Sociology Essay-社會資本和慈善

 

本文的文學觀點將確定社會資本概念的主要特征，包括其形式、類型和特征，以及這些影響的形成與發展。本研究將繼續評估PR的作用，并在特定的社交網站，在培育社會資本和利益相關者的過程中發揮作用。本研究著重于完成1和2的研究項目，和1.3小節的介紹性章節。第三個目標將通過主要的研究，收集和分析的經驗數據，而目標4，最終目標，將從目標1.2.3.得出研究結果。

 

通過有意義的討論和結構化的方法分析文獻的一些方面，批判的的理解慈善機構和利益相關者之間存在的在社交網絡將會出現的社會資本。在本節的最后，希望讀者會更好地了解這些領域，了解目前的關鍵問題，并明確的實證研究的重點，以及為什么這項工作是必要的。

 

社會資本和慈善

 

經濟學，歷史，政治，教育，管理和公共關系（PR）領域的學者探索社會資本，不令人驚訝地發現，他們不能達成一致公認的適用于許多應用程序的概念（Dovey 和 Onyx，2001）。然而，盡管這種多樣性，截然不同的兩組思想家應運而生，這些學者的靈感來自于Pierre Bourdieu的工作（1986，1991，1992）和Robert Putman（1996，2000）的影響。

 

Bourdieu認為 （1991）一個人在社會中的地位是由他們所掌握的權力的數量決定的，而這一地位取決于他們所擁有的資本的類型和數量。他認為人們集中于戰斗，以增加他們擁有的資本的數量，并反過來提高他們的地位。社會資本是個人通過奮斗獲得資本類型，被描述為“實際或潛在的資源的聚合與擁有一個持久的網絡或多或少的制度化關系相互認識和認可”（Bourdieu，1986，p.248-249）。通過連接會員群體，或社會網絡，個人可以進一步獲取自己的利益，無論是獲得權力或獲得其他類型的資本，將反過來幫助他們發展電力。在這個概念中，人與人之間的關系的價值和焦點是追求自我利益（Bourdieu 1986）。

 

Social Capital And Charity Sociology Essay

 

This Literature Review will identify the main features of the social capital concept, including its forms, types and features, and how these affect the formation and development of charities. The study will then go on to assess the role PR, and in particular SNSs, have in cultivating social capital and the role stakeholders play in this process. This exploration focuses on fulfilling Objectives 1 and 2 of this research project as set out in sub-section 1.3 of the introductory chapter. The third objective will be met through primary research which will collect and analysis empirical data, while Objective 4, the final objective, will develop as a result of the findings from Objectives 1, 2, 3.

 

By meaningfully discussing and analysing the areas of the literature outlined above in a structured way, a critical understanding of the social capital that exists between charities and their stakeholders in SNSs will emerge. At the end of this major section it is hoped that the reader will be better informed in these areas, understand the key issues present and be clear about the focus for the empirical research, and why this work is needed.

 

社會資本和慈善-Social capital and charity

 

With scholars in fields as diverse as economics, history, politics, education, management and even public relations (PR) exploring social capital, it is not surprising to find that they cannot agree on a universally accepted definition suitable for the many applications of the concept (Dovey and Onyx, 2001). However, despite this diversity, two distinct groups of thinkers have emerged, those scholars inspired by the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1986, 1991, 1992) and those influenced by Robert Putman( 1996, 2000).

 

For Bourdieu (1991) a person's position in society is determined by the amount of power they hold, which is in turn determined by the types and amounts of capital they possess. He sees people as focussed on fighting to increase the amounts of capital they have, and in turn power, to better their position. Social capital is one of the types of capital that individuals struggle to attain and is described as "the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to the possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition" (Bourdieu,1986,p.248-249). By acquiring connections and membership to groups, or social networks, individuals can further their own interests; whether this be obtaining power or attaining others types of capital that will in turn help them develop power. In this concept the value and focus of relationships between people is to pursue self interest (Bourdieu 1986).

