a non-technical introduction to social network analysis barry wellman founder, international network...

A Non-Technical Introduction to Social Network Analysis

Barry WellmanFounder, International Network

For Social Network Analysis

Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto

Toronto, Canada M5S [email protected]

www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman

NetLab

Three Ways to Look at Reality

Categories All Possess One or More Properties as an Aggregate of Individuals Examples: Men, Developed Countries

Groups (Almost) All Densely-Knit Within Tight Boundary Thought of as a Solidary Unit (Really a Special Network) Family, Workgroup, Community

Networks Set of Connected Units: People, Organizations, Networks Can Belong to Multiple Networks Examples: Friendship, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, World-

System, Internet

4

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanNodes, Relationships &

Ties Nodes: A Unit That Possibly is Connected

Individuals, Households, Workgroups,Organizations, States

Relationships (A Specific Type of Connection)A “Role Relationship”

Gives Emotional Support Sends Money To Attacks

Ties (One or More Relationships) Friendship (with possibly many relationships)

Affiliations (Person – Organization) Works for IBM; INSNA Member; Football Team

One-Mode, Two-Mode Networks

5

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman

A Network is More Than The Sum of Its Ties

A Network Consists of One or More Nodes Could be Persons, Organizations, Groups,

Nations Connected by One or More Ties

Could be One or More Relationships That Form Distinct, Analyzable Patterns

Can Study Patterns of Relationships OR Ties Emergent Properties (Simmel vs. Homans)

6


In a Sentence –

“To Discover How A, Who is in Touch with B and C, Is Affected by the Relation Between B & C”

John Barnes

7

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman2 Minute History of Sunbelt Conference

Informal conferences in mid-late 1970s Toronto (1974); Hawaii

Formalized as Sunbelt 1981 – annual Why “Sunbelt”? Normal Rotation: SE US, US West, Europe

Slovenia (2004); Charleston (Feb 2005), Vancouver?

Always Informal, But Serious Work

10 Minute History of INSNA Founded by Barry Wellman in 1976-1977

Sabbatical Travel Carried Tales Nick Mullins: Every “Theory Group” Has an Organizational

Leader Owned by Wellman until 1988 as small business

Subsequent Coordinators/Presidents Al Wolfe, Steve Borgatti, Martin Everett

• Steering Committee• Non-Profit Constitution under Borgatti; Coordinator > President

Bill Richards President, 2003-• Scott Feld VP; Katie Faust Treasurer; Frans Stokman, Euro. Rep.• Our First Real Election

Grown from 175 to 400 Members Many More on Listserv (Not Limited to Members)

Steve Borgatti maintains; unmoderated Website: www.insna.sfu.ca -- being upgraded

9

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman10 Minute Overview - Journals

Wellman founded,edited,published Connections, 1977 Informal journal: “Useful” articles, news, gossip, grants,

abstracts, book summaries Bill Richards, Tom Valente edit now

Lin Freeman founded, edits Social Networks, 1978? Formal journal: Refereed articles Ronald Breiger now co-editor

David Krackhardt founded, edits J of Social Structure, 2000? Online, Refereed Lots of visuals Articles Appear Occasionally when their time has come

10 Minute Overview – Key Books

1) Elizabeth Bott, Family & Social Network, 19572) J. Clyde Mitchell, Networks, Norms & Institutions, 19733) Holland & Leinhardt, Perspectives on Social Network

Research,1979s4) S. D. Berkowitz, An Introduction to Structural Analysis, 19825) Knoke & Kuklinski, Network Analysis, 1983, Sage, low-cost6) Charles Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge

Comparisons, 19847) Wellman & Berkowitz, eds., Social Structures, 19888) David Knoke, Political Networks, 19909) John Scott, Social Network Analysis, 199110) Ron Burt, Structural Holes, 199211) Manuel Castells, The Rise of Network Society, 1996, 200012) Wasserman & Faust, Social Network Analysis, 199213) Nan Lin, Social Capital (monograph & reader), 2001

10 Minute Overview – Software

1) UCINet – Whole Network Analysis1) Lin Freeman, Steve Borgatti, Martin Everett

2) MultiNet – Whole Network Analysis 1) + Nodal Characteristics

3) Structure – Ron Burt – Not Maintained4) P*Star – Dyadic Analysis – Stan Wasserman5) Krackplot – Network Visualization (Obsolete)

1) David Krackhardt, Jim Blythe

6) Pajek – Network Visualization – Supersedes Krackplot 1) Slovenia

7) Personal Network Analysis1) SPSS/SAS – See Wellman, et al. “How To…” papers

10 Minute Overview – Data Basis Small Group “Sociometry”1930s > (Moreno, Bonacich, Cook)

Finding People Who Enjoy Working Together Evolved into Exchange Theory, Small Group Studies

Ethnographic Studies, 1950s > (Mitchell, Barnes) Does Modernization > Disconnection?

