Transcript The Argument - UMass Amherst

Barry Wellman
NetLab Director
Centre for Urban & Community Studies
University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1
[email protected]
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
NetLab
Three Ways to Look at Reality

Categories



Groups




All Possess One or More Properties as an Aggregate of
Individuals
Examples: Men, Developed Countries
(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
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
In a Sentence –
“To Discover How A,
Who is in Touch with B and C,
Is Affected by the Relation
Between B & C”
John Barnes
4
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
A Network is More Than
The Sum of Its Ties

A Network Consists of One or More Nodes


Connected by One or More Ties


Could be Persons, Organizations, Groups, Nations
Could be One or More Relationships
That Form Distinct, Analyzable Patterns

Can Study Patterns of Relationships OR Ties
5
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
The Multiple Ways of Network Analysis

Method – The Most Visible Manifestation



Theory – Pattern Matters
Substance


Community, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, Terrorist, World
System
An Add-On:


Misleading to Confuse Appearance with Reality
Add a Few Network Measures to a Study
Integrated Approach


A Way of Looking at the World:
Theory, Data Collection, Data Analysis, Substantive Analysis
6
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
7
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
8
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Relationships & Ties

Distinguish Between:
Relationships (One Type of Relation)




Ties (One or More Relationships)


Gives Emotional Support
Sends Money To
Attacks
Friendship (with possibly many relationships)
Affiliations (Person – Organization)

Works for IBM; INSNA Member; Football Team
9
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Groups
GloCalization
Networked
Individualism
10
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Groups to Networks:

Changing Connectivity
Sparsely-Knit
 Loosely-Bounded
 Multiple Foci

 Two Ways of Looking
Whole Networks
 Personal Networks

11
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Themes of Social Network Analysis

Ethnographic Studies


Small Group “Sociometry”


Finding People Who Enjoy Working Together
Survey Research: Personal Networks



Does Modernization > Disconnection?
Community, Support & Social Capital, “Guanxi”
Internet
Archival Research

Inter-Organizational, Inter-National Analyses
12
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Social Network Analysis: More Flavors

Diffusion of Information (& Viruses)


Organizational Analyses



“Real” Organization”
Knowledge Acquisition & Management
Inter-Organizational Analysis



Flows Through Systems
Is There a Ruling Elite
Strategies, Deals
Networking: How People Network



As a Strategy
Unconscious Behavior
Are There Networking Personality Types?
13
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Social Network Analysis:
Branching Out




Social Movements
World-Systems Analyses
Cognitive Networks
Citation Networks



Applied Networks



Co-Citation
Inter-Citation
Terrorist Networks
Corruption Networks
Discovered by Physicists
14
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
15
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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?
16
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
17
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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)
18
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
19
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Duality of Persons & Groups



People Link Groups
Groups Link People
Breiger 1973
20
“Network of Networks”
An Interpersonal Network as
An Interorganizational Network
Barry Wellman
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Multilevel Analysis – Tie Effects
Tie Strength: Stronger is More Supportive
 Workmates: Provide More Everyday Support

•(Multilevel Discovered This)
22
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
23
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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%
24
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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

25
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
The Internet in Everyday Life



Computer Networks as Social Networks
Key Questions
Community Networks On and Off line




Work On and Off line




Networked Life before the Internet
Netville: The Wired Suburb
Large Web Surveys: National Geographic
Which Media for What Purpose?
Communities of Practice
Teleworking
Towards Networked Individualism,
or The Retreat to Little Boxes
26
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Overarching Questions
1)
2)
How is the Internet Being Incorporated Into
Everyday Life
Does the Internet Multiply, Decrease, Add To
a)
b)
3)
4)
Other Forms of Communication
Overall Communication
How is the Structure of Interpersonal Relations
Affected
How Does Everyday Life Affect the Internet
27
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
28
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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)
29
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
What’s Driving Changes?



Transportation & Communication
Have Become Individualized
Dual Careers – Multiple Schedules
Multiple Employers



Separation of Work and Home as Physical Places
Movement of Work away from Workplace:



Sequential and Contemporaneous
Teleworker, Flex Worker, Road Warrior
Computerization Allows Personalization
No Over-Arching Social Controllers
30
Groups
** Each in its Place



















United Family
Shared Community
Neighborhoods
Surveillance
Control
Voluntary Organizations 
Face-to-Face
Public Spaces
Visibility
Focused Work Unit
Job in a Company
Autarky
Office, Factory
Ascription
Hierarchies
Conglomerates
Collective Security
Cold War Blocs
Networks

