Alastair Fuad-Luke

Professor of Practice, Emerging Design Practices

Aalto University, School of Art and Design, Helsinki, Finland

Re-crafting capitalism, regenerating societies:

How do designer-makers amplify, build and regenerate social capital?

Following the 2009 banking crisis, economies of nations, societies and communities have felt the impacts of the stuttering global economy. Does business as usual pick itself up and stumble on, or is it ‘game over’ for neo-liberal market economics? Whatever the near future holds, the hollowness of the promise that continued annual GDP growth will redeem and rebuild lives in the old Westernised economies is tangible. As is the notion that we can continue a vision of globalised mass manufacturing which is wholly dependent on a fossil fuel economy for material extraction and processing, the making of goods and their distribution. It is perhaps time to ask whether more locally based designing and making can re-orientate the modelling of our economies. It is also pertinent to ask whether it can help us re-evaluate the importance of other forms of capital too. Can designing and making help us to re-craft capitalism while simultaneously regenerating our societies? This paper is construed as an opening conversation on the potential of designing and making to contribute to developing positive social capital.

‘Design capitalia’: a framework for considering impacts on capitals

The hegemony of capitalism is that the default ‘capital’ in question is specifically economic, financial or fiscal – cash, profits, assets, stocks, Gross Domestic Progress (GDP), Returns on Investment (ROIs) and so on. Yet diverse voices across the UK sustainability agenda, especially those positing alternative economic models (such as the New Economics Foundation, NEF, , or the government’s own recently decommissioned Sustainable Development Commission, SDC), have long recognised other forms of capital that are largely unaccounted for in economic modelling. Jonathan Porritt, founder of Forum for the Future and chairman of the SDC, formulated a framework of five capitals – human, social, economic, manufactured and natural (Porritt 2007: 141) as a model for ‘capitalism as if the world matters’. This framework underpinned cohesive arguments for re-evaluating what we value, getting serious about the metrics, and re- setting our societal ambitions to deliver development that improves our well-being, while recognising genuine limits to our resource consumption. In Porritt’s model, natural capital is the true wealth of the world setting a precondition for all other forms of capital. The other key wealth ‘flows from the use of our hands, brains and spirits (human capital)’. This is the form of capital that easily blends with social capital which he defines as practical support, co-operation, trust, structures and cohesion.

Given the omnipresence of design in our materialized world it has significant influence on other capitals beyond the Five Capitals model, specifically on the capitals of man-made goods, man-made infrastructure (buildings, transportation systems) and on cultural and symbolic capital of these man-made forms (Fuad-Luke:2009 2-5, 6-10). This leads to a more extensive model of ten capitals which can be framed according to different viewpoints and perspectives. The purpose of naming and framing these capitals is to reveal their relational characteristics, so when we design and make giving rise to new forms, services or experiences we can ask what might be the potential impacts. Does the design decrease, increase or have no effect on specific stocks of capital and how this affects flows of capital from one to another. Expansion of these five and ten capital models extends the framework to include 29 sub-capitals – here assigned the term ‘design capitalia’ by the author (Figure 1). This design capitalia framework has the potential to be developed into a more systematic way to track the impacts of designing and making on diverse capitals. Referencing the framework, the designer-maker can

choose which capitals to nourish, or to reduce impacts on. This framework also allows the designer-maker to identify possible stakeholders with which to cooperate and co- create.

Reducing the adverse effects of designing and making/manufacturing on natural capital has received considerable attention over the last 20 years, especially through the lenses of eco-design and sustainable design (see for example, Charter and Tischner, 2001; Fuad-Luke, 2002). More recently the sustainable consumption and production debate has swung towards addressing the behavioural changes needed to inculcate a paradigmatic shift towards genuinely sustainable futures. There is an urgency to address how designing and making can add positive human and social capital as resilient social communities are seen as an essential step in developing more sustainably conscious and able societies to deal with the post-crash global economic adjustments (Jackson, 2009) and post Peak-Oil, or post Carbon economies as advocated by the Transition Towns movement (Hopkins, 2008). Researchers and practitioners are beginning to challenge how design and craft, and their constituent communities, find new directions in which to make more positive contributions to sustainable futures (see for example, Cipolla & Peruccio 2008; Ferris 2009). The craft-design diaspora needs to urgently address how it can contribute to shifts in behavior to more sustainable patterns and ways of making and living. So, the focus here is to explore how designing and making has the potentiality to positively impact on nourishing human capital and growing positive social capital.

