tradingof stocks,especially
among the investment bankingsector (Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality 2014).Despite these conditions,
Obama still managed to pass legislation thatnot only to recapitalizebanks in order for them to get back on their
1 In 2004 , President George W. Bush proposed major cuts to the Section 8 housing voucher program, which
eliminated 250,000 vouchers in 2005 and 600,000 vouchers by 2009 –amounting to a 30 percent cut.

19
feet duringthe financial crisis,butalso impactindividualsand families livingin poverty (Stanford Center on Poverty
and Inequality 2014).The principlesthatguided his anti-poverty polices areas follows:
Stem the Tide for low income populations hithard by the financial recession,Expand Opportunities for
access to good payingjobs,affordable housingand the development of job skills,and Strengthen Families by
promoting responsiblefatherhood and assistingsinglemother parents (White House 2014).
As the child of a father from Kenya, raised in singlemother household with assistancefromhis grandparents
as well as his dedication to public servicework before his presidency;all havebuilthis belief o unite people around
politics of purpose(WhiteHouse 2014). Even with this personal history,some of his ideological framingof poverty
still ispermeated with views of one earningone’s way out of poverty by being willingto work for it (Goldfarb
2014).For instance,Ta-Neshi Coates illustrated in many of his speeches in front of all black audiences are
permeated with the view that the culture of poverty is synonymous with black culturewith “the tendency of youth
in black communities to make bad choices (Coates 2014).” He passed the American Recovery and Investment act
to stimulateeconomic growth and produce more jobs;specifically in theprivatesector. Additionally hesigned he
signed legislation thatwould expand healthcarecoverage for uninsured children allowingdocumented immigrants
to enroll instead of havingto wait five years.Also duringhis term spendingon SNAP, Community Services Block
Grant, which states it would help revitalizelowincome communities with job trainingand financial literacy
programs,were increased.Also programs for preventing Homelessness,helpinglow income families with energy
billsand the expansion of the both Medicaid and Pell Grants were introduced. Furthermore programs to assistlow
income workers the break they needed with the Earned Income Tax Credit. All of the policies havemanaged to
reduce deep poverty and the poverty rate as a whole (Glastriset. al 2014). Also itis being stated that out of the
37.6 Million peoplewho were poor in 2009,26.4 Million stayed in poverty 34 months later and 12.6 Million
escaped poverty but 13.5 Million peoplefell into poverty (Boyer 2014).Despite the measures previously stated,
poverty still increased froman official rateof 12.5 percent in 2007 to 15% in 2011, unemployment rate is atan all-
time high since2000 and income and wealth inequality rising(Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality 2014).
Just recently, the Presidenthas been trying to push policy in favor of raisingtheMinimum wage, which would raise
the hourly wage from $7.25 to $10.10. Upon reviewing ideological views and policy decision concerningpoverty by
Presidential administration and overviewof social discourseand action on poverty is needed.

20
Whilespeakingof the ideological views thatsupported the policy decisions of someof the Presidents of the
United States, it is importantto look at various faith groups social action as itpertains to the issueof poverty in
America (STRITT 2014).. This essential concerningthis study,becauseoffers information on how poverty has been
framed in religious discoursewhich helped with buildingan analysisof how religion and spirituality frame
discourse. The religious roots of social progressivismtraceback its early beginnings to 19th century development
of social reformers within the settlement movement such as Jane Adams, Josiah Strongand Richard T. Ely (Hansan
2014).This movement was more focused on being “friendly and open households,”a spacefor privileged
members of society to liveand labor as pioneers in poor areas and majority urban areas where social and
environmental problems persisted (Hansan 2014).This movement was coupled by ideological frameworks of
progressiveProtestantism,which merge intellectual and moral leadership especially social scientific knowledge
about Social Issues.Even with this beinga progressiveera of social action,major settlement houses did not allow
Blacks migratingfromthe South to North, to livein these houses.Thus a parallel movement emerged pushed by
Black female activistssuch as Ida B.Wells and reformers creatingblack settlement houses where a cultureof
empowerment and resistancewas fostered, foreshadowingAfrican American social movements in the years to
come (Hounmeno 2012). Then the popularity of the settlement house movement waned, and the early 20th
century brought the prominence of the Social Gospel Movement. As mentioned earlier,this was largely a
Protestant Christian intellectual movement and was predominately conservative. Application of Christian ethics to
social problems such as economic inequality,poverty, labor unions,crime,alcoholismand squalor environments.
The movement was not supported by a static ideology,there were participants in thismovement with differing
ideological views thatmade them focus on particular issuesand causes (Stritt2014). Some tenements of the social
gospel are seen in the political doctrineof some icons likeMartin Luther KingJr. and Ida B. Well’s anti -lynching
crusades.Some remnants of the movement have survived through such organizations as theSalvation Army and
the early beginnings of Habitatfor Humanity.
The introduction of the 21st century has brought an increaseof collectiveaction acrossa broad groups of
people representing various identities;in this casereligiousor spiritual identities.The Occupy Wall Street
movement, though an un-sustained one, was praised for inclusiveness of bringtogether people from various faith
groups to fight againsteconomic inequality.Interfaith coalitionsaregrowingimmensely to challengevarious issues

