barry wellman netlab director centre for urban & community studies university of toronto...

Barry Wellman NetLab Director

Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto

Toronto, Canada M5S [email protected]

www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman

NetLab

Three Ways to Look at Reality

Categories All Possess One or More Properties as an Aggregate of Individuals Examples: Men, Developed Countries

Groups (Almost) All Densely-Knit Within Tight Boundary Thought of as a Solidary Unit (Really a Special Network) Family, Workgroup, Community

Networks Set of Connected Units: People, Organizations, Networks Can Belong to Multiple Network Examples: Friendship, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, World-

System, Internet

4

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman

In a Sentence –

“To Discover How A, Who is in Touch with B and C, Is Affected by the Relation Between B & C”

John Barnes

5


A Network is More Than The Sum of Its Ties

A Network Consists of One or More Nodes Could be Persons, Organizations, Groups,

Nations Connected by One or More Ties

Could be One or More Relationships That Form Distinct, Analyzable Patterns

Can Study Patterns of Relationships OR Ties

6


The Multiple Ways of Network Analysis

Method – The Most Visible Manifestation Misleading to Confuse Appearance with Reality

Theory – Pattern Matters Substance

Community, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, Terrorist, World System

An Add-On: Add a Few Network Measures to a Study

Integrated Approach A Way of Looking at the World: Theory, Data Collection, Data Analysis, Substantive Analysis

7

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThe Social Network

Approach Networks provide flexible means of social

organization and of thinking about social organization

The world is composed of networks - not densely-knit, tightly-bounded groups

Networks are a major source of social capital mobilizable in themselves and from their contents

Moving from a hierarchical society bound up in little boxes to a network – and networking – society

Networks have emergent properties of structure and composition

8


The Social Network Approach Networks are self-shaping and reflexive Networks scale up to networks of

networks Multiple communities / work networks

Multiplicity of specialized relations Management by networks More alienation, more maneuverability

Loosely-coupled organizations / societies Less centralized The networked society

9


Relationships & TiesDistinguish Between:

Relationships (One Type of Relation) Gives Emotional Support Sends Money To Attacks

Ties (One or More Relationships) Friendship (with possibly many relationships)

Affiliations (Person – Organization) Works for IBM; INSNA Member; Football Team

10


Groups

GloCalization

Networked Individualism

11


Groups to Networks:

Changing Connectivity Sparsely-Knit Loosely-Bounded Multiple Foci

Two Ways of Looking Whole Networks Personal Networks

12

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThemes of Social Network

Analysis

Ethnographic Studies Does Modernization > Disconnection?

Small Group “Sociometry” Finding People Who Enjoy Working Together

Survey Research: Personal Networks Community, Support & Social Capital, “Guanxi” Internet

Archival Research Inter-Organizational, Inter-National Analyses

13

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanSocial Network Analysis: More

Flavors Diffusion of Information (& Viruses)

Flows Through Systems Organizational Analyses

“Real” Organization” Knowledge Acquisition & Management

Inter-Organizational Analysis Is There a Ruling Elite Strategies, Deals

Networking: How People Network As a Strategy Unconscious Behavior Are There Networking Personality Types?

14


Social Network Analysis: Branching Out

Social Movements World-Systems Analyses Cognitive Networks Citation Networks

Co-Citation Inter-Citation

Applied Networks Terrorist Networks Corruption Networks

Discovered by Physicists


15

Networked Individualism Moving from a society bound up in little boxes to

a multiple network – and networking – society Networks are a flexible means of social

organization Networks are a major source of social capital:

mobilizable in themselves & from their contents Networks link:

Persons Within organizations Between organizations and institutions

16


Whole Social Networks Comprehensive Set of Role Relationships in an Entire Social

System Analyze Each Role Relationship – Can Combine Composition: % Women; Heterogeneity; % Weak Ties Structure: Pattern of Ties Village, Organization, Kinship, Enclaves,

World-System Copernican Airplane View Typical Methods: Cliques, Blocks, Centrality, Flows Examples: (1) What is the Real Structure of an Organization? (2) How Does Information Flow Through a Village?

17


Costs of Whole Network Analysis

Requires a Roster of Entire Population Requires (Imposition of) a Social

Boundary This May Assume What You Want to Find

Hard to Handle Missing Data Needs Special Analytic Packages

Becoming Easier to Use

18


Personal Social Networks

Ptolemaic Ego-Centered View Good for Unbounded Networks Often Uses Survey Research Example: (1) Do Densely-Knit Networks Provide

More Support? (structure) (2) Do More Central People Get More Support?