 

Critics of Bourdieu's thinking have highlighted that this theory gives privilege to individuals who are already in dominant positions for power. They are able to use the capital they have accumulated to gain more, a tactic unavailable to those without such resources (Ihlen 2009). This is an important criticism; however, it needs to be considered alongside the selfish individualism also promoted by this theory. Bourdieu (1986) views relationships and social networks as characterised by conflict, where individuals are motivated to become involved with each other by personal gain. Such a focus leave people with little room to care or consider the needs and expectations of the people with whom they have relationships or to work as a team towards a larger goal would be impossible as singular beings.

 

Although Putman (1996, 2000) does not directly challenge this view, his thinking by its very nature throws this idea of selfish individualism into sharp relief. Putman (1996, 2000) shares Bourdieu's core belief that there is value in relationships and the social networks built by them. But, where Putman (1996, 2000) differs in his thinking is that rather than this value being for selfish gain, he believes it can not only improve the welfare of all individuals involved in the relationship but also the bystanders and even society at large (Luoma-aho 2009).

 

Rather than placing actors in conflict he emphasises 'belonging' and a 'sense of community' and 'working together'. In this view relationships and social networks foster trust, reciprocity, facilitate communication and amplify information, helping actors to work together more effectively to achieve mutually beneficial aims and shared objectives (Putman, Leonardi and Nanetti, 1993, Putman, Feldstein and Cohen, 2003). For Putman, Leonardi and Nanetti (1993) social capital is defined less by accumulated resources and more by the "features of social organisation, such as trust, norms, and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions" (p.167).

 

Putman believes one of the key norms needed for such social capital to exist and be cultivated is generalised reciprocity. This occurs when people consider the idea of helping one another to be the unspoken norm, knowing that the others parties in the relationship also feel the same way. This makes any connection about mutual benefit rather than selfish gain. It is demonstrated by parties acknowledging, understanding and supporting each other's needs (Putman, 1996: Putman, Leonardi and Nanetti, 1993; Putman, Feldstein and Cohen, 2003, Heath 2001; Taylor 2010; Luoma-aho 2009). If a tendency to help others is a characteristic of a society it is more likely that its members will work more successfully towards mutually beneficial aims than it would not have been possible should members be solely concerned with they own welfare (Putman 2000).

 

Putman also argues that through the presence of features, such as reciprocity two different types of social capital can be created; bridging and bonding, both of which are needed for groups, organisations and societies to work effectively. Bonding social capital brings people that already know each other closer together. This needs to be created first as it generates the core links that a group needs to function, by bringing like minded together as a 'community' nurtured by reciprocity and solidarity (Putman 2000).

 

Bridging social capital on the other hand brings together people or groups who previously did not know each other (Putman 2000).This type of social capital exposes groups to new ideas, resources, disperses information and breaks barriers down (Briggs 2004). Key to generating bridging social capital are those parties in a network that are also part of other networks and therefore act as brokers between the two (Gress 2004;Larsen et al, 2001).

 

Putman's ideas were developed through comparative studies of democracy in Italy and America (Putman et al, 1993; Putman 2000) that used secondary data to measure elements of these societies that he perceived as having links to the generation of social capital. He was interested in identifying how their presence or lack of influenced the co-ordination of activities and the sharing of information (Taylor 2010). However Putman's critics suggest that his work presents little convincing empirical evidence that getting people to work together and trust each other on a smaller scale can result in social capital for the whole community (DeFilippis 2001; Patulny 2003). Although they agree that there may be a correlation between active communities and societies that flourish, they do not feel that Putman has been able to establish whether social capital was a result of people working together in a united way or whether it causes this cohesion (DeFilippis 2001).

 

However, the legitimacy of this argument is thrown into question when looking at charities operating today. They are formed by people believing and trusting that by helping each other and working together they can improve the environment in which they all live (Onyx and Bullen, 2000) and are therefore real-life example of Putman's social capital concept in action. It shows that social capital is not only embedded within the original relationships that form charities but also core to their operational success helping to:

 

"recruit and develop board members, raise philanthropic support, develop strategic partnerships, engage in advocacy, enhance community relations, and create a shared vision and mission within the organisation and its employees" (King, 2004 p471).

