B. Wellman Et Alias, Computer Networks as Social Networks, 1996

7/29/2019 B. Wellman Et Alias, Computer Networks as Social Networks, 1996

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/b-wellman-et-alias-computer-networks-as-social-networks-1996 1/27

Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual

CommunityAuthor(s): Barry Wellman, Janet Salaff, Dimitrina Dimitrova, Laura Garton, Milena Gulia andCaroline HaythornthwaiteReviewed work(s):Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22 (1996), pp. 213-238Published by: Annual Reviews

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083430 .

Accessed: 10/02/2013 10:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of

Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:24:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083430?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083430?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs



Annu.Rev.Sociol. 1996. 22:213-38Copyright? 1996 by AnnualReviewsInc. All rights reserved

COMPUTERNETWORKSAS SOCIAL

NETWORKS:CollaborativeWork,

Telework,and VirtualCommunity

Barry Wellman, anetSalaff DimitrinaDimitrova,LauraGarton,MilenaGulia, CarolineHaythornthwaite

Centrefor UrbanandCommunityStudies, Universityof Toronto,Toronto,Canada

M5S 2G8

KEY WORDS: computersupportedcooperativework,virtualcommunity, elework,electronicmail,social networks, nternetcommunication

ABSTRACT

When computernetworks ink people as well as machines, they become social

networks. Such computer-supportedocial networks CSSNs) are becomingim-

portantbasesof virtualcommunities,computer-supportedooperativework,and

telework. Computer-mediatedommunication uch as electronicmail and com-

puterizedconferencingis usually text-basedand asynchronous. It has limited

social presence, and on-line communicationsare often more uninhibited,cre-

ative, and blunt than in-person communication. Nevertheless,CSSNs sustain

strong, intermediate,andweak ties that provide informationandsocial support

in bothspecializedand broadlybasedrelationships.CSSNs foster virtualcom-

munitiesthatareusually partialandnarrowly ocused, althoughsome do become

encompassingandbroadlybased. CSSNs accomplisha wide varietyof cooper-

ativework,connectingworkerswithinand betweenorganizationswho areoften

physically dispersed. CSSNs also link teleworkers rom their homes or remote

work centersto mainorganizational ffices. Although many relationships unc-

tion off-line as well as on-line, CSSNs have developed their own norms and

structures.The natureofthe

medium both constrainsandfacilitates social con-

trol. CSSNs have strongsocietal implications,fosteringsituationsthat combine

global connectivity, hefragmentation f solidarities, he de-emphasisof local or-

ganizations (in the neighborhoodandworkplace),and the increased mportanceof homebases.

213

0360-0572/96/08 15-0213$08.00



214 WELLMANTAL

COMPUTER-SUPPORTEDOCIALNETWORKS

Whencomputernetworks inkpeople as well as machines,theybecome social

networks,whichwe call computer-supportedocial networks CSSNs). Three

formsof CSSNs arerapidlydeveloping,each withits own desiresandresearch

agendas. Membersof virtualcommunitywant to link globally with kindred

souls for companionship,information,and social support from their homesand workstations.White-collarworkerswant computer-supportedooperative

work (CSCW),unencumbered y spatialdistance,while organizations ee ben-

efits in coordinatingcomplex work structuresand reducingmanagerialcosts

and travel time. Some workerswant to teleworkfrom theirhomes, combining

employmentwithdomesticchoresandArcadian etreats;managementoresees

reducedbuildingand real estate costs, and higherproductivity.

We examine here the extent to which people workandfind communityon

CSSNs. Is it possible to sustainproductiveor supportive elationshipson-linewith networkmemberswho maynevermeet in-person?Whatwill thecompo-

sition and structure f CSSNs be like, with their weakerconstraintsof distance

and time,theireasy connectivity,and limitedsocialpresence?Whataretheim-

plicationsof suchchangesforthe societieswithin whichtheyareproliferating?

These questionshavecapturedhepublic'simagination.Punditsargueabout

whether we will have computer-supportedtopias-"the most transforming

technologicaleventsincethecaptureof fire" Barlow1995:40)-or dystopias-

"this razzle-dazzle... disconnectsus from each other"(Hightower,quotedinFox 1995:12). The popularmedia is filled with accountsof life in cyberspace

(e.g. Cybergal1995),much like earlier ravellers' ales of journeysinto exotic

unexplored ands. Public discourseis (a) Manichean,seeing CSSNs as either

thoroughlygood orevil, (b) breathlesslypresent-oriented,writingas if CSSNs

had been inventedyesterdayand not in the 1970s, (c) parochial,assumingthat

life on-line hasno connectionto life off-line, and(d) unscholarly, gnoringre-

search ntoCSSNs aswell as a century'sresearch nto the natureof community,

work,and social organization.

The Nets SpreadCSSNs began in the 1960s when the US Defense Department'sAdvanced

ProjectsResearchAgency developedARPANET o link largeuniversitycom-

putersand some of their users (Cerf 1993). The ElectronicInformationEx-

changeSystem, modeledaftera governmentemergencycommunicationsnet-

work, started supportingcomputerizedconferences of scientific researchers

(includingsocial networkanalysts)in the mid-1970s (Freeman1986, Hiltz &Turoff 1993). Othersystemswere also proposedandpartially mplemented n

thisperiod.







COMPUTERNETWORKSAS SOCIALNETWORKS 215

Since the mid-1980s personalcomputershave become increasingly con-nected(throughmodems,local networks,etc) to centralcommunicationhosts.These hosts have become linkedwith each otherthroughthe worldwide"In-ternet"andthe "WorldWideWeb"(encompassing nformationaccess as wellas communications).Togetherwithotherinterconnecting omputernetworks,

the overall network has become known simply as "TheNet,"a "networkofnetworks" Craven& Wellman1973) thatweaveshostcomputers usinghigh-capacitycommunication ines), each of which is at the centerof its own localnetwork. While the Net originallyonly encompassednonprofit(principallyuniversity)computers,commercialusers were allowed on in the early 1990s.Between October 1994 andJanuary1995, the numberof Internethosts grewby 26%(Treese1995).

Othercomputernetworkshavegrownconcomitantly,whilethecost of access

hasdecreased.Thoseprincipally orleisureuserangefromcommunitybulletinboardsystems (Marx& Virnoche1995) to global, for-profitnetworkssuch asAmerica OnLinethathave developedcommercialactivityand the structuredprovision of information e.g. airlineguides, movie reviews). In late 1995,America OnLine had an estimated4.5 million subscribersworldwide,Com-puServehad4 million,whileProdigyhad1.5million(Lewis 1996). Thedevel-opmentof WorldWideWebservices may displace suchcommercialsystems.Local low-cost Internetservice providers are proliferating,and Windows95

comes readyto connect to theInternet.Competitivepressureshave led these commercialsystems to link with theInternet,makingthe Net even morewidely interconnected.The Net has beengrowing,perhapsdoublingits users annually. Its rapidgrowth and structureas a networkof networksmakes it difficult to count the numberof users, forone mustcount boththe computersystems directlyconnected to the Net andthe users on each system. For example, estimates of recent Internetuse inmid-1995 rangedbetween 27 million and 10 million adults(InsightNew Me-dia 1995, Lewis

1995). Besides exchangingprivatee-mail messages, internetmembersparticipatedas of January27, 1996) in 24,237 collective discussiongroups(Southwick1996). There s muchscope for growth: In 1994 only 17%of the 2.2 million Canadian omputeruserslogged onto theNet (Frank1995).Moreover,users varybetweenthose who rarelylog on to those who arecon-tinuouslyconnected. Givensuchuncertainties nd thetendencyof enthusiastsandmarketers o forecasthigh levels of networkmembership,many estimatesof the numberof usersareunreliable.

There is little published nformationaboutthe demographicomposition

ofNetusers,although hisshouldchangeasitdevelopsas acommercialmarketingmilieu. There s generalagreement hatusersare argelypoliticallyconservative







216 WELLMAN TAL

white men, often single, English-speaking,residing in North America, andprofessionals, managers, or students (Newsweek 1995; Treese 1995). One

surveyof Web users inSpring1995 found thatwomen comprised ess than one

fifth of theirsample,although he proportion f women usershad doubled n the

pastsix months(Pitkow& Kehoe 1995). Two thirdsof thissample had at least

a university education,an "average"household income of US $59,600, andthree quarters ived in North America. By contrast,Algeria had 16 registered

internetusersin July 1995 and Bulgariahad 639 (Danowitzet al 1995). Trends

suggestanincreasingparticipation f women, non-English peakers,andpeople

of lower socioeconomic status (Guptaet al 1995, Krautet al 1995, On-lineResearchGroup 1995). Nevertheless,FrenchPresidentJacquesChirac(1995)

has warnedthat if English continues to dominate the informationhighway,

"our futuregenerationswill be economically and culturallymarginalized....

Todefendthe influence of the French anguageis to defend therightto think,to communicate, o feel emotionsandto prayin a differentway."

Possibly morepeople participaten privateorganizationalnetworks hanon

theNet, eitherusingCSCW from offices orteleworking rom homes. Theyuse

proprietary ystems such as Lotus Notes or Internet ools adaptedfor use onprivate"intranets."n 1991therewere 8.9 millionparticipantsn Fortune2000

companies (ElectronicMail Association 1992). In late 1995, thereprobablywere still more users of privatenetworksthanof the Net, but there were no

availableestimates.There s also nopublisheddemographicnformationaboutprivatenetworkparticipants, utpresumably heyare even morehomogeneousthan those on the Net. To protect organizational ecurity, privatenetworks

often are not connectedto the Net. However,pressure romprofessionalem-

ployees to have access tocolleaguesand nformation lsewhere s leadingmany

organizations o connect to the Net (Pickering& King 1995).

