Current Approaches in Investigating

Inequalities in Access to Postsecondary Education

Presented by Iria Puyosa

November 10, 2005

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................3
I. The Problem of Inequalities in Access to PSE ..........................................................8
1) Access to PSE in the United States.......................................................................8
2) Financial Barriers and Academic Deficits............................................................10
3) Importance of Equal Opportunities in PSE Access .............................................14
II. Brief Overview of Major Theories Addressing PSE Access...................................16
1) Rational Choice Theory: No Information Asymmetries? .....................................16
2) Social Reproduction Theory: No Room for Upward Mobility?.............................18
3) Status Attainment Theory: No Extra-familial Resources?....................................20
III. Fundamental Concepts in Social Capital Theory ...................................................21
1) Major Approaches to Social Capital in the Sociology Literature..........................21
2) Toward a Social Capital Explanation of Inequalities in Access to PSE...............28
IV. Research on PSE Access Using Social Capital Theory ........................................34
1) Conceptualizing Social Capital in Postsecondary Education Literature..............36
2) Modeling Approaches in Researching Social Capital Effects on PSE Access....42
3) Findings on social capital effects on postsecondary education access ..............52
V. Limitations in Using Social Capital Theory in PSE Access Research ....................57
1) Avoiding Social Capital Conceptual Tautologies.................................................57
2) Developing Robust Testable Social Capital Postulates ......................................58
3) Developing Reliable Social Capital Measures.....................................................59
VI. Directions for Further Research ............................................................................62
1) Framework for Analyzing Social Capital Effects in PSE Access.........................62
2) Directions for Future Research in Social Capital Effects on PSE Access ..........64

2
Introduction

Inequality in access to postsecondary education is arguably the most critical

issue in educational public policy (Heller 2001; St. John 2004). In the United States, the

overall gap in postsecondary education participation rates between the highest and the

lowest income quintiles is roughly 40% for the high school class of 1992 (Baum and

Payea 2004). Additionally, gaps in college participation between young White adults

and marginalized ethnic groups persist (Measuring Up, 2004).

Postsecondary education access inequalities carry economic, political, and social

consequences. Foremost among the economic consequences is the income gap

between high school graduates and college graduates has increased significantly over

time. Postsecondary education graduates higher levels of civic participation and

volunteering is one the most important political consequences (Langelett 2002;

Kingston, Hubbard et al. 2003; Baum and Payea 2004). Additionally, research suggests

that postsecondary education changes peoples attitudes from accepting the status quo

toward taking initiative to build a more prosperous and equitable society (Pascarella and

Terenzini, 1991; Langelett 2002).

Given the importance of the subject, is not surprising that several theories have

been used to explain why there are differences in postsecondary education access.

Most researchers have built their conceptual frameworks on one of the following

theories: rational choice, social reproduction, or status attainment. An emerging

theoretical approach is social capital theory, which provides a conceptual framework for
integrating claims and findings from the above-mentioned theories, and addressing

unanswered questions.

This examination presents a synthesis of the social capital theoretical concepts

found in general sociology and the sociology of education literatures. From the variety of

notions of social capital, I adopt the one provided by Lin (2001a), which can be

summarized as follow: social capital consists of the accumulation of resources

embedded in a social structure or network that is accessed and/or mobilized by an

individual in purposive actions with the expectation of obtaining some utility or return on

investment.

A growing body of research has shown significant relationships between social

capital and inequalities in PSE access, although the interpretation of such findings has

often been theoretically feeble (Baron, Field et al. 2000; Dika and Singh 2002; Field

2003). This review analyzes a corpus of empirical research studying postsecondary

education access, limited to those in which the outcome variable is one of the following:

enrollment in any post-secondary institution, enrollment in a 4-year institution,

enrollment in a 2-year institution, and number of years of schooling.

The review intends to answer the following research questions:

1) How do social capital factors contribute to explain inequalities in access to

PSE?

1.1) How has access to PSE been defined in the higher education
literature? What inequalities in access to PSE are currently
foremost in the United States? Why are equal opportunities of
access to PSE important for individuals?
 1.2) How have PSE access inequalities been explained by rational
choice, social reproduction and status attainment theories?

1.3) Which are the most influential approaches to social capital in the
sociology of education literature? Which are the major concepts in
social capital theory? What process in the formation of social
capital seems to be more relevant for explaining inequalities in
access to PSE? What social capital factors seem to be more
relevant for explaining inequalities in access to PSE? Which
processes are critical for an individual to mobilize social capital in
order to access PSE?

1.4) How has social capital theory been used in the access to PSE
literature? How have social capital variables been measured and
entered into multivariate models when studying access to PSE?
Which are the relevant findings in social capital effects on PSE
access?

1.5) What are the limitations in the use of social capital theory in
studying inequalities in PSE access? How should a conceptual
framework for studying social capital effects in PSE access be
depicted? How may common pitfalls in social capital effects on PSE
access research be solved?

The response to above questions is structured as follows. In the first section, I

present a brief overview of the problem of access to postsecondary education in the

United States, focusing on financial and academic barriers. Additionally, I portray the

importance of attaining a postsecondary education by pointing out individual benefits

from it.

In the second section, I present an overview of the major theories addressing

postsecondary education access: rational choice, social reproduction, and status

attainment.
 In the third section, I review approaches to social capital often used in the

sociology of education literature, focusing on the contributions of Bourdieu, Coleman,

and Lin. Then, I synthesize the major concepts in social capital theory that are relevant

for explaining inequalities in access to postsecondary education. I conclude this section

by identifying three ways in which social capital may generate returns related to an

individual education.

In the fourth section, I review empirical research on postsecondary education

access in which social capital constructs have been incorporated into explanatory

models. I analyze and critique these empirical works’ conceptual frameworks, measures

of social capital included, and the modeling approaches applied. Finally, I summarize

relevant findings on social capital effects on postsecondary education access and point

out some of their limitations.

In the fifth section, I dig more into the limitations found in the postsecondary

education access literature. I focus on three major limitations: 1) conceptual vagueness;

2) weaknesses in testable postulates; and 3) lack of reliable measures. Then, I propose

some guiding ideas on how to avoid conceptual tautologies, how to develop robust

testable social capital postulates, and how to develop reliable measures of social capital

constructs.

In the sixth, closing section, I draw a framework for studying social capital effects

in postsecondary education access that should help to fill conceptual gaps in the

literature, and propose directions for measuring social capital variables.

 Overall, I expect that this review will portray a view of the current body of

knowledge regarding social capital effects on postsecondary education access

inequalities, and help to advance a promising research agenda for understanding the

problem, predicting students’ outcomes, and informing public policy in this regard.
I. The Problem of Inequalities in Access to PSE

The problem of inequality in access to postsecondary education is the most

crucial issue in educational public policy at present. Consensus exists about the

importance of addressing this problem and the need for progressing toward equitable

access opportunities for students from all socioeconomic backgrounds. Nonetheless,

what framework should guide public policy toward such end is vigorously disputed.

Indeed, postsecondary education access inequalities have been researched

through several approaches, focusing on different aspects of the problem. Mainstream

research has framed postsecondary education access inequalities as either academic

or financial challenges, often neglecting competing explanations (Fitzgerald & Delaney,

2002; Heller, 2001; St. John, 2002; St. John, 2004). Academic access usually refers to

students’ qualifications and ability to meet standards for admission to a 4-year

postsecondary institution, while financial access refers to the ability to afford enrollment

in any postsecondary institution (St. John, 2002).

1) Access to PSE in the United States

In the United States, inequalities in access to postsecondary education have

been evident for several decades. There was some improvement in the late 1960s and

the 1970s, due to progressive policies such as need-based financial aid and affirmative

action (Heller, 2001; St. John, 2004). However, at the beginning of the 21st century,

trends toward equalizing access are reversing (Baum & Payea, 2004; St. John, 2002,

2004).
 According to the National Education Longitudinal Study 1988-2000, more than

three fourths of the U.S. 8th graders aspire to some sort of postsecondary education,

and there is not significant difference in aspirations among income levels. Nonetheless,

participation rate in higher education across different socio-economic segments is

unequal. The overall gap in participation rates between the highest and the lowest

income quintiles is roughly 40% for the high school class of 1992. Among the 1992 high

school graduates, 97% of the individuals in the highest income quartile whose parents

held a terminal degree enrolled in post-secondary education within 20 months of high

school graduation. Conversely, only 52% of individuals in the lowest income quartile

whose parents were high school dropouts enrolled in some sort of postsecondary

education (Baum and Payea 2004).

Gaps in college participation between high and low income students have

widened over the last ten years (Measuring Up, 2004). Low income students are almost

twice as likely to begin postsecondary education in a public 2-year institution (40%) as

in private 4-year colleges (21%), while high income students are almost as likely to

begin postsecondary education in a private 4-year colleges (38%) as in public 4-year

colleges (41%), and are less likely to enroll in 2-year public colleges (21%) (Baum and

Payea 2004). Additionally, gaps in college participation between White young adults

and youth from marginalized ethnic groups persist (Measuring Up, 2004). Both income

and racial gaps are interrelated, since 40% of Latino families and 34% of African

American families are below the poverty line, while only 15% of White families are in

that socioeconomic level (Carnevale and Fry 2002).

2) Financial Barriers and Academic Deficits

Both financial and academic issues affecting postsecondary education access

have been widely addressed by researchers. Mounting evidence supports claims on the

individual and financial situation effects on postsecondary education access

inequalities. Similarly, evidence of effects from differential academic preparation exists.

Lack of resources to pay for tuition and other expenses has been identified as

the biggest obstacle to postsecondary education enrollment (Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper,

1999; Hu & Hossler, 2000; Hu, 2003). Affording costs of attendance is obviously more

challenging for low-income students. By 1999, the cost of attending a 4-year

postsecondary education institution represented 5% of the income of an upper class

family, 17% of the income of a middle class family, and 62% of the income of a lower

class family (Gladieux 2002). The effect of family income on ability to pay is

unquestionable, though policy researchers argue about the effectiveness of financial aid

policies for mitigating the unequal starting point and allowing for access equity (Becker,

2004; DesJardins, McCall, Ahlburg, & Moye, 2002; Heller, 2004; Lee, 2002; Paulsen &

St. John, 2002; St. John, Chung, Musoba, & Simmons, 2004; Terenzini, Cabrera, &

Bernal, 2001).

In 2003-04, the average Pell Grant covered 23% of the total charges at the

average 4-year public institution, down from 35% in 1980-81 (Baum and Payea 2004).

The declining trend in the purchasing power of Pell Grants is mirrored by college

participation gaps both for marginalized ethnic groups compared to Whites and for low

income students compared to high-income students during the same period (St. John,

2002). These trends indicate that inadequate financial aid yielding to growing unmet
need is increasingly constraining postsecondary education access enrollment for low-

income students (Fitzgerald & Delaney, 2002; Lee, 2002; St. John, 2002).

Middle income students also have unmet need for covering postsecondary

education costs. The expected family contribution (EFC) is calculated by using a

formula that includes not only income, but family size, savings, students’ earnings, and

other related variables. In general, EFC provides a more accurate estimation of ability to

afford postsecondary education expenses than a rough measure of income would

provide. However, the EFC still overestimates middle class families’ discretionary

income to pay for their children’s postsecondary education expenses (Lee, 2002).

