THE ESTABLISHMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY OF SOCIAL CAPITAL BY INDIVIDUAL TIES

Öz

The fundamental aim of the study is the definition of two different social powers that enable the establishment and the sustainability of the ties among individuals in the assessment of social capital as an investment. For this purpose social capital is acknowledged as micro concept and focused on the individual gains. Concerned social capital is composed of dyad relations, the dyad relations are obtained by the foundation of tie between individuals.

The study firstly elaborates the interrelatedness of the tie, relation, network and social capital concepts. Secondly homophily concept, which acts as a social magnet in the social relations and ease the connection of ties, is explained. At the same time, the reciprocity concept, leading to the acceptance of ties as social capital by providing continuity, is elaborated.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Relations & Networks,Homophily,Reciprocity,Organization

SOSYAL SERMAYENİN BİREYSEL BAĞLARLA KURULMASI VE KORUNMASI

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı sosyal sermayenin bir yatırım veya getiri unsuru olarak değerlendirilmesinde bireyler arası bağların kurulmasını ve bu bağların sürekliliğini sağlayan iki farklı sosyal gücün açıklanmasıdır. Bu amaçla çalışma sosyal sermayeyi mikro bir kavram olarak ele almış ve bireysel getirilerine odaklanmıştır. Bu sosyal sermaye, ikili ilişkilerden meydana gelmekte, ikili ilişkiler ise bireyler arasında bir bağın kurulmasıyla elde edilmektedir.

Çalışmada ilk olarak bağ, ilişki, ağ ve sosyal sermaye kavramlarının birbirleriyle ilgisine değinilmektedir. İkinci olarak sosyal ilişkilerde adeta bir mıknatıs görevi gören ve bireylerin bağ kurmasını kolaylaştıran türdeşlik kavramı açıklanmaktadır. Aynı zamanda bağların sürekliliğini sağlayarak sosyal sermaye olarak kabul edilmesine sebep olan karşılıklılık kavramı irdelenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İlişkiler & Ağlar,Türdeşlik,Karşılıklılık,Örgüt

Kaynakça

1. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2000). Social Capital: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. In E. L. Lesser (Ed.), Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications (pp. 89–115). USA: Butterworth - Heinemann.
2. Agneessens, F., & Skvoretz, J. (2012). Group differences in reciprocity, multiplexity and exchange: Measures and application. Quality and Quantity, 46(5), 1523–1545.
3. Ağcasulu, H. (2017). Sosyal Sermaye Kuramı ve Temel Bakış Açılarının Karşılaştırılması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 8(17), 114–129.
4. Aydemir, M. A. (2011). Sosyal Sermaye: Topluluk Duygusu ve Sosyal Sermaye Araştırması. Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi.
5. Baker, W. E. (1992). The Network Organization in Theory and Practice. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 397–429). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
6. Başak, S., & Öztaş, N. (2010). Güven Ağbağları, Sosyal Sermaye ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 27–56.
7. Beckert, J. (2003). Economic Sociology and Embeddedness: How Shall We Conceptualize Economic Action? Journal of Economic Issues, 37(3), 769– 787.
8. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing Social Networks. London: SAGE.

9. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network Analysis in the Social Sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.
10. Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: a Multilevel Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795–817.
11. Centola, D., & van de Rijt, A. (2015). Choosing your network: Social preferences in an online health community. Social Science & Medicine, 125, 19–31.
12. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Social Forces, 69(2), 993.
13. Coleman, J. S. (2000). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. In E. L.
14. Lesser (Ed.), Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications (pp. 43–68). USA: Butterworth - Heinemann.
15. Freeman, R., & Huang, W. (2015). Collaborating With People Like Me: Ethnic co-authorship within the US. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(1), 289–318.
16. Field, J., (2006), Sosyal Sermaye. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
17. Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference. New York: Little Brown.
18. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.
19. Hennig, M., Brandes, U., Pfeffer, J., & Mergel, I. (2012). Studying Social Networks: A Guide to Empirical Research. Frankfurt / New York: Campus Verlag.
20. Karagül, M. (2012). Sosyal Sermaye: Kapitalizmin Kör Noktası. Ankara: Nobel Akademi.
21. Kilduff, M. & Tsai, W. (2003), Social Networks and Organizations. London: SAGE.
22. Kossinets, G., & Watts, D. J. (2009). Origins of Homophily in an Evolving Social Network. American Journal of Sociology, 115(2), 405–450.
23. Lazega, E. (2001). The collegial phenomenon: The social mechanisms of cooperation among peers in a corporate law partnership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Lesser, E. L., (2000), "Leveraging Social Capital in Organizations". E. L. Lesser (Ed.), Knowledge and Social Capital (ss. 3–16). USA: Butterworth - Heinemann.
25. Lin, N, Cook, K. & Burt, R. S., (2008), Social capital: Theory and research (4thEdition). USA: Transaction Publishers.
26. Mcpherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in Voluntary Organizations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face-to-Face Groups. American Sociological Review, 52(3), 370–379.
27. McPherson, M. (2004). A Blau space primer: prolegomenon to an ecology of affiliation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(1), 263–280.
28. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415– 444.
29. Mollica, K. A., Gray, B., & Trevino, L. K. (2003). Racial Homophily and Its Persistence in Newcomers’ Social Networks. Organization Science, 14(2), 123–136.
30. Nelson, R. E. (1989). The Strength of Strong Ties: Social Networks and Intergroup Conflict in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 377–401.
31. OECD. (2001). The Well-being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. http://www.oecd.org/site/worldforum/33703702.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 09.03.2016).
32. Podolny, J. M., & Page, K. L. (1998). Network Forms of Organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 57–76.
33. Portes, A. (2000). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. In E. L. Lesser (Ed.), Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications (pp. 43–67). USA: Butterworth - Heinemann.
34. Putnam, R. D., (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
35. Robins, G. (2015). Doing Social Network Research: Network-based Research Design for Social Scientists. London: SAGE Publications.
36. Rogers, E. M., & Bhowmik, D. K. (1970). Homophily-Heterophily: Relational Concepts For Communication Research. American Association for Public Opinion Research, 34(4), 523–538.
37. Siisiäinen, M. (2000). Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam. North, 40(2), 183–204.
38. Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., O’Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: the role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 412–438.
39. Tindall, D., & Wellman, B. (2001). Canada as social structure: Social network analysis and Canadian sociology. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 26(3), 265–308.
40. Wagner, W. G., Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1984). Organizational demography and turnover in top-management group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 74–92.
41. Wellman, B., & Frank, K. (2008). Network Capital in a Multilevel World: Getting Support from Personal Communities. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social Capital Theory and Research (4th Edition, pp. 233–274). New Jersey: Aldine Transaction.