No Group is an Island Living Networked On

No Group is an Island: Living Networked On and Offline Barry Wellman & Bernie Hogan Net. Lab Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto, Canada M 5 S 1 A 1 wellman@chass. utoronto. ca www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman The Three Ages of Net Studies Prehistoric: Communities as Social Networks n First Age: Anticipatory Hype, Isolated Analyses n Second Age: Documentation for Government, Academe, Commerce, Public Interest n n Ethnographies n Surveys – Access, Users and Uses n Third Age: Internet in Everyday Life n Longer Range Changes Towards a Network Society n Focused, In-Depth Field Studies 2

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Internet No Longer a Dazzling Light Fascination Decreasing n Just as It Becomes More Pervasive & Important n Rarely Online-Only Communities n Rather Embedded in Everyday Life n 3

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman A Computer Network Is a Social Network n n n Sociologists Need to Inform – Even Determine – the Field Avoid Computer Scientists and Media’s Reliance on Punditry, Presentism, Parochialism Look at: n n n What Determines Which Hard/Software will be Used What are the Interpersonal > Global Impacts of Use Sociologically-Informed Design Move Analysis Out of Cyberspace / Ground in Real World The Web as a (Social) Network 4

Determinism > Affordances n n Sociologists Shun Determinism Social Affordances a Safer Approach n n Affordances – Gibson, Cognition, 1977: n n Erin Bradner Webpage (originally determined content) > Blogs / Wikis Email – symmetrical, 1: 1, 1: many, many: many n n Don Norman Social Affordances (of Computing) n n Pattern match between expectancies & behavior Technological Affordances of Computing n n Opportunities & Constraints On Behavior & Social Organization Attachments Even Processor Speed (multitasking) Yet PCs are Individualizing In-Person 5

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Groups > Networks n n Moving from a hierarchical society bound up in little boxes to a network – and networking – society Multiple communities / work networks n n Multiplicity of specialized relations Management by networks More alienation, more maneuverability Loosely-coupled organizations / societies n n Less centralized The networked society 6

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman We Study Social Networks as: n Networked Communities n n n But Not Necessarily Local Before and After the Internet Communities of Practice – at Work n Within and Between Organizations • Intro of Email and Video • Scholarly Networks On and Offline • Knowledge Access in Hierarchical & Networked Organizations • Trans-National (Chinese) Entrepreneurs – Beijing, Toronto, L. A 7

Why A Focus on Networks Now? Where Work & Community Happens • ‘Boundarylessness’ • Networks Drive Social Capital Where Knowledge Lives Where People Engage • Join & Commit to People • Significant Satisfaction and Retention Benefits BUT… • Rely on People for Info • ‘Invisible’ • People also Provide More Than Databases • How many people think they know? ? Source: Rob Cross 8

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Bounded Groups 9

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Door To Door (Solidary Groups) § Traditional Communities § Based on Propinquity, Kinship § Workshops, Bureaucracies All Observe and Interact with All Deal with Only One Group n Knowledge Comes Only From Within the Group – and Stays Within the Group n 10

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman The “Fishbowl” Group : Door-to-Door Community n n n 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 n n No Real Secrets No Secret Meetings Anyone can Observe Conversations & Decide to Join Little Alert to Others Approaching 11

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Changing Structures Densely Knit > Sparsely-Knit n Impermeable (Bounded) > Permeable n Broadly-Based Solidarity > Specialized Multiple Foci n To Find Networks, We Don’t Assume Structure n n n But Ask/Observe About Relationships Discover Who is Central, Bridges, Brokers Where are Subgroups n Where are Equivalent People n 12

Unit To Unit (Place To Place) (Phones, Networked PCs, Airplanes, Expressways, RR, Transit) Home, Office Important Contexts, n n Ramified & Sparsely Knit: Not Local Solidarities n n n n Not neighborhood-based Not densely-knit with a group feeling Partial Membership in Multiple Workgroups/ Communities Often Based on Shared Interest Connectivity Beyond Neighborhood, Work Site Work Group to Work Group Domestication, Feminization of Community (& Work? ) n n Not Intervening Space Shift from Manipulating Atoms (Things) to Manipulating Bits (Words) Deal with Multiple Groups Knowledge Comes From Internal & External Sources “Glocalization”: Globally Connected, Locally Invested 13

