A Non-Technical Introduction To Social Network Analysis Barry Wellman

A Non-Technical Introduction to Social
Network Analysis
Barry Wellman
Founder, International Network
For Social Network Analysis
Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto

Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1 wellman@chass.utoronto.ca
www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
NetLab
Three Ways to Look at Reality
 Categories
 All Possess One or More Properties as an Aggregate of
Individuals
 Examples: Men, Developed Countries
 Groups
 (Almost) All Densely-Knit Within Tight Boundary
 Thought of as a Solidary Unit (Really a Special Network)
 Family, Workgroup, Community
 Networks
 Set of Connected Units: People, Organizations, Networks
 Can Belong to Multiple Networks
 Examples: Friendship, Organizational, Inter-Organizational,
World-System, Internet
Barry Wellman www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
Nodes, Relationships & Ties

 Nodes: A Unit That Possibly is Connected
 Individuals, Households, Workgroups,Organizations, States
Relationships (A Specific Type of Connection)
A “Role Relationship”
 Gives Emotional Support
 Sends Money To
 Attacks
 Ties (One or More Relationships)
 Friendship (with possibly many relationships)
 Affiliations (Person – Organization)
 Works for IBM; INSNA Member; Football Team
 One-Mode, Two-Mode Networks 4
A Network is More Than

The Sum of Its Ties
 A Network Consists of One or More Nodes
 Could be Persons, Organizations, Groups, Nations
 Connected by One or More Ties
 Could be One or More Relationships
 That Form Distinct, Analyzable Patterns
 Can Study Patterns of Relationships OR Ties
 Emergent Properties (Simmel vs. Homans)
5
In a Sentence –
“To Discover How A, Who is in Touch with B and C,
Is Affected by the Relation Between B & C”
John Barnes
6
2 Minute History of Sunbelt Conference
 Informal conferences in mid-late 1970s

 Toronto (1974); Hawaii
 Formalized as Sunbelt 1981 – annual
 Why “Sunbelt”?
 Normal Rotation: SE US, US West, Europe
 Slovenia (2004); Charleston (Feb 2005), Vancouver?
 Always Informal, But Serious Work
7
10 Minute History of INSNA
 Founded by Barry Wellman in 1976-1977
 Sabbatical Travel Carried Tales
 Nick Mullins: Every “Theory Group” Has an Organizational
Leader
 Owned by Wellman until 1988 as small business
 Subsequent Coordinators/Presidents
 Al Wolfe, Steve Borgatti, Martin Everett
• Steering Committee
• Non-Profit Constitution under Borgatti; Coordinator > President
 Bill Richards President, 2003-
• Scott Feld VP; Katie Faust Treasurer; Frans Stokman, Euro. Rep.
• Our First Real Election
 Grown from 175 to 400 Members
 Many More on Listserv (Not Limited to Members)
 Steve Borgatti maintains; unmoderated
 Website: www.insna.sfu.ca -- being upgraded
10 Minute Overview - Journals

 Wellman founded,edited,published Connections, 1977
 Informal journal: “Useful” articles, news, gossip, grants,
abstracts, book summaries
 Bill Richards, Tom Valente edit now
 Lin Freeman founded, edits Social Networks, 1978?
 Formal journal: Refereed articles
 Ronald Breiger now co-editor
 David Krackhardt founded, edits J of Social Structure,
2000?
 Online, Refereed
 Lots of visuals
 Articles Appear Occasionally when their time has come
9
10 Minute Overview – Key Books
1) Elizabeth Bott, Family & Social Network, 1957
2) J. Clyde Mitchell, Networks, Norms & Institutions, 1973
3) Holland & Leinhardt, Perspectives on Social Network
Research,1979s
4) S. D. Berkowitz, An Introduction to Structural Analysis, 1982
5) Knoke & Kuklinski, Network Analysis, 1983, Sage, low-cost
6) Charles Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge
Comparisons, 1984
7) Wellman & Berkowitz, eds., Social Structures, 1988
8) David Knoke, Political Networks, 1990
9) John Scott, Social Network Analysis, 1991
10) Ron Burt, Structural Holes, 1992
11) Manuel Castells, The Rise of Network Society, 1996, 2000
12) Wasserman & Faust, Social Network Analysis, 1992
13) Nan Lin, Social Capital (monograph & reader), 2001
10 Minute Overview – Software
1) UCINet – Whole Network Analysis
1) Lin Freeman, Steve Borgatti, Martin Everett
2) MultiNet – Whole Network Analysis
1) + Nodal Characteristics
3) Structure – Ron Burt – Not Maintained
4) P*Star – Dyadic Analysis – Stan Wasserman
5) Krackplot – Network Visualization (Obsolete)
1) David Krackhardt, Jim Blythe
6) Pajek – Network Visualization – Supersedes Krackplot
1) Slovenia
7) Personal Network Analysis
1) SPSS/SAS – See Wellman, et al. “How To…” papers
10 Minute Overview – Data Basis
 Small Group “Sociometry”1930s > (Moreno, Bonacich, Cook)
 Finding People Who Enjoy Working Together
 Evolved into Exchange Theory, Small Group Studies
 Ethnographic Studies, 1950s > (Mitchell, Barnes)
 Does Modernization > Disconnection?
 Survey Research: Personal Networks, 1970s >
 Community, Support & Social Capital, “Guanxi”
 Mathematics & Simulation, 1970s > (Freeman, White)
 Formalist / Methods & Substantive Analysis
 Survey & Archival Research, Whole Nets, 1970s >
 Organizational, Inter-Organizational, Inter-National Analyses
 Political Structures, 1970s > (Tilly, Wallerstein)
 Social Movements, Mobilization (anti Alienation)
 World Systems (asymmetric structure > Globalization)
 Computer Networks as Social Networks, late 1990s > (Sack)
 Automated Data Collection
The Multiple Ways of Network Analysis
 Method – The Most Visible Manifestation
 Misleading to Confuse Appearance with Reality
 Data Gathering – see previous slide
 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
 Not Actor-Network Theory
The Social Network Approach

