Impact of Social Capital on Access and Success in Higher Education

1. Impact of Social Capital on Access and Success in Higher Education Tekora L. Scruggs Ronda M. Bryant NC College Access Conference February 22, 2012

2. Overview of the Presentation • Introductions and Opening Activity • Definition and theoretical context of Social Capital • Who has Social Capital? Who does not? • Barriers to access and retention; impact of having social capital on Student Success • Ways our campuses are dealing with removal of barriers to Access and Retention • Discussion and Questions

3. What is Social Capital? Farr (2004): Relationships of trust embedded in social networks that support individuals’ and groups’ productivity and capacity to plan future action and achieve collective aims. Network of associations, activities, or relations that bind people together as a community via certain norms and psychological capacities, notably TRUST.

4. Social Capital Described… • Networks (Putnam, 1995) • Resources (Bourdieu, 1986) • Contacts (Burt, 1992) • Social Organization/Social Relationships (Putnam, 1995; Loury, 1992) • Network of Voluntary Associations (Inglehart, 1997) • Expectations (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993) • Mobilization of Connections (Knoke, 1999)

5. Dimensions of Social Capital • Trust • Rules and norms governing collective actions/processes • Social interaction/social ties • Network resources

6. Who Lacks Social Capital? • Underrepresented populations • Race/ ethnicity • Socioeconomic • Gender (?) • Parent Education • Geographic (urban/rural) • Academic Preparation

7. Social Capital and Student Success • Financial • Academic • Technological • Co-curricular Involvement • Career Development

8. How Our Campuses can Help 1. Civic engagement 2. Norms and trust 3. Effective collective action 4. Bonding capital 5. Bridging capital

9. At Ithaca College, intentional efforts to enhance social capital include: 1. Civic engagement  The Faculty Commons is a new model for coordinating the various faculty development efforts within a blended online and face to face environment. The program relies on participation by faculty and staff from all areas and seeks to build engagement through careful employment of social networking and other web-based tools. 2. Norms and trust  Intentional efforts to build shared faculty norms and trust across campus include the all-college mentoring program, tenure seminar, and cohort groups. All include small faculty groups designed to increase shared knowledge and reduce isolation and anxiety. 3. Effective collective action  Faculty governance is being actively revitalized by the new president and the dean of the largest school. From the top the administrators urge collective faculty communication, engagement, and action. 4. Bonding capital  With the generational transition, many departments are becoming more effective bodies. A culture of mistrust of administration and of factions within departments is shifting as newer faculty members perceive themselves as institutional citizens in addition to teacher/scholars. Cooperation and support among colleagues in “newer” departments appears to enhance both the individual social capital of faculty and the capital of the department within the institution. 5. Bridging capital  Intentional and increased use of the web environment is linking people across status and divisions.

10. At St. Mary’s College of Maryland, intentional efforts to enhance social capital include: 1. Civic engagement  The college began weeklong Teaching Excellence Workshops open to the entire faculty in 2006. 2. Norms and trust  The campus focused on new faculty to who share their first year experiences with peers in a seminar, visit classrooms of peers and more experienced colleagues, learn about norms from colleagues outside their departments, and work in cohorts to develop their review/ tenure portfolios. 3. Effective collective action  Faculty vigorously discussed proposals in small groups and large forums that led to changes in faculty governance, tenure and promotion processes and a new core curriculum within the last 5 years. 4. Bonding capital  The new core curriculum has led faculty to collectively study ways to teach four liberal arts skills effectively. Concern expressed by individual faculty paved the way for effective cohort building around faculty development of teaching and assessment skills in the new first year seminars. 5. Bridging capital  The discussions of each of the major changes on campus occurred with input from faculty, students and staff serving on each small group. Faculty from disparate departments were intentionally placed together in small groups.

11. Discussion and Questions… For more information, please contact: Tekora L. Scruggs, M.S. tscruggs@moc.edu Ronda M. Bryant, Ph.D. rbryant@moc.edu

12. References Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In Richardson, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-58). New York: Greenwood Press. Burt, Ronald. (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Claridge, T. (2004). Social capital and natural resource management, Unpublished Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.socialcapitalresearch.com. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and post-modernization: cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Knoke, D. (1999). Organizational networks and corporate social capital. In S. M. Gabbay (Ed.), Corporate Social Capital and Liability (pp. 17 – 42). Boston: Kluwer. Loury, G. (1992). The economics of discrimination: Getting to the core of the problem. Harvard Journal for African American Public Policy, 1, 91 - 110. Portes, A. and Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1320 - 1350. Putnam, Robert D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65-78.