What is social capital? In answering this question, the paper reports on new research which differentiates between social interaction processes and social capital as the product of those processes. Following a review of literature, structured as a social theory against which social capital might be understood, the paper then describes a study of a rural community, and reports on two analyses of data which contribute to answering the question, ‘What is the nature of the interactive productivity between the local networks in a community?’ The paper concludes that social capital, for which a new definition is forwarded, can only 'exist' if it is somehow able to be produced. This is the chief assumption of the paper. Social capital is defined as an accumulation of the knowledge and identity resources drawn on by communities‐of‐common‐purpose. If social capital originates in micro interactions which are in turn embedded in a meso and macro social order, then these processes and connections should be observable. This paper makes an initial contribution to the establishment of such micro, mesa and macro links.

As an explanatory concept that relates skills and knowledge to economic outcomes, "human capital" has dominated for decades. Skills and knowledge are certainly central attributes of a learning society. Given the limitations of economy as a proxy for social well-being, however, two outstanding questions about the impact of adult learning on community linger: What are the multiple impacts of adult learning on community? How do these occur? To address these questions adequately, the theoretical construct of social capital is proving useful. This article examines the impacts of such a nebulous entity as adult learning on diverse socioeconomic domains, and it looks at how these impacts occur. Outcomes of learning are discussed against the eight Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development indicators of social well-being. Social capital-its networks, trust, and shared values-emerges as the missing link in explaining the integrated role of knowledge and identity resources in generating adult learning benefits.This article draws on empirical research to build theory about the impact of adult learning on socioeconomic well-being. The argument is that the impact of learning on society is brought about by social capital. The skills and knowledge of "human capital" can be brought into socioeconomic circulation only through social means.

In her recent contribution to the British Educational Research Journal

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present a data‐driven discussion about whether effective leadership and innovation are being stifled in a contemporary organizational environment of continuous change.Design/methodology/approachThe elaboration and discussion are based on one component of comprehensive research that uses a qualitative and case study methodology involving interviews with 60 leaders and managers in three large organizations.FindingsThe key finding is that the accurate application of, and interaction between leadership and management releases the social capital, along with related identity and knowledge resources that helps address the tension between risk management and innovation.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper reports only on one component of the original study. The findings and implications reported here are regarded as tentative.Practical implicationsBased on the data and ensuing discussion, the implications for practice take the form of a schema of steps for managing the change culture of organizations.Originality/valueBy its very name and nature “innovation” requires thinking and acting outside the square. However innovation can only exist when leadership allows and fosters risk‐taking which has been well considered, actioned and managed by a knowledgeable and skilled workforce. The amount of ignorance which exists in the workplace is proportionate to the amount and type of risk management or regulatory solutions required to counter potential negativity associated with risk taking. Therefore the responsibility of any leadership desirous of change or innovation in an environment which is not overregulated must include as its priority, building and maintaining a knowledge‐culture that supports and allows risk taking. The original model presented provides a mechanism for the strategic handling of risk, innovation and change where management and leadership can co‐exist and knowledge and identity resources can be released in social capital transactions.

No abstract