Now that the commonly utilized measures of social networks, social capital and trust have been reviewed, it is now necessary to explore another possible method of measurement not mentioned
to this point in any of the literature. All three of these elements of social capital are understandably difficult to conceptualize and measure. As we have seen thus far, surveys and individual interviews are the most often used tools to measure social capital. One research method not mentioned is ethnography.
Ethnography, “the descriptive study of people in their natural settings,” is a qualitative research method that seeks to obtain a holistic understanding of human behavior within social and cultural settings (Angrosino, p.2). In contrast to experimental research where a researcher manipulates subjects or variables, ethnography studies people’s actions and perspectives within their natural, everyday contexts. The goal of ethnography and ethnographic research methods is “to develop clear, communicable understandings and interpretations of human behavior as social and cultural activity” (Wagner, p.196). A simple example of an ethnographic study is that of a researcher who attempts to investigate the culture of dog owners through living, observing and describing the daily life and behaviors of dog owners for a significant amount of time.
Ethnographic research espouses a number of common features (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). First, ethnographers seek to study people’s actions and accounts in unstructured, everyday circumstances. Second, ethnographers gather data from a range of sources, such as documentary evidence of various kinds, participant observation, and informal conversations. Sunstein and Chiseri-Strater (2007) similarly note that data can be obtained through library and archival research, cultural artifacts, fieldnotes, photographs, interviews, and reflective memos. Third, the categories that ethnographers use to interpret what people say or do are discovered through data analysis, rather than through a rigid data collection process. Fourth, in order to facilitate an in-depth ethnographic study, the ethnographer usually focuses on a small-scale, single setting or group of people. Fifth, data is analyzed and interpreted to discover the
meanings, functions, and results of human actions and institutional practices, which can then be applied to broader contexts and can lead to explanations and theoretical development.
As the goal of ethnographers is to understand a people’s culture, it is important to have an understanding of the term culture as it relates to ethnography as well as an understanding of the means by which it is investigated by ethnographers. Rather than being considered the study of culture, ethnography seeks to uncover the “customary social behaviors” of a group of people in a particular setting and is viewed as a “way of seeing” culture, not as a way of explaining culture (Wolcott, p.241). Stone Sunstein and Chiseri-Strater (2007) similarly define the culture that ethnography attempts to explain as “an invisible web of behaviors, patterns, rules, and rituals of a group of people who have contact with one another and share common languages” (p.3). In short, ethnographers do not conduct ethnography with a predetermined idea of a particular group’s culture in mind. Rather, ethnographers utilize ethnographic methods of research to uncover a group’s culture. Ultimately, a well conducted and thought out ethnography should offer a holistic understanding of the human behavior of a group of people within the group’s natural social and/or cultural setting. Ethnography is valuable because it goes above and beyond a quick observation, single interview or brief visit to a site; rather, it uncovers the culture of a people and helps the outsider obtain the viewpoint of an insider.
The concept of social capital is inherently abstract and requires subjective interpretation in its translation into operational measures (Narayan & Cassidy, 2001). As highlighted in the literature review, social capital’s operational measures are oftentimes invariably indirect substitutes of their associated constructs. “Social capital is stubbornly resistant to quantification” and because it is multi-dimensional, some of its dimensions are subject to different understandings (Coleman, 2002, p.11-12). The best instruments for measuring social capital are
likely ones that entail time spent in the field in order to capture local individual realities (Woolcock, 2002).
Based on the measures of resources, networks and trust reviewed herein, it is clear that social capital is difficult to measure holistically. Some measures are vague, some measures are employed outside of any particular context, some measures are redundant, some measures look at one aspect of social capital and not another, and so forth. Social capital is rooted in the way that individuals utilize networks, and ethnography may be effective at accessing these details more completely than simply a single survey or interview (Crossley, 2008). Ethnography presents an accurate reflection of peoples’ perspectives and behaviors; ethnographers seek to build and tell stories around the words, views, explanations and interpretations of individuals in the study (LeCompte & Schensul, 2010). In short, ethnography allows for a more thoughtful, situational and contextual approach to the study of social capital.
One of the difficulties of studying trust and reciprocity as it relates to social capital was the common use of attitudinal measures of trust and lack of behavioral measures of trust. Ethnography potentially solves this problem as it “examines behavior and belief in context,” allowing the researcher to see for him or herself the concept of trust and reciprocity in action LeCompte & Schensul, 2010, p.22). In short, it is believed that trust and reciprocity, as they relate to social capital creation and maintenance, may be investigated in their natural setting through an ethnographic study—something a simple survey or interview alone cannot do as effectively.
A tool for measuring any form of social capital must be sensitive to cultural and social variation (Grootaert & Bastelaer, 2001). LeCompte and Schensul (2010) concur that ethnography can enable a researcher to explore variation within a group so as to avoid
stereotyping and over generalization of group members, something that frequently occurs in the social capital measures previously described. In particular, this was noted as one of the disadvantages to the network and resource measures discussed previously.
“Social capital is multidimensional, and some of those dimensions themselves are subject to different understandings” (Coleman, 2002, p.12). Ethnography has the capability to investigate social capital multidimensional and contextually, and overcome some of the weaknesses of other commonly utilized measures of networks, trust and resources pertaining to individual social capital. The purpose of this section was not necessarily to develop an exact methodology for studying social capital creation through ethnography, but rather to introduce ethnography as a research method and demonstrate how it might be an effective means of studying social capital—networks, trust and resources—more thoughtfully and holistically. The next section will now tie together the conceptual framework of social capital and review how higher education act as a means to invest in individual social capital.