Typesof SystemsAlmost all CSSNs supporta varietyof text-based nteractionswith messages

enteredon keyboardsand transmitted n lowest-commondenominatorASCIIcode. Basic electronicmail (e-mail)is asynchronous ommunication rom one

personto anotheror fromone personto a distribution ist. When e-mail mes-sagesareforwarded, heyconcatenate ntoloosely bounded ntergroup etworks

throughwhich informationdiffuses rapidly. E-mail is bidirectional,so that

recipientsof messages can reply with equalease. By contrast o these single-

senderarrangements, groupware"Johnson-Lenz& Johnson-Lenz1978) sup-

portscomputerized onferencing hatenables all membersof a boundedsocial

networkto read all messages. Many privatenetworkssupportcomputerizedconferencingas does the Net through"list servers"(such as the Progressive

Sociology Network)and leisure-time"Usenetnewsgroups."








The on-line storageof most messagesallows computer-mediated ommuni-cation (CMC) tobe asynchronous o thatparticipants an be indifferentplacesand on differentschedules. This gives people potentially more control overwhen they read andrespondto messages. Moreover,the rapidtransmissionof large files betweenindividualsandamonggroups increasesthe velocity of

communication, upports ollaborativework,andsustainsstrongand weak ties(Feldman1987, Finholt & Sproull 1990, Eveland & Bikson 1988, Sproull &Kiesler 1991). On-linestorageanddigitaltransmissionalso help intruders oread files and messages,althoughcomputerization oes providecryptographicmeans of protectingprivacy(Weisband& Reinig 1995).

Far ewerpeopleparticipatensynchronous"real-time"CSSNs,althoughm-proved echnology shouldleadto theirgrowth.The "chat ines" of commercialservicesand he InternetRelayChat IRC)systemoperatenrealtime, providing

multithreaded onversations ike cocktailparties (Bechar-Israeli1995, Danetet al 1996). As widespreadInternetaccess and microcomputermultitasking

develop, it is likely thatmany currentlyasynchronoususers will see messageswhenthey arrive,creating hepotential or morewidespread ynchronicsocialexchanges. Multi-UserDungeons (MUDs) and kindredsystems are a specialplay form of real-timecomputerizedconferencing. Those who enter MUDs

don pseudonymouspersonasandrole play in quests, masquerades,and otherforms of intense on-line communal nteraction Danetet al 1995, 1996, Reid

1996,Smith

1996).Current rendssupplement ext with graphics,animation,video, andsound,increasingsocial presence. However, this increases cost and requires goodhardwareandcommunication ines. Desktopandgroupvideoconferencing scurrently imited to researchgroupsandlarge-screencorporatemeetingrooms(Ishii 1992, Mantei et al 1991, Buxton 1992, Moore 1997). Otherexperi-mentalsystems include video walls (in whichlarge-screenvideos link widelyseparated ounges to promoteinformalcoffee-machineconversation),videohallways (Fish et al 1993,Dourish& Bly 1992) thatallow participants o checkthe availabilityof others at a glance, and agents or avatars hatmove, speakand searchon-line (Maes 1995, Riecken 1994, Stephenson 1992). Hence wefocus in thischapteron themostwidely used,text-based, ormsof CSSNs suchas e-mail andcomputerizedconferences. We look only at interpersonal om-munication. We do not coverimpersonalbroadcaste-mail (such as electronic

newsletters),distanceeducation,passivelyaccessible sites (suchas file transfer

[FTP]and Web sites), and the exchangeof data on-line (as in manufacturingprocessesor airlinereservation ystems).

Research nto CSSNs has involvedseveraldisciplines-principally computerscience, communicationscience, business administration,and psychology.







218 WELLMAN TAL

There are annual CSCW conferences with publishedproceedings. Despite

the inherently ociologicalnatureof the matter, ociology is underrepresented,

and gatekeepersare mostly members of other disciplines (Dillon 1995). Al-

though mutuallygermane,studies of virtualcommunity,CSCW,and telework

generally have not informedeach other.

COMMUNICATIONON-LINE

Earlyresearchdeveloped rom"human-computer"nalysisof single-person n-

terfaceswithcomputersystems to analyzinghow small group communication

is mediated by computersystems. Many of these studies examined how the

limited "socialpresence"of CMC (as compared o in-person contact)affects

interactionsand groupdecision-making. What are the effects of losing verbal

nuances (e.g. voice tone, volume), nonverbal ues (e.g. gaze, body language)

physical context (e.g. meeting sites, seating arrangements) nd observable n-

formationaboutsocial characteristics e.g. age, gender,race)?Research n this

approachinksthetechnicalcharacteristics f CMCto taskgroupoutcomessuch

as increased participation,more egalitarianparticipation,more ideas offered,

and less centralized eadership Hiltzet al 1986, Kiesler et al 1984,Rice 1987,

Adrianson& Hjelmquist1991,Weisbandet al 1995). Limited social presence

mayalsoencouragepeopleto communicatemorefreelyandcreatively han hey

do in person,at times "flaming" thersby usingextreme, aggressive language

(Kiesleret al, 1984).Although groups supportedby CMC often producehigher quality ideas,

reaching agreementcan be a lengthyand morecomplex processas the greaternumberof ideas and the lack of status cues hindergroupcoordination Hiltzet al 1986, Kiesler& Sproull 1992,Valacichet al 1993). However,status cues

are notcompletelyabsent,as social information s conveyed through anguage

use, e-mail address,and signaturessuch as "VP-Research"Walther1992).

As messages are often visibly copied to others,they also indicate social net-

work connections. Some participantsprefer in-personcontact to CMC forambiguous, socially sensitive, andintellectuallydifficultinteractions Culnan

& Markus1987,Daft & Lengel 1986,Rice 1987,Fish et al 1993,Jones 1995).

However,CMCis also usedto maintain ocial distance,documentcontentious

issues, or when the messageinvolvesfear,dislike,awkwardness, r intimidation

(Markus1994a,Walther1996).Much CMCresearchhas beenindividualisticandtechnologicallydetermin-

istic, assuminga single person rationallychoosing amongmedia (Lea 1991).

Togo beyond this, some CMCanalystsnowconsiderhow socialrelationships,organizationaltructures, nd local normsaffecttheuse of communicationme-

dia (Finholt& Sproull1990, Orlikowsiet al 1995, Huber1990, Markus1990,







COMPUTERETWORKS SSOCIALNETWORKS 219

1994b, Sproull& Kiesler 1991, Lea et al 1995,Orlikowskiet al 1996b, Zack &

McKenney 1995). Forexample, people do not"choose" o use e-mail in many

organizations: It is a condition of employment(Fulk & Boyd 1991). Even

when e-mail use is voluntary, criticalmass of usersaffects the extent to which

people use it (Markus1990). Thus the laboratorybasis of most CMC research

sets limits for understandingCSSNs in natural ettings. Sociological researchneeds to takeintoaccount he socialcharacteristics f participants e.g. gender,

SES), theirpositionalresources(CEO or mail-room clerk, brokeror densely

knitstar), he interplaybetweenongoing on-lineand off-line relationships,andtheir ongoingsocial relationships.

SUPPORTON-LINE

InformationMuch of the communicationon CSSNs involves theexchangeof information.

For example, in two weeks of March 1994 the 2295 newsgroupsin the top

16 Usenet newsgrouphierarchiesreceived 817,638 messages (Kling 1996b).

On-line digital librariesaregrowing, along with search tools (Kling & Lamb

1996), although ocatingtheright nformations difficult n large organizations

and communities. The natureof the mediumsupportsa focus on information

exchanges,as people can easily post a questionor comment and receive infor-

mation nreturn.Broadcastingqueries hroughCSSNs increases he chances offindinginformationquicklyandalters the distribution atternsof information.

It gives those workingin small or distantsites better access to experienced,skilled people (Constantet al 1996).

However, as anyone can contribute nformationto most newsgroupsand

distributionists, the Net can be arepositoryof misleading nformationand bad

advice, as some health careprofessionalshavecharged Foderaro1995). Such

worriesdiscount he fact thatpeoplehavealways giveneachotheradvice about

theirbodies, psyches, families, or computers(e.g. Wellman 1995, Kadushin1987). The Net hasjust made theprocessmore accessible and morevisible to

others, ncludingexpertswhose claims to monopolieson advice arethreatened

(Abbott 1988).Theflow of information hroughCSSNs itself generatesaccess to new infor-

mation. On-line nformation lowsspilloverunexpectedly hroughmessagefor-

warding,providingaccess to morepeopleand new social circles, thusincreas-

ing theprobabilityof findingthose who can solve problems(Kraut& Attewell

1993). Peopleoftenbump nto new informationor new sources of informationunintentionally hrough"leaky... quasisocial networlds"Brent 1994:on-line).Informationobtainedserendipitouslyhelps solve problemsbefore they occur







220 WELLMANET AL

and helps keep people awareof organizationalnews. Weak on-line ties are

bridges between diverse sources of information. In one large organization,

those with more diverse ties obtained better on-line advice (Constantet al

1996).

Social SupportIf CSSNs were solely a means of information xchange,thenthey would mostly

containnarrow, pecializedrelationships.However, nformations only one of

manysocial resourcesexchangedon-line. Despitethe limited social presence

of CMC, people findsocial support,companionship,and a sense of belonging

through he normalcourseof CSSNs of work and community,even whenthey

are composed of persons they hardlyknow (Rice & Love 1987, McCormick

& McCormick 1992, Haythornthwaitet al 1995, Walther1996, Wellman&

Gulia 1996). Althoughprovidingsuchtypes of supportoften does notrequire

major nvestmentsof time, money,orenergy,CSSN membershavealso mobi-lized goods, services, and long-termemotionalsupport o helpeach other(e.g.

Lewis 1994). Thus while most of the elderlyusers of the "SeniorNet"virtual

community oinedto gain access to information,heirmostpopularon-lineac-

tivityhas beencompanionable hatting Furlong1989,see alsoHiltz et al 1986,

Walther1994, Rheingold 1993, Meyer 1989, Krautet al 1995). An informal

supportgroupsprangup inadvertentlywhen the "YoungScientists'Network"

aimedprimarilyatprovidingphysicistswithjob hunting ipsandnews stories.

