Social Capital And Charity Sociology
This Literature Review will place the chief characteristics of the societal capital construct, including its signifiers, types and characteristics, and how these affect the formation and development of charities. The survey will so travel on to measure the function PR, and in peculiar SNSs, have in cultivating societal capital and the function stakeholders play in this procedure. This geographic expedition focuses on carry throughing Aims 1 and 2 of this research undertaking as set out in sub-section 1.3 of the introductory chapter. The 3rd aim will be met through primary research which will roll up and analysis empirical informations, while Objective 4, the concluding aim, will develop as a consequence of the findings from Aims 1, 2, 3.
By meaningfully discoursing and analyzing the countries of the literature outlined above in a structured manner, a critical apprehension of the societal capital that exists between charities and their stakeholders in SNSs will emerge. At the terminal of this major subdivision it is hoped that the reader will be better informed in these countries, understand the key issues present and be clear about the focal point for the empirical research, and why this work is needed.
2.2 Social capital and charity
With bookmans in Fieldss every bit diverse as economic sciences, history, political relations, instruction, direction and even public dealingss ( PR ) researching societal capital, it is non surprising to happen that they can non hold on a universally accepted definition suitable for the many applications of the construct ( Dovey and Onyx, 2001 ) . However, despite this diverseness, two distinguishable groups of minds have emerged, those bookmans inspired by the work of Pierre Bourdieu ( 1986, 1991, 1992 ) and those influenced by Robert Putman ( 1996, 2000 ) .
For Bourdieu ( 1991 ) a individual ‘s place in society is determined by the sum of power they hold, which is in bend determined by the types and sums of capital they possess. He sees people as focussed on contending to increase the sums of capital they have, and in bend power, to break their place. Social capital is one of the types of capital that persons struggle to achieve and is described as “ the sum of the existent or possible resources which are linked to the ownership of a lasting web of more or less institutionalized relationships of common familiarity and acknowledgment ” ( Bourdieu,1986, p.248-249 ) . By geting connexions and rank to groups, or societal webs, persons can foster their ain involvements ; whether this be obtaining power or achieving others types of capital that will in bend help them develop power. In this construct the value and focal point of relationships between people is to prosecute self involvement ( Bourdieu 1986 ) .
Critics of Bourdieu ‘s thought have highlighted that this theory gives privilege to persons who are already in dominant places for power. They are able to utilize the capital they have accumulated to derive more, a tactic unavailable to those without such resources ( Ihlen 2009 ) . This is an of import unfavorable judgment ; nevertheless, it needs to be considered alongside the selfish individuality besides promoted by this theory. Bourdieu ( 1986 ) positions relationships and societal webs as characterised by struggle, where persons are motivated to go involved with each other by personal addition. Such a focal point leave people with small room to care or see the demands and outlooks of the people with whom they have relationships or to work as a squad towards a larger end would be impossible as remarkable existences.
Although Putman ( 1996, 2000 ) does non straight challenge this position, his thought by its really nature throws this thought of selfish individuality into crisp alleviation. Putman ( 1996, 2000 ) portions Bourdieu ‘s nucleus belief that there is value in relationships and the societal webs built by them. But, where Putman ( 1996, 2000 ) differs in his thought is that instead than this value being for selfish addition, he believes it can non merely better the public assistance of all persons involved in the relationship but besides the bystanders and even society at big ( Luoma-aho 2009 ) .
Rather than puting histrions in struggle he emphasises ‘belonging ‘ and a ‘sense of community ‘ and ‘working together ‘ . In this position relationships and societal webs foster trust, reciprocality, facilitate communicating and magnify information, assisting histrions to work together more efficaciously to accomplish reciprocally good purposes and shared aims ( Putman, Leonardi and Nanetti, 1993, Putman, Feldstein and Cohen, 2003 ) . For Putman, Leonardi and Nanetti ( 1993 ) societal capital is defined less by accrued resources and more by the “ characteristics of societal administration, such as trust, norms, and webs that can better the efficiency of society by easing co-ordinated actions ” ( p.167 ) .
Putman believes one of the key norms needed for such societal capital to be and be cultivated is generalised reciprocality. This occurs when people consider the thought of assisting one another to be the mute norm, cognizing that the others parties in the relationship besides feel the same manner. This makes any connexion about common benefit instead than selfish addition. It is demonstrated by parties admiting, understanding and back uping each other ‘s demands ( Putman, 1996: Putman, Leonardi and Nanetti, 1993 ; Putman, Feldstein and Cohen, 2003, Heath 2001 ; Taylor 2010 ; Luoma-aho 2009 ) . If a inclination to assist others is a feature of a society it is more likely that its members will work more successfully towards reciprocally good purposes than it would non hold been possible should members be entirely concerned with they own public assistance ( Putman 2000 ) .
Putman besides argues that through the presence of characteristics, such as reciprocality two different types of societal capital can be created ; bridging and bonding, both of which are needed for groups, administrations and societies to work efficaciously. Adhering societal capital brings people that already cognize each other closer together. This needs to be created foremost as it generates the nucleus links that a group needs to map, by conveying like minded together as a ‘community ‘ nurtured by reciprocality and solidarity ( Putman 2000 ) .
Bridging societal capital on the other manus brings together people or groups who antecedently did non cognize each other ( Putman 2000 ) .This type of societal capital exposes groups to new thoughts, resources, disperses information and interruption barriers down ( Briggs 2004 ) . Key to bring forthing bridging societal capital are those parties in a web that are besides portion of other webs and hence act as agents between the two ( Gress 2004 ; Larsen et Al, 2001 ) .
Putman ‘s thoughts were developed through comparative surveies of democracy in Italy and America ( Putman et al, 1993 ; Putman 2000 ) that used secondary informations to mensurate elements of these societies that he perceived as holding links to the coevals of societal capital. He was interested in placing how their presence or deficiency of influenced the co-ordination of activities and the sharing of information ( Taylor 2010 ) . However Putman ‘s critics suggest that his work nowadayss small convincing empirical grounds that acquiring people to work together and swear each other on a smaller graduated table can ensue in societal capital for the whole community ( DeFilippis 2001 ; Patulny 2003 ) . Although they agree that there may be a correlativity between active communities and societies that flourish, they do non experience that Putman has been able to set up whether societal capital was a consequence of people working together in a united manner or whether it causes this coherence ( DeFilippis 2001 ) .
However, the legitimacy of this statement is thrown into inquiry when looking at charities runing today. They are formed by people believing and swearing that by assisting each other and working together they can better the environment in which they all live ( Onyx and Bullen, 2000 ) and are hence real-life illustration of Putman ‘s societal capital construct in action. It shows that societal capital is non merely embedded within the original relationships that form charities but besides core to their operational success assisting to:
“ recruit and develop board members, raise beneficent support, develop strategic partnerships, engage in protagonism, enhance community dealingss, and make a shared vision and mission within the administration and its employees ” ( King, 2004 p471 ) .
With increasing Numberss of writers seting frontward the thought that fostering societal capital, in the signifier outlined by Putman ( 2000 ) , will assist charities call up the people and resources they need fulfil their missions ( Onyx and Bullen, 2000, Strauss 2010, King 2004 ) empirical research is urgently needed that explores, explains and validates this nexus between charities and societal capital before the public-service corporation of the construct can farther develop. Such research has been called for by faculty members such as Strauss ( 2010 ) and King ( 2004 ) .
However, before shiping on such research, it is of import to halt and see where the Putman ‘s thought of reciprocality tantrums into this procedure. In their authorship on societal capital and charity King ( 2004 ) , Strauss ( 2010 ) and Onyx and Bullen ( 2000 ) have focussed on the benefits of cultivating societal capital from the charity position. By looking at charity societal capital as an organizational plus, it is easy to bury the reciprocality on which these relationships are built. However, by using Putman ‘s theory, should this reciprocality be lost, stakeholders would be less likely to work together with the charity towards corporate purposes, which would hold negative effects for the charity and the society that benefits from its attempts
Therefore it is of import that any research that seeks to understand societal capital in the charity context considers the thought of reciprocality. As a nucleus component of Putman ‘s ( 2000 ) societal capital concept the presence of reciprocality in the relationship between charities and their stakeholders is good index that these connexions possess the reciprocally good signifier of societal capital instead than the ego involvement based sort espoused by Bourdieu ( 1986 ) . It is besides important for its cultivation.
Such designation is hard to make without understanding whether the stakeholders in the relationship position the partnership as mutual and if they do, placing the demands of stakeholders, sing them and back uping them where possible, to enable this reciprocality and hence societal capital to be strengthened ( Putman 1996 ; 2000 ) . Without an apprehension of these cardinal elements any subsequent surveies looking at how to cultivate this societal capital become hard.
2.3 Social capital as an result for charity public dealingss
In the old subdivision a instance was put frontward that charities, possibly more so that other administrations, should put in constructing societal capital as cardinal to their endurance and embedded in their strategic programs ( King 2004 ) . Scholars agree that societal capital can be cultivated by both persons, concerns and administrations such as charities, and cardinal to such activity should be investing in relationships with stakeholders ( Cohen and Prusak, 2001 ; Coleman 1998 and Gittel and Vidal, 1998 )
Developing on from this is the thought that societal capital investing is best handled by the public dealingss ( PR ) map of an administration ( Willis 2011 ; Ihlen 2009 ; Luoma-aho 2009 ) .To genuinely understand this construct one must look back at Bourdieu ( 1986 ) and Putman ‘s ( 2000 ) parts to societal capital theory, as authors sing the application of societal capital to PR are divided into those who view it from the egoistic position espoused by Bourdieu ( Edwards 2006 ; Harris 2005 ; Ihlen 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007, 2009 ) and those seting frontward thoughts based around the co-operation for common benefit theory supported by Putman ( Putman, Feldstein and Cohen, 2003 ; Putman, Leonardi and Nanetti,1993 and Luoma-aho 2009 ) .
Ihlen ( 2007, 2009 ) is possibly the strongest advocator of Bourdieu ‘s thought, proposing that his theories can assist administrations understand the concern context in which they operate. Each administration is seen as busying a place in the concern environment which is decided by the sum of power it possesses. This power is determined by the types of sums of capital it has in relation to other administrations. So should an administration privation to alter place, i.e. , derive more power, and hence success, it can make so by geting, keeping on to and change overing capital. For Ihlen ( 2009 ) PR is a tool that can assist voyage this environment and capitalise on chances as it “ assists organizational histrions in assorted Fieldss in prosecuting their involvements ” ( p.69 ) .
Such thought aligns good with the functional attack to PR i.e. the techniques and production of strategic organizational messages and where PR is viewed as an instrument that can be used to carry through specific organizational ends, such as keeping on to power ( Botan and Taylor, 2004 ) . The chief aim of this attack is to assist an administration pursue its ain involvements by forcing out messages through the media that enhance the company ‘s repute and that of its merchandises amongst the audiences having this information ( Botan and Taylor, 2004 ) .However, more late a co-creational attack to PR theory has driven research and go the dominant industry paradigm, therefore conveying into inquiry how relevant or realistic Ihlen ‘s power-based organizational attack ( 2007, 2009 ) is to the current field, something that needs farther academic consideration.
This co-creational position of PR uses communicating to ‘help groups to negociate significance and construct relationships ‘ ( Botan and Taylor, 2004, P. 652. ) The cardinal difference between this and the functional attack is that histrions enter relationships with common benefit in head instead than strictly selfish addition. Not merely is an administration more likely to accomplish their ends by working together with others in this manner, the wants and demands of others matter in their ain right ( Botan and Taylor, 2004 ) .
Such believing it at the bosom of many of the theories act uponing PR theory and pattern today, including stakeholder theory ( Freeman 1984 ; Johnson and Scholes, 2002 ; Grunig and Repper, 1992 ) ; relationship direction ( Broom et al, 2000 ; Ledingham 2003 ; Ledingham and Bruning, 2000 ; Huang ( 2001 ) , corporate societal duty ( Carroll 1991 ) and the Heath ‘s Fully Functioning Society Theory ( 2006 ) .
