Conceptualizing Digital Social Capital

Abstract

Human is intrinsically a social being and tries, through relationships with others, to meet his/her needs and fulfill his/her goals. In this way, a phenomenon is formed in the name of the society, organization, and group. People in the community are actively involved in social networking in order to improve the quality of their relationship. Social capital that expresses the existence of social relations and values, common norms, and the quality and solidity of these relations, emerges in this process. The digital age has changed the way people interact with each other, and the digital world has got the largest share of people's relationship with each other. In this context, putting a premium on social capital in the digital world seems necessary. On the other hand, in the studies done before, digital social capital has not been completely introduced, so the purpose of this research is the conceptualization of digital social capital and its role in society.

Full text

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
1
Conceptualizing Digital Social Capital
Seyed Mohammadbagher Jafari1*, Rahele Moharrami2
1Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial and Financial Management, Faculty of
Management and Accounting, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Iran
(*Corresponding Author: sm.jafari@ut.ac.ir)
2PhD Candidate in Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, College of
Farabi, University of Tehran, Iran
ABSTRACT
Human is intrinsically a social being and tries, through relationships with others, to meet
his/her needs and fulfill his/her goals. In this way, a phenomenon is formed in the name of
the society, organization, and group. People in the community are actively involved in
social networking in order to improve the quality of their relationship. Social capital that
expresses the existence of social relations and values, common norms, and the quality
and solidity of these relations, emerges in this process. The digital age has changed the
way people interact with each other, and the digital world has got the largest share of
people's relationship with each other. In this context, putting a premium on social capital in
the digital world seems necessary. On the other hand, in the studies done before, digital
social capital has not been completely introduced, so the purpose of this research is the
conceptualization of digital social capital and its role in society.
Keywords: Social Capital, Digital Age, Digital Social Capital
International Seminar on
New Topics in
Business Management
Varna, Bulgaria
6 June 2019
University of
TEHRAN

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Our fast-paced world is in a state of constant change (Corso et al, 2018).
Advances in communications, combined with lifestyle trends, point to a future
workforce that is more productive and more capable than ever before (Attaran et
al, 2019).
Social capital can be defined as consisting of ‘networks of actors and the
norms and values being distributed in these networks’ (Habersetzer et al, 2019).
Social capital plays a central role in a multitude of production processes, both
formal and informal, from the founding of a company, to the reaching out to get
help in product design, to the negotiations and compromise that produces political
legislation, to how workers get hired, to whether people educate themselves
(Jackson, 2018). The classical definition of social capital becomes blurred and
transforms as common tangible and intangible social infrastructures shift more and
more towards the digital realm (Lampoltshammer & Scholz,2017). The use of
digital technologies to enhance traditional public participation processes and to
build a new form of social capital— digital social capital—is being embraced in a
range of planning practices (Mandarano, 2010).
In digital environments, however, social capital literature to date seems to
have predominantly overemphasized social capital as outcome-oriented. On an
individual level, studies have highlighted the benefits of online social networking
for expanding job opportunities, mobilizing like-minded others, finding health
support, and meeting dating partners. On a collective level, collective action
mobilization and civic and political participation have served as parameters for the
evaluation of online social capital. The outcome-oriented studies insightfully reveal
the empowering potential of the Internet in generating social support, life
betterment, or community building (Safiollah, 2009).
Digital technologies play a role in all aspects of operating, controlling, and
coordinating the activities of organizations. Broadly speaking, they are used for
automating and augmenting tasks, communicating internally among organization
members and externally with customers and partners, and in collaborative
decision- making among digital and human agents (Snow et al, 2017). In response
to the increase in access to and widespread usage of digital technologies and
Internet resources, governments are embracing the use of these tools to
communicate with their constituents (Mandarano, 2010).
New digital technologies are making our lives easier, by shaping and
changing the way in which we interact, work and purchase. What was new
yesterday is old today and keeping up with new trends and transformations in the
market is harder than ever before (Corso et al, 2018). Digital organizations are
increasing in both numbers and sophistication .Organizations adapt to the needs of
the market; to the technologies available for the design, production, and delivery of
products and services; and in their means of organizing. The digitization of society
is affecting customer needs, product and service properties and delivery
mechanisms, and organization design (Snow et al, 2017). social capital is greater
in digital environments, where social interaction most often occurs at a distance
and with a lesser extent of co-presence and proximity, being an instrumental
feature in securing employment in a freelance-based economy(Gandini,2016). Yet,
the term distance has to be used with caution, as we have not only to consider the

