Definitions:

Social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988) describes the ability of individuals or groups
to access resources embedded in their social network(Ellison et al., 2014)

Although definitions vary between scholars, there does seem to be a general understanding
that social capital is derived from the structure of the relationships between people in a social
environment, which creates collective productivity (Adler and Kwon 2002; Bourdieu 1986;
Coleman 1988, 1990; Field 2008; Granovetter 1992; Jones and Taylor 2012; Nahapiet and
Ghoshal 1998; Watson and Papamarcos 2002). Opinions as to whether social capital is an
asset from an individual perspective (Burt 1997), a collective level (Wasko and Faraj 2000),
or both (Mathwick et al. 2008), and the beneficial outcomes it provides have caused much
debate depending on the researcher’s frame of reference.(Meek et al., 2019)
Despite varying views, there is general agreement that social capital theory is founded on the
principle of ‘‘by making connections with one another and keeping them going over time,
people are able to work together to achieve things that they either could not achieve by
themselves or could only achieve with great difficulty’’ (Field 2008,p.1). Another dynamic in
the discourse of community discussed in the literature are the elements that represent the
construct of social capital. Past studies have argued that conceptualisation can be achieved
more effectively by separating the facets of social capital into three clusters (Nahapiet and
Ghoshal 1998; Tsai and Ghoshal 1998). For example, social capital embodies three
dimensions: structural, relational and cognitive, all of which relate to a Despite varying
views, there is general agreement that social capital theory is founded on the principle of ‘‘by
making connections with one another and keeping them going over time, people are able to
work together to achieve things that they either could not achieve by themselves or could
only achieve with great difficulty’’ (Field 2008,p.1). Another dynamic in the discourse of
community discussed in the literature are the elements that represent the construct of social
capital. Past studies have argued that conceptualisation can be achieved more effectively by
separating the facets of social capital into three clusters (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Tsai
and Ghoshal 1998). For example, social capital embodies three dimensions: structural,
relational and cognitive, all of which relate to a number of different aspects of the construct.
(Meek et al., 2019)
Theorists suggest that in a community environment, accumulation of social capital is affected
by the strength of interpersonal ties within the community (Coffe´ and Geys 2007;
Granovetter 1973; Jones and Taylor 2012; Shah et al. 2001). An additional dynamic has
subsequently been identified in the social capital construct that refers to either bridging social
capital or bonding social capital (Coffe´ and Geys 2007; Granovetter 1973; Pinho 2013;
Williams 2006). Bridging social capital relates to social groups where relationships are
common between individuals from very different backgrounds, such as the weak ties found in
brand communities (Granovetter 1973; Muniz and O’Guinn 2001; Shah et al. 2001), whilst
bonding social capital refers to relationships between close friends or family, known as strong
ties (Granovetter 1973). (Meek et al., 2019)

In this framing, social capital is created through social interactions and the expectations of
future social resources they engender.
Social capital is often separated into “bridging” and “bonding” (Putnam, 2000; Williams,
2006); these categories describe resources embedded in different types of relationships. Ties
that connect different clusters within a network, often called “bridging” ties, help propagate
novel information across those groups (Burt, 1992). As explicated below, weaker ties (such
as a friend of a friend) are more likely to be bridging ties and thus provide access to novel
information (Granovetter, 1973) and diverse perspectives (associated with bridging social
capital). Stronger ties, on the other hand, are characterized by multiple iterative interactions
and higher levels of trust, support, and intimacy; these ties typically provide access to the
more substantive forms of capital conversion associated with bonding social capital (e.g., a
financial loan). Facebook networks contain both strong and weak ties (Bakshy, Rosenn,
Marlow & Adamic, 2012). Because individuals often use multiple channels to communicate
with strong ties and fewer channels to interact with weaker ties (Haythornthwaite, 2005),
(Fischer and Rebecca Reuber, 2014)(Ellison et al., 2014)

networking on SM has been found to play vital roles in the entrepreneurial development
process where it influences entrepreneur effectuation process (Fischer & Reuber, 2011). It
allows them to accrue social capital (Barnes & Mattsson, 2016) which Smith et al. (2017)
suggests is formed differently through SM due to the affordances of SM. This social capital
helps in the identification and capitalizationof opportunities (Quinton & Wilson, 2016),
gathring of information (Kuhn et al., 2016), increasing entrepreneurial success (Srinivasan &
Venkatraman, 2017), identifying and allocating of scarce resources and resource mobilization
(Drummond et al., 2018; Sigfusson & Chetty, 2013).(Olanrewaju et al., 2020)

limited number of studies that have properly dealt with the interaction of social capital
and entrepreneurship and how the conceptual framework is explored (for a review, see

Social capital is networked resources that are produced by the interplay between human agency and
social structure. social capital is a slippery term (Williams, 2006) with a variety of definitions in
various fields (Adler & Kwon, 2002) at multiple levels (Lin, 2002). Social capital has been defined as
resources that individuals can access that are embedded in their social relationships (Bourdieu,
1986), creating expected returns on investment in social interaction within networks (Lin, 2002). In
(Kwon and Kwon, 2020).
Bonding/ bridging: Individual-level social capital is rooted in people’s social ties (Zhong, 2014) and
allows them to capitalize on their social interactions, thus obtaining reciprocal benefits such as novel
information or emotional support (Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008). At the individual level, Putnam
(2000) assigned bridging and bonding social capital to weak ties and strong ties respectively, on the
basis of different associated norms of reciprocity. Specifically, individuals can attain bridging social
capital through more diverse and broader weak-tie networks (e.g., celebrities, public figures, and
trusted organizations), in attempts to look for novel information or new resources, or to broaden
social horizons. Alternatively, bonding social capital is seen when individuals obtain emotional
support from their strong social networks, for instance among family members and close friends
(Ellison, Vitak, Gray, & Lampe, 2014; Williams, 2006). In the case of both bridging and bonding social
capital, people who are interactive within their social networks are considered to be building
sustainable, healthy relationships with their social networks (Putnam, 2000). Therefore, this study
adopted a social capital approach to understanding how people interact with social media to gain
bridging and bonding social capital through weak ties (particularly social media pages of public
figures and organizations) and strong ties, and how such interactive communication could affect
people’s behavioral participation intentions within online communities.
Social media are ideal venues for collective actions (Valenzuela, 2013). They function by
interweaving the private life and public
political expression of people while extending existing offline interpersonal relationships (Gil de
Zúñiga & Valenzuela, 2011). Social media are also the dominant tool for modern public relations,
since they not only help to identify industry thought leaders and social influencers but also help
social influencers spread messages to specific audiences (Leszczynski, 2016) and connect those who
have shared values and beliefs, even if those values and beliefs are not firmly entrenched
(Valenzuela, 2013). Rather than increasing strong ties through online social networks, Facebook
seems more likely to strengthen weak ties and promote collective actions (Valenzuela et al., 2009).
Also, Facebook usage was found to be strongly positively associated with bridging social capital
(Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). This finding may be due to the core characteristics of Facebook
as an interactive social network (Valenzuela et al., 2009). First, Facebook aids social media users in
personal identity construction, since it enables people to connect with diversified networks based on
their socialization needs and to receive feedback and acceptance from interpersonal interaction
within social networks without temporal or geographical limits. Second, people tend to follow
Facebook groups with which they share interests, and Facebook allows people to keep tracking the
news feeds of those groups. Furthermore, the group interaction helps Facebook users to build
trusting and reciprocal relationships with other group members, which foster more opportunities to
motivate people to engage in collective activities in online communities (Kobayashi, Ikeda, & Miyata,
2006; Valenzuela et al., 2009). Social network group interaction on Facebook is more likely to
increase collective efficacy and thus to promote collective actions (Halpern, Valenzuela, & Katz,
2017). In contrast to Twitter, which centers on one-way communication, Facebook allows social
network groups to build reciprocal relationships in which frequent communication and transparent
information exchange among group members facilitate social trust (Halpern et al., 2017; Kobayashi
et al., 2006). Such a positive reciprocal relationship further empowers group members to be
confident in dealing with social issues and willing to create shared values through online collective
actions (Halpern et al., 2017). (You and Hon, 2019)

Social capital
Social capital describes the actual or potential benefits accruing from interpersonal
relationships at both individual and collective levels. The advantages may be in terms of
emotional and physical support, exposure to new and/or diverse ideas and access to
meaningful information, amongst others. Social capital can, hence, be considered as an
investment in one’s personal network (Lin, 2001). The usage of the word “capital” in itself
implies that it is a resource and can be measured at the individual or group level.
Alot of research has been done on the concept of social capital, the mentionable ones being
that by Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988), with subsequent extension by Burt (1992),
Putnam (2000) and Lin (2001). Social capital can be considered as “the aggregate of the
actual or potential resources, which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or
less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu, 1986;
Rauniar, 2014). Fukuyama (1997) believed that social capital is the informal value and shared
norms between members of a group, facilitating cooperation amongst group members. A
study by Yoo et al. (2014) opined that social capital encompasses not only the actual but also
potential resources embedded in the network relationships of an individual/social unit. Social
capital is embedded in the structure of social networks and the location of individuals within
these structures (Burt, 2005; Nahapiet and Ghosal, 1998; Ngai et al., 2015).

Social networking sites (SNSs) are technological tools that support individuals’ ability to form
and sustain a wide network of social relationships. They contain features useful for
connecting large, and often geographically spread, social networks leading to social capital
accumulation. The ability to not only create one’s own network (He et al., 2018) but also
being
able to view others networks helps to gather information about network members and engage
with them (Maiz et al., 2016). Relationships on an SNS include a wide range of online and
offline connections. Research indicates that most SNS connections reflect pre-existing offline
relationships (Ellison et al., 2007; Saab et al., 2018). The literature also suggests that the SNS
enables the creation and maintenance of large-scale networks enabled by technology, also
known as “social supernets” (Donath, 2007). These provide users with numerous public and
private communication channels through which requests and resources are offered to
network members (Upadhyay and Khemka, 2020)
Over the years, we have seen the emergence of many social networking platforms for
social interaction, and the boundary separating the personal from the professional is
becoming increasingly blurred. Studies done in the area suggest that social platforms, like
Facebook, offer a wide scope of possible associations, ranging from acquaintances
(technically known as “social browsing” (Lampe et al., 2006; Gross, 2004; Kraut et al., 1998;
Johnston et al., 2013), which implies connecting with people with whom one also shares an
offline connection) to complete strangers to close friends. The inclusion of close friends in this
concept is a recent phenomenon. This has a lot to do with the usage of multiple, redundant
channels to facilitate lightweight interactions. Increased sharing helps friends come even
closer (Subrahmanyam et al., 2008). Lewis, Kaufman, and Christakis (2008) also put forward
the point that SNSs prompt people to disclose personal and contact information. They also
share feelings, activities and thoughts.
The term “latent ties” may be defined as connections that are “technically possible but not
yet activated socially”. Haythornthwaite (2005) has described the ways in which information
and communication technologies open up new avenues of communication between
individuals who would not otherwise connect.