One of my students shared this recipe with me. No offense Dr. Rhodes, but I am not big on Thanksgiving food. I have many stomach issues (hince why I am a vegetarian) and don't eat 3/4 of what is cooked during Thanksgiving. I am not much of a cook, but I actually made this for my doctoral program's Thanksgiving tailgate for the A&M v. UT game. For once I was actually able to eat and enjoy something during Thanksgiving besides rice. Didn't want to post the recipe unitil I knew it was good. Even my non-vegetarian classmates found it to be delicious!

Delicious Green Bean Casserole
That Just So Happens to Be Vegan

Beans
2 quarts water
1 tablespoon table salt
1 1/2 pounds fresh green beans, trimmed and cut into bite-size pieces

Boil green beans for six minutes in water and salt. Drain, set aside.

Sauce

10 ounces button mushrooms
3 cloves garlic, minced
pinch of cayenne pepper (optional)
Salt to taste
Fresh pepper to taste
2 tablespoons flour
3/4 cup vegetable broth (I used Imagine's No-Chicken)
3/4 cup soy creamer (plain not vanilla)

Trim and discard the mushroom stems and chop the mushrooms into pieces. Spray a
non-stick pan with canola oil and heat it. Add the mushrooms, garlic, cayenne,
salt, and pepper. Cook until mushrooms are very soft and exude their juices.
Whisk the flour into the vegetable broth and add to the mushrooms along with
the sherry. Simmer, stirring, until mixture thickens. Add the soy creamer and
simmer until thick, about 5 to 10 minutes. Adjust the seasonings and stir in
the beans.

Topping:
1 large can French's fried onions

Assemble the casserole according to the directions on the French's Fried onions
can and bake.

Is Social Capital and Network Theory Deficit in Nature?

So I had one of my dissertation committee members read over my proposed research summary. He said he was going to play devils advocate and suggested that my topic had a tone of "deficit thinking". I told him I am not assuming that just getting a poor kid sitting next to a middle-high income kid in the classroom is going to make things all better. I don't want to make the assumption that poor kids don't have assets, resources and capital to bring to the table, because I have noticed that many poor students have resiliency skills they acquired from life experiences that other kids just don't have. But I do think there is certain capital that has power and certain capital that does not contain the same level of power. I realized that social capital and network theory alone is not going to do justice to my topic. There are issues of race, class, and unequal distribution of power (hence critical race theory) that generate the structures that these networks are working within. I will be blunt; what happened at Johnston and what is happening at Reagan is racist and classist. The simple fact a school that has a high concentration of students in poverty and a high percentage of minority students does not have the basic college preparatory courses that other schools have is WRONG! The unequal access to resources among different high school context is an issue of race and class. A classmate of mine made me realize we are so focused on inequities of the children, that the children have deficits, when in fact it is the school context and structure that has the deficits. So how do students acquire resources/capital and build networks that lead to opportunities within a structure that is racist, classist and has apparent structural deficits?

Question about case studies

A few books and articles I have been reading give specific case studies or examples of social capital and networks. I am still making attempts to hypothesize how the theory applies to my topic in the theoretical section of my proposal, but are you recommending that I also use some of the case studies and examples the author's use to help the readers understand how the theory is applied?

I found a good book w/ several case studies that critiques Putnam's theories of social capital in his Bowling Alone book:
Arneil, B. (2006). Diverse Communities, The Problem with Social Capital. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

I checked it out from the library, so please don't recall my copy. But it may reflect some of the criticism's Dr. Rhodes had of Putnam's work.

According to Arneil Putnam is part of an American school of civic thought that sees civic society as a critical component of a robust American democracy. Putnam and Coleman view that civic life in U.S. has declined or collapsed. Arneil criticizes that Putnam and Coleman look at the amount of connectedness in American society, but pay little attention to the nature of the connections. Arneil views how communities are formed and the kinds of connections they form are critical to the meaning of community. Arneil proposes that the nature of the connections in any community is what determines its capacity for social justice.

Also Arneil criticizes that Putnam and Coleman see capital as an asset, unproblematic, as positive, and only sees the outcomes of capital. Community is seen as an entity that allows individuals to more effectively achieve shared objectivness. According to Arneil the problem is that groups who historically have been oppressed (women and minorities) work towards building social capital but see others benefit from the rewards.

