Social capital and the relation to public libraries

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 3: Social capital framework to measure the creation of social capital as a poverty alleviation strategy in public libraries

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to come up with a social capital framework for public libraries to understand the creation of social capital as a poverty alleviation strategy in public libraries, especially when the government and stakeholders need evidence that a public library is a place of learning (Strand 2016: 114). Social capital in public libraries became debateable in LIS research when Bowling Alone, authored by Robert Putnam (Putnam 1995: 22), omitted to refer to libraries as social institutions that are important in civic engagement. Public libraries provide patrons a feeling of belonging and contribute to civic engagement because of their role as knowledge and information providers in addition to offering library programmes that contribute to stronger communities when equipping members of the community with skills for empowerment. For this reason, Putnam after the initial omitting of the public library as a social institution in the Bowling Alone (1995: 22) publication, Putnam did include the public library as a social institution in community engagement in Chapter 2 of the book Better together: restoring the American community when Putnam and Feldstein refer to the Chicago Branch Libraries as the ‘heartbeat of the community’ (Putnam & Feldstein 2003: 35). The power of social capital in public libraries provides opportunities of learning and improvement of socio-economic development.
In Chapter two that discussed the literature that was used in the study, it was shown that social capital, for example, takes on various forms. In South African research, social capital in public libraries remains an underdeveloped area of study, apart from the research conducted by Stilwell (2006; 2011; 2016); Strand (2016); Skelly (2014) and Hart (2007). This chapter introduces the creation of social capital as a performance measurement tool to explain the societal value of public libraries. The study borrows from the ideas of Pierre Bourdieu (2005) and the understanding Robert Putnam (1995) has of social capital and applies it to the study to come up with a measuring tool to understand the creation of social capital in public libraries.
Bourdieu refers to two aspects of social capital that are applicable to the study. Bourdieu refers to social capital as the sum of all resources (Bourdieu 2005: 194), for example, the public library services as a whole, which include the resources, staff-patron interaction and the programmes (Bourdieu 2005: 194). The other aspect is that in Bourdieu’s viewpoint, only the bourgeoisie or middle class has social capital (Swain 2003: 187). However, Bourdieu suggests an option where those without social capital have an opportunity to utilise the resources from a social network to generate their own social capital. The concept of social capital is not complete without adding the element of human trust. Trust is a driving force behind an individual’s expectation that something they engage in would lead to a better (life changing) outcome. For instance, library programmes are a patron investment of time and effort. Patrons do this out of free will, and only through trust in the library and its services and their expectations thereof that they would benefit from the attendance. Robert Putnam’s understanding of social capital refers to ‘features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit’ (Putnam 1995: 22). Vårheim, for example, in his study about Mexican immigrants who attended library programmes, showed trust was built over time. What had started as low programme attendance resulted in higher programme attendance as trust was built (Vårheim 2014b: 272). The chapter also discusses work by other social capital researchers to find a common agreement on social capital.

