Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action.
Social capital
Investment in social relations with expected returns in marketplace. Resources embedded in social networks accessed and used by actors. Resources embedded in a social structure that are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions
1. How individuals invest in social relations 2. How individuals invest in social relations
Personal resources- resource possessed by an individual
Social resources- resources accessed through an individual's social connections
Resources can be "borrowed" to make a gain
Mobilized Social Resources
1. The number of persons within one's social network who are prepared to help you
2. The strength of the relationship indicating readiness for help
3. The resources of the persons willing to help
Social capital as a collective asset (group level)
1. Observe how groups develop and maintain social capital as a collective asset
2. How does social capital enhance group members' life chances
Assumptions of how meanings are assigned to resources
1. Differential values are assigned by consensus or influence or resources
2. All actors will take actions to promote their self-interests by maintaining and gaining valued resources if such opportunities are available
3. Maintaining and gaining valued resources are the 2 primary motives for action, but maintaining outweighs gaining.
Social Networks
Social networks are less formal social structures and are fluid in occupants, resources, positions, rules, and procedures. Mutual agreement dictates actor participation and interaction
Positions: boundaries of participation
Nodes:
Actors:
Homophily: interactions take place among individuals with similar lifestyles and socioeconomic characteristics
Heterophilous: these diverse interactions are less likely to occur
Bridging:
Bonding:
To maintain resources one would maintain their homophilous interactions, but to gain resources it is proposed heterophilous interactions provide more returns.
Status attainment
The process by which individuals mobilize and invest resources for returns in socioeconomic standing
Article suggestion
Woolcock and Narayan article on Social Capital and Implications for Development Theory. You may have to use your UT EID to gain access. I added the article to our Google group page, but there are also other articles on this website you might be interested in.
http://wbro.oxfordjournals.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/cgi/content/abstract/15/2/225
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Capital is a medium of exchange. It is used or transformed into something else. The something else need not be merely or only economic gain. Therefore, social capital, as one form of capital, has multiple potential uses. It can be transformed into economic gain for the individual (human capital) and for the group (increased collective capacity). It also has non-economic/altruistic purposes.
Woolcock and Narayan (Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy, p.226)
"Intuitively, then, the basic idea of social capital is that a person's family, friends,
and associates constitute an important asset, one that can be called on in a crisis,
enjoyed for its own sake, and leveraged for material gain. What is true for individuals,
moreover, also holds for groups. Those communities endowed with a diverse
stock of social networks and civic associations are in a stronger position to confront
poverty and vulnerability (Moser 1996; Narayan 1995), resolve disputes (Schafft
1998; Varshney 2000), and take advantage of new opportunities (Isham 1999).
Conversely, the absence of social ties can have an equally important impact. Office
workers, for example, fear being left out of the loop on important decisions; ambitious
professionals recognize that getting ahead in a new venture typically requires an
active commitment to networking. A defining feature of being poor, moreover, is
that one is not a member of—or may even be actively excluded from—certain social
networks and institutions that could be used to secure good jobs and decent housing
(Wilson 1987, 1996)."
Thinking about networks, and complement to Woolcock and Narayan article...
Rene Bekkers and his associates talk about 'individual social capital theory' and 'collective social capital theory' as way of contrasting instrumental and expressive uses of social capital. That is, some networks of social capital are used mostly for instrumental reasons. For example, sources of information and contacts that lead to college. Others are primarily expressive -- meeting needs to belong and associate w/others.
The working hypothesis is there are measurable differences (in characteristics) between two types of networks: size, density, trust, hetero/homogeneity, intensity, duration, etc.
One can interpret the theories as another way of talking about and studying 'bondng' and 'bridging' networks.
How might this apply when thinking about the interlocking networks found in schools: of students, parents, teachers/staff/counselors, college representatives, etc.
Most of Rene Bekkers work is in research tradition of voluntary association and membership found in sociology. He has a chapter in a recent book (2008) edited by Nan Lin and Bonnie Erickson, Social Capital - An International Research Program. Here is link to a 2005 article, Participation in Voluntary Associations: Relations with Resources, Personality, and Political Values.
Post a Comment