Computer Networks As Social Networks

Document Sample
Computer Networks As Social Networks Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                COMPUTERS AND SCIENCE
    ing of ESTs that substantially alleviated, even if they       and kindred U.S. legislation, see, e.g., J. H. Reichman, P.   37. The role of scientific organizations in facilitating
    did not totally resolve, this threat to science from          Samuelson, Vanderbilt Law Rev. 50, 51 (1997).                     changes in U.S. policy is recounted in (38).
    overbroad patent rights.                                  36. See, e.g., National Research Council, Bits of Power:          38. P. Samuelson, Va. J. Intl. Law 37, 369 (1997).
34. Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of           Issues in Global Access to Scientific Data (National           39. These efforts are recounted by J. H. Reichman and
    the Council of 11 March 1996 on the Legal Protection          Academy of Sciences Press, Washington, DC, 1997)                  P. F. Uhlir [Berkeley Technol. Law J. 14, 793 (1999)].
    of Databases, 1996 O.J (L 77) 20.                             (expressing concern about European Union–style data-          40. I gratefully acknowledge research support from NSF
35. For a critical commentary on the EU database directive        base protection).                                                 grant SEC-9979852.


                                                                                 VIEWPOINT


              Computer Networks As Social Networks
                                                                                Barry Wellman

        Computer networks are inherently social networks, linking people, orga-                                                 first, computer scientists would be saying
        nizations, and knowledge. They are social institutions that should not be                                               “netware” instead of “groupware” for sys-
        studied in isolation but as integrated into everyday lives. The proliferation                                           tems that enable people to interact with each
        of computer networks has facilitated a deemphasis on group solidarities at                                              other online. Often computer networks and
        work and in the community and afforded a turn to networked societies                                                    social networks work conjointly, with com-
        that are loosely bounded and sparsely knit. The Internet increases people’s                                             puter networks linking people in social net-
        social capital, increasing contact with friends and relatives who live nearby                                           works and with people bringing their offline
        and far away. New tools must be developed to help people navigate and                                                   situations to bear when they use computer
        find knowledge in complex, fragmented, networked societies.                                                              networks to interact.
                                                                                                                                    The intersection of computer networks
Once upon a time, computers were not                          cial network of them all. Just one small por-                     with the emerging networked society has fos-
social beings. Most stood alone, be they                      tion of the Internet—Usenet members—par-                          tered several exciting developments. I report
mainframe, mini, or personal computer.                        ticipated in more than 80,000 topic-oriented                      here on two developing areas: (i) community
Each person who used a computer sat alone                     collective discussion groups in 2000. 8.1 mil-                    networks on- and offline and (ii) knowledge
in front of a keyboard and screen. To help                    lion unique participants posted 151 million                       access.
people deal with their computers, the field                   messages (2–4). This is more than three times
of human-computer interaction (HCI) de-                       the number identified on 27 January 1996 (5)                      Community Networks On- and Offline
veloped, providing such things as more                            Computer scientists and developers have                       Community, like computers, has become net-
accessible interfaces and user-friendly soft-                 come to realize that when computer systems                        worked. Although community was once syn-
ware. But as the HCI name says, the model                     connect people and organizations, they are                        onymous with densely knit, bounded neigh-
was person-computer.                                          inherently social. They are also coming to                        borhood groups, it is now seen as a less
    Computers have increasingly reached out                   realize that the popular term “groupware” is                      bounded social network of relationships that
to each other. Starting in the 1960s, people                  misleading, because computer networks prin-                       provide sociability support, information, and
began piggybacking on machine-machine                         cipally support social networks, not groups.                      a sense of belonging. These communities are
data transfers to send each other messages.                   A group is only one special type of a social                      partial ( people cycle through interactions
Communication soon spilled over organiza-                     network; one that is heavily interconnected                       with multiple sets of others) and ramify
tional boundaries. The proliferation of elec-                 and clearly bounded. Much social organiza-                        through space [a low proportion of commu-
tronic mail (e-mail) in the 1980s and its                     tion no longer fits the group model. Work,                        nity members in the developed world are
expansion into the Internet in the 1990s                      community, and domestic life have largely                         neighbors (7)]. Where once people interacted
(based on e-mail and the Web) have so tied                    moved from hierarchically arranged, densely                       door-to-door in villages (subject to public
things together that to many, being at a com-                 knit, bounded groups to social networks.                          support and social control), they now interact
puter is synonymous with being connected to                       In networked societies, boundaries are                        household-to-household and person-to-per-
the Internet.                                                 more permeable, interactions are with diverse                     son (9).
