« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
LITERATURE REVIEW OF SOCIAL CAPITAL
In this section we provide a short review of the literature on social capital to show the basis on which the questionnaire was developed. It provides a brief introduction to the different conceptualisations of this form of capital, its relationship to structured learning and the different types of social capital. It then goes on to discuss social capital and power and how different conceptualisations of power affect the capacity of groups and individuals to take action to change their circumstances.
The meaning and types of social capital
There are a number of different types of capital that impact on people's life chances and trajectories. Portes (1998: 7) differentiates three types thus: 'whereas economic capital is in people's bank accounts and human capital is in their heads, social capital inheres in the structure of their relationships'. A number of researchers have argued that participation in post-compulsory education is a means of generating social capital because it impacts on relationships (Baron et al, 2000; Field, 2005; Schuller et al, 2004) but there are different ways of understanding the term.
For example, in the work of Bourdieu (1997) social capital is part of the explanation of the persistence of class inequalities that are based on and sustain the unequal resources of economic and cultural capital where these three capitals interpenetrate and reinforce each other to 'normalise' inequalities in structures and networks. Coleman (1994) analyses social capital's links with 'human capital' and argues the importance of the former for generating the latter through facilitating collective aims. The work of Putnam (1993, 2000) emphasises the combined effect of trust, networks and norms of reciprocity in creating strong communities, so he regards social capital as the ability to do things collectively. Both Coleman and Putnam see trust and reciprocity as arising from the activities that create social capital and as contributing to social capital in their own right (see Croll, 2004: 403).
However, research has highlighted problems with the 'dark side' of these beneficially supportive arrangements (Baron, et al, 2000; Croll, 2004; Schuller et al, 2004; Field, 2005). For what were constructed as mutually reinforcing ties, have also been recognised as potentially binding shackles in some circumstances for some groups in society. For example, when incomers to an established community are excluded from its networks or when the dominant norms of a group make education seem to be 'not for them' (McGivney, 2001). Researchers have also highlighted the difficulty in isolating social capital as a prime determinant of change because it is so inextricably woven in a complex nexus of other socio-economic factors that individually and collectively impact on the lives of people.
Nevertheless, there appears to be a broad acceptance of an association between participation in structured learning, and changes in the nature of the connections that learners have with networks that lead to more involvement in society and the building of trust (Balatti et al, 2006). The combined effect of trust, networks, norms and reciprocity can also create a stronger sense of personal and social efficacy because people are able to call on greater sources of support in their lives (McKenzie and Harpham, 2006).
There are two main types of social capital: bonding, i.e. 'links between like-minded people'; and bridging, i.e. 'the building of connections between heterogeneous groups' (Baron, et al, 2000:10). Both are highly normative in that they are constructed around commonalities that link people together, so where bonding capital is high but the norms of the community are not associated with participation in education, then the normative pull of non-participation will be strong, and the pressure to conform, equally so. However, those who do participate can build bridging social capital because people make contact with others who are different in outlook, interests, education and social circles.
With the exception of Schuller et al's studies (2004) much research on social capital and learning has looked at the impact of social capital on participation in learning (see Field, 2005). It has evidenced the virtuous cycle whereby high social capital appears to encourage participation, which in turn enhances social capital and so on. From Coleman and Putnam's perspectives, this is not problematic, for they construct it as 'an entirely non-zero sum and [a] non-competitive commodity' (Croll, 2004: 400). Bourdieu on the other hand, perceived it as excluding because, in a divided society, it operates to advantage those who have high social capital and hence increases the gap between the educationally rich and poor. Annual learning surveys provide consistent evidence of this wide and persisting learning divide in the UK (see e.g. Aldridge and Tuckett, 2005), whereby those who have most, continue to access more.
They appear to confirm Bourdieu's more pessimistic view of the competitive operation of social capital, however, if it is neither fixed nor immutable, then it is important that we understand how learning affects social capital. This pattern, however, is not true of engaging in community-based learning where there is evidence that it is effective in engaging young people and adults who do not engage in other forms of learning (Tett, 2006). The literature review conducted for Communities Scotland (Tett et al, 2006) showed that engaging in CLD could generate greater social capital for both adults and young people through boosting friendship networks, realising the assets of the community and building connections outwith the community.
