COMMUNICATION: SMALL GROUPS & INTERNET

Studies of network effects on communication began at MIT in 1940s with Alex Bavelas & Harold Leavitt’s experiments on collective puzzle-solving using cubicle-constrained channels for passing information.

Chain Y

Circle Wheel/star

For simple tasks, wheel and Y have faster puzzle-solution times. For complex tasks, circle and all-channel form are quicker.

Centralization is moderating factor: Clear info flows more rapidly in centralized nets, but unevenly distributed & ambiguous info faster in decentralized.

Information decays with network distance: Where d is path distance (length), probability of i passing info to j given k independent paths is:

kdijp )1(1

Small group research revived in 1990s as orgs searched for optimal internal structures & external network embeddedness (Katz et al. 2004).

An MTML FrameworkPeter Monge & Noshir Contractor (2003) proposed an integrative multitheoretical multilevel (MTML) framework of core mechanisms to explain the evolution of complex adaptive communication networks.

Table 1.1 classifies as the core theories as Self-Interest, Mutual Self-Interest & Collective Action, Cognitive, Contagion, Exchange & Dependency, Homophily & Proximity, and Network Evolution

Exogenous attributes of actors

Exogenous relations in networks

Structure of the focal network

Endogenous mechanisms

MTML “seeks to examine the extent to which the structural tendencies of organizational networks are influenced by multitheoretical hypotheses operating at multiple levels of analysis” (p. 69).

Homophily implies preferred ties to other actors sharing same attributes

H6: The network demonstrates a structural tendency toward choice, mutuality, transitivity, and … a differential tendency toward choice of other actors in the same block.

THE INTERNET – Invented by Al Gore?Communication technology of Internet followed S-shape diffusion curve:

• 1968 DARPA creates ARPAnet for defense contractors

• 1970 Five nodes: Stanford, ULCA, UCSB, Utah, BBN

• 1974 Transfer Control Protocol (TCP) specification

• 1984 Internet with 1,000 host computers converts to TCP/IP

File to be transmitted is split into many small packets, each assigned a number, containing information about its content and destination

Packet data streams travel via network-of-networks (server computers or “hosts”), following different paths, and may be repackaged enroute

At destination, original file reassembled from packets for reading/viewing

Internet is a packet-switching network. Packet is a data unit created by TCP software for transmission using domain names and Internet Protocol addresses.

Exponential Growth of HostsGrowth of Internet Hosts *

Sept. 1969 - Sept. 2002

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

Time Period

No.

of H

osts

SOURCE, William F. Slater, III

By 2010, will 80% of the Planet Earth be on Internet!?

The WORLDWIDE WEBWeb browsers emerged by the 1990s for finding and downloading Webpages, data, documents, multimedia.

In 1989, Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web at CERN’s European Particle Physics Lab, applying HyperText Markup Language (HTML). He now directs the W3 Consortium of orgs that develop interoperable technology standards.

Commercial firms that market directories & search engines cover only small % of all Web content. But, data from their site- and page-links enable researchers to visualize the Internet and Web social structures as network diagrams.

A Geographic Internet Map

Note super-clusters in North America (purple circle ≥ 1 million hosts) and Europe (predominantly blue circles). What evidence do you perceive of North-South “digital divide” paralleling their economies?

John Quarterman mapped geographic locations of Internet hosts as symbols on a world map (The Matrix: Computer Networks and Conferencing Systems Worldwide. 1990. Digital Press). Count N of hosts in major cities and countries, then plot on world map as colored circles proportional to size.

SOURCE: Internet Domain Survey July 1999 <http://mappa.mundi.net/maps/maps_007/>

The Internet Mapping ProjectInternet Mapping Project started at Bell Labs in 1998, spun-off to Lumeta Corp in 2000. Map shows frequent trace-route-style path probes, one to each registered Internet entity. Objectives: acquire, save topological data over long period, to analyze routing problems, service-denial attacks, and graph theory.

Internet map published in Wired (1998), for 100,000 nodes based on “half a dozen simple rules, simulating various springs and repelling forces.” SOURCE: <http://research.lumeta.com/ches/map>

“The early results looked like a peacock smashed into a windshield.”

“We have no interest in the specific endpoints or network services on those endpoints, just the topology of the ‘center’ of the Internet. The database should help show how the Internet grows. We think we can even make a movie of this growth someday.”

Mapping Major ISPsThis Internet map has a diameter of ~10,000 ‘pookies’ (an arbitrary distance unit)

How to Become Very Popular on Google

Google’s hypertext search software, PageRank™, for ranking Webpages using link structures to indicate individual page values. Google treats page A’s citation of page B as a “vote” by page A for page B. But, Google also takes into account A’s page rank. Votes cast by “important” pages count more heavily, helping make other pages more “important.”

More generally, weighted-status methods calculate an ego’s power within a network as a function of all its alters’ powers.

“We assume page A has pages T1...Tn which point to it (i.e., are citations). … C(A) is defined as the number of links going out of page A. The PageRank of a page A is given as:

PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))

Note that the PageRanks form a probability distribution over web pages, so the sum of all web pages' PageRanks will be one. PageRank or PR(A) can be calculated using a simple iterative algorithm, and corresponds to the principal eigenvector of the normalized link matrix of the web.”

Ian Rogers. “The Google PageRank Algorithm and How It Works.” <http://www.iprcom.com/papers/pagerank/>

By 2002, about 95% of browsing used Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, but 75% of external referrals on most Websites were from Google.

INTERNET in EVERYDAY LIFE“Cyberspace” is the social counterpart to the Internet’s physical technologies. Social network researchers examine how Internet users adapt their ties to its constraints and vice versa.

Barry Wellman asked a variant of The Community Question: “How do large-scale divisions of labor affect – and are affected by – smaller-scale community of kith and kin?” How have Internet & community transformed one another?

How is the Internet being incorporated into everyday life?Does the Internet multiply, decrease, add to

- other forms of communication?- overall communication?

How is the structure of interpersonal relations affected?How does everyday life affect the Internet?

THREE INTERACTION MODES

Phenomena Little Boxes:Door-to-Door

Glocalization:Place-to-Place

Networked Individualism: Person-to-Person

Metaphor Fishbowl Core-Periphery

Switchboard

Unit of Analysis Village, Band, Shop, Office

Household, Work, Unit, Multiple Networks

Networked Individual

Social Organization

Groups Home Bases Network of Networks

Networked Individualism

Era Traditional Contemporary Emerging

Are communities shifting from densely-knit “little boxes” to “glocalized” nets (sparsely-knit with clusters, linking households locally & globally) to “networked individualism” (sparsely-knit, linking individuals with little regard to space)?

Rise of Networked IndividualismSociety moving from relations bound up in groups to a multiple

network – and networking – society, characterized by:Longer-distance ties, sparsely-knit, loosely-bounded, multi-fociTransitory, weaker ties, less caring for strangers = alienation?Flexible networks are major sources of social capital

Barry Wellman. “Netting Together” <www.ksg.harvard.edu/digitalcenter/ event/wellman%20workshop.ppt>

CHANGES DRIVING NETWORKED INDIVIDUALISM• Transportation & communication becoming more individualized

• Affordable, portable computerization allows greater personalization

• Multiple employers, sequentially and contemporaneous

• Separation of work and home as physical places

• Working away from workplace: Telework, flextime, road warrior

• Dual careers – multiple schedules to juggle

NETVILLE WIREDCase study of “Netville,” a new planned suburb of Toronto, offered clues about how the Internet becomes embedded into everyday lives. Some residents chose Bell Canada’s no-cost Internet services. Keith Hampton field ethnography was complemented by a survey about Netville residents’ Internet usage and networking.

One year after moving in, wired Netville residents had enhanced local ties & expanded weak ties. Compared to nonwired, wired people: (1) had more social contact, especially > 500 km; (2) gave more help: childcare, home repair; (3) received help from friends and relatives, esp. 50-500 km.

Keith Hampton & Barry Wellman. 2003. “Neighboring in Netville.” City & Community

Altho getting wired expectedly sustained more distant community ties, it surprisingly also increased local face-to-face neighboring: “The local becomes just another interest.”

Figure 5a: Frequency of Contact with Far-Away Friends (Days/Year)

19 17 15 1925

10 90

29

86

48

2836

63

128

35

17

71

884

7

17

7 6 87660

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/ wk Daily

Email Use

Total Phone F2F Email Letters

Figure 3a: Frequency of Contact with Near-By Friends (Days/Year)

345

72 83

5 6 9

236

194192207

248

11097102109

136 124

7687106 9236

191

120

975

650

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Never Rarely Monthly Weekly Few times/wk Daily

Email UseTotal Phone F2F Email Letters

• Connectivity changes by all available means - door-to-door, place-to-place, and person-to-person

• Less-solidary households, and more networked & virtual work relationships

• New forms of community, partial memberships in multiple communities

Conclusion: Community Transformed

Partial communities comprised of shared, specialized interests

Networked society is both more uncertain & more maneuverable – for people with the tools & skills