BUUV : a community to understand social capital : an enquiry into the social capital of participants of a service marketplace

(1)

BUUV: A Community to Understand Social Capital

An enquiry into the social capital of participants of a service marketplace

Master Thesis General Sociology

July 2017

Emy Sloot 11080639 emy.sloot@gmail.com Supervisor: Prof. dr. W.G.J. Duyvendak Second reader: Dr. L.H. Jansen Verplanke

(2)

(3)

3

Voorwoord

Voor u ligt het eindresultaat van mijn afstudeeronderzoek van de master Algemene Sociologie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Het onderzoek voor deze scriptie is uitgevoerd in samenwerking met BUUV, de buurtmarktplaats voor en door de bewoners in Haarlem. Ik ben in aanraking gekomen met BUUV vanuit een interesse naar de beweegredenen welke mensen hebben om te participeren in een non-profit organisatie. Gedurende het afstudeerproces heb ik ontzettend veel geleerd. Allereerst over de stad, haar inwoners en het fungeren van een gemeentelijke organisatie. De vele gesprekken en interviews met de deelnemers, de vrijwilligers en de medewerkers zijn voor mij erg waardevol gebleken. Om te ervaren dat het ondersteunen en het helpen van zowel kwetsbare als niet-kwetsbare burgers zo een belangrijk deel uitmaakt van hun leven vind ik erg inspirerend. Daarnaast heb ik genoten van de mogelijkheid om de opgedane kennis en vaardigheden van mijn tijd op de Universiteit van Amsterdam toe te passen in de praktijk en er vervolgens weer een hoop nieuwe kennis en vaardigheden bij op te doen. Dit heeft mij gemotiveerd om het onderzoek tot een mooi eind te brengen.

Veel mensen hebben bijgedragen aan de totstandkoming van deze scriptie, deze mensen wil ik graag bedanken. Allereerst mijn begeleider prof. dr. W.G.J. Duyvendak voor het kritisch meedenken en de waardevolle feedback. Na een bijeenkomst kon ik weer met nieuwe inzichten en hernieuwde energie aan de slag. Ook Gitta van der Linden, de teamleider van BUUV, wil ik bedanken. Haar inzet om mij kennis te laten maken met de medewerkers, de vrijwilligers en de organisatie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat ik mij onderdeel van het team voelde. Haar enthousiasme en vertrouwen in mijn onderzoeksonderwerp heeft ervoor gezorgd dat ik op zelfstandige wijze onderzoek kon verrichten. Ik wil ook graag de medewerkers en de vrijwilligers bedanken voor het meedenken, het delen van hun werkzaamheden en ervaringen bij BUUV en de inzet bij het afnemen van de enquêtes. Daarbij wil ik alle respondenten bedanken voor het invullen van de enquêtes en de openheid in het delen van hun verhaal tijdens de interviews.

Tot slot wil ik mijn vrienden en familie bedanken voor hun steun en motiverende woorden in tijden dat de zenuwen toch wel toesloegen, maar ook voor de nodige afleiding en gezelligheid.

Emy Sloot

(4)

4

Abstract

In this thesis, I have investigated how the strength and size of one’s social capital drives the participation in the BUUV service marketplace and how one’s social capital in turn is affected by participating in BUUV. Approaching BUUV as a community which encompasses a widely-spread target group of Haarlem citizens, has provided me with more knowledge into the way participants make use of their social capital. In addition, it produced insights in how participation affects one’s social capital. Throughout this research, the framework denoted by Siegler (2014) is used. She distinguishes four aspects of social capital: 1. Personal relationships. 2. Social network support. 3. Civic engagement. 4. Trust, cooperative norms and shared values. Based on survey questionnaires (n=52) and ten semi-structured interviews with BUUV participants, I argue that the strength and size of one’s social capital is indeed of influence on what motivates participation in BUUV. The main findings concerning practical reasons for placing an advertisement consist of not having the financial means to hire a professional for practical chores and to preserve independence. Additional distinguished reasons to participate were to relieve one’s social network, as the respondents felt discomfort in asking for help in one’s own surroundings. The social reasons for placing an advertisement were to have more social contacts and in some cases to counteract loneliness. Those who exclusively provide help specified motives such as wanting to give back to society and being able to participate in BUUV on their own terms. Additional motives to provide help is to apply one’s own expertise to help others. All aspects of social capital seem to influence the motives to participate in BUUV in one way or another. Nevertheless, the main influential aspects of social capital on participating in BUUV seem to be one’s social network size and one’s social network support. Participating in BUUV also has an effect on one’s social capital. The primarily effect on one’s social network is the diversity of contacts. In addition, participating in BUUV seems to provide a feeling of altruistic reward, which results in an improved self-confidence and a satisfied feeling. Other effects were the possibility to preserve their autonomy and independence by participating in BUUV.

(5)

5

1. Introduction

Our social resources determine the way in which we cooperate and participate in our modern society. Social resources contain a large variety of components, such as resources due to relationships between single actors or between an individual and a group (Portes, 1998). A more familiar reference to social resources in sociology is the notion of ‘social capital’. One commonly agreed upon perspective of social capital is that it represents the social relationships and the associated benefits these develop (Siegler, 2014). The ways in which such benefits develop differ per person and occur at an individual, communal, regional, national and international level. In this research, the main interest lies within the first two levels. Social capital on an individual level refers to personal relationships as well as to one’s social network and how people maintain and benefit from these relationships. The community level refers to social capital of one’s collective life, such as civic engagement and shared norms and values within a community or society (Siegler, 2014, p.4). These two levels in turn are mutually dependent, for instance, the extent to which a person can benefit from a personal relationship can be visible on a community level via possible career opportunities, these career opportunities can then, in return, result in an expansion of one’s personal relationships which enables new resources to arise.

