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

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 2 NetLab Studies Social Networks as: Networked Communities *** The Internet in Everyday Life – Connected Lives “Netville” – The Wired Suburb Yamanashi (Japan) Study of Webphone & PC Communities of Practice at Work Scholarly Networks On and Offline Trans-National Chinese Entrepreneurs: Beijing, Toronto, L.A *** Knowledge Access in Hierarchical & Networked Organizations

The Multiple Ways of Network Analysis Method – The Most Visible Manifestation Misleading to Confuse Appearance with Reality Data Gathering Focus on Links, not Individual Characteristics 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 Links to Structural Analyses in Other Disciplines

Groups > Networks Densely Knit > Sparsely-Knit Impermeable (Bounded) > Permeable Broadly-Based Solidarity > Specialized Multiple Foci Not a decline of community/work, but a transformation Moving from a hierarchical society bound up in groups 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

Bounded GroupsGloCalization: Unit to Unit Individualized Networking: Person-to- Person

Barry’s Rules For Dealing with Social Networks Don’t Assume Groups or Boundaries A Priori: Discover Them Empirically Keep Info Distinct about Different Relationships Relate/Combine Analytically Take Account of Social Demographics: SES, Gender Allow for Membership in Multiple Networks Often Partial, Fragmentary Membership Take Multiple Means of Contact into Account Online & Offline Scale Up from Small Networks to Large: Interpersonal > Intergroup Dream/Represent in Graphs; Analyze in Matrices

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 7 Models of Community and Work Groups

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 8 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

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 9 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

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 10 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

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 11 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

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 12 Door To Door (Solidary Groups)  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 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

Person-to-Person: Individualized Networking (Mobile Phones, Wireless Computing, Lonely Car) Individualized Networking Little Awareness of Context Private Desires Replace Public Civility Multiple Specialized Relationships Partial Membership in Multiple Networks Long-Distance Relationships  More Transitory Relationships Online Interactions Linked with Offline More Uncertainty, More Maneuverability Less Palpable than Traditional Solidarities: Alienation? Sparsely-Knit: Fewer Direct Connections Than Door-To-Door Possibly Less Caring for Strangers More Weak Ties Need for Institutional Memory & Knowledge Management

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 15 Implications of the Models Social Structure PhenomenaGroupsGlocalizationNetworked 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

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 16 Boundaries PhenomenaGroupsGlocalizationNetworked 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

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 17 PhenomenaGroupsGlocalizationNetworked 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)

Interpersonal Interactions Phenomena Groups 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

Phenomena Groups 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

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 20 PhenomenaGroupsGlocalizationNetworked 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

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 21 Earlier NetLab Community of Practice Studies Introduction of , Videoconferencing “Cerise” “Indigo” Scholarly Networks On and Offline Easy to Measure Communication, Productivity TeleWork – in Large Organizations Guanxi – as Social Networks

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 22 Findings From Earlier Studies Away from Individual Choice, Congruency Social Affordances Only Create Possibilities Used for All Roles: Work, Knowledge, Sociability and Support Roles Remain Specialized on Lowers Status Distances Network Not a Unique Social Network Intermixed with Face-to-Face (low use of phone, video, fax) Reduces Temporal as well as Spatial Distances Need for Social (Network) Software to Foster: Awareness, Reachability, Knowledge Transfer IKNOW

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 23 Earlier Findings (continued) The More , the More F2F Contact Use Increases Decentralization The More Intense Work & Friendship Tie The More Frequent 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, Supplements F2F

Capitalizing On Hyperconnected Net Work Barry Wellman NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S Anabel Quan Haase Information & Media Studies University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 25 The KME Study High Tech Organization of 200 Studied Software & Client Services Dept Multiple Media User Look at CMC In Context of: All Media Used Work & Socializing Relationships Social Structure of Organization Survey, Interviews, Observations Anabel Quan-Haase’s Dissertation

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 26 Research Questions How Does CMC Fit in a Routinized, Normalized Media Ecology ? How Does CMC Affect Work Practices? What are Social Networks Like? Within Group and Beyond Group Work and Socializing How Do CMC & Nets Affect: Community, Trust (and Productivity)? Is There a Networked Organization? Or Networks within Hierarchical Bureaucracy?

