SOCIAL CAPITAL, CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, AND SUCCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Adam Blaylock

BYU-Idaho

Senior Seminar in Political Science

April 8, 2011

1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper could not have been completed without the help of several people, and it

would be incomplete to publish it without expressing due thanks.

First, Trent M. Rose, my advisor for this paper, for providing helpful feedback and

placing my feet on solid ground with respect to my understanding of the importance of civic

engagement in our communities, and whose dissertation provided an outline for this study.

Second, Garrett Saunders, whose assistance with the statistical analysis of the survey

used for this paper, was invaluable and without whose help this could not have been completed.

Third, all of the participants who willingly took time out of their busy school schedules to

answer a thorough survey about their lives and academic experiences, many of whom wrote

helpful and encouraging words of feedback throughout this process.

As much as I am indebted to these people for their help, I alone am responsible for the

content of this paper.

2
 I. INTRODUCTION

In an April 29, 2009 speech, while explaining the importance of educational achievement

in America, President Barack Obama said, ―There are few things as fundamental to the American

dream or as essential for America‘s success as a good education. This has never been more true

than it is today‖ (Obama 2009, emphasis added). This paper examines what part social capital

and civic engagement play in the success of students in higher education. Given what is known

about the vast array of benefits that accompany high levels of civic engagement and social

capital in a number of different areas of life (Rose 2006), it seems wise to make an effort to

determine the extent to which civic engagement and social capital play a role in determining

outcomes of student achievement in higher education. Interestingly, this is not something the

academic community has done. Hence, this study ventures into largely uncharted waters and

conducts new research while relying only peripherally on secondary sources for illumination

about the role of civic engagement and social capital in determining educational success at one

institution of higher education, Brigham Young University-Idaho. Given what is already known

about the positive effects that high civic engagement and social capital tend to have on society as

a whole, the author proposes that high levels of civic engagement and social capital will tend to

be positively correlated with high levels of educational achievement.

Although politicians are known more for making statements based more on ideology and

political correctness than on well-researched facts, when President Obama proclaimed the

importance of attaining a good education, he was on solid secular ground. In 2000, the National

Center for Public Policy and Higher Education noted that ―For most Americans, college is no

3
longer one of many routes to middle-class life, but a requirement for employment that makes

such a life possible‖ (Callan 2000, emphasis added). If one accepts that obtaining a good

education truly is fundamental to success in modern America, then discovering determinants of

educational success is essential to helping America‘s higher education participants achieve

individual and collective academic fulfillment.

Certainly Socioeconomic background, academic preparation, and aptitude can‘t be

ignored as potential determinants for educational attainment. Likewise, family income and

parental education have also been shown to be vital factors in predicting educational

achievement in higher education (Fischer 2006). In these and a variety of other ways, every

student who enrolls for study at an institution of higher education carries within himself or

herself plenty of issues that may play either a positive or negative role in determining the level of

success he or she will achieve. Of course, there is almost nothing educators or students can do

about these prior experiences and life circumstances by the time they first enter a university

classroom. What can be changed, however, are behavioral and social aspects of the university

experience that may have an effect on the level of success students experience in a college or

university setting. Seeking illumination on a few of these behavioral aspects of the university

experience, the author here examines the extent to which social capital and civic engagement are

correlated with educational achievement.

In order to determine the accuracy of this paper‘s hypothesis (that there is a positive

correlation between behavioral measures – civic engagement and social capital – and educational

outcomes), there are a number of questions that must be asked.

4
 First, can civic engagement and social capital be measured accurately among a

population that, due to the close living proximity of its members, is inherently interconnected?

In a university setting such as that in which students find themselves at BYU-Idaho, social

capital is often taken for granted. Since students share the education experience wholly with

their peers – they study together, eat together, live together, socialize together, and worship

together – it is assumed that every student will therefore automatically have high levels of social

capital with at least a few people or a few groups of people. In addition, because students are

entirely affected every day by the decisions, policies, and actions of policymakers in the

university and community for the first time in their lives – and since they are finally empowered

to have an effect on those actions – it is easy to assume that they will almost automatically

embrace civic engagement with enthusiasm.

With all of this in mind, can any study venturing to understand the social and civic

elements at play in higher education come to any accurate conclusions about the higher

education‘s state of affairs with regard to these measures of student behavior? The answer is

yes. Although virtually every student attending BYU-Idaho has at least one roommate (and

usually more), this does not mean all of them have automatically created vibrant, beneficial

social connections with their peers. Some students are more engaged in the Rexburg/BYU-Idaho

community than others. Some serve as leaders of clubs, chairpersons of organizations, editors of

newspapers, members of the Student Representative Committee, and as coordinators and coaches

of athletic groups. Still others connect with and serve their peers through church callings and

assignments, as many Relief Society and Elders Quorum Presidents, Sunday School teachers,

and Family Home Evening coordinators can attest. This papers aims to discover not how

connected to and how happy with their roommates students are, but rather how connected and

5
involved students are with other, non-roommate/non-family individuals and groups throughout

the Rexburg/BYU-Idaho community and how these associations play a role in their educational

achievements. Simply put, social capital and civic engagement are just as measurable on a

university campus as they are in any other community.

Second, can educational achievement be accurately measured beyond any of the basic

indicators already available, such as grade-point average? To be sure, the most elementary (and

most easily-understood) measure of academic fulfillment is included in each student‘s

semesterly-updated grade-point average. The grade-point average, or GPA, takes into account

how well a student has performed in completing coursework, meeting expectations and

deadlines, and demonstrating comprehension of the assigned material. Insofar as higher

education is designed to prepare and equip students for post-graduate careers or further study in

their chosen fields, GPA is a useful measure of how successful a student‘s academic career has

been. This study does not overlook the importance of grade-point average in measuring

outcomes of academic achievement. Indeed, this study relies on GPA, considering it the single

most important measure of a student‘s current educational achievement. What this study

recognizes, however, is that measures other than GPA can be used in conjunction with GPA to

determine whether students receive a useful and rewarding educational experience or not.

Measures such as absenteeism, dropout rates, peer collaborative habits, instructor and

administrative trust, and expectations of future success can also indicate degrees of academic

accomplishment. In other words, there is more to educational fulfillment than the much-touted

grade-point average.

Third, what do social capital and civic engagement have to do with educational success?

This, of course, is a simple way of stating the primary question this paper seeks to answer. Is

6
there a real, statistically-sustained connection between a student‘s level of outreach in the

community around him and how much he takes away from his time spent earning a

baccalaureate degree? Is there a similar association between how well a student connects with

her collegiate peers and what she manages to accomplish during her non-social, intellectual

hours? If there is such a connection between either of these two measures and educational

success, what does the prototypical ―Civically-Engaged, High-Social Capital, Accomplished

University Student‖ look like? It may be that all of BYU-Idaho students‘ social connections are

doing nothing to add to or detract from their academic success. In the event that a significant

connection between this paper‘s twin behavioral measures does become apparent, yet more

questions arise. Are some social connections more scholastically-helpful than others? Is

spending time at an art show, concert, or play more conducive to intellectual success than

participation in organized sports? Of course, this merely scratches the surface as far as what this

study hopes to learn about university student academic behavior is concerned. It is clearly within

the realm of feasible possibility that studying the connections between civic engagement, social

capital, and academic achievement may lead to unexpected conclusions and unorthodox

recommendations. But for a study that represents a new contribution to the literature on some of

the unseen factors driving university student behavior and affecting educational outcomes, such

results may (at the very least) act as a reminder of the need for further research on the subject.

Even so, having the results of this study may provide a snapshot of where BYU-Idaho

stands with respect to its social capital undercurrents, level of student involvement, and academic

achievement. Given the importance of these three measures of social development, educators,

administrators, civic leaders, and students can be aware of the need to make what changes are

7
necessary to improve the likelihood of success in today‘s highly-competitive global economy

that demands a well-educated population.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Any discussion of Social Capital and Civic Engagement must include an understanding

of what each is and what the different sub-classifications of each entails.

Robert D. Putnam, an intellectual giant in modern studies of social capital and civic

engagement, defined social capital this way: ―whereas physical capital refers to physical objects

and human capital refers to properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among

individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from

them‖ (Putnam 19). In other words, a study of social capital focuses on interpersonal

associations and the behavioral results that occur because of these associations. Whether aware

of it or not, every person that does not live under a rock is constantly building, damaging,

shaping, or defining reserves of social capital with every individual he or she comes in contact

with. For the most part, frequent contact between two individuals tends to build the social

capital that that relationship enjoys. Where frequent contact would be detrimental to the social

capital between two people, those individuals tend to curb the amount of time spent associating

with one another until and unless one party or the other takes an action to build that particular

reserve of social capital. One way of thinking about social capital is to consider what the term

―capital‖ normally refers to. In economics, capital refers to those factors of production that are

used in the production of goods and services. Since this capital generally comes in the form of

machinery or equipment, it will likely become useless and unable to continue producing goods

unless it is regularly inspected, maintained, and upgraded. Firms with outdated, inefficient, or

8
depleted sources of capital will flounder unless they make regular capital investments that will

allow them to continue producing goods or services. Likewise, individuals who do not regularly

maintain and continually improve upon existing social capital will find their relationships and

connections with others useless and unable to help them continue producing the positive life

benefits associated with them. Put simply, care must be taken in relationships if they are to help

individuals reach life goals or attain some measure of contentment.

Just as all physical capital is not all of the same type, social capital has been recognized

in two primary forms: Bonding social capital and bridging social capital.

Bonding social capital may be thought of as the levels of trust and norms of reciprocity

(willingness to do something for individuals who are connected) that exist within an exclusive

group. For the most part, bonding social capital ―occurs among homogenous populations‖ and

has a tendency to provide benefits solely to those with internal access to the group (Leonard

2004). Relational trust within families, churches, and informal clubs and organizations are

classic examples of bonding social capital. While building bonding social capital is usually

thought of as being easier to build, its benefits may often be limited as far as making societal and

career advances are concerned. Pointing this out, one scholar noted that ―The very factors that

promote [bonding social capital‘s] development such as tight bonds of trust and solidarity may

ultimately prevent its entrepreneurial members from reaching their full potential‖ (Leonard

2004). In other words, tight bonds of social capital within an exclusive group can make it more

difficult to form important ties characterized by mutual trust with others outside the group.

9
 Forging those bonds of mutual trust and reciprocity with the community at large is what

is meant by bridging social capital. Activities that do something to connect various

heterogeneous individuals in a community to one another tend to build reserves of bridging

social capital. By its very nature, bridging social capital does more to promote entrepreneurship,

economic development, cultural development, and political reform than bonding social capital

does. As Putnam put it, bonding social capital is good for ―getting by,‖ but bridging social

capital is good for ―getting ahead‖ (Putnam 2000). This is true of individuals as well as groups.

Political parties, civic groups, political action committees, and even government organizations

are generally thought of as attempts at creating bridging social capital, although they are not the

only groups that do so. Even informal ties, such as those formed between casual acquaintances,

can build bridging social capital.