Understanding social capital on these two levels is of great importance when considering aspects of trust towards other citizens and institutions (Dekker & Uslaner, 2003), or when assessing changes in citizenship and participation in our society due to, for example, the rise of individualism. The aim of this research is to gain more insight into how these differences affect participating in our society by researching social capital on a micro level as an underlying force that drives so many different societal components. One way to investigate social capital is to conduct research within an organization that stimulates citizens’ participation and that can provide access to the associated social network. Therefore, the social capital of the participants of the ‘BUUV service marketplace’ is examined. BUUV is a relatively new phenomenon, established in 2010 as a non-profit organization that provides an offline and online service marketplace for all Haarlem citizens. This organisation served as an initiative of the local municipality as a response

(8)

8

to the Dutch transition towards a participation society as a way for citizens to participate in their own development and health care. The idea of this organization is that anyone who needs help, whether it is to learn a language or to find someone to play chess with, can place an advertisement on a notice board in their neighbourhood or on the website. Others can then reply after which a match is made either through the online platform or with the help of an independent non-profit party. Alongside this it is also possible to place an advertisement to provide services to others. What makes BUUV special is that these services are preferably non-reciprocal and free of charge, making it available for every Haarlem citizen, even if they cannot return the favour. The main goal is to enhance and to reinforce social ties between Haarlem citizens by lowering the barrier to get in touch with each other.

By researching citizens’ social capital in relation to their participation in BUUV, I hope to gain insight into the individual social capital. For instance, in order to examine whether there are similarities in personal relationships and resources that result in participation in BUUV. By outlining the motives of the participants of BUUV and how their social capital is structured, I aim to investigate the extent to which participants are driven by their social capital to participate, followed by how one’s social capital in turn is affected by participation in BUUV.

To summarize, by conducting this research at a non-profit organization that encompasses a widely-spread target group of Haarlem citizens, I hope to gain more knowledge into the way Haarlem participants at the BUUV make use of their social capital. In addition, I expect to uncover if and how social capital is beneficial on a non-material level and how participating in BUUV affects citizens’ social capital.

(9)

9

2. Research question and sub questions

To conduct research on the topic stated above, the following research question is stated:

How do the strength and size of one’s social capital drive participation in BUUV and how is one’s social capital in turn affected by participating in BUUV service marketplace?

To be able to answer the research question the social capital of the participants will be investigated, based on the four aspects stated by Siegler (2014). Her framework is recognized by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (OECD et al., 2013). These four aspects are translated into five sub questions:

1. What is the strength, size and support of one’s social network? 2. How do participants contribute to the collective life of BUUV?

3. How do the interpersonal trust, cooperative norms (e.g. willingness to help) and values, shape the way in which participants at BUUV behave towards each other?

4. What are one’s motives for participating in BUUV?

(10)

10

3. Theoretical themes

3.1 Defining social capital

In this research, Siegler’s (2014) framework on social capital is used as a frame of reference. Veronique Siegler (2014) created this framework based on economic and sociological theories and survey questions by Putnam (1993). She established four aspects concerning social capital: 1. Personal relationships. 2. Social network support. 3. Civic engagement. 4. Trust, cooperative norms and shared values.

The first aspect of social capital refers to how people structure their personal relationships. This concerns primary relationships with friends, family, neighbours and acquaintances. The extent to which people structure these relationships depends upon how many people one knows and what they do to establish and maintain these relationships. A distinction is made between strong ties, with family and friends and weak ties, with acquaintances and colleagues (see for instance: Granovetter, 1973). The second aspect, the social network support, refers to the level of support and resources that one can draw from personal relationships, but also to what extent one supports other people. The level of support and resources consist of practical, emotional and/or financial support during challenging times (Siegler, 2014, pp.5-9). The third aspect of social capital, civic engagement, consists of actions and behaviours that one can contribute to the collective life of a community or a society. This entails societal and political participation as well as voluntary work (Siegler, 2014, pp.10-13). The last aspect of social capital, trust, cooperative norms and shared values, consists of how people behave towards each other and how one behaves as a member of a community or society. Trust, in this sense, consists of trusting familiar people (i.e. interpersonal trust) and trusting unfamiliar people/strangers (i.e. organisations, politics and economics) (Siegler, 2014, p.14). Siegler (2014) describes trust, cooperative norms and shared values as “shared attitudes about behaviour which are common in society and which are accepted by most individuals and groups as a "good thing" to do” (Siegler, 2014, p. 4).

To measure all these aspects separately should provide a clear insight into one’s individual social capital and social capital on a community level and the extent to which these levels are mutual dependent.

(11)

11 3.2 New ways of expanding one’s social network

Mark Granovetter (1973) states that social capital primarily consists of one’s social network, with

strong ties, weak ties and absent ties. Where strong ties occur between close friends and family,

which may provide non-reciprocal help and services among each other and where weak ties consist of reciprocal services where one provides a service in exchange of something in return. The absent

ties are the ties without any substantial significance (e.g. nodding at one’s neighbour) (Granovetter,

1973). But when looking at new online initiatives in our society such as BUUV, a new type of network relation seems to have emerged, these concepts are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Dividing social capital

Non-reciprocal services Reciprocal services

Strong tied networks Family and close friends* -

Weak tied networks Online organisations like BUUV Colleagues and acquaintances*

* Introducted by Granovetter (1973)

Granovetter’s theory was published before the invention of the internet which brings completely new ways in which people can get in touch with each other. As mentioned in the introduction, services provided by BUUV are non-reciprocal and these services are based on weak tie relationships. This development is especially of interest when discussing social capital, as it could mean new ways of expanding one’s social capital through non-reciprocal services between weak ties. For these new resources to exist in our society some features are essential (Hulsebosch & Wagenaar, 2011). For one, new technologies can provide conditions like security, trust and safety. Another important feature is proximity. Due to locally organized initiatives people can get in touch with each other more easily, which in turn promotes participation in a civic society. Granovetter (1973) connects micro-level interactions with macro-level interactions by stating that the usefulness and efficiency of one’s social network on a larger scale is determined by the ‘strength’ of weak ties. It is argued that communities with more weak ties mobilize more productively for collective action. This is due to the effective flow of information with weak ties outside one’s ‘strong ties’ network. The strong tied clusters are more fragile due to strong local ties which prevents the flow of information to travel towards people beyond their own strong tied cluster. The strength of ties is dependent upon the degree of invested time, emotional intensity,

(12)

12 intimacy and reciprocal services (Granovetter, 1973, p. 1361). Where invested time refers to the

frequency and duration of interaction, the emotional intensity to the emotional connection between ties, the intimacy to mutual confiding and reciprocal services to a cooperative interchange of favours.

Additionally, Granovetter (1973) states that ties connect networks directly and indirectly via transitivity. This means that if the relationship between the individuals’ A-B and B-C consist of strong ties, the more likely it is that individual C is also linked to individual A via a strong tie. The same goes for weak ties; the weaker the tie between A-B and B-C the weaker the tie between A-C. This results from two factors; time and similarity. As stated before, the strength of a tie depends upon the degree of invested time, this means that if individuals A-B and B-C are linked via strong ties that they spend a significant amount of time together, which makes it more probable for A and C to become acquainted. The second factor is similarity between the individuals with strong ties (e.g. between friends). These similar characteristics increases the chance that there will also be similarities between individuals’ A and C through which they can connect (Granovetter, 1973, p.1362).

Depending on the situation, the strength of the ties can fulfil their usefulness. Granovetter (1973) states that in most cases a network consisting of weak ties can be of more use because of the effectiveness of the information flow. The reason why weak ties are most effective is because they can serve as bridges to connect more heterogeneous relations (i.e. less similar) from which one can benefit because of differences in resources. The weak ties are also fundamental to connect strong tied networks with the rest of the community. On the other hand, strong ties can be useful concerning more altruistic/non-reciprocal behaviour (e.g. family favours) (Granovetter, 1973, p. 1375). Granovetter’s theory is especially of interest when uncovering the social capital of the participants at BUUV. As stated in Table 1, this new phenomenon where citizens can provide non-reciprocal, free of charge, services at an offline and online marketplace can be of importance for one’s social network and its resources. The way in which these services are non-reciprocal can be of interest for its usefulness and its strength of ties.

(13)

13 3.3 Ingredients for civic engagement

The rise of online non-profit organisations, like BUUV, create new opportunities to civically engage. Civic engagement in a broad sense means “individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern” (APA, 2012). To participate in society is important for a functioning democracy, this participation results from several influences. For one, due to the influence of one’s social network. Research shows that people with a civically active network tend to participate earlier than those without civically active people in their own network. The presence of civically active people determines if one is encouraged to participate and whether one is interested in civic matters. Subsequently, the ones who are civically active offline tend to be more active online as well and vice versa (Livingstone et al. 2005). In this respect one can state that online civic engagement is not going to replace offline participation, but rather they are complementary to one another. Another influence is the element of age; civic engagement is more likely to decrease with age. Young people are alleged to be more civically active due to their inventiveness in ways to participate (Henderson, 1977). These influences, which result in civic engagement, are of interest when studying the civic engagement of the participants of BUUV. By examining participants’ offline as well as online participation behaviour one can investigate whether these are indeed complementary to one another. The same goes for the element of age, do younger people indeed participate more in BUUV than older participants?

3.4 Condition or Consequence?

In addition to what social capital consists of, there are multiple preconditions of social capital to fulfil its usefulness. Dekker and Uslaner (2003) state that civic engagement is shaped by cooperative norms, shared values and social connections. This concerns the notion of trust, that is

interpersonal trust, which determines one’s actions in civil society like volunteering, participating,

joining organisations and working on community problems (Dekker & Uslaner, 2003, p.31). Interpersonal trust is defined as the perception one has that another person will not do anything to harm one’s interests. A high level of interpersonal trust may lead to more confidence in relationships between people, which is a precondition for trust in institutions and government (Dekker & Uslaner, 2003, p.31). For a high level of interpersonal trust to appear there needs to be frequent interaction between individuals within an organisation based on an equal footing. One

(14)

14

needs to build a reputation for being trustworthy, responsible and one needs to apprehend the cooperative norms and shared values of the organisation (Scrivens & Smith, 2013). The cooperative norms and shared values are those which lead to cooperation in groups or among people. In turn, this cooperation is necessary for every individual to achieve their own goals. This can for instance be the norm of reciprocity or to be committed to each other, it can also be a shared value like being honest. These types of norms and values in turn shape the interpersonal trust. There is a lot of discussion concerning the concept of trust and its connection to social capital, in particular whether trust is a precondition of social capital or whether it is a consequence of social capital (Bacon et al., 2011). Both perspectives are of interest as they describe whether interpersonal trust influences participation in BUUV and/or whether participation in BUUV, in turn, influences the interpersonal trust of the participants.

(15)

15

4. Methodology

4.1 Research method

In order to obtain an understanding of how the strength and size of one’s social capital drives participation in BUUV and how one’s social capital in turn is affected by participating in BUUV, both quantitative and qualitative research methods are used. There are several ways to conduct mixed method research. The ‘convergent parallel mixed methods model’ (Bryman, 2015) was determined to be the most appropriate approach for this research. This approach made it possible to converge and combine quantitative and qualitative data to ascertain a complete analysis. By using this design, data were collected of both quantitative and qualitative signature around the same moment in time. The data for this research was gathered via a Survey Questionnaires and Narrative Research by conducting Semi-Structured Interviews (Bryman, 2015). The results from the first statistical analysis were interpreted to enhance, expand and clarify the findings from the interview analysis and vice versa. This first statistical analysis consists of descriptive statistics by calculating the standard measures of central tendency (mean, median and mode) and the standard measures of dispersion (range, standard deviation and variance) (IBM SPSS Statistic 24.0, 2016). For instance, the survey results on interpersonal trust between BUUV participants scored higher than the trust towards other people from for instance the trust in the local municipality. During the interviews, the aim was to unravel what terms and conditions resulted in this high interpersonal trust between fellow BUUV participants. Starting with the survey questionnaires was a way to ascertain overall information in an early stage of the research. From here on certain patterns and aggregations were made by exploring and creating histograms, frequency distributions and boxplots, to resolve correlations and to be able to relate this with the interview results. This made it possible to see if there indeed is a relation between the strength and the size of one’s social capital and participating at BUUV and how social capital of the participants’ is structured.

(16)

16 4.2 Research population and representativeness

To investigate a person’s social capital is a challenging task since the range of an individual’s social connections is complex and changes over time. Taking this into account the results were based on categorizing existing information of the participants, in combination with the way one experiences their own social capital at that particular moment. The total population of participants (N=5749) was divided into five geographical area’s (Centrum, Zuid-West, Oost, Schalkwijk and

Noord) to be able to compare the results with the overall facts and figures of the Haarlem citizens,

per geographical area. Within these area’s two groups were selected, one group consisting of participants who registered within the last year and one group that were registered three years or more. Doing this made it possible to collect data on how the strength and size of one’s social capital drives participation in BUUV and how one’s social capital is affected by participating in BUUV. Next, 10 participants per group per area were selected (n=100). After distribution of the survey among these 100 participants within the duration of four weeks a response rate of 52% was achieved.

