Article Review -- PAD 530CriteriaLevels of AchievementCont.docx

Article Review -- PAD 530
Criteria
Levels of Achievement
Content
(70%)
Advanced
92-100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing
1-83%
Not Present
Total
Summary Content
25 to 27 points
· Each paragraph is written using clear and concise language.
· Student thoroughly discusses the important details from the
article, demonstrating comprehension.
22.5 to 24.5 points
· Student’s review cogently interacts with the article provided.
· A few details and/or examples are given.
1 to 22 points
The student’s review omits one of the key elements in the
article.
0 points
Not present
Key Elements
24 to 26 points
· Student demonstrates understanding of the intent of the article
· Student presents biblical/ethical issues associated with the

article.
· Discusses key elements in the review which are related back to
the concepts within the course.
21.5 to 23.5 points
Student addresses all elements of the assignment.
1 to 21 points
Student’s summary contains superfluous information that does
not reflect the ability to critically "weed-out" trivial content.
0 points
Not present
Structure (30%)
Advanced
92-100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing
1-83%
Not present
Total
APA
Formatting
9.25 to 10 points
The review meets the length and formatting requirements.
Complete citation is formatted correctly.
Grammar and spelling are correct.
Formatting writing standards are implemented throughout the
essay.
8.5 to 9 points
Review does follow length requirements.
Essay meets the majority of formatting guidelines.
.
1 to 8.25 points
Review fall short of meeting length requirements and formatting
guidelines.
.

0 points
Not present
10
Grammar and Spelling
11 to 12 points
No grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.
10 to 10.75 points
Minimal grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.
1 to 9.75 points
A few grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors
0 points
Not present
12
Instructions:
You will write two article reviews based on a designated article
located in the Reading & Study folder of the corresponding
module/week. Each review will summarize and critique the
author’s position/conclusion in at least 500 words in APA
format. Each Article Review is due by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on
Saturday of the assigned module/week.
Here are some frequently asked questions concerning Major
Writing Project 3. Below are some generic questions with my
responses:
1) Question: In the instructions, it states that I need five
sources, two of which should be peer-reviewed. How do I
include the non-peer-reviewed sources? Answer: While you
need five sources total, you might not want to treat all of those
sources as your main voices in your argument. Let’s say you
have three main voices that you summarize: two peer-reviewed
sources and one non-peer-reviewed (see the next question too).
These three sources are the main voices in the conversation

you’re setting up. The other two sources (or more, if you wish)
would just be incorporated as supporting sources for your own
argument. Of course you don’t want to use them in your
summary paragraphs, because you want to stay focused on what
each author is saying, without confusing their voice with the
argument of another. The only exception is that you might find
a source that explicitly explains and supports one author; in that
case you could use one of those other sources in the summary
section.
2) Question: Do my main sources have to be peer-reviewed
sources? Answer: No. In fact, you might be researching a
topic that has produced a very significant conversation between
authors on a blog, or perhaps it’s a conversation that took place
between TV show hosts, or perhaps you’re relying on a few
unpublished interviews of anonymous people. In all of those
cases, the voices or sources you’re relying on are not peer-
reviewed, and that’s fine. Nevertheless, you still want to make
sure that you are in dialogue with scholars who have spoken
about the same issue (even if those scholarly voices are not as
current). For that reason, we want to have at least two sources
that are peer-reviewed, but those sources might actually have a
very minimal importance in the argument. For instance, you
might use the peer-reviewed sources for a particularly
significant way of thinking about the debate or question, or
because they introduce an interesting naysayer opinion that you
want to contest, etc. But you just want to keep in mind that the
opposite might also work: you might focus on the conversation
between two academic sources, and use non-peer reviewed
sources to help support your “I say” section. It all depends on
the conversation you’re responding to.
3) Question: Do I have to write basic information about the
authors in the introduction? Answer: No. In fact, it might be
better to say something about the authors right when you start to
summarize them in the body of your paper. Your introduction
would then just introduce the specific topic and a brief
overview of the conversation that this topic has produced, but

you would wait to get into the details in your summary
paragraphs. Here's a different situation: one of your sources
might be an article written by several people, perhaps a whole
team. In that case it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say
something about all the people involved in the study. Instead,
in the summary paragraph on that source you’ll simply say
something about the context for that particular study (perhaps
something about where the team is from, or what other papers
they’ve published, or what organization sponsored the study, or
something along those lines). Another scenario: you might be
dealing with a source that is anonymous; in that case, you
simply can’t say anything about the person being interviewed,
but you do want to explain why it is that this interview had to
be anonymous.
4) Question: Do I have to include all of my sources in the
introductory paragraph? Answer: No. You really should only
focus on the most significant sources, the ones that constitute
the main conversation for you (usually two or three sources).
The rest of your sources will then be folded into the argument
when necessary, often within the “I say” section. Again, you
might use a source only as a naysayer; in that case, you really
don’t need to mention that source at any other time except when
you bring up this naysayer opinion, which you’ll then contest.
Or again, you might use a source simply to reveal a significant
perspective that helps your argument in a particular moment. In
that case, you’re just using that source in one particular moment
in your argument, and therefore it’s not significant enough to
mention in the introduction.
5) Question: My discipline really only deals with facts, not
arguments. Can I just focus on facts in my "they say," rather
than arguments? Answer: Well, here's where I have to disagree
with you. Although many disciplines truly do emphasize new
"facts" about their discipline, there's really no such thing as a
fact outside of an argument. All disciplines work to produce or
discover new facts that are embedded within specific
arguments. Sometimes those facts support an argument about

the object of study ("Our study suggests that midi-chrlorians
tend to become less effective at higher temperatures, thereby
refuting studies that insist that these mysterious elements are
among the most stable in the universe. In fact, our study
suggests that mid-chlorians are dangerously unstable at high
temperatures"). Sometimes those facts support an argument
about the discipline itself ("Our study suggests that midi-
chrlorians tend to become less effective at higher temperatures,
thereby illustrating the way that researchers into midi-chrlorians
can productively coordinate with those researching new sources
of clean energy"). Your job is then to emphasize the way
authors use facts for specific arguments. Your summary, and
your quotes that give evidence for your summary, should clearly
bring out those arguments.
Don’t forget to post your draft to the Titanium forum (Exercise
15) by Wednesday night. It’s ok if it’s not your best work at
this point; it’s expected that you’re still working through your
argument. The point is just to get a bit of experience switching
gears and taking on the role of “grader.” When we do that, we
start to realize new things about our own work, and it helps us
return to our draft with new eyes. Again: don’t worry if your
partner flakes and forgets to post their draft. In that case, just
do the exercise tomorrow (exercise 16) on your own draft. The
experience of being a “grader” produces that same effect of
seeing your own work with new eyes.
General Instructions: This paper is your own argument, but you
should take into account what you’ve learned during this
course: you should begin by showing the conversation your
paper is responding to (“they say,” which should include clear
positions or arguments on the topic), you should have a clear
statement of your own argument about the issue (“I say"), you
should include quotes and incorporate them smoothly (both in
the “they say” and “I say” paragraphs), you should point out
possible objections to your argument, use appropriate

transitions, explain why the issue matters (so what? who
cares?), and clarify your argument by using metacommentary.
You must use at least 5 sources and at least 2 of those sources
must be from academic peer reviewed journals. You should
also give your argument a clear title at the beginning of your
essay.
Recommended structure: For this paper you have 5-6 pages to
work with and you need to include, in effect, five major parts:
1. Introduction: includes an overview of the conversation
(names of key authors and the issues you’re bringing up), a
brief statement of your argument (or thesis statement), and a
brief explanation of why your argument matters
2. summary of 2 or 3 arguments (not just facts), with quotes as
evidence
3. summary of how they agree/disagree; provide quotes if
necessary
4. your own opinion and your reasons for your opinion (which
includes at least one naysayer and includes metacommentary for
clarity); provide quotes as evidence
5. Conclusion: includes a return sentence, a restatement of your
argument, and a developed explanation of why your argument
matters
Note that these are five parts, not paragraphs (exceptions: the
introduction and the conclusion are usually one paragraph
each). What could this look like? Here's an example: After the
brief introductory paragraph (where you introduce your topic,
an overview of the conversation you're entering, a sense of your
argument and briefly why your argument matters), you might
have a summary of one author's argument (1 paragraph), then a
summary of the second author's argument (1 paragraph), and a
summary of another author or position (1 paragraph). Then you
might have one paragraph that explains how they agree and
disagree (though you can already allude to that in the summary
paragraphs through phrases like "Unlike X, Y asserts that...").
Note that the paragraph that explains how the authors or
arguments agree and disagree is still "they say," since you're not

yet putting forward your own opinion on the issues. At that
point you'll have written about 3 pages. Then you write your
own argument ("I say") in relation to the conversation you've
set up (about two pages). At that point you've written about 5
pages. Then you end with a concluding paragraph, where you
wrap it up with a return sentence and again explain why it
matters.
Keep in mind that this way of structuring your argument is only
a suggestion; it doesn't have to be exactly like that. But
hopefully this gives you an idea of what this kind of paper
could look like.
Grading Guide: I will grade your MWP3 according to the
following grading guide. Use this guide when writing your
paper.
Introduction (10 points)
Includes an overview of the conversation (names of key authors
and the issues you’re bringing up), clear "I say" statement
(thesis) placed in relation to authors, and a brief explanation of
why your argument matters
"They say” (20 points): Shows conversation paper is
responding to
Summary includes basic information about authors as well as
the full title of essays; summaries do not agree or disagree with
authors (summaries inhabit worldview); summaries use
sophisticated signal verbs to summarize authors' points; no
listing or “closest cliché”
Quoting (20 points): Uses quotes correctly and appropriately
Quotes used to present "proof of evidence" in summary of
authors' arguments -- Quotes should not be “orphans” -- Quotes
should be framed appropriately (“quotation sandwich”) --
Quotes should be Introduced with appropriate verb -- Quotes
should present “proof of evidence” -- Indicates page number of

