Conceptual framework

Last autumn (here and here) I developed a conceptual framework from the literature. Now I've written up five cases against it, I'm pleased to find the data confirms my arguments for the framework.

I've incorporated a number of factors in the framework and grouped them into two dimensions, (dimensions because you can't have one without the other, and I'm mimicking Nahapiet & Ghoshal's term for describing social capital). The two dimensions are:

• communication
• knowledge-ability

Communication requires participants, an environment, something shared and negotiation of meaning.
Knowledge-ability (from {Wenger, 1998 }) requires expertise or skills, the ability to contribute expertise and the ability to adapt with it.

I think you need all these components to have engagement that eases the process of IT projects.

---

WENGER, E. (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

What is capital?

Capital is a concept from finance, meaning something of value that you can collect and use to exchange for other resources or services. I suppose it comes from a Latin word, like "caput" and means head. Capital is wealth or stock, so I can't see how it came from 'head' unless it were a tax on each person's head.

Capital provides power because it’s something that others want and it lets you do things that you couldn't do otherwise. And social capital is a financial metaphor.

That's my opinion, but what academic has said these sort of things so I can work from the academic literature?

Sensitizing Concepts

My first case study demonstrates that it is worth using social capital as a sensitizing concept by which to explore engagement- same form of words as in the Journal of Intellectual Disabilities p22 2009 13 19

What's a sensitizing concept? See here and here.