Çevrimiçi Sosyal Sermaye ile Geleneksel Sosyal Sermaye Ayrımı: Bibliografik Bir Karşılaştırma

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 168 - 192, 31.05.2025

Artür Yetvart Mumcu

https://doi.org/10.30613/curesosc.1572643

Öz

Bu çalışma, çevrimiçi sosyal sermaye ile geleneksel sosyal sermaye arasındaki kavramsal ayrımları incelemektedir. Web of Science endeksinde yer alan makaleler, çevrimiçi ve geleneksel sosyal sermaye kavramları üzerine taranmış ve analiz edilmiştir. VOSviewer programı kullanılarak ağ analizleri yapılmış ve iki kavram arasındaki farklar görsel olarak ortaya konmuştur. Çevrimiçi sosyal sermaye, dijital platformlar ve sosyal medya aracılığıyla bilgiye erişim ve geniş sosyal ağlar kurma süreçlerini ifade ederken, geleneksel sosyal sermaye daha çok fiziksel topluluklar ve uzun süreli ilişkiler üzerine kuruludur. Bu çalışma, dijitalleşmenin toplumsal yapı üzerindeki etkilerini ve sosyal sermaye oluşturma süreçlerindeki dönüşümleri anlamak açısından önemli bulgular sunmaktadır. Özellikle COVID-19 pandemisi sonrasında çevrimiçi sosyal sermayenin artan rolü vurgulanmaktadır. Pandemi, dijital platformların sosyal etkileşimdeki önemini artırmış ve çevrimiçi sosyal sermayenin gelişimini hızlandırmıştır. Bu bulgular, teknoloji ve çevrimiçi bağlantıların toplumsal sermaye üzerindeki rolünü daha iyi anlamak için önemli ipuçları sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevrimiçi Sosyal Sermaye , Sosyal Sermaye , Bibliografi , Ağ

The Distinction Between Online Social Capital and Traditional Social Capital: A Bibliographic Comparison

Öz

This study examines the conceptual distinctions between online social capital and traditional social capital. Articles indexed in the Web of Science were reviewed, focusing on these two forms of social capital. Using the VOSviewer software, network analyses were conducted, visually highlighting the conceptual differences between the two. Online social capital revolves around processes of accessing information and building extensive networks via digital platforms and social media, while traditional social capital is primarily grounded in physical communities and long-term relationships. This research sheds light on how digitalization is transforming social structures and the processes of social capital formation, providing key insights into the shifts brought by the digital age. Particularly in the post-COVID-19 era, the study emphasizes the growing role of online social capital, as the pandemic increased the reliance on digital platforms for social interaction and networking. These findings underline the importance of understanding both forms of social capital in a world increasingly shaped by technology and online connections.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Online Social Capital , Social Capital , Bibliography , Network