21
such as worker’s justice,poverty and immigration rights as well as reform.The advent of this movement is due to a
shared consciousnessof the struggles that plague all Americans,no matter the age, sex, gender, racial/ethnic
identity as well as sexuality of the individuals;especially dealingwith the economic justice (Woodiwissand Paysour
2011).Movements arecontinually risingand sheddinglighton the many dimensions of the issueof poverty such as
the Raisethe Wage Movement in particularWalmartprotests,growing education reform movement as well as the
ever growing movement againstpolicebrutality and discriminatory practices againstminorities groups in
marginalized communities likeFerguson,Missouri. For instancethe equatingof black cultureto a pathology which
supports narratives thatpeople likeMichael Brown and Renisha McBridedeserved to be shot becausethey were
“thugs” or “trouble”.
With the socio-historical contextof ideological framingsof poverty in the tradition of Sociology and
Anthropology, government, religion as well as in different moments of time; this study attempted to pull
ideological framingof the issueof poverty from HBCU CollegeStudents in the AUC. Furthermore, with HBCUs
being known for their dominant dedication to educatingBlack students and servinglow income students; how
does this informviews on the poor? Furthermore, this study provides analysisof the importanceof religious and
spiritual affiliation in craftingdiscourseaboutpoverty among HBCU students additionally howcould the
socialization processes atSpelman,Morehouse and Clark Atlanta University impactstudent views about poverty?
The research questions that will explored in this study are the following:
R1. How do religiosity and/or spirituality amongHBCU students in the AUC influencetheir perceptions of the
poor?
 R1A. What is the relationship between religiosity and views on the Medicaid,Welfareand most
recently the Affordable Care Act?
 R1B. Whatis the relationship between spirituality and views on the Medicaid,Welfareand most
recently the Affordable Care Act?

R2. How do students respond to specific images and representations of the poor in media, specifically
documentaries on the Workingpoor and images from mainstream onlinenews articles? (Washington Post,
Huffington Post, CNN, etc)
R3. How do students rationalizepoverty?
• How does students’ perspectives of poverty correlate with political ideological viewpoints on poverty?

22
• Also will analyzestudents’feelings concerningpoverty in relation to Oscar Lewis’social theory of the
cultureof poverty. (Whether or not students believe people livingin poverty predominately have lifestyles or
social norms thatinfluence their social status)
R4. What are students’ views concerningsocial changeand action?
• Based on how students feel, what more do they believe should be done about this issue?
• Does their discoursesurroundingthis issueincludethe topic of race?
• Within the concept of praxis,howcan students’ views on poverty apply to social justiceadvocacy for
those affected by poverty?
My study will venture to understand the play between belief and engagement, and how ideological views are
embedded within student’s understandings of poverty in the United States.

23
V. Methodology, Scope and Limitations
a. Research Design
For this particular research study,I employed a mixed methods approach to analyzethe research
questions related to students’ views of about those livingin poverty, anti-poverty policies and howthe issueof
poverty should be addressed.Both qualitativeand quantitativemethods were used to analyzethe research
questions which deals with the relationship between religiosity and spirituality on students perceptions of
poverty, attitudes about SNAP, Welfareand the Affordable Care Act. An onlinequestionnairewas administered to
students in the AUC to understand their personal religious and spiritual views,attitudes towards specific U.S.
government programs that address poverty as well as their views of those who livein poverty. The online
questionnairewill contained 6 different sections which were as follows:DefiningPoverty, Views on Policies,
Religiosity and Spirituality Scale,FramingPoverty as an Issue,Perceptions of those livingin Poverty and how do
you Survive Livingin Poverty. In total these six sections contained 39 items.A demographics section was on the
questionnairewhich asked questions aboutstudents’ age, sex, gender, parents’ educational background,family
composition,school attendanceand other important demographic information.The demographics section
contained 11 items in total. The survey took 10-15 minutes to complete. The survey was administered via email
blasts fromSociology/Anthropology professors, the Social JusticeFellows Programand the Bonner Office, social
media websites such as Instagram,Facebook,GroupMe and Twitter. Also, students whom expressed an interest in
takingthe survey provided emails to me personally and I administered the onlinesurvey via mobiletext and
personal email messages.The central questions that guided this analysis wereas follows:How does religiosity and
spirituality influencehowstudents perceive the poor, Why do students believe that people arepoor?, Whatis the
relationship between religiosity and views on the SNAP Program, Welfareand most recently the Affordable Care
Act and What is the relationship between spirituality and views on the SNAP Program, Welfareand most recently
the Affordable Care Act? Additionally,I analyzed how students’ views on poverty connect with various political
ideological viewpoints such as feminism,conservatismand liberalism. Finally,questions wereasked concerning
students’ engagement as well as what motivated them to be civically involved surroundingthis issueof poverty.

24
This was done to understand what ideological views motivate each person to do their work and if there will be
similar/dissimilar motives for their work despite differingideological viewpoints.
b. Interview Schedule
For my research study I conducted one on one interviews as well as a focus group usinga 17 item open
ended interview schedule with one video and 4-5 photos students analyzed.The interviews will bebetween 30
minutes-45 minutes and will takeplacepredominately on Spelman’s Campus in the Research Suite in Giles and in
a requisitioned study room at the Robert Woodruff Library.Since I am interested in evaluatingand critiquing
Oscar Lewis’culture of poverty theory, questions were asked to understand how people view the poor and to see
how that impacts their interactions and ideals aboutpoverty in the metro Atlanta area.Also sense my study also
deals with assessingthe impactof religion and spirituality on community engagement and understandingof
poverty, a customized version of the Personal ReligiousOrientation Scale was employed. Two scales will be
included on the questionnaire,a Religiosity and Spirituality Scalewhich will each be analyzed to see how they
correlatewith attitudes towards the poor as well as concerningspecific anti-poverty programs.Informed consent
will beadministered in order for all focus groups and one on one interviews to be recorded and transcribed for
data analysis.