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 27 Methods Case Study: 25 employees, high-tech firm 11 software developers 14 virtual community maintainers Computerized survey: 3 distances: workgroup, organization, outside org. 3 media: face-to-face, instant messaging, Interviews and observations of 10 employees

Software DevelopmentClient Services Industry - Time-to-market pressures -Success measures: profit, market share - Cost pressures -Success measures: satisfaction, acceptance Tasks -Staff assigned to specific tasks -User is distant and less involved -Process is immature -Coordinated software development - Staff assigned to specific projects -User is involved and provides input -Process is more mature -Task accomplishment independent Cultural Milieu - -Entrepreneurial -Individualistic -Long work hours - More bureaucratic -Less individualistic -More set working hours Group - Less likely to have matrix structure -Involved in entire development cycle -More cohesive, motivated, jelled -Opportunities for large financial rewards -Large discrepancies in income -Small, co-located - Matrix managed and project focused -People assigned to multiple projects -Work-together as needed -Salary-based -Rely on formal specifications -Larger, somewhat dispersed

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 29 Media Use by Distance Never Daily FTF IM -FTF t (24)= 3.43, p<.05IM-FTF t (24)=3.74, p<.05 -FTF t (24)= 3.43, p<.05IM-FTF t (24)=3.74, p<.05 -FTF t (24)= 9.20, p<.05IM-FTF t (24)= 5.88, p<.05 -FTF t (24)= 9.20, p<.05IM-FTF t (24)= 5.88, p<.05 * * + +

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 30 Within Department 240 (28%) 306 (36%) Elsewhere in Organization 99 (19%) 213 (40%) 215 (41%) Communication at KME (Days per Year) FTF & Phone IM Outside Organization 21 (11%) 103 (53%) 72 (37%)

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 31 Sources of Information Rely on both human & documentary sources Both human and documentary sources are accessed predominantly online

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 32 Coordinate/Socialize 9.20 Linda s Desmond asking him to meet (they sit across from each other). They back and forth a couple of times to arrange a good time Anna received an instant messaging from Brian asking her to meet for lunch. They arrange to meet for lunch in 5 minutes in the hallway.

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 33 Problem Solving John: “I investigated the product by trying various things and to do that I IM some people that it had impact, Brian and Sally they were experts. And then, it happened to be in this case Steve and Denise who were ing and Brian. They were in this threat that was going back and forth. It is very specific to what the problem is, though.”

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 34 Andy: “Internally, I use IM a fair amount because there are times where I want to know something, but I don’t want the other person to know how I am reacting or responding. Like I know he is going to tell me to do X and I don’t think that is the right way to go, but I have to ask him and he is going to tell me that and then he doesn’t see my face going AH. And then I can have a moment to think …and composing myself and figuring out how to respond.” Social Distance

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 35 Norms Andy: “Every time I say: “Hey, bla bla bla”. They don’t’ need to know about it and it is just an interruption to them. Lori and I don’t talk as much as we used to during the day because we are too close to other people who are not doing the same stuff and just get distracted.”

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 36 Norms Lori: “I don’t want to be loud because there all these people right there. So, phone is ok, but I feel I am invading other people’s privacy, if I am loud on the phone. So the best way for me is plus I like to keep a written record of everything that is going on.”

Software Development Client Services Information Network – Weekly Exchanges 

Socializing Network – Weekly Exchanges Software Development Client Services

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 39 Information Brokering Information brokers are central in information network Measured as information network centrality Technological Network Social Network Information network

Findings Hyperconnectivity: Instant Availability F2F, IM, , Some Phone Overloading & Overwhelming ***** Hyperconnectivity Builds Trust ***** Organic Solidarity – Interdependent Interdependencies Local Virtuality: CMC-Based Neighboring GloCalization: Dispersed, but Local Stays Important Individualized Networking: Each Switches among Multiple, Specialized Partial Networks Interact with Diverse Partners: Simultaneously, Sequentially Rather than Full-Blown Networked Organization Direct Ties Rule: Indirect Ties At Most One Step

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 41  End Hyperconnected KME Study  Implications of Social Network Analysis

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 42 The Person is the Portal Individual is the Primary Unit of Connectivity Not the Household, Work group, Tribe Each Person Operates a Personal Community Each Person is the Portal of Communication Mobile Phone, Address, Instant Messaging Versus Letter, Landline Phone, Home Address Each Person is the Portal of Resource Mobilization Specialized Ties; Divisions of Labor Control of Property & Control of Networks Bridges Important Connect Individuals; Connect Clusters; Integrate Societies