Growing human capital in the context of designing and making

Porritt defines human capital as ‘any one individual’s physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual capacities’ (Porritt 2007: 163). While spiritual capital is often construed as a theological domain, Zohar invokes it in the sense of the dimension of our shared meanings and values and ultimate purposes (Zohar, 2004). Psychological skills, dexterity and judgment are also key parts of our complex human character. Such attributes inform the transference of tacit(1) and explicit(2) knowledge and skills, both strong elements of craft, designing and making which Sennett sees as being accumulated and passed on through social interaction, and hence contributing to social capital (Sennett, 2008). Designing and making is also central to creating shared meaning through the exchange of knowledge, form-giving and its symbolic and semiotic associations. Furthermore, making together can be a means for raising self-awareness and self- esteem. For example, a recent Crafts Council report examined the role of craft within participatory arts practice and its positive impacts on children, community groups, and health and disability through personal learning and gains through social interaction (Schwarz & Yair, 2010). Fab Pad, a project by Impact Arts in the UK to help young people to establish their own home as a means of rehabilitation into society after personal crises or problems with drugs or crime, supports the notion that human capital can be significantly nurtured by encouraging designing and making, by making a house into a home(3).

Showing increases in individual human capital seems a relatively straightforward task compared to demonstrating the growth of social capital because of its inherent collective and relational nature. Is it possible to develop ways of qualitatively and/or quantitatively measuring the impact of designing and making projects on social capital?

Defining ‘potential indicators’ for social capital

The influence of the American sociologist Robert Putnam on the discourse around social capital has been significant (Putnam, 2001). Putnam’s construct of social capital invoked association and civic activity as the basis for social integration and well-being (Field 2010: 1-2, 15). As John Field notes, Putnam’s approach contrasts with the more Marxist concerns of Pierre Bourdieu in 1970s-80s about equal access to resources and maintenance of power, and James Coleman’s economic framing of social capital as

rational individuals acting in their own interests. For the purposes of this study, the following definition, applied to recent discourse about design activism(4), is adopted:

‘Social capital holds a wide variety of meanings but most agree that it concerns connections between and within social networks that encourage civic engagement, engender trust, create mutual support, establish norms, contribute to communal health, cement shared interests, facilitate individual or collective action, and generate reciprocity between individuals and between individuals and a community.’ (Fuad-Luke 2009: 7)

So how can we begin to assess whether social capital is developed, built or generated by a project? What are the characteristics and outcomes of social capital and what are the functions of organisations-networks-groups that contribute to social capital? Commentators from different perspectives note that the building of social capital requires the development of trust, mutual support, norms and the ability to work together (Field 2010). Fukuyama sees trust as a central ingredient in the development of social capital (Fukuyama 1995: 26 cited in Field 2010: 70) although others see trust not as an integral component but as one of its outcomes (Field 2010: 72). Nahapiet and Ghoshal see structural, relational, and cognitive clusters in the role of social capital in creating organizational advantage for the development of intellectual capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). The act of designing and making together is also experiential involving peer to peer exchange, social interaction, holistic and sensorial processes, tactile engagement with the medium and more (Sennett, 2008). So it seems that the development of social capital can be attributed to four focal areas, each with a subset of specific features (Figure 1). These can be seen as ‘potential indicators’, proxy measure of increases in social capital. The focal areas are:

the structure of the network/organisation/group
relationships
skills and knowledge
experiences

Many of these focal areas and specific features (the potential indicators) are often cited in the diverse definitions of social capital(5).