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
3
pure geographic distance between two entities but also their distance in terms of
networks. Social capital is still valid and apply to the digital realm as well. The
most important concept that has changed is the concept of distance, with the
strong influence of networking an aspect in our digital society (Lampoltshammer &
Scholz,2017). Although the debate on the impact of the digital world on social
capital in the information age is ongoing, the clear plan has not yet been achieved.
Until recently, most discussions have been conducted without systematic
information. Therefore, this paper seeks to conceptualize digital social capital in
order to clarify this term.
2. SOCIAL CAPITAL
Although the concept of social capital came into prominence during the last
two decades, its origin can be traced back to the middle of the 19th Century and
the beginning of the 20th Century (Motkuri, 2018). More social capital definition by
Oxoby (2009) in rephrasing the sentence of Dayton-Johnson (2003) where social
capital as “an individual’s sacrifices of time, effort, consumption that made in an
effort to promote cooperation with others”. In the search of the accurate definition
of social capital, Dasgupta (2010) suggested a lenient meaning of social capital.
According to Klein (2011), Dasgupta defined social capital as “interpersonal
networks where members develop and maintain trust in one another to keep their
promises by the device of “mutual enforcement” of agreements” (Khalid et
al,2018). The notion of social capital comprises a cognitive, a structural and a
relational dimension of relationships (Zimmermann et al, 2017). The definitions of
social capital from the perspective of different researchers has been presented in
Table 1.
Table1: Definitions of social capital
Definition Source
The first view describes social capital as primarily the accumulation of
obligations from others according to the norm of reciprocity. Lampoltshammer
& Scholz, 2017
Sum of actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and
derived from the network of relationships possessed by individuals. Smith et al, 2017
social capital is not a single entity but a variety of different entities, with two
elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and
they facilitate certain actions of actors- whether persons or corporate actors-
within the structure.
Neves et al,
2018
Social capital is generally conceptualized as the resources available to both the
individual and the collective through their social relationships. Han, 2019
Coleman linked social capital to human capital indicating that social capital is a
resource for action for all individuals, and he emphasized the importance of
community ties.
Carrasco & Bilal,
2016
Social capital has been defined as resources that individuals can access that are
embedded in their social relationships. You& Hon, 2019

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
4
social capital is a combination of cognitive and normative structural elements
that foster cooperation, which affects economic performance. Sabatino, 2019
Social capital is characterized by the trust and altruism between individuals of a
social group. Nicholas et al,
2019
The social capital theory offers a meso-level approach to explain how inter-
organizational relationships can be used to access knowledge resources.
Steinmo &
Rasmussen,
2018
Social capital is defined as “the stock of active connections among people: the
trust, mutual understanding and shared values and behaviors that bind the
members of human networks and communities and makes cooperative action
possible.
Cohen& Prusak,
2002
Corporate social capital as ‘‘the set of resources, tangible or virtual, that
accrue to a corporate player through the player’s social relationships, facilitating
the attainment of goals (Alguezaui& Filieri, 2010).
Social capital is composed of two concepts of capital and society, and in this
sense, it can be considered as an increasing and non-individual nature. A growing
amount of livelihoods is created in the community, and it helps to achieve its
purpose and preserve the community. This new concept, as well as other physical,
economic and human capital, have also value and are important. Capital enables
a person to create value, do something, achieve his/her goals, take on a mission
in life, and play a role in the world (Zarei Matin et al, 2016).
Social capital plays a central role in a multitude of production processes, both
formal and informal, from the founding of a company to the reaching out to get
help in product design, to the negotiations and compromise that produces political
legislation, to how workers get hired, to whether people educate themselves, it is
fundamental to the welfare of society, and its distribution is important in driving
inequality and immobility (Jackson, 2018).
Like many sociological concepts, social capital encompasses many different
meanings. While some researchers define social capital in terms of trust and
norms of civic cooperation, others characterize it in terms of cultural values such
as compassion, altruism, and tolerance, while still others emphasize institutions
and the quality and quantity of “associational” life. Some researchers find it
practical to separate the sources of social capital (primarily, social networks) from
their consequences (which can be positive or negative, depending on the
circumstances), such as trust, tolerance, and cooperation (Chou,2006).
The construct of social capital is composed of three interrelated
dimensions: structural, relational and cognitive. The structural dimension is defined
by measures such as density, hierarchy, and connectivity; the relational dimension
focuses more on the normative infrastructure underlying a network of relationships
such as social norms, obligations, and expectation, as well as identity. Finally, the
cognitive dimension is defined by resources affording a shared basis for
interpretations and representations among network members (e.g. shared codes
and languages) (Alguezaui& Filieri, 2010).

