sign in sign up
<<
Home , Barry Wellman, Community studies

Project Summary E-neighbors: Social Networks and Neighborhood in the Age. Keith Hampton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Robert Putnam (2000) suggests that over the last third of the 20th century there has been a significant decline in America's social capital. People are spending less time with friends, relatives and neighbors; they are more cynical; and they are less likely to be involved in clubs and . While this decline occurs too early to be associated with the rise of home computing or the Internet, past research has concluded with mixed results as to whether the Internet will further dissociate people from those around them, or if it holds the potential to reconnect the disaffiliated (Kraut et al. 1998; Nie and Erbring 2000; Hampton 2001). The proposed research attempts to overcome the limitations of existing research by embracing the perspective (Wellman and Gulia 1999). We recognize the possibility that social ties vary in strength (Granovetter 1973), are physically dispersed (Fischer 1975; Wellman 1979), and extend across multiple foci of activity (Feld 1982). consist of far-flung kinship, workplace, interest group and neighborhood ties that together form a social network that provides aid, support, and social control (Wellman 1999). Social ties are not maintained in only one place or through one form of communication, but in multiple social settings in-person, over the phone, through the mail, and potentially over the Internet. We suggest that Internet research has largely overlooked existing sociological debate related to the impact of technological and societal change on “.” Debate about the nature of community did not originate with the introduction of new computer technologies, but arose out of earlier concerns about the transition from agrarian to urban industrial societies (e.g., Durkheim [1893] 1964; Tönnies [1887] 1957). Failing to incorporate this debate into research on Internet use has lead researchers to look in the wrong places for any effect that new information and communication technologies might have on community. Through the use of case studies and a quasi-experimental model the objectives of this research project are to I) examine the relationship between Internet use and the size and composition of people’s social networks, and ii) explore the potential for new information and communication technologies to expand social networks, social capital and community involvement at the local level. This project proposes a longitudinal survey of the residents of four Boston area neighborhoods. Each resident 18 years of age and older will be surveyed to examine the role of Internet use on the composition, structure and supportive content of personal and neighborhood social networks. Residents will be compared by neighborhood type and extent of Internet use (including non-Internet and non-computer users). Following the first wave of surveying three of the four neighborhoods will be given access to a series of free Internet services designed to facilitate the sharing of information and resources at the local level. A second and third wave of surveying will examine the impact of these services on residents’ social networks and their involvement in neighborhood and community activities. We hypothesize that Internet users have larger, more diverse social networks, and that they are more active communicators on and off line. The introduction of Internet services designed to facilitate the flow of information and resources locally will increase the size and diversity of local social networks, but will not replace the role of preexisting kinship and friendship ties. The impact of the Internet on the way people communicate and their network of social relations is constantly changing. In order to establish a baseline for future research, it is crucial to conduct a detailed formal study of how new information and communication technologies impact social networks as soon as possible. Similarly, it is vital to address concerns with respect to the decline of social capital in America, and any role that new information and communication technologies might have in continuing or reversing this decline. E-neighbors: Social Networks and Neighborhood Social Capital in the Internet Age. Keith Hampton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I. Introduction Robert Putnam (2000) suggests that over the last third of the 20th century there has been a significant decline in America's social capital. Putnam provides evidence to suggest that recent generations are far less involved in both formal and informal public life than Americans were less than a half century ago. People are spending less time with friends, relatives and neighbors, they are more cynical and less trusting, and they are less likely to be involved in clubs and organizations. While this decline in social capital occurs too early to be associated with the rise of home computing or the Internet, Putnam (2000) and others (Stoll 1995; Kraut, Lundmark, Patterson, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay and Scherlis 1998; Nie and Erbring 2000; Nie 2001) have expressed fears that the growth of the Internet and computer-mediated communication may exasperate this trend and further undermining our connections with each another and with our communities. A combination of Internet use and home computing increasingly moves activities, once almost exclusively ascribed to the public realm, into the private home. It is increasingly possible to socialize, shop, work, learn and participate in leisure activities, all from within the refuge of the private residence. Computer-mediated communication allows for greater connectivity to resources and information, but simultaneously it may disconnect people from members of their social networks and reduce public participation. What will be the fate of community and social relations as a result of the growth of computer-mediated communication (CMC)? Critics argue that new technologies, such as the Internet, contribute to an incomplete lifestyle that reduces in-person contact and disconnects us from our families, friends and communities (Stoll 1995; Kraut et al. 1998; Nie and Erbring 2000; Nie 2001). On the opposite side of the debate, enthusiasts hail the Internet's potential for making connections without regard to race, creed, gender or . As Phil Patton proclaimed: “Computer-mediated communication . . . will do by way of electronic pathways what cement roads were unable to do, namely connect us rather than atomize us, put us at the controls of a ‘vehicle’ and yet not detach us from the rest of the world” (1986: 20). In an “information society” where work, leisure, and social ties may all be maintained from a “smart home,” people could reject the need for social relationships based on physical location. They might find community online, or not at all, rather than on street corners or while visiting friends and relatives. In such a scenario, new communication technologies may advance the home as a center for services that encourage a shift toward greater home-centeredness and privatization. At the same time the location of the technology inside the home may facilitate access to local relationships, suggesting that domestic and neighborhood relations may flourish, possibly at the expense of more distant ties. The asynchronous nature of also provides new flexibility in the maintenance of social ties, facilitating contact with those who were previously out of reach do to temporal or financial restraints (Hampton and Wellman 2001). This project addresses the question of what effect home computing and Internet use has on community relations. Will people become privatized in their homes and cut off from their social networks as a result of new communication and information technologies? We argue that computer-mediated communication (CMC) encourages the growth of social capital, in the form of community involvement and in the expansion of the size and diversity of social networks. Moreover, we believe that the Internet can be used in new and innovative ways, particularly at the local level, to help reverse the trend of declining social capital.

1 Objectives The purpose of this project is to 1) examine the relationship between Internet use and the size and composition of people’s social networks, and 2) to explore the potential for new information and communication technologies to expand social networks, social capital and community involvement at the local level.

II. Literature Review Perspectives on Community The proposed research attempts to overcome the limitations of existing research by embracing the social network perspective (Wellman and Gulia 1999). We recognize the possibility that social ties vary in strength (Granovetter 1973), are physically dispersed (Fischer 1975; Wellman 1979), and extend across multiple foci of activity (Feld 1982). Communities consist of far-flung kinship, workplace, interest group and neighborhood ties that together form a social network that provides aid, support, social control and links to multiple milieus (Wellman 1999). Social ties are not maintained in only one place or through one form of communication, but in multiple social settings, in-person, over the phone, through the mail, and potentially over the Internet. We suggest that Internet research has largely overlooked existing sociological debate related to the impact of technological and societal change on “community.” Debate about the nature of community did not originate with the introduction of new computer technologies, but arose out of earlier concerns about the transition from agrarian to urban industrial societies (e.g., Durkheim [1893] 1964; Tönnies [1887] 1957). Failing to incorporate this debate into research on Internet use has lead many researchers to look in the wrong places for any effect that new information and communication technologies (ICT) might have on community.

