A Bayesian Computational Model of Social Capital in Virtual Communities

  • Ben Kei Daniel
  • Juan-Diego Zapata-Rivera
  • Gordon McCalla
Conference paper


The theory of social capital (SC) is frequently discussed in the social sciences and the humanities. There is a plethora of research studies, which seek to define and empirically test the idea of SC in a number of ways. This growing body of research has only supported the significance of (SC) in physical communities. While many attempts have been made to examine different forms of social capital in physical communities, its application to other types of communities remains open to research. Recent interest in computer science and information systems in studying virtual communities (VCs) and the value these communities provide to information exchange and knowledge construction makes examination of SC in these communities relevant. We begin our understanding of SC in VCs by mapping out different variables that constitute SC based on qualitative experts’ knowledge of SC. We then develop an initial computational model of SC, and generate conditional probability tables (CPTs) that can be refined using real world case scenarios developed by experts in virtual communities. The Bayesian model seems to represent the situations mentioned in the paper adequately. This model provides a useful tool for understanding of SC in VCs.


Social Capital Bayesian Model Shared Understanding Physical Community Virtual Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001). In Good Company. How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  2. Daniel, B., McCalla, G. Schwier, R. (2002). A Process Model for Building Social Capital in Virtual Learning Communities. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE) 2002: p. 574-p. 577.Google Scholar
  3. Dykes, M.E. (2003). A Case Study of Student Led Online Discussion in a Graduate Level Course. Master’s Thesis. Department of Curriculum Studies/Educational and Communications Technologies. University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
  4. Druzdzel, M. J. and Henrion, M.: Efficient Reasoning in Qualitative Probabilistic Networks. AAAI 1993: 548–553.Google Scholar
  5. Hammersley, M and Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography. Principles in Practice. London: TavistockGoogle Scholar
  6. McCalla, G. (2000). The Fragmentation of Culture, Learning, Teaching and Technology: Implications for Artificial Intelligence in Education Research. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (11)(2), pages 177–196.Google Scholar
  7. Pearl, J. (1988) Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Putnam R (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon Schuster.Google Scholar
  9. Putnam R (1995) ‘Tuning in and tuning out: the strange disappearance of social Capital in America’, political science and Politics, December, pages 664–683Google Scholar
  10. Putnam R D (1993) Making Democracy Work: civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lacave, C. and Diez, F. J.. (2002). Explanation for causal Bayesian networks in Elvira. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Data Analysis in Medicine and Pharmacology (IDAMAP-2002), Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  12. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Resnick, P. Beyond Bowling Together: SocioTechnical Capital. Chapter 29 in “HCI in the New Millenium”, Carroll, J. M. (ed.). Addison-Wesley. 2002, pages 247 272.Google Scholar
  14. Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Virtual Frontier. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Sirianni, C. and Friedland, L. (1995) ‘Social capital’, Civic Practices Network,
  16. Schwier, R. A. (2001). Catalysts, Emphases, and Elements of Virtual Learning Communities. Implication for Research. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2 (1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  17. Wiseman, R. L, Hammer, M. R., and Nishida, H. (1989). Predictors of intercultural communication competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, pages 13, 349–370.Google Scholar
  18. The World Bank (1999). Social capital Research Group.
  19. Wellman, M. P. (1990). Fundamental concepts of qualitative probabilistic networks. Artificial Intelligence, 44: 257–303.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wenger, E., and Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of Practice: the Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review. ( January-February 2000 ), 139–145.Google Scholar
  21. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Zapata-Rivera. J.D. (2002) cbCPT: Knowledge Engineering Support for CPTs in Bayesian Networks. Canadian Conference on AI 2002: 368–370Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Kei Daniel
    • 1
  • Juan-Diego Zapata-Rivera
    • 1
  • Gordon McCalla
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, ARIES LaboratoryUniversity of SaskatchewanCanada

Personalised recommendations