This area is still in the process of developing. One school of thought suggests that Social media has a negative impact while the other considers it to be positive influence with reference to the concepts of bridging and bonding.

Hi Muhammed!

Have a look at an article of my colleagues Matthias Hofer and Vivian Aubert (2013):

"Perceived bridging and bonding social capital on Twitter: Differentiating between followers and followees". In: Computers in Human Behavior 29(6): 2134–2142. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.038

Sure, thanks, it will help me a lot to understand

It has increased definitely but its a complex process as of now yet the trends are positive.

There are interesting studies by Nicole Ellison and colleagues on that topic: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~enicole/pubs.html

This study is probably the most important one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x/pdf

Sebastian Valenzuela is also researching this topic. Check out his paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x/pdf

And when it comes to the Internet in general (not only social media), the paper by Wellman and colleagues is worth reading: http://www.mysocialnetwork.net/downloads/offprint/Does%20the%20Internet%20Increase,%20Decrease,%20or%20Supplement%20Social%20Capital%202001.pdf

In general, the findings indicate that social media might in fact have a positive impact on social capital, especially in the management of weak ties/bridging social capital.

Thanks, i will help me alot of to understand

Social capital flourishes when people are following the 'rules' of society. People that live their life this way feel that there are norms in society with which they can familiarise. Coleman says that when people live in this way and benefit from this type of social capital, individuals in the society are able to rest assured that their belongings and family will be safe. Coleman, James S. (1988). "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital", American Journal of Sociology. 94 Supplement: (pp. S95-S-120)

From this point of view the responsible use of social media can have a positive effect. But unfortunately the opposite is also true. So I would say it entirely depends on how social media is used.

In Social Media we are facing the problems of "discussing groups" (see Cass R. Sunstein: Infotopia). This includes “fortification of errors” (what majority says is believed), “cascade effect” (non-experts rely on non-experts) and “polarisation” (homogeneous groups tend to develop extreme points of view).

Your social capital (your connections) is used to exchange (e.g. information); social media is helping you to extend your information, identity and relationship management. The advantage provided by social medial is mainly the persistence, the possibility to search and the recommendations, but the recommendations are mostly like "if you like XY, might like XYZ" and this is causing not only advantages.

The reason is simple: two similar users tend to have similar information and similar friends. The relation is therefore not very valuable, but strong as similarity causes trust and fast spreading of information. Building these relations is “Bonding” (connecting heterogeneous people). Social Media tends to expand your network in a way that people and information are like you, strengthening your point of view and repeating information and arguments, leading to harmony inside the group on the one hand side and extremism on the other. (See also “information cocoons”)

“Bridging” is creating heterogeneous groups, which are full of controversies, economic growth potential and new ideas, but the relations are weaker and members trust other members less. Information might not be spread very fast, but the variety of information and worldviews is huge and information can reach very far due to less redundancy inside of the group.

Summarizing: You can work against rebellion inside of groups by pursuing homogeneous groups (bonding) and you can increase innovative potential by building heterogeneous ones (bridging).

Hello Muhammad,

Moira Clark of Henley Business School and myself did some work in this area, and found that social media enhances social capital, mostly by providing tangible, informational and emotional support. An overview of the findings are available here (http://anacanhoto.com/2013/04/30/presentation-the-potential-of-social-media-in-customer-relationship-management/) and the paper itself can be accessed here (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0267257X.2013.777355#.Uu-RVXmG7fN).

On the more general topic of the interplay between Internet and Social Capital, you may want to take a look at this dissertation - it is an interesting study and has a good review of prior works on the topic: http://www.crdlt.stir.ac.uk/Docs/SaraFerlanderPhD.pdf

Good luck with your research, Ana

Social interaction among individuals is the main theme of social capital. And if social media make some opportunity to create social interaction, it affects social capital.

its interesting... much of the work on the subject is based on perceptions. here is one study that looked at actual behavior re: enacted support [social capital] online:

http://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/cas/communication/files/Stefanone/Stefanoneetal_2012_JCMC.pdf

there is more work being done now which examines actual behavior, which is a good thing.

Here some more article for your question

http://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/does-social-media-create-or-destroy-social-capital

is good and interesting to read

A possible answer to your question is provided by this research. It presents a bottom up framework to highlight new technology potentialities and understand how supporting current users’ needs, through an empirical study.

This paper highlights many benefits that social technologies, can bring. For example one of the issues of the community of practices, is to find a way to let emerge people who work actively and have a thorough knowledge of the subjects.

Let those people be signalled inside the company can be a gratification for them, a good service for people who need help from them and a way to improve meritocracy. Besides enterprise 2.0 foster transparency and greater collaboration and help to leverage knowledge sharing and transfer.

The empirical application of the framework lets emerge the real perception of users. It can be helpful to support managers to find a better way to involve their collaborators in KM processes. Results revealed that users are often constrained to employ many tools to reach their goals. Mostly they use IT tools to search people, find contacts and information about colleagues’ positions and to communicate. The introduction of new collaboration tools demonstrates a constant growing trend of utilization of web 2.0 technologies.

Also, soon the following article will get published "Trepte, S., Dienlin, T. & Reinecke, L. (in press). The influence of social support received in online and offline contexts on satisfaction with social support and satisfaction with life: A longitudinal study. Media Psychology"

Pls. let me know, if I can send you a copy in advance.

I have published on technology and social capital. When looking at social capital, it will really depend on the type of social capital, strength of ties, etc.. For example, we often refer to "Facebook" friends. This would be more of a weak tie (Granovetter). However, if we have personal interaction with the individual, it will be more of strong tie. Burt's concept of social capital and contagion would be a much stronger relationship with the ease by which concepts go "viral". Anecdotally, an 11 year old was killed in a car accident in my home town. Approximately, $40K was raised through GoFundMe in 3 days with the use of Facebook, Twitter and other social media. More information about your research question would be helpful to develop something closer to a hypothesis.

Gibney, R., Zagenczyk, T. J., & Masters, M. F. (2009). Social Capital and the Practice Lens Approach. In T. Torres-Coronas, & M. Arias-Oliva (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Human Resources Information Systems: Challenges in e-HRM (pp. 797-802). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-883-3.ch117

Gibney, R., Zagenczyk, T., & Masters, M. F. (2013). The Face(book) of Unionism. International Journal of E-Politics (IJEP), 4(4), 1-12. doi:10.4018/ijep.2013100101

Indeed, it can. To reiterate my response a similar question in RG, the social media, the internet provides such opportunities, namely the development of bridging social capital which is open to all, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc. For example,Twitter and the recent Turkish paradigm! The Turkish prime minister, in trying to censor or rather block Twitter in his country, has shown the world how the social media can revolt, protest or demonstrate against tyrants, and not only. I need remind you of the Egyptian paradigm. Namely, with regard to the Arab Spring, Facebook and Twitter overthrew the Egyptian president. It helped people in organizing and coordinating protests, by cross-communicating and information spreading during the revolution in Egypt against President Hosni Mubarak. Twitter and Facebook also helped people organize and disseminate news during the demonstrations in Athens by the movement called “Aganaktismenoi” (the Resentful or the people fed-up with austerity measures). So it seems demonstrations, protests, etc. can be organised and coordinated by the Facebook Group and Twitter Pages, proving that social media can be used as a tool to ‘change’ the world. A study by Nadine Kassem Chebib & Rabia Minatullah Sohail (2011) explores the impact social media had on the Egyptian Revolution in 2011 which ended with President Hosni Mubarak’s resignation on February 11, 2011, thus ending his 30 year old regime. According to an anonymous Cairo activist: “We use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world" The combination of different social media channels under a coherent and concrete strategy can mobilize not only political changes but also every aspect of our lives. Facebook was founded in 2004 as a website platform for Harvard students and after 8 years has reached more than 800 million active users. The second most famous/popular social media channel worldwide is Twitter with over 140 million users. Undeniably, social media is extremely powerful. But is it as easy as is seems?

I need reiterate here as well, or rather recommend Putnam's pioneering study, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, in which Harvard political scientist Robert D. Putnam speaks of two main components of the concept: «bonding or exclusive» social capital and «bridging or inclusive» social capital. They are not necessarily categories to which social networks can neatly be assigned or classified, but more or less dimensions along which we can compare different forms or interrelations of social capital.

Undeniably, there is always a place in societies for both bonding and bridging social capital, however the distinctions and interrelations between bonding and bridging social capital are necessary since they highlight that social capital may not always be beneficial for society as a whole, even though it may be an asset for certain social groups and individuals. Specifically, Putnam argues that bonding (exclusive) social capital entails specific reciprocity and mobilizing solidarity. However, it can also reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups while bolstering our narrower selves, reproducing self-serving behaviours, egocentric attitudes and exclusionary practices. Bridging (inclusive) social capital, on the other hand, can be more outward-looking and encompass people across different social divides, regardless of gender, race, age or socioeconomic class. Bridging networks are good for external assets and information diffusion, generating broader identities and reciprocity –a positive asset since it enhances community productivity and social cohesion. For example, criminal gangs formulate bonding social capital whereas art clubs, choir clubs, community volunteer groups and church groups create bridging social capital. Then again, internet networks, sports clubs, sport associations and SGB’s such as the IOC –and not only extreme groups like the KKK and terrorist groups like Al-Kaida (Al-Qaeda)– can also have negative impacts since they create exclusionary social capital as well as «dark» social capital that burdens society. In other words, all these groups can either help build or break societies because of their bridging/bonding social capital dimensions.

Dear all,

I've just published a paper on Journal of Knowledge Management to analyze the individual participation and involvement affecting the user engagement in social media within organizations.

I'm attaching it. I hope it could be of interest for you...

Alberghini, E., Cricelli, L., Grimaldi, M. (2014) "A methodology to manage and monitor social media inside a company: a case study", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp.255 – 277.