Abstract
This project expands discussions regarding critical ways that students’ diverse backgrounds and experiences intertwine with service-learning and social justice. Educators need to empower the next generation to explore their views, apply their skills, and engage with social issues. The research intersects with complex conversations about students’ perspectives regarding media representations, justice system responses, and views of at-risk youth. The project spanned four semesters of a sociology of media and crime course with service-learning mentoring. Qualitative reflection data drawn from 104 participating student mentors provided insights into how service-learners’ unique personal histories and sociological imaginations inform their views of youth, the mentoring experience, and social justice. The findings focus attention upon diversity within classrooms and expand the conversation about social justice praxis and service-learning pedagogy. Through reflexivity, the researchers consider their own social justice and service-learning practices, and add to the call for greater reflexivity within community-engaged sociology classrooms.
As well-intentioned sociologists and service-learning practitioners, we aim for our social justice efforts to provide students with a reciprocal experience contributing to community uplift and enhancing self-growth. This requires that both faculty and students dig deeper into the complex meaning of social justice. Together, we must explore ways to more equitably distribute resources such as quality education, safe spaces, and supportive programs. As faculty, we must encourage opportunities to include students’ voices in the framing of economic, political, and social rights and opportunities. This necessitates deeper consideration of our assumptions regarding community needs and the needs of those who collaborate in these efforts, including applied sociologists and student sociologists contributing through service-learning courses.
Social justice lays a solid foundation for discussions of social uplift. At its core, social justice is both a theoretical perspective and an approach to applied work that focuses on morality and fairness regarding rights and desirable resources in the realms of economics, politics, and social experience. Beyond these central, unifying elements, there are distinct conceptualizations of the specific aims of, and mechanisms for achieving, social justice. There are different views on whether the goals of social justice should be equality or equity, and there are distinct stands on the methods to reach these aims through distributive, procedural, or interactional justice (Serim 2014:180). In addition, recent dialogue surrounding social justice perspectives highlights that we must transform existing deficit-based approaches, focusing on what communities and individuals lack, into asset-based approaches focusing on what communities and community members contribute to the social justice project (Bauer, Kniffin, and Priest 2015). There is a need for social justice frameworks that include the addition of social capital for youth, so they are empowered to find their voices and to make contributions in their communities to lessen their at-risk factors (Ginwright, Cammarota, and Noguera 2005). As practitioners, we must re-envision the positionings of our own students, focusing on how service-learners come from diverse backgrounds (Carracelas-Juncal 2013) and have variation in experiences (Hickmon 2015). These student inclusion and empowerment strategies converge with social justice aims.
Furthermore, developing sociological imagination is a key skill of sociology students (Ferguson and Carbonaro 2016) that provides a tool for understanding the experiences of others, systems of justice and injustice, and oneself. Sociological imagination focuses attention on how personal troubles must be understood in the context of wider public issues. This approach encourages people to “grasp what is going on in the world, and to understand what is happening in themselves as minute points of the intersections of biography and history within society” (Mills [1959] 2000:7). This well-respected viewpoint provides a foundation for prompting social justice–based changes through community-engaged sociology. It encourages students to reflect in complex ways on the structures requiring transformation. By better understanding our students’ sociological imaginations, as social justice faculty and practitioners, we will be more suited to apply praxis to transform our own approaches to service-learning and social justice work.
Also, sociology faculty should engage with diversity as a topic of study and as a very personal part of individual student and faculty experiences in the learning process. In the context of the broader objectives for the sociology discipline, our programs aim for students to hone skills in understanding social inequality, in various forms, including race, class, and gender, and for students to understand this at both the individual and group levels (Ferguson and Carbonaro 2016). As a discipline, infused with these considerations, sociology is well-positioned to explore pedagogical considerations of diverse classrooms. In his work on sociological imagination, Packard (2011) shows that classroom diversity can be a positive for the learning environment because students of different races engage with course material by integrating their individual experiences which enriches everyone’s understanding of sociological theories and concepts.
We must also consider the intimate intersection with the pedagogy and praxis informing our work. Mirroring Paulo Freire’s (2000) notion of praxis as “reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed” (p. 126), we must examine biographies and experiences of those engaging in reflection and action. As sociology faculty, in this deeply collaborative arrangement, we should carefully tend to guiding pedagogy, methods, and teaching practice, while opening our minds to ways that our collaborators, and the diversity among us, can expand our approaches within the field and classroom. Arguably, we are only beginning to explore students’ unique histories, identities, and academic experiences in ways that frame these factors as opportunities to enrich and expand social justice efforts.
To support this endeavor, this study explores students’ written reflections from four years of a media and crime service-learning course. The data were collected by the course instructor. Using a thematic approach, we assessed ways that students tap into sociological imagination in their meaning-making processes regarding at-risk youth and structural constraints. From the reflections, we also gleaned information about their own biographies including personal experiences as, or family connections to, at-risk youth. By using a thematic analysis to explore students’ pre- and post-course written reflections, we developed a better understanding of how their pre-course positionings intersect with deeper student understanding of the experiences of at-risk youth and the media. This work contributes to calls for greater faculty focus on students’ diversity and knowledge and keener attention to faculty reflexivity in the development of community-engaged sociology courses.
At-Risk Youth, Juvenile Justice, and the Media
As context for this study, we introduce societal level concerns regarding at-risk youth, along with the juvenile justice system and the media, both of which convey ideas to the public.