 The world is composed of networks
- not densely-knit, tightly-bounded groups
 Networks provide flexible means of social
organization and of thinking about social
organization
 Networks have emergent properties of structure
and composition
 Networks are a major source of social capital
mobilizable in themselves and from their contents
 Networks are self-shaping and reflexive
 Networks scale up to networks of networks
14
The Social Network Approach

 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
15
Changing Connectivity:
Groups to Networks
 Densely Knit > Sparsely-Knit

 Impermeable (Bounded) > Permeable
 Broadly-Based Solidarity >
Specialized Multiple Foci
16
Networked Individualism
 Moving from a society bound up in little boxes to a
multiple network – and networking – society
 Networks are a flexible means of social organization
 Networks are a major source of social capital:
mobilizable in themselves & from their contents
 Networks link:
 Persons
 Within organizations
 Between organizations and institutions
17
Little Boxes  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 Organizations  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
Little Boxes Glocalizatio
n
Networked
Individualism
Barry Wellman co-editor
Social Structure:
A Network Approach
JAI-Elsevier Press 1998
Ways of Looking at Networks

 Whole Networks & Personal Networks
 Focus on the System or on the Set of Individuals
 Graphs & Matrices
 We dream in graphs
 We analyze in matrices
20
Whole Social Networks

 Comprehensive Set of Role Relationships in an Entire
Social System
 Analyze Each Role Relationship – Can Combine
 Composition: % Women; Heterogeneity; % Weak Ties
 Structure: Pattern of Ties
 Village, Organization, Kinship, Enclaves,
World-System
 Copernican Airplane View
 Typical Methods: Cliques, Blocks, Centrality, Flows
 Examples: (1) What is the Real Structure of an
Organization?
 (2) How Does Information Flow Through a Village? 21
Cumulative GlobeNet Intercitation Through

2000
Howard White & Barry Wellman, 2003

“Does Citation Reflect Social Structure” 22
Strongest Globenet Co-Citation,

Intercitation Links Thru 2000
23
Duality of Persons & Groups
 People Link Groups

 Groups Link People
 An Interpersonal Net is an
Interorganizational Net
 Ronald Breiger 1973
24
The Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Graphs
25
Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Matrices
26
Dualities of Persons and Groups: Event-Event Matrix
27
Neat Whole Network Methods

 QAP
 Regression of Matrices
• Example: Co-Citation (Intellectual Tie)
Predicts Better than Friendship (Social Tie)
To Inter-Citation
 Clustering: High Density; Tight Boundaries (“Groups”)
 Block Modeling
 Similar Role Relationships, Not Necessarily Clusters
 Canada & Mexico in Same Block – US Dominated
28
Erickson, 1988: From a Matrix > . . .
29
. . . To a Block Model
30
Costs of Whole Network Analysis

 Requires a Roster of Entire Population
 Requires (Imposition of) a Social Boundary
 This May Assume What You Want to Find
 Hard to Handle Missing Data
 Needs Special Analytic Packages
 Becoming Easier to Use
31
Personal Social Networks

 Ptolemaic Ego-Centered View
 Good for Unbounded Networks
 Often Uses Survey Research
 Example: (1) Do Densely-Knit Networks Provide
More Support? (structure)
 (2) Do More Central People Get More Support?
(network)
 (2) Do Women Provide More Support?
(composition)
 (3) Do Face-to-Face Ties Provide More Support
Than Internet Ties? (relational)
 (4) Are People More Isolated Now? (ego)
32
Costs of Personal Network Studies

 Concentrates on Strong Ties
 Collecting Proper Data in Survey Takes Much Time
 Ignores Ecological Juxtapositions
 Hard to Aggregate from Personal Network to Whole
Network
 Easier to Decompose Whole Network
• (Haythornthwaite & Wellman)
 Often Relies on Respondents’ Reports
33
Social Network Analysis: More Flavors

