Barry Wellman Director, NetLab Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto,...

Barry Wellman

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

2

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanNetLab Studies Social

Networks as:

Networked Communities *** The Internet in Everyday Life – Connected Lives “Netville” – The Wired Suburb Yamanashi (Japan) Study of Webphone & PC Email

Communities of Practice at Work Scholarly Networks On and Offline Trans-National Chinese Entrepreneurs: Beijing, Toronto,

L.A *** Knowledge Access in

Hierarchical & Networked Organizations

The Multiple Ways of Network Analysis

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

Data Gathering Focus on Links, not Individual Characteristics

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

Links to Structural Analyses in Other Disciplines

Groups > Networks Densely Knit > Sparsely-Knit Impermeable (Bounded) > Permeable Broadly-Based Solidarity > Specialized Multiple Foci Not a decline of community/work, but a

transformation Moving from a hierarchical society bound up in

groups 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

Bounded Groups

GloCalization: Unit to Unit

Individualized Networking: Person-to-Person

Barry’s Rules For Dealing with Social

Networks Don’t Assume Groups or Boundaries A Priori:

Discover Them Empirically Keep Info Distinct about Different Relationships

Relate/Combine Analytically Take Account of Social Demographics: SES, Gender Allow for Membership in Multiple Networks

Often Partial, Fragmentary Membership Take Multiple Means of Contact into Account

Online & Offline Scale Up from Small Networks to Large:

Interpersonal > Intergroup Dream/Represent in Graphs; Analyze in Matrices

7

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

Models of Community and Work Groups

8


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

9


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

10

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

Office:Person-to-Person

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

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

Unless Door is Open Large Number of Potential Interactors

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

11


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

12

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanDoor To Door (Solidary

Groups) Old Workgroups/ Communities Based

on Propinquity, Kinship Pre-Industrial Villages, Wandering Bands

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

the Group – and Stays Within the Group

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

Home, Office Important Contexts, Not Intervening Space

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

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

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

Person-to-Person: Individualized Networking(Mobile Phones, Wireless Computing, Lonely Car) Individualized Networking 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


15

Implications of the Models

Social Structure

Phenomena Groups 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

16


Boundaries


Physical Context Dominance of immediate context Relevance of immediate context Ignorance of immediate context

Modality Door-to-Door Place-to-Place Person-to-Person

Predominant Mode of Communication

Face-to-Face Wired phoneInternet

Mobile phone, Wireless modem

Spatial Range Local GloCal = Local + Global Global

Locale All in common household and work spaces

Common household and work spaces for core + external periphery

External

Awareness and Availability

All visible and audible to all High awareness of availability

Core immediately visible, audible; Little awareness of others’ availability -- must be contacted

Little awareness of availability Must be contacted Visibility and audibility must be negotiated

Access Control Doors wide open to in-group membersWalled off from othersExternal gate guarded

Doors ajar within and between networks Look, knock and ask

Doors closed Access to others by requestKnock and ask

Physical Access All have immediate access to all Core have immediate accessContacting others requires a journey or telecommunications

Contact requires a journey or telecommunications

Permeability Impermeable wall around unit Household and workgroup have strong to weak outside connections

Individual has strong to weak connections

17



Interruptibility High: (Open Door) Norm of Interruption

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

Low: Contact must be requested May be avoided or refusedPrioritizing voice mailInternet filterKnocking on door that may be ajar or closedNorm of interruption within immediate network only

Observability High: All can see when other group members are interacting

Mixed: Core can observe core Periphery cannot observe core or interactions with other network members

Low: Interactions with other network members rarely visible

Privacy Low information control: Few secretsStatus/Position becomes important capital

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

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

Joining In Anyone can observe interactionsAnyone can join

Interactions outside the core rarely observable Difficult to join

Interactions rarely observable Difficult to join

Alerts Little awareness of others approaching Open, unlocked doors

High prior awareness of periphery’s desire to interact Telephone ring, doorbell

High prior awareness of others’ desire to interactFormal requests

Boundaries (continued)

Interpersonal Interactions


Predominant Basis of Interaction

Ascription (What you are born into) e.g., Gender, ethnicity

“Protect Your Base Before You Attack” (attributed to Mao)

Free agent

Frequency of Contact High within group Moderate within core; Low to moderate outside of core

Variable, low with most; Moderate overall

Recurrency Recurrent interactions within group Recurrent interactions within core; Intermittent with each network member

Low with most others; Moderate overall

Duration Long duration ties:cradle-to-grave; employed for life

Long duration for household core (except for divorce); Short duration otherwise

Short duration ties

Domesticity Cradle-to-graveMom and DadDick and Jane

Long-term partners Serial monogamy Dick lives with divorced parent

Changing partners; Living together; Singles; Single parents; Nanny cares for Jane

Scheduling Drop-In anytime Drop-in within household, work core;Appointments otherwise

Scheduled appointments

Transaction Speed Slow Variable in core; Fast in periphery Fast

Autonomy & Proactivity Low autonomyHigh reactivity

Mixed: Autonomy within household & work coresHigh proactivity & autonomy with others

High autonomy High proactivity

Tie Maintenance Group maintains ties Core groups maintain internal ties; Other ties must be actively maintained

Ties must be actively maintained, one-by-one

Predictability Predictability, certainty and security within group interactions

Moderate predictability, certainty and security within core; Interactions with others less predictable, certain and secure

Unpredictability, uncertainty, insecurity, contingency, opportunity

Latency Leaving is betrayal; Re-Entry difficult

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

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


Number of Social Circles Few: Household, kin, work Multiple: Core household, work unit; Multiple sets of friends, kin, work associates, neighbors

Multiple: Dyadic or network ties with household, work unit, friends, kin, work associates, neighbors

Maneuverability Little choice of social circles Choice of core and other social circles

Choice of social circles

Trust Building Enforced by group Betrayal of one is betrayal of all

Core enforces trust Networked members depend on cumulative reciprocal exchanges and ties with mutual others

Dependent on cumulative reciprocal exchanges and ties with mutual others

Social Support Broad (“multistranded”) Broad household and work core; Specialized kin, friends, other work

Specialized

Social Integration By groups only Cross-cutting ties between networks integrate society;Core is the common hub

Cross-cutting ties between networks integrate society

Cooperation Group cooperationJoint activity for clear, collective purposes

Core cooperation; Otherwise: short-term alliances, tentatively reinforced by trust building and ties with mutual others

Independent schedules Transient alliances with shifting sets of others

Knowledge All aware of most information Information open to all within unit Secret to outsiders

Core Knows Most Things Variable awareness of and access to what periphery knows

Variable awareness of and access to what periphery knows

Social Control Superiors and group exercise tight control

Moderate control by core household and workgroup, with some spillover to interactions with periphery Fragmented control within specialized networks Adherence to norms must be internalized by individuals

Subgroups, cleavages Partial, fragmented control within specialized networksAdherence to norms must be internalized by individuals

Resources Conserves resources Acquires resources for core units Acquires resources for self

Basis of Success Getting along Position within group

Getting alongPosition within core; Networking

NetworkingFilling structural holes between networks

Social Networks

20



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

21

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanEarlier NetLab

Community of Practice Studies

Introduction of Email, Videoconferencing “Cerise” “Indigo”

Scholarly Networks On and Offline Easy to Measure Communication,

Productivity TeleWork – in Large Organizations Guanxi – as Social Networks

22

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanFindings From Earlier Studies

Away from Individual Choice, Congruency Social Affordances Only Create Possibilities

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

Roles Remain Specialized on Email Email Lowers Status Distances Email Network Not a Unique Social Network

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

Reduces Temporal as well as Spatial Distances Need for Social (Network) Software to Foster:

Awareness, Reachability, Knowledge Transfer IKNOW

23

Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellmanEarlier Findings

(continued) The More Email, the More F2F Contact Email Use Increases Decentralization 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

Capitalizing On Hyperconnected Net Work

Barry Wellman NetLab DirectorCentre for Urban & Community Studies University of

Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1

[email protected]/~wellman

Anabel Quan Haase Information & Media Studies University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada [email protected]

25


The KME Study High Tech Organization of 200 Studied Software & Client Services Dept Multiple Media User Look at CMC In Context of:

All Media Used Work & Socializing Relationships Social Structure of Organization

Survey, Interviews, Observations Anabel Quan-Haase’s Dissertation

26


Research Questions How Does CMC Fit in a

Routinized, Normalized Media Ecology ?

How Does CMC Affect Work Practices? What are Social Networks Like?

Within Group and Beyond Group Work and Socializing

How Do CMC & Nets Affect: Community, Trust (and Productivity)?

Is There a Networked Organization? Or Networks within Hierarchical Bureaucracy?

27


Methods Case Study: 25 employees, high-tech firm

11 software developers 14 virtual community maintainers

Computerized survey: 3 distances: workgroup, organization, outside org.

3 media: face-to-face, instant messaging, email Interviews and observations of 10 employees

Software Development Client Services

Industry-Time-to-market pressures-Success measures: profit, market share

-Cost pressures-Success measures: satisfaction, acceptance

Tasks

-Staff assigned to specific tasks-User is distant and less involved-Process is immature-Coordinated software development

-Staff assigned to specific projects-User is involved and provides input-Process is more mature-Task accomplishment independent

Cultural Milieu

-

-Entrepreneurial-Individualistic-Long work hours

-More bureaucratic-Less individualistic-More set working hours

Group

-Less likely to have matrix structure-Involved in entire development cycle-More cohesive, motivated, jelled-Opportunities for large financial rewards-Large discrepancies in income-Small, co-located

-Matrix managed and project focused-People assigned to multiple projects-Work-together as needed-Salary-based-Rely on formal specifications-Larger, somewhat dispersed

29


Workgroup Organization Outside

Media Use by Distance

Never

Daily

FTFEmail

IM

*

+

30


WithinDepartment

240 (28%)

306 (36%)

306 (36%)

Elsewhere in Organization

99 (19%)

213 (40%)

215 (41%)

Communication at KME (Days per Year)

FTF & Phone

Email IM

Outside Organization

21 (11%)

103 (53%)

72 (37%)

31


Sources of Information

Rely on both human & documentary sources

Both human and documentary sources are accessed predominantly

online

32


Coordinate/Socialize

9.20 Linda emails Desmond asking him to meet (they sit across from each other). They email back and forth a couple of times to arrange a good time.

12.02 Anna received an instant messaging from Brian asking her to meet for lunch. They arrange to meet for lunch in 5 minutes in the hallway.

33


Problem Solving

John: “I investigated the product by trying various things and to do that I IM some people that it had impact, Brian and Sally they were experts. And then, it happened to be in this case Steve and Denise who were emailing and Brian. They were in this email threat that was going back and forth. It is very specific to what the problem is, though.”

34


Andy: “Internally, I use IM a fair amount because there are times where I want to know something, but I don’t want the other person to know how I am reacting or responding. Like I know he is going to tell me to do X and I don’t think that is the right way to go, but I have to ask him and he is going to tell me that and then he doesn’t see my face going AH. And then I can have a moment to think …and composing myself and figuring out how to respond.”

Social Distance


Information Network – Weekly Exchanges

Socializing Network – Weekly Exchanges


39


Information Brokering

Information brokers are central in information network

Measured as information network centrality

TechnologicalNetwork

Social Network

Information network

Findings Hyperconnectivity: Instant Availability

F2F, IM, Email, Some Phone Overloading & Overwhelming ***** Hyperconnectivity Builds Trust ***** Organic Solidarity – Interdependent Interdependencies

Local Virtuality: CMC-Based Neighboring GloCalization: Dispersed, but Local Stays Important Individualized Networking:

Each Switches among Multiple, Specialized Partial Networks Interact with Diverse Partners: Simultaneously, Sequentially Rather than Full-Blown Networked Organization

Direct Ties Rule: Indirect Ties At Most One Step

41


End Hyperconnected KME Study

Implications of Social Network Analysis

42


The Person is the Portal Individual is the Primary Unit of Connectivity

Not the Household, Work group, Tribe Each Person Operates a Personal Community Each Person is the Portal of Communication

Mobile Phone, Email Address, Instant Messaging• Versus Letter, Landline Phone, Home Address

Each Person is the Portal of Resource Mobilization Specialized Ties; Divisions of Labor Control of Property & Control of Networks