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
5
3. DIGITAL ERA
We are living in the digital age, a period in which digital technologies serve as
the infrastructure of our communications. The influence of information and
communication technologies is perceptible in all spheres of life including
governance, education, economy, and private lifestyles (Mandarano, 2010).
The essence of the digital revolution has been concisely described by
Brynjolfsson and McAfee. They explain that technological progress in the digital
era is due to three characteristics of technology: it is exponential, digital, and
combinatorial (Snow et al, 2017).
Over the last decades, the digitalization and interconnectedness have shifted
the economy from a mainly physical to a software controlled economy and the
information technology has become a fundamental part of our industry and society
(Foerster-Metz, 2018)
Digitization turns various kinds of data and information into bits – the ones
and zeroes that are the language of computers Advances in digitization have
resulted in “new ways of acquiring knowledge and higher rates of innovation”.
Lastly, digital innovation is combinatorial: “Each development becomes a building
block for future innovations”. Coupled with human ingenuity, these three
characteristics allow digital technologies to be developed and applied at a rapid
rate (Snow et al, 2017).
The influence of technology on work environments and workflows is an
important determinant of Organizational Behavior science, as changes in
technology may not only affect the individual characteristics of the workforce but as
well the organizational structure of enterprises. The way technology is
implemented or used within a company may affect the company’s inner culture as
well as their behavior towards stakeholders. Furthermore, the implementation of
modern technology may bring along a gradual change in the composition of the
workforce. For example, younger, better educated, more mobile as well as more
technologically versed generations will enter companies in greater numbers as in
the past, resulting in a changeover within organizations that may as well bring
along a new set of values, attitudes and concerns that affect the Organizational
Behavior within companies (Foerster-Metz, 2018).
The concept of the digital workplace is not new, the first use of the term
“digital workplace” is attributed to Jeffrey Bier in the late-1990s , however it
originates in earlier research on the topics of work-oriented technology design and
the design of groupware and virtual workplaces , In recent years, in response to
rapid developments in Enterprise 2.0 and social software and as part of wider
concerns surrounding the future of work and organizations, the term digital
workplace has gained renewed attention as the technical infrastructure, hardware
and software are now available. As noted by Koffer, the digital workplace is a
significant theme for organizations and practitioners, however, it has received
limited attention in academic research. There are many definitions of the digital
workplace, most of which are rather general and aspirational. For example,
Deloitte defines the digital workplace as encompassing “all the technologies
people use to get work done in today’s workplace – both the ones in operation and
the ones yet to be implemented” and Robertson presents it as a “holistic set of
tools, platforms, and environments for work, delivered in a coherent, usable and

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
6
productive way” (Williams & Schubert, 2018). Research literature has approached
workplace digitalization from several perspectives: the largest contributions in this
field are from ethnography, sociology, and management theories that consider the
workplace as a set of human relations and media(Vallicelli,2018).
According to Ernst & Young (2011) digitization means the conversion of
analog information to digital (computer-readable) information. From the middle of
the 20th century onwards, after the invention of the transistor and microprocessor,
the technologies of digitization enabled the conversion of traditional media such as
picture, paper, sound, video or signal into bits and bytes (ones and zeros) of
computer storage. Since the beginning of the 21st century, with the emergence of
social media, social networks and by the improvement of the sensor technology,
additional information is being recorded, digitalized and shared such as social life
activities and physical data of life like location, temperature, force, weight, blood
pressure, and stress. Today, non-digitalized products are more and more
digitalized as they receive, for example, tracking sensors to locate them or network
connections to deliver status information. The numbers published by BMWi (2016)
show that the amount of digital information has increased dramatically, in 1993, it
was just 3% and in 2007, it reached already 94% of the worldwide information
(Foerster-Metz, 2018).
Digitalization is the use of digital technologies to change a business model
and provide new revenue and value-producing opportunities; it is the process of
moving to digital business (Parida et al, 2019). Five distinguishing features of the
digital workplace and how each influences people, process, and technology.
1. Simple: First up, modern digital workplaces strive to simplify. Traditional
organizational models, enterprise software, and workflows are typically overly
complex and layered, resulting in inefficiency and steep learning curves. The
modern workplace looks to create action-oriented models of work that promote the
responsibility of the worker and that circumvent slow, bureaucratic activities that
don’t add value to the desired outcome.
2. Mobile: Mobility is a key component for the modern worker and workplace.
Today’s world moves at a fast pace and today’s workforce has to be unrestrained
from the traditional desk and cubicle setups to keep up. The modern workplace has
to yield flexibility in how, where, and when work takes place.
3. Social: Social media has changed the way we connect with people and
ideas across the globe. Internal social applications and systems are no different in
respect to allowing workers to connect with each other, to share thoughts and
ideas, and enabling work to occur in a manner that is more natural and less
hierarchical.
4. Open: The modern workforce expects openness and transparency in how
they work and who they work with. Closeting away information and the rationale
behind decisions won’t cut it when the rate of change is as high as it is today.
5. Smart: Advancements in machine learning, deep learning, and artificial
intelligence are occurring at a quickening pace, bringing with them practical
applications for the workplace. It isn’t just about smart tech though. Mindsets have
to evolve to embrace how we can leverage advanced technologies to change the

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
7
way work is done. A smart workforce, carrying out smart processes, augmented by
smart applications and technologies will be the driving force behind the next leap in
productivity (Grissom, 2017).
Overview of digital technologies is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Overview of digital technologies (Foerster-Metz et al, 2018)
Technology Explanation/Examples
Interconnectedness & Availability
Mobile
IOT
Cloud
(Computing)
Mobile is the generic term for cellular communication and mobile computing with
wireless networking / Smartphone, tablet, laptop.
IoT is the connection from on and off switchable devices to the internet. They get
a virtual presence and can connect to other objects and database data.
Cloud is the provisioning of IT infrastructure (e.g., networks, servers, storage,
applications, services) over the internet on demand / Software-as-a-Service
(SaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS).
Information & Intelligence
Big Data &
Analytics
Big Data is the synonym for vast and complex data volumes which differs by their
size, diversity and rapid pace of change.
Analytics is the process of examining Big data to uncover patterns, correlations,
market trends, customer preferences, and other useful information.
Automation & Efficiency
Robotics
Automation
Robot Process
Automation
(RPA)
Intelligent
Automation (IA)
Artificial
Intelligence (AI)
Robotics is the interdisciplinary branch of engineering and science that deals with
the design, construction, operation, and use of robots.
Automation is the technique of making a machine, a process, or a system to be
operated automatically with no or reduced human intervention. It can be done by
various means like mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, electrical, electronic devices
and computers (ISA, n.d.).
Robot Process Automation is the fully automated processing of structured
business processes (repeatable and predictable interactions) by software robots
or by using artificial intelligence (AI)
Intelligent Automation is a nascent and high-cost technology which enables
automating non-routine tasks such as those involving intuition, judgment,
creativity, problem-solving, etc. based on dynamic information.
Artificial Intelligence is part of computer science bringing human capabilities and
characteristics to machines like understanding language, learning, reasoning,
solving problems, etc.
Communication & Collaboration
Social (Media) is the collection of online communications channels dedicated to community-
based input, interaction, content-sharing and collaboration (Rouse, 2016a) /
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat, YouTube.
privacy & Security
Next-generation
Security
is a new generation of intelligent, highly scalable security products and platforms
which includes both cybersecurity and physical security and with a more proactive
and adaptive approach.

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
8
4.DIGITAL SOCIAL CAPITAL
Digital methods are starting to be embraced and lauded as effective tools for
citizen participation and other outreach approaches. At this time, assessments of
the impacts of digital public participation on social capital are scarce; however, the
debates over the impacts of digital technologies in other forms of communication
on social capital raise important concerns for consideration by planners. The two
sides of the debate are framed by critics claiming virtual relationships are replacing
face-to-face relationships and others arguing that these technologies enable
broader and more effective social networks (Mandarano, 2010).
The Internet can contribute to social capital because it increases contact with
family members, friends, and acquaintances that live close or far, and allows
individuals to create new ties and to activate latent ties – those ties that are latent
but not yet activated, such as a friend of a friend. For instance, social networking
sites such as Facebook allow us not only to connect with new people but also to
connect with friends of friends, through the suggestions that it presents and the
possibility of seeing our friends’ networks (Neves, 2013)
However, the development of measurements for the antecedents of these
positive outcomes—that is, online social networking patterns—has unfortunately
not been up to par. A majority of existing Internet social capital research defines
social capital as outcomes from social interactions. An implicit consensus seems
to exist: investigating social capital should highlight prosocial, positive, or
beneficial functions of sociability. This perspective is consistent with Adler and
Kwon’s (2002) definition of social capital: “the goodwill [emphasis added] that is
engendered by the fabric of social relations”. Such communitarian optimism seems
to be an underlying tone for the majority of current Internet social capital research.
In particular, Internet social capital research often adopts Putnam’s (2000) notion
of bonding capital and bridging capital to operationalize social capital as
outcomes. Notably, Williams’s (2006) Internet social capital scales (ISCS) is a
widely cited survey instrument for measuring online social capital. Drawn from
Putnam’s bonding-bridging dichotomy, the ISCS evaluates online bonding capital
by underscoring positive social outcomes, such as getting emotional support,
accessing exclusive resources, and mobilizing solidarity. The ISCS’s bridging
capital reflects different types of outcomes, which while still prosocial, include
outward curiosity, contact with a diverse group of people, perception of the self as
a part of the extended world, and generalized norms of reciprocity. The items in
the ISCS intend to elucidate the positive effects of online social activities rather
than examining the networking patterns configured from these activities. In
summary, the existing Internet research has emphasized the goodwill and
beneficial consequences of social capital that accrue in digital social contexts
(Safiollah, 2009).
The concept of social capital has emerged as a popular and dominant
research theme across a variety of disciplines in order to understand the wide
range of social phenomena involved. It is originated in the social science and
humanities literature and was firstly used to describe the relational resources
embedded in cross-cutting personal ties that are useful for the development of
individuals in community social organizations. The role of social capital has been
examined with regard to the development of human capital, the creation of

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
9
intellectual capital, and in its economic performance, geographical regions and
nations. Further, as the result of the development of the Internet, social capital has
been discussed and examined in the online realm (Lia et al, 2019).
The very essence of digital social capital is that it is disembodied and that it
demonstrates that the information age is ushering in a new form of ‘informational
city’ in cyberspace. In this new society, which is based upon knowledge, the
organization takes place around networks through which information flows.
Castells envisions a situation where high technology manufacturing is organized
around two groups that do not necessarily have any geographical proximity to one
another. One would be a highly skilled research and development facility and
workforce in a core industrial high-tech area, the other would be a large assembly
facility with semi-skilled workers which could well be located on another continent
but which was linked to the innovation center via global informational networks.
Castells calls these “milieux of innovation”. The professional and social capital
building takes place highly effectively in the ‘informational cities’ through the self-
evident recognition of mutual benefits from membership of the communities. The
communities are weightless and only exist, in a deep sense, for as long as it is in
the interests of all community members to retain their membership. Since the only
capital invested in them is social capital, the returns from which are related to
status and reputation, sophisticated community players can reinvest their capital
many times, as reputations develop and grow (Lightfoot, 2016).
Online social capital seems to tend toward quantizing our social relations
while social media sites continue to extract surplus value from these exchanges.
This presents a parallel series of economic circuits: the online social interactions
resembling a model of capitalist accumulation, while the social media sites that
own user content are able to capitalize on these user interactions (Faucher, 2018).
Communities of practice are a feature of all of the learned professions. The
social capital contained within these communities is considerable, as members of
the communities have the benefit of the social standing related to their association
with a distinct community of individuals of high social status. Additionally,
membership of such a community affords opportunities for the professional
sharing of ideas, opinions about policy directions and for maintaining the
members’ currency in respect of contemporary professional practice (Lightfoot,
2016).
5. CONCLUSION
In order to conceptualize digital social capital, social capital and digital era
characteristics have been described in this research and then the importance of
digital social capital in the digital era discussed. There are few studies that have
been done about digital social capital. Most research was focused on Internet
social capital. Internet social capital studies have highlighted the ways in which
social media uses can result in positive outcomes for individual well-being and
societal betterment (Kwon, 2018). In research by Islam et al, (2018), the results of
the study show a significant direct relationship between mobile phone use, social
capital, and the performance of microenterprises. In another recent research by
Perry et al, (2018), results emphasize that social interactions in (and around)

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
10
online multiplayer video games are effective for building social capital and do so
by ensuring gameplay is in harmony with other goals and values.
Overall, it can be concluded that the Internet increases social capital
(Lampoltshammer & Scholz,2017). The relation between the Internet and social
capital has generated a heated debate (Kraut et al. 1998; Nie and Erbring 2000;
Wellman et al. 2001; Chen and Wellman 2004; Zhao 2006; Vergeer and Pelzer
2009; Hampton, Sessions, and Her 2011). However, the attention has been
overwhelmingly centered on what the Internet can do to social capital
(Chen,2013).
The Internet seems to be contributing to social capital not only through the
social connections it supports but also through the general information and
resources that it affords. This does not mean, of course, that the Internet has only
positive effects on society. Social capital can also be negative and promote
segregation, inequality, conflict, and crime (Neves,2013). Further research needs
to be done in this field to provide more insight into the issue.
REFERENCES
Alguezaui, S., & Filieri, R. (2010). Investigating the role of social capital in innovation: sparse
versus dense network. Journal of knowledge management, 14(6), 891-909.
Attaran, M., Attaran, S., & Kirkland, D. (2019). The Need for Digital Workplace: Increasing
Workforce Productivity in the Information Age. International Journal of Enterprise Information
Systems (IJEIS), 15(1), 1-23.
Carrasco, M. A., & Bilal, U. (2016). A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social
cohesion?. Social Science & Medicine, 159, 127-131.
Chen, W. (2013). The implications of social capital for the digital divides in America. The
Information Society, 29(1), 13-25.
Chou, Y. K. (2006). Three simple models of social capital and economic growth. The Journal of
Socio-Economics, 35(5), 889-912.
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2002). In good company: How social capital makes organizations
work. Harvard Business Review, 80, 107-113.
Corso, M., Giovannetti, G., Guglielmi, L., & Vaia, G. (2018). Conceiving and implementing the
digital organization. In CIOs and the Digital Transformation (pp. 181-203). Springer, Cham.
Faucher, K. X. (2018). Social Capital Online. University of Westminster Press.
Foerster-Metz, U. S., Marquardt, K., Golowko, N., Kompalla, A., & Hell, C. (2018). Digital
Transformation and its Implications on Organizational Behavior. Journal of EU Research in
Business, Article ID, 340873.
Gandini, A. (2016). Digital work: Self-branding and social capital in the freelance knowledge
economy. Marketing theory, 16(1), 123-141.
Grissom, B. (2017). Top 5 Characteristics of the Modern Digital Workplace.
https://medium.com/business-as-unusual.2019
Habersetzer, A., Grèzes-Bürcher, S., Boschma, R., & Mayer, H. (2019). Enterprise-related social
capital as a driver of firm growth in the periphery?. Journal of rural studies, 65, 143-151.
Han, S. (2019). Social capital and perceived stress: The role of social context. Journal of affective
disorders.

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
11
Islam, M. M., Habes, E. M., & Alam, M. M. (2018). The usage and social capital of mobile phones
and their effect on the performance of microenterprise: An empirical study. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 156-164.
Jackson, M. O. (2018). A typology of social capital and associated network measures. Available at
SSRN 3073496.
Khalid, N. M., Bakar, E. A., Sulaiman, N., & Sabri, M. F. (2018). THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL
CAPITAL IN DISASTER MANAGEMENT. Journal of Islamic, 3(12), 25-35.
Kwon, H. (2018). The Analysis of Social Capital in Digital Environments. In The Oxford Handbook
of Networked Communication.
Lampoltshammer, T. J., & Scholz, J. (2017). Open data as social capital in a digital
society. Rethinking Social CapitReputation represents
Li, S., Modi, P., Wu, M. S. S., Chen, C. H. S., & Nguyen, B. (2019). Conceptualising and validating
the social capital construct in consumer-initiated online brand communities
(COBCs). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 139, 303-310.
Lightfoot, M. (2016). The Emergence of Digital Social Capital in Education. In Leveraging Social
Capital in Systemic Education Reform (pp. 43-66). Brill Sense.
Mandarano, L., Meenar, M., & Steins, C. (2010). Building social capital in the digital age of civic
engagement. Journal of planning literature, 25(2), 123-135.
Motkuri, V. (2018). Some Notes on the Concept of Social Capital: A Review of Perspectives,
De_nitions and Measurement. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86362/
Neves, B. B., Fonseca, J. R., Amaro, F., & Pasqualotti, A. (2018). Social capital and Internet use in
an age-comparative perspective with a focus on later life. PloS one, 13(2), e0192119.
Neves, B. B. (2013). Social capital and Internet use: The irrelevant, the bad, and the
good. Sociology Compass, 7(8), 599-611.
Nicholas, C., Murphy, L., & Blackman, A. (2019). Exploring the dimensions of social capital that are
effective mediators of long distance commuting impacts on wellbeing. Resources Policy, 60,
185-197.
Parida, V., Sjödin, D., & Reim, W. (2019). Reviewing Literature on Digitalization, Business Model
Innovation, and Sustainable Industry: Past Achievements and Future Promises.
Perry, R., Drachen, A., Kearney, A., Kriglstein, S., Nacke, L. E., Sifa, R., ... & Johnson, D. (2018).
Online-only friends, real-life friends or strangers? Differential associations with passion and
social capital in video game play. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 202-210
Sabatino, M. (2019). Economic resilience and social capital of the Italian regions. International
Review of Economics & Finance.
Safiollah, S., Alimohammad, J., & Maryam, J. (2009). Effect of the Internet on Social Capital. World
Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 36.
Smith, C., Smith, J. B., & Shaw, E. (2017). Embracing digital networks: Entrepreneurs' social
capital online. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 18-34.
Snow, C. C., Fjeldstad, Ø. D., & Langer, A. M. (2017). Designing the digital organization. Journal of
Organization Design, 6(1), 7.
Steinmo, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2018). The interplay of cognitive and relational social capital
dimensions in university-industry collaboration: Overcoming the experience barrier. Research
Policy, 47(10), 1964-1974.
Vallicelli, M. (2018). Smart cities and digital workplace culture in the global European context:
Amsterdam, London and Paris. City, Culture and Society, 12, 25-34.

International Seminar on New Topics in Business Management 6 June 2019
Varna, Bulgaria
12
Williams, S. P., & Schubert, P. (2018). Designs for the Digital Workplace. Procedia computer
science, 138, 478-485.
Williams, K., & Durrance, J. C. (2008). Social networks and social capital: Rethinking theory in
community informatics. The Journal of Community Informatics, 4(3), 1-20.
36) You, L., & Hon, L. (2019). How social ties contribute to collective actions on social media: A
social capital approach. Public Relations Review.
Zimmermann, A., Oshri, I., Lioliou, E., & Gerbasi, A. (2017). Sourcing in or out: Implications for
social capital and knowledge sharing. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1),
82-100.
Zarei Matin, H. Mohamadian, B. Modaresi, S. (2016). Social capital Management. Mehraban of
Publication.