The Social Capital Effects: Resources, Ties, and Digital Divides
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•874 views
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to The Social Capital Effects: Resources, Ties, and Digital Divides
Similar to The Social Capital Effects: Resources, Ties, and Digital Divides (20)
The Social Capital Effects: Resources, Ties, and Digital Divides
- 1. The Social Capital Effects Resources, Tie Strength, & Digital Divides Wenhong Chen UT Austin
- 2. Just in case (source: PEW; ISI Web of Knowledge)
- 3. Causes Digital Divides Consequences macro Macro-level: social structural context Societal Impact • Level of socioeconomic development • Socioeconomic development • Governmental policy • Social inclusion • NGO/ International development initiatives • Technological infrastructure • Culture Access meso Meso-level Meso-level • Social network/Social capital • Community resources • Civic engagement • Organizations • Social capital Individual Individual micro • SES Use • Psychological well-being • Gender • Labor market performance • Ethnicity • Entrepreneurial activities • Life-stage • Human capital • Language • Cultural capital Level of analysis Chen and Wellman 2005
- 4. • Information want-nots or information have-nots (van Dijk 2006) • Technically and socially disconnected with the Internet – More than 80% of nonusers have no household members using the Internet (Smith 2010). – About two-thirds of American households without broadband access have no household members using the Internet at any place (NTIA 2010).
- 5. A Heated Debate Internet Access & Use Social Capital
- 6. The Other Direction • The diffusion literature (Rogers 1962; Valente 1995) • Prerequisite (Putnam 2000) • Network externality (DiMaggio and Cohen 2003) Internet Access & Use Social Capital
- 9. The Network Source of Social Capital • Social structure that facilitates or constrains an individual’s instrumental or expression action due to – Network membership (Putnam, Bourdieu) – Network structure (Coleman, Burt) – Network resources (Lin, Erickson) 9
- 10. Bonding/Bridging Strong/Weak Ties Def Strength Weakness Strong Ties people feel close to Attitude & Identity Redundant Ties Involve emotional bond, Solidarity info trust, and reciprocity Social support Isolation Require more time, Fine-grained info Legitimacy energy, and Tacit knowledge discount commitment to nurture Collaboration Weak Ties people do not feel Fresh information Not all weak Ties close to Diverse perspective ties bridge only communicate Cognitive flexibility occasionally with (Putnam, Granovetter, Marsden, Burt, Uzzi etc. )
- 11. Good and bad social capital • The embedded resources in one’s social network – affects the outcome of social action (Lin 2001; Lin and Dumin 1986) – social capital without embedded resources = bridge to nowhere (Portes 1998; Portes and Landolt 1996; Smith 2005) • Good social capital – potential benefits generated from links to resource-rich contacts • connections to people with high occupational status • Bad social capital – cost and liabilities generated from links to resource-poor contacts • connections with low occupational status (Hsung and Breiger 2008)
- 12. SES + Bonding + Bridging Access & + Good Use _ Bad
- 13. SES Good Bonding + Good + Bridging Access & _ Bad Bonding Use _ Bad Bridging
- 14. Data and Analysis • Social Capital in the US Survey – a national random digit dial telephone survey of currently or previously employed Americans aged from 22 to 65 • Wave 1 2004/2005: N=3000, RR=43% • Wave 2 2007: N=941, RR=31% • Weighted
- 15. Measuring social networks ego GSS Name Generator ego Position Generator • The Name Generator core discussion networks – an artificial limit ; GSS: 5 alters, discussed important matters – small, strong tie centered, dense, & homogeneous (Marsden 1987) • The Position Generator the broader networks – alters who fill a variety of positions – sampled from a full list of all occupations – more effective in capturing weak ties (Erickson 2004) – content free (Van der Gaag 2004) Adapted from James Moody and Nan Lin
- 16. The Position Generator Position Wave 1 Nurse 75% Lawyer 62% Hair Dresser 61% Policeman 52% • I am going to ask some general Computer Programmer 52% questions about jobs some people Teacher 51% you know may now have. These Farmer 47% people include your relatives, Receptionist 41% friends and acquaintances Professor 41% (acquaintances are people who Bookkeeper 39% know each other by face and Janitor 34% name). If there are several people Personnel Manager 33% you know who have that kind of Administrative Assistant 30% job, please tell me the one that Factory Operator 27% occurs to you first. Is there Babysitter 27% anyone you know who is a _____? Writer 25% Security Guard 22% CEO 20% Production Manager 16% Congressman 11% Taxi Driver 7% Hotel Bell Boy 2%
- 17. SES + Bonding + Bridging Access + Good _ Bad
- 18. SES Good Bonding + Good + Bridging Access _ Bad Bonding _ Bad Bridging
- 19. SES + Bonding + Bridging Use + Good _ Bad
- 20. SES Good + Bonding Good + Bridging Use _ Bad Bonding _ Bad Bridging
- 21. Summary Social Capital Internet Online Access Communication Bonding H1a H1b + Bridging H2a + H2b Good H3a + H3b Bad H4a - H4b Good Bonding H5a + H5b + Good Bridging H6a + H6b Bad Bonding H7a - H7b Bad Bridging H8a - H8b
- 22. Implications Internet Social Capital Access & Use
- 23. • Longitudinal data Findings & • Refined analysis of social capital • Information want-nots good bonding Contribution social capital have-nots • Richer information on Internet use and tangible impacts on human, cultural, and Future social capital. • Access beyond home (e.g., workplace and Research community anchor institutions) • Process: exposure; support; peer influence
- 24. Related Paper • Chen, Wenhong. “The Impacts of Social Capital on the Digital Divides in America.” The Information Society 29(1):13-25.
Editor's Notes
- Web of Science (ISI Web of Knowledge)
- technophobia or luddites laggard Luddite (ˈlʌdaɪt)laggard (ˈlæɡəd)Occupational ladder
- Few scholars have questioned the positive effect of the Internet on weak ties. The easy and cheap communication afforded by new communication technologies is considered more compatible for developing and maintaining weak ties (Donath & boyd, 2004). The greater the intensity of using social networking sites, the greater access one has to new contacts (Steinfield, DiMicco, Ellison, & Lampe, 2009). By contrast, there has been no consensus whether the Internet increases, decreases, or has no impact on strong ties.
- Few scholars have questioned the positive effect of the Internet on weak ties. The easy and cheap communication afforded by new communication technologies is considered more compatible for developing and maintaining weak ties (Donath & boyd, 2004). The greater the intensity of using social networking sites, the greater access one has to new contacts (Steinfield, DiMicco, Ellison, & Lampe, 2009). By contrast, there has been no consensus whether the Internet increases, decreases, or has no impact on strong ties. Putnam (2000) argues that social capital can be the prerequisite for rather than the consequences of productive online communication. DiMaggio and Cohen (2003) highlight the network externality: people adopt a new technology because their colleagues, friends, or family have done so, especially if they have to use that technology to communicate with them.
- Typical examples are that criminal gangs create bonding social capital, while choirs & bowling clubs (hence the title, as Putnam lamented their decline) create bridging social capital. Bridging social capital is argued to have a host of other benefits for societies, governments, individuals, & communities, Putnam likes to note that joining an organization cuts in half an individual's chance of dying within the next year. Social capital development on the internet via social networking websites such as Facebook or Myspace tends to be bridging capital according to one study, though "virtual" social capital is a new area of research. [25] A typical social network has a small number of strong ties at the core & a large number of weak ties on the periphery. People feel close to strong ties & frequently communicate with them. Strong ties involve emotional bonds, trust, & reciprocity. Accordingly, strong ties tend to require large time commitment. By contrast, weak ties are ties that people do not feel close to & only communicate occasionally (Granovetter, 1973). Due to their different nature, strong ties & weak ties serve different functions. Strong ties facilitate the transfer of fine-grained information & tacit knowledge, encourage joint problem-solving, & enhance social control (Uzzi, 1996). Weak ties work as bridges to otherwise separated groups & bring fresh, diverse information & perspective. The exposure to diverse contacts enabled by weak ties helps people to develop cognitive flexibility & a greate variety of cultural capital (Erickson, 1996). Strong ties foster the cohesion within local communities. Weak ties contribute to the global integration of a social system. A social system without weak ties would be fragmentary & lack coordination (Gans, 1962). If a few weak ties were removed, the whole network could collapse. Losing strong ties is less consequential (Onnela et al., 2007). As strong ties & weak ties are of different sort & serve different purposes, individuals & communities need a diversified, balanced network portfolio of both.
- Social capital has cost and downsides as social networks can generate both positive and negative returns, although most discussion has been centered on its positive returns (Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993). Densely-knit social groups preserve resources for insiders by excluding outsiders (Coleman 1988; Tilly 1998). Bonding social capita embedded in densely-knit networks can unproductive obligations and social control mechanism, which may restrict individual freedom and autonomy. The pressure of conformity, especially in poor communities, leads to a downward leveling of norms and expectations (Portes 1998). Lin (1999) theorizes that people occupy and access positions in a pyramidal shaped social structure of wealth, status and power. The embedded resources in one’s social network - the quantity and quality of resources accessible and mobilizable through one’s social network contacts - affects the outcome of social action (Lin and Dumin 1986). Both the embedded resources in the network and the strength of the ties can be important to the success of individuals’ instrumental actions (Lin 1999). Contact status is as important as or sometimes more important than human capital in affecting the first job status (Lin 2001). The status of network contacts reflects and reveals one’s own status (Podolny 1993). With whom an individual hangs out is a status marker, especially when other symbols are absent or difficult to evaluate.Due to their lack of formal resources in the form of wealth, power, or authority, disadvantaged people such as the poor or minorities are more likely to turn to informal channels. Thus the resources they can access through their social network have an even more important effect on their upward mobility. Good social capital refers to the potential benefits can be mobilized from social networks and bad social capital the cost and liabilities generated from social connections. Bad social capital provides limited resources and may even drain away resources. In research, good social capital is operationalized as individuals’ links to resource-rich contacts with high occupational status and bad social capital to resource-poor contacts with low occupational status (Hsung and Breiger 2008).
- Basic socio-demographic variables are controlled, including gender, generation, marital status, the number of children, race, nativity, education, family income, occupational prestige, workplace authority, and geographic locations.
- 40 point
- Bridging social capital narrow the access divide.Bonding social capital narrow the divide in online communication. Embedded Resources Good social capital narrows and bad social capital broadens the digital divides in access.
- What are the impact of ICTs both good & bad?What are the Factors related to the ICT impacts on work.Context specific nature of the ICT impacts on workFor whom are these impacts more or less potent?Access & useCommunication overloadSocial capital/social networksJob characteristics Demographic & socioeconomic factors how are the positive & negative impacts of ICT use distributed along various fault lines of social inequalities such as authority, class, race, & gender?