Kaynakça

• Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography, 79(4), 387–404.
• Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254–269.
• Barrios, J. M., Benmelech, E., Hochberg, Y. V, Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2021). Civic capital and social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Economics, 193, 104310.
• Bezanson, K. (2006). Gender and the limits of social capital. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 43(4), 427–443.
• Bian, Y., & Zhang, L. (2023). Economy and social capital, markets and social networks. In M. Zafirovski (Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Economic Sociology (pp. 392–406). Routledge.
• Borgonovi, F., & Andrieu, E. (2020). Bowling together by bowling alone: Social capital and Covid-19. Social Science & Medicine, 265(1), 113501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113501
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood press.
• Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2012). Quantitative data analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19: A guide for social scientists. Routledge.
• Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 3, 1909–1912. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753613
• Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society. John Wiley & Sons.
• Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
• Dasgupta, P., & Serageldin, I. (2000). Social capital: A multifaceted perspective. World Bank Publications.
• Dijk van Jan, A. G. M. (2012). The network society. Social aspects of new media. SAGE Publications.
• DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the digital divide to digital inequality: Studying Internet use as penetration increases. In Working Paper 15. Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.
• Dolfsma, W., & Verburg, R. (2005). Bridging structure and agency: Processes of institutional change. ERIM Report Series Reference No. ERS-2005-064-ORG.
• Ehsan, A. M., & De Silva, M. J. (2015). Social capital and common mental disorder: A systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health, 69(10), 1021–1028.
• Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
• Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.
• Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
• Granovetter, M., & Swedberg, R. (2018). The sociology of economic life, Third edition. The Sociology of Economic Life, 1(3), 1–543.
• Grootaert, C., & Van Bastelaer, T. (2002). The role of social capital in development: An empirical assessment. Cambridge University Press.
• Hampton, K. N. (2003). Grieving for a lost network: Collective action in a wired suburb. Information Society, 19(5), 417–428.
• Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Social networking sites and our lives (Vol. 1). Pew Internet & American Life Project Washington, DC.
• Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. Information Society, 18(5), 385–401.
• Kandampully, J., Bilgihan, A., & Li, D. K. (2022). Unifying technology and people: revisiting service in a digitally transformed world. The Service Industries Journal, 42(1–2), 21–41.
• Kim, M., & Fernandez, R. M. (2023). What makes weak ties strong? Annual Review of Sociology, 49(1), 177–193. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Validity in content analysis. In E. Mochmann (Ed.), Computerstrategien für die Kommunikationsanalyse (pp. 69-112). Campus-Verlag.
• Lautier, M. (2016). Social cohesion, economic resilience, and long-term growth in Southeast Asia and developing countries. In ASEAN Economic Community: A Model for Asia-wide Regional Integration? (pp. 243–265). Springer.
• Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2009). A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 348–362.
• Li, Y., & Chen, W. (2023). Acquisition and utilization of Chinese peasant e-entrepreneurs’ online social capital: The moderating effect of offline social capital. Sustainability, 15(7), 6154.
• Lythreatis, S., Singh, S. K., & El-Kassar, A.-N. (2022). The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175(1), 121359.
• Martins, J., Gonçalves, R., & Branco, F. (2024). A bibliometric analysis and visualization of e-learning adoption using VOSviewer. Universal Access in the Information Society, 23(3), 1177–1191.
• McGuirk, P. M., & Dowling, R. (2007). Understanding master-planned estates in Australian cities: a framework for research. Urban Policy and Research, 25(1), 21–38.
• Mishchuk, H., Bilan, Y., Androniceanu, A., & Krol, V. (2023). Social capital: Evaluating its roles in competitiveness and ensuring human development. Journal of Competitiveness, 15(2).
• Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228.
• Mumcu, A. Y. (2021). Girişimcilikte Finansal Kaynaklar. In G. Eser (Ed.), Güncel Bir Yaklaşımla Girişimcilik (1st ed., pp. 305–324). Nobel.
• Mumcu, A. Y. (2022). Sosyal sermaye kuramı: Son Dönem inceleme alanları. In A. Y. Ataman, Göksel; Mumcu (Ed.), Örgüt Kuramlarında Güncel Yaklaşımlar (pp. 331–352). Nobel.
• Mumcu, A. Y., Ataman, G., & Konuk, H. (2023). Çevrimiçi Sosyal Sermaye Ölçeğini Türkiye’de uyarlama çalışması. Öneri, 18(60), 543–560.
• Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 119–158.
• Narong, D. K., & Hallinger, P. (2023). A keyword co-occurrence analysis of research on service learning: Conceptual foci and emerging research trends. Education Sciences, 13(4), 339.
• Norris, P. (2002). The bridging and bonding role of online communities. Society Online: The Internet in Context, 7(3), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229560.n2
• Nowland, R., Necka, E. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2018). Loneliness and social internet use: pathways to reconnection in a digital world? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 70–87.
• Ohara, M. R., Suparwata, D. O., & Rijal, S. (2024). Revolutionary marketing strategy: Optimising social media utilisation as an effective tool for MSMEs in the digital age. Journal of Contemporary Administration and Management, 2(1), 313–318.
• Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158.
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
• Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L., & Van-Eck, N.-J. (2016). Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1178–1195.
• Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Reviews, 24(1), 53–76.
• Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(1), 12.
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community (1st ed.). Touchstone Books/Simon & Schuster.
• Putnam, R. D., Feldstein, L., & Cohen, D. J. (2004). Better together: Restoring the American community. Simon and Schuster.
• Selwyn, N. (2014). Digital technology and the contemporary university: Degrees of digitization. Routledge. Skoric, M. M., Ying, D., & Ng, Y. (2009). Bowling online, not alone: Online social capital and political participation in Singapore. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01447.x
• Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. Penguin. Testa, J. (2009). The Thomson Reuters journal selection process. Transnational Corporations Review, 1(4), 59–66.
• Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
• Trippl, M., Fastenrath, S., & Isaksen, A. (2024). Rethinking regional economic resilience: Preconditions and processes shaping transformative resilience. European Urban and Regional Studies, 31(2), 101–115.
• Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press. Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among US adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–17.
• Van-Eck, N.-J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
• Van-Eck, N.-J., & Waltman, L. (2023). VOSviewer manual. In VOSviewer Manual (Vol. 1). Universiteit Leiden. https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.20.pdf
• Visser, M., Van-Eck, N.-J., & Waltman, L. (2021). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 20–41.
• Waltman, L., Van-Eck, N.-J., & Noyons, E. C. M. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635.
• Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Knowledge and Communities, 22(1), 179–208. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080509785-17
• White, M. D., Marsh, E. E., Marsh, E. E., & White, M. D. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45.
• Williams, D. (2006). On and off the ’Net: Scales for Social Capital in an Online Era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 593–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00029.x
• Williams, D. (2007). The impact of time online: Social capital and cyberbalkanization. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10(3), 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9939
• Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 1–35.
• Xiao, J. (2024). The digitalization dialectic: A Critical analysis of technology’s role in cultural formation and social change. Advances in Social Behavior Research, 6, 38–42.
• Yang, F., & Hanasono, L. K. (2023). Coping with racial discrimination with collective power: How does bonding and bridging social capital help online and offline? In C. Onwumechili (Ed.), Ethnicities (pp. 115–134). Routledge.
• Yang, F., Luo, C., & Pan, L. (2024). Do digitalization and intellectual capital drive sustainable open innovation of natural resources sector? Evidence from China. Resources Policy, 88, 104345.
• Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335.