Community Lost and then Saved As the turn of this century marks the beginning of a discourse about the effect of computer-mediated communication (CMC) on community, the publication of Emile Durkheim’s doctoral dissertation The Division of Labour in Society (1893), at the turn of the last century, marked the beginning of a debate about the implications of a complex division of labor, industrialization and urbanization on community. Durkheim associated the decline of communal or social solidarity (mechanical solidarity) and the rise of impersonal bureaucratic control and individualism (organic solidarity) with a complex division of labor. Prior to the industrial revolution, a similarity in daily labor and the proximity of daily life encouraged the formation of common beliefs and sentiments within a group ([1893] 1964: 105). According to Durkheim, this type of society provided mutual aid and support and severely protected the values of the community (as recognized in Durkheim’s discussion of repressive ). With industrialization this form of solidarity was replaced with a non-communal solidarity which favored impersonal bureaucratic control over informal support, and individualistic freedom over community control. Durkheim was not alone in thinking about the supportive, tightly-bound nature of agrarian communities, or in wondering about changes in the nature of supportive community bonds. At roughly the same time Ferdinand Tönnies (1887) feared that the rise of capitalism was transforming traditional folk-type society, “gemeinschaft,” into one that was increasingly formal, impersonal and individualistic in nature, “gesellschaft.” This concern, for the effect of societal change on community became prominent in American sociological debate with the rise of the Chicago School (see Park 1925, Wirth 1938). Concerned about urbanization, Louis Wirth (1938) described city and rural life as polar opposites. Urbanites were characterized by a blasé attitude, their interpersonal relations were impersonal, superficial and transitory. In the urban setting “bonds of kinship, neighbourliness, and sentiments arising out of living together for generations under a common folk tradition” were said to be “absent or, at best, relatively weak in an aggregate” (Wirth 1938: 11). This conception of urban life continued into the second half of the 20th century. Stanley Milgram (1970) described a “tendency of urban dwellers to deal with one another in highly

2 segmented, functional terms,” and an “acceptance of noninvolvement, impersonality, and aloofness in urban life” (1970: 1465). Pundits agreed that if urban residents did not have some form of psychoses, then at minimum the urban environment was itself responsible for the atrophy of community and traditional ways of life. The cumulation of the positions held by Durkheim (1893), Tönnies (1887), Wirth (1938), Milgram (1970) and others, focusing on the malfunction of community relations, has been referred to as the “Community Lost” perspective (Wellman 1979). This perspective remained the dominant vision of contemporary community life until the later portion of the 20th century. Through empirical research, primarily ethnographic analysis, urban sociologists recognized the importance of neighborhoods and workplaces in the formation and maintenance of intimate, supportive, stable relationships in the urban environment (see Anderson 1978; Whyte 1943; S. D. Clark 1966; Gans 1962; 1967; and Jacobs 1961). While recognizing that in the modern urban environment social relationships do not exist in the tight-knit, self-contained solitary structures idealized by Durkheim (1893) and Tönnies (1887), the “community saved” position (Wellman 1979) identified the existence of narrowly based supportive solitary groups that successfully provide companionship, aid and support. However, the focus of the Saved perspective on solitary relations in very specific localities – neighborhoods and workplaces – ignored the existence of weaker social ties, non-clustered ties and ties to those at a distance.

Defining Community Through Networks, Not Geography Cities are extremely heterogeneous, residents are highly mobile, and people regularly come in contact with diverse others in a variety of social settings. The development of public transportation, the automobile, the telephone and other transportation and communication technologies, facilitated the formation and maintenance of social relationships at a distance. These technological changes have contributed to a decentralization of social relations (Fischer 1975; Hawley 1986). Indeed, most people usually have more friends outside their neighborhood than within it (Wellman 1979). The “Community Liberated” argument explores the extent to which supportive social ties exist between individuals regardless of locality. This opens up the possibility that ties vary in strength, are physically dispersed, extend across multiple foci and are less dense in their structure than identified in previous models. Rather than looking at community in terms of groups, social relations clustered together based on a shared neighborhood, workplace or other organizational factor, community is defined as a network of social relations. Communities are clearly networks and are not neatly organized into little neighborhood boxes. When one defines communities as sets of informal ties of sociability, support and identity, they are rarely neighborhood solidarities or even densely-knit groups of kin and friends. Archival analysis of pre-industrial and early industrial settlements suggests that early theorists over-idealized the locally bound, solitary structure of traditional “folk-type” communities (Tilly 1988). Residents of pre-industrial settlements were often quite mobile with far-reaching social ties (La Roy Ladurie 1975). Communities consist of far-flung kinship, workplace, interest group and neighborhood ties that together form a social network that provides aid, support, social control and links to multiple milieus. Looking for community in one place at one time (be it in neighborhoods or in cyberspace) is an inadequate means of revealing supportive community relations. By focusing the investigation on location, and not on the networks of an individual's ties, community research has produced results that are inherently local. To avoid replicating historical misconceptions related to community, Internet researches should not look only into cyberspace or at the use of computer-mediated communication in isolation of other means of social contact. It is for this reason that is the preferred method for examining the network of people’s community relations (Wellman 1999).

Studies of Virtual Communities and Internet Use Research on “virtual communities,” has done much to highlight the geographic dispersion of social ties (Rheingold 1993). Yet the study of virtual communities has largely maintained the traditional framing of

3 “community” as something that is physically bounded, but by of bites and bytes rather than by streets and alleyways. Online relationships are treated as entities in themselves as if existing social networks and other forms of communication did not exist. Much of the current debate about the effects of new technology on community can be divided into a heaven-or-hell dichotomy, a utopian/dystopian debate that has largely ignored the lessons of the community question. Pundits base their analysis on location, looking into cyberspace and hailing the creation of a whole new form of community, the “,” or looking at family and friendship “groups” and predicting their ultimate demise. Instead of examining the effects of computer-mediated communication on the network of people's social relations, communities are again treated as groups, to be lost or saved. Technological dystopians have taken on the Community Lost perspective, suggesting that new technologies, such as the Internet, contribute to an incomplete lifestyle. New communication technologies are said to withdraw people from in-person contact, disconnecting us from our families, friends and communities. As Paul Saffo, Director of the Institute for the Future remarks in an interview with CNN: Another danger of a technologically bound culture is a fraying of the bonds that bind us. Whether it's a cellphone glued to the ear or enough Web sites and newsgroups to satisfy every possible taste and interest, we see less and less opportunity for shared experience as we each pigeon-hole ourselves into separate worlds of interests. Do we care, or have the time to know our neighbors anymore? There seems to be less and less of that kind of Leave it to Beaver interaction. (Nelson 1997) Those who fear that people will choose to abandon in-person contact for cyber interaction tend to regard electronic communication as an “instantaneous and illusory contact that creates a sense of intimacy without the emotional investment that leads to close friendships” (Stoll 1995: 24). On the opposite side of the debate, technological utopians have found community in cyberspace. The Community Saved argument has been recreated within the debate over how the Internet will affect community. Largely anecdotal evidence emphasizes the ability of computer networks to connect people across time and space in strong supportive relationships, blindly extending beyond characteristics of ethnicity, religion or national origin. As with the original Community Saved argument, peering into cyberspace and ignoring the network of social relations that extended to other social settings, fails to consider the crosscutting nature of community, including the many ways and the many places people interact. In the past few years a number of studies have been published that go beyond the limitations of the utopian/dystopian debate. These studies involve an empirical analysis of how Internet use affects community. This body of research includes the work of Robert Kraut et al. (1998) in the “Homenet Study,” Norman Nie and Lurz Erbring's (2000) study of the Internet and Society, the Pew Internet and American Life Project (Rainie 2000; Howard, Rainie and Jones 2001), and the UCLA study Surveying the Digital Future (Cole 2000). Although they conclude with mixed results, these studies improve on the broad theoretical predictions of early pundits in their use of systematic empirical research. While a good start, this research has been limited by its use of new and inexperienced Internet and computer users, a reliance on large surveys that cannot incorporate in-depth questions related to social networks (i.e., Fischer 1982; Wellman 1979), and for the most part, the continued treatment of computer-mediated communication (CMC) as a distinct social system, separate from the many means of communication used in maintaining contact with network members.