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Glocalization 14

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Key Contention: Social Affordances of Internet Facilitate Turn Toward Networked Individualism 15

Social Affordances of the Now-Traditional Internet n n Personal Computer vs. Place-Bound Phones “Groupware” (CSCW 1992) Originally Assumed: n n Multiple Temporality n n All Approachable by Email (including spammers) Lists, Groups Can be Open/Closed; (Un)Moderated Audiences n n n From Instant Messaging to Long Term Time Shifting Even Polysynchronous – MUDs, games Varying Membership Determinants n n Bounded Persistent, Focused Small Group Tete-a-Tete, Group Broadcast, Public Address Public Web vs Semi-Private Blogs Facilitates the Real World n Arranging, Continuing, Linking between Meetings 16

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Social Affordances of the Emerging “Internet” n n n n Ubiquity – Access Info “Anywhere” Portability – Use Personal Equipment Anywhere 24/7 – Instant Access Velocity – Rapid Access & Response Bandwidth – Amount of Information Comprehensive – Text, Data, Audio, Video Tailorability – Personalized Systems Volume – Greater Daily, Yearly Communication 17

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Social Software Designed To Link Individuals, Not Groups (Mobile Phones, Wireless Computing, Lonely Car) n Takes Logged-In Individual as A Priori n Mobile Phones – Each Has Own Phone Number, ID n n (As Compared with Place-Oriented Wired Landlines) Wireless Networks n Place Only Important as a Log-In Site Not controllable IDs > n n Flaming (in blogs, newsgroups) Spamming in email 18

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Networked Individualism 19

Bounded Groups (Door-to-Door) Glocalization (Place-to-Place) Networked Individualism (Person-to-Person) 20

Social Affordances of Computer Media Communication Media 21

Person-to-Person: Networked Individualism n n n § n n n n Little Awareness of Context Private Desires Replace Public Civility Multiple Specialized Relationships Partial Membership in Multiple Networks Long-Distance Relationships More Transitory Relationships Online Interactions Linked with Offline More Uncertainty, More Maneuverability Less Palpable than Traditional Solidarities: Alienation? Sparsely-Knit: Fewer Direct Connections Than Door-To-Door Possibly Less Caring for Strangers More Weak Ties Need for Institutional Memory & Knowledge Management 22

Barry Wellman 140 www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Frequency of Contact with Far-away Kin (Days/Year) 132 120 91 100 73 80 60 40 20 0 53 56 35 71 57 35 37 32 39 42 34 18 10 7 1 Never Email Adds on to F 2 F, Phone 10 10 7 4 8 9 9 7 Rarely Monthly F 2 F Phone Email Use Letters Weekly 9 Few times/ wk Email 10 9 Daily Total Predominant Medium for Daily Users 23

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Frequency of Contact with Near-By Kin (Days/Year) Email Adds on to F 2 F, Phone For Frequent Users F 2 F Phone Letters Email Total 24

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Findings from Survey Research n Email Adds On to Face-to-Face Contact n Phone Contact (Less Sure) n Locally and Long-Distance n Kin (especially) and Friends n Support and Sociability n 25

View of Netville Hampton & Wellman, City & Community, Fall 2003 26

“Wired” and “Non-Wired” Neighboring in Netville Mean Number of Neighbors: Wired (37) Non. Wired (20) Wired/ Non. Wired Ratio Signif. Level (p <) Recognized by Name 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 25. 5 3. 9 2. 5 1. 6 . 14 # of Intervening Lots to Known Neighbors 7. 5 5. 6 1. 4 . 08 27

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Yamanashi, Japan: Email Users by Age 100% 90% 80% Both by Webphone and PC By Webphone 70% 60% 50% By PC 40% 30% Non-user 20% 10% 0% 20 -29 30 -39 40 -49 50 -59 60 -65 Miyata, Boase, Wellman & Ikeda, “The Mobile-izing Japanese” 28

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Findings from Netville Local Ties Enhanced n Weak Ties Especially Expanded n Arranging n Get-Togethers n Group Meetings (BBQs) n Exchanges (Babysitting) n Political Protests n 29

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Yamanashi: Users Vary by Age, Skill n Users of webphones only 20’s and 30’s n only a high school degree n score themselves low in ability to use technology n Users of both webphones and PCs to exchange email in their 20’s & 30’s. n Users of PCs only: n 30 – 59 n Settled jobs n 30

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Yamanashi: Mobile Webphone Dominate Static PC More emails per day are made through the use of webphones than through PCs. n Email exchanged by webphones n n n with people who are nearby. Email exchanged by PCs n with people who are further away. PC-based emails are less connected to imminent physical get-togethers n Norway – Texting > email, 8: 1 (Ling) n 31

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Yamanashi: Webphone vs. PC Mail: A Hypothesis n Webphone Email constrains strong tie autonomy because close ties expect you to be always connected and available anywhere n n n But emphasizes individual over household, workgroup Instant messaging similar, although more location-bound PC Email enhances network autonomy because: n n Often more choice about when messages are answered Often more choice about who is answered 32

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman The Catalan Contrast n n n Catalonia in the Internet and the World Castells, Tubella, Sancho, Wellman, Diaz de Isla (www. uoc. edu/in 3/pic) N = 1, 039 35% are Internet Users; Median < 10 Hours/Mo n n Few Use Email Frequently: n n Little online sociability (1 or 2 times per week) Most Use Web Services Frequently: n n 87% access at work; 70% at home (17% high-speed) Practical, Professional Most Catalans Live With/Near Parents/Adult Kids: n Same House (40%+) or Municipo (30%+) ≈ 75% 33

Strong Ties Number of Municipo Catalonia (median) Spain Outside Total Friends 5 1 1 0 7 Kin 5 4 1 0 10 10 59% 5 29% 2 12% 0. 3 2% 17 102% Total 34

Sociability n n Fewer Internet Users Take All Evening Meals Family: 51% vs 67% Internet Use Affects Conversations n n Increase: Decrease: As a 12% vs 7% 9% vs 5% Internet Contact with Friends (% of users doing so; median frequency) n Within Municipo: 12% (weekly) n Catalonia: 14% (twice monthly) n Spain: 4% (monthly) n Elsewhere: 31% (monthly) n Door to Door and Place to Place 35

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Friendship is the strongest predictor to face-to-face & email contact in Technet & Globenet 36

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman The scholarly relationship of collaborating on a project is the second strongest predictor of frequent F 2 F contact & frequent email contact. It & friendship are the only 2 significant predictors. 37

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Congruent with theories of media use: Tasks requiring complex negotiations preferably conducted via richer F 2 F contacts. Technet members use F 2 F contact when possible. Email fills in temporal & informational gaps. Those Technet members who often read each other’s work, communicate more by email. 38

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Where F 2 F contact is easily done, it is the preferred medium for collaborative work. However, colleagues easily share their ideas and their work – or announce its existence – by email and web postings. They do not have to walk over to each other’s offices to do this, although Canadian winters can inhibit in-person visits 39

Barry Wellman Globenet: www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Internal and External Predictors to Level of Prominence Models Predictors I N T E R N A L E X T E R N A L Internal Roles Indegree Friendship Read Work Duration of Membership (log) Fellowship Attainment Level of Involvement Discuss Work Freq. of Scholarly Communication (logged) Number of Publications External Positions Control of Resources Number of Citations Constant R 2 Adjusted R 2 **Significant at p<0. 01 Internal Only External Only Combined Model Standardized PStand. P-Value Beta 0. 70* 0. 04 0. 60 0. 17 0. 60 0. 12 0. 92 0. 16 0. 47 0. 10 -0. 08 0. 88 0. 10 0. 69 0. 51 0. 31 -0. 11 -0. 40 -0. 37 -0. 04 0. 69 0. 30 0. 18 0. 85 -0. 32 -0. 33 -0. 41 -0. 01 0. 33 0. 21 -0. 27 -0. 06 0. 19 0. 82 0. 61 *Significant at p<0. 05 0. 60 0. 52 0. 45 0. 92 0. 01 0. 09 -0. 23 0. 50 0. 54 0. 23 0. 97 0. 49 0. 47 -0. 07 -0. 27 0. 41 0. 28 0. 85 0. 58 0. 85 0. 90 0. 52 40