Survey Research: Personal Networks, 1970s > Community, Support & Social Capital, “Guanxi”

Mathematics & Simulation, 1970s > (Freeman, White) Formalist / Methods & Substantive Analysis

Survey & Archival Research, Whole Nets, 1970s > Organizational, Inter-Organizational, Inter-National Analyses

Political Structures, 1970s > (Tilly, Wallerstein) Social Movements, Mobilization (anti Alienation) World Systems (asymmetric structure > Globalization)

Computer Networks as Social Networks, late 1990s > (Sack) Automated Data Collection

The Multiple Ways of Network Analysis

Method – The Most Visible Manifestation Misleading to Confuse Appearance with Reality

Data Gathering – see previous slide Theory – Pattern Matters Substance

Community, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, Terrorist, World System An Add-On:

Add a Few Network Measures to a Study Integrated Approach

A Way of Looking at the World: Theory, Data Collection, Data Analysis, Substantive Analysis

Not Actor-Network Theory Links to Structural Analyses in Other Disciplines

14


The Social Network Approach The world is composed of networks

- not densely-knit, tightly-bounded groups Networks provide flexible means of social

organization and of thinking about social organization

Networks have emergent properties of structure and composition

Networks are a major source of social capital mobilizable in themselves and from their contents

Networks are self-shaping and reflexive Networks scale up to networks of networks

15


The Social Network Approach

Moving from a hierarchical society bound up in little boxes to a network – and networking – society

Multiple communities / work networks Multiplicity of specialized relations Management by networks More alienation, more maneuverability

Loosely-coupled organizations / societies Less centralized The networked society

16


Changing Connectivity:Groups to Networks

Densely Knit > Sparsely-Knit Impermeable (Bounded) > Permeable Broadly-Based Solidarity >

Specialized Multiple Foci

17


Networked Individualism Moving from a society bound up in little boxes to

a multiple network – and networking – society Networks are a flexible means of social

organization Networks are a major source of social capital:

mobilizable in themselves & from their contents Networks link:

Persons Within organizations Between organizations and institutions

Little Boxes Ramified Networks**** Each in its Place Mobility of People and Goods **** United Family Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody Shared Community Multiple, Partial Personal Nets Neighborhoods Dispersed Networks Voluntary Organizations Informal Leisure Face-to-Face Computer-Mediated Communication Public Spaces Private Spaces Focused Work Unit Networked Organizations Job in a Company Career in a Profession Autarky Outsourcing Office, Factory Airplane, Internet, Cellphone Ascription Achievement Hierarchies Matrix Management Conglomerates Virtual Organizations/Alliances Cold War Blocs Fluid, Transitory Alliances

Barry Wellman co-editor Social Structure: A Network ApproachJAI-Elsevier Press 1998

Little Boxes

Glocalization

Networked Individualism

20

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanWays of Looking at

Networks

Whole Networks & Personal Networks Focus on the System or on the Set of

Individuals Graphs & Matrices

We dream in graphs We analyze in matrices

21


Whole Social Networks Comprehensive Set of Role Relationships in an Entire Social

System Analyze Each Role Relationship – Can Combine Composition: % Women; Heterogeneity; % Weak Ties Structure: Pattern of Ties Village, Organization, Kinship, Enclaves,

World-System Copernican Airplane View Typical Methods: Cliques, Blocks, Centrality, Flows Examples: (1) What is the Real Structure of an Organization? (2) How Does Information Flow Through a Village?

22


Cumulative GlobeNet Intercitation Through 2000

Howard White & Barry Wellman, 2003 “Does Citation Reflect Social Structure”

23

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanStrongest Globenet Co-

Citation, Intercitation Links Thru 2000

24

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanDuality of Persons &

Groups

People Link Groups Groups Link People An Interpersonal Net is

an Interorganizational Net

Ronald Breiger 1973

25


The Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Graphs

26


Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Matrices

27


Dualities of Persons and Groups: Event-Event Matrix

28

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanNeat Whole Network

Methods QAP

Regression of Matrices• Example: Co-Citation (Intellectual Tie)

Predicts Better than Friendship (Social Tie)To Inter-Citation

Clustering: High Density; Tight Boundaries (“Groups”)

Block Modeling Similar Role Relationships, Not Necessarily Clusters Canada & Mexico in Same Block – US Dominated

29


Erickson, 1988: From a Matrix > . . .