Issues of social justice and inequality, including uneven distribution of resources and opportunities, hit youth hard. As outlined in “Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support At Risk Youth,” youth face an array of problems associated with individual level factors, family, peers, communities, and schools (Koball et al. 2011). In a report, submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Koball and her colleagues highlight how lack of parental resources can place children at educational disadvantage; exposure to violence can impede well-being; unstable families can reduce necessary supervision; and lower quality schools and lack of job opportunities can create hurdles. These factors can lead to troubling outcomes for youths’ futures. Youth with multiple risk factors, such as family dysfunction, school failure, and association with delinquent peers, have a higher chance of entering the juvenile justice system (Development Services Group, Inc. 2015).
These concerns related to juveniles created a need for institutional level supports. In response, our society created the American juvenile justice system specifically to service children (Sickmund and Puzzanchera 2014). The juvenile system is distinct from the adult criminal justice system, and rehabilitation is used to reduce recidivism and decrease the likelihood that youth continue offending behaviors into adulthood. It became common practice in the late 1980s and early 1990s for states to adopt “get-tough” policies for youth which involved transferring more juveniles into the adult system at younger ages for a greater variety of crimes including some nonviolent offenses (Juvenile Law Center 2019). Even though juvenile arrests represent less than 8 percent of adult arrests, and arrest rates for juveniles have declined by 70 percent since 1996 (Puzzanchera 2019), there exists a struggle between rehabilitative options that provide treatment for youth and punitive options that are more deterrence based (Artello et al. 2015). Harsh juvenile penalties are still common practice, and race continues to be a strong predictor of the punishment level that a juvenile receives (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2017).
Also in the 1980s and 1990s, when crime, including juvenile crime, rose drastically, a negative image of juveniles emerged which further fueled punitive approaches within juvenile justice. The term “super-predator,” coined by John DiLulio (1995), described violent, predatory juveniles and pushed for severe penalties. Although the “super-predator” myth never came to fruition, people’s fear of adolescents remained, and still exists, complicating people’s ability to empathize with at-risk and delinquent youth. Instead of desiring to help, people may believe that harsh penalties are warranted when juveniles commit serious violations of the law (Greene and Evelo 2013). These perspectives exacerbate the complexities of helping young people.
Arguably, society’s fear of our youth is influenced by the media. The more that people are exposed to violent media, the more they misunderstand the nature of juvenile crime, and the more fearful they become of victimization (Goidel, Freeman, and Procopio 2006). George Gerbner’s (1998) cultivation theory states that increased television viewing contributes to misperceptions about the “real” world and results in a “mean world syndrome” which increases and exaggerates fear of crime. Media messages are one of the largest contributors to personal beliefs about crime and victimization. The public’s general knowledge of our juvenile justice system is slanted largely due to inaccurate media portrayals of youth as dangerous. Dorfman and Schiraldi (2001) determined that news coverage of juvenile crime often depicts youth as violent, and the coverage does not reflect actual crime rates. Violent images of juvenile offenders support myths that juvenile offending is rising and adds to a “get-tough” mentality, advocating for transferring juveniles to adult court, and imposing life without parole sentences (Roberts 2004). The images of youth, as depicted in the media, can have real-world consequences via the justice system.
It is notable that youth in the legal system are often beset with troubles. Between one-half and two-thirds of youth, who are detained in our juvenile justice system, have one or more psychiatric disorders (Washburn et al. 2015). Many have experienced severe trauma, including emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and neglect (Marsiglio et al. 2014). Punitive deterrent measures are counterproductive to youth outcomes and public safety; they prevent youth access to treatment, inhibit educational opportunities and support networks for youth who are at-risk of delinquent behavior, and increase the likelihood of recidivism (Thomas and Wilson 2017). Social justice issues must come to the forefront, with youth and adults working together to create a more equitable world, absent of racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia, and with an increased quality of life for disadvantaged youth (McDaniel 2017).
The compounding entanglement of juvenile justice approaches and educational opportunities are at the heart of social justice and complicate risk factors for delinquency. This includes, “Disparity in terms of referral rates for discretionary discipline, overrepresentation of minority youth in juvenile justice, and the overlap in low educational attainment for specific groups of youth” (Sander et al. 2011:310). In the state of Florida, which is the location of this study, in fiscal year 2018–2019, 21 percent of the youth population aged 10 to 17 was black, yet these children represented 49.9 percent of juvenile arrests, 53.9 percent of adjudicated youth, 61.5 percent of adolescents placed in residential facilities, and 65.5 percent of juvenile transfers to adult court (Florida Department of Juvenile Justice 2020). Schools, communities, and government entities must ensure that youth receive fair treatment and high quality, relevant services to grow into productive, equal, and valued members of society. The conversation about juvenile justice concerns, at the level of public discourse, must pivot to a more inclusive mindset of “they are all my kids” (Artello et al. 2015:7).
Making Connections and Service-Learning
To achieve these aims, society needs to address the breakdown in connections between youth and communities. The Crisis of Connection (2018), an edited volume by Way, Ali, Gilligan, and Noguera, who are experts from the fields of education, youth, and social justice, shows that lack of connection is a root cause of despair, loneliness, and violence. Experiences of disconnect within schools and community are particularly difficult for youth who are developing ideas about their individual places in society, systems of oppression, and systems of support (Edell 2018; Noguera 2018). Building educational and community programs can bridge physical and social distance between disparate individuals and give people a sense of being valued.