    As a result, HCI has become socialized.                   others, linkages switch between multiple net-                         Although the support of collaborative
Much of the discussion at current HCI con-                    works, and hierarchies are flatter and more                       work was the initial purpose of the Internet
ferences is about how people use computers                    recursive (6–8). Hence, many people and or-                       (both e-mail and the Web), it is an excellent
to relate to each other (1). Some participants                ganizations communicate with others in ways                       medium for supporting far-flung, intermit-
build “groupware” to support such interac-                    that ramify across group boundaries. Rather                       tent, networked communities. E-mail tran-
tions; others do ethnographic, laboratory, and                than relating to one group, they cycle through                    scends physical propinquity and mutual
survey studies to ascertain how people actu-                  interactions with a variety of others, at work                    availability; e-mail lists enable broadcasts to
ally relate to each other. This work has slowly               or in the community. Their work and com-                          multiple community members; attachments
moved from the lone computer user to deal-                    munity networks are diffuse and sparsely                          and Web sites allow documents, pictures, and
ing with (i) how two people relate to each                    knit, with vague overlapping social and spa-                      videos to be passed along; buddy lists and
other online, (ii) how small groups interact,                 tial boundaries. Their computer-mediated                          other awareness tools show who might be
and (iii) how large unbounded systems oper-                   communication has become part of their ev-                        available for communication at any one time;
ate—the ultimate being the worldwide Inter-                   eryday lives, rather than being a separate set                    and instant messaging means that simulta-
net, the largest and most fully connected so-                 of relationships.                                                 neous communication can happen online as
                                                                  When computer-mediated communication                          well as face-to-face and by telephone.
Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University
                                                              networks link people, institutions, and knowl-                        Systematic research on what people ac-
of Toronto, 455 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, Canada               edge, they are computer-supported social net-                     tually do on the Internet has lagged behind
M5S 2G8. E-mail: wellman@chass.utoronto.ca                    works. Indeed, if Novell had not gotten there                     the Internet’s development. After a long

                                                 www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 293 14 SEPTEMBER 2001                                                                                    2031
                                                            COMPUTERS AND SCIENCE
   period of pundit supposition, travelers’ tales,        now used by a majority of North Ameri-            tained; new ties are developed among people
   and laboratory studies of computer-mediated            cans, although its growth rate is slowing         sharing interests. It is not only that time and
   communication, survey-based and ethnograph-            and may stabilize at about 60% of adults.         space become less important in computer-
   ic research is now appearing.                          The digital divide is decreasing rapidly in       mediated communication, but that it is easy
       These studies address a vigorous public            North America, although socioeconomic             to communicate with large groups of commu-
   debate about whether people can find com-              status (education, occupation, and income)        nity members (using lists) and to bring un-
   munity online. Critics wonder whether rela-            remains an important differentiator (17–          connected community members into direct
   tionships between people who never see,                20). The digital divide is much more sig-         contact. The ease with which computer-me-
   smell, or hear each other can be the basis for         nificant in two ways in less developed            diated communication connects friends of
   true community [reviewed in (10); examples             countries: (i) A much lower percentage of         friends can also increase the density of inter-
   include (11–13)]. Other detractors make an             the population use the Internet and (ii) the      connections among clusters of network mem-
   opposite argument: The Internet may be so              users are predominantly well-connected            bers within communities.