30


. . . To a Block Model

31


Costs of Whole Network Analysis

Requires a Roster of Entire Population Requires (Imposition of) a Social

Boundary This May Assume What You Want to Find

Hard to Handle Missing Data Needs Special Analytic Packages

Becoming Easier to Use

32


Personal Social Networks

Ptolemaic Ego-Centered View Good for Unbounded Networks Often Uses Survey Research Example: (1) Do Densely-Knit Networks Provide

More Support? (structure) (2) Do More Central People Get More Support?

(network) (2) Do Women Provide More Support? (composition) (3) Do Face-to-Face Ties Provide More Support

Than Internet Ties? (relational) (4) Are People More Isolated Now? (ego)

33

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanCosts of Personal Network

Studies

Concentrates on Strong Ties Collecting Proper Data in Survey Takes Much

Time Ignores Ecological Juxtapositions Hard to Aggregate from Personal Network to

Whole Network Easier to Decompose Whole Network

• (Haythornthwaite & Wellman)

Often Relies on Respondents’ Reports

34

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanSocial Network Analysis: More

Flavors Diffusion of Information (& Viruses)

Flows Through Systems Organizational Analyses

“Real” Organization” Knowledge Acquisition & Management

Inter-Organizational Analysis Is There a Ruling Elite Strategies, Deals

Networking: How People Network As a Strategy Unconscious Behavior Are There Networking Personality Types?

35


SNA: Branching Out Social Movements World-Systems Analyses Cognitive Networks Citation Networks

Co-Citation Inter-Citation

Applied Networks Terrorist Networks Corruption Networks

Multilevel Analysis:New Approach to an Old

Problem Switching and Combining Levels

Individual Agency, Dyadic Dancing, Network Facilitation & Emergent Properties

Consider Wider Range of Theories Disentangles (& Avoids Nagging Confounding)

Tie Effects Network Effects Contingent (Cross-Level) Effects Interactions

Addresses Emergent Properties Fundamental Sociological Issue Simmel vs. Homans

37


Multilevel Analysis – Tie Effects

Tie Strength: Stronger is More Supportive

Workmates: Provide More Everyday Support

• (Multilevel Discovered This)

38


Multilevel Analysis– Network Effects

Network Size •Not Only More Support from Entire Network•More Probability of Support from Each Network

Member Mutual Ties (Reciprocity):

•Those Who Have More Ties with Network Members Provide More Support

•Cross-Level Effect Stronger (and Attenuates)Dyadic (Tie-Level) EffectIt’s Contribution to the Network, Not the Alter

39

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanMultilevel Analysis:

Cross-Level, Interaction Effects

Kinship No longer a solidary system Parent-(Adult) Child Interaction

• More Support From Each When > 1 Parent-Child Tie

• Single P-C Tie: 34%• 2+ P-C Ties, Probability of Support from Each: 54%

40


Multilevel Interactions-- Accessibility 37% of Moderately Accessible Ties

Provide Everyday Support But If Overall Network Is

Moderately Supportive, 54% of All Network Members

Provide Everyday Support Women More Supportive

In Nets with More Women


41

The Internet in Everyday Life

Computer Networks as Social Networks Key Questions Community On and Off line

Networked Life before the Internet Netville: The Wired Suburb Large Web Surveys: National Geographic

Work On and Off line Towards Networked Individualism, or

The Retreat to Little Boxes

42


Social Affordances of New Forms of Computer-Mediated Connectivity

Bandwidth Ubiquity – Anywhere, Anytime Convergence – Any Media Accesses All Portability – Especially Wireless Globalized Connectivity Personalization

Research Questions1. 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 – Locally2. Interpersonally – Long Distance3. Organizationally

3. GloCalization: Has the map of the world dissolved so much that distance does not matter?

Has the Internet brought spatial and social peripheries closer to the center?