quote
"I Say" (20 points): Clear statement of your own argument
Clearly distinguishes "they say" from "I say" – Clearly signals
who is saying what: Uses at least one template to indicate "I
say" -- "I say" includes clear reasons for argument that are not
simply summaries of authors' arguments – Clearly plants
naysayer to support “I say” argument (use at least one template
from naysayers) - Includes one metacommentary to clarify
argument.
Conclusion (10 points)
Includes at least one “return sentence” in the conclusion to
remind reader of what “they say”; includes a restatement of
thesis or “I say”; includes a developed explanation of why your
argument matters (uses templates).
Bibliography or Works Cited (10 points)
Includes proper bibliographic form -- no annotations included
here -- includes 5 sources; 2 must be peer-reviewed
Editing and tone (10 points)
No editing errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation, and
formatting); Uses proper tone (formal where appropriate,
informal where appropriate)
Introduction
Includes an overview of the conversation (names of key authors
and the issues you’re bringing up), clear "I say" statement
(thesis) placed in relation to authors, and a brief explanation of
why your argument matters
Maximum score
10
"They say”: Shows conversation paper is responding to
Summary includes basic information about authors as well as
the full title of essays; summaries do not agree or disagree with

authors (summaries inhabit worldview); summaries use
sophisticated signal verbs to summarize authors' points; no
listing or “closest cliché” (pp. 31, 35, 33)
Maximum score
20
Quoting: Uses quotes correctly and appropriately
Quotes used to present "proof of evidence" (p. 42) in summary
of authors' arguments -- Quotes should not be “orphans” (p. 43)
-- Quotes should be framed appropriately (“quotation
sandwich”) (p. 46) -- Quotes should be Introduced with
appropriate verb (p. 47) -- Quotes should present “proof of
evidence” (p. 42) -- Indicates page number of quote (p. 48)
Maximum score
20
"I Say": Clear statement of your own argument
Clearly distinguishes "they say" from "I say" – Clearly signals
who is saying what: Uses at least one template from pp. 72-75 --
"I say" includes clear reasons for argument that are not simply
summaries of authors' arguments – Clearly plants naysayer to
support “I say” argument (use at least one template from pp. 82,
83,84-85, 89).
Maximum score
20
Conclusion
Includes at least one “return sentence” in the conclusion to
remind reader of what “they say” (p. 27); includes a restatement
of thesis or “I say”; includes a developed explanation of why
your argument matters (uses templates from pp. 95-96, 98-99).
Maximum score
10
Bibliography or Works Cited
Includes proper bibliographic form -- no annotations included
here -- includes 5 sources; 2 must be peer-reviewed
Maximum score
10
Editing and Tone

No editing errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation, and
formatting); Uses proper tone (formal where appropriate,
informal where appropriate)
Maximum score
10
The Application of Computer Aided Instruction in Course of
Elements of
Information Theory
Ru-wei Li
School of Electronic Information and Control
Engineering
Beijing University of Technology
Beijing 100124, China
e-mail: [email protected]
Xi-da Lin
School of Electronic Information and Control
Engineering
Beijing University of Technology
Beijing 100124, China
e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract—In order to solve existent questions of CAI
(Computer Aided Instruction) in university teaching, the
course of Elements of Information Theory was taken as an

example to describe how to use the CAI. According to
characteristic of this course and teaching law, CAI could be
used correctly and reasonably by some methods which could
wake up the interest of students, such as the combination
between writing on the blackboard and electronic blackboard
writing, color matching, the combination between dynamic
state and static state, the presented amount of information and
the control of speed, the interaction between teachers and
students, the diversity of CAI and so on. The practice shows
that the proposed teaching method based on CAI contributes
to play the leading role of teachers and the subject status of
students. The learning initiative of college students could be
inspired and their learning interest could also be aroused by
CAI. Finally, the quality and efficiency of classroom teaching
are further improved.
Keywords- CAI (Computer Aided Instruction); traditional
teaching; classroom teaching; teaching quality
I. INTRODUCTION
In the form of traditional teaching, course teaching
mainly relies on the corresponding notes and writing on the
blackboard of teachers. Long-term practice proves that the
traditional teaching method is conducive to control the
classroom rhythm. With the writing on the blackboard of
teachers, students could keep up with teacher’s schedule and
thinking. Besides, the teaching style of teachers could also be
stood out, which is beneficial to influence students’ growth
by personal charisma of teachers. However, the shortages of
traditional teaching are obvious. The writing on the
blackboard of teachers easily leads to fatigue of teachers.
What’s more, the chalk dust is bad for the health of teachers
and students. Meanwhile, the teaching of writing on the
blackboard will lead to inadequate information in class, and
some abstract theories and practices are not easy to be

explained clearly by oral. To some extent, the learning
initiative of students is inhibited, which will lead students to
lose interest easily. The efficiency and quality of teaching are
affected seriously. Therefore, it couldn’t meet the needs of
talent quality in new era.
With the development of multimedia technology, in order
to solute the disadvantages of traditional teaching, CAI
emerges as the times require. It is a kind of open teaching
form and students are fully placed in the subject status of
study. The electronic blackboard writing consists of dynamic
simulation experiments, rich static materials, interactive
practices between human and machine, intelligent tutoring
and so on. It not only lets students acquire more information
in a very short period of time, but also overcome the
limitations of the traditional teaching objectively. Besides,
the classroom efficiency and teaching quality are improved
largely. More time and space of independent operation and
activity are left to students to make them stride over the
limitation of time and space and adequately play their
imagination and creativity. Therefore, CAI is widely used in
university classroom teaching at present. However, long term
practice shows that with the help of CAI, there is not a large
change in the effect and quality of teaching [1]. In addition to
the students’ personal reason, however, the immediate cause
of influencing teaching effect is the misuse and
misunderstanding of CAI for teachers. For example, in CAI,
some teachers ignore the inspiration of students and the
leading role of teachers which is entirely replaced by
computer. Some teachers adopt the inappropriate forms: The
learning enthusiasm of students is not inspired by the directly
copied text books and monotonous color. The attention of
students to learn knowledge is scattered by the blind pursuit
of novelty and obsessed with appearance. The perception of
key knowledge, imagination and creativity are affected by
the excessive and unnecessary media and videos. Focusing

on some theoretical knowledge, some teachers directly copy
text books. Careful thinking, rigorous reasoning, accurate
calculation and logical judgment are lost in multimedia
demonstration, which impedes the cultivation of students’
innovation ability and learning ability [2].
In consequence, focusing on the wrong region of CAI’s
use and understanding, relying on the course of Information
Theory Basis, this course features are used as a starting point.
Combined with students’ cognitive regularity, taking
advantage of image visual, novelty, diversity and large
information of CAI, preciseness and density of traditional
teaching in theoretical knowledge teaching and the leading
role and evocation of teachers in teaching, CAI is organically
2015 7th International Conference on Information Technology
in Medicine and Education
978-1-4673-8302-8/15 $31.00 © 2015 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/ITME.2015.36
631
2015 7th International Conference on Information Technology
in Medicine and Education
978-1-4673-8302-8/15 $31.00 © 2015 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/ITME.2015.36
631
combined with traditional teaching to promote the

improvement of college teaching’s quality and effect.
II. THE COURSE FEATURES OF ELEMENTS OF
IMFORMATION THEORY
Elements of Information Theory is a discipline [3] that
studies the general rule of information storage, transmission
and processing by Probability Theory, Stochastic Process
and Mathematical Statistics. It involves a large amount of
mathematical knowledge and covers most of mathematical
knowledge of sciences and engineering students. The
knowledge includes Advanced Mathematics, Linear Algebra,
Discrete Mathematics, Probability Theory & Mathematics
Statistics, Stochastic Process and Numerical Analysis. The
knowledge itself is more complex and abstract than other
knowledge. Meanwhile, it also involves some professional
knowledge of communication, which makes it have strong
theoretical. In consequence, even for the communication
students, they all believe that Elements of Information
Theory is very abstract and dull. This course is very hard to
be accepted. In addition, information, an important concept
in Information Theory, is not a complete and systematic
concept until today. Different research schools have different
opinions and understanding of information nature and
definition [3]. Based on this course features, the appropriate
CAI is adopted to improve the teaching quality.
III. CAI USED IN THE COURSE OF ELEMENTS OF
INFORMATION THEORY
A. Combination between writing on the blackboard and
electronic blackboard writing
Modern education concept should pay attention to not
only the leading role of teachers, but also the subject status
of students. Only by a clear understanding of this concept,

could teaching form be correctly used. Only in this way,
could the leading role of teachers and subjective initiative of
students be played fully. In the course teaching of CAI, in
order to foster students’ rigorous reasoning about concept
and theorem, such as some basic concepts, entropy, average
mutual information, traditional teaching is adopted. Students
are directed to understand these concepts by derivation of
writing on the blackboard. Then the conclusion of writing on
the blackboard is given by PPT. This method contributes to
play the leading role of teachers. Meanwhile, it also leads
students to go to thinking and understanding with the help of
teachers’ derivation process, which overcomes the shortage
of electronic blackboard writing. Large amount of
information and fast switching of electronic blackboard
writing will lead to the misunderstanding of students. The
burden of teachers’ writing on the blackboard could also be
reduced by conclusion of electronic blackboard writing. In
the process of interpreting exercises, in general, questions are
displayed by electronic blackboard writing, and then
derivation process of exercises is displayed by writing on the
blackboard. The attention of students is easily attracted by
teachers’ writing on the blackboard.
B. Color matching
Due to the sensory stimulation role of color, the interest
of students could be attracted by the appropriate combination
of colors. In teaching process of Elements of Information
Theory, different layers are represented by different colors.
Meanwhile, the key points and parts of course are display in
boldface. However, excessive colors are not suitable to be
presented on a paper of PPT. Otherwise, the attention of
students will be scattered by the messy and disorganized
PPT.
C. Combination between dynamic state and static state