Combating negative views of youth often requires direct contact and personal experience among youth and adults; for example, experiential learning brings together university students and at-risk youth. In a study by Leunes, Bourgeois, and Grajales (1996), psychology students experienced two types of exposure to juvenile offenders: (1) these youth spoke to their class and (2) undergraduate students toured the juvenile correctional facility. Results indicated that students’ attitudes toward juvenile offenders became more positive after their personal experiences. Also, mentoring, as a form of community engagement, has been widely used as an intervention for at-risk youth, yet research on its effects has been mixed. For youth with limited opportunities, mentoring provides an opportunity for a trusting and supportive relationship (Converse and Lignugaris/Kraft 2008). A meta-analysis of 46 mentoring studies determined that mentoring outcomes are better when emotional support and advocacy are placed at the core of the program (Tolan et al. 2013). Relatedly, the contact hypothesis, developed by Gordon Allport in the 1950s, states that tolerance and acceptance can be achieved between groups through contact that is personal, equal, and cooperative (Allport 1954). Recent research indicates that the basis for acceptance or bias reduction is largely emotional rather than cognitive (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006). This supports the personal and emotional nature of mentoring relationships.
As an intervention, well-designed mentoring programs can be successfully paired with service-learning to produce beneficial outcomes for mentees and mentors. Mentoring relationships on school campuses may combat adolescents’ loneliness, increase sense of belonging and empowerment for older adolescents, and potentially reduce a student’s likelihood of dropping out (Evans 2007). Existing research has explored how university mentors shape their perspectives in response to the service-learning experience. Quantitative analysis of the effects of service-learning mentoring on university students found that participation “was associated with significantly higher scores on mentors’ civic attitudes, community service self-efficacy, self-esteem, interpersonal and problem solving skills, civic action, and political awareness” (Weiler et al. 2013:243). This supports previous research showing that service-learning in general has positive effects on personal and interpersonal development (Hébert and Hauf 2015). More recently, Lee, Bell, and Shaulskiy (2017) explored service-learning in a multicultural setting by looking at ways mentors made meaning of their interactions with mentees; some describing relationships as mutually beneficial and others seeing them as more one-sided. This adds complexity to existing literature on how service-based academic experiences improve students’ understanding and engagement with diversity and stratification, including race (Carracelas-Juncal 2013; Hickmon 2015). Research shows that structured service-learning assists students with improved understanding of social structures affecting individual outcomes (Hollis 2002), recognition of the intersection between personal and structural (Kinefuchi 2010), and development of social justice perspectives and application of sociological imagination (Rondini 2015). With clear and inclusive strategies, service-learning mentoring can be beneficial.
With this in mind, in this project, we seek to explore the following research questions: How do student mentors apply their own sociological imaginations to interpret their views of at-risk youth? How does the service experience affect the mentors’ meaning-making processes?
Project and Method
Media and Crime Course
The course at the center of this research is Media and Crime taught at Jacksonville University, a small private liberal arts university, in Jacksonville, Florida. More than half of the students are white (53 percent) and a higher percentage are female students (63 percent). The course is housed within the sociology department and also fulfills credit toward the criminal justice minor. While the course attracts mainly upper level students, it does not have a prerequisite. Hence, students arrive at the course with varying degrees of knowledge about the course themes. The Media and Crime course explores the relationship between mass media and the criminal justice system with a strong focus on juvenile offenders. Course objectives aim to help students better understand the history and context of the relationship between mass media and criminal justice through the analysis of current events in mass media dealing with criminal justice and by examining the role of social control in the mass media and criminal justice. Students gain an understanding of the impact of the media on the social construction of crime in a community and, through work with a community partner, reflect upon the development of their own beliefs regarding crime (specifically juvenile crime). Through this course, students demonstrate awareness of civic responsibilities and contribution to the community.
In addition, the instructor worked with the University’s director of service-learning to create student learning outcomes that provide a platform for integrating service-learning mentoring with academic exploration of juvenile justice, media, and application of sociological imagination. The course instructor, who has a professional background in the juvenile justice system and academic credentials in criminal justice, supports students in preparing for and processing their direct experiences with at-risk youth. Specifically, students analyze current events in the mass media that deal with criminal justice, focusing on the roles of ideology and social construction of community crime. Students also analyze the media’s role in development of their own beliefs regarding crime (specifically juvenile crime) in the community and reflect upon the influence (if any) of service-learning on past and present beliefs regarding juveniles.
Media and Crime’s service-learning component pairs university students with local at-risk middle and high school youth from Duval County Public Schools. Mentoring is facilitated through a local dropout prevention nonprofit organization that works with almost 6,000 public school students throughout the city. Staff are located at 34 elementary, middle, and high schools and provide resources to help keep students in school and on track for graduation through case management, literacy efforts, and after school enrichment. Their mission includes helping students build positive relationships with caring adults, providing a safe place to learn and grow, and helping build marketable skills for postgraduation. The University works closely with staff at one high school and one middle school located near campus. The project goals for the mentors include the course objectives noted above that center on community. Mentors and mentees work together to achieve individualized aims determined for each mentee by the local dropout prevention agency. There is a focus on improving each mentee’s specific areas of concern, including school attendance, grades, discipline, or social disconnection. The mentoring activities typically involve providing homework assistance and social support for the mentees.