Fleece, Fun and Film: Designing and making case studies from the SW of England

The above ‘potential indicators’ of social capital provided the criteria for a set of questions sent to three designing and making projects implemented in Devon/Cornwall, in the South West of England during 2010-2011(6). Give Fleece A Chance (GFAC) is focused on local sheep’s wool in the South West of England; Hands-on Brixham was a one-off event that brought 20 designer-makers together with diverse communities in the fishing port of Brixham, South Devon; and, Imperfect Cinema engages diverse communities in the city of Plymouth and its environs by making their own short films. The latter has been included as an example of making through doing and experiencing. Although digital film making does not involve direct tactility with materials it does involve the transfer of explicit and tacit knowledge within a participatory environment and is what Rancière would include in the notion of aesthetic activity (Rancière, 2004: 12).

In the questionnaire each project creator was asked to score the success of their project against the ‘potential indicators’ as as ‘none’, ‘poor’, ‘moderate’ or ‘strong’. These were then converted into a numeric result during the subsequent analysis, by scoring ‘0’, ‘1’, ‘2’, and ‘3’ respectively. Impacts were defined in free text form by each project creator and involved qualitative and quantitative assessments. The scoring results are given in Table 1 and projects described in detail below.

Case study 1: Give Fleece a Chance

Give Fleece a Chance (GFAC) is a project created and facilitated by textile and knitwear designer Claire Crompton to promote sheep’s wool in the South West of England in particular and British wool generally, its current use and future use as a sustainable material. GFAC began in October 2010 and is continuing through 2011, and is a cornerstone project for Claire’s studies on the Masters in Entrepreneurship for Creative Practice at Plymouth College of Art. The overall objectives of the project are to:
1. create a collection of knitted sheep to promote local SW wool - highlighting the diverse textures and colours available from a natural product (Figure 3).
2. connect wool producers to wool users - educating the producers to potential markets for their product
3. connect the local textile communities together - encouraging collaboration
4. encourage more participation in hand-knitting - as a craft and as a social activity
The key stakeholders are Claire and the knitters and spinners that contribute knitted sheep and yarn, while diverse secondary stakeholders include SW wool producers - farmers, smallholders; wool users - professional textile makers; craft (or hobby) textile makers including local knitting groups; spinning groups: a school; and small businesses using wool.

Of the four scored categories, ‘relationships’ and ‘skills and knowledge’ achieved scores between ‘moderate to strong’ and average score of 2.2 (Table 1) indicating moderate levels of social capital building had been achieved within the key stakeholders. Quantifiable impacts included:
250 knitted sheep between October 2010 and May 2011
70 knitters contributing through 13 events and by independent knitting work
48 wood producers providing fleece or yarn

In addition GFAC has made connections amongst the wool producers and between producers and the knitters. It has also provided information about wool use and processing to producers and publicized local South West of England wool via press, web blog, radio and the 13 wool events at craft and agricultural venues. Indeed the interest in the project led Claire to create a new project in June 2010 called the Wool Directory, www.wooldirectory.org.uk, in collaboration with the Centre for Contemporary Art and the Natural World, www.ccanw.co.uk. This directory is a source of information about SW wool allowing connections to be made between producers and users. As of August 2011 25 wool producers and 15 wool users are listed.

Reflecting on her GFAC project Claire noted that ‘Recently two other wool projects have emerged - WoolSack (making cushions as part of the Cultural Olympiad - www.woolsac.org) and FLOCK (making sheep from British wool - www.jointheflock.co.uk). WoolSack has succeeded very quickly in engaging a large number of participants through a well organised website and more importantly a Facebook group. Flock is just beginning but is succeeding in engaging a wide range of participants because of its 'low tech' process of making pom-poms (accessible for schoolchildren and the wider population).’(7)