Middle income parents complain that it does not take in account payments for house

mortgages, insurance, and other loans. Differences between the EFC and middle

income families actual disposable income have been voiced for these interest groups

representing middle class constituencies. Their demands influenced politicians’ and

policymakers’ decisions to switch financial aid provisions from need-based grants

toward subsidized loans and merit-based grants (Gladieux 2002; Lee 2002).

Substituting merit-based grants for need-based financial aid is also a growing

trend at the state level, since the introduction of the Georgia Hope program in 1993.

Most states’ merit aid programs appear to do nothing for equalizing opportunities for

access to postsecondary education, since such grants tend to be awarded to upper-

middle and high income students rather than low and low-middle income students

(Heller 2002). Overall, financial aid policies in the late 1990s and early 2000s have been

ineffective with respect to reaching the goal of social equity in postsecondary education

access (McPherson and Schapiro 2002).

 Research has shown that low income high schools students are more concerned

about postsecondary education costs than they are about any other factor affecting

college choice. Indeed, low income students show greater price-sensitivity than others

income groups (Terenzini, Cabrera et al. 2001; Fitzgerald and Delaney 2002). More to

the point, data collected by the American Council of Education indicates that low income

families tend to overestimate postsecondary education costs (Gladieux 2002). Since

expectations about college costs have even greater effects on enrollment decisions

than actual costs have, such overestimation extensively affects postsecondary

education access for low income students (Hu and Hossler 2000; Fitzgerald and

Delaney 2002; Gladieux 2002; Paulsen and St. John 2002).

Paradoxically, low income students receive less (Fitzgerald and Delaney 2002)

about availability of financial aid than middle and upper income students (Fitzgerald and

Delaney 2002). Many low and middle income students eligible for need-based financial

fail to apply for college admission and for financial aid, apparently because they did not

receive adequate school counseling (Horn and Chen 1998; Fitzgerald and Delaney

2002). Such lack of information may also discourage low income students from taking

college preparatory courses and preparing for college entrance examinations

(Fitzgerald & Delaney, 2002; St. John, 2002). Investing in academic preparation may be

considered futile by low income students, who are not aware of financial aid

opportunities that could make postsecondary education affordable for them.

Alternatively, the U.S. Department of Education sponsored research claims that

differences academic resources—as opposed to financial issues—explain differences in

postsecondary education access. Most of the research under this approach has used
either the College Qualification Index (Berkner and Chávez ,1997)—which includes high

school GPA, senior class school rank, ACT or SAT scores, NELS 1992 aptitude test,

and high school coursework—or the Adelman’s Academic Resources Index (Adelman,

1999)—which includes the highest level of math taken in high school, non remedial

math and English courses, AP courses, core science labs, foreign language courses,

computer courses, high school GPA quintiles, high school rank, and NCES test scores.

Not surprisingly, most of these academic variables are positive predictors of enrollment

in postsecondary institutions (Adelman 1999; Cabrera, La Nasa et al. 2001). Such a

finding should be expected since high school GPA, high school rank, standardized test

scores, and high school coursework are generally considered for granting admission.

Moreover, students who score high in these measures are encouraged to pursue

postsecondary education, while those who score low are discouraged.

Nonetheless, requiring taking standardized tests, making high quality and high

intensity curriculum mandatory, or increasing high school graduation requirements

seem to be counterproductive. St. John et al. (2004) found that states’ policies in this

regard do not have significant effect on college enrollment rates. However, such policies

do negatively affect high school graduation rates (St. John, Musoba, & Chung, 2004),

diminishing chances of entering in postsecondary education pipeline for low income

students and marginalized ethnic groups (Paulsen & St. John, 1997, 2002; St. John,

Paulsen, & Starkey, 1996; St. John, 2002; St. John, Hu, Simmons, Carter, & Weber,

2004).

Research indicates that differences in academic preparation may be due to

schools’ lack of capacity for offering college preparatory courses, quality teaching, and
adequate counseling. Since college enrollment rates have been found to be higher for

students who participate in academic or college preparatory curricular tracks in high

school (Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989), lack of school capacity to offer such

coursework to most students clearly undermine their postsecondary access

opportunities. All the same, low income students in urban and rural schools—especially

if they are also from marginalized ethnic groups—are also more likely to select non-

academic courses even though academic ones may be available. Additionally, they are

less likely to prepare for college entrance examinations (Horn and Chen 1998;

Terenzini, Cabrera et al. 2001). These students may be self-selecting out the

postsecondary education pipeline due to family and personal perception of inability to

afford college costs (Fitzgerald & Delaney, 2002; St. John, 2002; Terenzini et al., 2001).

3) Importance of Equal Opportunities in PSE Access

Equity in postsecondary education access is highly consequential for individuals

because such inequalities carry economic, political, and social effects. Economic

consequences include increasing earning capability and greater employability. For

instance, the income gap between high school graduates and college graduates has

increased significantly over time. Bachelor degree recipients earn on average 75%

more annually than high school graduates (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004). According

U.S. Census data, median annual earnings for college graduates in 2004 is nearly

$50,000, while for high school graduates is roughly $30,000 (Baum and Payea 2004).

Some scholars argue that this earnings premium is due to greater productivity after

having taken advantage of opportunities for developing skills and acquiring knowledge

(Becker 1993; Langelett 2002; Kingston, Hubbard et al. 2003). Others pose that a
postsecondary education credential itself is an advantage in the labor market (Kingston,

Hubbard et al. 2003). A third explanation is that attending postsecondary education

enhances personal social networks, which will also boost one’s ability to mobilize

resources in order to get a better paid job (Lin 1999). At any rate, the greater earning

capacity associated with postsecondary education is clearly a source of advantage for

individuals. Another clear advantage comes from the fact that unemployment rates are

consistently lower among more educated groups of individuals (Baum and Payea 2004).

Additionally, there are social benefits associated with postsecondary education.

Research suggests that postsecondary education changes people’s attitudes from

accepting the status quo toward taking initiatives to build a more prosperous and

equitable society (Langelett 2002; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). Such attitude

changes may result in postsecondary education graduates generally displaying higher

levels of civic participation and volunteering (Langelett 2002; Kingston, Hubbard et al.

2003; Baum and Payea 2004). Crime rates also decline when educational attainment

increases (Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989).

In summary, individuals who attend postsecondary education institutions accrue

a series of economic, social, and political benefits, while those who do not attend are

left behind in terms of employment opportunities, quality of life, and ability to take part in

the public life.

II. Brief Overview of Major Theories Addressing PSE Access

Scholars studying inequalities in postsecondary education access have

employed a wide array of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches.

Mainstream research in postsecondary education access is commonly grounded in the

disciplines of economics, sociology, or psychology.

Most researchers bring into play one of the following theories: rational choice,

social reproduction, or status attainment. In this section, I will summarize the conceptual

assumptions of these three lines of research, and point out their limitations in explaining

postsecondary education access inequalities.

1) Rational Choice Theory: No Information Asymmetries?

Rational choice theory states that individuals make their choices upon the

analysis of both the expected utility and the expected costs of the alternatives available

to them (Becker, 1993; Cohn and Geske, 1990; Schultz, 1961). The basic assumption is

that individuals seek the maximization of their utility (Schultz, 1961; Coleman, 1990;

Becker, 1993). Accordingly, a student would assess the expected utility and the

expected costs of enrolling in a postsecondary education institution, and then, s/he

would decide whether to apply and/or to enroll if the expected utility outweighs the

expected costs (Becker, 1993; Beekhoven, De Jong, & Van Hout, 2002; DesJardins &

Toutkoushian, 2005; Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989).

Most of the research applying rational choice theory to postsecondary education

enrollment actually focuses on the analysis of how economic factors—such as tuition,

financial aid, and family income—affect student enrollment choices (Beekhoven, De

Jong, & Van Hout, 2002; Cohn and Geske, 1990; DesJardins & Toutkoushian, 2005;

Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989; Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper, 1999). There is also

a stream of research analyzing return on educational investment focused on life-long

earnings and other economic payoffs from a postsecondary education (Becker, 1993;

Cohn and Geske, 1990; Langelett, 2002; Manski & Wise, 1983; Schultz, 1961).

Available alternatives are limited by individual preferences, and, more

importantly, the constraints faced by each person (Beekhoven, De Jong, & Van Hout,

2002; Cohn and Geske, 1990). Nonetheless, fewer works attempt to analyze students’

preferences and the actual alternatives available to them (Cohn and Geske, 1990),

partly because such data is not readily available. Thus, many researchers are limited to

examining the choices made by individual students, controlling for their socioeconomic

background. Based upon patterns found among individuals grouped by demographic or

socioeconomic characteristics, scholars pose broad inferences about why group

differences (e.g. differences by income, race, or parental education) are found

consistently (Beekhoven, De Jong, & Van Hout, 2002; Cabrera, La Nasa, & Burkum,

2001; Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper, 1999; Perna, 2000; Terenzini, Cabrera, La Nasa, &

al., 2000).

Moreover, there are few studies on postsecondary education choice that

consider non-pecuniary issues affecting students’ preferences (e.g. available majors,

closeness to family and friends), evaluation of expected utility (e.g. college life,

academic reputation), and self-assessment of probability of success (e.g. institution

selectivity, self-assessment of academic ability) (Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith,

1989; Cohn and Geske, 1990; Perna, 2000; DesJardins & Toutkoushian, 2005).
Measures of constructs related to those issues should be added to traditional

econometrics models for increasing their explanatory power.

The most important limitation of most of the empirical research grounded in

rational choice theory is the failure to control for information asymmetries among

students from different socio-economic groups. Many works overlook the fact that most

students may not have accurate information about either cost of attending a

postsecondary education institution or potential future earnings from a postsecondary

degree (DesJardins & Toutkoushian, 2005). Information asymmetries among students

from different socioeconomic backgrounds may be critical for explaining inequalities in

access to postsecondary education. Some researchers control for sources information

available to students during their choice process (Hossler, Schmit et al. 1999; Cabrera,

La Nasa et al. 2000; Cabrera, La Nasa et al. 2001); however, measures of actual usage

of such information are seldom (if at all) found in empirical research on postsecondary

education access inequalities. Theoretical frameworks and analytical models that

incorporate this sort of measures are required to explain inequalities in access to

postsecondary education.

2) Social Reproduction Theory: No Room for Upward Mobility?

Social reproduction theory states that educational institutions and policies are

instrumental in maintaining and reinforcing class-based social and economic

stratification (Paulsen and St. John 2002). Within this framework, educational

alternatives are constrained by social class, and, at the same time, individual’s

preferences are shaped by ascribed status (St. John, Hu, Simmons, Carter, & Weber,

2004). Scholars using this theoretical lens claim that students’ postsecondary education
choices are highly context dependent (Paulsen and St. John 2002). Accordingly,

students’ predispositions toward educational attainment may also depend on social

class.

