BIBLIOMETRIC OVERVIEW OF DIGITAL CAPITAL STUDIES

Öz

Capital takes place in the literature as an important concept on behalf of individuals and organizations. While each type of capital is a strategic resource and power, the concept of digital capital, which has come to the forefront in today's digital age, draws attention as a phenomenon that needs to be investigated in detail. From this point of view, this study aims to make a bibliometric analysis of digital capital. In line with this purpose, science mapping was preferred among the bibliometric analysis techniques. The data required for bibliometric analysis were obtained from the Scopus database. As a result of the query made in the database on 4.11.2022, 45 studies containing "digital capital" in the title were examined and accepted as material for the study. Analyzes were made and reported through the MAXQDA 2020 qualitative data analysis program. According to the research findings; it has been determined that the most studies on digital capital were published in 2021. It has been observed that approximately 87% of digital capital studies consist of articles and 13% of other publication types. It is possible to say that 82% of these studies are empirical and 18% are descriptive studies. Digital capital has been handled with a balanced distribution as dependent and independent variables in empirical studies. It was also found that there was a significant increase in the number of empirical studies on the concept in 2021 and 2022, and that it was mostly studied together with digital inequality. When analyzing the relationships between methodological approaches and data collection techniques in studies on digital capital, it has been observed that interviews and questionnaires are the preferred data collection methods in mixed-method studies. Conversely, empirical studies often adopt quantitative approaches. While it is noteworthy that there is limited interest in the developing concept of digital capital within the framework of these findings, it is hoped that this research will give ideas to future research by drawing a portrait of the theoretical and methodological course of the concept of digital capital.According to the research findings; it has been determined that the most studies on digital capital were published in 2021. It has been observed that approximately 87% of digital capital studies consist of articles and 13% of other publication types. It is possible to say that 82% of these studies are empirical and 18% are descriptive studies. Digital capital has been handled with a balanced distribution as dependent and independent variables in empirical studies. It was also found that there was a significant increase in the number of empirical studies on the concept in 2021 and 2022, and that it was mostly studied together with digital inequality. When the method-approach-data collection technique relations in digital capital studies are examined; It has been determined that interviews and questionnaires, which are data collection techniques, are mostly preferred in mixed method studies, while empirical studies from research approaches are mostly designed as quantitative studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Capital
• Capital
• Digitalization
• Bibliometric Analysis
• MAXQDA

DİJİTAL SERMAYE ÇALIŞMALARINA BİBLİYOMETRİK BAKIŞ

Öz

Sermaye, bireyler ve örgütler adına önemli bir kavram olarak literatürde yer almaktadır. Sermaye türlerinin her biri stratejik birer kaynak ve güç iken, günümüz dijital çağında bir adım öne çıkan dijital sermaye kavramı, detayları ile araştırılması gereken bir olgu olarak dikkat çekmektedir. Bu noktadan hareketle bu çalışmada, dijital sermaye kavramının bibliyometrik bir analizinin yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda bibliyometrik analiz tekniklerinden bilimsel haritalama tercih edilmiştir. Bibliyometrik analiz için gerekli veriler Scopus veri tabanından elde edilmiştir. Veri tabanında 4.11.2022 tarihinde yapılan sorgulama sonucunda başlığında “dijital sermaye” kavramını içeren 45 çalışma incelenmiş ve amaca uygun görülerek çalışmaya materyal olarak kabul edilmiştir. Analizler, MAXQDA 2020 nitel veri analizi programı aracılığı ile yapılmış ve raporlanmıştır. Araştırma bulgularına göre; dijital sermaye kavramına ilişkin en çok çalışmanın 2021 yılında yayınlandığı tespit edilmiştir. Dijital sermaye çalışmalarının yaklaşık %87’sinin makalelerden ve %13’ünün diğer yayın türlerinden oluştuğu görülmüştür. Bu çalışmaların %82’sinin ampirik ve %18’inin tanımlayıcı çalışmalar olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Dijital sermaye çalışmalarının veri toplama tekniklerinde ilk sırada mülakat, ikinci sırada anket, üçüncü sırada sosyal medya ve web verileri ve son sırada diğer hazır verilerin yer aldığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca kavrama dair 2021 ve 2022 yıllarında ampirik çalışmaların sayısında önemli bir artış olduğu ve en çok dijital eşitsizlik ile birlikte çalışmalara konu edinildiği bulgulanmıştır. Dijital sermaye çalışmalarındaki yöntem-yaklaşım-veri toplama tekniği ilişkileri incelendiğinde; veri toplama tekniklerinden mülakat ve anketin karma yöntem çalışmalarında çoğunlukla tercih edildiği, öte yandan araştırma yaklaşımlarından ampirik çalışmaların en çok nicel çalışmalar olarak tasarlandığı belirlenmiştir. Söz konusu bulgular çerçevesinde henüz gelişmekte olan dijital sermaye kavramına olan ilginin sınırlı oluşu dikkat çekerken, bu araştırma ile dijital sermaye kavramının kuramsal ve metodolojik seyrine dair bir portre çizerek gelecekteki araştırmalara fikir verilmesi umulmuştur. Söz konusu bulgular çerçevesinde henüz gelişmekte olan dijital sermaye kavramına olan ilginin sınırlı oluşu dikkat çekerken, bu araştırma ile dijital sermaye kavramının kuramsal ve metodolojik seyrine dair bir portre çizerek gelecekteki araştırmalara fikir verilmesi umulmuştur.Araştırma bulgularına göre; dijital sermaye kavramına ilişkin en çok çalışmanın 2021 yılında yayınlandığı tespit edilmiştir. Dijital sermaye çalışmalarının yaklaşık %87’sinin makalelerden ve %13’ünün diğer yayın türlerinden oluştuğu görülmüştür. Bu çalışmaların %82’sinin ampirik ve %18’inin tanımlayıcı çalışmalar olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Dijital sermaye çalışmalarının veri toplama tekniklerinde ilk sırada mülakat, ikinci sırada anket, üçüncü sırada sosyal medya ve web verileri ve son sırada diğer hazır verilerin yer aldığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca kavrama dair 2021 ve 2022 yıllarında ampirik çalışmaların sayısında önemli bir artış olduğu ve en çok dijital eşitsizlik ile birlikte çalışmalara konu edinildiği bulgulanmıştır. Dijital sermaye çalışmalarındaki yöntem-yaklaşım-veri toplama tekniği ilişkileri incelendiğinde; veri toplama tekniklerinden mülakat ve anketin karma yöntem çalışmalarında çoğunlukla tercih edildiği, öte yandan araştırma yaklaşımlarından ampirik çalışmaların en çok nicel çalışmalar olarak tasarlandığı belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Sermaye
• Sermaye
• Dijitalleşme
• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• MAXQDA

Kaynakça

1. Addeo, F., D’Auria, V., Delli Paoli, A., Punziano, G., Ragnedda, M. ve Ruiu, M.L. (2023). Measuring digital capital in Italy. Front. Sociol. 8 (1144657). https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1144657
2. Ågren, Y. (2023). Branded childhood: Infants as digital capital on Instagram. Childhood, 30(1), 9-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682221129367
3. Altuntuğ, D. (2009). Rekabet üstünlüğünün sürdürülmesinde yeteneklerin rolü: yetenek yönetim yaklaşımı. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(3), 445-460.
4. Basmajian, A., Kreniske, P., Moore, E.V., Spindler, E., Nalugoda, F., Nakyanjo, N., Ddaaki, W., Santelli, J.S. ve Hirsch, J.S. (2022). Gendered access to digital capital and mobile phone ownership among young people in Rakai, Uganda. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 15, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2022.2085808
5. Baum, M. ve Rabl, T. (2019). Digital capital as an opportunity-enhancer for employee corporate entrepreneurship decisions. 40th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2019). https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2019/innov_entre/innov_entre/1
6. Borodkina, O., ve Sibirev, V. (2021). The digital capital of social services consumers: Factors of influence and the need for investment. The Journal of Social Policy Studies, 19(1), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.17323/727-0634-2021-19-1-129-142.
7. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education içinde (241-258. ss.). NY: Greenwood.
8. Bubnov, V., Kopilevich, V. ve Istomina., A. (2021). The evolution of digital capital in organizations: a quantitative assessment. Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy 9(4), 1-22.

9. Bughin, J. ve Manyika, J. (2013). Measuring the full impact of digital capital. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 88-97. Burnham, J.F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3 (1), 1-8.
10. Calderón Gómez, D. (2021). The third digital divide and Bourdieu: Bidirectional conversion of economic, cultural, and social capital to (and from) digital capital among young people in Madrid. New Media and Society, 23(9), 2534-2553. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144482093325
11. Chen, S. Y. (2011). Exploring digital capital of automated cargo clearance business websites. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 3590-3599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.148
12. Clamor, W.L. ve Saloma, C. (2023). Digital capital and belonging in universities: quantifying social inequalities in the Philippines. Front. Educ. 8 (1137121). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1137121
13. Clermont, P. (2017). Information superiority = Digital capital? Cutter Business Technology Journal, 30(2), 12-17.
14. Cortoni, I., ve Perovic, J. (2020). Sociological analysis of montenegrin teachers’ digital capital. Comunicacao e Sociedade 37, 169-184. https://doi.org/10.17231/comsoc.37(2020).2397
15. Darcy, S., Yerbury, H. ve Maxwell, H. (2019). Disability citizenship and digital capital: the case of engagement with a social enterprise telco. Information Communication and Society, 22 (4), 538-553. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1548632
16. Davis, D. Z. ve Boellstorff, T. (2016). Compulsive creativity: Virtual worlds, disability, and digital capital. International Journal of Communication, 10, 2096-2118.
17. De Vuyst, S. ve Raeymaeckers, K. (2019). Is journalism gender e-qual?: A study of the gendered accumulation and evaluation of digital capital in journalism. Digital Journalism, 7(5), 554-570. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1369357
18. Demirkaya, İ. ve Koyuncu, E. (2021). Dijital kapitalizm, tüketim kültürü ve y kuşağının değişen tüketim davranışları. Intermedia International e-Journal, 8(15) 174-196. https://doi.org/10.21645/intermedia.2021.107
19. Donaghy, D. (2021). Defining digital capital and digital poverty. ITNOW, 63(1), 54-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/itnow/bwab025
20. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. ve Lim, W.M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296.
21. Dyer-Witheford, N. ve Mularoni, A. (2021). Framing big tech: News media, digital capital and the antitrust movement. Political Economy of Communication, 9(2), 2-20.
22. Erika, T. G. (2021). Digital inequalities and distribution of digital capital in Romania. Informacios Tarsadalom, 21(3), 109-125.
23. Eveno, E. (2020). The urban digital capital. Bitacora Urbano Territorial, 30(3), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.15446/bitacora.v30n3.86397.
24. Gladkova, A., Vartanova, E. ve Ragnedda, M. (2020). Digital divide and digital capital in multiethnic Russian society. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 15(2), 126-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2020.1745212
25. Henningsson, S. ve Ohrgaard, C. (2017). Follow the digital trace: Turning digital artifacts into digital capital. Cutter Business Technology Journal, 30(2), 25-31.
26. Leguina, A., Mihelj, S. ve Downey, J. (2021). Public libraries as reserves of cultural and digital capital: Addressing inequality through digitalization. Library and Information Science Research, 43(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101103
27. Levy, C. ve Wong, D. (2014). Towards a smart society. Erişim adresi: https://www.biginnovationcentre.com/, Erişim Tarihi: 15.11.2022.
28. Lissitsa, S., Chachashvili-Bolotin, S. ve Bokek-Cohen, Y. (2017). Digital capital as a mobility channel for ethnic minorities. C.S. Landers (Ed.), The digital divide: Issues, recommendations and research içinde (133-159. ss.). NY, USA: Nova Science Publishers.
