Living Networked On and Offline No Group is an Island: Living Networked On and Offline Barry Wellman & Bernie Hogan NetLab Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1 wellman@chass.utoronto.ca www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman

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

Internet No Longer a Dazzling Light Fascination Decreasing Just as It Becomes More Pervasive & Important Rarely Online-Only Communities Rather Embedded in Everyday Life

A Computer Network Is a Social Network Sociologists Need to Inform – Even Determine – the Field Avoid Computer Scientists and Media’s Reliance on Punditry, Presentism, Parochialism Look at: 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

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

Groups > Networks 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

We Study Social Networks as: Networked Communities But Not Necessarily Local Before and After the Internet Communities of Practice – at Work 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

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

Bounded Groups

Door To Door (Solidary Groups) Traditional Communities Based on Propinquity, Kinship Workshops, Bureaucracies All Observe and Interact with All Deal with Only One Group Knowledge Comes Only From Within the Group – and Stays Within the Group

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

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

Unit To Unit (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 Work Group to Work Group Domestication, Feminization of Community (& Work?) Shift from Manipulating Atoms (Things) to Manipulating Bits (Words) Deal with Multiple Groups Knowledge Comes From Internal & External Sources “Glocalization”: Globally Connected, Locally Invested

Glocalization

Key Contention: Social Affordances of Internet Facilitate Turn Toward Networked Individualism

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

Social Affordances of the Emerging “Internet” 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

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

Networked Individualism

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

Social Affordances of Computer Media Communication Media

Person-to-Person: Networked Individualism 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

Email Adds on to F2F, Phone Frequency of Contact with Far-away Kin (Days/Year) 140 132 120 100 91 73 80 71 56 57 53 60 39 37 42 40 35 35 32 34 18 20 10 10 10 8 9 9 9 10 7 7 9 9 7 1 4 Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/ wk Daily Email Use Email Adds on to F2F, Phone Predominant Medium for Daily Users F2F Phone Letters Email Total

Email Adds on to F2F, Phone For Frequent Users Frequency of Contact with Near-By Kin (Days/Year) Email Adds on to F2F, Phone For Frequent Users F2F Phone Letters Email Total

Findings from Survey Research Email Adds On to Face-to-Face Contact Phone Contact (Less Sure) Locally and Long-Distance Kin (especially) and Friends Support and Sociability

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

“Wired” and “Non-Wired” Neighboring in Netville   Mean Number of Neighbors:   Wired (37)   Non-Wired (20) Wired/ NonWired Ratio   Signif. Level (p <) Recognized by Name 25.5 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 3.9 2.5 1.6 .14   # of Intervening Lots to Known Neighbors 7.5 5.6 1.4 .08

Yamanashi, Japan: Email Users by Age 100% 90% 80% Both by Webphone and 70% PC 60% By Webphone 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”

Findings from Netville Local Ties Enhanced Weak Ties Especially Expanded Arranging Get-Togethers Group Meetings (BBQs) Exchanges (Babysitting) Political Protests

Yamanashi: Users Vary by Age, Skill Users of webphones only 20’s and 30’s only a high school degree score themselves low in ability to use technology Users of both webphones and PCs to exchange email in their 20’s & 30’s. Users of PCs only: 30 – 59 Settled jobs 

Yamanashi: Mobile Webphone Dominates Static PC More emails per day are made through the use of webphones than through PCs. Email exchanged by webphones with people who are nearby. Email exchanged by PCs with people who are further away. PC-based emails are less connected to imminent physical get-togethers Norway – Texting > email, 8:1 (Ling)

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

The Catalan Contrast Catalonia in the Internet and the World Castells, Tubella, Sancho, Wellman, Diaz de Isla (www. uoc.edu/in3/pic) N = 1,039 35% are Internet Users; Median < 10 Hours/Mo 87% access at work; 70% at home (17% high-speed) Few Use Email Frequently: Little online sociability (1 or 2 times per week) Most Use Web Services Frequently: Practical, Professional Most Catalans Live With/Near Parents/Adult Kids: Same House (40%+) or Municipo (30%+) ≈ 75%

Strong Ties Friends 5 1 7 Kin 4 10 10 59% 5 29% 2 12% 0.3 2% 17 102% Number of (median) Municipo Catalonia Spain Outside Total Friends 5 1 7 Kin 4 10 10 59% 5 29% 2 12% 0.3 2% 17 102%

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

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

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.

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.

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

Globenet: Internal and External Predictors to Level of Prominence Models Internal Only External Only Combined Model Predictors Standardized Beta P-Value Stand. Beta INTERNAL Internal Roles 0.70* 0.04 0.60 0.17 Indegree Friendship 0.12 0.92 0.16 Read Work 0.47 0.10 -0.08 0.88 Duration of Membership (log) 0.69 0.51 0.31 Fellowship Attainment -0.11 -0.32 0.50 Level of Involvement -0.40 0.30 -0.33 0.54 Discuss Work -0.37 0.18 -0.41 0.23 Freq. of Scholarly Communication (logged) -0.04 0.85 -0.01 0.97 EXTERNAL Number of Publications 0.33 0.49 0.41 External Positions 0.21 0.52 0.28 Control of Resources -0.27 0.45 -0.07 Number of Citations -0.06 0.58 Constant 0.19 0.01 R2 0.82 0.09 0.90 Adjusted R2 0.61 -0.23 **Significant at p<0.01 *Significant at p<0.05

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

Findings & Speculations 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

How a Network Society Looks 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 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: LavaLife, IKNOW

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

Individual as Portal Individual is the Primary Unit of Connectivity Not the Household, Workgroup, Tribe Each Person Operates a Personal Network 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

Bounded Groups  Networked Individualism ** Each in its Place  Mobility of People and Goods ** “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 Routinized Stability  Stable Instability

Thank You -- Barry Wellman Networked Individualism 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