Strawn (2005: 551) has argued that the discourse of particular communities around education is an important component of social capital because it is a function of interpersonal interaction over time. Her research found that people living in communities where education is seen as a means of advancement are more likely to participate in formal learning programmes.
Research also shows that engaging in social activity can build social capital through developing knowledge resources from opportunities for interactions with other members of the community (Putnam, 1993, 2000; Falk and Kilpatrick, 2000) and also can provide access to employment opportunities. Therefore enhancing social capital through engagement in learning can potentially increase economic and social activity leading to wider benefits for the individual, their community and society. This is particularly important in communities where people generally do not have formal educational aspirations because it is extremely difficult for an individual living in such locations to behave differently. In other words, the effect of education in raising people's sights is experienced more widely as a positive influence on the cultural norms that encourage others to do the same (see Schuller et al, 2004: 191).
Field (2005: 19) suggests that interpersonal communications and connections are the core elements of social capital, and Norman and Hyland (2003: 269) have demonstrated the importance of social interaction as a factor in increasing confidence. Their study showed that 'although the individual learner can affect his/her own level of confidence, tutors, peers, mentors and workplace supervisors can help increase the learners' confidence by providing support, encouragement and constructive feedback'
(p 270). Schuller et al's (2004) studies of the wider benefits of learning provide strong evidence of the impact of learning on social meta-competencies that equip people with the confidence and ability to develop their social connections.
Social capital and power
The development of 'bridges' and 'bonds' addresses the augmenting of resources and networks which might assist individuals and communities to improve their circumstances and opportunities. However, power has been implicit in a good deal of the literature on social capital and probably one of the main reasons for this has been the dominant influence of Coleman and Putnam. In contrast, Bourdieu's interest in social capital focuses on how social networks reinforce and reproduce cultural and economic inequality: it is an integral part of how power operates. We want to explore this link between social capital and power but to turn the issue around: can CLD contribute to the social capital of powerless groups to help them challenge inequality?
There are different ways of conceptualising power that influence different approaches to studying it. In this research we use the theoretical contribution of Lukes (1974) because his work has been significant in development studies, which has a good deal in common with CLD (see Gaventa 2006). Lukes' theory involves a three dimensional view of power which highlights its institutional, cultural and strategic aspects. The first dimension refers to the power of individuals and groups to achieve favourable decisions for themselves. They are able to influence and mobilise resources in their interests against other competing groups and individuals. The second dimension of power is less obvious because it is less visible. It refers to the ability of powerful groups to limit what are framed as legitimate grievances. Subordinate groups may have genuine concerns and problems but those in power are able to effectively muffle and ignore their claims when decisions are made. This is sometimes referred to as the ability to take 'non-decisions'. The third dimension of power is even less visible. It refers to the broader social and cultural exercise of power that involves the shaping of attitudes and expectations so that people think and feel a particular way. Through processes of socialisation and inculcation of norms and values the nature of systematic inequalities are masked as natural or inevitable. People do not articulate their experiences as grievances that should be addressed.
In the first and second dimension of power the outcomes of decisions or non-decisions involves a zero-sum relationship. When one individual or group gains another loses. In the third dimension of power this zero-sum effect is less clear-cut because it refers to a more diffuse operation and experience of power. Changing attitudes and perceptions may have an impact on social and cultural practices, which affect interpersonal relations in zero-sum terms. For example, an individual may change their deferential attitudes to another because they feel more confident about themselves and their point of view. However, this may not involve systemic change. When it does the impact can be said to have a wider zero-sum effect. It is only in contexts where one group gains at the expense of another that the relations of power change.
The distinction between power over and power to is also helpful. It captures both the negative and positive aspects of power because power over implies the ability to limit what others can do and is generally seen in negative terms whereas power to is about enhancing the resources and capacity of individuals and groups and has positive connotations. Educational intervention usually focuses on the power to help individuals and groups cope better, respond more effectively, or develop resources to deal with authorities and inequalities of power. Whilst it is untrue that power over is always negative, and power to is always positive, the overall importance of educational intervention is to increase the capacity of individuals and groups to think and act.
« Previous | Contents | Next »