Figure 1. Geographical area’s (Haarlem Buurtmonitor, 2015)

(17)

17

The survey questionnaires consisted of general questions (e.g. sex, age and household composition) and questions divided by the four aspects of social capital (Attachment 1). The last question of the survey consisted of whether they would be willing to be contacted regarding participation in a semi-structured interview. Then, two people (n=10) per area were selected whom differ in age, provider of help, or asking for help, duration of participation and sex. Since the total population at that moment in time consisted of 70.6% female and 26.18% male (remaining is anonymous) (N= 5749) seven females and three males were chosen out of the selected population to conduct semi-structured Interviews of around 60 minutes. The interviews consisted of an in-depth, semi-structured focus with open questions concerning the same topics as the survey but in this case with a focus on experiences and meaning making of the participants. The questions from the survey questionnaires were coded in IBM SPSS Statistics (2016). After transcribing the ten semi-structured Interviews the data was analysed in ATLAS.ti (2016). First by assigning the codes which then were connected to code families (Attachment 2) from which conclusions could be drawn.

To preserve reliability, all the interview respondents signed a consent form and all the interviews were recorded. The transcribed interviews are available to reclaim in case of a replication study or follow-up research. As this is basically only a pilot study and a small section of the total participants’ population at BUUV were studied no statistical significant statements about the total population can be inferred. Nevertheless, to increase the representativeness and to be able to generalize this data, stratified random sampling was used to make a distinction within the registered population of BUUV (Bryman, 2015, pp 192-193). The proportion in the sample is similar to the proportion in the strata from the registered participants in total (e.g. 70% women 30% male). This made it possible to obtain interesting insights in certain patterns within the social capital, the associated network structures, and to understand in some depth what drives people to participate in BUUV and how those people in turn are affected by their participation.

(18)

18 4.3 Research techniques

One of the reasons to conduct mixed method research, stated by Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989), is because of its complementary purpose. Using the management system of BUUV made it possible to categorize the information concerning the participants (i.e. sex, geographical area’s and duration of enrolment).

An interesting unique feature of the BUUV marketplace is that every participant can place an advertisement either to ask for help or to provide help, due to this there is a subpopulation overlap between those who request help and those who provide help. Therefore, a distinction between those who ask for help and those who provide help was made as this is of interest when exploring their reciprocity and features of social capital. While selecting the 100 participants a distinction was made between people who only placed advertisements asking for help, those who only provide help, and people who place advertisements for both asking and providing services. This differentiation was applicable for the survey questionnaires as well as the semi-structured Interviews.

4.4 Ethical considerations

Diener and Crandall (1978) divide ethical principles into four main area’s: 1. Whether there is harm to participants. 2. Whether there is a lack of informed consent. 3. Whether there is an invasion of privacy 4. Whether deception is involved (Bryman, 2014, p. 135).

The main ethical consideration for this research concerning these area’s is the harm to participants. This does not concern physical or emotional harm done by making their experiences public, but it is an important principle to consider whilst conducting surveys and interviews because this research concerns sensitive topics and people might be confronted with their loneliness or their lack in resources. Besides this it is important to understand that one does not think about their own social capital daily or even know what it involves. Therefore, there is an obligation to reassure the respondents. To ensure this, the term social capital was not used but instead the content of one’s social resources was described and its relation with BUUV was emphasized. Additionally, all surveys were anonymous and before conducting the semi-structured interviews the respondent signed a consent form which stated they give permission for using quotes and information anonymously. The second most relevant ethical consideration, was to

(19)

19

prevent feelings of deception. Especially since all communication went via the BUUV office and the interviews were conducted either at the office, at the respondent’s house or in a neutral place. This resulted in some sort of basic assurance/trust since I was assigned via BUUV. By being aware of my role as a student working in the name of BUUV I felt it was important to exercise the same cooperatives norms, values and vision which are upheld by BUUV as an organization to prevent feelings of deception. These norms and values consisted of transparency and honesty of what was researched.

(20)

20

5. Empirical results

5.1 Who are these BUUV’en?

This research covers two main goals: (1) to understand and assess social capital of the BUUV participants by investigating the four aspects of social capital, (2) to assess whether social capital drives participation in BUUV and whether participation in BUUV in turn influences one’s social capital. Before stating the findings on these two research goals an outline of the research population is given below.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the researched BUUV population

N Mean Minimum Maximum Percentage

Male 19 - - - 36.5%

Female 33 - - - 63.5%

Age 52 59 28 94 -

Table 2.1 Geographical area division of the BUUV participants

N Percentage City centre of Haarlem 14 26.9% South West Haarlem 12 23.1% East Haarlem 11 21.2% Schalkwijk 6 11.5% North Haarlem 9 17.3%

(21)

21 Table 2.2 Household composition BUUV participants

N Percentage Valid Percent Single-person household 33 63.5% 66% Married couple with no children 5 9.6% 10% Single parent with one or more

children living at home

7 13.5% 14%

Married couple with one or more children living at home

5 9.6% 10%

Total 50 96.2% 100%

Missing values 2 3.8%

When comparing the data of BUUV participants with the Haarlem citizens’ facts and figures some interesting similarities and contradictions become apparent. In the entire Haarlem population, there are also more female citizens than male citizens, this corresponds with observations from the stratified random sampling in this research. Interestingly, the household composition with a single-person household that results from the data (Table 2.2), is much higher than measured in 2016 among all Haarlem citizens (44%) (CBS, 2016). From this, one can assume that more people living in a single-person household participate at BUUV, which could be an interesting fact when researching one’s social network and its resources. This difference can also be explained from the different geographical areas, since the participants living in the city centre are over-represented. Only examining this geographical area among Haarlem citizens, the single-person household is 60%, which is closer to the percentages of single-person households within the respondents. However, this consists of such small numbers when divided by area that it makes it difficult to make general statements concerning the total population of BUUV participants in relation to single-person households. Another interesting observation can be made when examining the response from each geographical area, where most of the participated population live (city centre), is where least of the Haarlem citizens live, and were almost least of the participated population live, North, most of the Haarlem citizens live (Table 2.1). An explanation for this can either be due to willingness to contribute in the research or due to the proximity within the city centre.

