Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

A Non-Technical Introduction to Social Network Analysis Barry Wellman Founder, International Network For Social Network Analysis Centre for Urban & Community.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "A Non-Technical Introduction to Social Network Analysis Barry Wellman Founder, International Network For Social Network Analysis Centre for Urban & Community."— Presentation transcript:

1 A Non-Technical Introduction to Social Network Analysis Barry Wellman Founder, International Network For Social Network Analysis Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S

2 NetLab

3 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 Networks Examples: Friendship, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, World-System, Internet

4 Barry 4 Nodes, Relationships & Ties Nodes: A Unit That Possibly is Connected Individuals, Households, Workgroups,Organizations, States Relationships (A Specific Type of Connection) A “Role Relationship” 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 One-Mode, Two-Mode Networks

5 Barry 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 Emergent Properties (Simmel vs. Homans)

6 Barry 6 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

7 Barry 7 2 Minute History of Sunbelt Conference Informal conferences in mid-late 1970s Toronto (1974); Hawaii Formalized as Sunbelt 1981 – annual Why “Sunbelt”? Normal Rotation: SE US, US West, Europe Slovenia (2004); Charleston (Feb 2005), Vancouver? Always Informal, But Serious Work

8 10 Minute History of INSNA Founded by Barry Wellman in 1976-1977 Sabbatical Travel Carried Tales Nick Mullins: Every “Theory Group” Has an Organizational Leader Owned by Wellman until 1988 as small business Subsequent Coordinators/Presidents Al Wolfe, Steve Borgatti, Martin Everett Steering Committee Non-Profit Constitution under Borgatti; Coordinator > President Bill Richards President, 2003- Scott Feld VP; Katie Faust Treasurer; Frans Stokman, Euro. Rep. Our First Real Election Grown from 175 to 400 Members Many More on Listserv (Not Limited to Members) Steve Borgatti maintains; unmoderated Website: -- being upgraded

9 Barry 9 10 Minute Overview - Journals Wellman founded,edited,published Connections, 1977 Informal journal: “Useful” articles, news, gossip, grants, abstracts, book summaries Bill Richards, Tom Valente edit now Lin Freeman founded, edits Social Networks, 1978? Formal journal: Refereed articles Ronald Breiger now co-editor David Krackhardt founded, edits J of Social Structure, 2000? Online, Refereed Lots of visuals Articles Appear Occasionally when their time has come

10 10 Minute Overview – Key Books 1) Elizabeth Bott, Family & Social Network, 1957 2) J. Clyde Mitchell, Networks, Norms & Institutions, 1973 3) Holland & Leinhardt, Perspectives on Social Network Research,1979s 4) S. D. Berkowitz, An Introduction to Structural Analysis, 1982 5) Knoke & Kuklinski, Network Analysis, 1983, Sage, low-cost 6) Charles Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, 1984 7) Wellman & Berkowitz, eds., Social Structures, 1988 8) David Knoke, Political Networks, 1990 9) John Scott, Social Network Analysis, 1991 10) Ron Burt, Structural Holes, 1992 11) Manuel Castells, The Rise of Network Society, 1996, 2000 12) Wasserman & Faust, Social Network Analysis, 1992 13) Nan Lin, Social Capital (monograph & reader), 2001

11 10 Minute Overview – Software 1)UCINet – Whole Network Analysis 1)Lin Freeman, Steve Borgatti, Martin Everett 2)MultiNet – Whole Network Analysis 1)+ Nodal Characteristics 3)Structure – Ron Burt – Not Maintained 4)P*Star – Dyadic Analysis – Stan Wasserman 5)Krackplot – Network Visualization (Obsolete) 1)David Krackhardt, Jim Blythe 6)Pajek – Network Visualization – Supersedes Krackplot 1)Slovenia 7)Personal Network Analysis 1)SPSS/SAS – See Wellman, et al. “How To…” papers

12 10 Minute Overview – Data Basis Small Group “Sociometry”1930s > (Moreno, Bonacich, Cook) Finding People Who Enjoy Working Together Evolved into Exchange Theory, Small Group Studies Ethnographic Studies, 1950s > (Mitchell, Barnes) Does Modernization > Disconnection? Survey Research: Personal Networks, 1970s > Community, Support & Social Capital, “Guanxi” Mathematics & Simulation, 1970s > (Freeman, White) Formalist / Methods & Substantive Analysis Survey & Archival Research, Whole Nets, 1970s > Organizational, Inter-Organizational, Inter-National Analyses Political Structures, 1970s > (Tilly, Wallerstein) Social Movements, Mobilization (anti Alienation) World Systems (asymmetric structure > Globalization) Computer Networks as Social Networks, late 1990s > (Sack) Automated Data Collection

