networks4newbies

A Non-Technical Introduction to Social Network AnalysisBarry Wellman: 

A Non-Technical Introduction to Social Network Analysis Barry Wellman Founder, International Network For Social Network Analysis Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1 wellman@chass.utoronto.ca www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman

Slide2: 

NetLab

Three Ways to Look at Reality: 

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

Nodes, Relationships & Ties: 

Nodes, 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

A Network is More Than The Sum of Its Ties: 

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)

In a Sentence –: 

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

2 Minute History of Sunbelt Conference: 

2 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: 

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

10 Minute Overview - Journals: 

10 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: 

10 Minute Overview – Key Books Elizabeth Bott, Family & Social Network, 1957 J. Clyde Mitchell, Networks, Norms & Institutions, 1973 Holland & Leinhardt, Perspectives on Social Network Research,1979s S. D. Berkowitz, An Introduction to Structural Analysis, 1982 Knoke & Kuklinski, Network Analysis, 1983, Sage, low-cost Charles Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, 1984 Wellman & Berkowitz, eds., Social Structures, 1988 David Knoke, Political Networks, 1990 John Scott, Social Network Analysis, 1991 Ron Burt, Structural Holes, 1992 Manuel Castells, The Rise of Network Society, 1996, 2000 Wasserman & Faust, Social Network Analysis, 1992 Nan Lin, Social Capital (monograph & reader), 2001

10 Minute Overview – Software: 

10 Minute Overview – Software UCINet – Whole Network Analysis Lin Freeman, Steve Borgatti, Martin Everett MultiNet – Whole Network Analysis + Nodal Characteristics Structure – Ron Burt – Not Maintained P*Star – Dyadic Analysis – Stan Wasserman Krackplot – Network Visualization (Obsolete) David Krackhardt, Jim Blythe Pajek – Network Visualization – Supersedes Krackplot Slovenia Personal Network Analysis SPSS/SAS – See Wellman, et al. “How To…” papers

10 Minute Overview – Data Basis: 

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: 

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

The Social Network Approach: 

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

The Social Network Approach: 

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

Changing Connectivity:Groups to Networks: 

Changing Connectivity: Groups to Networks Densely Knit > Sparsely-Knit Impermeable (Bounded) > Permeable Broadly-Based Solidarity > Specialized Multiple Foci

Networked Individualism: 

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: 

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

Slide19: 

Barry Wellman co-editor Social Structure: A Network Approach JAI-Elsevier Press 1998 Little Boxes Glocalization Networked Individualism

Ways of Looking at Networks: 

Ways 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

Whole Social Networks: 

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?

Cumulative GlobeNet Intercitation Through 2000: 

Cumulative GlobeNet Intercitation Through 2000 Howard White & Barry Wellman, 2003 “Does Citation Reflect Social Structure”

Strongest Globenet Co-Citation, Intercitation Links Thru 2000: 

Strongest Globenet Co-Citation, Intercitation Links Thru 2000

Duality of Persons & Groups: 

Duality of Persons & Groups People Link Groups Groups Link People An Interpersonal Net is an Interorganizational Net Ronald Breiger 1973

Slide25: 

The Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Graphs

Slide26: 

Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Matrices

Slide27: 

Dualities of Persons and Groups: Event-Event Matrix

Neat Whole Network Methods: 

Neat 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

Slide29: 

Erickson, 1988: From a Matrix > . . .

Slide30: 

. . . To a Block Model

Costs of Whole Network Analysis: 

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

Personal Social Networks: 

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)

Costs of Personal Network Studies: 

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

Social Network Analysis: More Flavors: 

Social 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?

