Untitled - socium.ge

Networked sociability online, off-line 227could play an important role in supporting relations both on- and off-line, itwas desirable not only to conduct detailed interviews with residents, but toconduct an ethnography and observe everyday life in the wired neighborhood.From October 1997 to August 1999, an ethnography was conducted from abasement apartment in Netville. This apartment provided access to the sameinformation and communication technologies available to other “wired”Netville residents and made it possible to work from home, participate inonline activities, attend all possible local meetings (formal and informal), andwalk the neighborhood, chatting and observing. The relationship betweenonline, virtual interactions and “real-life,” place-based encounters wasobserved on the screen, on the streets, and through a survey of local residents.Netville’s wired and non-wired residents were found to be remarkablysimilar in terms of lifestyle, stage in the life-cycle, and the length of time theyhad lived in Netville (Hampton, 2001: 64–5). What was remarkably differentabout wired residents was the structure of their local social networks.Residents were presented with a list of all other adult residents within Netvilleand were asked to identify those they recognized by name and their frequencyof interaction. This survey confirmed what was revealed on the computerscreens of neighborhood homes. “I have walked around the neighborhood a lotlately and I have noticed a few things. I have noticed neighbors talking to eachother like they have been friends for a long time. I have noticed a closenessthat you don’t see in many communities” (quote from the Netville neighborhoode-mail list, 1998).Compared to non-wired residents, wired residents recognized three times asmany of their neighbors (averaging 25.2 neighbors), talked to twice as manyneighbors on a regular basis (averaging 6.4 neighbors), and in the previousthree months had visited 50 percent more of their neighbors (averaging 4.8neighbors) (Hampton and Wellman, 2003). Not only were they communicatingover the Internet and in person, but wired residents also sent an average offour personal e-mails to their neighbors in the previous month, and made fourtimes as many local phone calls as their non-wired counterparts.While wired Netville residents averaged greater name recognition, visiting,and frequency of communication with their neighbors, when statisticalcontrols were introduced for demographic characteristics, such as age, gender,education, and tenure of residence, it became apparent that access to Netville’svirtual domain had the greatest effect on relatively weak neighborhood ties(Hampton, 2003). Indeed, most North Americans do not have a large numberof strong ties at the neighborhood level (Wellman, 1979; Fischer, 1982). It issimply more convenient to form social relations with similar others outside ofthe neighborhood setting. Access to computer-mediated communication inNetville was primarily successful in affording frequent social contact with ahigh number of what were comparatively weak social ties. What might not be