Communities and the web COMP 6037 Foundations of web science Catherine Pope 28 October 2010

2 Studying ‘community’ presents a challenge Definition –No agreed definition. –Some definitions are overly general: e.g. ‘people with something in common’ (What is that thing?) –Some are too restrictive: e.g. ‘people who live in the same place’ (Why should shared geography create shared social identity? Are all neighbourhoods ‘communities’? What about other sorts of communities such as network communities?)

3 Studying ‘community’ presents a challenge Methodology assuming an agreed working definition - how do we study communities? Surveys – but what people say they do and what they actually do may not be the same (e.g. neighbouring) Ethnographies – but access is not easy, especially among hard-to-reach groups, and making observations while participating is time-consuming –may need teams to study divided communities Analysis –How do we account for different views /contradictions –How do we deal with ethical issues of confidentiality and anonymity? –How do we compare our findings now with how things were in the past?

4 Variation Resources at their disposal (e.g. social class variation) Cultures (e.g. shared religious identity; fantasy worlds) Politics (e.g. history of community action; key individuals) Legality and ethical status (e.g. hackers; spammers) Time (e.g. established/new; expanding/contracting) Degree of formality/informality (bottom-up/top-down)

5 The character of communities Robert Putnam. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster ‘More Americans are bowling than ever before, but they are not bowling in leagues’ –Historical trend data on participation (e.g. PTA, church), organised altruism (e.g. giving blood) shows decline –Attributes this to changes in work, family structure, digital technologies, women's roles etc –Distinction between two types of social capital - ‘bridging’ (networks with people who are ‘different to me’) and ‘bonding’ (people ‘ like me’)

6 Social capital Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital. (Putnam 2000: 19)

7 Bridging and bonding capital Granovetter, M. (1973). ‘The Strength of Weak Ties.’, American Journal of Sociology. 78(6): Granovetter, M. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory 1: Weak ties are important - bridging social capital allows me to reach beyond my own network; providing a source of innovation Notes reliance of poor communities on strong ties

8 Debates and questions Methodological - do quantitative measures (e.g. PTA membership) capture ‘social capital’? Comparative - what is the relevance of the American experience for other countries? Causal/Association – how strong is the evidence for the association between social heterogeneity and low trust, does one produce the other? Political – is the focus on ‘social capital’ a way of avoiding central and local government expenditure?

9 The dark(er) side of communities… They can be socially exclusive (e.g. gated communities) –relationship between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ –Role of socialization –Impact of stigmatisation (e.g. deny access to resources and exclusion from social networks) Communities can be oppressive –‘ties’ or ‘common bonds’ - limitations on individual freedom –enforced conformity to community norms (e.g. women’s role in delivering ‘community care’) –deter out-migration as a route to upward mobility for young people

10 Look beyond the rhetoric of community as ‘one big happy family’ like families, communities are hierarchical ‘Community leaders’ are not necessarily accepted as such by everyone (c.f. police work in public order disturbances) Informal social regulation runs alongside formal structures Power in communities is contested People belong to more than one community, and so periodically face divided loyalties

11 Promoting community is a challenge Communities are diverse and do not come as neatly-defined or manageable entities What makes communities ‘work’ is a matter of on-going debate, as is the ideal relationship between communities and more formal structures (e.g.re:the state) Communities may be in competition (challenge to area-based social policy initiatives) Comparative perspectives –planning and building of the UK New Towns (e.g. Milton Keynes) and more recent attempts to regenerate disadvantaged communities e.g. London Docklands –Community Development Projects (CDP) projects in 1960’s and 1970’s –South African attempts to develop new ways of practising partnership –Post-communist countries – emphasis on trust Wider issues of inequality and power (e.g. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett (2009) The Spirit Level - the importance of societal levels of inequality)

12 Discussion Compare web-based and ‘real’ (offline) group(s) that can be described as a community. –What are the characteristics/dimensions which define your examples as communities? –What are the similarities/differences between web and real communities? –Are web communities contributing to the decline of real communities? –Are web communities a response to the decline of real communities? –Are web communities a continuation of real communities?

13 Exercise Some (unique?) properties of the web Information sharing at scale Engagement (interactive and participatory) Polarisation (extreme rather than centrist views can be presented) Deliberative democracy (opens access to political debate) Taking each of the above properties in turn how might you use this feature of the web to build/sustain a community to counter the rise of the British National Party?

14 References Beer D, Burrows R. Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations. Sociological Research Online 12(5)17 doi: /sro.1560http:// Cavanagh A. (2007) Sociology in the age of the internet. Maidenhead, Berkshire. Open University Press. Chapter 8 Castells M (2001) The Internet Galaxy. Oxford: Oxford University Press Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. London: MIT Press.