Similarly,the "Systers"mailing list, originally designedfor female computerscientiststo exchange nformation,has become a forum orcompanionshipand

social support(Sproull& Faraj1995). The membersof a computerscience

laboratory requentlyexchangeemotionalsupportby e-mail. Because much

of their time is spent on-line, and many of their difficultieshappenat their

terminals, t is natural or them to discuss problemson-line (Haythornthwaite

et al 1995).

Some CSSNs are explicitly set up to be supportgroupsthatprovideemo-

tional aid, groupmembership,and informationabout medical treatmentandothermatters Foderaro1995, King 1994). One therapistwhoprovidesone-to-

one counselingthrougha bulletin boardreports hat,while she has less socialpresence and cues than through n-person sessions, the greateranonymityof

CMC allows herclients to reveal themselves more(Cullen 1995). For exam-

ple, PeterandTrudyJohnson-Lenz1990, 1994)haveorganizedon-linegroups

for 20 years, workingto buildself-awareness,mutually supportiveactivities,

social change,anda sense of collective well-being. Their softwaretools, such

as passingaround acred"talking ticks,"rearrange ommunication tructures,vary exchangesettings,markgrouprhythms,andencourage urkers o express

themselves.








RELATIONSHIPS ON-LINE

SpecializedandMultiplexTiesCSSNs containboth specialized and multiplexrelationships. The structure

of the Net encourages specializedrelationshipsbecause it supportsa market

approach o findingsocial resources in virtualcommunities. With more easethanin almost all real life situations,people can shop for resourcesfrom the

safety and comfort of their homes or offices, and with reducedsearch and

travel time. The Usenet alone houses more than 3500 newsgroups (Kling

1996b)to whichanyonemaysubscribe,withdiverse oci includingpolitics (e.g.

feminism), technicalproblems(e.g. SPSS), therapeutics e.g. alcoholism),

socializing (e.g. singles), and recreation e.g. BMWs, sexual fantasies). Net

memberscan browsethroughspecializedchannelson synchronouschat lines

before decidingtojoin a discussion(Danetet al 1996). Relationships n thesevirtualcommunitiesare often narrowlydefined.

The narrowfocus of newsgroups,distribution ists, and chat lines allows

people to take risks in specializedrelationships hatmay only exist in a single

partialon-linecommunity.Some CSSNs even allow people to be anonymousor use nicknameswhen they wantto speakfreely or try on differentpersonas

(Hiltz & Turoff1993). However, he inclusionof e-mailaddresses nmost mes-

sage headersprovides he basisfor moremultiplexrelationships o develop. In

the absence of social andphysical cues, people are able to get to know each

otheron the Net on the basisof theircommunication nddecide later o broaden

the relationshipor move it off-line (Rheingold 1993). Thusmore than half of

the recoveringaddicts on electronicsupportgroupsalso contact each otherby

phone or in-person (King 1994). Soon after an especially intensecomputer-

ized conference, many"of the participants lteredtheirbusinessand vacation

travelplansto includea face-to-facemeetingwith one another" Hiltz & Turoff

1993:114).

StrongTiesCan hemediumupporthemessagefthe imited ocialpresencefcomputer-mediated communicationworks against the maintenanceof socially close,

strong ies on CSSNs? Manyon-line tiesdo meetmost of the criteria orstrong

ties. They facilitatefrequent,reciprocal,companionable,andoften supportive

contact,andtheplacelessnessofCSSNinteractions acilitates ong-termcontact

without the loss of relationships hat often accompaniesresidentialmobility.

Virtualcommunities arequitevoluntary,while CSSN participationvariesbe-

tween voluntaryandmandatoryn CSCWand telework(Hiltz& Turoff1993,Johnson-Lenz& Johnson-Lenz1994, Rheingold 1993). Certainlymany ac-

countsreportgreat nvolvement n on-linerelationships.Communitymembers










Nevertheless, here s evidenceof reciprocal upportiveness n CSSNs, even

betweenpeople withweakties (Hiltzet al 1986, Walther1994). Providingre-

ciprocalsupportand informationon-lineis a meansof increasingself-esteem,

demonstratingechnicalexpertise,earningrespectandstatus,andresponding

to norms of mutualaid (e.g. Constantet al 1994, 1996, Kraut& Attewell

1993, Kollock& Smith1996b). In some organizations, mployeesareencour-aged to help each otheror to directthose in need to otherswho could help.

Computerized onferencesandpublicarchivesreinforce hissupportivenessby

making t visible to all co-workersandmanagers Constant t al 1995, Kraut&

Attewell 1993, Kollock& Smith 1996b). Suchprocessesalso arisein densely

knitvirtualcommunitiesandare common amongfrequent ontributorso com-

puterizedconferences. People havinga strongattachment o an organization

or electronicgroupwill be more likely to participateand provideassistanceto

others. For example,computerhackers nvolvedin illegal activitiesarereluc-tantto changetheir pseudonymsbecausethe statusthey gain throughon-line

demonstrations f technicalexpertiseaccrues o thatpseudonym Meyer1989).

Some commentatorshave warnedaboutthe consequencesof makingcon-

nectionson CSSNsteemingwithstrangerswhosebiographies, ocialpositions,

and social networksare unknown(Stoll 1995). NeverthelessCSSN members

tend to truststrangers,much as people gave rides to hitchhikers n the flow-

erchilddays of the 1960s. This willingness to engage with strangerson-line

contrastswithin-person ituationswherebystanders reoftenreluctanto inter-vene andhelp strangers Latane& Darley 1976). Yetbystandersaremoreapt

to intervenewhentheyarethe only ones aroundand theycan withdraweasily

in case of trouble. Analogously,on-line requestsfor aid are read by people

aloneattheirscreens. Evenif therequest s to a newsgroupandnotbypersonal

e-mail, as far as the recipientof the requestknows, s/he is the only one who

could provideaid. At the same time, on-line interventionwill be observedby

entiregroupsandwill be positivelyrewardedby them. It is this visibility that

may fosterthe kindnessof strangers.Justas physicalproximityprovidesthe

opportunity or observingface-to-faceinteraction,CSSNs providesocial ex-

emplarsto largenumbersof passiveobserversas well as to activeparticipants.

Individualacts can aggregateto sustaina large communitybecause each act

is seen by the entire groupand perpetuatesa normof mutualaid (Rheingold

1993, Barlow 1995,Lewis 1994).

StressfulTiesMost research nto antisocialbehavioron-linehasstudieduninhibited emarks,

hostile flaming,nonconformingbehavior,and grouppolarization(Hiltz et al1978, Kiesleret al 1985, Siegal et al 1986, Sproull& Kiesler 1991, Lea et al

1992, Waltheret al 1994). The limitedsocial presenceof computer-mediated







224 WELLMANTAL

communicationencourages the misinterpretation f remarks, and the asyn-chronous natureof most conversationshinders the immediaterepairof dam-

ages, stressingandevendisrupting elationships.Therearenumerousanecdotes

about antisocial behavioron-line. Hackersdisseminateviruses, entrepreneurs"spam" flood) the Net with unwantedadvertisements, talkersharass partic-

ipants on-line, and scoundrels take on misleading roles such as men posingon-line as womentoseduce otherselectronically Cybergal1995, Slouka 1995).

SOCIALNETWORKSON-LINE

In what kinds of social networksare on-linerelationships mbedded?Because

they operatesomewhatdifferently,we separatelydiscuss virtual community

and computer-supportedwork groups. For both community and work, we

consider the compositionof computer-supportedocial networks-the nature

of the participantsn them,andthe structureof CSSNs-the networkpatternof relationshipsand hierachiesof power.

Size and CompositionVIRTUAL OMMUNITYAlthough ontemporaryeople n the westernworldmay know 1000 others, they activelymaintainonly about20 communityties

(Kochen 1989). Easy access to distribution ists and computerizedconfer-

ences should enableparticipantso maintainmoreties, includingmorestrong

ties. Communicationalso comes unsolicitedthroughdistributionists, news-groups,and forwardedmessages from friends. These provideindirectcontact

betweenpreviouslydisconnectedpeople,allowingthem to establishdirectcon-

tact. Newsgroupsand distribution ists also provide permeable, shiftingsets

of members,withmore intenserelationships ontinuedby privatee-mail. The

resulting relaxationof constraintson the size and proximityof one's personal

communitycan increasethe diversityof people encountered(Lea & Spears

1995). Thus the Net facilitatesformingnew connectionsbetweenpeople and

virtualcommunities.The relative lack of social presence on-line fosters relationshipswith Net

memberswho have more diverse social characteristicshan arenormallyen-

countered nperson. It alsogives participantsmore controlover thetimingand

contentof theirself-disclosures Walther1995). This allowsrelationshipsode-

velopon the basis of shared nterests atherhan obe stuntedat the onsetbydif-

ferencesin social status(Coate 1994,Hiltz& Turoff1993,Jones1995, Kollock

& Smith 1996a). This is a technologicallysupportedcontinuationof a long-

term shift to communitiesorganizedby shared nterestsrather hanby sharedneighborhoodsor kinship groups (Fischer1975, Wellman1979, 1994). When

their shared nterestsareimportanto them,those involved in the same virtual








communitymay havemorein commonthan those who live in the samebuild-

ing or block (Rheingold 1993). Indeed,people have strongcommitmentsto

theiron-linegroupswhen theyperceive hem to be long-lasting Walther1994).

Thereis a danger, hough, hatvirtualcommunitiesmay develophomogeneous

interests(Lea & Spears1992). Furthermore,he similarityof social character-

istics of mostcurrentNet participants lso fosters culturalhomogeneity.This emphasison sharedinterestsrather hansocial characteristics an be

empowering ormembersof lower-statusand disenfranchisedocialcategories

(Mele 1996). Yet althoughsocial characteristicshave become less apparent

on CSSNs, theystill affectinteractions.Womenoftenreceivespecialattention

frommales(Shade1994,Herring1993,O'Brien1996). In part, hisis afunction

of thehighratioof mento womenon-line. "Revealyour genderon theNet and

you'retoast"claims one (fictional)femaleparticipantCoupland1995:334).

COOPERATIVEORK The evidenceis mixed aboutwhetherCSSNsreducethe

use of othercommunicationmedia,addto the total amountof communication,

orboost theuse of othercommunicationmedia(Garton& Wellman1995). One

studyfoundthatworkgroupsusingCMChaveahigher evel of communication

than those that do not (Bikson & Eveland 1990), while anotherfound that

heavy CMC use reducesface-to-faceand telephonecommunication Finholt

et al 1990).

People can greatlyextendthe numberand diversityof theirsocial contacts

when theybecomemembersofcomputerized onferencesor broadcastnforma-

tion to other CSSN members.In one large,physicallydispersedorganization,

fourfifths of thee-mailmessageswerefrom electronicgroupsand notindivid-

uals. More than half of these messages were from unknownpeople, different

buildings,orpeopleexternal o theirdepartment rchain of command Finholt

& Sproull 1990, Kiesler & Sproull1988). In anotherstudy,an on-line work

teamformedmore subcommittees handid anoff-lineteamandwas betterable

to involve its membersin its activities (Bikson & Eveland 1990). Wherethe

organizational limatefostersopencommunication,he lackof statuscues fos-ters connectionsacrosshierarchical r otherformsof statusbarriersSproull&

Kiesler 1991, Eveland& Bikson 1988).

StructureVIRTUAL OMMUNITYThe architecturef the Netmaynourishwo contra-

dictorytrendsfor the structureof virtualcommunities. First,the Net fosters

membership n multiple,partialcommunities. People often belong to several

computerized onferences,andthey can easily send out messages to separatepersonaldistributionists for differentkindsof conversations.Moreover, hey

can varyin theirinvolvements n differentcommunities,participating ctively







226 WELLMANTAL

in some and occasionally in others. Second, the ease of respondingto entiregroups and forwardingmessages to others foster the folding in of on-line net-

works into broadercommunities(Marx& Virnoche 1995). Moreover,MUDs

andsimilarrole-playingenvironments esemble village-like structures f they

capture heirmembers' attention.

The proliferationof CSSNs may producea trendcounterto the contempo-raryprivatization f community.People in the westernworld are spending ess

time in public places waiting for friends to wanderby, and where they can tointroduce hem to otherfriends(Wellman1992, Economist 1995). Community

has moved indoors to private homes from its former semi-public, accessiblemilieus such as cafes, parks,andpubs. This dispersionand privatizationmeans

that people must activelycontactcommunitymembersto remain in touchin-stead of visiting a cafe andwaitingfor acquaintanceso drop by. By contrast,

computerizedconferencessupportconnections with largenumbersof people,providing possibilities for reversingthe trendto less public contact. Because

all membersof newsgroupsanddiscussiongroupscan readall messages-justas in a caf6 conversation-groups of peoplecan talkto eachothercasuallyand

get to know the friendsof their friends. "Thekeyboard s my caf6,"William

Mitchell enthuses(1995:7). Moreover,each participant's ersonalcommunityof ties connects specialized, partialcommunities,providingcross-cutting inks

between otherwisedisconnectedgroups.

WORKGROUPS There has not been much research nto how widespreaduseof CSSNs affect broadorganizational tructuresof managementand control.

Researchhas focused morenarrowlyon CSSNs themselves. Forexample,or-

ganizationalCSSNs are maintainedby systemadministrators homaysupportmanagementgoals by monitoringon-line activities and devising proceduresthataffect social outcomes. Some administrators romotethe "appropriate"

use of the CSSN andadmonishthose who use it for recreationalor noncom-

pany purposes (Chiu 1995, Orilowskiet al 1995). Managers ear thatCSSNs

will threatencontrolby acceleratingthe flow of (mis)information,ncludingrumors,complaints, okes, andsubversivecommunications Finholt& Sproull

1990). Forexample, management losed anemployee "Gripenet"when groupdiscussionschallenged ong-standing orporatepractices Emmett1982). Even

when organizations upport nformalelectronicgroups, managersoften viewthem with distrust(Perin 1991). When women in a large corporationestab-

lished a computerizedconference to discuss careers, managementmonitored

the messages because they feared it would lead to demandsfor unionization

andaffirmativeaction(Zuboff 1988).Nevertheless,CSSNssupporta varietyof agendas,notonlythose sanctioned

by the organization. For example, strikingIsraeliuniversityprofessorsused







COMPUTERETWORKS S SOCIALNETWORKS 227

bothprivateandgroupmessagestocoordinateheirnationwide trike Pliskin&Romm 1994). Lessconfrontationally,managersandstaff use discussiongroupsto cross status and power boundariesby exchanging nformationabout shared

leisure interests. In one decentralizedcorporation,more than half of those

surveyeduse e-mail at least occasionally to keep in touch, take work breaks,

and take part n games and otherentertaining ctivities (Steinfield 1985). Suchgroups are larger,more dispersed,and more spontaneous han the distributionlists which the organization equiresemployees to be on, and their exchanges

emphasize fun rather han displays of competence (Finholt & Sproull 1990).Such informalmessaging may reduce work stress (Steinfield 1985), integrate

neworperipheral mployees (Eveland& Bikson 1988,Rice &Steinfield1994,

Steinfield 1985), and increaseorganizationalcommitment(Huff et al 1989,Kaye 1992, Sproull& Kiesler 1991).

Much"groupware"asbeen written osupporthe social networksof denselyknit and tightly bounded work groups in which people work closely with

a focused set of colleagues. For example, video conferencing systems en-

able spatially dispersedcoworkers to confer instantly (Moore 1997), whileco-writing systems support oint authorship Sharples 1993). Yet both the In-

ternet and within-organizationntranetsare also well-suited to supportwork

relationships n sparsely knit, loosely bounded organizationswhose members

switch frequentlyandroutinely amongthe people with whom they are deal-

ing throughout he day, as they move between projectsor need differentre-

sources (Fulk & DeSanctis 1995, Kling & Jewett 1994, Koppelet al 1988,Weick 1976, Wellman 1996). In such organizations,work outcomes dependmore on the ability of people and groupsto bridge cognitive distances thanon having people and other resources ocatedin the same place (Mowshowitz1994). This relativelyautonomousmode of workis often found among pro-

fessionals, scholars, or academics who have to make multiple, often unex-

pected, contactswith colleagues within and outside their own organizations

(Abbott 1988, Burt 1992, Hinds& Kiesler 1995, Star 1993, Walsh& Bayama

1996).From an organizationalperspective, dispersedwork teams require social

as well as technicalsupport(Wellmanet al 1994, Garton 1995). Studies ofcollaborationamong scientific communitiessuggest that an initial period of

physical proximityis necessaryto build trust and to come to consensus on

the focus of proposed projects (Carley& Wendt1991). Such collaborations

may needdifferent ormsof CMCsupportat differentpoints in a project.For

example,workgroups tightlyfocused on a single projectneed differenttypes

of CSCW supportthan do individualsswitching among multiple tasks andrelationships Mantei& Wellman1995).







228 WELLMANTAL

Shifting boundariescharacterizenetworkedvirtualorganizations,not onlywithin the organizationsbut between them. InterorganizationalCSSNs canhelp an organizationin negotiations between buyers and sellers and in

coordinating oint projects. They also help managersandprofessionalsmain-tain a large network of potentially useful contacts, stockpilingnetwork cap-ital for the time when they need to obtaininformationexternally. These in-terorganizational etworks also help employees to maintain a sense of con-nection with formercolleagues and can provide supportduringjob changes

and other stressful events. CSSNs blurorganizationalboundaries, upporting"invisiblecolleges" of dispersed professionals. (Constantet al 1994, 1996,Hesse et al 1993, Hiltz & Turoff 1993, Kling 1996, Meyer 1989, Carley1990, Kaufer & Carley 1993, Huff et al 1989, Kaye 1992, Rice & Stein-field 1994, Walsh & Bayama 1996). They can knit scientificresearchers nto"highly cohesive and highly cooperativeresearchgroups, . . . geographically

dispersed yet coordinated" Carley& Wendt 1991:407). However, there isless use of CSSNs in disciplines such as chemistrywherepractitionerswantto protectunwantedcommercialuse of their knowledge (Walsh& Bayama1996).

TELEWORKON-LINE

ImplementationTodate,mostdevelopmentsnorganizationalCSCWhavebeen toimprovecon-

nectionsbetweenexisting workplaces.However,CSSNsprovideopportunitiesfor developingrelativelynew forms of workorganization.Thus,telework(aka"telecommuting")s a special case of CSCW in which CMCs link organiza-tions to employeesworkingprincipally itherat home oratremoteworkcenters

(Fritzet al 1994). Most writingabout teleworkhas been programmatic,ore-

casting,ordescriptive,assuming hat hetechnologyof teleworkwill determine

its social organization e.g. Hesse & Grantham1991, Helms & Marom1992,Greyet al 1993). Yetteleworking'sgrowthhas been drivenby newmarketcon-ditions that are promotingorganizational estructuring, educing employees,eliminatingoffices, andgivingmoreflexibilityto remainingemployees (Salaff& Dimitrova1995a,b). Althoughteleworkersnow comprisea tinyfractionoftheworkforce(DiMartino& Wirth1990),theirgrowingnumber ncludesmanysalespeople, managers,professionals,andsupportpersonnel.Entireoffices of

dataentryclerksandtelephoneservices have moved to home or other remote

offices (Kugelmass1995).Researchis moving from technologicaldeterminism o studyingthe inter-play between telework and workorganization. Severalanalystshave shownmanagerialnertiaandorganizationalethargy o be barriers o telework.Many








employees favor teleworkto gain more work autonomyor to accommodate

family, but many managersfeel theirpower threatened Kraut1988, 1989,

Olson 1988, Huwset al 1990,Grantham& Paul1994,Tippin1994). Although

therehavebeen concernsthatthe careersof teleworkingmanagersandprofes-

sionals wouldsufferbecauseof less visibility in organizations,his has notyet

been the case (Tolbert& Simons 1994). Despite the proliferationof telework

and greatpublic interestin the subject, therehas not been much systematic

research nto what teleworkersactuallydo, their connectionswith theirmain

offices, theirlinks with coworkers(peers,subordinates,andsupervisors),and

the implicationsof theirphysical solationfortheircareerswithinorganizations

orfor laborsolidarity.