Bridges Important Connect Individuals; Connect Clusters; Integrate

Societies

43


Autonomy and Identity

Multiple Loyalties Partial Commitments to Networks

And Vice-Versa Individuals May Have Discretion about

Whom They Deal With How They Interact Time and Place of their Interaction

Software Needed For Knowledge Management Small Worlds – Most People Don’t Know their

Nets

44


Consequences for Trust Trust Has Been Built on Hierarchical Sets of

Loyalty and Control to: Bounded Groups Hhold > Neighbourhood > Region > Country > Bloc

People Now Often Participate as: As Individuals More Weak Ties – But Easier to Connect with Strong

Ties Partially Involved in any One Group Shifting, Sometimes Divided Loyalties Really, but Partially Local Easy to Shift Allegiance with Mouse Clicks Information is Only Google Away. Knowledge?

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

46


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”

47


Implications of a Networked Society

48


How a Network Society Looks

Multiple Communities / Work Networks Multiplicity of Specialized Relations Management by Networks More Uncertainty, More Maneuverability Find Resources in Specialized Tie Boutiques –

Not in General Relationship Stores Networks Less Palpable than Traditional

SolidaritiesNeed Navigation Tools

49


Networked Individualism: Social Linkages

Volume Up: Adds On to Phone, Face-to-Face

Velocity Up Quality OK, with Some Flaming Household Relations Stressed

50


Networked Individualism:Social Capital

Specialized Support From Ties More than From Groups /

Networks Emotional Aid Supplied Online and Offline Online Useful for Arranging Material Aid

51


Networked Individualism:Social Cohesion

Networked Individualism Glocalization Multiple, Partial Communities Focused Messaging within Group May be Counterbalanced by:

Forwarding, Listservs, Chats Homogeneity in One Area

Doesn’t Mean Homogeneity on Others

52


Networked Individualism:Social Mobilization

Easy for Shared Interests to Find Each Other Chats, Searches, Forwards

Easy for Formal/Informal Groups to Form & Sustain Websites, Listservs

Online & Offline Interpenetrate Easy Linkages Between Groups Web Links; Members of Multiple Groups

Networked Individualism:Social Control

Helps Social Control Institutions to Surveill Surveillance Partially Automated

Lower Cost and Broader Reach Cycle between Cryptography and Code-Breaking Move away from Densely-Knit Groups

Socially-Controlling Good for Conserving Resources

Move Towards Multiple, Partial Communities Reduced Informal Control Good for Acquiring New Resources

54


Networked Individualism:Social Exclusion

Digital Divide: Socioeconomic, Non-English Language

Global Digital Divide: (Almost) Entire Countries Not Connected Few Phone Lines; High Cost Much Variation Between Countries Public Access Terminals Fill Gaps

Digital Penalty: Exclusion from Jobs, Information, Discussion

Bounded Groups 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 Org’zations 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

56


Key Design Principles for CSCW

GloCalization: Core Local Unit + Ramifying Ties

Groups > Unit-to-Unit > Person-to-Person Networked Individualism Internet Embedded in Everyday Life Internet Communication Adds on to F2F,

Phone Similar Networks in Work, Leisure

Resources Sunbelt Social Network Conf.

Redondo Beach (L.A.) mid February International Network for Social

Network Analysis www.insna.org Socnet List Serve Social Networks – journal; Connections –

informal journal Software: UCINet (incl listserve), Pajek

(Slovenian)

58


Books Stanley Wasserman & Kathryn Faust, Social

Network Analysis (Cambridge U Press, 1994) Barry Wellman & S.D. Berkowitz (eds.), Social

Structures: A Network Approach (Elsevier, 1998) Peter Carrington, et al. (eds.) Models & Methods

in Network Analysis (Cambridge U Press, 2004).More Focused:

Nan Lin, Social Capital (Jossey Bass, 2002) Barry Wellman & Caroline Haythornthwaite (eds.),

The Internet in Everyday Life (Blackwell 2002) Barry Wellman (ed.) Networks in the Global

Village (Westview,1999)

Thank You – Barry Wellman & Anabel Quan-Haase

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

Barry Wellman Director, NetLab Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto,...

Documents

Transcript of Barry Wellman Director, NetLab Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto,...