Applications of Social Capital in Educational Literature: A Critical Synthesis Sandra L.

Dika & Kusum Singh REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 2002 (72), No. 1, pp. 31-60 (My purpose in sharing these notes are to assist you in gaining a better grasp of the outstanding review by Dr. Dika & Dr. Singh. I urge you to get a personal copy of the original published article and to read it thoroughly for your own benefit. I also ask that any referencing of this article or quoting of text come from your personal copy of the journal article. Thank you, RSS) (See pdf copy of published article on my SCRIBD website) This critical synthesis explores the usage of social capital as an explanatory variable in educational research, drawing on theoretical literature in sociology and economics, and empirical literature in education and family/child studies. The article is divided into four sections. Intellectual History 1) Bourdieu 2) Coleman (1988) Although both scholars (B & C) concentrated on the benefits accruing to individuals or families by virtue of their ties with others, there are significant variations in their theories. While Colemans model has structural-functionalist roots (going back to Durkheim), Bourdieus conceptualization is grounded in theories of social reproduction and symbolic power.

As a result, social capital has been elaborated in two principal ways: 1. in terms of norms and 2. in terms of access to institutional resources [Stanton-Salazar, Lin] This differentiation is apparent in theoretical interpretations and resulting empirical work. Bourdieu: .defined social capital as the aggregate of actual or potential resources linked to possession of a durable network of essentially institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. GROUP MEMBERSHIP: This group membership provides members with the backing of the collectively owned capital. PROPERTIES OF RELATIONSHIPS: social obligations or connections and it is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital. Bourdieus social capital is decomposable into two elements: 1) first, the social relationship that allows the individual to claim resources possessed by the collectivity, and, 2) second, the quantity and quality of those resources (Portes, 1998).

Notes taken by Stanton-Salazar

February 09

(Please cite Dika & Singh)

2/11/2009

Ultimately, Bourdieu sees social capital as the investment of the dominant class to maintain and reproduce group solidarity and preserve the groups dominant position (Lin, 1999a). Coleman: The second principal way that social capital has been elaboratedas consisting of norms and social control. Coleman proposes that social capital is intangible and has three forms: (a) level of trust, as evidenced by obligations and expectations, (b) information channels, and (c) norms and sanctions that promote the common good over self-interest. [RSS: see Lins (2001) critique of Colemans tautology; see Stanton-Salazars critique of Coleman and of similar normative frameworks2001, 2004] SOCIAL CLOSURE: Like Bourdieu, Coleman also highlights the importance of social networks. Particularly, he emphasizes intergenerational closureparents know the parents of their childrens friendsas a social structure that facilitates the emergence of effective norms. .Colemans work supports the idea that it is the familys responsibility to adopt certain norms to advance childrens life chances, whereas Bourdieus work emphasizes structural constraints and unequal access to institutional resources based on class, gender, and race (Lareau, 2001). Stanton-Salazar: Stanton-Salazar (1997) developed a social capital conceptual framework for studying the socialization of racial minorities and identified intrinsic mechanisms of mainstream institutions that account for the problems in accumulating social capital for low-status and minority children and youth. This framework was further articulated and elaborated in his recent study of the school and kin support networks of Mexican American youth (Stanton- Salazar, 2001). His model highlights the embeddedness of the adolescent in a social network, affected by counterstratification and stratification forces. Research Synthesis and Review Research Trends 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 19901995

Smith, Beaulieu, & Israel, 1992: a study of Southern students from HSB, Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995: a longitudinal study on children of teenage mothers, Bankston & Zhou, 1995: a survey study of Vietnamese students Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994: a survey study with Mexican-origin youth, Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995: and a mixed-method study (surveys and semistructured interviews) with Mexican-origin youth. ***

Notes taken by Stanton-Salazar

February 09

(Please cite Dika & Singh)

2/11/2009

The conceptualization and measurement of social capital during this time period was varied. The two studies of secondary data cited Colemans theory of social capital and measured family and community social capital with the types of indicators suggested by Coleman, such as family structure, parent-child discussion, intergenerational closure, moving, and religious participation (Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995; Smith et al., 1992). The other three studies departed from Colemans theory. o Bankston and Zhou (1995) looked at Vietnamese literacy skills and Vietnamese cultural identity as sources of community social capital for Vietnamese students. o Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch (1995) also viewed language proficiency (in this case, Spanish; bilingualism as a proxy for cultural capital) as a .[predictor] of .social capital, and using Lins social resource theory (1990), measured social capital with social network indicators (e.g., status of network members, number of non-kin). o Valenzuela and Dornbusch (1994) incorporated Bourdieus idea of cultural capital to study the academic achievement of Mexican and Anglo adolescents. Outcome measures during this time frame were also varied. Three of the studies focused solely on traditional achievement or attainment measures (Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995; Smith et al., 1992; Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994). One study examined time on homework, a measure of effort, (Bankston & Zhou, 1995) as an outcome related to social capital. The most significant variance was the specification of social capital indicators as outcomes in Stanton-Salazar and Dornbuschs (1995) work. This raises questions about the directionality of the relationship between social capital and educational outcomes.

Notes taken by Stanton-Salazar

February 09

(Please cite Dika & Singh)

2/11/2009

19961998 Published research on social capital and educational outcomes in the second half of the 1990s focused primarily on social capital (within- and between-family) in the tradition of Coleman. Eight of the nine studies reviewed were survey designs. Seven of those studies involved national, primarily large-scale panel studies, including o HSB (Lopez, 1996), o Panel Study of Income Dynamics or PSID (Hofferth, Boisjoly, & Duncan, 1998), and NELS (Carbonaro, 1998; Hao & Bonstead-Bruns, 1998; Pong,1998; Sun, 1998; o Teachman, Paasch, & Carver, 1996); one study involved a large scale national survey of adults about their experiences at 15 years of age (Kalmijn & Kraaykamp, 1996). The only non-survey design study consisted of a time-diary study of 3- to 11-years-olds and their parents (Bianchi & Robinson, 1997). The samples for the studies using NELS were quite large (N = 10,399 to N = 21,924), and between 900 and 2,000 participants for the other studies.

The indicators used to measure social capital during this time frame reflect the reliance on Colemans theory: family structure, parent-child discussion, parent school involvement, and parents expectations (Bianchi & Robinson, 1997; Carbonaro, 1998; Hao & Bonstead-Bruns, 1998; Hofferth et al., 1998; Lopez, 1996; Pong, 1998; Sun, 1998; Teachman et al., 1996). Only one study included teacher counselor expectations and influence as school-based social capital (Lopez). One study assessed cultural capital, but again the focus was on the parent as actor and transmitter of capital (Kalmijn & Kraaykamp, 1996).

The outcomes of interest in this body of research were related to educational achievement measures such as grade point average (GPA) (Carbonaro, 1998; Hao & Bonstead-Bruns, 1998; Lopez, 1996) and achievement test scores (Carbonaro; Hao & Bonstead-Bruns; Lopez; Pong, 1998; Sun, 1998);

Notes taken by Stanton-Salazar

February 09

(Please cite Dika & Singh)

2/11/2009

educational attainment measures such as dropping out (Carbonaro; Teachman et al., 1996), high school completion (Hofferth et al., 1998; Lopez), years of schooling (Kalmijn & Kraaykamp, 1996), and college enrollment (Hofferth et al.); and effort measures of reading behavior (Bianchi & Robinson, 1997). Overall, most studies were based on data from large-scale studies not originally designed to measure social capital. 19992001 In the last three years, the visibility of social capital in educational research literature has sharply increased. Twenty-one studies published between 1999 and September 2001 are reviewed here. Colemans theoretical framework continued to guide most of this work, although a few of the studies used Bourdieus framework of social and cultural capital (McNeal, 1999; Smith-Maddox, 1999; White & Glick, 2000), Lins social network theory (Smith-Maddox), and Putnams collective social capital (Fritch, 1999a; Morrow, 2001). Research involving the large scale panel studies remained popular, particularly NELS (Israel, Beaulieu, & Hartless, 2001; Muller, 2001; Muller & Ellison, 2001; Pribesh & Downey, 1999; Qian & Blair, 1999; Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999; Smith-Maddox, 1999; Sun, 1999; Yan, 1999). Only one study used HSB (White & Glick, 2000), most likely because the data are nearly 20 years old. Two other panel studies were used: National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1992/94 (Parcel & Dufur, 2001) and the National Youth Study 1977 (Wright, Cullen, & Miller, 2001). Other quantitative designs included a longitudinal survey of youngsters between grade 5/6 and age 22 (Dyk & Wilson, 1999) and a large-scale survey of Dutch adults about their experiences at 15 years of age (N. D. De Graaf, P. M. De Graaf, & Kraaykamp, 2000). The sample sizes for these survey studies ranged between N = 463 and N = 17,163. Once again, analyses were regression-based (OLS or logistic regression) with single studies using HLM (Sun, 1999), path analysis (Dyk & Wilson, 1999), and random effects ANCOVA (Morgan & Srensen, 1999). [Use of Case Study and other Qualitative Designs] Four studies used a case study design and largely qualitative methods, including interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis (Fritch, 1999a; Fritch, 1999b; Kahne & Bailey, 1999; Lareau & Horvat, 1999).

Notes taken by Stanton-Salazar

February 09

(Please cite Dika & Singh)

2/11/2009

The interviews and focus groups were completed with parents, school personnel, and community members, while children or students were interviewed in only one casea program evaluation (Kahne & Bailey). An exploratory study by Morrow (2001) in the United Kingdom presents a unique approach. Using Putnams notion of collective social capital, she asked 12- to 15-year-olds in relatively deprived neighborhoods to participate in three activities: Write about who is important to you and why; take pictures of places that are important to you and write why; and participate in a group discussion with other young people about their town and their neighborhoods, using pertinent newspaper clippings as prompts. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data was guided in three of the studies by Colemans notions of trust, informational channels, and norms (Fritch, 1999a; Fritch, 1999b; Kahne & Bailey, 1999). Sample sizes for the qualitative studies ranged roughly between 75 and 95. [Adolescents Interactions with People Outside the Family] A few studies explained the effects of adolescents interactions with people outside the family, including talking with other adults about jobs and education (Dyk & Wilson, 1999), peer group academic values and influence (Muller & Ellison; Pribesh & Downey), number of close friends attending same school (Morgan & Srensen, 1999), perception of caring teachers [perceived support] (Muller, 2001), and extracurricular involvement (Fritch, 1999a; Fritch, 1999b; Israel et al.; Pribesh & Downey; Sun). Parcel and Dufur identified certain school characteristics as indicators of social capital, including type of school, student/teacher ratio, and school climate. Several social factors are included under the social capital umbrella, which contributes to the dilution of conceptual and explanatory power. The outcomes of interest during this time frame should also appear familiar. Educational achievement outcome measures included GPA (Israel et al., 2001; Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999; Wright et al., 2001), math gain scores (Morgan & Srensen, 1999), and standardized test scores for science (McNeal, 1999), math (Muller, 2001), math and reading combined (Israel et al.; Pribesh & Downey, 1999; Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell), and four core subjects (Sun, 1999).

Notes taken by Stanton-Salazar

February 09

(Please cite Dika & Singh)

2/11/2009

Outcome measures of educational attainment included dropping out or staying in school (Israel et al.; McNeal; White & Glick, 2000), high school completion (Muller & Ellison, 2001; Yan, 1999), completed years of schooling or how far in school (Dyk & Wilson, 1999; De Graaf et al., 2000), number of math credits (Muller & Ellison, 2001), and college enrollment (Yan). Finally, two studies looked at occupational attainment and labor force participation outcomes in relation to social capital (Dyk & Wilson; White & Glick). In addition to the advances in methodology during this periodnamely, the increased inclusion of qualitative methodsseveral of these studies moved beyond the traditional attainment and achievement measures that characterize the research in the two earlier time periods. Educational aspirations became a popular outcome measure during this period (Pribesh & Downey, 1999; Muller & Ellison, 2001; Qian & Blair, 1999; Smith-Maddox, 1999). Several studies included outcome indicators of school engagement or motivation, such as truancy (McNeal, 1999), class cutting (Muller & Ellison), homework effort (Muller & Ellison), and school commitment as measured by time studying and importance of school (Wright et al., 2001). Two studies measured behavioral problems and delinquent behavior (Parcel & Dufur, 2001; Wright et al.), and one gauged moral beliefs (Wright et al.). Finally, Muller and Ellisons study also considered locus of control as an outcome related to social capital. Empirical and Theoretical Review [hypothesized relationships on social capital and educational outcomes] A more conventional way of reviewing the entire body of research is to examine whether there is generalized theoretical and empirical support for hypothesized relationships on social capital and educational outcomes. Colemans theory suggests that social capital is instrumental in the development of human capital, that is, high school graduation and college enrollment rather than dropping out of school. This theory also suggests that family norms and intergenerational closure (forms of social capital) promote educational achievement, school-related motivation, and engagement. The normative frameworkthat is, the group of norms that motivate pro-academic behaviorsis indeed more prominent in research on educational attainment than frameworks focusing on relationships and networks that generate access to institutional resources. Thus, three research questions about the relationship between social capital and educational or psychosocial outcomes guide this section of the review.