 Diffusion of Information (& Viruses)
 Flows Through Systems
 Organizational Analyses
 “Real” Organization”
 Knowledge Acquisition & Management
 Inter-Organizational Analysis
 Is There a Ruling Elite
 Strategies, Deals
 Networking: How People Network
 As a Strategy
 Unconscious Behavior
 Are There Networking Personality Types?
34
SNA: Branching Out

 Social Movements
 World-Systems Analyses
 Cognitive Networks
 Citation Networks
 Co-Citation
 Inter-Citation
 Applied Networks
 Terrorist Networks
 Corruption Networks
35
Multilevel Analysis:
New Approach to an Old Problem
 Switching and Combining Levels
 Individual Agency, Dyadic Dancing,
Network Facilitation & Emergent Properties
 Consider Wider Range of Theories
 Disentangles (& Avoids Nagging Confounding)
 Tie Effects
 Network Effects
 Contingent (Cross-Level) Effects
 Interactions
 Addresses Emergent Properties
 Fundamental Sociological Issue
 Simmel vs. Homans
Multilevel Analysis – Tie Effects
 Tie Strength: Stronger is More Supportive

 Workmates: Provide More Everyday Support
•(Multilevel Discovered This)
37
Multilevel Analysis– Network Effects

 Network Size
•Not Only More Support from Entire Network
•More Probability of Support from Each Network
Member
 Mutual Ties (Reciprocity):
•Those Who Have More Ties with Network Members
Provide More Support
•Cross-Level Effect Stronger (and Attenuates)
Dyadic (Tie-Level) Effect
It’s Contribution to the Network, Not the Alter 38
Multilevel Analysis:
Cross-Level, Interaction Effects
 Kinship
 No longer a solidary system
 Parent-(Adult) Child Interaction
•More Support From Each When > 1 Parent-Child Tie
•Single P-C Tie: 34%
•2+ P-C Ties, Probability of Support from Each: 54%
39
Multilevel Interactions-- Accessibility

 37% of Moderately Accessible Ties
Provide Everyday Support
 But If Overall Network Is
Moderately Supportive,
 54% of All Network Members
Provide Everyday Support
 Women More Supportive
In Nets with More Women
40
The Internet in Everyday Life
 Computer Networks as Social Networks

 Key Questions
 Community On and Off line
 Networked Life before the Internet
 Netville: The Wired Suburb
 Large Web Surveys: National Geographic
 Work On and Off line
 Towards Networked Individualism, or
 The Retreat to Little Boxes
41
Social Affordances of New Forms of

Computer-Mediated Connectivity
 Bandwidth
 Ubiquity – Anywhere, Anytime
 Convergence – Any Media Accesses All
 Portability – Especially Wireless
 Globalized Connectivity
 Personalization
42
Research Questions
1. Ties: Does the Internet support all types of ties?
1. Weak and Strong?
2. Instrumental and Socio-Emotional?
3. Online-Only or Using Internet & Other Media (F2F, Phone)?
2. Social Capital: Has the Internet increased, decreased,
or multiplied contact – at work, in society?
1. Interpersonally – Locally
2. Interpersonally – Long Distance
3. Organizationally
3. GloCalization: Has the map of the world dissolved so
much that distance does not matter?
Has the Internet brought spatial and social peripheries
closer to the center?
Research Questions (cont’d)
4. Structure: Does the Internet facilitate working in

loosely-coupled networks rather than dense,
tight groups?
5. Knowledge Management: How do people find
and acquire usable knowledge in networked and
virtual organizations
44
Guiding Research Principles

 Substitute systematic data analysis for hype
 Do field studies, not lab experiments
 Combine statistical with observational info.
 Study the use of each media in larger context
 Work with other disciplines
 Analyze Existing Uses
 Develop New Uses
45
Studies of Community
On and Off-Line
 Pre-Internet Networked Communities
 “Netville”: The Wired Suburb
 National Geographic Web Survey
 1998, 2001
 Other Internet Community Studies
 Barry Wellman, “The Network Community”
 Introduction to Networks in the Global Village
 Westview Press, 1999
46
Source: Dan Heap
Parliamentary
Campaign 1992
(NDP)
Toronto in the Continental Division of Labor

Physical Place and Cyber Place

 Door to Door, Place to Place,
 Person to Person, Role to Role
 Barry Wellman, “Changing Connectivity: A Future

History of Y2.03K.” Sociological Research Online 4,
4, February 2000:
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/wellman.html
 Barry Wellman, “Physical Place and Cyber Place:

The Rise of Networked Individualism.” International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 (2001):
June. 48
Door To Door
 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
49
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
(Cell Phones, Wireless Computing)
 Little Awareness of Context