   immersive that it lures people away from               elites (21). In the developed world, the              For one thing, as the newbies studied by
   other pursuits (14) and involves them in on-           amount of time spent online is increasing,        Kraut et al. (33) gained more experience with
   line interactions that only reinforce their ex-        per capita as well as overall. For example,       the Internet, their depression and alienation
   isting opinions.                                       the average AOL user spent 31 min per day         disappeared, and their social contact in-
       By contrast, enthusiasts see the Internet          online in the first quarter of 1997; in 4         creased enough to have a positive impact on
   as extending and transforming community.               years, this had more than doubled to 64 min       their overall interactions with community
   John Perry Barlow asserts that “with the               online in the first quarter of 2001 (22). Nor     members. A comparative analysis found that
   development of the Internet . . . we are in            does familiarity breed interpersonal con-         social support obtained online helped people
   the middle of the most transforming tech-              tempt: The more contact people have on-           to deal with depression (34).
   nological event since the capture of fire”             line, the greater the impression they make            Other studies have found that the Internet
   (15). They point to the ability of the Inter-          on each other (23).                               increased community interaction (35, 36).
   net to span distances and time zones at low                Survey-based evidence about the Inter-        For example, a large National Geographic
   cost, to sustain relationships based on                net’s effect on community has been mixed.         Web survey found that face-to-face visits and
   shared interests (even when the participants           Most cross-sectional studies show that those      phone calls were neither more numerous nor
   are residentially dispersed), and to provide           frequently online are more involved in com-       fewer for people who use e-mail a great deal.
   powerful links between people and dis-                 munity (24–27). By contrast, one study (28)       E-mail just added to the fund of contact, so
   persed knowledge (16).                                 suggests that extensive online involvement        that the overall volume of contacts with
       Too often the debate has been (i)                  took people away from interaction with            friends and relatives through all media was
   Manichean: The Internet is bringing heaven             household and community members. More-            higher for people who use e-mail a lot (27)
   or hell, but nothing in between. (ii) Unidi-           over, the only true longitudinal study found      (Table 1).
   mensional: The Internet is such a powerful             that some “newbies” became more depressed,            However, another study found that e-mail
   force that other considerations, such as gen-          alienated, and isolated during the first 6        use is displacing telephone use to some extent
   der and status in an organization, are ignored.        months of computer use (29).                      (37). Perhaps there are differences in the
   (iii) Parochial: The Internet should be consid-            Robust results indicating how the Internet    kinds of communication that take place on
   ered as an entity in itself, rather than as fitting    fits into community life are now available        the Internet or by telephone or face-to-face.
   into the full range of work, community, and            (30–32). It is becoming clear that the Internet   Although one study of a dispersed work
   daily life. (iv) Presentist: The Internet is such      is not destroying community but is resonating     group found much similarity in what was said
   a transforming force that long-term social             with and extending the types of networked         by means of each of these media (26), anoth-
   trends, such as the pre-Internet move to net-          community that have already become preva-         er found that among community members,
   worked communities, are irrelevant.                    lent in the developed Western world. Old ties     e-mail is preferred more when people want to
       As the debate continues, the Internet is           with relatives and former neighbors are main-     garner information efficiently.

   Table 1. E-mail use by total annual communication. [Source: Survey2000; see (27) for details]

                                                           Kin                                                            Friends
       E-mail use
                            F2F*         Phone           Letters      E-mail          Total        F2F      Phone        Letters        E-mail        Total

                                                                             Within 50 km
   Never                     77           117               6            1             201         104       136            6              1          247
   Rarely                    65           116               6            5             192          84       112            8              5          209
   Monthly                   61           113               6            7             187          74        98            5              9          186
   Weekly                    62           120               6           13             201          76        99            7             20          202
   Few times/week            63           115               7           24             209          83       113            7             37          240
   Daily                     60           118               8           52             178          92       126            9            118          345
   Total                     61           117               7           39             224          88       120            9             86          303
                                                                          Beyond 50 km
   Never                     12             37              8            1           58            13         25            7              1           46
   Rarely                    10             36              8            5           59            11         19            7              4           41
   Monthly                    9             35              7           10           61             8         16            6              8           38
   Weekly                     9             36              9           19           73             8         17            6             16           47
   Few times/week            10             39              9           35           93             9         19            7             30           65
   Daily                     10             43             10           72          135            10         25            8             85          128
   Total                     10             41             10           55          116            10         23            8             62          103
   *F2F, face to face.


2032                                         14 SEPTEMBER 2001 VOL 293 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
                                                      COMPUTERS AND SCIENCE
    The positive impact of the Internet on           al Geographic Survey2000 data are available           Another approach, Babble, builds on the
community ties is true for those living both         for use [(27, 46); see http://survey2000.         traditional groupware approach, which facil-
nearby and far away. The proportionate gain          nationalgeographic.com]. The National Geo-        itates a small defined group working together
in contact is greatest for contact with friends      graphic Society (in conjunction with Clem-        (59). Babble shows each person as an animat-
and relatives living at a distance (9, 38), as       son University and the University of Toronto)     ed and colored circle that moves closer to the
one might expect from a system able to cross         is doing an even larger and more comprehen-       center as the person gets more involved in
time zones at a single bound and in which            sive Web survey in fall 2001. A University of     team activities.
there is no differentiation between short-dis-       Maryland “Web institute” is archiving many            When people are asked about the size of
tance and long-distance messages. Yet online         surveys online with statistical software avail-   their networks, they consistently report them
as well as offline contact is highest with those     able for reanalysis (47). Along with such         as smaller than the 1000 or more others that
living nearby (9, 38). Cyberspace does not           survey efforts, there is scope for ethnographic   they probably know well enough to converse
vanquish the importance of physical space.           community studies [such as what Hampton           with (60–62). Rolodexes and their database
For example, many e-mail and chat messages           and Wellman have done in Netville (38, 40,        equivalents are some help, but the listing can
arrange face-to-face meetings (26, 39).              47–49)].                                          be computer-supported. ContactMap (52)
    The recent case of “Netville” (a suburb of                                                         looks at ongoing Internet exchanges to record
Toronto) is especially interesting, because          Finding Knowledge in a Networked                  a person’s contacts.
here neighborhood access to a high-speed             Society                                               Such memory aids typically record each
Internet service helped bring neighborhood           Many organizations are similar to networked       person as a discrete entity. New develop-
members together for face-to-face get-togeth-        communities in having multiple sets of work       ments record the connections of network
ers, from visits in private homes to semi-           team members (including multiple superiors),      members (63, 64). As such approaches de-
public barbeques (40, 41). Those who were            physically dispersed relationships, and teams     velop, they have the potential to do primitive
part of the high-speed service knew three            of co-workers shifting by the day and week as     automated social network analysis—identify-
times as many neighbors as the unwired and           employees get involved in multiple projects.      ing clusters, boundaries, centrality, bridges,
visited with 1.6 times as many. Nor was the          The situation is different from that dealt with   and blocks— by analyzing who jointly re-
Internet only used socially: Netville residents      by traditional organizational theory, which       ceives an e-mail and who forwards e-mails to
used their local discussion list to mobilize         comprehends densely knit workgroups neatly        whom.
