Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Omid Omidvar
and assimilate it, internal AC routines are to make enquiries inside <strong>the</strong> organisational boundaries in
order to absorb <strong>the</strong> previously unabsorbed internal knowledge. They argue that although
organisations may practice different routines, <strong>the</strong>se routines can be categorized into certain metaroutine.
However, as <strong>the</strong>y explain, AC is still far from being operationalized robustly.
2.2 SC: Theoretical and empirical issues
Adler and Kwon (2002), by reviewing <strong>the</strong> previous work done on SC, propose a new SC <strong>the</strong>ory, which
locate ability, motivation, and opportunity as <strong>the</strong> sources <strong>of</strong> SC, and define it as <strong>the</strong> goodwill available
to individuals or groups.
Being interdisciplinary (e.g. sociology, political sciences, development studies and management), SC
literature has experienced considerable fragmentations in terms <strong>of</strong> definitions, approaches, and
underlying philosophies <strong>of</strong> social sciences rendering it an umbrella concept (Adler and Kwon, 2002).
One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> major discrepancies in <strong>the</strong> SC literature is <strong>the</strong> way it is related to social structures and
social networks. Some authors have equated SC with <strong>the</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> social networks through which
actors interact (Borgatti et al., 1998, Cross et al., 2002). In this strand, SC is formulated in terms <strong>of</strong>
those opportunities provided for or withdrawn from actors in <strong>the</strong>ir social relations. For example, Burt
(2005) discusses that actors located at <strong>the</strong> bridging position are in advantage to those who are
lacking such opportunities. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, Coleman (1988) advocates network closure as a sign
<strong>of</strong> higher levels <strong>of</strong> SC due to reinforced norms and social identity in a group. Underpinning
assumption in this type <strong>of</strong> research is that actors are governed by <strong>the</strong>ir encompassing structures, and
<strong>the</strong>ir SC is captured by <strong>the</strong>ir network position. Empirically, SC research has usually adopted <strong>the</strong>
structural framework for analysing SC at a certain level <strong>of</strong> analysis. Here, research is usually informed
by social network analysis methods, and SC is operationalized through network measures (e.g.
centrality, density, etc.). This type <strong>of</strong> research can be enormously found in inter-organisational
knowledge transfer, and inter-organisational learning literature (eg. Xiao and Tsui, 2007, Tsai, 2001).
However, social network analysis and social network positions can merely reveal one aspect <strong>of</strong> SC
referred as <strong>the</strong> opportunity <strong>of</strong> gaining SC (Adler and Kwon, 2002).Conversely, many o<strong>the</strong>r authors
situate qualitative dimensions <strong>of</strong> SC at <strong>the</strong> heart <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir SC <strong>the</strong>ory. In this research stream,
Fukuyama (1995) equates trust with SC, and Putnam (1995) underlines those social norms
contributing to collective good as <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> social capital. Empirical studies have usually
operationalized SC just as trust in social relations (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998, Subramaniam and
Youndt, 2005). However, it should be notified that although <strong>the</strong>se approaches do not tell whole <strong>the</strong>
story, <strong>the</strong>y reveal its important aspects.
The second difficulty arises from what Adler and Kwon (2002) identify as broad vs. narrow definitions
<strong>of</strong> SC. While in broad definitions (e.g. Leenders and Gabbay, 1999) any type <strong>of</strong> resources shared
through social structures (i.e. market relations, hierarchy relations, and social relations) can be
considered as <strong>the</strong> sources <strong>of</strong> SC, in narrow approaches, only those resources which are distributed
through social relations are considered as its sources (Adler and Kwon, 2002). In broad definitions,
SC overlaps with many o<strong>the</strong>r forms <strong>of</strong> organisational capital. For example, Nahapiet and Ghoshal
(1998) define social capital through its three dimensions namely cognitive, relational, and structural
dimensions. Structural capital is defined as <strong>the</strong> impersonal configuration <strong>of</strong> linkages between actors;
relational capital is defined as <strong>the</strong> nature and quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interactions; and cognitive capital is
defined as those resources providing shared representations, interpretations, and systems <strong>of</strong>
meaning among parties (Nahapiet&Ghoshal, 1998). In this format, SC overlaps with many o<strong>the</strong>r
organisational dynamics like organisational culture, cognitive base, etc. In <strong>the</strong> narrow form, however,
this problem is resolved, since SC refers to particular sources in social relations. Yet, narrow form is
not applied in <strong>the</strong> SC research broadly.
Likewise, SC literature shows many inconsistencies in terms <strong>of</strong> research outcomes. Yli-Renko et al.
(2001) examine <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> SC on knowledge acquisition and exploitation in young technologybased
firms. This research shows that social interactions increase <strong>the</strong> knowledge acquisition.
However, <strong>the</strong>ir findings reveal that <strong>the</strong> relational dimension <strong>of</strong> SC is negatively associated with
knowledge acquisition. This is in contrast to Tsai and Ghoshal’s (1998) findings that all dimensions <strong>of</strong>
SC support <strong>the</strong> knowledge exchange capabilities.
1069