Several mechanisms were employed to ensure the safety of all participants and ethical use of data. The University’s Service-Learning Center provides liability waivers, approved by University Legal Counsel, and monitors that each participating college student mentor completes the participation waiver. The research component of the project was reviewed and approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board. The college participants also completed consent waivers. In addition, the community partner facilitates waivers for the student mentees covering parental consent for participation in the program. As part of the partnering agency’s requirements, college student mentors all complete background checks.
Before the semester, university students are informed of the service-learning; it is denoted on the course schedule and shared through pre-semester e-mail contact facilitated by the instructor. Students are given the choice to mentor a middle or high school student. Matches are based on mentor applications that indicate gender, mutual interests, and scheduling necessities. During the first week of class, university students meet the nonprofit staff who provide service project details. Each student mentors an at-risk youth once per week for 12 weeks, supporting their mentees with homework assistance, peer and family challenges, and other social issues. Throughout the experience, university mentors have support of agency staff at the school and their instructor who has an extensive professional background working with at-risk in the juvenile justice system. At the end of the term, mentees visit the University campus to participate in a guided tour and celebration lunch with their mentors.
Profile of Youth and Community
Over the last two decades, the local community has experienced economic shifts, resulting in community challenges. During the data collection period, the neighborhood public schools had school grades of Cs and Ds (on a scale of A through F) and serviced student populations that were on average 80 percent racial minorities and 60 percent lower income (Duval County Public Schools 2016). The mentees in this service-learning project were considered at-risk for one or multiple factors and therefore identified as needing dropout prevention services.
The schools are located within two miles of the University, yet the partnering university and schools are vastly different when looking through the social justice lens. For most of the mentees in this program, the end of semester celebration is their first time visiting the University campus located within their own neighborhood. For many mentors, this is the first time they have explored local community resources outside of campus.
Data Collection
This research project spanned four fall semesters and involved 104 university students who completed the course. Data collection was based on two written student reflection assignments: one completed at the beginning of semester, before the service experience and exposure to course material, and another at the end of the semester. Reflections were graded to increase the likelihood of thorough and thoughtful completion, representing 10 percent of the course score.
The first reflection, given during week 1 of the semester, asked students: (1) What is your current perception of at-risk youth? and (2) What impact do you believe the media has had on this perception?
The responses were to provide insight into students’ perspectives and to gauge their analysis of the interaction between various aspects of the social systems and personal experiences that affect the lives of youth. The first reflections also allowed insight into mentors’ own experiences and histories that lay a foundation for their mentoring and viewpoints.
Following 12 weeks of mentoring, the students reflected in writing on their experiences and again on their perceptions of youth, media, and the juvenile justice system. They were asked the following series of questions: (1) What has been the impact of your service-learning experience on your views regarding juvenile delinquency? (2) Have your views changed or remained the same? (3) Do you see a conflict between what is portrayed in the media regarding juvenile delinquency and your own personal experiences this semester with “at-risk” youth? and (4) Finally, what do you feel like you gained from your experience as a mentor? What do you feel like your mentee gained?
These responses provided insights into the mentors’ interpretations of the mentoring experience and the ways that they describe various factors affecting at-risk youth in mentoring programs. Pseudonyms were used to ensure participant anonymity.
To analyze the data, we used a qualitative deductive thematic approach. To ensure two viewpoints on data analysis, we both participated in manually analyzing reflections, coding, interpreting, and explaining data. The analysis was guided by sociological imagination as the foundation for explaining students’ meaning-making process and categorized elements according to the central concepts of sociological imagination. We looked at social structure (S), individual mentee traits (I), and critical reflexivity (R) as an important approach advocated for by Mills ([1959] 2000). Unlike Mills, we did not separate out history as an independent category, instead blending as necessary with social structure. The analysis of structural factors included institutions such as family, media, school, and the criminal justice system. Individual mentee traits included attitudes, views, and choices belonging to the youth themselves. Mentors’ application of critical reflexivity involved their own interpretations of mentees and society, as filtered through their own life experience. Using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) allowed arrangement of data to understand students’ active application of sociological imagination and social justice perspectives related to common themes including media, justice system, and mentee needs. We then grouped course reflections by year. Each of the researchers was assigned two years of reflections to conduct a primary coding, searching for alignment with the central concepts (S, I, R), and the predetermined elements. For an iterative process, and to ensure inter-coder reliability, the data interpretations were then read by the other researcher, and any conflicts in interpretation were discussed. Building from the data, we propose new views on and approaches to the interplay among student, faculty, and social justice–based service-learning.
Results
In the first assignment, students reflected on: What is your current perception of at-risk youth? This broad question produced responses focused on particular themes. The most frequently noted themes included media influence, poverty, unmet needs, community crime and disorganization, and family. Some of the university students also discussed individual characteristics, school, and negative labels. The diversity of responses was likely a reflection of the variations in students’ previous coursework and preparation for the elective course that does not have prerequisites. The students’ inclusion of media in their discussions about at-risk youth may reasonably have been a reflection of their awareness of the course title. Yet, as demonstrated in the following analysis, the subtleties of the students’ thoughts on media, and the other themes, provided windows into the unanticipated complexity of their sociological imaginations.