Trying to sort out theory: Please chime in to help define, or make suggestions

Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action.
Social capital
Investment in social relations with expected returns in marketplace. Resources embedded in social networks accessed and used by actors. Resources embedded in a social structure that are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions
1. How individuals invest in social relations 2. How individuals invest in social relations
Personal resources- resource possessed by an individual
Social resources- resources accessed through an individual's social connections
Resources can be "borrowed" to make a gain

Mobilized Social Resources
1. The number of persons within one's social network who are prepared to help you
2. The strength of the relationship indicating readiness for help
3. The resources of the persons willing to help

Social capital as a collective asset (group level)
1. Observe how groups develop and maintain social capital as a collective asset
2. How does social capital enhance group members' life chances

Assumptions of how meanings are assigned to resources
1. Differential values are assigned by consensus or influence or resources
2. All actors will take actions to promote their self-interests by maintaining and gaining valued resources if such opportunities are available
3. Maintaining and gaining valued resources are the 2 primary motives for action, but maintaining outweighs gaining.

Social Networks
Social networks are less formal social structures and are fluid in occupants, resources, positions, rules, and procedures. Mutual agreement dictates actor participation and interaction

Positions: boundaries of participation
Nodes:
Actors:
Homophily: interactions take place among individuals with similar lifestyles and socioeconomic characteristics
Heterophilous: these diverse interactions are less likely to occur
Bridging:
Bonding:

To maintain resources one would maintain their homophilous interactions, but to gain resources it is proposed heterophilous interactions provide more returns.

Status attainment
The process by which individuals mobilize and invest resources for returns in socioeconomic standing

Article suggestion
Woolcock and Narayan article on Social Capital and Implications for Development Theory. You may have to use your UT EID to gain access. I added the article to our Google group page, but there are also other articles on this website you might be interested in.
http://wbro.oxfordjournals.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/cgi/content/abstract/15/2/225

Problems with and Decline in Social Capital

Theoretical Definitions

Problems w/ social capital
Uneven income and wealth distributions and unequal power relations drive how resources are distributed and used (Takahashi, 2006). Thus, social relationships are important but unable to alter existing relations of privilege and marginalization (Takahashi, 2006). No matter how many relationships and how many resources can be accessed through relationships, resource poor individuals cannot use social capital to help improve their lives because the political economic system keeps them poor. Certain forms of social networks that provide resources, security, and trust could be harmful to marginalized groups (for example, gangs, drug user networks, etc.) (Takahashi, 2006). Groups such as gangs contain social capital, or networks and norms, that allow its members to cooperate more effectively (Putnam, 1995). Resource deficiency has a spatial dimension. Spatial dimensions and the built environment affect how social capital is used (Takahashi, 2006). The spatial structure can be a disruption to social capital (Takahashi, 2006).

Putnam's difinition of social capital:
"Features of social life, networks, norms, and trust---that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives (p. 664-65)."

Civic Engagement and Decline in Social Capital
People's connections with the life of their communities, not just policies. Social trust and civic engagement are strongly correlated. Education is a powerful predictor of civic engagement (Putnam, 1995). According to Putnam the four years of education between 14 and 18 have ten times more impact on trust and membership than the first four years of formal education. When income, social status, and education are used together to predict trust and group membership, education is the primary influence. Highly educated people are more likely to be joiners and trusters because they are better off economically and have the skills, resources, and inclinations that were taught in the home and school (Putnam, p. 667). Education increases civic engagement, and over time Americans have become more educated, but still there has been a decline in social capital in America over time (Putnam). Overall there has been a decline in trust among Americans (Putnam, 1995a). Civic disengagement has affected all levels of social strata. Affluence appears to have exacerbated civic disengagement. Those at affluent income levels report less levels of trust than those of poor and middle class status. Networks of civic engagement support norms of reciprocity and encourage social trust, and these networks facilitate coordination, communication, build reputations, and allow collective action dilemmas to be resolved (Putnam, 1995a).