Homenet Study The work of Kraut et al. (1998) is the best evidence to date in support of the dystopian position. In exchange for agreeing to be interviewed, 93 in eight , Pennsylvania neighborhoods were provided with a free computer, telephone line and dial-up Internet access. Participants were selected based on common participation in a school or neighborhood group. Only those households where no one had previous in-home Internet or computer experience were invited to participate. Participants were interviewed twice, once before they received access to the Internet, and a second time 52 or 104 weeks later.

4 Kraut et al. (1998) concluded that home-based Internet use is similar to television in displacing time previously spent on more social activities. “Greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participants’ communication with family members in the , declines in the size of their social circles, and increases in their depression and loneliness.” Kraut et al. conclude that the size of both distant and local social networks decreases with Internet use. Kraut et al. also found a negative, but not statistically significant relationship, between Internet use and social support. Despite the fact that Kraut et al. (1998) offers one of the most complete analysis available on the effects of in-home computer and communication technology on social relations, a number of methodological issues limit the reliability of their results. When participants were asked to report on the size of their social networks, they were given a definition that may have limited their response to include only those network members with whom they communicated in person or face-to-face (Kraut et al. 1998). Limiting the analysis to communication with network members outside of cyberspace neglects the possibility that CMC could substitute for other means of social contact. While the “social presence” (Short, Williams and Christie 1976) and “media richness” (Daft and Lengel 1986) of CMC may force social network relations to rely on the exchange of fewer social cues than with in-person interactions, CMC can be used in the maintenance of social networks and in the exchange of aid and support (Haythornthwaite and Wellman 1998). It is impossible to determine if the size of peoples' social networks in Kraut et al. (1998) decreased as a result of Internet use, or if the use of CMC allowed them to shift the maintenance of social ties to a new communication medium. Alternatively, the Internet may even allow people to reinvest time spent on in-person contact to maintain a greater number of network members online, as was the case with the adoption of the telephone (Fischer 1992). The inability to incorporate a natural research setting with a diverse sample of Internet and computer users reduces the generalizability of the Homenet study (Kraut et al. 1998). The selection of a sample with no previous Internet and home-computer experience leaves open the alternative explanation, that the observed effect of Internet use on social networks, depression and loneliness, was the result of being a new Internet and home computer user, and not directly the result of Internet use (see the forthcoming article by Kraut, Kiesler, Boneva, Cummings, Helgeson, and Crawford). Without an initial measure of participants' expectations for the technology, it cannot be determined if observed changes in social involvement and psychological well-being were a result of Internet use, or a failure to meet pre-use expectations. Reduced household communication and a decline in the size of social networks may have been the result of time displacement in participants’ attempts to please researchers, by devoting time to learning the technologies they had been given, in as much as it may have been a direct result of Internet use. The frustration involved in learning to use the Internet and a new home computer, particularly if it did not meet with expectations, may have increased stress, affected family communication and encouraged increased levels of isolation and depression. The results of the Homenet study may not be replicated in a natural setting, or with a diverse sample of Internet users.

Stanford Internet Study In a survey of 4,113 people in 2,689 households, Norman Nie and Lurz Erbring (2000) provide evidence to support the results of Kraut et al (1998), concluding that “the more hours people use the Internet, the less time they spend in contact with real human beings” (as quoted in O’Toole 2000). Based on the 49.5 percent of participants (2,035 people) with Internet access in Nie and Erbring's sample, those who spent more time online were more likely to report “decreased” time spent attending social events and seeing friends and relatives. According to Nie, “the Internet could be the ultimate isolating technology that further reduces our participation in communities even more than did automobiles and television before it” (as quoted in O'Toole 2000). Despite the significance of Nie and Erbring's (2000) results, their conclusions over-generalize from the findings. The number of participants in Nie and Erbring’s study who report a “decrease” in community

5 involvement and in time spent with friends and family, does increase with Internet use. However, the overall proportion of participants who report any change in time spent in social events, or with friends and family, as a result of Internet use is actually very small: • 5 percent of participants report a decrease in time spent at social events, while a near equal proportion, 4 percent, report an increase, • 9 percent have experienced a decrease in time spent with family, while 6 percent report an increase, • 9 percent report a drop in time spent with friends, and 4 percent report an increase. Nie and Erbring (2000) do not report on the relationship between Internet use and those who experienced an “increase” in time spent with friends and family and in social events. Their analysis is one-sided and leaves open the possibility that while a small proportion of the population experienced a drop in social contact as a result of Internet use, a similarly small proportion of users may have experienced an increase in social contact of a similar or greater magnitude. It cannot be concluded from this study that a relationship exists between Internet use and involvement with friends, family or social events. More convincing than the relationship Nie and Erbring (2000) report between Internet use and community involvement is the relationship they find between Internet use and time spent on the phone with friends and relatives. Over 17 percent of participants report a drop in phone contact as a result of Internet use (only 3 percent report an increase), with the proportion increasing to 27 percent for those who spend more than 10 hours online per week. While demonstrating with reasonable certainty that a relationship exists between phone contact and Internet use, Nie and Erbring do not consider the possibility that CMC may substitute for some or all of the observed loss in phone communication. Nie and Erbring's conclusions’ privilege the Internet as a distinct social system and attribute no value to online social contact. Any reported drop in time spent on the phone, as well as any drop in overall time spent in-person with network members, may be explained by the use of CMC as a substitute for other means of social contact. Indeed, 90 percent of participants from Nie and Erbring's study used e-mail, 10 percent used chat rooms to communicate with family members, 12 percent used chat rooms to communicate with friends that they had before going online, and 16 percent reported using chat rooms to communicate with new friends they had met online. Additionally, Nie and Erbring do not explore the possibility that friendships formed online are not limited to cyberspace, but expand to other means of social contact, including the phone and in-person visits (Rheingold 1993; Katz, Rice and Aspden 2001).

The Pew and UCLA In contrast to the conclusions of Kraut et al. (1998) and Nie and Erbring (2000), two recent surveys by Rainie (2000) and Cole (2000) provides evidence that Internet use strengthens community. A survey of 3,533 adults by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (Rainie 2000) found that the Internet helps family and friends keep in contact (Howard, Rainie and Jones 2001). Rainie (2000) embraces the notion that CMC should be considered along with other forms of communication in measuring social contact. Of the 1,690 participants in the Pew survey that e-mail friends and relatives, 60 percent reported that it had increased their frequency of social contact, and only 2 percent reported a drop in communication since they began using e-mail (Rainie 2000: 20). Additionally, the longer participants had been online, the more likely they were to feel that the Internet had improved their social relations, and that they had a significant network of friends and relatives to turn to when they need help (Rainie 2000: 21). As has also been noted by Boneva, Kraut, and Frohlich (2001), this was particularly true for women. Fifty-seven percent of women reported that e-mail use helped their relationships with friends and family compared to only 44 percent of men (Rainie 2000: 18). The UCLA Internet Report similarly accepts the notion that computer-mediated communication is just another means of communication to be used in the maintenance of social contact (Cole 2000). Surveying 2,096 households, Cole found that Internet use marginally increased the number of people with whom Internet users regularly kept in social contact. In testing the hypothesis that new social ties formed online extend to other milieus and other means of communication, Cole found that 12.4 percent of Internet users reported

6 meeting someone online whom they later met in-person (averaging 5.6 new friendships that had broadened to include in-person social contact). An additional 26.2 percent of Internet users reported making new friends online, whom they had never met in-person (12.9 new friends on average) (2000:34). Rainie (2000) and Cole (2000) provide initial evidence to support the perspective that when computer-mediated communication is treated as any other means of communication, it serves to aid the expansion and maintenance of social networks. Still, both studies suggest that there may be negative consequences for Internet use as much as it encourages the privatization of community. Rainie (2000) found that while the introduction of CMC increased the overall volume of communication amongst family members, it also served as a substitute for having to “talk” to relatives (2000: 23). Similarly, Cole found that, on average, Internet users spend 3.8 hours less per week socializing with household members (2000: 35). Cole also found that at the neighborhood level, social capital may be damaged by Internet use. On average, Internet users could only recognize 8.9 of their neighbors by name, compared to 10.0 for non-users (2000: 35).

Netville The proposed project builds on the results of recent research undertaken by the principal investigator (PI). For two years the PI lived in and studied one of 's first “wired neighborhoods,” a new suburban community equipped with a broadband high-speed local computer network. Located in suburban , Canada, “Netville” was one of the first developments in the world to be built from the ground up with a series of advanced communication technologies supplied across a broadband high-speed local network. Roughly half of Netville’s residents had access to services that included: high speed Internet access (10 Mbps), a videophone, an on-line jukebox, real-time access to various heath care practitioners, online access to a library of educational and entertainment oriented CD-ROMs, neighborhood discussion forums, and 24-hour, seven days a week technical support. Those who provided Netville with its technology services intended to provide all households moving into Netville with access to these services. Ultimately, technical difficulties allowed only half of Netville’s households to be connected. This had the unintended consequence of providing a natural comparison group of demographically similar non-Internet users. In October 1997 the PI moved into Netville for two years where he worked from home, participated in online activities, attended all possible local meetings (formal and informal), and completed a community . In addition, a cross-sectional survey was administered to a sample of wired Netville residents and a comparison group of similar non-wired residents. Some of the findings of the Netville project included: • the ability of computer-mediated communication to bridge barriers to local social contact, increasing the number of local social ties (Hampton and Wellman 2002) • an increase in the frequency of social contact online, in-person, and over the phone (Hampton and Wellman 2002) • use of the local computer network for collective action against the housing developer and technology service providers (Hampton 2002) • non-locally (outside of Netville) use of CMC to increase contact with social ties who previously had been just out of reach due to temporal and financial costs (Hampton and Wellman 2001) • extensive use of asynchronous, low bandwidth communication technologies, such as the neighborhood email list, in favor of synchronous broadband services such as the video phone and multimedia chats (Hampton 2001). While the Netville project provided a unique case study of a broadband neighborhood, it was also faced with a series of methodological challenges, this included reliance on a self-selected population of new home owners, and the premature termination of the trial by those who were providing Netville with its broadband services. As a result it is unclear if the findings of the Netville project are site specific, or if the results of the Netville project can be replicated in established neighborhoods. The cross-sectional survey administered to residents lacked the analytical power of a longitudinal survey, and the premature end of the

7 Netville trial reduced the ability to collect the detailed social network data required to address a number of hypotheses related to Internet use.

III. Our Model For the most part existing studies of how the Internet affects community have focused on “virtual communities,” which exist only in cyberspace (Rheingold 1993), and large random (or not so random) surveys of Internet users (Nie and Erbring 2000; Nie 2001; Reinie 2000; Cole 2000; 2001; Wellman, Quan, Witte, and Hampton 2001). This previous work is limited by its reliance on new and inexperienced Internet and computer users and the treatment of the Internet as a distinct social system, separate from other forms of communication used in maintaining contact with social network members. This proposed research takes the position that: • We cannot understand the effects of the Internet on social relations by looking into cyberspace and only into cyberspace. Social ties must be examined in combination and not in isolation. People's social networks are maintained through the use multiple methods of communication, they exist in multiple foci, they are crosscutting, and multistranded. • Much research has focused on how the newest and “greatest” Internet technologies (e.g., broadband access, videophone, etc.) affect social relations (Hampton 2001). More established, widespread, ubiquitous Internet technologies (such as email) are likely to have a larger impact on social relationships. • Case studies and experimental research provide an alternative and a more detailed analysis than can be achieved through the use of large scale surveying. Unlike existing surveys of Internet users, which have not conducted a detailed analysis of people's social networks (Kraut et al 1998, Cole 2000; 2001; Nie and Erbring 2000; Rainie 2000), this study replicates the social network pioneered in studies such as the Northern California Communities Study (Fischer 1982) and the East York Study (Wellman 1979).

Glocalization: Using the Internet at the Local Level The lessons of the community question have shown that although strong supportive social relations continue to exist in the urban setting, they generally are not neighborhood based. On average, most North Americans have few strong ties at the neighborhood level (Wellman 1979; Fischer 1982; Putnam 2000). Yet, social ties that are physically accessible are well suited for the provision of instrumental aid and support, such as lending and giving household items, help with household repairs, and aid in dealing with organizations (Wellman and Wortley 1990). “Neighborhood social capital” has been highlighted by Jane Jacobs (1961) as important for increasing neighborhood safety, improving the flow of information amongst neighborhood residents, and aiding neighborhood collective action. Robert Putnam points to the role of social capital in increasing housing values and in preventing neighborhood decline (2000: 323). Youth are more successful in finding job contacts outside of their neighborhood, and avoiding social problems including, drugs, crime and teen pregnancy, in neighborhoods where they can draw on social capital (Putnam 1993; 2000). Social capital at the neighborhood level has been shown to increase neighborhood safety and to reduce crime (Sampson and Groves 1989; Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls 1997). Other studies suggest a positive relationship between social capital and health (Lynch and Kaplan 1997; Kawachi, Kennedy and Glass 1999; Wilkinson 1996; 1999; Veenstra 2001). In general, neighborhoods with high social capital are safer, better informed, higher in social trust and better equipped to deal with local issues. Fischer (1975; 1982) argues that the existence of diverse subcultures in the urban environment allows people to place similarity of interest over similarity of setting in selecting social ties. We argue that the availability of a large, diverse urban population with subcultures matching every interest (Fischer 1975) is only part of the explanation as to why people tend to develop few strong neighborhood ties. Access is equally

