Ep 5. One of the reasons social capital has so many definitions and there is a lack of consensus among those who study it is that there is hardly a social science that hasn’t embraced the concept of social capital and adapted it to promote its own interests. The fact that scholars from different disciplines have published on social capital is evidence that they think it can do something or has some value for them and their disciplinary-relevant work. In this episode, we will discuss the interdisciplinary nature of social capital and how different disciplines can understand other approaches and learn from each other.
The episode begins with Lindon Robison recounting his experience with an interdisciplinary social capital interest group at Michigan State University in the late 1980s. He emphasizes the importance of recognizing interdependence and relationships in understanding human behavior, a concept that transcends individual disciplines. This interdisciplinary approach revealed that different social sciences often use different terminologies to describe similar concepts.
Tristan and Lindon agree that while definitions of social capital vary, there is a common recognition that social capital involves relationships and interdependence. Lindon highlights the progress made in understanding social capital, despite the diversity of definitions, and emphasizes the need for clear definitions that adhere to basic requirements of scientific paradigms.
The discussion shifts to the inherent differences in how various disciplines approach social capital. Economists, for example, focus on exchanges and maximizing behavior, while other social sciences might emphasize power dynamics or collective action. Tristan and Lindon acknowledge that a single definition of social capital might be undesirable at this time, as it could limit the flexibility needed to address the interests and problem spaces of different disciplines.
Lindon introduces the concept of paradigms and suggests that a shared understanding of the fundamental properties of capital could help bridge the gap between disciplines. He argues that if social capital is to be considered capital, it must possess certain properties, such as being a stock, having potential, and requiring maintenance.
Tristan reflects on the tendency in the literature to use social capital as a metaphor and the importance of maintaining the theoretical foundations of capital. They discuss how different disciplines might inadvertently misinterpret each other’s work, leading to confusion and inconsistency.
Both agree on the necessity of developing methods to measure social capital and its consequences. Lindon shares his experience in measuring social capital through the terms and levels of exchange in relationships, highlighting the importance of empirical validation.
Tristan notes that their ongoing dialogue has deepened their understanding of social capital, even though their publications still reflect their disciplinary perspectives. They emphasize the value of cross-disciplinary discourse in enriching the concept of social capital.
In conclusion, they stress the importance of establishing a consistent framework for social capital that can accommodate diverse perspectives while maintaining theoretical rigor. This approach would help integrate contributions from various fields systematically, reducing the piecemeal and ad hoc nature of current scholarship.
The episode ends with a mutual appreciation for the progress made in understanding social capital through interdisciplinary collaboration and a look forward to further discussions.
