Review of the Social Capital Literature - University of Queensland

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.1 Social Capital and EducationColeman regarded the effect of social capital on the creation of human capital inthe next generation as being especially important. Both family social capital andsocial capital in the community contribute to this process in different ways. Familysocial capital depends on the physical presence of parents in the family, and onthe attention they give to the child. Also important is the strength of relationsbetween the parent and the child. If strong relations are lacking, then socialcapital is missing. ‘If the human capital possessed by parents is notcomplemented by social capital embodied in family relations, it is irrelevant to thechild’s educational growth that the parent has a great deal, or a small amount ofhuman capital’ (Coleman 1988). Focusing on the effect a lack of social capitalwithin the family has upon dropping out of high school, Coleman uses a numberof indicators to measure family social capital (outlined in section 3 above).Results show that the lower the amount of family social capital, the higher thedropout rate from school, demonstrating that family social capital is a resource forchildren’s education.Social capital outside the family is also of value when looking at dropping out ofschool. This consists of ‘the social relationships that exist among parents, in theclosure exhibited by this structure of relations, and in the parents’ relations withthe institutions of the community’ (Coleman 1988: S113). Using the High Schooland Beyond dataset, Coleman argues that another indicator of social capital isthe distinction between public high schools, religiously based private high schoolsand non-religiously based private high schools. The religiously based private highschools are surrounded by a community based on religious organisation, and byfamilies that have ‘intergenerational closure based on a multiplex relation’. Usingfrequency of attendance at religious services as a measure of social capital,Coleman’s analysis demonstrated an extremely low dropout rate in Catholicprivate schools. This could not be attributed to the religion of students, or degreeof religious observance, as Catholic students in public schools are only slightlyless likely to drop out than non-Catholics (Coleman 1988: S114). The resultsprovide evidence of the importance of social capital outside the family, in theadult community of the school, for the lower dropout rates observed. Heconcludes that ‘both social capital in the family and social capital outside it, in theadult community surrounding the school, showed evidence of considerable valuein reducing the probability of dropping out of high school’ (Coleman 1988: S118-S119).After ColemanColeman’s work has been both criticised and developed, inspiring a range ofresearch looking at different variables. Much of this later research draws uponthe National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS), a nationally representativesurvey of 8 th graders initially conducted in 1988, with follow up surveys in 1990and 1992. Generally speaking results suggest that social capital is of potentialFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 16
importance, with findings suggesting correlations between higher levels of socialcapital and low levels of school drop-out, lower truancy rates and higher levels ofacademic achievement.4.1.1 Dropping Out of SchoolSeveral studies have added to the evidence on the correlation between highlevels of social capital and low drop-out rates. Teachman et al (1996), focusingupon family social capital, look at its effect on students who drop out between the8 th and 10 th grade. They use a number of detailed measures of social capital, andcriticise Coleman for reliance upon what they perceive to be relatively simplemeasures (Teachman, Paasch et al. 1996: 775). These include a range ofmeasures of family structure (series of questions concerning livingarrangements), attendance at a Catholic school, whether parents know theparents of children’s closest school friends, the number of times a child haschanged schools, parent-child interaction and parent-school interaction. Theresults showed that changing school was particularly detrimental in terms ofdropping out of school. Interpreting these results within a social capitalframework, Teachman et al assume that ‘changing schools reduces the ability ofparents and children to make wise decisions about schooling’ (Teachman,Paasch et al. 1996: 782). Teachers may be less committed to children who havemoved, and children may feel separated from the education process.In a later study, the same authors examine whether social capital interacts withthe human and financial capital possessed by parents to produce human capitalin children (Teachman, Paasch et al. 1997). Expanding on the measures usedpreviously, three indirect general measures of social capital are included; familystructure (for family social capital), attendance at a Catholic high school (tomeasure social capital resulting from ties with the large community, assumed tobe greater within a Catholic community), and the number of times the child haschanged schools (as this represents disruption in relations between parents,children and parents). Also included are more specific social capital measuresused previously, tapping schooling-related patterns of social relationships. Theseinclude a measure of whether parents know the parents of their child’s closestschool friends, and the intensity of schooling-related interaction between parentsand children and between parents and schools. Responses provided by studentsand parents provided data for these measures, from which five summary indexesfor parent-child interaction and parent-school interaction were produced. Thefindings indicate that both the general and more specific measures of socialcapital are related to dropping out of high school, and also that social capitalinteracts with the financial and human capital of parents to determine schoolcontinuation.A social capital framework has also been used to assess differences in drop outrates between urban and rural areas. Working directly with Coleman’sconceptualisation of family social capital, Lichter looks at whether differences inFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 17
Page 6 and 7: cooperation. Social trust, as oppos
Page 8 and 9: ? Bridging social capital - consist
Page 10 and 11: highlighted in section 4, but many
Page 12 and 13: The questionnaire was administered
Page 14 and 15: others as mean, selfish or unreliab
Page 18 and 19: ural/urban high school drop out rat
Page 20 and 21: At the state level greater social c
Page 22 and 23: institutional infrastructure) are m
Page 24 and 25: Kennedy et al also hypothesised tha
Page 26 and 27: focused upon the different ways of
Page 28 and 29: 6. BibliographyBourdieu, P. (1986).
Page 30: Sampson, R. J., S. W. Raudenbush, e

Review of the Social Capital Literature - University of Queensland

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?