Some researchers emphasize that the stratified structure of the United States

educational system as another device supporting social class reproduction (McDonough

1997; Paulsen and St. John 2002). Some recent research works within this approach

have incorporated the notions of cultural capital and habitus posed by Bourdieu (1977a,

1977b; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) in order to explain differences in educational

attainment norms or aspirations that seem to be related to social class (McDonough

1997; Karen 2002; Paulsen and St. John 2002).

There are two major limitations to using social reproduction theory as theoretical

lens. First, it portrays individuals as powerless for making choices based upon their

preferences and interests. Second, but not least important, this theory does not provide

much latitude for explaining upward social mobility, although evidence of such mobility

based on educational attainment obviously exists. Thus, using social reproduction

theory may render analyses at the individual level meaningless, since the theoretical

premise is that educational outcomes are determined by the social structure.

Social reproduction theory brings to the scholarly discussion the key issue of the

social structure influence on actual postsecondary education alternatives and

preferences held by individuals. That is an important contribution to the field.

Nonetheless, this theory has little heuristic value for understanding why some

individuals are able to overcome their socioeconomic status origin while others are not
able to do so. This theory also leaves unanswered an even more puzzling question: why

some individuals from privileged socioeconomic status origin fail to achieve the

postsecondary education success that the social structure allegedly granted to them?

3) Status Attainment Theory: No Extra-familial Resources?

The influential status attainment theory—developed by Blau and Duncan (1967)

—states that family socioeconomic background and student academic ability interact to

configure educational aspirations, and eventually to determine postsecondary education

enrollment.

According to status attainment theory, parental education and occupational

status influence the next generation’s educational outcomes by shaping aspirations and

expectations (Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989; St. John et al., 2004). Socio-

psychological variables measuring individual motivations and encouragement from

significant others have often been added to status attainment models (Hossler, Braxton,

& Coopersmith, 1989; Xie & Goyette, 2003). Additionally, some status attainment

models include measures related to contextual variables such as high school norms,

and peer culture effects (Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989).

The main limitation found in works grounded in status attainment theory is the

tendency to overlook the effects of financial factors—such as tuition, financial aid, and

unmet need. A second important limitation is status attainment theory narrow focus on

familial resources, while disregarding effects from community and school resources.
III. Fundamental Concepts in Social Capital Theory

Social capital theory provides an appropriate conceptual framework for

understanding how contextual differences affect students’ academic and financial

decisions in the path to postsecondary, while pondering both effects from individuals’

actions and effects from the social structure

This theory presents avenues for filling the gaps identified in most mainstream

research: little analysis of information asymmetries, weak explanations for both upward

and downward mobility in the social structure, and overlook of the effects of extra-

familial resources. Differences in social capital may account for differences in students’

understanding of alternatives available to them, their preferences when making choices,

their subjective valuation of the utility derived from each step in the path to college, and

their self-evaluation of probability of success.

1) Major Approaches to Social Capital in the Sociology Literature

The notion of social capital has been traced back to ideas in the works of late 19 th

and early 20th centuries sociologists, such as Durkheim (1893) (e.g. organic solidarity),

Tönnies (1897) (e.g, purposive associations), and Weber (1922) (e.g. shared style of

life) (Adam and Roncevic 2003; Field 2003). Nevertheless, the concept only starts to

mature by the 1960s and early 1980s, driven by Bourdieu’s (1977; Bourdieu and

Passeron, 1977) theoretical propositions regarding social structure reproduction,

Granovetter’s doctoral dissertation on information, mobility and job market (1970;

published 1973; article version, 2003), and Lin’s (1982) study about the use of social

resources for occupational attainment.

 In 1990, Coleman placed the concept of social capital in the core of his rational

action theory, opening the path for disciplinary development. Although the

popularization of social capital owed much to Putnam (Putnam, Leonardi & Nanetti,

1993; 2000; Putnam, Felsten & Cohen, 2003), application of the concept to educational

research is better understood within sociology. For that reason, this review will focus on

Bourdieu’s, Coleman’s, and Lin’s contributions to the development of social capital

theory.

1) Bourdieu: Social Capital and Institutionalized Access to Collective Resources

The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has often been credited as a the first who

attempted to systematize the concept of social capital (Baron, Field et al. 2000; Dika

and Singh 2002; Adam and Roncevic 2003). Along with his intuitive definition of cultural

capital, the concept of social capital is an important piece in Bourdieu’s theory of the

social structure reproduction. In his influential article The Forms of Capital, Bourdieu

(1986) states that:

Social capital is 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 recognition–or in other words, to
membership in a group--which provides each of its members with the backing of
the collectivity-owned capital, a "credential" which entitles them to credit, in the
various senses of the word. These relationships may exist only in the practical
state, in material and/or symbolic exchanges which help to maintain them (pp.
248-249).

In simpler terms, the social capital possessed by a given agent depends on the

economic or cultural capital possessed by those to whom s/he is connected and her/his

actual ability to mobilize such capital effectively (Bourdieu 1986). Hence, Bourdieu's
notion of social capital entails two components: first, the relationships that allows an

individual to claim resources possessed by her/his social group, and, second, the

quantity and quality of such resources (Siisiäinen 2000; Dika and Singh 2002).

Bourdieu (1986) argues that the ability of the dominant class to preserve the

capital accumulated in previous generations and to pass it to the next generation

assures the reproduction of the social structure. That appropriation process occurs by

means of institutionalization devices. Economic capital is institutionalized in the form of

property rights, whereas cultural capital is institutionalized in the form of educational

qualifications. The institutionalization of social capital is less clear since it is made up of

social obligations whose transferability is more limited. Nonetheless, Bourdieu indicates

several ways to institutionalize social capital, including titles of nobility, elite schools

alumni associations, selective club memberships, and so on. Such connections would

allow privileged individuals to obtain greater profits from economic or cultural capital

virtually equivalent to what is held by other individuals who lack similar connections

(Siisiäinen 2000).

One caveat is that Bourdieu's concept of social capital should operationalized

including both field and habitus, the two central concepts in his work (Siisiäinen 2000;

Dika and Singh 2002). Field defined as the space in the social structure in which

individuals strive to achieve their ends while adjusting to tacit rules of action. Bourdieu

uses the term habitus to amalgamate a set of dispositions, responses, and behavior

patterns that people have acquired through acting in the different positions they hold in

social settings (e.g. family, schools, neighborhoods, clubs, voluntary groups, churches,

political parties) (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977). The habitus creates a
stable generative principle that guides the individual in making choices between

alternatives (Siisiäinen 2000).

From Bourdieu’s conceptualization, research on social capital effects on

postsecondary education access should adopt the notion of institutionalized devices for

of appropriating resources belonging to their social relationships. Researchers should

identify measures of devices that help individuals in the process of mobilizing social

capital for achieving educational goals.

2) Coleman: Social Capital and Norms to Guide Rational Action

Coleman’s overarching theoretical interest was how social structure enables

action, and how rational choice operates within different social settings (Coleman 1990).

Coleman (1988; 1990) argues that an individual’s rational action is enabled by the social

capital available to her/him within a given social structure (e.g. a community, an

industry, the educational system).

According to Coleman (1990), social capital is an intangible sort of capital—alike

human capital— embedded into relationships, and having the forms of trust (obligations

and expectations), norms, and information. In Coleman’s conceptualization, trust results

from two or more parties’ engaging in actions that provide a benefit to each other on the

basis of expectations and obligations of reciprocity that are usually not formally

sanctioned. Norms are somewhat more formalized aids for maintaining a purposeful

exchange with other actors. Norms are enforced by sanctions, which are either rewards

for performing proper actions or punishments for performing improper actions. Finally,
information that facilitates action will be available through exchange between and

among actors.

Focusing on how social capital relates to educational attainment, Coleman (1988;

1990) defines it as a set of resources embedded in family and community that are

useful for the cognitive and/or social development of children and adolescents.

According to Coleman, the most important of the intervening factors in the formation of

such social capital is closure among individuals belonging to the same community.

Closure allows establishing and reinforcing norms, help overcome power imbalance,

and help build trust (Coleman 1990). Moreover, intergenerational closure helps to pass

norms, information and trust from adults to children (Coleman, 1988). Thus, stability

among members of the collectivity (e.g. few residential moves) and a common ideology

(e.g. same religion) are regarded as contributing factors for the maintenance of social

capital (Coleman 1990). The idea that intergenerational closure helps to institutionalize

positive norms has been influential in educational research, and has bolstered policies

promoting parental involvement and cohesive communities (Dika and Singh 2002).

The emphases on community closure have distracted researchers from pursuing

studies related to Coleman´s central hypothesis of social capital as instrumental for

rational choice. Examining the interplay among social settings, social capital, and

rational choice should be the path for a next generation of studies on social capital and

postsecondary education access.

3) Lin: Social Capital and Resources Mobilized in Purposive Action

 Establishing an analogy with other forms of capital, Lin (2001c) states that

individuals generate social capital by making an “investment in social relations with

expected returns” (pg. 6). Lin (2001a) defines social capital “as resources embedded in

a social structure that are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions” (pg. 58).

There are three main points in his conceptualization: 1) Social capital is structurally

embedded in society, community, and groups; 2) it can be mobilized by individuals; and

3) individuals’ goals drive such mobilization. Furthermore, Lin (2001c) argues that social

capital enhances individual’s action outcomes because it 1) facilitates the flow of

information, 2) helps to exert influence on decision makers, 3) certifies an individual’s

social credentials, and 4) reinforces identity and group recognition.

Figure 1 depicts Lin’s (2001a) model of social capital theory. The social structure

and the individual's position are pre-conditions and precursors, which facilitate or

constrain the investment in social capital. Positional elements and structural elements

(e.g. ideology, culture, level of industrialization, technological development, aggregated

educational level, physical resources, productivity, and so on) affect opportunities to

build and maintain social capital. Thus, inequalities shaping the distribution of collective

assets embedded in an individual’s network lead to inequalities in resources

mobilization, and, consequently, to inequalities on returns. However, individuals are not

powerless; a person’s ability to mobilize embedded resources (e.g. money, power, and

prestige) in order to achieve her/his goals (e.g. enrolling in PSE) increases or

diminishes as a result of individual’s choices and actions.

Lin (2001c) poses three major hypotheses about how social capital works: 1) the

social position of origin has a positive effect on accessing and mobilizing social capital
(structural effect); 2) the use of strong ties1 will positively affect the success of

expressive action, supporting the maintenance of already possessed resources; and, 3)

the use of weak ties or bridges will increase access to heterogeneous resources and

ability to mobilize social capital (action effect) for accomplishing instrumental actions.

Figure 1 Lin’s model of social capital theory

Source: Lin, 2001a.

1
Each individual is supposed to be connected to a social network made by strong ties and weak ties.
Strong ties are those relationships showing a high degree of intimacy, frequent contacts, reciprocity, and
acknowledgement of obligations Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital. A Theory of Social Structure and Action.
New York, Cambridge University Press.
, Granovetter, M. (2003). The Strength of Weak Ties. Networks in the Knowledge Economy. R.
Cross, A. Parker and L. Sasson. New York, NY, Oxford University Press.
. Strong ties yield to sharing resources and reinforcing lifestyles (Lin, 2001c). Weak ties are those
that link or bridge to other social circles with dissimilar characteristics and different lifestyles, as well as
others assortments of resources (Lin, 2001c).
 Lin’s (1978; 1999) studies suggest that access to hierarchical positions is a

critical factor in the process of status attainment. Provision of access to higher

hierarchical positions may be the reason why weak ties yield greater return than strong

ties (Granovetter, 1973; Burt, 1992). For instance, college recruiters visiting a high

school may have greater influence than parents on institutional choice, because they

hold a higher position in the educational system. Contrary to Coleman’s (1988) closure

hypothesis, Lin (1978; 1999) indicates that extensive networks also have greater return

than constrained networks when trying to obtain new resources. Lin (1999, 2001c)

hypothesizes that closure may be important for maintaining resources already

possessed by the individual, but an open network, having numerous bridges, may be

more suitable for obtaining additional resources.

To recapitulate, Lin (1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c) offers a comprehensive theory

of social capital. His works advance explanations on the major issues: 1) how social

capital is defined; 2) how social settings interact with availability of resources; 3) how

individual accesses those resources; 4) which type of effects can be expected from

social capital mobilization. Those explanations provide grounds for a developing a set of

testable postulates on social capital effects on postsecondary education access.

2) Toward a Social Capital Explanation of Inequalities in Access to PSE

Building upon the fundamental concepts in this literature, I will suggest three

ways in which social capital may generate returns for individuals. The analysis of these

three return paths should be useful for examining how social capital affects

postsecondary education access opportunities and inequalities.

2.1) Social Capital Effects on Access to Relevant Information
The most important way in which social capital affects postsecondary education

access is through inequalities in accessibility of relevant information. As stated by Lin

(2001c), social capital facilitates the flow of information, and consequently it enhances

an individual’s ability to attain her/his goals. Indeed, a student needs to get relevant

information in order to make opportune decisions that increase her/his likelihood of

enrolling in postsecondary education (e.g. take algebra by 9 th grade or earlier, fill

applications for financial aid, and so on).

Social capital helps individuals to deal with problems of asymmetric information

and to enhance efficiency in decision-making by allowing the use of social interaction

mechanisms such as copying and pooling. Accordance to Collier (2002), both copying

and pooling facilitate the gathering of information about alternative courses of action.

Copying is a somewhat simple mechanism based upon observation of those that are

higher in a given hierarchy. For example, sophomore high school student Paul may

learn what courses should he takes in order to prepare for college by looking at what his

basketball teammate Barry—who is a senior—took. Pooling is a more interactive

process requiring a purposeful exchange of information. For instance, Norma may

identify the opportunity of obtaining a scholarship for attending a small liberal arts

college after discussing her goals with Susan, who is not interested in such scholarship

because she wants to attend a large institution.

Nonetheless, opportunities for productive copying and pooling may not available

for low income and ghetto students. If high school junior Robert does not have any

friend or acquaintance who has applied for college admission, copying is not available
to him. Indeed, he will need to put more effort in gathering information on how to apply

for college than other students having college going acquaintances. Likewise, pooling

resources on postsecondary education opportunities may be a straightforward process

for middle and high income students with college educated parents, but it is more

demanding for poor kids whose parents have not attained any postsecondary

education.

Thus, access to relevant information may depend on a student’s social networks.

According to Granovetter (1973) ties to individuals from different social circles may

facilitate access to useful information that otherwise would not be available. Social

networks linking an individual to others who possesses better resources is required in

order to bring in a progressive flow of information. The effect of social networks in giving

access to information may explain why extracurricular activities and community

involvement are correlated with educational attainment. Indeed, those activities provide

an extensive network from which an individual could draw information about resources

that help her/him to successfully complete college preparatory coursework in high

school and obtain guidance on how to apply for postsecondary education. On the

contrary, constrained networks—having few links to other circles—may limit the access

to opportunities, resources, and valuable information (Burt 2001). Such limitation in

access to resources and information constitute a tough barrier for teenagers living in

ghettos and attending segregated schools.

2.2) Social Capital Effects on Attainment Norms

The second most important way in which social capital affects postsecondary

education access is through differences in norms that are supportive of educational

attainment. General consensus about the desirability of educational attainment may

exist. However, different social groups differently value behaviors and attitudes that are

instrumental for achieving educational success.

To begin with, norms are externally defined and usually imposed by authority

figures (e.g. parents, teachers, priests) (Coleman, 1988; 1990). Hence, an individual’s

exposure to norms supportive of educational attainment will depend on her/his

relationships with persons holding such norm-enforcing roles. Youngsters who live in

somewhat dysfunctional households, attend schools staffed by uncaring teachers,

and/or lack other links to nurturing norms-enforcing groups may be greatly

disadvantaged.

Secondly, norms enforcement largely depends on the existence of a trustworthy

system of rewards and sanctions. If perception of inequity or unfairness—either a real

issue or a misperception—exists, there is little incentive to follow the norms. Indeed,

youngsters living in high-poverty neighborhoods, who perceive inequity and unfairness

ruling their lives, have few incentives to behave in ways conducive to educational

attainment.

Furthermore, the confluence of several reinforcing rules may facilitate individuals’

adoption of educational attainment norms. Conversely, conflicting norms may hamper

the adoption of such norms. For instance, conflicting norms may affect educational

outcomes of a teenager who aspires to a college education, but has several friends who

belong to gangs. Failing to account for conflicting norms may explain why different
groups of students experience unequal outcomes even though they are exposed to the

same formally enacted norms.

Finally, Coleman (1988; 1990) argues that positive norms are better enforced

when an individual lives in a community with networks closure—that is where people

know each other well, share values and religious beliefs, and so on. Lin (2001a) also

refers to strong social networks’ effects on reinforcing identity and enhancing group

recognition, both factors that may boost positive educational attainment norms.

However, both Lin (2001c) and Burt (2001) show that closure seems detrimental for

accessing new information. Since limited access to new information is damaging for

those in the bottom of the social hierarchy, policies that emphasize networks closure—

e.g. high parental control, and zero-tolerance schools—may not be beneficial for

students coming from low socioeconomic status families. As Lin (2001a) claims, mobility

opportunities are better achieved by gaining access to other groups’ resources, and

moving away from one’s original group. Thus, for low income students to gain access to

the resources required to stay within the educational system, they need to use contacts

beyond their strong ties (Burt 1998; Lin, 1999; Portes, 1998; Stanton-Salazar &

Dornbusch, 1995; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Stanton-Salazar and Urso Spina, 2000).

2.3) Social Capital Effects on Support for Navigating the System

The third way in which social capital affects postsecondary education access is

by the provision of support for navigating the educational system. The pipeline to

postsecondary education enrollment involves a series of interwoven decisions that may

not be obvious for teenagers who lack beneficial social capital. Those sequential

decisions include taking college preparatory courses in high school, cultivating

relationships that will provide recommendations letters later on, preparing for

standardized tests, assessing one’s attitudes in order to chose a future career, taking

college entrance examinations, searching for appropriate institutions, writing personal

statements, filling admission applications, applying for financial aid, etcetera.

Students from different socioeconomic backgrounds have very unequal support

networks for navigating this process, and taking all the required steps in a timely way.

Differences in availability of guidance along all those steps may a factor that influences

inequalities in access to postsecondary education. Social networks connecting low

income students with either institutional counselors or informal mentors are instrumental

for guiding these students in navigating such processes.

IV. Research on PSE Access Using Social Capital Theory

There is a sizeable body of research that explores social capital effects on

inequalities in postsecondary education access (Baron, Field et al. 2000; Dika and

Singh 2002; Field 2003). In this section, I review a selection of the empirical research on

postsecondary education access using social capital constructs.

The main aspects I analyze are conceptualization, modeling approaches, and

findings related to social capital effects. I will focus on the extent to which this empirical

research postulates testable hypothesis for explaining how social networks provide

relevant information, supportive academic attainment norms, and encouragement and

support in navigating the educational system.

Review Criteria

The present review is grounded in the social capital theoretical framework

synthesized in the previous section. This review does not attempt to be exhaustive, but

to provide a critical panoramic of the research on the subject published in the United

States within the last ten years.

Selected articles meet the following criteria:

1) Focus on access to postsecondary education.

2) Published in the United States, within the last 10 years (An exception to this
criterion is Coleman’s foundational article).

3) Reporting quantitative non-experimental studies based upon survey data.

4) Presenting original multivariate statistical analyses.

Delimiting postsecondary education access outcome variable

 For the purpose of this review, studies in postsecondary education access were

delimited to those in which the outcome variable is one of the following: enrollment in

any postsecondary institution, enrollment in a 4-year institution, enrollment in a 2-year

institution, and number of years of schooling. Most commonly used outcome variable in

postsecondary education access research are enrollment in any postsecondary

institution and college attendance (Ainsworth, 2002; Duncan, 1994; Hofferth, Boisjoly &

Duncan, 1998; Horn & Chen, 1998; Musoba, 2004; Perna, 2000; Plotnick & Hoffman,

1999; St. John, 2004; St. John, Hu, Simmons, Carter, & Weber, 2004; Terenzini et al.,

2001; Zaff, Moore, Romano & Williams, 2003). Selecting these outcome variables

implies that the researcher considers that the commonalities between different kinds of

post-secondary education exceed their differences.

However, several researchers maintain that different postsecondary education

paths constitute in fact different outcomes. To account for institutional types, other

outcome variables have been used. Enrollment in a 4-year college is widely used

because most researchers tend to place a premium in this long-established type of

postsecondary education (Berkner & Chávez, 1997; Horn & Chen, 1998; Horn & Núñez,

2000; Zaff, Moore, Romano & Williams, 2003). Research focused on community college

enrollment is less common, but it is growing; hence, enrollment in 2-year institutions is

becoming another typical outcome variable for studying access (Berkner and Chávez

1997). All outcome variables mentioned above are dichotomous. However, some

researchers prefer to use continuous variables as an outcome. In such case, years of

schooling is the preferred choice (Duncan, 1994; Hofferth, Boisjoly & Duncan, 1998).

Search Approach
 The starting point of this review search process was examining the NELS:88

Annotated Bibliography published by NCES (2005). That annotated bibliography was

derived from computer searches of online bibliographic databases such as Dissertation

Abstracts, ERIC, Psychological Abstracts, and Sociological Abstracts. From this

annotated bibliography, 21 journal articles, conference papers, and policy research

reports published between 1994 and 2004 were selected. No dissertation was selected,

but a subsequent search in online databases by the dissertations’ authors’ names led to

two more works (a journal article, and a conference paper). An additional work was

identified by tracking down the list of primary studies in social capital and educational

attainment reviewed by Dika and Singh (2002). A final online databases search (ERIC,

JSTOR, ProQuest, Sociological Abstracts, and Psychological Abstracts) using the

keywords “social capital” and enrollment did not generate additional relevant articles.

Ten other works were found through references in the initially selected articles.

1) Conceptualizing Social Capital in Postsecondary Education Literature

Most of the empirical research linking social capital to educational outcomes is

grounded in Coleman’s (1988) work. The majority of the reviewed works refer to

Coleman’s definition of social capital as resources embedded in the family social

networks that facilitate children’s educational attainment (Carbonaro, 1999; Hofferth,

Boisjoly, & Duncan, 1998; Stanton-Salazar & Urso Spina, 2000; Yan, 1999). Although

Coleman (1990) postulates that social capital is one among several resources available

in order to pursue rational goals, most of the reviewed studies fail to encompass social

capital effects within a comprehensive theory of rational action.