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Sources of Prominence in Globenet n External Sources Important for Gaining Entrance n n Scholarly Status Niche Plus Perceived Internal Congeniality Internal Sources Important Within Network n n Knights of the Roundtable Formal Role Scholarly Communication within Network Number of Friendships 41

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Findings & Speculations n Away from Individual Choice, Congruency n n Email Used for All Roles: n n Work, Knowledge, Sociability and Support Roles Remain Specialized on Email Lowers Status Distances Email Network Not a Unique Social Network n n n Social Affordances Only Create Possibilities Intermixed with Face-to-Face (low use of phone, video, fax) Reduces Temporal as well as Spatial Distances Need for Social (Network) Software to Foster: n n Awareness, Reachability, Knowledge Transfer IKNOW 42

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman How a Network Society Looks n n Moving from a hierarchical society bound up in little boxes to a network – and networking – society Loosely-Coupled Societies Shifting, Fluid Structures Multiple Communities / Work Networks n n n Multiplicity of Specialized Relations Management by Networks More Uncertainty, More Maneuverability Find Resources in Specialized Tie Boutiques – Not in General Relationship Stores Networks Less Palpable than Traditional Solidarities Need Navigation Tools: Lava. Life, IKNOW 43

Implications for a Networked Society n Glo. Calization: Global & Local Involvements n n Social Linkages: Higher Velocity & Add-On Volume Social Capital: Specialized Relationships n n n Specialized Roles; CMC Affords Interconnections Social Mobilization: Shared Interests Find Each Other Social Control: Less Group Control n n Online & Offline Intersect > Intangible & Tangible Aid Social Cohesion: Shift among multiple memberships n n Local Becomes Just another Interest Social & Spatial Peripheries Closer to the Center Burden on Dyadic Reciprocity + Formal Surveillance Controls Social Exclusion: Digital Divides: National & Global 44

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Individual as Portal n Individual is the Primary Unit of Connectivity n n n Not the Household, Workgroup, Tribe Each Person Operates a Personal Network Each Person is the Portal of Communication n Mobile Phone, Email Address, Instant Messaging • Versus Letter, Landline Phone, Home Address n Each Person is the Portal of Resource Mobilization n Specialized Ties; Divisions of Labor Control of Property & Control of Networks Bridges Important n Connect Individuals; Connect Clusters; Integrate Societies 45

Bounded Groups www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Networked Individualism Barry Wellman ** Each in its Place Mobility of People and Goods ** n “Our Town” “Friends” Met at Malt Shop Met on Match. com Dating > Engagement Hanging Out > Seeing Each Other Love> Sex> Marriage> Baby Sex > Love > Partnering Marriage Civil Union HH as Reproductive Unit HH as Consumatory Duet “Love and Marriage” “Sex and the City” Mom & Dad, Dick & Jane Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, & ? United Family Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody 1 -2 Person Household 3 -4 Person Household Shared Community Multiple, Partial Personal Nets Densely-Knit Sparsely-Knit Neighborhoods Dispersed Networks Voluntary Organizations Informal Leisure Face-to-Face Contact Computer-Mediated Communication Public Spaces Private Spaces Similar Attributes Similar Interests Social Control Dyadic Exchanges Conserves Resources Gathers New Resources, Failures n Routinized Stability n n n n n Stable Instability 46

Thank You -- Barry Wellman Director, Net. Lab Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto, Canada M 5 S 1 A 1 wellman@chass. utoronto. ca www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman