Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:14:59.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Networking Through Loose and Strong Ties: An Australian Qualitative Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Rosemary Leonard and
Jenny Onyx
Rosemary Leonard*
Affiliation:
School of Applied Social & Human Sciences, University of Western Sydney, Australia
Jenny Onyx
Affiliation:
School of Management, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
*
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at School of Applied Social & Human Sciences, University of Western Sydney, Penrith Campus Locked Bag 1797, Penrith Sth DC, NSW 1797, Australia. E-mail: r.leonard@uws.edu.au
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Given the significant role attributed to community organizations by many social capital scholars, it is appropriate to investigate the dynamics of that process. In particular, Woolcock and Narayan (World Bank Res. Obs. 15(2): 225-249, 2000) have suggested that bridging and bonding are two different types of connections, whereby bridging is associated with loose ties across communities and bonding is associated with strong ties within a limited group. This qualitative study explores the loose and strong ties of 39 participants connected through community organizations in rural and urban New South Wales. The results suggest that loose and strong ties are not synonymous with bridging and bonding. In general loose and strong ties differ in degree rather than in kind and people prefer to bridge through their strong ties. The interesting exceptions were ties to professionals, which were highly trusted but defined as loose ties. It is suggested that a model for a high social capital society might be a chain of well-bonded groups each with strong links to some other groups.

Résumé

Résumé

Etant donné le rôle significatif attribué aux organisations communautaires par de nombreux et importants chercheurs du domaine social, il est tout à fait approprié d’enquêter sur la dynamique de ce processus. En particulier, Woolcott et Narayan (2001) ont suggéré que les notions de passerelle («bridging ») et de liaison («bonding») sont deux types différents de connexion, où la passerelle est associée à des liens lâches à travers les communautés et la liaison associée à des liens forts au sein d’un groupe restreint. Cette étude qualitative explore les liens lâches et liens forts de 39 participants connectés au travers d’organisations communautaires en zone rurale et urbaine de Nouvelle-Galles du Sud (province d’Australie). Les résultats suggèrent que les liens lâches et forts ne sont pas synonymes des notions de passerelle et liaison. En général ces liens diffèrent en terme de degré plutôt qu’en genre et les gens préfèreront établir des contacts aux travers de liens forts. Des exceptions intéressantes furent celles des liens vers les professionnels à qui il était accordée une grande confiance mais qui étaient définis comme étant des liens lâches. Il est suggéré qu’un modèle pour une société à fort capital social puisse être une chaîne de groupes fortement liés avec chacun ayant des liens forts vers d’autres groupes.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Angesichts der bedeutenden Rolle, die Gemeinschaftsorganisationen von vielen Wissenschaftlern, die sich mit sozialem Kapitel beschäftigen, zugeschrieben wird, ist es nur angemessen, die Dynamik dieses Prozesses zu untersuchen. Vor allem Woolcott und Narayan (2001) haben vorgeschlagen, dass ‚bridging’ und,bonding’ zwei verschiedene Typen von Verbindungen sind, wobei,bridging’ mit schwachen Bindungen innerhalb von Gemeinschaften assoziiert wird und,bonding’ mit starken Bindungen innerhalb einer begrenzten Gruppe. Die vorliegende qualitative Studie untersucht die schwachen und starken Bindungen von 39 Teilnehmern, die durch Gemeinschaftsorganisationen im ländlichen und städtischen New South Wales verbunden sind. Die Ergebnisse legen nahe, dass schwache und starke Bindungen nicht synonym sind mit ‚bridging’ und,bonding.’ Im Allgemeinen unterscheiden sich schwache und starke Bindungen eher graduell als generell. Menschen ziehen es vor, durch ihre starken Bindungen,Brücken zu bauen.’ Interessante Ausnahmen waren Bindungen zu professionellen Helfern, die trotz des diesen Helfern entgegengebrachten großen Vertrauens als schwache Bindungen definiert wurden. Eine Kette gut verbundener Gruppen mit ihrerseits starken Verbindungen zu einigen anderen Gruppen wird als Modell für eine Gesellschaft mit hohem sozialen Kapital vorgeschlagen.

Resumen

Resumen

Dado el importante papel atribuido a las organizaciones de colectivos por muchos investigadores de capital social, es apropiado investigar las dinamicas de este proceso. En particular, Woolcott y Narayan (2001) han sugerido que el tender puentes y la vinculación son dos tipos distintos de conexiones, por lo cual el tender puntes se asocia con relaciones no muy estrechas entre comunidades y la vinculación se asocia con estrechas relaciones dentro de un grupo limitado. Este estudio cualitativo explora las fuertes y débiles relaciones de 39 participantes conectados a través de organizaciones de colectivos en la zona urbana y rural en Nueva Gales del Sur. Los resultados sugieren que los vínculos fuertes y débiles no son sinónimo de tender puentes o de vinculación. En general, las relaciones fuertes y débiles difieren en grado más que en tipo y el pueblo prefiere vincularse a través de sus fuertes relaciones. Las excepciones interesantes fueron vínculos con profesionales, que eran de gran confianza-pero que se definen como relaciones muy debiles. Se sugiere que un modelo para una sociedad de capital social alto puede ser una cadena de grupos bien conectados con estrechos vínculos con otros grupos.

Keywords

social capitalbondingbridgingnetworkingtrustAustralia

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2003, pp. 189 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Blomkvist, H. (2001). Traditional communities, caste, and democracy: The Indian mystery. In: Dekker, P., and Uslaner, E. (eds.), Social Capital and Politics in Everyday Life, Routledge, London, pp. 73–88.Google Scholar
Burt, R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Adm. Sci. Q. 42: 339–365.10.2307/2393923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. (1998). The gender of social capital. Ration. Soc. 10(1): 5–42.10.1177/104346398010001001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 94: 95–120.10.1086/228943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Tocqueville, A. (1961). Democracy in America (originally published 1835), Schoken, New York.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1986). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91: 481–510.10.1086/228311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, P., Bellamy, J., and Black, A. (1999). Building social trust through education. In: Winter, I. (ed.), Social Capital and Public Policy in Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, pp. 225–249.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. (1997). Theorising the relationship between agency and communion. Theory Psychol. 7(6): 823–835.10.1177/0959354397076005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, K. (1997). Social capital and democracy. Am. Behav. Sci. 40(5): 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onyx, J., and Bullen, P. (2000). Measuring social capital in five communities. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 36(1): 23–42.10.1177/0021886300361002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24: 1–24.10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
Simons, R. (1996). A community of freedoms. Aust. Q. 68(1): 31–42.10.2307/20634715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, A. (2000). Social Capital and Popular Mobilization: Studying Environmental Protests in an Indian State. Unpublished manuscript, Uppsala University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Teorell, J. (2000). A Resource Model of Social Capital: Networks, Recruitment and Political Participation in Sweden. Paper presented to workshop on voluntary associations, social capital and interest mediation, European Consortium for Political Research, Copenhagen, Denmark, April.Google Scholar
Uslaner, E. M. (1997). Faith, Hope and Charity. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland - College Park.Google Scholar
White, J., Reedy, E., and Leonard, R. (2001). Addressing Women’s Fear of Crime in Public Housing Estates: The Case of Toongabbie. Report (unpublished) to the NSW Council of Social Services. Woolcock, M., and Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research and policy. World Bank Res. Obs. 15(2): 225–249.Google Scholar