SNA: Branching Out: 

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: 

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

Multilevel Analysis – Tie Effects: 

Multilevel Analysis – Tie Effects Tie Strength: Stronger is More Supportive Workmates: Provide More Everyday Support (Multilevel Discovered This)

Multilevel Analysis– Network Effects: 

Multilevel Analysis– Network Effects Network Size Not Only More Support from Entire Network More Probability of Support from Each Network Member Mutual Ties (Reciprocity): Those Who Have More Ties with Network Members Provide More Support Cross-Level Effect Stronger (and Attenuates) Dyadic (Tie-Level) Effect It’s Contribution to the Network, Not the Alter

Multilevel Analysis:Cross-Level, Interaction Effects: 

Multilevel Analysis: Cross-Level, Interaction Effects Kinship No longer a solidary system Parent-(Adult) Child Interaction More Support From Each When > 1 Parent-Child Tie Single P-C Tie: 34% 2+ P-C Ties, Probability of Support from Each: 54%

Multilevel Interactions-- Accessibility : 

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

The Internet in Everyday Life: 

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

Social Affordances of New Forms of Computer-Mediated Connectivity: 

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 Questions: 

Research Questions Ties: Does the Internet support all types of ties? Weak and Strong? Instrumental and Socio-Emotional? Online-Only or Using Internet & Other Media (F2F, Phone)? Social Capital: Has the Internet increased, decreased, or multiplied contact – at work, in society? Interpersonally – Locally Interpersonally – Long Distance Organizationally GloCalization: Has the map of the world dissolved so much that distance does not matter? Has the Internet brought spatial and social peripheries closer to the center?

Research Questions (cont’d): 

Research Questions (cont’d) 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

Guiding Research Principles: 

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

Studies of Community  On and Off-Line: 

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

Slide47: 

ﴀ Source: Dan Heap Parliamentary Campaign 1992 (NDP) Toronto in the Continental Division of Labor

Physical Place and Cyber Place: 

Physical 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.

Door To Door: 

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: 

Place To Place (Phones, Networked PCs, Airplanes, Expressways, RR, Transit) Home, Office Important Contexts, Not Intervening Space Ramified & Sparsely Knit: Not Local Solidarities Not neighborhood-based Not densely-knit with a group feeling Partial Membership in Multiple Workgroups/ Communities Often Based on Shared Interest Connectivity Beyond Neighborhood, Work Site Household to Household / Work Group to Work Group Domestication, Feminization of Community Deal with Multiple Groups Knowledge Comes From Internal & External Sources “Glocalization”: Globally Connected, Locally Invested

Person To Person: 

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

Role To Role: 

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

“Netville”: The Wired Suburb: 

“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

Slide54: 

The entrance to Netville

Slide55: 

View of Netville

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

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

Neighboring Ties : 

Neighboring Ties Wired Residents Recognize More Talk with More Invite More Into their Homes And are Invited by Them Neighbor in a Wider Area

Long-Distance Ties (>50 km/30 mi ): 

Long-Distance Ties (>50 km/30 mi ) Compared to one year before moving to Netville, Wired Residents Have More Than Non-Wired: Social Contact – especially over 500 km Help Given (e.g., childcare, home repair) Help Received from Friends and Relatives Especially between 50 and 500 km

Long-Distance Ties: 

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

“Netville”: The Wired Suburb: 

“Netville”: The Wired Suburb With Keith Hampton (MIT) “Netville Online and Offline: Observing and Surveying a Wired Suburb.” American Behavioral Scientist 43, 3 (Nov 1999): 475-92. “Examining Community in the Digital Neighborhood” Pp. 475-92 in Digital Cities: Technologies, Experiences and Future Perspectives, edited by Toru Ishida and Katherine Isbister. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2000. “Long Distance Community in the Network Society” American Behavioral Scientist, 45 (Nov 2001): 477-97 “How the Internet Builds Local Community”. City and Community, 2001

National Geographic Survey 2000 and Survey 2001: 

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

Survey 2000 Research Questions: 

Survey 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?

Computer Supported Cooperative Work: 

Computer Supported Cooperative Work Fishbowls and Switchboards Media Use and Choice Cerise Indigo Networked Scholarly Organizations Technet Globenet Teleworking: The Home-Work Nexus

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

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

Slide69: 

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

The “Switchboard” Network Office:Person-to-Person: 

The “Switchboard” Network Office: Person-to-Person Each Works Separately Office Doors Closable for Privacy Glass in Doors Indicate Interruptibility If Doors Locked, Must Knock If Doors Open, Request Admission Difficult to learn if Person is Dealing with Others Unless Door is Open Large Number of Potential Interactors Average Person knows > 1,000 Strangers & Friends of Friends May also be Contacted

Slide71: 

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

“Cerise” / “Indigo” CSCW: 

“Cerise” / “Indigo” CSCW Using Video/ Email at Work R&D Work: Faculty, Students, Programmers, Admin. Caroline Haythornthwaite & Laura Garton Collaborators Survey and Ethnography

CSCW Research Questions: 

CSCW 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?