13 The Multiple Ways of Network Analysis Method – The Most Visible Manifestation Misleading to Confuse Appearance with Reality Data Gathering – see previous slide 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 Not Actor-Network Theory Links to Structural Analyses in Other Disciplines

14 Barry 14 The Social Network Approach The world is composed of networks - not densely-knit, tightly-bounded groups Networks provide flexible means of social organization and of thinking about social organization Networks have emergent properties of structure and composition Networks are a major source of social capital mobilizable in themselves and from their contents Networks are self-shaping and reflexive Networks scale up to networks of networks

15 Barry 15 The Social Network Approach Moving from a hierarchical society bound up in little boxes to a network – and networking – society Multiple communities / work networks Multiplicity of specialized relations Management by networks More alienation, more maneuverability Loosely-coupled organizations / societies Less centralized The networked society

16 Barry 16 Changing Connectivity: Groups to Networks Densely Knit > Sparsely-Knit Impermeable (Bounded) > Permeable Broadly-Based Solidarity > Specialized Multiple Foci

17 Barry 17 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

18 Little Boxes  Ramified 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 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  Matrix Management Conglomerates  Virtual Organizations/Alliances Cold War Blocs  Fluid, Transitory Alliances

19 Barry Wellman co-editor Social Structure: A Network Approach JAI-Elsevier Press 1998 Little BoxesGlocalizatio n Networked Individualism

20 Barry 20 Ways of Looking at Networks Whole Networks & Personal Networks Focus on the System or on the Set of Individuals Graphs & Matrices We dream in graphs We analyze in matrices

21 Barry 21 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?

22 Barry 22 Cumulative GlobeNet Intercitation Through 2000 Howard White & Barry Wellman, 2003 “Does Citation Reflect Social Structure”

23 Barry 23 Strongest Globenet Co-Citation, Intercitation Links Thru 2000

24 Barry 24 Duality of Persons & Groups People Link Groups Groups Link People An Interpersonal Net is an Interorganizational Net Ronald Breiger 1973

25 Barry 25 The Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Graphs

26 Barry 26 Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Matrices

27 Barry 27 Dualities of Persons and Groups: Event-Event Matrix

28 Barry 28 Neat Whole Network Methods QAP Regression of Matrices Example: Co-Citation (Intellectual Tie) Predicts Better than Friendship (Social Tie) To Inter-Citation Clustering: High Density; Tight Boundaries (“Groups”) Block Modeling Similar Role Relationships, Not Necessarily Clusters Canada & Mexico in Same Block – US Dominated

29 Barry 29 Erickson, 1988: From a Matrix >...

30 Barry 30... To a Block Model

31 Barry 31 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

32 Barry 32 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)

33 Barry 33 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

34 Barry 34 Social 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?

35 Barry 35 SNA: Branching Out Social Movements World-Systems Analyses Cognitive Networks Citation Networks Co-Citation Inter-Citation Applied Networks Terrorist Networks Corruption Networks

36 Multilevel Analysis: New Approach to an Old Problem Switching and Combining Levels Individual Agency, Dyadic Dancing, Network Facilitation & Emergent Properties Consider Wider Range of Theories Disentangles (& Avoids Nagging Confounding) Tie Effects Network Effects Contingent (Cross-Level) Effects Interactions Addresses Emergent Properties Fundamental Sociological Issue Simmel vs. Homans

37 Barry 37 Multilevel Analysis – Tie Effects Tie Strength: Stronger is More Supportive Workmates: Provide More Everyday Support (Multilevel Discovered This)

38 Barry 38 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) Effect It’s Contribution to the Network, Not the Alter

39 Barry 39 Multilevel 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%

40 Barry 40 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

41 Barry 41 The Internet in Everyday Life Computer Networks as Social Networks Key Questions Community On and Off line Networked Life before the Internet Netville: The Wired Suburb Large Web Surveys: National Geographic Work On and Off line Towards Networked Individualism, or The Retreat to Little Boxes

42 Barry 42 Social Affordances of New Forms of Computer-Mediated Connectivity Bandwidth Ubiquity – Anywhere, Anytime Convergence – Any Media Accesses All Portability – Especially Wireless Globalized Connectivity Personalization

43 Research Questions 1. 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 – Locally 2. Interpersonally – Long Distance 3. 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?

