Mrb herkese,,yetiştirmem gereken bir çeviri var..17 sayfasını çevirdim ama hala 10 sayfam var..bu durumda olan veya ing makale okuyan arkadaşlarla birbirimize yardım etsek güzel olmaz mı :)
ben yine de makalemin son kısmından bi sayfa yapıştırıyorum.
Conclusion
In the last decade, social capital has entered almost each and every field of the social sciences. This popularity is at least partly caused by the open and usually undefined character of the concept and the ease with which the meaning of the concept can be stretched. The price of this virtually unlimited flexibility and adaptation, however, is paid at the operational level. Since social capital is defined by its functions, specific operationalizations require the definition of the actual circumstances for the use of the concept. Unlike the concept itself as such, its particular operational meaning depends on the actual circumstances. An intelligent discussion of the pro and cons of different research strategies, then, is only possible when these circumstances are specified.
The embarrassing number of distinct conceptualizations of social capital is a problem only for researchers caught by textbook recommendations that the quality of measures can only be discussed in an intelligent way if an unambiguous nominal definition of the concept is available. A bottom-up approach as used here—characterized by the search for common features and a systematic classification of research strategies—shows that the diversity of indicators and measures is not as large as one might expect on the basis of the diffuse and general character of the concept. However, the measurement of social capital has become increasingly diverse in the last few years; new instruments have been developed and new approaches are being tried. Most of these implementations are attempts to overcome the limitations of conventional survey and polling approaches by developing experiments, observations, and analyses of documents. Furthermore, the results of a few mixed-method projects have become available. In order to study the impact of contextual factors on micro-level relationships, multi-level models seem to become increasingly popular. Finally, the question of whether social capital can be measured as a single latent construct still divides empirical researchers. Whereas some authors stress the existence of a single construct, others present empirical analyses suggesting several distinct measures for distinct aspects of the concept.
Many questions concerning the measurement of social capital remain open and a few intractable problems await clever solutions. But the rapid expansion of empirical studies relying on social capital as a concept has not resulted in a fragmentation of the field. On the contrary: the open and broad conceptualization and the wide variety of operationalization seem to meet the needs of many social scientists. In this situation there is no place for some authoritative or ‘real’ definition of social capital (whatever that might be). Consequently, the wide variety of operationalizations should be accepted as an indication of the importance and vitality of the study of social life in complex societies, and empirical research should adapt to this liveliness.
ben yine de makalemin son kısmından bi sayfa yapıştırıyorum.
Conclusion
In the last decade, social capital has entered almost each and every field of the social sciences. This popularity is at least partly caused by the open and usually undefined character of the concept and the ease with which the meaning of the concept can be stretched. The price of this virtually unlimited flexibility and adaptation, however, is paid at the operational level. Since social capital is defined by its functions, specific operationalizations require the definition of the actual circumstances for the use of the concept. Unlike the concept itself as such, its particular operational meaning depends on the actual circumstances. An intelligent discussion of the pro and cons of different research strategies, then, is only possible when these circumstances are specified.
The embarrassing number of distinct conceptualizations of social capital is a problem only for researchers caught by textbook recommendations that the quality of measures can only be discussed in an intelligent way if an unambiguous nominal definition of the concept is available. A bottom-up approach as used here—characterized by the search for common features and a systematic classification of research strategies—shows that the diversity of indicators and measures is not as large as one might expect on the basis of the diffuse and general character of the concept. However, the measurement of social capital has become increasingly diverse in the last few years; new instruments have been developed and new approaches are being tried. Most of these implementations are attempts to overcome the limitations of conventional survey and polling approaches by developing experiments, observations, and analyses of documents. Furthermore, the results of a few mixed-method projects have become available. In order to study the impact of contextual factors on micro-level relationships, multi-level models seem to become increasingly popular. Finally, the question of whether social capital can be measured as a single latent construct still divides empirical researchers. Whereas some authors stress the existence of a single construct, others present empirical analyses suggesting several distinct measures for distinct aspects of the concept.
Many questions concerning the measurement of social capital remain open and a few intractable problems await clever solutions. But the rapid expansion of empirical studies relying on social capital as a concept has not resulted in a fragmentation of the field. On the contrary: the open and broad conceptualization and the wide variety of operationalization seem to meet the needs of many social scientists. In this situation there is no place for some authoritative or ‘real’ definition of social capital (whatever that might be). Consequently, the wide variety of operationalizations should be accepted as an indication of the importance and vitality of the study of social life in complex societies, and empirical research should adapt to this liveliness.