2.1. Conceptual Evolution of Social Capital

Social capital is a concept that can apply to many social sciences fields, including economics, sociology, and library and information science. It is now used as a new framework to better understand social phenomena. However, social capital is a complex concept in which various aspects of society should be considered. Thus, it is difficult to clearly define the concept of social capital.

Much research on social capital has been conducted since the mid-19th century. Among this research, Alexis de Tocqueville presented the concept of social capital for the first time in 1835, arguing that promoting equality among people and facilitating social participation are directly related to the United States’ prosperity (Woolcock, 1998). Hanifan (1916) used the term social capital when referring to aspects like goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among individuals. Since the 1960s, researchers like Jacobs (1961), Salisbury (1969), Bourdieu (1972), Loury (1977), Coleman (1988, 1990), Burt (1988), Putnam (1993), and others began to discuss the concept of social capital more concretely.

These studies explored social capital with more emphasis on the aspects of the social relations between people. Since then, the scope of the concept of social capital has expanded from the individual level to the social level. Further, these early social capital concepts focused on individuals’ social participation, and social capital accumulation through participation in social activities was defined as an intangible capital that can promote public interest and develop the entire community.

Bourdieu’s (1972, 1986) research focused on social capital’s intrinsic value; however, several researchers stated that social capital can function as a mechanism for causing social inequality among people and reproducing existing social disparity. Thus, the social capital concept has been discussed from various perspectives and differentiated according to the direction of its application. However, concerning fundamental characteristics, social capital is defined as social relations or a social network that allows a group of people to work together effectively to achieve a common purpose or goal (Kenton, 2019). Based on these characteristics, the social capital concept has evolved and expanded into being networks with shared norms, values, and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups of people (Keeley, 2007).

Social capital is now generally explained as a social phenomenon that encompasses both individual and social aspects. It is commonly based on mutual trust, cooperation, and reciprocity inherent in social networks between people (Krishna, 2007, p. 942). Further, it has a basic premise that social interactions, the formation of bonds, and social connections within the social networks’ structure have become important capitals in maintaining and guiding society (Adler & Kwon, 2002).

2.2. Social Capital and the Paradigm Shift in the Formation of Social Relations

Social capital is constructed and accumulated along with social changes and does not exist independently. It is complexly linked with other societal capitals such as human capital and material capital (Coleman, 1988, p. 102). Additionally, social capital is not independently owned by individuals but is constructed and accessible only through relationships between people. Therefore, social capital is recognized as an important intangible capital that functions as a medium to sustain society by forming a sense of belonging and social trust in society and not just by generating profits at the personal level (Serageldin & Grootaert, 1998). As the social capital concept expands, social capital functions as a bridge capital that can connect individuals or groups of people with different social or economic statuses (Lee, 2016a).

Various researchers have presented several factors that construct social capital. Putnam (1993) insisted that social norms, social networks, and social trust are the three basic factors of social capital. Stone (2001) defined norms, values, networks, and voluntarily produced collective resources as the core social capital factors. Similarly, Coleman (1988) defined social capital as social networks shared by community members and normative values and beliefs.

Although several factors that construct social capital have been suggested, they are not independent. Most factors are based on the social relationship established between people, which can facilitate mutual trust, compliance with social norms, social reciprocity, and participation in social activities (Kahne & Bailey, 1999, p. 322). Thus, social networking is crucial in constructing social capital. People can create and share public interest and values at the individual and social level through social network participation.

However, with the rapid development of information technology and widespread advanced information devices such as smart devices, many changes have occurred in the way of building social networks. Traditionally, strong ties in the offline environment have been the mainstream method of establishing social relationships. In the current smart device-based environment, however, the significance of weak ties in the Internet-based environment is escalating. Particularly, as smart devices that require a certain level of knowledge, including smartphones, tablets, phablets, and smartwatches, are tools to build social networks and to facilitate informational and social activities, access to information and participation in various activities through smart devices have become more important in establishing social relationships, leading to the construction of social capital.

Smart devices combine various functions of existing independent devices into a single device and provide an environment in which people can perform social, informational, and cultural activities more conveniently. Moreover, various activities to establish social networks, such as social network services, the sharing economy, and online communities, can be performed in a wider context through smart devices. Thus, social capital accumulation based on the establishment of social networks is affected by the smart device-based information environment.