Understanding social capital

The concept of social capital or rather how it is created in public libraries leads to the complexity of understanding the creation thereof in public libraries, while continuous suggestions are that more qualitative studies would give light on its creation in public libraries and also in other subject disciplines (Aguilar & Sen 2009: 425; Halpern 2005: 1; Lin 2001: 3). Lin (2005: 3), for example, mentions that since the concept of social capital brings so many different opinions forward, the use of the concept might cease to exist in future studies. In answer to Nan, Johnson (2015) and Claridge (2004) posit the underlying problem is that there are various definitions available on social capital, and that this is problematic, as the lack of understanding of the concept could not lead to a consensus. In Chapter two the literature reviewed indicates the benefits of social capital and also how social capital is created in public libraries.
However, to find clarity about what social capital is, the study focuses on Pierre Bourdieu’s description of social capital. Pierre Bourdieu is known as one of the first social scientists who tried to understand the concept of social capital (Bourdieu 2005: 1). Bourdieu sees social capital from an economical point of view and borrows from the ideas on capitalism of Karl Marx and sociologist Emile Durkheim (Swartz & Zolberg 2004: 30). Bourdieu (2005: 194) defines social capital as ‘the totality of resources (financial capital and also information) activated through a more or less extended, more or less mobilized, network of relations which procures a competitive advantage by providing higher returns on investment’. In other words, Bourdieu viewed social capital as the sum of using the resources that individuals receive from social networks by investing their time in social networks, which could lead to economic gains (Swartz & Zolberg 2004: 250; Bourdieu 1986: 21). In Bourdieu’s viewpoint, people are either born with social capital or without social capital, and the latter have to utilise the resources from social networks to obtain social capital (Swain 2003: 187).
Social capital is about social networks offering a helping hand to people who do not have access to resources. Johnson (2012: 53) illustrates an example such as computer literacy skills, especially when a person is now expected to fill in an online form, without prior knowledge of using a computer. This might result in a rather intimidating experience to such an individual. Bourdieu considers the social network as an investment of time that could result in building long lasting relationships with social networks that could mean social and economic gains to an individual (Bourdieu 1986: 23).
Social capital is about utilising the resources from social networks. Social networks are important in Pierre Bourdieu’s definition of social capital and individual investment in social capital outcomes increases access to resources. The individual should invest their time in the social networks to benefit from the resources. Social capital put the power in the hands of the individual. Bourdieu believed that only the middle class has social capital (Swain 2003: 187) and his work often referred to the poor worker class and cultural inequality (Bourdieu 2005: 185; Swartz & Zolberg 2004: 4).
Bourdieu’s theory of social capital explains the notion that social capital is present in everyday life and links the connotation of power to social capital, giving the individual the responsibility to be in charge of his/her destiny by the amount of acquired time invested in their social networks. The assigned power requires the person to become an active player in all walks of life, be it on an economic, cultural or social level. Bourdieu’s concept is unique as it focuses on the absence of social capital, its affect a person’s life when a lack of networking opportunities and resources is not present (Bourdieu 1989:17).
In Halpern’s (2005:1) opinion, the concept of social capital deals with the community and social networks, but even by referring to social capital as community and social networks sounds meaningless. Field (2017: 2) explains that the reason for the confusion in the concept of social capital is that it is difficult to measure ‘returns on friendship/or the community’ through social capital. Field further argues that the concept has been taken out of the economics arena and is now dominated by social sciences, history, politics, and education (Field 2017: 2) and for this reason, no consensus could be reached to understand social capital. Halpern (2005:1), for example, identifies two features of social capital. One feature connects social capital with the economy while the other feature is present in academic disciplines. In the viewpoint of Halpern (2005:2) social capital is defined as the social ties that bind people together. According to Halpern, such ties are visible in our everyday conduct with other people, such as with family, at work or during recreational activities. In spite of the different viewpoints on social capital, one agreed upon is that social capital boosts individual wellbeing (Halpern 2005: 3).
Halpern (2005: 10) characterises social capital as ‘social networks, social norms and sanctions’. The social network is the individual interaction with the community, and social norms refer to rules of community conduct and imposed sanctions on those breaking social norms. Halpern suggests that researchers, in order to understand social capital, should refer back to Bourdieu’s explanation of social capital (Halpern 2005: 23).
The public library as a social network provides resources to socially support people. Such resources could enhance their quality of life on both emotional and financial levels. Halpern unpacks social capital the same way as this study, by cracking open social capital and dividing it into two parts, with the first part social and the second part capital. Halpern (2005: 29) views capital as an investment and demonstrates through an example that capital in the case of social capital refers to an individual’s spending with their social networks.
Lin (2005: 3) made several research contributions in the area of social capital and sees social capital as a form of capital. Lin, Cook and Burt (2008: 3) claim that social capital derives from the use of resources obtained through social networks. Similar to Halpern, Lin (2005: 4) sees capital gains when using the resources of social networks. However, in the opinion of Lin (2005: 11) social capital and social networks are not reliant on each other. The social networks are just the means of making resources accessible to an individual. According to Lin (2005: 12) social networks create certain ties and could tie the individual either through bonding or bridging social capital. Bonding social capital is present in communities where individuals know each other (Claridge 2013). Bridging capital provides access to resources not commonly available to individuals in their community (Claridge 2013).
According to Field (2017: 2) the notion of social capital derives from the resources that individuals receive from social networks and the size of the social networks plays a role in the amount of resources available to an individual (Poder 2011: 347; Ihlen 2005: 494; Swain 2003: 189). Field (2017: 2) views social networks as a ‘metaphor’, thus suggesting that social networks could generate capital when individuals invest in social capital.
Lin et al. (2008: 6) provide four possible reasons to explain that capital gains are possible through social network resources:
• Access to ‘information’ to keep individuals abreast of opportunities they were unaware of.
• ‘Influence’ on social network ties could lead to “name dropping’ or referring a person to recruitment for hiring.
• ‘Social credentials’ – the social contacts individuals form through social ties that could benefit an organisation.
• ‘Reinforcement’ acknowledgement of one’s value in society could make added resources available that could boost the self-esteem.
Social capital uses two dominant features. The one is “social” while the other is “capital”. The “social” part of social capital refers to the social ties or human interactions while the “capital” part of social capital refers to opportunities for financial gain. To understand social capital, it is therefore best to look at it from the social networks’ point of view as well as investment gains’ point of view. This study relates to the notion of Bourdieu’s concept where the public library service provides a social network to people who do not have social capital. The public library as the social network is the catalyst of emotional and economic gains for people living in poorer communities.