New book on education and technology

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05shelf.html?pagewanted=all

Power and Discourse

Before reading the Peet and Watts article I had a discussion with my dissertation chair about methodology for my dissertation. Originally I wanted to compare the networks of 3 different school contexts: economically/racially integrated, economically/racially segregated, and predominately white/affluent. I thought that it would be impossible for me to study all 3 and graduate, so I sided on just comparing integrated and segregated school contexts. My chair thought that still including the affluent context would add an interesting element of studying power-power networks. This led me to question, "What type of knowledge is the right type of knowledge; what knowledge leads to social and educational mobility? What type of knowledge has power?" In the readings we have immersed ourselves in the past 6 weeks, a community was defined as a system of networks and connections among individuals. This has made me shift my unit of analysis a bit. I was focused on integrated, segregated, and affluent communities but this is implying that communities=institutions. The community is actually defined by the student. The students builds their own community based on the networks she or he utilizes to gain access to postsecondary education. So my unit of analysis should be the community of networks the student utilizes. The integrated, segregated, or affluent school context is an institution not a community. These institutions define power. According to Peet and Watts:
"regional discursive formations originate in, and display the effects of, certain physical, political economic, and institutional settings, but that discursive formations grounded in material, political, or ideological power supremacies demonstrate a continual tendency to extend over spaces with greatly different characteristics and discursive traditions. (p. 231)"
So even though students may create their community of networks, this community is situated within a place bound institution.....the integrated, segregated, or affluent school context. So the question is how does the institutional power/discourse affect the networks towards accessing postsecondary education for students in each context? What are the regional discursive formations of each context and how do they impact the students' networks?
Clarification question: Am I applying this theory correctly and are there any other readings that could help me build upon the idea of power of discourse in institutions and how it impacts networks?

Social Capital & Community Development

Lin (2000) provides a review of the literature and defines social capital. Social capital according to Lin is the investment and use of embedded resources in social relation for expected returns. Social capital can be examined in terms of resource and also locale.
1. Quantity or quality of resources in embedded in social relations
2. Locations in a network or network characteristics (Lin, p. 786)
Differences in capital can occur between groups. One group could be could be disadvantaged in terms of resources (education, soci0conomics, etc.). Groups with similar resource characteristics typically congregate together. This is known as homophily. A social group of similar resources forms a network of members of the same group.
Based on existing research, Lin formulates the following theory for social group differences in social capital:
1. Members of of a group with inferior socioeconomic standing interacting with others in similar social groupings, would be embedded in social networks poorer in resources. Thus this group would have poorer social capital. Members from this social group have networks that are restricted in information and influence.
2. Networks that are resource rich are rich in quantity but also the resources are heterogeneous. Members of this social group gain access to information from diverse socioeconomic positions.
Based on these two tenets of social capital and social networks I am revising my dissertation hypotheses:
-Economically/racially segregated school communities due to their low socioeconomic standing are more likely to be embedded in social networks poorer in resources and have poorer social capital for gaining access to college.
-Thus, economically/racially integrated networks have more resource rich and heterogeneous networks towards college access and gain access to information from diverse socioeconomic positions.
Cross-group ties enable access to better resources and produce better outcomes for those from disadvantaged groups. A sub research question for my dissertation would be, "How do students from economically/racially segregated communities due to their low socioeconomic status gain cross-group ties to access better resources and outcomes towards college access?"
Groups may have similar types and levels of social capital, but the capital may produce different returns for each group. Lin coins this phenomena return deficit. Even though two groups have the same level of capital, one group may receive different returns in status attainment (prestige, earnings, positions in organizations) than the other. This deficit can manifest as differential opportunities where the social structure or institution differentially distributes opportunities for members of social groups. The deficit can also manifest as differential investment, where investment in one group is preferenced over investment in the other. In my research I may find that because of their low soci0economic status, resource poor segregated school communities have less opportunities in the college access pipeline that students from resource rich integrated school communities. Also schools and other facets within the social context may differentially invest in one type of school community over the other, possible resource rich integrated communities receiving more investments than resource poor segregated communities.

Term Definitions

Sorry this is so late. Did not know we were suppose to post our terms on the blog. These term are theories I am exploring for my dissertation. Will go back and revise and add to this blog post as I continue to define the terms.


Community
Capra, F. (1994). Ecology and Community. Center for Ecoliteracy
According to Capra a community is a pattern of interconnected networks or relationships. There are networks within networks that are also within communities. Capra uses the building blocks of organisms (organs, cells, etc.) to demonstrate how several systems of network patterns work together to form a community. According to cybernetics a community can self-regulate and learn from its mistakes through feedback loops . We need cooperation, partnership, relationships and interdependence for self-regulation. Cooperation is more important to self-regulation that competition. Self-regulation does not occur in a linear detached system, but instead of system of interdependent relationships, network patterns, feedback loops, and cooperation (Capra).

Brint, S. (2001). Gemeinschaft Revisited: A Critique and Reconstruction of the Community Concept. Sociological Theory, 19 (1), pp. 1-23.
Brint argues that a community does not have to be defined by shared values but individuals could be linked by affect, loyalty, personal concern, or by economic and political networks. Within an integrated or desegregated school context in what ways is an individual student linked to individuals or other communities to gain access to college? According to Brint these linkages could occur in a variety of ways. A student could be make the linkage for economic reasons, because the person has personal concern for them, because of the political/power connections of the linkage, etc. Thus the individual student could have a variety of networks within their surrounding community for a variety of reasons and purposes.
Brint structures a community in the following levels:
1. The ultimate context of interaction (divided by choice based or geographic based interactions)
2. The primary motivation for interaction
3. Rates of interaction
I believe the school community networks that a student uses to gain access to college cannot just be divided into either "choice based" or geographic based" networks or virtual, place bound, elective, or imagined communities (Brint).

Thin, N. (2002). Social Progress and Sustainable Development. Bloomfield, CT. Kumarian Press.
Thin describes the word community as "a strongly value-laden term used to describe good social relations and shared identity and interests (p. 53)." Community is made of more than just people with shared values. A community is a healthy, sustainable, system with "quality social relationships, participation in decision-making, communication, and about the extent to which increased participation and empowerment constitute improvements in the quality of life or are means for bringing about improvements (Thin, p. 59)."

Resiliency
Capra, F. (1994). Ecology and Community. Center for Ecoliteracy
Communities are also able to self-regulate and respond to disturbances through resiliency through diverse linkages, or many approaches to the same problem.

Social Capital
An asset. People who do better are better connected. Better connected people enjoy higher returns.
Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in Social Capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29, (6), pp. 785-795.
Groups may have similar types and levels of social capital, but the capital may produce different returns for each group. Lin coins this phenomena return deficit. Even though two groups have the same level of capital, one group may receive different returns in status attainment (prestige, earnings, positions in organizations) than the other. This deficit can manifest as differential opportunities where the social structure or institution differentially distributes opportunities for members of social groups. The deficit can also manifest as differential investment, where investment in one group is preferred over investment in the other.

Pragmatism
Habermas
The act of individuals coming together to reach and understanding through communication and shared meaning.
Shields, P. (2003). The community of inquiry: classical pragmatism and public administration. Administration and Society.
Shield defines community of inquiry (a form of pragmatism) where a community of individuals is brought together or linked through the following: problematic situation, scientific attitude, and participatory democracy. Individuals come together to share a variety of ideas surrounding a problem and takes a scientific approach to reflection (critical optimism). According to Dewey (as referenced by Shields) the key to a successful community is togetherness and cooperative efforts to seek the common good in a democratic way.

Ostrum: Behavioral Approach of Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action

Ostrum provides an expansion of rational choice theory by theorizing conditions where "reciprocity, reputation, and trust can help overcome the strong temptations of short-run self-interest" (p.3). A social dilemma is a large number of situations where individuals make independent choices in an interdependent situation. Ostrum outlines the following assumptions are made in formal models of social dilemmas:
1. All participants have common knowledge of the payoffs to be received by all individuals under all combinations of strategies
2. Decisions about strategies are made independently and often simultaneusly
3. All participants have the same strategies available to them
4. And no external factor or central authority enforces cooperation
Ostrum argues that traditional rational theories of approaching social problems suggest self-interested players are expected to use communication to get others to cooperate and promise cooperative action. But simple communication is not enough to pull out of the dilemma because communication is not enough to achieve collective action. To address a social dilemma Ostrum suggest establishing face-to-face communication with relationships of trust, reputation, and reciprocity. Reciprocity involves the following:
1. Identifying who is involved in the dilemma
2. Assessing wheter others involved will cooperate conditionally
3. Agree to cooperate with others if they are trusted to be conditional cooperators
4. A refusal to cooperate with those who do not reciprocate
5. And enforce punishment of those who betray trust
Ostrum views face-to-face communication as more powerful than communication via technology. How does this theory work in a society where we are focused on globalisation? How can social dilemmas be addressed through information exchanged through technological networks? My dissertation examines issues of place/space: comparing the college access networks of integrated school communities to segregated school communities. I am hypothesizing that information networks in an isolated segregated community are not as strong as integrated communities, because segregated closed communities do not allow new information networks in that could improve capacity building and adaptability. Segregated isolated communities could benefit from technology to expand information networks. It would be difficult for education to deal w/ policies that address housing and city planning decisions that create segregated communities, but at least for segregated communities technology can allow information networks to surpass spatial boundaries.

