the impact of computer based communication …moreno.ss.uci.edu/39.pdf · the impact of computer...

Social Networks 6 (1984) 201-221 North-Holland

201

THE IMPACT OF COMPUTER BASED COMMUNICATION ON THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF AN EMERGING SCIENTIFIC SPECIALTY *

Linton C. FREEMAN ** unWersrt.v 0/ Calr/ornia. Irl~ine

This is a study of the impact of a computer conference on the formation of interpersonal ties among scientists. Various techniques from social networks analysis are adapted and used to study the structure of interpersonal ties among a set of scientists both before and during a computer conference. Although the data are not experimental, the results are suggestive. The computer, it seems, can perhaps take the place of protracted face-to-face interaction and prowde the sort of social structure out of which a scientific specialty can grow.

1. Introduction

This is one of a series of reports of a study of the impact of a computer based communication system on the organization and development of a scientific specialty (Freeman and Freeman 1980; Freeman 1980). The overall aim of the study was to determine the impact, if any, of using a computer to facilitate communication among some of the members of an emerging specially in science.

This particular report is concerned with the process by which individuals in the scientific community became aware of one another and developed ties of mutual acquaintanceship. The data come from an earlier sociometric study by Barry Wellman as well as from two sociometric studies that were a part of the project on computer communication. The research subjects are scientists and mathematicians who specialize in the study of social networks.

* A previous version of this paper was presented at the Third Annual Sunbelt Social Networks Conference in San Diego, California in February, 1983. The research was supported by the

National Science Foundation under Grant No. DS177.16578.

** School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA92717, U.S.A.

0378.8733/84/$3.00 CJ 1984, Elsewer Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

202 L.C. Freeman / Computer- based ~on,tnun,~a~,on md socrol structure

The concepts and analytic devices that are used here grow out of that same social networks specialty. In particular, the concept of a basis relation is generalized from earlier work by Atkin (1972) and that of a pseudo-symmetrical relation out of earlier work by Seidman (1981).

I will begin the discussion in Section 2 with an overall description of the larger computer based communication project as a case of an emerging scientific specialty. Then in Section 3 the development of an effective scientific specialty will be discussed in the light of some notions about fundamental social relations. This will lead, in Section 4, to a discussion of the details of data collection and the coding of relations for this report. Section 5 presents the results of analysing the data. An finally Section 6 will present a general discussion of the results.

2. Computer communication among social networks specialists

Fifty specialists in the study of social networks were selected in 1977 as a trial group to test the impact of the Electronic Information Exchange System (EIES), a computer based communication facility housed at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Networks specialists were one of four research communities initially chosen with the hope, according to the sponsoring organization, that participating in the conference would “enhance the effectiveness of individuals belonging to such a community” (NSF 1977).

The individuals selected were a diverse collection. They included sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, political scientists, communications scientists and mathematicians. They varied from graduate students to senior professors and from beginners in the study of social networks to those who had been doing networks research for ten or more years. Moreover, they were spread across the entire United States and Canada.

The project started with a one day face-to-face conference in January, 1978. Twenty-five of the participants were able to attend. After the conference everyone returned home to begin communicating by means of computer.

Each participant had (or had access to) a computer terminal and a telephone line. Each could phone in to the central computer at any time and type or receive private messages to and from designated others or

read or write on any of several topical public conferences. Most communication was asynchronous. Although two or more

individuals who called in at the same time-either by chance or by design-could communicate directly on a line-by-line basis. most communication was conducted by sending messages that were written at their author’s convenience and picked up at a later time by their recipients. Similarly, any participant could write a conference comment at any time to be read by others when and if they saw fit to bring themselves up to date in that particular conference.

From the perspective of the current report, an important objective of this computer facilitated communication was its potential for bringing people with a common interest together-perhaps for the first time. Although some of the people involved had been lifelong friends when the project began, many had neither met nor even heard of each other. The computer, it would seem, could provide a cheap and easy mecha- nism for people to “get together” and exchange ideas.