Following the semester of course readings, class discussions, and direct service, in post-course reflections, the vast majority of mentors believed that their perceptions regarding at-risk youth and delinquency changed because of the service-learning project and noted areas of self-growth. Several other themes emerged relating to social justice and youth based on the mentors’ experiences. Most of the mentors mentioned that their mentees were frustrated by experiences with adults in family, school, and community negatively labeling them, and that the youth had resulting trust issues with adults. Also, most mentors mentioned their mentees’ unmet needs and some mentioned the need for greater community support. Approximately one-quarter of mentors indicated appreciation for support systems they themselves have in comparison to their mentees.
Sociological Imagination Applied through Themes
To explore each common theme, we apply the lens of sociological imagination to make sense of students’ processing and meaning-making in overarching themes: role of media, views on at-risk youth, mentor self-growth, and perceived mentee needs and strengths. Analyzing students’ own words, from pre-course and post-course, we designate components representing student mentors’ consideration of structural factors (S), individual elements (I), and reflexivity (R).
Themes about Media
Mentors frequently mentioned media as a structural factor impacting views of at-risk youth: The perception of at-risk youth today is undoubtedly impacted by media, both in the way society categorizes them as well as what society is led to believe about them. When I think of at-risk youth, the first thing that comes to mind is crime. I know my perception of at-risk youth could be very wrong, and I hope this service-learning experience proves that.—Elizabeth (S)
While Elizabeth did not directly note personal experience or biography, she indicated awareness that service mentoring holds potential for supporting development of a more complex viewpoint.
Through their reflections, students also demonstrated application of two or more components of sociological imagination: By declaring that these children will end up in prison, the media perpetuates the idea that they are delinquents long before they start offending and that criminal label is almost impossible for these kids to get rid of.—Paul (S, I) Media makes at-risk youths out to be helpless and delinquents. They stereotype kids by race and social class, so the rest of society sees them as “too far gone” and just ready to go to prison.—Luther (S, I) I am excited to become a mentor for one of these kids because I feel that there are some cool things I can share with him. Most importantly I want him to feel that he is worth something and that anything is possible. These kids also see the media and feel as if they are worthless.—Liam (S, I, R)
These three students all highlighted media as a structural factor (S) affecting perception of youth and demonstrated more multifaceted consideration of the youths’ own processing (I) of media’s perceptions of them. In addition, Liam expressed early elements of reflexivity by noting layers of his personal desire for change (R).
Following their service experiences, mentors were more apt to use sociological imagination to describe not just media as a variable, but also interplay of media representation with society’s notions of juveniles. Most students indicated understanding of the interaction between the media’s and public’s views as components of the social system, often focusing on the media’s portrayal of at-risk youth. Demonstrating consideration of this interrelationship, Joaquin mentioned, “Media gives negative labels and the public a negative view”(S). Also noting structural forces, Kylie shared, “Media keeps distance between us and them” (S, I, R). Some mentors, including Kylie, provided analysis that included all three elements. Her statement shows understanding of how people process and respond to images of youth as portrayed by the media, and then use the images to reinforce stratification systems. She also voiced understanding that individual youth may process and embrace the media’s images of them. By mentioning “us” and “them,” Kylie showed awareness of her own position and role.
Themes about “At-Risk” Youth
Throughout the term, mentors shared their own views about youth, exploring the meaning of “at-risk” as rooted in social structures, and the outcomes for youth themselves. Some mentors arrived at the experience from unexpected starting points framed by their own biographies: Honestly, my perception of at-risk young adults is my younger self at that age. Doing whatever it took to be cool, which meant going to jail, getting kicked out, slanging dope, and still managing a C+ average. That was me, the at-risk teen, the one who also graduated at the top of my class, was accepted to 15 universities, has a full ride scholarship, and barely gets any sleep because, well I work to stay out of trouble . . . I’ve been in their shoes . . . So, like anything else, my perception of at-risk youth is a constant reminder of why it is my job to help them . . . Labeled by people because the media can never get the story right about at-risk youth. As if we were animals or something, nothing but labels from a television screen.—Tonya (S, I, R)
This is one of the most telling examples of how university student mentors enter service experiences from dissimilar starting positions and have complex abilities to tap into all elements of sociological imagination. Tonya acknowledged structural factors (including media), individual elements (the mentees’ anticipated challenges), and application of reflexivity (own biography). After mentoring, the mentors voiced an array of perspectives regarding at-risk youth that integrated various elements of sociological imagination. Gray shared, “My views have not changed that much from this experience just because I grew up in what one would consider a ‘broken’ type of upbringing and I already knew things these kids were going through” (I, R). Through admission of his static views, Gray highlighted recognition of the youths’ individual journeys and how his views continue to be informed by his own experience growing up.
Other mentors pointed to structural factors impacting mentees. One mentor noted the importance of considering resource differences affecting youth. Another mentor said her mentee did not have homework help, a computer, library access, nor a ride to ACT or SAT testing.
Also, some mentors tied into labeling theory; that being labeled as deviant by wider social forces may lead you to choose to take on these traits and behaviors. To describe his own perspective shift, Zane stated, “Labeling theory could have a big role” (R, S). Another mentor who had viewpoint change indicated, “ . . . now see kids are labeled . . . [my] feelings changed about what the labels mean” (S, I, R). Zane integrated structural, individual, and reflexive elements. Other mentors, who did not experience perspective change, still understood the importance of labels in the youths’ experience. Alex went so far as to question complexities of mentees being associated with the mentoring program, “Being recognized as part of the mentoring program may lead to negative views by others” (S, I). Alex insightfully notes that other students may see the program as a form of punishment or discipline for inappropriate or delinquent behavior.
