An Examination of Cross-Generational Town-Gown Conflict in
Frostburg, Maryland: How Contact Can Inform Meaningful
Conflict Intervention and
Transform Conflict
A Capstone Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science in Negotiation and Conflict Management at the
University of Baltimore
By
Baissou Sissoko
CNCM 798
Dr. Ivan Sascha Sheehan
Fall 2013
Abstract
An Examination of Cross-Generational Town-Gown Conflict in Frostburg,
Maryland: How Contact Can Inform Meaningful Conflict Intervention and Transform
Conflict, Baissou Sissoko, 2011.
This research was designed to examine Town-Gown conflict in Frostburg, MD.
From an intergenerational perspective, the study provides a better understanding of the
problems that ensue from Town-Gown Conflicts. Because of the demographic change in
the campus adjacent neighborhood generational divide in Frostburg continues to widen.
This paper demonstrates that circle process grounded in contact theory can resolve TownGown Conflicts. Participants were engaged in a structured dialogue with the assistance of
a neutral party (myself). Participants also received questionnaires and some underwent
short interviews. The results of the questionnaires combined with the interviews and my
personal observation provide a thorough understanding of the dynamics involved in
Frostburg Town-Gown Conflict. In fact, the results show that there is positive interaction
between FSU students and residents. However, it shows that these interactions are
temporal. Therefore, the study urges interaction between students and residents and
provides a conflict resolution model to promote understanding and relationship building
between generations.
ii
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................1
Background and Justification ...................................................................................3
Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………5
Chapter 2: Literature Review...........................................................................................13
Town-Gown Conflict .............................................................................................13
Intergenerational Conflict ......................................................................................20
Town-Gown Relationships in Frostburg, MD: From past to present……………28
Chapter 3: Methodology ...................................................................................................37
Participants .............................................................................................................37
Instrument ..............................................................................................................38
Procedure ...............................................................................................................38
Circle Process…………………………………………………………………….41
Chapter 4: Results .............................................................................................................46
Questionnaire Group I............................................................................................46
Questionnaire Group II (Focus Group) ..................................................................46
Post experiment Questionnaire ..............................................................................48
Chapter 5: Discussion ........................................................................................................50
Conclusion and Call for Action .............................................................................53
Limitations and Further Study ...............................................................................54
References……………………………………………………………………………….55
Appendices
A Questionnaire I................................................................................................59
B Questionnaire II .............................................................................................60
Tables
1
2
3
Participants’ Identification Group 1 ...............................................................46
Participants’ Identification Group 2…………………………………………47
Past Interactions that Shaped Negative Perception of Other………………..47
iii
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Town-Gown relations between students and community residents in proximity to
the university are complex and increasingly important. Often, these relationships are
characterized by tensions between the two communities over issues such as student offcampus housing, complaints from residents about student behavior, traffic and lifestyle
issues. Like many college towns, Frostburg residents and students experience multitudes
of conflicts. Students’ alcohol consumption and the related behavior with ensuing
consequences, the off-campus shooting involving college students, the noises from
parties and student housing issues are among the most superficial conflicts in Frostburg.
However, other issues such as race and gender discrimination exist in spite of the diverse
student body at Frostburg State University (FSU).
Frostburg State University continues to receive a growing number of freshmen
and transfer students after an effort to increase its enrollment. In 2013, the University
reported an increase of 9.5 % transfer freshmen, thus, 897 students. This reveals a relative
increase compared to 2012 with 819 students. However, the increasing change in student
demographics and their prevalence in the community adjacent to the university rather
than other part of the town indicate a generational divide or gap between the locals and
yearlong residents (Powell, 2013).
Powell (2013) “the city of Frostburg zoning decision of the neighborhood
adjacent to the university has resulted in a housing ratio of 80% renter occupied versus
20% owner occupied, with renters being mostly students”. This disparity in the housing
ratio translates into the gap between the young transient student occupants and their older
2
yearlong residents and property owners. Powell (2013, p.26) noticed that in Frostburg
“because the single-family homes are owned mostly by older adults “aging in place”
(Black, 2008 as cited in Powell, 2013, p.26) and the houses in multiple occupancies are
rented by young transient college students in their 20’s, the net result is a generational
divide”. Accordingly, neighborhoods in close proximity to FSU have undergone
“studentification” or have become “student-ghetto” (Smith, 2008; Gumprecht, 2006, as
cited in Powell, 2013). Consequently, the lack of interaction causes parties to alienate,
self-absorb, and or marginalize.
Additionally, based on my personal observation, the presence of participants
characterized by young transient students and older yearlong local adults during the
“Dialogue Series: Sustaining Campus and Community in Frostburg” is a clear indication
of the ideological and generational divide in Frostburg. Over the last few months, under a
MACRO (Maryland Mediation and Conflict Resolution Offices) internship, I observed
and interacted with Frostburg students and community residents in the Sustaining
Campus and Community Dialogue Series. My experience with Frostburg residents and
Frostburg State University (FSU) students over this period of time was quite
informational. There is a sense of dissatisfaction and reticence among both young
transient FSU students and the local residents. As one older resident put it “they are just a
bunch of kids who think they know it all. They have no morals.” Moreover, some
students, when speaking about local neighbors, believe that one should be conscious of
the decision to live near a campus. For these students, college life is not only about
studying, but also partying, and drinking.
3
Therefore, as a small college town, Frostburg (MD) provides an interesting case
with which to examine the complex dynamics between students and community residents
living in proximity to the university and the resulting conflicts that ensue when these
relationships deteriorate. This paper intends to examine the interaction between young
transient college students and the yearlong locals in order to promote inclusion,
understanding and trusting relationship among different generations.
Background and Justification
There is a large body of literature that studies Town-Gown and generational
conflicts. Understanding college town conflicts and relationships requires an
understanding of the environment it occurs. “The health of a community is assessed by
how well the social institutions function, the availability of technical expertise and the
strength of social network within the University town’s existing structure and external
social structure” (Miller, Demond & Rivera, 2006). When community institutions and
universities do not interact, the policies shaped around the residents’ needs might not be
inclusive of the students’ needs.
Moreover, the development of both the community and university is determined
by their degree of collaboration. Daley (2009) examined the University of WisconsinMadison partnership with the local communities. According to Daley, the partnerships
benefited both local business owners and the university. While community business
leaders spoke to students on campus through business leadership activities, the students
explored innovative options to advance the existing businesses.
Some studies have attributed the source of generational conflicts to social
grievances. In fact, generational conflicts stem from unmet needs, rights and values. For
4
Rotting (2007) the parties proposed solutions are based on their different reasoning. He
claims that “the ambivalent relations between the generational units are viewed with the
understanding that status, roles, and norms of any groups are relative in time and space”
(Rotting, 2007, p.61).
However, even though other studies have looked at town/gown relationship from
sexual orientation and gender perspectives, one striking aspect is the scarcity of studies
from a cross-generational perspective. This scarcity of information on cross-generational
effects on town-gown conflicts is indeed regrettable as it is necessary to understand and
address the issues of communities dominated by transient young students and their local
residents. This generational divide affects parties, the youth and the elderly residents. In
fact, residents in Frostburg continue to report complaints of noise and damages to
properties. Likewise, FSU students complain about the rigid enforcement efforts against
them while expressing a need for attention to their housing concerns. Moreover, alcohol
outlet owners profit from the prevalence of students in the neighborhood, as students are
more likely to engage in binge drinking when special promotions and sales are available
and more attractive.
This transformational mixed method study (combining qualitative and
quantitative data) makes use of questionnaires and interviews to demonstrate the
existence of almost no interaction between students and residents. The participants’
stories, and experiences during a circle process will provide an understanding of studentsresidents interaction. It will be grounded in the contact theory, which proposes certain
conditions for contact to reduce intergroup prejudices. The study will propose a
generational perspective and recommend the use of circle process as a conflict resolution
5
model appropriate to manage intergenerational Town-Gown conflicts. Hopefully, the
results will inform practitioners and local authorities in their effort to understand and
address Town/Gown conflict dynamics from a cross-generational standpoint in Frostburg.
Theoretical Framework
As noted above, an examination of Town-Gown conflicts requires an
understanding of the interactions between transient young students and locals that ensue
from their relationships. When people interact, the likelihood of conflict decreases. This
assumption is rooted in the contact theory. Known for its use in intergroup conflict
situations, contact theory (Allport, 1954) assumes that under certain optimal conditions,
contact reduces prejudice. When parties have equal status, share a common goal, aspire
for cooperation, and have support from authorities, their contact with one another leads to
understanding and reduces prejudice (Allport, 1954). Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis
has been used in studies within the context of race, gender and sex and religion.
Contact Theory
One of the preceding researches on optimal conditions was the study of Brophy
(1946 as cited in Pettigrew, 1998) who claimed that after desegregation of the Merchant
Marines in 1948, there was interdependence on marine ships and marine union. He
argues that whites and blacks on the ships developed more positive attitudes as they
travelled together. Later, this work served as an inspiration and platform for Allport’s
contact theory.
Gordon Allport’s book “The Nature of Prejudice” received popular attention
partly due to the contact hypothesis. The contact theory (Allport, 1954) is based on the
assumption that when we assemble people under certain optimal conditions regardless of
6
their race, religion, or national origin, we can diminish stereotypes and develop friendly
attitudes. Indeed, for people to understand one another’s perspective, they have to engage
in interaction. While he warns that “the case is not simple, Allport (1954) proposes four
specific conditions that must be present for contact to reduce prejudices:
1- Equal Status: The groups in conflict are regarded as equal in status
2- Common Goals: The groups must share a super-ordinate goal.
3-
Intergroup
Cooperation:
Attaining
common goals
must
be an
interdependent effort.
4- Support of Authorities/Laws/Customs
In a 1955 article, Wilner et al. pointed out “favorable racial attitudes developed
among only one third of the white tenants who just had casual greetings with their black
neighbors. But half who entered into conversations and three fourths who had multiple
interactions developed positive racial views”.
