Meta Analysis of Social Capital
-
Upload
kay-thomas -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 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.
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
4/23
THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL 539
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
5/23
540 GREGORY M. FULKERSON AND GRETCHEN H. THOMPSON
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
6/23
THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL 541
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
7/23
542 GREGORY M. FULKERSON AND GRETCHEN H. THOMPSON
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
8/23
THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL 543
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
9/23
544 GREGORY M. FULKERSON AND GRETCHEN H. THOMPSON
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
10/23
THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL 545
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
11/23
546 GREGORY M. FULKERSON AND GRETCHEN H. THOMPSON
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
12/23
THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL 547
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
13/23
548 GREGORY M. FULKERSON AND GRETCHEN H. THOMPSON
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.
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
14/23
THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL 549
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
15/23
550 GREGORY M. FULKERSON AND GRETCHEN H. THOMPSON
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
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
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.
-
8/22/2019 Meta Analysis of Social Capital
17/23
552 GREGORY M. FULKERSON AND GRETCHEN H. THOMPSON
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