In addition, mentors often described their mentees using terms infused with affection which supports the findings of Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) that changing attitudes through contact is based on emotion. Some mentors transferred these feelings from individual mentee to the wider youth population. For example, Sibel shared, “[I] now see labeled kids have a sweet, innocent side.” Sibel’s views regarding at-risk youth changed dramatically from the beginning to the end of the course. She specifically stated that, by the end of the course, she believed that mentoring can help even the most at-risk or delinquent youth, the ones with the most negative labels. She also changed her views regarding penalties for youthful offending. At the time of her final reflection, she stated that harsh penalties for delinquency are the “easy way out” and that our youth deserve more. Many mentors expressed more refined, or, like Sibel, sometimes newly developed positive perspectives about youth. This could be confirmed through mentors’ language, with about one-quarter of mentors referring to their mentees by name.
Themes about Mentor Self and Growth
Through reflection, student mentors expressed a range of thoughts about personal experience, growth, and learning. Before mentoring, Simon shared, I have a 16 year old brother who has been in and out of trouble for years so I feel like I can relate to both sides of wanting to hold onto them, and wanting to wash her hands as well. (R)
Simon explained his sense of self-efficacy regarding mentor preparation, rooted in his personal connection to at-risk youth. While the comment may suggest simply using one’s own experience for interpretation, Simon aptly targets the complexities of seeing both sides.
At the end of semester, several mentors reflected on their enhanced gratitude and appreciation. Others described greater openness to youth. Several highlighted the realization that there is no need to fear kids, with some expressing sorrow and tapping into the effect that mentoring had on their perspectives. Personal perspectives of several mentors support contact hypothesis (Allport 1954). Anne indicated, “The sad thing is that not many people have had the experience our class has had, so they believe this negative stereotype” (S, R). And Shawn demonstrated critical awareness of structural factors that affected his own viewpoints, “I think that a lot of my stereotyping had to do with the media and how they perceive juveniles to be. Obviously, I know that this isn’t true but my mind sometimes doesn’t distinguish reality from fiction especially if I have never encountered a situation like mentoring kids” (S, R).
Shawn was not alone. Most of the university students felt that they had personally engaged in some negative labeling of youth before meeting the mentees. The university students indicated that in a variety of contexts that they would now be less judgmental and more open to helping others who are struggling. Yvonne said, “I gained a lot from this experience, mainly not to judge before you meet someone” (I, R). Some students noted general self-improvement. Josh applied both awareness of the kids’ individual needs and of how his own viewpoint and approach to mentoring affected the experience, “I know that every week I walked into that school I wanted to be a better version of myself that she could look up to” (R, I). Others, such as Cami, shared a deeper connection with her views on youth and authentic understanding of what they experience. She said, “I gained a more personal understanding of what occurs in a child’s life” (I, R).
Moreover, some mentors reflected on their own present vulnerabilities, exposing how the mentoring provided them with life-changing support. Maria shared that she had been depressed, but her mentee’s smile was uplifting and gave her own life meaning.
Themes about Mentee Needs and Strengths
Themes about mentees’ needs and the impact of mentoring came up in the reflections. At the beginning, Eddy expressed ideas about the importance of listening and how strong and savvy the mentees are, My perception is this: these students are not stupid. They know they’re getting the short end of the stick. They become what people expect them to be because the idea of “potential” is wasted on a group of students who are already getting support. These students have a voice. But it takes someone to listen to that voice for the story to become reality. When you think about it, we are all at risk. It may take just one experience to put us in the same position they’re in. Just one circumstance to change that makes us lose our voice. We all need a voice. (S, I, R)
Eddy demonstrated all components of sociological imagination. She layered in structural concerns through mention of “short end of the stick” and people’s perceptions. She indicated profound consideration of individual youths’ knowledge and agency. And she applied reflexivity by noting that loss of voice and power could happen to anyone, placing herself into the group.
At the end of the semester, many mentors indicated that mentees gained someone who is concerned about their needs. Ronnie, “I learned that children need adults to appreciate them” (I). This helped mentees expand in areas of academics, but mentors also really connected with mentees through their specific extracurricular interests. Andy indicated that he helped his mentee, “become a better athlete by kicking his butt in basketball :) :)” (I). Sharon’s mentee loved art, and Sharon supported her. Sharon reflected, Simple sketches could become amazing art if she [mentee] keeps at it which is why I bought her a sketchbook because I want her to take pride in it instead of downplaying it . . . I know I had times when I was younger where if I wasn’t told I was good enough I didn’t believe it. (S, I, R)
The mentors also noted their mentees’ social skills; over half of the university students were impressed that their mentees valued the mentoring, expressed gratitude for the visits, and appreciation for guidance and support.
Students’ Ongoing Social Justice Efforts
Notably, most of the university students felt mentoring was a beneficial experience; some claimed it was life changing. Through the support of the supervising faculty member, the students came to develop new notions of how the experience could extend beyond the classroom. The change in several mentors’ attitudes toward at-risk youth was also evident in their post-course choices and career plans. As a result of this eye-opening experience, one student pointed out that she now knows this is all too complicated and wants to work with adults. Others noted that they will apply the lessons learned about at-risk youth to be better humans in their career fields of education, youth work, social work, and the military.