The public library as a social network

The public library from a social capital viewpoint is a trustworthy social network where people have access to resources to benefit their socio-economic development. The public library as the social network makes use of various role players such as the library staff and their interactions (social ties) with the patrons. As indicated by Lin et al (2008:6) the public library as a social network could provide resources to patrons in the following manner:
• Knowledge and access to information.
• Referring a person for recruitment.
• Connections through bridging social capital.
• Discovering self-worth.
However, the underlying problem is that public libraries do not know how to measure social capital in public libraries and that is what is causing the confusion around understanding social capital creation in a public library environment. The public library provides the social network, but it is not enough to demonstrate its societal value. The public library needs to measure output that would show that the public libraries play a central role in learning and developing the society. Social capital in public libraries is measurable through patrons and resources but both cannot constitute the societal value of public libraries. Public libraries can only show their societal value as agents of poverty reduction when library patrons benefit from their library experiences.

Measuring social capital

Pierre Bourdieu (2005), Lin (2001), Halpern and Field (2017) made similar assertions that people investing in social capital need benefits from their investment in a social network. Chapter 2 discussed the benefits of social capital and its contribution towards individual well-being (Helliwell, Huang, Grover & Wang 2014:17; Yamaguchi 2013:106), individual empowerment (Babaei, Ahmad & Gill 2012:123), employment opportunities (Freitag & Kirchner 2011:399), education (Liou & Chang 2008:119), economic growth (Iyer, Kitson & Toh 2005:1016) and poverty reduction (Zhang, Zhou & Lei 2017:358; Weaver & Habibov 2012:49). In addition to this, social capital enhances ‘knowledge’ and ‘skills’, which contribute towards ‘education and training’ (Black, Balatti, Cook & Falk 2006: 331). However, no investment is profitable without trust . Chapter 2 discussed the importance of trust in social capital. For example, Hudson (2006:59) and Vårheim (2014b:259) both agree that trust is important to achieve individual well-being. Allahyarahmadi (2013:782) confirms the notion of trust and well-being and that trust relies on whether an individual has reached physical, intellectual and spiritual attainment (Wang & Gordon 2011:584). The drivers of social capital are not the public libraries, but rather the patrons ‘outcomes through experiences of the public library’. The study identifies library programmes and their outcomes as well as patron trust as measurable outcomes of social capital that are important for public libraries’ societal value and of benefit to library patrons. The measurable outcomes of both library programmes and patron trust demonstrate social capital in the form of individual wellbeing, empowerment, skills development, job opportunities and poverty reduction. Library programmes create strong social ties (Hines 2015: 1) and patron trust strengthens the social ties with the library. Furthermore, library programmes and patron trust have social capital and poverty reduction outcomes. The table below illustrates the measurable outcomes of social capital creation through library programmes and the staff-patron interaction to establish trust to understand the creation of social capital in public libraries to reduce poverty. The student attempted to test the measurable outcomes of library programmes and patron trust against the case study of the Emfuleni Local Municipality Library and Information Services. The reason for this is that it is easy to measure library programme attendance and patron motivation behind programme attendance to find a definite outcome that could lead to societal value.

