Community Informatics Summer School July 12, 2011 / Day 5 Social networks and social capital: Wellman … Coleman+ … Williams

Agenda 1.Social networks: Lecture on Wellman, discuss 2.Social capital: Lecture on Coleman & Lin, discuss 3.Applying these theories: Lecture on Williams, discuss

Wellman

Urban sociology: does community persist in the industrial city? Wellman and Leighton: is community = neighborhood? Jane Addams, Chicago 1890s

1970s: sociologists start thinking of a community as a network

W & L summarize others’ research Community LOST: fewer social ties, people’s needs are met by large bureaucracies, people are isolated no community Community SAVED: urban village is strong and close-knit, local people form strong ties and help each other community = neighborhood Community LIBERATED: urbanites are cosmopolitans, their social networks span the metropolis community ≠ neighborhood

Each theory has policy implications (theory makes a difference – D7) Is community lost ? Then bureaucratic control is the answer, or just plain neglect Is community saved ? Support local self-help networks and give/get services neighborhood by neighborhood Is community liberated ? Provide support via multiple networks, near and far. Rely on telecommunications and travel for resource giving and getting

Small group discussion 1.Where in China do you find: –community lost –community found –community liberated 2.Where do you see each type of policy? 3.Why does this matter? (So what?)

Break time

Coleman and Lin

Different findings, each meaningful Coleman (d. 1995): Closed networks are powerful, produce social capital (resources) for their members Diamond merchants require high trust Secret organizations work in tiny cells Lin : Open networks are powerful, produce social capital for their members Often people outside your close networks bring you new resources and Net can maximize our social capital!

Social capital = resources available through one’s social networks 1 strong ties = bonding social capital, weak ties = bridging social capital 2 1 LIN, Nan. [born in 重庆 ] Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. London: Cambridge University Press, PUTNAM, Robert. Bowling Alone from GRANOVETTER

Small group discussion 1.Discuss examples of closed communities in China 2.What did they accomplish? 3.Discuss examples of open networks in China 4.What did they accomplish? 5.What is the most interesting or important point raised in your group?

Break time

Williams (Manchester study) soon to appear in CJLIS

Using social network and social capital theory to ask: How can community’s own life bridge the digital divide?

Interviewed people from 31 groups… …including tenant groups

…cultural groups

…and social support groups

Relationship between purpose and IT use: Downloaders: , creating documents— some IT use Uploaders: maintaining group websites— more IT use Cyberorganizers: helping others become downloaders and uploaders—most IT use 7 9 4

Social capital/social networks: asking about the groups IT helpers Where do they work, what are their duties? 24. Do they live within a mile of you? 25. How often do you see them? 26. Have you invited them to your home, or have they invited you to theirs? 27. Would you say they are family, friend, workmate, or acquaintance?

Social capital/social network diagrams

Social capital matters, strong ties dominate More social capital (more helpers) = more IT use 73% of helpers are friends, family 60% are volunteering, not paid 54% are seen frequently ( >1x fortnight) 52% have visited in the home 42% live within a mile

Small group discussion 1.Do you know of social groups that use IT to help in their activities? 2.If so, describe what they do. 3.If not, why not? 4.What ways can you imagine for a library or library science program to help social groups make good use of infotech?