There are nine indicators of network dynamics that seek to capture differential status and power within the network:
1. Conditions of access to network resources.
2. Gaps between perceived and mobilized resources.
3. Relational skills of members, measured through psychometric tests.
4. Support from network for significant life-course events.
5. Changes in network membership or access in relation to major life-course events.
6. Relational stability in major stages of network projects.
7. Presence of communication tools for collaboration.
8. Internal operating rules such as degree of democracy.
9. Contextual institutional structures within which networks operate.
These indicators are much more heterogeneous than those proposed for measuring network structure and, in some cases, seem to violate the author's determination to distinguish social capital as an explanatory variable for particular socio-economic outcomes rather than as an end result. The network dynamics indicators also seem to mix objective measures with the members' self-evaluation, for example, "feelings of dependence, diffi culty in asking for help" (Franke 2005:17). This suggests that, although the PRI approach is among the most rigorous yet attempted, the epistemological challenges of maintaining a rigorous and consistent perspective on what exactly "counts" in quantifying social capital remain unresolved.
Was this article helpful?