CommunicationTeleworkers onot communicatemorefrequentlyon-linewithcoworkersorsu-

pervisors hando similarlyoccupiednonteleworkersKinsman1987),althoughteleworkersdo have less postal and in-personcontact(see also Olszewski &

Mokhtarian1994). However, eleworking eadsto more structured ndformal-

ized communicationwith supervisorsand,to a lesser extent,with coworkers.

This may be due as much to physicalseparation romthe organizational ffice

as to the use of CMC (Olson 1988, Heilmann1988, Huws et al 1990, Olson &

Primps1984).

There has been contradictory vidence about how teleworkingaffects in-

formalcommunicationamongcoworkers.One studynotes thatpersonalcon-versationsamongteleworkingprogrammers avedecreasedand their nformal

relationshipshave deteriorated Heilmann 1988). Another study finds that

the restructuringof work accompanyingthe shift to telework among pink-

collar workerscurtailsinformal communication Soares 1992). By contrast,

universityemployees, both white- and pink-collar,who work at home have

more informalcontactwith other employees (McClintock1981). At the same

time, teleworkerscan increaseautonomyby being slow to respondto on-line

messages (Wellmanet al 1994). The natureof informalcommunicationsbyteleworkersappears o dependon the employees' social status,theirprevious

relationships,andthe supportof the organization.For example,BritishTele-

com reports(1994) thatpink-collar eleworkerscomplainless aboutisolation

thanaboutthe slowness of help in fixingcomputersand thelack of news about

mainoffice events (see also Shirley1988).

Teleworkmayonlybe a continuation f existingtaskindependenceandwork

flows alreadydrivenby messages andformson computerscreens (Dimitrova

et al 1994). Thismayexplainwhysome studiesfind thatprofessional elework-ers maintainwork-relatednetworks,butpink-collarclerical workersbecome

more isolated (Durrenberger t al 1996). New work force hierarchiesthat

emerge from teleworkingsegregatethose who lack informalcontacts, while







230 WELLMANTAL

those thathave them benefit richly (Steinle 1988). In this way, CSSNs may

furtherbifurcate hework force.

WorkOrganizationMost researchon the impactof teleworkaddresses workplace ssues such as

the control and autonomy of teleworkers, flexibility of work schedules, jobredesign, remotesupervision, and productivity.Althoughmuch post-Fordist

hype suggests that teleworkingwill liberateworkers(e.g. Toffler 1980), re-

searchsupports he neo-Fordist onclusionthatmanagers etainhigh-level con-

trolof planningand resourcesbut decentralize he execution of decisions and

tasks. Companies that implementteleworkingto cut costs often tighten con-

trol. This strategy s most effective with abundantpink-collar abor, typically

women with children. The more severe the employees' personalconstraints

(e.g. child-care,disabilities)and the less the demand or their skills, the more

likely they are to experience tighter control(Olson 1987). Thus management

has increasingcontrol of clerks who become teleworkers,while profession-

als have gainedmoreautonomy(Olson & Primps 1984, Simons 1994, Soares

1992).Thusthedivergent mpactof teleworkon controland ob design follows the

logic of the dual natureof labor markets,with companystrategydetermining

the outcome(Steinle 1988,Huwset al 1990). Wherea companyseeks to retain

scarce skills by reducingpersonalconstraints, eleworkingprovidesmore dis-

cretion overworkarrangements.Professionalsoften obtaingreaterautonomy,

flexibility, skills, andjob involvement,butthey may have more uncertainties

abouttheir careersand incomes(Olson 1987, Simons 1994, Bailyn 1989).

Telework,Domestic Work, nd GenderTelework is partof changing relationshipsbetween the realms of work and

nonwork: a high proportionof women working,morepart-timeand flextime

work,andthebifurcationof workers nto the information-skillednd -deskilled

(Hodson& Parker1988,Olson 1988,Steinle 1988). Womenandmen often ex-perienceteleworkdifferently,although heevidence is somewhatcontradictory.

Telework einforces he gendereddivisionof household aborbecausewomen

teleworkersdo morefamilycare and householdwork. Women are morelikely

toreporthighstress overtheconflict of work andfamilydemands,andthelack

of leisuretime(Olson& Primps1984,Christensen1988). Womensay theyare

satisfied with teleworking, possibly becauseblendingwork andfamily space

may ease role strain between family and work, and it may improve family

relations (Falconer1993, Higgins et al 1992, Duxbury1995). Thus, femaleteleworkingclerks are morefamily orientedthanaretheiroffice counterparts

(French1988, DuBrin 1991).








Yet fusing domestic and work settings can be disruptiveand can embed

womenmore deeplyin the household(Ahrentzen1990, Calabrese1994,Heck

et al 1995). Women doing paid work at home spend a similar amountof

time on domesticworkregardlessof their ob status,numberand ages of their

children,part-timeor full-time employment,or thestructure f theirhousehold

(Ahrentzen1990). Althoughteleworkingwomen may benefitfrom flexibilityin their"double oad,"managersand researchersalike claim that doing paid

work at homeis nota good way to provideearlychildcare(Christensen1988).

Teleworkersare almostas likely to use paid childcare,and indeedmost have

higherchildcareexpensesthando office workers Falconer1993). Yetmothers

with olderchildrenare betterable to work while theirchildrenarein school, to

greetthem afterschool, and to be available n emergencies.

Fatherswho teleworkreportbetterrelationshipswith theirchildrenthando

comparablenonteleworkers.Theyhave more leisuretime and less stressthanbefore they beganteleworking,andthey play morewith their children(Olson

& Primps1984). Yetgenderdynamicsare different.Men see teleworkingas a

privilegebecausetheywantmore autonomy,and they getmore interactionwith

theirfamilies as a bonus. Womensee teleworkingas a compromisebecause

family responsibilitieslimit their employmentopportunities,and they want

flexible scheduling(Olson 1987, Gerson& Kraut1988).

GLOBALNETWORKSAND LITTLEBOXESDespite their limited social presence, CSSNs successfully maintainstrong,

supportive ies with work andcommunityas well as increasethe numberand

diversityof weak ties. They areespecially suited to maintainingntermediate-

strengthties between people who cannot see each otherfrequently. On-line

relationshipsare basedmore on shared nterestsand less on sharedsocial char-

acteristics. Althoughmanyrelationships unctionoff-line as well as on-line,

CSSNs are developingnormsand structures f theirown. The are notjust pale

imitationsof "real ife." The Net is the Net.Organizational oundariesarebecomingmore permeable ustas community

boundariesalreadyhave. The combinationof high involvementin CSSNs,

powerfulsearchengines, and the linkingof organizationalnetworks o the Net

enablesmanyworkers oconnect with relevantotherselsewhere,wherever hey

areand whomever heywork or. Iforganizations row toward heir nformation

andcommunication ources(Stinchcombe1990),CSSNsshouldaffectchanges

in organizational tructures.

Social networksare simultaneouslybecomingmore global and more localas worldwide connectivityand domestic matters ntersect. Globalconnectiv-

ity de-emphasizes he importanceof localityfor workandcommunity;on-line







232 WELLMAN TAL

relationshipsmaybe morestimulatinghansuburban eighborhoodsand alien-ated offices. Even more thanbefore,on the informationhighway each person

is at the center of a uniquepersonalcommunityand work group.

The domestic environment round he workstation s becoming a vital home

baseforneo-Silas Marners itting n frontof theirscreensdayandnight. Nests

are becoming well feathered. Teleworkexaggeratesboth trends. Although itprovides long-distanceconnectionsfor workers, t also moves them home, pro-

viding a basis for the revivalof neighborhood ife. Just as before the Industrial

Revolution,home and workplaceare being integrated,although gender roles

have notbeenrenegotiated.The privatizationof relationshipsaffects community, organizational,and

coworkersolidarity. Virtualcommunitiesare accelerating he ways in which

people operateat thecentersof partial,personalcommunities, witchingrapidly

and frequentlybetween groups of ties. Whetherworkingat home or at anoffice workstation,many workershave an enhancedability to move between

relationships.At the same time, theirmoreindividualisticbehaviormeans the

weakeningof the solidarity hatcomes fromworking n large groups.Suchphenomenagive sociologistswonderfulopportunities.A Bellcore vice

presidentsays thatwhen "scientists alk aboutthe evolutionof the information

infrastructure,.. [we don't]talkabout... thetechnology.We talk aboutethics,law, policy and sociology.... It is a social invention" Lucky 1995:205). Yet

there has been littlesociological studyof computer-supportedocial networks.Research in this area engages with important ntellectualquestionsand social

issues at all scales, fromdyadicto worldsystem. It offers stimulatingcollab-

orations with otherdisciplines, industry, abor,and government. It providesopportunities o develop social systems and not just study themafterthe fact.As our computerscience colleague William Buxton tells us, "the computerscience is easy; the sociology is hard."

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

More than100scholarsresponded o ouron-linerequests orgermanework. Weregret hatwe areunable ocitethemallor to includerelevant eferences o main-

streamsociology. We thank AaronDantowitz, Paul Gregory,and EmmanuelKokufor help in gathering nformation,BeverlyWellman or editorialadvice,and RonaldBaecker,WilliamBuxton,andMarilynMantei for introducingusto computerscience. Ourwork has been supportedby the Social Science and

HumanitiesResearchCouncil of Canada,Bell Canada, he Centre orInforma-

tionTechnologyInnovation, ndtheInformationTechnologyResearchCentre'sTelepresenceproject.








