Studying México

Nearly three hundred thousand scholars have participated in the Fulbright program since its inception more than sixty years ago. Only about one third of these scholars originate from the United States; the rest come from countries all over the world, including Mexico. In fact, the Fulbright Program, which is run out of the US Department of State, operates in 155 countries, 55 of which are run in partnership with host governments. We interviewed five American Fulbright scholars whose fellowships brought them to Mexico. What became clear in our conversations with them was not only the amazing diversity of academic interest and creativity, but just how important the fellows´ interactions with their Mexican colleagues, friends, and acquaintances were to both their research and in-country experience. As Senator Fulbright suggested, the experience is not only academic: reason is often fueled by compassion and vice versa.

Pochos & Cholos: A man-on-the-street approach to attitudes toward assimilation

Adam Lewkowitz
• field of study: sociology
• degree: currently working toward MD
• project: Redefining Americanness: How the binational pocho identity affects Mexican assimilation in the United States
• where: Tijuana, Baja California, at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte,Mexico's premier institute of border studies
• time period: August 2006 to May 2007
• hometown: Phoenix, Arizona
• Spanish: adjusting from Chilean to Mexican Spanish.

* pocho: Term to describe USborn children of Mexican immigrants, but often highly derogatory in the American Southwest, meaning Mexicans who don’t teach their children Spanish or observe Mexican holidays, and who self-identify as American.
* cholo: Term -- often associated with gangs, drugs, and violence--for Mexican American who act in opposition to mainstream American culture. Stereotypically, cholos are identified by their baggy pants, white tank tops, thick silver chains, and tattoos.

How did you choose your topic?

My undergraduate thesis in Sociology examined how the pocho* and cholo* identities affect Mexican-American assimilation in the United States. My sample group of thirty participants stated that they would prefer that their children grow up to be neither pochos nor cholos. I was stunned to discover that if forced to choose, they would prefer unanimously that their children grow up to be gang-banging, tattooed cholos rather than monolingual English-speaking, entirely Americanized pochos. I wondered why there was such an anti-pocho attitude in the Mexican-American community and I wanted to determine if Mexican immigrants arrived on US soil with an anti-pocho prejudice or if it evolved in response to living in a hostile host society. So, my Fulbright project was born.

How does your project fit into the body of work on the subject?

Academics have proposed countless explanations for the Mexican-American population’s slow rates of assimilation into the American mainstream, but there are currently no published sociological studies analyzing how socially constructed identities like pochos and cholos affect this assimilation rate.

Describe your research methods.

I conducted interviews with a sample group of twenty-four people, each lasting between a half hour and an hour. Then, I typed up the transcripts, analyzed them for similarities and differences, and drew my conclusions. My weekly routine was not just research: I volunteered every Monday at La Casa YMCA de Menores Migrantes, which provides housing for newly repatriated teenagers, and helped them contact their families. On Wednesdays, I volunteered at El Hospital Infantil de las Californias, which provides care to the poorest families in northern Baja California. I love volunteering, and I learned so much about teenage migration and child healthcare. Volunteering twice a week also gave me access to communities that would not have been a part of my daily life otherwise.

Were there any particular moments that you considered to be turning points?

I really struggled to find interview subjects. People were wary. However, in January, after a long day of walking the streets of Tijuana that yielded not one single subject, I decided to treat myself to street tacos. As I was waiting, the man asked me why I was in Mexico, and as I explained my project he started piping in with his opinions, and agreed to be interviewed. That day, I learned that all I had to do was visit the small businesses lining the streets, buy something, and strike up conversations with the employees to get the interviews. Doing more than four interviews at a stretch was horrific for my poor stomach, but excellent for my research.

Did your hypothesis change during your time in Mexico?

Interestingly, my hypothesis did not change, but the evidenc e that supported it was not what I anticipated. I thought that the migratory histories of the participants—whether they had been born in the border region or southern Mexico—would determine their familiarity with and opinions of pochos. But what I found was that the migratory history of the participants proved to have no effect on the awareness of, and strong opinions ab out , pocho and cholo identities. Instead, the primary determinants proved to be the participants’ wealth, education, and documentation status.

