Transcript networking

No Group is an Island:
Living Networked On and Offline
Barry Wellman & Bernie Hogan
NetLab
Centre for Urban & Community Studies
University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1
[email protected]
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
The Three Ages of Net Studies
Prehistoric: Communities as Social Networks
 First Age: Anticipatory Hype, Isolated Analyses
 Second Age: Documentation for Government,
Academe, Commerce,
Public Interest

 Ethnographies
 Surveys – Access, Users and Uses
 Third Age: Internet in Everyday Life
 Longer Range Changes Towards a Network Society
 Focused, In-Depth Field Studies
2
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Internet No Longer a Dazzling Light
Fascination Decreasing
 Just as It Becomes More Pervasive & Important
 Rarely Online-Only Communities
 Rather Embedded in Everyday Life

3
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
A Computer Network
Is a Social Network



Sociologists Need to Inform –
Even Determine – the Field
Avoid Computer Scientists and Media’s Reliance on
Punditry, Presentism, Parochialism
Look at:





What Determines Which Hard/Software will be Used
What are the Interpersonal > Global Impacts of Use
Sociologically-Informed Design
Move Analysis Out of Cyberspace / Ground in Real World
The Web as a (Social) Network
4
Determinism > Affordances


Sociologists Shun Determinism
Social Affordances a Safer Approach


Affordances – Gibson, Cognition, 1977:




Erin Bradner
Webpage (originally determined content) > Blogs / Wikis
Email – symmetrical, 1:1, 1:many, many:many


Don Norman
Social Affordances (of Computing)


Pattern match between expectancies & behavior
Technological Affordances of Computing


Opportunities & Constraints
On Behavior & Social Organization
Attachments
Even Processor Speed (multitasking)
Yet PCs are Individualizing In-Person
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Groups > Networks


Moving from a hierarchical society bound up in
little boxes to a network – and networking – society
Multiple communities / work networks




Multiplicity of specialized relations
Management by networks
More alienation, more maneuverability
Loosely-coupled organizations / societies


Less centralized
The networked society
6
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
We Study Social Networks as:

Networked Communities



But Not Necessarily Local
Before and After the Internet
Communities of Practice – at Work

Within and Between Organizations
• Intro of Email and Video
• Scholarly Networks On and Offline
• Knowledge Access in Hierarchical & Networked Organizations
• Trans-National (Chinese) Entrepreneurs – Beijing, Toronto, L.A
7
Why A Focus on Networks Now?
Where Work &
Community Happens
•‘Boundarylessness’
•Networks Drive Social
Capital
Where Knowledge Lives
Where People Engage
•Join & Commit to People
•Significant Satisfaction
and Retention Benefits
BUT…
•Rely on People for Info
•‘Invisible’
•People also Provide
More Than Databases
•How many people
think they know??
Source: Rob Cross
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Bounded Groups
9
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Door To Door (Solidary Groups)
 Traditional Communities
 Based on Propinquity, Kinship
 Workshops, Bureaucracies All Observe and
Interact with All
Deal with Only One Group
 Knowledge Comes Only From Within the
Group – and Stays Within the Group

10
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
The “Fishbowl” Group :
Door-to-Door Community





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
11
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Changing Structures
Densely Knit > Sparsely-Knit
 Impermeable (Bounded) > Permeable
 Broadly-Based Solidarity >
Specialized Multiple Foci
 To Find Networks, We Don’t Assume Structure



But Ask/Observe About Relationships
Discover Who is Central, Bridges, Brokers
Where are Subgroups
 Where are Equivalent People

12
Unit To Unit (Place To Place)
(Phones, Networked PCs, Airplanes, Expressways, RR, Transit)
Home, Office Important Contexts,


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
Work Group to Work Group
Domestication, Feminization of Community (& Work?)


Not Intervening Space
Shift from Manipulating Atoms (Things) to Manipulating Bits (Words)
Deal with Multiple Groups
Knowledge Comes From Internal & External Sources
“Glocalization”: Globally Connected, Locally Invested
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Glocalization
14
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Key Contention:
Social Affordances of Internet
Facilitate Turn Toward
Networked Individualism
15
Social Affordances of the
Now-Traditional Internet


Personal Computer vs. Place-Bound Phones
“Groupware” (CSCW 1992) Originally Assumed:


Multiple Temporality




All Approachable by Email (including spammers)
Lists, Groups Can be Open/Closed; (Un)Moderated
Audiences



From Instant Messaging to Long Term Time Shifting
Even Polysynchronous – MUDs, games
Varying Membership Determinants


Bounded Persistent, Focused Small Group
Tete-a-Tete, Group Broadcast, Public Address
Public Web vs Semi-Private Blogs
Facilitates the Real World

Arranging, Continuing, Linking between Meetings
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Social Affordances of the
Emerging “Internet”