44

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanResearch Questions

(cont’d)

4. Structure: Does the Internet facilitate working in loosely-coupled networks rather than dense, tight groups?

5. Knowledge Management: How do people find and acquire usable knowledge in networked and virtual organizations

45


Guiding Research Principles

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


46

Studies of Community On and Off-Line

Pre-Internet Networked Communities

“Netville”: The Wired Suburb National Geographic Web Survey 1998, 2001 Other Internet Community Studies

Barry Wellman, “The Network Community” Introduction to Networks in the Global Village Westview Press, 1999

Source: Dan Heap Parliamentary Campaign 1992 (NDP)

Toronto in the Continental Division of Labor

48

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanPhysical Place and Cyber

Place

Door to Door, Place to Place, Person to Person, Role to Role

Barry Wellman, “Changing Connectivity: A Future History of Y2.03K.” Sociological Research Online 4, 4, February 2000: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/wellman.html

Barry Wellman, “Physical Place and Cyber Place: The Rise of Networked Individualism.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 (2001): June.

49


Door To Door

Old Workgroups/ Communities Based on Propinquity, Kinship Pre-Industrial Villages, Wandering Bands

All Observe and Interact with All Deal with Only One Group Knowledge Comes Only From Within

the Group – and Stays Within the Group

Place To Place(Phones, Networked PCs, Airplanes, Expressways, RR, Transit)

Home, Office Important Contexts, Not Intervening Space

Ramified & Sparsely Knit: Not Local Solidarities Not neighborhood-based Not densely-knit with a group feeling

Partial Membership in Multiple Workgroups/ Communities Often Based on Shared Interest Connectivity Beyond Neighborhood, Work Site Household to Household /

Work Group to Work Group Domestication, Feminization of Community Deal with Multiple Groups Knowledge Comes From Internal & External Sources “Glocalization”: Globally Connected, Locally Invested

51


Person To Person(Cell Phones, Wireless Computing)

Little Awareness of Context Individual, Not Household or Work Group Personalized Networking Tailored Media Interactions Private Desires Replace Public Civility Less Caring for Strangers, Fewer Weak Ties Online Interactions Linked with Offline Dissolution of the Internal: All Knowledge is External

52


Role To Role

Tailored Communication Media Little Awareness of Whole Person Portfolios of Specialized Relationships

Boutiques, not Variety Stores Cycling among Specialized

Communities / Work Groups Role-Based Media Interactions Management by Network


53

“Netville”: The Wired Suburb

Leading-Edge Development Exurban Toronto Mid-Priced, Detached Tract Homes Bell Canada, etc. Field Trial 10Mb/sec, ATM-Based, No-Cost Internet Services Ethnographic Fieldwork

Hampton Lived There for 2 Years Survey Research

Wants, Networks, Activities

The entrance to Netville

55


View of Netville

56


“Wired” and “Non-Wired” Neighboring in Netville

Recognized by Name 25.5 8.4 3.0 .00

Talk with Regularly 6.3 3.1 2.0 .06

Invited into Own Home

3.9 2.7 1.4 .14

Invited into Neighbors’ Homes

3.9 2.5 1.6 .14

# of Intervening Lots to Known Neighbors

7.5 5.6 1.4 .08

Mean Number of Neighbors:

Wired(37)

Non-Wired(20)

Wired/ NonWired

Ratio

Signif. Level(p <)

57


Neighboring Ties

Wired Residents Recognize More Talk with More Invite More Into their Homes

And are Invited by Them Neighbor in a Wider Area

58


Long-Distance Ties (>50 km/30 mi )

Compared to one year before moving to Netville,Wired Residents Have More Than Non-More Than Non-Wired:Wired:

Social Contact – especially over 500 km Help Given (e.g., childcare, home repair) Help Received from Friends and Relatives

Especially between 50 and 500 km

59


Long-Distance Ties

Wired Residents Say the Internet:

Makes it Easier to Communicate Fosters Greater Volume of

Communication Introduces New Modes of

Communication Acquire More Diverse Knowledge

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman“Netville”: The Wired

SuburbWith Keith Hampton (MIT)

“Netville Online and Offline: Observing and Surveying a Wired Suburb.” American Behavioral Scientist 43, 3 (Nov 1999): 475-92.

“Examining Community in the Digital Neighborhood” Pp. 475-92 in Digital Cities: Technologies, Experiences and Future Perspectives, edited by Toru Ishida and Katherine Isbister. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2000.