Dynamic image is organically combined with static
image by CAI. In teaching process, static state is contained
in dynamic states, meanwhile, dynamic state is also
contained in static state. This way is helpful to arouse the
thinking of students. For example, in the process of
interpreting the rate-distortion function, in order to illustrate
the fidelity rule, different levels of sound distortion are
inserted in electronic blackboard writing to make students
feel the importance of fidelity rule. In the process of
interpreting entropy, the application of entropy in speech
enhancement is introduced. The process of speech
enhancement is reappeared by multimedia. Meanwhile,
enhanced speech and original speech are added, which
makes students feel the charm of entropy and motivates the
students’ interest.
D. The grasp of quantity and speed in the present
information
Compared with other teaching methods, the high
efficiency of CAI is most outstanding. Firstly, the speed of
demo is very fast. As long as you move the mouse or
keyboard, teaching contents will be displayed, which
improves the classroom efficiency. Secondly, the displayed
contents are very rich and the amount of information is large.
The limitation of time and space could be broken, which
highlights the connection and communication of knowledge.
In essence, compared with the traditional teaching methods,
the application of CAI makes students acquire larger and
richer knowledge. However, when the speed of demo and
the amount of information exceed the accepting range of
students, the high efficiency of CAI will descend seriously.
Therefore, in course teaching of CAI, focusing on the theory
knowledge, the playback speed of PPT can’t be too fast and
the displayed contents of every PPT can’t be too much.

Meanwhile, the demo can be played quickly, which ensures
the high efficiency of CAI.
E. Interaction between teachers and students
In teaching process, interaction between teachers and
students could not only stimulate the learning interest of
students, but also improve the teaching enthusiasm of
teachers. In traditional teaching, students could be attracted
to participate by personal charisma of teachers. In CAI,
multimedia couldn’t be relied absolutely. After all,
computer is lifeless and has not the emotional color. Hence,
632632
in course teaching of CAI, the conclusion and question are
displayed by PPT. The derivation process and the
interpretation of meaning are display by writing on the
blackboard of teachers. The rigorous derivation and cadence
of voice of teachers could provide the auxiliary information.
The interaction between teachers and students could be
finished by the asking questions and rhetorical questions of
teachers and the answers and asking questions of students,
which improves the quality of teaching effectively.
F. Taking advantage of the CAI’s diversity to arouse the
interest of students
As the saying goes, interest is the excellent teacher.
How to arouse the interest of students? This question must
be taken into consideration in teaching. In the course of
Elements of Information Theory, the diversity of CAI is
used. In the application of multimedia, the text, picture,
sound, living example, scientific achievement and the

displayed form of text are referenced properly. The learning
interest of students is aroused to make them feel the
practicability of knowledge.
IV. CONCLUSION
In order to avoid the situation of depending on computer
completely, CAI is introduced into the course teaching of
Elements of Information Theory. The leading status of
teachers and the subject status of students are established.
The matching of color is arranged reasonably. The writing
on the blackboard is organically combined with the
electronic blackboard writing. The dynamic state is
combined with the static state by picture, sound and word of
PPT. The presented amount of information and speed are
controlled reasonably. The interaction between teachers and
students is promoted by the asking question and rhetorical
question. The interest of students is aroused by the diversity
of CAI. Long term practice shows that the proposed method
improves the effect and quality of teaching than traditional
methods.
In a word, CAI is an emerging teaching method that
keeps pace with the times. In the course of development, it is
unavoidable to meet some unthinkable difficulties. However,
as long as the appropriate disposal is applied, the proposed
method must promote modern teaching activity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Education teaching
research projects of Beijing University of Technology in
2015.
REFERENCES

[1] Jianwei Liu, Chunling Liu. “A rational reflection on the
application of
computer assisted instruction in teaching”, International Journal
of
Technology Management, 2014, 4: p110-111.
[2] Henan Tang. “The reflection and exploration of computer
aided
instruction’s application”, Heilongjiang Science, 2013, 11:
p151.
[3] Xuelong Zhu. “Application information processing theory”
[M].
Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2001.5.
633633
Be it Resolved: Scientists and Engineers must
Debate to Create a Better and Peaceful World
Alex Aravind
Department of Computer Science
University of Northern British Columbia, Canada
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract—Scientists and engineers have influenced and
transformed the world in both constructive and destructive
directions. Since politicians and executives are decision
makers, undoubtedly, to a larger extend, they should
share the major blame for many destruction. However,

we believe, it is also the inability and hence the silence of
scientists and engineers (SEs) equally contributed to the
cause. Therefore, it is the time for SEs to take an active
role in shaping the future for our generations to have a
peaceful world.
As computing is influencing every aspect of our life,
computer scientists and engineers (CSEs) have a major
role to play in this mission. For that, they must to be
trained on creative thinking and effective communication.
Debating and technical writing are two most powerful
ways to acquire these skills, and they are generally touted
as requirements mainly for arts, management, and social
science students. We advocate the need for training CSEs
on debating skill so that they can effectively promote a
peaceful world. The big question is how to include debate
in core technical courses? To answer that, we will share
our experience of having debates in some core computer
science courses.
Keywords—soft skills; debate skill; creative thinking; so-
cially responsible scientists and engineers; socially responsi-
ble computer scientists.
I. INTRODUCTION
For humans, learning comes naturally. At young age,
we could learn many complex tasks such as picking
up a language, riding a bicycle, swimming, etc. quite
easily, irrespective of our social, economic, or ethnic
background. We are blessed with unending curiosity, and

we keep learning many basic life skills with little to
no effort. With proper support and effort, learning new
things should not be so difficult. If that is not the case,
we need to re-evaluate the effectiveness of our current
approaches to teaching and learning. Since education has
the greatest ability to influence and shape our society
positively or negatively, teaching and learning cannot be
taken for granted until it is proven effective.
The world has changed so much in the recent past
and is expected to change at a faster rate in the fu-
ture. Education has to catch up to stay relevant. The
accelerated change can be attributed in a large extent
to the growth and applications of computer science. In
the past, knowledge was available only in books. Now,
due to the advancement of computing technologies, it is
available at our fingertips. As a result, change and growth
are fast in all dimensions including society, technology,
environment, etc.

As scientists and engineers have been busy devising
tools and solving mostly technical problems, policy
makers have started to gain enormous control in shaping
the world mostly driven by money and power. This has
taken the world in some catastrophic directions. A well
known example is global warming and its impact to
humanity. Now the question is how do we steer this
trend so that the world could be a peaceful place to
live. The part of the answer, we believe, is that scientists
and engineers should not only be good at devising tools
and solving problems. We should do more by effectively
educating the public to be aware of their good and bad,
and hence influence policy makers to devise policies
towards constructive and peaceful directions. Debate is
a skill required to achieve that goal.
II. DEBATE AS AN ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE
Debate hones several important life skills. Debate is
not only a necessary skill to win arguments, it is also

an effective learning technique. For most, it is fun.
Knowingly or unknowingly, we debate all the time.
Before we outline the benefits of debates, we reproduce
its definition from [13]: “A debate is an equitably struc-
tured communication event about some topic of interest,
with opposing advocates alternating before a decision-
making-body.” It has several important keywords that
978-1-5386-7764-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
need to be emphasized. A debate must be equitably
designed. It brings the aspects of fairness and equality to
the forefront. It must be structured to control time and
the communication pattern, and that, in turn, will help
to prepare and sharpen strategies and arguments.
One of America’s leading debate proponents, Robert
Branham, lists four characteristics of argument for a
true debate [13]:(i) development of ideas and positions
(involves description, explanation, and demonstration);
(ii) clash (refuting ideas); extension (defending ideas

against refutation); and (iv) perspective (derive essence
or sum of ideas and arguments and relate it to a larger
question at hand). During the developmental phase of
a debate, students are forced to deeply examine and
conduct research on the topic at hand. This process
involves applying logic, reason, and analysis to formulate
an idea or opinion. Then, they must construct a plan
to unify their positions. This requires leadership, team-
work, and effective coordination and communication. In
essence, debate is a dynamic learning process involving
taking a position, expressing a point of view, contem-
plating alternates, looking for connectivity, and more
importantly, being calm and composed to keep the team
engaged.
Debate has a long list of benefits [1], [3], [7], [9]–
[11], [13], [14]. Some important benefits are that it:
(i) enables participation and involvement; (ii) enforces
the participants to provide response; (iii) engages the
participants in independent thinking; (iv) forces the par-

ticipants to pay attention and listen; (v) compels partici-
pants to analyze, create logical connectivity, and expose
inconsistencies and contradictions; (vi) heightens the
participants’ mental alertness and quick thinking; (vii)
encourages the participants to deconstruct and articulate
ideas; (viii) forces the participants to think on their feet;
(ix) sharpens spontaneity; (x) helps participants to reduce
fear and anxiety; (xi) increases participants’ clarity,
encourages critical thinking, and builds self confidence;
(xii) helps to understand different modes of influence
(e.g., persuasion), and hence, prepares to apply and
resist appropriately; (xiii) provides opportunities for the
participants to understand and appreciate different points
of view on the same issue and different solutions to the
same problem; etc.
III. DEBATE IN COMPUTER SCIENCE
When the concept of having debates in a computer
science course was brought to the attention of others,

the immediate reaction was: How do you have debate
in a highly technical subject like computer architecture
and organization? From our experience, as computer
science courses are enriched with creativity, powerful
ideas, techniques, and theories, incorporating debate in
computer science courses is easy and highly relevant.
Obviously, debate can be used to gain a deeper under-
standing of the important subject matters and big topics.
The skills developed through such exclusive debates can
implicitly help group works that are the norm in com-
puter science projects. Debating is a dynamic process.
First, it can be used to learn technical matters. Then,
through the experience gained, personal and professional
skills can be cultivated and enriched throughout the study
period. For example, in computer science, designing,
building, testing, and managing systems quite often
involves group work. The debate processes could be
effectively applied to execute these tasks involved in the

