Mays dissertation 2017 revised final format approved lw 7 14 17

A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY OF SOCIAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AT A PUBLIC MIDWESTERN UNIVERSITY Dissertation Submitted to The School of Education and Health Sciences UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Leadership By Thomas A. UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio August 2017 A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY OF SOCIAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AT A PUBLIC MIDWESTERN UNIVERSITY Name: Mays, Thomas A. APPROVED BY: ____________________________________________ Carolyn Ridenour, Ed. Committee Chair Professor Emeritus ____________________________________________ Barbara De Luca, Ph.

Committee Member Associate Professor, School of Education and Health Sciences ____________________________________________ Molly Schaller, Ph. Committee Member Associate Professor, College Student Personnel and Higher Education Administration ____________________________________________ Brenda Donnelly, Ph. Committee Member Director of Research, College of Arts and Sciences: Fitz Center ____________________________________________ Kevin R. Dean, School of Education and Health Sciences ii © Copyright by Thomas Anthony Mays All rights reserved 2017 iii ABSTRACT A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY OF SOCIAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AT A PUBLIC MIDWESTERN UNIVERSITY Name: Mays, Thomas Anthony University of Dayton Advisor: Dr.

Carolyn Ridenour Social capital is a dynamic phenomenon that involves the connections between individuals and the resulting benefits, whether available or realized. During college, students can connect with other students, faculty, and administrators, creating a network which may continue to provide benefits even after graduation. However, social capital development on college campuses is not well understood, particularly regarding the variety of campus environments and student demographics and, more specifically, the different experiences of main campus and regional campus students. Applying a multicase mixed methods approach, this study examines the participant experiences at four campuses of a public Midwestern university.

The purpose of this study is to increase the understanding of how social capital develops on campus and how it may develop differently on each campus of the studied institution. Recommendations are provided regarding fostering social capital development in college. iv Dedicated to my students v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to offer my most heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Her support, guidance, and wisdom were crucial during this very special journey.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT. vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. xiii LIST OF TABLES. xv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.

10 Significance of this Study. 12 Limitations and Weaknesses. 14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW. 16 Social Capital Theory.

17 Concerns with social capital research. 22 Conceptualizing social capital. 23 Lack of consideration for adverse effects of social capital. 23 Simplification of theory and research.

25 vii Multiple dimensions of social capital. 26 Social Capital and Education Research. 27 Family structures, expectations, and community. 30 Social capital development on campus.

35 Social capital development in the classroom. 40 Inequality, socioeconomic status, and education. 62 Multiple Case Study. 65 Social Capital Integrated Questionnaire survey sample.

72 Finding evidence of social capital. 74 Social capital development on campus. 76 Document analysis procedure. 78 Finding evidence of social capital.

78 Social capital development on campus. 78 viii Multiple case study. 82 SC-IQ survey. 82 Interviews, observations, and document analysis.

85 Limitations and Weaknesses. 87 Human Subjects Protection. 89 CHAPTER 4 CASE FINDINGS. 90 The Oxford Case.

92 Uniqueness and relevance of case. 95 Social capital dimension 1: Groups and networks. 96 Social capital dimension 2: Trust and solidarity. 99 Social capital dimension 3: Collective actions and cooperation.

101 Social capital dimension 4: Information and communication. 104 Social capital dimension 5: Social cohesion and inclusion. 105 Social capital dimension 6: Empowerment and political action. 108 Summary of findings in the Oxford Case.

111 The Hamilton Case. 115 Uniqueness and relevance of case. 119 Social capital dimension 1: Groups and networks. 120 Social capital dimension 2: Trust and solidarity.

124 Social capital dimension 3: Collective actions and cooperation. 125 Social capital dimension 5: Social cohesion and inclusion. 131 Social capital dimension 6: Empowerment and political action. 134 Summary of findings in the Hamilton case.

136 The Middletown Case. 140 Uniqueness and relevance of case. 144 Social capital dimension 1: Groups and networks. 145 Social capital dimension 2: Trust and solidarity.

148 Social capital dimension 3: Collective action and cooperation. 150 Social capital dimension 4: Information and communication. 153 Social capital dimension 5: Social cohesion and inclusion. 155 Social capital dimension 6: Empowerment and political action.

161 Summary of findings in the Middletown case. 165 The Voice of America Case. 168 Uniqueness and Relevance of Case. 170 Social capital dimension 1: Groups and networks.

171 x Social capital dimension 2: Trust and solidarity. 173 Social capital dimension 3: Collective action and cooperation. 174 Social capital dimension 4: Information and communication. 174 Social capital dimension 5: Social cohesion and inclusion.

176 Social capital dimension 6: Empowerment and political action. 178 Summary of findings in the VOA case. 178 Comparisons of the Campuses. 181 CHAPTER 5 MULTICASE DISCUSSION.

185 Evaluating the Expected Utility of Each Case. 187 Evidence of social capital. 187 Groups and networks. 189 Trust and solidarity.

190 Collective action and cooperation. 191 Information and communication. 191 Social cohesion and inclusion. 192 Empowerment and political action.

193 Social Capital Development at Miami University. 194 Assertions about the Quintain: Social Capital Development in College. 196 Groups and networks. 197 Trust and solidarity.

197 Collective action and cooperation. 197 Information and communication. 197 Social cohesion and inclusion. 197 xi Empowerment and political action.

198 General social capital development:. 198 CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS. 199 Implement career-oriented social capital development programs. 200 Provide explicit instruction on social capital and its development.

201 Focus on social capital development for nontraditional students. 201 Provide tools and instruction to faculty. 203 Implement Ongoing Institutional Research on Social Capital Development. 210 APPENDIX A Interview Question Set for Student Participants.

228 APPENDIX B Interview Question Set for Faculty Participants. 230 APPENDIX C Post-Pilot Revised Instrument. 231 APPENDIX D Documentation of SC-IQ Revisions. 250 APPENDIX E Multicase Analysis Worksheets.

255 APPENDIX F Completed Worksheets. 262 APPENDIX G Audit Trail. 289 APPENDIX H SC-IQ Mann Whitney U Results. 297 xii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1.

Overview of research design. Worksheet 1, Graphic Design of a Case Study (Stake, 2006). Cooperate to solve a campus safety problem, SC-IQ survey, Oxford campus. The likelihood that those who do not help to solve a campus safety problem will be criticized, SC-IQ survey, Oxford campus.

Attitudes of safety from crime and violence, SC-IQ Survey, Oxford campus. Perception of having the power to make important life decisions, categorized by student rank, combined “totally able” and “mostly able” responses, SC-IQ survey, Oxford campus, N=49. Reported likelihood that people would unite to solve a campus safety problem, SC-IQ survey, Hamilton campus, N=7. Reported likelihood that people who did not engage in campus activities to address a safety problem would be criticized, SC-IQ survey, Hamilton campus, N=7.

Perspectives of safety from crime and violence both on and off campus, SC-IQ survey, Hamilton campus, N=7. Reported likelihood that people on campus will unite to solve a safety problem, SC-IQ survey, Middletown campus, N=6. Reported likelihood that people who do not help will be criticized, SC-IQ survey, Middletown campus, N=6. Feeling safe from crime and violence on campus versus in residence, SC-IQ survey, Middletown Campus, N=6.

Perception of having the power to make important decisions, SC-IQ survey, Middletown campus, N=6. 164 xiv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Social capital indicators, Pichler and Wallace (2007). 56 Table 2 Dimensions of Social Capital, Grootaert et al. 58 Table 3 Social Capital Dimensions and Education Related Examples.

59 Table 4 Stake’s (2006) Worksheets for Multiple Case Study. 65 Table 5 Selected Characteristics of Miami University’s Campuses, 2013-2014. 67 Table 6 Retention and Faculty Comparison of Miami University Campuses. 68 Table 7 Student Characteristics, Miami University Campuses, 2012-2013.

68 Table 8 Remedial Coursework, Miami University Campuses, 2010. 69 Table 9 SC-IQ Survey Sample, Number of Respondents, and Number of Completed Surveys. 70 Table 10 Number of Interviews Completed by Case. 72 Table 11 Social capital questionnaire: Cronbach’s alpha scores for each dimension, including education-related items.