against the real estate developer and the local      structured in bureaucratic, hierarchical orga-        Who holds the organizational or commu-
Internet service provider (40). To be sure,          nizational trees (6, 50–52).                      nity memory, now that the veteran employ-
Netville may be a special case because the               How do people work together in large,         ee—the fount of work lore—is neither known
residents were newly arrived and excited to          sprawling, networked organizations where          nor accessible? Often people ask their work-
be part of an Internet experiment. Yet recent        they are simultaneously members of multiple,      mates. But what if they do not know? People
work in Michigan (42) and Los Angeles (43)           transitory, physically dispersed teams? In        then wonder whether friends of friends know,
shows how the Internet can reinforce tradi-          particular, how do people in such organiza-       yet most people do not possess a list of all of
tional community development approaches.             tions obtain knowledge from others when           their friends’ friends, much less are aware of
    Despite the past decade’s excitement             they do not know whom to ask?                     what their friends’ friends know. Yet it is
about the Internet, as it pervades life it may           These questions are of immediate practi-      reasonable to assume that the number of
become as taken for granted as that once-            cal importance for complex organizations.         friends of friends is 100,000, assuming that
transforming technology, the telephone (44).         Hence, computer-supported solutions are de-       each person knows approximately 1000 oth-
One indication is that those who have been on        veloping for working through trusted inter-       ers and that 10 percent of each person’s ties
the Internet the longest and the most fre-           personal relationships to identify, locate, and   are unique. These are too many names to
quently are least apt to feel that they are a part   receive information within and between com-       keep track of, yet people often want a per-
of an online community, although their over-         munities and organizations. It is not surpris-    sonal touch when giving and getting informa-
all sense of community remains (27). This            ing that work in this area has been driven by     tion. They may want to talk to the informa-
may reflect their greater likelihood of en-          computer scientists and communication sci-        tion holder to supply a nuanced or confiden-
countering distasteful situations, such as           entists interested in building tools for knowl-   tial request; the information holder may only
flaming, hacking into accounts, virus trans-         edge access and management.                       be willing to release such information to a
mission, or unwanted junk mail “spam.” Or it             One issue is finding out who knows what;      friend or a friend of a friend.
may mean that those with much Internet ex-           a more complex task in networked organiza-            IKNOW is software that stores informa-
perience do not privilege it as a special form       tions (53). Normally, one attempts to exam-       tion about friends of friends; not only who
of community. Or it may support the fears of         ine the documentation or other help sources       they are but what information they know
those who believe that computer-mediated             and then wanders out into a hallway in search     (65). It seeks to answer the question: “Who
communication is not a satisfactory surrogate        of friendly colleagues. The problem becomes       knows who knows what?” The hope is that
for face-to-face contact.                            acute, however, in distributed communities        through the use of such indirect but personal
    Thus, preliminary findings create new            [(54), p. 97].                                    ties, people will supply reliable and appropri-
questions. At present, Internet studies of               How do people wander the hallway when         ate information. Issues remain. The first is
community are in full swing: The Pew Inter-          their team or other supports are physically       about software that is scalable to map and
net and American Life project does a monthly         distributed? One approach is to build aware-      supply such contact information for a large
tracking study (35). The Stanford Institute for      ness tools (55). Two of these, Cruiser (56)       amorphous organization. The second is about
the Quantitative Study of Society is doing           and Postcards/Telepresence (57, 58), provid-      data collection: How do systems compile in-
frequent surveys (14, 45). The U.S. General          ed low-resolution video pictures of offices or    formation about who knows what? The third
Social Survey, which is central to social sci-       cubicles. The picture told others whether peo-    is about privacy: Do people want to reveal
ence research, included an Internet module in        ple were in their offices and perhaps avail-      their friends and their skill sets to strangers?
2000 and may do so again. The 2001 Cana-             able. The low resolution of the picture was           The Answer Garden (54) addresses such
dian General Social Survey has an Internet           not able to show what people were doing and       issues of data collection and privacy, al-
module. The large-scale international Nation-        afforded some privacy.                            though it does not deal with interpersonal

                                         www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 293 14 SEPTEMBER 2001                                                         2033
                                                                   COMPUTERS AND SCIENCE
   connections. It provides tools for people to                  12. M. Slouka, War of the Worlds: Cyberspace and the             46. J. C. Witte, L. M. Amoroso, P. E. N. Howard, Social Sci.
   build repositories of commonly requested                          High-Tech Assault on Reality (Basic Books, New York,             Comput. Rev. 18, 179 (2000).
                                                                     1995).                                                       47. The archive at www.webuse.umd.edu contains origi-
   questions and answers, in part by building up                 13. V. Jergens, “Does the Internet Bring Us Down,” New               nal data from more than 20 surveys in which behav-
   these repositories from ongoing question-                         York Times, 3 September 1998 (online at www.                     ioral questions about Internet usage were asked of
   and-answer sessions. Thus, only the informa-                      nytimes.com).                                                    nationally representative samples, including the Dig-
                                                                 14. N. Nie, Am. Behav. Sci., in press.                               ital Divide surveys done by the U.S. Census Bureau
   tion that has been publicly provided is avail-                15. J. P. Barlow, S. Birkets, K. Kelly, M. Slouka, Harper’s          for the NTIA, the 2000 U.S. General Social Survey,
   able. However, this provides only limited                         1995, 40 (August 1995).                                          and national time use surveys. Users can directly
   access to the files of each work team member.                 16. H. Rheingold, The Virtual Community (MIT Press,                  analyze the data interactively using statistical soft-
                                                                     Cambridge, MA, ed. 2, 2000).                                     ware. In addition to the data archive, the Web site
   Good solutions are not yet available that bal-                17. M. Kew, B. Wellman, Curr. Sociol., in press.                     contains an annotated bibliography of behavioral re-
   ance team needs to have access to personal                    18. A. Reddick, C. Boucher, M. Groseillers, The Dual Dig-            search into more than 15 areas of Internet use (such
   files with the needs of each person to limit a                    ital Divide: The Information Highway in Canada (Pub-             as the digital divide, time displacement, and social
                                                                     lic Interest Advocacy Centre, Ottawa, Canada, 2000).             networks), articles on Internet behavior, and links to
   team’s access to only the germane portions of                 19. National Telecommunications and Information Ad-                  other resources.
   his or her entire files.                                          ministration (NTIA), Falling Through the Net (NTIA,          48. B. Hampton, B. Wellman, Am. Behav. Sci. 43, 475
       With so much potential and need to con-                       Washington, DC, 2000).                                           (1999).
                                                                 20. E. Fong, B. Wellman, R. Wilkes, M. Kew, Correlates of        49. N. K. Baym, in Culture of the Internet, S. Kiesler, Ed.
   nect, there is the need to prioritize communi-                    the Digital Divide: Individual, Household and Spatial            (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1997), pp. 103–120.
   cation. Does my boss supersede my peers?                          Variation (report to Office of Learning Technologies,         50. N. S. Contractor, Manage. Commun. Q. 13, 154
   Does my wife or husband have higher prior-                        Human Resources Development Canada, Ottawa,                      (1999).
   ity than my sister or brother? Dealing with                       Ontario, June 2001).                                         51. N. Nazer, thesis, University of Toronto (2000).
                                                                 21. W. Chen, J. Boase, B. Wellman, in The Internet in            52. B. A. Nardi, S. Whittaker, H. Schwartz, First Monday 5,
   such matters would be an advanced imple-                          Everyday Life, B. Wellman, C. Haythornthwaite, Eds.              30 (2000).
   mentation for the simple filter rules now                         (Blackwell, Oxford, in press).                               53. R. Cross, S. Borgatti, The Ties that Share: Relational
   commonly available for e-mail. Important, as                  22. A. Odlyzko, The History of Communications and its                Characteristics that Facilitate Knowledge Transfer and
                                                                     Implications for the Internet (AT&T Labs-Research,               Organizational Learning (working paper of the Carroll
   yet unpublished, work is being done to estab-                     Florham Park, NJ, 2000).                                         School of Management, Boston College, Boston, MA,
   lish rules for prioritizing computer-mediated                 23. Y. Liu, The Effects of Frequency and Duration of                 2000).
   contact, both deductively setting a priori rules                  Messaging on Impression and Relational Development           54. M. Ackerman, D. McDonald, Answer Garden 2: Merg-
                                                                     in Computer-Mediated Communication: An Explor-                   ing Organizational Memory with Collaborative Help
   and inductively watching which messages a                         atory Study (report presented at the Annual Confer-              (paper 97-105 presented at the Conference on Com-
   person takes first.                                               ence of the International Communication Associa-                 puter-Supported Cooperative Work, Cambridge, MA,
       An Internet year is like a dog year,                          tion, Washington, DC, 2001).                                     December 1996).
                                                                 24. J. Katz, Wired 1997 68, 76, 274 (December 1997).
   changing approximately seven times faster                                                                                      55. O. Liechti, SIGGROUP Bull. 21, 3 (2000).
                                                                 25. J. Katz, R. Rice, P. Aspden, Am. Behav. Sci., in press.
   than normal human time. Nevertheless, I                                                                                        56. R. Fish, R. Kraut, R. Root, R. Rice, Commun. ACM 36,
                                                                 26. C. Haythornthwaite, B. Wellman, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.
                                                                                                                                      48 (1993).
   expect the transition from a group-based to                       49, 1101 (1998).
                                                                 27. B. Wellman, A. Q. Haase, J. Witte, K. Hampton, Am.           57. B. Buxton, Telepresence: Integrating Shared Task
   a networked society to continue (66 ).                            Behav. Sci., in press.                                           and Person Spaces, in proceedings of Graphics In-
   Although technology does not change                           28. N. Nie, L. Erbing, Study Offers Early Look at How                terface ’92, Vancouver, British Columbia, May
                                                                     Internet Is Changing Daily Life (Institute for the               1992.
   society—it only affords possibilities for                                                                                      58. G. Moore, in Video-Mediated Communication, K. Finn,
   change—powerful forces are shaping the                            Quantitative Study of Social Science, Stanford, CA,
                                                                     2000).                                                           A. J. Sellen, S. Wilbur, Eds. (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mah-
   Internet: increased broadband use, global                     29. R. Kraut et al., Am. Psychol. 53, 1017 (1998).                   wah, NJ, 1997), pp. 301–321.
   ubiquity, portability, 24/7 availability, per-                30. P. DiMaggio, E. Hargittai, N. Russell, J. Robinson,          59. E. Bradner, W. Kellogg, T. Erickson, Social Affordances
                                                                     Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27, 207 (2001).                               of BABBLE ( paper presented at the European Com-
   sonalization, and the switch from place-to-                                                                                        puter-Supported Cooperative Work Conference,
                                                                 31. C. Haythornthwaite, B. Wellman, Eds., special issue
   place to person-to-person connectivity.                           on the Internet in everyday life, Am. Behav. Sci., in            Copenhagen, Denmark, November 1998).
   These suggest the accelerating need for                           press.                                                       60. J. Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipula-
                                                                 32. B. Wellman, C. Haythornthwaite, Eds., The Internet in            tors, and Coalitions (Blackwell, Oxford, 1974).
   social network concepts and tools for en-                                                                                      61. M. Kochen, Ed. The Small World (Ablex, Norwood, NJ,
                                                                     Everyday Life (Blackwell, Oxford, in press).
   gaging with the Internet.                                     33. R. Kraut et al., Internet Paradox Revisited (Carnegie            1989).
                                                                     Mellon University, 2001).                                    62. D. J. Watts, Small Worlds (Princeton Univ. Press,
       References and Notes                                      34. R. LaRosa, M. S. Eastin, J. Gregg, J. Online Behav. 1            Princeton, NJ, 1999).
    1. The key HCI conferences are sponsored by the Asso-            (2001) (see www.behavior.net/job/v1n2/paradox.               63. W. Sack, Mapping Conversations: Position Paper for
       ciation for Computing Machinery. They are SIGCHI              html).                                                           the CSCW Workshop Dealing with Community Data
       (Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Inter-          35. P. Howard, L. Rainie, S. Jones, Am. Behav. Sci., in press.       [paper presented at the Computer-Supported Coop-
       faces), SIGGROUP (groupware and group processes),         36. B. Anderson, K. Tracey, Am. Behav. Sci., in press.               erative Work Conference (CSCW 2000), Philadelphia,
       and CSCW (Computer-Supported Cooperative Work).           37. J. Dimmick, C. J. Gade, C. Rankin, A Niche of Microdi-           PA, December, 2000].
    2. M. A. Smith, personal communication.                          mension Analysis of Displacement of Long Distance            64. Q. Jones, G. Ravid, S. Rafaeli, Information Overload
    3. M. A. Smith, in Communities in Cyberspace, M. A.              Phone Use by E-Mail ( paper presented at the Inter-              and Virtual Public Discourse Boundaries ( paper pre-
                                                                     national Communications Association Annual Meet-                 sented at CSCW 2000, Philadelphia, PA, December,
       Smith, P. Kollock, Eds. (Routledge, London, 1999), pp.
                                                                     ing, Washington, DC, 2001).                                      2000).
       195–219.
                                                                 38. K. Hampton, B. Wellman, Am. Behav. Sci., in press.           65. N. Contractor, D. Zink, M. Chan, in Community Com-
    4. M. Dodge, R. Kitchin, Mapping Cyberspace (Rout-
                                                                 39. R. Ling, B. Yttri, in Perpetual Contact, J. Katz, M.             puting and Support Systems, Lecture Notes in Com-
       ledge, London, 2001).
                                                                     Aakhus, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, in               puter Science, T. Ishida, Ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
    5. S. Southwick, Liszt: Searchable Directory of E-Mail                                                                            1998), pp. 201–217.
                                                                     press).
       Discussion Groups (report to BlueMarble Information
                                                                 40. K. Hampton, B. Wellman, City and Community, in               66. M. Castells, The Rise of the Network Society (Black-
       Services, Bloomington, IN, 1996).
                                                                     press.                                                           well, Malden, MA, ed. 2, 2000).
    6. B. Wellman, in Culture of the Internet, S. Kiesler, Ed.
                                                                 41. K. Hampton, thesis, University of Toronto (2001).            67. Research underlying this article has been supported
       (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1997), pp. 179 –205.
                                                                 42. P. Resnick, Who’s That? Connecting Neighbors                     by the Bell University Laboratories, Communications
    7. B. Wellman, in Networks in the Global Village, B.             through Directories and Distribution Lists ( paper pre-          and Information Technology Ontario, Mitel Net-
       Wellman, Ed. ( Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1999),            sented at CHI’99 Conference, Seattle, WA, May                    works, the Office of Learning Technologies (Human
       pp. 1– 47.                                                    1999).                                                           Resources and Development Canada), the Social Sci-
    8. M. Castells, The Rise of the Network Society (Black-      43. S. J. Ball-Rokeach,Y.-C. Kim, S. Matei, Commun. Res.             ence and Humanities Research Council of Canada,
       well, Malden, MA, ed. 2, 2000).                               28, 429 (2001).                                                  and at the University of Toronto: our NetLab at the
    9. B. Wellman, Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 25, 227 (2001).       44. C. Fischer, America Calling: A Social History of the             Centre for Urban and Community Studies, Depart-
   10. B. Wellman, M. Gulia, in Networks in the Global               Telephone to 1940 (Univ. of California Press, Berke-             ment of Sociology, and the Knowledge Media Design
       Village, B. Wellman, Ed. ( Westview Press, Boulder,           ley, CA, 1992).                                                  Institute. Discussions with NetLab colleagues have
       CO, 1999), pp. 167–194.                                   45. N. Nie, L. Erbing, Study Offers Early Look at How                been invaluable, especially J. Boase, W. Chen, K.
   11. C. Stoll, Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the           Internet Is Changing Daily Life (Stanford University,            Hampton, C. Haythornthwait, A. Q. Haase, J. Salaff,
       Information Highway (Doubleday, New York,                     2000; www.stanford.edu/groups/siqss/Press_release.               and B. Wellman. M. Prijatelj and U. Quach provided
       1995).                                                        html).                                                           valuable assistance.


2034                                                14 SEPTEMBER 2001 VOL 293 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Tags:
Stats:
views:24
posted:1/4/2012
language:English
pages:4