(network) (2) Do Women Provide More Support? (composition) (3) Do Face-to-Face Ties Provide More Support

Than Internet Ties? (relational) (4) Are People More Isolated Now? (ego)

19


Costs of Personal Network Studies

Concentrates on Strong Ties Collecting Proper Data in Survey Takes Much

Time Ignores Ecological Juxtapositions Hard to Aggregate from Personal Network to

Whole Network Easier to Decompose Whole Network

• (Haythornthwaite & Wellman)

Often Relies on Respondents’ Reports

20

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanDuality of Persons &

Groups

People Link Groups Groups Link People Breiger 1973

Barry WellmanAn Interpersonal Network as An Interorganizational Network

“Network of Networks”

22


Multilevel Analysis – Tie Effects

Tie Strength: Stronger is More Supportive

Workmates: Provide More Everyday Support

• (Multilevel Discovered This)

23


Multilevel Analysis– Network Effects

Network Size • Not Only More Support from Entire Network• More Probability of Support from Each Network

Member

Mutual Ties (Reciprocity): • Those Who Have More Ties with Network Members

Provide More Support• Cross-Level Effect Stronger (and Attenuates)

Dyadic (Tie-Level) EffectIt’s Contribution to the Network, Not the Alter

24

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanMultilevel Analysis:

Cross-Level, Interaction Effects

Kinship No longer a solidary system Parent-(Adult) Child Interaction

• More Support From Each When > 1 Parent-Child Tie

• Single P-C Tie: 34%• 2+ P-C Ties, Probability of Support from Each: 54%

25


Multilevel Interactions-- Accessibility 37% of Moderately Accessible Ties

Provide Everyday Support But If Overall Network Is

Moderately Supportive, 54% of All Network Members

Provide Everyday Support Women More Supportive

In Nets with More Women


26

The Internet in Everyday Life Computer Networks as Social Networks Key Questions Community Networks On and Off line

Networked Life before the Internet Netville: The Wired Suburb Large Web Surveys: National Geographic

Work On and Off line Which Media for What Purpose? Communities of Practice Teleworking

Towards Networked Individualism, or The Retreat to Little Boxes

27


Overarching Questions

1) How is the Internet Being Incorporated Into Everyday Life

2) Does the Internet Multiply, Decrease, Add To

a) Other Forms of Communicationb) Overall Communication

3) How is the Structure of Interpersonal Relations Affected

4) How Does Everyday Life Affect the Internet

28


What is Community?

At Work, in the Neighborhood, Long-Distance, On the Internet

59 Definitions (see my Law Commission report)

Interpersonal Ties That Provide: Sociability Support Information Sense of Belonging

29

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanStretching the Community

Concept Shared Categories

“The Jewish Community” Shared Ecologies / Spaces

Real – Apartment Building Virtual – e-Opinion, e-Bay

Conflict Communal Strife (“Fast Runner”) Gamers (cooperation and conflict)

Instrumental Co-Workers (vs Communities of Practice)

30


What’s Driving Changes? Transportation & Communication

Have Become Individualized Dual Careers – Multiple Schedules Multiple Employers

Sequential and Contemporaneous Separation of Work and Home as Physical Places Movement of Work away from Workplace:

Teleworker, Flex Worker, Road Warrior Computerization Allows Personalization No Over-Arching Social Controllers

Groups Networks** Each in its Place Mobility of People and Goods ** United Family Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody Shared Community Multiple & Partial Personal Nets Neighborhoods Dispersed Communities Surveillance Privacy Control Autonomy Voluntary Organizations Informal Leisure Face-to-Face Computer-Mediated Communication Public Spaces Private Spaces Visibility Anonymity Focused Work Unit Networked Organization Job in a Company Career in a Profession Autarky Outsourcing Office, Factory Airplane, Internet, Cellphone Ascription Achievement Hierarchies Multiple Reporting Relationships Conglomerates Virtual Organizations/Alliances Collective Security Civil Liberties Cold War Blocs Fluid, Transitory Alliances

32


Door To Door Old Workgroups/ Communities Based

on Propinquity, Kinship Pre-Industrial Villages, Wandering Bands

All Observe and Interact with All Deal with Only One Group Knowledge Comes Only From Within

the Group – and Stays Within the Group

Place To Place(Phones, Networked PCs, Airplanes, Expressways, RR, Transit)

Home, Office Important Contexts, Not Intervening Space

Specialized Relationships – Not MultiStranded Ties Ramified & Sparsely Knit: Not Local Solidarities

Not neighborhood-based Not densely-knit with a group feeling

Partial Membership in Multiple Workgroups/ Communities Often Based on Shared Interest Connectivity Beyond Neighborhood, Work Site Household to Household /

Work Group to Work Group Domestication, Feminization of Community Deal with Multiple Groups Knowledge Comes From Internal & External Sources “GloCalization”: Globally Connected, Locally Invested

34


Person To Person (Mobile Phones, Wireless Computing, Segway)Little Awareness of Context Individual, Not Household or Work Group Personalized Networking Tailored Media Interactions Private Desires Replace Public Civility Less Caring for Strangers, Fewer Weak Ties Online Interactions Linked with Offline Dissolution of the Internal: All Knowledge is External Broader Social Context Necessary

