El algoritmo de la división

Bridging social capital as opposed to bonding social capital occurs between people who are different (heterogeneous) to each other (Putnam, 2000). Cultivating unity within a group improves its bonding social capital(Claridge, cited in Njuki, Mapila, Zingore, & Delve, 2008). Members bonded in a group are sometimes able to bridge across their differences to develop friendships and social capital. Alternatively, people also bridge outside of their particular group developing a relationship and social capital with others outside or in other networks. Bridging and linking social capital exist where there are more distant ties between people including looser friendships (Woolcock, 2000). It often involves people from networks that overlap each other giving members access to the resources of another group because members are in both networks (Stone et al, 2003; Woolcock, 2000). Bridging social capital can link people together from a different race, income, or community backgrounds (Sanders & Lowney, 2006).

Bridging puts individuals together through new friendships and can include an informal group of golfers (Figure 2.2 Group B) who play regularly (DeGraaf & Jordan, 2003). The golf group may be an offshoot of a church social group (Figure 2.2 Group A).

Figure 2.2 Bridging Social Capital (adapted from Woolcock and Stone)

A group of this nature might include new members to the group, visitors, or people not in the club who want to play golf, but know someone in the group. Some of the individuals may be in both the church group and in the golf social group (Group A and B). These members have strong network connections through the two networks overlapping each other (Stone et al, 2003; Woolcock, 2000). Others may be only in the golf group but are asked by a neighbour or workmate to join them in another activity (Group C). In the new group they develop ties and friendships with new people who may be different to

themselves but share resources and provide support. Support could be information where to buy a house or a car, or to provide contacts for applying for a job. The person given the advice is supported and brought closer into the group and can access other ties from the networks that the members have (Fields, 2008; Narayan, 1999; Putnam, 1995; Woolcock, 2000). Social capital can be a powerful tool as it provides access to new information and contacts from a wider field to an individual (Lin, 2001). Members of the golf network may have other social groups they are a part of based on strong, tight, bonds, however in this group they are developing bridging social capital with people who may be different from themselves (Stone et al, 2003).

Researchers have studied how bridging social capital in northern Italy resulted in less organised, informal sport and art groups (Putnam, 1995). These groups brought people together from different social or religious backgrounds, connecting them and allowing them to develop bridging social capital through interactions in the activity of choice. The groups exposed people to new ideas and different ways of doing things through their new friendships. It moulded heterogeneous people together into a network developing

friendships outside of their immediate social group (Brooks, 2009; Woolcock, 2000; Walseth, 2008).

Group A: Church group

Group B: Golf group

Group C: Invited members from the neighbourhood or work

Bridging social capital is shared in groups that are less exclusive and more inclusive than groups that develop strong bonding social capital. People who have a range of social network interactions may result in them being more outward looking, and relating well to people from diverse social backgrounds (Florida, 2002; Putnam 2000). Governments relate to and support this type of social capital because of its ability to instill acceptance and tolerance in people and bridge across a wide spectrum of people (Winter, 2000).

The literature refers to another form of social capital called linking social capital (Stone et al, 2003; Woolcock, 2001). Linking social capital is similar to bridging as it refers to looser ties than bonding social capital and often refers to a person using their relationships with someone from another network to access resources. It refers to norms of respect and trust between people who may reach across formal or institutionalised power and authority. A person contacting their local health planner through a friendly contact can illustrate linking social capital (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004). The acquaintance provides them an entrée to this person and the power of the position. Linking social capital refers to

accessing another network in a hierarchy and to seek power (Harper, 2002). Asking for a letter of reference from a friend who is Chief Executive Officer in a major organisation is an example of this form of social capital. Using ties across different networks to access someone’s power and authority is a resource (Sherry, 2010; Stone et al, 2003; Woolcock, 2001). Linking social capital is concerned with relationships between people in networks who are not on an equal footing (Harper, 2002).

Although bridging and bonding social capital are different they are not mutually exclusive and sometimes incorporated together (Walseth, 2008). Groups often incorporate bonding for some aspects of group behaviour developing trust and social friendships, and bridge onto others for access to power (Putnam, 2000; Walseth, 2008).

The literature suggests that bonding social capital is good for getting by in life generally but bridging is crucial for people who want to do well in life by supporting ambition (Putnam, 2000). This view is supported by governments, and noted in research where Florida (2002), suggests that people with many loose social connections do better in work and life in general. Bridging allows people to draw on social capital across many networks for their own or for their group’s benefit.

The literature suggests that bridging social capital develops readily in sport and recreation clubs and should be investigated further (Putnam, 1995; Walseth, 2008). Bridging also assists in social cohesion overlapping networks together and introducing people from different backgrounds to each other. Governments have been attracted to social capital with these outcomes from the Australian Productivity Commission (2003), and the Norwegian Government’s (White paper, Norway as cited, Zakus, Skinner & Edwards, 2005).

Sport’s ability to bring different people together has been highlighted for migrant and local young women in Norwegian sport (Walseth, 2008). The young women initially became friendly. After playing and traveling together they became friends, accepting each other and their differences. Members were able to get to know and understand each other, respect cultural differences, habits, and practices which leads to greater acceptance and tolerance (Walseth, 2008).

Many organisations include both bonding and bridging social capital. The Knights of Columbus members bond together through their religion but bridge across different social classes (Saguaro Seminar, 2009). The question of sport and recreation clubs providing opportunities for these types of social capital to exist in a club is of interest. However, this research explores local leisure clubs and their ability to provide strong support through social capital and greater acceptance of others’ differences but will not make distinctions between bonding or bridging social capital.