44 Barry 44 Research Questions (cont’d) 4. Structure: Does the Internet facilitate working in loosely-coupled networks rather than dense, tight groups? 5. Knowledge Management: How do people find and acquire usable knowledge in networked and virtual organizations

45 Barry 45 Guiding Research Principles Substitute systematic data analysis for hype Do field studies, not lab experiments Combine statistical with observational info. Study the use of each media in larger context Work with other disciplines Analyze Existing Uses Develop New Uses

46 Barry 46 Studies of Community On 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

47 Source: Dan Heap Parliamentary Campaign 1992 (NDP) Toronto in the Continental Division of Labor

48 Barry 48 Physical Place and Cyber Place Door to Door, Place to Place, Person to Person, Role to Role Barry Wellman, “Changing Connectivity: A Future History of Y2.03K.” Sociological Research Online 4, 4, February 2000: Barry Wellman, “Physical Place and Cyber Place: The Rise of Networked Individualism.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 (2001): June.

49 Barry 49 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

50 Place To Place (Phones, Networked PCs, Airplanes, Expressways, RR, Transit) Home, Office Important Contexts, Not Intervening Space 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

51 Barry 51 Person To Person (Cell Phones, Wireless Computing) 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

52 Barry 52 Role To Role Tailored Communication Media Little Awareness of Whole Person Portfolios of Specialized Relationships Boutiques, not Variety Stores Cycling among Specialized Communities / Work Groups Role-Based Media Interactions Management by Network

53 Barry 53 “Netville”: The Wired Suburb 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 2 Years Survey Research Wants, Networks, Activities

54 The entrance to Netville

55 Barry 55 View of Netville

56 Barry 56 “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 <)

57 Barry 57 Neighboring Ties Wired Residents  Recognize More  Talk with More  Invite More Into their Homes  And are Invited by Them  Neighbor in a Wider Area

58 Barry 58 Long-Distance Ties (>50 km/30 mi ) Compared to one year before moving to Netville, More Than Non-Wired: Wired Residents Have 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

59 Barry 59 Long-Distance Ties Wired Residents Say the Internet: Makes it Easier to Communicate Fosters Greater Volume of Communication Introduces New Modes of Communication Acquire More Diverse Knowledge

60 Barry “Netville”: The Wired Suburb With 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 “How the Internet Builds Local Community”. City and Community, 2001

61 Barry 61 National Geographic Survey 2000 and Survey 2001 “Survey 2000” -- Fall 1998 35,000 Americans 5,000 Canadians 15,000 “Others” “Survey 2001” -- Fall 2001, N > 6,000

62 Barry 62 Survey 2000 Research Questions Are There Systematic Social Variations in Who Uses the Internet – for What? Does the Internet Multiply, Add To, or Decrease Interpersonal Ties? Does the Internet Multiply, Add To, or Decrease Organizational Involvement? Does the Internet Increase, Decrease or Transform Community Commitment? Does the Internet Increase Knowledge? Are There Variations by National Context?

63 Barry 63

64 Barry 64

65 Barry 65

66 Barry 66

67 Barry 67 Computer Supported Cooperative Work Fishbowls and Switchboards Media Use and Choice Cerise Indigo Networked Scholarly Organizations Technet Globenet Teleworking: The Home-Work Nexus

68 Barry 68 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 Conversations & Decide to Join Little Alert to Others Approaching

69 Barry 69 Neighbors have Hi 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 identity) Social Control by Supervisor & Group

70 Barry 70 The “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 May also be Contacted

71 Barry 71 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 Can Develop

72 Barry 72 “Cerise” / “Indigo” CSCW Using Video/ Email at Work R&D Work: Faculty, Students, Programmers, Admin. Caroline Haythornthwaite & Laura Garton Collaborators Survey and Ethnography

73 Barry 73 CSCW Research Questions 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? Does Email Move Spatial/Social Peripheries Socially Closer? Does Email Foster Networked Organization?