Unlike Allport, Hewstone (2003) suggests five optimal conditions for contact to
reduce prejudices and qualifies them as independent variables:
1-
Where group members have equal status
2-
Where stereotypes can be disconfirmed
3-
Where there is intergroup cooperation
4-
Where participants can get to know each other properly
5-
Where wider social norms support equality
When groups engage in contact under these conditions, anxiety decreases. For the
author, when contact occurs, out-group attitudes in addition to the perceived variability of
out-group (homogeneity), forgiveness for past deeds and trust change (Hewstone, 2003).
7
Moreover, Hewstone (2003) claims that “both directions of causality are plausible”. That
is, just like contact leads to less anxiety, decreased anxiety may lead to contact. “For
intergroup contact to increase prejudice, there must be directly negative factors operating
in the situation (high anxiety and threat)” (Hewstone, 2003).
Additionally, Hewstone refers to Pettigrew’s (1998) longitudinal model to argue
that members should be made aware of their respective group so they can maintain group
salience. He assumes that by doing so, members categorize, which in turn leads to
generalization. As a matter of fact, Hewstone (2003) attributes decreased anxiety and
more positive orientations towards the out-group to the combination of positive contact
with individuals from the out-group and the salience during contact of group
membership.
With regard to community and university context, Hewstone (2003) reports that
contact is most effective at an early stage of education. He provides Nick Ross’s (a
journalist) statement that “many of his protestant friends had not met a catholic, and most
catholic had scarcely met a protestant until they got to university”. That is when groups
are given the opportunity to engage in contact when they first arrive at the university,
anxiety and prejudice decrease.
Even though Hewstone (2003) warns not to have unrealistic expectations of what
contact can achieve, he still confirms that “contact works by reducing intergroup anxiety.
According to Hewstone (2003) contact hypothesis is applicable to different situations
from ethnic and racial groups to attitudes towards the elderly, gay, psychiatric patients
and children with disabilities. For him, limited contact with members of different groups
of majorities and minorities promotes the development of stereotypic perpetuations
8
(Hewstone, 2003).
Several others studies used and supported Allport’s contact theory. Binder,
Brown, Zagefka, Funke, Kessler, Mummendey, Maquil, Demoulin & Leyens (2009) used
contact theory in a longitudinal study involving three European countries. They describe
contact effect as the direction from contact to prejudice. According to the authors, a
prejudice is a “negative belief, emotional or behavioral intentions regarding another
person based on that person’s membership in a social group”. They claim that when
people have prejudices against other groups, they have a tendency to avoid contact with
those groups. However, they argue that in situations where contact is compulsory, parties
keep their interactions superficial. Inefficacy of contact between groups is somehow due
to the parties’ prior prejudices. As the authors pointed “if prejudiced people can’t avoid
contact altogether, then they keep it at a rather superficial level, thus rendering it
ineffective” (Binder et al., 2009, p.844).
Further, Tropp (as cited in Binder et al., 2009) describes intergroup anxiety as a
variable that refers to “feelings of apprehension and awkwardness when engaged in a
contact situation with out-group members due to expected rejection, embarrassment, or
misunderstanding” (Stephan & Stephan, 1985 as cited y Binder et al., 2009). Indeed, in
situations of positive contact, intergroup anxiety decreases, and when this occurs, it
reduces prejudices.
However, contact theory has received several criticisms. Smith (1995, as cited in
Pettigrew 1994, as cited in Pettigrew, 1998) confirmed that “contacts meeting Allport’s
conditions decreased prejudice among black and white neighbors in spite of group
differences in contact effect”. Likewise, Pettigrew (1998) opposes the validity of the
9
hypothesis. He claims that there is no specification on how the contact effects generalize
to other situations or other groups. In fact, Pettigrew identified four problems with
Allport’s contact theory: the causal sequence, independent variable specification,
unspecified process of change and the generalization of effects problems. However, he
also provides suggestions on how to overcome them.
In causal sequential problems there is the assumption that when people have
prejudice prior to contact, rather than reducing the prejudice the process may increase it.
As Pettigrew points out “Selection bias limits the interpretation of many cross-sectional
studies of contact and instead of optimal contact reducing prejudice the opposite causal
sequence could be operating”(Pettigrew, 1998, p. 69). Subsequently, prejudiced people
may avoid contact with others.
As for the independent variable specification problems, Pettigrew (1998) believes
that not all the emerged optimal conditions may be essential as “they relate to the
underlying mediating effects”. As mentioned earlier, Hewstone (2003) exposed 5
conditions. Similarly, Ben Ari & Amir (1986 as cited in Pettigrew,1998) claimed that
groups’ initial contacts should not be too negative. According to Wagner & Machleit
(1986, as cited in Pettigrew, 1998) for contact to produce positive effects, there has to be
a common language, a voluntary contact, and a prosperous economy.
While allport (1954) provides a clear prediction on when contact reduces
prejudice, he fails to demonstrate how and why the change occurs. Pettigrew (1998)
refers to this failure as the “unspecified process of change problem.
Lastly, the author claims that because of the hypothesis’ failure to generalize the
effects, intergroup contact is less likely to have a broader and lasting consequence. This
10
problem is referred to as generalization of effects.
To overcome these problems, Pettigrew (1998) proposes that one finds an
intergroup situation where parties have little choice about participation. Moreover, he
urges to “compare reciprocal paths with cross-sectional data”. Finally, he encourages the
use of longitudinal design.
Additionally, Pettigrew (1998) identified 4 processes of change through contact:
1-Learning about the out-group: when we interact with others, we learn new information.
As this process decreases prejudices, it improves attitudes (Pettigrew, 1998).
Consequently, Gardiner (1972 as cited in Pettigrew, 1998) states “learning about an outgroup can improve intergroup attitudes and stereotypes”. Thus, “ignorance promotes
prejudice” (Stephan & Stephan, 1984 as cited in Pettigrew, 1998).
2-Behavioral change: this implies that change in behavior may lead to change in attitude.
One group’s acceptance of the other group’s inclusion may indeed lead to change in
attitudes.
3-Generating effective ties: In situations of positive contacts, positive emotions evolve.
According to Pettigrew (1998) these positive emotions mediate intergroup contacts.
4-In-group reappraisal: When groups interact, they provide insight to one another. “less
in-group contact leads to less out-group biases” (Wilder and Thompson, 1980 as cited in
Pettigrew).
Allport’s contact still remains under rigorous examination. A recent research by
Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner & Christ (2011) analyzed multiple studies to provide an
overview of the advances in intergroup contact. They note that even when Allport’s
conditions are not met, greater contact leads to decrease of prejudices. Pettigrew et al.
11
(2011) confirm that optimal contact conditions are not essential to reduce prejudice since
they only facilitate.
Another condition or (for better term here) mediator that Pettigrew et al. (2011)
describes is the cross-group friendship. This implies that friendship embeds cooperation,
common goal, and equal status (Allport’s conditions). It also means that “friendship”
facilitates disclosure, an important mediator for positive intergroup contact. The existence
of friendship between in-group and out-group members fosters forgiveness and trust.
When intergroup contact is not superficial, prejudice is more likely to decrease.
Furthermore, Pettigrew et al. (2011) raised the problem of why and how contact
effect occurs. They describes three variables as “most studied mediators: increased
knowledge, anxiety reduction, and enhanced empathy. However, this is embedded in
Allport’s idea that greater knowledge of the out-group decreases prejudice. Additionally,
they distinguished two types of mediators: positive predictors of prejudice that contact
reduces, and negative predictors of prejudice that contact increases. Therefore, positive
contact reduces anxiety, which in turn reduces prejudice. Likewise, positive contact
increases empathy (Pettigrew et al., 2011).
Finally, Pettigrew et al., (2011) point out the importance of indirect contact
effects. Even though direct contact is assumed to be more effective than indirect contact,
this latter still has positive effects. As an illustration, in-group members are more likely to
normalize the out-group when they see their friends interact with members of that outgroup (Pettigrew et al. 2011).
Even though Allport’s (1954) contact theory received many criticisms, the
tremendous support from researchers provides optimism about its use. In light of their
12
recent study, Pettigrew et al. (2011) argue that these critics of intergroup theory have two
broad perspectives. First, since many of them are from countries that have undergone
ethnic conflicts (Northern Ireland, South Africa, etc.); they perceive separation as an
effective way of reducing conflict. Specific examples include West Bank Wall, Green
Line of Cyprus, and U.S Mexican border (Pettigrew et al. 2011). Second, other critics
perceive contact as a dangerous process. They assume that when contact reduces
perception of less powerful individuals, it deter their willingness to engage with outgroup. Therefore, as Pettigrew et al. (2011) “some critics of intergroup contact seem not
to understand the theory”. Forbes (1997, 2004 as cited in Pettigrew et al.) explains that
“intergroup contact often decreases prejudice at the individual level, not group level. For
the purpose of the current study, contact will be perceived as unifying rather than
separating.
13
Chapter 2: Literature review
Town-gown
Studies on “town” and “gown” are multiple and diverse in their approaches and
perceptions. Understanding the relational dynamics between town and gown will require
revisiting the historical context. The assumption is that one needs to understand towngown past relationship in order to develop a new one. Quite similarly, Demond (2011,
Mayfield, 2001 as cited in Powell 2013) observes town-gown conflicts from a sociohistorical perspective and concludes that understanding the historical interaction between
their social infrastructures is a key factor to addressing social conflicts. When town-gown
social institutions function well and there exists strong interaction between the social
networks, less tension occurs. Moreover, Kenyon (1997, p.287 as cited by Demond,
2011) warns about the risk of not altering to the impact of the university as it has social
effects on the community. In instances of change at the university, the community has to
adapt. Likewise, when the community is undergoing social change, the university is to
adapt to that change. Town-gown conflict is social and interaction among their social
infrastructures should be encouraged. FSU students and the local residents share a
common history that goes back to the segregation era. The present relationship between
the students and residents in Frostburg may be understood by exploring the dynamics of
their past interactions.
