A SOCIAL APPROACH FOR THE CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE GATEKEEPERS: THE CASE OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES

conceito guardiões ( knowledge gatekeeper exploratória focada no estudo sobre a relação entre capital social e a noção de guardiões do conhecimento na perspectiva das universidades comunitárias norte-americanas. A hipótese levantada por este estudo é que de acordo com o contexto o conceito de guardião do conhecimento pode ser expandido e além disso, o contexto define a sua relevância para o desenvolvimento do entorno. Abstract This article aims to expand the concept of knowledge gatekeepers from his role as an agent that can provide the access to heterogeneous and complementary knowledge to a particular social environment. This is an exploratory research focused on the study about the relationship between social capital and the notion of the knowledge gatekeeper in the case of the American community colleges. The hypothesis raised by this study is, according to the context, the concept of knowledge gatekeeper can be expanded. Besides allowing the expansion of the concept, the context defines the relevance of a knowledge gatekeeper for the development of its surroundings.


INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to analyze the role of American community colleges as knowledge gatekeepers in their local communities. The first studies about knowledge gatekeepers show the effects that they have on the diffusion of knowledge within an economic system and on the local organizations. In fact, the knowledge gatekeepers function as facilitators to access the complementary and heterogeneous knowledge.
Studies have indentified that one of the main characteristics of knowledge gatekeepers is that they possess a high level of social capital followed by a networks' centrality.
Therefore, the relevance of the social capital, for the understanding of the community colleges as knowledge gatekeepers, lays on their bond with cultural and social-economics within their surrounding environment.
According to the American association of Community Colleges (2009), more than 43% of Afro-American and 52% of Hispanic students graduating have studied some part of their education on a community college. These students are generally older, and poorer than students who attended universities. This actual characteristic supports the original concept of community colleges, which is to be of service to the local communities in one specific region.
The community colleges were created on 1946 by recommendation of the President's Commission on Higher Education. In the beginning, community colleges were created by local councils or by groups of people concerned about education and local development.
The main finality was to offer quality higher education to the youth of the local community. During the 1960s and 1970s, community college enrollment was increased due to the feminist movement, civil rights groups, and the return of the veterans of the Vietnam war there was a huge increase in the subscriptions of these institutions. Thus in this work we aim to follow a social approach for the concept of knowledge gatekeeper from the case study of the community colleges.

KNOWLEDGE GATEKEEPERS, CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
The concept of knowledge gatekeeper started in the late 1970s to define individuals with a high degree of knowledge from which other would seek for information. The differential of these people is the high degree of connectivity to the information sources outside their organizations (Allen, 1977).
A small number of key people to whom others frequently turned for information. These peoplediffer from their colleagues in the degree to wich they exposed themselves to sources of technological knowledge outside t heir organization. Their features are such as they constitute a small community of individuals, they are at the core of an information network, they overexposed to external sources of information, and the linkages they develop with external actors are more informal. (Allen,p.145) In the 1980s, Tushman and Katz (1980) studied the role of individuals acting as knowledge gatekeeper, and the performance of project groups. In the 1990s, the network theory gains strength as hybrid organizational structures constituted by nodes, which streamlines and facilitates the absorption, and mobilization of data, information, and knowledge (Cohen & Levintal, 1990;Williamson, 1996;McEvily & Zaheer). By the network theory point of view, the knowledge gatekeeper is a focal point for the innovation capability of the network because is posses a great capability of interacting, with the other network nodes, collect, and disseminate knowledge (Petruzzelli, 2008;Tushman, 1997;Hagardon, 1998).
In the 2000, the notion of knowledge gatekeeper becomes wider and receives concepts from the knowledge for innovation. "An important role in the innovation processes and new knowledge creation is assumed by actors, generally known as knowledge gatekeepers that can act as "bridges", providing the access to complementary and heterogeneous knowledge" (Petruzzelli, Albino, Carbonara, & Rotolo, 2010). In the context, the knowledge gatekeeper is characterized by the high degree of absorptive capacity, it means abilities to absorb, understand end exploit external knowledge (Cohen & Levintal, 1990); strong social capital presence, "an essential precondition for knowledge exchange and collective learning" (Boschma & ter Wal, 2007) and strongly connected with external knowledge sources (Boschma & ter Wal, 2007;Petruzzelli, Albino, Carbonara, & Rotolo, 2010). Besides precondition notion for the knowledge dynamics and learning, social capital principles may be seen in the concept of social proximity for the networks development (Bradshaw, 2001;Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006) and for the interactive learning and innovation (Boshma, 2005). "Social proximity may stimulate interactive learning due to trust and commitment […] social proximity are characterized by strong ties between partners, although different mechanisms are involved (hierarchy and trust, respectively) (Boshma, 2005, p. 67).
In addition, the social proximity also produces a particular effect on the social capital that can be characterized by the classical definition of the community which includes aspects of activities coordinated with a certain common purpose, self-government, cultural superstructure and sense of identity (Durston, 2000) For Durston (1999) the community social capital is a specific version of social capital.
The cultural and trust norms as well as the interpersonal networks of reciprocity are precursors of more complex institutions oriented by norms pursuing the common wellbeing.
The search itself for the common wellbeing defines not only the community social capital, but it also accentuates its precursor elements such as its cultural values, trust levels, and the reciprocity present at the community level in the social system.
The community social capital, within that logic is not an individual resource but a form of social institutionality of the community. Different from formal institutions of joint assets such as cooperatives and social institutions the community social capital refers to norms, practices, and interpersonal relationships that exist and are observed within a group that does not yet have an institutional status. It is an "informal institutionality" in the interior and exterior of community organizations, or wider social systems (Durston 1999). In this way, the community social capital may be the leverage for the knowledge exchange and collective learning in a social approach for the knowledge gatekeepers.