74 Barry 74 Separate Information Exchange Roles Derived from Factor Analysis of Specific Exchanges Work Giving Work Receiving Work Collaborative Writing Computer Programming Social Sociability Major Emotional Support

75 Barry 75 Communication Roles Scheduled Meetings Classes, Research Meetings Email Unscheduled Meetings Less Frequent, More Wide-Ranging Media that Afford Control of Interactions Media associated with Group Norms

76 Barry 76 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

77 Barry 77 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

78 Barry 78 Conclusions: The Cerise Study 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

79 Barry 79 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

80 Barry 80 Indigo: Work Interaction Time 1 Work Interaction (All Media) Prior to Telepresence

81 Barry 81 Indigo: Work Interaction Time 3 Work Interaction (All Media) 14 months after Telepresence Intro Greater Decentralization

82 Barry 82 “Cerise” / “Indigo” Papers Caroline Haythornthwaite and Barry Wellman, “Work, Friendship and Media Use for Information Exchange in a Networked Organization.”Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49 (1998): 1101-14 Marilyn Mantei, Ronald Baecker, William Buxton, Thomas Milligan, Abigail Sellen and Barry Wellman. "Experiences in the Use of a Media Space." 1992. Pp 372-78 in Groupware, edited by David Marca and Geoffrey Bock. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1992. Caroline Haythornthwaite, Barry Wellman & Marilyn Mantei “Work Relationships and Media Use.” Group Decision and Negotiation 4 (1995): 193-211. Caroline Haythornthwaite, Barry Wellman & Laura Garton, “Work and Community Via Computer-Mediated Communication.” Pp. 199-226 in Psychology and the Internet, edited by Jayne Gackenbach. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998.

83 Barry 83 Netting Scholars: Communities of Practice & Inquiry 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: Cambridge University Press, 2002

84 Barry 84 Comparison of 2 Scholarly Networks GlobenetTechnet Year FoundedFounded in 1991-93Founded in 1995-96 Size16 (13 men, 3 women)32 (22 men, 9 women) MembershipInvitational: merit, interdisciplinary, niche Voluntary LocationCanada, US, UK1 Ontario university Activities3 Meetings /year Production of a book Frequent seminars, conferences Joint courses, retreats Funding9 Senior Fellows get full salaries 7 Associate Fellows get partial funding Members not funded by Technet Many receive other research grants

85 Barry 85 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.

86 Barry 86. 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

87 Barry 87 Friendship is the strongest predictor to face-to-face & email contact in Technet & Globenet

88 Barry 88 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.

89 Barry 89 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.

90 Barry 90 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

91 Barry 91 Sources 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

92 Barry 92 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

93 Barry 93 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

94 Barry 94 Summary: Long Distance Ties Increased Contact with Long Distance Ties – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone 1. Friends More than Kin 2. Long-Distance Ties More than Local 3. Post Used Only for Rituals (Birthdays, Christmas) Evidence: National Geographic, Netville

95 Barry 95 Summary: Long Distance Ties Increased Contact with Long Distance Ties – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone 1. Friends More than Kin 2. Long-Distance Ties More than Local 3. Post Used Only for Rituals (Birthdays, Christmas) Evidence: National Geographic, Netville

96 Summary: Computer-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

97 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 Interest Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Small Cities, Berkeley, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Indigo, Telework

98 Barry 98 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”

99 Barry 99 Conclusions: 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

100 Barry 100 Conclusions: Role-to-Role Relationships Partial Communities of: Shared, Specialized Interest Importance of Informal Network Capital Production Reproduction Externalities Bridging and Bonding Ties

101 Barry 101 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.

102 Barry 102 Conclusions: 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

103 Barry 103 Conclusions: The Rise of Personalized 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

104 Barry 104 Design Considerations for a Networked Society – Connecting Open List Indicate Presence, Awareness, Availability Prioritize from Deductive, Inductive & Ad Hoc Data Prioritize by Locale Searchable and Sortable List By a Variety of Attributes

105 Barry 105 Design Considerations for a Networked Society – Autonomy Incorporate Third Parties Quickly Set Up & Dissolve Work Teams Privacy Protection Control Who is Aware of the Interaction Alert if Others Lurking File Access Cross-Platform Communication

106 Barry 106 Three Modes of Interaction Social Structure PhenomenaLittle BoxesGlocalizationNetworked Individualism Metaphor FishbowlCore-PeripherySwitchboard Unit of Analysis Village, Band, Shop, OfficeHousehold, Work, Unit, Multiple Networks Networked Individual Social Organization GroupsHome Bases Network of Networks Networked Individualism Era TraditionalContemporaryEmerging

107 Barry 107 Boundaries PhenomenaLittle BoxesGlocalizationNetworked Individualism Physical Context Dominance of immediate contextRelevance of immediate contextIgnorance of immediate context Modality Door-to-DoorPlace-to-PlacePerson-to-Person Predominant Mode of Communication Face-to-FaceWired phone Internet Mobile phone, Wireless modem Spatial Range LocalGloCal = Local + GlobalGlobal 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 members Walled off from others External gate guarded Doors ajar within and between networks Look, knock and ask Doors closed Access to others by request Knock and ask Physical Access All have immediate access to allCore have immediate access Contacting others requires a journey or telecommunications Contact requires a journey or telecommunications Permeability Impermeable wall around unitHousehold and workgroup have strong to weak outside connections Individual has strong to weak connections

108 Barry 108 PhenomenaLittle BoxesGlocalizationNetworked Individualism Interruptibility High: (Open Door) Norm of Interruption Mixed: Core interruptible Others require deliberate requests Answering machine Knocking on door that may be ajar or closed Norm of Interruption within immediate network only Low: Contact must be requested May be avoided or refused Prioritizing voice mail Internet filter Knocking on door that may be ajar or closed Norm 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 secrets Status/Position becomes important capital Low information control: Few secrets for core Variable information control for periphery Material resources and network connections become important capital High information control: Many secrets Information and ties become important capital Joining In Anyone can observe interactions Anyone 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 interact Formal requests Boundaries (continued)

109 Interpersonal Interactions Phenomena Little Boxes GlocalizationNetworked Individualism 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 groupModerate within core; Low to moderate outside of core Variable, low with most; Moderate overall Recurrency Recurrent interactions within groupRecurrent 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-grave Mom and Dad Dick 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 anytimeDrop-in within household, work core; Appointments otherwise Scheduled appointments Transaction Speed SlowVariable in core; Fast in peripheryFast Autonomy & Proactivity Low autonomy High reactivity Mixed: Autonomy within household & work cores High proactivity & autonomy with others High autonomy High proactivity Tie Maintenance Group maintains tiesCore 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

110 Phenomena Little Boxes GlocalizationNetworked Individualism Number of Social Circles Few: Household, kin, workMultiple: 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 circlesChoice 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 onlyCross-cutting ties between networks integrate society; Core is the common hub Cross-cutting ties between networks integrate society Cooperation Group cooperation Joint 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 networks Adherence to norms must be internalized by individuals Resources Conserves resourcesAcquires resources for core unitsAcquires resources for self Basis of Success Getting along Position within group Getting along Position within core; Networking Networking Filling structural holes between networks Social Networks

111 Barry 111 PhenomenaLittle BoxesGlocalizationNetworked Individualism Socialization Obey group eldersObey 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 solidarity Collective identity Collective name Moderate solidarity within core household and workgroup, Vitiated by many ties to multiple peripheries Sense of being an autonomous individual Fuzzy identifiable networks Loyalty Particularistic: High group loyalty Public and private spheres: Moderate loyalty to home base takes precedence over weak loyalty elsewhere Self Global weak and divided loyalties Conflict Handling Revolt, coup Irrevocable departure Back-biting Keeping distance Avoidance Exit Commitment to Network Members High within groupsHigh within core; Variable elsewhere Variable Zeitgeist CommunitarianConflictedExistential Norms and Perceptions

112 Barry 112 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 Network Analysis Used by Terrorists & Governments

113 Little Boxes  Ramified 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 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  Matrix Management Conglomerates  Virtual Organizations/Alliances Cold War Blocs  Fluid, Transitory Alliances

114 Barry 114 Edited Books The Internet in Everyday Life Caroline Haythornthwaite, co-editor Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 2002 Preliminary: American Behavioral Scientist, Nov 2001 Networks in the Global Village Boulder, CO: Westview Press 1999 Social Structures: A Network Approach S. D. Berkowitz, co-editor Cambridge University Press, 1988; Reprinted: Elsevier-JAI Press, 1997 Reprinted: CSPI Press, Toronto, 2003

115 Barry 115 Recent Integrative Articles “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. Research Supported By: Institute of Knowledge Management, CITO, Mitel, National Science Foundation (US), Social Science & Humanities Research Council of Canada

116 Thank You -- Barry Wellman Director, NetLab Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1

Download ppt "A Non-Technical Introduction to Social Network Analysis Barry Wellman Founder, International Network For Social Network Analysis Centre for Urban & Community."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google