Take a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.

ABSTRACT

Although the research domain on social capital and the adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) is relatively immature, there is a fast growing body of evidence that social capital plays an important role in the adoption process of ICTs -- especially in the case of ICTs supporting trans-organizational cooperation. In most Western democracies the trend towards ever more inter-organizational linkages - and consequently trans-organizational ICTs - is becoming apparent. An increasing number of academics claim that social capital is a necessary enabler for the creation, diffusion and adoption of cross-boundary ICTs. There is for instance strong anecdotal evidence that interpersonal ties between members of separate organizations can bridge between different interests when trans-organizational ICTs are being developed and implemented. However, there are still some substantial theoretical and empirical blind spots as regards the exact relation between social capital and ICT adoption processes. Therefore the aim of this article is to gain insight into the mechanisms of social capital and its effect on the adoption of ICTs by partners in public sector networks. The article demonstrates that social capital may particularly be an important enabler in the early stages of the adoption process in which opinions are influenced, agendas are set, coalitions are formed and critical mass is gained.

REFERENCES

• 1: Baron, S., Field, J. and T. Schuller, Social Capital, Critical Perspectives, Oxford University Press, 2000.
• 2: Bourdieu, P. The forms of capital, In: J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241--258). New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.
• 3: Burt, R. S. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambrige, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
• 4: Burt, The Social Capital of Opinion Leaders, Forthcoming in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, November, 1999.
• 5: CapGemini and TNO. Does e-Government pay-off?, 2004.
• 6: M. Granovetter. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1973, 1360--1380.
• 7: Fountain, I. E. Social Capital: A Key Enabler of Innovation in Science and Technology. In: Investing in Innovation: Toward a Consensus Strategy for Federal Technology Policy edited by L. M. Branscomb and J. Keller. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997.
• 8: Gabby, S. M. and T. A. J. Leenders, Corporate Social Capital and Liability, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
• 9: Granovetter, The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360--1380 (1973), April 4 2001.
• 10: Huijboom, N. M. and M. Hoogwout, Trust in eGovernment Cooperation. DEXA Proceedings, 2004.
• 11: Huijboom, N. M. and M. van Staden. The Domestication of ICTs in government, TNO Research Institute, 2005.
• 12: Kraemer, K. L. and J. L. Perry. Innovation and Computing in the Public Sector: A Review of Research, Knowledge, Technology and Science Policy, 1999, 12(1): 3--18.
• 13: Landry, R., Amara, N. and M. Lamari. Does Social Capital Determine Innovation? To What Extent?, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2002, 69:681--701.
• 14: Nesta, L., Mangematin, V. The Dynamics of Innovation Networks, SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, 2004, No. 114, University of Sussex.
• 15: Richard L. Nolan, Managing the computer resource: a stage hypothesis, Communications of the ACM, v.16 n.7, p.399-405, July 1973 [doi>10.1145/362280.362284]
• 16: Nolan, R. L., Managing the crisis in data processing, Harvard Business Review, 1979, 57, pp. 115--126.
• 17: Portes, A., Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology, Annue. Rev. Sociol., 1998, 24, 1--24.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY
      K.4.1 Public Policy Issues

General Terms:
Human Factors, Performance, Standardization, Theory

Keywords:
ICT, adoption, innovation, public sector, social capital