Trent A. Engbers

Theory and Measurement in Social Capital Research

Abstract In 1988, James Coleman observed that “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 actors-whether persons or corporate actors-within the structure.” If one looks at the state of social capital research, it is clear that this is truer than ever before. This paper seeks to help researchers overcome the major challenges of social capital research, namely, measuring a concept that is notoriously difficult for measurement and choosing among the exhaustive list of direct, casual and consequential measures. It does so by arguing for a typology of social capital that considers five major types of social capital and then reviewing a diverse selection of data available from national surveys. This provides a resource for scholars wishing to pursue large-scale social capital research. Additionally, it draws six lessons from this body of theory and measurement to improve the study of social capital.

Comparative research An approach to teaching research methods in political science and public administration

The teaching of research methods has been at the core of public administration education for almost 30 years. But since 1990, this journal has published only two articles on the teaching of research methods. Given the increasing emphasis on data driven decision-making, greater insight is needed into the best practices for teaching public administration research methods. This research note attempts to build on these previous articles to offer a new approach to the teaching of undergraduate research methods within a department of political science and public administration. The approach combines traditional approaches to experiential education with a focus on comparison among different methodological tools. Grounded in both learning theory and developmental psychology, the article outlines a research method assignment that encourages comparison and uses focus groups and pre-/post-tests of substantive knowledge to demonstrate learning. Implications and advice for teaching are provided.

Sounding Presidential: Frame Creation in the Obama Administration

Among the often-cited powers of the presidency is the power of the pulpit. Presidents attempt to influence Congress directly and indirectly through their rhetoric and its influence on national policy debates. This includes the power to shape debates through the use of frames. While much is known about framing, no past study has attempted to document all frames utilized by a policy entrepreneur in his attempt to shape the policy debate. Comprehensive understanding of frame creation is necessary to understand what frames persist and how frames are used in policymaking. This study identifies how one president, Barack Obama, framed domestic policy issues in speeches early in his administration. Identifying frames the president uses provides insights into this presidents attempts to set the public agenda. The findings of this study suggest that Obamas use of specific frames is highly idiosyncratic, but that these idiosyncratic frames coalesce around identifiable policy areas, particularly macroeconomic policy. This study provides insight into how one president attempts to both frame and set his domestic policy agenda.

The Currency of Connections

Proponents of social capital theory have long argued that it is not only in the best interest of civic life to build social capital but that social capital is vital for the economic health of communities. Yet past studies have failed to distinguish among different types of social capital and have relied on inaccurate measures of economic health. This study reexamines what has become conventional wisdom by analyzing the social capital of American metropolitan areas and its impact on economic well-being. It improves on past studies by examining different types of social capital (i.e., trust, group membership, social networks) and substituting the change in competitive-advantage jobs from shift-share analysis for total job growth and other traditional economic development measures of wealth creation. The study finds that bridging social capital positively affects the economic welfare of communities with respect to job creation.

Social Capital and Metropolitan Economic Development

Proponents of social capital theory have long argued that it is not only in the best interest of civic life to build social capital but that social capital is vital for the economic health of communities. Yet past studies have failed to distinguish among different types of social capital and relied on inaccurate measures of economic health. This study reexamines what has become conventional wisdom by analyzing the social capital of American metropolitan areas and its impact on economic wellbeing. It improves upon past studies by examining different types of social capital (i.e. trust, group membership, social networks) and substituting the change in competitive advantage jobs from shift-share analysis for total job growth in addition to traditional economic development measures of wealth creation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to empirically test, and find significant, the long hypothesized importance of social capital in job creation at the level of the metropolitan economy. The study finds that bridging social capital positively impacts the economic welfare of communities with respect to job creation. The effect on job creation is substantial and equal to or exceeds that of many traditional factors related to urban economic growth. However, neither bridging nor bonding social capital is found to have an effect on per capita income change. Practitioners who attempt to create jobs through strategic planning, local public policy and economic development programs should incorporate bridging social capital to maximize the potential for success.