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
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
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).
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).
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
New book on education and technology
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05shelf.html?pagewanted=all
Sunday, October 5, 2008
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?
"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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)