This is a significant objective from a sociological point of view. The whole of the scientific enterprise depends on effective communication among people working in an area. To be effective, scientists need to talk to one another, write to each other and read each other’s work. Science is essentially a collective expression that is based entirely on such communication. Particularly in the early stages of the emergence of a new specialty, progress requires communication in order to establish the sorts of norms and consenses that define both problem and approach.

In one sense, then, the study of the sociology of science is the study of links among persons. One would expect, for example, that an established specialty in science would be characterized by rather dense links among its practitioners-they would all know (or certainly at least know of) each other. As a matter of fact, the presence of such dense links could be used to define the boundaries of a scientific specialty.

Ties between scientists who work in differing specialties will in all probably exist, but they will be far less frequent than those occurring within a specialty. Moreover, pairs of specialties can doubtless be arranged with respect to the relative densities of ties linking them. Ties are probably more common, for example, between biochemists and neurophysiologists than between astrophysics and experimental psychologists.

According to Mullins (1973) the development of linkages among

204 L.C. Freeman / Cornpurer based ~~mnwmuhm and socrul s~rucmre

persons moving into an emerging scientific specialty is absolutely essential. Typically, one would expect to find a core of people, probably located at a single institution. Members of this core should be characterized by strong interpersonal ties linking them together into a tight clique-like structure. Others may emerge on the periphery of this core. These other should be only weakly tied to core members and perhaps not at all to one another.

Spread of the emerging perspective occurs when students turned out by the original institution move on to other institutions and, in turn, train their own students. At the same time they must maintain regular and frequent communication with each other and with those at the parent institution in order to maintain and extend the perspective. Only in this way, building from a focused initial center and spreading by means of geographical mobility, can a new specialty be developed. The whole process depends on long term initial face-to-face ties and the regular maintenance of these ties after the individuals involved are no longer in the same location.

Social networks specialists are an interesting special case. They were studied by Mullins (1973) and he described them as a typical case of the process outlined above. They were, according to Mullins, originally centered at Harvard where the initial process of specialty-building began. Then, as Ph.D.‘s were completed, students trained at Harvard began moving to other institutions and started to train their own students in the predicted manner.

Mullins listed, also, a small number of “friends” of the social networks movement who were located at other institutions. The only trouble with Mullins’ account is that he seriously underestimated the number of interested outsiders as well as the degree of their interest. Various groups of “outsiders” at various institutions throughout the world saw different origins of the perspective. Many of these groups tended to define themselves as the center of a legitimate core in exactly the same sense that those from and at Harvard did.

When the project started some individuals from these several back- grounds were already beginning to become aware of one another and to develop some tentative links. Barry Wellman formed the International Network for Social Networks Analysis (INSNA) and I started the journal, Social Networks, both in 1977. Both of these ventures were aimed at starting a conversation among representatives of all interested parties. From Mullins’ perspective, however, it is unlikely that these

L.C. Frrenm / Computer- based communicu~ion and socd structure 205

efforts ever could have facilitated the development of a broad based new specialty. Only the give and take that comes out of extended direct contact can do that.

In a sense then, the challenge of the current project was in its attempt to substitute extended computer communication for extended face-to-face contact. The hope was to find a way to link representatives of these several diverse groups together in such a way that they would form into a single overreaching specialty.

Their academic origins were varied, but the intellectual interests of these conference participants were strongly overlapping. With enough money, they could all have been brought together at a common place for an extended period of time in the hope that they might develop some sort of consensus. But the aim of this project was to see if something along these lines could be achieved by using an extended computer based linking system, Participants could use the computer to communicate on a regular basis and perhaps arrive at the sorts of common understandings that constitute the basis for a collective effort focused on a new scientific approach.

In order to start the whole process, however, as a first step it was necessary for the participants at least to become acquainted with each other. We cannot hope that they could enter into significant scientific discussions until they were acquainted. This process of becoming acquainted is the focus of the present report. It is examined in the next section.