Case study 2: Hands-on, Brixham

Hands On Brixham was a community based event held on 19-20 March 2011. It was jointly created by Transition Brixham(8), part of the Transition Towns movement, and Brixham Youth Enquiry Service (Brixham YES) who have worked to nourish the futures of the young people of Brixham for over a decade. The overall mission of the event was to create an amazing day of making for the whole town and its diverse communities by
inviting 20 local designer-makers to demonstrate and engage the public in making. Transition Brixham was interested in whether the event would bring together a community of designer-makers and generate potential new ideas for local enterprises. The focus for Brixham YES was twofold: firstly to publicise moving to and regenerating an empty church (re-branded as The Edge) and secondly to encourage exchange of skills and knowledge to help generate early ideas for the Brixham Neighbourhood Challenge, one of sixty UK projects sponsored by the National Endowment for the Sciences, Technology and the Arts, NESTA, to encourage the revitalisation of neighbourhoods and their communities. The joint aims of Hands On were to:
encourage and foster creative making of all forms within the community
raise awareness of the creatives/groups/organizations taking part
provide a weekend of free, interesting workhops, demonstrations, activities for the community of Brixham and further afield
bring people into The Edge, Brixham YES’ new community and youth centre where they could feel welcomed, involved, valued and engaged
encourage people of all ages to explore their own creativity in a variety of ways, link people with skills and knowledge to those yet to learn, promoting intergenerational understanding and skill swap

Key stakeholders were Transition Brixham, Brixham YES, young people (11-25 years old) and the creative community of local artists, designer-makers, film-makers and musicians. Other stakeholders were the people and wider communities of Brixham.

The event was organised from late January onwards with weekly meetings, facilitated by the author, attracting between 10-20 people. Renovation of the old church to the launch of The Edge ran parallel to the Hands On meetings and involved upwards of 40 people. As part of the marketing initiative over 300 items were knitted and a ‘yarn bombing’ campaign initiated around the town. This garnered a lot of positive publicity for the event. Quite a strong community spirit was generated during the run up to the event. Over the Hands On weekend, the event attracted over 1,000 people (approximately 5% of the total population of Brixham) over the two days and involved 20 ‘creatives’ and representatives from 12 local organisations (Figure 4).

The survey respondent, Lizzie Freeman, current co-chair of Transition Brixham, reported on the overall the generation of social capital which scored 2.4 with ‘experiences’ in the ‘strong’ category, scoring an average top grade of 3.0 (Table 1). However, transference of explicit and tacit skills and knowledge was seen as moderate, score 2.0. This perhaps reflects the limited time each participant spent on learning a particular making activity and that each ‘creative’ chose an activity that was easily managed given the temporary set up of facilities. Angela Neil, a Trustee of Brixham YES, showed a similar response pattern in the survey, but with a slightly higher scoring in the ‘experiences’ category.

The most important contributions from the Hands On project from the perspectives of both respondents were:
Increase awareness of the joint organizations, especially raising the profile of Brixham YES and its new youth and community centre, The Edge, amongst the town’s communities
Increased interaction between the ‘creatives’ and the various communities of Brixham
Increased interaction between the ‘creatives’ themselves
New social connections made between each group taking part/attending
Increased awareness of making/creativity
Increased confidence amongst participants
Increased communication
Increased in desire to begin other projects that will benefit the community
Recognising the importance of valuing our young people, sharing skills and knowledge
Encouraging older people to become involved and connect with younger people
Promoting a sense of sharing
The creation of two community workshops (woodworking and metal working) for intergenerational skill exchange at The Edge

The primary stakeholders, Transition Brixham and Brixham YES, benefitted from increased attendance and participation in their organisations. For the other primary stakeholders, the creatives, benefits arose from increase income, contacts for new commissions and networking with other creatives. Other benefits included:
Direct Increase in the individual creative groups’ membership numbers
New products being made by the creatives, which are now being sold within the community and further afield
New meetings organized and informative talks given
New group formed to look at rolling out planned projects within the community this year and next

Case study 3: Imperfect Cinema

Imperfect Cinema was founded by Alister Gall and Dan Paolantonio in October 2010 in the city of Plymouth, Devon, UK. Its mission is to create an underground micro-cinema venue, focusing on creative-participation and addressing issues of exclusivity and inequality in contemporary film culture. It runs monthly meetings and outreach workshops to encourage participatory activity and aims to ‘socialise a free, democratic short-form cinema by valorising do-it-yourself ethics’, www.imperfectcinema.com.

The survey respondent, Alister Gall, focused on the overall impact of the organisation, rather than a specific workshop or monthly event. He reported exceptionally high ratings in the ‘strong’ category for structure, relationships, skills and knowledge and experiences (Table 1). Since its inception Imperfect Cinema has held 9 events, made and screened over 50 films, run 3 cinek club workshops, and undertaken numerous school workshops throughout the year. Imperfect Cinema also ran a workshop at Hands On Brixham above, with participants ranging in age from 4/5 years to 70+years old. Events are typically attended by 75-100 people (Figure 5) and an estimated 1,000 people have been engaged through the rolling programme. One of the key contributions made by Imperfect Cinema is opening up a space for participation in film making for all ages and abilities. Screenings attract a diverse audience beyond those directly involved in the film-making.

‘Potential indicators’ of social capital building: Preliminary conclusions

The three case studies reveal overall that they made a positive impact on developing various characteristics, functions and outcomes associated with social capital. In particular, these diverse making projects indicate that a qualitative assessment of structure of the network/organisation/group, relationships, skills and knowledge, and experiences provides a set of ‘potential indicators’ of the existence and development of social capital. Each project also had some clearly articulated and quantified outcomes or impacts. There is evidence that the projects also developed different ways of building social capital through ‘bonding’, ‘bridging’ and ‘linking’ (Woolcock 2001:11-17). Bonding refers to homogeneous ‘people like us’ and ‘like-minded people’; bridging refers to connections to people from different walks of life or connections between heterogeneous groups; linking reaches out further to unlike people in dis-similar situations, those outside of a defined community. Bonding and bridging were the more important ways in

GFAC. Hands On Brixham and Imperfect Cinema invoked all three ways of building social capital.

These projects seem to tap into communities eager to actively engage in something. There is a groundswell of public interest in making films encouraged by YouTube, Vimeo and other online web resources. A surge of ‘yarn-bombing’ activity over the last few years (see for example, Moore and Prain, 2009).has also fuelled interests around making and causing aesthetic disruptions in public spaces. Often these activities are un- coordinated and their overall impact on societal change is difficult to assess. However, as this brief survey has shown, impact of designing and making on growing social capital can be measured but the question now raised is how can we magnify the impacts further?

Refining the approach: What can we learn from Social Return on Investment?

Organisations that operate in the social sector, delivering services and support to society, often rely on external funding from public or charitable sources. Proving that these funds deliver positive impacts is therefore essential. Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a form of social accounting that provides a framework to bring stakeholders together to define the inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts of an organisation’s work or specific project (see for example, NEF 2004). It has become a favoured approach by the UK government (Cabinet Office 2009) because it is seen as a way to monetise the value of the positive social impacts and to show how the ‘added-value’ of social impacts is understood, managed and proven. Although there is considerable variance in the efficacy with which SROI is applied in the Third Sector (Wood and Leighton 2010).

SROI UK has suggested seven principles for a well-managed SROI project(8), which can include qualitative, quantitative and financial information:

Involve stakeholders in dialogue
Understand and measure what changes by defining values, objectives, scope and accounting criteria
Value the things that matter and agree financial proxies for values not measured by the markets
Only include what is material and evidenced i.e. demonstrate how activities create change
Do not overclaim your impacts by using appropriate benchmarks, targets or external standards
Be transparent, honest and accurate in documenting your findings
Get the results independently verified.

SROI starts from having a theory about change and the resources needed to realise that change by identifying the needs of the stakeholders then co-creating products, services and activities to meet those needs. Monetising the true value of many social impacts is difficult, but being transparent about the methodologies allows others to agree or disagree with the findings. There are many tools developed to address SROI, including NEF’s The Local Multiplier, lm3; Prove It!, a tool developed by NEF/Barclays Sitesavers/Groundwork; the Balanced Scorecard; and others (9)

The advantages of SROI include improved organisational planning for improved effectiveness and demonstrating the importance of the social work to the organisation, funders/investors, service users and stakeholders.