 

With increasing numbers of authors putting forward the idea that nurturing social capital, in the form outlined by Putman (2000), will help charities mobilise the people and resources they need fulfil their missions (Onyx and Bullen, 2000, Strauss 2010, King 2004) empirical research is desperately needed that explores, explains and validates this link between charities and social capital before the utility of the concept can further develop. Such research has been called for by academics such as Strauss (2010) and King (2004).

 

However, before embarking on such research, it is important to stop and consider where the Putman's idea of reciprocity fits into this process. In their writing on social capital and charity King (2004), Strauss (2010) and Onyx and Bullen (2000) have focussed on the benefits of cultivating social capital from the charity perspective. By looking at charity social capital as an organisational asset, it is easy to forget the reciprocity on which these relationships are built. However, by applying Putman's theory, should this reciprocity be lost, stakeholders would be less likely to work together with the charity towards collective aims, which would have negative consequences for the charity and the society that benefits from its efforts

 

Therefore it is important that any research that seeks to understand social capital in the charity context considers the idea of reciprocity. As a core element of Putman's (2000) social capital concept the presence of reciprocity in the relationship between charities and their stakeholders is good indicator that these connections possess the mutually beneficial form of social capital rather than the self interest based kind espoused by Bourdieu (1986). It is also crucial for its cultivation.

 

Such identification is difficult to do without understanding whether the stakeholders in the relationship view the partnership as reciprocal and if they do, identifying the needs of stakeholders, considering them and supporting them where possible, to enable this reciprocity and therefore social capital to be strengthened (Putman 1996; 2000). Without an understanding of these key elements any subsequent studies looking at how to cultivate this social capital become difficult.

 

社會資本作為一種公益性公共關系的產物-Social capital as an outcome for charity public relations

 

In the previous section a case was put forward that charities, perhaps more so that other organisations, should invest in building social capital as central to their survival and embedded in their strategic plans (King 2004). Scholars agree that social capital can be cultivated by both individuals, businesses and organisations such as charities, and central to such activity should be investment in relationships with stakeholders (Cohen and Prusak, 2001; Coleman 1998 and Gittel and Vidal, 1998)

 

Developing on from this is the idea that social capital investment is best handled by the public relations (PR) function of an organisation (Willis 2011; Ihlen 2009; Luoma-aho 2009).To truly understand this concept one must look back at Bourdieu (1986) and Putman's ( 2000) contributions to social capital theory, as writers considering the application of social capital to PR are divided into those who view it from the self-centred perspective espoused by Bourdieu (Edwards 2006; Harris 2005; Ihlen 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007, 2009) and those putting forward ideas based around the co-operation for mutual benefit theory supported by Putman (Putman, Feldstein and Cohen, 2003; Putman, Leonardi and Nanetti ,1993 and Luoma-aho 2009).

 

Ihlen (2007, 2009) is perhaps the strongest advocate of Bourdieu's thinking, suggesting that his theories can help organisations understand the business context in which they operate. Each organisation is seen as occupying a position in the business environment which is decided by the amount of power it possesses. This power is determined by the types of amounts of capital it has in relation to other organisations. So should an organisation want to change position, i.e., gain more power, and therefore success, it can do so by acquiring, holding on to and converting capital. For Ihlen (2009) PR is a tool that can help navigate this environment and capitalise on opportunities as it "assists organisational actors in various fields in pursuing their interests" (p.69).

 

Such thinking aligns well with the functional approach to PR i.e. the techniques and production of strategic organisational messages and where PR is viewed as an instrument that can be used to accomplish specific organisational goals, such as holding on to power (Botan and Taylor, 2004 ). The main objective of this approach is to help an organisation pursue its own interests by pushing out messages through the media that enhance the company's reputation and that of its products amongst the audiences receiving this information (Botan and Taylor, 2004).However, more recently a co-creational approach to PR theory has driven research and become the dominant industry paradigm, thus bringing into question how relevant or realistic Ihlen's power-based organisational approach (2007, 2009) is to the current field, something that needs further academic consideration.

