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

8/2/2019 [Notes] Applications of Social Capital in Educational Literature: A Critical Synthesis Sandra L. Dika & Kusum Singh REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 200

1/10

Notes taken by Stanton-Salazar February 09 (Please cite Dika & Singh) 2/11/20091

Applications of Social Capital in Educational Literature: A Critical Synthesis

Sandra L. Dika & Kusum Singh

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH2002 (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 publishedarticle and to read it thoroughly for your own benefit. I also ask that any referencing of this articleor 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 andeconomics, and empirical literature in education and family/child studies. The article

is divided into four sections.

Intellectual History1) Bourdieu2) Coleman (1988)

Although both scholars (B & C) concentrated on the benefits accruing to individuals orfamilies 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 and2. in terms ofaccess 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 topossession 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).


2/10


Ultimately, Bourdieu sees social capital as the investment of the dominant class to maintain andreproduce 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 an

of similar normative frameworks2001, 2004]

SOCIAL CLOSURE: Like Bourdieu, Coleman also highlights the importance of socialnetworks. Particularly, he emphasizes intergenerational closureparents know the parents of

their childrens friendsas a social structure that facilitates the emergence ofeffective 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 constraintsand 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 mainstreaminstitutions 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 recentstudy 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 bycounterstratificationand stratification forces.

Research Synthesis and Review

Research Trends 19901995

1) Smith, Beaulieu, & Israel, 1992: a study of Southern students from HSB,2) Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995: a longitudinal study on children of teenage mothers,3) Bankston & Zhou, 1995: a survey study of Vietnamese students4) Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994: a survey study with Mexican-origin youth,5) Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995: and a mixed-method study (surveys and semi-

structured interviews) with Mexican-origin youth.

* * *


3/10


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 measuredfamily 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 ofcommunity social capitalfor 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 withsocial network indicators (e.g., status of network members, number of non-kin).

o Valenzuela and Dornbusch (1994) incorporated Bourdieus idea of cultural capital tostudy 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) asan outcome related to social capital.

The most significant variance was the specification of social capital indicators asoutcomes in Stanton-Salazar and Dornbuschs (1995) work. This raises questions about

the directionality of the relationship between social capital and educational outcomes.


4/10


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, includingo 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 15years of age (Kalmijn & Kraaykamp, 1996).

The only non-survey design study consisted of a time-diary study of 3- to 11-years-oldsand their parents (Bianchi & Robinson, 1997).

The samples for the studies using NELS were quite large (N= 10,399 toN= 21,924), andbetween 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-basedsocial capital (Lopez).

One study assessed cultural capital, but again the focus was on the parent as actor andtransmitter of capital (Kalmijn & Kraaykamp, 1996).

The outcomes of interest in this body of research were related to educationalachievement 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);


5/10


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 tomeasure 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 andSeptember 2001 are reviewed here. Colemans theoretical framework continued to

guide most of this work, although a few of the studies used Bourdieus frameworkof social and cultural capital (McNeal, 1999; Smith-Maddox, 1999; White &

Glick, 2000), Lins social network theory (Smith-Maddox), and Putnams collectivesocial 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 20years 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 andage 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 betweenN= 463 andN= 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 randomeffects 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).


6/10


The interviews and focus groups were completed with parents, school personnel,

and community members, while children or students were interviewed in only onecasea 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 relativelydeprived 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 thedilution 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).


7/10


Outcome measures of educational attainment included

dropping out or staying in school (Israel et al.; McNeal; White & Glick, 2000), highschool completion (Muller & Ellison, 2001; Yan, 1999),

completed years of schooling or how far in school (Dyk & Wilson, 1999; De Graaf etal., 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 andachievement measures that characterize the research in the two earlier time periods.

Educational aspirations became a popularoutcome measure during this period(Pribesh & Downey, 1999; Muller & Ellison, 2001; Qian & Blair, 1999; Smith-Maddox,

1999). Several studies included outcome indicators ofschool 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 examinewhether 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 humancapital, 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-academicbehaviorsis 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.


8/10


(1)Is social capital positively linked to educational attainment?Overall, social capital indicators and indicators of educational attainment are positivelylinked, 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 methodsto understand the complex relationships between resources based in social networksand 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 theschool 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 Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch (1995) raise questions about the direction and nature of the

relationship between these variables. McNeal suggests that parent involvement andmonitoring may have a greater influence on behavioral than on cognitive outcomes.

Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch propose that grades and educational aspirations arerelated 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 towardan understanding of the inequitable transmission of institutional resources and opportunities.

This approach certainly deserves more research attention, and has the potential to increaseunderstanding 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, isnot 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 psychosocialfactors 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 ofresearch does not provide sufficient theoretical or empirical support for hypotheses about the

positive relationship between social capital and education-related factors. This is due primarilyto 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 capitalas norms rather than access to institutional resources. Methodological gaps in the


9/10


conceptualization and measurement of social capital, including the reliance on cross-sectionaldata, 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 guideempirical work (Grenfell & James, 1998)

o rather than a causal model.

Colemans concept assumes family mediation of social capital, ignoring the agency ofthe 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 thestudent 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 activationbecomes 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) isassociated 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 ofparticipation 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 facilitateopportunity 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).


10/10


DIRECTIONALITY

As shown through the research by Lareau and Horvat (1999) and Stanton-Salazar andDornbusch (1995), the directionality of the relationship between social capital and educational

outcomes is blurry.

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

Documents

Transcript of [Notes] Applications of Social Capital in Educational Literature: A Critical Synthesis Sandra L....