Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Community and Social Networks, Part Two
As stated in my January 22nd posting "Community and Social Networks, Part One", Wellman (1997) considers six characteristics of social networks:
Dense, bounded groups, such as an office distribution list, almost always have a small range, that is, the population within the group is fairly homogenous. On the other hand, sparse, unbounded groups tend to have a large range, meaning they tend to have a heterogenous population, which motivates a greater diversity of relationships. Some members of electronic groups prefer to and do have one-on-one conversations with other members via email whether the group supports exclusivity or not. However, if members of a group do not know any other member's email address or other personal contact information, then private conversations aren't going to happen because all contact is public among members.
Exclusivity is linked to social control. The ability of two members to carry on a conversation in private with and out of view of the rest of the group is dependent upon the control that someone or the group has over members' contacts with other members. In terms of an office group, it may be the group's supervisor or another higher up that works to ensure that everyone works together and communicates publicly. On the other hand, there may be a promise in the conditions of joining a group that all contacts with people in the group stay within the group. Sparse, unbounded groups tend to have less social control "because of their weak interconnectivity" (Wellman, 1997, p. 194).
One could expect that the strength of relationships in dense, bounded groups are stronger than those in sparse, unbounded groups; however, that is not necesssarily the case. If a dense, bounded group is composed of members who were involuntarily assigned by a supervisor to be in the group, the ties may be weak because members didn't come together out of shared interest or mutual gain. Instead, the reason d'être of the group may be to assist in the implementation and completion of a group project and nothing more than that. Just as friendships cannot be forced on people in real space, friendships cannot be forceably created in cyberspace. Strong ties, such as friendship, arise voluntarily. Strong ties tend to provide emotional support, companionship, goods and services, and a sense of belonging (Wellman, 1997, p. 196).
Bibliography:
Wellman, Barry. 1997. "An Electronic Group Is Virtually A Social Network" in Culture of the Internet. Sara Kiesler, ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 179-208.
- Density,
- Boundedness,
- Range,
- Exclusivity,
- Social Control, and
- Tie Strength.
Dense, bounded groups, such as an office distribution list, almost always have a small range, that is, the population within the group is fairly homogenous. On the other hand, sparse, unbounded groups tend to have a large range, meaning they tend to have a heterogenous population, which motivates a greater diversity of relationships. Some members of electronic groups prefer to and do have one-on-one conversations with other members via email whether the group supports exclusivity or not. However, if members of a group do not know any other member's email address or other personal contact information, then private conversations aren't going to happen because all contact is public among members.
Exclusivity is linked to social control. The ability of two members to carry on a conversation in private with and out of view of the rest of the group is dependent upon the control that someone or the group has over members' contacts with other members. In terms of an office group, it may be the group's supervisor or another higher up that works to ensure that everyone works together and communicates publicly. On the other hand, there may be a promise in the conditions of joining a group that all contacts with people in the group stay within the group. Sparse, unbounded groups tend to have less social control "because of their weak interconnectivity" (Wellman, 1997, p. 194).
One could expect that the strength of relationships in dense, bounded groups are stronger than those in sparse, unbounded groups; however, that is not necesssarily the case. If a dense, bounded group is composed of members who were involuntarily assigned by a supervisor to be in the group, the ties may be weak because members didn't come together out of shared interest or mutual gain. Instead, the reason d'être of the group may be to assist in the implementation and completion of a group project and nothing more than that. Just as friendships cannot be forced on people in real space, friendships cannot be forceably created in cyberspace. Strong ties, such as friendship, arise voluntarily. Strong ties tend to provide emotional support, companionship, goods and services, and a sense of belonging (Wellman, 1997, p. 196).
Bibliography:
Wellman, Barry. 1997. "An Electronic Group Is Virtually A Social Network" in Culture of the Internet. Sara Kiesler, ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 179-208.