Any Annual Reviewchapter, as well as any article cited in an Annual Review chapter,

may be purchased from the Annual Reviews Preprints and Reprints service.

1-800-347-8007;415-259-5017;email: [email protected]

LiteratureCited

Abbott A. 1988. The System of Professions:An Essay on the Division of ExpertLabor.Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress

AdriansonL, HjelmquistE. 1991. Group pro-cesses inface-to-faceandcomputer-mediatedcommunication.Behav.InfoTech.10(4):281-96

Ahrentzen SB. 1990. Managing conflicts bymanaging boundaries: how professionalhomeworkerscope with multiple roles athome.Environ.Behav. 22(6):723-52

Bailyn L. 1989. Toward he perfectworkplace.Commun.ACM32(4):460-71

BarlowJP,1995.Is therea there n cyberspace?Utne Reader:50-56

Bechar-IsraeliH. 1995. From <Bonehead>to<cLonehEad>: nicknames, play and iden-tity on Internet Relay Chat. J. Computer-Mediated Commun.1(2):on-lineURL:http-//www.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/voll/ssue2

Bikson T, EvelandJD. 1990. The interplayofworkgroupstructures ndcomputer upport.See Galegheret al 1990, pp.245-90

BrentDA. 1994.Informationechnologyand he

breakdown f "places"of knowledge.EJour-nal 4(4):Online

British Telecommunications.1994. Telework-ing: BT's Inverness.London: Br. Telecom-mun. 16 pp.

BurtR. 1992.StructuralHoles. Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPress

Buxton W. 1992. Telepresence: integratingsharedtask andperson spaces. Pres.Graph-ics Interface 92 Conference,Vancouver

CalabreseA. 1994. Home-basedteleworkandthepoliticsof privatewomenandpublicman.

In Women nd Technology, d. UE Gattiker,pp. 161-99. Berlin:Walterde Gruyter

CarleyK. 1990. Structural onstraintson com-munication: the diffusionof the homomor-phicsignalanalysis technique hrough cien-tific fields. J. Math.Soc. 15(3-4):207-46

Carley K, Wendt K. 1991. Electronic mailand scientific communication. Knowledge12(4):406-40

CerfV. 1993. How the Internetcame to be. InTheOnlineUser'sEncyclopedia,ed. BernardAboba, pp. 527-35. Boston: Addison-

WesleyChiracJ. 1995. Speechto LaFrancophonieum-mit. (Transl. and reportedby John Stack-house), Toronto Globe and Mail, Dec. 4,

1995, pp.Al, A10ChiuY. 1995.E-mailgives riseto the E-wail: a

blizzardof personalchat raisesworriesaboutoffice productivity.Washington ost (August18): DI, D8

ChristensenK, ed. 1988. TheNew Era of HomeBased WorkBoulder,CO:Westview.213 pp.

Coate J. 1994. Cyberspace innkeeping:building online community.On-line paper:[email protected]

Constant D, Kiesler SB, Sproull LS. 1994.What'smine is ours, or is it? A studyof at-

titudesaboutinformation haring.Info. Sys.Res. 5(4):400-21

ConstantD, SproullLS, KieslerSB. 1996. Thekindnessof strangers: heusefulnessof elec-tronic weakties for technicaladvice. Organ.Sci. 7(2): Inpress

Coupland, Douglas. 1995. Microserfs. NewYork:HarperCollins

CravenP,WellmanBS. 1973.The networkcity.Soc. Inquiry43:57-88

CullenDL. 1995. Psychotherapyn cyberspace.Clinician26(2):1, 6-7

Culnan MJ, Markus ML. 1987. Informationtechnologies.In Handbookof OrganizationalCommunication,d. FM Jablin,LL Putnam,KH Roberts,LW Porter,pp. 420-43. New-buryPark,CA: Sage

Cybergal.1995.Theyearof livingdangerously.TorontoLife-Fashion1995:104-9

Daft R, Lengel R. 1986. Organizationalin-formationrequirements,media richnessandstructural esign.Manage.Sci. 32:554-71

DanetB, RudenbergL, Rosenbaum-TamariY1996.Hmmm...Where's ll thatsmoke com-

ing from?Writing,playandperformance nInternetRelayChat.In Networkand Netplay,ed. S Rafaeli, F Sudweeks, M McLaughlin.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Inpress

Danet B, WachenhauserT, Bechar-IsraeliC,CividalliA, Rosenblum-Tamari . 1995.Cur-tain time 20:00 GMT:Experimentsn virtualtheateron internetrelay chat. J. Computer-Mediated Commun.1(2):online URL http-//www.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/voll/issue2

DanowitzAK, Nassef Y, GoodmanSE. 1995.Cyberspaceacross the Sahara:computing n

NorthAfrica.Commun.ACM38(12):23-28Dillon T. 1995. Mappingthe discourseof HCIresearcherswith citationanalysis.SigchiBull.27(4):56-62







234 WELLMANET AL

Di MartinoV, WirthL. 1990. Telework:a newway of working and living. Int. Labour Rev.129(5):529-54

Dimitrova D, Garton L, SalaffJ, Wellman B.1994. Strategic connectivity: communica-tions and control. Pres. Sunbelt Soc. Net-works Conf., New Orleans

Dourish P, Bly S. 1992. Portholes: support-

ing awareness n a distributedwork group.InProc. CHI '92, ed. P Bauersfeld,J Bennett,GLynch, pp. 541-47. NY: ACM Press

DuBrin AJ. 1991. Comparisonof the job sat-isfaction and productivityof telecommutersversus in-house employees. Psychol. Rep.68:1223-34

DurrenbergerG, JaegerandC, Bieri L, Dahin-den U. 1996. Telework and vocationalcon-tact. Technol.Stud. Inpress

Duxbury L, Higgins C. 1995. SummaryRe-port of Telework. Pilot Product Number

750008XPE,Statistics Canada. 57 pp.The Economist. 1995. Mais oi sont les cafes

d'antan. The EconomistJune10, p. 50Electronic Mail Association. 1992. Electronic

Mail Market Research Results. Arlington,VA.

Emmett R. 1982.VNET or GRIPENET.Data-mation 4:48-58

Eveland JD, Bikson TK. 1988. Work groupstructures ndcomputer upport.ACMTransOfficeInfo. Sys.6:354-79

FalconerKF. 1993. Space,gender,and work in

thecontextof technologicalchange: telecom-mutingwomen.PhD thesis. Univ. Kentucky,Lexington.202 pp.

Feld S. 1982. Social structuraldeterminants fsimilarityamongassociates.Am.Sociol. Rev.47:797-801

Feldman MS. 1987. Electronic mail and weakties in organizations. Office Tech. People3:83-101

FinholtT,SproullL. 1990. Electronicgroupsatwork.Organ.Sci. 1(1):41-64

FinholtT,SproullL,KieslerS. 1990.Communi-

cation andperformancen ad hoc taskgroups.See Galegheret al 1990, pp. 291-325Fischer C. 1975.Toward subculturalheoryof

urbanism.Am. J. Sociol. 80:1319-41Fish R, KrautR, Root R, Rice R. 1993. Video

as a technologyfor informalcommunication.Commun.ACM36(1):48-61

FoderaroL. 1995. Seekers of self-help findingit on line. New YorkTimes,March23

Fox R. 1995. Newstrack. Commun. ACM38(8):11-12

Frank J. 1995. Preparing for the informa-

tion highway: informationtechnology inCanadian households. Can. Soc. TrendsAutumn:2-7

FreemanL. 1986.Theimpactof computerbased

communicationon the social structureof anemerging scientific speciality.Soc. Networks6:201-21

FrenchKJF.1988. Job satisfactionsandfamilysatisfactions of in home workers comparedwith out of home workers.PhD thesis. Univ.Calif., Berkeley

FritzME, Higa K, NarasimhanS. 1994. Tele-work: exploring the borderless office. InProc. 27thAnn.HawaiiInt. Conf on Sys. Sci.,ed. JF Nunamaker,RH SpragueJr., IV:149-58. Washington,DC: IEEEPress. 971 pp.

Fulk J, Boyd B. 1991. Emerging theories ofcommunicationn organizations.J. Manage.17(2):407-46

FulkJ, DeSanctis G. 1995. Electronic commu-nicationandchanging organizational orms.Organ.Sci. 6(4):337-349

FulkJ, SteinfieldCW. 1990. OrganizationsandCommunicationTechnology.Newbury Park,

CA: SageFurlong MS. 1989. An electronic community

for older adults: the SeniorNetnetwork. J.Commun. 9(3):145-153

GalegherJ, KrautR, Egido C. ed. 1990. Intel-lectual Teamwork.Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum

GartonL. 1995. An EmpiricalAnalysis of Desk-top Videoconferencing nd Other Media ina SpatiallyDistributed WorkGroup. Laval,Que: Ctr.for Inform.Technol. Innovation

GartonL, WellmanB. 1995. Social impactsofelectronic mail in organizations: a review

of the research iterature.Commun.Yearbk.18:434-53GersonJ,KrautR. 1988. Clericalworkathome

or in the office? See Christensen1988, pp.49-64

GranthamCE, Paul ED. 1994. Thegreening oforganizationalchange: a case study.Work.Pap. Inst. Study of DistributedWork. Oak-land,CA. 26 pp.

Grey M, HodsonN, GordonG. 1993. Telework-ing Explained.Toronto:Wiley.289 pp.

Gupta S, Pitkow J, Recker M. 1995. Con-

sumer Survey of WWWUsers. Website:http:llwww.wmich.edu/sgupta/hermes.htmlHaythornthwaiteC, Wellman B, Mantei M.