Notes taken by Stanton-Salazar

February 09

(Please cite Dika & Singh)

2/11/2009

(1) Is social capital positively linked to educational attainment? Overall, social capital indicators and indicators of educational attainment are positively linked, but theoretical and empirical support could be stronger. Colemans theory relating social capital to human capital is relatively vague, which necessarily limits the conclusions of the research. Future research should employ methods to understand the complex relationships between resources based in social networks and educational attainment. (2) Is social capital positively linked to educational achievement? Achievement test scores have also been linked to social capital indicators where the adolescent, not the parent, is the actor. Participation in organizations in the school and community (Sun, 1998, 1999), number of close friends attending the same school (Morgan & Srensen, 1999), and ties with peers (Pribesh & Downey, 1999) are all positively associated with achievement scores. While most of the research indicates that social capital is indeed positively associated with educational achievement, the studies by McNeal (1999) and StantonSalazar and Dornbusch (1995) raise questions about the direction and nature of the relationship between these variables. McNeal suggests that parent involvement and monitoring may have a greater influence on behavioral than on cognitive outcomes. Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch propose that grades and educational aspirations are related to the formation of institutional ties by the adolescent. Specifically, they state that their approach is a move away from the role model/cheerleading view toward an understanding of the inequitable transmission of institutional resources and opportunities. This approach certainly deserves more research attention, and has the potential to increase understanding of the complex role and place of social capital in educational achievement. (3) Is social capital positively linked to education-related psychosocial factors? Taken as a whole, the research shows that social capital and psychosocial factors are positively linked. The direction and nature of the relationship between them, though, is not entirely clear. Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch (1995) find that educational aspirations are related to the formation of ties with institutional agents in schools. The other psychosocial factors are studied as outcomes rather than explanatory variables. Further research is needed to understand the interplay of factors and the access to and mobilization of social capital. Summary Although most of the relationships are significant in the expected directions, the current body of research does not provide sufficient theoretical or empirical support for hypotheses about the positive relationship between social capital and education-related factors. This is due primarily to weaknesses in and misapplications of Colemans concept, which have been named throughout the article. Nearly all of these studies focus on the conceptualization of social capital as norms rather than access to institutional resources. Methodological gaps in the

Notes taken by Stanton-Salazar

February 09

(Please cite Dika & Singh)

2/11/2009

conceptualization and measurement of social capital, including the reliance on cross-sectional data, hamper the utility of the concept as an explanatory variable in education. These gaps are discussed in detail in the next section. CRITIQUE Conceptualization The original conceptualization of social capital by Coleman is problematic (Morrow, 1999; Portes, 1998, 2000). Although thus far described as a theory, the delineation of social capital by Coleman (1988) is too vague to develop testable hypotheses. Social capital is a fuzzy concept as developed by both Coleman and Bourdieu (1986), o However, Bourdieu views his social capital as an open concept designed to guide empirical work (Grenfell & James, 1998) o rather than a causal model. Colemans concept assumes family mediation of social capital, ignoring the agency of the adolescent in accessing social capital. The concept emphasizes the virtues of parental involvement, and implies a top-down view of the parent-child relationship (Morrow).

Coleman defines social capital as the resources inherent in the structure of relationships. This leads to two conceptual problems. (1) First, the sources (relationships) of social capital are confused with the benefits (resources, opportunities) derived from it, leading to circular reasoning: for example, reasoning that the student who stays in school has social capital, whereas the dropout has none (Portes & Landolt, 1996). (2) Second, the disentanglement of the possession of social capital from its activation becomes difficult. It is unclear whether the ability to access social capital (in the home or community) or the ability to activate this social capital in the institutional context (the school) is associated with desirable outcomes. The designation of social capital as a catch-all for the positive effects of sociability has clouded the intersection of race, class, and gender in schools and society. The positive effects of participation in a particular community are emphasized without considering possible negative implications, such as the exclusion of outsiders and downward leveling pressures (Portes & Landolt, 1996). Groups and communities may make demands that compromise rather than facilitate opportunity and mobility (Morrow, 1999). RACE & CLASS The basic question of how race and social class affect parental involvement is ignored (Lareau, 1989), and womens work in creating and maintaining networks remains invisible (Morrow).

Notes taken by Stanton-Salazar

February 09

(Please cite Dika & Singh)

2/11/2009

DIRECTIONALITY As shown through the research by Lareau and Horvat (1999) and Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch (1995), the directionality of the relationship between social capital and educational outcomes is blurry.

Notes taken by Stanton-Salazar

February 09

(Please cite Dika & Singh)

2/11/2009

10