25
c. Sampling Methods and Limitations
For this research study I employed the convenience samplingmethod in order to recruitstudents to
participatein this Thesis project(Frankfort-Nachmias and Leon-Guerro 2010).Students were recruited via email
blasts fromSociology/Anthropology professors,social media websites such as Facebook, Instagramand GroupMe
as well as by personal email upon expressinginterestin participating.Also,methods were employed in order for
me to conduct focus groups in Sociology/Anthropology courses via invitation fromSociology/Anthropology
professors. Furthermore, students were recruited at the Robert Woodruff Library in order to get a convenience
sampleof all genders from all institutionswithin the Atlanta University Center. Also,I connected with Spelman’s
Bonner Office,received a contact listof Bonner Students and invited them to participatein my research study.
Due to the factthat this method was employed to recruitresearch participants; there were inherent
biases. In some cases,there was an under-representation or over representation of specific social groups within
the sample(Frankfort-Nachmias and Leon-Guerro 2010).For instance,there were more female students from
Spelman that participated than male students and other students at Clark and Morehouse. Measures were taken
to avoid this occurrence,but this still took placedue to the samplingmethod I employed. Additionally,sincethere
was no specific samplingframeused; this means the samplewas not random(Frankfort-Nachmias and Leon-
Guerro 2010). Therefore, this hindered the ability to make generalizations aboutthe population dueto inherent
bias (Frankfort-Nachmiasand Leon-Guerro 2010). .

26
VI. Data Analysis
A mixed methods approach was used in order to quantify the views of the poor and anti -poverty policiesare
prevalent within the AUC’S population as well as to engage in-depth exploratory study of students understandings
of poverty and anti-poverty to untether deeper connections with other social phenomena such religiosity,
spirituality,political ideologies,gender and socioeconomic status.Additionally,this study analyzes why students
believe people are poor, how political ideologies,socioeconomic status and gender influencethese views and how
students feel this issueshould beaddressed. The qualitativemethods employed within this study were as follows:
focus groups and one on one interviews. The quantitativemethod employed within this study was an online
survey which was administered to AUC students. There arethree sections;with sub sections related to research
questions,included in this chapter that analyzethe results of each method separately.
a. Online Questionnaire
i. Demographics
AUC students were recruited to take the survey via email blastsfromthe Sociology and Anthropology
Department, Spelman College Social JusticeFellows Programas well as the Spelman Bonner Office. The online
survey link was also posted onlinevia Facebook,LinkedIn and Groupme. Additionally,thequestionnairewas
administered to students in Upper Manley via an iPad,Laptop and mobile devices. A total of 155 students agreed
to take the take the onlinesurvey, but between 59-65 students actually partially or fully completed the online
survey. Out the students who partially or fully completed the survey, 80.0% were female students within the AUC
and only 20.0% of the students were male. Majority of the students who participated were from Spelman College
(47 students), which connects to the inherent bias dueto an overrepresentation of students from Spelman and an
underrepresentation of students from Morehouse (10) , Clark Atlanta (2) and the Interdenominational
Theological Center (ITC). Most students who participated were Sophmores, Juniors and Seniors.
The majority of the students indicated that they were Black/African American (91.9%), only 1.6%
respondents indicated that they were Asian and Hispanic/Lation respectively.Only 4.8%of students choosethe
option “Other” for their Racial and Ethnic Identity.Most students indicated thatthey were either Employed-Part
Time, Unemployed and seeking work or Unemployed, but not seeking work. Other students who choose the option

27
“Other”, indicated that they were Students, Researchers,Unpaid or Paid Interns or abroad whileindicatingtheir
usual work status in the States. Almost half of the students indicated thatthey were Single, with fewer than 3
indicatingthatthey were either Engaged or Divorced. For family compostion,most students indicated that they
were raised in a Biological Two Parent Married Family and SingleMother Family;few indicated that they grew up in
a Biological Two Parent Cohabitatingfamily,Married Step Family and Cohabitatingfamily ( mother/father living
with a significantother) and a Single Father family- includingan adoptivefather. One respondent indicated that
they grew up in a SingleMother Family- divorced.Most students indicated that ether of their Parents’ highest level
of education was either Some College, 4 Year College/University Degree or Professional/GraduateDegree.
Additionally,moststudents indicated thatthey were a 6 or 7 on the Liberal Scale,3 on the Conservative Scale,and
7 or 10 on the Feministscale.
Table 1
Most students who participated in taking the survey were Females (80.0%). Few males
participated in in taking the survey (20.0%). No participants indicated that they were either
transgender or refused to answer the question.
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Male 12 7.7 20.0 20.0
Female 48 31.0 80.0 100.0
Total 60 38.7 100.0
Missing System 95 61.3
Total 155 100.0

28
Table 2
Majority of the participants in the online survey were either 19-21 years of age, with the
largest percentage being 21 year olds (30.6%). Very participants were older than 22 years of age.
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
18 6 3.9 9.7 9.7
19 11 7.1 17.7 27.4
20 17 11.0 27.4 54.8
21 19 12.3 30.6 85.5
22 5 3.2 8.1 93.5
23 1 .6 1.6 95.2
24 1 .6 1.6 96.8
26 or more 2 1.3 3.2 100.0
Total 62 40.0 100.0
Total 155 100.0
Table 3
Over 90% of the participants indicated that theywere Black/African American. Less than 2% of the
participants indicated that they were either Asian, Hispanic or responded with Other respectively.
Ethnic/Racial Identity -How do you describe yourself?
Percent
Valid
Black American/African
American
57 36.8 91.9 91.9
Asian 1 .6 1.6 93.5
Hispanic /Latino 1 .6 1.6 95.2
Other 3 1.9 4.8 100.0
Total 62 40.0 100.0
Total 155 100.0

29
Table 4
A little over 78% of students who participated in this survey were Spelman
Students. Less than 20% were Morehouse students and less than 4% were from Clark
Atlanta Univeristy. No students from Interdominational Theological Center participated
in the study.
School
Percent
Valid
Spelman 47 30.3 78.3 78.3
Morehouse 11 7.1 18.3 96.7
Clark Atlanta 2 1.3 3.3 100.0
Total 60 38.7 100.0
Total 155 100.0
Table 5
Almost half of the students who participated in completing the online questionnaire were Seniors.
Juniors were the second highest participants. Freshmen were the least likely to take the survey.
Classification
Percent
Valid
Freshmen 7 4.5 11.7 11.7
Sophomore 13 8.4 21.7 33.3
Junior 16 10.3 26.7 60.0
Senior 24 15.5 40.0 100.0
Total 60 38.7 100.0
Total 155 100.0

30
Table 6
Almost 50% of student participants came from a two parent biological married family. Close to 1/4 of
participants came from a Single Mother family (including an adoptive mother).
During most of your life as a child/Teen what was your Family Composition ?
Percent
Valid
Two-parent biological
married family (mother and
father legally or common
lawmarried)
30 19.4 47.6 47.6
Two-parent biological
cohabitingfamily (mother
and father livingtogether)
3 1.9 4.8 52.4
Married stepfamily (either
parent remarried)
5 3.2 7.9 60.3
Cohabitingstepfamily
(either parent livingwith
significantother)
1 .6 1.6 61.9
Single-mother family
(includes adoptivemother)
15 9.7 23.8 85.7
Single-father family
(includes adoptivefather)
1 .6 1.6 87.3
Other biological family
(Grandmother, older sibling,
aunt, etc)
3 1.9 4.8 92.1
Other: (pleaseexplain) 5 3.2 7.9 100.0
Total 63 40.6 100.0
Total 155 100.0

31
Table 7
Most students indicated that their 1st parent (Mother/Father) had receieved a Professional/Graduate
Degree, Some College Education or a 4 Year College/University Degree. Only 1% of students indicated that
their 1st parent got an education up to Junior High/Middle School. 16% indicated that their parents got up to an
High School education.
Education Background What is your 1st Parent's Highest level Education
Completed? (MOTHER/FA...
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Junior High/Middle
School
High School or
Equivalent
Community
College/Vocational
School
Some College
4-Year
College/University
Degree
Professional
Degree/Graduate
School
1
10
2
14
13
21
61
.6
6.5
1.3
9.0
8.4
13.5
2.0
16.0
3.0
23.0
21.0
34.0
2.0
18.0
21.0
44.0
65.0
100.0
Total 155 100.0

32
Table 8
For students’ 2nd Parent, most indicated that theyeither receieved a Professional Degree (35%), 4 year
College/Univeristy Degree (21%). Only 2% of students indicated that their 2nd Parent received up to an
Elementary education and 10% responded with “Unknown.”
What is your 2nd Parent's Highest level Education completed? (MOTHER/FATHER)
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Elementary School
High School or equivalent
Community
Some College
College/Vocational School
4-year College/University Degree
Professional Degree/Graduate
School
Unknown
1
8
8
8
11
18
6
60
.6
5.2
5.2
5.2
7.1
11.6
3.9
2.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
18.0
30.0
10.0
2.0
15.0
28.0.0
41.0
59.0
89.0
100.0
155 100.0

33
Table 9
For this question, students used a ranking system from 1-10, indicating how much they
associated witht the political label as a “Liberial.” ( 1 being the lowest associationand and being
the highest association).
For this question rank each political view point you associate with the most on a scale
from 1 to...-Liberal. Most students who responded to this question, indicated that theywere a 7
on the Liberial Scale (26.3%). The two second highest ranks were a 6 and 10 (14% respectively). A
little less than 2% of students indicated that theywere a 0 on the Liberial scale.
Percent
Valid
.00 1 .6 1.8 1.8
1.00 2 1.3 3.5 5.3
2.00 1 .6 1.8 7.0
3.00 4 2.6 7.0 14.0
4.00 3 1.9 5.3 19.3
5.00 5 3.2 8.8 28.1
6.00 8 5.2 14.0 42.1
7.00 15 9.7 26.3 68.4
8.00 4 2.6 7.0 75.4
9.00 6 3.9 10.5 86.0
10.00 8 5.2 14.0 100.0
Total 57 36.8 100.0
Total 155 100.0

34
Table 10
For this question, students used a ranking system from 1-10, indicating how much they
associated witht the political label as a “Conservative.” ( 1 being the lowest associationand and being
the highest association).
Out of those who completed this question, most students indicated that they were a 3 on the
Conservative Scale (26.5%). Other students indicated that they were 5 or 7; which was the next most
frequent response. Less than 2% indicated that they were a 9 on the Conservative scale.
For this question rank each political view point you associate with the most on a scale from 1 to...-
Conservative
Percent
Valid
1.00 7 4.5 14.3 14.3
2.00 3 1.9 6.1 20.4
3.00 13 8.4 26.5 46.9
4.00 4 2.6 8.2 55.1
5.00 7 4.5 14.3 69.4
6.00 5 3.2 10.2 79.6
7.00 7 4.5 14.3 93.9
9.00 1 .6 2.0 95.9
10.00 2 1.3 4.1 100.0
Total 49 31.6 100.0
Total 155 100.0

35
Table 11
For this question, students used a ranking system from 1-10, indicating how much they associated
witht the political label as a “Liberial.” ( 1 being the lowest associationand and being the highest association).
Most students indicated that they were a 10 on the Feminist Scale (24.0%). Additionally, the next
most frequent indicator of association to the label “Feminist” was 7 (18.0%). Only 2% students indicated they
were 1 on the Feminist Scale.
For this question rank each political view point you associate with the most on a
scale from 1 to...-Feminist
Percent
Valid
1.00 1 .6 2.0 2.0
2.00 6 3.9 12.0 14.0
3.00 1 .6 2.0 16.0
4.00 7 4.5 14.0 30.0
5.00 2 1.3 4.0 34.0
6.00 9 5.8 18.0 52.0
7.00 8 5.2 16.0 68.0
8.00 2 1.3 4.0 72.0
9.00 2 1.3 4.0 76.0
10.00 12 7.7 24.0 100.0
Total 50 32.3 100.0
Total 155 100.0

36
b. Focus Groups
One Focus Group was conducted in Dr. Wade’s Methods of Research course on Monday, November 3rd.
The focus group consisted of all femalestudents currently attending Spelman who were either majors/minors in
Sociology/Anthroplogy.All students within the course were either juniors or seniorsfromvarious regional places.
A seventeen item interview schedulewas employed to guide the discussion which also included an analysisof
three photographs. The focus group took between 45-50 minutes to complete.
c. One on One Interviews
Four one on one interviews were conducted with 4 female students from Spelman College and three
male students from Morehouse College. Three female students were Sociology Majors, two were from New York
City; one was a junior and the other was a senior.The other Sociology student was a junior from New Jersey. The
lastfemale student was a junior Psychology major fromPennsylvanniabutborn in Florida.Outof the three
students from Morehouse college, one was a Senior Sociology major from Brooklyn, NY and the other student
was a freshmen Appiled Physics/Environmental Engineeringmajor from Jeffersonville,Pennsylvania. Thelast
Morehouse student was a Senior Philosophy major fromMinneappolis,Minnesota. The two junior Sociology
majors from New York and New Jersey, came from singleparent households.The junior Psychology major grew
up in a singleparenthousehold,with the biological father stayingwith her for a shortamount of time. All three of
the male students from Morehouse came from two biological parenthomes. Three of the four Spelman students
indicated that they were Christians,whilethe Senior Sociology major for New York indicated that shewas
Agnostic. The freshmen Morehouse student from Jeffersonvile, Pa indicated thathe was a Christian;whileSenior
Sociology major from New York indicated thathe was Muslimand the Senior Philosophy major fromMinneapolis
indicated that he was an Universialist/Agnostic. Each interviewtook about 45 minutes to an hour, and were
recorded via iPhoneVoice Memo and transcribed manually.An 17 item interview schduelewas employed to
guide the discussion.Additionally,students were asked to analyze7 photographs from onlinenational news
publicationsand an 8 minute snippet of a video on the WorkingPoor. Some followup questions were asked
throughout the courseof the interview when needed, in order to get further clarification of each students’
thoughts. The followingsections arebroken down by each of the four research questions explored. Data analysis

37
of the data from the onlinequestion, description of students’ responses duringeither one on interviews or the
focus group are included in each section.
d. How does religiosity and/or spirituality among students influence how they perceive poverty?
In order to examine if religiosity and spirituality impacthow students understand as well as perceive
poverty which includes howthey perceive the people livingin poverty, 7 scaleitems related to religiosity were
transformed and computed into a numerical religiosity scalefor each respondent. FirstReliability tests were ran
on the 7 item religiosity scaleand 4 item spirituality scale. Both scales scored a Additionally,4 scaleitems were
transformed and computed into a numerical spirituality scale.2 tailed Spearman correlations wereconducted to
explore the strength and direction of relationships between variables. There were seven questions that dealt
with perceptions of poverty which were as follows: Most poor people in the United States are people who don't
work, There should be limits on how long people stay on Welfare, There are people who deserve to be poor,
Those who are physically handicapped, disabled or widows deserve aid if they are living below the poverty
line, Those who are teen moms, single mothers with more than two children deserve aid if they are living
below the poverty line, If you are an able-bodied person, you should be able to work your way out of poverty
and If all people would just make the right decisions with how they choose to spend their money, they would
not be poor. All seven of these questions were correlated with four items on both the religiosity and spirituality
scale.These four items were as follows:My religious beliefs influencehow I approach life,My spiritual beliefs
influencehow I approach life, My beliefs concerningsocial issuesareinfluenced by my religious affiliation and
How often do you pray?

38
Table 12
Only 62 students responded to the 7 questions that represent the Religosity Scale, while 63 students
responded to the 4 questions for the Spirtuality Scale. The mean scale for Religiosity was 14.6129 while the
mean scale for Spirituality was 7.6190. There was a large variance in scales for Religiosity versus Spiritualtiy
scale.
Statistics
ReligScale SpiritScale
N
Valid 62 63
Missing 93 92
Mean 14.6129 7.6190
Std. Deviation
Variance
6.95738
48.405
3.70017
13.691

39
Table 13
Most students had a scale of 9.00 (12.6%), 7.00(11.3%) 10.00 (9.7%)and 16.00 (9.7). Students were
least likely to scale either 21.0-22.0, 24.0-26.0, 29.0 and 32.0-34.0 which were all 1.6% respectively.
ReligScale
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
7.00 7 4.5 11.3 11.3
8.00 2 1.3 3.2 14.5
9.00 8 5.2 12.9 27.4
10.00 6 3.9 9.7 37.1
11.00 2 1.3 3.2 40.3
12.00 3 1.9 4.8 45.2
13.00 4 2.6 6.5 51.6
14.00 3 1.9 4.8 56.5
15.00 4 2.6 6.5 62.9
16.00 6 3.9 9.7 72.6
17.00 3 1.9 4.8 77.4
18.00 4 2.6 6.5 83.9
21.00 1 .6 1.6 85.5
22.00 1 .6 1.6 87.1
24.00 1 .6 1.6 88.7
25.00 1 .6 1.6 90.3
26.00 1 .6 1.6 91.9
29.00 1 .6 1.6 93.5
32.00 2 1.3 3.2 96.8
33.00 1 .6 1.6 98.4
34.00 1 .6 1.6 100.0
Total 62 40.0 100.0
Total 155 100.0

40
Table 14
Most respondents scaled at either a 4.00 (15.9%) or 5.00 (17.5%) on the
the Spirituality Scale. The next most frequents scales associated with
respondents were 6.00(14.3%) and 7.00(14.3%). Students were least likely to
score between 13-14 and 19-20; which were 1.6% respectively.
SpiritScale
Percent
Valid
4.00 10 6.5 15.9 15.9
5.00 11 7.1 17.5 33.3
6.00 9 5.8 14.3 47.6
7.00 9 5.8 14.3 61.9
8.00 7 4.5 11.1 73.0
9.00 4 2.6 6.3 79.4
10.00 3 1.9 4.8 84.1
11.00 2 1.3 3.2 87.3
12.00 2 1.3 3.2 90.5
13.00 1 .6 1.6 92.1
14.00 1 .6 1.6 93.7
17.00 2 1.3 3.2 96.8
19.00 1 .6 1.6 98.4
20.00 1 .6 1.6 100.0
Total 63 40.6 100.0
Total 155 100.0

41
Table 15
A bivariate correlation; specifically a Pearson’s correlation for ordinal level variables, was
ran for both the religiosity and spirituality scale to evaluate its relationship with the variable
concerning abled bodied persons and being able to work themselves out of poverty . The
Spirituality Scale had a negative correlation with the question (-0.185), while the religiosity scale
had a positive correlation with the question(0.90). There was statistical significance of the
correlation of the spirtualtity and religiosity scale (0.458).
Correlations
ReligScale If you are an
able-bodied
person , you
should be able
to work your
way out of
poverty
SpiritScale
ReligScale
Pearson Correlation 1 .090 .458**
Sig. (2-tailed) .488 .000
N 62 62 61
If you arean able-bodied
person , you should be able
to work your way out of
poverty
Pearson Correlation .090 1 -.185
Sig. (2-tailed) .488 .147
N 62 64 63
SpiritScale
Pearson Correlation .458** -.185 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .147
N 61 63 63
**. Correlation is significantatthe 0.01 level (2-tailed).

42
Table 16
A bivariate correlation; specifically a Pearson’s correlation for ordinal level variables, was ran for both the
religiosity and spirituality scale to evaluate its relationship with the following variables: Those who are physically
handicapped, disabled or widows deserve financial assistance from the government if they are living below the poverty
line and Those who are teen moms, single motherswith more than two children deserve aid if they are living below the
poverty lined. The religiosity scale had a positive correlation with the question concerning those who are physically
handicapped and disabled (0.059). However, the religiosity scale had a negative correlation with the question
concerning teen moms and single mothers with more than one child (-0.216) The spirituality scale had a negative
correlation with the question concerning teen moms and single mothers(-0.046), which was much less negative
correlation than religiosity. However, the spirituality scale had a positive correlation with the question concerning the
physically disabled, widows and handicaps concerning aid (0.646) Relgiosity was positively correlated with Spirtuality at
the significance level of 0.01.
Correlations
ReligScale SpiritScale Those who are physically
handicapped, disabled or
widows deserve financial
assistance from the...
Those who
are teen
moms, single
mothers with
more than
two children
deserve aid if
they are
livin...
ReligScale
Pearson
Correlation
1 .458** .059 -.216
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .646 .091
N 62 61 62 62
SpiritScale
Pearson
Correlation
.458** 1 .048 -.046
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .711 .723
N 61 63 63 63
Those who are
physically
handicapped,
disabled or
widows deserve
financial
assistancefrom
the...
Pearson
Correlation
.059 .048 1 .553**
Sig. (2-tailed) .646 .711 .000
N 62 63 64 64
Those who are
teen moms, single
mothers with
more than two
children deserve
aid if they are
livin...
Pearson
Correlation
-.216 -.046 .553** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .091 .723 .000
N 62 63 64 64

43
Table 17
A bivariate correlation was conducted using the religiosity scale, spirituality scale in order to analyze its
relationship with questions dealing with poor people working their way out of povery and limits on Welfare
based on age as well as how long people stay on Welfare. A positive correlation existed between religiosity and
the two questions concerning putting limits on Welfare based on age and the length of time on Welfare 0.069).
However, a negative correlation is shown between religiosity and the question concerning limits on Welfare
based on family type(-0.54). For the spirituality scale, negative correlations were shown between religiosity and
all three questions respectively (-0.057) (-.123) and (-.198). Relgiosity was positively correlated with Spirtuality
at the significance level of 0.01. Additionally, there was a positive correlation between the question concerning
limits on Welfare based on age and the statement concerning most poor people being people who do not work;
which was significant at the 0.05 level. Additionaly, the question concerning limits based on length of time on
Welfare and family type was positively correlated with the statement concerning most poor people being
people who do not work; which was significant at the 0.01 level. Lastly the two questions concerning limits on
Welfare were positively correlated with a significance at the 0.01 level.
Correlations
ReligScal
e
SpiritScal
e
Most poor
people in the
United States
are people who
don't want
to work
There should
be limits on
how long
people stay on
Welfare based
on age
There should be limits
on how long people stay
on Welfare based
on family type
ReligScale
Pearson
Correlation
1 .458** .193 .069 -.054
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .132 .593 .674
N 62 61 62 62 62
SpiritScale
Pearson
Correlation
.458** 1 -.057 -.123 -.198
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .660 .338 .120
N 61 63 63 63 63
Most poor people
in the United
States are people
who don't want
to work
Pearson
Correlation
.193 -.057 1 .316* .404**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.132 .660 .011 .001
N 62 63 64 64 64
There should be
limits on how
long people stay
on Welfare based
on age
Pearson
Correlation
.069 -.123 .316* 1 .772**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.593 .338 .011 .000
N 62 63 64 64 64
There should be
limits on how
long people stay
on Welfare based
on family type
Pearson
Correlation
-.054 -.198 .404** .772** 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.674 .120 .001 .000
N 62 63 64 64 64
*. Correlation is significantatthe 0.05 level (2-tailed).

44
Tabel 18
A bivariate correlation was conducted using the religiosity scale, spirituality scale in order to analyze
its relationship with questions dealing with deserving to be poor because of having too many children, people
making the right decisions when spending their money leading to their poverty and people needing to get an
education as being the source of their own poverty. The religiosity scale was positively correlated with the first
two questions (0.048 and 0.043) and a negatively correlated relationship existed between the Religiosity Scale
and third queston on education and poverty(-0.087). Each correlation between Religiosity Scale and all three
questions were significant at levels between 0.500-0.738. However, for the Spirituality Scale, all negatively
correlated relationships existed between the scale and all three questions (0.050,-0.260 and -0.257) and two of
the correlations were significant at the 0.05 level. The First question’s relationship with the Spirituality Scale,
was not significant at the 0.05 level; but at 0.698. Relgiosity was positively correlated with Spirtuality at the
significance level of 0.01.
Correlations
ReligScale SpiritScale Some people
deserve to be
poor because
they have too
many children
If all peoplewould
just make the
right decisions
with how they
choose to spend
their money,
they...
If all people
would just get
an education
they would not
be poor.
ReligScale
Pearson
Correlation
1 .458** .048 .043 -.087
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .712 .737 .501
N 62 61 62 62 62
SpiritScale
Pearson
Correlation
.458** 1 -.050 -.260* -.257*
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .698 .039 .042
N 61 63 63 63 63
Some people
deserve to be poor
because they have
too many children
Pearson
Correlation
.048 -.050 1 -.058 -.060
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.712 .698 .648 .637
N 62 63 64 64 64
If all people would
just make the right
decisions with how
they choose to
spend their money,
they...
Pearson
Correlation
.043 -.260* -.058 1 .540**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.737 .039 .648 .000
N 62 63 64 64 64
If all people would
just get an
education they
would not be poor.
Pearson
Correlation
-.087 -.257* -.060 .540** 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.501 .042 .637 .000
N 62 63 64 64 64
**. Correlation is significantatthe 0.01 level (2-tailed).*. Correlation is significantatthe 0.05 level (2-tailed).

45
e. How do students respondto specificimagesand representationsofthe poor in
media,specificallydocumentariesonthe Workingpoor and images from mainstream
online newsarticles?(WashingtonPost,HuffingtonPost,CNN,etc)
A total of 7 images were included in the interview schedulefor the one on one interviews and only 1 o the
7 images were included in the focus group. The firstimagewas retrieved from a Huffington Post articleconcerning
low poverty rates and deep despair consistently experienced in other places (Grovum 2014). The photo included a
white family of four from Owsel County Kentucky , a predominately white county with the lowest middleincome
in the country ($19,624)(Grovum 2014). The pictureincluded a Mother, her two daughters and a baby in a living
room. All of the students who participated in the one on one interviews described the room as either crowded,
cluttered or clustered. Angela; junior Psychology major fromPennsylvania,described itas “really messy”and also
noted that one of the daughters’ getting her hair done looked “really sad or bored.” This connects to the Culture of
Poverty theory, in which one the dimenisions of a cultureof poverty is disorganization.Jenny; junior Sociology
major from New Jersey, said that“the room is where they do everything.” She also determined that that the
teenage girl getting her hair done was a “teen mom living with her grandma and mother.” In the following
statement Jenny discusses housecrowding,socioeconomic status and education:
“And household crowding Umm. I actually did a presentation on this in Urban Sociology, just how
kinda the effects of... like how household crowding is related to income. And it is related to race, but these
are clearly white people who are living here and also it effects educational attainment but at the same
time I mean she looks like she's a teenager and she's a teenage mom so I mean there's not much you can...
I don't feel like education is a big necessity cause she's a teen mom, not saying education is not important
but... “
All three of male students stated that ther was either nothing wrong with the picture, itdidn’t look bad
or disturbingand itlooked peaceful. Additionally, Nigel;senior Sociology major fromBrooklyn,New York, stated
that “ this picturedoes not screampoverty to me.”
The next photo was from a Christian ScienceMonitor website, showcasinga black man foldinghis clothes
and getting ready for work. It was stated that the man in the photo used to be addicted to cocaineand heroine ,
livingin abandon buildingsin Baltimore.Eighteen months after being connected to a Catholic Charities through a
rehilibitation center,he became clean of drugs and is nowearning$13 per hour. Most of the students in the one
on one interview stated that the man in this photo was either going/comingback from work or l ookingfor a job.
Rebecca, the other junior Sociology major fromNew York, stated that “he doesn’t seem likehe is in poverty.”

46
Additionally,shedescribed himas “ a pretty wealthy guy, a successful black man.” Jenny even stated that the she
assumed sincehe was wearinga suite,that he worked within a business occupation. Murray,from
Minneappolis,Minneosota had thefollowingto say aboutthis the picture:
“I see someone persisting and trying to get out of whaterever they are in. I see a sense of worry
and urgency—not stopping, pushing themselves to do better and be better despite their circumstances.”
The third photo was from a USA Today article,discussingevent in New York City where participants
counted the number of individualswho arehomeless (Lennihan 2014).The photo consists of a man who is
homeless, restingunder a blanket ata subway station. All of the students in the one on one interviews said that
the picture was either “sad” and that the individual in thephoto was ashamed or embarrassed due to the fact that
they covered their facewith the blanket. Jacob,freshmen Applied Physicis/Environmental Engineeringmajor from
Jeffersonville,PA, related the photo to the Good Sammaritan story due to the fact that there was someone passing
the man by not noticinghis predicament.Additionally hestated that the man in the photo was “cut from the rest
of the world.” Murray,discussed how the man “seemed comfortable-acceptingwhere they areand not trying to
scramblebut hidingor not being noticed.”
The fourth photo was from articlefromThe Root; discussingportrayls of poor people as either Black or
Latino and examiningthe fact that most poor people in America are white. Within photo, a woman and her
daughter were countingout food stamps in New York city, with two Black women behind them either lookingaway
or at them (Godsil 2013).All of the students could not actually describewhat was goingon in the picturenor
where the placewhere the picturewas taken. Therefore, a short synopsis of the articlewas givingto some of the
students detailingthe topic of poor whites and the SNAP program. Jacob, described the photo in the following
way: “The two Black women are looking at the white woman and thinking “I need that more than she does. Maybe
she needs it and maybe those balck women don’t need.” Murray,even stated that it looked likethey “were going
camping” and that “they look good and there was a sense of order, togetherness.” Furthemore, Rebecca assumed
that “she's (older black woman) justlookingat her (white woman) likeshe's ashamed that the lady is you know
abusingthatsystem, knowing well that people actually need this assistance.“Jenny had the followingto say about
the photo upon hearingthe synoposis aboutthe topic:

47
“Ummm... that's honestly....it's a little bothering because like I said I understand that you know
you wanna teach your daughter like this is what you can buy and this is what we can't buy; but just
introducing her to Food Stamps at a young age kind of is teaching her that.. that's kinda the way to
survive. Like I mean what she could of done like maybe if there was a food or something that like her
daughter wanted that they couldn't afford it like we couldn't afford it, but at the same time I don't think
introducing her to Food Stamps at a young age is cool. Cause a lot of kids they see their parents struggle
and they always say like... but they usually see their parents struggle when their at their teenage years
and that's when they're like I don't wanna struggle like my mom, I want to provide for my mom.... but at
the same time she's introducing this to her at a young age so it's kinda like second hand nature for the girl
to you know fall back on Food Stamps.”
The fifth photo was from Huffington Post article,discussingtheminimum wage debate. The photo
consisted of low wage workers rallyingon Capitol Hill in Washington,urgingthe Congress to the raisethe minimum
wage (Wing2014). Only two of the seven students noticed that itwas mostly women of different races/ethnicities
pictured protesting. Murray mentioned that they were “assertingthemselves in their ask” and “ playingon the
notions of basic existenceand survivial.”Everyone pointed out that the photo was concerningraisingthe minimum
wage. Jacob stated that
“ You can’t judge anybody—there’s people in this crowd, who should very well be in higher
positions. They look like they are complaining. If you are complaining, get a better job, if you can’t get a
better job; than they should raise it (minimum wage.”
Aalyiah,junior Psychology major,and Rebecaa only focused on the factthat people; regardless od race,
came together to “stand for what they believe in.” Aalyiah described oneof the ladies holdingthe Paga Lo sign as
looking“angry.”
The sixth photo was from Slate article,which discussed how fewer the 4,000 Georgia residents receive
Welfaredespite the factthat poverty is continuously increasingin thestate (deMause 2012).The photo consista of
countless individualsstandingoutsideof a soup kitchen. All students concluded that they were waitingfor
something whether it was food, food stamps or shelter. Aaliyah was the only student to stated that she thougt of a
soup kitchen Rebecca concluded that they were either “waitingin lineto go apply for foodstamps, to get into a
homeless shelter or to go into the unemployment office.” Additionally,shestated that there were “ a lotof white
people.” Nigel, stated that itlook likethey were in New York City as well as that “ Itseems to be more people of
darker hues. White people are there, but they are not the majority.” Here is what Jacob had to say: It’s crazy.A lot
of people who needs to get into the shelter. Who knows what the story is behind each of the guys in the pic
standingin line.”Lastly,here’s what Jenny had to say about the photo regardingemployment:

Ama Yates-Ekong Senior Thesis (4)

Ama Yates-Ekong Senior Thesis (4)

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Ama Yates-Ekong Senior Thesis (4)

Similaire à Ama Yates-Ekong Senior Thesis (4) (7)

Ama Yates-Ekong Senior Thesis (4)