29. Liu, C.C. (2008a). Exploring the digital capital of mobile phone service websites by the user’s perspective. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 6(4), 467-480. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2008.018054
30. Liu, C.C. (2008b). The relationship between digital capital of internet banking and business performance. International Journal of Electronic Finance, 2(1), 18-30.
31. Liu, C.C. (2009). Developing measures and prioritizing digital capital of real estate websites. 2009 WRI World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering içinde (508-511. ss.). Los Angeles, CA, USA: IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5171222
32. Liu, C.C. (2010). Exploring digital capital measures of hospital service websites from the user’s perspective. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 10(4), 333-342. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2010.03692
33. Liu, C.C. ve Chen, S.Y. (2009). Prioritization of digital capital measures in recruiting website for the National Armed Forces. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 9415-9421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.12.051
34. Liu, C.C. ve Wang, H.J. (2007). Developing measures of digital capital and virtual value chain construction in job search websites. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 4(1), 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMED.2007.011456
35. Lloyd, B. ve Ticoll, D. (2001). Digital capital and leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 7-9. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj.2001.02222bab.001
36. Lybeck, R., Koiranen, I. ve Koivula, A. (2023). From digital divide to digital capital: The role of education and digital skills in social media participation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00961-0
37. Matamala, C. (2021). Digital capital in higher education: Digital strengths and weaknesses to face distance education. International Journal of Sociology of Education, 10(2), 115-142. https://doi.org/10.17583/rise.2021.5964
38. Merisalo, M. ve Makkonen, T. (2023). Bourdieusian e-capital perspective enhancing digital capital dis-cussion in the realm of third-level digital divide. Information Technology & People, 35(8), 231-252. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-08-2021-0594
39. McGillivray, D. ve Mahon, J. (2021). Distributed digital capital: Digital literacies and everyday media practices. Media Practice and Education, 22(3), 196-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2021.1899628
40. Merisalo, M. ve Makkonen, T. (2022). Bourdieusian e-capital perspective enhancing digital capital discussion in the realm of third level digital divide. Information Technology and People, 35(8), 231-252. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-08-2021-0594
41. Merzlikina, G. ve Mogharbel, N. (2022). Digital capital as an indicator of the effectiveness of the use of digital technologies in the management of socio-economic systems. IV International Scientific and Practical Conference, SHS Web of Conferences, 141, içinde (1-8. ss.). https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202214101011
42. Mistry, J.J. (2014). A Conceptual framework for the role of government in bridging the digital divide. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 8 (3), 28-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2005.10856401
43. Moral-Muñoz, J.A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A. ve Cobo, M.J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. El profesional de la información, 29(1), 1-20.
44. Morgan, B. (2010). New literacies in the classroom: Digital capital, student identity, and third space. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society 6(2), 221-240. https://doi.org/10.18848/1832-3669/CGP/v06i02/56094
45. Njovo, M. ve Makacha, C. (2018). Cultural capital, digital capital and stakeholder partnerships: a holy trinity for a sustainable cultural tourism trajectory. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 7(5), 1-13.
46. Noyons, E.C., Moed, H.F. ve Van-Raan, A.F.J. (1999). Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics, 46, 591-604.
47. Oxford Learners Dictionaries (2022). “Capital” Erişim adresi: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/human-capital?q=human+capital adresinden alınmıştır. Erişim tarihi: 11.11.2022.
48. Park, S. (2017). Digital capital. London: Palgrave.
49. Ragnedda, M. (2017). The third digital divide: A Weberian approach to digital inequalities. London: Routledge. Ragnedda, M. (2018). Conceptualizing digital capital. Telematics and Informatics, 35(8), 2366-2375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.006
50. Ragnedda, M. ve Ruiu, M. (2017). Social capital and the three levels of digital divide. M. Ragnedda ve G. Muschert (Ed.), Theorizing digital divides içinde (21-34. ss.). UK: Taylor & Francis.