 

This co-creational view of PR uses communication to 'help groups to negotiate meaning and build relationships' (Botan and Taylor, 2004, p. 652.) The key difference between this and the functional approach is that actors enter relationships with mutual benefit in mind rather than purely selfish gain. Not only is an organisation more likely to achieve their goals by working together with others in this way, the wants and needs of others matter in their own right (Botan and Taylor, 2004).

 

Such thinking it at the heart of many of the theories influencing PR theory and practice today, including stakeholder theory (Freeman 1984; Johnson and Scholes, 2002; Grunig and Repper, 1992); relationship management (Broom et al, 2000; Ledingham 2003; Ledingham and Bruning, 2000; Huang (2001), corporate social responsibility (Carroll 1991) and the Heath's Fully Functioning Society Theory (2006).

 

Recently a third approach to PR has emerged. Put forward by Taylor (2010), this sociological method builds on the co-creational thinking explained above, however, rather than focussing on the relationships that one organisation has with its publics, it suggests PR's greater role is to help people, groups, and organisations have desire and the ability to work together to better life for everyone. This is possible because individuals, social cause groups, societal institutions, media, business organisations, governance and international organisations each represent different citizen interests and by working together as partners they can shape, change, and sustain communities and societies and make the world a better place to live (Taylor 2010).

 

Both the sociological and co-creational approach to PR synthesises well with the social capital theory of Putman (2000) who was at pains to emphasise the value of relationships and social networks that build that same sense of community. These networks may be personal or organisational but like Taylor's PR approach above their influences are wider. By working successfully together on common agendas individual entities in the social network have a greater chance of achieving benefits for not only themselves and the others in the network but society as a whole (Putman 2000).

 

Although Putman did not apply the concept of PR to his work, he did note that communication is an intermediary for the creation of social capital and community. Since then Luoma-aho (2009) has been the key advocate for the application of Putman's work to PR, calling for the field of PR, including sub-disciplines such as stakeholder management, corporate social responsibility and relationship management, to be redefined as the practice of creating organisational social capital. This means PR should focus on building a 'sense of community' by nurturing relationships built on trust, reciprocity that benefit both organisations and their stakeholders. She offers a model to explain the process of social capital, which involves understanding the views of stakeholders with whom you have a relationship and how they may affect the key elements of social capital, such as reciprocity, as such the absence of presence of such factors will affect the ability to nurture mutually beneficial relationships and community spirit.

 

Taking forward this idea in the charity context is Strauss (2010), who believes structuring PR efforts around building this social capital "may prove a fertile field for developments that will benefit non- profit organisations suffering from a scarcity of physical capital, allowing then to pursue their mission-based goals and hopefully change society for the better" (Strauss, 2010, p10).It offers charities a way to foster this essential part of their make-up therefore increasing their possibility of successfully addressing societal issues(Strauss 2010).

 

In an effort to develop this concept Strauss (2010) has proposed a social capital based model to assist charities in structuring their public relations. It starts by getting charities to assess the value of the social capital in their existing relationships. By measuring the elements within these relationships that are likely to generate social capital, such as reciprocity, charities can understand the social capital in existence within these connections. From here charities can identify if there are any opportunities to build both the bonding and bridging social capital and set about activities to do so.

 

However for this idea to become meaningful in practice, Strauss (2010) admits herself that empirical research on her model is required, something that has yet to been undertaken from either the charity perspective or those of their stakeholders. She considers this research particularly important because of the "dearth of available literature that specifically examines the non-profit organisations' public relations efforts from a theoretical perspective" (Strauss, 2010, p5). She therefore calls for studies to help better understand the process of creating social capital and the value it has for charities and whether it is a viable concept around which charities can structure their PR. Strauss also suggests investigations are needed to identify the specific communication tactics that generate social capital for charities e.g. social media. These tactics, she suggests, would need to foster trust and reciprocity and contribute to the network characteristics that foster social capital (Strauss 2010).

