Keith Hampton’s very faced-paced talk dealt with the impact of network and mobile technology on traditional face-to-face communication and the function of neighbourhood communities. He cut his teeth in the study of the Newmarket/Netville. More recently he has been experimenting with the intervention of email and website as neighbourhood building tools in established communities and measuring their rate of adoption and impact on face-to-face social contact. This was followed by his e-Neighbours study and most recently the creation of the iNeighbour online community. Hampton’s framing question is does the internet encourage privatism and if so, does it continue the trend of grounding it in the family home, or does it permit privatism to creep into the public and parochial realm.
These studies are blunt in some of the finding. A recent study of mobile technology usage in public spaces for example is quite clear: laptop users are largely solitary in public spaces, having limited interaction with those around them, using the technology as a shield. Thus his Hampton began his talk ‘Social Networks and Internet Use: The Growth of Privatism in the Public and Parochial Realms?’ with some historical references to Louis Wirth, Fischer and more recently Robert Putnam tracing the rise of privatism within society. He then asked the question, why should we in society care about this growth. Thne answer he suggests is that the public realm, throughs its deiversity has been connected with the creation of opinion, dsicourse and the furtherment of democracy and a shift away from this could have an impact on social health.
Hampton then touched on his Netville (Newmarket) study which demonstrated that the provision of high-speed networks and dedicated email lists led to a greater face-to-face neighbourhood relations. The subsequent e-Neighbours study in Boston was more problematic in its conclusions. Although it demonstrated a lack of enablement by access to tools, in one of the cases, a catalysing event (a local election) drove email use and led to an extended onl;ine discussion amongst residents on the role of technology in the neighbourhood. Folloowing the event, use of technology blossomed and residents reported that…
Led to e-neighbors project
Are internet interactions part of everyday interactions
Used four cases tsidies in boston
similar middle class neighbourhopods
diveregd in terms of lifescycle.
Intereviewed in 2002, 2003, 2004
A neighbourhood email list and neighbourhood website…this was the intervention
They were told it was there, were not given access
they were reminded every six months that it was there
Apartment building
Gated community
2 suberban sites
The survey
apartment, young, single transient, childless…little obligation to community…yet most wanted contact
gated community…split interms of desire for involvement
suburbs…wished for contact, largely children in families
email…big use in the suburbs..
web…almost no use.
email list was largely used for referals on services and availability
at end of first year there was a local election
real spike in exchange of email discussing the election
there was a third group (as oppopsed to pro and con) that did not like the list being used to express political opinion
After the election there was a big discussion on whetehr divisive things should have been talked about on the list
The result was that dscussion diversified substantally…big use, more diverse than previosuly
Results of study:
How many neighbours were recognized and tagged as close over time.
network size:
men had smaller networks
longer length of residence…bigger network
children at home have bigger network
early adopters of net had smaller networks and slow growth of network
late adopters had larger to start with, but tended to decrease over time
Mena have similar number of close ties as women…
cildren at home increases number of local ties
in-person contact…those who self-selected and adopted services…maintained slightly smaller contact with neighbours over time
ais the intervention accelerating tend to privitization
conclusions
is the internet increasingly a part of everyday interactions?
Gradual increase in network size
communities with a proposentiy to have social ties will be enhanced by the net
.
.
.
Created i-neighbours.org…result of ethics board at MIT…because the study was undertaken, had to maintian a website for the partyicipants
people in study were given access to contiue this usage..
TIme and media picked it up and now have over 7K neighbourhoods registered.
Great new study…
Started a content analysis of what’s being talked about.
The quality and type of discusion is similiar to enieghbour study…
map of social capital in US putnam…closer to canada..states have higher quanty of social capital…
the i-neighbours usage are the ones obverse to this…largley in the south…
most are black and hiospanic…lower incomes…reverse image of the putnam map.
early conclusions:
doing linguistic anaylsis
measure quality of sidcusion on sociao-economic factorts
peopel in really desparte situations seem to latch onto technology such as this
facin g internal or external threates, seem to use technology more.
also seem to overcome digital divide…even without social capital to start, seem to be able to accumulate very quickly
How will wifi ,sn and public spoace change.
wifi in cafes…increasedd privatizarion? increse use of thes psaces, change wgere we get social support?
Seattle and Bostoin in 4 cafes
dod people who use wifi in cafes engage more ort less with those around them…
paid versus/unpaid cafes
two distinct type sof users
true mobiles…activivites in wifi cafes…(2:1) ususally directed to paid workd…a centre of producitiy or escape
laptop wasn’t a cover for having no purpose…it was very much being used…an escape from coworkers or from family
were used as a shiled though to keep from interacting with people in cafes…arrived alone, staid alone, left alone.
Second type was placemakers…anything but work…encourage chance encounters
deliberatley chose plugs wehere people were already there…made eyecontact
50% reported that they made new friends through technology in the cafe
Questions?
by definitioan a shift from privatsim
however, for tru mobiles…does not actually address issues of privatization. – public privatism
big contrast bewtwwn tru mobiles and placemakers
cafes are working to subvert this opportunity…sense that this was an illegitimate use of coffee shop..removed power outlets, smaller tables, etc.
‘Social LIfe of Wireless Urban Space’
How will wifi indfluence interactions in publkic space?
Sociologists are very nosey people!!!! – these guys are getting access to way too much info…wireless access logs through wireless tonrot…photoing people,
Observed and docuemnted laptops and other media in public spaces
2228 surveys in parks with users
the majoproty of public wifi users were in early to late 20s…males outnumberd females
75% were not married
toronto had far fewre mobile devices in public spaces than NYT, Boston etc.
25% of people had not visited these spaces prior to wifi availablity
70% said they came more often because of wifi
avg user 60 minutes twice per week.
Only 15% met up with anyone
only 1.3 reporty meeting a new person in the place
commonly positioned themselves outside of main activity areas
whyere power was available, they found them and clustered
tend to use laptops as shileds…tried getting close to see when people noticed…??
Laptop users generally cannot be distracted.
small minorityt seem to be engaging in space, but rarelky meeting other people
Very infrequentyl collaborative work
Neighborhoos effects
laptop users arrive alone and leave alone…not that diffeent thnan books
encounters that did talke place were about utilities…power, wifi
The tendency of clustering…teneded to push pout other activities…surrounded by laptoppers, no oppoortunity for social interaction (Bryant park)
lack of public socialbility does not appear to negatively impact wifi users social networks
despite homogenous group, white, well-eduvcxated men, have very large social groups.
In privatsim on the rise?
Seems likely
design of cafes/parks, etc…should encourage public use of wifi etc…make laptop users share tables, districbute power about…encourage interaction…and serendiptity.