But Often Taken for Granted


35

Analyzing the Internet: Three Fallacies

Presentistism Assumes that only phenomena that happened

since the Net are relevant to understanding the Net

Parochialism Assumes that only phenomena that happen on

the Net are relevant to understanding the Net Punditism

Makes “common sense” pronouncements instead of investigating systematic research

36

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanMyopic to Look at the

Internet As a Special World

Computers are NOT the Mothers of All Invention

Net’s Demographics Approaching Population’s Gender, Income, Education, Ethnicity, Age

People Rapidly Become Experienced Users Become Frequent Users The Real Digital Divide is Know-How,

Not Access

37


Social Affordances of New Forms of Computer-Mediated Connectivity

Bandwidth Ubiquity – Anywhere, Anytime Convergence – Any Media Accesses All Portability – Especially Wireless Globalized Connectivity Personalization


38

Research Questions1. Ties: Does the Internet support all types of ties?

1. Weak and Strong?2. Instrumental and Socio-Emotional?3. Online-Only or Using Internet & Other Media (F2F, Phone)?

2. Social Capital: Has the Internet increased, decreased, or multiplied contact – at work, in society?

1. Interpersonally – Locally2. Interpersonally – Long Distance3. Organizationally

3. GloCalization: Has the map of the world dissolved so much that distance does not matter?

Has the Internet brought spatial and social peripheries closer to the center?

39


Does the Internet Add To Social Capital Internet Integrates into Everyday Life Email, IM, Phone, F2F Mutually

Reinforcing Whichever is Handy & Appropriate

More Useful for Existing Ties than New Ones

40


Does the Internet Decrease Social Capital

Difficulty in Using > Alienation & Depression

Failure to Live Up to Hype Time-Sink Diverts from “Real” Household,

Community, Work Relations Weak Ties Crowd Out Strong Ties

41


Does the Internet Add To Social Capital Internet Integrates into Everyday Life Email, IM, Phone, F2F Mutually

Reinforcing Whichever is Handy & Appropriate

More Useful for Existing Ties than New Ones

42


Other NetLab Research Questions

Structure: Does the Internet facilitate working in loosely-coupled networks rather than dense, tight groups?

Knowledge Management: How do people find and acquire usable knowledge in networked and virtual organizations

43

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThe Internet in Everyday

Life Barry Wellman & Caroline Haythornthwaite, eds. Blackwells, Fall 2002 Authors Include: Matei & Ball-Rokeach; Katz & Rice;

Castells; Rheingold; Anderson & Tracey; Kazmer & Haythornthwaite; Kavanaugh & Patterson; Phil Howard, Raine & S Jones; Miyata; Lunn & Suman; Wagner, Pischner, Haisken-DeWitt 3 NetLab research articles (+ intro essay)

• Hampton & Wellman, Long-Distance Ties• Quan-Haase & Wellman, Social Capital On and Offline• Chen, Boase & Wellman, Uses & Users Around the World


NetLab’s Studies of Community On- Line and Off-Line

Pre-Internet Networked Communities “Netville”: The Wired Suburb National Geographic Web Survey 1998, 2001 Other Internet Community Studies

Barry Wellman, “The Network Community” Introduction to Networks in the Global Village Westview Press, 1999

45


Source: Dan Heap Parliamentary Campaign 1992 (NDP)

Toronto in the Continental Division of Labor

46


“Netville”: The Wired Suburb (with Keith Hampton, MIT)

Leading-Edge Development Exurban Toronto Mid-Priced, Detached Tract Homes Bell Canada, etc. Field Trial 10Mb/sec, ATM-Based, No-Cost Internet Services Ethnographic Fieldwork

Hampton Lived There for Nearly 2 Years Survey Research

Wants, Networks, Activities

47


View of Netville

48


“Wired” and “Non-Wired” Neighboring in Netville

Recognized by Name 25.5 8.4 3.0 .00

Talk with Regularly 6.3 3.1 2.0 .06

Invited into Own Home

3.9 2.7 1.4 .14

Invited into Neighbors’ Homes

3.9 2.5 1.6 .14

# of Intervening Lots to Known Neighbors

7.5 5.6 1.4 .08

Mean Number of Neighbors:

Wired(37)

Non-Wired(20)

Wired/ NonWired

Ratio

Signif. Level(p <)

49

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanComputer-Mediated

Communication Not only supports online “virtual” communities Supports and maintains existing ties: strong & weak Increases connectivity with weak ties Supports both local and non-local social ties In Neighborhood, High-speed Network:

Increases local network size Increases amount of local contact

Long-Distance, High-Speed Network Increases amount of contact Increases support exchanged Facilitates contact with geographical periphery

50


Long-Distance Ties (>50 km/30 mi )

Compared to One Year before Moving to Netville,Wired Residents Have More Than Non-Wired:More Than Non-Wired:

Social Contact – especially over 500 km Help Given (e.g., childcare, home repair) Help Received from Friends and Relatives

Especially between 50 and 500 km See “Long Distance Community in the Network Society”

American Behavioral Scientist, 45 (Nov 2001): 477-97; Revised version in The Internet in Everyday Life (2002)

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman“Netville”: The Wired

SuburbWith Keith Hampton (MIT)

“Netville Online and Offline: Observing and Surveying a Wired Suburb.” American Behavioral Scientist 43, 3 (Nov 1999): 475-92.

“Examining Community in the Digital Neighborhood” Pp. 475-92 in Digital Cities: Technologies, Experiences and Future Perspectives, edited by Toru Ishida and Katherine Isbister. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2000.

“Long Distance Community in the Network Society” American Behavioral Scientist, 45 (Nov 2001): 477-97; Revised version in The Internet in Everyday Life (2002)

“Neighboring in “Netville”, the Wired Suburb”. City and Community, 2002

52

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanNational Geographic

Survey 2000 and Survey 2001

“Survey 2000” -- Fall 1998 – Cleaned Sample 15,659 North Americans (US, Canada) 77% 3,079 Other OECD (Germany, Japan, etc.) 15% 1,604 Non-OECD (Often Less Developed) 8%

“Survey 2001” – Entering Data Analysis Stage

53

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanSurvey 2000 Research

Questions

Are There Systematic Social Variations in Who Uses the Internet – for What?

Does the Internet Multiply, Decrease, or Add to: Interpersonal Connections? Civic Engagement? Sense of Community –

• Online and Offline

How Do Users & Uses Vary Around the World? Survey 2001 – Data Just Gathered


54

Capitalizing on the Net

With Jeffrey Boase, Wenhong Chen & Anabel Quan-Haase

In The Internet in Everyday LifeBarry Wellman & Caroline Haythornthwaite,

eds.Blackwells, Fall 2002

55


Internet is Important-- But Not Dominant --

Means of Communication

Telephone is 41% of all Communications Reported, Estimated Kin, 46%; Friends, 35%

Email: 33% (Kin, 28%; Friends, 39%) Daily Users: 39%

Face-to-Face: 22% (Kin, 21%; Friends, 24%) Letters, Cards: 4% Kin Contact is 45% of all Reported Communication

56


Social Contact – On and Offline

The More Veteran the User, the More Email Contact: Nearby Friends (< 50 km) ß = .15 Distant Friends (> 50 km) ß = .11

And to a Lesser Extent -- with Kin Nearby Kin (< 50 km) ß = .07 Distant Kin (< 50 km) ß = .06

Email Use Increases 13%/Year Younger Adults (18-29) & Singles Email More Email & Web-Surfing Positively Associated

Online & Offline Contact

Positive Relationships – Near and FarPhone Stronger than F2FFriends Stronger than KinNearby Friends Stronger Than Distant FriendsTrend Line / Regression Discrepancy Non Email Users & Hi Users Have Most Nearby Contact Hi Email Users Have Most Far-Away Contact

Email – F2F Nearby Friends ß = .24 Nearby Kin ß = .10 Distant Friends ß = .16 Distant Kin ß = .11

Email – Phone Nearby Friends ß = .31 Nearby Kin ß = .19 Distant Friends ß = .26 Distant Kin ß = .20

58


Figure 1: Contact with Kin Within 30 miles (50 km) -- Days per Year

201192 187

201209

238

117 116 113120 115 118

7765 61 62 63 60

1 5

24

6 7 8

52

1376

660

50

100

150

200

250

Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/wk Daily

Email Use

TotalPhoneF2FEmailLetters

Contact with Friends Within 30 miles (50 km) - Days per Year

247

209186

202

240

345

136112 98 99

11310484 74 76 83

5 7 9

126

92

3720

1

118

975

860

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/wk Daily

Email Use

Total Phone F2F Email Letters

59


Percentage of Media Used ForContact with Near-By Friends

Phone39%

Email29%

Letters3%

F2F29%

60


Contact with Friends Beyond 30 miles (50 km) -- Days per Year

4641

47

65

128

2519 16 19

25

138 10

1

30

85

7

38

17

11 98

4

16

7 87660

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/ w k Daily

Email Use

Total Phone F2F Email Letters

61


Percentage of Media Used forContact with Far-Away Friends

Phone22%

F2F9%

Email62%

Letters7%

62

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThe Global Internet

Users

The More People Email The More they Talk on the Phone The More They Meet Face-to-Face

True Around the World True for Kin as well as Friends True for Those Living Nearby (50 Km/30 Mi) And Even for Those Living Far-Away! (>50Km) Speaks Against Notion

That Internet Hurts Community

63

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanNewbies Are Changing

The Internet’s Profile Worldwide

North Americans Resemble General Pop. By Contrast, Other OECD & Non-OECD

are: Male Better Educated Younger Single

Resemble Early North American Users: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny

64


Computer Supported Cooperative Work

Fishbowls and Switchboards Media Use and Choice

Cerise Indigo

Networked Scholarly Organizations Technet Globenet

Teleworking: The Home-Work Nexus

65


The “Fishbowl” Group Office (Door-to-Door)

All Work Together in Same Room All Visible to Each Another All have Physical Access to Each Other All can see when a Person is Interruptible All can see when One Person is with Another

No Real Secrets No Secret Meetings Anyone can Observe & Join Conversations

Little Alert to Others Approaching

66


Neighbors have High Visual & Aural Awareness

Limited Number of Participants Densely-Knit (Most Directly Connected) Tightly Bounded (Most Interactions Within Group) Frequent Contact Recurrent Interactions Long-Duration Ties Cooperate for Clear, Collective Purposes Sense of Group Solidarity (Name, Collective ID) Social Control by Supervisor & Group

67

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThe “Switchboard” Network

Office(Person-to-Person)

Each Works Separately Office Doors Closable for Privacy Glass in Doors Indicate Interruptibility If Doors Locked, Must Knock

If Doors Open, Request Admission Difficult to learn if Person is Dealing with

Others Unless Door is Open Large Number of Potential Interactors

Average Person knows > 1,000 Strangers & Friends of Friends Also Contacted

68


Sparsely-Knit Most Don’t Know Each Other Or Not Aware of Mutual Contact No Detailed Knowledge of Indirect Ties

Loosely-Bounded Many Different People Contacted Many Different Workplaces Can Link with Outside Organizations

Each Functions Individually Collective Activities Transient, Shifting

Sets Subgroups, Cleavages, Secrets Develop

69

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman“Cerise” / “Indigo”

CSCW

Using Video/ Email at Work R&D Work:

Faculty, Students, Programmers, Admin.

Caroline Haythornthwaite & Laura Garton Collaborators

Survey and Ethnography

70

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanCSCW Research

QuestionsCerise

How do Work, Social Roles Affect Media Use? Is Email Used Only for Specialized Communication? Does Email Use:

Replace, Add To, or Increase F2F, Phone Contact?

Indigo What is the Natural History of a CMC Use? Does Email Move Spatial/Social Peripheries

Socially Closer?

71


Scholarly Networks Does Email Foster Networked Organization? Links between Social Networks & Citation Networks?

(Do Friendship & Productivity Intersect) Are F2F, Email Networks Structurally Different?

Knowledge Management Do Different Communication Media Affect

Information Flows? What Types of Network Structures & Relationships

Affect What Kinds of Information Flows

72


Social Roles(Sociability, major emotional support)

Media Use follows Pairs’ Interaction Patterns Unscheduled Meetings for Close Friends Unscheduled, Scheduled, Email for Work-Only

Media that Affords Spontaneity Social Messages Tag on Work Messages

Work-Only Pairs; Formal Work-Role Pairs

73


The Average Pair:

Specialized: Exchanges 3/6 Types of Information

Via 1 or 2 Media Unscheduled F2F, Scheduled F2F Meetings, or Email

Mean = 5.2 Information-Media Links / Pair

Haythornthwaite & Wellman“Work, Friendship & Media”JASIS, 1998

74

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThe Cerise Study – R&D

Team

Away from Individual Choice, Congruency Social Affordances Only Create Possibilities

Email Used for All Roles: Work, Knowledge, Sociability and Support

Email Lowers Status Distances Email Network Not a Unique Social Network

Intermixed with Face-to-Face (low use of phone, video, fax)

Reduces Temporal as well as Spatial Distances

75


The More Email, the More F2F Contact The More Intense Work & Friendship Tie

The More Frequent Email Independent Predictors: Friendship a bit Stronger

The More Intense Work & Friendship Tie The More Types of Media Used to Communicate Independent Predictors: Friendship Stronger

F2F the Medium of choice in weaker ties. In Stronger Ties, Email Supplements F2F

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanScholarly Networks

Harbingers of Networked & Virtual Organizations

Emmanuel Koku, Nancy Nazer & Barry Wellman“Netting Scholars: Online and Offline.” American Behavioral Scientist, 44 ,10 (June, 2001):

1750-72.Emmanuel Koku & Barry Wellman “Scholarly Networks as Learning Communities”In Designing Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, edited by Sasha Barab & Rob Kling. Cambridge University Press, 2003Howard White, Barry Wellman & Nancy Nazer

“Friendship Networks Meet Citation Networks:

Does Friendship Interpenetrate with Knowledge Flow Among Scholars?” in preparation

77

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanComparison of 2 Scholarly

NetworksGlobenet Technet

Year Founded

Founded in 1991-93 Founded in 1995-96

Size 16 (13 men, 3 women)

32 (22 men, 9 women)

Membership

Invitational: merit, interdisciplinary, niche

Voluntary

Location Canada, US, UK 1 Ontario universityActivities 3 Meetings /year

Production of a book

Frequent seminars, conferencesJoint courses, retreats

Funding 9 Senior Fellows get full salaries7 Associate Fellows get partial funding

Members not funded by TechnetMany receive other research grants

78


TechNet Research:Community of Practice

Communication Media Matters Less Than Social Structure & Norms

Friendship As Strong as Shared Work in Predicting Community

Block Modeling Reveals Shared Roles


GlobeNet Research

80


Globenet members use both F2F & email to get their joint projects done. The dispersion of members across Canada, U.S. & U.K. leads them to use email as a collaborative tool.