(22)

22 Table 2.3 General life satisfaction BUUV participants

N Percentage Very satisfied 14 27%

Satisfied 29 56%

Not that satisfied 8 15% Not satisfied at all 1 2%

Total 52 100%

Table 2.4 General health experience BUUV participants

N Percentage

Very good 7 14%

Good 24 46%

Not good 11 21%

Not good at all 10 19%

Total 52 100%

Table 2.3 shows the general life satisfaction of the respondents. Most of the participants are satisfied with one outlier who choose ‘not satisfied at all’. No data is known about the general life satisfaction of Haarlem citizens. When comparing the health of Haarlem citizen’s, ‘very good’ and ‘good’ were combined and scored 76%. When combining these scores within data of the BUUV participants (46% + 14% = 60%) one can state that the people participating in BUUV have a lower health experience when compared to the general Haarlem population (Table 2.4). Another interesting feature is the relatively large number of participants who experienced their general health as ‘not good’ or ‘not good at all’ (40%). This seems plausible since a part of the target audience makes use of BUUV’s services solely for questions concerning their health. However, most of the researched population still experience their general health as good or very good.

(23)

23 Table 2.5 Duration of BUUV registration

N Percentage Registered < 1 year 18 35% Registered > 3 years 25 48%

Other 9 17%

Total 52 100%

During the stratified random sample selection, an equal distribution between duration of registration is made. Table 2.5 shows the division of registration with a response rate of 52%. To make general statements about certain patterns or differences in social network among those who are registered for less than a year and those who are registered three years or longer would be difficult since this is not divided equally. However, by examining the individual cases some interesting patterns or differences could still appear. To state whether there is a change noticeable in one’s social capital as participation progresses (sub question 5) the results of the participants with the largest social network and the smallest social network are compared with their duration of registration (see paragraph 4.2).

5.2 Small social networks with weak ties

To be able to make statements about the influence of one’s social capital and their participation in BUUV, the size (measured in different contacts) and the strength (measured in frequency of contact) of one’s social network needs to be determined first.

Figure 2 and 3 show the frequency of the sum of scores for network size and network strength (n=52). In these figures the main categories being; contact with neighbours, friends and acquaintances, family, BUUV’en, colleagues and club members, were summed. It was found that the overall respondents mostly scored zero or one, meaning ‘no contact’ to ‘five different contacts’ (size) or ‘never in contact with’ to ‘five times in contact with’ (strength), in the time duration of an average month.

(24)

24

5.2.1 Social network size

The results in Figure 2 give an overall perspective on the participant’s network size. From this can be concluded that the participants in general have a small network, but stating only this does not suffice. Even though these figures are very insightful it merely presents the sum of the frequency of scores and nothing about how this is divided per category. By examining the scores per category statements can be made on how the content of the networks appear. The first category emerging is the ‘contact with friends and acquaintances living in Haarlem’. This encompasses one to ten different contacts (65.4%). The second category is ‘contact with neighbours’, most of the participant’s state to have contact with their neighbours (71.2%), from which most have one to five different contacts (38.5%). The third substantial category is ‘friends and acquaintances living outside of Haarlem’, 46.2% states to have one to five different contacts in this category. The first two categories relate to the physical/geographical proximity of one’s social network. The respondents concurred the importance and preference of a social network nearby, which corresponds with the literature on social networks of the Dutch population (Tijhuis et al., 2014). This research states that older people have smaller, more homogenous networks and are mostly located in their near surroundings. Since the researched population consists of a

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 Fre q u en cy o f sco re Score

Network Size BUUV participants

Figure 2. Network Size BUUV Participants – contacts in an average month 0 = No contacts 2 = 6 to 10 contacts 4 = 21 to 30 contacts 1 = 1 to 5 contacts 3 = 11 to 20 contacts 5 = 31 or more contacts

(25)

25

subpopulation with 50% of the individuals above the age of 59 years old, this resembles the results of the social networks of the Dutch population. However, this does not coincide with the other 50% of participants whom are younger but have a comparable network size (section 5.5).

One of the aspects in which BUUV contributes is by arranging activities per each geographical area, yet the results show a minimal level of contact with BUUV’en within an average month. Most respondents (57%) state to have one to five different contacts through BUUV and 30% of the participants do not have any contact with BUUV’en in an average month. From here on the respondents with the five lowest and the five highest scores were selected to analyse these on an individual level (see attachment 3 for individual score tables per category), and to be able to correspond the individual features with other aspects of social capital (e.g. civic engagement paragraph 4.3). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 Fre q u en cy o f sco re Score

Network Strength BUUV participants

Figure 3. Network strength BUUV participants – contacts in an average month 0 = Never 2 = 6 to 10 times 4 = 21 to 30 times 1 = 1 to 5 times 3 = 11 to 20 times 5 = 31 or more times

(26)

26 5.2.2 Social network strength

The results in Figure 3 give an overall perspective on the participant’s network strength. An individual with a small network with strong ties could experience a significant difference in resources in comparison with an individual who has a large network with weak ties. As several theories show that a lot of weak ties result in a more efficient information flow than a social network consisting of strong ties (e.g. Granovetter, 1973). Strong tied relationships occur mostly among close friends and family, which are more likely to be similar in educational, cultural and environmental upbringings. Diversity among networks tend to provide more knowledge in for instance available job vacancies (Granovetter, 1973). When examining the tie strength within the networks of BUUV participants, the same categories stand out with frequency of contacts. That is most frequently in contact with friends and acquaintances living in Haarlem, with neighbours and friends and acquaintances living outside of Haarlem.

5.2.3 Size and strength combined

A striking result is the fact that three of the five people who scored highest in network size, also scored highest in tie strength. For the small social networks this was two out of the five that also scored highly in weak tied relationships. It was expected that in the case of a large network there would be more weak ties in their network, as a larger network can result in more diversity in information and people (e.g. colleagues and acquaintances) (Granovetter, 1973), but this is not the case within the networks of the BUUV’en. The ones with a smaller network seem to have higher weaker tie strength and the ones with a larger network seem to have more frequent contact with their network as well (i.e. stronger).

These results can be explained from three perspectives: 1. The ones with a large and strong network consist essentially of contact with close friends and acquaintances and neighbours. This is interesting as one could state that the strength of one’s network is not necessarily determined by the type of relationships as stated by Granovetter (1973); that strong tied relationships consist of family and close friends, but foremost by the proximity of those contacts (i.e. friends, acquaintances and neighbours nearby). 2. The strength of a tie cannot solely be determined by frequency of contact. Frequency is one way to measure the strength of a network, the respondents also mentioned similarity, duration and provided energy as important features of their social

(27)

27

network strength. For instance, long time contacts (e.g. childhood friends) do not necessarily need frequent contact for there to be a strong relationship because there already is an established foundation in the friendship which makes it easier to stay close friends. These results correspond with Granovetter’s (1973) statements on what influences the tie strength (i.e. time, intensity, intimacy and reciprocal services, see paragraph 2.2). 3. The ones with many different contacts can also frequently have contact with each of these individual people, meaning; that even though one scored high on frequency (i.e. in accordance with this measurement of a strong network) this can still mean a network with a lot of weak ties. For instance, weak ties with colleagues but a lot of contact with close friends can still result in a high total. This dilemma cannot be answered with the existing data. What can be concluded is that the participants overall have small and weak social networks, with a few outliers whom have a larger network. The social networks mainly consist of friends and acquaintances living in Haarlem and neighbours.

These results correspond with the interviews whereas numerous respondents indicate they participate in BUUV solely to expand their social network. Approaching BUUV for this reason is comprehensible for those with a small and weak social network as these types of networks often lack resources.

The following quote presents the experience of a respondent with another BUUV participant. Her intention to participate in BUUV is to expand her social network and to go on excursions together with fellow BUUV participants:

Respondent: Well, some [BUUV contacts] were not meant to be for one time only, however I did have contact for about a year with this other woman, she was also looking for a movie buddy or something like that. And I think that because she got busier, it [BUUV contact] did not last longer. But I see this happening all the time with contacts via the internet.

Interviewer: You do?

Respondent: Yes, well everything is becoming more superficial, right? The society, all social contacts, first the text messages and cell phones and then the WhatsApp-messages. Everything is becoming superficial and brief.

(28)

28

Respondent: Yes, well I think that is quite unfortunate. Yes, unless it really is supply and demand for one time only, however this was not the case with this woman. Anyhow, she just got busier, but I noticed, let’s say, in a broad sentence, that meeting with people through the internet eehh, that this always continues to be brief. And I do think this has something to do with someone’s age. Because when you know each other since childhood for example, via college or nursery school or such. Then you grow up together, which lasts a lot longer. Interview 8, 2017, p.1

The first interesting result, discussed in this quote, is the influence of modern day online social contacts. As she registered in BUUV for more social contacts, she also longs for more depth in these relationships. She mentioned to be in doubt whether this is possible through online contacts. However, other respondents mentioned this to be the result of such a diverse population, which makes it harder to find a social contact with whom one can have a connection and shared interests. Nevertheless, the main argument given by the respondents against this is that ‘all new social contacts take time’. The second interesting result, as this quote supports, is the experience of the BUUV’en that participating does not really result in an expansion of their social network as various respondents specified the short duration of the contacts. Nevertheless, participating in BUUV does seem to be of essential influence for one’s network usefulness and therefore one’s social network, as the participants do experience a gain in diversity in their overall contacts and experience to have more people ‘to fall back on’ during different periods in their lives. An explanation for why the participants themselves do not experience an expansion of their social network due to participating in BUUV could be because of the subtlety of the influence of these relationships. Most of the participants mention valuable additions in participating like; the reassurance that BUUV provides, meeting people who one otherwise would never meet and the efficiency of practicing one’s individual expertise within a wide target audience.

(29)

29 5.3 The vulnerability in asking for help or support

As mentioned, a social network is necessary for obtaining commodities, but these resources also function as a support system. The second aspect of social capital refers to the level of support and resources that one can draw from personal relationships, but also to what extent one supports other people (Siegler, 2014, pp.5-9). The support which social networks can provide is not just based on positive interactions with others, but also the extent to which one can rely on others during stressful or problematic circumstances. A lack in support could have several threatening consequences concerning mental and psychical health (Henderson, 1977).

In this research, a distinction is made between the level of support one can draw from their personal relationships and from participating in BUUV. The results were quite divers concerning both perspectives. Some respondents mainly draw their support from within their ‘inner circle’, meaning their friends and family. Whether this is for practical and emotional support is dependent upon shared experiences. For instance, people who are not in a relationship and feel alone tend to seek support with friends who can relate to the circumstances. For financial support, asking family members for help is mentioned most, nevertheless this was a sensitive subject, which they either circumvent answering or suggested that they will not ask for financial support to anyone in any case. Still, there seems to be a considerable difference in the type of support and to whom one tends to go.

The results show that some respondents prefer asking practical support via BUUV instead of going to friends and family. The underlying thoughts why respondents mentioned this were very interesting. Some respondents do not want to trouble one’s own social network for asking for help or support since ‘everyone is so busy nowadays’. For example, one respondent said:

Respondent: Yes, actually especially at BUUV. I prefer to approach BUUV [for support]. Since at BUUV I do not feel that I have to be reserved. Look, for example my son-in-law, he is a sweet guy but he is very busy with work and living his life. And if I need to ask him for some kind of favour I quickly feel some sort of quilt like: ‘Oh no, I take too much of his precious time’, that is why I stay reserved.

Interviewer: Why do you think you experience this feeling of guilt?

Respondent: Because he then says: ‘Okay okay’. But then needs to go through all sorts of trouble just to help me. At a very late or early time so it fits his agenda. But at BUUV I feel

(30)

30

that people look calmly at whether he or she does have time in the first place and if so they will not say, like my son: ‘I’ll try my hardest, if I just move this and this, then I’ll be able to make it for 10 minutes’. That makes me feel guilty, for making it even busier for him.

Interview 1, 2017, p.5

This quote relates to a topic which reappeared in each interview to some extent; the vulnerability in asking for help or support. During the data collection on drawing support from one’s social network it was presumed that one asks for support if needed. It was quickly realized that this assumption was rather incomplete. In particularly to ask for voluntary help or support can be experienced as a difficult thing to do. Explanations for experiencing asking for voluntary help and support as difficult were ‘not wanting to look weak or vulnerable’. Or when experiencing that one cannot return the favour. Other explanations were given in a more indirect manner for example, insistently stating that one ‘does not need help in any way whatsoever’. Or that asking for help is only justified when its one’s last possible resource.

These explanations correspond with the research conducted by Mark Reijnders (2016) on the hesitation behaviour in asking for voluntary help and support in the municipality of Den Haag. Two of the main causes for hesitant behaviour to ask for support is the lack of reciprocity and the will to preserve independency (Reijnders, 2016). These causes both occurred when interviewing the BUUV participants. Reciprocity is discussed in relation to their participation in BUUV, the respondents experienced the fact that at BUUV it is not allowed to pay for services as a relief. As this is in the regulations of BUUV this could mean a lower threshold when asking help or support. For one, in case of not having the financial means but also for not feeling obliged to give something in return. On the other hand, people still feel the need to give something in return, so it is not uncommon for participants to show their gratitude in a more non-material manner, for instance by giving small tokens of appreciation like flowers or a cup of coffee. This applies to the feeling rules, which are the social conventions, norms and values which shape one’s feelings and behaviours (Hochschild, 1979). In addition, this also relates to the second cause, the will to preserve independence. In this respect, it seems to depend on whether the individual is asking for help or support. These feeling rules also determine which questions are suitable to ask for. Concerning BUUV this entails relatively small questions without this being too care related.

(31)

31

The will to preserve independence is analysed by means of the next quote:

Respondent: […] and participating in BUUV allows me to live independently. Because certain things which I really cannot do myself I now let someone else do, for whom it is not a problem at all. By a friendly manner and because he or she learns from it as well, so that is a very good balance. Interview 3, 2017, p. 7

BUUV acts as an organisation to pose relatively small questions to which one can reply, these small questions can encompass help around the house which make it possible for people to keep living at home. Some participants argue that they otherwise feel obliged to move to assisted living. Contrary to the causes stated by Reijnders (2016) asking for help through BUUV is a way for them to preserve their independence. Thus, instead of the cause to withhold asking for help BUUV serves as a tool where people are less reluctant to show their vulnerability as moving to assisted living would be more harmful to their feelings of independence.

Another finding which could positively influence the hesitant behaviour in asking for help or support, is BUUV’s ease of accessibility. Most respondents mentioned that this accessibility is what they experience as one of the most pleasant features of BUUV, since one can place an advertisement with a question for something fun (‘gezelligs’) to do and not having to explain that the real reason for placing the advertisement is for instance feeling lonely. Or an advertisement concerning small practical chores for which one does not have the money to pay professionals. Resulting from this, one could argue that BUUV consists of the right ingredients for citizens to make it easier to ask for help or support. Yet, this is based on the experiences and opinions of those who are already participating. Also, this does not apply for all questions which are posed and BUUV participants do still feel reluctant in some cases.

(32)

32 5.4 Elements of interpersonal trust

To be able to ask for help or support there also needs to be trust, this is part of the next aspect of social capital; trust, cooperative norms and shared values. Cooperative norms, shared values and social contacts are ingredients conditional to interpersonal trust. These specific types of norms and values promote cooperation between groups of people or between two people and can influence one’s civic engagement. Interpersonal trust is also debated as a necessary element within an organisation to be successful. In this chapter, the results are discussed in the context of cooperative norms and shared values, as well as interpersonal trust among BUUV participants.

5.4.1 Being a helpful BUUV participant

Helpfulness, is the most highly valued quality for a respondent of BUUV to possess. This seems quite self-evident given the nature of the organisation but this value consists of its own set of other values, norms and rules. One respondent said:

Respondent: Helpfulness, that really is being neighbourly as well as for the organisation, who call so now and then to check up on how I am doing etcetera. Being helpful really is something they [the organisation] feel strongly about and they will always be helpful in return, which I think is very good. And equality is a necessary value which is needed to accept help and to provide help. At least, to a certain degree, and that is again, being neighbourly, as such that they [BUUV participants] do not have to act any differently and that they can just be themselves. Everyone is equal, whether this being if you provide help or ask for help. It is not the case that the one who provides his or her help is different from the one who receives the help. Interview 8, 2017, p7

Whether this is an employee, a volunteer, one asking for help or one that provides help, this value applies to everyone within BUUV. Helpfulness is mentioned in the same sentence as equality. For helpfulness to exist there needs to be equality among BUUV participants. The examples given of equality are mostly directed on situations where this is not present, mainly between the BUUV’en who provide help and the one who asks for help. But also, equality in the sense that everyone may place an advertisement. Some respondents mentioned situations where they experienced some distance between participants, in most cases this was because the advertisement was far too care

(33)

33

related for their preference. As previously established, the BUUV population consists of a wide variety of people, among them are people with a psychiatric background or elderly, who in some cases need a different approach. When the respondents experienced this distance in social contact they indicated feelings of professional interaction rather than ‘equal and honest human contact’. Whenever this was the case they expressed feelings of uncomfortableness and because of this some choose not to reply on advertisements of this nature. The values helpfulness and equality among BUUV participants was associated with the name of the organization (BUUV meaning neighbour). Helping one’s neighbour usually entails small tasks and informal contact where ‘everyone just helps each other out without needing anything in return’. The non-reciprocal services at BUUV are also mentioned as an essential norm and even is a written regulation. Although during one interview this regulation came as a surprise. One woman, who solely advertises for social contacts, expressed that she was considering an advertisement for cleaning her windows in return for a small payment, since she ‘always makes such a mess out of it herself’. After pointing out that payment is not customary in BUUV services, she said:

Respondent: Oh yes, I think that is so peculiar. That someone just does something like that [for free]. Interview 10, 2017, p.6

She was not aware of this being a norm in BUUV and expressed surprise for people’s willingness to clean her windows for free. After discussing the non-reciprocal services in some more depth, she shared some of her experiences of reciprocity within her BUUV contacts:

Respondent: Yes, I think that there indeed is a certain degree of reciprocity, but more like non-material reciprocity. One does have similar needs, for example in case of an advertisement in category for social company, and whenever one finds each other, meets, and discovers whether it is a good match. Then it becomes more reciprocal, but sometimes it does not. Just like the responds about that movie. That woman texted that she was feeling ill and that she could not meet, but not that much later I discovered that she posted a new advertisement. This made me think like, she just did not have the nerves to say ‘I do not feel like meeting with you’ or something like that. Or perhaps, I do not know, perhaps this was not the case at all. But anyhow, this was not reciprocal.