Articles on community development, neighborhoods, and mobility

Here is a link to the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech. The have access to articles on spatial issues if interested
http://www.mi.vt.edu/web/page/889/sectionid/580/pagelevel/2/parentid/580/interiorHPD.asp

Also are a few interesting articles (selfishly related to my dissertation topic) on community development, spatial isolation, and social mobility.
http://www.mi.vt.edu/web/page/889/sectionid/580/pagelevel/2/parentid/580/interiorHPD.asp

Individual and Community

Dr. Rhodes recommended I look at the definition of pragmatism in reference to my last post on personal responsibility and its relationship to community. For what I understand according to Habermas pragmatism is the act of individuals coming together to reach and understanding through communication and shared meaning. I am still a bit confused on the term though Dr. Rhodes and hope we get to discuss pragmatism in relation to the word community more. Dr. Rhodes said I should not consider personal responsibility as an ideology but instead consider how personal responsibility is a necessary tenet within community. Shield defines community of inquiry (a form of pragmatism) where a community of individuals is brought together or linked through the following: problematic situation, scientific attitude, and participatory democracy. Individuals come together to share a variety of ideas surrounding a problem and takes a scientific approach to reflection (critical optimism). Inquiry is defined as controlled or directed transformation towards a situation. I question the participatory democracy aspect of community of inquiry. According to Dewey (as referenced by Shields) the key to a successful community is togetherness and and cooperative efforts to seek the common good in a democratic way. So is this where sustainibility comes in? When there is a cooperative effort and togetherness by a group of individuals to achieve a common good, then there is sustainability? This is my one criticism of personal responsibility and the participation of individuals in a community and the idea of togetherness. Is this to assume that everyone has the same opportunity to participate as individuals? Maybe this is why the personal responsibility argument alone does not work. How can sustainbility occur when not all individuals have the equal opportunity to participate in the cooperative efforts of a community? Dr. Rhodes could we discuss and define pragmatism in class a bit more?

Relationships+Networks=Community

In an effort to try understand the other rationale so that I may one day be better prepared to develop a counter argument, I have had several conversations with the conservative camp that believes in "personal responsibility". Personal responsibility is an ideology in opposition to socialized support and programs. Personal responsibility ideology believes in personal choices over dependence on government and socialized programs. Does "personal responsibility" fit with Capra's definition of community? According to Capra a community is a pattern of interconnected networks or relationships. There are networks within networks within communities (Capra). Capra uses the building blocks of organisms (organs, cells, etc.) to demonstrate how several systems of network patterns work together to form a community. According to cybernetics a community can self-regulate and learn from its mistakes through feedback loops (Capra). We need cooperation, partnership, relationships and interdependence for self-regulation (Capra). According to Capra cooperation is more important to self-regulation that competition. Self-regulation could be seen as a spin on the conservative ideology "personal responsibility, but instead this is not focusing on the responsibility of the individual but instead the responsibility or self-regulation of a community. The conservative camps belief in fending for yourself as a means of self-regulation contradicts Capra's means of self-regulation. Self-regulation does not occur in a linear detached system, but instead of system of interdependent relationships, network patterns, feedback loops, and cooperation (Capra). Communities are also able to self-regulate and respond to disturbances through resiliency through diverse linkages, or many approaches to the same problem (Capra). In Capra's definition of community the conservative argument of personal responsibility in the end would not lead to responsibility or self-regulation because we need cooperation, connections, and multiple approaches to a problem to be prepared, resilient, and sustainable. The conservative "personal responsibility" would not fit into Capra's definition of responsibility or self-regulation. Fending for ourselves in isolation does not work. We need each other for sustainability.

Community is more than shared values but also level of sustainability

Brint in his review of community literature critiques the traditional definition of communities. Thin describes the word community as "a strongly value-laden term used to describe good social relations and shared identity and interests (p. 53)." Community is made of more than just people with shared values. A community is a healthy, sustainable, system with "quality social relationships, participation in decision-making, communication, and about the extent to which increased participation and empowerment constitute improvements in the quality of life or are means for bringing about improvements (Thin, p. 59)." Theories on sustainability should be attached to traditional definitions of community. It is not just the shared values that make a community, but their social relations, knowledge networks, and adaptability to change that allow them to build capacity (as explained by Professor Rhodes). So far I have arrived at the following research question for my disseration topic:
How do social networks vary across school context and what implications do they have for college access?

• What are the similarities and differences in student educational aspirations and opportunities among various school contexts (economically segregated v. economically integrated)?• Are there any similarities and differences in the social and educational networks for accessing college among the various school context?
• Does an integrated school setting provide better outcomes for low, middle, and high income students than a economically segregated school setting?
• How do integrated school settings make true integration work well? What are some of the challenges?

I want to compare the networks of school communities, integrated v. segregated, used to gain access to college. Desegregation and integration literature claims that integrated settings tap students into greater opportunity networks (Wells & Crain, 1994). But it is not enough for a school community to be integrated physically by a certain number of students of certain racial and economic backgrounds. It is the shared knowledge networks and the nature of their connections that define a successful integrated school community. Not only are  the types of networks of an integrated v. segregated school community important but what are the characteristics of the networks within each community that create better linkages to college?With help of Thin's previously mentioned quote, the sustainability towards college access of the integrated or segretated school community could be determined by the quality of the school communities relationships, participation in decisions, and level of empowerment. 

Brint argues that a community does not have to be defined by shared values but individuals could be linked by affect, loyalty,  personal concern, or by economic and political networks. Within an integrated or desegregated school context in what ways is an individual student linked to individuals or other communities to gain access to college? According to Brint these linkages could occur in a variet of ways. A student could be make the linkage for economic reasons, because the person has personal concern for them, because of the political/power connections of the linkage, etc. Thus the indiviudal student could have a variety of networks within their surrounding community for a variety of reasons and purposes.

Brint structures a community in the following levels:

1. The ultimate context of interaction (divided by choice based or geographic based interactions)

2. The primary motivation for interaction

3. Rates of interaction

I believe the school community networks that a student uses to gain access to college cannot just be divided into either "choice based" or geographic based" networks or virtual, place bound, elective, or imagined communities (Brint). I might need to re-think how I am defining community for the purposes of my research because an  integreated or segregated school is not necessarily a community, but instead a space or context in which networks or interactions take place. What creates the community is that these networks share a common goal or end, accessing college. These college access networks are not all necessarily place bound, because students seek college access networks outside the school setting, but instead the focus should shift to how the characteristics of the space or place (integrated v. segregated) impact the college access community or networks. So I should shift from defining the school setting as community to the networks built around gaining access to college as community. 

A policy isn't enough to sustain

I am posting this brief thought before I lose it. In my critical race theory class today (wonderful how my courses are connecting) we discussed the split between legal and social. How law is not enough to make change. Law only deals with procedures and redistribution of property and rights. Social movements are what is needed to remedy the social, cultural, and historical complexities within a problem. Laws and policies because they are procedural, rational, and objective are hard to change, but the social component is malleable due to our constant social interactions and reflections. For example Brown v. Board was a legal procedure, but the law was not enough to sustain the spirit of desegregation and create true change. Instead of just accepting for face value that the law of Brown v. Board would create change, the social and cultural complexities within the problem should have been examined. Thin emphasizes in the first chapter the importance of examining the "social" and that there are "people" involved. With Brown v. Board it was accepted that redistribution of property (literally moving students from one school to another) would be enough, but we failed to examine the other social components within the institution that created inequality in the first place.