This study explores the relationships between cultural and social capital and online social tagging behaviour in Delicious.com, a social bookmarking web site that offers social tagging functionalities. Based on Bourdieu’s conception of cultural and social capital, an online questionnaire was developed to measure Delicious users’ capital possession and its influences on social tagging behavioural tendencies. The study findings showed that the offline/online cultural capital and offline social capital affected information organization-oriented tagging; offline/online social capital affected social oriented-tagging; offline/online cultural capital and offline/online social capital both affected strategic tagging; offline/online social capital affected tagging imitation. Based on the findings, we made inferences on the user roles and the power structure of a social tagging folksonomy community.
MunkTBMørkK. Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies – an empirical study. Knowl Organiz2007; 34(3): 115–127.
13.
LiXGuoLZhaoYE. Tag-based social interest discovery. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on the World Wide Web, Beijing, 2008.
14.
BourdieuP. The forms of capital. In: RichardsonJG (ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986, pp. 241–258.
15.
BourdieuP. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
16.
DiMaggioPMohrJ. Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. Am J Sociol1985; 90(6): 1231–1261.
17.
JægerMM. Equal access but unequal outcomes: Cultural capital and educational choice in a meritocratic society. Social Forces2009; 87(4): 1943–1971.
18.
JohnsonCA. Social capital and the search for information: Examining the role of social capital in information seeking behaviour in Mongolia. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol2007; 58(6): 883–894.
19.
LawtonP. Capital and stratification within virtual community: A case study of Metafilter.com. Lethbridge, Alberta: University of Lethbridge, 2005.
20.
PangHC. Questioning the hierarchy and the power relations within web-photo-album-community in Taiwan. J Cyber Cult Inform Soc2008; 14: 192–222.
21.
BourdieuPWacquantLJD. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
22.
HillsM. Fan cultures. New York: Routledge, 2002.
23.
ChiLChanWKSeowGTamK. Transplanting social capital to the online world: Insights from two experimental studies. J Organiz Comput Electron Commerce2009; 19(3): 214–236.
24.
SorokaVRafaeliS. Invisible participants: How cultural capital relates to lurking behaviour. In:Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, Edinburgh, May 2006.
25.
CheongPHPoonJ. WWW.FAITH.ORG: (Re)structuring communication and the social capital of religious organizations. Inform Commun Soc2008; 11(1): 89–110.
26.
JiangHCarroll, andJM. Social capital, social network and identity bonds: A reconceptualization. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on communities and technologies, University Park, PA, June 2009.
27.
JeannotteMS. Singing alone? The contribution of cultural capital to social cohesion and sustainable communities. Int J Cult Policy. 2003; 9(1): 35–49.
ChenCDChengSY. A study on the relations between cultural capital and academic achievement: A case study of sixth grader in the Yulin County Elementary Schools. J Natl HsinChu Univ Educ2008; 25(1): 79–98.
30.
ColemanJS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol1988; 94(suppl): S95–S120.
PutnamRD. Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Polit Sci Polit1995; 28(4): 664–683.
33.
NahapietJGhoshalS. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Mgmt Rev1998; 23(2): 242–266.
34.
ChiuCMHsuMHWangETG. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Syst2006; 42(3): 1872–1888.
35.
WaskoMMFarajS. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Q2005; 29(1): 35–57.
36.
GuptaMLiRYinZJHanJW. Survey on social tagging techniques. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newslett2010; 12(1): 58–72.
37.
MarlowCNaamanMBoydDDavisM. Position paper, tagging, taxonomy, Flickr, article, toread. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, Edinburgh, May 2006.
38.
NovOYeC. Why do people tag? Motivations for photo tagging. Commun ACM2010; 53(7): 128–131.
39.
ZollersA. Emerging motivations for tagging: Expression, performance, and activism. In: Proceedings of 16th international World Wide Web conference, Banff, Alberta, May 2007.
40.
PoHTChangCL. An exploratory study of users and tags on social bookmarking websites. J Library Inform Sci Res2009; 4(1): 1–26.
HecknerMMühlbacherSWolffC. Tagging tagging. Analysing user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems. J Dig Inform2008; 9(2); http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/246/208 (accessed 4 June 2010).
43.
KippMEICampbellDG. Patterns and inconsistencies in collaborative tagging systems: An examination of tagging practices. In: Proceedings of the annual general meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Austin, TX, November 2006.
44.
MunkTBMørkK. Folksonomy, the power law and the significance of the least effort. Knowl Organiz2007; 34(1): 16–33.
45.
SenSLamSKRashidAMCosleyDFrankowskiDOsterhouseJ. Tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution. In: Proceedings of the 20th anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work, Banff, Alberta, November 2006.
46.
WuML. Structural equation modeling: Amos operation and application. Taipei: Wunan Book Co., 2009, p. 9.
47.
LinCSChenYF. How does the online community sharing research conceptualize social capital: A literature review. J Library Inform Stud2011; 9(2): 55–89.