3. Acquaintanceship, awareness and the notion of a basis relation

Structural studies of social networks typically ignore the content of the relations under examination; we act as if we expect to find some universal structural laws that can be applied equally to friendship and to corporate interlocks. Such an expectation may be valid. There may indeed be universal structural processes or constraints that are reflected in all social connections. Far more likely, however, on strictly intuitive grounds, is the notion that different rules will be needed to capture the structural patterns regularity expressed in different kinds of relations. The concept of “kinds” of relations is a difficult one. To the extent that anyone has confronted this problem at all, the tendency is to define “kinds” in terms of their algebraic properties. Davis and Leinhardt

(1972), for example, explored some of the possible differing social consequences of symmetrical as opposed to asymmetrical social relations when they are embedded in social structures.

On the other hand, there has been at least one attempt to define kinds of relations in terms of their content. Davis (1967), proposed that there are important structural differences between the ways “positive” and “negative” social relations are linked together in larger social structures. This approach turned out to yield important insights and to provide a way to extend the notion of balance from the study of cognition to the study of social structure.

The success of Davis’ focus on content suggests the importance of continuing this approach. One way to begin this process is to seek to define some fundamental relations that occur again and again in human interaction. Poole and Kochen (1977) did just that when they proposed acquaintanceship as the foundation out of which all other social relations are built.

In the Poole and Kochen scheme, two individuals are related if and only if they have met at some time and that, if pressed, each could recall the name of the other. The business of recalling names is probably a bit restrictive, but the intuitive idea is clear. The recall of a kinship label or perhaps even descriptive account of traits and char- acteristics of the other or the circumstances of a previous meeting would probably capture the notion Poole and Kochen had in mind. The critical idea is that a pair of persons is acquainted if they both:

(1) Can recall having interacted directly either face-to-face or through some other medium of communication; and

(2) Can characterize one another with a name or some other ap- propriate label.

In any case, Poole and Kochen argued that all of the other- stronger-relations between pairs of persons cannot take place between the members of an unacquainted pair. Unacquainted people cannot be friends nor can they gossip or marry or indulge in any of the myriad of pair-wise activities that characterize significant human social exchange.

Poole and Kochen, in my view, did not go far enough. There is, I believe, a still more basic relation that always underlies acquaintanceship, and that is awareness. I am not, nor have I ever been acquainted with Freud, Marx or Weber. Yet all of these people have affected my use of language and the way I think about things. I am aware of them

and they have all communicated with me via their writings. So here we have a relation that is both social and important that is clearly not grounded in acquaintanceship.

I am arguing that the most fundamental social relation that can occur to link one human being to another is awareness. Awareness is a necessary precondition for any of a whole range of one-way influence relations like reading, or sitting in an audience for a lecture, a concert, a movie or any similar asymmetrical communication act. Moreover, mutual awareness is foundational for acquaintanceship and therefore for any kind of significant direct human interaction.

In this latter case, when a person is aware of another, he or she can take the initiative and make some approach to the other-leading to mutual awareness. Such progress from one way to mutual awareness need not, of course, ever occur. But the point is that no interpersonal relation that involves social interaction can possibly take place between a pair of people until they have-perhaps very quickly-passed through the stages of one way and mutual awareness.

Even two individuals who are introduced by a third person must necessarily pass through the two stages of awareness-first one is aware of the other, then each is aware of the other. And this sequence of events must take place before the individuals involved can develop any other symmetrical relation at all. People cannot become collaborators or friends or lovers or even enemies until they are aware of each other.

Thus, we can distinguish two kinds of very basic relations linking human beings: (1) asymmetrical awareness and (2) symmetrical acquaintanceship. Establishing the former is a necessary prior condition for the establishment of the latter, but it is necessary also as a prior condition for the emergence of stronger and deeper asymmetrical influence relations. Acquaintanceship, in turn, is a necessary foundation for building any of a set of stronger symmetrical relations that involve direct interpersonal exchange.

This notion of prior necessity suggests an important relation among the relation themselves. Moreover, the relation among relations introduced here departs somewhat from those considered earlier by Lorrain and White (1971) and developed recently by Boyd (1982). Those prior discussions of relations among relations have stressed the establishment of identities between relations-where every pair that is connected by a given relation is also connected by another. Here, concern is not with identities but with establishing some kind of nesting among relations

such that each forms a a matrix within which another can develop. A similar subset relation among relations was discussed in an earlier

study by Freeman (1980). Atkin’s notions of polyhedral dynamics-a variant form of algebraic topology-were applied to a problem involving this kind of nesting of relations. It was shown that before a pair of individuals were willing to claim a mutual relationship of close personal friendship with one another, they had to have a previously established and relatively long-term relation that involved physical proximity. Any of several different prior relationship would do; the proximity it seemed was the key.

In a sense, then, some relation involving prolonged physical proximity turned out to be the basis for establishing the kind of trust and intimacy involved in close personal friendship. Proximity was a necessary (but not, of course, sufficient) pre-condition for close friendship. Or, put another way, close friendship entailed proximity. Here such necessity or entailment will be said to establish a basis relation between the two social relations involved. In that earlier case, then, a proximity relation turned out to be a basis for a close friendship relation.

Atkin (1972) used the idea of “backcloth” and “traffic” to capture this two-level structure of relations. In the present conception, however, it is reasonable to suppose that there are more than two levels. In such a case, all but the last relation provides the background into which the next is embedded. We can conceive, therefore, of a general basis relation among social relations as a generalization of the two-level typology of backcloth and traffic.

A relation may be said to form a basis for another if the latter occurs only in the presence of the former. Precisely, given a set S and two relations in S x S, R and R’, R is a basis for R’ if and only if every ordered pair (a, b) in R’ is also present in R. Obviously such arrange- ments can be nested to any depth.

Thus the present conception is closely related to, and stems in part from, White et al.‘s (1981) ideas about entailment analysis. A relation that is the basis for another is entailed by that other. This suggests that the White algorithm for uncovering partial entailments could be adapted to uncover patterns of basis structures. In the present instance, however, the entailments are complete, so no such adaptation is needed.

Now given this notion of basis relations as a generalization of backcloth and traffic, the question is what if anything we can do with it in the study of social networks. The answer is, hopefully a great deal,

since the basis idea suggests one useful way of addressing the hideous complexity that characterizes any multi-relational social network. In the next section we shall see how these ideas might be used to organize the data to shed some light on the social structure of our emerging scientific specialty.

4. The sociometric data

The data for this study come from two independent sources. First, when Barry Wellman founded the International Network for Social Networks Analysis (INSNA) in 1977 he circulated a questionnaire among all of the 174 founding members. Each member was asked to report what combination of nine different relations he or she had with each of the other founders. The relations recorded were:

1. Familiar with 2. Follow the work of 3. Know 4. Teacher of 5. Student of 6. Colleague of 7. Attended conference with 8. (Ever) coworker with 9. Coauthor with

This data set was collected in June of 1977, about seven months before the computer communications project started. Wellman gave it to Patrick Doreian who, in turn, passed it on to me.

The other data set was collected as a part of the experiment in computer based communication. The 50 participants in computer communication were almost all among the founders of INSNA.

As part of the computer communication experiment I collected two sets of sociometric survey data from the participants. My first survey was conducted at the start of the study, at the end of the face-to-face conference in January, 1977. Then that survey was repeated at the end of the seventh month, in July of 1978.

Both of these questionnaires asked participants to report what combination of 18 relations characterized their relationships with each of the others involved in the computer conference. Respondents were

210 L.C. Freeman / Computer- based communrcrrrion und social structure

asked to record which of the others were:

1. Unfamiliar (not known) 2. Considered to be a friend 3. Considered to be a close personal friend 4. Authored books and articles that I have read 5. Fellow undergraduates 6. Fellow graduate students 7. My teachers 8. Thesis or Dissertation Advisor 9. My students

10. Work or have worked at the same institution with me 11. Worked on a project together with me 12. Team taught with me 13. Coauthored with me 14. Met face-to-face 15. Correspond through the mail with me 16. Talked with on the telephone 17. Talked with at a meeting or conference 18. Communicated with via computer

In all, then, we have three sets of relational data-collected at seven month intervals-on many of the same individuals. Although the question on the INSNA survey were not identical to those on the two latter surveys, there is enough overlap to permit some interesting comparisons and to examine some of the ways in which the structure of relations changed through time.

On the INSNA survey, 97 of the 104 people questioned responded. And 29 people responded to both of the second set of questionnaires. In all, there were 16 individuals who completed all three forms. They provided the data that are examined in the present study.

5. Results and analysis

Concern here is with awareness. And awareness is a natural relation upon which comparable data are available from the three questionnaires used in the present study. Since awareness is a natural antecedent of all the relations but unfamiliarity recorded in this study, it can here be defined as the union of all those relations. In effect, then, awareness

Table 1 Awareness at Time 1

0 111111111111111 10 0 0 111 0 11 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11111 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 10 11 0 1111 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 111 0 10 0 0 0 111 0 11 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 111 0 111 0 0 11 0 10 10 111 0 111 0 0 0 11 0 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 10 111 0 0 111 0 0 11 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 10 0 111 0 1111 0 1111 0 0 0 111 0 1110 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

is demonstrated when an individual is familiar with and/or follows the work of and/or knows and/or is (or was) a teacher of and/or is (or was) a student of and/or is (or was) a colleague of and/or attended a conference with and/or is (or was) a coworker with and/or has


0 111111111111111 10 0 0 1110 110 10 110 10 0 0 111 11111111 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 111 0 0 11 0 110 1111 0 110 0 10 10 10 0 10 0 10 111 0 11 0 0 0 111111 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 111 0 111 0 0 1111 0 10 111 0 17 10 0 0 11 0 10 0 10 10 0 0 110 10 111 0 0 111 0 111 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 1110 10 0 111 0 1111 0 1111 0 10 111 0 111 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

212 L.C. Freemon / Compurer based commun~u~ion and socrcrl srrucrurr

coauthored with and/or has heard of and/or has met and/or considers to be a friend and/or considers to be a close personal friend some designated other. It is inconceivable to have any of these relations with another of whom one is unaware and it seems unlikely that one could be aware of another under conditions in which none of these relations held.

The awareness relation for the three surveys is shown in Tables 1-3. Note that it includes both mutual and non-mutual ties at all three observation times. Note also that although in principle it is possible for a person to “forget about” knowing another, no individual in this set did so during this relatively short period of repeated observations.

The two data sets-from INSNA and EIES-also permit the examination of acquaintanceship among these individuals. On the INSNA survey, respondents who report that they are “familiar with” and/or “follow the work of” another but claim none of the closer relations with a particular other, may be assumed to be unacquainted. Moreover, by definition, if claims of the closer relations are not reciprocated, acquaintanceship cannot be assumed. For these data, then, acquaintanceship is made evident by mutual reports of relations of knowing, teaching, being a student or colleague of or meeting, working or authoring with.


0 111111111111111 10 11111 0 11 0 11111 11 0 1111111111111 110 0 10 10 0 11 0 0 111 1111 0 11111 0 11111 110 0 10 10 110 10 0 11 111111 0 0 11111111 10 10 10 0 0 0 111110 1 111 0 111 0 0 1111 0 10 11111110 0 0 110 111 10 10 0 0 110 10 1110 0 111 0 111 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 111 0 10 0 10 1110 10 1 1111111111111 0 11 11111110 11 0 111 0 1 11111110 0 10 0 0 10 0

L.C. Freeman / Cornpurer- based communicatron and social structure 213

Table 4 Acquaintanceship at Time 1

0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 _

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 _

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Similarity, the EIES data may be used to indicate acquaintanceship whenever two persons both claim any relation but unfamiliarity or mutual reading of one another’s books and articles. All of the other relations are closer and all imply acquaintanceship.

Thus, acquaintanceship ties for all three times are shown in Tables

Table 5 Acquaintanceship at Time 2

0 11111 0 0 11 0 11111 10 0 0 111 0 11 0 10 110 10 0 0 10 0 110 0 11110 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 11 0 110 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 1110 110 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1110 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 110 0 10 10 0 0 110 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 111 0 0 110 0 10 0 0 10 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1110 10 10 0 111 0 0 0 0 1110 110 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

214 L.C. Freeman / Computer- bused c’ommun,c’crtron und socd .structure

Table 6 Acquaintanceship at

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

i 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0

1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1

‘ime 3

i 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

i 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

T 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

T 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

i 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

i 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

i 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

4-6. Note here that the relation is symmetrical. Moreover, as a conse- quence of the operations performed, the awareness relation shown in the first’ three tables is the basis for the acquaintanceship shown in the next three. Thus, each pair that is acquainted is also necessarily mutually aware. The acquaintanceship relation is a subset of awareness.

Table 7 Strict Awareness at Time 1

0 0 10 0 1110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 1 11 10 0 11 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 11 0 110 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 8

L.C. Freeman / Computer- based communrca~~on and social ~~rucfure 215

Strict Awareness at Time 2

0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 _ -

1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Now if we subtract the acquaintanceship matrix from the awareness matrix the result is a matrix of strict awareness. It contains the pairs that are linked by awareness but by no closer relation. Results of this subtraction are shown in Tables 7-9. Note here that while some pairs are linked by one-way awareness relations, some are mutually aware

Table 9 Strict Awareness at Time 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 1110 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 11110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1110 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 110 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

216 L.C. Freenmn / Compurrr- based c’ommunicutro~~ and smul strucwe

but unacquainted. This obtains whenever both members of a pair of individuals have heard of or read the works of each other but have not communicated.

All this data transformation permits us to define four relations of interest over the pairs of persons in this study. A pair may be mutually unaware. One of a pair may be aware of the other though the other does not reciprocate. A pair may be mutually acquainted resulting in a symmetrical relation. Or, perhaps most interesting, a pair of individuals may be mutually aware of each other but unacquainted in the sense that they have never communicated with one another in a one-to-one manner either face-to-face or by means of any other medium of communication.

This last relation appears to be symmetrical. It is, however, a peculiar kind of symmetrical relation that, in a way, is related to the idea of the pseudo-clique proposed by Seidman (1981) in his discussion of structure and hypergraphs. Seidman suggested that a clique composed of three persons, a, b and c, who had been, say, in pairwise coworker relations at different places was structurally distinct from a triple who had worked together at the same place and time. Consider, for example, a situation in which a and b were together at Harvard, b and c were together at Toronto and a and c were together at Berkely. This results in a triple of mutually linked pairs that is not a clique in the sense that it would be if all three had worked at Harvard at the same time.

In the present instance, we can generalize Seidman’s distinction. Clearly a pair of persons who have read each other’s work or even attended each other’s lectures are not mutually linked in the same sense that they would be had they communicated directly together in a one-on-one exchange. One-on-one interaction is truly interactive and is symmetrical by definition. But mutual awareness is really a pair of one-way relations; it is pseudo-symmetrical.

This distinction seems to provide a conceptual advantage over the usual distinction between reciprocated and unreciprocated pairs. In this case, we can distinguish between two kinds of seemingly symmetrical relations, mutual awareness and true acquaintanceship. Relations of the former type constitute the basis for the those of the latter type.

Thus, this gives us four, rather than the usual three types of ties. And given these four types of ties we can envisage an acquaintanceship process. Pairs begin in the null state. At some point one of a pair may become aware of the other and the pair thus moves into an asymmetri-

cal state. The person who is aware may, of course, “forget” the other, but in the short run this is unlikely, so for present purposes let us assume a one-way growth process without decay. In any case, the other may become aware of the one, leading to the pseudo-symmetrical state, and finally, the pair may “meet” through establishing some sort of interpersonal contact.

Of course, this process can be very slow, or it can get locked into some sort of intermediate stage. Or it can be almost instantaneous, as when two people are introduced by a third party. But even when two people are introduced, its safe to assume that one or the other becomes aware of the other first, there is an instant of mutual awareness, and then words are exchanged. So the transition process may be very fast indeed, but it is reasonable to assume that any pair of persons who are acquainted have passed through all the stages leading up to acquaintanceship.

The speed with which the state to state transitions take place is critical in the current context. In fact, one way to look at Mullins’ notion that long-term proximity is necessary for the development of a new scientific paradigm is that the proximity and the time are requisite for acquaintanceships to be struck and used in the establishment of consensus. In judging whether a computer may be substituted for proximity, then, the question is whether the computer can provide persons with opportunities to learn about each other as well as to “ meet”.

We can get some indication of the answer to this question from looking at the data in Tables l-9. An unequivocal answer is, of course, impossible. The current “experiment” had no control group. This means that any difference we observe may be the result of any of the hundreds of other events that took place during the two seven month periods between which our data were collected. We can, however,

Table 10 Number of pairs in each state at each time

Time N A P s Sum

1 51 21 21 21 120 2 39 24 11 46 120

3 IR 20 10 12 120

Table 11 Time 1 to time 2 state-to-state transltlons

N A P s

N 0.76 0.20 0.04 0.00 A 0.67 0.05 0.28 P 0.38 0.62 S 1 .oo

inspect our data and get some indication of whether our ideas are worth further exploration. Indeed, if observed differences are very small-or in the wrong direction-we would be advised to forget the whole matter.

Table 10 shows, however, that the differences are both large and in the right direction. In these three data sets, no one forgot anyone else, and a lot of people got to know about and to know each other. At least some of the bases for science building were, it seems, established.

Although pairs moved along from the null state towards mutual acquaintanceship both between the first and the second and the second and the third surveys in this study, the rates were quite different in the two periods. Results are shown in Tables 11 and 12. Table 11 shows the “normal” state-to-state transition rates. All states except pseudo-symmetrical tend to retain more pairs than they release to their successors. Moreover, pairs that began in the null state never-during the seven months of the study period-moved all the way to symmetrical acquaintanceship. Table 12, however, shows the transitions during the computer conference. Three differences are striking. First, all states, particularly the null one seem to retain fewer pairs. Second, the transition from null all the way to symmetrical is raised from zero to 0.31. Third, the transition from asymmetrical to pseudo-symmetrical is increased from 0.05 to 0.21.

Table 12 Time 2 to Time 3 state-to-state transitions

N 0.45 0.21 0.03 0.31 A 0.50 0.21 0.29

M 0.36 0.64

S 1 .oo

We can speculate that these are the sorts of effects that would occur if these people had been brought together in a meeting. First, because of the action. fewer pairs would stay in the same state in which they began. Second, given the immediate proximity and easy access to many others, we can guess that many people who were exposed to the ideas of others that they found interesting would take the initiative and seek those others out and meet them. Third, through attending sessions and talking with friends, people might learn about others who-because of shyness or limitations on time, they do not actually meet.

This same reasoning is plausible in the computer context. First, there was plenty of action. Participants were thrown into a type of experience that was, for most, new and, for many, exciting. Thus, they had access to others they hadn’t heard of or met in a context that might encourage cameraderie. Second, they had access to a device that provided encouragement to send messages to others on topics of common interest. And third, they had, through the conference mode, an opportunity to learn about the existence of others and have those others learn about their own existence, all without actually communicating directly.

Tables 13 and 14 show the transitions from each of the other states into symmetry as a function of opportunities at the two times. The expectations in both cases are simply a function of the numbers in each of the starting states that could jump to symmetry. As Table 13 shows, before the computer conference, transitions were characterized by small slow steps. They were driven, not by opportunity, but by their tendency to move only in one-step increments.

On the other hand, Table 14 shows a very different state of affairs once the computer conference had started. Given the access provided by the computer, movement into the symmetrical state seems to be

Table 13 Time 1 to Time 2 frequencies of movement to symmetry

Origin Number Frequencies of moving to S

state of cases Observed Expected

N 51 0 10.42

A 21 6 4.29

P 21 13 4.29

Sum 93 19 19.00

C‘hi-square = 28.783 D.F. = 2 P < 0.001

220 L.C. Freeman / Cornpurer - based commun,ca~,on and social s,ruc’,ure

Table 14 Time 2 to Time 3 frequencies of movement to symmetry

Origin state

Number of cases

Frequencies of moving to S

Observed Expected

N 39 12 13.70

A 24 7 8.43

P 11 7 3.87

Sum 14 26 26.00

Chi-square = 2.995 D.F. = 2 P > 0.05

almost totally determined by opportunity. Pairs of persons in any state became acquainted proportional to the number of pairs in that state.

