PROMOTING LIFELONG LEARNING: WHAT MARKETERS CAN LEARN FROM SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY Reynaldo A. Mones, De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde School of Professional and Continuing Education 950 Pablo Ocampo Street, Malate, Manila, Philippines
[email protected] Reynaldo A. Bautista, De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde School of Management and Information Technology 2544 Taft Avenue, Malate, Manila
[email protected] Marjorie R. Rola, Ph.D., Philippine Ports Authority
[email protected] Social Capital (SC) refers to the nature and extent of one’s participation in informal networks and formal civic organizations. It includes network access and forms of participation, namely: “bonding” and “bridging” social capital (Putnam, 2000). This research shares insights on how higher education institutions promote lifelong learning (LLL) through the SC theory. This study adapts Putnam’s definition of SC. The research proceeded by gathering demographics about students; measuring strength of bonding and bridging SC among post-baccalaureate students and teachers; and, correlating demographic data and SC strength in motivating students to complete the postbaccalaureate degree. We adapted the Social Capital Questionnaire of World Bank. We surveyed 151 respondents from De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde (DLS-CSB). Research findings are: rank and file and supervisory employees have higher motivation to pursue LLL than business owners and managers; cooperation among students increases the motivation of students to pursue LLL; and, there is a direct relationship between number of modules finished and motivation to pursue LLL. The implications are: using marketing campaigns related to work promotion targeted at rank and file employees stimulates enrollment and, activities that support interaction among students lead to completion of more courses, encouraging students to finish the entire diploma program. Keywords: Lifelong learning Social Capital (SC), bonding SC, bridging SC,. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2893.4245
1
PROMOTING LIFELONG LEARNING: WHAT MARKETERS CAN LEARN FROM SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY Introduction The term "social capital" initially appeared in community studies, highlighting the central importance—for the survival and functioning of city neighborhoods—of the networks of strong, cross cutting personal relationships developed over time that provide the basis for trust, cooperation, and collective action in such communities (Jacobs,1965). Early usage also indicated the significance of social capital for the individual: the set of resources inherent in family relations and in community social organizations useful for the development of the young child (Loury, 1977). The concept has been used since its introduction to illuminate a wide range of social phenomena, although researchers increasingly have focused attention on the role of social capital as an influence not only on the development of human capital (Coleman, 1988; Loury, 1977, 1987) but on the economic performance of firms (Baker, 1990), geographic regions (Putnam, 1993, 1995) and nations (Fukuyama, 1995). The most common definition of social capital regards it as a feature of social organization, such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1995). Although there are many different descriptions of social capital, the major three central elements are social network, norm, and trust. Another fundamental distinction is often made between the components of its concept, which include the bonding, bridging, and linking social capital (Woolcock, 2001). Some authors (Winter, 2000) provided a point of consensus among various perspectives by emphasizing on a concept of networks of quality relations which operate as a resource to collective action on different scales (individual, communities and nations). Putnam (2000) argues that social capital has forceful, even quantifiable, effects on many different aspects of our lives and it is more than warm, cuddly feelings, or frissons of community pride. These quantifiable effects include lower crime rates (Putnam, 2000 and Hardoy et. al., 1999), better health (Wilkinson, 1996), improved longevity (Putnam, 2000), better educational achievement (Coleman, 1988), greater levels of income equality (Krishnan, 2008 and Wilkinson, 1996), improved child welfare and lower rates of child Abuse (Cote & Healy, 2001), more effective government (Putnam, 1995), and enhanced economic achievement through increased trust and lower transaction costs (Fukuyama, 1995). Social capital is multifunctional as it embraces essential factors of economic production, provides a basis for collective action within society, and is in itself an essential input factor of social capital accumulation, including health care. Moreover, social capital is a valuable asset as such. In particular, human health, literacy and life expectancy, cultural and social integrity, and social cohesion are components of human well-being (Atkinson, et. al., 1997). Some researchers recognized that social capital has been located at the level of the individual, the informal social group, the formal organization, the community, the ethnic group, and even the nation (Coleman, 1988 and Putnam, 1995). There are different views in the literature; some authors posit social capital at the individual level, some the community level, while others have a more dynamic view. Putnam (1995) states that social capital sources lay in the social structure within which the actor is located. Thus, social capital can be thought of as having an individual and an aggregate component; that is, social capital belongs to the group and can be used by the group or individuals within the group. Coleman (1988) stated that social capital exists within levels or scales as one feels belonging to family, community, profession, country, etc, simultaneously. Adler and Kwon (2002) stated that although social capital was originally conceived as a community-wide concept, it should be observable at the individual level. Bourdieu identified it at the individual level while Putnam saw it at the community level. The general consensus in the literature is that social capital is identifiable from the individual level to the level of the nation; however, it is clear that social capital is evident at any level where there is identification and belonging. Learning is a central process in social capital formation and application. From primary socialization across the life span, learning is the incidental mechanism that converts experience into understanding. Incidental and informal processes of learning inform future behavior, so that we heed the lessons of the past for a more advantageous, stable, and fulfilling future. It is through formally organized and regulated learning experiences, however, that citizenship and other statuses, including entry to different occupations and the labor market, are accorded. These formal experiences ensure understanding of the processes of acquiring, storing, and applying forms of knowledge deemed essential by those in positions of influence, in government, commercially, and in other arenas, locally, nationally, and beyond. At this point, learning for social cohesion and civic responsibility and learning for economic participation and productivity merge in national and other systems of education, from early childhood and increasingly into advanced adult years. For some, in the post-employment age, learning to consume has replaced the learning for production imperative.
2
At first glance, the term ‘lifelong learning’ holistically embraces all modes of educational experience, at all stages of life in all spheres of activity. Worldwide moves to place infants in day care centers include the intention to start beyond-the-home education very early in life. Similarly, as the proportion of older people increases, they learn to manage their changing social and economic affairs along with their increasing frailty, until death. Their wish to remain active may lead them to delay retirement and then to participate in increasingly diverse community activities, among which those designated as learning may have a high profile. Lifelong learning, then, is promoted as an unassailable individual and public good. This proposition, however, needs examining. Those apparently oriented towards social capital formation have strong economic interests which are not always transparent. First, those targeted usually pay for these educational services themselves. Plans to increase participation in such activities increase their market share. It is clear that in most parts of the world, lifelong learning policy is narrowly concerned with labor market effectiveness on the part of population groups designated as economically active or actively seeking work if they are temporarily unemployed (Preston, 1999). For those in core organizational positions and selling expertise as flexible freelance workers, lifelong learning is about increasingly continuing professional development to remain eligible to work. For those currently unpaid, it is about providing them with the generic and locally specific skills that employers want. For those less immediately employable, organized learning opportunities seek to provide prerequisite basic skills (e.g. literacy and language). In contrast, funding controls means that sponsorship of uncertificated programs of adult and community learning diminishes. They are deemed irrelevant to a competitive labor market, along with those which continue year after year without achieving time-bound, specified objectives. Maybe this is no wonder. In different parts of the world, the social and political capital functions of adult education have often led to their summary termination in fear of their capacity to inspire popular resistance movements. What does all this mean for human and social capital as country after country adopts lifelong learning policies? In the model just described, they are primarily committed to the greater efficiency of increasingly flexible labor and keeping its skills up to date with changes in technology, marketing and consumption. Often, however, such policies are communicated through narratives of civic responsibility. To compensate for the declining ability of states to meet social support expenses, these discursive strategies direct those with resources and skills to learn to contribute to the well-being of those less fortunate, through corporate citizenship and community action programs. They urge the marginalized poor to enroll on courses to learn how to enhance their capacities, so as to increase their levels of participation, economically and otherwise. Those in either category who are reluctant to contribute time and other resources as providers or consumers of these services may be seen as non-participants who avoid their civic responsibilities. In most countries, those in even more marginal social positions, among them the mentally disturbed, asylum seekers, and refugees, are being offered decreasing self-development opportunities. The ability of such groups to threaten local stability is slight, and in the latter case minimized still further by dispersal policies that keep them in isolation from one another, so preventing those who would otherwise be capable of doing so from forming networks of social support and creating unrest (Preston, 1999). Invisible to all is the way involvement at whatever level in any of these processes expects learning of the popular and pervasive neo-liberal, outcomes-based organizational management skills of self-appraisal and regulation within narratives of learning enabling the new conceptualizations. Management theorists have seized human resource development as the mechanism for facilitating the accumulation of human and social capital within organizations, integrated within processes of organizational learning. These go beyond the contributions of individual actors, in public, voluntary and private sectors, at sub-state, state and supranational levels. Such thinking explicitly seeks to harness the quality of social interaction to efficiencies and profitability within and between organizations working as partners, in the workplace, and elsewhere. The extent to which these processes achieve the ultimate objective of a continuously learning society remains open to doubt, certainly as long as they are primarily inspired by economic expectations. Methodology The study covers the students from the School of Professional and Continuing Education (SPaCE) of DLS-CSB. Primary data were collected from students, new and old, enrolled in the various programs under SPaCE which was conducted last January, 2014. The researchers visited the respective classes and explained to the respondents the objectives of the study before they asked the students to accomplish the questionnaires. The researchers adopted the World Bank Social Capital Integrated Questionnaire which has been tested for validity and reliability through past researches. The questionnaire consisted of three parts divided into demographic data, social groups and networks, and trust and solidarity. To examine the associations among multiple variables related to social groups and networks and trust and solidarity, frequency tables were generated as well as correlation and T-tests were performed.
3
Findings and Results The population considered in this study is well within the working age of 15 to 64 years for the Philippines (World Bank, 2011). Of these, 37% fall within the age bracket 20-29 years old which is consistent with the number of students who are in the rank and file position (42 or 28%). Majority of the respondents (35%) are already occupying supervisory or managerial positions. Majority of the students are male (64%). SPaCE accepts into its programs only those who have finished their college education. SPaCE students are either employed (89%) or self-employed (11%). Students enroll in the programs to learn new skills (16%), for selfadvancement (21%) and eventually promotion (8%) within their organization. Five per cent of the respondents have taken more than six modules indicating that they were interested in more than one program even if they have to finance their education themselves (23%) following the intellectual stream that the social contract view that actors act as wholly self-interested (Coleman, 1988). The survey also shows that 91% of the respondents are determined to finish the programs they are enrolled in. Filipinos are famous for bayanihan or spirit of kinship and camaraderie (Department of Tourism, 2014). Filipinos also love to work in small groups and sharing and helping out in the spirit of solidarity. SPaCE’s students (61%) will share their materials with their classmates whenever they miss a class or if a classmate asks for it and 66% will help out their classmates always or most of the time since many among them (61%) have more than one friend in the class. The study tested eight predictors related to the students’ enrollment in SPaCE’s programs – number of modules taken, number of friends in class, number of classmates to share class materials with, level of trust to DLS-CSB personnel, level of trust to SPaCE personnel, level of trust to classmates, level of trust in the last 4 months prior to the survey, and the number of classmates helping out in class activities and requirements. A form of social capital states that “people are always doing things for each other” and as such, this would require some degree of trustworthiness of the social environment (Coleman, 1988). This reciprocity of action and trustworthiness is indicated in the survey where trust on DLS-CSB personnel registered 55% and on their fellow students at 53%. The same shows that the students have had this level of trust even before they enrolled in SPaCEs programs. Multiple regression analysis was used to test if the eight predictors significantly predicted intention to finish the diploma course. The results of the regression indicated that the eight predictors explained 16% of the variance (r2=0.16, F=3.37, p=.05). The likelihood of the intention to finish diploma course is not statistically significant between companysponsored and self-financed students (t=0.12, p=>.05). Forty percent of the respondents are sponsored by their respective companies while 23% are self-financed. Thirty-six percent of those surveyed did not declare their source of tuition and other fees. Educational attainment does not affect the likelihood to finish a diploma program (F=0.06, p=>0.05) nor it was one of the reasons for enrolling (F=1.16, p=>0.05). However, the participant’s current position in the company affects the likelihood to finish diploma course (F=4.28, p=
