Meta Analysis of Social Capital

8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital

1/23Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 78, No. 4, November 2008, 536557

2008 Alpha Kappa Delta

Blackwell Publishing IncMalden, USASOINSociological Inquiry0038-02451475-682X2008 Alpha Kappa DeltaXXXOriginal ArticlesTHE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL CAPITALGREGORY M. FULKERSON AND GRETCHEN H. THOMPSON

The Evolution of a Contested Concept: A Meta-Analysis

of Social Capital Definitions and Trends (19882006)*

Gregory M. Fulkerson,SUNY College at Oneonta

Gretchen H. Thompson,North Carolina State University

This paper offers a meta-analysis that traces the contested meaning and use of social

capital in sociological research over the last 18 years by focusing on journal article

definitions. We identify six common definitions in use that closely correspond to the

originaland in some cases, independentformulations offered by Hanifan, Putnam,

Coleman, Bourdieu, and Granovetter. Drawing from Kuhnian theory, we contend that

these definitions illuminate deep divisions between those who understand social capitalas a normative cure-all (Portes 1998)in the tradition of Hanifan, Putnam, and Coleman

and those who view it as a resourcein the tradition of Bourdieu and Granovetter

that may be used to create or maintain social inequality. The transition of social capital

from preparadigm to paradigm status may potentially involve an integration of these

approaches, but this will require greater consideration of power and inequality on the

part of normative theorists, who are currently dominating the debate.

Introduction

Social capital has become extremely popular in sociology journalsasillustrated by Schafft and Brown (2003) and similarly in this paperbut its

meaning has been contested since its inception. Debates include determining

whether it is a property of individuals or collectivities (Portes 2000), and isolat-

ing specific concepts that comprise the general notion of social capital. Is it a

resource (Bourdieu 1983; Loury 1977) or a process (Putnam, Leonardi, and

Nanetti 1993)? What is the relationship between social capital and social struc-

ture (Coleman 1988, 1990)? How is social capital valued, and does this value

change in different contexts (Schafft and Brown 2003)? Several scholars (Fine

2001; Flora and Flora 1993; Lin 2001; Macinko and Starfield 2001; Portes1998; Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993; Schuller, Baron, and Field 2000; Wall,

Ferrazzi, and Schryer 1998; Woolcock 1998) have noted these issues, and

propose different ways of dealing with them. Nevertheless, there has not been a

comprehensive attempt to consider all of the ways in which social capital is

defined, nor has there been an associated attempt to explain how social capital

has become so multifaceted and contested.


2/23

THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL 537

We attempt to provide a fuller picture of the evolution of social capital in

sociology by illuminating its diverse interpretation and usage through a

Kuhnian framework. Our approach is unique in that it offers an empiricalanalysis of journal articles. First, we examine the universe of social capital articles

discussing trends across time, journal, and specialty area. Second, definitions in

mainstream journals are identified and contrasted with definitions published in

specialty journals. Third, definitions in specialty areas are examined using data

reduction techniques to identify the concepts and definitions being used. We

consider our results in light of the current debates and discuss possible future

directions.

Theorizing the Evolution of Social Capital

We contend that the evolution of social capital in sociology can be under-

stood within the framework of Kuhnian theory, as it focuses attention on the

social world of the scientific community. Kuhn (1962) explains the life cycle of

a theory from the preparadigm stage of debate, to the paradigm stage of normal

science, and finally to the crisis stage that leads to a paradigmatic revolution. In

the initial preparadigm stage Kuhn suggests that there are competing theories

over some phenomenon. Rather than arguing that theories are contested based

on objective empirical tests, Kuhn suggests that they emerge out of a socially

negotiated process. If a theory is judged to be satisfying by the community ofscientistsfor any number of reasons, including those that are politicalit

then becomes a good contender to be a paradigm.

In terms of preparadigm social capital, we consider what may have elicited

its initial enthusiastic response. Schuller, Baron, and Field (2000) identify

what we believe are a number of important reasons: (1) the attraction it has at a

subconscious level to those who feel they lack time for family and social

activity; (2) the concern with excessive individualism in American culture;

(3) the notion that intellectual ideas progress in a cyclical pattern (i.e., old

wine in new bottles); (4) a revalorization of social relationships in politicaldiscourse (i.e., bringing a social dimension back to capitalism); (5) the

desire to add a normative dimension to methodological discussions dominated

by economic models; and (6) the interrelatedness of the world is increasingly

noticed in policy analysis. Portes and Landolt (2000) maintainconsistent

with points (5) and (6) abovethat the appeal of social capital stems from the

fact that it offers an alternative to economic theories that dominate the discus-

sion of development. We would emphasize point (3) abovethe cyclical

nature of ideasas it implies a philosophy of science that is consistent with

Kuhnian revolutions. We develop this point further in the following section.Overall, these reasons help explain why social capital gained so much initial

t


3/23

538 GREGORY M. FULKERSON AND GRETCHEN H. THOMPSON

Next, Kuhn suggests that once a theory wins support from the scientific

community and becomes a paradigm, it ushers in a period of normal science.

In this stage, every project is viewed as an added piece to the overall puzzle.The rules of how to do research become clearly defined and highly specialized,

and after a time the numerous contributions become increasingly trivial. In the

final stage, Kuhn suggests that anomaliesobservations that do not fit within

the scope or predictions of the paradigmbecome overly burdensome. When

this happens, the scientific community enters into a period of crisis in which

debates again emerge as they did in the preparadigm stage. At this point how-

ever, unlike the preparadigm stage, many scientists have become so committed

to the old paradigm that they will resist attempts to replace it with anything

new. For this reason, it often takes a revolution to replace older paradigms.From Kuhns insights we ask: Does the evolution of social capital suggest

that it has graduated to paradigm status? There are a number of reasons to think

that this may be the case. As we later show, several journal articles assume that

the definition of social capital can be taken for granted, as they offer no explicit

definition. This may be seen as an indicator of normal science. In addition, the

growing frequency of articles as well as the scope and range of topics covered

by them may suggest that social capital is a full-fledged paradigm. For example,

Rydgren (2005) uses it to demonstrate the importance of bridging and bonding

networks between political and economic elites in Sweden. Chin and Phillips(2004) use it as an explanation for social class differences in childrens activities

during summer vacation. Snowden (2005) uses social capital to explain racial,

ethnic, and cultural disparities in health and mental health. Blanchard and

Matthews (2006) explain how high concentrations of local economic power

lead to decreased levels of local social capital conceived as a form of civic

engagement in communities.

In addition to its broad application in sociologydemonstrated by the

preceding examplesthe fact that social capital theory and research transcends

disciplinary boundaries lends support to its status as a paradigm in the broadersocial science community. Political scientists (see, for example, Sawyer 2005)

have employed the concept to understand how governments and institutions can

perform more efficiently. Economists (see, for example, Page, Putterman, and

Unel 2005) have drawn on it to explain how rational actors overcome the free-

rider dilemma when engaging in exchanges.

In spite of observations to the contrary, we contend that social capital is

still in transition to paradigm status. We believe that current debates serve a

positive function in terms of illuminating divergent interpretations, and that

such scrutiny is an important part of the process of paradigm formation.Perhaps most importantly, social capital offers the unique potential to integrate

id f h f i l j t diti


4/23


Sociological Traditions and the Social Capital Paradigm

There are different ways to conceive of paradigms in sociology. In ourview, to equate paradigms with functionalism, conflict, and interactionismthe

standard sociology textbook distinctionis too static from a Kuhnian point of

view. We conceive of these rather as traditions in the same manner as Collins

(1994). He describes the field of sociology as being composed of the conflict,

Durkheimian, rational-utilitarian, and microinteractionist traditions. Although a

case could be made that there are other important traditions such as postmod-

ernism and feminism, these four are generally viewed as central to the field.

In most cases, paradigms are born out of one of these traditions and

remain within its confines for the duration of its life cycle. For example structural-functionalism once dominated the field of sociology and evolved within the

Durkheimian tradition. Following a period of normal science and then crisis,

Marxism emerged within the conflict tradition, allowing it to gain a foothold

against the grain of those committed to the old structural-functionalist paradigm.

However, the Durkheimian tradition has outlasted structural-functionalism, just

as the conflict tradition now extends well beyond orthodox Marxist theory.

