School Settings for Democratic Health Education a Social Capital Perspective

1
School Settings for Democratic HealthEducation
a Social Capital Perspective

• Christina Klyhs Albeck
• Research Programme for Environmental
• and Health Education
• NHPRC
• Esbjerg June 2006

2
Introduction

• Motivation, aim and methods
• Theoretical framework in key words
• Preliminary findings directing research
  challenges
• Experimental case study
• Comment and questions

3
Motivation, Aim and Methods

• Motivation
• Health promoting schools topic based traditional
  health education policy not reflecting
  eco-holistic setting perspective nor democratic
  health education
• Growing interest in the concept of social capital
  in health promotion at community level
• Aim
• To critically explore and describe the interplay
  between democratic health educational processes
  aiming at developing childrens action competence
  and social capital at school constituted in
  social and collaborative environment
• To discuss implications for integration of social
  capital in school health policy on basis of
• findings
• Methods
• Document analysis
• Interviews and observation
• Experimental case study

4
Theoretical Framework

• Children
• Social agents actions in interplay with quality
  of social relations and networks in context
• Democratic health education
• Action competence IVAC approach
• Authentic actions for change to promote healthy
  living conditions
• Social and collective process
• School
• School community
• Agent in community
• Learning outcome in focus not change

5
Theoretical Framework Social Capital

• Definition
• .features of social life networks, norms and
  trust that enable participants to act together
  more effectively to pursue shared objectives
• (Putnam 1996)
• Conceptual elements structural, emotional,
  functional 3 forms bonding, bridging and
  linking social capital
• Social resource or barrier for collective action
• Mediating factor

6
Schools Social Capital Forms - Functions
Bonding social capital passive
asset homogeneous, informal and
closed networks/personal trust and specific
reciprocity, criss-cross at horizontal level
Well being/psycho-social and practical support
Facilitates cooperation and action for change
in/out of setting
Bridging and linking social capital active
asset heterogeneous, both informal and formal
open networks/social trust and generalized
reciprocity criss-cross at both vertical and
horizontal level in/out of school setting
7
Preliminary Findings and Challenges

• Document analysis
• Need for qualitative studies focusing on social
  processes in action
• Childrens perceptions limited empirical
  studies
• Observations at school
• Difficult to grasp social capital especially
  action aspect
• Youth culture expressions e.g. graffiti not
  fitting parameters
• Interviews
• Children different perspectives trust,
  reciprocity, durability, time, homogeneity,
  heterogeneity, emphasizing strong ties to friends
  and family
• Teachers networks in social and collaborative
  environment not always
• working as resources, networks influenced
  by organisation and curriculum

8
Experimental Case Study

• Group 1
• Working on project focusing on health problem
  related to living conditions
• IVAC approach
• Both groups
• Evaluation
• Discussing both projects social impact
• Discussing social capital as
• school health policy forming one?
• Researcher
• Carrying out additional research with
• group 1

• Group 2
• Working on project on group 1 project
• Observing social dimension of IVAC approach by
  IVAC approach?
• Arranging work shop sharing interpretations and
  results
• Methods mapping, photos, interviews,
  observations
• Researcher facilitating emphasis on
  investigation-phase of group 1

9
Experimental Case Study

• Childrens project questions - preliminary
• Who is working together in group 1? Why? Who is
  group 1 collaborating with from outside during
  the project? Why?
• What is group 1 using the different social groups
  and relations for?
• What is the characteristics of the different
  social groups and relations working on the
  project together? Both within group 1 and
  outside, emphasizing feelings, position in
  structure, formality and any existing historical
  relations.
• What about the groups and relations make it more
  easy or less easy to achieving the objectives set
  by group 1 during project phases?
• What is making it easy or less easy to establish
  and maintain collaboration between social groups?
  Both at school and outside.

10
Comments please

• Ethical issues?
• How to avoid group 1 to feel less important than
  group 2?
• How to avoid group 1 to feel criticised? Or group
  2 to feel that they are criticising?
• Age issue?
• Methodological issues?
• How to inform group 1 about the project of group
  2 without affecting project - process?
• Practical issues?
• Researcher cant be in 2 places at the same time!!