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 43 Autonomy and Identity Multiple Loyalties Partial Commitments to Networks And Vice-Versa Individuals May Have Discretion about Whom They Deal With How They Interact Time and Place of their Interaction Software Needed For Knowledge Management Small Worlds – Most People Don’t Know their Nets

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 44 Consequences for Trust Trust Has Been Built on Hierarchical Sets of Loyalty and Control to: Bounded Groups Hhold > Neighbourhood > Region > Country > Bloc People Now Often Participate as: As Individuals More Weak Ties – But Easier to Connect with Strong Ties Partially Involved in any One Group Shifting, Sometimes Divided Loyalties Really, but Partially Local Easy to Shift Allegiance with Mouse Clicks Information is Only Google Away. Knowledge?

Summary: The GloCalization Paradox Surf and 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 s are Local – Within the Workgroup or Community Local Becomes Just Another Interest Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Small Cities, Berkeley, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Indigo, Telework

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 46 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”

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 47 Implications of a Networked Society

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 48 How a Network Society Looks Multiple Communities / Work Networks Multiplicity of Specialized Relations Management by Networks More Uncertainty, More Maneuverability Find Resources in Specialized Tie Boutiques – Not in General Relationship Stores Networks Less Palpable than Traditional Solidarities Need Navigation Tools

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 49 Networked Individualism: Social Linkages Volume Up: Adds On to Phone, Face-to-Face Velocity Up Quality OK, with Some Flaming Household Relations Stressed

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 50 Networked Individualism: Social Capital Specialized Support From Ties More than From Groups / Networks Emotional Aid Supplied Online and Offline Online Useful for Arranging Material Aid

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 51 Networked Individualism: Social Cohesion Networked Individualism Glocalization Multiple, Partial Communities Focused Messaging within Group May be Counterbalanced by: Forwarding, Listservs, Chats Homogeneity in One Area Doesn’t Mean Homogeneity on Others

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 52 Networked Individualism: Social Mobilization Easy for Shared Interests to Find Each Other Chats, Searches, Forwards Easy for Formal/Informal Groups to Form & Sustain Websites, Listservs Online & Offline Interpenetrate Easy Linkages Between Groups Web Links; Members of Multiple Groups

Networked Individualism: Social Control Helps Social Control Institutions to Surveill Surveillance Partially Automated Lower Cost and Broader Reach Cycle between Cryptography and Code-Breaking Move away from Densely-Knit Groups Socially-Controlling Good for Conserving Resources Move Towards Multiple, Partial Communities Reduced Informal Control Good for Acquiring New Resources

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 54 Networked Individualism: Social Exclusion Digital Divide: Socioeconomic, Non-English Language Global Digital Divide: (Almost) Entire Countries Not Connected Few Phone Lines; High Cost Much Variation Between Countries Public Access Terminals Fill Gaps Digital Penalty: Exclusion from Jobs, Information, Discussion

Bounded Groups  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 Org’zations  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

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 56 Key Design Principles for CSCW GloCalization: Core Local Unit + Ramifying Ties Groups > Unit-to-Unit > Person-to-Person Networked Individualism Internet Embedded in Everyday Life Internet Communication Adds on to F2F, Phone Similar Networks in Work, Leisure

Resources Sunbelt Social Network Conf. Redondo Beach (L.A.) mid February International Network for Social Network Analysis Socnet List Serve Social Networks – journal; Connections – informal journal Software: UCINet (incl listserve), Pajek (Slovenian)

Barry Wellmanwww.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman 58 Books Stanley Wasserman & Kathryn Faust, Social Network Analysis (Cambridge U Press, 1994) Barry Wellman & S.D. Berkowitz (eds.), Social Structures: A Network Approach (Elsevier, 1998) Peter Carrington, et al. (eds.) Models & Methods in Network Analysis (Cambridge U Press, 2004). More Focused: Nan Lin, Social Capital (Jossey Bass, 2002) Barry Wellman & Caroline Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (Blackwell 2002) Barry Wellman (ed.) Networks in the Global Village (Westview,1999)

Thank You – Barry Wellman & Anabel Quan-Haase NetLab Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1