8 as important as social similarity in determining the likelihood of tie formation. Homophily, the tendency for people to associate with similar others, has as much to do with a preference for tie formation with people who are socially similar as it does with a tendency for people to meet others while participating in activities that tend to attract homogeneous sets of people (Feld 1982). If people are given the opportunity to interact and exchange information in the local setting, they will be more likely to form local social ties of all strengths. The expectation that improved opportunities for local interaction lead to increased neighborhood involvement is supported by research on neighborhood common spaces. Research into urban design has shown that the provision of neighborhood common spaces increases local social capital through tie formation, stronger local ties, and higher levels of community involvement (Brunson, Kuo, and Sullivan 1996). Similarly, “New Urbanism” and “neo-traditional” planning advocates the use of neighborhood common spaces, front porches and other design factors to encourage surveillance, community participation and a sense of territoriality (Atlas 1999). Instead of arguing environmental determinism, we suggest that it is the opportunity for local social interaction that is ultimately responsible for increased social capital, in the form of local tie formation and increased public participation. Neighborhoods generally lack institutional opportunities for social contact. Local institutions that do exist to promote local interaction (cafés, bars, community organizations, etc.) are in decline (Putnam 2000; Oldenburg [1989] 1999), and are in many cases absent from the suburban setting (Jacobs 1961). As a result, it is simply easier to gather information on the suitability of others for tie formation in social circles that are not neighborhood based. If opportunities for interaction can be provided through computer-mediated communication, it should provide a similar increase in neighborhood social capital. The introduction of Internet services specifically designed to facilitate communication and information sharing in a residential setting could reverse the trend of neighborhood noninvolvement (Putnam 2000). Use of computer-mediated communication might improve the flow of information and serve to expand local social networks, generating high levels of social capital, reducing the cost and increasing the speed of community involvement.

Hypotheses We have focused our research considerations on the following hypotheses, which are addressed in our survey schedule. Based on an in-depth analysis of participants social networks we will demonstrate the following:

Internet Use in General • Heavy Internet users have larger more diverse social networks of weak social ties. • As a result of larger, more diverse weak tie networks, Internet users have access to a greater diversity of information and resources. • Existing networks of strong social ties do not change in size, intimacy or overall support exchanged as a result of Internet use. • Internet use increases the frequency of social contact with network members online, in-person, and by telephone. • The total amount of social support exchanged with network members increases with Internet use. Because of the specialized nature of weaker social ties, this effect is less pronounced than it is with stronger ties. • The greatest increase in contact and support exchanged with network members as a result of Internet use is with those who are geographically accessible (within a day’s drive) and not with those at great distances. • Participation with larger more diverse social networks as a result of Internet use increases social capital in the form of social trust, interest in political affairs, and involvement in civic activities. • Heavy Internet use leads people to reorganize their time for greater social contact and public participation at the expense of sleep and television viewing.

9 Access to Local Internet Services • Internet services that facilitate local communication and information sharing increases the number of local social ties. These ties are generally weak in strength, but provide access to new information and resources. • The flexibility of asynchronous computer-mediated communication (i.e., email) increases overall contact amongst local residents. Online contact leads to contact through additional means of communication, in-person visits and telephone communication. • While grass-roots collective action generally requires highly motivated individuals to knock on the doors of near-strangers to generate support for individual causes, access to computer-mediated communication at the local level facilitates faster and more frequent . • Increased communication at the local level increases awareness of local information and resources. • Residents of neighborhoods who can communicate and exchange information with each other online, feel safer, are more satisfied, are more involved, and are more attached to their neighborhoods.

IV. Methods Project Description Investigating new communication and information technologies and their effect on social networks introduces new and exciting challenges to . For this reason the proposed research is a collaboration, bringing together experts in 1) social networks, and computer networks as social networks, Barry Wellman; 2) urban infrastructure, and technology and society, Steve Graham; and 3) the use of technology in residential settings to promote social cohesion, self-sufficiency, and empowerment, Jan Steyaert and Randal Pinkett. (See section VI for short biographical sketches of collaborators). Our research strategy is based on longitudinal quantitative and qualitative analysis of four case studies. Four neighborhoods in the Marina Bay area of Quincy, Massachusetts (a Boston suburb) have been selected for this purpose. The decision to use case studies over a large random sample is based on the desire to conduct detailed social network surveys of participants’ neighborhood and personal networks. We recognize that the use of case studies limits the generalizability of our findings, however, detailed social network questions, including the identification of neighborhood ties through a roster of names (i.e., Erickson and Nosanchuk 1983; Krackhardt and Stern 1988; Hampton 2001), are difficult to utilize in a geographically dispersed population (Wasserman and Faust 1994). In addition, a geographically collocated sample is necessary to test the impact of the experimental Internet services that we will provide on participants’ social networks. The Marina Bay area was selected because it is suburban, geographically isolated from surrounding neighborhoods, has few existing services that might serve as public meeting areas (i.e., cafés, bars, shopping areas), and has a moderate-income level, suggesting the presence of an existing mass of home computer and Internet users (United States Department of Commerce 2000). The four case studies are within close geographic proximity to each other, are similar in socioeconomic status and range in size from 110-220 housing units (750 units in total). Case studies were selected to contrast in terms of housing type. Our expectation is that housing choice serves as an indicator of family status, and predisposition toward local community involvement. For example, previous research indicates that apartment dwellers are less likely to form local friendships and single family homeowners are more likely to be family and neighborhood oriented (Michelson 1977). One of our case studies consists of a mix of single family and townhomes built using neo-traditional (new urbanism) planning principles, the second consists of townhomes built using conventional planning principles, the third is a high-rise apartment building, and the fourth a mixture of single family and townhomes. The variability in neighborhood type will allow for hypothesis testing through the comparison of contrasting cases.

10 Three of the four neighborhoods will be given access to a series of experimental Internet services designed to facilitate access to local residents and local information. These services are being developed under the guidance of the PI by a multidisciplinary group of undergraduate and graduate MIT students. Initially, these services will include the following: a neighborhood email list, a community calendar, a local bartering system, local , and a searchable database of local residents’ interests and skills. The fourth neighborhood, consisting of a mixture of conventionally designed single family and townhomes, will serve as a control group. To provide an internal comparison group within each neighborhood, all households will be asked to participate regardless of whether they have Internet access. Those with existing Internet access (of various speeds and types) will be compared to each other, to residents without Internet access, and to the residents of the other neighborhoods. In order to maintain as close as possible the ideal of a natural research setting, participants will not be given a computer, Internet access, or any training. Intervening with free computer equipment and/or training may alter participants’ expectations and potentially encourage use of the experimental services that we are providing. Unlike studies which specifically set out to provide large residential areas with computer equipment or Internet access, or those that provide training and direct intervention to connect people through technology (Pinkett 2002), such as “free-nets,” “community computing-centers,” “public access networks,” and “community networking,” the focus here is on how existing levels of computer and Internet access can be used in a small neighborhood setting. It is our intention to observe as close as possible how our services would be used without intervention in a natural setting.