The aforementioned Fab Pad project was able to demonstrate its positive social impact and the specific SROI it generated (see Note 4). For every 1GBP invested in the North Ayrshire Fab Pad project in Scotland, a social return in investment of 8.38GBP has been realised. The added value for each young person that participated was calculated as

GBP19,238. In other words, if the young people had not had the support of the Fab Pad project they would have availed themselves of public social, health, educational or financial support services with these equivalent real costs. The young people that took part in the project showed increases in their self-esteem and confidence, improved income from employment, better physical and mental health, better debt management, less chaotic lifestyles and new networks of friends.

The SROI approach shows the benefits of co-creating projects with stakeholders so that a common mission, aims and means to measure the positive change are set out at the beginning of a project. Interestingly, the SROI approach encourages the use of existing benchmarks, targets and external standards for measuring the outputs and impacts but does not preclude the use of criteria defined by the project stakeholders, providing the rational is transparent.

Designing and making for societal impact

The three case studies demonstrated the potential positive impact that designing and making projects can have on developing social capital. Furthermore, the ‘potential indicators’ which recognise the importance of structure of the network/organisation/group, relationships, skills and knowledge, and experiences offer a means to qualitatively assess the impacts. This embryonic approach could be substantially refined and quantified by a designer-maker becoming a project facilitator and bringing the stakeholders together prior to beginning the project in order to collectively co-create the project’s mission, aims and outputs. This would help refine the choice of appropriate benchmarks, targets, standards and potential indicators used to scope and measure impacts. This more structured and strategic approach to designing and making projects could potentially lever more positive societal impacts.

The notion of multiple, inter-related capitals, the ‘design capitalia’ also opens up new roles and opportunities for designer-makers. In particular, the design capitalia framework suggests that designer-makers can choose to be project creators and facilitators and agents of positive impact of a wide variety of capitals, including human and social capital. This is clearly demonstrated by Claire Crompton’s GFAC project which seems to positively impact on diverse capitals, especially human, social, natural (biotic: biodiversity, ecosystem capacity; abiotic: atmospheric CO2 reduction by using local materials) and economic (more trading in the local economy, IP generation).

There seems to be huge potential for designer-makers of all genres to consider how they can originate projects that contribute to positive social capital. Re-crafting capitalism really is in the hands of designer-makers. The challenge is how to scale up the actions and impacts into a more substantive movement.

References

Cabinet Office (2009) A Guide to Social Return on Investment. Office of The Third Sector, London: Society Media, April 2009.

Charter, M. and U.Tischner (eds) (2001) Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future. Sheffield:Greenleaf Publishing.

Cipolla, C. and P.P. Peruccio (eds) (2008), Changing the Change, July 2008, Milan, Italy. Milan: Milan Polytechnic with Allemandi Conference Press.

Ferris, M. (ed) (2009) Making Futures: the crafts in the context of emerging global sustainability agendas, Making Futures Vol 1: i-vi at

http://makingfutures.plymouthart.ac.uk/journalvol1/about-this-publication.php, September 2009, Mount Edgecombe, Plymouth. Plymouth: Plymouth College of Art.

Field, J. (2010) Social Capital. 2nd edition. London:Routledge.

Fuad-Luke, A. (2002) The Eco-design Handbook. London:Thames and Hudson.

Fuad-Luke, A. (2009) Design Activism: Beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. London: Earthscan.

Hopkins, R. (2008) A Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience. Dartington: Green Books.

Jackson, T. (2009) Prosperity Without Growth – Economics for a Finite Planet. London: Earthscan.

Leighton, D. & C, Wood (2010) Measuring Social Value – the gap between policy and practice. London:Demos.

Moore, M. and L. Prain (2009) Yarn Bombing: The Art of Crochet and Knit Graffiti. Vancouver: Aresenal Publishing Press.

Nahapiet, J. and S, Ghoshal. (1998) ‘Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage’, Academy of Management Review 23(2):242-266

NEF (2004) Measuring Social Impact: the foundation of social return on investment (SROI). London:New Economics Foundation.

Porritt, J. (2007) Capitalism As If The World Matters. London:Earthscan.

Puttnam, R. (2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:Simon and Schuster.