 

在線慈善公關和社會資本-Online charity public relations and social capital

 

In the above section the idea is put forward that nurturing social capital of the type described by Putman( 2000) could be used to give charity public relations efforts both a structure and a goal ( Luoma-aho 2009; Strauss 2010). Also highlighted is a call for research into whether SNSs could help in these efforts (Strauss 2010). This call is echoed by a number of other authors (Taylor 2010; Lovejoy and Saxton, 2012) but despite this there remain very few studies that explore this link.

 

What is available, however, are numerous PR studies that identify and explore how these emergent channels can help build and maintain mutually beneficial relationship between organisations and their stakeholders through communication. "SNSs are bundles of online technological tools that incorporate features of earlier technologies (such as personal websites) but recombine them into a new context that supports users' ability to form and maintain a wide network of social connections"(Ellison, Steinfeld and Lampe, 2011,p.3). Therefore by using SNSs to interact, share and converse individuals and organisations can create relationships, form 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 further augmented for charities because they give individuals the ability to self-organise around causes by collaborating with each other (Kanter 2009).

 

So far research in this field has mainly focussed on one SNS, Facebook (Bortree and Seltzer, 2009; Waters et al, 2009; Greenberg and MacAulay, 2009). But academics (Briones et al 2011; Lovejoy and Saxton 2012) are now turning their attention to Twitter; which is a platform that allows users to publish and sharing short (140 characters or less) messages with others within a their social network (Murphy, 2008). With more than 10 million users in the UK (Arthur 2012) Twitter offer more opportunity for direct immediate interactivity, public open dialogue and network creation than other social networking sites (Evans, Twomey and Talan, 2011; Lovejoy and Saxton, 2012).

 

However the current literature tackling charity use of Twitter suggests that charities are missing out on the opportunity offered by this channel to build relationships with stakeholders. By primarily using Twitter to broadcast one-way informational messages they are missing the chance to engage their stakeholders in dialogue (Lovejoy, Waters and Saxton, 2012; Waters and Jamal, 2011). It is however this dialogue and engagement that helps charities and their stakeholders to build trust, identify with each other, develop similar values, beliefs and interests and meet the expectations and needs they have of one another- crucial essentials to any relationship or mutual benefit (Hallahan 2008; Briones et al, 2011; Kent 2008).

 

Such findings play an important role in increasing academic understanding around how charities are using Twitter. But what is even more interesting is that they show that researchers believe that charities can and are building trusting reciprocal relationships with stakeholders on Twitter (Briones et al 2011: Lovejoy and Saxton 2012). By applying social capital theory to these findings, as relationships of this type are identified as core to the social capital concept advocated by Putman (2000), it is reasonable to deduce that this form of social capital may exist within these connections (Lovejoy and Saxton 2012).

 

One study that highlights this possible link is Lovejoy and Saxton's (2012) examination of the Twitter usage of 100 large US non-profits. They document the presence of a particular type of Twitter message that is either designed to spark interactive conversation or give recognition or thanks and by doing so aims to cultivate social capital. But, as Lovejoy and Saxton (2012) admit themselves, their study, and in fact most previous research around this topic, has solely examined social capital from the charity point of view. This leaves little understanding of whether stakeholders view these relationships in the same way. Social capital may be present from the charity's perspective but unless the norms needed, such as reciprocity, as also shared by stakeholders, then the mutuality on which the relationship is based is lost and therefore the social capital nonexistent.