 In his 1988 study, Coleman tested hypotheses about effects on educational

outcomes from social capital variables, such as networks closure and intergenerational

closure. He defined networks closure as the ability of several actors to combine their

resources to monitor and either sanction or reward others’ behaviors. Intergenerational

closure was operationalized as a measure of whether parents befriend their children’s

friends’ parents. Coleman hypothesizes that such relationship would make it easier for

them all to establish norms and to control behavior adjusted to such norms.

Coleman also tested hypotheses about “intra-familial social capital”, which refers

to quantity and quality of family interactions related to educational activities. Although

Coleman acknowledges that “intra-familial social capital” should interact with parental

education as well as with family income, his study does not control for such interactions.

This pitfall weakens his claims that family structure and parental involvement affect

educational outcomes. Nonetheless, such claims have been the most influential among

Coleman’s (1988) reported findings. Indeed, many other researchers have frequently

included similar variables in their models with mixed findings (Ainsworth, 2002; Cabrera,

La Nasa, & Burkum, 2000; Horn & Chen, 1998; Horn & Núñez, 2000; Perna, 2000).

Mullis, Rathge and Mullis (2003) assert that social capital can be measured by

the quality and quantity of the networks that connect children and adolescents with the

resources of their parents. According to them, a similar process allows children to gain

access to schools’ and communities’ resources. Mullis and associates add parental

expectations as a mediator between familial social capital and adolescents’ academic

achievement. They also hypothesize that familial capital and community social capital
interact to shape children and adolescents’ behaviors and positive valuation of

educational attainment.

Sandra Hofferth—who worked with Coleman researching of Catholic school

effects (Coleman and Hofferth, 1987)—has continued to advance empirical research in

extra-familial social capital and educational attainment. Scholars in this stream of

research claim that families holding tight social networks are better able to encourage

children’s educational attainment (Hofferth, Boisjoly, & Duncan, 1998). They pose two

reasons for explaining why that is the case: 1) linkages among families create a

functional community with clear norms and effective sanctions (and rewards) that shape

children’s achievement norms for supporting school success; and 2) parental networks

may provide information on postsecondary education opportunities.

Hofferth and associates also emphasize that family social networks interact with

family structural characteristics, such as income, parental education and household

composition. They hypothesize that being connected to people who are not able to

reciprocate is an additional hindrance to low income students’ educational attainment.

According to their analyses, a network linking mostly to low-resource contacts may be a

burden rather than an asset. Such network would generate obligations but not

retributions, taking away resources that would otherwise be invested in children’s

education.

Laura Perna (2000) presents a more complete conceptual framework, drawing

from both Coleman’s (1988) and Bourdieu’s (1986; and Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977).

According to Perna (2000), social and cultural capitals are both sources of resources

that may be invested to facilitate upward mobility. She gives emphasis to information-
sharing as the way in which social capital is invested and its profits are accrued. Perna

also builds upon McDonough’s (1997) in-depth qualitative study on Californian female

high school students’ college choice processes. McDonough (1997) attempted to

expand the understanding of the college choice process by adding together economic

and psychological aspects of these girls’ decision-making processes, as well as the

cultural facets shaped by colleges, high schools, parents, friends, and mass media.

In her extended econometric model of college choice, Perna (2000) includes

constructs that reflect differences in expectations, preferences, tastes, and certainty

about higher education investment decisions based upon habitus and social capital.

However, Perna does not discuss in detail how the field and the habitus developed by

her African American sample interact to bind their educational choices.

Karen (2002) also incorporates the notion of habitus into his conceptual

framework, which for the most part is grounded in status attainment theory. Karen

examines how high school graduates become linked to colleges with particular

selectivity levels. Following Bourdieu and Passeron (1977), Karen points out that

institutionalized processes match an individual educational destination with her/his

social origin. The development of realistic expectations of educational success and the

mapping of potentially reachable destinations is shaped by the habitus. Thus, students

beginning to think about their postsecondary education opportunities will adjust their

aspirations to those usually ascribed to their class. In spite of the sociological roots of

the notion of habitus as the link between social class and rules of action, Karen portrays

this process in a rather individualistic way, without undertaking a thorough analysis of

how institutional and economic barriers interact with students’ dispositions.

 Despite their limitations, both Perna (2000) and Karen (2002) make contributions

in integrating cultural and social capital notions into rational choice and status

attainment conceptual frameworks. Perna (2000) hypothesizes that individuals who lack

the required cultural capital may lower their educational aspirations or self-select out of

particular situations (e.g., do not apply to a 4-year institution) because they do not know

the particular cultural norms, or they may receive fewer rewards for their educational

investment (e.g. lower grades, failure to obtain recommendation letters from influential

acquaintances). Likewise, Karen (2002) hypothesizes that students whose parents do

not have a college education would be more likely to apply for and to enroll in less

selective or open admissions institutions, whereas students whose parents have

advanced degrees would be more likely to aspire, apply to and attend to highly selective

institutions.

Paulsen and St. John (2002) examine the influence of school and family

environments on postsecondary enrollment choice and the importance of

acknowledging differences in financial means, mobility, opportunities and choice sets.

Inserting their research approach within the social reproduction theory tradition, Paulsen

and St. John propose a nexus model that links financial factors to students' choices

across social classes. The authors stress the notion of habitus, but they only barely

refer to the notion of field (Bourdieu, 1977a, 1977b). A greater focus on the notion of

field would have been appropriate since their research focuses on inequalities in

resources and opportunities due to social class. Including the notion of field, as well as

specific measures of social capital would have enhanced the nexus model’s capability
for investigating structural features that foster class inequalities regarding resources and

opportunities.

Neighborhood effects models provide another conceptual approach for analyzing

social capital effects on educational attainment (Ainsworth, 2002; Duncan, 1994;

Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls, 1999; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). Wilson (1987;

1996) describes five interrelated mechanisms through which neighborhood

characteristics affect educational achievement; these are collective socialization, social

control, social capital, differential occupational opportunity, and institutional (i.e., school)

characteristics. Wilson (1996) argues that individuals’ involvement in social networks

may either facilitate or prevent access to resources that are instrumental for successful

transition into adulthood through educational opportunities and links to occupations.

According to Wilson, the quality and amount of resources embedded in social networks

within a given community influence educational outcomes and occupational

opportunities. Wilson claims that children who live in affluent neighborhoods are more

likely to be connected to valuable social networks and to have access to adults who can

provide resources, information, and opportunities that may be educationally

advantageous, while children living in impoverished neighborhoods are less likely to

connect to valuable networks and resources.

Ainsworth (2002) further develops this conceptualization by analyzing effects of

neighborhood structural and social capital variables such as intergenerational closure

and peer networks in academic achievement. Ainsworth (2002) hypothesizes that ties to

individuals with few resources are detrimental because those ties represent obligations

rather than resources.

 Duncan (1994) also examines neighborhood effects using the lenses of

epidemic, collective socialization, institutional resources, competition for resources, and

relative deprivation theories. Among the five, collective socialization and epidemic

theories are relevant for this review, because of their relatedness to social capital

theory. Collective socialization emphasizes the beneficial effects of positive role models

and well-monitored neighborhoods, whereas epidemic theory calls attention to peer-

induced disruptive behavior. Collective socialization and epidemic theories may be

illuminating only one side of the picture each. Alternatively, social capital illuminates

both simultaneously by assisting a scholar in differentiating between relationships that

provide resources for maintaining current status or elevating it, and relationships that

subtract resources from a person without possibility of recompense.

2) Modeling Approaches in Researching Social Capital Effects on PSE Access

This sub-section examines the measures and modeling approaches that have

been used for assessing social capital effects on postsecondary education access. I use

a selection of the reviewed empirical works as illustrations for discussing

methodological developments and shortcomings.

In his seminal work, Coleman (1988) uses the High School and Beyond 1980

data. HS&B 1980 collects detailed socioeconomic status and personal characteristics

data from a stratified random sample of 14,799 sophomores in United States high

schools. Follow-up interviews were conducted in 1982, 1984, 1986, and 1992 in order to

obtain information about students’ cognitive test scores, college enrollment and course

taking, the type of institution attended, and labor force participation (Source:

http://nces.ed.gov). There are not direct social capital measures in that dataset, so
Coleman drew on some proximal variables for bringing to light the theoretical constructs

in his framework, especially the measures for closure, which is hypothesized to

enhance the social capital available to the family.

Number of residential moves between 5th grade and 10th grade was first used by

Coleman (1988) as a proxy for lack of intergenerational closure. His rationale was that

families that move often would not have had opportunity for building relationships with

other people in the community. Residential moves during school years (Coleman, 1988;

Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995; Hofferth et al., 1998) or residential stability (Ainsworth,

2002) have continued to be used as proxies for community closure.

Another proxy for intergenerational closure used by Coleman (1988) is

enrollment in a Catholic high school2. Coleman makes a case for considering religiously

based high schools as a basis for multiplex relationships—individuals are linked in

several ways according to their different social roles (e.g. neighbors, colleagues,

friends, fellows in faith, and so on). The existence of such multiplex relationship among

most students attending religious schools—not only Catholic ones—contributes to

increasing available social capital for all students regardless their individual religious

observance. Intergenerational closure indicators as key measures of a student’s

networks have continued to be used in postsecondary education access research.

Among the most commonly included of these indicators in the reviewed literature are

frequency of student contact with adults other than parents and time a student spend

with adults other than parents (Ainsworth, 2002; Carbonaro, 1999; Furstenberg &

Hughes, 1995).

2
Coleman (1988) alleges that his analysis focus on Catholic schools due to sample size restrictions, but
his hypothesis held for any denomination including non-Christian religious schools.
 Perna (2000) includes high school control as a proxy for achievement

expectations, which relates somewhat to Coleman’s (1988) conceptualization of school

closure as a mechanism for infusing academic achievement norms. Hagy and Staniec

(2002) include the percentage of the student’s high school class enrolled in college-

preparatory courses as a proxy for environment fostering academic attainment.

A wider range of closure measures are available in the National Education

Longitudinal Study – 8th grade 1988 cohort (NELS:88) and its follow-ups. NELS students

surveys comprise questions about an extensive range of topics: school, work, and home

experiences; educational resources and support; relationships with parents and peers;

neighborhood characteristics; educational and occupational aspirations; other student

perceptions; risky behaviors; and extracurricular activities (Source: http://nces.ed.gov).

NELS:88 presents several advantages for studying social capital effects on

postsecondary education access. First, it is nationally representative sample. Second, it

collects data longitudinally from 8th grade to 8 years after programmed high school

graduation; therefore, it makes feasible the examination of temporal and causal

relationships among variables. Third, it includes students, parents, teachers, and school

administrator data, allowing triangulation of data sources. Fourth, it can be merged with

other datasets, such as the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),

Federal Student Aid application records (FAFSA), and the U.S. Census Data, allowing

inclusion into the analytical models of variables accounting for financial aid and

community characteristics.

Nonetheless, using NELS:88 also has shortcomings. The more important one of

those shortcomings is that some variables conceptually required when studying social
capital effects are not included in the dataset. Thus, using NELS entails adjusting

theoretical constructs to available variables and measurement scales. Extensive data

transformation is necessary for creating variables that correspond to the conceptual

framework. Furthermore, proxy variables may be required in order to substitute

variables suggested by the theory that are not readily available in NELS or other public

datasets. There is also a problem with a high proportion (20% to 30%) of missing data

for some relevant variables, such as typical students’ networks variables, which

encompass those measuring interactions with and influences from peers, high status-

individuals, adult models and mentors (Ainsworth, 2002; Horn & Chen, 1998; Perna,

2000; Zaff et al., 2003). The number or proportion of the student’s close friends who

either dropped out of high school (Ainsworth, 2002) or plan to attend college (Horn and

Chen 1998), which is hypothesized to affect a student’s educational outcomes. Perna’s

(2000) model incorporates a composite of importance of education among friends that

attempt to measure effects of students’ peer networks.

Measures of extracurricular activities (Mullis, et al., 2003; Zaff, et al., 2003) and

participation in community organizations (Mullis, Rathge et al. 2003) are also among

this group of variables. Reliability tests indicate that participation in community

organizations is a stronger indicator of students’ social networks than participation in

school based extracurricular activities, probably because the latter interact with school

structural features and climate.

Other datasets provide better-fitting measures for closure, and family support

networks. For instance, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics includes variables that

capture the family support networks construct by measuring whether a person has
offered help in the way of time or money to a friend or neighbor and whether a person

has received help in the way of time or money from a friend or neighbor (Duncan, 1994;

Hofferth et al., 1998; Plotnick & Hoffman, 1999). Measures of support network to which

the family can turn for assistance in case of disruptive life events (e.g. unemployment,

divorce, severe illness, family member’ death, childbirth, etc.) seem to be reliable

indicators of family social capital (Hofferth, Boisjoly et al. 1998; Mullis, Rathge et al.

2003). In contrast, a study using structural equation modeling indicates that parental

involvement in school activities is a weak indicator of family networks (Mullis, Rathge et

al. 2003). Nonetheless, parental involvement indices are pervasive in the postsecondary

education access literature (Ainsworth, 2002; Cabrera et al., 2000; Cabrera et al., 2001;

Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995; Glick & White, 2004; Horn & Chen, 1998; Mullis et al.,

2003; Perna, 2000; Tierney & Jun, 2001; Yan, 1999; Zaff et al., 2003).

Indicators of availability of school counseling or college choice advising services,

as well as information about financial aid (Cabrera, La Nasa et al. 2000; Cabrera, La

Nasa et al. 2001) are widely used. A commonly used measure of this construct is

assistance from school personnel with college admissions requirements (e.g

recommendation letters and help preparing personal statements) (Cabrera et al., 2000;

Cabrera et al., 2001; Perna, 2000). Perna (2000) also includes encouraging interactions

with a favorite teacher or school counselor who suggests that the student should enroll

in college.

Postsecondary education researchers examining social capital effects

occasionally include in their models variables related to institutional networks, such as

outreach and/or college preparation programs (Horn & Chen, 1998; Musoba, 2004;
Tierney & Jun, 2001; Trent, Gong, & Owens-Nicholson, 2004). Other school resources,

as well as high school structural features and climate, are also often included in models

for examining social capital effects in postsecondary education access (Perna, 2000).

School structural features include percent minority students (Musoba, 2004; St. John et

al., 2004) and percent poverty—usually measured by the proxy percentage of students

entitled to free lunch (Ainsworth, 2002; Musoba, 2004; St. John et al., 2004). School

climate is usually a factor or index composed by indicators such as student and teacher

morale, students’ priorities on learning and other activities, school behavior

management and discipline, classroom control, teachers’ ability to motivate students

and so on (Ainsworth, 2002).

In contrast, community resources are seldom included in explanatory models for

postsecondary education access, probably because of lack of proper measures.

Exceptions are those studies that test hypotheses on how collective socialization and

differentials in institutional resources availability affect educational attainment

(Ainsworth, 2002; Duncan, 1994). Community demographics variables are typically

included in models of neighborhood effects; such variables include percentage of low

income families, percentage of high income families, percentage of persons from

racially disadvantaged groups, percentage of single mother households, unemployment

rate, and high status adult residents, usually a standardized composite of proportion of

college graduates among adults over 24 years old and the proportion of employed

persons with professional or managerial occupations (Ainsworth, 2002; Duncan, 1994;

Hofferth et al., 1998; Perna, 2000).

 Lack of proper measures sometimes attenuate the explanatory power of well-

conceptualized models for examining social capital effects in postsecondary education

access. For instance, Perna (2000) hypothesizes that the most important way in which

social capital influences expectations, preferences, and evaluation of the return from

postsecondary education is through the provision of relevant information. However,

Perna’s model does not include direct measures of information, but it incorporates

proxies such as percentage of the high school graduates enrolling in college and high

school desegregation. These may be appropriate proxies for students´ peer networks,

but they are rather indirect measures of available information. The study also includes

region and location as proxies for information availability, but these measures are even

more indirect and less plausible

2.1) Analytical methods for examining social capital effects on PSE education access

Researchers in social capital effects on postsecondary education access do not

yet agreed about analytical methods best suited for this stream of research. Relational

and spatial statistics (e.g. cluster analysis) that have being used in other fields have not

entered into postsecondary education access research (Breiger, Carley, and Pattison,

2001).

Several types of regression models are found in the reviewed postsecondary

education access literature. Logistic regression is the most widely used among all

available analytical methods (Adelman, 1999; Ainsworth, 2002; Coleman, 1988; Zaff,

Moore, Romano & Williams, 2003). Indeed, most studies deal with dichotomous

outcomes, and logistic regression is the most appropriate statistical technique for

analyzing such variables (Menard, 1995). A number of researchers claim that

enrollment in a 4-year institution is the most appropriate outcome variable for examining

postsecondary education access, since the predominant social expectation for

educational attainment is a bachelor degree, (Horn & Chen, 1998; Horn & Núñez, 2000;

Perna, 2002; Zaff at al., 2003).

For instance, Perna (2002) justifies focusing on enrollment in a 4-year institution

because the long-term economic benefits for those who complete a bachelor’s degree

are greater than for those who complete an associate degree. Perna’s model of college

enrollment decisions expands the traditional econometric model by including measures

of social and cultural capital as proxies for expectations, preferences and tastes, and

uncertainty. The model stipulates the decision to enroll in a 4-year institution as a

function of direct costs, labor market opportunities, future benefits, financial resources,

academic ability, and social and cultural capital.

Duncan’s (1994) study includes both logistic regression models and OLS

regression models. Using a similar set of family background and neighborhood predictor

variables, Duncan examines two dichotomous outcomes, high school completion and

attending postsecondary education, as well as a continuous outcome, years of

schooling at mid-20s. The major limitation of Duncan’s study is that his selected dataset

(Panel Study of Income Dynamics), while rich in neighborhood and family measures,

lacks information about schools and academic experiences, besides the attainment

milestones used as outcomes. Hoffert, Boisjoly and Duncan (1998) also use the Panel

Study of Income Dynamics to examine social capital effects on years of schooling

measured at mid-20s, high school completion, and attending postsecondary education.

All the neighborhood and family measures included in Duncan (1994) are included here

also, but a set of direct measures of familial social networks were added.

For those studies in which the outcome variable is continuous (e.g. years of

schooling), OLS regression is an appropriate analytical model (Duncan, 1994; Hofferth,

Boisjoly, & Duncan, 1998; Trent, Gong, & Owens-Nicholson, 2004). However, OLS is

inappropriate for dichotomous outcomes such as enrollment at any post-secondary

institution, enrollment in 2-year institutions, and enrollment in 4-year institutions. The

inappropriate use of OLS regression compromises the validity of the findings reported

by Berkner and Chávez (1997) and Horn and Núñez (2000). These works have also

been criticized for serious methodological pitfalls related to selection bias, endogeneity,

omitted variables bias, and collinearity (Becker, 2004; D. Heller, 2004).

In his study of differences among African Americans and other ethnic groups in

enrollment by college selectivity, Karen (2002) also uses an OLS model with variables

entered in two blocks, broadly delimited as personal background and academics.

Variables somewhat related to social capital are linked to school experiences. In this

study, selectivity is measured by the average SAT score of students entering in a given

institution.

Researchers interested in examining both enrollment in 2-year institutions and

enrollment in 4-year institutions usually specify separate models for each outcome and

run two sets of logistic regressions (Cabrera, La Nasa et al. 2000; Cabrera, La Nasa et

al. 2001). Nonetheless, it can be argued that each one of these outcomes competes

with the other, and they must be in the same equation in order to allow for proper

estimation. Therefore, selecting an analytical technique that allows for distinct outcome
categories in the dependent variable would be appropriated. Multinomial and nested

logit models are proper analytical techniques for estimating choice models in which the

outcome variable is categorical or only partially ordered. In the reviewed literature, there

are not studies using a nested logit model for analyzing postsecondary education

enrollment, but there are a few using multinomial models (MNLM). The MNLM is a non-

linear regression, and it allows effects of the independent variables to differ for each

outcome, by estimating simultaneously binary logits for all possible comparisons among

the outcome categories (Long, 1997; Raundenbush and Bryk, 2002).

Glick and White (2004) use a multinomial model to predict the likelihood of

participating in postsecondary education versus other activities two years later. Their

model contrasts postsecondary attendance (i.e., enrolled in a 2- or 4-year institution in

1994), with finishing high school (i.e., a high school diploma attained by 1994), and not

completing secondary education (i.e., less than high school education attained by

1994). Similarly, Hagy and Staniec (2002) use a multinomial model to estimate choices

from among five postsecondary enrollment alternatives: 4-year public institutions, 4-year

private institutions, less-than-four-year public schools (2-year community/junior

colleges), less-than-four-year private institutions (mostly proprietary vocational/technical

schools), or non-enrollment in any postsecondary institution.

Given that students are nested within institutions (e.g. high schools and colleges)

and enduring groups (e.g. families and communities), and their postsecondary

enrollment decisions are not independent of their relationship with such groups,

analytical methods that account for multilevel structure in the data are advisable

(Raundenbush and Birk, 2002). However, only one work within the reviewed literature
uses logistic multilevel regression (Musoba 2004). Two other works address the issue of

multilevel data by using fixed-effects OLS regression (St. John, Chung, Musoba, &

Simmons, 2004) and fixed-effects logit (Plotnick and Hoffman 1999). However, the

majority of the remaining works do not even acknowledge the multilevel structure of

their data. Another methodological issue in postsecondary education access is that

some predictor variables may have time-varying effects (DesJardins 2003); however,

there were no studies using event history models within the reviewed literature.

3) Findings on social capital effects on postsecondary education access

In this sub-section, I will examine empirical research findings related to social

capital influence on the ability to take advantage of resources and the effects of group

norms on individuals’ educational decisions. In addition, I will point out conceptual or

measurement issues that may undermine or obscure the interpretation of these findings.