1995. Work relationshipsand media use.GroupDecisions & Negotiations 4(3):193-211

Heck R, Owen A, Rowe B. eds. 1995. Home-Based Employmentand FamilyLife. West-port,CT:AuburnHouse

Heilmann W. 1988. The organizationaldevel-opmentof teleprogramming. ee Korteet al1988, pp.39-61

Helms R, MaromR. 1992. Telecommuting:ACorporatePrimer: IBM Tech.Rep.No. TR-74.098. Toronto:IBM

HerringSC. 1993. Gender and democracyin








computer-mediated ommunication.Elect. J.Commun.3(2):On-line/unpaginated. Avail-able throughComserveat vm.its.rpi.edu)

Hesse BW, GranthamCE. 1991. Electronicallydistributedwork communities.Work. Pap.Ctr. for Res. on Tech., Am. Inst. for Res. 33

PP.Hesse BW, Sproull LS, Kiesler SB, Walsh JP.

1993. Returns o science computernetworksin oceanography.Commun.ACM. 36(8):90-101

Higgins C, DuxburyL, Lee C. 1992. Balancingwork and family: a study of Canadianpri-vatesectoremployees.Work.Pap.Sch. Bus.Admin, Univ. WesternOntario.107 pp.

Hiltz SR, JohnsonK, Agle G. 1978. Replicat-ing Bales ProblemSolving Experimentsona ComputerizedConference. ComputerizedConferencingand CommunicationsCtr.NewJerseyInst. Technol.

Hiltz SR, Johnson K, Turoff M. 1986. Ex-perimentsin groupdecision making: com-municationprocessand outcome in face-to-face versuscomputerized onferences.Hum.Commun.Res. 13(2):225-52

Hiltz SR, TuroffM. 1993.TheNetworkNation.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press

HindsP,KieslerS. 1995.Communication crossboundaries:work, structure, nduse of com-munication echnologiesin a large organiza-tion. Organ.Sci. 6(4):373-393

Hodson R, Parker R. 1988. Work in high-

technology settings:areview of theempiricalliterature.Res. Soc. Work :1-29Huber GP. 1990. A theory of the effects of

advanced nformation echnologieson orga-nizationaldesign, intelligence, and decisionmaking.See Fulk & Steinfield1990, pp.237-74

HuffC, SproullLS,KieslerSB. 1989. Computercommunicationand organizationalcommit-ment: tracingthe relationship n a city gov-ernment.J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 19:1371-91

Huws U. 1988. Remotepossibilities:some dif-

ficulties in the analysisandquantification ftelework n the UK. See Korteet al 1988, pp.61-76

Huws U, KorteWB, RobinsonS. 1990. Tele-work:Towards heElusiveOffice.Chichester,England: Wiley. 273 pp.

InsightNew Media. 1995. Internetacts: anti-hype or theinformation ge.Work.Pap.De-cember

IshiiH. 1992.ClearBoard:A seamless mediumfor shareddrawingand conversationwitheyecontact.InProc. ACMConf on HumanFac-

tors in Comp. Sys. CHI '92, 525-32. NY:ACM Press. 714 pp.Johnson-LenzP,Johnson-LenzT. 1978. Onfa-

cilitatingnetworks for social change. Con-

nections 1:5-11Johnson-Lenz P, Johnson-Lenz T. 1990. Is-

landsof safety for unlockinghumanpotential.AwakeningTechnol.3:1-6

Johnson-LenzP,Johnson-LenzT. 1994.Group-ware for a small planet. In Groupwaren the21st Century, d. P Lloyd, pp. 269-85. Westport, CT: Praeser

Jones SG. 1995. Understandingcommunityin the information age. In CyberSoci-ety: Computer-MediatedCommunciationand Community, d. SG Jones, pp. 10-35.ThousandOaks, CA: Sage

Kadushin C, LererN, TumeltyS, Reichler J.1987. "Witha little help from myfriends":Who helps whom with computers? Work.Pap. Ctr.Soc. Res., City Univ. of New York.54 pp.

Kaufer D, Carley K. 1993. Communication ta Distance: TheInfluenceof Print on Socio-

culturalOrganization ndChange.Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.474 pp.

Kaye AR. 1992. Computer conferencing andmass distanceeducation. nEmpoweringNet-works,ed. M Waggoner,Englewood Cliffs,NJ:EducationalTechnology

KieslerSB, SiegalJ,McGuireTW.1984.Socialpsychological aspectsof computer-mediatedcommunication.Am.Psychol.39 (10):1123-34

Kiesler SB, Sproull LS. 1988. Technologicaland Social Change n OrganizationalComm-

unicationEnvironments.Pittsburg:CarnegieMellon Univ. PressKiesler SB, SproullLS. 1992. Groupdecision

makingand communicationechnology.Org.Behav. Hum.Decision Proc. 52:96-123

KieslerSB, Sproull LS, Eccles JS. 1985. Poolhalls, chips, and war games: women in theculture of computing. Psychol. WomenQ.9:451-62

King S. 1994. Analysis of electronic supportgroupsfor recoveringaddicts.InterpersonalComp.Tech.2(3):47-56

KinsmanF. 1987. The Telecommuters.Chich-ester,UK:Wiley. 234 pp.Kling R. 1996. Synergiesand competitionbe-

tween life in cyberspace and face-to-facecommunities.Soc. Sci. Comp.Rev.14(1):50-54

Kling R. 1996a. Computerization nd Contro-versy. San Diego: Academic Press. 2nd ed.Inpress

Kling R. 1996b. Social relationshipsin elec-tronicforums: Hangouts,salons, workplacesand communities.See Kling 1996a

Kling R, JewettT. 1994. The social design ofworklife with computersand networks: anopennatural ystems perspective.Adv. Com-puters39:239-293







236 WELLMANET AL

Kling R, LambR. 1996. Analyzing visions ofelectronic publishingand digital libraries.InScholarly Publishing: The ElectronicFron-tier,eds. GB Newby,R Peek. CambridgeMA:MITPress. In press.

Kochen M. 1989. The Small World.Norwood,NJ: Ablex

Kollock P, SmithMA. 1996a. Communities nCyberspace.Berkeley:Univ.Calif. Press

Kollock P, Smith MA. 1996b. Managing thevirtual commons: cooperation and con-flict in computercommunities.In Computer-Mediated Communication, ed. S Herring.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.In press

KoppelR, AppelbaumE, Albin P. 1988. Impli-cationsof workplace nformation echnology:control,organization f work andthe occupa-tional structure.Res. Soc. Work :125-152

KorteWB, RobinsonS, Steinle WJ. 1988. Tele-work: Present Situation and Future Devel-

opmentofa New Formof WorkOrganization.Bonn: Elsevier Science

KrautRE. 1988. Homework:What s itandwhodoes it? See Christensen1988, pp. 30-48

KrautRE. 1989.Telecommuting:he trade-offsof home work. J. Commun.39(3):19-47

KrautRE, Attewell P. 1993. Electronic mailand organizational knowledge.Work. Pap.CarnegieMellon Univ.

KrautRE, ScherlisW,MukhopadhyayT,Man-ning J, Kiesler S. 1995. HomeNet: A fieldtrialof residentialnternet ervices. HomeNet

1(2):1-8Kugelmass J. 1995. Telecommuting:A Man-

ager's Guide oFlexibleWorkArrangements.New York:Lexington.226 pp.

Labaton,S. 1995. Clintonpapers' ndex in Fos-ter office vanished after suicide, aide says.New YorkTimes,August2

Latan6B, DarleyJ. 1976. Help in a Crisis: By-standerResponseto an Emergency.Morris-town, NJ:GeneralLearning

Lea M. 1991. Rationalist assumptions incross-media comparisons of computer-

mediated communication.Behav.Info. Tech.10(2):153-172LeaM, SpearsR. 1992. Paralanguagend social

perception n computer-mediatedommuni-cation.J. Org. Comp.2(3-4):321-41

Lea M, Spears R. 1995. Love at first byte?Building personal relationshipsover com-puter networks. In UnderstudiedRelation-ships, ed. JT Wood, S Duck, pp. 197-233.ThousandOaks,CA: Sage

Lea M, O'Shea T, Fung P. 1995. Construct-ing the networkedorganization.Organ.Sci.

6(4):462-78Lea M, O'Shea T, Fung P, Spears R. 1992.'Flaming'in computer-mediated ommuni-cation. In Contextsof Computer-Mediated

Communication, d.MLea, pp.89-112. NewYork: HarvesterWheatsheaf

Lewis PH. 1994. Strangers,not theircomputers,build a network in time of grief. New YorkTimes,8 March:Al, D2

Lewis P. 1995. Report of high internet use ischallenged.New YorkTimes December 13).

Lewis P. 1996. Prodigysaid to be in role of asilent son.New YorkTimes January16).

Lucky R. 1995. Whattechnology alone cannotdo. Sci.Am. 273(3):204-5

Maes P. 1995. Artificial life meets entertain-ment: lifelike autonomousagents. Commun.ACM38(11):108-114

Mantei MM, BaeckerR, Sellen A, BuxtonW,MilliganT, WellmanBS. 1991. Experiencesin the use of a mediaspace.In CHI '91 ConfProc., ed. SP Roberson,GM Olson, JS Olson,pp.203-208. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.511 pp.

Mantei MM, WellmanBS. 1995. From group-ware to netware. Work.Pap. Ctr Urban &Commun.Stud.,Univ. Toronto

MarkusML. 1990. Toward "criticalmass" he-ory of interactivemedia.See Fulk & Stein-field 1990, pp. 194-218

MarkusML. 1994a.Findinga happymedium:explainingthe negative mpactsof electroniccommunicationon social life at work. ACMTrans. nfo. Sys. 12(2):119-149

Markus ML. 1994b. Electronic mail as themedium of managerialchoice. Organ. Sci.

5:502-27Marx G, Virnoche M. 1995. Only connect':

E.M. Forster n an age of computerization:acase study of the establishmentof a commu-nitynetwork.Pres.Am. Sociol.Assoc., Wash-ington,DC

McClintock CC. 1981. Working Alone To-gether: Managing Telecommuting.Pres. atNatl. Telecommun.Conf.,Houston

McCormickN, McCormickJ. 1992. Computerfriends and foes: contentof undergraduates'electronic mail. Computers n Hum. Behav.

8:379-405McKinney E. 1995. New data on the size ofthe internet and the matrix. Online URL:http://www.tic.com,October.

Mele C. 1996. Access tocyberspaceandthe em-powermentof disadvantagedcommunities.See Kollock & Smith1996

Meyer GR. 1989. The Social Organizationofthe ComputerUnderground.Master'sthesis.N. Ill. Univ.

MitchellW. 1995.CityofBits: Space, TimeandtheInfobahn.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press

Moore G. 1997. Sharing faces, places andspaces: the OntarioTelepresenceProject.InVideo-MediatedCommunication,d. KFinn,A Sellen, S Wilbur.Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence








Erlbaum.ForthcomingMowshowitz A. 1994. Virtualorganization:a

vision of managementn the information ge.Info.Soc. 10:267-88

Newsweek. 1995. Cyberspacetilts right. Jan.27:30

O'Brien J. 1996. Gender on (the) line: anerasable institution? See Kollock & Smith1996

Olson MH. 1987. Telework:Practicalexperi-ence and futureprospects.InTechnology ndtheTransformationf White-CollarWork,d.R Kraut,pp. 135-55. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum

OlsonMH.1988. Organizationalarrierso tele-work. See Korteet al 1988, pp.77-100

Olson MH, PrimpsSB. 1984. Workingat homewithcomputers:work and nonwork ssues.J.Soc. Iss. 40(3):97-112

Olszewski P, Mokhtarian P. 1994. Telecom-muting frequencyand impacts for state of

California mployees.Tech.ForecastingSoc.Change45:275-86

OnlineResearchGroup.1995.Definingthe In-ternet Opportunity1994-1995. Sebastopol,CA:O'Reilly

OrlikowskiWJ, YatesJ, OkamuraK, FujimotoM. 1995.Shapingelectroniccommunication:the metastructuringf technology n the con-text of use. Organ.Sci. 6(4):423-44

Perin P. 1991. Les usages privesdu telephone.Commun.&Strate6gies2):157-62

Pickering JM, King JL. 1995. Hardwiring

weak ties: interorganizationalcomputer-mediatedcommunication, ccupational om-munities, and organizational hange. Organ.Sci. 6(4):479-86

PitkowJ,Kehoe C. 1995.ThirdWWWUserSur-vey: ExecutiveSummary.Online. Internet:WWW http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user-surveys/survey/or/1995,Graphic,Visualiza-ton andUsabilityCenter,GeorgiaInst.Tech-nol.

PliskinN, Romm CT. 1994. Empowerment f-fects of electronicgroupCommunication:a

cavestudy.Work.Pap.Dep.Manage.,FacultyCommerce,Univ.Wollongong

Reid E. 1996.Hierarchy ndpower:socialcon-trol n cyberspace.See Kollock&Smith 1996

Rheingold H. 1993. The VirtualCommunity.Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.325 pp.

Rice R. 1987.Computer-mediatedommunica-tion and organizationalnnovation.J. Com-mun.37(4):65-95

Rice R, Love G. 1987. Electronic emo-tion: socioemotional contentin a computer-mediatedcommunicationnetwork.Commun.

Res. 14(l):85-108Rice R, Steinfeld C. 1994. Experienceswithnew forms of organizational ommunicationvia electronic mail and voice messaging.In

Telematicsand Work,ed. JE Andriessen, RRoe, pp. 109-137. E. Sussex, UK: Lea

Riecken D. ed. 1994. Intelligent agents. Com-mun.ACM37(7):18-146

Salaff J, Dimitrova D. 1995a. Teleworking:a review of studies of this internationalbusiness applicationof telecommunications.Work.Pap. Toronto,Ctr for UrbanCommu-nity Stud., Univ.Toronto

Salaff J, Dimitrova D. 1995b. Teleworking:a review of studies of this internationalbusinessapplicationof telecommunications.Pres. Conf. Global Business in Transition:Prospects or the 21st Century,Hong Kong

ShadeLR. 1994.Is sisterhoodvirtual?:Womenon the electronic frontier.Trans.RoyalSoci-ety CanadaVI 5:13142

SharplesM,ed. 1993.ComputerSupported ol-laborativeWriting.London: Springer-Verlag

ShirleyS. 1988. Telework n theUK. See Korte

et al 1988, pp.23-33Siegel J,DubrovskyV,KieslerS, McGuireTW.

1986.Groupprocesses ncomputer-mediatedcommunication.Org.Behav. Hum. DecisionProc. 37:157-87

Simons T. 1994. Expandingthe boundariesofemployment: professional work at home.PhD thesis. CornellUniv. 215 pp.

SloukaM. 1995.Warofthe Worlds:Cyberspaceand the High-TechAssault on Reality.NewYork:Basic Books. 185 pp.

Smith AD. 1996.Problemsof conflictmanage-

ment in virtualcommunities.See Kollock &Smith 1996

Soares AS. 1992. Telework and communica-tion in data processing centres in Brazil.InTechnology-Mediatedommunication, d.UE Gattiker,pp. 117-145. Berlin: WalterdeGruyter

Southwick S. 1996. Liszt: Searchable Di-rectory of E-Mail Discussion Groups.http://www.liszt.com. BlueMarble Inform.Serv.

Sproull LS, FarajS. 1995. Atheism, sex and

databases.In Public Access to the Internet,ed. B. Kahin, J Keller, 62-81. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press

Sproull LS, Kiesler SB. 1991. Connections:New Waysof Workingn the NetworkedOr-ganization. Boston, MA: MIT Press. 205

PP.Star SL. 1993. Cooperationwithout consensus

in scientific problemsolving: dynamics ofclosure in open systems. In CSCW: Coop-eration or Conflict?,ed. S Easterbrook,pp.93-106. Berlin:Springer-Verlag

Steinfield C. 1985. Dimensions of electronicmailusein anorganizationaletting. Org.Be-hav.Hum.Dec. Proc. 37:157-87

Steinle WJ. 1988. Telework. See Korte et al







238 WELLMANETAL

1988,pp.7-19Stephenson N. 1992. Snow Crash.New York:

BantamStinchcombeAL. 1990.Information nd Orga-

nizations.Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. 391pp-

Stoll C. 1995. Silicon Snake Oil: SecondThoughtson theInformationHighway.NewYork:Doubleday.247 pp.

Tippin D. 1994. Controlprocesses in distantworksituations: the case of satellite offices.Presentedat Can. Sociol. & Anthro.Assoc.,Calgary

TofflerA. 1980. The ThirdWave.New York:Morrow

TolbertPS,Simons T. 1994.The mpactofwork-ing at home on career outcomesof profes-sional employees.Work.Pap.94-04: Schoolof Industrialand Labor Relations, Ctr. forAdv.HumanResourceStudies, CornellUniv.

21 pp.TreeseW. 1995. TheInternetIndexNumber6.

On-line: [email protected], ParankaD, GeorgeJF,Nunamker

JFJr.1993.Communicationoncurrency ndthe new media.Commun.Res. 20:249-76

WalshJP,BayamaT. 1996.Computernetworksandscientificwork.Soc. Stud.Sci.26(4): Inpress

Walther JB. 1992. Interpersonal effectsincomputer-mediated nteraction: a rela-tional perspective.Commun.Res. 19(1):52-

90Walther JB. 1994. Anticipatedongoing inter-action versus channel effects on relationalcommunication n computer-mediatednter-action.Hum.Commun.Res. 20(4):473-501

WaltherJB. 1995. Relationalaspects of comp-uter-mediatedcommunication.Organ. Sci.6(2):186-203

Walther JB. 1996. Computer-mediated om-munication: impersonal, interpersonalandhyperpersonal interaction. Commun. Res.23(1):3-43

Walther JB, Anderson JF, Park DW. 1994.Interpersonaleffects in computer-mediatedinteraction: a meta-analysisof social andanti-social communication.Commun.Res.21(4):460-87

Weick K. 1976. Educationalorganizationsas

loosely coupled systems. Admin. Sci. Q.21:1-19

WeisbandS, Reinig B. 1995. Managinguserperceptionsof emailprivacy.Commun.ACM38(12):40-47

WeisbandSP,SchneiderSK, ConnollyT. 1995.Computer-mediatedommunicationand so-cial information: status salience and sta-tusdifference.Acad.Manage.J. 38(4):1124-1151

WellmanBS. 1979. The communityquestion.Am. J. Sociol. 84:1201-31

WellmanBS. 1992. Men in networks: privatecommunities,domesticfriendships. nMen'sFriendships,ed. P Nardi,74-114. NewburyPark,CA: Sage

WellmanBS. 1994.1 was ateenagenetworkan-alyst: the route from the Bronx to the in-formationhighway. Connections 17(2):28-45

WellmanBS. 1995. Lay referralnetworks: us-ing conventionalmedicine and alternativetherapies orlow backpain.Soc. HealthCare12:213-23

WellmanBS. 1996.Anelectronicgroup s virtu-allya socialnetwork. nResearchMilestoneson the InformationHighway,ed. S Kiesler.Hillsdale, NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. n press

WellmanBS, GuliaM. 1996. Net surfersdon'tride alone: virtualcommunitiesas commu-nities. In Communitiesn Cyberspace,ed. PKollock, M Smith. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.

PressWellmanBS, SalaffJ, DimitrovaD, GartonL.

1994. Thevirtualrealityof virtualorganiza-tions.Pres.atAm. Sociol. Assoc., Los Ange-les

WellmanBS, TindallD. 1993. Reach out andtouchsomebodies:howsocialnetworkscon-necttelephonenetworks.ProgressCommun.Sci. 12:63-93

WiremanP. 1984. UrbanNeighborhoods,Net-worksandFamilies.Lexington,MA:Lexing-ton Books

Zack MH, McKenney JL. 1995. Social con-text and interaction in ongoing computer-supportedmanagementgroups. Organ.Sci.6(4):394-422

ZuboffS. 1988. IntheAgeoftheSmartMachine.New York:Basic

Documents

B. Wellman Et Alias, Computer Networks as Social Networks, 1996