Moreover, while a lot of effort has gone into developing rigorous and accurate indicators, there is a risk that they will still be interpreted using the assumptions of service delivery. These assumptions could easily create inappropriate conclusions, such as if social capital has not changed after an intervention, then the intervention could be deemed unsuccessful, when longer term changes are indeed happening.
Many factors influence the social situation of communities. Where possible, the effect of activities on social capital needs to be isolated from other effects. For example, feedback from community members can be focused on the extent to which community changes were due to a particular activity, rather than other influences.
The starting point for activities aimed at fostering social capital is often taken to be the benchmark for comparison to measure impacts on social capital. However, the real comparison is not against what social capital was at the start, but against what social capital would have been if no intervention had occurred. It is clearly very difficult to measure this future “without intervention” baseline but it needs to be considered in the interpretation of social capital impacts.
Advertisement
Changes to networks, norms and trust are likely to occur first within particular sectors of the community directly involved in community building activities. Broader community impacts are likely to occur indirectly as networks flow from these groups and cultural change gradually occurs. Hence measured changes are likely to be different between those directly affected and community members involved more indirectly.
In many circumstances it is appropriate for community members themselves to be engaged in the measurement of social capital. Measurement can be a social capital building exercise in itself with community members reflecting on how their community has changed.
Changes in social capital often involve long-term cultural change. Yet, in many cases, the timeframe for measurement is determined by funding arrangements or project timelines of one or two years in which the changes may be minimal. Evaluation needs to be more long-term. Other measurement issues involve social capital indicators not being independent, and the need for two-way measurement of variables.
The challenge is to develop consistent indicators that can allow conclusions to be drawn across local, state and national frameworks. They need to have the flexibility to incorporate local values and what community members may want to measure.
Given the complexity of social capital, it is not a matter of “discovering” ideal indicators of social capital. Rather, measurement involves using indicators that are often imperfect and developing the confidence to work with inherent imperfections and uncertainty.
Evaluation can be a social capital building exercise in itself. The measurement of social capital can help community members rethink local issues, make better planning decisions and build ongoing community cohesion. Measurement can also be part of a cultural change process allowing government and business to better appreciate and incorporate social capital.
Advertisement
Despite considerable knowledge of social capital and its measurement (to the point of developing state and national frameworks) many questions remain. Why does social capital operate the way it does? Why do different sectors of communities have such different social capital characteristics? Why do networks and norms change in the way they do?
The challenge for measurement is not only to develop consistent rigorous ways to assess social capital but to also provide further insight into these questions.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
1 post so far.