Recently a 3rd attack to PR has emerged. Put frontward by Taylor ( 2010 ) , this sociological method physiques on the co-creational thought explained above, nevertheless, instead than concentrating on the relationships that one administration has with its populaces, it suggests PR ‘s greater function is to assist people, groups, and administrations have desire and the ability to work together to better life for everyone. This is possible because persons, societal cause groups, social establishments, media, concern administrations, administration and international administrations each represent different citizen involvements and by working together as spouses they can determine, alteration, and prolong communities and societies and do the universe a better topographic point to populate ( Taylor 2010 ) .
Both the sociological and co-creational attack to PR synthesises good with the societal capital theory of Putman ( 2000 ) who was at strivings to underscore the value of relationships and societal webs that build that same sense of community. These webs may be personal or organizational but like Taylor ‘s PR attack above their influences are wider. By working successfully together on common agendas single entities in the societal web have a greater opportunity of accomplishing benefits for non merely themselves and the others in the web but society as a whole ( Putman 2000 ) .
Although Putman did non use the construct of PR to his work, he did observe that communicating is an intermediary for the creative activity of societal capital and community. Since so Luoma-aho ( 2009 ) has been the cardinal advocator for the application of Putman ‘s work to PR, naming for the field of PR, including sub-disciplines such as stakeholder direction, corporate societal duty and relationship direction, to be redefined as the pattern of making organizational societal capital. This means PR should concentrate on constructing a ‘sense of community ‘ by fostering relationships built on trust, reciprocality that benefit both administrations and their stakeholders. She offers a theoretical account to explicate the procedure of societal capital, which involves understanding the positions of stakeholders with whom you have a relationship and how they may impact the cardinal elements of societal capital, such as reciprocality, as such the absence of presence of such factors will impact the ability to foster reciprocally good relationships and community spirit.
Taking forward this thought in the charity context is Strauss ( 2010 ) , who believes structuring PR attempts around constructing this societal capital “ may turn out a fertile field for developments that will profit non- net income administrations enduring from a scarceness of physical capital, leting so to prosecute their mission-based ends and hopefully change society for the better ” ( Strauss, 2010, p10 ) .It offers charities a manner to further this indispensable portion of their make-up therefore increasing their possibility of successfully turn toing social issues ( Strauss 2010 ) .
In an attempt to develop this construct Strauss ( 2010 ) has proposed a societal capital based theoretical account to help charities in structuring their public dealingss. It starts by acquiring charities to measure the value of the societal capital in their existing relationships. By mensurating the elements within these relationships that are likely to bring forth societal capital, such as reciprocality, charities can understand the societal capital in being within these connexions. From here charities can place if there are any chances to construct both the bonding and bridging societal capital and put about activities to make so.
However for this thought to go meaningful in pattern, Strauss ( 2010 ) admits herself that empirical research on her theoretical account is required, something that has yet to been undertaken from either the charity position or those of their stakeholders. She considers this research peculiarly of import because of the “ famine of available literature that specifically examines the non-profit administrations ‘ public dealingss attempts from a theoretical position ” ( Strauss, 2010, p5 ) . She therefore calls for surveies to assist better understand the procedure of making societal capital and the value it has for charities and whether it is a feasible construct around which charities can construction their PR. Strauss besides suggests probes are needed to place the specific communicating tactics that generate societal capital for charities e.g. societal media. These tactics, she suggests, would necessitate to further trust and reciprocality and contribute to the web features that surrogate societal capital ( Strauss 2010 ) .
2.4 Online charity public dealingss and societal capital
In the above subdivision the thought is put frontward that fostering societal capital of the type described by Putman ( 2000 ) could be used to give charity public dealingss attempts both a construction and a end ( Luoma-aho 2009 ; Strauss 2010 ) . Besides highlighted is a call for research into whether SNSs could assist in these attempts ( Strauss 2010 ) . This call is echoed by a figure of other writers ( Taylor 2010 ; Lovejoy and Saxton, 2012 ) but despite this there remain really few surveies that explore this nexus.
What is available, nevertheless, are legion PR surveies that identify and research how these emergent channels can assist construct and keep reciprocally good relationship between administrations and their stakeholders through communicating. “ SNSs are packages of on-line technological tools that incorporate characteristics of earlier engineerings ( such as personal web sites ) but recombine them into a new context that supports users ‘ ability to organize and keep a broad web of societal connexions ” ( Ellison, Steinfeld and Lampe, 2011, p.3 ) . Therefore by utilizing SNSs to interact, portion and converse persons and administrations can make relationships, signifier online communities and strengthen ties ( Smith 2010 ; Briones et Al 2011 ; Lovejoy and Saxton, 2012 ; Lovejoy, Waters and Saxton, 2012 ; Waters and Jamal, 2011 ; Wong and Jusoff, 2011 ; Waters et al 2009 ) . These benefits are farther augmented for charities because they give persons the ability to self-organise around causes by join forcesing with each other ( Kanter 2009 ) .
So far research in this field has chiefly focussed on one SNS, Facebook ( Bortree and Seltzer, 2009 ; Waters et Al, 2009 ; Greenberg and MacAulay, 2009 ) . But faculty members ( Briones et al 2011 ; Lovejoy and Saxton 2012 ) are now turning their attending to Twitter ; which is a platform that allows users to print and sharing short ( 140 characters or less ) messages with others within a their societal web ( Murphy, 2008 ) . With more than 10 million users in the UK ( Arthur 2012 ) Chirrup offer more chance for direct immediate interactivity, public unfastened duologue and web creative activity than other societal networking sites ( Evans, Twomey and Talan, 2011 ; Lovejoy and Saxton, 2012 ) .
However the current literature undertaking charity usage of Twitter suggests that charities are losing out on the chance offered by this channel to construct relationships with stakeholders. By chiefly utilizing Twitter to air one-way informational messages they are losing the opportunity to prosecute their stakeholders in duologue ( Lovejoy, Waters and Saxton, 2012 ; Waters and Jamal, 2011 ) . It is nevertheless this duologue and battle that helps charities and their stakeholders to construct trust, place with each other, develop similar values, beliefs and involvements and run into the outlooks and demands they have of one another- important necessities to any relationship or common benefit ( Hallahan 2008 ; Briones et Al, 2011 ; Kent 2008 ) .
Such findings play an of import function in increasing academic apprehension around how charities are utilizing Twitter. But what is even more interesting is that they show that research workers believe that charities can and are constructing swearing mutual relationships with stakeholders on Twitter ( Briones et al 2011: Lovejoy and Saxton 2012 ) . By using societal capital theory to these findings, as relationships of this type are identified as nucleus to the societal capital construct advocated by Putman ( 2000 ) , it is sensible to infer that this signifier of societal capital may be within these connexions ( Lovejoy and Saxton 2012 ) .
One survey that highlights this possible nexus is Lovejoy and Saxton ‘s ( 2012 ) scrutiny of the Twitter use of 100 big US non-profits. They document the presence of a peculiar type of Twitter message that is either designed to trip synergistic conversation or give acknowledgment or thanks and by making so aims to cultivate societal capital. But, as Lovejoy and Saxton ( 2012 ) admit themselves, their survey, and in fact most old research around this subject, has entirely examined societal capital from the charity point of position. This leaves small apprehension of whether stakeholders view these relationships in the same manner. Social capital may be present from the charity ‘s position but unless the norms needed, such as reciprocality, as besides shared by stakeholders, so the mutualness on which the relationship is based is lost and therefore the societal capital nonexistent.
Such calls by research workers ( Smith 2010 ; Lovejoy and Saxton 2012 ) , demonstrate a general pressure demand for stakeholder research in this country that offer both relevant information every bit good as analytical models that can measure the features of these relationships, including trust and reciprocality, therefore uncovering the societal capital nowadays. This demand is further enhanced by the findings of probes looking at how persons relate on SNSs, research conducted by measuring and analyzing people ‘s usage of peculiar SNS characteristics and the content of their messages. Although these illustrated that relationships had a positive consequence on societal capital, they found that people tended to prosecute based on the possibility that they would have personal benefits from the web, therefore doing the type generated was more kindred Bourdieu ‘s ( 1986 ) theoretical account of selfish addition than Putman ‘s ( 2000 ) of common benefit ( Ellison et al 2007 ; Ellison et Al 2011 ; Cha et Al, 2010 ; Recuero, Araujo and Zago 2011 ) .
