The three social capital scholars share the view that social capital is embedded in social relations. Young people have access to a range of social structures and networks (family, school, and friends).
Family of origin
Family of origin is widely regarded in the literature as the primary social resource for young people (Laser and Leibowitz, 2009). Coleman’s (1988) conceptualisation of the ‘ideal’
structure is the nuclear family, the corollary being that single-parent and dual earner families constitute a ‘structural deficiency’ (S111). In this sense, he shared Putnam’s view that working mothers and lone parenthood were two of the main causes of declining social capital and loss of community cohesion. However, Coleman also had an interest in the functioning of the family, observing that, even if adults were physically present, there would be ‘a lack of social capital if there [are] not strong relations between children and parents’ (S111).
Findings from Seaman and Sweeting’s (2004) qualitative study in Glasgow with families (parents, some teenage children) challenge some of Coleman’s assumptions. The researchers found that contemporary family forms did not reflect Coleman’s structure. However, this did not necessarily result in a social capital ‘deficit’ but instead prompted a compensatory role for extended kin, including non-biological family members. Older siblings and step-siblings warranted special mention as sources of ‘insider information’.
The majority of studies focus their attention on families of young people in deprived areas.
In their study of future aspirations of 13 and 15 year olds, Kintrea et al. (2011) found that parents had high educational aspirations for their children and higher than their own attainment levels, while the wider family was the most important source for occupational ideas. Similarly, studies of employment transitions of young people have highlighted the importance of family contacts in facilitating entry to work (Furlong et al., 2003, Green and White, 2007, MacDonald et al., 2005). For some, family was an enabler; but, for others, it was a constraining factor in accessing training or work opportunities, where parents were unwilling for young people to move, or to grasp new or unfamiliar opportunities.
Where comparative studies exist, they provide evidence of striking social inequalities, with advantaged parents found to have higher expectations for their children than those who were less affluent (Goodman and Gregg, 2010). Crucially, these same parents were also more likely to help with homework; participate in school activities; provide access to books, computers, and tutors (Goodman and Gregg, 2010); secure quality work placements (Waller et al., 2014), and, regarding tertiary education, ‘play the admissions game’ (Robb et al., 2007). Similarly, Croll (2008) found in his secondary analysis of national longitudinal data that young people from more occupationally advantaged families were more ambitious, and had better educational and occupational outcomes than other young people. One finding is
particularly striking. Regardless of social group, when young people were found to be ambitious and educationally successful, their occupational outcomes were comparable;
however, ‘where young people are neither ambitious nor educationally successful, the outcomes from those from disadvantaged homes are very much poorer than for other young people (p.243). This finding attests to the ‘safety net’ or insulation provided for those who possess higher levels of economic or social capital. Ethnic differences are also evident, with parents from most minority ethnic groups generally having higher aspirations than their White British peers. This is especially true for immigrant families who have endured hardships in moving country for a better life (Gutman and Akerman, 2008, Robb et al., 2007).
Schools
Young people spend a significant proportion of their time in schools, and therefore it is not inconceivable that the educational setting will leave some imprint on the formation of their future goals and destinations (Furlong, 2013, McKinney et al., 2013). Nevertheless, schools should not be viewed as standardised social institutions. Rather, the literature attests to the influence of individual school ethos and culture in shaping pupil aspirations and providing support in the realisation of these. Although not the primary focus of their research, Kintrea et al. (2011) reported being ‘struck by the commitment shown by the schools in supporting the aspirations of their students’ (p.47). Nevertheless, they found considerable variability between individual schools, which was determined by a number of external and internal factors, including geographical location; the catchment area served; school ethos and practices; and links with the wider community. The extent to which schools are embedded within a community was singled out by Coleman (1988). In his comparative study of three US school clusters (public high schools; religiously-based private high schools; non-religiously based private high schools), he found that social capital varied according to type of school, with faith-based schools outperforming non-faith and private schools in this respect.
Smyth and Banks (2012)’s comparative study of a state-funded and private school in Dublin found that social class was reproduced through the academic climate and provision of career guidance to pupils. They drew upon Bourdieu’s concept of ‘institutional habitus’ to explain why certain choices for certain pupils were perceived as variously ‘unthinkable, possible or probable’ (p.265). Much less is known about the influence of school ethos within the same category of educational establishment. However, in recent studies of secondary schools in
Glasgow, McKinney et al. (2012) and Robison (2013) found that, while state-funded schools with similar socio-economic profiles had similar educational attainments, there was nonetheless a significant difference in pupils’ post-school destinations. Robison attributed this to differential careers support being available to pupils. Finally, intra-school analyses have highlighted the profound and enduring impact of teacher expectations on students’ self-perceived ability, with the most academically competent pupils being singled out for support, the ‘ordinary’ mainstream being overlooked and the lowest ability students being stereotyped as underachievers (Robb et al., 2007, Roberts, 2012).
Friendship Groups
Friendship groups and youth-centred associations differ from the ‘situational networks’ of family and friends in that young people have the ability to choose whom they interact with, and which groups they join (Bassani, 2007, Li et al., 2005). However, given the adult dominance in the youth social capital literature, the influence of friends on life choices is relatively unexplored. Green and White (2007) collapse family and friends together into one group; Kintrea et al. (2011) consider family and schools, but not peers; and, in their review, Gutman and Akerman (2008) focus mainly on young people and their parents. When friends are brought into the picture, it is usually in terms of their role in identity formation or reaffirmation of particular aspects of self (Weller, 2009), or of parental concerns about their offspring socialising with the ‘wrong crowd’. Yet there are suggestions that some young people are not simply passive recipients of peer pressure, but instead strategically choose friends according to shared aspirations for academic success (Robb et al., 2007). Sources of social capital for young people include informal networks such as extra-curricular activities, sports clubs, youth clubs and other leisure-based associations. Moreover, social network sites (SNS) are fast becoming ubiquitous aspects of young people’s lives. SNS contain features which are relevant to this research such as the construction of identities and the formation (and sharing) of friendship networks (Mallan et al., 2010). Theoretically, SNS have the potential to widen social networks and provide access to a range of benefits;
however, empirical studies from the US report that young people mostly use SNS to communicate and interact with friends already known to them (Ahn, 2011). This distinction between real and virtual networks echoes the point made earlier (3.3.1) about the nature and strength of different social ties and the extent to which they facilitate a broadening or restriction of young people’s perceptual reading of the world.