From this perspective, people can build a wider social network through the use of smart devices, leading to the construction of social capital. Contrarily, people who do not have smart devices or cannot proficiently utilize the functions of such devices may be disadvantaged in social capital construction. Thus, in a smart device-based environment, there can be a disparity between people depending on the accessibility to and proficiency levels of using smart devices, leading to the disparity in social capital construction. From this point of view, social capital construction is closely related to social equality and the digital divide in the current informational and social environment. It is now necessary to consider not only the traditional factors of social capital, but also the evolving aspects of the smart device environment when discussing social capital construction.

2.3. Evolution of the Digital Divide and Smart Divide

Although information technology that can support information activities is rapidly developed and broadly disseminated, there has been an informational and social disparity between people who can access and use information technologies and those who cannot; this is generally recognized as the digital divide.

The concept of digital divide has been represented in terms such as knowledge gap, information gap, or information inequality since the 1970s. However, the term digital divide was first used in a newspaper article, “Schoolnet programs,” by New York Times journalist Gary Andrew Pole (Molnár, 2002). Since the report “Falling through the net: A survey of the have nots in rural and urban America” by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) under the US Department of Commerce in July 1995, the term digital divide has become popular and widespread as a policy term.

Generally, digital divide can be explained by the social and informational differences between those who have access to new information technology and those who do not. However, digital divide is a social phenomenon encompassing various social factors, and thus the factors of the digital divide constantly change with the evolution of the information environment and social structure.

The quantitative divide between those who own information devices and those who do not was the core of the digital divide in its early stages. This quantitative digital divide, however, has been resolved with the widespread use of information devices such as personal computers and the Internet. However, the extensive dissemination of information devices has caused a qualitative divide between those who already have access to information and those who do not (Hargittai, 2010), which is recognized as the disparity that occurs in different levels of media literacy.

The emergence of smart devices, representatively of smartphones, is transforming the traditional social structure into that of a smart society. Smart devices are now becoming indispensable tools for information activities, communication with others, and participation in social activities. To adequately perform informational, social, and cultural activities using smart devices, it is necessary to have some levels of knowledge related to the use of smart devices. Thus, those who are unable to own smart devices because of economic, social, and physical constraints, or those who have low competence in utilizing smart devices are bound to have low participation in informational, social, and cultural activities. Eventually, the widespread dissemination of smart devices is stimulating the qualitative digital divide or creating a more complicated type of digital divide.

Lee (2016b, p. 262) termed this new type of digital divide caused by smart devices as the smart divide. The smart divide has a structure different from those of the existing quantitative and qualitative digital divides with different factors such that it is considered a more complicated and multi-faceted digital divide. The smart divide is not just limited to the ownership of or access to information devices, but is also becoming a concept that encompasses the proficiency of using smart devices and ways to evaluate and judge the value of information obtained through smart devices. In the smart divide, in addition to possessing smart devices, the competence to acquire and utilize information using these devices has become a more important issue.

Besides this, the smart divide is not simply a new dimension of the digital divide, but can lead to disparity in the construction of social networks or in participation in informational, social, and cultural activities, which can further lead to disparity in the social capital construction. Since the smart divide affects not only the informational aspect, but also the educational and economic disparity through the utilization of smart devices, it is becoming a critical social problem.

Although discussions related to the digital divide and social capital have been conducted from various aspects, research considering the digital divide caused by smart devices as a factor influencing the construction of social capital has not been conducted. Particularly, no research demonstrating the relationship between social capital and the smart divide is yet conducted. Therefore, this research discusses how the smart divide affects the construction of social capital based on social relations and social participation. This study conceptualized and redefined the digital divide caused by smart devices as the smart divide, and empirically verified how this divide affects social capital construction.

3.1. Variables

Social capital is socially accumulated intangible capital, and the smart divide is a social phenomenon of social disparity and social divide. However, the smart divide and social capital are closely related rather than independent, as they share many factors. Thus, verifying the correlation between them is crucial in social capital construction. This research examines the factors of the smart divide and social capital and empirically analyzes how the factors of the former affect social capital construction through a survey.

Regarding the smart divide, the factors that can reflect the social capital aspects were set as independent variables based on the factors suggested in previous research (Lee, 2016b). Specifically, the smart divide is a social phenomenon that resulted from the use of smart devices. Thus, it is important to examine the status of smart device possession. Additionally, the levels of informational and social activities through smart device applications need to be considered because such devices provide a variety of functions through smart device applications. As well, the competence and proficiency in using the smart device are set as the factors of the smart divide. Smart devices also provide images, sounds, videos, and text in multiple ways, thus the degree to which these various information formats are used can be considered as a factor triggering the smart divide.

Further, the factors that construct social capital have been presented from various perspectives in research, including trust, norms, social networks, sense of duty, reciprocity, and participation. Among these factors, this study established the social capital factors that are commonly presented in much research, such as reciprocity, trust, social network, and social participation. These factors were set as dependent variables. Additionally, in the current information environment, the ways of communication between people are rapidly expanding online, which is closely related to social network construction and social participation. Thus, this research included informational and social communication factors of social capital.

3.2. Data Collection

To empirically analyze how the smart divide affects social capital construction, this research surveyed smart device users. The questionnaire consists of 16 items according to the variables set by the aforementioned socio-economic characteristics, the smart divide factors, and the social capital factors (Table 1).

The survey was conducted on smart device users in their 20s or older for one week from March 10, 2021 to March 16, 2021. The survey’s targets were limited to those in their 20s or older because middle and high school students below their 20s mainly use smart devices for learning or entertainment, and therefore social and informational activities for the construction of social capital are limited. The questionnaire consists of 16 items according to the aforementioned variables, including socio-economic characteristics, smart divide factors, and social capital factors. By applying simple random sampling approach for data collection, a total of 250 questionnaires were distributed online, and 245 questionnaires were analyzed. Five questionnaires were excluded as they did not provide satisfactory responses.

The collected data were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation to verify the correlation between the factors of the smart divide and social capital. Multiple regression analysis was also adopted to identify how the smart divide affects social capital construction.

To verify the internal reliability of the collected data, Cronbach’s alpha was measured. Based on the analysis, the Cronbach’s alpha for 11 items excluding socio-economic characteristics was 0.818; thus, the internal consistency of the collected data was suitable for the analysis.

4.1. Socio-Economic Characteristics

To identify how the smart divide affects social capital construction, the respondents’ socio-economic characteristics were analyzed. The respondents (N=245) consisted of 121 (49.4%) Mans and 124 Women (50.6%). Regarding the economic level, the respondents were evenly distributed. Additionally, the age range—20s to 50s—was evenly distributed. Concerning the education level, the percentage of university graduates (N=149, 60.8%) was the highest. Further, a majority of the respondents resided in metropolitan cities (N=171, 69.8%) (Table 2).

4.2. Relationship between the Smart Divide and Social Capital

Smart devices are now recognized as indispensable tools for various social activities. Such a smart device-based information environment not only increases information activity efficiency but also has a great influence on social benefit acquisition. In this respect, the use of smart devices and social capital are closely interrelated. Therefore, this research analyzed the relationship between the factors of the smart divide and social capital using the Pearson’s correlation analysis (Table 3).

The construction of social networks, social participation, and reciprocity showed significant correlations with all factors of the smart divide. Additionally, the levels of using smart devices, diversity of the information formats used through smart devices, and proficiency in using smart devices show significant correlations with all the factors of social capital. These results show that proficiency in using the smart device functions and acquiring various information formats through smart devices are closely related to social network construction and expanding the range of informational and social activities. Besides this, use of smart devices is closely related to supporting social reciprocity, such as social network formation, participation in social activities, and pursuit of public interests. Particularly, social participation shows relatively high correlations with the diversity of information formats (r=0.439, p<0.01) and proficiency in using smart devices (r=0.439, p<0.01). Thus, the use of smart devices provides an environment that can support participation in social activities more efficiently.

Contrarily, the number of smart devices possessed shows no significant correlation with reciprocity and mutual trust, although it shows significant correlations with social network construction (r=0.172, p<0.01) and social participation (r=0.271, p<0.01). Thus, owning smart devices can function as an efficient factor in acquiring and utilizing information, but it does not show a significant relationship in terms of social activities that require strong relationships between people.

Overall, the factors that cause the smart divide are related to most of the factors that construct social capital, especially the construction of the social network and the expansion of the range of social participation. Contrarily, use of smart devices does not show a significant correlation with mutual trust between people. Thus, the use of smart devices is more closely related to the factors based on informational activities rather than social connections.

4.3. Impact of the Smart Divide on Social Capital

Currently, the use of smart devices has radically changed the way informational, social, cultural, and economic activities are performed. It also causes disparity in activities between people at the personal and social level because social capital construction is greatly affected by information utilization. In this respect, the use of smart devices, which have been the primary tools for informational and social activities, can also affect social capital construction. Therefore, this research empirically analyzed how the factors of the smart divide affect social capital construction by applying multiple regression analysis.