In fact, several mentors chose to continue supporting mentees and the program. To date, 15 students have opted to continue mentoring through the University’s service-learning independent study option. Some mentors have transitioned into internships and eventually paid positions with the mentoring agency. Other mentors have initiated research projects to delve deeper into conditions of local schools, youth, and community; this research has been provided to the partner agency to help improve the quality of programs and services.
Discussion
Deeper Dive into Student Biographies
This study also demonstrates the importance of considering the biographies of service-learners which provides a foundation for their experience and understanding of others’ lives. The project shows greater interplay between mentors’ biographies and their service-learning. The mentors began the service journey at various starting points in regard to personal lives and academic coursework. In line with previous research, including Leunes et al. (1996), most mentors experienced a perspective shift and developed a more open and complex view of youth. For instance, one mentor noted the value of understanding the different connotations between the terms at-risk youth and juvenile delinquents. Some mentors expressed that they had little or no change in their views throughout the term. These students typically shared that they started the semester with a more informed view of at-risk youth or had similar personal experience, coming from like communities or personal experiences as an at-risk youth. This supports existing social justice service-learning work aimed at dismantling frameworks of white privilege (Bocci 2015) and those assuming all service-learners have a uniform, privileged starting point (Carracelas-Juncal 2013; Hickmon 2015). This project reframes typical focus areas for assumptions about service-learners, adding additional life experiences that shape service-learners’ biographies, and service experience, including family experience, mental health, and community.
This research additionally problematizes pedagogy that approaches learners, in this case service-learners, from a deficit-based approach, suggesting students enter educational experience devoid of existing knowledge of social inequities, and lacking ability to apply multifaceted, critical analysis, in this case use of sociological imagination. To support students’ developing consciousness about one’s place, this study reinforces the importance of reflection in service-learning while elucidating the value of opportunities for students to consider connections with their own biographies (Kinefuchi 2010). These students demonstrated Mills’ ([1959] 2000) notion of the significance of one’s experience, “To say that you can ‘have experience,’ means, for one thing, that your past plays into and affects your present, and that it defines your capacity for future experience” (p. 196). While we must be critical of sole focus on self, as a starting point and outcome for service, this project illuminates more complex ways that self/biography can be used in service-learning as a lens and meaning-making mechanism that interacts with understanding of individuals’ experiences and structural forces and inequalities. In addition, we can reassess students’ willingness for self-expression and sharing of intimate autobiographical insights as demonstration of their awareness and strength.
Also, coinciding with previous work on students’ intersection of personal and structural considerations via service-learning (Kinefuchi 2010; Rondini 2015), this study reinforces that students can effectively apply sociological imagination in their meaning-making processes. Student mentors in the present study came to the course prepared with varying levels of knowledge about the concept of sociological imagination. While they did not use the term “sociological imagination” in their written responses, in their reflections about at-risk youth, they infused an array of sociological imagination considerations including understanding of wider social forces, individual experience, delicate connotations via language of at-risk youth and delinquents, individual identity, and the lens of their own personal biographies; all elements also related to social justice concepts in a school setting. While for some, sociological imagination was sparked by the course and the service-learning, other students experienced a different path. Unlike prior studies, this research shows that some students may express several elements of sociological imagination, and social justice orientation, prior to beginning the service project.
Furthermore, the mentors’ analyses exhibit understanding of what must occur in the applied realm to make meaningful change for youth. “Within education, social justice refers to an environment in which all students are treated with fairness and respect and within which everyone has equal access to the resources the school has to offer” (Sander et al. 2011:310). The university student mentors showed affection and concern for their mentees, demonstrating meaningful connections with individual elements of their mentees’ experiences. The mentors were willing to make the stretch regarding emotions and values; some bravely digging deep into difficult experiences of their own pasts and presents, and others reaching across the aisle to understand another human different from themselves. The mentors recognized stigma associated with labels and stereotypes for the mentees, coming from their home lives, the media, and participation in the mentoring program itself. The mentors expressed concern for real risks faced by these youth. In addition, the mentors focused on their mentees’ agency; their ideas, voices, and power; remarkably highlighting the mentors’ application of sociological imagination and recognition of the complexity of choices faced by these adolescents.
A majority of mentors mentioned listening as being helpful to their mentees; this was highlighted in the example of Eddy. Some mentors felt that they themselves became better listeners through this project which was shown through the examples of Ronnie and Sharon who listened and responded to their mentees’ needs in practical ways. Although many students began with apprehension about mentoring, they typically found that listening was key to successful relationships with the middle and high school students. Many mentioned the value of youth simply having someone available to listen. In line with Sander et al. (2011), having a caring adult within a school setting may increase school attachment, improve attendance, and achievement.
In addition, the mentors’ reflective language demonstrated their willingness to explore complex perspectives with the mature insight that building strong relationships requires a supportive foundation of communication and openness to personal agency. These skills, integrating crucial components of empowerment and social justice, align with noted elements of supportive youth-adult relationships; specifically, positive youth-adult relationships are often supported through respectful communication (Sander et al. 2011) and enhancement of youths’ sense of community connection results from a sense of adult support in power-sharing and ability to have a voice (Edell 2018; Evans 2007).
Faculty Reflexivity
Along with many service-learning practitioners, we have our eyes wide-open to the role that our own life histories and positions as faculty and researchers played in this process (Latta et al. 2018). Both of us approach our praxis through dedication to social justice and service; we focus on structures (communities and schools) that can benefit from partnership and mutual transformation. Yet, our positions, and our filters for meaning-making, are notably informed by our professional and academic backgrounds; one holding an advanced degree in criminal justice with professional background overseeing juvenile offender programs and the other with an advanced degree in sociology with research and administrative experience in service-learning. We have practical tools to construct a sound service-learning experience and apply the scholarship of teaching and learning to contribute to the academic knowledge base.