“Long Distance Community in the Network Society” American Behavioral Scientist, 45 (Nov 2001): 477-97

“How the Internet Builds Local Community”. City and Community, 2001


61

National Geographic Survey 2000 and Survey 2001

“Survey 2000” -- Fall 1998 35,000 Americans 5,000 Canadians 15,000 “Others” “Survey 2001” -- Fall 2001, N >

6,000

62

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanSurvey 2000 Research

Questions

Are There Systematic Social Variations in Who Uses the Internet – for What?

Does the Internet Multiply, Add To, or Decrease Interpersonal Ties?

Does the Internet Multiply, Add To, or Decrease Organizational Involvement?

Does the Internet Increase, Decrease or Transform Community Commitment?

Does the Internet Increase Knowledge? Are There Variations by National Context?

63


Figure 2a: Frequency of Contact with Near-by Kin (Days/Year)

228

114

5 6 7 7

208191 193

201 209

117 113 116 118 116

8467 65 64 63 58

23

1

49136

6

66

0

50

100

150

200

250

Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/wk Daily

Email Use

Total Phone F2F Email Letters

Percentage of Different Media Used for Contact with Near-By Kin

Phone53%

Email17%

Letters3%

F2F27%

64

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanFigure 3a: Frequency of Contact with Near-By Friends (Days/Year)

345

72 83

5 6 9

236

194192207

248

11097102109

136 124

7687106 92

3619

1

120

975

650

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/wk Daily

Email Use


Percentage of Media: Used for Contact with Near-By Friends

Phone39%

Email29%

Letters3%

F2F29%

65

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanFigure 4a: Frequency of Contact with Far-away Kin (Days/Year)

8 9 9

42

7 7 9 91

18

34

71

132

10 109

35 35 3237 39

7

10

4

10

91

73

575653

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/ wk DailyEmail Use

F2F Phone Letters Email Total

Percentage of Media Used for Contact with Far-Away Kin

Phone35%

F2F8%

Email49%

Letters8%

66


Figure 5a: Frequency of Contact with Far-Away Friends (Days/Year)

19 17 1519

25

10 90

29

86

48

2836

63

128

35

17

71

88

47

17

7 6 87660

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/ wk Daily

Email Use


Percentage of Media Used for Contact with Far-Away Friends

Phone22%

F2F9%

Email62%

Letters7%


67

Computer Supported Cooperative Work

Fishbowls and Switchboards Media Use and Choice

Cerise Indigo

Networked Scholarly Organizations Technet Globenet

Teleworking: The Home-Work Nexus

68


The “Fishbowl” Group Office: Door-to-Door

All Work Together in Same Room All Visible to Each Another All have Physical Access to Each Other All can see when a Person is Interruptible All can see when One Person is with Another

No Real Secrets No Secret Meetings Anyone can Observe Conversations & Decide to Join

Little Alert to Others Approaching

69


Neighbors have Hi Visual & Aural Awareness Limited Number of Participants Densely-Knit (most directly connected) Tightly Bounded (most interactions within group) Frequent Contact Recurrent Interactions Long-Duration Ties Cooperate for Clear, Collective purposes Sense of Group Solidarity (name, collective

identity) Social Control by Supervisor & Group

70

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThe “Switchboard” Network

Office:Person-to-Person

Each Works Separately Office Doors Closable for Privacy Glass in Doors Indicate Interruptibility If Doors Locked, Must Knock

If Doors Open, Request Admission Difficult to learn if Person is Dealing with Others

Unless Door is Open Large Number of Potential Interactors

Average Person knows > 1,000 Strangers & Friends of Friends May also be Contacted

71


Sparsely-Knit Most Don’t Know Each Other Or Not Aware of Mutual Contact No Detailed Knowledge of Indirect Ties

Loosely-Bounded Many Different People Contacted Many Different Workplaces Can Link with Outside Organizations

Each Functions Individually Collective Activities Transient, Shifting Sets Subgroups, Cleavages, Secrets Can Develop

72

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman“Cerise” / “Indigo”

CSCW

Using Video/ Email at Work R&D Work:

Faculty, Students, Programmers, Admin.

Caroline Haythornthwaite & Laura Garton Collaborators

Survey and Ethnography

73

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanCSCW Research

Questions

How do Work, Social Roles Affect Media Use? Is Email Used Only for Specialized

Communication? Does Email Use:

Replace, Add To, or Increase F2F, Phone Contact?

Does Email Move Spatial/Social Peripheries Socially Closer?

Does Email Foster Networked Organization?

