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 ...

No abstract

This article discusses how the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) addresses the task of conducting international policy research. The article begins with a descriptive account of CERI's work, including the way member countries shape the research agenda. Several issues which relate to how research evidence is compiled within an international context are addressed. First, why the supposed priority area of lifelong learning is only weakly supported by systematic research is considered. The author raises the question of how we are to judge the quality and impact of international research work, especially where it is policy-related. He suggests that an increasing focus on the outcomes of education raises questions about causality in a policy research context. This leads to some brief consideration of evaluation of research, and of the country as a unit of methodological analysis. Finally, he asks what might be meant by learning from international experience.Cross-national education research is carried out by a number of international organisations, as well as by individuals and units working within national boundaries. In this article I examine, from the inside, the role played by one such international unit, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, where I worked for four years in the 1970s, and now work again since 2003. How does the operation of units such as CERI, and the OECD more widely, influence the agenda and the nature of international research, and what are the potential implications for European research?According to Rinne et al, the OECD 'has become established as a kind of "eminence grise" of the educational policy of industrialised countries', and 'has claimed for itself a central position in the collection, processing, classification, analysing, storing, supplying and marketing of education policy information -the extensive control of information on education ' (2004, p. 456). The first observation is a clear judgement on the part of the authors, i.e. it is their own view of where the OECD stands. The second is more ambiguous: does it mean that the OECD has actually achieved this position of control, or merely that it claims it? In either case these are fairly extensive statements, which are both flattering and challenging to those of us who work within the OECD's Directorate for Education.Academic interest in the OECD's role in educational policy analysis and formation is growing (see Papadopoulos [1994] for a historical account of the OECD's education work up to a decade ago). A similar study to the Finnish one cited above is being carried out at the University of Bremen, located within a wider study of international governance, though the results will not be available until 2006(Martens et al, 2004. Both these projects cover OECD work on education at a very general level and over a long time span.

No abstract