Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Barry Wellman NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Barry Wellman NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S"— Presentation transcript:

1 Barry Wellman NetLab Director 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 Network Examples: Friendship, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, World-System, Internet

4 Barry 4 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 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

6 Barry 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 7 The 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 Barry 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 Barry 9 Relationships & Ties Distinguish 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 Barry 10 Groups GloCalization Networked Individualism

11 Barry 11 Groups to Networks: Changing Connectivity Sparsely-Knit Loosely-Bounded Multiple Foci  Two Ways of Looking Whole Networks Personal Networks

12 Barry 12 Themes 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 13 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?

14 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 20 Duality of Persons & Groups People Link Groups Groups Link People Breiger 1973

21 Barry Wellman An Interpersonal Network as An Interorganizational Network “Network of Networks”

22 Barry 22 Multilevel Analysis – Tie Effects Tie Strength: Stronger is More Supportive Workmates: Provide More Everyday Support (Multilevel Discovered This)

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

24 Barry 24 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%

25 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 Communication b) Overall Communication 3) How is the Structure of Interpersonal Relations Affected 4) How Does Everyday Life Affect the Internet

28 Barry 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 29 Stretching 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 Barry 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

31 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 Barry 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

33 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 36 Myopic 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 Barry 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 Barry 38 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?

39 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 43 The 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

44 Barry 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 Barry 45 Source: Dan Heap Parliamentary Campaign 1992 (NDP) Toronto in the Continental Division of Labor

46 Barry 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 Barry 47 View of Netville

48 Barry 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 49 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

50 Barry 50 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 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)

51 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; Revised version in The Internet in Everyday Life (2002) “Neighboring in “Netville”, the Wired Suburb”. City and Community, 2002

52 Barry 52 National Geographic Survey 2000 and Survey 2001 “Survey 2000” -- Fall 1998 – Cleaned Sample 15,659 North Americans (US, Canada) 77% 3,079Other OECD (Germany, Japan, etc.) 15% 1,604Non-OECD (Often Less Developed) 8% “Survey 2001” – Entering Data Analysis Stage

53 Barry 53 Survey 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 Barry 54 Capitalizing on the Net With Jeffrey Boase, Wenhong Chen & Anabel Quan-Haase In The Internet in Everyday Life Barry Wellman & Caroline Haythornthwaite, eds. Blackwells, Fall 2002

55 Barry 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 Barry 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

57 Online & Offline Contact Positive Relationships – Near and Far Phone Stronger than F2F Friends Stronger than Kin Nearby Friends Stronger Than Distant Friends Trend Line / Regression Discrepancy Non Email Users & Hi Users Have Most Nearby Contact Hi Email Users Have Most Far-Away Contact Email – F2F Nearby Friendsß =.24 Nearby Kinß =.10 Distant Friendsß =.16 Distant Kinß =.11 Email – Phone Nearby Friendsß =.31 Nearby Kinß =.19 Distant Friendsß =.26 Distant Kinß =.20

58 Barry 58

59 Barry 59

60 Barry 60

61 Barry 61

62 Barry 62 The 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 63 Newbies 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 67 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 Also Contacted

68 Barry 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 69 “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 70 CSCW Research Questions Cerise 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 74 The 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 Barry 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

76 Barry Scholarly 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” I n Designing Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, edited by Sasha Barab & Rob Kling. Cambridge University Press, 2003 Howard White, Barry Wellman & Nancy Nazer “Friendship Networks Meet Citation Networks: Does Friendship Interpenetrate with Knowledge Flow Among Scholars?” in preparation

77 Barry 77 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

78 Barry 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

79 Barry GlobeNet Research

80 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 82 Friendship is the strongest predictor to face-to-face & email contact in Technet & Globenet

83 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 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 86 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

87 Barry 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 Barry 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 Barry 89 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

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

91 Barry 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 92 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

93 Barry 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 94 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

95 Barry 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 Barry 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 97 Recent 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 Haythornthwaite Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Nov 2002 -- including eponymous lead article Research Supported By: IBM Institute of Knowledge Management, Bell Canada CITO, Mitel Networks, National Science Foundation, Social Science & Humanities Research Council of Canada

98 Barry 98 Hallmarks 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 Barry 99 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

100 Barry 100 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 Three Modes of Interaction Social Structure

101 Barry 101 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

102 Barry 102 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)

103 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

104 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

105 Barry 105 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

106 Barry 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

107 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

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

Download ppt "Barry Wellman NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google