Literature Review
What is Social Capital?
The
idea of social capital was actually derived from the field of sociology and
political science to explain about the resources available to individuals
through their affiliate behaviors and membership in community connections. (Kawachi,
1999).
The
recent studies on social capital have found its huge impact on various topics
or issues across the society. It includes domains such as controlling and
stopping juvenile crime, its role in enforcing youth development, the expansion
of rules and regulation in labor market attachment, the growth of educational
section, its role in performance of democracy and politics in a country and the
progression of economic development. (Ottebjer, 2005)
As
per literature, the concept of social capital is divided and distinguished into
various structures. One is about the distinction between structure and a
cognitive part of social capital; (T, E, & C., Mental health and social capital in
Cali, Columbia., 2004) second distinction is between bonding
and bridging social capital and the third is about horizontal and vertical
structure of social capital. (T, E, & E, Measuring social capital within health surveys: key issues.,
2002)
·
The
structural part deals with behavior while the cognitive component deals with
attitudes and perceptions.
·
Bonding
capital intends social unity within a group structure, while bridging capital means
the type of social capital that links or connects through various communities
and groups. (Putnam, 2000)
·
The
vertically based social capital connects to the relationships between different
levels of society. This includes connection between various levels like
community, local, government, while the horizontally based exists in the associations
between similar individuals or groups in
the same social context, such as between communities or youth groups.
“Social
capital is an elastic term. It broadly refers to the resources accumulated
through the relationships among people.” (Coleman, 1988) “It is often considered as a cause and
an effect of social networking.” (Resnick, 2001) (Williams D. , 2006) With social capital
one can have possession of the resources held by others, with mutual consent.
The resources can be anything right from love, money, emotional support or the
capacity to organize groups. This also gives capabilities, access to
individuals outside one's close circle and help to get non-redundant
information, resulting in benefits such as employment connections. (S.S.Phulari,
January 2010 )
Social capital also provides opportunity for people to get hold of information
and openings (e.g., job openings) which may otherwise be inaccessible. (Lin, 2001)
Apart
from Robert Putnam and Coleman, the famous researcher Bourdieu was also very
vocal about the term social capital; he defined it as “the sum of the
resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue
of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships
of mutual acquaintance and recognition.” (Bourdieu & Wacquant., 1992)
What is social networking?
The
use of social networking is growing at a very high speed. The popularity of
social networking sites such as Facebook, My Space, and Twitter clearly makes the
above statement evident. People have started using the internet to connect with
others by around the 1980’s, but it is only around some ten years back when the
concept of social networking sites became popular among people, and especially
among the youth. (Johnson, 2009)
But
what exactly are social networking services?
Boyd
and Ellison in their journal on computer mediated communication defined it into
3 parts based on 3 different services which social networking sites provide,
(1)
“Develop
a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system.
(2)
Articulate
a list of other users with whom they share a connection.
(3)
View
and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the
system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to
site.” (Boyd & Ellison, 2007)
So
as per this definition we can understand social networking site, as a place
where users are able to create a profile of themselves in virtual online communities
and create connections with people who share the same interest or connection. It
also provides users with the platform to view share and interact with the list
of connections made by others within the system. It provides opportunity to either
create connections with people whom we already know or to create new
connections.
Bridging
and Bonding: Social capital and Social Networking
The
above given definitions based on the literature found, on social capital and
social networking sites, makes it very clear that both share common
characteristics of bridging and bonding.
Bonding
social capital can be defined as the connection with those people whom we tend
to talk more, spend more time, has a family relationship, similar or close
ideological, religious and ethical values. Bonding social capital gives us
important social and psychological support and sense of belonging. (Putnam, 2000) Bridging social
capital can be defined as more of a weaker but diffused network with people
sharing same gender, race, ethnicity, geography, etc. "Bridging provides
better access to outside assets and information.” (Skoric, Ying,
& Ng, 2009)
The
examples of bonding in social networking sites can be seen when people
communicate with their family members, close friends, group or community whom
they support. (Putnam, 2000) (Rheingold, 1994). Such close connections and interaction
can give rise to similar thoughts and interests leading to therefore promote
“ideological homogeneity” among users. (Norris, 2002)
Meanwhile
the examples of bridging over social networking sites can be seen when random
people interact with each other on certain posts or photos in a social media
platform. Such platforms are used by
people for various purposes like discussions on public affairs. It even
promotes concepts like heterogeneity. (Klein, 1999)
(Norris, 2002)
Sociologist
Mark Granovetter in his study on people searching for jobs explained concepts
of ‘weak tie’ and ‘strong tie’. (Granovetter,
The strength of weak ties, 1973) (Granovetter,
Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers, 1974). The people who found
jobs easily were not people who had strongest relationships and friendships
i.e. bonding, but they were the one with widespread, weaker relationships,
which can be defined as bridging. (Williams D. , 2006). But today’s social networking sites,
especially Facebook provide users with the opportunity to produce and maintain
both strong ties and weak ties. So it can
influence users’ “life satisfaction, trust and public participation.” (Sebastián Valenzuela, 2009)
It
is very important for us to understand whether users of social networking
create more of ‘weak ties’ and ‘strong ties’ and which are more important.
Social capital and social networking:
Social
networking can be used to strengthen both the existing relationship and also to
create and develop new relationship. (Dr Philippa Collin, April 2011)
According
to Wellman, Internet will intensify the interpersonal transformation from
“door-to-door” to “place-to-place” and individualized “person-to-person”
networks. (Wellman, February 2001). Social networking
sites, instant messaging and Email communication removes barriers of time and
distance. The accessibility to communicate from any place with the help of
mobile and other devices makes it more convenient to communicate. This definitely helps in strengthening our
existing interpersonal relationship. (Boyd & Ellison, 2007) (Valentine, 2002) (Subrahmanyam, 2000).
The
major reasons for many of the people visiting social networking sites is not
actually ‘networking’ or trying to communicate with new people, rather they are
mostly looking for talking with people who are already part of their extended
social network. (Boyd & Ellison, 2007)
Now
let us have a look at social networking from the point of creating new
interpersonal relationships. According
to a study conducted by (Donath, 2004) social network sites could make it easy
for people to increase and maintain the number of ‘weak ties’ (new
interpersonal relationships) because its features and characteristics are
perfectly suitable for maintaining these ties cheaply and easily. Creating new
connections which can be called as ‘bridging’ as per (Putnam, 2000) might have been increased by social
networking websites like Facebook, Friendster etc, because they provide with a
platform to create and develop larger, diffuse networks of relationships from
which one could make use of others’ resources.
Many
researches has also found that users with low self-esteem, low life
satisfaction, chronic illness or disability found it easy with the help of
social networking sites to develop friendship over the internet. (Dr Philippa Collin, April 2011) (Sebastián Valenzuela, 2009)
There
is also a increasing convergence of online and offline space happening because
of social networking sites. (Sebastián Valenzuela, 2009) Many people
especially youth are now mutual constituting their online and offline social
worlds and are creating various options for ‘techno-social interaction.’ (Holloway,
2003)
(Richardson, 2007) (Sebastián Valenzuela, 2009)
Social capital helps people in
different ways. Being part of a social network (online and offline) provides
opportunity for a person to take benefit of resources from other members of the
network. It also help individual to take advantage of connections received
through multiple contacts. The resources can be in the form of ‘important
information, employment opportunities, personal relationships, or the capacity
to organize groups’. (Paxton, 1999) (Nicole B. Ellison, 2007)
It
is very important to understand the reason for impact on social capital because
of social networking sites. Uses and gratification theory has been used by
researchers to understand the relationship. (Sebastián Valenzuela, 2009)
Social
networking sites, like Facebook, help people in developing personal identity by
providing multiple platforms for ‘interpersonal feedback’ and ‘peer acceptance’.
(Valkenburg, 2006) Social networking sites
satisfy users need for information and news, which helps in increasing the
‘weak ties’ of people. It also has the potential to satisfy entertainment and
recreational needs of people. (Kenski, 2006) (Shah, 2001).
Social networking site also helps us to achieve integration and social
connection. It also can be referred as the need for a sense of belonging, and an
emotional connection with family friends and society. (McQuail, 2005)
Works Cited
1.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant., J. D. (1992). An
Invitation to Reflexive Sociology . The University of Cgincago Press.
2.
Boyd, d. m.,
& Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and
Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication .
3.
Coleman, J. S.
(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology.
4.
Donath, J. S.
(2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal , 22, 71.
5.
Dr Philippa
Collin, M. K. (April 2011). The Benefits of Social Networking Services.
Melbourne.
6.
Granovetter, M.
(1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
7.
Granovetter, M.
(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology .
8.
Holloway, S. L.
(2003). Cyberkids: Children in the Inforamtion Age. London: Routledge
Falmer.
9.
Johnson, L. L.
(2009). The 2009 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media
Consortium.
10.
Kawachi, I.
(1999). Social capital and community effects on population and individual
health. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
11.
Kenski, K.
&. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy,
knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media .
12.
Klein, H. K.
(1999). Tocqueville in cyberspace: Using the Internet for citizen
associations. Information Society .
13.
Lin, N. (2001). Social
capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
14.
McQuail, D.
(2005). McQuail's mass communication theory (5th ed.). London: SAGE.
15.
Nicole B.
Ellison, C. S. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and
College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication , 1143–1168,.
16.
Norris, P. (
2002). The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities. The Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics .
17.
Ottebjer, L.
(2005). Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam on Social Capital. KAROLINSKA
INSTITUTET, Department of Public Health Sciences .
18.
Paxton, P.
(1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator
assessment. American Journal of Sociology, , 88–127.
19.
Putnam, R. D.
(2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
20.
Resnick, P.
(2001). Beyond bowling together: Sociotechnical capital. Boston, MA:
Addison-Wesley: HCI in the New Millennium.
21.
Rheingold, H.
(1994). The virtual community. London: Minerva.
22.
Richardson, I.
T. (2007). Moblogging and Belonging: New Mobile Phone Practices and Young
People‟s Sense of Social Inclusion.
23.
S.S.Phulari, D.
N. (January 2010 ). Understanding Formulation of Social Capital in Online
Social . Nanded: IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues.
24.
Sebastián
Valenzuela, N. P. (2009). Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?:
Facebook Use and College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and
Participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 875–901.
25.
Shah, D. V.
(2001). Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet
use and the production of social capital. . Political Communication .
26.
Skoric, M. M.,
Ying, D., & Ng, Y. (2009). Bowling Online, Not Alone: Online Social
Capital and Political Participation in Singapore. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication , 414-433.
27.
Subrahmanyam, K.
K. (2000). The Impact of Home Computer Use on Children‟s Activities and
Development‟ in The Future of Children. Children & Computer Technology
, 123-144.
28.
T, H., E, G.,
& C., R. (2004). Mental health and social capital in Cali, Columbia.
Social Science & Medicine.
29.
T, H., E, G.,
& E, T. (2002). Measuring social capital within health surveys: key
issues. Health Policy and Planning .
30.
Valentine, G.
&. (2002). Cyberkids? Exploring children‟s identities and social networks
in on-line and off-line worlds‟. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
, 302–309.
31.
Valkenburg, P.
M. (2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents'
well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior .
32.
Wellman, B.
(February 2001). Physical Place and Cyber Place: The Rise of Personalized
Networking. Toronto : International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research.
33.
Williams, D.
(2006). On and off the ‘net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication .
34.
Williams, D.
(2006). On and Off the ’Net: Scales for Social Capital in an Online Era. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication , 593–628.
