1. 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

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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
– symmetrical, 1:1, 1:many, many:many
Attachments
Even Processor Speed (multitasking)
Yet PCs are Individualizing In-Person

6. 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

7. 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 and Video
Scholarly Networks On and Offline
Knowledge Access in Hierarchical & Networked Organizations
Trans-National (Chinese) Entrepreneurs – Beijing, Toronto, L.A

8. 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

9. Bounded Groups

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Glocalization

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

16. 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 (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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Networked Individualism

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

21. Social Affordances of Computer Media Communication Media

22. 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

23. 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
Use
Adds on to F2F, Phone
Predominant Medium for Daily Users
F2F
Phone
Letters
Total

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

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

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

27. “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

28. 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”

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

30. 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 in their 20’s & 30’s.
Users of PCs only:
30 – 59
Settled jobs 

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

32. Yamanashi: Webphone vs. PC Mail: A Hypothesis
Webphone 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 enhances network autonomy because:
Often more choice about when messages are answered
Often more choice about who is answered

33. 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 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%

34. 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%

35. 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

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

37. The scholarly relationship of collaborating on a project is the second strongest predictor of frequent F2F contact & frequent contact.
It & friendship are the only 2 significant predictors.

38. Congruent with the theories of media use: Tasks requiring complex negotiations preferably conducted via richer F2F contacts.
Technet members use F2F contact when possible.
fills in temporal & informational gaps. Those Technet members who often read each other’s work, communicate more by .

39. 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 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

40. 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< *Significant at p<0.05

41. 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

42. Findings & Speculations
Away from Individual Choice, Congruency
Social Affordances Only Create Possibilities
Used for All Roles:
Work, Knowledge, Sociability and Support
Roles Remain Specialized on
Lowers Status Distances
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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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, 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

46. 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

47. Thank You -- Barry Wellman
Networked Individualism
Thank You -- Barry Wellman
Director, NetLab Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1