 

Such calls by researchers (Smith 2010; Lovejoy and Saxton 2012), demonstrate a general pressing need for stakeholder research in this area that offer both relevant data as well as analytical frameworks that can assess the characteristics of these relationships, including trust and reciprocity, thus revealing the social capital present. This need is further enhanced by the findings of investigations looking at how individuals relate on SNSs, research conducted by assessing and analysing people's use of particular SNS features and the content of their messages. Although these illustrated that relationships had a positive effect on social capital, they found that people tended to engage based on the possibility that they would receive personal benefits from the network, thus making the type generated was more akin Bourdieu's (1986) model of selfish gain than Putman's (2000) of mutual benefit (Ellison et al 2007; Ellison et al 2011; Cha et al, 2010; Recuero, Araujo and Zago 2011).

 

Although there are currently only a handful of studies expressing this idea and more need to be undertaken before these outcomes can be generalised, the findings still throw up some interesting questions. If people are driven by self motivation online, how does this affect the development of social capital online and the social concept in general? This is a serious issue for charities because if such self-centred behaviour is also present within their relations with stakeholders on SNSs, such as Twitter, it would not only not only suggest that SNSs are not tools that charities mobilise the people and resources needed to fulfil their missions, but it would also call into question academic ascertains that Putman's based social capital is at the heart of every charity.

 

According to the literature uses and gratifications theory (U&G) offers one way to begin to answer these questions as it "attempts to explain what social and psychological needs motivate audiences to select particular media channels and content choices" (Lee and Ma, 2012, p331) and the affects that such attitudes have on behaviour and attitude (Diddi and LaRose, 2006; Lin 2002; Ruggiero 2000). Although weaknesses in the U&G have been raised, including claims that the concept lacks clarity therefore making it difficult to put into action (Lometti, Reeves and Bybee 1977; Swanson 1977) and minimises the significance of the interaction between such media and users (McQuail 1979), researchers remain adamant that it is a good framework to use. They believe it is useful if you want to understand 'the socio-psychological' profile of an individual as opposed to processes within a network (Papacharissi and Mendelson 2008), which helpful to social capital researchers seeking to understand why an individual seeks a relationship with another through a particular medium

 

This belief in this use of U&G to assess the social capital in a relationship is demonstrated by the growing body of research applying this theory to online communication, and specifically SNSs (Papacharissi and Mendelson 2008; Lee and Ma 2012; Park, Kee and Valenzuela 2009). Such studies have so far argued that specific gratifications and uses of SNSs, such as socialising, entertainment, self-status seeking and information, may decide different social outcomes ( Nyland, Marvex and Beck 2007; Raacke and Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Park, Kee and Valenzuela 2009).

 

However these studies have delivered mixed outcomes. Two studies suggest a positive link between individuals driven to use SNSs to seek information and the subsequent social capital produced. The same studies found that those individuals using SNSs as a form of entertainment, whether that be as an escape from their problems, a way to relax, a form of enjoyment or to fill in time, did not generate social capital (Park, Kee and Valenzuela 2009; Nyland, Marvex and Beck 2007). In another study use of SNSs sites to fulfil social needs was found to strengthen social contacts, community engagement and attachment by connecting people to a community through a network (Kavanaugh et al 2005).However these ideas were contradicted by Papacharissi and Mendelson (2008), Shao (2009) and Leung (2010) who all suggested that, although social capital is very much alive in SNSs, individuals used these channels to increase the opportunities for personal benefit, suggesting that the social capital present more closely resembled that suggested by Bourdieu (1986) than Putman (2000), supporting the findings of the individual studies mentioned earlier.

 

As there are only a small number of such studies, and they focussed mainly on students, it is too early to draw any conclusions from this research that can be generalised. This still leaves questions around whether SNSs use is dominated by people's self interest and is therefore void of the what Putman (2000) calls the norms, values and networks users needed to get people working together for collective benefit. It also does not explain, because the previous studies were generally focussed on relationships individuals have with each other, whether such needs and motivations are common place across all different relationships, such as those charities have with their staleholders.

 

This need to better understand people's motives for using SNSs, especially as relationship tools for charities and their stakeholders, and the void in stakeholder focussed research mentioned earlier, provide a strong argument for further research in this area. Charities need to understand whether their stakeholders are also driven by self interest if they are to understand the social capital that exists within these channels and the affect this will have on efforts to cultivate it.