barry wellman netlab director centre for urban & community studies university of toronto...
Post on 16-Dec-2015
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Barry Wellman NetLab Director
Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1wellman@chass.utoronto.ca
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 Network Examples: Friendship, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, World-
System, Internet
4
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
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
6
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
The Multiple Ways of Network Analysis
Method – The Most Visible Manifestation Misleading to Confuse Appearance with Reality
Theory – Pattern Matters Substance
Community, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, Terrorist, World System
An Add-On: Add a Few Network Measures to a Study
Integrated Approach A Way of Looking at the World: Theory, Data Collection, Data Analysis, Substantive Analysis
7
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThe Social Network
Approach Networks provide flexible means of social
organization and of thinking about social organization
The world is composed of networks - not densely-knit, tightly-bounded groups
Networks are a major source of social capital mobilizable in themselves and from their contents
Moving from a hierarchical society bound up in little boxes to a network – and networking – society
Networks have emergent properties of structure and composition
8
Barry 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
9
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Relationships & TiesDistinguish Between:
Relationships (One Type of Relation) Gives Emotional Support Sends Money To Attacks
Ties (One or More Relationships) Friendship (with possibly many relationships)
Affiliations (Person – Organization) Works for IBM; INSNA Member; Football Team
10
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Groups
GloCalization
Networked Individualism
11
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
12
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThemes of Social Network
Analysis
Ethnographic Studies Does Modernization > Disconnection?
Small Group “Sociometry” Finding People Who Enjoy Working Together
Survey Research: Personal Networks Community, Support & Social Capital, “Guanxi” Internet
Archival Research Inter-Organizational, Inter-National Analyses
13
Barry 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?
14
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Social Network Analysis: Branching Out
Social Movements World-Systems Analyses Cognitive Networks Citation Networks
Co-Citation Inter-Citation
Applied Networks Terrorist Networks Corruption Networks
Discovered by Physicists
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
15
Networked Individualism Moving from a society bound up in little boxes to
a multiple network – and networking – society Networks are a flexible means of social
organization Networks are a major source of social capital:
mobilizable in themselves & from their contents Networks link:
Persons Within organizations Between organizations and institutions
16
Barry 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?
17
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
18
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)
19
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
20
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanDuality of Persons &
Groups
People Link Groups Groups Link People Breiger 1973
Barry WellmanAn Interpersonal Network as An Interorganizational Network
“Network of Networks”
22
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)
23
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) EffectIt’s Contribution to the Network, Not the Alter
24
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%
25
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
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
26
The Internet in Everyday Life Computer Networks as Social Networks Key Questions Community Networks On and Off line
Networked Life before the Internet Netville: The Wired Suburb Large Web Surveys: National Geographic
Work On and Off line Which Media for What Purpose? Communities of Practice Teleworking
Towards Networked Individualism, or The Retreat to Little Boxes
27
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Overarching Questions
1) How is the Internet Being Incorporated Into Everyday Life
2) Does the Internet Multiply, Decrease, Add To
a) Other Forms of Communicationb) Overall Communication
3) How is the Structure of Interpersonal Relations Affected
4) How Does Everyday Life Affect the Internet
28
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
29
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanStretching the Community
Concept Shared Categories
“The Jewish Community” Shared Ecologies / Spaces
Real – Apartment Building Virtual – e-Opinion, e-Bay
Conflict Communal Strife (“Fast Runner”) Gamers (cooperation and conflict)
Instrumental Co-Workers (vs Communities of Practice)
30
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
What’s Driving Changes? Transportation & Communication
Have Become Individualized Dual Careers – Multiple Schedules Multiple Employers
Sequential and Contemporaneous Separation of Work and Home as Physical Places Movement of Work away from Workplace:
Teleworker, Flex Worker, Road Warrior Computerization Allows Personalization No Over-Arching Social Controllers
Groups Networks** Each in its Place Mobility of People and Goods ** United Family Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody Shared Community Multiple & Partial Personal Nets Neighborhoods Dispersed Communities Surveillance Privacy Control Autonomy Voluntary Organizations Informal Leisure Face-to-Face Computer-Mediated Communication Public Spaces Private Spaces Visibility Anonymity Focused Work Unit Networked Organization Job in a Company Career in a Profession Autarky Outsourcing Office, Factory Airplane, Internet, Cellphone Ascription Achievement Hierarchies Multiple Reporting Relationships Conglomerates Virtual Organizations/Alliances Collective Security Civil Liberties Cold War Blocs Fluid, Transitory Alliances
32
Barry 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
Place To Place(Phones, Networked PCs, Airplanes, Expressways, RR, Transit)
Home, Office Important Contexts, Not Intervening Space
Specialized Relationships – Not MultiStranded Ties Ramified & Sparsely Knit: Not Local Solidarities
Not neighborhood-based Not densely-knit with a group feeling
Partial Membership in Multiple Workgroups/ Communities Often Based on Shared Interest Connectivity Beyond Neighborhood, Work Site Household to Household /
Work Group to Work Group Domestication, Feminization of Community Deal with Multiple Groups Knowledge Comes From Internal & External Sources “GloCalization”: Globally Connected, Locally Invested
34
Barry 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
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
35
Analyzing the Internet: Three Fallacies
Presentistism Assumes that only phenomena that happened
since the Net are relevant to understanding the Net
Parochialism Assumes that only phenomena that happen on
the Net are relevant to understanding the Net Punditism
Makes “common sense” pronouncements instead of investigating systematic research
36
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanMyopic to Look at the
Internet As a Special World
Computers are NOT the Mothers of All Invention
Net’s Demographics Approaching Population’s Gender, Income, Education, Ethnicity, Age
People Rapidly Become Experienced Users Become Frequent Users The Real Digital Divide is Know-How,
Not Access
37
Barry 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
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
38
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?
39
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
40
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
41
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
42
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
43
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThe 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
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
45
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Source: Dan Heap Parliamentary Campaign 1992 (NDP)
Toronto in the Continental Division of Labor
46
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
47
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
View of Netville
48
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
“Wired” and “Non-Wired” Neighboring in Netville
Recognized by Name 25.5 8.4 3.0 .00
Talk with Regularly 6.3 3.1 2.0 .06
Invited into Own Home
3.9 2.7 1.4 .14
Invited into Neighbors’ Homes
3.9 2.5 1.6 .14
# of Intervening Lots to Known Neighbors
7.5 5.6 1.4 .08
Mean Number of Neighbors:
Wired(37)
Non-Wired(20)
Wired/ NonWired
Ratio
Signif. Level(p <)
49
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanComputer-Mediated
Communication Not only supports online “virtual” communities Supports and maintains existing ties: strong & weak Increases connectivity with weak ties Supports both local and non-local social ties In Neighborhood, High-speed Network:
Increases local network size Increases amount of local contact
Long-Distance, High-Speed Network Increases amount of contact Increases support exchanged Facilitates contact with geographical periphery
50
Barry 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: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)
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; Revised version in The Internet in Everyday Life (2002)
“Neighboring in “Netville”, the Wired Suburb”. City and Community, 2002
52
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanNational 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
53
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, 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
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
54
Capitalizing on the Net
With Jeffrey Boase, Wenhong Chen & Anabel Quan-Haase
In The Internet in Everyday LifeBarry Wellman & Caroline Haythornthwaite,
eds.Blackwells, Fall 2002
55
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Internet is Important-- But Not Dominant --
Means of Communication
Telephone is 41% of all Communications Reported, Estimated Kin, 46%; Friends, 35%
Email: 33% (Kin, 28%; Friends, 39%) Daily Users: 39%
Face-to-Face: 22% (Kin, 21%; Friends, 24%) Letters, Cards: 4% Kin Contact is 45% of all Reported Communication
56
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Social Contact – On and Offline
The More Veteran the User, the More Email Contact: Nearby Friends (< 50 km) ß = .15 Distant Friends (> 50 km) ß = .11
And to a Lesser Extent -- with Kin Nearby Kin (< 50 km) ß = .07 Distant Kin (< 50 km) ß = .06
Email Use Increases 13%/Year Younger Adults (18-29) & Singles Email More Email & Web-Surfing Positively Associated
Online & Offline Contact
Positive Relationships – Near and FarPhone Stronger than F2FFriends Stronger than KinNearby Friends Stronger Than Distant FriendsTrend 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
58
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Figure 1: Contact with Kin Within 30 miles (50 km) -- Days per Year
201192 187
201209
238
117 116 113120 115 118
7765 61 62 63 60
1 5
24
6 7 8
52
1376
660
50
100
150
200
250
Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/wk Daily
Email Use
TotalPhoneF2FEmailLetters
Contact with Friends Within 30 miles (50 km) - Days per Year
247
209186
202
240
345
136112 98 99
11310484 74 76 83
5 7 9
126
92
3720
1
118
975
860
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/wk Daily
Email Use
Total Phone F2F Email Letters
59
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Percentage of Media Used ForContact with Near-By Friends
Phone39%
Email29%
Letters3%
F2F29%
60
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Contact with Friends Beyond 30 miles (50 km) -- Days per Year
4641
47
65
128
2519 16 19
25
138 10
1
30
85
7
38
17
11 98
4
16
7 87660
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/ w k Daily
Email Use
Total Phone F2F Email Letters
61
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Percentage of Media Used forContact with Far-Away Friends
Phone22%
F2F9%
Email62%
Letters7%
62
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThe Global Internet
Users
The More People Email The More they Talk on the Phone The More They Meet Face-to-Face
True Around the World True for Kin as well as Friends True for Those Living Nearby (50 Km/30 Mi) And Even for Those Living Far-Away! (>50Km) Speaks Against Notion
That Internet Hurts Community
63
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanNewbies Are Changing
The Internet’s Profile Worldwide
North Americans Resemble General Pop. By Contrast, Other OECD & Non-OECD
are: Male Better Educated Younger Single
Resemble Early North American Users: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny
64
Barry 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
65
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
66
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
67
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 Also Contacted
68
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
69
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
70
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanCSCW Research
QuestionsCerise
How do Work, Social Roles Affect Media Use? Is Email Used Only for Specialized Communication? Does Email Use:
Replace, Add To, or Increase F2F, Phone Contact?
Indigo What is the Natural History of a CMC Use? Does Email Move Spatial/Social Peripheries
Socially Closer?
71
Barry 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
72
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
73
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
The Average Pair:
Specialized: Exchanges 3/6 Types of Information
Via 1 or 2 Media Unscheduled F2F, Scheduled F2F Meetings, or Email
Mean = 5.2 Information-Media Links / Pair
Haythornthwaite & Wellman“Work, Friendship & Media”JASIS, 1998
74
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanThe Cerise Study – R&D
Team
Away from Individual Choice, Congruency Social Affordances Only Create Possibilities
Email Used for All Roles: Work, Knowledge, Sociability and Support
Email Lowers Status Distances Email Network Not a Unique Social Network
Intermixed with Face-to-Face (low use of phone, video, fax)
Reduces Temporal as well as Spatial Distances
75
Barry 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
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanScholarly 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, 2003Howard White, Barry Wellman & Nancy Nazer
“Friendship Networks Meet Citation Networks:
Does Friendship Interpenetrate with Knowledge Flow Among Scholars?” in preparation
77
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
78
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
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
GlobeNet Research
80
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.
81
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
82
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Friendship is the strongest predictor to face-to-face & email contact in Technet & Globenet
83
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.
84
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.
85
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
86
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
87
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Summary: Ties
Internet Supports Strong & Weak Ties Evidence: Netville, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Telework
Internet Supports Instrumental & Socioemotional Ties Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Netting Scholars,
Cerise, Telework Ties Rarely are Internet-Only
Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Telework
Internet Replaces Fax & May Reduce Phone – Not F2F Evidence: Netville, Netting Scholars, Cerise
88
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Summary: Local Social Capital
Multiplied Number & Range of Neighbors Evidence: Netville
Increased Contact with Existing Neighbors – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone Evidence: National Geographic, Berkeley, Netville?
Demand for Local Information Evidence: Netville, Berkeley, Small City Study
89
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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
90
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 InterestEvidence: Netville, National Geographic, Small Cities,
Berkeley, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Indigo, Telework
91
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”
92
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanConclusions: Changing
Connectivity By Any Means Available Door-to-Door > Place-to-Place
> Person-to-Person Connectivity Less Solidary Households
Dual Careers Multiple Schedules Multiple Marriages
New Forms of Community Partial Membership in Multiple Communities
Networked & Virtual Work Relationships
93
Barry 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. 179-205 in Culture of the Internet, edited by Sara Kiesler. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
94
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
95
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
96
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Design Qs About Innovative Communities Are Online Relationships
Narrowly Specialized or Broadly Supportive? More Specialized Than Even Face-to-Face Ties
In What Ways are Weak Ties Useful on the Net? Bridge different communities and networks Bring in diverse people, varied groups, creative ideas Impede social control
Strong Intimate Ties Possible Too Not just instrumental, but affective, multiplex
Is There Attachment to Online Communities? Definitely Most Communities – and Relationships – Mix On/Off Line
97
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanRecent 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 HaythornthwaiteOxford: Blackwell Publishers, Nov 2002-- including eponymous lead article
Research Supported By:IBM Institute of Knowledge Management, Bell CanadaCITO, Mitel Networks, National Science Foundation,Social Science & Humanities Research Council of Canada
98
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanHallmarks 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
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
99
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
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
100
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
Three Modes of Interaction
Social Structure
101
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 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
102
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Phenomena Little Boxes Glocalization Networked Individualism
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
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-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
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 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
105
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
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 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
106
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
Groups Networks** Each in its Place Mobility of People and Goods ** United Family Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody Shared Community Multiple, Partial Personal Nets Neighborhoods Dispersed Networks Surveillance Privacy Control Autonomy Voluntary Organizations Informal Leisure Face-to-Face Computer-Mediated Communication Public Spaces Private Spaces Focused Work Unit Networked Organizations Job in a Company Career in a Profession Autarky Outsourcing Office, Factory Airplane, Internet, Cellphone Ascription Achievement Hierarchies Multiple Reports Conglomerates Virtual Organizations/Alliances Collective Security Civil Liberties Cold War Blocs Fluid, Transitory Alliances
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Thank You -- Barry Wellman
Director, NetLabCentre for Urban & Community StudiesUniversity of TorontoToronto, Canada M5S 1A1
wellman@chass.utoronto.cawww.chass.utoronto.ca/
~wellman
top related