courses.
A. Impact of Debate in CS Education
Since debate involves higher-order critical thinking
skills such as defining the problem, building arguments,
researching for evidence, assessing the credibility of
sources, identifying and challenging assumptions, rec-
ognizing inconsistencies, prioritizing the relevance of
multiple viewpoints, etc., its impact on overall develop-
ment of cognitive and communication skills is evident
[1]–[3], [9], [13], [14]. In addition to deepening the
understanding of the subject matter, debate has the
potential to enrich social skills such as receptiveness,
respecting others’ view, helping each other, convincing
others, etc. Such social skills are valued as vital not
only for success in most careers [12], but also for life
in general [6], [10], [13], [15]. Therefore, we believe
that the impact of debate on computer science education
need not be different [6], [8], [15]. Though we have

not collected any formal survey or feedback from the
students who participated in the course debates, we did
receive informal and anecdotal feedback. The reactions
from the students were highly positive, confirming our
initial belief.
When debate was introduced in Fall 2014 into our
operating systems course, the initial reaction from sev-
eral students were mixed; they reluctantly agreed. Some
openly doubted its use in the computer science courses,
particularly highly technical subjects like operating sys-
tems. For them, only social science students needed
debating skills, and also only social science topics could
be debated. Some wondered what kind of topics from
core course like operating systems could be debated.
Slowly, this nebulous feeling started to fade once they
started their research on the topics. The competitive
nature brought enthusiasm among students about the idea

of debating, and at the end, most students liked it. A
few international students for whom English was their
second language understood the benefits of debate, but
expressed reservation due to their language difficulty.
However, once debate became an integral component of
some of our courses, it became one of the trademarks
of our teaching style. Students now have accepted it
and many explicitly appreciate the idea of debate and
the technical report on the topic. Some even consider
them as the main strengths of the course. In our view,
debate not only helped students to enrich their skills and
understand the topics deeply, it also left them with a
positive memory about the experience.
IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Since its birth in the mid 1940s, computer science has
grown as an attractive discipline encompassing science,
engineering, art, business, and everyday life [4]. In
the scientific domain, it has emerged as the “fourth

great domain of science”, after physical, life, and social
sciences [5], [6]. In the modern world, it is hard to
imagine anything in our day-to-day life that does not
touch computing in some sort. Computer science has all
the motivations to be learned and engaged with.
As computer science has influenced and influencing
the world in every aspect, it is also our responsibility to
steer the world in the positive direction. That requires us
to become better debaters as well.
REFERENCES
[1] K. L. Alford and J. R. Surdu, Using In-Class Debates as a
Teaching Tool, Frontiers in Education, S1F:10-15, 2002.
[2] L. Blume et al., A “Communication Skills for Computer
Scientists” Course, Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’09),
277-282), 2009.
[3] M. Darby, Debate: A Teaching-Learning Strategy for Devel-
oping Competence in Communication and Critical Thinking,
Journal of Dental Hygiene, 81(4):1-10, 2007.
[4] P. J. Denning, Great Principles of Computing, CACM,
46(11):15-20, 2003.

[5] P. J. Denning, Is Computer Science Science? CACM,
48(4):27-31, 2005.
[6] P. J. Denning and P. S. Rosenbloom, Computing: The Fourth
Great Domain of Science, Communications of the ACM,
52:(9):27-29, 2009.
[7] S. Freeman et. al., Active Learning Increases Student Per-
formance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics, Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS),
111(23):8410-8415, 2014.
[8] J. T. Havill and L. D. Ludwig, Technically Speaking:
Foster-
ing the Communication Skills of Computer Science and Math-
ematics Students, Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’07),
185-189, 2007.
[9] R. R. Kennedy, The Power of in-class Debates, Active
Learn-
ing in Higher Education, 10(3):225-236, 2009.
[10] Y. Levin, The Great Debate, Edmund Burke, Thomas
Paine,
and the Birth of Right and Left, Basic Book, New York, 2014.
[11] S. Quinn, Debating in the World School Style: A Guide,
IDEBATE Press, 2009.
[12] A. Radermacher and G. Walia, Gaps Between Industry
Expec-
tations and the Abilities of Graduates, Proceeding of the 44th
ACM technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
(SIGCSE ’13), 525-530, 2013.

[13] A. Snider and M. Schnurer, Many Sides: Debate Across the
Curriculum, DEBATE Press, International Debate Education
Association, 2006.
[14] C. S. Stuetzle, Public Debate Format for the Development
of Soft Skill Competency in Computer Science Curricula,
Proceedings of the 12th Annual Consortium for Computing
Sciences in Colleges Northeastern Conference, 2015.
[15] M. M. Waldrop, The Science of Teaching Science, (Why
we
are teaching science wrong, and how to make it right), Nature,
523:272-274, 2015.
The Myth of Social Capital
in Community Development
James DeFilippis
King’s College, London
Abstract
This article argues that contemporary interest in social capital
by community develop-
ment theorists, funders, and practitioners is misguided and
needs to be thoroughly re-
thought. It argues that social capital, as understood by Robert
Putnam and people in-
fluenced by his work, is a fundamentally flawed concept
because it fails to understand
issues of power in the production of communities and because it
is divorced from eco-

nomic capital. Therefore, community development practice
based on this understanding
of social capital is, and will continue to be, similarly flawed.
The article further argues that instead of Putnam’s
understanding of social capital,
community development practice would be better served by
returning to the way the
concept was used by Glenn Loury and Pierre Bourdieu and
concludes with a discussion
of how these alternative theories of social capital can be
realized in community devel-
opment practice.
Keywords: Development/revitalization; Urban environment
Introduction
The extremely rapid rise of social capital is one of the dominant
trends
in American social science and public policy over the past
decade, and
this is particularly true of work in housing and community
development.
This was obvious at the spring 1999 meeting of the Urban
Affairs Asso-
ciation in Louisville, KY. Social capital was the organizing
theme of the
conference, and emphasis was placed on how social capital can
be gener-
ated in low-income communities in the United States. If the
meeting
was any indication, social capital had, in only about half a
decade, be-
come one of the principal concerns of community development
practi-

tioners and researchers. Shortly thereafter, two students walked
into
their high school in the affluent suburb of Littleton, CO, and
began
shooting their classmates. This tragic event sparked debates in
Ameri-
can public life, among them the issue of the isolation and
alienation of
much of suburban life (Hamilton 1999; Schiff 1999).
Of course, this was not a new criticism to be lodged against the
suburbs;
people have been making it for quite some time (Friedan 1963;
Jackson
1985; Langdon 1994; Wood 1958). But, the feeling of isolation
in afflu-
ent suburbs (which are now only a segment of the much more
race- and
class-diverse suburban world) took on new strength in the 1990s
and
Housing Policy Debate · Volume 12, Issue 4 781
© Fannie Mae Foundation 2001. All Rights Reserved. 781
resulted in, among other things, the rapid growth of both the
cohousing
and New Urbanist movements (Hanson 1996; Katz 1994; Knack
1996;
McCamant and Durrett 1988; Muschamp 1996; Talen 1999).
But, this sense of isolation presents a problem. If people who
are afflu-
ent in the United States are struggling with social
disconnectedness

and isolation, why are people who are concerned with economic
develop-
ment in low-income areas emphasizing the importance of social
connec-
tions and networks as a way of moving low-income people and
commu-
nities out of poverty? There seems, in short, to be disjuncture
between,
on the one hand, the experiences of the affluent and, on the
other, the
prescriptions for the poor in American life. This disjuncture, in
and of
itself, should lead people to question the utility of the social
capital
framework in community economic development.
This article will discuss the meanings and uses of social capital
and
argue that its recently acquired privileged position in
community eco-
nomic development is misguided. To be specific, however, this
article is
not an argument that social capital does not matter or that it is
not an
important component in the production and reproduction of
individual
success and class status. Instead, the argument is that we need
to be
very careful about how we define and use the term social
capital. Social
capital is an “elastic term” (Moore Lappe and Du Bois 1997,
119), with
a variety of meanings. But the understanding of social capital
that has
become incorporated into community development theory and
practice

is the social capital of Robert Putnam (1993a, 1993b, 1995,
1996, 1998,
2000), in which the term is both combined with notions of civil
society
and assumed to be a principal engine of economic growth and
democra-
tic government. Putnam’s arguments, however, are deeply
flawed and
have little empirical or theoretical support, so community
development
work informed by his framework will be similarly flawed and
misguid-
ed. Before making these arguments, however, this article will
briefly
discuss the concept of social capital and how it has evolved
through its
use by Loury (1977), Bourdieu (1985), Coleman (1988) and
then, ulti-
mately, Putnam (1993a, 1993b, 1995, 1996, 2000) and his
followers.
What is social capital?1
While time and space constraints do not permit a thorough
description
of the enormous literature on social capital that has emerged in
the past
seven or so years (Chupp 1999; Fine 2001; Foley and Edwards
1997,
1998; Portes 1998; Wills 2000), it is important to briefly
describe the dif-
ferent meanings given to the term. It is unclear who first used
the term,
but an important early use came from Loury (1977) in a book
chapter

782 James DeFilippis
1 This section borrows heavily from Portes’s presidential
address to the American Soci-
ological Association (1998).
that criticized the narrowly individualistic and atomistic
understanding
of human capital in neoclassical economic theory. He wrote:
The social context within which individual maturation occurs
strongly conditions what otherwise equally competent
individuals
can achieve. This implies that absolute equality of opportunity,
where
an individual’s chance to succeed depends only on his or her
innate
capabilities, is an ideal that cannot be achieved.…An
individual’s
social origin has an obvious and important effect on the amount
of
resources that is ultimately invested in his or her development.
It
may thus be useful to employ a concept of “social capital” to
repre-
sent the consequences of social position in facilitating
acquisition of
the standard human capital characteristics. (Loury 1977, 176)
Loury was unquestionably right in this assessment, and
certainly some-
one growing up in East New York, Brooklyn, or the South Side
of Chica-
go is not starting from the same position as someone growing up

in
Greenwich, CT, or Glencoe, IL. This is stating the obvious. But
Loury
needed to make the argument because this apparently self-
evident state-
ment of reality was clearly not self-evident to human capital
theorists
who, following Becker (1957, 1964), had come to dominate
labor theo-
ries in American economics. Human capital formation, instead
of being
understood as the inherently social process that it is—for
example, no
one goes to school in isolation from the context in which that
school is
located, administered, or funded—had come to be almost
completely
about individual achievement or lack of it.
A concurrently developed theory of social capital came from
French
sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1985),2 who is relatively
underused in the
current literature on social capital in community development.
This is
unfortunate because his is probably the most theoretically
useful and
sophisticated attempt to deal with the issue. Bourdieu’s (1985)
use of
the term social capital is an explicit attempt to understand the
produc-
tion of classes and class divisions. Social capital, while being
constituted
by social networks and relationships, is never disconnected
from capital.
Capital, for Bourdieu (1985), is simultaneously both economic

and a set
of power relations that constitute a variety of realms and social
inter-
actions normally thought of as noneconomic. Two key
components of his
work have been lost in current discussions of social capital.
First, the
production, and reproduction, of capital is a process that is
inherently
about power. In fact, Bourdieu’s (1985) conception of capital is
such that
he almost conceives of capital and power as synonymous.
Second, since
his interest is in the social production of classes, he
distinguishes be-
tween the social networks that an individual is embedded in,
and out of
which social capital precipitates (or emerges), and the outcomes
of those
social relationships. That is, social networks should not simply
be equat-
ed to the products of those social relationships, for doing so
would ren-
The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development 783
2 Similarly, this section draws heavily on the work of Fine
(1998, 1999, 2001).
der invisible social networks that might be very dense but
nonetheless
unable to generate resources because of lack of access.
Despite these earlier efforts, the person who brought social

capital into
the mainstream in the American social sciences was clearly
James
Coleman (1988), who argued:
Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity
but
a variety of different entities, with two elements in common:
they
all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they
facilitate cer-
tain actions of actors…within the structure. Like other forms of
cap-
ital, social capital is productive, making possible the
achievement of
certain ends that in its absence would not be possible. Like
physical
and human capital, social capital is not completely fungible but
may
be specific to certain activities. A given form of social capital
that is
valuable in facilitating certain actions may be useless or even
harm-
ful for others. Unlike other forms of capital, social capital
inheres in
the structure of relations between actors and among actors.
(S98)
With this rather “fuzzy” definition (Markusen 1999; Portes
1998), Cole-
man (1988) then defines different sets of actions, outcomes, and
rela-
tionships as social capital. Social capital for him is inherently
functional,
and social capital is whatever allows people or institutions to
act. Social

capital is therefore not a mechanism, a thing, or an outcome, but
simul-
taneously any or all of them. Portes (1998) sees this as a vital
step in
the evolution and proliferation of the idea of social capital and
states:
“Coleman himself started that proliferation by including under
the term
some of the mechanisms that generated social capital; the
consequences
of its possession; and the ‘appropriable’ social organization that
provided
the context for both sources and effects to materialize” (5).
Finally, social
capital, for Coleman (1988), is normatively and morally neutral.
That is,
it is neither desirable nor undesirable; it simply allows actions
to take
place by providing the needed resources.
Putnam and the proliferation of social capital theory
Although Coleman’s 1988 work brought social capital into use
in the
social sciences, the principal source of the idea for community
develop-
ment practitioners and researchers is Robert Putnam (1993a,
1993b,
1995, 1996, 2000). With his work, social capital is thoroughly
redefined
and becomes extremely influential in development studies, both
in the
United States (Gittell and Vidal 1998; Lang and Hornburg 1998;
Miller
1997; Moore Lappe and Du Bois 1997; Schulgasser 1999;
Servon 1999;

Temkin and Rohe 1998; Wallis 1998; Wallis, Crocker, and
Schechter
1998; Wilson 1997) and internationally. In fact, to many people
in the
World Bank, social capital has become “the missing link” in
global eco-
nomic development (Harriss and de Renzio 1997). Describing
the impact
of Putnam’s social capital on community development, Chupp
bluntly
states, “In the debate over poor neighborhoods and the ills of
society as
a whole, social capital has become something of a wonder drug”
(1999,
2). Further, Putnam’s redefinition of social capital is almost as
dramatic
as the widespread impact of his argument, and it therefore
requires
considerable discussion here. This article argues that with
Putnam’s re-
definition, social capital ceases to be a useful framework for
local or
community economic development.
There are several key transitions that occur when Putnam first
uses
the term social capital in Making Democracy Work (1993a), his
book
on Italian politics. And while he has expanded and developed
his views
since then, he has not fundamentally altered them. First, social

capital
is transformed from something realized by individuals to
something
possessed (or not possessed) by either individuals or groups of
people
in regions, communities, cities, countries, or continents.
Second, it is
conflated with civil society, or more accurately, with a
particular neo-
Tocquevillean view of civil society. Thus, voluntary,
nongovernment asso-
ciations, based on trust, become the institutions through which
social
capital is generated. Third, it becomes primarily a normatively
good
thing and is given credit for (a) promoting good, democratic
government
and (b) generating and sustaining economic growth and
development.
Finally, when Putnam brings this framework to the American
context,
he does so by making the argument that social capital and civil
society
are declining in the United States and have been since the mid-
1960s
(1993b, 1995, 1996, 2000) and that this trend portends long-
term eco-
nomic and political trouble. These issues will be addressed in
turn,
before turning to the problems with them and their applications
in
community development efforts.
Loury (1977), Bourdieu (1985), and Coleman (1988) all argued
that social
capital is not embodied in any particular person, but rather is

embedded
in people’s social relationships. At the same time, however,
they also
stated that social capital was realized by individuals. Putnam,
converse-
ly, has argued that social capital is a resource that individuals
or groups
of people possess or fail to possess (Portes 1998; Portes and
Landolt
1996). At the outset of his first article on the issue, he states,
“Working
together is easier in a community blessed with a substantial
stock of
social capital” (Putnam 1993b, 36). Communities, not people,
possess
“stocks” of social capital. He has since made this transition
from the in-
dividual to the larger group more explicit and states, “Social
capital can
thus be simultaneously a ‘private good’ and a ‘public good’ ”
(Putnam
2000, 20). What is important to note is that despite his emphasis
on
social networks and his moving social capital from the scale of
the in-
dividual to the scale of the group, Putnam measures social
capital with
a form of methodological individualism (Skocpol 1996). In his
research
on social capital in the United States, Putnam (1995, 1996,
2000) uses
social survey data to observe the level of social involvement of
individ-
uals and then simply aggregates up from there to whatever scale
is

being observed. While this might seem a trivial observation, it
is, as
will be demonstrated later, key to his, and his followers’,
understanding
of “community.”
Coleman’s (1988) definition, by its lack of clarity, left the door
open for
a variety of sources of social capital, and Putnam uses that
vagueness
to seize on trust-based voluntary associations (one of the
several exam-
ples Coleman offers), and his understanding of them as the
constituents
of civil society, as the key source of social capital for
communities, re-
gions, and so on. Putnam argues that “social capital refers to the
norms
and networks of civil society that lubricate cooperative action
among
both citizens and their institutions” (1998, v; emphasis in the
original).
Social capital and civil society therefore become conflated, and
the two
are almost synonymous. This transition has dramatic
implications for
the political and theoretical understandings of social capital.
This view of social capital and civil society, unlike Coleman’s
(1988),
Loury’s (1977), and Bourdieu’s (1985), is one in which they are
largely

assumed to be a normatively good thing. While Putnam
certainly rec-
ognizes that there are potentially “negative” forms of social
capital, the
overwhelming balance of his work is about its benefits. And he
argues
that they are, in fact, necessary for the functioning of both a
responsive
democratic government and the economic growth and well-being
of
places. He states:
An impressive and growing body of research suggests that civic
con-
nections help make us healthy, wealthy and wise. Living
without
social capital is not easy, whether one is a villager in southern
Italy
or a poor person in the American inner city or a well-heeled
entre-
preneur in a high-tech industrial district. (Putnam 2000, 287)
This understanding of civil society and social capital has its
roots in
Putnam’s reading of Alexis de Tocqueville’s (1835) view of
civil society
and democracy, and it is therefore necessary to take a moment
to dis-
cuss this perspective. De Tocqueville visited the United States
in the
1830s and believed that one of the defining components of
Democracy
in America (1835) was the propensity of Americans to create
and join
voluntary associations that were in the domains of neither the
state

nor the market. Putnam acknowledges his debt to de Tocqueville
and
states, “Recently, American social scientists of a neo-
Tocquevillean bent
have unearthed a wide range of empirical evidence that the
quality of
public life and the performance of social institutions are indeed
power-
fully influenced by norms and networks of civic engagement”
(1995, 66).
His reading of de Tocqueville strongly suggests that networks
of trust
and voluntary associations are “win-win” sets of relationships
in which
everyone involved benefits. This is evident in his basic
definition of the
idea. He states, “Social capital refers to connections among
individuals—
social networks and the norms of reciprocity and
trustworthiness that
arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to
what
some have called ‘civic virtue’ ” (Putnam 2000, 19). Voluntary
associa-
tions, therefore, are not confrontational encounters based on
vested in-
terests, but rather “features of social life—networks, norms, and
trust—
that enable participants to come together to pursue shared
objectives”
(Putnam 1996, 34; emphasis added). Bowling leagues, PTAs,

Elks Clubs,
church groups, and trade unions (Putnam 1995) are therefore
theoreti-
cally, politically, and morally comparable. Even though he
examines
them individually in his recent book (Putnam 2000), they all
perform
very similar functions.
But, the benefits of social capital and civil society extend
beyond simply
promoting and supporting democratic institutions of government
to
generating and sustaining economic growth. Putnam argues,
“Studies
of the rapidly growing economies of East Asia almost always
emphasize
the importance of dense social networks, so that these
economies are
sometimes said to represent a new brand of ‘network capitalism’
” (1993a,
38). At his boldest (referring to the Italian case), he states,
“These com-
munities did not become civic simply because they were rich.
The his-
torical record suggests precisely the opposite: They have
become rich
because they were civic.…Development economists take note:
civics
matters” (1993a, 37). And most recently he states, “Where trust
and
social networks flourish, individuals, firms, neighborhoods and
even
nations prosper” (Putnam 2000, 319). It is this understanding of
social
capital—that it is central to the economic development of

communities
and regions and nations—which has inspired its rapid
incorporation
into the community economic development literature in the
United
States and the underdeveloped world.
Putnam became famous, however, not simply as a neo-
Tocquevillean,
but as someone who documented the decline in civil society and
social
capital in the United States. His thesis has been much discussed,
so it
need not be dealt with in any detail here. Briefly, he has argued
(Putnam
1995, 1996, 2000) that the United States has witnessed a
withdrawal
from civil society and a decline in social capital. He argues that
the de-
cline of social capital is a generational process in which people
who were
born in the 1910s and 1920s were (and are) more civicly
engaged than
their counterparts who were born from the 1930s on. He
accordingly
dates this withdrawal as having begun in the early to mid-1960s.
Putnam’s followers in community development3
Putnam and his arguments have rapidly become central to the
research
and practice of community development in the United States.
One of
the striking things about this explosion of research and practice
around
his view of social capital and civil society is how it has largely

ignored
3 The phrase “Putnam’s followers” is borrowed from Gittell and
Vidal (1998).
an enormous volume of research and literature by academics
(Edwards
and Foley 1997, 1998; Fine 1998, 1999, 2000; Foley and
Edwards 1997,
1998; Galston 1996; Portes 1998; Portes and Landolt 1996;
Schudson
1996; Skocpol 1996), people in the popular press (Lemann
1996; Pollitt
1996), and activists (Bowles 1999; Durlauf 1999) who have
criticized
almost every component of these arguments. Instead, much
work in
community development is broadly accepting of Putnam’s
arguments
about the importance of social capital, understood as voluntary
associ-
ations and civic trust, in the promotion of economic growth and
prosper-
ity. In fact, to some researchers, Putnam’s views have become
almost
axiomatic, and in the first sentence in her article on social
capital Wil-
son unambiguously states: “Social capital creates local
economic pros-
perity” (1997, 745). In their introduction to a special issue of
Housing
Policy Debate devoted solely to social capital, Lang and

Hornburg (1998)
reiterate Putnam’s arguments and state:
Political scientist Robert Putnam expanded and ultimately
popular-
ized the concept of social capital. Putnam originally applied the
idea
to a study of Italian regional governments. He showed that the
key
element underlying the difference between Tuscany’s successful
re-
gional government and Sicily’s failed one was the degree of
“civic en-
gagement.”…Putnam also argued that social capital is connected
to
economic development. Tuscany’s high level of social capital
elevates
its standard of living. It provides the region a social
environment in
which productive cooperation in all spheres of civic life is
possible.
Thus, social capital promotes economic growth. (3; emphasis
added)
Similarly, when the Urban Affairs Association held its annual
conference
in 1999, it was titled “The Social Reconstruction of the City:
Social Cap-
ital and Community Building.” This is certainly not to suggest
that
everyone at the meetings accepted Putnam’s arguments, but
rather to
observe that his work provided the very framework and context
for dis-
cussions. Foundations have similarly incorporated Putnam’s
arguments

into their work, and both the Local Initiatives Support
Corporation
(LISC) and the Mott Foundation have made the construction of
social
capital a central component of their antipoverty and community
devel-
opment frameworks. (See Gittell and Vidal [1998] and Wallis,
Crocker,
and Schechter [1998] respectively, for thorough discussions of
these two
funding initiatives.) In the case of LISC, this has yielded a
perspective
on community development organizing that stresses
“nonconfrontation-
al” methods, and an incorporation of Michael Eichler’s
framework of
“consensus organizing” (Gittell and Vidal 1998, 2). Given that
social cap-
ital is being understood as both a set of win-win relationships
based on
mutual interest and a promoter of economic prosperity and
development,
this is a logical way for community organizers and community
develop-
ment practitioners to operate. Thus, Putnam’s view of social
capital and
voluntary civic associations is being played out in the streets of
Ameri-
can cities. The problem with all of this is that social capital, as
Putnam
has defined and operationalized it, does not necessarily promote

com-
munity economic development (or, for that matter, democratic
govern-
ment).
The problems with Putnam and his followers
Returning to the way Putnam transformed the idea of social
capital, I
will now present the theoretical and empirical flaws in his
analysis and
argue that if we are to use the notion of social capital in
community
development we would be much better served by returning to
how it
was understood by Loury (1977) or Bourdieu (1985). I will go
through
Putnam’s transformations of social capital in the same order
that they
were presented.
Individuals, communities, and power
First, Putnam defines social capital as something that is
possessed, or
not possessed, by individuals, communities, cities, nations, etc.
He and
his followers then measure its existence by simply taking
individual
attributes and aggregating up to the scale being measured. There
are
two problems with this argument and its associated
methodology. First,
places are not things. A community cannot possess anything. An
institu-
tion or an individual can possess something, but a community

cannot.
Instead, communities are products of complicated sets of social,
politi-
cal, cultural, and economic relationships (DeFilippis 1999;
Massey 1994).
Communities are outcomes, not actors. They are, however,
outcomes
that affect and constrain future possibilities. Communities
unquestion-
ably matter, but they are not actors that exhibit any form of
agency. This
might seem like a semantic argument, but this first problem
leads to
the second one. That is, no place (a community, a region, or
whatever) is
solely a function of the internal attributes of the people living
and work-
ing there. If communities are outcomes, they are not simply
outcomes
of the characteristics of those within them, they are also
outcomes of a
complex set of power-laden relationships—both internally,
within the
communities, and externally, between actors in the communities
and the
rest of the world. Citibank (for instance) and its lending
practices, state
governments and their education financing policies, and
communities
in other countries with soon-to-be emigrants are all very real
examples
of how America’s urban communities are products of a whole
host of
relations that extend geographically well beyond the place of
the com-
munity. These relations are often contentious (school funding

issues is a
classic example) and are always imbued with issues of power.
Only by
ignoring these vitally important, power-laden connections can
we as-
sume that communities are the products of the attributes of the
individ-
uals who live and work in them. Similarly, only by ignoring
these con-
nections can we assume that we can move from the level of the
individ-
ual to the level of community (or city, or region) or that
individual gains
and profits are the same as group, or community, gains and
profits.
Putnam does try to get at this reality with his concept of
“bridging
capital” (1995, 1996, 2000), which has been generally accepted
within
the community development work that has followed him. But
once we
accept the complexity of the internal and external relationships
that
produce a community, we clearly need something more than
bridging
capital as the means to economic development. For instance,
individuals
in exurban gated communities of Orange County, CA, and
indeed in
much of the rest of the country are largely devoid of bridging

capital (at
the community level). As Putnam himself states in his brief
discussion
of gated communities, “Not only are canvassing politicians and
Girl
Scouts selling cookies excluded from exclusive communities,
but the af-
fluent residents themselves also appear to have a surprisingly
low rate
of civic engagement and neighborliness even within their
boundaries”
(2000, 210). The importance of this example is that not only are
these
communities disconnected, but they are also usually
exceedingly
wealthy. The relationships that produce gated communities are
based
on the protection of their affluence through their class- and
race-based
social and geographic isolation from much, if not most, of the
metropol-
itan areas around them. It is not connections that partially
produce and
reproduce their wealth, but exactly the opposite: isolation.
Connections,
or “bridges” do not, of themselves, make the people in any
place rich or
poor. The important question is, Who controls the terms of any
relation-
ships or connections (or lack of connections)? “Bridging
capital” is really
needed only if a community’s residents are poor and therefore
on the
losing end of a set of power relations. What needs to change are
those
power relations, not the level of connections.