And we are also both middle-aged, middle class, white women, who are in some ways distant from the daily journeys of the mentees and our university student mentors. Our experiences cannot be fully separated from our reading and interpretation of these diverse college students’ experiences. In 2012, during the initial design of this scholarship of teaching and learning service-learning project, we realized that students would process mentoring through lenses of their individual experiences. Yet, we did not realize the breadth of individual histories each mentor would bring. Looking across the campus and classroom, neither of us fully understood that our students would be the friends or siblings of at-risk youth, nor did we grasp that some students might have experienced traumatic childhoods, been exposed to at-risk circumstances, or navigated the role of mentee themselves. In addition, we did not truly consider the circumstances of our university student mentors that would exist in the moment, including psychological stressors or residual scars. Through this process, we have reflected on our lenses, and praxis, and broadened our own view of others (in this case, the university students). In doing so, we have deepened our own pedagogy that informs our service-learning and social justice efforts. Progressing forward, when selecting each reading and planning each discussion, we will ask ourselves: What have the students already experienced that will inform their knowledge of this topic?
Limitations, Recommendations, and Enhancements
We acknowledge the limitations of the course itself and the study at hand. Drawing from what we have learned, in future semesters, the experience will be strengthened by having students begin the course with reflecting upon their own views in a more directed and meaningful way. Reflection assignments will now include questions to allow the professor better understanding of the students’ individual starting points. Questions will include (1) What experiences have given you insights into youth, poverty, or social inequality? and (2) What challenges do at-risk youth face? What wider structural factors affect their lives?
The first question will assist in understanding how student mentors’ personal experiences may affect their mentoring experience. Question 2 will enable students to provide early indication of their pre-existing understanding of youth and their experiences. Both will strengthen the instructor’s ability to provide more in-depth resources, promote deeper discussion, and encourage students with well-developed pre-course understanding to take greater leadership roles in classroom conversations.
Another limitation of this study is that we did not directly ask students to reflect upon themselves in conjunction with their experience. To empower greater reflexivity in future semesters, an autobiographical project will be added to enhance critical consciousness and sociological imagination including questions: What would be the fallacies of the media’s portrayal of high school me? What would be the fallacies of the media’s portrayal of me today?
These new reflective components acknowledge that many students have gained strength through their challenges and victories. Some of our students may still be struggling, and their strength adds something powerful; hope of possibility. As social justice educators, and allies in our diverse students’ journeys, this new direction also encourages more infusions of readings and resources that highlight the strength which comes through facing adversity; as this study shows, many students are ready to dive into them. As service-learning faculty, this more social justice–oriented approach also redirects our awareness to students’ diverse starting points for service experience and analysis noting that some already have complex viewpoints on structural, individual, and reflexive elements that inform their insights. While these approaches may add layers of human complexity, they also strengthen our community-based and applied sociological work. As an extension, at a programmatic level for the sociology department, a learning outcome for self-reflection will be added to the department’s assessment plan, and faculty will be encouraged to integrate similar types of self-reflective assignments.
When we combine our students’ assets with a renewed pedagogy, we can deepen our service experiences, and what we as university communities can authentically contribute through reciprocal service experiences with our communities and partners. And, in the case of mentoring, these efforts can have a positive impact, shedding new light on a portion of the public’s opinion regarding our youth, lessening anxiety, and refocusing energy on supportive views and programs.
More broadly, understanding service-learners’ starting viewpoints beyond just a baseline for semester progress may help practitioners develop stronger ways to build on engagement and learning experiences for service-learners at various pre-semester perspective preparation. Developing assignments and promoting discussions that help students tap into understanding of structural, individual, and reflexive elements may encourage deeper social justice engagement throughout service and community-based courses. From an applied end, these tools and aims could extend the conversation about preparing mentors for mentoring experiences and mechanisms needed for building deeper community support for at-risk youth.
Involving the mentees themselves in providing insights about the mentoring is another area for growth. Working from an asset-based approach, and inviting the youths’ voices in the academic project and research, can empower them to share in shaping the relationship building and mentoring aims to better achieve their own uplift. This project commenced in fall 2020.
Conclusion
In the final semester of this project, one mentor aptly indicated, “people should not judge a book by its cover without reading it first.” The power of pausing to learn and look more deeply rings true through this project. As social justice practitioners, we move forward with a fresher read of our own service-learning practice. The project also reinforced that embracing students’ diverse life stories and preparation can lead to more meaningful, critical service-learning pedagogy. The student mentors demonstrated capacity for a deeper social justice perspective on at-risk youth. Some students reflected on their own personal situations and life stories mirroring those of their mentees, while others gained a greater appreciation of their childhoods with family structures and communities that were, for the most part, low risk or risk free for delinquency. Regardless of their pasts, the mentors invested their time and energy in relationship building, social analysis, and applied complex understanding to embrace civic engagement firsthand. Whether through listening, advocacy, or direct assistance, they furthered social justice principles. Combining sociological imagination with application of social justice, these students are equipped to write their own next chapters as advocates for building connections with adolescents, and challenging social systems, such as the media and justice system, that limit youth agency and voice.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
