Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:53:01.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The embeddedness of social capital in personal networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2019

José Luis Molina Open the ORCID record for José Luis Molina [Opens in a new window] ,
Alejandro García-Macías ,
Miranda J. Lubbers  and
Hugo Valenzuela-Garcia
José Luis Molina*
Affiliation:
GRAFO, Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, c/ de la Fortuna s/n, 08193-Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
Alejandro García-Macías
Affiliation:
Department of Communication, Centro de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes, Av. Universidad #940, Ciudad Universitaria, 20131 – Aguascalientes, México, (email: [email protected])
Miranda J. Lubbers
Affiliation:
GRAFO, Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, c/ de la Fortuna s/n, 08193-Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected])
Hugo Valenzuela-Garcia
Affiliation:
GRAFO, Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, c/ de la Fortuna s/n, 08193-Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected])
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Name generators (NGs) and position generators (PGs) have been used to measure resources embedded in personal relationships, namely social support and social capital, respectively. Comparisons of these measures adopted NGs that only elicit a small number of alters (max. 5). In this paper we explore whether the measurement of social capital with NGs eliciting larger personal networks (say 15 to 20 alters) gives more comparable results to the PG in terms of occupational prestige. To address this issue, we designed a personal network questionnaire that combined a multiple name generator (MNG) and a PG and enquired about alter characteristics and alter-alter ties for the two sets of nominations simultaneously, allowing their integrated analysis. The questionnaire was implemented in the software EgoNet to collect data from social/environmental entrepreneurs in Spain (N = 30) and Mexico (N = 30. The analysis shows that the two approaches capture mostly non-overlapping sets of personal network members, suggesting that the PG measured in this case available, but not accessed social capital. Remarkably the NG led to a higher average prestige for this occupational group than the PG, but also a lower heterogeneity in prestige. The consequences of using one or another approach and their interpretations are discussed.

Keywords

Brea L. PerryBernice A. PescosolidoMario L. SmallAnn McCraniepersonal networkssocial capitalname generatorposition generatorsocial entrepreneurship
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 8 , Issue 2: Special Issue Ego Networks , June 2020 , pp. 189 - 203
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bosma, N., van Praag, M., & de Wit, G. (2000). Determinants of successful entrepreneurship. Amsterdam: EIM Business and Policy Research.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brandes, U., Lerner, J., Lubbers, M. J., McCarty, C., & Molina, J. L. (2008). Visual Statistics for Collections of Clustered Graphs. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (pp. 47–54). doi:10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2008.4475458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, W. (2013). Internet use, online communication, and ties in Americans’ networks. Social Science Computer Review, 31(4), 404–423. doi:10.1177/0894439313480345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120. doi:10.1086/228943Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Co-evolution of neocortex size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(4), 681–735. Retrieved from http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/65/bbs000005Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Ganzeboom, H., & Treiman, D. (1996). Internationally comparable measures of occupational status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations. Social Science Research, 239(25), 201–239. doi:10.1006/ssre.1996.0010Google Scholar
Ganzeboom, H., & Treiman, D. (2010). Occupational status measures for the new International Standard Classification of Occupations ISCO-08; with a discussion of the new classification. In Annual Conference of International Social Survey Programme. Lisbon.Google Scholar
García-Macías, A. (2015). Capital social relacional en enclaves de la industria del vestido en México. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
International Labor Office. (2012). International standard classification of occupations. ISCO-08. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. doi:10.1108/14691930410550381Google Scholar
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, N. (2017). Building a network theory of social capital. In Dubos, R. (Ed.), Social capital theory and research (pp. 1–26). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lin, N., & Dumin, M. (1986). Access to occupations through social ties. Social Networks, 8(4), 365–385. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(86)90003-1Google Scholar
Lin, N., & Erickson, B. H. (2008). Theory, measurement, and the research enterprise on social capital. In Social capital: An international research program (pp. 1–24). Oxford, MA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & Valenzuela, H. (2019). When networks speak volumes: Variation in the size of broader acquaintanceship networks. Social Networks, 59, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2018.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maness, M. (2017). Comparison of social capital indicators from position generators and name generators in predicting activity selection. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 106, 374–395. doi:10.1016/J.TRA.2017.10.008Google Scholar
Matous, P., & Ozawa, K. (2010). Measuring social capital in a Philippine slum. Field Methods, 22(2), 133–153. doi:10.1177/1525822X09355533Google Scholar
McCallister, L., & Fischer, C. S. (1978). A procedure for surveying personal networks. Sociological Methods & Research, 7(2), 131–148. doi:10.1177/004912417800700202Google Scholar
McCarty, C. (2002). Measuring structure in personal networks. Journal of Social Structure, 3(1), 1–29. Retrieved from http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume3/McCarty.htmlGoogle Scholar
McCarty, C., Lubbers, M. J., Vacca, R., & Molina, J. L. (2019). Conducting Personal Network Research: A Practical Guide. New York: Guilford Publishers.Google Scholar
McRobbie, A. (2015). Be creative: Making a living in the new culture industries. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Molina, J. L., Valenzuela, H., Lubbers, M. J., Escribano, P., & Lobato, M. M. (2018). “The Cowl Does Make The Monk”. Understanding the emergence of social entrepreneurship in times of downturn. Voluntas, 29(4), 725–739. doi:10.1007/s11266-017-9921-6Google Scholar
Perry, B. L., Pescosolido, B. A., & Borgatti, S. P. (2018). Egocentric network analysis: Foundations, methods, and models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316443255Google Scholar
Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1–12. doi:10.1023/A:1007537902813Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civil traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/2620793Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. doi:10.1145/358916.361990Google Scholar
Song, L., & Lin, N. (2009). Social capital and health inequality: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(2), 149–163. doi:10.1177/002214650905000203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Der Gaag, M., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). The resource generator: Social capital quantification with concrete items. Social Networks, 27(1), 1–29. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2004.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Gaag, M., Snijders, T. A. B., & Flap, H. D. (2008). Position generator measures and their relationship to other social capital measures. In Lin, N. & Erickson, B. (Eds.), Social capital: An international research program (pp. 27–49). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Witt, P. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ networks and the success of start-ups. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(5), 391–412. doi:10.1080/0898562042000188423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249. doi:10.1093/wbro/15.2.225Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Molina et al. supplementary material

Molina et al. supplementary material

Download Molina et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 187.2 KB