We believe that social capital is a theory in transition to becoming a

paradigm that has some unique qualities. Rather than being associated with one

tradition, it has evolved within each of sociologys major traditions. As a result,it contains many incompatible and conflicting images (Portes and Sensenbrenner

1993; Schuller, Baron, and Field 2000; Woolcock 1998). The Durkheimian

influence provides the notion of value introjection that refers to the moral

order that underlies and precedes contractual relationships and economic

behavior (Woolcock 1998). This emphasizes the noneconomic social forces that

lead the individual to act in a nonutilitarian fashion. From the microinteractionist

tradition is the notion of reciprocity transactions that is based on Simmels

(Levine 1971) ideas about the exchange of intangible goods such as informa-

tion and social approval. Here the individual is acting rationally but in a waythat brings intangible rewards. From the conflict tradition, Marx and Engels

offer the idea of bounded rationality. This refers to the solidarity that forms as

a result of circumstances, which can be contrasted to the more static view of

solidarity in the Durkheimian tradition. This is said to be the case with the

proletariat class-for-itself whose solidarity results internally as a response

to capitalist exploitation (Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993). The implication of

this is that social capital may be highly context-dependent. Finally, from the

rational-utilitarian tradition Weber offers the idea of enforceable trust, which

refers to the idea that actors will set aside immediate personal gain inexchange for an expected return for a group to which they belong (Portes and

S b 1993) Thi i th f i t h fi t i


5/23


industry where competition harms each actor and cooperation brings mutual

benefit.

We contend that the above ideas converge in the social capital debateresulting in two competing camps. While there is some overlap between them,

we attempt to highlight which traditions have most strongly influenced each.

One campwho we call normative social capitalistsdefine it within the

Durkheimian tradition, and view it as a set of features in a social structure that

lead to collective action in order to bring about mutual benefit for some aggre-

gate of people (Coleman 1988, 1990). Many in this camp view social capital as

a universal explanation for patterns of development. These patterns are under-

stood in terms of varying levels of norms of trust and reciprocity (Putnam

2002; Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti 1993), cohesion and solidarity (Schafftand Brown 2000), or other aspects that lead to collective action in communities

(Ainsworth 2002; Putnam 2002), regions (Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti 1993)

and nation-states (Egerton 2002). Normative social capitalists emphasize reci-

procity transactions and value introjection and are interested in studying social

capital from a social organization perspective.

The second campwho we call resource social capitalistsapproach the

concept from the interactionist and conflict traditions, and view it as an

explanation for uneven patterns in the accumulation of power, prestige, and

other forms of inequality, in addition to recognizing the importance of context(Bourdieu 1980, 1983, 1984; Schulman and Anderson 1999). For this group,

social capital refers to investments that individuals make in their networks of

relationships with the expectation of some kind of future return (Fernandez,

Castilla, and Moore 2000; Lin 2001; Portes 1998). For example, an individual

may utilize their friendship network as a means to obtaining a job with an

organization. As a resource, social capital, along with economic, symbolic, and

cultural capital can be converted interchangeably from one to another form of

capital (Bourdieu 1983, 1984; Palloni et al. 2001). For instance, professional

athletes can convert symbolic capital into economic capital by way of corporateendorsements, or they may convert symbolic into social capital when they

use their celebrity to persuade someone to hire a relative for a job. Thus, the

resource social capitalists emphasize enforceable trust and bounded rationality.

Several critics of social capital, who conceive of it as a resource, are resistant

to or opposed to the concept altogether because of the way it has been redefined

by the normative camp. On one hand, critics object to this redefinition because

it tends to mask long historical processes of inequality and oppression (Fine

1999, 2001; Schafft and Brown 2003; Sharp 2001). For example, Schafft and

Brown (2003) draw a compelling parallel between social capital and the cultureof poverty arguments. In both cases the victims of long-term subordination and

i li ti bl d b th h f il d t ll th l t f


6/23


culture of distrust and have thus been unable to develop the ability to act

collectively. This, of course, ignores how these aspects of culture and social

structure came to exist in the first place. On the other hand, critics also objectto resource social capitalists not because of an orientation toward power and

inequality, but rather because they question whether it adds anything theoreti-

cally novel to the conflict tradition. In other words, the critics of social capital-

ists fail to see any advantages to be gained from using social capital, especially

when it runs the risk of invoking the images set forth by the normative social

capitalists.

The Multiple Independent Formulations of Social Capital

In reflecting on the evolution of social capital, we next consider how itcame to have such a unique combination of insights from all of sociologys

traditions. We contend that it is mainly the result of having been formulated

independently within separate traditions. The first individuals to articulate the

concept were not aware of each other, and thus developed diffuse and contradic-

tory meanings. Putnam (2002) claims there have been six independent formula-

tions: (1) Lyda J. Hanifan, (2) Canadian sociologists (in reference to a report

entitledHousing and Social Capital

, published by the Royal Commission on

Canadas Economic Prospects [Dube, Howes, and McQueen 1957]), (3) Jane

Jacobs, (4) Glenn Loury, (5) Pierre Bourdieu, and (6) James Coleman. How-ever, Coleman cites Loury (1977) who in turn acknowledges Jacobs (1961) as

the source of the concept. And since Jacobs was aware of the other Canadian

sociologists there are essentially three independent formulations. In terms of

sociological research, the majority of references point either directly or indirectly

to Coleman, Bourdieu, or Putnam (Wall, Ferrazi, and Schryer 1998).

Lyda J. Hanifan may be credited with the very first articulation of social

capital, which dates back to 1916 in a chapter titled Social CapitalIts Deve-

lopment and Use. Here Hanifan (1916) argues that social capital should be

used as a metaphorical tool for building communities, and defines it in thefollowing way:

In the use of the phrase social capital no reference is made here to the usual acceptation of

the term capital, except in a figurative sense. We do not refer to real estate or to personal

property or to cash, but rather to that in life which tends to make these tangible substances

count for most in the daily lives of a people; namely, good will, fellowship, and families who

make up a social unit,the rural community, whose logical center in most cases is the

school. (p. 78)

Although Hanifan is not frequently cited, it is the case that many of the themes in

this definition will later emerge in contemporary definitions, if only by coincidence.An individual who never explicitly used the concept, but anticipated and

h l d th f it i G tt (1973) G tt t th f


7/23


weak ties thesis discusses how individuals can gain access to resources through

their weak ties that are acquaintances and other similar informal relationships.

Granovetter (1973:1371) explains why this is the case: [T]hose to whom weare weakly tied are more likely to move in circles different from our own and

will thus have access to information different from that which we receive.

Information as a resource in networks is an idea that later came to be associated

with and a defining feature of social capital. Since Coleman and Putnam both

acknowledge Granovetter as being an influence on their thinking about social

capital, he deserves credit as one who helped formulate the idea.

Loury (1977), who like Hanifan is rarely cited for his early use of social

capital, focuses on the community background of people living in racially

segregated neighborhoods, and the effect this had on human capital. Loury(1977:176) argues, It may thus be useful to employ a concept of social capital

to represent the consequences of social position in facilitating acquisition of the

standard human capital characteristics. He argues that minority communities

lack resources, which in turn limits individual capacity for building human

capital. Although this provides a vague definition of social capital, it implies

characteristics of a community that either support or limit the development of

human capital among individuals as a meaning. Loury wanted to provide a counter

argument to the human capital paradigm prevalent in his field of economics.

Shortly thereafter, Bourdieu (1983:24849) independently formulates hisown version of social capital:

. . . the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a

durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and

recognitionor in other words, to membership in a groupwhich provides each of its

members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, credential which entitles them

to credit, in the various senses of the word.

This definition breaks with prior formulations, of which Bourdieu was unaware,

because of its focus on resources, group membership, and networks rather than

schools, families, and communities. However, Bourdieu expresses more interestin the idea of multiple forms of convertible capital. Of all the forms he identifies

economic, symbolic, cultural, and socialhe favors most the idea of cultural

capital. Thus, social capital enters the lexicon of modern sociology with very

little force as it is presented as only a small part of a more general theory.

Importantly, the focus of Bourdieu on social capital as an explanation for the

distribution of power and privilege between individuals would be lost in the

near future, mainly because of a competing theorization offered by James

Coleman and Robert Putnam.

According to Coleman (1990:300), Loury uses social capital to mean theset of resources that inhere in family relations and in community social organ-

i ti d th t f l f th iti i l d l t f hild


8/23


young person. Coleman (1988), however, introduces his own definition that

drops the emphasis on resources:

Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a variety of different entities, with

two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate

certain actions of actorswhether persons or corporate actorswithin the structure (p. S98).

He focuses less on the idea of individual development and inequality and more

on the idea of facilitating actions between actors via normative characteristics.

Thus, Colemans version is focused on the normative social structural arrange-

ments that result from actors working together for mutual benefit. The popu-

larity of this definition would come to overshadow the prior conflict-oriented

definitions. It also turns attention from the individual to the aggregate level, andthus breaks with the ideas of Granovetter, Loury, and Bourdieu.

Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) are often cited for their response to

Colemans definition in their application of social capital to immigration.

Rather than focusing on those things that enable or facilitate action, Portes and

Sensenbrenner (1993:1393) view social capital from the perspective of con-

straints on action: We begin by redefining social capital as those expectations

for action within a collectivity that affect the economic goals and goal-seeking

behaviors of its members even if these expectations are not oriented towards the

economic sphere. In a sense, this definition can be viewed as an alternativeelaboration of Lourys definition with a greater emphasis on constraint.

In spite of Colemans heuristic work on social capital and the subsequent

reaction it has spurred, it is Putnam (1993) who would elevate the concept to

even greater levels of popularity. In his seminal piece, Making Democracy

Work

, Putnam introduces social capital to explain regional differences in insti-

tutional performance in Italy. He claims, . . . social capital here refers to features

of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the

efficiency of a society by facilitating coordinated actions (Putnam, Leonardi,

and Nanetti 1993:167). This definition resembles Colemans in terms of socialorganizationthat is social structureand facilitating actions. Putnam specifies

trust, norms of reciprocity, and networks of civic engagement as the particular

aspects of social organization that facilitate coordinated action. But most impor-

tantly, he argues that coordinated actions improve the efficiency of society. Thus,

Putnams version of social capital adds institutional performance or societal

efficiency as the ultimate outcome of social capital. While Coleman initiated a

small amount of momentum for the aggregate and normative notions associated

with social capital, the popularity of Putnams definition has turned this

momentum into a runaway train.To review, Hanifan introduces social capital as a metaphor for noneconomic

liti th t k lif b tt h d ill d f ll hi i f il


9/23


community. Granovetter introduces the importance of weak or bridging ties

with respect to individuals gaining access to information and other resources in

their networks. Loury maintains that social capital entails certain aspects ofcommunities that enable or constrain the development of individuals. Bourdieu

argues that social capital is the membership of individuals in a groupthat is,

network of institutionalized relationshipsthat provides access to actual or

potential resources. Coleman states that social capital refers to aspects of social

structures that facilitate actions between actors, while Putnam understands

social capital as aspects of social organizationtrust, norms of reciprocity, and

networks of civic engagementthat facilitate coordinated action, and in turn

make societies and institutions more efficient.

Reactions to the Messiness of Social Capital

Since social capital has multiple origins developed independently in different

sociological traditions, it has accumulated a wide range of meanings. Several

scholars (Flora 1998; Hooghe 2002; Jackman and Miller 1998; Muntaner,

Lynch, and Smith 2000; Robison, Schmidt, and Siles 2002) emphasize the need

to draw distinct boundaries, so as to limit the range of applications of the

concept, presumably to facilitate the transition to paradigm status. As a result,

many have begun to engage in efforts to either synthesize the contradictions, or

to argue in favor of one conceptualization over another. With regard to themessiness surrounding the meaning of social capital, Woolcock (1998:156)

notes of the rational-utilitarians, Durkheimians, and network theorists, If

social capital can be rational, pre-rational, and non-rational, what is it not

? He

thus identifies what we see as an important issue in terms of identifying how

social capital crosses the boundaries of sociological traditions.

Lin (2001:26) responds to the messiness of social capital by denying its

utility when used in the normative sense that is most closely identified with the

prerational Durkheimian tradition:

The difficulty arises when social capital is discussed as collective or even public goods, along

with trust, norms, and other collective or public goods. What has occurred in the literature is

that some terms have become alternative or substitutable terms or measurements. Divorced

from its roots in individual interactions and networking, social capital becomes merely

another trendy term to employ or deploy in the broad context of improving or building social

integration and solidarity.

Lin (2001) claims that social capital should not be used in the sense that it is a

collective good, but rather as an individual resource. For him the appropriate

concepts are investments in relationships with an expectation for a return,

which can take the form of either instrumental or expressive action in a socialnetwork. This is compatible with the notion of social capital introduced by

B di d ti i t d b G tt


10/23


Macinko and Starfield (2001) provide another response to the question

What is it not

? by focusing on the proper unit of analysis. They argue that

Portes (1998) definition characterizes social capital as the property of indi-viduals, while Loury (1977) and Coleman (1990) characterize it as the property

of both individuals and their social relations. Meanwhile, Bourdieu and Wacquant

(1992) argue that social capital belongs to groups, while Putnam, Leornadi, and

Nanetti (1993) claim it can belong to groups and political units such as com-

munities and nation-states. In an attempt to resolve the units of analysis debate,

Portes (2000) offers a useful distinction by identifying two meanings of

social capital associated with the individual and collective levels.

We approach an understanding of the social capital debate through an

empirical meta-analysis. The guiding questions we ask require us to identifywhich concepts and definitions are winning support from the community of

sociologists. In examining journal articles, will we see an even number from the

normative and resource social capitalists? If not, which is more common? What

are the trends over time and by specialty area? How do mainstream journals

differ from specialty journals? What are the implications of these observations

in terms of understanding social capital as an evolving concept and potential

paradigm?

More precisely, we code how researchers have used the concept in journal

articles for the past 18 years, beginning in 1988 when Coleman produced hisfirst thesis and sparked the earliest sociological interest. Wittgenstein (2001)

put forth in his treatise on the philosophy of language that definitions of con-

cepts and their associated meanings are derived from their use. This implies that

in order to fully understand what social capital means, we must examine how it

has been used. To accomplish this we follow the logic of the method used by

Krogman and Darlington (1996), who studied how the environment has been

represented in the sociological literature. They contend that representation in

mainstream academic journals signifies that a concept has entered the lexicon

of sociology. We also model earlier attempts to clarify conceptual definitions byexamining how sociologists use and define a given concept, such as community

(Hillery 1955).

Analysis of Journal Articles

Our three-part analysis of journal articles is an attempt to answer the

questions posed in the previous section. In Part I, we look at the total universe

of articles from 1988 through 2006 and identify trends across time, journal, and

specialty area. In Part II, we analyze the entirety of definitions found in main-

stream journal articles. Finally, in Part III, we take a sample of articles from thetotal universe that is stratified by the specialty areas in which the concept is

t f tl d


11/23


I. Universe of Social Capital Articles, 19882006

Using the Sociological Abstracts

online database, we identify a total of1,218 articles published across 450 journals that had the keyword social capital

in the title or abstract from 1988 through 2006. According to this database,

there are a total of 178,714 sociological journal articles published in this time

frame. Therefore, social capital articles comprise .68 percent of the total.

The highest producing journals of social capital articles are Social Science

and Medicine (84), Social Forces

(24),Journal of Socio-Economics

(23), World

Development

(22), Rural Sociology

(20), American Sociological Review

(16),

Sociology of Education

(16),American Journal of Sociology

(15),Policy Sciences

(15), andAmerican Behavioral Scientist

(14). These 10 journals account for20.4 percent of the total. The highest producing journal, Social Science and

Medicine

, is alone responsible for 6.9 percent of the total number of social

capital articles. In general, however, it is clear that social capital has not been

limited to a select list of journals. Also noteworthy is the fact that many of the

top 10 producing journals are in sociologys upper tier.

Figure 1 shows the percent of social capital articles published by year in a

manner that resembles and updates Schafft and Browns (2003) earlier analysis.

The last 2 years have witnessed the highest percent of articles published. The

percent of social capital articles doubled between 1994 and 1995, and from1996 to 1997, 1997 to 1999, and 1999 to 2006. The doubling time is now slow-

ing, but as noted by Schafft and Brown (2003), there is still no indication of

leveling off.

Figure 1

P t S i l C it l A ti l P bli h d b Y


12/23


Next we analyze the Sociological Abstracts

classification topics, which

we are referring to as specialty areas. There are a total of 29 specialty areas

responsible for publishing the 1,218 articles. The top 10 are complex organ-izations (170), social change and economic development (110), sociology

of health and medicine (106), sociology of education (98), political socio-

logy (93), the family and socialization (70), group interactions (60),

social differentiation (56), social problems (55), and sociology: history

and theory (54). These specialty areas account for 872 articles (71.6% of the

total universe), and form the basis for our stratified random sample in Part III.

Before discussing the stratified sample, we now turn to our analysis of main-

stream articles.

II. Mainstream Definitions, 19882006

In order to identify definitions of social capital in mainstream sociology,

we focus on articles from the top five general sociological journals. We make

the assumption that upper-tier general journals have greater power in shaping

the meaning of concepts than do specialty journals because they have a wider

and more diverse readership. The criterion we use for determining mainstream

status is the Social Science Citation Index

impact factor. The impact factor is

calculated by dividing the total number of times a journal has been cited by the

total number of articles published by the journal. In other words, the impactfactor standardizes the number of citations by the number of articles for each

journal. Using this criterion, we identify the top five as American Sociological

Review

, American Journal of Sociology

, British Journal of Sociology

, Social

Forces

, and Social Problems

. Some specialty journals rate higher than main-

stream journals, but we have chosen not to include specialty journals in this

stage of our analysis. Our reasoning is that specialty journals, while they may

achieve a high impact factor, are more likely to influence a narrower, albeit,

prolific area of research.

For these five journals, there are a total of 5,662 articles published. Amongthem are 70 social capital articles (1.24%), which is almost double the percentage

of social capital articles found in the total universe (.68%). Eighteen (1.3%) of

the articles published inAmerican Journal of Sociology

are social capital articles;

American Sociological Review

published 14 (1.4%); Social Forces

published 25

(2.1%);British Journal of Sociology

published 9 (.7%); andSocial Problems

published 4 (.6%). As social capital articles made up .68 percent of the universe,

we note that four out of the five mainstream journals publish at a higher rate

than the overall field.

Within general mainstream journals, the number of times an article hasbeen cited can be taken as an indicator of relative importance. There are a total

f 1 474 it ti f th i t i l it l ti l d th ti l


13/23


account for almost half of these citations. The article with the most citations is

James Colemans (1988) original piece on Social Capital and the Creation of

Human Capital, with 372 citations (25.2%). Following this is Portes andSensenbrenners (1993) analysis of immigration with 216 citations (14.7%).

The third most cited of these articles is Sampson, Morenoff, and Earls (1999)

analysis of the neighborhood effects on child development and social control,

with 99 citations (6.7%). The remaining articles range from 0 to 79 citations,

and account for the remaining 53.4 percent of article citations.

In examining mainstream social capital articles we observe that nearly

one-fifth (17.5%) do not offer a definition. The most frequently used concepts

are presented in Table 1 for both the mainstream and stratified sample defini-

tions. The stratified sample will be discussed in the next section. In terms ofmainstream definitions, we fail to find a single universal concept that cuts

across each. The most frequently used are networks, actors or individuals, and

resources. However, these concepts appear in less than half of the articles,

which demonstrates a general lack of definitional agreement.

In addition to identifying individuals/actors as the unit of analysis, articles

mention community, social structure, groups, nation-state, family, children/young

people, parents/schools, workers, institutions, generations, and associations.

Hence, in mainstream journals there are a number of different units of analysis,

but most of the articles lean toward the individual level.

Table 1

Most Frequently Used Social Capital Concepts

in Mainstream and Specialty Journals

Concept Mainstream journals Specialty journals

Networks 29 (46%) 87 (36%)

Resources 24 (38%) 68 (28%)

Relationships 15 (24%) 67 (28%)

Trust 13 (21%) 67 (28%)

Reciprocity 11 (18%) 46 (19%)

Individuals 25 (40%) 57 (24%)

Norms 6 (10%) 48 (20%)

Note: Stratified random sample (n= 240) and mainstream journal articles

(n= 70). Results are based on the Social Science Citation Index.


14/23


III. Specialty Area Definitions, 19882006

For the analysis of specialty area definitions, we focus on the top 10 specialtyareas based on the frequency of social capital article publications. Recall from

Part I that the top 10 areas account for over 71 percent of the total number of

social capital articles, so they make up a substantial majority of the total. In

order to maximize our ability to accurately discuss these areas we have reasoned

that a stratified random sample would offer optimal representation, and that a

sample of 20 percent (

n

=

240) of the total number of social capital articles

(

N

=

1,218) would provide adequate coverage. Each of the 10 strata in the over-

all sample is thus composed ofn

=

24 articles. We obtained random samples

by first isolating complete sets of articles for each specialty area in separateStatistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) databases. We then specified

that a random sample of n

=

24 should be drawn from each database. In turn,

these databases of randomly selected articles were merged into a single database

for our analysis.

After obtaining the articles, social capital definitions were identified and

coded for the presence or absence concepts. In all, 20 concepts emerged on a

somewhat regular basis: social structure, resources, realization of interests,

actions, networks, ties, individuals, relationships, trust, reciprocity, cooperation,

voluntary associations, civic engagement, family, friends, group, community, col-lective, norms, and values. These concepts had a number of synonyms that

were treated as the same in the coding scheme in order to condense the total

number of concepts. For example, we view the concepts individual and actor,

social organization and social structure, as well as reciprocity and obligation as

synonymous pairs. While condensing the concepts may sacrifice some detail,

this trade-off is viewed as a necessary step to analyze the broad range of

concepts. The sheer breadth is a testimony to the diverse meaning of social

capital and the variety of synonyms only magnifies and confounds this fact.

