Comparing Spiritual and Other Forms of Social Capital:
Lessons from the Immigrant Experience in Olympia
Sara R. Curran
Jackson School of International Studies
University of Washington
Box 353650
Seattle, WA 98195
scurran@u.washington.edu
206.543.6479
Proposal to the West Coast Poverty Center
For Emerging Poverty Scholars Small Grants Program
Requested
$15,643.00
Chair’s Signature of Approval
Dr. Anand Yang
Director, Jackson School of International Studies
1
Comparing Spiritual and Other Forms of Social Capital:
Lessons from the Immigrant Experience in Olympia
Abstract
Studies of immigrant adaptation and second generation social and economic mobility
have generally focused upon traditional destinations. However, results from the 2000
census indicate dramatic growth in immigrant populations in small to mid-sized cities.
Such growth has created unexpected economic, social, and political challenges for most
cities, but this same growth offers opportunities for understanding immigrant adaptation
and the contexts of incorporation, not otherwise possible in larger cities. This study
examines immigrant experiences in one such city, Olympia, Washington – as one site in a
three-site study. The project expects to overcome several prior conceptual and
methodological limitations in previous studies based in larger cities and to provide
evidence and support for a larger project that includes more sites across the U.S.
landscape. Further, the study develops new theories and evidence for how spiritual
capital, as distinct from other forms of social capital, may be a mechanism, both at the
community and individual level, that significantly influences immigrants’ economic,
social and political integration. The findings will inform current policy debates about the
relative role of faith-based organizations and appeals to faith-based belief systems for
addressing social and economic ills as they pertain to immigrant adaptation and
successes.
2
Comparing Spiritual and Other Forms of Social Capital:
Lessons from the Immigrant Experience in Olympia
Introduction
The population of the United States grew by 32.7 million between 1990 and 2000,
the largest decade increase in American history (Perry & Mackun 2001:1). Much of this
growth was fueled by immigrants from Asia, Latin America, and Africa who heightened
the share of the foreign-born population in the U.S. from nearly 8 percent (19.8 million)
in 1990 to 11 percent of the population (31.1 million) in 2000. While in 1990,
immigrants were largely clustered in California, New York, Florida and Texas; by 2000,
they had spread out to a wide range of states, cities, and towns across the country where
newcomers have not traditionally settled.
A significant body of scholarship documents the immigrant experience in
traditional places of settlement, while relatively little attention focuses on how the
smaller cities and towns that are immigrants’ new destination sites are changing and
being changed by foreign-born residents (for exceptions, see Fink 2003; Jones-Correa
2001). Research about traditional places of settlement attests to the strong relationship
between the resource endowments of particular localities including their infrastructure,
social and cultural institutions, and political apparatus and each new group's individual
and collective social capital. This encounter between what newcomers find and what
they bring shapes their assimilation trajectory though the process is often bumpy,
incomplete, or transient (Portes and Rumbaut 2001, Waldinger and Lichter 2003).
Complicating explanations about immigrants’ assimilation trajectories is the extent to
which they remain involved in their homelands. At the same time, they are settling into
new destinations, many immigrants retain strong, enduring ties to their countries of origin
and to other places where their fellow emigrants have settled. They continue to invest
3
financially, express their political interests, and seek spiritual guidance in their countries
of origin while they put down strong roots in the United States (Faist and Özveren 2004;
Itzigsohn 2000; Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004). Despite compelling stories and cases
about the role of institutions, particularly social capital, many of these studies come from
large cities where there may be unobserved, confounding or spurious explanations. The
recent growth of a variety of different migrants to different types of smaller cities
presents an important empirical opportunity to uncover unobserved institutional effects
through a comprehensive mapping of social institutions and a matched study of
immigrant access to these institutions. Further, the opportunity also offers the
opportunity to distinguish between different forms of social capital at the community and
individual level, with a particular focus upon faith-based institutions and practices.
The proposed project is part of a three-site study of smaller cities where large
numbers of immigrants from a range of countries of origin have settled in recent years.
These cities are: Olympia-Washington, Portland-Maine, Danbury-Connecticut. Each site
has a lead investigator and research team. We have received funding for all three sites
from the Templeton Foundation in the amount of $44,000 for each site. As I am new to
the University and the region, I quickly realized that $44,000 is not enough to fully
support the Olympia research. To fully realize our project and ensure that the Olympia
site is comparable to the other two, we need to support two more quarters of a graduate
student’s time to complete and transcribe the in-depth interviews among the two
immigrant communities identified in this project. This request, therefore, is for additional
support for an already funded project.
4
Project Significance
This project will make a number of important theoretical contributions to broader
understandings of spiritual capital and immigrant adaptation. First, operationalizing
spiritual capital at both community and individual levels of analysis allows us to
conceptually disentangle it from other forms of social capital and to thus evaluate its
relative effectiveness for understanding immigrants’ adaptation, incorporation, and longterm transnational practices. It will enable us to sort out the conditions under which
spiritual capital successfully promotes immigrant incorporation and enduring
transnational participation, and when it is less effective. It further facilitates in-depth
understandings of the range of values, beliefs and behaviors spiritual capital promotes
and the ways spiritual capital works with other social capital forms. Second, this project
extends discussions of spiritual capital to some of the newest U.S. residents and to the
new destinations where they are settling. This focus broadens and furthers discussions of
spiritual capital, increasing the impact of this theoretical approach topically and
geographically, while simultaneously illuminating the experiences of migrants in these
smaller cities, a residential trend likely to continue and grow over time. We analyze the
presence and impact of spiritual capital on recent immigrants’ lives at two levels of
analysis in response to two central research questions:

How does the spiritual capital of small cities where large numbers of immigrants
have settled since 1990 influence immigrants’ economic, social, and political
integration into the city and their continued involvement in their homeland?

How does immigrants’ spiritual capital influence how they develop and maintain
economic, social, and political relationships in these cities, in their home
countries, and/or in some combination of the two?
5
We address these research questions through a two-stage research design. In the
first stage, we map the presence of religious and secular organizations that facilitate
migrants' incorporation in each of three small cities selected for study. We will locate
and interview the leaders of government, ethnic, philanthropic, social service, and
religious organizations that include and offer services to immigrants to ascertain their
history and mission, the services they offer, the size of their immigrant populations, their
ties to sending-country institutions, etc. These interviews will enable us to assess the
range of formal and informal networks and services available to foreign-born residents.
They will also enable us to ascertain how religious and secular organizations generate
spiritual and social capital at the community level and the respective roles played by each
in the economic, social, and political adaptation of migrants in new cities and their
homelands.
In the second stage of the project, we will examine how spiritual capital
influences the simultaneous processes of incorporation and transnational participation
among a sample of eighty first generation immigrants from the two largest country of
origin groups in each city studied. Within each country of origin group, we will compare
immigrants who use and/or are involved with religious organizations and networks and
those who are only connected to other kinds of secular, specifically ethnic, networks and
organizations. Our goal is to isolate and analyze the role played by religious and secular
organizations and networks on the process of immigrants’ settlement, adjustment,
economic mobility, and transnational ties. We are interested not only in assessing the
relationship between spiritual capital and socioeconomic outcomes but in how religious
6
arenas compare with other kinds of institutions in how they facilitate and socialize
migrants economic, political and social participation.
We hypothesize that the spiritual capital of cities as well as of individuals
influences the ways in which immigrants are incorporated in the United States and their
home countries economically, socially, and politically. We expect that cities which have
more spiritual capital and a wider range of spiritual capital forms will present more
opportunities for immigrants’ incorporation both structurally through the resources made
available and qualitatively through the kinds of language, symbols and metaphors
conveyed publicly through these resources for thinking about the collective good and
what it means to live in the United States. We expect that this will lead to greater
simultaneity among Christian groups (i.e. incorporation and transnational engagement at
the same time) while among non-Christian migrants, it may contribute to more limited
incorporation and more time and energy devoted to homeland concerns. Furthermore, we
hypothesize that among Christian migrants, the effect of spiritual capital will vary across
economic, political and social integration experiences while among non-Christian groups,
it will be equally important. Similarly, we expect that immigrants with more access to
spiritual capital will be more integrated both in the U.S. and in their home countries
because of the linkages and values this capital makes available and facilitates. These
relationships are, of course, additionally influenced by a wide range of other external
factors in immigrants’ home countries and the specific cities in question, many of which
we will be able to isolate and delineate through the comparison of the two immigrant
groups selected for study within each city.
7
The foreign-born population of Olympia, Washington (2000 population of
42,514) grew dramatically in recent years, increasing by almost 64% between 1990 and
2000. While the area was overwhelmingly native-born and white in 1990 (96%), the
proportion of Hispanics, Asians and African Americans had reached more than 15% by
the year 2000. The largest numbers of immigrants in the city at present are economic
migrants from Mexico who work in agriculture, dairies and the service industries. While
early immigrants were largely men who came for seasonal work, families have since been
reunified and large numbers of young people of Mexican parentage are students in the
public school system. The experiences of Mexican immigrants to Olympia will be
compared to those of Vietnamese immigrants who first arrived as refugees in the late
1970s when the state was one of the first to welcome them after the Vietnam War. The
number of Vietnamese immigrants in Washington state has continued to grow (the only
states with more Vietnamese immigrants are California and Texas) as these new residents
have found work in professions ranging from janitorial service to engineering and
medicine. The majority of Vietnamese immigrants are today employed in or the owners
of small businesses or work in Olympia’s service sector. While Mexican immigrants in
Olympia typically attend Catholic or evangelical churches, Vietnamese immigrants
started and attend Catholic churches as well as Buddhist temples and were assisted in
their settlement and incorporation by a wide range of religious and secular organizations.
The variation in immigrant experiences and spiritual practices within the same city offers
unique and important opportunities. Further, as the project is also comparative, the
results will also yield important insights across communities that vary in their social and
spiritual capital landscape.
8
Research Plans
Research in Olympia and the other two sites will take place in two phases in
response to each of our two central research questions. First, to determine how the
spiritual capital of small cities influences immigrants’ integration into the city and their
continued involvement in their homelands, we will gather information about the spiritual
capital of each city. Organizations will be identified through existing contacts in each
city, listings in local directories and by generating a snowball sample based on referrals
from each of the organizations we contact. The small size of these cities makes a
comprehensive mapping possible.
Information from this first phase of research will allow us to assess the range of
networks available to foreign-born residents and others in each city. It will also enable us
to ascertain inductively how religious and secular organizations generate spiritual and
social capital at the community level and develop more specific hypotheses about the
respective roles played by each in the economic and social adaptation of migrants. We
will be specifically interested in the range of types of capital generated by each
organization, whether it is grounded in the homeland or the host-land and with what
consequences, and the degrees of overlap among different kinds of capital created by
individual organizations. Because of our specific interest in economic, social, and
political integration, we will pay particular attention in these interviews and subsequent
analyses to the ways in which organizations facilitate job seeking, job training and career
advancement, personal financial management skills such as budgeting, and the wide
range of factors central to social and political integration such as language skills,
connections among co-ethnics and non-immigrants, and access to information about civic
9
and political issues in the U.S. and home countries. We will also look at the extent to
which spiritual capital is harnessed to address homeland concerns.
The second phase of research will then focus on the second research question,
which asks how spiritual capital influences how first immigrants are socially,
economically and politically integrated in these cities, in their home countries, or in some
combination of the two. In this phase, we will conduct in-depth interviews with eighty
recent immigrants in each city (240 immigrants total). As outlined in Figure 1, forty
immigrants in each city will belong to one country of origin group focused on and forty
to another. To isolate and analyze the effect of spiritual capital within each country of
origin group, our conceptual strategy is to compare people who have used spiritual and
religious capital to those who have only used other kinds of secular capital, and to assess
the impact on their socioeconomic incorporation and on their continued involvement in
their homeland. While it is impossible to identify these people a priori, we will attempt
to do so by locating half of those interviewed in each country of origin group through
religious organizations and the other half through secular, primarily ethnic, organizations.
We will aim to interview people who are most involved in these religious and secular
organizations, to the exclusion of the other, so as to inductively develop a conceptual
continuum that outlines the range of types of social capital on which immigrants rely.
10
Figure 1: Distribution of Immigrants across Cities
Cities
(n=3)
Portland
Ethnic Groups
(n=6)
Cambodians
Presence / Absence of
Spiritual Capital (S.C.)
(Interviews with 20
immigrants in each
group, N=240 total)
S.C.
No
S.C.
Olympia
Somalis
S.C.
Mexicans
No
S.C.
S.C.
No
S.C.
Danbury
Vietnamese
S.C.
No
S.C.
Portuguese
S.C.
Brazilians
No
S.C.
S.C. No
S.C.
To facilitate comparisons within and between ethnic groups in each city, in-depth
interviews will be conducted, in native-languages with the assistance of translators or in
English depending on respondents’ preferences, following the interview guide attached as
Appendix B. The interviews begin by asking respondents about their immigration history,
and the different networks and organizations they have been in contact with in the U.S.
and their home countries since they arrived. We ask how they made contact with these
networks and organizations and what kinds of services and resources they, and their
immediate family, have accessed from each. We then measure their social, economic and
political incorporation through a range of questions about their schooling and
employment situation, their personal work and friendship networks, and their social, civic
and organizational involvements. The type and degree of their transnational relations are
assessed through questions about their connections with people in their home countries,
their international travel, giving, political activism, investments, and other patterns.
Questions are designed to assess the degree to which immigrants are integrated in these
cities as well as to identify the values, norms, and beliefs they have developed through
their religious and secular networks. They are also designed to assess the extent to which
11
migrants use religious resources to stay active in their homelands, whether these are
directed at religious institutions or spillover into social and economic life, and how
migrants manage these simultaneous involvements.
Interview data will be analyzed inductively, with the help of the Atlas-TI
qualitative data analysis software, following a grounded theory approach in which
patterns are identified and grouped together by theme (Strauss and Corbin 1990). The
range of immigrant groups within and between cities will allow for analytic comparisons
by geography, immigrant status, country of origin, and time in the U.S. Our central
analytic theme, however, centers on the range of ways immigrants create and make use of
spiritual capital and the effect of their so doing. We first anticipate developing an analytic
continuum or typology that outlines that range of ways immigrants have and make use of
spiritual capital, for example that which is based primarily on their involvement in
religious organizations, that which is based primarily on their personal religious beliefs
and practices, and that which is based on neither or on some combination. By allowing
this typology to develop inductively from interviews with immigrants who have access to
and make use of more and less spiritual capital, we will theoretically specify the
distinctions between spiritual and social capital and advance theoretical work in the field.
Then, we will assess the degree to which immigrants’ different forms of and access to
spiritual capital influence their incorporation in the States, their home countries, or both
explicitly through the networks they generate or facilitate as well as implicitly through
their outlooks and views about the process of immigration.
Research Team
Professor Curran, an expert in international migration at the Henry M. Jackson
School of International Studies and the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy at the
12
University of Washington will lead the research team in Olympia, Washington with the
assistance of the Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology and the Jackson School
of International Studies. Professor Curran, the winner of numerous mentoring and
teaching awards, will include graduate students on the Olympia research team who
represent a range of disciplines and backgrounds. The other two scholars collaborating
on the other research sites, include Wendy Cadge, a qualitative sociology professor at
Bowdoin College and an expert on religion and religious practices, and Peggy Levitt, a
qualitative sociologist at Wellesley College and an expert on immigration, religion, and
transnational practices.
13
Appendix A. Interview Guide for Organizations Involving or Serving Immigrants in Small
Cities.
Note: These questions will be modified and asked with reference to the country of origin groups
studied in each city.
I. Background
To begin, I am hoping to learn a bit about the founding and history of this organization.
1. When was it started? Who started it? How was it supported financially? What factors led
to its founding?
2. What were the goals or purposes of the organization when it began?
3. How did the organization work to meet these goals?
4. How were foreign-born people involved with the organization at the start? (as founders,
leaders, participants, clients etc.)
5. What kinds of contact, if any, did the organization have with other organizations in the
U.S. or abroad when it was starting?
6. How has the organization evolved over time in terms of its mission, size, activities,
interactions with foreign-born residents, interactions with people outside the U.S. etc.?
7. In every organization, disagreements and conflicts occasionally arise. What can you tell
me about some of those moments? How are problems/conflicts resolved?
8. How did you become involved with the organization? How long have you been involved?
In what capacities?
9. How successful does the organization think it has been in helping new immigrants? Why
? What does it offer that other groups do not? What is its vision for the future?
10. Given unlimited resources, what would you change?
II. Work with Foreign-Born City Residents
We are talking today because this organization works in some way with foreign-born city
residents
1. Which groups of foreign-born residents is the organization currently involved with? How
did the organization come to be involved with those groups? Why?
2. In what ways is the organization involved with these immigrants?
3. What kinds of social and political services, if any, does the organization provide to
immigrants? Specifically, does it offer any of the following: ESL classes, translation
assistance, housing assistance, emergency food or housing assistance? Are these services
also provided to native-born residents? Why or why not?
4. Why do you think it is important to provide immigrants with these services?
5. What kinds of economic services, if any, does the organization provide immigrants?
Specifically does it offer any of the following: job training, job placement, emergency
loans, assistance with banking or savings? Are these services also provided to native-born
residents? Why or why not?
6. Why do you think it is important to provide immigrants with these economic services?
7. What kinds of contacts does this organization currently have with people or organizations
in immigrants’ home countries? Other groups around the world? How has it changed
what it does, if at all in response to these ties?
14
8. To what extent do immigrants come into contact with the native-born through their
interactions with your organization? What happens during these interactions? What
kinds of pan-ethnic or pan-religious alliances are emerging and with what consequences?
9. What kind of feedback do you receive from clients? Are they asking for different services
and programs than you might have imagined, and if so, how does your organization
respond?
10. Do you receive feedback or suggestions from native-born residents of the city? Are they
generally positive or is there sometimes criticism or even hostility?
11. Tell me about your interactions with city officials and the municipality? Are they
supportive of your work? How do you believe they perceive your organization?
III. General Questions about Foreign-Born City Residents
1. What are the biggest challenges that foreign-born residents in this city face today?
2. What is your sense of migrants' continued involvement in their homeland? Is your
organization involved in any way in helping them to be so?
3. How do you see the integration of this city’s foreign-born residents? Are they
assimilating or acculturating into the “mainstream”? Are they insular or isolated? Or
some combination of both?
4. How do you see religious organizations in the city responding to some of these
challenges? Why do you think they are responding this way? What is the general public
discussion about newcomers and the city's responsibility, or lack their of, to respond to
them?
5. How do you see secular organizations in the city responding to these challenges? Why do
you think they are responding this way?
6. In what ways are the mission and activities of your organization unique in comparison to
these others? What do you offer that aids economic and/or social mobility that others do
not?
7. Based on your experiences, how would the lives of immigrants in this city be different
next week if all of the religious organizations here closed their doors?
8. What other organizations in the city would you suggest that we contact to learn more
about these questions?
15
Appendix B. Interview Guide for Immigrants in Small Cities
Note: These questions will be modified and asked with reference to the country of origin groups
studied in each city.
I. General Background
To begin, I am hoping to learn about how you came to live in the U.S. generally and this city
specifically.
1. When and where were you born? Where did you grow up? When did you first leave your
country of origin and under what circumstances?
2. When did you first come to the U.S.? Where did you go? Why?
3. When did you first come to this city? When did you first come to this city to live?
4. Why did you come to this city and not another?
II. Experience on arrival in this city
I am curious what you did and thought about when you first arrived here.
1. When you first arrived in this city to live, who was with you (i.e. family, friends etc.)?
2. Where did you live at the beginning? What kinds of language, educational, and
occupational skills did you bring with you?
3. Who were some of the first people you met and how did you meet them?
4. Which organizations, if any, in the city did you have contact with when you first arrived?
Religious organizations? Secular organizations? How did you come to be involved with
them? [probe with examples of organizations in each city] How did you know about these
groups? What was it like the first time you visited?
5. What kind of help or assistance did these organizations provide you, if any?
6. What did you like about this city shortly after arriving? What did you dislike?
7. What was the best thing that happened to you early in your time here? And the worst?
8. How often were you in touch with people in your homeland? With what aim? Did you
belong to any groups that fostered these connections or was it primarily a matter of
family and personal ties?
III. Subsequent experience in the city
I am interested in learning about your life in this city now.
1. First, I would like to learn about your living situation. Where do you live now? How did
you find that place? Who lives with you in your house now?
2. What types of ethnic and racial groups live in your neighborhood? Are they primarily one
group or another, or is it mixed?
3. Second, I would like to learn about how you live here economically. Do you work? If
yes, how what kind of job do you do? How did you find your job? What are the good
parts of your job? And the bad?
4. Whom do you work with? Are they from your own ethnic group or others, or mixed?
5. Do you have children who are in school here? What kinds of contact, if any, have you
had with their schools?
6. Do you consider yourself a religious or spiritual person? How, if at all, have your
religious beliefs helped you since you moved here?
16
7. Has your religiosity changed at all since being in the United States?
8. When you are not working, how do you like to spend your time?
9. Outside of your family and work, who are the people with whom you spend the most
time?
10. Do you participate in any religious events or organizations in the city? Why or why not?
11. Do you participate in any ethnic or civic organizations in the city? Why or why not?
[names of groups inserted as appropriate for respondent]
12. Are you involved in your neighborhood or local community? How many of your
neighbors do you know? Are you friendly with them or just acquaintances?
13. Do you participate politically? Do you vote? Have you ever run for any political office or
committee?
IV. Transnational connections
1. Since you came to this city to live, have you returned to your home country? When and
how often?
2. What kinds of contact do you have with people who still live in your home country? How
are you in touch with them?
3. What kinds of contact do you have with others from your home country who live in the
U.S. or other countries outside your home country?
4. Have you sent any money to family or friends in your home country since you arrived
here? Have you sent any packages of goods or gifts? How often might you do either of
these?
5. Do you belong to a religious group that is some how connected to similar groups in your
homeland or around the world? What kinds of things do you do? Why is this important
to you? What do you get out of it?
6. Have you voted or participated in political events or processes in your home country
since you came to live in the States? Which presidential election is more important?
7. If possible, would you like dual citizenship? Why or why not? What are your thoughts on
U.S. citizenship? Was/Is it important for you to be naturalized – why?
8. How do you perceive the term “my country?” Is it the U.S., your homeland, or
hyphenated-American?
9. What is “American” about you? Is there a limit to how American you can become?
10. What does one do for their country? What is a good citizen? Are you patriotic, and to
which nation?
11. What kinds of groups do you belong to that are working on home-country concerns?
Why?
12. Sometimes it is difficult for people to balance living in two worlds. Can you talk about
how you manage your ties to your homeland and your ties to people here?
V. Concluding questions
1. If someone from your home country asked for your advice about whether or not to move
to this city, what would you tell them?
2. If that person was looking for work, what would you suggest?
3. What about if they needed a loan to rent their first apartment?
4. Would that person have an easier time adapting to life in this city if they are a religious
person? Why or why not?
5. Do you think your religious or spiritual background helped you adapt to life in this city?
Why or why not?
17
6. Do you think your religious or spiritual background helps you maintain contacts with
people in your home country? With what effects? Why or why not?
7. Has your life in the United States been a success? How do you think it would be different
if you were in your homeland? Do people wish for/hope for different things here or at
hone?
8. What would you like your life to be like in ten years?
18
References
Abusharaf, Rogaia M. 1998. “Structural Adaptations in an Immigrant Muslim Congregation in
New York.” Pp. 235-64 in Gatherings in Diaspora, edited by R. Stephen Warner and Judith
Wittner. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Alba, Richard D. and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and
Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Basch, Linda G., Nina Glick Schiller, and Christina Szanton Blanc. 1994. Nations Unbound:
Transnational Migration, Postcolonial Predicaments, and the Deterritorialized Nation-State.
London: Gordon and Breach.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
_______. 1985. “The Forms of Social Capital. Pp. 241-258 in Handbook of Theory and Research
for the Sociology of education, edited by J. G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press.
Breton, Raymond. 1964. “Institutional Completeness of Ethnic Communities and the Personal
Relations of Immigrants.” American Journal of Sociology 70: 193-205.
Brewer, Cynthia & Trudy A. Suchan. 2001. Mapping Census 2000: The Geography of U.S.
Diversity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Brubaker, Rogers. 2004. Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cadge, Wendy. 2005. Heartwood: The First Generation of Theravada Buddhists in America.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cadge Wendy and Elaine Howard Ecklund. 2005. “Religious Service Attendance Among
Immigrants: Evidence from the New Immigrant Survey Pilot” Working Paper.
Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of
Sociology. 94:S95-S120.
DeSipio, Louis. 2002. “Faith and Politics in the American Religious Mosaic: Trends and
Prospects for a New Millennium.” Paper presented at Tower Center Conference on Religion
and American Political Behavior, Southern Methodist Univeristy, Dallas, Texas, (October).
Durkheim, Emile. 1915. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Translated by K.E. Fields.
New York, NY: The Free Press.
Ebaugh, Helen Rose and Janet Saltzman Chafetz, eds. 2000. Religion and the New Immigrants:
Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Press.
__________. 2002. Religion across Borders: Transnational Immigrant Networks. Walnut Creek,
CA: AltaMira Press.
Ebaugh, Helen Rose & Pipes, Paula F. 2001. “Immigrant Congregations as Social Service
Providers: Are They Safety Nets for Welfare Reform?” Pp. 95-110 in Religion and Social
Policy for the 21st Century, edited by Paula Nesbitt. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Espiritu, Yen Le. 2003. Home Bound: Filipino American Lives Across Cultures, Communities,
and Countries. Berkeley: Univeristy of California Press.
Faist, Thomas. 2000. The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social
Spaces. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Faist, Thomas and Eyüp Özveren. 2004. Transnational social spaces: agents, networks, and
institutions. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Fink, Leon. 2003. The Maya of Morganton: Work and Community in the Nuevo New South.
University of North Carolina Press.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
Glick Schiller, Nina and Peggy Levitt. 2005. “Haven’t We Heard This Somewhere Before? A
Reply to Waldinger and Fitzgerald.” Forthcoming.
Gordon, Milton. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National
Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
19
Grieco, Elizabeth. 2002. “Settlement Patterns of the Foreign Born in the United States: Results
from Census 2000.” U.S. in Focus. Migration Policy Institute. Available from:
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=61
Guarnizo, Luis Eduardo. 2003. "The Economics of Transnational Living." International
Migration Review 37: 666 -99.
Guarnizo, Luis E., Alejandro Portes and William Haller. 2003. “Assimilation and Transnationalism:
Determinants of Transnational Political Action among Contemporary Migrants.” American
Journal of Sociology 108: 1211-48.
Handlin, Oscar. 1951. The Uprooted. Boston: Little Brown.
Hannerz, Ulf. 1996. Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places. New York: Routledge.
Hardwick, Susan W. 2003. “Migration, Embedded Networks and Social Capital: Towards
Theorising North American Ethnic Geography.” International Journal of Population
Geography 9: 163-179.
Herberg, W. 1955. Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hirschman, Charles, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind, Eds. The Handbook of International
Migration. New York: Russell Sage.
Itzigsohn, José. 2000. “Immigration and the Boundaries of Citizenship: The Institutions of
Immigrants’ Political Transnationalism.” International Migration Review 24: 126-155.
Itzigsohn, José and S. Giorguli Saucedo. 2002. “Immigrant Incorporation and Sociocultural
Transnationalism.” International Migration Review 36: 766-99.
Jacoby, Tamar. 2004. “Defining Assimilation for the 21st Century.” Pp. 1-16 in Reinventing the
Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What It Means to be American, edited by Tamar
Jacoby. New York: Basic Books.
Jasso, Guillermina, Douglas S. Massey, Mark R. Rosenzweig, and James P. Smith. 2000.
"Family, Schooling, Religiosity, and Mobility Among New Legal Immigrants to the United
States: Evidence from the New Immigrant Survey Pilot.” Pp. 52-81 in Immigration Today:
Pastoral and Research Challenges. New York: Proceedings of the symposium organized by
the Center for Migration Studies of New York and Ford.
_______. 2003. "Exploring the Religious Preferences of Recent Immigrants to the United States:
Evidence from the New Immigrant Survey Pilot." Pp. 217-253 in Religion and Immigration:
Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Experiences in the United States, edited by Yvonne Yazbeck
Haddad, Jane I. Smith, and John L. Esposito. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Jones-Correa, Michael. 2001. "Institutional and Contextual Factors in Immigrant Citizenship and
Voting.” Citizenship Studies. 5(1): 41-56.
Jones-Correa, M. and D. Leal. 2001. “Political Participation: Does Religion Matter?” Political
Research Quarterly. 54:751-770.
Kasinitz, Philip, John H. Mollenkopf, and Mary Waters. 2004. Becoming New Yorkers:
Ethnographies of the Second Generation. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Khagram, Sanjeev & Peggy Levitt. 2004. “Constructing Transnational Studies.” The Hauser
Center for Non-Profit Organizations at Harvard University, Working Paper No. 24.
Kivisto, Peter J. 2001. “Theorizing Transnational Immigration: A Critical Review of
Current Efforts.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 24: 549-78.
Kurien, Prema. 1998. “Becoming American by Becoming Hindu: Indian Americans Take
their Place at the Multicultural Table.” Pp. 37-70 in Gatherings in Diaspora, edited by R.
Stephen Warner and Judith Wittner. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lee, Jongho, Pachon, Harry P., and Barreto, Matt. 2002. “Guiding the flock: Church as Vehicle
of Latino Political Participation.” Prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts, August 29-September 1,
2002.
20
Levitt, Peggy. 1998. “Local-Level Global Religion: The Case of U.S. - Dominican Migration.”
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 3: 74-89.
_______. 2001a. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
_______. 2001b. “Transnational Migration: Taking Stock and Future Directions.” Global Networks 1
(3): 195-216.
_______. 2004. “’I feel I am a citizen of the world and of a church without borders’: The Latino
Religious Experience.” Paper presented at Latinos: Past Influence, Future Power.
Conference of the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, Newport Beach, CA, January 31 – February
1, 2004.
_______. 2006. God Needs No Passport: Transnational Religious Life. Forthcoming.
Levitt, Peggy and Nina Glick Schiller. 2004. “Transnational Perspectives on Migration:
Conceptualizing Simultaneity.” International Migration Review 38: 1002-40.
Liebow, E. 1967. Tally’s Corner: A Study of Negro Streetcorner Men. Boston: Little Brown.
Loury, Glenn C. 1977. “A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences. Pp. 153-186 in
Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination, edited by P. A. Wallace and A. M.
LaMond. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.
Martes, Ana Maria Christina Braga and Carlos Rodriguez. 2002. “Church Membership, Social
Capital, and Entrepreneurship in Brazilian Communites in the U.S.” pp. 169-199 in Ethnic
Entrepreneurship: Structure and Process, edited by Stiles, Curt H. and Craig S. Galbraith.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Martin, Philip & Elizabeth Midgeley. 2003. “Immigration: Shaping and Reshaping America.”
Population Bulletin. 58 (2). Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau.
Menjívar, Cecilia. 1999. “Religious Institutions and Transnationalism: A Case Study of Catholic and
Evangelical Salvadoran Immigrants,” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society
12(4): 589-611.
Min, Pyong Gap. 1992. "The Structure and Social Functions of Korean Immigrant Churches in
the United States." International Migration Review 26: 1370-94.
Neckerman, Kathryn M., Prudence Carter and Jennifer Lee. 1999. “Segmented Assimilation and
Minority Cultures of Mobility.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22: 964-65.
Ong, Aihwa. 2003. Buddha is Hiding: Refugees, Citizenship, the New America. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Park, Robert Ezra. 1950. Race and Culture. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press).
Perry, Marc J. and Mackun, Paul J. 2001. Population Change and Distribution: 1990-2000.
(U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Brief C2KBR/01-2). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. Available from:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf.
Portes, Alejandro. 1995. "Economic Sociology and the Sociology of Immigration: A Conceptual
Overview." Pp. 1-43 in The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks,
Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship, edited by Alejandro Portes. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
_______. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.”
Annual Review of Sociology 24(1): 1-24.
Portes, Alejandro, Luis E. Guarnizo, and Patricia Landolt. 1999. “Introduction: Pitfalls and
Promise of an Emergent Research Field,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22: 463-478.
Portes, Alejandro and Patricia Landolt. 1996. “The Downside of Social Capital.” American
Prospect 26: 18-22.
Portes, Alejandro and Rubén Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Portes, Alejandro and Julia Sensenbrenner. 1993. “Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the
Social Determinants of Economic Action.” American Journal of Sociology 98: 1320-1351.
21
Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation Segmented Assimilation
and its Variants among Post-1965 Immigrant Youth.” Annals No. 530: 74-96.
Portes, Alejandro, William Haller, and Luis Guarnizo. 2002. “Transnational Entrepreneurs: The
Emergence and Determinants of an Alternative Form of Immigrant Economic Adaptation.”
American Sociological Review 67:278-98.
Putnam, Robert. 1995. “”Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of
Democracy 6(1): 65-78.
_______. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Communities. New York:
Touchstone.
Ray, Brian. 2003. “The Role of Cities in Immigrant Integration.” Migration Information Source,
October 1.
Ray, Brian K. and Ann Morse. 2004. Building the New American Community: Newcomer
Integration and Inclusion Experiences in Non-Traditional Gateway Cities. Washington, DC:
Migration Policy Institute.
Rumbaut, Rubén and Alejandro Portes. 2001. Ethnicities: Children of Immigrants in America.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sherman, Amy L. 2003. “The Community Serving Activities of Hispanic Protestant
Congregations.” Copublished by Hudson Institute’s Faith in Communities Initiative and The
Center for the Study of Latino Religion, Notre Dame University (December).
Singer, Audrey. 2004. “The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways.” The Living Cities Census
Series. February. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Smith, Michael P. and Luis Guarnizo. 1998. Transnationalism from Below, Vol. 6, Comparative
Urban and Community Research. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Sullivan, Kathleen. 2000. "St. Catherine’s Catholic Church: One Church, Parallel
Congregations." Pp. 196-209 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and
Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations, edited by Helen Rose Ebaugh and Janet Saltzman
Chafetz. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Strauss, Anselm L. and Corbin, Juliet. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage Publications.
Swift, Mike. 2002. “A Worldly Place: Flood of immigrants bring international flavor, age-old
problems to Danbury (Census 2000 Workshop).” Hartford Courant, January 13.
Vásquez, Manuel A. and Marie Friedmann Marquardt. 2003. Globalizing the Sacred: Religion
Across the Americas. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Waldinger, Roger and Cynthia Feliciano. 2004. “Will the New Second Generation Experience
‘Downward Assimilation’? Segmented Assimilation Re-assessed.” Ethnic and Racial Studies
27: 376-402.
Waldinger, Roger and Michael Lichter. 2003. How the Other Half Works: Immigration and the
Social Organization of Work. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Warner, R. Stephen and Judith G. Wittner, eds. 1998. Gatherings in Diaspora: Religious
Communities and the New Immigration. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Waters, Mary. 2002. “Twenty-First Century Melting Pot.” Contexts 1(2): 62-3.
Yang, Fenggang. 2002. “Chinese Christian Transnationalism: Diverse Networks of a Houston
Church.” Pp. 175-204 in Religions Across Borders: Transnational religious networks, edited
by Helen Rose Fuchs Ebaugh and Janet Saltzman Chafetz. Maryland: AltaMira Press.
Yang, Fenggang and Helen Rose Ebaugh. 2001. “Transformation in New Immigrant
Religions and Their Global Implications.” American Sociological Review. 66: 269-288.
22
Itemized Budget
1. Research Assistance
a. one research assistant for two quarters
salary ……….. $9,103
benefits ………$1,220
tuition ………. $5,320
Total …………$15,643
2. Other Research Expenses (covered by Templeton)
Travel
Research assistance for two quarters & summer
Translation/Transcription
IDC
23