SOCIAL CAPITAL: DIFFERENT TYPES, DIFFERENT AIMS
The term "social capital" appeared in the academic community with the intent to mark the importance that networks and relationships have, which are based on trust, co-operating, and collective action as a basis for the survival and functioning of neighborhoods in cities.
The studies by Coleman (1988),  indicated the importance of this capital in the relationship among individuals, as well as in that of nations and are considered as an inherent resource in extended, and nuclear family relationships, and social organizations.
The social capital allows people to reach an efficacious community focus on effective joint problem solving, in other words, in democratic societies, the art of combining is the mother of all other human arts (Tocqueville, 1835). Therefore, trust and reciprocal obligation in civil society are crucial to build a knowledge gatekeeper.
In this line, the knowledge gatekeeper can provide a direct and networked way to link up small-scale groups defined by shared values trust, and reciprocal face-to-face relationships all sources of social capital (Briggs, 2008). This dynamics only is possible through a network relationship, in which learning takes the form of deeper knowledge of counterparts' interests. The more the network is formed by horizontal links, the more knowledge will be generated.
In sum, social capital is represented by characteristics of the social organization that can improve the efficiency of society and facilitate the coordination of actions. The authors that write about this subject have identified a number of common elements for its creation, such as social networks, trust, reciprocity, civic participation, and social norms (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998;Onyx & Bullen, 2000).
Social networks are characterized by collective actions of individuals in the society (Onyx & Bullen, 2000). In order to create a network it is necessary to have spontaneous propensity in social interacting and that capacity to form new associations and to cooperate within the established referential terms (Fukuyama, 1999).
A second element that is characteristic of social capital is trust. This is considered a fundamental element for the prevision of inter and intra organizational depth (Smith, Carroll & Ashford, 1995). Currie and Stanley (2008) consider that trust is derived from the rules of reciprocity and of the systems of civic participation.
Concerning relationship building, trust between partners is considered a determinant factor for an efficient interchange of knowledge (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001;Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998;Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998;Li, Barner-Rasmussen & Björkman, 2007). Fukuyama (1999) considered trust as an existing expectation in the community where honesty and cooperation are part of regular behavior, which is based on established norms accepted by all.
Another element of social capital is reciprocity. By reciprocity, Onyx and Bullen (2000) understand an action of providing services for the benefit of others with the expectation that this action will grand the performer a future benefit in return. Coleman (1988) sees reciprocity as the retribution for a favor.
The civic participation for Coleman (1988) is seen as an action in association of different types.  conclude that a civic community is characterized by acting citizen engaged and involved in the public spirit by egalitarian political relationships in a social structure strengthened by trust and cooperation.
Characteristics of a civic community are: a group of citizens, which implies equal rights and obligations for all individuals, a unified community, for an important part moved by the horizontal relationships of reciprocity and cooperation, while the vertical relationships of authority and dependence are hardly present; the perception of responsibility among the leaders; the existence of wide participation by the citizens in government; the importance given to public spirit by the citizens in general; trust among the members of that society .
The main functions of social capital are also known as types of social capital: bridging, bonding and linking (Halpern, 2005;Onyx & Bullen, 2000;Sabatini, 2008).
The bonding social capital involves links between agents in the same position, within homogeneous groups (Monastério, 2002). This type of social capital -called by  the sociological superglue -refers to the strong ties, since the power of a social connection is defined as a combination of time, emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocal services. Circles of family, friendship or closed communities are typical of these strong ties (Granovetter, 1985).
In this sense, the bonding social capital is characterized by strong relations of mutual aid in the local context and high levels of participation, which results in dense multifunctional strong ties but localized trust. This type of social capital is characterized to occur among people in some way "likely" -it generates empowerment within horizontal networks (Onyx & Bullen, 2000;Macke et al., 2010).
However, this mutual support can be limited to people who are inserted into the network and cannot be extended to other networks or groups. Moreover, the bridging social capital is developed between different groups of actors and serves to expand the skills and networks resources, that is not accessible in other ways (Sabatini, 2008).
The bridging type is the form of social capital that refers to the weak ties (Granovetter, 1985), because it takes place among agents of distinct social groups, facilitating access to various sources of information. The weak ties connections add value to each actor by providing different information sources.
The linking social capital considers relations of unequal power and usually refers to connections between the poor people and those in command positions in formal organizations. It is present in vertical relationships of control and power (Grootaert et al., 2004). In communities where there is a stock of this kind of social capital, the governments are more responsive to the demands coming from the lower strata of the social pyramid (Woolcock, 2001). Of course, the three types of social capital described above are not mutually exclusive, ie, the presence of one, not necessarily exclude the presence of the another (Onyx & Bullen, 2000). And besides, a civic community needs these three types of social capital to develop itself.
This exploratory research focus on the study about the relationship between social capital and the notion of the knowledge gatekeeper in the case of the American community colleges. We aim to expand the concept of knowledge gatekeeper from his role as an agent that can provide the access to heterogeneous and complementary knowledge to a particular social environment, in this case a civic community.
A major strength of community social capital is the central role of the moral dimension in the construction of a "good society" (in the words of Putnam, a civic community). Moreover, there is an emphasis on citizen participation in collective affairs, the rescue of the role of family and schools to civic education, the quest for balance between rights and responsibilities and the recognition of cultural diversity, without compromising the identity of groups and communities (Etzioni, 2003;Schmidt, 2010).
Presented in this way, community social capital is an alternative path between excessive regulation of state and market; for communitarians, the values of solidarity, reciprocity, and community ties will prevail, naturally, upon market forces and the logic of policy. In this sense, the virtues of responsibility of the collaboration norms of reciprocity and altruism may build a civic community (Fachinelli, Macke, Zorzi, 2010).

HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
The concept of community college is a more recent conception, taking its' roots at Central High School, in Jolliet Illinois in 1901 (Jurgens, 2010). The original concepts of community college was to add two additional years to the pre-existing High School curriculum, in order to offer technical training, or liberal arts education, with the underlying goal of matriculation at a four-year institution (Jurgens, 2010). According to Jill Jurgens, enrollment for these earliest community colleges were at around 150-200 students (Jurgens, 2010) The American Community College module has made several changes since inception in the early 1900's. of becoming community college students. According to Jurgens (2010) "unique characteristics of these early community colleges was their ease of access to women. This feature was attributed to the major role college played in preparing grammar school teachers." During the early years, four-year colleges initiated programs to help students prepare for college. These programs allowed students to earn a junior college certificates and credit. The first example of this program was started by the University of California Berkeley (Jurgens, 2010). The start of this certificate program and credit programs allowed students to apply their credit obtained at their local college, or extended high school program to matriculate as college credit at the four-year institution (Jurgens, 2010). During this same time, early transfer initiates came forth in order to make transferring credits seamless. Jurgens (2010) states, "One of the most influential of these early groups was the Committee of Ten, which initiated the adoption of the Carnegie unit that led to formulas for credit transfer. community needs" (Jurgens, 2010). During this period, the community college started to transition into the current model.
There was yet more change that would take place in the 1950s, which would lead to significant progress within the community college model. According to Jurgens (2010),

The community college of today
Presently, community colleges have transformed from the traditional two-year associates degree-granting institutions to much more. There are several tracts for students who wish to attend community college; in fact, the opportunities start while students are still in high school. Community colleges offer high school students the opportunity to attend college classes, even while the students stay enrolled in high school. This program may be referred to as dual enrolment, early admit, or post secondary enrolment option, but are similar depending on the geographical location.
The purpose of these dual enrolment programs has been to allow high school students the opportunity to take colleges level classes while they are still in high school. These programs allow students to take course work, in order to apply to an associate's degree or towards a bachelor's degree program at other accredited institutions. These dual Currently, community colleges offer several opportunities for enrolling students ranging from one-year certificates in technical programs, or two-year associate degrees degrees. According to Jill Jurgens (2010), "The popularity of these certificates is evident in the increased number of certificates being developed and awarded at community colleges.
These certificate programs allow individuals to obtain training in a relatively short amount of time in order to quickly enter the workforces." As the number of certificate programs has increased so, have the number of associate's degree.
The community college has been a champion in allowing access to those students who are less likely to obtain a college education based upon socio-economic variables. The core benefit of community colleges is allowing the underserved population the same opportunities as those attending four-year public and private institutions. In 2008, the National Commission indicates that there are approximately 11.6 million students enrolled in community colleges nation wide.
The community social capital is also evident in the management of the community colleges.
They have a board denominated "Lay board of trustees" made up by citizens from the community. They are people concerned about matters of education. The Lay board of trustees protects the colleges from potential damaging influence of local politics and the volatility of interests on the political game.

DISCUSSION
The benefits of the community college are easy to calculate. Patrick Sullivan (2010) summarizes his finding stating, "The social and fiscal benefits that community colleges bring to the local, state, and national economies have long been the province of anecdote, conjecture, and debate, but important new work has taken much mystery and guesswork out of this question." While some may agree that education benefits both the individual and economy, Sullivan can support this premise through his research. Within his research, Sullivan (2010) correlates the annual income received by individuals based upon their education. Fore example, Sullivan (2010) finds that on average individual received approximately $31, 500 for a high school education, compared to $40,000 for an associates degree. Sullivan (2010) takes the data further by calculating the amount of taxes each individual pays per year based on education. The author finds that an individual with a high school education pays roughly $6,600 per year compared to $8,100 per year for an individual who obtains an associated degree (Sullivan, 2010). The author also correlates other variables that a community colleges education offer by stating, "students with an associate's degree or with "some college no degree" have higher life earnings, pay more local, state and federal taxes, are more likely to have health insurance, are more likely to be involved with civic activities, are more likely to vote and exercise, are less likely to be unemployed, are less likely to be poor, and are less likely to smoke than students with just a high school diploma" (Sullivan, 2010). The community college is a institution that benefits the underserved. community colleges. These numbers show the importance that community college brings to those students who have been historically marginalizes and financially deprived. Therefore, due to low tuition rates and an open admission policy, community colleges are serving those who historically have been the most in need.

CONCLUSION
Even considering that is possible to construct effective forms of civic capacity, we know from both experience and literature that building social capital is not something easy . For a knowledge gatekeeper be on the "right way" there are some questions to observe. First, the gatekeeper has to create strategies to enhance community wide collective action, because this will generate an ongoing learning process and, consequently, a broader and powerful conception of democracy. Second, these strategies should answer the different and even opposite expectations of civil society agents. And finally, projects should emerge from the society, because trust and commitment only occur when people are involved as coproducers of change.
Through the approaches discussed in this study, we can see how the concept of social capital is linked to the concept of knowledge gatekeepers. The enhancement of relations and social structures, as well as the need to develop concepts that reflect the complexity and interrelationships of the various spheres of human intervention, are some reasons for future research in this field.
The social capital concept, in general way, is defined through the resources inherent to social relations -such as trust, reciprocity, norms, participation and cooperation -that facilitate collective action focused in a common purpose, or that allow to obtain certain economic, political or social aims.
Therefore, when trust is present, there is expansion of horizontal contacts. In addition, in an environment where there is a greater presence of social capital is possible that the opportunities for developing knowledge gatekeepers be better utilized.
In this study, the community colleges can be considered as knowledge gatekeepers, because they provide the opportunities for access to education and knowledge -especially for individuals who probably would not have another chance, except through a community college. Thus, if the interactions between agents are a key element of exchange mechanism, the characteristics that are present in the interaction (specially the social capital) are crucial to the knowledge gatekeeper. And, most important, independently of the duration or the objectives of these exchanges, a legitimized knowledge gatekeeper can be considered one of the main assets a society has to develop its potential.
In addition to the relationships of trust and horizontally, the community colleges constitute effective learning environments by providing spaces and moments of socialization of knowledge, access to external expertise and new knowledge -conditions that justify the hypothesis raised by this studythat according to the context, the concept of knowledge gatekeeper can be expanded. Besides allowing the expansion of the concept, the context defines the relevance and legitimacy of a knowledge gatekeeper for the development of its surroundings. Therefore, a knowledge gatekeeper can become more successful when investing in two key elements that are: culture and people (relationships), since these elements are the basis for maintaining and/or strengthening social capital (specially the bridging).
We can conclude that the stock of social capital of a knowledge gatekeeper facilitates access -for individuals, companies, public and non-governmental agents -to opportunities and initiatives for joint action. In other words, the social capital can be considered the basic resource for the main feature of a knowledge gatekeeper: the knowledge.