Journals / Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi / 2006 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 12

Social Capital: Enabling Structures or Purposive Action?

Sosyal Sermaye: Yapının Sunduğu Bir Olanak mı, Yoksa Bireyin Amaçlı Eylemi mi?

Pages
1–13
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this article, we explore the dual explanations that have emerged where theories of social capital and social network intersect.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In recent years, economic sociology has benefited significantly from researchers’ increased emphasis on social capital.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Due to the undeniable importance of social networks in social and economic development, social capital has also steadily made inroads into epistemological debates revolving around structural perspectives.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this article, we explore the dual explanations that have emerged where theories of social capital and social network intersect.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In recent years, economic sociology has benefited significantly from researchers’ increased emphasis on social capital. Due to the undeniable importance of social networks in social and economic development, social capital has also steadily made inroads into epistemological debates revolving around structural perspectives. The question of whether social capital is attained through purposive individual action or locally embedded in structural relations remains largely unanswered. For example, social network analysts point to two different structural mechanisms in social capital creation: closure and brokerage. In this article, we explore the dual explanations that have emerged where theories of social capital and social network intersect.

Özet

Son yıllarda ekonomik sosyoloji, araştırmacıların sosyal sermaye üzerinde önemle durmaları nedeniyle belirgin yararlar sağlamıştır. Sosyal ağdüzeneklerinin, sosyal ve ekonomik gelişme konusunda gözardı edilemez önemi, sosyal sermayenin de yapısal bakış açıları çerçevesinde oluşan epistemolojik tartışmalara katılması sonucunu doğurmuştur. Sosyal sermayenin amaçlı bireysel eylemle mi, yoksa sosyal yapıda yerleşik ilişkiler sonucu mu oluştuğu genellikle yanıtsız kalmıştır. Sözgelimi sosyal ağdüzeneği çözümleyicileri, sosyal sermayenin yaratılmasında iki farklı yapısal mekanizmaya dikkati çekmektedirler: Bunlar kapalı ağdüzenekleri ve aracılıktır. Bu makalede sosyal sermaye ve ağdüzeneği kuramının kesiştiği noktada ortaya çıkan ikili açıklamalar gözden geçirilecektir.

🔖

Cite This Article

SARGUT, A. S. (2022). Social Capital: Enabling Structures or Purposive Action?. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 12, 1–13. https://ajindex.com/articles/433224

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. ABBOTT, A. (2004), Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the social sciences. New York: W. W. Norton. ADLER, P. S. ve KWON, S. W. (2002), Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27:17-40.
  2. AHUJA, G. (2000) Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45:425-455.
  3. BARRICKS, M. R., PARKS, L. ve MOUNT, M. K. (2005), Self-monitoring as a moderator of the relationships between personality traits and performance, Personnel Psychology, 58: 745-767.
  4. BORGATTI, S. P. ve FOSTER, P. C. (2003), The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology, Journal of Management, 29:991-1013.
  5. BOURDIEU, P. ve WACQUANT, L. J. D. (1992), An invitation to reflective sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  6. BURT, R. S. (1992),
  7. Structural holes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  8. BURT, R. S. (1997), The contingent value of social capital, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42:339-365.
  9. BURT, R. S. (2000), The network structure of social capital. B. M. Staw ve R. I. Sutton (Der.), Research in organizational behavior v. 22: 345-423. New York: Elsevier Science, Inc. BURT, R. S. (2002),
  10. Bridge decay, Social Networks, 24:333-263.
  11. BURT, R. S. (2004),
  12. Structural holes and good ideas, American Journal of Sociology, 110:349-399.
  13. BURT, R. S. (2005), Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. BURT, R. S., Jannotta, J. E. ve Mahoney, J. T. (1998), Personality correlates of structural holes, Social Networks, 20:63-87.
  15. BURT, R. S., Hogarth, R. M. ve Michaud, C. (2000), The social capital of French and American managers, Organization Science, 11:123-147.
  16. COLEMAN, J. S. (1988), Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology, 94:S95-S120. GARGIULO, M. ve BENASSI, M. (2000), Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science, 11:183-196.
  17. GRANOVETTER, M. (1973),
  18. The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78:1360-1380.
  19. GRANOVETTER, M. (1985), Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 91:481-510.
  20. GROOTAERT, C. (2001), Social capital: The missing link? P. Dekker ve E. M. Uslaner (Der.), Social capital and participation in everyday life: 9-28.
  21. Florence, KY: Routledge. HARGADON, A. ve SUTTON, R. I. (1997), Technology brokering and innovation in a product developme