Advertisement

Conversion of Social Capital in the Rehabilitation Process of Adolescents Following an Acquired Brain Injury

  • Mette Ryssel BystrupEmail author
  • Anette Lykke Hindhede
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents a Danish study exploring how forms of social capital are invested and converted by the relatives of young people with a severe acquired brain injury during the rehabilitation process. The empirical data were generated from direct observations of hospital discharge meetings, followed by focus group interviews with and questionnaire surveys of families six months after discharge. The analysis is theoretically based on Portes’ theoretical trichotomy considering social capital. We found that families with a ‘strong closed family structure’ were most successful in transforming their resources during the rehabilitation process, compared to a ‘small and weak family structure’ and those with a ‘split family structure’ who struggled the most in this regard.

References

  1. Alexander, M. (2009). Qualitative social network research for relational sociology. In S. Lockie (Ed.), The annual conference of the Australian Sociological Association: The future of sociology (pp. 1–15). Canberra: Australian Sociological Association. https://tasa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Alexander-Malcolm-paper-1.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
  2. Andersen, K., Dalton, S., Steding-Jessen, M., & Olsen, T. (2014). Socioeconomic position and survival after stroke in Denmark, 2003 to 2012: A nationwide hospital-based study. Stroke, 45, 3556–3560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bidart, C., & Charbonneau, J. (2011). How to generate personal networks: Issues and tools for a sociological perspective. Field Methods, 23(3), 266–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social. Notes provisoires. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 31, 2–3.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carlhed, C. (2007). Medicinens lyskraft och skuggor – om trosföreställningar och symbolisk makt i habiliteringen, 1960–1980 [The glow and shadows of the medicine: Doxa and symbolic power in the area of services to young children with disabilities, 1960–1980]. Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University, Studies in Education 116.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Corrigan, J. D., Selassie, A. W., & Orman, J. A. (2010). The epidemiology of traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 25(2), 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diderichsen, F., Andersen, I., & Manuel, C. (2011). Ulighed i sundhed – årsager og indsatser [Inequality in health – Reasons and initiatives]. Copenhagen: National Board of Health. https://www.sst.dk/da/udgivelser/2011/ulighed-i-sundhed-aarsager-og-indsatser. Accessed 27 Aug 2018.
  13. Doser, K., Poulsen, I., Wuensch, A., & Norup, A. (2018). Psychological outcome after severe traumatic brain injury in adolescents and young adults: The chronic phase. Brain Injury, 32(1), 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). Three worlds of welfare state capitalism. In C. Pierson, F. G. Castles, & I. K. Naumann (Eds.), The welfare state reader (pp. 160–174). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Feigin, V. L., Barker-Collo, S., Krishnamurthi, R., Theadom, A., & Starkey, N. (2010). Epidemiology of ischaemic stroke and traumatic brain injury. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 24(4), 485–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feiring, M., & Solvang, K. (2013). Rehabilitering mellom medisin og samfunnsfag – en feltanalytisk skisse [Rehabilitation between medicine and social science – A field analytical outline]. Praktiske Grunde, 1–2, 73–84. http://praktiskegrunde.dk/2013/praktiskegrunde(2013-1+2h)feiring-solvang.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2018.
  17. Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Foster, A. M., Armstrong, J., Buckley, A., Sherry, J., Young, T., Foliaki, S., et al. (2012). Encouraging family engagement in the rehabilitation process: A rehabilitation provider’s development of support strategies for family members of people with traumatic brain injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(22), 1855–1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gan, C., Campbell, K. A., Gemeinhardt, M., & McFadden, G. T. (2006). Predictors of family system functioning after brain injury. Brain Injury, 20(6), 587–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geckler, S., & Hansen, H. (2014). Afdækning af uligheder i behandling [Uncovering inequalities in treatment]. Copenhagen: Centre for Alternative Social Analysis. https://casa-analyse.dk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2014-Afd%C3%A6kning-af-uligheder-i-behandling.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2015.
  21. Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  22. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guldager, R., Poulsen, I., Egerod, I., Lundback Mathiesen, L., & Larsen, K. (2018). Rehabilitation capital: A new form of capital to understand rehabilitation in a Nordic welfare state. Health Sociology Review, 27(2), 199–213.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2018.1434808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hindhede, A. L. (2016). Neighbourhood renewal, participation, and social capital in deprived areas: Unintended consequences in a Nordic context. European Societies, 18(5), 535–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kamper-Jørgensen, F., & Rasmussen, J. G. (2008). Ulighed i behandling [Inequality in healthcare]. In F. Diderichsen, J. G. Rasmussen, & N. Döllner (Eds.), Den tunge ende: sandheden om ulighederne og uretfærdighederne i den danske sundhed: debatbog (pp. 27–45). Copenhagen: Dagens Medicin Bøger.Google Scholar
  26. Ministry of Health. (2016). Announcement of health legislation. https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=183932#idf6ac9508-afcf-4580-b7e0-18102ee7352c. Accessed 3 Oct 2017.
  27. Ministry of Health and Prevention. (2014). Dialogpapir om øget inddragelse af patienter og pårørende [Dialogue paper on increased involvement of patients and relatives]. https://www.sum.dk/Aktuelt/Publikationer/Dialogpapir-om-oeget-inddragelse-af-patienter-og-paaroerende.aspx. Accessed 16 Aug 2018.
  28. Montgomery, J. D. (1994). Weak ties, employment, and inequality: An equilibrium analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 99(5), 1212–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Board of Health. (2011). Hjerneskaderehabilitering – en medicinsk teknologivurdering: hovedrapport [Brain injury – A health technology assessment]. Copenhagen: National Board of Health, Danish Centre of Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA). https://www.sst.dk/da/udgivelser/2011/hjerneskaderehabilitering. Accessed 20 July 2018.
  30. Norup, A. (2012). Severe brain injury: Impact on family members in the early phases of rehabilitation. Doctoral dissertation, Copenhagen University Hospital, Glostrup. http://www.neuropsykologi.dk/Neuropsykologi/Upload/Anne%20Norup.pdf. Accessed 24 Aug 2018.
  31. Olsen, L., Plough, N., Andersen, L., & Juul, J. S. (2012). Det danske klassesamfund – Et socialt Danmarksportræt [The Danish class society – A social portrayal of Denmark]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  32. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 4(13), 35–42.Google Scholar
  35. Sander, A. M., Caroselli, J. S., High, W. M., Becker, C., Neese, L., & Scheibel, R. (2002). Relationship of family functioning to progress in a post-acute rehabilitation programme following traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 16(8), 649–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sandholm Larsen, N., & Larsen, K. (2008). Rehabilitering og ‘motion på recept’ – sociologiske perspektiver [Rehabilitation and ‘exercise by prescription’ – Sociological perspectives]. In K. Jensen, J. N. Rosendahl, M. Nørholm, & U. Brinkkjær (Eds.), Studier af pædagogisk praksis: eksempler på brug af teori, metode og empiri [Studies of pedagogic practices: Examples of the use of theory, methods and empirical knowledge] (pp. 35–56). Copenhagen: Danish School of Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mette Ryssel Bystrup
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Anette Lykke Hindhede
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Learning and PhilosophyAalborg University CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Hammel Neurorehabilitation and Research Centre and University Research ClinicRM, University of AarhusHammelDenmark

Personalised recommendations