PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10462871

Social capital and community development: practitioner emptor.

Abstract

Social capital has become the latest 'flavour of the month'. There is considerable disagreement over what the term means, and calls for theorising and measurement of the construct. Health promoters, among others, are being challenged to re-construct their efforts around this still contested idea. Social capital doesn't exist, but is being created by those aspects of social relations particular theorists or researchers choose to study in its name. The choice of these relations is directed by ideology. To those aligned more with neoliberal, market-driven ideology, social capital is a means to the end of economic growth, something that can pick up the slack of privatised or reduced public services. To those aligned more with social justice and communitarian ideology, social capital is an end in itself, requiring the defence of strong, egalitarian state intervention into market practices that create inequalities. Community development is one of many state interventions used to buffer market-generated inequalities. Social capital may be a useful concept for practitioners, researchers and policy makers in bring the missing 'social' into economic and fiscal policy debates. But its use should be approached cautiously as a construct of potential strategic value. It should not confuse all of the previous 'good' work undertaken in the name of empowerment and community capacity.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Labonte. 1999. Social capital and community development: practitioner emptor.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842x.1999.tb01289.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Whole genome characterisation of Australian and New Zealand OsHV-1 'μVar' like variants over time.

Ostreid herpesvirus 1 (OsHV-1) is a major pathogen of Pacific oysters (Magallana gigas), linked to mass mortality events worldwide and presents a substantial threat to global aquaculture. Since 2010, mortality events have been occurring in Pacific oysters within Australia with the cause being an OsHV-1 microvariant highly similar to OsHV-1 μVar first detected in France, 2008. In this study, fifteen OsHV-1 whole genomes were assembled from Australian and New Zealand mortality events, including twelve newly sequenced genomes and three assembled from public datasets. Whole-genome phylogenetic analyses indicate that Australian and New Zealand OsHV-1 isolates form a distinct clade, separate from European and East Asian genomes, and with moderate regional and temporal divergence across the past 14 years. Across the dataset, multiple biologically relevant mutations were observed in genes of known function, including DNA polymerase, ribonucleotide reductase subunits, and apoptosis-related proteins, though most mutations occurred in uncharacterised genes. These findings highlight the limitations of single-gene typing and support the need for whole-genome approaches in understanding OsHV-1 evolution. Critically, the lack of recent whole-genome data, particularly from East and Southeast Asia, restricts the ability to trace viral origins and detect novel variants, underscoring the need for expanded global OsHV-1 genomic surveillance.

Australia↗

Interest holder-driven research priorities in sexual and reproductive health for migrant and refugee adolescents and young adults in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and prioritise sexual and reproductive health research priorities for migrant and refugee adolescents and young adults in Australia using a priority setting partnership approach. METHODS: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership was conducted with 92 interest holders: 31 youth from migrant and refugee backgrounds and 61 professionals (healthcare providers, researchers, policymakers and community leaders), recruited online and in-person. The priority setting partnership process included a rapid evidence scan, an online uncertainty survey, evidence verification, interim prioritisation and a final consensus workshop. RESULTS: Eighty-three research uncertainties yielded 11 final priorities across four sexual and reproductive health domains: sexual and reproductive health literacy, sexual violence prevention, accessible services and maternal health. A striking divergence emerged between youth and professional priorities only 3 achieved combined high-priority consensus. Youth prioritised a broader range of topics, including abortion access (rated high by youth but low by professionals), while professionals prioritised fewer areas. Two priorities achieved consensus: community-based maternal health support and barriers to reporting gender-based violence. CONCLUSION: This is the first priority setting partnership to identify sexual and reproductive health research priorities for migrant and refugee youth in Australia and to uniquely highlight substantial misalignment between youth and professional priorities. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: These identified priorities provide a foundation for targeted research, culturally responsive policy and more equitable sexual and reproductive health service provision for migrant and refugee adolescents and young adults.

Australia↗