 Individual, Not Household or Work Group
 Personalized Networking
 Tailored Media Interactions
 Private Desires Replace Public Civility
 Less Caring for Strangers, Fewer Weak Ties
 Online Interactions Linked with Offline
 Dissolution of the Internal: All Knowledge is External
51
Role To Role
Tailored Communication Media
 Little Awareness of Whole Person
 Portfolios of Specialized Relationships
 Boutiques, not Variety Stores
 Cycling among Specialized
 Communities / Work Groups
 Role-Based Media Interactions
 Management by Network
52
“Netville”: The Wired Suburb

Leading-Edge Development Exurban Toronto
 Mid-Priced, Detached Tract Homes
 Bell Canada, etc. Field Trial
 10Mb/sec, ATM-Based, No-Cost Internet Services
 Ethnographic Fieldwork
 Hampton Lived There for 2 Years
 Survey Research
 Wants, Networks, Activities
53
The entrance to Netville
View of Netville
55
“Wired” and “Non-Wired” Neighboring in Netville
Mean Number of Non- Wired/ Signif.

Neighbors: Wired Wired NonWired Level
(37) (20) Ratio (p <)
Recognized by Name 25.5 8.4 3.0 .00
Talk with Regularly 6.3 3.1 2.0 .06
Invited into 3.9 2.7 1.4 .14

Own Home
Invited into 3.9 2.5 1.6 .14

Neighbors’ Homes
# of Intervening Lots 7.5 5.6 1.4 .08

to Known Neighbors
56
Neighboring Ties
Wired Residents
 Recognize More
 Talk with More
 Invite More Into their Homes
 And are Invited by Them
 Neighbor in a Wider Area
57
Long-Distance Ties (>50 km/30 mi )

Compared to one year before moving to Netville,
Wired Residents Have More Than Non-Wired:
 Social Contact – especially over 500 km
 Help Given (e.g., childcare, home repair)
 Help Received from Friends and Relatives
 Especially between 50 and 500 km
58
Long-Distance Ties
Wired Residents Say the Internet:
 Makes it Easier to Communicate

 Fosters Greater Volume of Communication
 Introduces New Modes of Communication
 Acquire More Diverse Knowledge
59
“Netville”: The Wired Suburb

With Keith Hampton (MIT)
“Netville Online and Offline: Observing and Surveying a
Wired Suburb.” American Behavioral Scientist 43, 3
(Nov 1999): 475-92.
“Examining Community in the Digital Neighborhood” Pp.

475-92 in Digital Cities: Technologies, Experiences and
Future Perspectives, edited by Toru Ishida and Katherine
Isbister. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2000.
“Long Distance Community in the Network Society”

American Behavioral Scientist, 45 (Nov 2001): 477-97
“How the Internet Builds Local Community”.

City and Community, 2001
National Geographic
Survey 2000 and Survey 2001
 “Survey 2000” -- Fall 1998
 35,000 Americans
 5,000 Canadians
 15,000 “Others”
 “Survey 2001” -- Fall 2001, N > 6,000
61
Survey 2000 Research Questions

 Are There Systematic Social Variations in
Who Uses the Internet – for What?
 Does the Internet Multiply, Add To, or Decrease
Interpersonal Ties?
 Does the Internet Multiply, Add To, or Decrease
Organizational Involvement?
 Does the Internet Increase, Decrease or Transform
Community Commitment?
 Does the Internet Increase Knowledge?
 Are There Variations by National Context?
62
Figure 2a: Frequency of Contact with Near-by Kin (Days/Year)
250
228
208 201 209
200 191 193
150
117 116 118 116
113 114
100 84
67 65 64 63 58
50
6 23 49
6 6 13
1 5 6 6 7 7
0
Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/wk Daily
Email Use
Total Phone F2F Email Letters
Percentage of Different Media

Used for Contact with Near-By Kin
Email Letters
17% 3%
Phone
F2F 53%
27%
63
Figure 3a: Frequency of Contact with Near-By Friends (Days/Year)
400
350 345
300
248
250 236
207 194
200 192
150 136 124

109 102 97 110 120
100
106 83 92
87 76 72
50 36
6 9 19
1 5 5 5 6
7 9
0
Never Rarely Mont hly Weekly Few t imes/wk Daily
Emai l Use
Tot al Phone F2F Em ail Let t ers
P e rc e n t a g e o f M e d i a : U s e d f o r C o n t a c t w i t h N e a r-
B y F ri e n d s
Let t ers
Email 3% P hone
29%
39%
F2F
29%
64
Figure 4a: Frequency of Contact with Far-away Kin (Days/Year)
140
132
120
100
91
80 73
71
60 56 57
53
37 39 42
40 35 35 32 34
20 18
10 10 10
10 9 9
7 7 87 9
1 4
0
Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/ wk Daily
Email Use
F2F Phone Letters Email Total
Percentage of Media Used for Contact with

Far-Away Kin
Letters
8% Phone
35%
Email
49% F2F
8%
65
Barry Wellman
Figure
5a: Frequency of Contact with Far-Away Friends (Days/Year)
140
128
120
100
86
80
60 63
48
40 36 35
28
29
17 25
20 19 17 17 19
15
10 8 8 9
7 6 7 7 6 7 8
0 0 1
4 6
Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/ wk Daily
Email Use
Total Phone F2F Email Letters
Percentage of Media Used for Contact with

Far-Away Friends
Letters Phone
7% 22%
F2F
9%
Email
62% 66
Computer Supported Cooperative Work
 Fishbowls and Switchboards

 Media Use and Choice
 Cerise
 Indigo
 Networked Scholarly Organizations

 Technet
 Globenet
 Teleworking: The Home-Work Nexus
67
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
68
 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
69
The “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
70
 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
71
“Cerise” / “Indigo” CSCW

 Using Video/ Email at Work
 R&D Work:
 Faculty, Students, Programmers, Admin.
 Caroline Haythornthwaite & Laura Garton
 Collaborators
 Survey and Ethnography
72
CSCW Research Questions

 How do Work, Social Roles Affect Media Use?
 Is Email Used Only for Specialized Communication?
 Does Email Use:
Replace, Add To, or Increase F2F, Phone Contact?
 Does Email Move Spatial/Social Peripheries
Socially Closer?
 Does Email Foster Networked Organization?
73
Separate Information Exchange Roles

Derived from Factor Analysis of Specific Exchanges
 Work
 Giving Work
 Receiving Work
 Collaborative Writing
 Computer Programming
 Social
 Sociability
 Major Emotional Support
74
Communication Roles
 Scheduled Meetings
 Classes, Research Meetings
 Email
 Unscheduled Meetings
 Less Frequent, More Wide-Ranging
 Media that Afford Control of Interactions
 Media associated with Group Norms
75
Social Roles
Sociability, major emotional support
 Media Use follows Pairs’ Interaction Patterns
 Unscheduled Meetings for Close Friends
 Unscheduled, Scheduled, Email for Work-Only
 Media that Affords Spontaneity

 Social Messages Tag on Work Messages
 Work-Only Pairs; Formal Work-Role Pairs
76
The Average Pair:
 Specialized:
 Exchanges 3/6 Types of Information
 Via 1 or 2 Media
 Unscheduled F2F, Scheduled F2F Meetings, or Email
 Mean = 5.2 Information-Media Links / Pair
77
Conclusions: The Cerise Study

 Away from Individual Choice, Congruency
 Social Affordances Only Create Possibilities
 Email Used for All Roles:
 Work, Knowledge, Sociability and Support
 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
78
 The More Email, the More F2F Contact

 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
79
Indigo: Work Interaction Time 1
Work Interaction (All Media) Prior to Telepresence
80
Indigo: Work Interaction Time 3
Work Interaction (All Media) 14 months after Telepresence Intro

Greater Decentralization
81
“Cerise” / “Indigo” Papers

 Caroline Haythornthwaite and Barry Wellman, “Work,
Friendship and Media Use for Information Exchange in a
Networked Organization.”Journal of the American Society for
Information Science 49 (1998): 1101-14
 Marilyn Mantei, Ronald Baecker, William Buxton, Thomas
Milligan, Abigail Sellen and Barry Wellman. "Experiences in the
Use of a Media Space." 1992. Pp 372-78 in Groupware, edited
by David Marca and Geoffrey Bock. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE
Computer Society Press, 1992.
 Caroline Haythornthwaite, Barry Wellman & Marilyn Mantei
“Work Relationships and Media Use.” Group Decision and
Negotiation 4 (1995): 193-211.
 Caroline Haythornthwaite, Barry Wellman & Laura Garton,
“Work and Community Via Computer-Mediated
Communication.” Pp. 199-226 in Psychology and the Internet,
edited by Jayne Gackenbach. San Diego: Academic Press,
1998.
82
Netting Scholars:
Communities of Practice & Inquiry
 Emmanuel Koku, Nancy Nazer & Barry Wellman
“Netting Scholars: Online and Offline.”
American Behavioral Scientist, 44 ,10 (June, 2001): 1750-72
 Emmanuel Koku & Barry Wellman

“Scholarly Networks as Learning Communities”
In Designing Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning,
Edited by Sasha Barab & Rob Kling.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002
83
Comparison of 2 Scholarly Networks

Globenet Technet
Year Founded Founded in 1991-93 Founded in 1995-96
Size 16 (13 men, 3 women) 32 (22 men, 9 women)
Membership Invitational: merit, Voluntary
interdisciplinary, niche
Location Canada, US, UK 1 Ontario university
Activities 3 Meetings /year Frequent seminars,
Production of a book conferences
Joint courses, retreats
Funding 9 Senior Fellows get full Members not funded by
salaries Technet
7 Associate Fellows get Many receive other
partial funding research grants
84
Globenet members use both F2F & email

to get their joint projects done. The
dispersion of members across Canada,
U.S. & U.K. leads them to use email as
a collaborative tool.
85
.
For Globenetters, the distance
between members of
scholarly pairs is unrelated to
the frequency of their email
contact.
Except when they’re in the
same building
86
Friendship is the strongest predictor to

face-to-face & email contact in
Technet & Globenet
87
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.
88
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.
89
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
90
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
91
Summary: Ties
 Internet Supports Strong & Weak Ties
 Evidence: Netville, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Telework
 Internet Supports Instrumental & Socioemotional Ties
 Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Netting Scholars,
Cerise, Telework
 Ties Rarely are Internet-Only
 Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Netting Scholars,
Cerise, Telework
 Internet Replaces Fax & May Reduce Phone –
 Not F2F
 Evidence: Netville, Netting Scholars, Cerise
92
Summary: Local Social Capital
 Multiplied Number & Range of Neighbors