Ubiquity – Access Info “Anywhere”
Portability – Use Personal Equipment Anywhere
24/7 – Instant Access
Velocity – Rapid Access & Response
Bandwidth – Amount of Information
Comprehensive – Text, Data, Audio, Video
Tailorability – Personalized Systems
Volume – Greater Daily, Yearly Communication
17
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Social Software Designed
To Link Individuals, Not Groups
(Mobile Phones, Wireless Computing, Lonely Car)
 Takes Logged-In Individual as A Priori
 Mobile Phones – Each Has Own Phone Number, ID


(As Compared with Place-Oriented Wired Landlines)
Wireless Networks

Place Only Important as a Log-In Site
Not controllable IDs >


Flaming (in blogs, newsgroups)
Spamming in email
18
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Networked Individualism
19
Bounded Groups
(Door-to-Door)
Glocalization
(Place-to-Place)
Networked Individualism
(Person-to-Person)
Social Affordances of Computer Media Communication Media
Temporality Determination Discussions Connections
Unique
Publicly
Within
Identification
of Membership
Available
Networks
Email
Asynchronous User
No
Instant
Delayed
User and “WhiteNo
Messaging Synchronous Pages”
Individual Asynchronous User
Yes – Search
Blogging
Engines
Community Asynchronous Variable
Yes – Search
Blogging
Engines
Variable
Active
Yes
Yes
Passive
Yahoo
Groups
Usenet
Groups
MUDs
IRC /
Online
Chat
Online
Gaming
Peer to
Peer
Sharing
Role
Specialization
Moderate
High
Asynchronous Variable
Variable
Passive
Yes for blog
Low
No for comments
Yes for blog
High
Usually for
comments
Yes
High
Asynchronous No one
Yes
Passive
No
High
Polysynch- Group
ronous
Moderators
Synchronous Variable
Partial
Passive
Yes
Low
No
Passive
No
Low
Polysynch- Variable
ronous
Synchronous No one
Variable
Passive
Variable
High
Yes
Active
No
High
Passive
Person-to-Person: Networked Individualism













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 Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Frequency of Contact with Far-away Kin (Days/Year)
140
132
120
91
100
73
80
60
40
20
0
53
56
35
71
57
35
39
37
32
42
34
18
10
7
1
Never
Email
Adds on to
F2F, Phone
Predominant
Medium for
Daily Users
10
10
8
7
4
7
Rarely
Monthly
F2F
Phone
9
9
9
Email Use
Letters
Weekly
Few times/ wk
Email
10
9
Daily
Total
Percentage of Media Used for Contact with
Far-Away Kin
Letters
8%
Email
49%
Phone
35%
F2F
8%
23
Barry Wellman
250
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Frequency of Contact with Near-By Kin (Days/Year)
208
200
193
191
209
201
228
150
117
100
84
113
116
118
65
64
67
116
114
63
58
23
49
7
7
50
6
6
0
1
5
Never
Rarely
Email
Adds on to
F2F, Phone
For Frequent
Users
13
6
6
6
Monthly
Weekly
Email Use
F2F
Phone
Letters
Few times/wk
Email
Daily
Total
Percentage of Different Media
Used for Contact with Near-By Kin
Email
17%
F2F
27%
Letters
3%
Phone
53%
24
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Findings from Survey Research

Email Adds On to
Face-to-Face Contact
 Phone Contact (Less Sure)

Locally and Long-Distance
 Kin (especially) and Friends
 Support and Sociability

25
View of Netville
Hampton & Wellman, City & Community, Fall 2003
“Wired” and “Non-Wired” Neighboring in Netville
NonWired
(20)
Wired/
Signif.
Level
(p <)
Mean Number
of Neighbors:
Wired
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
(37)
NonWired
Ratio
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Yamanashi, Japan: Email Users by Age
100%
90%
80%
Both by Webphone and
PC
By Webphone
70%
60%
50%
By PC
40%
30%
Non-user
20%
10%
0%
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-65
Miyata, Boase, Wellman & Ikeda, “The Mobile-izing Japanese”
28
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Findings from Netville
Local Ties Enhanced
 Weak Ties Especially Expanded
 Arranging

Get-Togethers
 Group Meetings (BBQs)
 Exchanges (Babysitting)
 Political Protests

29
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Yamanashi: Users Vary by Age, Skill

Users of webphones only
20’s and 30’s
 only a high school degree
 score themselves low in ability to use technology

Users of both webphones and PCs to exchange
email in their 20’s & 30’s.
 Users of PCs only:

30 – 59
 Settled jobs

30
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Yamanashi: Mobile Webphone Dominates
Static PC
More emails per day are made through the use
of webphones than through PCs.
 Email exchanged by webphones



with people who are nearby.
Email exchanged by PCs

with people who are further away.
PC-based emails are less connected to
imminent physical get-togethers
 Norway – Texting > email, 8:1 (Ling)

31
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Yamanashi:
Webphone vs. PC Mail: A Hypothesis

Webphone Email constrains strong tie autonomy
because close ties expect you to be always connected
and available anywhere



But emphasizes individual over household, workgroup
Instant messaging similar, although more location-bound
PC Email enhances network autonomy because:


Often more choice about when messages are answered
Often more choice about who is answered
32
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
The Catalan Contrast



Catalonia in the Internet and the World
Castells, Tubella, Sancho, Wellman, Diaz de Isla (www.
uoc.edu/in3/pic) N = 1,039
35% are Internet Users; Median < 10 Hours/Mo


Few Use Email Frequently:


Little online sociability (1 or 2 times per week)
Most Use Web Services Frequently:


87% access at work; 70% at home (17% high-speed)
Practical, Professional
Most Catalans Live With/Near Parents/Adult Kids:

Same House (40%+) or Municipo (30%+) ≈ 75%
33
Strong Ties
Number of Municipo Catalonia
(median)
Spain
Outside
Total
Friends
5
1
1
0
7
Kin
5
4
1
0
10
10
59%
5
29%
2
12%
0.3
2%
17
102%
Total
Sociability


Fewer Internet Users Take All Evening Meals
Family: 51% vs 67%
Internet Use Affects Conversations


Increase:
Decrease:
12% vs 7%
9% vs 5%
Internet Contact with Friends
(% of users doing so; median frequency)
 Within Municipo:
12% (weekly)
 Catalonia:
14% (twice monthly)
 Spain:
4% (monthly)
 Elsewhere:
31% (monthly)

Door to Door and Place to Place
As a
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Friendship is the strongest predictor to
face-to-face & email contact in
Technet & Globenet
36
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.
37
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.
38
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
39
Barry
Wellman
Globenet:
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Internal and External
Predictors to Level of Prominence
Models
Predictors
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
L
E
X
T
E
R
N
A
L
Internal Roles
Indegree Friendship
Read Work
Duration of Membership
(log)
Fellowship Attainment
Level of Involvement
Discuss Work
Freq. of Scholarly
Communication (logged)
Number of Publications
External Positions
Control of Resources
Number of Citations
Constant
R2
Adjusted R2
**Significant at p<0.01
Internal Only
External Only
Combined Model
Standardized PStand.
P-Value Stand.
P-Value
Beta
Value Beta
Beta
0.70*
0.04
0.60
0.17
0.60
0.12
0.92
0.16
0.47
0.10
-0.08
0.88
0.10
0.69
0.51
0.31
-0.11
-0.40
-0.37
-0.04
0.69
0.30
0.18
0.85
0.33
0.21
-0.27
-0.06
0.19
0.82
0.61
*Significant at p<0.05
0.60
0.52
0.45
0.92
0.01
0.09
-0.23
-0.32
-0.33
-0.41
-0.01
0.50
0.54
0.23
0.97
0.49
0.47
-0.07
-0.27
0.41
0.28
0.85
0.58
0.85
0.90
0.52
40
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
41
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Findings & Speculations

Away from Individual Choice, Congruency


Email Used for All Roles:




Work, Knowledge, Sociability and Support
Roles Remain Specialized on Email
Email Lowers Status Distances
Email Network Not a Unique Social Network



Social Affordances Only Create Possibilities
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
42
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
How a Network Society Looks




Moving from a hierarchical society bound up in
little boxes to a network – and networking – society
Loosely-Coupled Societies
Shifting, Fluid Structures
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: LavaLife, IKNOW
43
Implications for a Networked Society

GloCalization: Global & Local Involvements




Social Linkages: Higher Velocity & Add-On Volume
Social Capital: Specialized Relationships



Specialized Roles; CMC Affords Interconnections
Social Mobilization: Shared Interests Find Each Other
Social Control: Less Group Control


Online & Offline Intersect > Intangible & Tangible Aid
Social Cohesion: Shift among multiple memberships


Local Becomes Just another Interest
Social & Spatial Peripheries Closer to the Center
Burden on Dyadic Reciprocity + Formal Surveillance Controls
Social Exclusion: Digital Divides: National & Global
Barry Wellman
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Individual as Portal

Individual is the Primary Unit of Connectivity



Not the Household, Workgroup, Tribe
Each Person Operates a Personal Network
Each Person is the Portal of Communication

Mobile Phone, Email 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
45
Bounded Groups www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
 Networked Individualism
Barry Wellman
** Each in its Place
 Mobility of People and Goods **

“Our Town”
 “Friends”
Met at Malt Shop
 Met on Match.com
Dating > Engagement
 Hanging Out > Seeing Each Other
Love> Sex> Marriage> Baby  Sex > Love > Partnering
Marriage
 Civil Union
HH as Reproductive Unit
 HH as Consumatory Duet
“Love and Marriage”
 “Sex and the City”
Mom & Dad, Dick & Jane
 Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, & ?
United Family
 Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody
1-2 Person Household
 3-4 Person Household
Shared Community
 Multiple, Partial Personal Nets
Densely-Knit
 Sparsely-Knit
Neighborhoods
 Dispersed Networks
Voluntary Organizations
 Informal Leisure
Face-to-Face Contact
 Computer-Mediated Communication
Public Spaces
 Private Spaces
Similar Attributes
 Similar Interests
Social Control
 Dyadic Exchanges
Conserves Resources
 Gathers New Resources, Failures

Routinized Stability


















 Stable Instability
46
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