74

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanSeparate Information Exchange

Roles Derived from Factor Analysis of Specific Exchanges

Work Giving Work Receiving Work Collaborative Writing Computer Programming

Social Sociability Major Emotional Support

75


Communication Roles Scheduled Meetings

Classes, Research Meetings Email Unscheduled Meetings

Less Frequent, More Wide-Ranging

Media that Afford Control of Interactions Media associated with Group Norms

76


Social Roles

Sociability, major emotional support

Media Use follows Pairs’ Interaction Patterns Unscheduled Meetings for Close Friends Unscheduled, Scheduled, Email for Work-Only

Media that Affords Spontaneity Social Messages Tag on Work Messages

Work-Only Pairs; Formal Work-Role Pairs

77


The Average Pair:

Specialized: Exchanges 3/6 Types of Information

Via 1 or 2 Media Unscheduled F2F, Scheduled F2F Meetings, or

Email

Mean = 5.2 Information-Media Links / Pair

78

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanConclusions: The Cerise

Study

Away from Individual Choice, Congruency Social Affordances Only Create Possibilities

Email Used for All Roles: Work, Knowledge, Sociability and Support

Email Lowers Status Distances Email Network Not a Unique Social Network

Intermixed with Face-to-Face (low use of phone, video, fax)

Reduces Temporal as well as Spatial Distances

79


The More Email, the More F2F Contact The More Intense Work & Friendship Tie

The More Frequent Email Independent Predictors: Friendship a bit Stronger

The More Intense Work & Friendship Tie The More Types of Media Used to Communicate Independent Predictors: Friendship Stronger

F2F the Medium of choice in weaker ties. In Stronger Ties, Email Supplements F2F

80

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanIndigo: Work Interaction

Time 1

Work Interaction (All Media) Prior to Telepresence

81

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanIndigo: Work Interaction

Time 3

Work Interaction (All Media) 14 months after Telepresence Intro

Greater Decentralization

82


“Cerise” / “Indigo” Papers

Caroline Haythornthwaite and Barry Wellman, “Work, Friendship and Media Use for Information Exchange in a Networked Organization.”Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49 (1998): 1101-14

Marilyn Mantei, Ronald Baecker, William Buxton, Thomas Milligan, Abigail Sellen and Barry Wellman. "Experiences in the Use of a Media Space." 1992. Pp 372-78 in Groupware, edited by David Marca and Geoffrey Bock. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1992.

Caroline Haythornthwaite, Barry Wellman & Marilyn Mantei “Work Relationships and Media Use.” Group Decision and Negotiation 4 (1995): 193-211.

Caroline Haythornthwaite, Barry Wellman & Laura Garton, “Work and Community Via Computer-Mediated Communication.” Pp. 199-226 in Psychology and the Internet, edited by Jayne Gackenbach. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998.


83

Netting Scholars: Communities of Practice & Inquiry

Emmanuel Koku, Nancy Nazer & Barry Wellman“Netting Scholars: Online and Offline.” American Behavioral Scientist, 44 ,10 (June, 2001): 1750-72

Emmanuel Koku & Barry Wellman“Scholarly Networks as Learning Communities”In Designing Virtual Communities in the Service of

Learning, Edited by Sasha Barab & Rob Kling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002

84

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanComparison of 2 Scholarly

NetworksGlobenet Technet

Year Founded

Founded in 1991-93 Founded in 1995-96

Size 16 (13 men, 3 women)

32 (22 men, 9 women)

Membership

Invitational: merit, interdisciplinary, niche

Voluntary

Location Canada, US, UK 1 Ontario universityActivities 3 Meetings /year

Production of a book

Frequent seminars, conferencesJoint courses, retreats

Funding 9 Senior Fellows get full salaries7 Associate Fellows get partial funding

Members not funded by TechnetMany receive other research grants

85


Globenet members use both F2F & email to get their joint projects done. The dispersion of members across Canada, U.S. & U.K. leads them to use email as a collaborative tool.

86


.For Globenetters, the

distance between members of scholarly pairs is unrelated to the frequency of their email contact.

Except when they’re in the same building

87


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

88


The scholarly relationship of collaborating on a project is the second strongest predictor of frequent F2F contact & frequent email contact.

It & friendship are the only 2 significant predictors.

89


Congruent with the theories of media use: Tasks requiring complex negotiations preferably conducted via richer F2F contacts.

Technet members use F2F contact when possible.

Email fills in temporal & informational gaps. Those Technet members who often read each other’s work, communicate more by email.

90


Where F2F contact is easily done, it is the preferred medium for collaborative work.

However, colleagues easily share their ideas and their work – or announce its existence – by email and web postings.

They do not have to walk over to each other’s offices to do this, although Canadian winters can inhibit in-person visits

91

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanSources of Prominence in

Globenet

External Sources Important for Gaining Entrance Scholarly Status Niche Plus Perceived Internal Congeniality

Internal Sources Important Within Network Knights of the Roundtable Formal Role Scholarly Communication within Network Number of Friendships


92

Summary: Ties

Internet Supports Strong & Weak Ties Evidence: Netville, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Telework

Internet Supports Instrumental & Socioemotional Ties Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Netting Scholars,

Cerise, Telework Ties Rarely are Internet-Only

Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Telework

Internet Replaces Fax & May Reduce Phone – Not F2F Evidence: Netville, Netting Scholars, Cerise

93


Summary: Local Social Capital

Multiplied Number & Range of Neighbors Evidence: Netville

Increased Contact with Existing Neighbors – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone Evidence: National Geographic, Berkeley, Netville?

Demand for Local Information Evidence: Netville, Berkeley, Small City Study

94


Summary: Long Distance Ties

Increased Contact with Long Distance Ties – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone1. Friends More than Kin2. Long-Distance Ties More than Local3. Post Used Only for Rituals (Birthdays, Christmas) Evidence: National Geographic, Netville

95


Summary: Long Distance Ties

Increased Contact with Long Distance Ties – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone1. Friends More than Kin2. Long-Distance Ties More than Local3. Post Used Only for Rituals (Birthdays, Christmas) Evidence: National Geographic, Netville

Summary:Computer-Mediated Communication

Not only supports online “virtual” communities Supports and maintains existing ties: strong & weak Increases connectivity with weak ties Supports both local and non-local social ties In Neighborhood, High-speed Network:

Increases local network size Increases amount of local contact

Long-Distance, High-Speed Network Increases amount of contact Increases support exchanged Facilitates contact with geographical periphery

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 InterestEvidence: Netville, National Geographic, Small Cities,

Berkeley, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Indigo, Telework

98


Summary: Social Network Structure

Internet Aids Both Direct & Indirect Connections Knowledge Acquisition & Management

• Accessing Friends of Friends• Forwarding & Folding In: Making Indirect Ties Direct Ties

Social and Spatial Peripheries Closer to the Center Shift from Spatial Propinquity to Shared Interests Shifting, Fluid Structures Networked, Long-Distance Coordination & “Reports”


99

Conclusions: Changing Connectivity

By Any Means Available Door-to-Door > Place-to-Place

> Person-to-Person Connectivity Less Solidary Households

Dual Careers Multiple Schedules Multiple Marriages

New Forms of Community Partial Membership in Multiple Communities

Networked & Virtual Work Relationships

100


Conclusions:Role-to-Role Relationships

Partial Communities of: Shared, Specialized Interest

Importance of Informal Network Capital Production Reproduction Externalities

Bridging and Bonding Ties

101


Conclusions:How a Network Society Looks

Multiplicity of Specialized Relations Management by Networks More Uncertainty, More Maneuverability Boutiques, not General Stores Less Palpable than Traditional Solidarities

Need Navigation Tools

An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network." Pp. 179-205 in Culture of the Internet, edited by Sara Kiesler. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.

102

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanConclusions: Shift to New Kinds

Of Community & Workgroups Partial Membership in Multiple Networks Multiple Reports Long-Distance Relationships Transitory Work Relationships Each Person Operates Own Network Online Interactions Linked with Offline

Status, Power, Social Characteristics Important Sparsely-Knit: Fewer Direct Connections Than Door-To-

Door -- Need for Institutional Memory & Knowledge Management IKNOW (Nosh Contractor) – Network Tracer ContactMap (Bonnie Nardi & Steve Whittaker) – Network Accumulator

103


Conclusions: The Rise of Personalized Networking

Individual Agency Constrained by Nets: Personalization rather than Group Behavior

Interpersonal Ties Dancing Dyadic Duets: Bandwidth Sparsely-Knit, Physically-Dispersed Ties

Social Networks Multiple, Ad Hoc Wireless Portability


104

Design Considerations for a Networked Society – Connecting

Open List Indicate Presence, Awareness, Availability Prioritize from Deductive, Inductive &

Ad Hoc Data Prioritize by Locale Searchable and Sortable List

By a Variety of Attributes

105

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanDesign Considerations for a

Networked Society – Autonomy

Incorporate Third Parties Quickly Set Up & Dissolve Work Teams Privacy Protection

Control Who is Aware of the Interaction Alert if Others Lurking File Access

Cross-Platform Communication


106

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

107


Boundaries


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 phoneInternet

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 membersWalled off from othersExternal gate guarded

Doors ajar within and between networks Look, knock and ask

Doors closed Access to others by requestKnock and ask

Physical Access All have immediate access to all Core have immediate accessContacting 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

108



Interruptibility High: (Open Door) Norm of Interruption

Mixed: Core interruptibleOthers require deliberate requestsAnswering machineKnocking on door that may be ajar or closedNorm of Interruption within immediate network only

Low: Contact must be requested May be avoided or refusedPrioritizing voice mailInternet filterKnocking on door that may be ajar or closedNorm 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 secretsStatus/Position becomes important capital

Low information control:Few secrets for coreVariable information control for peripheryMaterial resources and network connections become important capital

High information control:Many secrets Information and ties become important capital

Joining In Anyone can observe interactionsAnyone 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 interactFormal requests

Boundaries (continued)

Interpersonal Interactions


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-graveMom and DadDick 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 autonomyHigh reactivity

Mixed: Autonomy within household & work coresHigh 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-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

Ability to reestablish relationships quickly with network members not seen in years


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 cooperationJoint 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 networksAdherence 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 alongPosition within core; Networking

NetworkingFilling structural holes between networks

Social Networks

111



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 solidarityCollective identityCollective name

Moderate solidarity within core household and workgroup, Vitiated by many ties to multiple peripheries

Sense of being an autonomous individualFuzzy identifiable networks

Loyalty Particularistic: High group loyalty

Public and private spheres: Moderate loyalty to home base takes precedence over weak loyalty elsewhere

SelfGlobal weak and divided loyalties

Conflict Handling Revolt, coupIrrevocable departure

Back-bitingKeeping distance

AvoidanceExit

Commitment to Network Members

High within groups High within core; Variable elsewhere

Variable

Zeitgeist Communitarian Conflicted Existential

Norms and Perceptions


112

After 9-11: Retreat to Little Boxes?

Back from Networks to Little Boxes? Re-establishing Tight Boundaries Knowledge Workers’ Spatial Mobility Hindered Goods Made and Sold Locally Distrust of Outsiders Drawing into Densely-Knit Groups

Gated Communities Gated Work: All Work Done on Premises – Autarky Direct Ties, F2F Ties Replace

Indirect, Computer Mediated Ties Network Analysis Used by Terrorists &

Governments

Little Boxes Ramified Networks**** Each in its Place Mobility of People and Goods **** United Family Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody Shared Community Multiple, Partial Personal Nets Neighborhoods Dispersed Networks Voluntary Organizations Informal Leisure Face-to-Face Computer-Mediated Communication Public Spaces Private Spaces Focused Work Unit Networked Organizations Job in a Company Career in a Profession Autarky Outsourcing Office, Factory Airplane, Internet, Cellphone Ascription Achievement Hierarchies Matrix Management Conglomerates Virtual Organizations/Alliances Cold War Blocs Fluid, Transitory Alliances

114


Edited Books The Internet in Everyday Life

Caroline Haythornthwaite, co-editor Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 2002 Preliminary: American Behavioral Scientist, Nov 2001

Networks in the Global Village Boulder, CO: Westview Press 1999

Social Structures: A Network Approach S. D. Berkowitz, co-editor Cambridge University Press, 1988; Reprinted: Elsevier-JAI Press, 1997 Reprinted: CSPI Press, Toronto, 2003

115


Recent Integrative Articles

“Computer Networks as Social Networks”Science 293 (Sept 14, 2001): 2031-34.

“Designing the Internet for a Networked Society.”Communications of the ACM, April 2002: in press.

Research Supported By:Institute of Knowledge Management,CITO, Mitel, National Science Foundation (US),Social Science & Humanities Research Council of Canada

Thank You -- Barry Wellman

Director, NetLabCentre for Urban & Community StudiesUniversity of TorontoToronto, Canada M5S [email protected]/~wellman

a non-technical introduction to social network analysis barry wellman founder, international network...

Documents

homans slide

internet slide

netlab slide

relationships ties nodes

social networks

patterns of relationships

relationships friendship

serious work slide