Although there are presently merely a smattering of surveies showing this thought and more demand to be undertaken before these results can be generalised, the findings still throw up some interesting inquiries. If people are driven by self motive online, how does this impact the development of societal capital online and the societal construct in general? This is a serious issue for charities because if such egoistic behavior is besides present within their dealingss with stakeholders on SNSs, such as Twitter, it would non merely non merely suggest that SNSs are non tools that charities mobilise the people and resources needed to carry through their missions, but it would besides name into inquiry academic ascertains that Putman ‘s based societal capital is at the bosom of every charity.
Harmonizing to the literature uses and satisfactions theory ( U & A ; G ) offers one manner to get down to reply these inquiries as it “ efforts to explicate what societal and psychological demands motivate audiences to choose peculiar media channels and content picks ” ( Lee and Ma, 2012, p331 ) and the affects that such attitudes have on behaviors and attitude ( Diddi and LaRose, 2006 ; Lin 2002 ; Ruggiero 2000 ) . Although failings in the U & A ; G have been raised, including claims that the construct lacks lucidity hence doing it hard to set into action ( Lometti, Reeves and Bybee 1977 ; Swanson 1977 ) and minimises the significance of the interaction between such media and users ( McQuail 1979 ) , research workers remain inexorable that it is a good model to utilize. They believe it is utile if you want to understand ‘the socio-psychological ‘ profile of an single as opposed to procedures within a web ( Papacharissi and Mendelson 2008 ) , which helpful to societal capital research workers seeking to understand why an person seeks a relationship with another through a peculiar medium
This belief in this usage of U & A ; G to measure the societal capital in a relationship is demonstrated by the turning organic structure of research using this theory to online communicating, and specifically SNSs ( Papacharissi and Mendelson 2008 ; Lee and Ma 2012 ; Park, Kee and Valenzuela 2009 ) . Such surveies have so far argued that specific satisfactions and utilizations of SNSs, such as socialization, amusement, self-status seeking and information, may make up one’s mind different societal results ( Nyland, Marvex and Beck 2007 ; Raacke and Bonds-Raacke, 2008 ; Park, Kee and Valenzuela 2009 ) .
However these surveies have delivered assorted results. Two surveies suggest a positive nexus between persons driven to utilize SNSs to seek information and the subsequent societal capital produced. The same surveies found that those persons utilizing SNSs as a signifier of amusement, whether that be as an flight from their jobs, a manner to loosen up, a signifier of enjoyment or to make full in clip, did non bring forth societal capital ( Park, Kee and Valenzuela 2009 ; Nyland, Marvex and Beck 2007 ) . In another survey usage of SNSs sites to carry through societal demands was found to beef up societal contacts, community battle and fond regard by linking people to a community through a web ( Kavanaugh et al 2005 ) .However these thoughts were contradicted by Papacharissi and Mendelson ( 2008 ) , Shao ( 2009 ) and Leung ( 2010 ) who all suggested that, although societal capital is really much alive in SNSs, persons used these channels to increase the chances for personal benefit, proposing that the societal capital nowadays more closely resembled that suggested by Bourdieu ( 1986 ) than Putman ( 2000 ) , back uping the findings of the single surveies mentioned earlier.
As there are merely a little figure of such surveies, and they focussed chiefly on pupils, it is excessively early to pull any decisions from this research that can be generalised. This still leaves inquiries around whether SNSs usage is dominated by people ‘s self involvement and is hence nothingness of the what Putman ( 2000 ) calls the norms, values and webs users needed to acquire people working together for corporate benefit. It besides does non explicate, because the old surveies were by and large focussed on relationships persons have with each other, whether such demands and motives are common topographic point across all different relationships, such as those charities have with their staleholders.
This demand to better understand people ‘s motivations for utilizing SNSs, particularly as relationship tools for charities and their stakeholders, and the nothingness in stakeholder focussed research mentioned earlier, supply a strong statement for farther research in this country. Charities need to understand whether their stakeholders are besides driven by self involvement if they are to understand the societal capital that exists within these channels and the affect this will hold on attempts to cultivate it.