51. Ragnedda, M. ve Ruiu, M.L. (2020). Digital capital: A bourdieusian perspective on the digital divide. London: Emerald Publishing.
52. Ragnedda, M., Addeo, F. ve Ruiu, M.L. (2022). How offline backgrounds interact with digital capital. New Media and Society, 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221082649
53. Ragnedda, M., Ruiu, M. L. ve Addeo, F. (2020). Measuring digital capital: An empirical investigation. New Media and Society, 22(5), 793-816. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819869604
54. Ragnedda, M., Ruiu, M.L., Addeo, F. ve Paoli, A.D. (2022). Converting digital capital in five key life realms. Italian Sociological Review, 12(1), 19-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.13136/isr.v12i1.517
55. Roberts, E., ve Townsend, L. (2016). The contribution of the creative economy to the resilience of rural communities: Exploring cultural and digital capital. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(2), 197-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12075
56. Saruchera, F. ve Mpunzi, S. (2023). Digital capital and food agricultural SMEs: Examining the effects on SME performance, inequalities and government role. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2191304
57. Seale, J. (2013). When digital capital is not enough: Reconsidering the digital lives of disabled university students. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(3), 256-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2012.670644
58. Seale, J., Georgeson, J. Mamas, C.ve Swain, J. (2015). Not the right kind of ‘digital capital’? An examination of the complex relationship between disabled students, their technologies and higher education institutions. Computers and Education, 82, 118-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.007
59. Sevgi, H. (2021). Dijital Ağlarda kullanıcı emeği ile sermaye birikimi arasındaki ı̇lişkinin değerlendirilmesi. Emek Araştırma Dergisi (GEAD), 12(19), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3304-6
60. Shin, J., Seo, M. ve Lew, Y.K. (2022). Sustainability of digital capital and social support during COVID‐19: Indonesian Muslim Diaspora’s Case in South Korea. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14(12), 7457. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127457
61. Singh, S., Singh, U.S. ve Nermend, M. (2022). Sustainability in digitized era analyzing the moderation effect of social strata and digital capital dependence on digital divide. Sustainability, 14, 14508, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114508
62. Şağbanşua, L. (2006). Strateji, rekabet ve rekabet gücü ilişkileri. Akademik Bakış Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler E-Dergisi, 9, 1-14.
63. Telli, S.G., Işıkay, T. ve Demir, C. (2022). Pazarlama yönetiminde insan faktörü: İçsel pazarlama ve iç müşteriler. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler ve Eğitim Dergisi – USBED, 4(6), 75-96.
64. Ugwudike, P. ve Fleming, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence, digital capital, and epistemic domination on twitter: A study of families affected by imprisonment. Punishment and Society, 25(1), 99-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474521101439
65. Van Dijk, J. (2002). A framework for digital divide research. Electronic Journal of Communication, 12(1), 1-7. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/6849188/Volume+12+Numbers+1.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 14.04.2023.
66. Van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. UK: John Wiley & Sons.
67. Vartanova, E.L., ve Gladkova, A.A. (2021). Digital divide, digital capital, digital inclusion: Dynamics of theoretical approaches and political decisions. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 10. Zhurnalistika 1, 2-29. https://doi.org/10.30547/vestnik.journ.1.2021.329
68. Vrieler, T. (2017). Digital capital - a platform for developing computational thinking. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series içinde (205-206. ss.). https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3141880.3143782#sec-cit
69. Verma, S. (2022). Sentiment analysis of public services for smart society: Literature review and future research directions. Government Information Quarterly, 39, 1-13.
70. Yılmaz, A. (2022). Dijital çağın altın anahtarı: dijital sermaye. Proceedings of the 14th SCF International Conference on “Economic, Social, and Environmental Sustainability in the Post Covid-19 World” içinde (207-215. ss.). 13-16 Ekim 2022, Antalya, Türkiye.
71. Yılmaz, A. (2023). Dijital sermaye. A. Yılmaz (Ed.), İş’te dijitalleşme içinde (181-194. ss.). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.