81


.For Globenetters, the

distance between members of scholarly pairs is unrelated to the frequency of their email contact.

Except when they’re in the same building

82


Friendship is the strongest predictor to face-to-face & email contact in Technet & Globenet

83


The scholarly relationship of collaborating on a project is the second strongest predictor of frequent F2F contact & frequent email contact.

It & friendship are the only 2 significant predictors.

84


Congruent with the theories of media use: Tasks requiring complex negotiations preferably conducted via richer F2F contacts.

Technet members use F2F contact when possible.

Email fills in temporal & informational gaps. Those Technet members who often read each other’s work, communicate more by email.

85


Where F2F contact is easily done, it is the preferred medium for collaborative work.

However, colleagues easily share their ideas and their work – or announce its existence – by email and web postings.

They do not have to walk over to each other’s offices to do this, although Canadian winters can inhibit in-person visits

86

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanSources of Prominence in

Globenet

External Sources Important for Gaining Entrance Scholarly Status Niche Plus Perceived Internal Congeniality

Internal Sources Important Within Network Knights of the Roundtable Formal Role Scholarly Communication within Network Number of Friendships

87


Summary: Ties

Internet Supports Strong & Weak Ties Evidence: Netville, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Telework

Internet Supports Instrumental & Socioemotional Ties Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Netting Scholars,

Cerise, Telework Ties Rarely are Internet-Only

Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Telework

Internet Replaces Fax & May Reduce Phone – Not F2F Evidence: Netville, Netting Scholars, Cerise

88


Summary: Local Social Capital

Multiplied Number & Range of Neighbors Evidence: Netville

Increased Contact with Existing Neighbors – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone Evidence: National Geographic, Berkeley, Netville?

Demand for Local Information Evidence: Netville, Berkeley, Small City Study

89


Summary: Long Distance Ties

Increased Contact with Long Distance Ties – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone1. Friends More than Kin2. Long-Distance Ties More than Local3. Post Used Only for Rituals (Birthdays, Christmas) Evidence: National Geographic, Netville

90


Summary: The GloCalization Paradox

Surf and Email Globally Stay Wired at Office/Home to be Online Desire for Local/Distant Services and Information Internet Supplements/Augments F2F

Doesn’t Replace It; Rarely Used Exclusively Media Choice? By Any Means Available

Many Emails are Local – Within the Workgroup or Community

Local Becomes Just Another InterestEvidence: Netville, National Geographic, Small Cities,

Berkeley, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Indigo, Telework

91


Summary: Social Network Structure

Internet Aids Both Direct & Indirect Connections Knowledge Acquisition & Management

• Accessing Friends of Friends• Forwarding & Folding In: Making Indirect Ties Direct Ties

Social and Spatial Peripheries Closer to the Center Shift from Spatial Propinquity to Shared Interests Shifting, Fluid Structures Networked, Long-Distance Coordination & “Reports”

92

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanConclusions: Changing

Connectivity By Any Means Available Door-to-Door > Place-to-Place

> Person-to-Person Connectivity Less Solidary Households

Dual Careers Multiple Schedules Multiple Marriages

New Forms of Community Partial Membership in Multiple Communities

Networked & Virtual Work Relationships

93


Conclusions:How a Network Society Looks

Multiplicity of Specialized Relations Management by Networks More Uncertainty, More Maneuverability Boutiques, not General Stores Less Palpable than Traditional Solidarities

Need Navigation Tools

An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network." Pp. 179-205 in Culture of the Internet, edited by Sara Kiesler. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.

94

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanConclusions: Shift to New Kinds

Of Community & Workgroups Partial Membership in Multiple Networks Multiple Reports Long-Distance Relationships Transitory Work Relationships Each Person Operates Own Network Online Interactions Linked with Offline

Status, Power, Social Characteristics Important Sparsely-Knit: Fewer Direct Connections Than Door-To-

Door -- Need for Institutional Memory & Knowledge Management IKNOW (Nosh Contractor) – Network Tracer ContactMap (Bonnie Nardi & Steve Whittaker) – Network Accumulator

95


Conclusions: The Rise of Individualized Networking

Individual Agency Constrained by Nets: Personalization rather than Group Behavior

Interpersonal Ties Dancing Dyadic Duets: Bandwidth Sparsely-Knit, Physically-Dispersed Ties

Social Networks Multiple, Ad Hoc Wireless Portability

96


Design Qs About Innovative Communities Are Online Relationships

Narrowly Specialized or Broadly Supportive? More Specialized Than Even Face-to-Face Ties

In What Ways are Weak Ties Useful on the Net? Bridge different communities and networks Bring in diverse people, varied groups, creative ideas Impede social control

Strong Intimate Ties Possible Too Not just instrumental, but affective, multiplex

Is There Attachment to Online Communities? Definitely Most Communities – and Relationships – Mix On/Off Line

97

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanRecent Integrative

Writing “Computer Networks as Social Networks”

Science 293 (Sept 14, 2001): 2031-34. “Designing the Internet for a Networked Society.”

Communications of the ACM, April 2002: in press. The Internet in Everyday Life

Edited by Barry Wellman & Caroline HaythornthwaiteOxford: Blackwell Publishers, Nov 2002-- including eponymous lead article

Research Supported By:IBM Institute of Knowledge Management, Bell CanadaCITO, Mitel Networks, National Science Foundation,Social Science & Humanities Research Council of Canada

98

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanHallmarks of a

Networked Society – Autonomy

Incorporate Third Parties Quickly Set Up & Dissolve Ad Hoc

Teams Privacy Protection

Control Who is Aware of the Interaction Alert if Others Lurking File Access

Cross-Platform Communication


99

Three Modes of Interaction

Social Structure

Phenomena Little Boxes Glocalization Networked Individualism

Metaphor Fishbowl Core-Periphery Switchboard

Unit of Analysis Village, Band, Shop, Office Household, Work, Unit, Multiple Networks

Networked Individual

Social Organization Groups Home Bases Network of Networks


Era Traditional Contemporary Emerging


100


Metaphor Fishbowl Core-Periphery Switchboard

Unit of Analysis Village, Band, Shop, Office

Household, Work, Unit, Multiple Networks

Networked Individual

Social Organization

Groups Home Bases Network of Networks


Era Traditional Contemporary Emerging

Three Modes of Interaction

Social Structure

101


Boundaries


Physical Context Dominance of immediate context

Relevance of immediate context Ignorance of immediate context

Modality Door-to-Door Place-to-Place Person-to-Person

Predominant Mode of Communication

Face-to-Face Wired phoneInternet

Mobile phone, Wireless modem

Spatial Range Local GloCal = Local + Global Global

Locale All in common household and work spaces

Common household and work spaces for core + external periphery

External

Awareness and Availability

All visible and audible to all High awareness of availability

Core immediately visible, audible; Little awareness of others’ availability -- must be contacted

Little awareness of availability Must be contacted Visibility and audibility must be negotiated

Access Control Doors wide open to in-group membersWalled off from othersExternal gate guarded

Doors ajar within and between networks Look, knock and ask

Doors closed Access to others by requestKnock and ask

Physical Access All have immediate access to all Core have immediate accessContacting others requires a journey or telecommunications

Contact requires a journey or telecommunications

Permeability Impermeable wall around unit Household and workgroup have strong to weak outside connections

Individual has strong to weak connections

102



Interruptibility High: (Open Door) Norm of Interruption

Mixed: Core interruptibleOthers require deliberate requestsAnswering machineKnocking on door that may be ajar or closedNorm of Interruption within immediate network only

Low: Contact must be requested May be avoided or refusedPrioritizing voice mailInternet filterKnocking on door that may be ajar or closedNorm of interruption within immediate network only

Observability High: All can see when other group members are interacting

Mixed: Core can observe core Periphery cannot observe core or interactions with other network members

Low: Interactions with other network members rarely visible

Privacy Low information control: Few secretsStatus/Position becomes important capital

Low information control:Few secrets for coreVariable information control for peripheryMaterial resources and network connections become important capital

High information control:Many secrets Information and ties become important capital

Joining In Anyone can observe interactionsAnyone can join

Interactions outside the core rarely observable Difficult to join

Interactions rarely observable Difficult to join

Alerts Little awareness of others approaching Open, unlocked doors

High prior awareness of periphery’s desire to interact Telephone ring, doorbell

High prior awareness of others’ desire to interactFormal requests

Boundaries (continued)

Interpersonal Interactions


Predominant Basis of Interaction

Ascription (What you are born into) e.g., Gender, ethnicity

“Protect Your Base Before You Attack” (attributed to Mao)

Free agent

Frequency of Contact High within group Moderate within core; Low to moderate outside of core

Variable, low with most; Moderate overall

Recurrency Recurrent interactions within group

Recurrent interactions within core; Intermittent with each network member

Low with most others; Moderate overall

Duration Long duration ties:cradle-to-grave; employed for life

Long duration for household core (except for divorce); Short duration otherwise

Short duration ties

Domesticity Cradle-to-graveMom and DadDick and Jane

Long-term partners Serial monogamy Dick lives with divorced parent

Changing partners; Living together; Singles; Single parents; Nanny cares for Jane

Scheduling Drop-In anytime Drop-in within household, work core;Appointments otherwise

Scheduled appointments

Transaction Speed Slow Variable in core; Fast in periphery

Fast

Autonomy & Proactivity

Low autonomyHigh reactivity

Mixed: Autonomy within household & work coresHigh proactivity & autonomy with others

High autonomy High proactivity

Tie Maintenance Group maintains ties Core groups maintain internal ties; Other ties must be actively maintained

Ties must be actively maintained, one-by-one

Predictability Predictability, certainty and security within group interactions

Moderate predictability, certainty and security within core; Interactions with others less predictable, certain and secure

Unpredictability, uncertainty, insecurity, contingency, opportunity

Latency Leaving is betrayal; Re-Entry difficult

Ability to reestablish relationships quickly with network members not seen in years

Ability to reestablish relationships quickly with network members not seen in years


Number of Social Circles

Few: Household, kin, work Multiple: Core household, work unit; Multiple sets of friends, kin, work associates, neighbors

Multiple: Dyadic or network ties with household, work unit, friends, kin, work associates, neighbors

Maneuverability Little choice of social circles Choice of core and other social circles

Choice of social circles

Trust Building Enforced by group Betrayal of one is betrayal of all

Core enforces trust Networked members depend on cumulative reciprocal exchanges and ties with mutual others

Dependent on cumulative reciprocal exchanges and ties with mutual others

Social Support Broad (“multistranded”) Broad household and work core; Specialized kin, friends, other work

Specialized

Social Integration By groups only Cross-cutting ties between networks integrate society;Core is the common hub

Cross-cutting ties between networks integrate society

Cooperation Group cooperationJoint activity for clear, collective purposes

Core cooperation; Otherwise: short-term alliances, tentatively reinforced by trust building and ties with mutual others

Independent schedules Transient alliances with shifting sets of others

Knowledge All aware of most information Information open to all within unit Secret to outsiders

Core Knows Most Things Variable awareness of and access to what periphery knows

Variable awareness of and access to what periphery knows

Social Control Superiors and group exercise tight control

Moderate control by core household and workgroup, with some spillover to interactions with periphery Fragmented control within specialized networks Adherence to norms must be internalized by individuals

Subgroups, cleavages Partial, fragmented control within specialized networksAdherence to norms must be internalized by individuals

Resources Conserves resources Acquires resources for core units

Acquires resources for self

Basis of Success Getting along Position within group

Getting alongPosition within core; Networking

NetworkingFilling structural holes between networks

Social Networks

105



Socialization Obey group elders Obey your parents; cherish your spouse; nurture your children;Defer to your boss; work and play well with colleagues and friends

Develop strategies and tactics for self-advancement

Sense of Solidarity High group solidarityCollective identityCollective name

Moderate solidarity within core household and workgroup, Vitiated by many ties to multiple peripheries

Sense of being an autonomous individualFuzzy identifiable networks

Loyalty Particularistic: High group loyalty

Public and private spheres: Moderate loyalty to home base takes precedence over weak loyalty elsewhere

SelfGlobal weak and divided loyalties

Conflict Handling Revolt, coupIrrevocable departure

Back-bitingKeeping distance

AvoidanceExit

Commitment to Network Members

High within groups High within core; Variable elsewhere

Variable

Zeitgeist Communitarian Conflicted Existential

Norms and Perceptions

106


After 9-11: Retreat to Little Boxes?

Back from Networks to Little Boxes Re-establishing Tight Boundaries Knowledge Workers’ Spatial Mobility Hindered Goods Made and Sold Locally Distrust of Outsiders Drawing into Densely-Knit Groups

Gated Communities Gated Work: All Work Done on Premises – Autarky Direct Ties, F2F Ties Replace

Indirect, Computer Mediated Ties

Groups Networks** Each in its Place Mobility of People and Goods ** United Family Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody Shared Community Multiple, Partial Personal Nets Neighborhoods Dispersed Networks Surveillance Privacy Control Autonomy Voluntary Organizations Informal Leisure Face-to-Face Computer-Mediated Communication Public Spaces Private Spaces Focused Work Unit Networked Organizations Job in a Company Career in a Profession Autarky Outsourcing Office, Factory Airplane, Internet, Cellphone Ascription Achievement Hierarchies Multiple Reports Conglomerates Virtual Organizations/Alliances Collective Security Civil Liberties Cold War Blocs Fluid, Transitory Alliances


Thank You -- Barry Wellman

Director, NetLabCentre for Urban & Community StudiesUniversity of TorontoToronto, Canada M5S 1A1

[email protected]/

~wellman

barry wellman netlab director centre for urban & community studies university of toronto...

Documents

networks personal networks

community networks

reflexive networks

bounded groups networks

netlab slide

composition slide

internet slide

networking society networks