Mobility of People and Goods **

Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody

Multiple & Partial Personal Nets

Dispersed Communities

Privacy

Autonomy
Informal Leisure

Computer-Mediated Communication

Private Spaces

Anonymity

Networked Organization

Career in a Profession

Outsourcing

Airplane, Internet, Cellphone

Achievement

Multiple Reporting Relationships

Virtual Organizations/Alliances

Civil Liberties

Fluid, Transitory Alliances
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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

32
Place To Place
(Phones, Networked PCs, Airplanes, Expressways, RR, Transit)
Home, Office Important Contexts,



Specialized Relationships – Not MultiStranded Ties
Ramified & Sparsely Knit: Not Local Solidarities










Not Intervening Space
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
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
34
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Analyzing the Internet: Three Fallacies

Presentistism


Parochialism


Assumes that only phenomena that happened since
the Net are relevant to understanding the Net
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
35
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
36
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Social Affordances of New Forms of
Computer-Mediated Connectivity






Bandwidth
Ubiquity – Anywhere, Anytime
Convergence – Any Media Accesses All
Portability – Especially Wireless
Globalized Connectivity
Personalization
37
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Research Questions
Ties: Does the Internet support all types of ties?
1.
1.
2.
3.
Social Capital: Has the Internet increased, decreased,
or multiplied contact – at work, in society?
2.
1.
2.
3.
3.
Weak and Strong?
Instrumental and Socio-Emotional?
Online-Only or Using Internet & Other Media (F2F, Phone)?
Interpersonally – Locally
Interpersonally – Long Distance
Organizationally
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?
38
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
39
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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

40
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
41
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
42
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
43
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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

Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Source: Dan Heap
Parliamentary
Campaign 1992
(NDP)
Toronto in the Continental Division of Labor
45
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
“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
46
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
View of Netville
47
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
“Wired” and “Non-Wired” Neighboring in Netville
Mean Number of
Neighbors:
Ratio
Signif.
Level
(p <)
8.4
3.0
.00
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
(37)
NonWired
(20)
Recognized by Name
25.5
Talk with Regularly
Wired
Wired/
NonWired
48
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
49
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Long-Distance Ties (>50 km/30 mi )
Compared to One Year before Moving to Netville,
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)
50
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
“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
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
National Geographic
Survey 2000 and Survey 2001




“Survey 2000” -- Fall 1998 – Cleaned Sample
15,659 North Americans (US, Canada)
77%
3,079 Other OECD (Germany, Japan, etc.) 15%
1,604 Non-OECD (Often Less Developed) 8%
“Survey 2001” – Entering Data Analysis Stage
52
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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

53
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
54
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Internet is Important
-- But Not Dominant -Means of Communication

Telephone is 41% of all Communications



Email:




Reported, Estimated
Kin, 46%; Friends, 35%
Daily Users:
33% (Kin, 28%; Friends, 39%)
39%
Face-to-Face:
22% (Kin, 21%; Friends, 24%)
Letters, Cards:
4%
Kin Contact is 45% of all Reported Communication
55
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Social Contact – On and Offline

The More Veteran the User, the More Email Contact:






(< 50 km)
(> 50 km)
ß = .15
ß = .11
And to a Lesser Extent -- with Kin


Nearby Friends
Distant Friends
Nearby Kin
Distant Kin
(< 50 km)
(< 50 km)
ß = .07
ß = .06
Email Use Increases 13%/Year
Younger Adults (18-29) & Singles Email More
Email & Web-Surfing Positively Associated
56
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 Friends
ß = .24
Nearby Kin ß = .10
Distant Friends
ß = .16
Distant Kin
ß = .11
Email – Phone




Nearby Friends
ß = .31
Nearby Kin ß = .19
Distant Friends
ß = .26
Distant Kin
ß = .20
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Contact with Friends Within 30 miles (50 km) - Days per Year
400
350
345
F ig u re 1: C o n ta ct w ith K in W ith in 30 m ile s (50 km ) -- D a ys p e r Ye a r
300
250
238
250
247
200
201
150
200
192
201
100
240
To t a l
209
117
116
186
113
100
150
209
187
120
202
Phone
118
115
E ma il
L e t t e rs
77
136
104
65
61
62
63
0
6
1
112
84
6
5
7
6
13
6
24
Ra re ly
Mo n t h ly
98
74
W e e kly
E ma i l U s e
7
99
76
Fe w t ime s/wk
8
Da ily
50
1 6
Never
8
5
Rarely
9
20
7
5
Mont hly
113
83
126
118
92
37
7
9
60
52
50
Ne ve r
0
F2 F
Weekly
Few t imes/ wk
Daily
Email Use
Total
Phone
F2F
Email
Letters
58
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Percentage of Media Used For
Contact with Near-By Friends
Email
29%
Letters
3%
Phone
39%
F2F
29%
59
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Contact with Friends Beyond 30 miles (50 km) -- Days per Year
140
128
120
100
85
80
65
60
46
40
47
41
38
20
0
30
25
13
7
1
Never
19
11
7
4
Rarely
16
8
6
17
16
8
6
Monthly
Weekly
19
9
7
Few times/ w k
25
10
8
Daily
Email Use
Total
Phone
F2F
Email
Letters
60
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Percentage of Media Used for
Contact with Far-Away Friends
Letters
7%
Phone
22%
F2F
9%
Email
62%
61
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
62
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
63
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Fishbowls and Switchboards
 Media Use and Choice