Social capital and civil society
The second transition that Putnam makes is to confuse social
capital
with a particular neo-Tocquevillean reading of civil society.
This transi-
tion has two important implications for community development
prac-
tice. First, this reading of civil society assumes that social
capital and
civil society are almost always good things that enable people
to act to-
ward their shared interests and goals, based on the trust, norms,
and
values that develop through their associations. But this is, at
best, a
highly selective reading of civil society. Putnam bases his
understand-
ing of civil society on the popular simplification of the views de
Tocque-
ville expressed in 1835 in Democracy in America. But de
Tocqueville’s
view of civil society is both much more complex than Putnam
and his
followers acknowledge, and further, it is but one in a very long,
and high-
ly contested, history of debate about civil society in Western
thought. As
Foley and Edwards correctly observe:
Tocqueville argues that America’s associational life springs

from
the twin social and political conditions of the new nation—and
those conditions are, in his eyes and those of his intended audi-
ence, inherently problematic. The social condition, the
relatively
egalitarian character of American society, plays an explicit role
in
Tocqueville’s account of the genesis of American
associationism. The
political freedoms Americans enjoy play a generally supporting
role,
but an essential one. American egalitarianism poses serious
prob-
lems for public life to de Tocqueville’s mind…a general
leveling
promotes mediocrity and conformism.…Associations arise to
fill
these deficiencies. (1997, 554)
De Tocqueville’s voluntary associations arose as win-win
situations pre-
cisely because the interests of the people involved were shared.
De Toc-
queville visited the United States before the emergence of
industrial
capitalism and the classes it created. Also, there is little doubt
that if
slaves had been allowed to participate in such associations
(which they
clearly were not), then the image of voluntary associations
would be a
very different one indeed. Putnam’s view is possible only if you
erase
the very real material interests that divide us (and even then, it
is still
questionable) and create a vision of civil society as solely

constituted by
people and groups with mutual interests. That is why Putnam
lumps
trade unions together with PTAs and church groups and views
them as
comparable (1993b, 1995, 1996). If he had included local
Chambers of
Commerce with local unions, the implausibility of his argument
would
have been even clearer. This understanding of voluntary
associations
as win-win relationships also allows him to ignore the power
relations
that play such an important role in intergroup relations. Simply
put,
certain social networks are in greater positions of power than
others,
and they can therefore yield much more substantial returns to
their
members when those networks are engaged in social or political
conflict.
Given that people in low-income areas are marginalized in the
Ameri-
can political economy, this is a substantial omission—and
limiting fac-
tor—in the potential uses of Putnam’s social capital framework
in com-
munity organizing and development.
The second important aspect of conflating social capital with
civil society
is that it divorces social capital from capital itself. But for
social capital
to have any meaning, it must remain connected to the
production and
reproduction of capital in society. This is striking because it is

the role
of social capital in community economic development that
should be of
the greatest importance to community development
practitioners. Com-
munity development is about many things, but central to them
must be
the economic security and progress of people in low-income
communities
and the economic development of the communities themselves.
But given
Putnam’s separation of social capital from economics, it is not
surpris-
ing that the economic impact of Putnam’s social capital is so
difficult to
observe and measure. This is because it might not even exist.
Social capital and economic growth
Putnam argues that social capital and civil society (comprised
of volun-
tary associations) promote economic growth (1993a, 1993b,
1995, 1996,
1998, 2000). But there is little theoretical or empirical support
for this
assertion. His own examples, aside from Italy, which is beyond
the scope
of this article (his interpretation of Italian politics and
economics has
been called into question by other specialists on Italy; see
Goldberg
[1996], Harriss and de Renzio [1997], Sabetti [1996], and

Tarrow [1996]
for summaries of these criticisms), betray the problems in his
own argu-
ment. Putnam uses the examples of immigrant enclaves in
American
cities, the “network capitalism” of East and Southeast Asia, and
the “ero-
sion of social capital” (Putnam 1993b, 39) in our inner cities as
examples
that social capital generates economic growth (or, inversely,
that the
lack of social capital arrests economic growth). The first two of
these
will be addressed now, and the third shortly.
First, Putnam is certainly right that social ties based on trust
and
networks among immigrants have helped them prosper in the
United
States. That has been a feature of the immigrant experience for
quite
some time. But again, because he views communities as
coherent
wholes, internally defined and detached from other sets of
communities,
he fails to see the impact of these networks in any larger
context. Cole-
man’s (1988) often cited example, which Putnam and his
followers draw
on, is that of the diamond industry in New York and how market
trans-
actions involving large quantities of jewels are facilitated by
the social
networks of trust within the Jewish community that controls the
indus-
try. Aside from the complete denial of the exploitation that

takes place
within ethnic enclave economies (Waldinger 1986), the problem
with
this, and every other enclave like it, is that it completely closes
off the
market, and access to the market, to anyone who is not part of
the
ethnic group creating the enclave. A brilliant, hard-working,
innovative
Irish Catholic immigrant (for instance) who wanted to enter the
dia-
mond trade in New York City would have an exceptionally
difficult time
doing so. Or to move from the hypothetical to the real, as a
result of
large flows of capital into the real estate market in New York,
Harlem
has been experiencing substantial development in recent years.
This
should be a good thing and beneficial to black contractors and
workers
in the community. The reality, however, is that the construction
industry
in New York is controlled by an immigrant enclave (in this case
Italians),
and so the contracting firms and their employees in Harlem have
been
largely excluded from the dollars and jobs that this investment
has
brought (Siegal 2000).
The response to this example could be that Harlem contractors
simply
need to be better connected or have more substantial stocks of
“bridging
capital,” but that would miss the point, which is this: If social

capital
as sets of networks means anything, it means that some people
will be
connected and others will not. Simply put, if there is one job,
and every-
one is connected to the same networks and realizes the same
benefits
of social capital, then you cease to have the kinds of networks
that Put-
nam and Coleman are talking about. Instead you have the pure
market
of Adam Smith’s theorizations. If everyone is connected, then
everyone
by definition would lose the benefits of those connections
because they
would no longer gain capital from them (in this case, the job).
Putnam
observes, “It is no accident that one of the pervasive strategems
of ambi-
tious yuppies is ‘networking’ ” (1993b, 38). But what he fails to
realize
is that yuppies network precisely to get ahead of everyone else.
If they
shared the fruits of their networking with others, they would
cease to
be ambitious and become charitable instead. They would, in
fact, not
only be acting charitably, but acting against their own self-
interest. This
is one of the primary reasons why it is simply untenable to
move from

the level of the individual to the level of community in issues of
econom-
ics. For social capital to make sense as a concept in a market
economy,
then networks, formal or informal, must operate in the
competitive
realm of market relations. And while the individuals in such a
network
might share common interests that allow them to act as a
network,
these networks, because of the competitive nature of capitalism,
cannot
be extended to everyone in society. Max Weber, the influential
sociologist
and political economist, wrote at length in 1925 on the role of
social
networks in economics in The Theory of Social and Economic
Organi-
zation and is instructive on this point. He stated:
[A relationship] is especially likely to be closed, for rational
reasons,
in the following type of situation: a social relationship may
provide
the parties to it with opportunities for satisfaction of various
inter-
ests, whether the satisfactions be spiritual or material.…If the
par-
ticipants expect the admission of others will lead to an
improvement
of their situation…their interest will be in keeping the
relationship
open. If, on the other hand, their expectations are of improving
their
position by monopolistic tactics, their interest is in a closed
relation-

ship. (Weber 1993 edition, 139–40)
If the social capital in question is a network that helps people
find
employment (or get into the right prep school, or whatever), it
would
clearly be in the interest of those realizing and appropriating the
social
capital (the job or place in the school) to keep the network as
closed as
possible. This is precisely what the ethnic enclave economies
have dem-
onstrated. To have any value as a term, social capital must
retain a
connection to economic capital, and it must therefore be
premised on
the ability of certain people to realize it at the expense of
others. While
economics is not a zero-sum game, it is also not simply a set of
win-win
relationships.
But the economic shortcomings of social capital extend beyond
its nec-
essary exclusions and into the realm of economic
unsustainability.
Putnam consistently celebrates in his articles the emergence of
“network
capitalism” in East and Southeast Asia and argues that these
countries
demonstrate the validity of his point that networks of trust and

mutual
interest generate economic growth (1993b, 1995, 1996, 1998).
The prob-
lem with this example is that by the middle of 1997, the East
Asian and
Southeast Asian economies had collapsed, and by the end of
1997, much
of the economic world had decided that the cause of the
collapse was
“crony capitalism” (“How Far Is Down?” 1997; “A Lorry-Load
of Trouble
in Asia” 1997; “Asia and the Abyss” 1997).
In short, the networks of trust and mutual cooperation in Asia
that Put-
nam is so supportive of were taken to their logical conclusion of
irra-
tional economic actions inspired by economic decisions that
were made
with a logic other than economics at heart. This is probably why
in his
recent book Putnam (2000) no longer points to this example.
And this
is precisely why Adam Smith in his 1776 Wealth of Nations
argued so
strongly against the kinds of social networks among economic
actors
that Putnam and his followers now celebrate. Smith argued that
such
relationships were akin to monopolization and would
necessarily gen-
erate a group whose “interest is, in this respect, directly
opposite to that
of the great body of the people” (1993 edition, 307). In fact, he
argued
that too much trust between economic actors was a recipe for

economy-
stifling cartels and monopolizations—a prediction that seems to
have
been borne out by the experience in Asia. Similar concerns were
again
voiced by Weber in 1925, but his criticisms went beyond simple
exclu-
sions and monopolizations to stress that such trust-based
networks
further distort and hamper growth within the economy by
inviting free-
riders from within the relationships not to work as hard as they
might,
or have to, if they were not connected.
But, the biggest flaw in Putnam’s argument comes not from East
Asia
or the theories of political economists, but from the empirical
realities
of American life. Three components of Putnam’s arguments
with regard
to social capital and economic prosperity are important here:
first, that
social capital promotes economic growth; second, that social
capital is
declining in the United States and has been since the early to
mid-
1960s; third, that inner-city areas lack social capital, which is
one of the
principal reasons they are poor. I will address these arguments
in turn.
In perhaps the most thorough cross-country empirical
examination of
the relationship between social capital and national economic
wealth—

one that Putnam cites as supporting his argument—Knack and
Keefer
(1997) find a statistically significant positive relationship
between lev-
els of trust in a society and rates of economic growth. This is
not sur-
prising, since trust at the level of the society should limit the
costs of
economic transactions within any given society. Important for
this dis-
cussion, however, they also found that “associational activity is
not cor-
related with economic performance” (Knack and Keefer 1997,
1252)
and that “promoting horizontal associations through
encouraging the
formation of and participation in groups may be
counterproductive,
according to our findings” (Knack and Keefer 1997, 1284).
Within the United States, the evidence is not any more
convincing. In
his recent book, Putnam (2000) constructs a “Comprehensive
Social
Capital Index” in which each state is ranked along a spectrum of
very
high to very low in terms of social capital. Of the 10 states he
ranks as
having the highest social capital in the country, only 3 have a
per capita
income higher than the per capita income for the entire country

(U.S.
Bureau of the Census 2000). Also, the mean per capita income
of those
10 states is only 93.9 percent of the country’s per capita
income. Clearly,
there are many explanations for why these states are
significantly poor-
er than the nation as a whole, and it is definitely not the
argument here
that social capital hinders economic prosperity. But if social
capital is
important in promoting economic prosperity, then surely the
data would
look different from this.
The decline of social capital?
Moving on to the second argument, that social capital is
declining in the
United States, the question asked here is, What segments of the
popu-
lation is this most true for? After sifting the evidence, Putnam
unam-
biguously states, “The central fact is that by virtually all
measures of
civic disengagement and all measures of socioeconomic status,
the trends
are very similar at all levels” (2000, 194). But if this is true, the
question
becomes, Why are the American elites, who have gone through
35 years
of civic disengagement, doing so incredibly well financially?
Where is
the economic impact of their disengagement? Affluent and
professional
Americans have enjoyed a virtually unprecedented period of

prolonged
prosperity, and the current gap in wealth between rich and poor
is
greater than it has been since before the Great Depression.
Putnam’s
theory just does not make sense in, let alone explain, this
reality.
Aside from the incredible growth in the wealth of rich people
and the
stagnation in the wealth of poor people—even though both
groups have
had their social capital decline by comparable amounts—
Putnam’s argu-
ments still run afoul of basic empirical realities in the United
States.
That is, social capital is supposed to have declined for 35 years.
Where
is the economic impact? It has been 35 years. Given how rapidly
invest-
ment decisions are made and economic transformations take
place (35
years ago almost nobody had heard of deindustrialization or
Silicon
Valley), that is certainly more than enough time for us to have
seen an
impact of this declining stock of social capital. Can any
evidence of a
relative economic decline of the United States be found? Can
people
convincingly argue that the past 20 years have been poor ones
for the

American economy overall? Ultimately, if Putnam is right about
the
decline in social capital, then he is wrong about the role of
social capital
in economic development.
But moving from American society in general to community
develop-
ment in particular, Putnam’s second assertion is as follows:
Although most poor Americans do not reside in the inner city,
there
is something qualitatively different about the social and
economic
isolation experienced by the chronically poor blacks and
Latinos who
do. Joblessness, inadequate education, and poor health clearly
trun-
cate the opportunities of ghetto residents. Yet so do profound
defi-
ciencies in social capital. (1993b, 39)
But do inner cities lack social capital in the sense that Putnam
means?
The answer to this question is somewhat mixed and is not as
easily
answered as is often assumed. There seems to be a perception in
Amer-
ican policy circles and white popular culture that inner-city,
nonwhite
neighborhoods are bereft of values, norms, morals, trust, and
relation-
ships. This perception is usually justified with a passing
reference to
the work of Wilson (1987), but it is a very particular segment of

his work
that is being referenced and a very narrow reading of him and
his much
more substantial project. This has been as true in the debate
about
social capital as in many other debates about public policy,
despite the
fact that there is only limited justification for this view. As
Portney and
Berry put it:
The debate about social capital and civic engagement largely
con-
centrates on White, middle-class America. Virtually none of the
de-
bate and, as far as we can find, no empirical analysis considers
whether poor people, people of minority racial or ethnic status,
and
people in inner cities have also experienced the trends in civic
engagement. (1997, 633)
When it comes to trust-based relations, ethnographic research
(Ander-
son 1999; Stack 1974; Sullivan 1997; Wood 1997) strongly
suggests that
these are present in inner cities. Anderson describes some of
these trust-
based relations in his most recent book and terms them “the
irregular
economy.” He observes:
The irregular economy may be characterized as a barter system,
which works by an exchange of favors. For example, an
individual
will repair a neighbor’s car on the weekend, or help paint
someone’s

steps, or perform a plumbing job, or style someone’s hair, but
take
no money for it; rather, the person will wait to be paid back
with a
favor in the future. (Anderson 1999, 318)
It is interesting to note that for Anderson, these trust-based
“irregular
economy” activities exist because of the failure of the people
and the com-
munity to function properly economically. It is unclear, at best,
whether
such informal trust-based bartering would coexist with
economic devel-
opment or that comparable relationships exist in already
wealthy com-
munities. In this sense, there is even the possibility that
economic
growth and development might promote the destruction of trust-
based
noncommodified relationships, as the communities become more
im-
mersed in the commodity relations central to the capitalist
economy. But
Anderson’s (1999) ethnographic observations are not isolated,
and in
making this point more generally, Portes states, “Sociologists
know that
everyday survival in poor urban communities frequently
depends on
close interactions with kin and friends in similar situations. The

problem
is that such ties seldom reach beyond the inner city” (1998, 13–
14). The
problem in inner cities, therefore, is not that there is a lack of
trust-
based social networks and mutual support, but rather that these
net-
works and support are unable to generate capital. At the same
time,
however, aggregate data suggest that residents in inner-city
areas do
tend to lack trust in either society at large or in people they do
not know
(Putnam does a good job of compiling these data [2000]). But
these ag-
gregate data do not contradict the ethnographic data indicating
that
trust in already existing social networks is present in inner
cities.
Regarding the existence of community-level organizations,
inner-city
areas contain large numbers of these as well. Specifically with
regard to
community development, the number of community
development corpo-
rations (CDCs) in American inner cities has actually exploded
in the
past 30 years, beginning, ironically, shortly after the time when
Putnam
marks the start of the decline of civic engagement. While the
number
of CDCs in the late 1960s and early 1970s (most created by the
Office
of Economic Opportunity) was measured in the dozens, by 1999
there

were over 3,600 of them nationwide (National Congress for
Community
Economic Development 1999). Although it can be argued that
many of
these CDCs were not the product of grassroots action at the
community
level and were instead created from without, this does not
diminish
their existence as nongovernment, not-for-profit organizations
located
within low-income communities. The more important problem is
that
the ability of most of these community-based organizations to
generate
long-term economic growth for their communities has been
rather lim-
ited (Lenz 1988; Stoecker 1997). And while the reasons are
complex
and require a much more thorough discussion than is possible
here, it is
also clear from this experience that simply creating community-
based
organizations in inner-city neighborhoods does not, by itself,
generate
economic prosperity or even economic security for the
residents.
In perhaps the most comprehensive quantitative effort to
measure the
impact of Putnam’s social capital on the long-term stability of
urban
neighborhoods, Temkin and Rohe (1998) found that “the extent
to
which neighborhood residents volunteer in neighborhood
organizations
or other groups did not have a significant effect on

neighborhood stabil-
ity” (85). This is a striking conclusion, but it does not prevent
them from
observing that “neighborhoods with higher levels of social
capital…are
more likely to remain stable over time” (Temkin and Rohe
1998, 84).
But if one reads closely, it becomes clear that the dependent
variables
and independent variables are measuring the same thing, so it is
no
wonder that Temkin and Rohe have found a statistical
correlation. They
state, “Both loyalty and attachment to neighborhood are higher
in neigh-
borhoods that remain stable over time. Similarly, neighborhoods
where
a higher proportion of residents believe they live in a good
place tend to
remain stable” (Temkin and Rohe 1998, 84). This is a fair
conclusion,
but it seems to say very little.
Even more striking is that the demonstration project for LISC’s
non-
confrontational consensus organizing in the Monangahela
Valley in
Pittsburgh was viewed a success by LISC and by Gittell and
Vidal (1998)
because within 10 years it had (1) created 17 new CDCs, (2)
sustained

resident volunteer commitment, and (3) garnered increased
support from
the metropolitan area’s larger community. Gittell and Vidal then
state,
“These commitments are particularly impressive given the
limited
physical and economic improvement in the valley to date”
(1998, 3–4).
But if there has been little economic improvement over the
course of a
decade, then why is the demonstration considered a success that
LISC
and other foundations should replicate? Surely social capital is
meant
to be a means to the end of economic security and development,
not an
end in and of itself.
Inner cities, therefore, do lack social capital, but not the social
capital
that Putnam is talking about—which does exist, albeit rather
uneven-
ly—but social capital as Bourdieu (1985) and Loury (1977) used
the
term. Part of the problem is that because of Coleman’s (1988)
definition,
we have confused the level of social networks with their ability
to gen-
erate capital. We therefore render invisible social networks
unable to
generate capital. But the question remains, How can we rectify
the cur-
rently inequitable distribution of social capital (in Bourdieu’s
[1985]
and Loury’s [1977] sense) in American society? In attempting
to answer

this question, I will now turn to the policy implications of the
discussion
thus far.
Toward a new understanding of social capital
and community development
Social capital must be reconnected to economic capital for the
term to
have any meaning. Otherwise, we are not talking about capital
at all.
Loury’s original use of the concept (1977) was part of his effort
to dem-
onstrate that the idea of equal opportunity was an impossibility.
He was
right. When his definition is combined with Bourdieu’s (1985)
under-
standing of capital as essentially about power, we can begin to
approach
policy and organizing efforts designed to rectify, or at least,
mitigate, the
inequities in access to this form of capital. We need to create
social net-
works that allow individuals to realize capital, while
simultaneously
allowing these networks to realize the power needed to attract
and con-
trol that capital (for the benefit of those in the networks). That
is, while
we need to create social networks to allow individuals to realize
capital,

Article Review -- PAD 530CriteriaLevels of AchievementCont.docx

Article Review -- PAD 530CriteriaLevels of AchievementCont.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Article Review -- PAD 530CriteriaLevels of AchievementCont.docx

Similar to Article Review -- PAD 530CriteriaLevels of AchievementCont.docx (13)

More from festockton

More from festockton (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Article Review -- PAD 530CriteriaLevels of AchievementCont.docx