Rancière, J. (2004) The politics of aesthetics. London & New York:Continuum.

Schwartz, M. & K. Yair (2010) Making Value: Craft and the economic and social contribution of makers. June 2010. London:Crafts Council.

Sennett, R. (2008) The Craftsman. London:Penguin.

Wood, C. and D. Leighton (2010) Measuring Social Value: The Gap Between Policy and Practice. London:Demos.

Woolcock, M. (2001) ‘The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic Outcomes’, Isuma:Canadian Journal of Policy and Research 2, 1, 11-17.

Zohar, (2004) Spiritual Capital: Wealth We Can Live By. London: Bloomsbury.

Note 1. Tacit knowledge, as defined by Michael Polyani (1967) in his book The Tacit Dimension as, is a ‘pre-logical phase of knowing’ which involves knowing how to do something, but it is difficult to formalise or rationalise. Often the person is unaware she- he has such sensory, conceptual and image-based knowledge, but is driven by passion to discover the hidden truth.

Note 2. Explicit skills and knowledge is defined as that which can be formalised, codified, stored and transmitted in a rational manner.

Note 3. See http://www.socialimpactscotland.org.uk/case-studies/impact-arts-fab-pad- project.aspx, for more information about the Social Return on Investment Report by Impact Arts about the North Ayrshire Fab Pad in 2006-2009. Website accessed 16.05.2011.

Note 4. Design activism is ‘design thinking, imagination and practice applied knowingly or unknowingly to create a counter-narrative aimed at generating and balancing positive social, institutional, environmental and/or economic change’. (Fuad-Luke 2009: 27).

Note 5. The following definitions by various authors were sourced from Field, J. (2010) Social Capital. 2nd edition. London:Routledge, then compared in order to generate the key characteristics, functions or outcomes of social capital used for the ‘potential indicators’:

Social capital …’features of social organization, such as trust, norms and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating co-ordinated actions’,. quoted from Putnam, Robert D (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic traditions in modern Italy, p169, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

and Putnam later revised…’by social capital I mean features of social life, networks, norms, trust, that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives’ (Puttnam 1996: 56).

‘Social capital is the sum of resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:119).

‘Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure’. (Coleman 1994:302).

‘Social capital is a capability that arises from the prevalence of trust in a society or certain parts of it’ (Fukuyama, 1995:25).

p144 ‘Much of what is relevant to social capital is tacit and relational, defying easy measurement or classification’ (OECD 2001b: 43).

Note 6. Give Fleece and Chance, www.givefleeceachance.com; Hands On Brixham, www.brixhamedge.org/hands_on.php; Imperfect Cinema, www.imperfectcinema.com.

Note 7. Personal communication, 26 August 2011.

Note 8. What is SROI?, sourced at http://www.sroi-uk.org/what-is-SROI-uk, accessed 10.08.2011.

Note 9. Sourced from the websites of SROI-UK, New Economics Foundation and Social Enterprise London.

FIGURES AND TABLES

Table 1. Average scores for the ‘potential indicators’ of developing social capital in the four focal areas for each case study.

‘Focal areas’ of social capital building	CASE STUDIES
‘Focal areas’ of social capital building	Give Fleece A Chance	Hands On (Transition Brixham)	Hands On (Brixham YES)	Imperfect Cinema
Structure	1.8	2.2	2.0	3.0
Relationships	2.4	2.4	2.8	2.8
Skills & knowledge	2.5	2.0	2.3	3.0
Experiences	2.1	3.0	3.0	3.0
Sum of scores	8.8	19.7		11.8
Average score	2.2	2.4		2.9

Note: In the original survey questions, respondents were given the options to answer ‘none’, ‘poor’, ‘moderate’ and ‘strong’ and these subsequently scored ‘0’, ‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘3’ respectively. A score of 2.0 is therefore a ‘moderate’ and 3.0 is a ‘strong’ indicator of developing social capital.

Figure 1. The ‘Design Capitalia’ Framework

‘design capitalia’ – 5 key capitals, 29 sub-capitals

Biotic - Living

NATURAL CAPITAL