Social capital through library programmes

Library programmes as a social capital measuring tool to determine the societal value of the public library

Library programmes are part of the library services that determine the societal value of the public library (Strand 2016: 318; Skelly 2014: 207). Grace and Sen (2013: 518) consider library programmes as ‘active sustainability’ in an attempt to demonstrate social capital and economic value of the public library. Huysmans and Oomes (2013: 169) agree with Grace and Sen while mentioning that libraries could only establish their worth through ‘outputs and outcomes’. Huysmans and Oomes refer to the library’s tendency of collecting statistics such as ‘number of organisations’, ‘branches’, ‘registered users’, book issues, book renewals, and operating hours important for operational growth and trends. However, such statistics cannot show government and stakeholders the true value of the library. Huysmans and Oomes (2013) illustrate ‘outputs’ in the following manner:
• ‘A product directly resulting from a program (be it an activity or a service), typically measured in numbers to demonstrate the productivity of a program’.
• ‘Usually a measure of volumes (expressed in numbers, counts): i.e. number of products/services that are provided, people who are helped, activities that are organized’.
• ‘The results of inputs (resources) and activities (programs or services)’.
• ‘To be objectively quantified by neutral observers’ (Huysmans and Oomes 2013).
Huysmans and Oomes (2013) further define ‘outcomes’ as the capital gains (outcomes through patron experiences of the public library) in an individual’s life:
• ‘They reflect the changes or improvements brought about in people’s lives, showing that a program has (or has not) been successful (effective)’.
• ‘They are measures of impact or benefit’.
• ‘They are usually reported in amount of change in skills, knowledge, attitude, behaviour, or condition (life situation/social status)’.
• ‘They are the success stories of outputs’.
• ‘They are moving away from ‘what did we provide’ to “why do we matter” (Huysmans and Oomes 2013).
Huysmans and Oomes illustrate output in outcome of library services in Table 1 (2013: 170).
In a recent thesis by Skelly (2014: 102) to evaluate library services and their contribution to economic development, findings suggested that book circulation is a factor of economic growth and development. However, book issues cannot determine the societal value of public libraries or social capital creation through book loans, other than the librarian-patron interaction, which could strengthen social ties during the circulation process. Therefore, it would be impossible to explain the creation of social capital through book issues to understand the societal value of the library. Library programmes are a better example and provide both ‘output’ and ‘outcome’ incentives and exhibit evidence of societal value through social capital. Library programmes improve literacy and other skills beneficial for job seeking. The life-changing incentives patrons achieve through library programmes are a form of social capital as they contribute to individual empowerment. Library programmes have economic value (Skelly 2014: 44) and create an informal learning platform aimed at skills development of those who left school at an early age or never had an opportunity to attend some formal schooling. The following research demonstrates ‘output and outcome’ in a manner to understand the societal value of public libraries. In the study by Johnson (2012: 58), to understand library staff and patron interactions, Johnson conducted interviews with library staff at three neighbourhood branch libraries in a large American Midwestern city. Although the two librarians that reported on their experiences who rather did not conduct a formal library programme about computer skills or job seeking, they had assisted two patrons with computer and job seeking skills. One librarian told Johnson about a patron that needed assistance with an online resume. This interaction created strong social ties when the patron returned to the librarian with the news of landing the job. The patron’s social capital was the positive library experience and the capital gains of finding employment. Johnson (2012:58) reported on another librarian who helped find a patron a job. Social capital was created by utilising the available resources of the public library. These findings agree with Lin et al (2008:6) who provided ways in which people could benefit from social network resources. Library programmes such as English Second Language (ESL) classes, computer classes and US citizenship classes for Hispanic immigrants in Vårheim’s (2011: 25) study confirmed the notion that public library programmes create social capital and the programmes offered capital gains to the participants. The study by Johnson and Griffis (2014: 188), through the administering of questionnaires in five small communities in Southwestern Ontario to both library users and non-users, revealed the existence of social capital through library programmes. Since their study included small town libraries as well as urban libraries, the only difference was the amount of social capital that was created through the library programmes. They found that the library programmes offered at the smaller town libraries did not appeal to the lower income people, while the urban libraries had better structured programmes to engage the lower income people such as neighbourhood resource centres, food cupboards, employment resource centres and settlement services. Although the lower income people from the smaller town libraries found limited gains from the social capital resources available to them, the lower income people from the urban libraries gained from the social capital resources. In another study to show social capital gains conducted by Gaitán and Arboleda (2016: 5), the library programmes by the National Library of Colombia and the National Network of Public libraries provided the patrons gains of ‘collective identity and self-esteem’ and research skills as well as opportunities of ‘dialogue and cultural expression’. The public libraries of New South Wales, in an attempt to find out the value of their libraries, administered surveys that were completed by both staff and patrons (Library Council of New South Wales 2008: ii). Survey results found that library programmes contributed to social capital gains (Library Council of New South Wales 2008: v) in the following manner:
• ‘Contributing to positive community relationships and community harmony through multicultural storytimes’.
• ‘Supporting book clubs and reading groups, thereby creating social interaction among people with common interests’.
• ‘English Literacy programs to assist non-English speaking members of the community to develop language skills’.
• ‘Encouraging parents to commit to early literacy development for their children’.
• ‘Meeting the needs of the aged and members with disability, who are unable to visit the library, through Home Library or Housebound programs’.
The above discussion on library programmes gives a clear indication that library programmes create social capital, which could serve as evidence of the societal value of public libraries and no longer be considered as secondary services that supplement the core services of public libraries, that are circulation and information provision. However, the effectiveness of library programmes is only noticeable through outcomes and when patrons attending such programmes benefit thereof that could as such constitute social capital.

