COMMUNICATION:
SMALL GROUPS & INTERNET
Studies of network effects on communication began at MIT in 1940s
with Alex Bavelas & Harold Leavitt’s experiments on collective puzzlesolving using cubicle-constrained channels for passing information.
For simple tasks, wheel and Y have faster
puzzle-solution times. For complex tasks,
circle and all-channel form are quicker.
Circle
Chain
Centralization is moderating factor: Clear
info flows more rapidly in centralized
nets, but unevenly distributed &
ambiguous info faster in decentralized.
Wheel/star
Y
Information decays with network distance: Where d is path distance (length),
probability of i passing info to j given k independent paths is:
1  (1  p )
d k
ij
Small group research revived in 1990s as orgs searched for optimal
internal structures & external network embeddedness (Katz et al. 2004).
An MTML Framework
Peter 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 SelfInterest, Mutual Self-Interest & Collective Action,
Cognitive, Contagion, Exchange & Dependency,
Homophily & Proximity, and Network Evolution
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).
Exogenous
attributes of
actors
Exogenous
relations in
networks
Homophily implies preferred ties to
other actors sharing same attributes
Structure of
the focal
network
Endogenous mechanisms
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
Internet is a packet-switching network.
Packet is a data unit created by TCP
software for transmission using domain
names and Internet Protocol addresses.
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
Exponential Growth of Hosts
Growth of Internet Hosts *
Sept. 1969 - Sept. 2002
250,000,000
No. of Hosts
200,000,000
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
9/
69
01
/7
1
01
/7
3
01
/7
4
01
/7
6
01
/7
9
08
/8
1
08
/8
3
10
/8
5
11
/8
6
07
/8
8
01
/8
9
10
/8
9
01
/9
1
10
/9
1
04
/9
2
10
/9
2
04
/9
3
10
/9
3
07
/9
4
01
/9
5
01
/9
6
01
/9
7
01
/9
8
01
/9
9
01
/0
1
08
/0
2
0
SOURCE, William F. Slater, III
Time Period
By 2010, will 80% of the Planet Earth be on Internet!?
The WORLDWIDE WEB
Web 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
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.
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?
SOURCE: Internet Domain Survey July 1999 <http://mappa.mundi.net/maps/maps_007/>
The Internet Mapping Project
Internet 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.
“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.”
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>
Mapping Major ISPs
This Internet map has a diameter of ~10,000 ‘pookies’ (an arbitrary distance unit)
How to Become Very Popular on Google
By 2002, about 95% of browsing used Microsoft’s Internet Explorer,
but 75% of external referrals on most Websites were from 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/>
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
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)?
Phenomena
Little Boxes:
Door-to-Door
Glocalization:
Place-to-Place
Networked
Individualism:
Person-to-Person
Metaphor
Fishbowl
CorePeriphery
Switchboard
Household,
Work, Unit,
Multiple
Networks
Networked
Individual
Networked
Individualism
Unit of Analysis Village, Band,
Shop, Office
Social
Organization
Groups
Home Bases
Network of
Networks
Era
Traditional
Contemporary Emerging
Rise of Networked Individualism
Society moving from relations bound up in groups to a multiple
network – and networking – society, characterized by:
Longer-distance ties, sparsely-knit, loosely-bounded, multi-foci
Transitory, weaker ties, less caring for strangers = alienation?
Flexible networks are major sources of social capital
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
Barry Wellman. “Netting Together” <www.ksg.harvard.edu/digitalcenter/ event/wellman%20workshop.ppt>
NETVILLE WIRED
Case 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.
Altho getting wired expectedly sustained more distant
community ties, it surprisingly also increased local face-toface neighboring: “The local becomes just another interest.”
Keith Hampton & Barry Wellman. 2003. “Neighboring in Netville.” City & Community
Figure 3a: Frequency of Contact with Near-By Friends (Days/Year)
400
350
345
300
250
248
236
207
200
150
136
100
106
109
102
97
87
76
72
5
19
6
50
0
194
192
1 5
6
5
Never
Rarely
110
124
120
83
92
36
9
Mont hly
Weekly
7
Few t imes/wk
9
Daily
Emai l Use
Tot al
Phone
F2F
Em ail
Let t ers
Figure 5a: Frequency of Contact with Far-Away Friends (Days/Year)
140
128
120
100
86
80
63
60
40
48
36
35
28
20
0
19
10
7
0
Never
17
7
6
1
4
Rarely
17
17
8
6
15
7
6
Monthly
Weekly
29
19
8
7
Few times/ wk
Email Use
Total
Phone
F2F
Email
Letters
25
9
8
Daily
Conclusion: Community Transformed
• 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
Partial communities comprised of
shared, specialized interests
Networked society is both more
uncertain & more maneuverable –
for people with the tools & skills