(34)

34

Respondent: Well, I think just that I get what I want. To have a nice walk or just to have a nice chat. With some it is more fun than with other people, but even so, to have a couple of hours of nice social contact and some hours of activity and going outdoors, yes, I think that is lovely. You can see a bit more of your surroundings, and that is actually exactly what I want and what I expect of BUUV. Interview 10, 2017, p.7

In this case, the respondent notifies the reciprocity in advertisements with a social purpose. She states that there still are reciprocal services but not of the material kind. Reciprocity in the form of just spending time with each other in line with their self-interest. In these cases, the distinction between the one who poses a question and the one who replies to the question in not relevant as they are both in search of social contact. This relates to the highly-valued norm of helpfulness, where one is expected to be sincere in his or her willingness to help, or to consider social contact. When examining the other categories of advertisement, the balance in cooperation between the ones who provide their help and the ones that ask for help seems to be of great importance. This balance is established via the shared norms and values which provide certain expectations to one another. The employees and volunteers also play their part by communicating these norms and values, through which participants expect that participants are genuine and are participating with the best intentions. In addition, there should not be a hierarchical relation between the ones providing their help and those who ask for help which makes it easier for one to switch roles between helper and provider.

Another important feature when analysing the cooperative norms and values of the BUUV participants is the necessary presence of a safe environment. The respondents act surprised by the subject on trusting the other BUUV participants, even though these are unfamiliar people. Some respondents did mention to consider this aspect when meeting for the first time, they would meet in a public place for instance. However, most participants stated they trust the BUUV participants completely.

(35)

35

Figure 4. General trust in fellow BUUV participants 1= Complete trust, 2= Trusting some, 3=Barely trusting, 4= No trust

Figure 4 shows the general trust of the BUUV participants where 26 (50%) of the participant’s state to completely trust their fellow BUUV’en. Interestingly these results of trust scored higher than the results on trusting unfamiliar people in general. The motive for complete trust in BUUV participants seems to derive from experiencing BUUV as a safe environment. This safe environment might be the result of exercising and pursuing the cooperative norms and values, but can also be due to the monitor role of the volunteers and employees and their mediating part concerning the advertisements. Therefore, even though the participants are not screened on trustworthiness, participants still experience a satisficing baseline for interpersonal trust.

(36)

36 5.5 How do BUUV participants civically engage?

As stated by Dekker and Uslaner (2003) cooperative norms, shared values and social connections shape the civic engagement of citizens. Civic engagement is the next aspect of social capital which consists of actions and behaviours that one can contribute to the collective life of a community or a society (Siegler, 2014, pp.10-13). Before determining whether one’s social capital indeed drives civic engagement and participation in BUUV, the findings of the participants’ civic engagement are discussed.

The most noticeable element in respect of the civic engagement of BUUV participants is the fact that there are outliers (Table 3 and Table 5). However, these outliers are of great importance in this research since this is exactly what could distinguish specific features of the respondents who participate a lot versus those who do not participate much (i.e. in relation to aspects of social capital). For this reason, the outliers are included in the results. Consequently, this means taking the risk of not being able the make general statements based on a normal distribution. The outliers are considered by selecting the lowest and highest scores for the descriptive statistics and comparing these with features of the respondents.

A remarkable result when examining civic engagement is the fact that not one of the respondents (n=52) participated in a political gathering in the last six months. Yet this is not that surprising since most of the interview respondents state that they do find it important to be informed on the political situations within their own municipality, but not enough to play an active role in it. The respondents specified the importance of being informed mostly concerning matters within their own neighbourhood. They prefer staying informed via neighbourhood groups on Facebook and the local newspapers. The results for participant’s civic engagement is highly divergent. In every category of participation, the most frequently chosen score is zero, but with a lot of high outliers with little in-between. For this reason, the main statements are based on the lowest versus the highest scores of civic engagements.

The results show some interesting features in relation to one’s social network. When comparing individual civic engagement with one’s size and strength of social network, results show that the size and strength of one’s social network does indeed influence to what extent people participate in the society. That is, the five respondents with the largest social network participate 9.2 times more in society than those with the smallest social network size (Table 3 and Table 4).

(37)

37

Considering these results, one can state that BUUV participants with a larger social network participate more in civil society.

Table 3. Descriptive of individuals with the largest social network – different contacts in the last six months

ID Sex Age Area Match at BUUV Civic engagement

13 F 76 East 2 315

27* M 85 North 1 73

40* M 59 Centrum 2 86

46* F 52 West 1 238

52 F 68 Centrum 1 27

Mean/total 68 7 times in total 739 times in total

*= these individuals also have strongest social network out of n=52

Table 4. Descriptive of individuals with the smallest social network - different contacts in the last six months

7* F 83 North 1 1

8 M 34 Schalkwijk 1 16

29* M 94 South 1 24

34 F 65 Centrum 3 17

50 M 70 Centrum 3 22

*= these individuals also have the weakest social network out of n=52

Regarding one’s network strength, the opposite of what was expected is shown, the ones with the strongest network ties (based on frequency) seem to participate more than those with weaker ties (4.5 times more) (Table 5 and Table 6). However, the correlation between network size and participants’ civic engagement is stronger than the correlation between the strength of one’s network and their civic engagement. On the other hand, three out of five participants with the largest network size also have the strongest social network, meaning that this strength, measured in frequency of contact, can also be explained based on more contact with several different people

(38)

38

instead of a strong relationship with some. The same goes for two of the five participants with the smallest social networks, they also have the weakest social network (see paragraph 4.2).

Based on the five individuals with the smallest social network, results show that these respondents participate less in society but more in BUUV than those with a larger social network (Table 3 and Table 4). The participants with a stronger social network participate more in civil society as well as in BUUV (Table 5 and Table 6). Even though these are small differences an explanation for this can be that these respondents are more in need of help from BUUV since they do not have the means provided by their own social network (i.e. weak ties are more efficient (Granovetter, 1973).

Table 5. Descriptive of individuals with the strongest social network – frequency of contact in the last six months

27* M 85 North 1 73

33 F 55 Schalkwijk 2 18

40* M 59 Centrum 2 86

42 F 53 East 2 225

46* F 52 West 1 238

*= these individuals also have the largest social network size out of n=52

Table 6. Descriptive of individuals with the weakest social network - frequency of contact in the last six months

7* F 83 North 1 1

20 F 93 East 1 62

22 M 37 East 1 1

29* M 94 South 1 24

45 M 88 East 1 54

BUUV : a community to understand social capital : an enquiry into the social capital of participants of a service marketplace