If you were to do it again, what would you do differently?

I would dress more professionally. In hindsight, I was a 22-year-old American student traipsing into one of the most important Mexican institutions on border issues. I didn’t realize how it must have looked to the famous Mexican academics who worked there to have an American student—with unruly hair and wearing flipflops— in their midst. At the time, I was fresh out of college and didn’t even think of the image I was presenting when I rolled out of bed to go to work. What are you working on now? I jus t finished my first year at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. I have discovered that I am still able to use my sociology background while in medical school. I am doing a research project on the long-term effectiveness of a diabetes outreach program in Nogales, AZ.

Systemic Balance: Transpiration and cloud forest dynamics in Veracruz

Heidi Asbjornsen
• field of study: ecology
• degree: PhD
• project: Studying the Effects of Land Use Change on Water Resources in a Montane Cloud Forest Zone
• where: the highlands of Xalapa, Veracruz.
• university: Associate Professor at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa
• hometown: Southbury,Connecticut, USA
• Spanish: fluent 

* Transpiration: the passage of water vapor from a living body (as of a plant) through a membrane or pores.

What was your hypothesis when you began your research?

My main hypothesis was that cloud forest deforestation will significantly alter the water balance by changing the amount of water lost from the ecosystem through plant transpiration*, as well as the amount of fog and cloud water captured by the forest canopy. I expected that these changes would eventually affect the amount and timing of stream-flow at the watershed scale.

How did you choose your topic?

I had already been working on this topic in Veracruz for a couple of years, and decided that continuing my research as a Fulbright Scholar would be a great opportunity to work more closely with my Mexican colleagues. I lived in Coatepec, Veracruz (near Xalapa) and my host institution was the Instituto de Ecología de Xalapa AC (INECOL).

How does your project fit into the body of work on related subjects?

Most past work on the ecohydrology of montane cloud forests has been conducted in very wet climatic zones (with rainfall exceeding 4000 mm annually) where there is no marked seasonality in rainfall. Additionally, very few studies have quantified plant transpiration in cloud forests. Our research is unique in being conducted in a relatively dry and seasonal cloud forest zone, and will provide estimates of how much water is being used, both by individual tree species and the entire ecosystem.

Describe some of the challenges you faced doing your research.

One of the greatest challenges was weather: heavy rains, lightning storms, and hurricane winds. Travel conditions—such as a dirt road that would get washed out —often made it difficult to get to our field site and carry out research.

What were the biggest surprises you encountered during your time in Mexico? How did you respond to them?

One of my greatest surprises were the findings of two of my collaborators on the project, Drs. Friso Holwerda and L.A. Sampurno Bruijnzeel, indicating that the amount of additional fog water captured by the cloud forest canopy in Central Veracruz—less than 5 percent of annual rainfall—was relatively small compared to other cloud forests worldwide (between 10-40 percent). This led us to consider the possibility that in the Veracruz seasonal cloud forests the indirect effects of fog on reducing plant transpiration may be more important for the ecosystem water balance than cloud water capture.

What were your “final” findings/conclusions in relation to your Fulbright grant?

My PhD student working on this project, Martin Gomez Cárdenas, found that transpiration rates of young, fast-growing species such as pines (used in reforestation) and alder (which becomes established after forest disturbance) are much greater than the transpiration rates of mature cloud forest species. This suggests that conversion of cloud forest to pine reforestation or young regenerating forest may increase total water use by the vegetation, at least in the short-term. However, we are still in the process of quantifying these effects on stream-flow at the watershed scale.

What was it like for you to be studying Mexico as a foreigner?

Mexicans with whom I interacted were extremely welcoming, open, and supportive, and really went out of their way to help me feel at home. There is a lot of interest about how forests and reforestations affect water supply and quality, because the Mexican government has several programs that pay communities and individual landowners to conserve forests and reforest degraded lands, with the goal of improving water resources. Unfortunately, science usually takes more time than a lot of people realize, so sometimes it was difficult for people to understand that we still don’t have all the answers.

What are you most proud of from your time in Mexico?

A conference I organized with Mexican colleagues on issues related to water, entitled “Linking Science and Policy for Enhancing Water Resource Management in Mexico,” was held at UNAM in March. Presenters talked about the social, policy, environmental, and economic aspects of water resources in Mexico. Attendees came from many different universities, government institutions, and NGOs in Mexico, so we had diverse perspectives and interesting discussions. More information about this conference can be found on the website www.aguaenmexico.org. We are hoping to organize similar conferences as part of the Fulbright program in the future.

Uncovering the guerrillas: How rural rebellion interrupted the telling of Mexico history

Alexander Aviña
• field of study: history
• degree: PhD student
• project: Studying the emergence of guerrilla groups in Mexico during the 1970s
• where: Mexico City/Guerrero
• university: University of Southern California, Los Angeles
• hometown: San Luis Obispo, California
• Spanish: fluent

How did you choose your topic?

In my last undergraduate year, I wrote a research paper on the infamous 1968 Tlatelolco student massacre. I learned that in the aftermath of that movement several armed groups emerged with th e int ent ion o f overthrowing the Mexican state. Aware that little research existed on those groups, combined with an interest in Mexican peasant movements (due to my family’s peasant origins in Michoacán, Mexico), I decided to research two peasant guerrilla groups that existed in Guerrero prior to the student massacre. They were The National Civic Revolutionary Association (ACNR) and Party of the Poor (PDLP).

What is your thesis?

I argue that violent state responses to (peaceful) popular demands for democracy and economic development provoked the emergence of revolutionary guerrilla movements. The majority of ACNR and PDLP guerrillas began their activism during the early 1960s. They sought to democratize state politics, reform the PRI, and rid Guerrero of localregional cacique strongmen that formed a nexus of political and socio-economic power. But, peaceful demonstrations were put down with a series of massacres. These massacres convinced a number of peasants, rural laborers, schoolteachers, and university students of the necessity for revolutionary change on a national scale.

How does your project fit into the work done on the subject?

In contrast to social science literature that represents the decades after 1940 as a stable “pax priísta” with unprecedented economic growth, my project proposes to explore an instance of rural rebellion that disrupts the traditional narration of post-1940 Mexican history. My work joins a small but growing scholarship that seeks to dismantle the myth of pax priísta and render visible the social movements that set the foundation for the end of PRI rule in 2000.

Describe your research methods.

To reconstruct the history of the ACNR and the PDLP, I drew extensively upon recently declassified intelligence and counter-insurgency documents; military records; manifestos, speeches, letters, and communiqués produced by the guerrillas; newspaper articles; testimonial literature; and oral histories. My methods included interviews with ex-guerrillas and their relatives.

Describe some of the challenges you faced doing your research.

Due to the sensitive nature of the recently declassified documents, certain archivists at the National Archive restricted my access to some documents using dubious, even illegal, arguments to justify their decision.

What were your conclusions?

I saw the breadth and extreme violence of methods used by the Mexican state to wipe out the ACNR and PDLP in 1970s Guerrero. Such violence was not only unconstitutional, it also savaged the social fabric of Guerrero’s communities—a phenomenon that poignantly lives on in the state. For instance, some 500- 1000 guerrerenses “disappeared” at the hands of the Mexican military remain unaccounted for. People continue to hope for the return of loved ones.

Were there any particular moments that you considered to be turning points for your research?

During the first week of April 2007, I was invited by a group of social activists on a weeklong bus tour from Mexico City to Chihuahua that retraced the histories of various guerrilla groups that emerged during the 1960s and 70s. I was able to converse with ex-guerrillas, and obtain crucial insights into the factors that provoked the rise of popular insurgent groups.

What was it like for you to be studying Mexico as a foreigner?

As a Mexican-American son of immigrant parents, with experiences in Mexico, I was often able to conceal my status as a foreigner. While riding in the back of a truck through the mountains of Chihuahua, a woman who participated in a 1970s guerrilla group openly disparaged the “mongrelized culture” of Mexican-Americans. After five or ten minutes she stopped, and I announced, “but I’m Mexican-American!” Laughter erupted and she apologized profusely. I think I was able to change her thinking.

What are you most proud of from your time in Mexico?

The amazing, lasting friendships I forged with Mexican social activists, former guerrillas, and several fellow Fulbrighters.

Patterns of Prevention Stopping the violence in Ciudad Juárez

Carliene S. Quist
• field of study: sociology
• degree: BA
• project: to evaluate the gender violence prevention programs run by the Casa Amiga Centro de Crisis
• where: Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua
• university: College of St. Benedict
• hometown: St. Cloud, MN
• Spanish: proficient, conversational

How did you choose your topic?

My Fulbright project flowed out of my undergraduate senior thesis, which looked at the femicide (high rates of female murders) in Ciudad Juárez. I had come across information about the Casa Amiga Centro de Crisis AC, a nonprofit community organization that offers free professional services for the prevention of gender violence. The Center provides psychological help, social work, and medical services, as well as community education programs including lectures, workshops, and children’s puppet theatre, all aimed at preventing violence. I contacted the internationally-respected director of Casa Amiga, Esther Chavez Cano, to propose a study, both quantitative and qualitative, of the consequences of prevention programs on the lives of participants.

Why is your project important?

National and especially international media picked up on the horrifying reality of femicide in Ciudad Juárez, which was in the midst of great economic, political, and social changes. Academic researchers began to investigate the ongoing gender violence in a systematic, scientific, multidisciplinary manner, resulting in a clearer understanding of the characteristics and locations of such violence. Scarce, however, was information about the prevention of violence, due in large part to the fact that prevention policies and programs lacked the structure and implementation strategies that would permit evaluation of their efficacy.

Were there any particular moments that you considered to be turning points in your research?

About a month into the project, a well-respected expert on femicide in Ciudad Juárez reviewed my research proposal. Her insightful question still rings in my ears: “And how long are you planning to work on this project? Twenty years?” I had grown my project into a lifetime of research about violence prevention that included NGOs, the government, and social change. She helped me narrow my focus back to the task at hand: Casa Amiga’s prevention services and their impact in the community.

Describe some of the challenges you faced doing your research.

I faced a number of challenges that resulted in significant changes to my work. For example, becoming familiar with the types of prevention programs at Casa Amiga took much longer than I expected. As I worked on developing a methodology, I came across some new obstacles. The prevention department experienced one hundred percent turnover at the beginning of 2008, and the health of the Executive Director declined. These factors resulted in a shift in priorities at Casa Amiga, and forced them to focus on stabilizing and strengthening their day-to-day administrative activities. About halfway through my time, I determined that pushing through with the research design that I proposed would be more of a burden than a benefit for Casa Amiga. However, I had skills that could help strengthen the organization, and during the last few months of the Fulbright I worked to analyze the organizational structures and processes at Casa Amiga, and proposed strategies to increase the efficiency of the delivery of services.

What were your “final” findings/conclusions in relation to your Fulbright grant?

Casa Amiga is at a critical juncture. After nine years of exponential growth, the center needs to expand its funding base. The founder and Executive Director, who has been the lifeblood of the organization, must foster leadership to ensure Casa Amiga’s success into the future. As Casa Amiga expands, both in Ciudad Juárez and as a model for new centers around Mexico, building evaluation tools into the program will be important to gauge their effectiveness in creating a healthier, safer community.

What were the biggest surprises you encountered during your time in Mexico? How did you respond to them?

A big “surprise,” if I can call it that, was feeling at home in a place so plagued by violence, organized crime, and a reputation that elicits fear in the minds of many Mexicans and people around the world. To paraphrase Esther Chavez Cano, by living in Juárez one realizes that violence is not everywhere, although it is a significant risk to many, and that violence and fear will not prevent many people from contributing positively to their community.

What future hopes do you have for Casa Amiga?

Ultimately, I would love for Casa Amiga to enter into a collaborative relationship with universities, both in Mexico and the United States, as a living laboratory for research in violence prevention. 

Language Multiplicity: Safeguarding words before they’re lost

Michael Fillerup
• field of study: Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)
• project: teacher training and program development.
• where: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores Antropologia Social (CIE SAS), Oaxaca City, Oaxaca
• when: August 2005 to May 2006
• current position: Director of Bilingual Education/ESL
for the Flagstaff Public Schools and part-time professor at Northern Arizona University
• Spanish: At first I understood maybe 60 percent of what was
being said. The elusive 40 percent usually determined whether or not I caught the bus, missed my plane, or bought a pig instead of a tamale. 

What experience did you have with Mexico before coming?

In 1978 I finished my masters in Teaching English as a Second Language. I had work lined up in Mexico City, but at the last minute the job fell through, so I ended up taking a position on the Navajo Reservation. I always wondered about that detour that sent me north instead of south of the border.

What was your Fulbright project?

I was awarded a Fulbright Fellowship as a lecturer, so the focus of my project was teacher training and program development. I have three primary areas of expertise in related fields: teacher training; program design; and curriculum/materials development in bilingual education, indigenous language education, and English as a second language (ESL) programs. Teacher training and program development in a culturally diverse state like Oaxaca seemed a natural fit for my skills and interests. Oaxaca has a very large indigenous population (38 percent) and lots of linguistic diversity: sixteen indigenous languages and hundreds of dialects. The concentration of indigenous people allowed me to have numerous conversations about language and culture. I talked with people from all walks of life—educators, taxi drivers, the woman in the bakery, the old man sweeping the street, the doctor. Wherever I traveled in the state of Oaxaca, everyone seemed to have an opinion about indigenous languages. I developed a series of seven workshops dealing with language teaching, language acquisition, program design, and materials development. However, my favorite workshop was one titled “Language Loss and Revitalization: Lessons from the Navajo, Warnings to Mexico.”

What did you learn about indigenous language preservation in Mexico?

Unlike in the US, indigenous languages in Mexico are hardly on the ropes. But in spite of the favorable numbers, Mexico should be on the alert. Here are some facts. Between 1950 and 2000, the percentage of monolingual speakers of indigenous languages dropped from 32.5 percent to 16.9 percent. The number of bilingual speakers (Spanish and their indigenous language) increased from 67.5 percent to 83.1 percent. On the positive side, this means more people are learning the national language, which can result in educational and employment opportunities. The statistics also suggest that indigenous parents and communities now have a choice: they can choose to speak the indigenous language, they can choose to speak the national language, or they can choose to speak both. It sounds very simplistic, but these choices will determine the ultimate survival of a language. If the parents don’t pass the language down to their children, within a generation it will be endangered; within two, it will be defunct. This is the sad lesson we learned in the US: indigenous language loss occurs quickly, almost stealthily.

Describe a challenge you faced in your work.

At my workshops hardly anyone spoke English, so I had to deliver my workshops in Spanish. It was a steep learning curve but exactly what I’d signed on for. I still miss that adrenaline rush when someone would ask me a question and I had absolutely no idea what they had said, and fifty pairs of eyes would be staring at me, anxiously waiting for my inspired response. Fortunately, my Spanish improved—fast.

What surprised you during your time in Mexico?

I have never seen a people who can do so much with so little. In the US we have lots of stuff—books, computers, technology. The Mexican people don’t have nearly as much. But they are amazingly resourceful with what they have. Nothing is thrown away; everything is used and re-used and re-re-used.

What advice would you give other researchers?

Get an introduction. My first few weeks I was going around like a Fuller Brush man trying to peddle my workshops. I guess word got out that this tall gringo was trying to get his foot in the door. Maggie Hug of COMEXUS called me from Mexico City and enlightened me: “We appreciate your initiative, but this is Mexico… you need an introduction.”

Will you continue to study indigenous languages in Mexico?

I will be retiring from the public school system in a year or two, after which I would like to pursue my research interests. I would love to return to Mexico and carry out formal research in the area of indigenous language preservation and be involved in the development of indigenous language preservation and revitalization programs.