83 Table 12 Empirical Materials Collected for Each Case Including Sample Sizes. 91 Table 13 Demographic Data Showing Percent of Total from SC-IQ Survey and OIR, Oxford Campus, N=49. 93 Table 14 Chi-Square Goodness of Fit, OIR and Sample Demographics, SC-IQ Survey, Oxford Campus. 93 xv Table 15 Household Income Reported by SC-IQ Survey Respondents, Oxford Campus.

94 Table 16 Demographic Data of Interview Participants Enrolled on the Oxford Campus, N=9. 95 Table 17 Number of Campus Organizational Memberships Reported by SC-IQ Survey Respondents, Oxford Campus, N=49. 98 Table 18 Diversity of group members reported by SC-IQ survey respondents, Oxford campus. 99 Table 19 Reported Trust and Solidarity on Campus, SC-IQ survey, Oxford Campus.

101 Table 20 Reported Use of Communication Modes Per Day, SC-IQ Survey, Oxford Campus, N=49. 104 Table 21 Reported Factors that Cause Problems on Campus, SC-IQ Survey, Oxford Campus. 108 Table 22 Demographic Data from Modified SC-IQ (n=7) and OIR, Hamilton Campus. 117 Table 23 Demographic Data of Interview Participants Enrolled on the Hamilton Campus, N=14.

118 Table 24 Number of Campus Organizational Memberships Reported by SC-IQ Survey Respondents, Hamilton Campus, n=7. 123 Table 25 Reported Trust and Solidarity on Campus, SC-IQ Survey, Hamilton Campus, N=7. 125 xvi Table 26 Communication mediums used, SC-IQ survey, Hamilton campus, N=7. 129 Table 27 Demographic Data from Modified SC-IQ Survey (N=6) and OIR Data, Middletown Campus.

142 Table 28 Respondents’ reported household income, SC-IQ survey, Middletown campus, N=6. 142 Table 29 Interview Participants Enrolled on the Middletown Campus, Demographic Data, N=10. 143 Table 30 Reported Organizational Memberships, SC-IQ Survey, Middletown Campus, n=6. 148 Table 31 Reported trust and solidarity on campus, SC-IQ survey, Middletown campus, N=6.

149 Table 32 Use of Communication Mediums, SC-IQ Survey, Middletown Campus, N=6. 154 Table 33 Differences That Cause the Most Problems on Campus, SC-IQ Survey, Middletown Campus, N=6. 159 Table 34 Demographic Data for Interview Participants Who either Were Enrolled or Attended Classes at VOA, N=5. 170 Table 35 Expected Utility of Each Case, Judgments by the Researcher.

187 Table 36 Merged Findings from Case Reports. 188 Table 37 Number of Friends Reported, SC-IQ survey, Oxford, Hamilton, and Middletown Cases. 189 xvii Table 38 Reported Memberships in Campus-Based Student Organizations, SC- IQ Survey, Oxford, Hamilton, and Middletown Cases. 190 Table 39 Respondent Email Frequency, SC-IQ Survey, Oxford, Hamilton, and Middletown Cases.

191 Table 40 Phone Call Frequency, SC-IQ Survey, Oxford, Hamilton, and Middletown Cases. 192 Table 41 Text Messaging Frequency, SC-IQ Survey, Oxford, Hamilton, and Middletown Cases. 192 Table 42 Voting Behavior in Federal, State, and Local Elections, SC-IQ Survey, Oxford, Hamilton, and Middletown Cases. 194 Table 43 Perceived Ability to Make Important Decision, SC-IQ Survey, Oxford, Hamilton, and Middletown Cases.

194 xviii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION College students can engage in a variety of social relationships which influence and are influenced by their academic experiences. These relationships include associations with other students as well as interactions with faculty, administration, and staff. During the college experience, the development of a network of individual and group connections can increase access to resources, helping students develop a cache of social capital which may serve to help or hinder their academic and professional careers. Of concern is how social capital forms in college, and how social capital development compares among campus environments.

Coleman (1988) defines social capital as follows: Social capital is defined by its function.