This article examines the ways in which transnational Latino immigrants in urban communities use computer technology. Drawing from a 3-year ethnographic study, it focuses on three second-generation transnational female youth, their families, and members of their respective immigrant networks. Data were collected in both the United States and Mexico. Findings point to the ways in which urban Latino immigrants acquire technology and use this practice in binational, bilingual contexts. In addition, this research informs what we know about the digital divide, especially regarding bilingual Latino immigrants—a group sorely underrepresented in the literature on technology, communities, and schools. Implications for teaching are also addressed.
ArandaE. M. (2006). Emotional bridges to Puerto Rico: Migration, return migration, and the struggles of incorporation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
2.
BenítezJ. L. (2006). Transnational dimensions of the digital divide among Salvadoran immigrants in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Global Networks, 6(2), 181-199.
3.
Berkeley Unified School District. (2005). BUSD School Accountability Report Cards for 2004-2005. Retrieved from http://www.berkeley.k12.ca.us/
4.
BrittainC. (2002). Transnational messages: Experiences of Chinese and Mexican immigrants in American schools. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly.
BryantA.CharmazK. (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJohn G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
8.
BurawoyM. (2000). Introduction: Reaching for the global. In BurawoyM.BlumJ. A.GeorgeS.GilleZ.GowanT.HaneyL.KlawiterM.LópezS. H.O’RiainS.ThayerM. (Eds.), Global ethnography: Forces, connections, and imaginations in a postmodern world (pp. 1-40). Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
ChakrabortyJ.BosmanM. M. (2002). Race, income, and home PC ownership: A regional analysis of the digital divide. Race and Society, 5(2), 163-177.
10.
ClarkK. (2005). Communities with instructional technologies: Giving them what they need, not what you want. Urban Education, 40, 430-445.
11.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
12.
EmmisonM.FrowJ. (1998). Information technology as cultural capital. Australian Universities Review, 41(1), 41-45.
13.
FairlieR. W. (2005). Are we really a nation online? Ethnic and racial disparities in access to technology and their consequences. Report for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Retrieved from http://www.freepress.net/files/lccrdigitaldivide.pdf
14.
FigueroaJ. L.SánchezP. (2008). Technique, art, or cultural practice? Ethnic epistemology in Latino qualitative studies. In FongT. P. (Ed.), Ethnic studies research: Approaches and perspectives (pp. 143-177). Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
15.
FoxS.LivingstonG. (2007). Latinos online: Hispanics with lower levels of education and English proficiency remain largely disconnected from the Internet [Electronic Version]. The Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Latinos-Online.aspx
GershbergA. I.DanenbergA.SánchezP. (2004). Beyond “bilingual” education: New immigrants and public school policies in California. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
18.
Glick SchillerN.BaschL.Szanton BlancC. (1992). Transnationalism: A new analytic framework for understanding migration. In Glick SchillerN.BaschL.Szanton BlancC. (Eds.), Towards a transnational perspective on migration (pp. 1-24). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.
19.
GorskiP. (2003). Privilege and repression in the digital era: Rethinking the sociopolitics of the digital divide. Race, Gender, & Class, 10(4), 145-176.
20.
GuarnizoL. E. (1998). The rise of transnational social formations: Mexican and Dominican state responses to transnational migration. Political Power and Social Theory, 12, 45-94.
21.
GuarnizoL. E. (2001). On the political participation of transnational migrants: Old practices and new trends. In GerstleG.MollenkopfJ. (Eds.), E pluribus unum? Contemporary and historical perspectives on immigrant political incorporation (pp. 213-263). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
22.
HallB. L. (1992). From margins to center? Development and purpose of participatory research. American Psychologist, 23(4), 15-28.
23.
HarewoodS. J.ValdiviaA. N. (2005). Exploring Dora: Re-embodied Latinidad on the web. In MazzarellaS. R. (Ed.), Girl wide web (pp. 85-104). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
24.
Hondagneu-SoteloP.AvilaE. (1997). “I’m here but I’m there”: The meanings of Latina transnational motherhood. Gender & Society, 11, 548-571.
LópezN. (2002). Hopeful girls, troubled boys: Race and gender in urban education. New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
LevittP. (2001). The transnational villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
MaguireP. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA: The Center for International Education.
31.
MarcusG. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95-117.
32.
MarcusG. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
MenjívarC. (2000). Fragmented ties: Salvadoran immigrant networks in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
MonkmanK.RonaldM.ThéramèneF. D. (2005). Social and cultural capital in an urban Latino school community. Urban Education, 40(1), 4-33.
35.
OlsenL. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York, NY: The New Press.
36.
OrellanaM. F. (2003, Winter). Responsibilities of children in Latino immigrant homes. New directions for youth development: Understanding the social worlds of immigrant youth, 100, 25-39.
37.
OrellanaM. F.DornerL. M.PulidoL. (2003). Accessing assets: Immigrant youth’s work as family translators or “para-phrasers.”Social Problems, 50, 505-524.
38.
OrellanaM. F.ReynoldsJ.DornerL.MezaM. (2003b). In other words: Translating or “para-phrasing” as a family literacy practice in immigrant households. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 24.
39.
PanagakosA. N.HorstH. A. (2006). Return to Cyberia: Technology and the social worlds of transnational migrants. Global Networks, 6(2), 109-124.
40.
ParkP. (1999). People, knowledge, and change in participatory research. Management Learning, 30(2), 141-157.
RongX. L.PreissleJ. (1998). Educating immigrant students: What we need to know to meet the challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
44.
RumbautR. G. (2002). Severed or sustained attachments? Language, identity, and imagined communities in the post-immigrant generation. In LevittP.WatersM. C. (Eds.), The changing face of home: The transnational lives of the second generation (pp. 43-95). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
45.
SánchezP. (2004). At home in two places: Second-generation mexicanas and their lives as engaged transnationals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
46.
SánchezP. (2007a). Cultural authenticity and transnational Latina youth: Constructing a metanarrative across borders. Linguistics and Education, 18(3-4), 258-282.
47.
SánchezP. (2007b). Urban immigrant students: How transnationalism shapes their world learning. Urban Review, 39, 489-517.
48.
SánchezP. (2008a). Coming of age across borders: Family, gender, and place in the lives of second-generation transnational mexicanas. In MárquezR.RomoH. (Eds.), Transformations of la familia on the U.S.–Mexico border (pp. 185-208). Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press.
49.
SánchezP. (2008b). Transnational students. In GonzálezJ. M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of bilingual education (pp. 857-860). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
50.
SánchezP. (2009a, Fall). Chicana feminist strategies in a participatory action research project with transnational Latina youth. New Directions for Youth Development, 123, 83-98.
51.
SánchezP. (2009b). Even beyond the local community: A close look at Latina youths’ return trips to Mexico. High School Journal, 92(4), 49-66.
52.
SánchezP. (2010). “In between Oprah and Cristina”: Urban Latina youth producing a countertext with participatory action research. Social Justice, 36(4), 54-68.
53.
SassenS. (2001). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
Stanton-SalazarR. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support networks of U.S.–Mexican youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
55.
Suárez-OrozcoM.PáezM. (Eds.). (2002). Latinos: Remaking America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
56.
Suárez-OrozcoC.Suárez-OrozcoM. (1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
57.
ThompsonK. (2002). Border crossings and diasporic identities: Media use and leisure practices of an ethnic minority. Qualitative Sociology, 25, 409-418.
58.
TseL. (1995). Language brokering among Latino adolescents: Prevalence, attitudes, and school performance. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 180-193.
59.
WeberR. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
60.
WildingR. (2006). “Virtual” intimacies? Families communicating across transnational contexts. Global Networks, 6(2), 125-142.
61.
WolfD. (2002). There’s no place like “home”: Emotional transnationalism and the struggles of second-generation Filipinos. In LevittP.WatersM. C. (Eds.), The changing face of home: The transnational lives of the second generation (pp. 254-294). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