On this note, the author wishes to anticipate one criticism of this paper. Given that the

only subjects who are participants in the study are all of a generally homogenous, exclusive

group, it may be argued that the only social capital that will or can be measured among them is

bonding social capital. Indeed, the population of BYU-Idaho is comprised largely of white,

middle-class Americans (with smatterings of other groups throughout) and all but a handful of

them are Latter-day Saints. Granted, options for building reserves of bridging social capital are

limited, but this does not mean that the potential academic benefits will be significantly different

because of this situation. In fact, if bonding social capital truly is easier to develop than bridging

social capital, BYU-Idaho may actually represent an ideal location for testing whether social

capital can be correlated with educational achievement. The homogeneity of the population and

its accompanying ease of creating socializing experiences ought to provide ample opportunity for

students to experience either the positive or negative effects that becoming part of the

10
community around may be associated with. The minimal opportunities for powerfully

unmistakable bridging social capital do not detract from the possibility that other sources of

social capital may have an effect on educational achievement. In any case, it is often difficult to

tell where one of these forms of capital begins and the other ends. As Putnam noted,

―Many groups simultaneously bond along some social dimensions and bridge

across others. The black church, for example, brings together people of the same

race and religion across class lines. The Knights of Columbus was created to

bridge cleavages among different ethnic communities while bonding along

religious and gender lines. . . In short, bonding and bridging are not ‗either-or‘

categories into which social networks can be neatly divided, but ‗more or less‘

dimensions along which we can compare different forms of social capital‖

(Putnam 23).

Thus, although students who come to BYU-Idaho (or any institution of higher education, for that

matter) do so among a generally homogenous group and experience primarily bonding

experiences, the variety of backgrounds from which students come to BYU-Idaho provides

abundant opportunity for bridging.

To summarize, social capital refers to the bonds or networks that have been built up

between connected individuals. Sociologists distinguish between two types of social capital:

bonding and bridging. While bonding social capital is exclusive, focusing primarily on

strengthening connections among members of a homogenous group, bridging social capital is

inclusive, seeking to build ties among differentiated, heterogeneous members of society or a

community.

11
 Although much of the research on civic engagement is relatively new, the concept of

civic engagement is nearly as old as politics itself. In Politics, Aristotle famously argues that ―a

human being is by nature a political animal‖ (c.f., Steinberger 2000). Having lived in political

societies throughout the whole of human experience, nearly everyone can probably agree that of

course people are political. Indeed, Aristotle went on to say that it is necessary that man

associate with his fellows in a community, and in doing so he demonstrated the need for civic

engagement. ―Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to

because he is self-sufficient, is no part of a city-state – he is either a beast or a God‖ (c.f.,

Steinberger 2000). Human beings have an innate need to associate with and benefit from other

human beings. What Aristotle was getting it was this: The only way human beings – political

animals, he called them – can beneficially associate with other human beings is if a society of

people have built up a significant reserves of social capital while becoming engaged in

promoting the betterment of the community. Without this, no community can survive. In

addition, Aristotle noted that the ability to promote that which is desirable is a trait peculiar to

humanity:

―It is also clear why a human being is more of a political animal than a bee or any

other gregarious animal. Nature makes nothing pointlessly, as we say, and no

animal has speech except a human being. A voice is a signifier of what is

pleasant or painful, which is why it is also possessed by the other animals (for

their nature goes this far: they not only perceive what is pleasant or painful but

signify it to each other). But speech is for making clear what is beneficial or

harmful, and hence also what is just or unjust. For it is peculiar to human beings,

12
 in comparison to the other animals, that they alone have perception of what is

good or bad, just or unjust, and the rest (Steinberger 2000, emphasis added).

All animals feel pleasure and pain, and all can express some feeling of satisfaction or discomfort.

But unique among the animals, humans have a method for expressing not just that they have

experience something pleasant or painful, but what specifically is ―good or bad, just or unjust.‖

That is to say, human expression goes beyond mere acknowledgement of pleasure or pain. The

ability to express thoughts and feelings about what is good, bad, just, or unjust implies an ability

to determine why some things are pleasurable and others are painful. Civic engagement,

generally speaking, is nothing if not an attempt to express opinions about the state of society

while attempting to do something about redressing those very grievances. If this conjures up

images of petitions, rallies, marches, and fundraisers, that is due largely to the fact that that these

are among the more common and obvious ways in which citizens become civic-minded and

reach out to the broader community.

Yet civic engagement encompasses a broad range of activities that includes everything

from book clubs to blood drives to bowling leagues. It includes voting as well as voter

registration drives. It is seen in petition signing, sports attendance, and a night at the opera

house. Even casual, informal activities, such as inviting friends over for dinner or hosting a

party, may be considered part of civic engagement. Anything that builds bonds and bridges of

trust throughout a community and gives opportunity for individuals to see the multitude of ways

in which citizens can build a better community must be considered a part of civic engagement.

Of course, exercises in civic engagement are not all equal. Signing a petition, for

example, engages an individual in the community, but does so while doing very little to build

bonds of trust (social capital) with others in the community. Likewise, voting is an essential

13
civic activity for anyone concerned about the state of affairs in a representative democracy, but it

too is limited in its efforts to enhance the overall community. Participating in a club or other

group is certainly a more beneficial way to become civically engaged and foster bonds of mutual

trust and reciprocity. Yet more valuable from a civic engagement perspective are those

individuals who serve as leaders of organizations hoping to affect some specific issue of concern

to the community. These more active forms of civic engagement clearly do more to connect a

community in beneficial ways than the passive civic engagers who will participate, but only as

far as their front porches. Yet in all of these forms of civic engagement, researchers have noticed

a distinct decline:

―Beginning, roughly speaking, in the late 1960s,Americans in massive numbers

began to join less, trust less, give less, vote less, and schmooze less. At first

people hardly noticed what was happening, but over the last three decades

involvement in civic associations, participation in public affairs, membership in

churches and social clubs and unions, tie spent with family and friends and

neighbors, philanthropic giving, even simple trust in other people. . . all have

fallen by 25 to 50 percent‖(Putnam and Feldstein, 4).

Hence the need for this paper. If civic engagement truly is in the midst of a steep decline,

serious questions must be asked about the effects that this decline will have on American

life. Here the author examines how education is effected by civic engagement and social

capital.

The research this paper introduces is long past due. True, there have been

numerous studies examining the relationship between social capital and civic engagement

14
in educational achievement at the elementary and secondary levels, but these have

primarily tended to focus on how civic engagement and social capital among parents –

not students – has an effect on educational achievement for elementary, middle, and high

school students. Some, for instance, have narrowed their focus to parental involvement

in the form of school visits (Steinberg 1996; c.f., Goddard 2003). One study examined

the odds of fourth-grade students passing state-mandated tests and noted that ―as

members of schools, families, and communities, students may have access to various

forms of social support that can facilitate their success in school. Indeed, researchers

have increasingly recognized the importance of social support for students‘ academic

success‖ (Goddard, 59). Others have examined the prevalence of social capital among

parents of children‘s friends and found that ―for each friend‘s parent who was known, a

student‘s odds of dropping out decreased by almost a third” (Carbonaro 1998). This is

certainly powerful and demonstrates the need for further enlightenment of the effect that

social capital and civic engagement have on the educational experience, but does little to

provide new understanding as to how these play a role in academic achievement in higher

education.

Studies searching for determinants to success in higher education were equally

unhelpful in providing a foundation upon which this study can build. One author found

that high school performance, SAT scores, and study skills can act as predictors for first-

year success in higher education, but only insofar as these indicators are used in

conjunction with a variety of other indicators (Libutti 2005). Another viewed post-

secondary education through the lens of first-generation students and found that students

whose parents had not attended an institution of higher education had a more difficult

15
time developing the skills necessary to enable them to be successful (Pike 2005). An

additional study examined affirmative action programs as an attempt to see if students

admitted into a university because of affirmative action policies were less successful than

their peers (Fischer and Massey 2006). These are but a small sample of some of the

literature related to success in higher education, yet none address the central problem

posed by this paper.

Thus, insofar as the educational side of this study is concerned, this paper

constitutes a unique and original contribution to the literature, and may prove useful for

educators, policymakers, and researchers.

III. Methodology

Since this study seems to be venturing into uncharted waters, it will have to conduct its

own research and rely only peripherally on secondary sources. For this reason 300 students at

BYU-Idaho will be surveyed and their responses statistically analyzed to determine whether the

null hypothesis (that high social capital and civic engagement lead to high educational

achievement) is correct. There are several advantages and disadvantages to using a survey to

make conclusions about this study‘s research.

One of the most clear and obvious advantages to using a survey to research is that it

allows the researcher to ask questions about precisely the things he or she wants to know. Since

the researcher can get answers to exactly what is being searched for, it allows for fairly simple

statistical analysis of participant responses. Moreover, in social science, a great deal of the

information probed is without any formal structure, so questions regarding social activity can

provide a quantitative way to measure phenomena that can often be vague and seemingly

16
enigmatic. In addition, as Putnam observed, ―A well-designed poll can provide a useful snapshot

of opinions and behavior‖ (416). Much of what takes place in social science goes unobserved or

is taken for granted by its participants. A survey that asks questions about much of this

previously-unconsidered behavior can dig up a treasure trove of information about things taking

place just beneath the surface of observed social experience.

Nevertheless, using a survey to collect information about social capital, civic

engagement, and educational achievement is not without its disadvantages (nor, of course, is any

study that uses a survey as a primary source for its information and research). Perhaps the most

significant disadvantage to using a survey to collect information is that surveys work more like a

still camera than a video camera. A survey is, naturally, limited to providing information about

precisely the point in time in which it is conducted. For this study‘s purposes, for example, it

provides information only about student attitudes at BYU-Idaho in March of 2011. It can say

nothing about what student attitudes and opinions were like in March of 2010 or what they will

be like in March 2012. The survey cannot even, strictly speaking, make any statements about

what BYU-Idaho students‘ behaviors were like in February or April of 2011, even though very

little is likely to have taken place in that time to have effected student behavior. Thus, surveying

is limited to providing information about a given point in time (see Putnam 416-417).

Another major hurdle that stands in the way of a successful survey is the issue of

comprehensiveness. Clearly, no survey can realistically answer all questions about all things that

take place in the human experience, and for reasons of practicability no survey ever should.

However, this does not mean that surveys must and can only attempt to scratch the surface with

regard to whatever information it attempts to uncover. A well-designed survey can discern

information on an impressive amount of topics with relatively few questions. Yet even the best

17
of surveys cannot anticipate the results it will get so well that it will include questions vital to

making wholly accurate statements about what the survey results ultimately mean. For instance,

Putnam uses bowling league membership as one indicator of social cohesiveness, yet a decline in

bowling league membership might not necessarily indicate a decrease in informal social

togetherness. ―If bowling were gradually replaced by softball or soccer as the leisure sport of

choice among Americans, then an accurately reported decline in team bowling might simply

have been offset by a rise in softball or soccer, both team sports‖ (Putnam 417). Researchers

employing the survey method must be careful in reaching conclusions. A decline in bowling

league membership does not on its own tell us anything about social capital. Yet that decline,

coupled with mountains of similar data suggesting a similar decline, may work as part of a

mosaic of indicators suggesting a decrease in informal social capital.

Many surveys also suffer from problems of comparability and continuity (in other words,

that survey results repeated over time may not be reliable), but since this survey will likely only

be used on this one occasion, it does not appear to present a major problem to the present

research.

The BYU-Idaho Civic Engagement, Social Capital, and Educational Achievement Survey

features questions that cover the following topics: political participation, religious participation,

university group participation, volunteerism/charity, cultural participation, recreational

participation, formal/informal community participation, and educational achievement(s). Each

of these sections is introduced and discussed below.

Political participation is the most obvious form of civic engagement. Basic measures of

political participation include whether individuals have registered to vote, whether they actually

18
have voted, and whether individuals have attended a town council meeting. These are simple,

though minimal, actions that indicate at least a basic level of civic engagement and concern

about the community at large. Individuals who attend political speeches and rallies, or who

display a sign, bumper sticker or button indicate a willingness to participate at least minimally in

promoting individual candidates, as opposed to mere voting for a candidate on a secret ballot.

Clearly, those who are more actively engaged and more evidently willing to contribute to

creating a more civically-engaged society get involved in local politics by working for political

parties or candidates or even running for a political office. The author does not expect that many

university students, already constrained by school, work, religious, and other responsibilities,

will have participated in the community to such a deep extent. However, this research does

expect to find a positive correlation between increased political participation and increased

educational achievement.

Survey questions focusing on religious participation center on the level of activity in the

LDS Church. While a survey at most universities would likely ask if an individual was simply

affiliated with a specific religious organization, this survey, which takes place at BYU-Idaho, can

safely assume church membership and instead ask individuals whether they are active

participants in the LDS religious experience. Additionally, religious participation questions will

seek to understand the level of trust participants feel with their ecclesiastical leaders, including

bishops, stake presidents, and elders quorum and relief society presidents. These questions are

designed not just to measure religious engagement, but also religious-minded social capital. As

with political participation, the author expects high levels of religious engagement and religious

social capital to correlate positively with a high degree of academic achievement.

19
 This survey will also cover community and university group participation. These

questions will seek to discern whether individuals are involved and associated with any clubs,

honors societies, or other groups on the BYU-Idaho campus. The survey will discover if

individuals are affiliated with any groups or organizations in the Rexburg community that are not

directly affiliated with the university. Of course, the nature of the groups students are a part of

may act as an indicator of the level of civic engagement that takes place on campus and in the

Rexburg community. For this reason, the survey will also question whether the groups students

belong to have taken steps to affect some sort of social, political, or university policy change on

campus or in the community. Perhaps the most important part of this section of the survey

centers on the relationships of trust that students feel exists between themselves and their

instructors and university administrators. Results from this section of the survey are likely to

maintain a similar correlation to educational achievement as those from the previous two

sections. If students are civically engaged on campus or in the community, it is expected that

they will have developed helpful networks of friends and associates on whom they can rely for

assistance in their academic endeavors. At the same time, those who feel they can trust their

instructors and school administrators are also expected by this study to perform much better

academically, since they will lack skepticism about the educational process and participate

willingly in attempts to meet classroom expectations.

Volunteerism and Charity represent an interesting way to measure civic engagement and

social capital. For the most part, examinations of civic engagement focus on formal group

participation and involvement in specific organizations that seek to accomplish some kind of

overarching community goal. When examining volunteerism and charity, however, researchers

look at what seem to be largely unplanned, spontaneous acts of service designed to provide some

20
sort of benefit for the community. Volunteerism often focuses on acts of charity that generally

effect a small number of people, whereas most formal group civic participation focuses on acts

designed to influence an entire community, or at least a specific group of people within a

community. For this reason, the survey includes questions about small acts of service that build

social capital and foster an environment where civic engagement is more likely to take place,

such as helping a neighbor, donating blood, or working on a community or university service

project. The author does not expect that there will be a very strong correlation – if there is any

correlation at all – between volunteer acts of charity and educational success, since charity is

generally seen as a religious or moral obligation instead of an opportunity to build social capital.

Studying cultural and athletic participation at BYU-Idaho provides a unique opportunity

to see whether participating in unelected volunteer leadership capacities – such as coaching a

basketball team – either help or hurt academic achievement. While most four-year universities

have a lively intercollegiate athletic program and a menial intramural sports program, BYU-

Idaho does the complete opposite, having no intercollegiate athletics of any kind and a vibrant,

student-directed intramural sports program. Cultural participation, on the other hand, is most

likely fairly similar to many universities, with the exception of the fact that Rexburg‘s location is

so isolated from cultural centers that frequent cultural participation becomes difficult. Even so,

participation in arts and culture provide additional avenues for examination of the connection

between engagement, social capital, and educational participation. As with university group

participation, the author expects that high levels of cultural and artistic participation will

correlate positively with high academic achievement. On the other hand, the author predicts that

athletic participation will be negatively correlated with high academic achievement, since

participation in the most competitive intramural sports programs on campus necessarily involves

21
a more significant weekly investment of time than most of the other measured indicators of civic

engagement.

At the beginning of March 2011, the BYU-Idaho Civic Engagement, Social Capital, and

Educational Achievement Survey was e-mailed to 300 randomly-selected students at BYU-Idaho.

E-mail addresses for the 300 anonymous students were obtained from the university‘s

Educational Research Board. Each potential participant received an e-mail that explained the

purpose of the study along with some brief information regarding social capital and civic

engagement. A more abbreviated e-mail was sent to potential participants about ten days after

the initial mailing to remind recipients that participating in the study was still an option.

Students who participated in the survey were sent to an independent website which hosted the

data collection for the survey. In the five days after the survey was sent out, a large number of

surveys were completed, and over the following two weeks more results continued to come in

from time to time. At the end of the allotted period for which the survey was open to

participants, 57 had completed surveys. The results of these surveys are summarized below.

IV. RESULTS

In the preceding sections, it was explained that social capital and civic engagement are a

daily part of a wide variety of community and campus behavior. It was also explained that this

study is truly a walk into the intellectual darkness, since correlations between civic behavior and

educational results have never truly been examined before. Also mentioned above is the fact that

although 300 surveys were sent to potential participants, 57 responses were completed well

enough to be included in the results.

22
 Finding any certain conclusions about any of the research conducted here was frustrated

by more than just the small sample size. Self-selection appeared to play a heavy role, too. Most

of the participants were in their senior year (Figure 1) and reported high Grade Point Averages

(Figure 2).

Figure 1 - Year in School Figure 2 - GPA

3% 6% 5% 2%
3.8 to 4.0
8% Freshman 3.5 to 3.79
35%
Sophomore 28% 3.0 to 3.49
Junior 2.5 to 2.99
83% Senior 2.0 to 2.49
30% Below 2.0

This fact makes coming to any clear conclusions about the effect of civic behavior on

educational achievement extremely difficult. Since nearly two-thirds of the sample population

(65%) reported having GPAs at 3.5 or higher, that means that most of the questions regarding

social capital and civic engagement are answered by individuals with high grade-point averages.

In other words, low-GPA students were severely underrepresented in this study. As an example

of how this underrepresentation of low-GPA students plagued the results of this study, consider

the following:

Participants were asked how often they attended sporting events, with these options for

responses: Every week, Every other week, Once or twice a month, A few times per year, Never,

and Don‘t know. All told, 11% of participants reported attending a sporting event at least every

other week, 14% said they attend once or twice a month, 49% said they go to sporting events a

23
few times per year, and 25% reported not attending sporting events at all. Normally, that sort of

distribution would be ideal for getting reliable results. However, because of the

disproportionately large number of high-GPA respondents, it was nearly impossible to determine

if academic performance had anything to do with attendance at sporting events (p=0.081).

On the other hand, other indicators of academic success were no more useful in

determining whether there was a significant correlation between the students who reported them

and their associated levels of civic involvement. One potentially-promising indicator of

academic success came in the form of those who reported having received rewards or some other

form of academic recognition since leaving High School. 53% of respondents reported having

received such an award, and 46% said they had not. A fairly even distribution, these seemed an

ideal place to check for correlations. Yet the independent variable (that is to say, among those

that measured social capital or civic engagement) that could be most closely correlated with

having received an award was among those respondents who reported having served a full-time

mission. But even this potential association cannot be considered significant, since it‘s

associated p-value was just 0.142, a statistically insignificant correlation. On and on down the

list of associations the research can go, with very little to show for it by way of statistically-

significant correlations.

Nevertheless there were at least two correlations worth mentioning.

First, respondents who reported having taken lessons to improve a cultural, artistic, or

musical skill within the last year tended to have higher Grade Point Averages than those who did

not report having taken such lessons (p=0.048). This is an interesting finding, since many

studies have concluded that there is no significant correlation between individuals who

24
participate in musical lessons (likely the most common form of lesson relating to culture, art, or

music) and their academic achievements (see Costa-Giomi 2004, for example). Of course, it is

difficult to say which of these variables acts as cause and which as effect. Perhaps involvement

in lessons to improve a cultural, artistic, or musical skill creates patterns of practice and self-

discipline within individuals involved. Perhaps these practices then have a tendency to spill over

quite naturally into school work habits, causing students to achieve higher grades. Certainly, it

could be the other way around. It may be that students who have worked hard in school have a

desire to experience success in a non-scholastic arena and so involve themselves in cultural,

artistic, or musical endeavors. Which of these variables acts as cause in this relationship remains

unknown, but one thing is known for certain: According to this survey‘s results, there is a

statistically significant correlation between the two.

Second, students who reported having served full-time missions were significantly more

likely than their non-returned-missionary peers to report being members of an honors society or

some other group that requires a minimum GPA-level to be a member (p=0.017). As with the

previous variables, any explanation for just why this is remains mysterious, but in this case, some

of the other data seems to provide clues as to why there was a significant correlation here. Of all

the non-academic categories tested, the question of whether the participant had served a full-time

LDS mission showed more significance with determining academic success than any other

variable tested. That is not to say that returned missionaries reported statistically significant

correlations with any other areas of academic achievement other than the already-mentioned

honors society variable. However, more than the other independent variables, a mission appears

to explain more about participants‘ educational experience than any other variable tested. Near-

significant correlations were reported with missionary service in the areas of Grade Point

25
Average (p=0.169), Awards for academic achievement since leaving high school (p=0.142), and

plans for obtaining some kind of post-graduate degree (p=0.075). It would be irresponsible to

suggest that a near-correlation is a correlation, but a consistent pattern of nearly-significant p-

values seems to suggest that of all the variables tested, probably nothing plays a larger role in

affecting student educational outcomes than whether or not students have served a full-time

mission. This will certainly come as no surprise to LDS Church members, who routinely point

out the self-discipline, time management, and priority-setting skills that each missionary must

learn in order to be successful and which are vital to attaining some measure of educational

achievement. Even so, these results constituted the biggest surprise in the course of this

research.

Another discovery worth discussing revolves around the area of trust. The survey asked

students questions about whether they trusted government officials, school administrators, class

instructors, and their peers. The results were eye-opening. Overall, the trend was toward less

trust for those individuals with whom students have more frequent contact. In other words, the

more students know someone, the less likely they are to report having trust for that person, with

one exception. (see Figure 3). Other than elected officials, students‘ peers were the least-trusted

group about whom participants were asked to respond. This constitutes a significant insight into

the attitudes that BYU-Idaho students have about those around them. They are distrusting of

elected officials, but extremely trusting of their ecclesiastical leaders. Whereas there were no

respondents who said they could trust elected officials to do the right thing ―All of the time,‖

there were 47% of respondents who reported feeling that they could always trust their Bishops

and Stake Presidents to do the right thing. As much as students at this highly-religious university

may express disagreements with decisions their church leaders make, they don‘t appear to let

26
those disagreements get in the way of feeling like they can trust those leaders. If one includes

the ―Most of the time‖ category for how often students reported being able to trust their Bishops

Figure 3 - Feelings of Trust

80%

70%

60%
Political Trust
50%
Administrative Trust
40%
Instructor Trust
30%
Peer Trust
20% Bish/SP Trust
10% EQP/RSP Trust

0%
All of the Most of the Some of the Hardly Ever Never
Time Time Time

and Stake Presidents, which 52% of participants said accurately expressed their feelings of trust

toward those church leaders, one could safely conclude that virtually the entire student body –

99% -- reports feelings of trust with their most prominent ecclesiastical leaders. Interestingly,

students do not report feeling near the same levels of trust for school administrators, even though

they essentially constitute church leadership as well. Although 70% reported being able to trust

school administrators to do the right thing most of the time, just 16% said the same could be

trusted to do right all of the time. Another 16% responded with ―Some of the time,‖ a significant

difference between their feelings of trust toward Bishops and Stake Presidents. A similar trend

was apparent when students were asked about how much of the time they could trust the church

leaders with whom they come in most frequent contact – their Elders Quorum Presidents and

Relief Society Presidents. Although 26% of students said they could trust these church leaders

27
all of the time, 66% said they could be trusted most of the time, and 9% said just some of the

time.

As mentioned above, BYU-Idaho students are highly untrusting of elected officials,

compared with other leaders tested. It is worth noting that of all the groups of people about

whom participants were asked trust questions, elected officials were the only group any

participants said they could never trust. These results appear to be consistent with the findings of

others. Putnam has noted a several-decades-long decline in reported levels of public trust (140-

142). In fact, BYU-Idaho students‘ reported feelings of trust for elected officials were probably

closer to general American trends than were their feelings of trust in any of the other categories.

Their expressions of trust for ecclesiastical leaders, on the other hand, are likely an aberration.

This is most likely due to the effect of religious education and training on students. The

religious educational experience that students have at BYU-Idaho is probably unlike any other

(except perhaps for that seen at Brigham Young University-Provo and Brigham Young

University-Hawaii). Students attend school in an environment where they are taught that church

leaders are entitled to the inspiration of Heaven to help them in their responsibilities. In fact,

BYU-Idaho goes so far as to hold ―Devotional‖ meetings once every week (for the entire student

body to attend) at which students hear school leaders and other prominent Latter-day Saints teach

them about church doctrines. As a result, many students likely feel that an expression of distrust

for their ecclesiastical leaders constitutes an expression of a lack of trust for the very powers of

God. Moreover, very few of the students at BYU-Idaho are likely to have experienced any

significantly negative experiences with ecclesiastical leaders to the degree that it might lead them

to feel skeptical of motives or questioning of decisions rendered by the majority of ecclesiastical

authorities. In other words, BYU-Idaho‘s religious training is designed to create powerful

28
experiences that forge bonding social capital. Nevertheless, in spite of the great deal of trust

BYU-Idaho students feel towards their ecclesiastical leaders and school administrators, there is

not any statistically-significant correlation between any of these measures of trust and any

measure of educational achievement.

V. CONCLUSION

This paper has sought to determine the extent to which civic engagement and social

capital play a role in the educational experience of university students. Previous research has

demonstrated that civic engagement and social capital have been linked with a number of

positive life benefits, but none of the research has examined specifically whether there is a link

between these and educational success. One of the most consistent challenges this research

faced was whether it was even possible to measure civic engagement and social capital in a

population that is inherently engaged with one another (daily in the classroom) and which has

almost limitless opportunities to develop powerful networks of social capital (especially from

roommates). These difficulties were compounded by the fact that the research was carried out

among students at Brigham Young University-Idaho, a population characterized almost entirely

by Latter-day Saints whose opportunities for engagement and social capital building are

enhanced by their weekly church meetings, callings, and assignments. Nevertheless, this study

overcame the difficulties of measuring social capital and civic engagement by focusing on non-

roommate, non-family interactions among the campus and community surrounding students.

Care has also been taken to closely examine the elements of social capital and civic

engagement. Social capital has been defined as ―connections among individuals – social

networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them‖ (Putnam 19).

29
Of all the aspects of social capital, perhaps the most important distinction is made between

bonding social capital and bridging social capital. Bonding refers to the levels of social capital

that exist among an exclusive group, often one with a homogenous population. For the most

part, bonding is viewed as being less beneficial to the overall community than bridging social

capital. However, bonding is usually easier to participate in than bridging, since bonding allows

individuals to make connections with similar or like-minded individuals in the community. On

the other hand, bridging social capital refers to forging those same types of mutual trust and

reciprocity with the community at large. Activities that do something to connect various

heterogeneous individuals in a community to one another tend to be what is meant by bridging

social capital. It connects diverse groups and creates a web, or network, of associations among a

community.

The literature prior to this study that examines social capital and civic engagement with

respect to educational achievement did little to assist in an understanding of how these behaviors

affect university students. Most of the literature related to civic engagement that has focused on

education has tended to focus on relationships among parents of elementary, middle, and high

school students. The author could find nothing that pointed toward anyone having conducted

similar studies that focused on how the relationships among university-level students may have

an effect on academic success.

Likewise, the education literature focused on a number of different determinants for

educational achievement, but none could claim to have considered civic engagement or social

capital as a determinant – or at least an influencing factor – in educational outcomes.

30
 Thus, as far as the author is aware, this study is the first of its kind. It makes an original

contribution to political and social science literature that focuses on civic engagement and social

capital. It also constitutes a new addition to education literature.

This study conducted a random-sample survey of 300 participants at BYU-Idaho in

Rexburg, Idaho. Over a period of three weeks in March 2011, participants were asked questions

about their political, religious, community, university, cultural, athletic, and informal community

participation as well as volunteerism and charity. The 49-question survey also asked participants

several questions about their educational achievements.

Results of the survey could not conclude with any statistical certainty that there is any

correlation between either social capital and educational achievement or civic engagement and

educational achievement. Of all the variables cross-tested using Pearson‘s Chi-Square, just two

showed significant correlations.

Participants who reported having served full-time missions were significantly more likely

to report being members of an honors society or other group on campus with a minimum GPA

requirement (p=0.017). This study suggests that perhaps the reason for this is that serving a full-

time LDS mission requires self-discipline, as well as time management and priority-setting skills.

It is worth noting that other educational variables tested with full-time missionary service

showed somewhat noteworthy correlations with Grade Point Average and plans for post-

graduate study, but the author stresses that these correlations were not statistically significant

(p=0.169 and p=0.075, respectively).

In addition, participants who reported having participated in lessons to improve a

cultural, artistic, or musical skill within the last year were significantly more likely to report

31
having a higher Grade Point Average than those who did not report having participated in those

lessons (p=0.048).

In spite of these two significant correlations, this paper concludes that since the vast

majority of the tested variables showed no significant correlation, there is simply no link

between social capital/civic engagement and educational achievement.

Since further study is warranted on this subject (due largely to the author‘s time

constraints and limited resources), the author makes some recommendations for future research.

First, future researchers would do well to include more independent variables that did not

directly relate to social capital or civic engagement. The survey used for this study included

questions regarding participants‘ gender and class year, but did not ask about race or

socioeconomic status, an unfortunate oversight. Second, future research might likely be more

successful if it employed a different method for sending invitations to participate and receive

results. Traditional mail might likely have achieved more results, and more varied results. This

study suffered from an overrepresentation of high-GPA students. Perhaps a more formal way of

delivering invitations to participate in the survey would result in a more even distribution of

participants.

Because this study could not find a significant connection between civic

engagement/social capital and educational achievement, there is precious little to recommend to

policymakers or school administrators. However, administrators would do well to be careful in

claiming that participation in school clubs or organizations (no matter what kind) are likely to

lead to a more successful university experience. Whether such involvement may be more

socially rewarding is certainly a possibility, but outside the scope of this paper. Yet since it

32
cannot be demonstrated that civic involvement and social participation have a connection with

academic success, claims to the contrary must be considered highly suspect.

33
 Bibliography

Alexander, N. 1940. Determinants of college success. Journal of Higher Education 11 : 479-85.

Callan, P. M. 2000. Introduction. Washington, DC: National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, .

Carbonaro, William J. 1999. Opening the debate on closure and school outcomes: Comment on
morgan and sorensen. American Sociological Review 64 (5): 682-6.

———. 1998. A little help from my friend's parents: Intergenerational closure and educational
outcomes. Sociology of Education, 71 (4) (-10-01): 295-313.

Costa-Giomi, Eugenia, Effects of Three Years of Piano Instruction on Children‘s Academic

Achievement, School Performance, and Self-Esteem. Psychology of Music April 2004, vol.
32 No. 2, 139-152

Dirk, van Damme. 2001. Quality issues in the internationalisation of higher education. Higher
Education, 41 (4) (-06-01): 415-41.

Fischer, M. J. 2007. The effects of affirmative action in higher education. Social Science
Research 36 (2): 531-49.

Furstenberg, Frank F.,Jr., and Mary Elizabeth Hughes. 1995. Social capital and successful
development among at-risk youth. Journal of Marriage and Family 57 (3) (Aug.): pp. 580-
592.

Glenn, David. 2009. A gene pushes some men away from college, but social support pulls them
in. Chronicle of Higher Education 55 (18): A9.

Goddard, Roger D. 2003. Relational networks, social trust, and norms: A social capital
perspective on students' chances of academic success. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 25 (1) (-04-01): 59-74.

Heath, Sue. 2010. Young people, social capital and network-based educational decision-making.
British Journal of Sociology of Education 31 (4): 395-411.

Kaufman, Julia, and Annual Meeting of the Comparative International,Education SocietyMar.

2004. The interplay between social and cultural determinants of school effort and success:
An investigation of chinese- immigrant and second-generation chinese students' perceptions
toward school. Social Science Quarterly 85 (5): 1275-98.

Larose, Simon, Donald U. Robertson, Roland Roy, and Frederic Legault. 1998. Nonintellectual
learning factors as determinants for success in college. Research in Higher Education 39 (3)
(06): 275-97.

34
Lee, Moosung. 2010. Researching social capital in education: Some conceptual considerations
relating to the contribution of network analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education
31 (6): 779-92.

Libutti, Dean D. 2007. First-year academic success: Differences in pre-entry and learning and
study skill characteristics for academically successful and unsuccessful students at a public
flagship university in new england. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities and Social Sciences 67 (9-): 3325-A).

Obama, Barack H. 2009. ―Obama Remarks on Higher Education‖ (April 24). The Washington
Post. www.washingtonpost.com, accessed February 18, 2011

Pike, Gary R. 2005. First- and second-generation college students: A comparison of their
engagement and intellectual development. Journal of Higher Education 76 (3): 276-300.

Putnam, Robert D., Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon
& Schuster. New York, 2000

Putnam, Robert D. and Lewis M. Feldstein, Better Together: Restoring the American
Community., Simon & Schuster. New York, 2003

Rose, Trent M. 2005. Measuring Civic Engagement in Idaho Falls. Self-Published. Idaho State
University, 2005

Steinberger, Peter J., ed. 2000. Readings in Classical Political Thought. Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing

Teachman, Jay D., Kathleen Paasch, and Karen Carver. 1996. Social capital and dropping out of
school early. Journal of Marriage and Family 58 (3) (Aug.): pp. 773-783.

Vermeulen, L. 2008. Learning environment, learning process, academic outcomes and career
success of university graduates. STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 33 (4): 431-51.

Yorke, Mantz. 2004. Retention, persistence and success in on-campus higher education, and their
enhancement in open and distance learning. Open Learning 19 (1) (02): 19-32.

35