In general, intergenerational closure—opportunities for interacting with adults

other than close relatives—has positive effect on educational attainment (Carbonaro,

1999; Coleman, 1988; Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995). Peer behavior and plans have

been found to be positively related to enrollment in a 4-year institution (Ainsworth, 2002;

Cabrera et al., 2000; Horn & Chen, 1998; Perna, 2000; Zaff et al., 2003).

Several researchers have found that residential moves during middle school or

high school reduces the likelihood of pursuing postsecondary education, specially for

low income students (Furstenberg and Hughes 1995; Hofferth, Boisjoly et al. 1998;

Glick and White 2004). This finding remains consistent in studies controlling for

variables that may be confounding, such as parents occupations, immigration status,

and language spoken at home (Glick and White 2004). This finding is also consistent
with Coleman’s (1988) hypothesis of residential moving being disruptive of family

networks, having a negative effect on social capital available to children, and hampering

educational attainment.

By and large, a strong support network positively affects postsecondary

education enrollment (Furstenberg and Hughes 1995), but the effects of giving and

receiving help appear to be moderated by income (Hofferth, Boisjoly et al. 1998). High

income children show greater likelihood of attending college, as a benefit from their

parents’ links to social networks. On the contrary, low income children obtain fewer

years of schooling as a result of their parents having many social networks links. These

findings may be revealing of networks constraints, such as low hierarchy contacts or

excessive density, which according to Burt (1997) weaken the positive effects of

belonging to a network.

Results regarding effects of parental involvement are also different for different

groups of students (Yan 1999). Perna (2000) finds positive effects of parental

involvement for White students, but not for Latinos and African-Americans. Different

results may be due to variability of the measures included in composites and factors

that attempt to capture this construct, which in some cases may act in different

directions and cancel each other out. For instance, Glick and White (2004) found that

when parental involvement was motivated by behavioral concerns the likelihood of

college enrollment dropped, while involvement unrelated to behavioral concerns

significantly increased the likelihood of postsecondary education enrollment.

Nonetheless, the interaction between parental involvement and inequality of resources

due to income or race cannot be ruled out.

 Findings regarding effects of extracurricular activities are mixed, too. Inconsistent

results may be due to differences in the procedures for aggregating data. Apparently,

some activities that foster leadership and intellectual development, such as participation

in student government and school newspaper, have greater positive influence in

postsecondary education outcomes than less intellectually demanding activities (Karen

2002). Indications of curvilinear effects from some activities, such as participation in

varsity sports, also appear in empirical research (Zaff at al., 2003).

Participation in outreach or encouragement programs have also been found

positively related to postsecondary education enrollment (Horn & Chen, 1998; Musoba,

2004; Tierney & Jun, 2001; Trent, Gong, & Owens-Nicholson, 2004), but specific

program features that make the difference have not been clearly identified. In order to

do so, it would be necessary to compare effects of programs having different features

regarding support for academic preparation, encouragement, life skills development,

access to information, availability of financial aid, and timing.

A great deal of evidence on positive effects of access to information has been

found. Lack of school help with college application reduces the likelihood of

postsecondary education for Latinos and Whites (Perna, 2002). Gathering information

about financial aid and talking to individuals about aid increase the odds of enrolling in

any postsecondary education (Horn and Chen 1998). Getting help with preparing for

entrance exams and the college application process increased the odds of enrolling in a

4-year institution for all students (Horn and Chen 1998). The use of test preparation

services increases the likelihood of postsecondary education for Whites and African-
Americans (Perna, 2002) but not for Latinos. However, interactions between information

and family income should not be ruled out.

Encouragement to pursue a college education from teachers and school

counselors increases the likelihood of enrolling in a 4-year institution for Whites, but

there are no significant effects for Latinos and African-Americans (Perna 2000).

Percentage of previous cohorts of high school graduates attending a 4-year institution

increases the likelihood of college enrollment for students of all ethnic groups, which

may be because of role models effects, although it certainly can be a result of

differences in academic quality. In any case, students who reported that most of their

high school friends have plans for enrolling in a 4-year institution were far more likely to

enroll in a 4-year institution themselves (Horn and Chen 1998). Overall, high school

climate has been found to have effects on post-secondary education enrollment

(Ainsworth, 2002; Zaff, et al., 2003). However, interactions between school resources

and student personal background apparently exist. In general, attending a school with a

high poverty level decrease the odds of college enrollment for all students (St. John et

al., 2004), but effects are substantially larger for White than for Black students (Musoba

2004).

Neighborhood characteristics also have different effects depending on gender,

race, and family income. Living in a low income neighborhood has negative effect on

years of schooling for White females, while living in a high income neighborhood has a

positive effect on years of schooling for all groups but Black males, which only benefit

when there are also a high proportion of Black high status individuals in the community
(Duncan 1994). Percentage of women headed households and percentage of working

women negatively affect Black females (Duncan 1994).

Overall, the accumulated evidence supports hypotheses of social capital effects

on inequalities in postsecondary education access. Nevertheless, addressing

measurement problems and developing proper scales still remain as unsolved issues.

Another ongoing task is the refinement of analytical approaches in order to model

properly causal relationships among social capital variables and postsecondary

education access inequalities.

V. Limitations in Using Social Capital Theory in PSE Access Research

After reviewing both the theoretical literature on social capital and the empirical

research literature that uses social capital to examine access to postsecondary

education, I identified several issues that need to be addressed in order to move this

stream of research forward.

In this section, I will summarize three major conceptual and methodological

limitations found in the reviewed postsecondary education access literature. These

three major limitations found are the following: 1) conceptual vagueness; 2)

weaknesses in testable postulates; and 3) lack of reliable measures. In addition to

summarizing them, I will propose avenues for overcoming such limitations.

1) Avoiding Social Capital Conceptual Tautologies

In the empirical research literature using social capital for examining access to

postsecondary education, the foremost limitation is reliance on vague definitions. Such

vagueness yields to quasi-tautological theoretical reasoning, and circular interpretations

of social capital causes and effects.

The problem of circular definitions originates by a widespread misunderstanding

of the following Coleman’s (1990) statement:

Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of
different entities having two characteristics in common: They all consist of some
aspect of a social structure and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who
are within the structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive,
making possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in
its absence (pg. 302).
 The misunderstanding of this sentence has led some researchers to pose social

capital as an immeasurable factor that can be analyzed only by observing its effects.

Under such stipulation, social capital could not be operationally defined and measured;

therefore, this construct could not be incorporated into predictive models, and it would

be unfeasible to design related public policy interventions.

Actually, Coleman postulates that social capital is a set of assets or resources

that an individual reaches through her/his ties to networks with other individuals and

uses instrumentally for achieving her/his rational goals. Indeed, Coleman is asserting

that the essential quality of social capital is its instrumental efficacy for enabling rational

action in a given context. Understanding the instrumental nature of the concept, a

scholar should define the construct of social capital and represents its dimensions within

a general rational action theory (Coleman 1988, 1990; Lin, 2001b; Prakash & Selle,

2004)

2) Developing Robust Testable Social Capital Postulates

In the postsecondary education access research using social capital theory, the

second most important limitation is the indistinctness of empirical postulates. At the

current stage of the concept development, verifying or even falsifying social capital

theory postulates remains problematical, because such postulates are often vague or ill-

defined in terms of constitutive dimensions as well as regarding causality or

directionality. Researchers often pose a very general hypothesis about social capital

having positive effects on increasing access for low income and racially disadvantaged

students, but they often fail to explain how social capital variables produce such effects.
 Determining the missing links between social capital variables and their

observable effects will set grounds for further advancing this stream of research without

jeopardizing its heuristic value. Researchers need to break cause-effect circularity by

separating social capital variables from their hypothesized effects. Doing that requires

establishing controls for directionality and controlling for the occurrence of other factors

that may account for both social capital and its hypothesized effects (Portes 1998; Lin

2001; Prakash and Selle 2004).

The theoretical literature already offers avenues for postulating cause-effects

relationships between social capital and postsecondary education access. My review

identifies three important paths: 1) access to relevant information, 2) achievement and

educational attainment norms; and, 3) support for navigating the system. Nonetheless,

a great deal of empirical research fails to draw such paths from the general notion of

social capital to individual’s postsecondary education outcomes.

Hence, researchers should make the social capital causal chain clearly

identifiable. Accomplishing that step would help to move social capital theory from a set

of heuristic assumptions to a series of testable and falsifiable postulates (Baron, Field et

al. 2000). A well developed set of testable postulates would facilitate empirical analyses

for diagnosing incorrect assumptions, modifying postulates according to empirical

findings, and building further extensions on what is not rejected (Coombs 1983).

3) Developing Reliable Social Capital Measures

The third critical limitation found is the lack of valid and reliable measures of

social capital (Baron, Field et al. 2000). Even the leading researchers in this stream—

those who have overcome conceptual ambiguity and advanced toward testable cause-
effect postulates—stop short in their research endeavor because they have to run

analyses on models that lack key variables or have to rely on inappropriate proxy

measures.

Lin (2001) explains that social capital operates within a three-phase process:

investment, access and mobilization, and obtaining returns. Measures accounting for

the investment and access phases should capture an individual’s social networks and

the resources embedded in such networks. At present, national datasets for studying

postsecondary education access do not map students’ social networks nor include

specific measures of resources embedded in such networks. As I explain in the

previous section, researchers have to rely on proxy variables such as parents’

dependability on support networks, family moves, school resources, school and/or

neighborhood demographics, as well as students’ peer relationships.

Mapping a student’s network location by identifying her/his strong and weak ties

should be the initial step. Then, a researcher should assess the social position of the

persons to which a student is tied and the relevant resources held by those persons.

According to Lin (1999; 2001), proper measures of social capital embedded in a

student’s network should include the range of resources, the upper hierarchy resource,

the heterogeneity of resources, and the average or typical resource available in her/his

networks. Relevant resources for postsecondary education access should include

information on academic preparation, information on financial planning and aid,

mentorship, support navigating the system, bridges to postsecondary education

institutions, recommendations and certification of positive personal attributes. Currently

available datasets only offer rough measures of available sources of information, weak
proxies for support navigating the system, and bridges to postsecondary education

institutions.

There is also little data on how a student uses available social capital resources

for making choices related to her/his postsecondary education goals. It is necessary to

develop data collection instruments for measuring the usage of social capital resources

in the sequential choices toward postsecondary education enrollment. That sequence

includes a students’ choice of high school coursework, preparation or lack of it for taking

college entrance examinations, search for postsecondary education institutions,

application for admission if required, application for financial aid, and the decision of

whether or not to enroll (Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989). Specific measures for

each step in the postsecondary education access process should be obtained.

VI. Directions for Further Research

In this closing section, I will draw a framework for studying social capital effects in

postsecondary access that should help to fill conceptual gaps in the literature. Finally, I

will outline directions for measuring social capital variables and building comprehensive

model for explaining postsecondary access.

1) Framework for Analyzing Social Capital Effects in PSE Access

Following Coleman (1988, 1990) and Lin (2001a, 2001b), I will frame social

capital within the wide-ranging rational action theory. I will borrow from Lin (2001a) to

define social capital as the accumulation of resources embedded in an individual’s

social network that s/he can access and mobilize in purposive actions with the

expectation of obtaining some utility or return on investment. In this case, the return

expected is increasing opportunities for obtaining access to postsecondary education.

My proposed framework for studying postsecondary education access will place

social capital as a crucial intervening variable affecting both academic preparation and

financial resources for affording enrollment. Figure 2 shows a Comprehensive Model for

Studying Educational Outcomes. The model controls for personal background

characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, parental education, and family income. It also

includes controlling variables for high school structural features, as well as academic

offerings, teaching quality, and counseling services. Grounded in previous research, the

model incorporates three sets of explanatory variables: academic preparation, finances,

and social capital variables.

 Comprehensive Model for Educational Outcomes

School Structural Academic Preparation

Features
GPA
Instructional Test Scores Admission
Expenditures School Capacity High Standards Curriculum
Control
Localization Course Offerings
____________ Teaching Quality
________________
Poverty Level
Minority Proportion Counselling
Educational Outcome

HS Dropout
Social
Merit Aid
Community Capital Post-secondary education
Tax Base
Value of * None
Education * Job Preparation
* 2 years college
* 4 years college

Personal Background

Gender
Ethnicity Financial Resources
_________________
Parental Education Need
Enrollment
_________________ (PSE Costs - Family Contribution)
Financial Aid
Income (Amount and Types)

The framework is consistent with research findings confirming that academic

preparation indicators (e.g. college preparatory curriculum, high school GPA, and

scores in college entrance examinations) have positive effects on postsecondary

education access. It is also consistent with counterbalancing research findings

indicating that the single most influential factor affecting enrollment is unmet need, when

the combination of family contribution and available financial aid is insufficient for

offsetting postsecondary education costs.

 The literature shows a gap regarding effects from inequalities in access to social

resources that do not belong to an individual and her/his family but are owned by other

influential persons in the community. To fill such gap, this framework incorporates social

capital as a critical intervening variable affecting postsecondary education enrollment.

Figure 3 shows a path diagram representing Social Capital Effects on PSE Access. The

path diagram shows three measurable dimensions of the underlying concept of social

capital; those are information, bridges, and support. These dimensions are related to

the three cause-effect paths from social capital to postsecondary education access

identified in the literature review: 1) access to relevant information, 2) achievement and

educational attainment norms, and 3) support for navigating the system.

Relevant information is hypothesized to have direct effects on PSE enrollment

through institutional choice and the application process. It also has indirect effects

through planning academic preparation and applying for financial aid. Support is

hypothesized to have direct effects on PSE enrollment through both admission and

financial aid applications. Bridges are hypothesized to have direct effects on PSE

enrollment through recommendations and certification of positive personal attributes, as

well as contacts with decision-makers.

2) Directions for Future Research in Social Capital Effects on PSE Access

I am devising a research agenda—grounded in this review—that will start with

the development of instruments for measuring social capital dimensions. The first

instrument to be developed would map a student’s social network location. Such an

instrument will be an adaptation of the position generator technique (Lin & Dumin,

1986). In that technique, the respondent is asked to indicate if s/he knows anyone
having a position with identified valued resources (Lin 2001). Network maps—including

strong and weak ties—as well as resource indices comprising composition,

heterogeneity, and upper reachability can be built from the responses.

Second to be developed is a questionnaire for measuring range of valued

resources, upper hierarchy resources, heterogeneity of resources, and average or

typical resource (Lin, 2001b). An additional questionnaire for obtaining measures of

requests for using resources, help obtained, and returns from such help should also be

developed as a part of this research agenda. Responses to these questionnaires can be

used for estimating factors for each social capital dimension, information, support, and

bridges. Both construct validity and reliability measures for both instruments should be

analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and direct product analysis (Bagozzi, 1994;

Kline, 2005; Long, 1983).

The goal is to develop instruments useful for collecting valid and reliable

measures of the social capital constructs that could be used for modeling

postsecondary education access and estimating inequalities among groups. Having

valid and reliable measures would allow researchers to test hypotheses of social capital

effects on postsecondary education using well-specified models. Thus, empirical studies

would add evidence for supporting our current hypotheses on social capital effects on

postsecondary access inequalities or undeniably falsify such hypotheses.

 Social Capital Effects on PSE Access
Path Diagram

Social Capital
1

1 Bridges

Information 1
Support

Academic
Preparation

Finances
GPA

1 Curriculum
Family
Contribution
Merit Aid Tests 1
1 1
Need Aid
1
1

PSE Enrollment
REFERENCES

Adam, F. and B. Roncevic (2003). "Social Capital: Recent Debates and Trends." Social
Science Information 42(2): 115-183.

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns,
and Bachelor's Degree Attainment. Jessup, MD, U.S. Department of Education.

Baron, S., J. Field, et al. (2000). Social Capital. Critical Perspectives. New York, NY.,
Oxford University Press.

Baum, S. and K. Payea (2004). The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and
Society. Education Pays / Trends in Higher Education Series. C. E. E. Board. New York,
College Entrance Examination Board.

Becker, G. (1993). Human Capital. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Berkner, L. and L. Chávez (1997). Access to Postsecondary Education for the 1992
High School Graduates. Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Education. National
Center for Education Statistics.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. Handbook of Theory and Research for the
Sociology of Education. J. Richardson. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press: 241-258.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004). "Education Pays." Retrieved August 12, 2004, from
http://stats.bls.gov/emp/edupays.pdf.

Burt, R. (2001). Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital. Social
Capital. N. Lin, K. Cook and R. Burt. New York, Aldine de Gruyter.

Cabrera, A., S. La Nasa, et al. (2000). Using National Databases To Study College
Choice of Low SES Students. University Park, PA, Center for the Study of Higher
Education - The Pennsylvania State University.

Cabrera, A., S. La Nasa, et al. (2001). On the right path: The higher education story of
one generation. University Park, PA, Center for the Study of Higher Education - The
Pennsylvania State University.

Carnevale, A. and R. Fry (2002). The Demographic Window of Opportunity. Condition of

Access. Higher Education for Lower Income Students. D. Heller, American Council on
Education.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard
University Press.

Coombs, C. (1983). Psychology and Mathematics. Ann Arbor, The University of

Michigan Press.

DesJardins, S. (2003). Event History Methods: Conceptual Issues and an Application to

Student Departure from College. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research.
J. C. Smart, Kluber. XVIII: 421-472.

Dika, S. L. and K. Singh (2002). "Applications of Social Capital in Educational Literature:

A Critical Synthesis." Review of Educational Research 72(1): 31-69.

Duncan, G. (1994). "Families and Neighbors as Sources of Disadvantage in the

Schooling Decisions of White and Black Adolescents." American Journal of Education
103(1): 20-53.

Field, J. (2003). Social Capital. New York, NY, Routledge.

Fitzgerald, B. and J. Delaney (2002). Educational Opportunity in America. Condition of

Access. Higher Education for Lower Income Students. D. Heller, American Council on
Education.

Furstenberg, F. and M. E. Hughes (1995). "Social Capital and Successful Development

among At-Risk Youth." Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(3): 580-592.

Gladieux, L. (2002). Federal Student Aid in Historical Perspective. Condition of Access.

Higher Education for Lower Income Students. D. Heller, American Council on
Education.

Glick, J. and M. White (2004). "Postsecondary School Participation of Inmigrant Youth:

The Role of Familial Resources and Educational Expectations." Social Science
Research 33: 272-299.

Granovetter, M. (2003). The Strength of Weak Ties. Networks in the Knowledge

Economy. R. Cross, A. Parker and L. Sasson. New York, NY, Oxford University Press.

Heller, D., Ed. (2001). The States and Public Higher Education Policy. Baltimore, The
John Hopkins University Press.

Heller, D. (2002). State Aid and Student Access. Condition of Access. Higher Education
for Lower Income Students. D. Heller, American Council on Education.

Hofferth, S., J. Boisjoly, et al. (1998). "Parents' Extrafamilial Resources and Children's
School Attainment." Sociology of Education 71(3): 246-268.
Horn, L. and X. Chen (1998). Toward Resiliency: At-Risk Students Who Make It to
College. Washington, D.C., Office of Institutional Research and Improvement: 52.

Hossler, D., J. Schmit, et al. (1999). Going to College: How Social, Economic, and
Educational Factors Influence the Decisions Students Make. Baltimore, MD, The Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Hu, S. and D. Hossler (2000). "Willingness To Pay And Preference For Private
Institutions." Research in Higher Education 41(6).

Karen, D. (2002). "Changes in Access to Higher Education in the United States:."

Sociology of Education 75(3): 191-210.

Kingston, P. W., R. Hubbard, et al. (2003). "Why education matters." Sociology of

Education 76(1): 53-71.

Langelett, G. (2002). "Human Capital: A Summary of the 20th Century Research."

Journal of Education Finance v. 28(n. 1): 1-23.

Lee, J. (2002). An Issue of Equity. Condition of Access. Higher Education for Lower
Income Students. D. Heller, American Council on Education.

Lin, N. (1999). "Social Networks and Status Attainment." Annual Review of Sociology
25: 467-487.

Lin, N. (2001). Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. Social Capital. N. Lin, K.
Cook and R. Burt. New York, Aldine de Gruyter.

Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital. A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York,
Cambridge University Press.

McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing Colleges. How Social Class and Schools Structure
Opportunity. Albany, State University of New York Press.

McPherson, M. and M. O. Schapiro (2002). Changing Patterns of Institutional Aid.

Condition of Access. Higher Education for Lower Income Students. D. Heller, American
Council on Education.

Mullis, R., R. Rathge, et al. (2003). "Predictors of Academic Performance during Early
Adolescence: A Contextual View." International Journal for Behavioral Development
27(6): 541-548.

Musoba, G. D. (2004). Postsecondary Encouragement for Diverse Students: A

Reexamination of the Twenty-first Century Scholars Program. Public Policy and College
Access. E. P. St. John. New York. 19.
Paulsen, M. B. and E. P. St. John (2002). "Social Class and College Costs: Examining
the Financial Nexus between College Choice and Persistence." Journal of Higher
Education 73(2): 189-236.

Perna, L. W. (2000). "Differences in the Decision to Attend College Among African

Americans, Hispanics, and Whites." The Journal of Higher Education 71(2): 117-141.

Plotnick, R. and S. Hoffman (1999). "The effect of neighborhood characteristics on

young adult outcomes: Alternative estimates." Social Science Quarterly.

Portes, A. (1998). "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology."
Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1-24.

Prakash, S. and P. Selle (2004). Why Investigate Social Capital? Investigating Social
Capital. S. Prakash and P. Selle. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.

Siisiäinen, M. (2000). Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam. ISTR
Fourth International Conference "The Third Sector: For What and for Whom?", Trinity
College, Dublin, Ireland.

St. John, E. P., Ed. (2004). Public Policy and College Access. Readings on Equal
Education. New York, AMS Press.

Terenzini, P., A. Cabrera, et al. (2001). Swimming against the Tide: The Poor in
American Higher Education. New York, College Entrance Examination Board.

Yan, W. (1999). "Successful African-american Students: The Role of Parental

Involvement." The Journal of Negro Education 68(1): 5-22.