Cerise
 Indigo


Networked Scholarly Organizations
Technet
 Globenet


Teleworking: The Home-Work Nexus
64
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
65
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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

66
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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

67
Barry Wellman

www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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

68
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
“Cerise” / “Indigo” CSCW
Using Video/ Email at Work
 R&D Work:



Caroline Haythornthwaite & Laura Garton


Faculty, Students, Programmers, Admin.
Collaborators
Survey and Ethnography
69
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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?
70
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
71
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
72
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
The Average Pair:

Specialized:


Via 1 or 2 Media


Exchanges 3/6 Types of Information
Unscheduled F2F, Scheduled F2F Meetings, or Email
Mean = 5.2 Information-Media Links / Pair
Haythornthwaite & Wellman
“Work, Friendship & Media”
JASIS, 1998
73
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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

74
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
75
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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”
In 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
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Comparison of 2 Scholarly Networks
Year Founded
Globenet
Founded in 1991-93
Technet
Founded in 1995-96
Size
Membership
16 (13 men, 3 women) 32 (22 men, 9 women)
Invitational: merit,
Voluntary
interdisciplinary, niche
Location
Activities
Canada, US, UK
3 Meetings /year
Production of a book
Funding
1 Ontario university
Frequent seminars,
conferences
Joint courses, retreats
9 Senior Fellows get full Members not funded by
salaries
Technet
7 Associate Fellows get Many receive other
partial funding
research grants
77
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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

78
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
GlobeNet Research
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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.
80
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
.
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
81
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Friendship is the strongest predictor to
face-to-face & email contact in
Technet & Globenet
82
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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.
83
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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.
84
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
85
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
86
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Summary: Ties

Internet Supports Strong & Weak Ties


Internet Supports Instrumental & Socioemotional Ties


Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Netting Scholars,
Cerise, Telework
Ties Rarely are Internet-Only


Evidence: Netville, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Telework
Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Netting Scholars,
Cerise, Telework
Internet Replaces Fax & May Reduce Phone –


Not F2F
Evidence: Netville, Netting Scholars, Cerise
87
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Summary: Local Social Capital

Multiplied Number & Range of Neighbors


Increased Contact with Existing Neighbors –
Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone


Evidence: Netville
Evidence: National Geographic, Berkeley, Netville?
Demand for Local Information

Evidence: Netville, Berkeley, Small City Study
88
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
89
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
90
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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”
91
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Conclusions: Changing Connectivity



By Any Means Available
Door-to-Door > Place-to-Place
> Person-to-Person Connectivity
Less Solidary Households




New Forms of Community


Dual Careers
Multiple Schedules
Multiple Marriages
Partial Membership in Multiple Communities
Networked & Virtual Work Relationships
92
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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. 179205 in Culture of the Internet, edited by Sara Kiesler.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
93
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
94
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
95
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Design Qs About Innovative Communities

Are Online Relationships
Narrowly Specialized or Broadly Supportive?


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


More Specialized Than Even Face-to-Face Ties
Not just instrumental, but affective, multiplex
Is There Attachment to Online Communities?


