Search results

According to Putnam, civic engagement fosters a cooperative structure and generalized trust. This leads to accumulation of social capital, in the form of inclusive, cooperative networks that are economically productive. The aim of this paper is to evaluate critically this thesis.

Drawing upon data from rural Denmark, this paper double tests Putnam's somewhat simplistic model of social capital leading to higher levels of economic performance.

In test one, which is based on statistical data, it is found that social capital measured as the density of voluntary associations does not in any way influence levels of economic performance. Test two, based on qualitative fieldwork, points at the socioeconomic power of social capital, implying many positive and negative outcomes other than the sheer economic.

Data are only from Denmark.

This paper reframes the social capital research agenda, displaying to policy makers that they should not overestimate the blessing of voluntary associations.

This paper contributes to the sociological critique of the one‐sided, positive picture of civic associations.

The purpose of this paper is to show that numerous studies have advanced social capital research over the past decade. Most studies have accepted the theoretical distinction between bonding and bridging social capital networks. Many, however, tend to agglomerate empirical research under the one catch‐all social capital concept, rather than classifying it according to the bonding/bridging distinction. Furthermore, most studies make little distinction on the basis of methodology, between qualitative and quantitative approaches to investigating social capital. These omissions need to be addressed.

This paper reviews definitions and applications of bridging and bonding social capital, classifies empirical studies according to each network type, and produces a further breakdown according to methodological approach.

The result is a four‐part “grid” of social capital research, encompassing bonding and bridging, and quantitative and qualitative aspects. This paper finds that most qualitative research examines non‐excludable and excludable goods and is relevant to bonding social capital, whilst most quantitative analysis looks at civic networks and norms of trust, and relates to bridging social capital.

Results advance the task of clarifying and measuring social capital.

Further development of the bridging/bonding social capital conceptual pair should allow for a more precise measurement of a community, or region.

No review paper to date captures the above empirical and methodological “grid” clearly.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the cultural prerequisites for the creation of social cohesion, with particular reference to Denmark, a nation that has been found to exhibit strong social cohesion.

The different cultural elements that characterize a society with strong cohesion are investigated and an argument is presented as to how cohesion can be conserved.

Culture is understood as a social order based on mainly informal norms. Of these, trust is vital in creating social cohesion. However, trust occurs only under specific conditions, and in this regard the Danish nation, understood as a cultural community, is of interest. There is in Denmark a strong civil society characterized by honesty, reliability, and mutuality, which historically is due to the existence of several civil movements. In contrast to the idea that society can be integrated through policy initiatives, it is proposed that social cohesion occurs precisely because of the existence of a certain culture.

The cultural and national aspect of trust is often underestimated in scientific research. The paper shows the value of culture and national community.

The purpose of the paper is to present the latest scholarly trends in the field of social capital in libraries, to review research concepts published by LIS professionals and to suggest further research possibilities in this area.

This paper presents a review and critical analysis of literature associated with research on social capital in libraries to highlight its importance for the development of LIS and its impact on the functioning of environments linked with various types of libraries. The goal of literature analysis was to determine the current condition of research on social capital in libraries. The main trends were identified and the need for further qualitative analyses, which are missing at the moment, was confirmed.

It was determined that, so far, LIS professionals have focussed mainly on the role of municipal libraries in developing social capital, the problem of building trust, especially in immigrant circles and the impact of libraries on promoting a civil society. Academic libraries, rural libraries, organisational capital in libraries and individual social capital of librarians were a much less frequent subject of research. The role of libraries in developing social capital in educational (primary and secondary education) and professional (non-university professionals) circles is practically non-existent in research, and it will require in-depth studies and analyses in the coming years.

This paper constitutes a synthetic review of the latest research concepts concerning social capital in libraries. It identifies the most important research trends and areas that so far have not been explored and suggests research methods to help LIS professionals design future research in this area more effectively.

We compare the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients and the developmentally disabled in the United States and demonstrate that there were two path-dependent processes with significant qualitative and quantitative differences, ultimately leading to better outcomes for developmentally disabled individuals.

Using secondary literature, we construct a sustained comparison of the two processes in terms of outcomes, timing, tempo, extent, funding, demographic composition, and investment in community services. We then reconstruct the strategies of de-stigmatization and framings of moral worth deployed in the two cases, analyzing their effects on deinstitutionalization in terms of conceptions of risk, rights, and care.

Deinstitutionalization began later for developmentally disabled individuals than for psychiatric patients, and was a more gradual, protracted process. It was not driven by fiscal conservatism, discharges, and the trans-institutionalization of the senile aged, as was deinstitutionalization for psychiatric patients, but primarily by the prevention of institutionalization of young children, and increased investment in infrastructure. Consequently, the deinstitutionalization of the developmentally disabled was far more thorough and successful. The process was shaped by the framing of the developmentally disabled as “forever children” by parents’ organizations that demanded a balance between autonomy, protection, and the provision of care. In contrast, the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients was shaped by their framing as autonomous citizens temporarily suffering from “mental health problems” that could be prevented, treated, and cured. This frame foregrounded the right to choose (and also refuse) treatment, while undervaluing the provision of care.