Contents
Dedication
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
Keywords
Abstract
Declaration
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1
1.1 Background to the study
1.2 Defining the public library role
1.3 State of public libraries in South Africa
1.4 Social capital and the relation to public libraries
1.5 Overview of poverty reduction strategies
1.6 Introducing a social capital framework to measure the creation of social capital as a poverty alleviation strategy in public libraries
1.7 Study setting
1.8 Emfuleni Local Municipality Libraries
1.9. Research problem
1.10. Aim of the study
1.11 Research objectives
1.12. Motivation for the study
1.13. Literature review
1.14. Research methodology
1.15 Population
1.16 Sampling
1.17 Data collection methods
1.18 Contribution of the study
1.19 Delimitations
1.20 Guidelines of the University of South Africa
1.21 Thesis outline
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Social capital
2.3 Social capital and its influences on unemployment, mental health and social empowerment
2.4 Changes in public libraries and user needs
2.5 Public libraries and social capital
2.6 Outreach library programmes focusing on poverty reduction
2.7 Conclusion
Chapter 3: Social capital framework to measure the creation of social capital as a poverty alleviation strategy in public libraries
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Conclusion
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Research approach
4.3 Research design
4.5 Sampling
4.6 Pilot study
4.7 Data collection methods
4.8 Data analysis
4.9 Reliability and validity
4.10 Ethical considerations
4.11 Conclusion
Chapter 5: Data Analysis and Interpretation
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Questionnaire data analysis
5.3 Interview data analysis
5.4 Conclusion
Chapter 6: Interpretation of findings, discussion of findings
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Interpretation of findings
6.3 Discussion of findings
Chapter 7: recommendations, limitations and conclusion of the study
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Summary of chapters
7.3 Recommendations
7.4 Suggestions for further research
7.5 Conclusion
8. References

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT