The paper provides a framework for reviewing developments in thinking about social capital over the last decade and for assessing future prospects. It argues for giving particular value to social capital as a phenomenon (conceptual and empirical) which is most effective when viewed in interaction with other elements of analysis or policy. Two forms of interaction are addressed: between bonding and bridging social capital; and between human and social capital. The paper then tracks some of the developments in the policy research debate in order to illustrate the dilemmas involved in the deployment of the concept. The fourth section poses some methodological questions and possible future directions.social capital, human capital, OECD,

No abstract

This paper acknowledges the power of human capital as a concept but points to a number of question marks against it, notably in the appropriateness of the approaches to measuring it, and the scope of learning which it covers. These same queries are applied to the emerging notion of social capital and the different ways in which it has been interpreted. Given the diversity of interpretations which this reveals, I ask whether the concept of social capital has suf cient coherence to contribute to analytical and policy thinking, as human capital has. I conclude that although its robustness as a conventional tool of analysis may be in question, its utility as a heuristic device is potentially great, but also that we need to match measurement approaches carefully to its potential.

This entry discusses the measurement of the social outcomes of learning. It extends the discussion beyond employment and labour market outcomes to consider the impact of adult learning on social domains, with particular focus on health and civic engagement. It emphasises the distinction between public and private, and monetary and non-monetary benefits. It reviews methodological issues on measuring outcomes, and identifies a number of channels through which adult learning has its effects.

The EERJ roundtable took as its point of departure the experience of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) in carrying out policy research. CERI has conducted four reviews of national educational research and development (in New Zealand, England, Mexico and Denmark), and has run a number of meetings specifically on the use of evidence-based policy research (in the USA, Sweden and the Netherlands). Tom Schuller, Head of CERI, presented some conclusions from these and other CERI activities. Responses were made by Wim Jochems, Open University of the Netherlands, Lejf Moos, Danish University of Education, and Agnes van Zanten, Observatoire Sociologique du Changement, CNRS, Paris. The EERJ Roundtable was an opportunity to return to the issues raised in the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER) 2003 Hamburg Roundtable on the 'OECD Examiners' Report on Educational Research and Development in England' (European Educational Research Journal, 3(2), 2004, pp. 510-526) in a wider context and as part of a trend to evaluate the quality and organisation of educational research, and its contribution to educational policy. The roundtable posed questions on the way international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and units within them such as the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), define, develop and disseminate knowledge, and specifically educational research. There are a number of approaches to this (see, for example, Porter & Webb, 2004;Robertson, 2005). One is to ask empirical questions about the actual impact of such organisations on educational policy or practice. This is a rich potential area for inquiry, though fraught with difficulty, notably in demonstrating causal links -but I'm sure that those of us that work in these organisations would like to see more results from this line of inquiry! A second approach is to raise political questions about the role of international organisations, their legitimacy Tom Schuller et al 58 or their legitimating processes (two quite different things), their functions and their accountability. A third is to use investigation of international organisations such as OECD as an entry point for considering the role of international research generally, whether it is executed through such agencies or in national or subnational units such as university departments. These reflections touch on all three approaches. I want in particular to address the growing concern about the nature of educational research and its relation to policy. My remarks derive not from original research but from involvement as head of CERI in a range of international projects, particularly in a specific project on evidence-based policy research (see Schuller, 2005; Burns & Schuller, 2006 forthcoming); and prior to that as an examiner in one OECD review (New Zealand) and an examinee in another (England). TOM SCHULLER. Reviewing OECD's Educational ...