6. Summary and conclusions

Perhaps the most important conclusion to draw here is that there are no true conclusions. This paper was intended to be suggestive. Since there was no systematic comparison group available in this research, there can be no clear results. Hopefully, however, there are some suggestive findings.

First off, on the substantive side, these results are not inconsistent with the notion that the computer conference had some sort of impact on its participants. Alone, this means very little. But taken together with the reports cited earlier all of which found some dramatic structural changes associated with the advent of the computer conference, it is increasingly likely that the computer conference itself was an important factor.

It is true that another factor or factors that occurred coincidentally with the conference might account for all of the differences we have observed. But no such other factors spring to mind, and, for myself, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the computer did have an effect.

On the methodological side, this paper has extended two ideas previously introduced into network analysis. First Atkin’s notion of backcloth and traffic has been generalized to the idea of multi-level basis relations. Second Seidman’s ideas about pseudo-cliques have been extended to pairs and the notion of pseudo-symmetrical links. To- gether’s these generalizations seem to permit a more sophisticated look

at the relations among relations than is customary. In particular, they call attention to the content of the relations that are being examined. This is an attractive alternative to simply “stacking” relations regard- less of their content and hunting for “structure” in the stack.

References

Atkm. R.H. 1972 “From cohomology in physics to q-connectiwty in social science”. Inrermztronul Journal

of Man -Machine Studres 4: 139-161. Boyd. J.P.

1983 “Social semigroups and Green relations”. In L.C. Freeman, D.R. White and A.K. Romney (eds.) Research Methods in Soaal Nerworks Anu!vs~s (in press).

Davis, J.A. 1967 “Clustering and structural balance in graphs”. Humatl Relarrons 20: 181-187.

Davis, J.A. and S. Lemhardt 1972 “The structure of positive interpersonal relations in groups”. In J. Berger. M. Zeldich and

B. Anderson (eds.) Sociologrcal Theorres rn Progress, Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Freeman, L.C.

1980 “Q-analysis and the structure of friendship networks”. Inrernational Journal of Man

Machrne Studies 12: 367-378. Freeman, L.C.

1982 “Centered graphs and the structure of ego networks”. Marhematical Social Sciences 3:

291-304. Freeman, L.C. and S.C. Freeman

1980 “A semi-visible college: structural effects of seven months of EIES participation by a social networks community”. M.M. Henderson and M.J. MacNaughton (eds.) Elecrronrc Communicarion: Technology and Impacts, AAAS Symposrum 52. Washington. D.C.: AAAS.

Freeman, S.C. and L.C. Freeman 1979 “The networkers network: a study of the impact of a new communications medium on

sociometric structure”. Social Science Research Reports, No. 46. University of California, Irvine.

Lorrain, F. and H. White 1971 “Structural equivalence of individuals in social networks”. J. of Malhematrcal Sooolog)

1: 49-80. Mullins. N.C.

1973 Theorres and Theory Groups rn Contemporary American Sociology. New York: Harper and Row.

National Science Foundation 1977 Program Announcement: Operational Trials of electronic Information Exchange for

Small Research Communities. NSF 76-45. Poole, I. and M. Kochen

1977 “Contents and influence”. Social Networks 1: 5-51.

Seidman, S.B. 1981 “Structures induced by collections of subsets: a hypergraph approach”. Mathematrcal

Social Sciences 1: 381-396. White, D.R.. M. Burton and L. Brudner

1977 “Entailment theory and method: a cross-cultural analysis of the sexual division of labor”. Behowoural Scrence Research 12: I-24.

the impact of computer based communication …moreno.ss.uci.edu/39.pdf · the impact of computer...

Documents