Survey Theoretically and methodologically the proposed project relies heavily on the social network perspective. The project survey will ask questions related to neighboring, community alienation, social trust, work, experience with technology, time-use, and basic demographics, but will primarily rely on questions related to personal and neighborhood networks. The social network questionnaire will be based on established methods reviewed by Wasserman and Faust (1994), van der Poel (1993), and Bernard, Johnsen, Killworth, and Robinson (1989). The survey instrument will incorporate both a fixed list (roster) method (Erickson and Nosanchuk 1983; Krackhardt and Stern 1988; Hampton and Wellman 2002) to identify neighborhood network members (whole networks), and a free recall method to collect data on personal support networks (ego networks) (Fischer 1982; Wellman 1979). The roster of neighborhood residents from which participants will identify local ties will be compiled based on publicly available data sources, including local White Page telephone directories and voter registration records. Each resident 18 years of age and older will be asked to complete a mail back survey at three time periods. The first survey will serve as a baseline and will be administered before each neighborhood receives access to the experimental Internet services. Participants will be asked to complete a similar survey annually for the following two years. The first survey (time 1) will provide baseline data on participants social networks and their current levels of Internet and technology use (including non-Internet users). This baseline is important not only to provide a pretest to compare the results of the experimental treatment (the local Internet services), but as a snapshot of how current levels of technology use are integrated into people’s social networks. The resulting cross-sectional sample of Internet users addresses the first objective of this project, examining the current relationship between Internet use and the size and composition of people’s social networks. The second and third surveys (time 2 and 3) address this projects second objective, exploring the potential for new information and communication technologies to expand social networks, social capital and community involvement at the local level. The control group not only provides a comparison group, but provides a look at how Internet and computer use interacts with social networks over time in isolation of our intervention in the other case studies. This data will provide one of the few longitudinal datasets of personal and neighborhood networks with complementary data on individual levels of technology use.

11 Content Analysis The experimental Internet services we provide to participants in three of the four case studies will provide a record of information and resources publicly shared amongst neighborhood residents. Through the services we provide participants will have the opportunity to communicate and make information available to others in their immediate area. The neighborhood email list and individual biographical information that residents voluntarily choose to place on their individual homepages will be recorded and analyzed for content. Through content analysis we will investigate the quantity and content of information and resources publicly shared by local residents. We will also examine movement framing and identity construction patterns. No information privately communicated between residents through private email, instant messaging, or any other Internet use will be recorded, monitored, or otherwise analyzed for content. We will not monitor any Internet use outside of the services we provide. We believe that the voluntary posting of information to publicly accessible websites, and communication over a public broadcast medium, such as an email discussion list, is public behavior that can be recorded and analyzed as we would with any other open setting (Lofland and Lofland 1995: 32-33; American Sociological Association Code of Ethics 1997: 12.01c). However, we recognize that there are ethical concerns about online private/public distinctions and about the ethics of Internet research in general (Sharf 1999; Jacobson 1999; Thomas 1996). As a result we will proceed with caution and require informed consent of participants prior to granting access to those Internet services that we plan to provide. Every effort will be made to protect the identity of individual participants and we will follow all ethical and institutional guidelines related to the use of human subjects.

Work Already Underway on This Project The PI received initial funding for this project as a result of two grant competitions internal to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These grants include funding to purchase a project Web server (on which to house our initial Internet services) support for one full-time graduate student, support for a small number of part-time undergraduate students, survey incentives, and material and supplies to conduct the baseline survey. This funding is sufficient to support the project through May 2002. Research and development on our initial experimental Internet serves (a neighborhood email list, community calender, local bartering system, local instant messaging, etc.) has been underway since September 2001. The survey instrument is currently under development and will be pretested in February 2002. We have secured access to all four neighborhood field sites. This included making a presentation to the residents and the board of trustees in the one neighborhood with an existing condominium association. We anticipate that we will begin contacting participants in March 2002 to receive informed consent before providing them with the baseline survey. Following the completion of surveying we anticipate providing participants with access to our initial Internet services in May/June 2002.

V. Project Contributions The effect of the Internet on the way people communicate and their network of social relations is constantly changing. In order to establish a baseline for future research it is necessary to conduct a detailed formal study of how new information and communication technologies affect social networks as soon as possible. There is an equal urgency to address concerns over the decline of social capital in America (Putnam 2000). Will the Internet further dissociate people from those around them, or does it hold the potential to reconnect the disaffiliated?

The major scientific goals of our research project are: • to further our understanding of how the Internet and other forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC) are used in the maintenance of people’s social networks.

12 • to extend research into the understanding of the composition, structure and supportive content of people’s personal and neighborhood social networks. • to understand the relationship between new information and communication technologies and participation in different aspects of public and private life. • to provide a clearer understanding of whether the Internet and related technologies have a positive, negative, or mixed impact on social capital.

The main public contributions of the project will be: • to illustrate the potential for information and communication technology to be used in new and effective ways that benefit individuals and their communities. • to gain insight into how the Internet is used along with other communication mediums in the exchange of support, information, and other resources. • to foster understanding of the positive and negative aspects of different types and degrees of Internet use.

The main educational contributions of this project will be: • to extend research in the area of computer networks as social networks. • to advance knowledge and understanding through a multidisciplinary approach involving , computer science, and .

This study will also enable two junior scholars, who are finishing their PhDs, to gain experience by participating in a complex multidisciplinary research project. These graduate students will not only be exposed to cutting edge research in the area of social networks and Internet research, but will contribute to the publication of new work in this area. We are very interested in presenting our work at professional meetings and plan to submit many papers for publication on the relationship between social networks, the Internet, and community. In addition, the PI currently offers (spring 2002) two undergraduate classes, allowing students the opportunity to participate in the research for this project while being exposed to the latest literature in the area.

13 VI. Short Biographical Sketches of Collaborators

External Collaborators Barry Wellman is Professor of Sociology, . Wellman received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1969. He founded the International Network for Social Network Analysis in 1976 and served as its head for twelve years. Wellman has chaired the Community and section of the American Sociological Association and is currently on the steering committee of the Association for Internet Research. He is the author of more than 300 articles. His books include Social Structures: A Network Approach (1988), Networks in the Global Village (1999), and the forthcoming The Internet in Everyday Life (2002).

Steve Graham is a Professor at the Centre for Urban Technology (CUT) in Newcastle University's School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape in the U.K. His research interests center on urban planning and the relationships between society and new technologies. Between 1999-2000 he was a Visiting Professor at MIT. His books, authored with Simon Marvin, include Telecommunications and the City: Electronic Spaces, Urban Places (1996) and Splintering Urbanism: Technological Mobilities, Networked Infrastructures and the Urban Condition (2001).

Jan Steyaert is Professor of Social Infrastructure and Technology at Fontys University in Eindhoven (the Netherlands). He has published widely on the application of technology in human services as well as the use of technology to increase residential quality of life. His work is primarily policy orientated, preparing reports for all levels of government including the European Union.

Randal Pinkett is the Chief Executive Officer of Building Community Technology (BCT) Partners, Inc., a community technology services and consulting firm. He holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Rutgers University, M.S. in Computer Science from the University of Oxford, England, joint M.S. in Electrical Engineering/MBA degrees from MIT, and Ph.D. in Media Arts and Sciences from MIT. His doctoral dissertation investigated strategies to bridge the “digital divide” by examining the role of community technology for the purpose of in a low- to moderate-income community in Roxbury, Massachusetts. He has been featured in Black Enterprise Magazine and Ebony Magazine, as one of their “30 Leaders for the Future.”

Internal Collaborators Ari Goelman Ari Goelman received a Master’s degree in Planning from the University of British Columbia where he wrote a thesis on the transfer of density rights in the City of Vancouver. He has worked as a community planner for the City of Vancouver and a heritage planner in . His research interests focus on technology and its impact on society, with particular regard to technology and civic governance issues.

Richard L. O’Bryant is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT. His dissertation research focuses on the use of information technology to empower low-income communities. He recently deployed computers and high-speed Internet connectivity to the residents of a low-income HUD housing development with the goal of increasing community self-sufficiency. He has a Bachelor's degree from Howard University in Computer Systems Engineering and worked as a senior software engineer at Digital Equipment Corporation (now Compaq).

14 Bibliography

American Sociology Association. 1997. American Sociological Association Code of Ethics. Retrieved May 24, 2001 (http://www.asanet.org/members/ecoderev.html). Anderson, Elijah. 1978. A Place on the Corner. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Atlas, Randy. 1999. “Designing Safe Communities and Neighbourhoods.” Proceedings of the American Planning Association National Planning Conference. Seattle, WA. Bernard, H.R., E.C Johnsen, P.D. Killworth, and S. Robinson. 1989. “Estimating the Size of an Average Personal Network and of an Event Subpopulation. Pp. 159-175 in, The Small World, edited by Kochen, M. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Boneva, Bonka, Robert Kraut, and David Frohlich. 2001. “Using E-Mail for Personal Relationships.” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): 530-549. Brunson, Liesette, Frances E. Kuo, and William Sullivan. 1996. “The Use of Defensible Spaces: Implications for Safety and Community”. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Research Association, Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved May 24, 2001 (http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~herl/brunson.html). Clark, Samuel D. 1966. The Suburban Society. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Cole, Jeffrey. 2000. “Surveying the Digital Future.” Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Communication Policy. Cole, Jeffrey. 2001. “The UCLA Internet Report: Surveying the Digital Future, Year 2.” Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Communication Policy. Daft, R.L. and R.H. Lengel. 1986. “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design.” Science 32(5): 554-571. Durkheim, Emile. [1893] 1964. The Division of Labour in Society. New York: Free Press. Erickson, Bonnie, and T.A. Nosanchuk. 1983. Applied Network Sampling. Social Networks 5: 367-382. Feld, Scott. 1982. “Social Structural Determinants of Similarity Among Associates.” American Sociological Review 47: 797-801. Fischer, Claude. 1975. “Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism.” American Journal of Sociology 80: 1319-41. ------. 1982. To Dwell Among Friends. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ------. 1992. America Calling: A Social of the Telephone to 1940. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gans, Herbert. 1962. The Urban Villagers. New York: Free Press. ------. 1967. The Levittowners: Ways of Life and Politics in a New Suburban Community. New York: Columbia University Press. Graham, Stephen and Simon Marvin. 1996. Telecommunications and the City: Electronic Spaces, Urban Places. London, England: Routledge ------. 2001. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London, England: Routledge Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360-80. Hawley, Amos. 1986. . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Howard, Philip E., Lee Rainie, and Steve Jones. 2001. “Days and Nights on the Internet: the Impact of a Diffusing Technology.” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): 383-404. Hampton, Keith. 2001. Living the Wired Life in the Wired Suburb: Netville, and Civil Society. PhD Dissertation. Department of Sociology. University of Toronto. ------. 2002. “Grieving For a Lost Network: Collective Action in a Wired Suburb.” Submitted to Mobilization. Hampton, Keith and Barry Wellman. 2001. “Long Distance Community in the Network Society: Contact and Support Beyond Netville.” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3), 476-495. Hampton, Keith and Barry Wellman. 2002. “Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community, Social Support and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb.” City and Community. Forthcoming. Haythornthwaite, Caroline and Barry Wellman. 1998. “Work, Friendship and Media Use for Information Exchange in a Networked .” Journal of the American Society for 49(12): 1101-14. Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books. Jacobson, David. 1999. “Doing Research in Cyberspace.” Field Methods 11(2): 127-145. Katz, James E., Ronald E. Rice, and Philip Aspden. 2001. “The Internet, 1995-2000: Access, Civic Involvement, and Social Interaction.” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3):405-419. Kawachi, Ichiro, Bruce Kennedy, and R. Glass. 1999. “Social Capital and Self-Rated Health: a Contextual Analysis.” American Journal of 89: 1187-1193. Krackhardt, David, and Robert Stern. 1988. “Informal Networks and Organizational Crisis: An Experimental Simulation.” Social Quarterly 51: 123-140. Kraut, Robert, Vicki Lundmark, Michael Patterson, Sara Kiesler, Tridas Mukopadhyay, and William Scherlis. 1998. “Internet Paradox: A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being?” American Psychologist 53(9): 1017-1031. Kraut, Robert, Sara Kiesler, Bonka Boneva, Jonathon Cummings, Vicki Helgeson, and Anne Crawford Crawford. (In press). “Internet Paradox Revisited.” Journal of Social Issues. La Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. 1975. Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error. Translated by Barbara Bray. New York: Braziller. Lofland, John. and Lyn Lofland. 1984. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Lynch, John and George Kaplan. 1997. “Understanding How Inequality in the Distribution of Income Affects Health.” Journal of Health Psychology 2: 297-314. Michelson, William. 1977. Environmental Choice, Human Behavior and Residential Satisfaction. New York: Oxford University Press. Milgram, Stanley. 1970. “The Experience of Living in Cities.” Science 167: 1461-1468. Nelson, Brian. 1997. “Futurist Warns Against Digital Alienation.” CNN. February 3. Retrieved May 24, 2001 (http://cnn.com/TECH/9702/03/digital.future/impact.html). Nie, Norman. 2001. “Sociability, Interpersonal Relations, and the Internet: Reconciling Conflicting Findings.” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): 420-435. Nie, Norman, and Lutz Erbring. 2000. “Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report.” Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society: Stanford University. Retrieved May 24, 2001 (http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press_Release/Preliminary_Report-4-21.pdf) Oldenburg, Ray. [1989] 1999. The Great Good Places: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. New York: Marlow & Company. O'Toole, Kathleen. 2000. “Study Offers Early Look at How Internet is Changing Daily Life.” New Release, February 16. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society. Retrieved May 24, 2001 (http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press_Release/press_release.html). Park, Robert. 1925. “The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behavior in the Urban Environment.” Pp. 1–46 in The City, edited by Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, and Roderick McKenzie. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Patton, P. 1986. Open Road. New York: Simon and Schuster. Pinkett, Randal. 2002. Creating Community Connections: Sociocultural Constructionism and an Asset-Based Approach to Community Technology and Community Building. Ph.D. Dissertation. Media Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA. Putnam, Robert. 1993. “The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life.” The American Prospect 4(13). Retrieved May 24, 2001 (http://www.prospect.org/print/V4/13/putnam-r.html). ------. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. Rainie, Lee. 2000. “Tracking Online Life: How Women Use the Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family and Friends.” Washington, DC: The Pew Internet and American Life Project. Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Sampson, Robert and Byron Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94(4): 774-802. Sampson, Robert, Stephen Raudenbush and Felton Earls. 1997. “Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science 277: 918-924 Sharf, Barbara. 1999. “Beyond Netiquette: The Ethics of Doing Naturalistic Discourse Research on the Internet.” Pp. 243-256 in, Doing Internet Research, edited by Steve Jones. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Short, J., E. Williams and B. Christie. 1976. The of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley and Sons. Stoll, Clifford. 1995. Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway. New York: Doubleday. Thomas, Jim. 1996. “A Debate about the Ethics of Fair Practices for Collecting Data in Cyberspace.” The Information Society 12(2: 107-117. Tilly, Charles. 1988. “Misreading, then Rereading, Nineteenth-Century Social Change.” Pp. 332-358 in Social Structures: A Network Approach, edited by B. Wellman and S. Berkowitz, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Tönnies, Ferdinand. [1887] 1957. Community and Society. Translated and edited by Charles P. Loomis. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. United States Department of Commerce. 2000. Falling Through the Net: Towards Digital Inclusion. Washington, DC: Economic and Statistics Administration, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. van der Poel, Mart. 1993.”Delineating Personal Support Networks.” Social Networks 15: 49-70. Veenstra, Garry. 2001. “Social Capital and Health.” ISUMA: Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2(1). Retrieved May 24, 2001 (http://www.isuma.net/v02n01/veenstra/veenstra.htm). Wasserman, Stanley and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Wellman, Barry. 1979. “The Community Question.” American Journal of Sociology 84: 1201-31. ------. 1988. “The Community Question Re-evaluated.” Pp. 81-107 in Power, Community and the City, edited by Michael Peter Smith. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. ------. 1999. Networks in the Global Village. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wellman, Barry, and Milena Gulia. 1999. “Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities.” Pp. 331-366 in Networks in the Global Village, edited by Barry Wellman. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wellman, Barry, Anabel Quan, James Witte, and Keith Hampton. 2001. “Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital?: Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment.” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): 436-455. Wellman, Barry, and Scott Wortley. 1990. “Different Strokes From Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support.” American Journal of Sociology 96: 558-88. Whyte, William F. 1943. Street Corner Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wilkinson, Richard. 1996. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality. London, England: Routledge. ------. 1999. “Income Inequality, Social Cohesion, and Health: Clarifying the Theory – a Reply to Muntaner and Lynch.” International Journal of Health Services 29: 525-543. Wirth, Louis. 1938. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” American Journal of Sociology 44: 3-24. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Keith Hampton

Education University of Calgary Sociology B.A. 1996 University of Toronto Sociology M.A. 1998 University of Toronto Sociology Ph.D. 2001

Appointment Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Assistant Professor of Technology, Urban and Community Sociology (2001-Present).

Publications Hampton, Keith and Barry Wellman (2002). “Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community, Social Support and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb.” Accepted for publication by City and Community. Hampton, Keith (2002). “Place-Based and IT Mediated Community.” Accepted for publication by Planning Theory and Practice. Hampton, Keith (Forthcoming). “Grieving For a Lost Network: Collective Action in a Wired Suburb.” Submitted to Mobilization. Hampton, Keith and Barry Wellman (2001). “Long Distance Community in the Network Society: Contact and Support Beyond Netville.” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3), 476-495. Wellman, Barry, Anabel Quan, James Witte, and Keith Hampton (2001). “Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital?: Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment.” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): 436-455. Hampton, Keith and Barry Wellman (2000). “Examining Community in the Digital Neighborhood: Early Results from Canada's Wired Suburb.” In Toru Ishida and Katherine Isbister (Eds.) Digital Cities: Technologies, Experiences, and Future Perspectives. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1765. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. 194-208. Hampton, Keith and Barry Wellman. (1999). “Netville On-Line and Off-Line: Observing and Surveying a Wired Suburb.” American Behavioral Scientist 43(3), 475-492. Wellman, Barry and Keith Hampton (1999). “Living Networked On and Off Line.” Contemporary Sociology 28(6), 648-654. Hampton, Keith (2001). “Broadband Neighborhoods Connected Communities.” In Julie Jacko and Andrew Sears (Eds.) CHI 2001 Extended Abstracts. New York, NY: Association for Computer Machinery (ACM). Hampton, Keith. (1999). “Computer Assisted Interviewing: The Design and Application of Survey Software to the Wired Suburb Project.” Bulletin de Méthode Sociologique (BMS) 62, 49-68.

1 Synergistic Activities Keith Hampton’s interest in Internet and community research originates from a history of participation in empirically based Internet research projects. His research experience includes work on the wired suburb of “Netville.” In 1999 he moved into a basement apartment in suburban Netville, where he remained, living and working for two years while conducting a community ethnography. While living in Netville he administered a detailed survey of Netville residents, initially conducted online using survey software he co-designed, but ultimately conducted in-person under his supervision by a small team of undergraduate students. He is currently expanding on this work as an advisor to a project at Fontys University in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, focused on developing and evaluating broadband Internet technologies that promote social cohesion in neighborhood settings. For the past three years Keith Hampton has been an active contributor to “Survey 2000,” and more recently “Survey 2001,” a worldwide survey of Internet use administered by the National Geographic Society. Along with a team of international researchers, he was responsible for the design and analysis of social network, community, time-use and Internet related questions. In 2000 he served as an advisor on a research project at MIT’s Media Laboratory on the use of technology to expand social networks, build social capital, and inspire empowerment in a low-income Boston neighborhood. He will be presenting a coauthored paper on this project with two graduate students at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Sociology Association. Over the summer of 2000 he supervised a team of 25 research assistants, replicating a variation of Stanley Milgram's famous lost-letter study. 5,000 letters were “lost” in 80 plus urban areas in the United States, Canada, Europe, Africa and Asia. The return rate for these lost-letters is a measure of helping behavior or altruism in a natural research setting. The results from this study are currently being used to test the validity of other commonly used measures of “social capital.” In the past year Keith Hampton has given more than 20 invited talks and presentations, including the meetings of: the American Sociology Association, the Association of Internet Researchers, the International Sociology Association’s Research Committee on Regional and Urban Development, and the Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction. In 2001 he received a Canadian Policy Research award from the Canadian Social Sciences and Research Council, the Canadian Institute for Health Research, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Policy Research Initiative. Keith Hampton is an active member of the academic community and is currently Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee to Rename and Redefine the Section on Sociology and Computers of the American Sociology Association. He has also been invited by Barbara Reskin, Chair of the 2002 Program Committee, to prepare a professional workshop on “Website Design to Facilitate Scholarly Communication” for the Chicago meeting of American Sociology Association.

Recent Collaborators In the past 48 months Keith Hampton has had the opportunity to collaborate with a number of individuals on projects, articles, and books related to social networks, the Internet, and urban and community studies, collaborators include: Emmanuel Koku (University of Toronto), Anabel Quan (University of Toronto), Jan Steyaert (Fontys University), Barry Wellman (University of Toronto), and James Witte (Clemson University). Hampton’s dissertation committee at the University of Toronto consisted of Barry Wellman, William Michelson, and Nancy Howell, experts in their respective areas of social networks, environment and behavior, and ethnographic field work. Hampton is currently supervising one PhD dissertation, Richard O’Bryant, Low-Income Communities: Technological Strategies for Nurturing Self-Sufficiency in the 21st Century (Massachusetts Institute of Technology); and one Master’s thesis, John Lewis, Cities in the Information Age (University of Calgary).

2