Similarly, Shannon (1998) examines the interactions between students and the
local residents. She notes the absence of interactions between the two groups and
attributes it to the independent state of students’ vis-à-vis the locals. “Students are an
14
independent lot. They are self-sufficient and generally do not interact with their
neighbors. They live on streets that house 80% of their own kind. They eat at their own
café and socialize in their own pub” (Shannon, 1998). Furthermore, she argues that the
students are more marginalized than ever as tensions between them and the locals
increased. A student herself, she claims “ I knew locals considered us aloof or even
arrogant Shannon (1998). Ironically, Catlin’s (1998) 80% ratio applies to Frostburg
where students occupy 80% of the houses adjacent to FSU.
Unlike Shannon (1998), Brower and Carroll (2007) examined a 2003 police report
to address consequences of student drinking. They argue that high risk or binge drinking
represents a negative factor in Town-Gown communities. Binge drinking is defined by
the NIAAA (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism) as “5 or more drinks
for men and 4 or more for women within a period of two hours” (Brower & Carroll,
2007, P.267). Similarly, Lipton (2002, as cited in Brower & Carroll, 2007, p.267) claims
“ bar density is strongly associated with greater rates of assaults whereas lower rate of
violence is associated with restaurant density”. Noise complaints peaked when long-term
residents were ready to go to bed around 11-12 at night, and vandalism peaked late
morning and mid-day. The increasing number of alcohol outlets causes all these negative
impacts on the community.
Likewise, Kuo, Wechsler, Greenberg, and Lee (2003) found a correlation between
consumption and the mount of alcohol outlets in college towns. They argue that the more
alcohol outlets there are, the more likely students are to engage in binge drinking.
Moreover, this increase in alcohol consumption by students, according to Kuo et al.
(2003) is associated with the low price and special promotions and advertisements that
15
are attractive to students. For the author, when alcohol price is lowered through
promotions, it makes easy alcohol accessibility to college students. Shannon (1998)
believes that when a community is labeled “student” market, it results in marginalization
of locals. In such markets, only those who belong to the student group receive special
promotions. Several national studies conducted on student drinking found that 2/5 of
college students engage in binge drinking (Kuo et Al. 2003, p.204-211). They suggest
that alcohol consumption decreases when the prices increase. Similarly, as the price of
alcohol decreases, its consumption increases. Frostburg conflict and the recent shooting
(addressed later in the paper) are somehow alcohol related.
The work of Leinfelt and Thompson (2004) focuses on town-gown relationship
from an intergroup perspective and the effect of alcohol on those groups. The findings
suggest that there are more male students arrested for binge drinking than female
students. Moreover, they argue that arrests among freshmen and sophomores are more
prevalent. In fact, 50% of student arrests in the city are freshmen and sophomore
(Leinfelt &Tompson, 2004, p.64). The authors explain this increase in the number of
freshmen and sophomore as the effect of students being distanced from parental control.
As explained earlier, FSU continues to receive an increasing number of freshmen and
transfer students. Understanding the diverse student behavior is paramount.
Several other researches claim that among college student population, students
who are involved in “Greek” life consume more alcohol and do so more frequently than
those who are not involved in “Greek” life. Greek life as define by Leinfelt and
Thompson (2004) is the involvement in any extra-curricular social organizations for
students such as fraternities and sororities. However, Cashin et al. (1998 as cited in
16
Leinfelt & Thompson, 2003, p.64) attribute this behavior to the Greek life philosophy
about alcohol. According to the authors, “students affiliated with Greek organizations
considered alcohol as a catalyst for friendship, social activity and sexuality to a greater
extent than students not involved in Greek lifestyle.” While Baer (2002, as cited in
Leinfelt & Thompson, p.64) found that both male and female athletes drink more alcohol
than non-athletes, Presley et al. (2002 as cited in Leinfelt & Thompson, p.64) claim that
student leaders and athletes consume more alcohol than other students not in leadership
positions (Leinfelt &Thompson, 2004, p.64). Understanding the effect of alcohol and its
related behavior from both the students and locals’ perspective will reduce the property
damages and noise complaints that ensue from alcohol consumption. Greek activities and
organizations at FSU are part of the institutional culture. Understanding their
philosophical worldview may help inform conflict interveners in their effort to create a
more cohesive community.
Likewise, Harper (2005) tackles town-gown conflict from a cultural perspective.
His study revolves around the cultural divide between town and gown in relations to
community businesses. According to him, universities and businesses have two different
cultural missions. While the businesses look for profit, maximize shareholders and
meeting customers’ needs, the university focuses on logic, evidence and the quest for
truth. He argues that while town focuses on the day-to-day activity, the university/gown
emphasizes the generation of innovative ideas. Heaney (2013, p.35-36) supports this idea
when he claims, “colleges and universities have their own agendas and interests that at
times diverge and at times come together with the agenda of the community”. Thus, this
cultural divide, may enlarge the gap between town and gown. In Frostburg, the
17
continuous sales and alcohol promotions for students and increasing rental housing price
may be harmful to the image of the university and students; yet, they fulfill the interest of
business owners, landlords and property managers.
Furthermore, Vandergrift, Locks Hiss & Lahr (2012) examine town-gown
relationships from a socio-economic standpoint. They analyze the effect of college on
housing prices and the tax base. In fact, they attribute the source of economic effect of the
university on housing to the degree to which a college is residential. According to their
reports, houses adjacent to universities are 2.5 % higher than the houses located at a
distance from the universities. They report that the value of the residential properties
increases with the presence of a university in the vicinity of the community. Because
students want to live close to the university, competition over housing increases.
Additionally, the college due to the many amenities causes the increase in the housing
price. “In essence, through higher demand for its unique amenities, a campus itself may
cause house prices to be higher” Vandergrift et Al. (2012, p.308).
O’Mara (2012) perceives universities as economic engines for the host
community. However, she claims that the post World War II has caused a switch in
universities’ missions. In fact, she attributes this change to economic needs of the
universities to conduct research in an era dominated by global politics in order to
distinguish themselves as world-class institutions. Subsequently, for lack of sponsors on
local issues, universities turned to global ones to secure funding. “As universities strove
to be world-class, local matters seemed increasingly parochial, academically marginal
and less worthy of reward and promotion” O’Mara (2012, p.241). The author warns that
Town-Gown relationship would suffer with the continuous expansion of universities
18
along with tax exemption, thus creating tensions between host communities and
universities. Klotsche (1966, as cited in O’Mara, 2012) stated “the city would not be able
to provide services to its citizens if the uncontrolled expansion of tax exempt institutions
was to continue.” Again, the 80% vs. 20% ratio in Frostburg suffice to demonstrate that
the residential area near the university is predominantly student occupied and the rental
cost relatively high.
In addition, town-gown conflicts have been addressed from a racial perspective.
Blumenthal (2007 as cited in Gallo, 2009) describes town-gown relationship as
“primarily predominantly white”. As such, communities with minority prevalence are
more likely to undergo “ghettoization”. Ghettoization is the concentration of poverty and
lack of resources in a community by means of isolating minority poor people from the
wealthy majority (Catalese, 2007). Town-gown relationship with regard to race is
characterized by a lack of trust. In fact, the expansion of universities has caused
minorities to move from the vicinities of the universities either willingly or forcefully.
This phenomenon, Baker (2003as cited in Gallo, 2009) refers to as gentrification. Heaney
(2013) uses the university of Chicago 1950’s expansion, which resulted in the destruction
of 20% of the buildings mostly for low income African Americans to illustrate
gentrification. “The plan resulted (speaking of gentrification) in the relocation of 20,000
residents mostly low income African Americans” (Hirsch 1998 as cite by Heaney, 2013,
p.38).
In “Being Black in Brownsville” Bowman (2012) argues that African American
communities living adjacent to the university of Frostburg were forced to sell their
houses and relocate due to the expansion of the educational institution. The underlying
19
assumption is that when people leave a community as a result of gentrification, the
consequence is ghettoization. Thus, the community resources dwindle and those who are
left behind suffer (Gallo & Davis, 2009). FSU is built on the ruins of populations who
were relocated during the expansion of the university. They were predominantly African
Americans. Nowadays, a new population is taking over: the young transient college
students.
Davies (2007) describes town-gown relationship as one characterized by
skepticism. She provides the example of Hollywood Springdale in Memphis. For Davies,
local community members perceived the university’s engagement in community cleaning
as a test by the institution. However, she attributes the residents’ beliefs to their
perceptions of the university’s functions in the community. She argues “ most of the
residents have been taught they will change it for us”. Therefore, to counter the negative
town-gown interactions, the author suggests a focus on human aspects and overcoming
skepticism as they lead to a more community involvement and cohesiveness. The tension
between students and residents in Frostburg is characterized by a lack of trust.
Consequently, the generational gap continues to widen.
Finally, Heiselt (2011) examined college towns’ first year students and their lack
of knowledge when they first enter college. She concluded that students learn about their
off-campus community when they are given the opportunity for involvement. Austin
(1984 as cited by Heiselt, 2011, p.297) defines student involvement as “the amount of
physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience”.
Heiselt (2011) reveals that when students understand local cultures, it facilitates their
transition from students to student-residents. She suggests the creation of first year
20
courses with a focus on local culture, or activities that give students a sense of
community and help them feel connected to their city and university. While there are
efforts to encourage FSU students’ engagement in the community, very few students
express their dedication to community events.
Intergenerational conflict
Even though there has been considerable attention driven toward intergroup
conflicts, intergenerational conflicts differ from the other types of group conflicts.
Sudheimer (2009) defines generation as a group of people progressing through time
together. For her, each generational group shares similar values, motivation and historical
life experience. She provides a chronological distinction between four generations: the
veteran generation (1922-1943), the baby boomers generation (1943-1960), the
generation X (1960-1980) and the generation Y or Millennials (1980-2000) (Swearringen
& Liberman, 2004). Moreover, Sudheimer (2009, p.57) claims that “some individuals on
the outskirt of one generation’s timespan can be considered part of the previous or next
generation”. That is, of all types of groups, only generational group allows for dual
membership.
Age groups are unique from other groups as age influences all forms of bias. “The
temporary nature of age group memberships produces different patterns of bias than are
observed in groups with permanent memberships” (Chasteen 2005, p.134). In her work
Chasteen (2005) explores the degree of group identification and threats to group status in
both younger and older adults’ evaluation of their in-group and out-group. For her, the
absence of similarities between younger and older adults is the basis for the youth to
exhibit more biases and to distance themselves from the older generation. However, the
21
findings of her study reveal that older adults exhibit fewer biases toward the youth. Based
on social identity theory, she argues that the older generation’s degree of bias is due to
their familiarity with the younger generation. The assumption is that since older adults
were once young, they are more familiar with younger. Thus, they will exhibit less bias.
“Greater familiarity with the out-group due to former membership of that group suggests
that older adults have greater empathy and understanding toward young adults”
(Chasteen, 2005, p.125). She also claims that older adults’ likelihood to have greater
contacts with the out-group through their contact with younger family members increases
their empathy toward the younger generation. For Galinksy & Moskowitz, (2000 as cited
in Chasteen, 2005) empathy leads to less bias toward out-group. However, due to the
younger adults’ lack of familiarity with the older adults and misunderstanding of the outgroup, they are more likely to behave in biased manners. This is because the younger
adults have never been member of the out-group Chasteen, (2005).
Even though younger adults are future older adults, Chasteen (2005, p. 134)
believes that “future age group membership does not help reduce intergroup bias in
young adults”. According to social identity theory prejudice derives from threats to
people’s social identity (in-group identity). When one’s in-group identity is threatened,
s/he is more likely to exhibit prejudice in order to maintain or repair his/her group selfesteem. It assumes that people’s perception of the self depends on their perceptions of
their group (Chasteen, 2005). “Part of people’s self concept is based on their group
membership” (Tajfel, 1981 as cited in Chasteen, 2005, p. 123-124).
Moreover, Chasteen (2005, p. 124) defines identification as attachment to one’s
in-group. It “influences the individual’s tendency to behave in a biased manner”. The
22
implication for age groups in Chasten’s (2005) work takes into account other types of
groups. Her findings suggest that members of an age group especially those who identify
strongly with their group “would exhibit biases of prejudices observed in other groups”.
Among these biases are derogating to out-group, distancing oneself from the other group,
evaluating more positively one’s own group (which is referred to as in-group favoritism
(Branscombe & Wann, 1999, as cited in Chasteen, 2005)), viewing one’s own group as
more unified and cohesive (in-group homogeneity (Doosje, Ellemers & Spears, 1995 as
cited in Chasteen, 2005), and perceiving one’s self as typical of one’s own group (selfstereotyping (Spears, Doosje & Ellemers, 1997, as cited in Chasteen, 2005). With regard
to status, the author claims that older adults have a lower status compared to other groups
in the society due to the perceived incompetence about them. Subsequently, as they get
stigmatized, they engage in self-protective behavior (in-group favoritism, selfstereotyping and perceived in-group homogeneity). Chasteen, (2005) concludes that
because of the temporal nature of age group membership, its patterns and dynamics are
different than those of other groups. Rather than looking at interaction, she focuses on
age as a moderator.
Furthermore, Chasteen (2000) explains the “impression formation model (Fiske &
Neuberg, 1990, as cited in Chasteen, 2000, p. 147) with regard to age and its related
attitudes. This model assumes that we form impression of others through either the
category-based process or the person-based process. Thus, when we encounter others we
activate our social categories to see if they fit a particular category. If they do not fit in a
category, we have a tendency to attempt to re-categorize or move to person-based
process. Subsequently, the author argue that if an elderly fits the category of older adults,
23
attitudes towards older adults then may be transferred to that elderly target person
(Chasteen, 2000). Whether generalization is plausible in the context of Frostburg remains
an open question.
Gozzi’s (2012) “Two Generation Gaps” is an illustration of how unique
dynamics of age membership can be and how the individual can be simultaneously a
member of two different generations. He claims that back in the 1960’s and 1970’s there
existed an intergenerational difference of opinion over the Vietnam War. For him, “most
adults who fought in WWII were in favor of US military actions in Vietnam, while young
adults in their late 20’s were being told to go to war. Likewise, he argues that smoking
marijuana and rock and roll music also represented intergeneration differences of
opinions. While he belonged to the younger generation then, he finds himself “on the
other side of the generation gap” today with the evolution of technology. “This time I am
on the other side of the generation gap”, “I am an old man on the other side of the
generation gap” Gozzi (2012). Many yearlong residents of Frostburg have been FSU
students. Exploring their life experience when they were on the other side of the
generation gap would help the younger generation comprehend some of their concerns.
Grenier, (2007) defines generation as a “cohort of persons passing through time
who come to share a common habit and lifestyle”. Grenier (2007) analyses generational
boundaries, and refers to Mannheim (1954, as cited in Grenier, 2007) distinction between
generational location (birth cohort), actual generation (individuals exposed to the same
concrete historical experiences) and generational unit (individuals within the same
generation who interpret their similar experiences in different ways). Mannheim (1954,
as cited in Grenier, 2007) assumes that individuals may have different interpretations of
24
the same event or time even if they all experienced the same historical time/event. They
can form bonds either within or across the generations. Thus, generation boundaries may
be a source of conflict or an opportunity for collaboration between generations.
Moreover, people use age and generation boundaries to interpret experience.
Grenier (2007) suggests that age and generational boundaries should not be fixed position
within research and policy practices. Rather, she urges to go beyond age and generational
boundaries if we aspire for connection, learning, awareness, and reflection with others.
When participants communicate, the likelihood for expected animosity of crossing age
and generational boundaries lessens (Grenier, 2007). Circle process allows for the
generational exchange beyond these boundaries.
Turner (1998) distinguishes between individuals aging as both a biological and
social process, and generational conflict as an aspect of social struggle over limited
resources. The implication for Turner’s idea is that one cannot isolate history in his/her
attempt to analyze generational conflicts. Turner (1998, p.300) assumes that “aging is not
an immutable process…the person in the older age strata today are very different than
those from the past or future”. Further, he claims that as a cohort, and as a result of
historical accident and the exclusionary practice of social closure, a generation has a
strategic temporal location as a source of resources. For him, only membership of a
generational unit grants people access to those resources. Thus, generation becomes a
strategy used to control resources. As the sociologist Bourdieu (1993, as cited by Turner,
1998, p.302) puts it, generation is the result of conflict over cultural and economic
resources. He claims that while the older generation attempts to marginalize younger
generation by creation of cultural hurdles, this latter accuses the former of cultural
25
obsolescence. The special treatment in the community for either age group in the context
of Frostburg may indeed be perceived as an attempt to control resources.
Additionally, Turner (1998) mentions a shift in generational knowledge. He
argues that before industrial revolution, wisdom was attributed to the elderly. However,
with technological changes in this information age, wisdom seems to be more related to
youth. Similarly, in China, Sun & Wang (2010) examines the impacts of social change on
people in China. Their study reveals that in China, due to social transformation, and
technological evolution, the younger generation has grown more secular. They are more
likely to focus on self-development than social contribution, and is less likely to follow
collective traditional values. Moreover, they found that younger adults are more likely to
live according to their choice of lifestyle regardless of collective perception of that style.
In fact, Inglehart and Baker (2000, as cited in Sun & Wang, 2010, p.65) support this idea
when they argue that industrialization promotes a shift from traditional to secular rational
values. Feuer (1969 as cited in Sun & Wang, 2010, p.66) follows that there is an
increasing implication of generational difference between child and adult statuses in the
era of industrialization. Therefore, Sun & Wang (2010, p.66) “when social change is
rapid, traditional ways may disappear or become outdated”. To illustrate this point they
make reference to the development of a youth culture characterized by the non-respect of
the aged and the perception of old age as a dreadful condition. Different generations have
different values or principles deemed good. Subsequently, Sun & Wang (2010) suggest
the use of two approaches to understand generational values: the life-course approach and
the generation approach.
26
While the life-course approach assumes that as we grow older we undergo certain
qualitative changes in psychology, cognitive functioning, emotional patterns and needs,
the generation approach suggests that when people experience the same historical time,
they become aware of its uniqueness and develop similar social and political values.
However, they claim that the changes in the life-course approach occur over one’s
lifespan. Moreover, the changes are sequential, irreversible and universal. To illustrate on
the generation approach, they use Schusky & Culbert’ (1978 as cited in Sun & Wang,
2010, p.67) prophecy that “today’s (1978) newborn will probably learn more about
technology than their grand parents learned in a lifetime”. Indeed, this is a characteristic
of the modern society where everyday technological innovation presents a challenge for
the older generation.
In conclusion, there exists a large body of research on Town-Gown conflict. In
fact, many of these studies have addressed town-gown conflicts from socio-historical,
socio-economic or socio-cultural perspectives. While some authors provided the need to
revisit town-gown past relationships to improve the present ones, others have looked at
issues such as alcohol consumption, student/landlord issues as well as power dynamics
between town and gown resulting in “ghettoization”.
Similarly, the studies on intergenerational conflict are various. Many research
have focused on intergenerational interaction and provided a distinction between age
groups and other forms of social groups. Age groups are unique due to the temporary
nature of their membership. Others have looked at generational boundaries and suggested
that these boundaries be perceived as an opportunity to create collaboration. Finally,
27
recent studies on intergenerational conflicts have looked at the relationship between
technological advancement and generational divide.
Both bodies of literature are helpful but insufficient to explain the generational
divide between young transient college students (off-campus and off-campus) and their
older yearlong locals in the neighborhood adjacent to the university of Frostburg.
Blauth, McDaniel, Perrin, and Perrin (2011) provide a description of traits and
values of different generations. Members of the traditional generation (1925-1954) are
assumed to be conservative and rule-oriented. They prefer hierarchical top-down
management and are loyal and self-sacrificing. Moreover, they are believed to be
patriotic and family oriented. Not only do they have respect for authority, they tend to
“do what is right”.
As for the baby boomers (1946-1960), they are believed to be loyal to
organizations. In addition to that, they are idealistic, optimistic and driven. They are also
perceived as diligent workers with a focus on consensus building. While they are ruthless
in pursuit of material success, they are competitive and advocate for change and
expansion (Blauth et al., 2011).
Globalization and technology have shaped the generation X (1964-1980). They
are associated with dual careers and single-parent households. Unlike the former
generations, they are cynical, alienating, depressed, pessimistic and individualistic.
Because of their comfort with change and diversity, they are perceived to be less loyal.
However, they are independent and aspire for better pay. Not only do they bend the rules
to get things done, they have less concern for authorities (Blauth et al., 2011).
28
According Blauth et al. (2011), generation Y (1980-2000) is shaped by
computers, economic expansion, and the uncertainty following the 9/11 attacks. Because
they are comfortable with change, job security is not an important factor. This generation
is considered self-centered, narcissistic, alienated, cynical, individualistic, and selfserving. Inherently social, they value input into decisions and actions. Extremely
knowledgeable in technology, they have high expectations and high need for praise.
Unlike other generations, the authors argue that generation Y “abort ethics standards”.
However, they have a strong morality, patriotism and cherish inclusive management.
Therefore, because most freshmen are generation “Yers” nowadays, efforts have to be
made to shatter some of these generational stereotypes. If generation is a unifying tool, it
can be divisive as in the case in Frostburg, MD. As Daley pointed out “the ambivalent
relationship between generational units are viewed with the understanding that status,
roles and norms of any groups are relative in time and space” (Rotting, 2006, as cited in
Daley, 2009, p.61).
Town-Gown relationships in Frostburg, MD: From Past to Present
Frostburg is a small Appalachian city located in the mountains of Allegany
County, Maryland. Until 1820, it was called Mount Pleasant when its postal service
opened. According to the 2010 census, the city counts approximately 9,002 residents and
5,470 students university students based on the school’s enrollment profile. Moreover,
Frostburg has a few churches, a local history museum, a public elementary school and a
public university (Powell, 2013).
Because of the demographic change in student
population over the years, and the shift from a coal town to a college town values,
29
interactions between the university students and local residents seem less frequent than
ever.
Prior to the founding of the “Normal School” (today’s FSU), Frostburg was a coal
town. Its inhabitants referred to as “the best dressed miners” still pride themselves with
their historical values of dressing up on Sundays unlike other miners in the state.
Moreover, Frostburg residents find pride in their contribution to the building of the
Normal School. As Powell (2013, p.176) noticed, both Frostburg locals and university
officials enjoy telling their financial contribution to purchase the land on which the
normal school is built. The following extract from a book by the FSU that “the miners
contributed amount of 25 cents, 50 cents, or a dollar and even more figures which
represented a considerable percentage of their earnings” (Powell, 2013 p.176) is a
testimony that there has always existed relationships between the town and gown.
However, this relationship excluded African Americans, as schools were segregated.
City administrator, faculty members, Landlords, Greek organizations (fraternities
and sororities), state officials, and students are primary parties with a significant stake in
the conflict. In fact, each of these parties has perceived incompatible goals and each
interact in direct pursuit of that goal.
The recent incidents, which resulted in the death of 2 students, have highlighted in
an important aspect. In their effort to secure their incompatible goals, university and city
officials attempted to distance themselves from the negative media coverage that
characterized the violence. While the university initially denied responsibility with the
assumption that the incidents occurred off-campus, the city officials aspired to save the
image of the city; a city that if negatively portrayed would go against the ideals of the
30
Frostburg values. The residents of Frostburg valued quality education, one that comes
with no violence. It is this culture that the city aspires to maintain.
Contrary, the university’s recent efforts to increase enrollment means inclusion of
diverse students, from the county to the state and international sphere. It seeks to position
itself not only as dominant in the region but all around the globe. Students from
Baltimore and surroundings, students from Asia and Africa are all part of diverse student
body.
As for the landlords, most of them perceive student housing as a lucrative
business. Thus, they spend as less as possible in the maintenance and repair of
deteriorating houses. Similarly, business owners rely on the student population for their
survival. They aspire financial gain even if this means at the detriment of young FSU
students. In fact, there are speculations that the recent fire that made a victim might be
due to the negligence of the property owner.
Local police/university police, on the other hand struggles to maintain order and
minimize negative behaviors. Their goal is to keep “Frostburg” within the realm of their
ancestral values of no violence, quality education and pride.
However, most students attend FSU because of the lifestyle associate with it.
With no parental supervision, most of them view FSU as a place “to have fun” with other
like-minded students while pursuing their education.
The relational dynamics between the parties are characterized by interdependence.
In fact, the relationship between FSU and the city of Frostburg goes back to the
foundation of the normal school (current FSU) in 1898. As noted above, the miners have
tremendously contributed to the land purchase. Moreover, they have lobbied state
31
legislatures in order to obtain the necessaries of an educational institution (Bowman,
2011). Thus, within this context, it would be fair to argue that FSU would probably never
exist without the locals as the former depended on the latter. This level of dependency
translates into modern power held by the local residents. Because of the resident’s
historical contribution to the building of the normal school, they will always hold a voice
in the university matters.
However, in light of the demographic change in student population, the city of
Frostburg’s economic well-being relies heavily on FSU and its students. Students’ offcampus living has started with the opening of the first dormitory in 1919. Because only
female students were allowed to live on campus, male students lived off-campus
alongside with residents. Thus, students and residents have a long history of relationship
(Powell, 2013, p. 183). However, the switch from mining and manufacturing to a service
economy made the residents more dependent of the university. According to Powell
(2013, p. 198) FSU is the largest employer of the city, and the third in the region with
930 employees.
Moreover, businesses and the university rely on students. As one
resident pointed out “when they (students) are gone for the summer, there is almost
nothing. I think they give this town life”. Therefore, though not openly expressed by
either party, students still hold some power as they represent the economic engine of the
city.
Some students (especially on-campus) are somehow independent from the local
residents. They have their own eatery, pubs, and activities. They rarely go into the
community. For a student that I interviewed, there is no need for him to go in the
community. Yet, some other students depend on off-campus housing, which makes them
32
dependent of the landlords or property managers (who are sometimes residents). Because
of this dependent relationship, students may often be taken advantage of. Consequently,
some off-campus students may feel that there exist no relational concerns in the part of
the landlords or the city.
The landlords’ relationship with the city is one of interdependence. In fact, they
have a representative at the city council meetings. They provide taxes to the city unlike
the university, which is an exempted institution.
Students, university and city officials, business owners, and landlord/property
managers in Frostburg have interdependent relationships. However, this interdependence
affects differently power dynamic. The residents’ power derives from the school
dependency on them (grand-parents/parents) in the 1890’s. With the recent increase in
student demographics, the city businesses rely heavily on students. Even though not
expressed, business owners seem to appreciate the economic power of the students.
The presence of landlord and business representative in the city policy decisionmaking may be perceived as a coalition against FSU students. “Not only the houses in the
neighborhood adjacent to the university are continuously deteriorating, the city does not
do anything to address it” said a student. However, the city’s only housing inspector
argues that they lack human resources. Additionally, he claims that students are part of
the reason property values dwindle. When these coalitions are formed, the end result
becomes marginalization or alienation.
The conflict in Frostburg revolves around judgment and perception of different
values. Students and locals’ perception of one another is quite different. While the
majority of youth from the university Frostburg view the residents as not honest
33
(landlord) and taking advantage of students with almost no rental experience, the latter
view them as guest, transient, and source of revenue.
Moreover, the Frostburg residents have developed a value of hard working
country miners. Given the diverse geographic origin of most students, and young age
there is a clash over values. Most students are perceived as coming from suburban areas
characterized by crime, rape, violence, loud music, and no respect for elders.
Subsequently, conflicts over what is accepted as value becomes prevalent. Similarly,
residents believe that students are taking education in Frostburg for granted. If students
and residents once had a positive interaction, nowadays the style of interaction between
them is discomforting. Lutz (1997, as cited in Powell, p.41, 2013) noticed that many
faculty members settled in Frostburg and enjoyed positive relationships with others. She
describes the generosity of a psychology professor who bought books and bus fairs for
students.
While the young students’ style of communication is characterized by expressions
of popular culture, the residents perceive such as a taboo. Similarly, students’ lifestyle
seems to be perceived negatively. They are associated with loud partying, trashing the
neighborhood, and binge drinking. Moreover, they are also associated with the increased
crime level in Frostburg. Thus, students and residents have disparities in their
understanding of lifestyle. However, this lifestyle conflict is latent by nature and surfaced
with the unfortunate incidents of deaths.
The stabbing and shooting among students highlight intragroup tensions. In 2010,
2 Frostburg students engaged in altercation over a young woman. Consequently, one of
the students was shot at his off-campus residence. In 2011, another incident involved 2
34
female students resulting in the stubbing of another female student. However, the
involved students violent conflict behavior is somehow generalized to all FSU students.
This is because of their identification as members of the same generation with the same
suburban values. As such, this violent conflict behavior becomes a threat to the residents
who are mostly older adults. They fear the student revenge, thus remain silent and
isolated even in some instances where they may want to alert the proper authorities.
This avoidance in the part of the residents coupled with the student selfsufficiency leads to polarization. The student, alike the residents, resume to living within
their and their kinds’ boundary. Moreover, “studentification” also leads to polarization. In
fact, even though students dominant the neighborhood adjacent to the university, they do
not feel the need to engage in a world with norms threatening their owns. Because both
students and residents avoid one another, they are more likely to interact with their own
generational unit than others.
At an individual level, students adopt a competitive and avoidance conflict
behavior. The continuous loud partying, and often threats of retaliation are illustration of
this behavior. Powell (2013) tells the story of a student who refused to clean after her dog
because of her perceived perception of one resident. In this example, the student claims
that the neighbor assumed she would not clean after her dog. Because of such perceived
prejudice, the student did not want to clean after the dog. Therefore, if the overall conflict
behavior is avoidance, at an individual level, it is more competitive.
Due to the extreme polarization between FSU students and residents, it is difficult
to argue with certainty that there exist a relationship that neither wishes to destroy. As
explained earlier, the students are independent and transient. The residents perceive this
35
transience as a stumbling block to building a relationship lasting beyond the student’s
college life in Frostburg. Unless there is a common relational goal, one is unlikely to
decrease this avoidance and polarization.
Bridging differences often requires the assistance of professional. As an effort to
assist Frostburg city in the resolution of the conflict, MACRO sponsored a series of
dialogue for a period of two years. Professional facilitators were brought in. Throughout
the dialogue series, several issues were brought up. Among the concerns were: student’s
lack of community ownership, self-segregation, sense of loss of security, lack of
understanding, loss of history, loss of identity, culture, and race. While the intervention
runs into next year, participant have been divided into smaller task groups based on the
issues brought up.
One of the factors that contributed to the concentration of students in the
neighborhood adjacent to the university is the expansion of the university through
buyouts of houses. This process caused many African Americans who lived in the
neighborhood to relocate. According to Bowman (2011) the residents mostly received
$10.00. She notes “this buy out spelled the death of Brownsville”, the current adjacent
neighborhood.
With the election of a new president in 2006, binge drinking both on campus and
off campus has become one of the focal points on the university’s agenda. Alcohol Edu is
an online alcohol education forum aimed at preventing, engaging and deterring alcohol
behavior in students. Safe Ride is another initiative that helps reduce DWI/DUI offences.
Additionally, the city has developed an alcohol task force. However, unlike the first two
that focus on students, the alcohol task force is inclusive of all parties.
36
FSU student body is growing. It welcomes diversity, and is part of the state
university system. Once known as normal school n*2, FSU offers today 45 undergraduate
degrees, 17 master’s degree programs and a PhD. However, the relationships between
students and residents continue to deteriorate. There has to be increasing efforts from
both parties to manage their conflicts. As VanNewkirk (1996, p. 64 as cited in Powell,
2013, p. 203) noticed “ there have been problems between town and gown; there always
will be”.
Indeed, the conflict in Frostburg is a repetitive one. Given the arrival and
departure patterns each year of young students, the same dynamics are likely to happen.
If the residents perceive freshmen as transient, they (students) will be less likely
concerned with community issues. Each year, new students arrive with no prior
knowledge or relationship with the resident. Marginalizing them will only widen the
intergenerational gap, and ignite more tensions. United under the same generation, in
1973, FSU students, white and black, gathered to protest as an African American was
denied entry to a local club, (Limbaugh 1997, p.76 as cited in Powell, (2013). Likewise,
the local residents are growing more distant from the students. This status quo, if not
altered will be damaging not only to FSU and its students, but also to the community at
large.
37
Chapter 3: Methodology
The intent of this parallel mixed method study is to examine the intergenerational
gap or divide between young transient FSU students and their yearlong older residents
with whom they live in the neighborhood adjacent to the university. In this study,
questionnaires will be used to measure the relationship between the circle process as a
method of intervention grounded in contact theory and generational divide. At the same
time, cross-generational town-gown conflicts will be explored using qualitative
interviews and observations with participants in Frostburg, MD. The reason for
combining qualitative and quantitative data is to better understand the generational divide
that characterizes town-gown relationship in Frostburg.
Therefore, what are the dynamics involved in intergenerational conflicts? Can circle
process serve as an effective conflict resolution strategy to manage intergenerational
divide and, or improve understanding and relationships?
The following hypotheses are the foundation of the present study: There will be
almost no contact between yearlong residents and transient students; when contact
occurs, it will be under unfavorable conditions. Circle process will be an effective
conflict prevention and intervention technique that brings people of different generations
to understand one another, improve relationships and build trust.
Participants
For the purpose of the present study, participants were selected from two sites.
Though randomly selected, the participants representing the younger generation were
selected from Frostburg State University. They are from various backgrounds. Contrary
to the students, participants from the older generations were selected from the city of
38
Frostburg. There is no criterion other than their membership as Frostburg residents.
However, though there was no criterion to determine different generations, it is assumed
that residents are relatively older than students. No prior contacts existed between
students and residents in the experiment.
Instruments
To conduct the current research I have designed questionnaires that will be used
to collect quantitative and qualitative data. The questionnaires will assist in identifying
the different dynamics between younger and older generations in Frostburg and inform us
of their level of interaction.
Moreover, my personal observation throughout the research period will provide
more understanding of the participants’ perceptions of one another and themselves. As
for the interviews and observations, they will be used along with the questionnaires and
observation to provide a clear and thorough understanding of the phenomenon known as
generational divide in the context of Town-Gown in Frostburg. Noteworthy, the
interviews are not structured, as they were collected given in the form of story telling.
The information provided through these instruments are valid and reliable as they
speak the concerns of the immediate people involved in the conflict. Not only do they
know more about their conflicts than any outsiders, they stories and experiences are
lively and in the context of the present study and context.
Procedures
The current study uses a mixed method approach, which “involves the rigorous
collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data in response to research
question or hypotheses” (Creswell, 2013). Pragmatic in its nature, mixed method
39
approach assumes that collection of diverse types of data provides a thorough
understanding and explanation of the problem. It is used interchangeably with terms such
as “integrating, synthesis, qualitative and quantitative methods, and multi-method”
(Bryman, 2006; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010 as cited in Creswell, 2013).
Originating from the late 1980s and early 1990s in diverse fields such as
education, management, sociology, and health sciences, the mixed method has expanded
to other disciplines. This is evidenced in several studies (Creswell 2010). Kai Thaler
(2012, as cited in Creswell, 2010) in her research on violence used mixed method
research. She argues that “Mixed methods enable us to tie the broader patterns revealed
by quantitative analysis to underlying processes and causal mechanisms that qualitative
research is better able to illuminate, examining and explicating the interactions of
structure and agency”. The emergence of new books on mixed method research each year
is a testimony to the importance of the method (Bryman, 2006; Creswell & Plano Clark,
2011; Greene, 2007).
The rationality behind using mixed methods is that it draws on quantitative and
qualitative data while minimizing the limitations of both approaches. Additionally, it
provides an understanding of needed changes for the young transient students who feel
marginalized, as it does for the older yearlong residents who may feel threatened by the
younger generations values. Moreover, it helps make sense of the different factors such
as research questions, and incorporating individual perspectives (Creswell, 2013).
The present research will use a transformative parallel mixed method design. Both
qualitative and quantitative data will be collected and used to explore, understand and
determine the level of interaction between different parties to the conflict. Additionally,
40
they will promote social change and provide basis for eventual intervention strategies. To
determine the importance or level of the parties’ interaction with one another, a focus
group will be administered questionnaires. Then they undergo a circle process. The
outcome and parties perception of the process with regard to their interactions will be
measured through a different questionnaire administered at the end of the experiment.
Moreover, the analysis of the data will determine the effectiveness of the circle process as
a conflict resolution model capable of bridging the generational gap and creating a more
cohesive community.
The circle process will take place in one session of 2-3 hours. It will start with an
icebreaker. As the participants move forward, they will be asked to talk about their
experience of conflict and generational conflict in Frostburg. Their interaction with one
another will also be addressed. Assumingly, this will give a deeper understanding of the
types of conflict that prevail in town-gown conflicts. With an exploratory function, the
next stage will focus on the affect of the participants’ experienced cross-generational
conflicts in Frostburg. Allowing the participants to express the effect of the conflicts they
experienced will assist to understand and interpret the parties’ conflict behavior.
Participants will be part of 2 groups of people. Group one will be a randomly
selected, given a questionnaire to fill out, go through the circle process, and fill out
another questionnaire. As for the second group, they will be randomly selected, given
only 1 questionnaire to fill out, and will not engage in circle process. At the end of the
study, the questionnaires along with the interviews and observations will determine how
circle process influences participants’ conflict behavior, and style; and how effective it
can transform cross-generational negative interactions.
41
The seating arrangement in the circle process will be circular. According to
proponents of the approach, sitting in circle creates safe environment as participants next
to one another create bonds. Moreover, while the use of talking piece gives each
participant equal opportunity to talk, it allows others to listen, which leads to healthy
dialogue based on mutual respect and consideration.
The participants’ diverse perspectives on the conflict, its dynamic, and their
conflict styles speak to the complexity of intergenerational divides. However, the use of
circle process allows parties to share concerns, listen, empower and acknowledge one
another (Pranis, 2005).
Circle process
Written by Kay Pranis (2005) “The little book of circle process” is about
peacemaking circles. It discusses a different way of bringing people together; putting
them in contact and helping them interact through story telling. Pranis’ (2005) book
offers an approach to conflict resolution in the context of community based on the
“ancient teachings of indigenous groups and the modern democratic ideology and
inclusivity in a complex, multicultural society” (Pranis 2005). It stems from the ancient
Native American tradition of sitting in circle, using a talking piece that is passed around
from one person to another. Finally, the talking piece grants permission to its sole holder
to speak without being interrupted. It is a model used to bridge differences through
understanding. Peace-building circles provide a space wherein people with diverse
perspectives can come together and speak candidly about conflict and their feelings, and
leave the conversation with satisfaction for both themselves and others.
42
The philosophical worldview of the circle process is that of interdependence
nature of human beings. It assumes that “we are all in need of help, and helping others
helps us at the same time”(Pranis, 2005). In fact, its founding values are relational. As the
author advances “values that nurture and promote good connections to others are the
values of the circle.” Similarly, judge Barry Stuart confirms the relational values of the
circle process. He claims that every individual naturally possesses a desire to connect to
others in a good way (Pranis, 2005).
Noteworthy, the circle process has as foundation ancient teachings transmitted
from generation to generation. According to Pranis (2005) these teachings were based on
the many mythological assumptions about the nature of the universe common to
indigenous people. They perceive the circle in relation to the participants and argue that
“we are all inseparate part of a whole”.
The use of the circles and their symbolic meanings to the indigenous resulted in
three teachings: first that there is interconnection between everything in the universe,
second that as human beings, we need one another and finally that human experience is
made of mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects.
With different implications, the first teaching assumes that the circle process
acknowledges the impacts of our individual behavior on others. Thus, it is impossible to
isolate others as our fates are interconnected (Pranis, 2005). In the second teaching, there
is an assumption that as much as the person for whom the circle is formed needs us, we
need that person. To clarify this point Pranis uses the quantum physics and the
Newtonian worldview. Using the quantum physics, the author argues that participants are
observed only in relation to others and not in complete isolation. The unseen or blurred
43
connections between participants are the basis of the quantum physics. Unlike the
Newtonian worldview that focuses more on the material than relationship, the former is
more humanistic and uniting. As for the last teaching, it assumes that conflict resolution
requires addressing all aspects of human experience: emotional, physical and spiritual.
Originating from the Minnesota criminal justice system as a conflict resolution
method in the USA, the circle process expanded to other areas such as schools,
workplaces, social services etc. As Pranis (2005) notices, the circle process expansion
occurred naturally. It was spontaneous and driven by passion and commitment rather than
strategic. This “organic” expansion indeed was triggered by the benevolent nature of the
circle process (Pranis, 2005). Naturally, circle processes create the opportunity to speak
our deepest truth freely, “drop our mask of protection and to be fully present as human
beings”. It gives us the freedom to reveal our deepest fear and act according to our values
and beliefs.
In the little book of the circle process, the author makes mention of various types
of circles along with their respective functions. She distinguishes the “talking circle, the
circle of understanding, the healing circle, the sentencing circle, the support circle, the
community building circle, the conflict circle, the reintegration circle and the celebration
circle” Pranis (2005). While all of the circles use the same techniques, some are
conducive to consensus and others are not. However, there exist no clear line of
demarcation between the various types. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the talking
circle, the circle of understanding, and/or the community building circles will be used in
combination. Since they use the same method and neither needs to reach a consensus,
speaking from different perspectives (talking circle) and attempting to understand one
44
another point of views (circle of understanding) in an effort to build a sustainable
community (community building circle) seems to be the most appropriate way to engage
younger generation (college students) with local residents (older people).
Storytelling is one of the unique characteristics of circle processes. “Stories unite
people in the common humanity and assist them in appreciating the depth and beauty of
human experience”(Pranis, 2005). When stories are told, the listener tends to relax and
open up. This type of listening allows thorough information exchange. The author argues
that when we listen to stories, we are reluctant to engage in screening of information
provided. She notices an immediate screening of information, however, when we listen to
other information not in the form of story.
Using storytelling as a method of resolving conflict allows contact with other. It
opens space for others to connect and find common ground with us. It also assists us in
putting down our protection mask and therefore making us vulnerable to others stories or
experiences. “Sharing stories of pain, mistakes and revealing our vulnerability usually
shatters some assumptions we made about the other telling the story”(Pranis, 2005). The
stories and experience of the younger and older generation in the context of Frostburg
would create understanding and therefore limit the prejudices and stereotypes of the two
groups toward one another. Stories lead to connection, contact among participants. “To
listen to a person’s story is to honor that person’s intrinsic worth and to empower the
storyteller in a constructive way” (Pranis, 2005).
However, as a conflict resolution method, circle processes have undergone several
criticisms. Opponents argue that he process is too idealistic; that not all humans want to
be connected and be in a relationship even when a space of respect and safety is opened.
45
They stress that people live in a culture pervasive of alienation, demonization,
competition and reliance on expert to solve our issues (Pranis, 2005).
Moreover, some critics question the symbolic meaning and commitment of parties
in a cultural diverse circle in the context of community. They assume that meanings
differ according to culture. Additionally, whether one can live with the other’s values is
problematic.
Another important criticism is the relationship of the participants and the role of
the intervener. While many conflict resolution methods require the professional to remain
neutral and out of the process, the circle process encourages the participation of the
professionals. Therefore, whether the intervener should and could remain neutral while
participating in the circle raises difficult concerns (Pranis, 2005).
Moreover, confidentiality is another aspect of the circle process that received
criticism. In circle processes, revealing sensitive information to abide by the circle
guidelines may not be a guarantee that the information is kept confidential. This is
because different people are part of the process and therefore the likelihood of
information leak is higher.
However, advocates of the circle process encourage optimism. They inform us
that in order to gain the full benefit of the process, one has to remain open minded even
in instances where the values we hold dear to the circle are at risk. This is because “the
power of the vision sometimes evokes a passion that blunts the ability to deeply hear
voices that disagree.” (Pranis, 2005).
46
Chapter 4: Results
Table 1: participants’ identification (Questionnaire)
Student
City
Other
Resident/landlord
Business/Resident
official
1922-1943
1
1943-1960
1
1
1960-1980
1980-2000
2
1
4
1
Out of the 11 participants who received questionnaires, 3 were females. There
were 4 students, 1 city official, 1 other (not specified), 4 residents/landlord and 1
bartender (business).
Of the 11 participants, 1 belonged to the 1922-1943 generation, 4 were born
between 1943-1960. Additionally, 1 participant identified with the 1960-1980 generation,
and 5 identified with the 1980-2000 generation.
Moreover, while 10 participants claimed their last interaction with the other
generation to be “days ago” only 1 (bartender/business) mentioned that his interaction
with the other is daily. However, they all pointed out a positive interaction with the other
generation.
Noteworthy, most participants’ interactions are temporal or very short. Out of the 11
participants, 5 did not provide an answer with regard to the length of their interaction
with the other generation. In fact, while 2 of the 11 participants’ interaction was about 30
minutes, 2 others’ last interactions were only about 9 to 10 minutes long.
47
Furthermore, when asked about their interaction with the other generation over
the last 12 months, all 11 participants expressed that they interacted more than 4 times.
But, 1 of the respondents had a negative past experience with the other generation
that shaped his attitude. As for the experience that may have shaped the respondents’
positive attitude toward the other generation, all 11 respondents expressed positive
feeling.
Table 2: Participants’ Identification (Focus Group Questionnaire)
Student
Resident
City Official
1922-1943
1943-1960
1
1960-1980
1980-2000
1
1
2
Among the 5 participants in the circle process, there were 2 students, 1 resident, 1
city official/resident, and 1city official who lived in Frostburg before. While 1 participant
identified with the 1943-1960, 2 others belonged to 1960-1980 generation. Both students
identified with the 1980-2000 generation.
If they all claim to have interaction with the other generation, only one interacted
for about 1 hour. 2 of the participants did not answer and the other 2’s last interactions
were about 30 minutes long.
Table 3: Past interactions that shapes participants’ negative perception of the
other generation.
Negative perception from past interaction
Positive perception from past interaction
48
3
2
Even though all 5 participants interacted with the other generation more than 4
times during the last 12 months, 3 had an experience that shaped their negative
perception of the other generation. With regard to positive feeling about the other
generation based on past experience, all 5 participants have showed favorable response.
They all had an experience that shaped their positive feelings about the other generation.
At the end of the circle process, all 5 participants expressed positive feelings
about the dialogue. Their comments ranged from “we had a nice conversation and
planned to make things better” and “we made new friends” to “ I have learned about
many opportunities that Frostburg (FSU) and the town of Frostburg has to offer.”
While 4 of the participants in the circle claimed that the dialogue changed their
impression of the members of the other generation, 1 stated that “I already had a positive
impression. This reinforced it”. Moreover, they all thought the dialogue was helpful.
1 participant did not know of any opportunities for older adults to interact with
FSU students. Additionally, 3 participants did not know of any services at the university
that attempt to bridge the generational gap. As one participant put it “we are working on
that.”
With regard to the level of concern for one another, 3 participants have somewhat
high concern for the other generation. 1 participant expressed low concern and the other
had extremely high concern for the other generation.
The participants’ recommendations included:
-“Just trying to get more people involved, I know that’s hard”
49
-“Well done”
-“Great dialogue, I would only suggest there are more of them, possibly with
more mediators.
-“More participation from the students and we need participation from the
residents who live in the city.
-“None, I enjoyed it very much and learned a lot”.
50
Chapter 5: Discussion
The findings suggest students are more likely to be younger than the residents and
city officials. In fact, all students throughout the study identified with Y generation. The
difference in perspective may be due to the participants belonging to different
generational units.
Noteworthy, no resident or city official belonged to the Y generation (19802000). They are more likely to belong to either the veterans’ generation or baby boomers
than the students. Consequently, the difference in opinion diverges and the generational
widens. Since age groups are the reality of their times and experiences, they carry
prejudice about one another. Both students (generation Y) and residents (veterans, baby
boomer, and some generation Xers) hold prejudices about one another. As one student
put it “my landlord says we are too loud. I don’t think we are too loud. They are just old”.
Chasteen (2005) posits that members of different generations may have bias about one
another.
Moreover, unlike residents, most members of generation Y (students) are
independent for the first time when they go to college. They have no prior knowledge of
the host community. Additionally, due to their lack of experience landlords neglect their
housing concerns. As one student put it “I used to have complaints with my ex-landlord
because he would try to get over”. Because of the deteriorating conditions, many
residents may relocate. This leads to ghettoization.
Even though the participants claim to have frequent contacts with the other
generation, they are very temporary. This suggests that students and residents interact,
but the interaction is rather spontaneous and mostly superficial. Superficial contact is less
51
likely to lead to decrease in prejudice between students (Yers) and residents (veterans,
boomers and Xers). More time to interact allows for parties to get to know one another
and put down their “mask of protection”. Therefore, limited interaction time between
students and residents translates into superficial contacts. Because superficial contact is
less likely to reduce prejudice, it might be the reason why the parties avoid each other.
The fact that 3/5 members of the focus group had a negative past experience with
others that shaped their attitude may explain the reticence and fear from both students and
residents. Since negative experience can cause alienation, students and residents become
fearful of one another. Consequently, they may create boundaries as a way of protecting
against the other generation. The incidents involving FSU students created a barrier
between young transient students and local residents. All victims and offenders were
from cities around Frostburg. As Dr. Powell put it during an interview, “there are
residents who live insular, fearful of cities, danger, high crime, deteriorating properties
and theft. They fear cities and everything associated with it”. Moreover, she claims that
“some students are first generation college students”. The implication is generational. As
the results show, all student participants are generation Y members. According to the
literature, these students are more likely to be from single parent households. In another
interview, an African American student argue “we are not all raised the same. Some are
raised y their grandparents. Such situations provide the opportunity to use the
generational boundary as a way of categorizing students and residents. Changing parties’
interactions requires comprehending boundaries and the characteristic associated with
them.
52
Even though the literature seems pessimistic about students’ familiarity with the
other generation, they claim that older adults have been students as well. That is, they
perceive it as unjust for the residents to deprive them of that freedom to experience
college life. Just as the literature assumes that older adults of different generations are
different, it should be inferred from this study that college students of different
generations are not alike. They speak differently, dress differently, party differently, and
above all perceive the world differently. Accepting one another’s perspective should be a
super-ordinate goal.
While residents and students are conscious of their dissimilar perspective, both
provide logical justification. For a student “they (residents) might be right about youth
recklessness. It’s a lifestyle, but even older people have partied. We just took it a step
further”. Another student argued “ I don’t think older people wanna math but expect a lot.
They expect us to tone down, act sophisticated; they expect us to portray womenhood”.
Indeed, there is growing pessimism among students. Likewise, residents are anxious, as
they perceive a threatening youth value.
Based on the 5 comments of the focus group participants, the circle process
fostered understanding, and cross-generational friendship. It also changed the
participants’ perspectives as they learned from one another. However, among their
recommendations for future dialogues is involving more participants and possibly
mediators. As a matter of fact, getting students and residents to come to the circle process
was the most difficult part. The lack of trust and the increasing fear of one another seem
to be the reason. Building trust requires establishing a relationship through contact.
However, in spite of the relative number of participants in the focus group , I assume
53
there will be indirect positive effects of their contact. Hopefully, their stories will alter the
perceptions of their friends and neighbors.
Conclusion and Call for Action
The intent of this study was to examine interaction between students and residents
with an effort to improve their relationships. It was hypothesized that:
- There would be almost no contact between yearlong residents
and transient students; when contact occurs it is under
unfavorable conditions
- Circle process is an effective conflict prevention and intervention
technique that brings people of different generations to
understand one another and improve relationships.
The research findings do not support the absence of interaction between students
and residents. They prove that frequent and positive interactions exist between students
and residents. However, it should be noted that these interactions are superficial as they
are not lengthy time wise.
Based on the participants’ comments after the dialogue, circle process is an
effective conflict resolution strategy that fosters interaction, understanding and
relationship building.
However, the research demonstrates other dynamics. Circle process as a conflict
resolution tool in Town-Gown conflicts should be conducted at the beginning of the
school year. When freshmen and residents are provided the opportunity to hear each
other’s story, they build cross-generational friendship, which reduces prejudice and
fosters collaboration- key to sustaining community.
54
Moreover, it shows how both residents and students unconsciously marginalize
one another. They live fearful of one another. Both express some in-group favoritism.
Therefore, creating more opportunities for intergroup friendship through the use of circle
process should be the focus of both transient FSU students and the residents of Frostburg.
Limitations and Further Research
There are some limitations with this research. First, the sample size is small.
This does limit the opportunity to discover additional effects of intergroup dialogue
and favorable contact. A larger sample would provide a better opportunity to examine
other elements of intergroup contact.
The lack of racial diversity represents a threat to the validity of the research.
The dialogue process included only white participants.
The third limitation of this research study was the limited contact. This
dialogue session provided a one-time limited contact platform for the participants.
Most research on intergroup conflict based on contact theory use longitudinal studies.
In fact, Pettigrew (1998) suggests the use of longitudinal studies when examining
intergroup contact. With this in mind, using a longitudinal model to further promote
contact between FSU students (mostly young) and the residents of the campus
adjacent neighborhood will decrease stereotypes, and generational divide. Moreover,
while exploring intergenerational Town-Gown conflicts from up to the generation Y,
a younger generation is a few years from entering college. Exploring the values and
characteristics of generation Z before they reach college (2000-present) will provide
additional insight in intergenerational Town-Gown conflict.
55
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., & ... Leyens,
J. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A
longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in
three european countries. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 96(4),
843-856. doi:10.1037/a0013470
Blauth, C., McDaniel, J., Perrin, G., and Perrin, B., P. (2011). Age-Base Stereotypes:
Silent Killer of Collaboration and Productivity.
Bowman, L. G. (2011). Being black in Brownsville: Echoes of a forgotten Frostburg.
Frostburg, Md: s.n.
Brower, A. M., & Carroll, L. (2007). Spatial and Temporal Aspects of Alcohol-Related
Crime in a College Town. Journal Of American College Health, 55(5), 267-275
Chasteen, A. L. (2000). The Role of Age and Age-Related Attitudes in Perceptions of
Elderly Individuals. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 22(3), 147-156.
doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2203_3
Chasteen, A. L. (2005). Seeing Eye-to-Eye: Do Intergroup Biases Operate Similarly for
Younger and Older Adults?. International Journal Of Aging And Human
Development, 61(2), 123-139.
Creswell J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed
methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
56
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approches. (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Daley, J. (2009). The union of town and gown. Entrepreneur, 37(10), 47
Davies, S. (2007). Project Town Gown. Diverse: Issues In Higher Education, 23(25), 1619.
Gallo, R., & Davis, R. (2009). The Impact of Town–Gown Relationships on the
Sustainability of African American Communities: An Examination of the Role of
HBCUs. Journal Of African American Studies, 13(4), 509-523.
Grenier, A. M. (2007). Crossing Age and Generational Boundaries: Exploring
Intergenerational Research Encounters. Journal Of Social Issues, 63(4), 713-727.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00532.x
Gozzi JR., R. (2012). Two Generation Gaps. ETC: A Review Of General Semantics,
69(4), 475-476.
Harper, I. (2005). Closing the gap between town and gown. B+Fs, 119(2), 10-13.
Heaney, T. (2013). The Illusive Ground Between Town and Gown. New Directions For
Adult & Continuing Education, (139), 35-43.
Heiselt, A. K. (2011). Service and the City: Impacting First-Year Students via Town and
Gown. Journal Of College And Character, 12(4),
Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact: Panacea for prejudice? The Psychologist, 16,
(pp. 352–355).
Kuo, M., Wechsler, H., Greenberg, P., & Lee, H. (n.d). The marketing of alcohol to
college students - The role of low prices and special promotions. American
Journal Of Preventive Medicine, 25(3), 204-211.
57
Leinfelt, F. H., & Thompson, K. M. (2004). College-student drinking-related arrests in a
college
town.
Journal
Of
Substance
Use,
9(2),
57-67.
doi:10.1080/14659890410001664998
Miller, D. (2011). Town and Gown: Understanding the past to improve the future
O'Mara, M. P. (2012). Beyond Town and Gown: University Economic Engagement and
the Legacy of the Urban Crisis. Journal Of Technology Transfer, 37(2), 234-250.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy-ub.researchport.umd.edu/10.1007/s10961-010-9185-4
doi:10.1007/s12111-008-9052-7
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review Of Psychology, 49(1),
65.
Pettigrew, T., Tropp, L., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup
contact theory. International Journal Of ntercultural Relations, 35(3), 271-280.
Powell, K. (2013). In the shadow of the ivory tower: neighborhood relations in a college town.
Pranis, K. (2005) The Little Book of The Circle Process: A new/old approach to
peacemaking intercourse: PA, Good Book
Shannon, C. (1998, September 15). Town vs. gown: Students and local learn to get along.
Christian Science Monitor. p. B3.
Sun, J., & Wang, X. (2010). Value Differences between Generations in China: A Study in
Shanghai. Journal Of Youth Studies, 13(1), 65-81.
Turner, B. S. (1998). Ageing and generational conflicts: A reply to Sarah Irwin. British
Journal Of Sociology, 49(2), 299.
58
Sudheimer, E. E. (2009). Stories Appreciating Both Sides of the Generation Gap: Baby
Boomer and Generation X Nurses Working Together. Nursing Forum, 44(1), 5763. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6198.2009.00127
59
Cross-Generational Survey
1-I am
Student…..
official….
Resident……
Faculty member………
stuff
Landlord/Property manager
Business owner……..
Other…………
City
Faculty
2-I am
Male………
Female…………
3-I am
Asian…… Caucasian…… African American……
African…….Hispanic…….American
Indian….
Pacific Islander……
Other……….
4-I was born between
1922-1943……….
1943-1960……….
1960-1980
1980-2000……….
Other……………Please mention
5-My last interaction with a member of the other generation is
Days ago……Weeks ago….. Months ago…….years ago……
mention.
Other….. Please
The interaction was:
Positive…………..
Negative………………………
For how long the interaction lasted? ……………………..
6-Over the last 12 months, I have interacted with members of the other generation
More than 4 times……….
Less than 4 times………
7-Did you have any experience in the past that shaped a negative feeling toward the
member of the other generation?
Yes…………
No…………..
60
8-Did you have any experience in the past that shaped a positive feeling about the other
generation? Yes…………
No…………..
Cross-Generational Survey
1-How are your feelings about this dialogue? Explain.
Positive…………..
Negative……………….
2-Did this dialogue change your impression of members of the other generation with
whom you interacted?
Yes………………….
No………..
3-Do you think this dialogue was helpful in any way?
Yes……………
No………………..
4-Do you know of any opportunities for older adult residents to interact with FSU
students? Yes…………
No…………..
5-Do you know of services at the university that try to bridge the generational gap?
Yes…………
No…………..
6-How would you rate the level of your concern for the well being of the other generation
with whom you interacted?
Extr High…….
Somewhat High……
Low………… Extr Low
7-What changes would you recommend for future dialogue such as this?
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey.
61