Planteamiento del problema

I operationalized the intersectionality framework in sampling by recruiting an array of participants that varied in their social position on the basis of multiple identities. My recruiting strategy aimed for diversity, and thus, was purposive rather than representative. I weighted my sample more heavily toward women, people of color, and poor to working class residents in order that results might address extant theoretical knowledge gleaned using primarily white, middle-class, or race- and gender- blind samples. This is a criticism of early sociological studies in disaster. Obtaining good balance first by race/ethnicity and gender, then by neighborhood location, age, and storm experience during Hurricane Katrina was challenging.

I implemented three recruiting strategies with personal contacts, professional contacts, and impromptu church visits. Personal friends agreed to pilot test my methods, and several others also referred me to relatives and acquaintances who possessed unique experiences during Hurricane Katrina and the recovery process. Professional contacts received a letter via email introducing the project and the aims of the research and a flyer for distribution (Appendix A). After making contact, an initial in-

39

person meeting was arranged. Initially I told these professionals that I was seeking set of individuals who were diverse in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, and residence

location. As my sample began to fill out, I modified my recruitment criteria as needed. I also compiled a list of churches and made recruitment visits. Church visits to a Catholic church and a Baptist church in Hancock County yielded participants. Finally, a chance meeting during a HVRI field data collection exercise in Diamondhead resulted in two additional participants to round out the sample. In all, I spoke with 102 individuals on the Gulf Coast who either became participants or aided in sampling in some way.

Pilot testing of methods, recruiting, and data collection for this study occurred during five successive trips to the Mississippi Gulf Coast between June 2013 and

February 2014. Time spent in the field totaled just over 8 weeks. Figure 3.2 summarizes each of these trips, various participant groups, the procedures implemented, and data derived from each group. During each trip, valuable insights added to either my background knowledge of the study area or to data collection beyond a proposed sample of 25-30 residents. For instance, snowball sampling through professional contacts meant I interacted with government officials, advocacy organizers, academics, clergy, and non-profit managers. I term this group my “key informants” (Figure 3.2).

40

Figure 3.2 Map of current and former residential locations for full study participants

4

41

Meetings with key informants helped to identify and contextualize long-term recovery issues on a number of fronts: housing, tourism, real estate, economic

development, government financing, population change, immigration, public education, emergency management, health and welfare, social support, and cultural affairs. I developed a standard initial interview schedule (Appendix B) to use at these meetings, adding specific probes to the schedule with successive meetings. The set of questions dealt with Hurricane Katrina impacts; secondary impacts from the BP Oil Spill, Hurricane Isaac and the economic recession; recovery assistance; short-term versus long-term (current) recovery issues; and specific asks on insurance, rebuilding, and economic development activities. When referred to “other residents” (Figure 3.2) who were citizen leaders or neighborhood area experts, I was able to systematically implement the same initial interview schedule.

“Full study participants” (Figure 3.2) were those recruited to take part in photo elicitation, a follow-up semi-structured interview, participatory mapping, and a short demographic survey. Key informants and other residents referred me to my full study participants, who were usually third, fourth, or fifth connections from an initial snowball contact. I attempted to meet with each full study participant twice. The initial meeting was to introduce myself, obtain written consent to participate, find out the basics of the participant’s Katrina recovery experience to inform ongoing purposive sampling, and provide instructions for the photo elicitation exercise to be completed independently. I used the same initial interview schedule as with the key informant and other resident

42

groups to direct the conversation and maintain internal consistency of initial interview data. Initial meetings lasted from 10 minutes to 45 minutes in length and were

conducted in libraries, coffee shops, casual restaurants, offices, and participant homes. The second meeting with full study participants is when actual data for analysis were collected. These data included photographs, a semi-structured interview about the photographs and the recovery process broadly, and a set of hand-mapped community recovery features representing both process and outcome variables. The background survey was administered at the end. After completing all these project facets, full study participants were compensated $40 in cash. Second meetings varied in length from 45 minutes to 3 hours, but most lasted just under 90 minutes.

Slight modification of the ordering of these steps was necessary in some cases to expedite data collection and prevent participant attrition, which was an ongoing

problem. For instance, some participants agreed to take part in the full study, but after an initial interview and request to schedule a second meeting were unable to commit additional time. Individuals with whom I had conducted an initial interview and gleaned data from already were shifted into the “other residents” group in order to preserve the data for triangulation purposes if necessary. In fact, because of participant attrition, recruiting efforts continued through November 2013, occurring simultaneously with follow-up interviews and mapping exercises.

The initial meeting for some participants was conducted via phone call or email instead of in person. In the case of Vietnamese participants who spoke little or no English, a translator at a local social advocacy organization acted as an intermediary. I

43

had an initial in-person meeting with the translator to explain the study, and she agreed to assist in recruiting from the Vietnamese community. I prepared packets with

translated copies of the recruitment flyer, introduction letter, photo elicitation

instructions, and a disposable camera for her to distribute to Vietnamese participants. In these cases, the follow-up meeting was the only time I met with these full study participants. I used this packet and single-meeting procedure with a few hard-to-reach snowball contacts, relying on the referring participant to transfer instructions and a camera. In these cases consent to participate was obtained during the first in-person meeting at the same time as data collection.

Extenuating circumstances forced modifications of the data collection procedure during the second meeting with 10 full study participants. An ice storm during the final week of data collection meant that the only way to obtain data from six participants would be to hold joint interviews. This was only done when participants were recruited together and previously acquainted as co-workers or friends. Another four participants were interviewed jointly when spouses of recruited full study participants joined the interview conversation. Spouses did not fill out the background survey.

In September 2013, an opportunity arose to recruit recent international immigrants attending adult education English as a Second Language (ESL) classes to study. Potential theoretical insights and racial/ethnic diversification of the sample justified their inclusion. Mutual benefit was established through my leading an English conversation on disaster recovery and cultural integration during class time. In light of the classroom setting and varying levels of pre-Katrina experience, I modified my

44

interview schedule to conform to a focus group style. The new set of questions focused on household challenges in relocation, changes in the community due to recovery, and sources of support in recovery and/or relocation (Appendix C). Spanish and Vietnamese translators on staff obtained verbal consent from ESL students and stayed for the duration of the focus groups. I conducted two focus groups with a total of 26 ESL participants, each lasting approximately 90 minutes. The daytime class included

immigrants from Mexico, Colombia, Vietnam, Jamaica, Madagascar, and Czech Republic, while the night class was exclusively Hispanic with group members hailing from Mexico, Guatemala, and Peru.

I obtained some form of data from a total of 97 individuals; however, I do not use all of it to address my research questions (Figure 3.2). I collected interview data from 34 full study and pilot participants (Appendix D) using the follow-up interview guide, so I use these internally consistent data to answer my first research question on the meaning of recovery. Twenty-nine of these 34 participants provided usable photos from photo elicitation, which I use in my analysis for research question one. Where appropriate, I supplement these primary data with supporting evidence from selected key informants and other residents (Appendix E). A total of 28 full study participants (all subset from the n=34) provided map data that was internally consistent, so this group forms the sample for answering the second research question.

Table 3.2 compares each of my samples against the overall Mississippi Coast population (three counties combined). Eighteen females and 16 males participated, making up the sample of 34. I oversampled black and Vietnamese residents while

45

undersampling whites. Of the participants who answered the income question, 19 of them fell at or the below median income category; however, 23 of the 34 participants possessed some form of post-secondary education. Figure 3.3 depicts the aggregated residential histories of the 34 participants revealing an even distribution of residences across damage zones. East Biloxi and Waveland, both heavily damaged, contain notable concentrations of participant addresses.

Table 3.2 Demographic comparison of study area and participant samples. Sources: U.S. 2010 Census and 2008-12 American Community Survey.

Mississippi Coast Sample RQ1 Sample RQ2

Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent

Total 370,702 100 34 100 28 100 Gender Female 187,018 50.4 18 52.9 14 50 Male 183,684 49.6 16 47.1 14 50 Age 18-40 years 114,262 30.8 7 20.6 5 17.9 41-64 years 118,511 32.0 14 41.2 14 50 65+ years 45,978 12.4 13 38.2 9 32.1 Race / Ethnicity Black 74,565 20.1 8 23.5 8 28.6 Asian (Vietnamese) 8,764 (4,730) 2.4 (1.3) 7 20.6 7 25 White 269,943 72.8 19 55.9 13 46.4 Income < $21K N/A N/A 8 23.5 8 28.6 $21K – 42K N/A N/A 8 23.5 8 28.6 $42K – 63K N/A N/A 3 8.8 2 7.1 $63K – 84K N/A N/A 5 14.7 3 10.7 > $84K N/A N/A 4 11.8 4 14.3 Unknown -- -- 6 17.7 3 10.7

Pop. > 25 Percent Population Percent Population Percent

Total 243,638 100 34 100 28 100

Education

Less than HS 11,146 4.6 3 8.8 3 10.7

46

Mississippi Coast Sample RQ1 Sample RQ2

Finished HS 73,728 30.3 3 8.8 3 10.7 Trade School 23,089 9.5 2 5.9 2 7.1 Some college 61,797 25.4 7 20.6 7 25 Bachelor’s 31,182 12.8 10 29.4 6 21.4 Grad. Deg. 19,063 7.8 4 11.8 4 14.3 Unknown -- -- 4 11.8 2 7.1

Households Percent Population Percent Population Percent

Total 141,061 100 34 100 28 100

Dependent Children

Yes 41,644 29.5 13 38.2 12 42.9

No 99,417 70.5 21 61.8 16 57.1

Figure 3.3 Map of current and former residential locations for full study participants