Of the 240 articles in our sample, 19 (7.9%) deal primarily with the conceptsocial capital itself, where the goal of the article was to define and disentangle

its meaning, much as we are attempting to do. Thirty-seven (15.4%) articles fail

to provide a definition of social capital. In most cases the authors of the articles

dealing directly with social capital do not state what they believe to be the correct

definition, so there is a great deal of overlap between these two categories of

articles.

Referring back to Table 1, we provide a list of the most frequently used

concepts in the general and specialty journal articles. In terms of the specialty

articles, the most frequent concepts are networks, resources, relationships, trust,individuals, norms, and reciprocity. This can be contrasted with the general article

d fi iti di d i P t II d l h i T bl 1


15/23


We find a great deal of variation in the most frequently used concepts

when broken down by specialty area. Within the sociology of education the

most frequent concepts are relationships (10), resources (7), and networks (7).For social change and economic development they are norms (7), trust (6),

and networks (5). For health and medicine they are networks (11), trust (11),

and resources (9). In complex organizations they are networks (15), resources

(11), relationships (8), and trust (8). For political sociology they are trust

(10), civic engagement (8), and networks (8). For family and socialization

they are resources (12), relationships (10), and family (9). In social differenti-

ation they are networks (14) and resources (8). For group interactions they

are networks (8), norms (8), action (8), and trust (8). For social problems they

are relationships (11), resources (8), and individuals (8). And for sociology:history and theory they are relationships (8), norms (8), and networks (8).

None of the specialty areas mention all of the concepts that were identified

in our coding scheme. The following concepts appear at least once in every

specialty area: social structure, resources, benefit, networks, individuals,

relationships, trust, reciprocity, and norms. The remaining concepts are not

found across each area: actions, ties, cooperation, voluntary associations, civic

engagement, family, friends, group, community, collective, and values.

Up to this point, we have been looking at social capital concepts unidimen-

sionally. However, most definitions are configurations of two or more concepts.In order to understand the most common configurations of concepts (i.e., defi-

nitions), we use principal axis factoring. The concepts discussed earlier were

coded as either 1 (present) or 0 (absent) for the analysis. Our results, reported

in Table 2, reveal a six-factor solution that accounts for about half of the vari-

ation in the concepts. We note that it would take as many as 16 factors to

account for 90 percent of the variation, suggesting that the concepts do not tend

to cluster very well. Of those that do, however, the dimensions take familiar

looking shapes.

We label these dimensions as Hanifan: Values, Coleman: CollectiveAction, Putnam: Trust and Reciprocity, Bourdieu: Relationship Resources,

Putnam: Civic Engagement, and Granovetter: Ties and Resources. Overall,

there is little cross-loading in the analysis with the exception of resources,

which appears on two dimensions. Our association of theorists with the dimen-

sions is intended to illustrate the probable influence, and to facilitate continuity

with our discussion of the origins of social capital.

Hanifan can be associated with the idea of social capital as community

values held among friends and family, even though it is not likely that he had

much actual influence on the people using this type of definition. Colemansnotion of social capital as collective action facilitated by features of a social

t t t hi ki d f t i l l th t b id tifi d


16/23

Table 2

Principal Axis Factors of Social Capital Co

Hanifan:

Values

Coleman:

Collective

Action

Putnam:

Trust and

Reciprocity

Bou

Relat

Res

Family .897

Friends .396

Community .294

Values .280

Actions .547

Collective .479

Social structure .396

Realization of interests .311Trust .695

Norms .623

Reciprocity .586

Cooperation .393

Individuals .

Relationships .

Group .

Resources .

Civic engagement

Voluntary associations

Social ties

Networks

Note: n = 240 articles.


17/23


with dimension 2. Putnam has influence on two dimensions: dimension 3 mentions

norms of trust and reciprocity that lead to increased cooperation, while dimen-

sion 5 deals with civic engagement and voluntary associations. The concepts indimension 4 can be associated with Bourdieu, as it mentions individuals in

groups who mobilize resources in their relationships. Finally, Granovetters

thesis for the strength of weak ties may be associated with the last dimension 6:

resources, ties, and networks.

Using these dimensions we next create regression factor scores with which

to correlate both specialty area and year of publication. For brevity, we concen-

trate on those relationships that are statistically significant at the p

Date post:	08-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kay-thomas
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Meta Analysis of Social Capital

Documents