 Evidence: Netville
 Increased Contact with Existing Neighbors –
Email Adds On to Same Levels of F2F, Phone
 Evidence: National Geographic, Berkeley, Netville?
 Demand for Local Information
 Evidence: Netville, Berkeley, Small City Study
93
Summary: Long Distance Ties
 Increased Contact with Long Distance Ties –

1. Friends More than Kin
2. Long-Distance Ties More than Local
3. Post Used Only for Rituals (Birthdays, Christmas)
 Evidence: National Geographic, Netville
94
Summary: Long Distance Ties
 Increased Contact with Long Distance Ties –

1. Friends More than Kin
2. Long-Distance Ties More than Local
3. Post Used Only for Rituals (Birthdays, Christmas)
 Evidence: National Geographic, Netville
95
Summary:
Computer-Mediated Communication
 Not only supports online “virtual” communities
 Supports and maintains existing ties: strong & weak
 Increases connectivity with weak ties
 Supports both local and non-local social ties
 In Neighborhood, High-speed Network:
 Increases local network size
 Increases amount of local contact
 Long-Distance, High-Speed Network
 Increases amount of contact
 Increases support exchanged
 Facilitates contact with geographical periphery
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 Interest
Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Small Cities,
Berkeley, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Indigo, Telework
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”
98
Conclusions: Changing Connectivity

 By Any Means Available
 Door-to-Door > Place-to-Place
> Person-to-Person Connectivity
 Less Solidary Households
 Dual Careers
 Multiple Schedules
 Multiple Marriages
 New Forms of Community
 Partial Membership in Multiple Communities
 Networked & Virtual Work Relationships
99
Conclusions:
Role-to-Role Relationships
 Partial Communities of:
Shared, Specialized Interest
 Importance of Informal Network Capital
 Production
 Reproduction
 Externalities
 Bridging and Bonding Ties

100
Conclusions:
How a Network Society Looks
 Multiplicity of Specialized Relations
 Management by Networks
 More Uncertainty, More Maneuverability
 Boutiques, not General Stores
 Less Palpable than Traditional Solidarities
Need Navigation Tools
 An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network." Pp. 179-
205 in Culture of the Internet, edited by Sara Kiesler.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
101
Conclusions: Shift to New Kinds

Of Community & Workgroups
 Partial Membership in Multiple Networks
 Multiple Reports
 Long-Distance Relationships
 Transitory Work Relationships
 Each Person Operates Own Network
 Online Interactions Linked with Offline
 Status, Power, Social Characteristics Important
 Sparsely-Knit: Fewer Direct Connections Than Door-To-Door --
Need for Institutional Memory & Knowledge Management
 IKNOW (Nosh Contractor) – Network Tracer
 ContactMap (Bonnie Nardi & Steve Whittaker) – Network Accumulator
102
Conclusions:
The Rise of Personalized Networking
 Individual Agency Constrained by Nets:

 Personalization rather than Group Behavior
 Interpersonal Ties Dancing Dyadic Duets:
 Bandwidth
 Sparsely-Knit, Physically-Dispersed Ties
 Social Networks
 Multiple, Ad Hoc
 Wireless Portability
103
Design Considerations for a Networked

Society – Connecting
 Open List
 Indicate Presence, Awareness, Availability
 Prioritize from Deductive, Inductive &
Ad Hoc Data
 Prioritize by Locale
 Searchable and Sortable List
 By a Variety of Attributes
104
Design Considerations for a

Networked Society – Autonomy
 Incorporate Third Parties
 Quickly Set Up & Dissolve Work Teams
 Privacy Protection
 Control Who is Aware of the Interaction
 Alert if Others Lurking
 File Access
 Cross-Platform Communication
105
Three Modes of Interaction
Social Structure
Phenomena Little Boxes Glocalization Networked Individualism
Metaphor Fishbowl Core-Periphery Switchboard
Unit of Analysis Village, Band, Shop, Office Household, Work, Unit, Networked Individual
Multiple Networks
Social Organization Groups Home Bases Networked Individualism

Network of Networks
Era Traditional Contemporary Emerging
106
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 Face-to-Face Wired phone Mobile phone,

Communication Internet Wireless modem
Spatial Range Local GloCal = Local + Global Global
Locale All in common household and work Common household and work spaces External
spaces for core + external periphery
Awareness and Availability All visible and audible to all Core immediately visible, audible; Little awareness of availability
High awareness of availability Little awareness of others’ availability - Must be contacted
- must be contacted Visibility and audibility must be negotiated
Access Control Doors wide open to in-group members Doors ajar within and between Doors closed
Walled off from others networks Access to others by request
External gate guarded Look, knock and ask Knock and ask
Physical Access All have immediate access to all Core have immediate access Contact requires a journey or
Contacting others requires a journey or telecommunications
telecommunications
Permeability Impermeable wall around unit Household and workgroup have strong Individual has strong to weak connections
to weak outside connections
107
Boundaries (continued)
Interruptibility High: (Open Door) Mixed: Core interruptible Low: Contact must be requested
Norm of Interruption Others require deliberate requests May be avoided or refused
Answering machine Prioritizing voice mail
Knocking on door that may be ajar or Internet filter
closed Knocking on door that may be ajar or
Norm of Interruption within immediate closed
network only Norm of interruption within immediate
network only
Observability High: All can see when other group Mixed: Core can observe core Low: Interactions with other network
members are interacting Periphery cannot observe core or members rarely visible
interactions with other network
members
Privacy Low information control: Low information control: High information control:
Few secrets Few secrets for core Many secrets
Status/Position becomes important Variable information control for Information and ties become important
capital periphery capital
Material resources and network
connections become important capital
Joining In Anyone can observe interactions Interactions outside the core rarely Interactions rarely observable
Anyone can join observable Difficult to join
Difficult to join
Alerts Little awareness of others approaching High prior awareness of periphery’s High prior awareness of others’ desire to
Open, unlocked doors desire to interact interact
Telephone ring, doorbell Formal requests
108
Interpersonal Interactions
Predominant Basis of Ascription (What you are born into) “Protect Your Base Before You Attack” Free agent
Interaction e.g., Gender, ethnicity (attributed to Mao)
Frequency of Contact High within group Moderate within core; Variable, low with most;
Low to moderate outside of core Moderate overall
Recurrency Recurrent interactions within group Recurrent interactions within core; Low with most others;
Intermittent with each network Moderate overall
member
Duration Long duration ties: Long duration for household core Short duration ties
cradle-to-grave; employed for life (except for divorce);
Short duration otherwise
Domesticity Cradle-to-grave Long-term partners Changing partners; Living together; Singles;

Mom and Dad Serial monogamy Single parents;
Dick and Jane Dick lives with divorced parent Nanny cares for Jane
Scheduling Drop-In anytime Drop-in within household, work core; Scheduled appointments
Appointments otherwise
Transaction Speed Slow Variable in core; Fast in periphery Fast
Autonomy & Proactivity Low autonomy Mixed: Autonomy within household & High autonomy
High reactivity work cores High proactivity
High proactivity & autonomy with
others
Tie Maintenance Group maintains ties Core groups maintain internal ties; Ties must be actively maintained, one-by-
Other ties must be actively maintained one
Predictability Predictability, certainty and security Moderate predictability, certainty and Unpredictability, uncertainty, insecurity,
within group interactions security within core; contingency, opportunity
Interactions with others less
predictable, certain and secure
Latency Leaving is betrayal; Ability to reestablish relationships Ability to reestablish relationships quickly
Re-Entry difficult quickly with network members not with network members not seen in years
seen in years
Social Networks
Number of Social Circles Few: Household, kin, work Multiple: Core household, work unit; Multiple: Dyadic or network ties with
Multiple sets of friends, kin, work household, work unit, friends, kin, work
associates, neighbors associates, neighbors
Maneuverability Little choice of social circles Choice of core and Choice of social circles
other social circles
Trust Building Enforced by group Core enforces trust Dependent on cumulative reciprocal
Betrayal of one is betrayal of all Networked members depend on exchanges and ties with mutual others
cumulative reciprocal exchanges and
ties with mutual others
Social Support Broad (“multistranded”) Broad household and work core; Specialized
Specialized kin, friends, other work
Social Integration By groups only Cross-cutting ties between networks Cross-cutting ties between networks
integrate society; integrate society
Core is the common hub
Cooperation Group cooperation Core cooperation; Independent schedules

Joint activity for clear, collective Otherwise: short-term alliances, Transient alliances with shifting sets of
purposes tentatively reinforced by trust building others
and ties with mutual others
Knowledge All aware of most information Core Knows Most Things Variable awareness of and access to what
Information open to all within unit Variable awareness of and access to periphery knows
Secret to outsiders what periphery knows
Social Control Superiors and group exercise Moderate control by core household Subgroups, cleavages
tight control and workgroup, with some spillover to Partial, fragmented control within
interactions with periphery specialized networks
Fragmented control within specialized Adherence to norms must be internalized
networks by individuals
Adherence to norms must be
internalized by individuals
Resources Conserves resources Acquires resources for core units Acquires resources for self
Basis of Success Getting along Getting along Networking

Position within group Position within core; Networking Filling structural holes between networks
Norms and Perceptions
Socialization Obey group elders Obey your parents; cherish your Develop strategies and tactics
spouse; nurture your children; for self-advancement
Defer to your boss; work and play well
with colleagues and friends
Sense of Solidarity High group solidarity Moderate solidarity within core Sense of being an autonomous individual
Collective identity household and workgroup, Fuzzy identifiable networks
Collective name Vitiated by many ties to multiple
peripheries
Loyalty Particularistic: Public and private spheres: Self

High group loyalty Moderate loyalty to home base Global weak and divided loyalties
takes precedence over weak loyalty
elsewhere
Conflict Handling Revolt, coup Back-biting Avoidance

Irrevocable departure Keeping distance Exit
Commitment to High within groups High within core; Variable

Network Members Variable elsewhere
Zeitgeist Communitarian Conflicted Existential
111
After 9-11: Retreat to Little Boxes?

Back from Networks to Little Boxes?
 Re-establishing Tight Boundaries
 Knowledge Workers’ Spatial Mobility Hindered
 Goods Made and Sold Locally
 Distrust of Outsiders
 Drawing into Densely-Knit Groups
 Gated Communities
 Gated Work: All Work Done on Premises – Autarky
 Direct Ties, F2F Ties Replace
Indirect, Computer Mediated Ties
 Network Analysis Used by Terrorists & Governments
112
Little Boxes  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 Organizations  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
Edited Books
 The Internet in Everyday Life
 Caroline Haythornthwaite, co-editor
 Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 2002
 Preliminary: American Behavioral Scientist, Nov 2001
 Networks in the Global Village

 Boulder, CO: Westview Press 1999
 Social Structures: A Network Approach

 S. D. Berkowitz, co-editor
 Cambridge University Press, 1988;
 Reprinted: Elsevier-JAI Press, 1997
 Reprinted: CSPI Press, Toronto, 2003
114
Recent Integrative Articles

 “Computer Networks as Social Networks”
Science 293 (Sept 14, 2001): 2031-34.
 “Designing the Internet for a Networked Society.”
Communications of the ACM, April 2002: in press.
Research Supported By:

Institute of Knowledge Management,
CITO, Mitel, National Science Foundation (US),
Social Science & Humanities Research Council of Canada
115
Thank You -- Barry Wellman
Director, NetLab
Centre for Urban & Community Studies
University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1
wellman@chass.utoronto.ca

A Non-Technical Introduction To Social Network Analysis Barry Wellman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Non-Technical Introduction To Social Network Analysis Barry Wellman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Non-Technical Introduction to Social

Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto

Nodes, Relationships & Ties

A Network is More Than

2 Minute History of Sunbelt Conference

 Informal conferences in mid-late 1970s

10 Minute Overview - Journals

The Social Network Approach

The Social Network Approach

 Densely Knit > Sparsely-Knit

Ways of Looking at Networks

Whole Social Networks

Cumulative GlobeNet Intercitation Through

Howard White & Barry Wellman, 2003

Strongest Globenet Co-Citation,

Duality of Persons & Groups

 People Link Groups

The Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Graphs

Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Matrices

Dualities of Persons and Groups: Event-Event Matrix

Neat Whole Network Methods

Erickson, 1988: From a Matrix > . . .

Costs of Whole Network Analysis

Personal Social Networks

Costs of Personal Network Studies

Social Network Analysis: More Flavors

SNA: Branching Out

Multilevel Analysis – Tie Effects

 Tie Strength: Stronger is More Supportive

Multilevel Analysis– Network Effects

Multilevel Interactions-- Accessibility

The Internet in Everyday Life

 Computer Networks as Social Networks

Social Affordances of New Forms of

Research Questions (cont’d)

4. Structure: Does the Internet facilitate working in

Guiding Research Principles

Toronto in the Continental Division of Labor

Physical Place and Cyber Place

 Barry Wellman, “Changing Connectivity: A Future

 Barry Wellman, “Physical Place and Cyber Place:

 Little Awareness of Context

“Netville”: The Wired Suburb

“Wired” and “Non-Wired” Neighboring in Netville

Mean Number of Non- Wired/ Signif.

Recognized by Name 25.5 8.4 3.0 .00

Talk with Regularly 6.3 3.1 2.0 .06

Invited into 3.9 2.7 1.4 .14

Invited into 3.9 2.5 1.6 .14

# of Intervening Lots 7.5 5.6 1.4 .08

Long-Distance Ties (>50 km/30 mi )

 Makes it Easier to Communicate

“Netville”: The Wired Suburb

“Examining Community in the Digital Neighborhood” Pp.

“Long Distance Community in the Network Society”

“How the Internet Builds Local Community”.

Survey 2000 Research Questions

Percentage of Different Media

150 136 124

Percentage of Media Used for Contact with

Total Phone F2F Email Letters

Percentage of Media Used for Contact with

Computer Supported Cooperative Work