Separate Information Exchange Roles Derived from Factor Analysis of Specific Exchanges: 

Separate Information Exchange Roles Derived from Factor Analysis of Specific Exchanges Work Giving Work Receiving Work Collaborative Writing Computer Programming Social Sociability Major Emotional Support

Communication Roles: 

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

Social Roles: 

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

The Average Pair:: 

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

Conclusions: The Cerise Study: 

Conclusions: 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

Slide79: 

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

Indigo: Work Interaction Time 1: 

Indigo: Work Interaction Time 1 Work Interaction (All Media) Prior to Telepresence

Indigo: Work Interaction Time 3: 

Indigo: Work Interaction Time 3 Work Interaction (All Media) 14 months after Telepresence Intro Greater Decentralization

“Cerise” / “Indigo” Papers: 

“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.

Netting Scholars: Communities of Practice & Inquiry: 

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

Comparison of 2 Scholarly Networks: 

Comparison of 2 Scholarly Networks

Slide85: 

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.

Slide86: 

. 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

Slide87: 

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

Slide88: 

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.

Slide89: 

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.

Slide90: 

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

Sources of Prominence in Globenet: 

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

Summary: Ties: 

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

Summary: Local Social Capital: 

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

Summary: Long Distance Ties: 

Summary: Long Distance Ties Increased Contact with Long Distance Ties – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone 1. Friends More than Kin 2. Long-Distance Ties More than Local 3. Post Used Only for Rituals (Birthdays, Christmas) Evidence: National Geographic, Netville

Summary: Long Distance Ties: 

Summary: Long Distance Ties Increased Contact with Long Distance Ties – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone 1. Friends More than Kin 2. Long-Distance Ties More than Local 3. Post Used Only for Rituals (Birthdays, Christmas) Evidence: National Geographic, Netville

Summary:Computer-Mediated Communication : 

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: 

Summary: The GloCalization Paradox Surf and Email Globally Stay Wired at Office/Home to be Online Desire for Local/Distant Services and Information Internet Supplements/Augments F2F Doesn’t Replace It; Rarely Used Exclusively Media Choice? By Any Means Available Many Emails are Local – Within the Workgroup or Community Local Becomes Just Another Interest Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Small Cities, Berkeley, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Indigo, Telework

Summary: Social Network Structure: 

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”

Conclusions: Changing Connectivity: 

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

Conclusions:Role-to-Role Relationships: 

Conclusions: Role-to-Role Relationships Partial Communities of: Shared, Specialized Interest Importance of Informal Network Capital Production Reproduction Externalities Bridging and Bonding Ties

Conclusions:How a Network Society Looks: 

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.

Conclusions: Shift to New Kinds Of Community & Workgroups: 

Conclusions: Shift to New Kinds Of Community & Workgroups Partial Membership in Multiple Networks Multiple Reports Long-Distance Relationships Transitory Work Relationships Each Person Operates Own Network Online Interactions Linked with Offline Status, Power, Social Characteristics Important Sparsely-Knit: Fewer Direct Connections Than Door-To-Door -- Need for Institutional Memory & Knowledge Management IKNOW (Nosh Contractor) – Network Tracer ContactMap (Bonnie Nardi & Steve Whittaker) – Network Accumulator

Conclusions: The Rise of Personalized Networking: 

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

Design Considerations for a Networked Society – Connecting: 

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

Design Considerations for a Networked Society – Autonomy: 

Design 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

Slide106: 

Three Modes of Interaction Social Structure

Slide107: 

Boundaries

Slide108: 

Boundaries (continued)

Interpersonal Interactions: 

Interpersonal Interactions

Slide110: 

Social Networks

Slide111: 

Norms and Perceptions

After 9-11: Retreat to Little Boxes? : 

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: 

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

Edited Books: 

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

Recent Integrative Articles: 

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: 

Thank You -- Barry Wellman Director, NetLab Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1 wellman@chass.utoronto.ca www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman