The role of social capital in collaborative learning
Will Allen, Margaret Kilvington, Garth Harmsworth (
Email 
)
and Chrys Horn
The notion of social capital has been around for decades, but it is with the work of Jane Jacobs (1961), Pierre Bourdieu (1983), James C. Coleman (1988) and Robert D. Putnam (1993, 2000) that it has come into prominence. This is how Putnam (2000, p. 19) introduces the idea:
Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals - social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called "civic virtue". The difference is that "social capital" calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital.
In other words, interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric. A sense of belonging and the concrete experience of social networks (and the relationships of trust and tolerance that can be involved) can benefit people greatly. The premiss for much of what is written in this report is that working together through collaborative partnerships is a powerful way to improve our communities and environment. These are alliances that can be used to improve the health of a community in the widest sense of the term (environmental, educational, economic, social, etc.). They encourage people, hopefully operating at a range of scales and levels, to work together and make a difference. For example, an initiative to improve water quality by riparian planting might involve a landcare group, local school, community environmental group and agencies (regional councils, Department of Conservation, etc.). Because these partnerships bring people together from different parts of the wider community, their efforts often have the weight to be successful.
The social whole is more than the sum of its individual components. Social systems provide a range of functions that are not met through market transactions. Households, communities of interest, and neighbourhoods create networks of mutual obligation, care, concern, interest and even conflict (access to other points of view). In the development and organisational learning literature these networks, norms, exchanges and trust that facilitate co-operation for mutual benefit are referred to as "social capital".
Social capital also has an important potential "downside" (Portes & Landholt 1996): communities, groups or networks that are isolated, parochial, or working at cross-purposes to society's collective interests can actually hinder economic and social development.
Vertical and horizontal associations
A broader understanding of social capital accounts for both the positive and negative aspects by including vertical as well as horizontal associations between people, and behaviour within and among organisations, firms and institutions. This view recognises that "bonding" ties are needed to give communities a sense of identity and common purpose, but also stresses that without "bridging" ties that transcend various social divides (e.g. religion, industry sectors, ethnicity, socio-economic status), bonding ties can become a basis for the pursuit of narrow interests, and can actively preclude access to information and material resources that would otherwise be of great assistance to the community. Bridging is essentially a horizontal metaphor, however, implying connections between people who share demographic characteristics. Social capital also has a vertical dimension, which can be called "linkages." The capacity to gain access to resources, ideas and information from formal institutions beyond the community is a key function of linking social capital. A multi-dimensional approach highlights that different combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital produce the range of outcomes observed in the literature.
Social capital supports learning through interaction, and requires the formation of networking paths that are both horizontal (across agencies and sectors) and vertical (agencies to communities to individuals). This, in turn, implies that relationships within which learning interactions take place influence the learning outcomes in collaborative approaches. Social capital plays an important role in fostering the social networks and information exchange needed to achieve collective action - and in sustaining a social and institutional environment that is ready to adapt and change.
Some agencies recognise the value of social capital, but are are not cognisant of the various types of interconnections necessary. For example, a territorial authority may integrate different sectors and/or departments, but fail to encourage two-way vertical connections with local groups. Another may form local associations without building their linkages upwards to other external agencies. In general, two-way relationships are better than one-way, and linkages subject to regular quality checks are generally better than historically embedded ones.
Measuring social capital
Social capital has been measured in a number of innovative ways, though for a number of reasons obtaining a single "true" measure is probably not possible, or perhaps even desirable (e.g. Spellerberg 2001, Stone 2001). First, the most comprehensive definitions of social capital are multidimensional, incorporating different levels and units of analysis. Second, any attempt to measure the properties of inherently ambiguous concepts such as "community", "network" and "organisation" is correspondingly problematic. Third, few long-standing surveys were designed to measure "social capital", leaving contemporary researchers to compile indexes from a range of approximate items, such as measures of trust in government, voting trends, memberships in civic organizations, hours spent volunteering.
Measuring social capital may be difficult, but it is not impossible, and several excellent studies have identified useful proxies for social capital, using different types and combinations of qualitative, comparative and quantitative research methodologies. However, it is also important to appreciate that social capital has only moderate explanatory power in itself, and it always exists in a context with other forms of capital (e.g., human and economic).
References
Bourdieu, P. 1983: Forms of capital. In: Richards, J. C. ed. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, New York, Greenwood Press.
Coleman, J. C. 1988: Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95-S120.
Jacobs, J. 1961: The death and life of great American cities. New York, Random Books.
Portes, A.; Landolt, P. 1996: Unsolved mysteries: The Tocqueville files II. The American Prospect 7(26).
Putnam, R. D. 1993: Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. 1995: Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. The Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. 2000: Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York, Simon and Schuster.
Spellerberg, A. 2001: Framework for the measurement of social capital in New Zealand. Research and Analytical Report 2001#14. Wellington, Statistics New Zealand.
Stone, W. 2001, Measuring Social Capital, Melbourne, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Research Paper No. 24/2001.
Your feedback or comments about any of the material on this, or related, pages is welcomed. Please feel free to contact
Garth Harmsworth
Email
Page last updated: 2007