Definitely
Most Communities – and Relationships – Mix On/Off Line
96
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
97
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
98
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Three Modes of Interaction
Social Structure
Phenomena
Little Boxes
Glocalization
Networked Individualism
Metaphor
Fishbowl
Core-Periphery
Switchboard
Unit of Analysis
Village, Band, Shop, Office
Household, Work, Unit,
Multiple Networks
Networked Individual
Social Organization
Groups
Home Bases
Network of Networks
Networked Individualism
Era
Traditional
Contemporary
Emerging
99
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Three Modes of Interaction
Social Structure
Phenomena
Little Boxes
Glocalization
Networked Individualism
Metaphor
Fishbowl
Core-Periphery
Switchboard
Unit of Analysis
Village, Band, Shop, Office
Household, Work, Unit,
Multiple Networks
Networked Individual
Social Organization
Groups
Home Bases
Network of Networks
Networked Individualism
Era
Traditional
Contemporary
Emerging
100
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Boundaries
Phenomena
Little Boxes
Glocalization
Networked Individualism
Physical Context
Dominance of immediate context
Relevance of immediate context
Ignorance of immediate context
Modality
Door-to-Door
Place-to-Place
Person-to-Person
Predominant Mode of
Communication
Face-to-Face
Wired phone
Internet
Mobile phone,
Wireless modem
Spatial Range
Local
GloCal = Local + Global
Global
Locale
All in common household and work
spaces
Common household and work spaces
for core + external periphery
External
Awareness and Availability
All visible and audible to all
High awareness of availability
Core immediately visible, audible;
Little awareness of others’ availability - must be contacted
Little awareness of availability
Must be contacted
Visibility and audibility must be negotiated
Access Control
Doors wide open to in-group 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 all
Core have immediate access
Contacting others requires a journey or
telecommunications
Contact requires a journey or
telecommunications
Permeability
Impermeable wall around unit
Household and workgroup have strong
to weak outside connections
Individual has strong to weak connections
101
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Boundaries (continued)
Phenomena
Little Boxes
Glocalization
Networked 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
102
Interpersonal Interactions
Phenomena
Little Boxes
Glocalization
Networked 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 group
Moderate within core;
Low to moderate outside of core
Variable, low with most;
Moderate overall
Recurrency
Recurrent interactions within group
Recurrent interactions within core;
Intermittent with each network
member
Low with most others;
Moderate overall
Duration
Long duration ties:
cradle-to-grave; employed for life
Long duration for household core
(except for divorce);
Short duration otherwise
Short duration ties
Domesticity
Cradle-to-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 anytime
Drop-in within household, work core;
Appointments otherwise
Scheduled appointments
Transaction Speed
Slow
Variable in core; Fast in periphery
Fast
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 ties
Core groups maintain internal ties;
Other ties must be actively maintained
Ties must be actively maintained, one-byone
Predictability
Predictability, certainty and security
within group interactions
Moderate predictability, certainty and
security within core;
Interactions with others less
predictable, certain and secure
Unpredictability, uncertainty, insecurity,
contingency, opportunity
Latency
Leaving is betrayal;
Re-Entry difficult
Ability to reestablish relationships
quickly with network members not
seen in years
Ability to reestablish relationships quickly
with network members not seen in years
Social Networks
Phenomena
Little Boxes
Glocalization
Networked Individualism
Number of Social Circles
Few: Household, kin, work
Multiple: Core household, work unit;
Multiple sets of friends, kin, work
associates, neighbors
Multiple: Dyadic or network ties with
household, work unit, friends, kin, work
associates, neighbors
Maneuverability
Little choice of social circles
Choice of core and
other social circles
Choice of social circles
Trust Building
Enforced by group
Betrayal of one is betrayal of all
Core enforces trust
Networked members depend on
cumulative reciprocal exchanges and
ties with mutual others
Dependent on cumulative reciprocal
exchanges and ties with mutual others
Social Support
Broad (“multistranded”)
Broad household and work core;
Specialized kin, friends, other work
Specialized
Social Integration
By groups only
Cross-cutting ties between networks
integrate society;
Core is the common hub
Cross-cutting ties between networks
integrate society
Cooperation
Group 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 resources
Acquires resources for core units
Acquires resources for self
Basis of Success
Getting along
Position within group
Getting along
Position within core; Networking
Networking
Filling structural holes between networks
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Norms and Perceptions
Phenomena
Little Boxes
Glocalization
Networked Individualism
Socialization
Obey group elders
Obey your parents; cherish your
spouse; nurture your children;
Defer to your boss; work and play well
with colleagues and friends
Develop strategies and tactics
for self-advancement
Sense of Solidarity
High group 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 groups
High within core;
Variable elsewhere
Variable
Zeitgeist
Communitarian
Conflicted
Existential
105
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
106
Groups
** Each in its Place
 United Family
 Shared Community
 Neighborhoods
 Surveillance
 Control
 Voluntary Organizations 
 Face-to-Face
 Public Spaces
 Focused Work Unit
 Job in a Company
 Autarky
 Office, Factory
 Ascription
 Hierarchies
 Conglomerates
 Collective Security
 Cold War Blocs

Networks

Mobility of People and Goods **

Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody

Multiple, Partial Personal Nets

Dispersed Networks

Privacy

Autonomy
Informal Leisure

Computer-Mediated Communication

Private Spaces

Networked Organizations

Career in a Profession

Outsourcing

Airplane, Internet, Cellphone

Achievement

Multiple Reports

Virtual Organizations/Alliances

Civil Liberties

Fluid, Transitory Alliances
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Thank You -- Barry Wellman
Director, NetLab
Centre for Urban & Community Studies
University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1
[email protected]
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman