Has the Internet affected the ways in which people communicate by lessening the effects of distance? To examine this question, the authors study scholarly and interpersonal relationships—in person and by e-mail—in two scholarly networks, one in a large university and one dispersed across North America. These scholarly networks are harbingers of the turn toward network and virtual organizations. Although the Internet helps scholars to maintain ties over great distances, physical proximity still matters. Those scholars who see each other often or work near each other e-mail each other more often. Frequent contact on the Internet is a complement to frequent face-to-face contact, not a substitute for it. The more scholarly relations network members have, the more frequently they communicate and the more media they use to communicate. Although e-mail helps scholars without strong ties to stay in contact, it is used most by scholars who are collaborators or friends.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahuja, M. , & Carley, K. (1998). Network structure in virtual organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, 3(4), 1-34.
2.
Barlow, J. P. , Birkets, S., Kelly, K., & Slouka, M. (1995, August). What are we doing on-line. Harper's, 35-46.
3.
Breiger, R. (1976). Career attributes and network structure: A blockmodel of a biomedical research speciality. American Sociological Review, 41, 181-190.
4.
Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Carley, K. , & Wendt, K. (1991). Electronic mail and scientific communication. Knowledge, 12(4), 406-440.
6.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
7.
Crane, D. (1969). Social structure of a group of scientists: A test of the “invisible college” hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 34(3), 335-352.
8.
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Craven, P. , & Wellman, B. (1973). The network city. Sociological Inquiry, 43(1), 57-88.
10.
Crawford, S. (1970). Informal communication among scientists in sleep and dream research. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
11.
Cronin, B. (1982). Invisible colleges and information transfer. Journal of Documentation, 38(3), 212-236.
12.
DeSanctis, G. , & Jackson, B. (1994). Coordination of information technology management: Team-based structures and computer-based communication systems. Journal of Management and Information Systems, 10(4), 85-110.
13.
Diderot, D. , & a Society of Men of Letters. (1965). Encyclopédie [Encyclopedia]. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1772)
14.
Durkheim, E. (1893). The division of labor in society. New York: Macmillan.
15.
Finholt, T. A. (1998, November). Behavioral evaluation of CSCW systems. Paper presented at Computer Supported Cooperative Work 98 Conference, Seattle, WA.
16.
Finholt, T. A. , & Olson, G. M. (1997). From laboratories to collaboratories: A new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychological Science, 8, 1-9.
17.
Fish, R. S. , Kraut, R. E., Root, R. W., & Rice, R. (1993). Evaluating video as a technology for informal communication. Communications of the ACM [Association for Computing Machinery], 36(1), 48-61.
18.
Friedkin, N. (1982). Information flows through strong and weak ties in intraorganizational social networks. Social Networks, 3, 273-285.
19.
Garton, L. , & Wellman, B. (1995). Social impacts of electronic mail in organizations: A review of the research literature. Communication Yearbook, 18, 434-453.
20.
Gaston, J. (1973). Originality and competition in science: A study of the British high energy physics community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Glanz, J. (1999, September 14). What fuels progress in science? Sometimes, a feud. The New York Times, pp. D1-D2.
22.
Gresham, J., Jr. (1994). From invisible college to cyberspace college: Computer conferencing and the transformation of informal scholarly communication networks. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 2(4), 37-52.
23.
Griffith, B. , & Mullins, N. (1972, September). Coherent social groups in scientific change. Science, 177, 959-964.
24.
Hampton, K. , & Wellman, B. (1999). Netville online and offline: Observing and surveying a wired suburb. American Behaviorial Scientist, 43(3), 478-495.
25.
Hargittai, E. (1999). Weaving the Western Web: Explaining differences in Internet connectivity among OECD countries. Telecommunications Policy, 23(10/11), 701-718.
26.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2000). Online personal networks: Size, composition, and media use among distance learners. New Media and Society, 2(2), 195-226.
27.
Haythornthwaite, C. , & Wellman, B. (1998). Work, friendship, and media use for information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(12), 1101-1114.
28.
Hill, V. , & Carley, K. (1999). An approach to identifying consensus in a subfield: The case of organizational culture. Poetics, 27, 1-30.
29.
Kiesler, S. , & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96-123.
30.
Marshall, J. (1970). The castle's keep: The Villa Serbelloni in history. Bellagio, Italy: Rockefeller Foundation, Bellagio Center for Study and Conferences.
31.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extension of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
32.
Michelson, W. (1971). Some like it hot: Social participation and environmental use as functions of the season. American Journal of Sociology, 76, 1072-1083.
33.
Miles, E. R. , & Snow, C. (1986). Network organizations: New concepts for new forms. California Management Review, 28, 62-73.
34.
Mitchell, W. (1995). City of bits: Space, time, and the infobahn. Cambridge: MIT Press.
35.
Nardi, B. A. , Whittaker, S., & Schwartz, H. (2000). It's not what you know, it's who you know: Work in the information age. First Monday, 5(5), 30.
36.
Nazer, N. (2001). Operating virtually within a hierarchical framework. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
37.
Nohria, N. , & Eccles, R. (Eds.). (1992). Networks and organizations (2nd ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
38.
Powell, W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 295-336). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
39.
Price, D. de S. (1961). Science since Babylon. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40.
Price, D. de S. , & Beaver, D. de B. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011-1018.
41.
Rice, R. (1987). Computer-mediated communication and organizational innovation. Journal of Communication, 37(4), 65-94.
42.
Rice, R. (1994). Network analysis and computer-mediated communication systems. In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis (pp. 167-203). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Roberts, K. , & Grabowski, M. (1996). Organizations, technology, and structuring. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 409-423). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
Salaff, J. W. , Wellman, B., & Dimitrova, D. (1998, September). There's a time and a place for telework: How social networks affect telework. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Telework, Turku, Finland.
45.
Sproull, L. , & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
Trevino, L. K. , Lengel, R., & Daft, R. L. (1990). Understanding manager's media choices: A symbolic interactionist perspective. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 71-94). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
Valente, T. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
48.
Walsh, J. P. , & Bayama, T. (1996). Computer networks and scientific work. Social Studies of Science, 26(3), 661-703.
49.
Walther, J. B. , Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research, 21(4), 460-487.
50.
Wasserman, S. , & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Wellman, B. (1988). Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (pp. 19-61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52.
Wellman, B. (1997). An electronic group is virtually a social network. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 179-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
Wellman, B. (1999). Ties and bonds. Connections, 22(1), 12-18.
54.
Wellman, B. (2000). Networking networkers: A personal account of how the International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA) came to be. Connections, 23(1).
55.
Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyber place: The rise of networked individualism. International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25.
56.
Wellman, B. , & Berkowitz, S. D. (Eds.). (1988). Social structures: A network approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Wellman, B. , Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: Virtual community, computer-supported cooperative work, and telework. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238.
58.
White, H. (1970). Search parameters for the small world problem. Social Forces, 49, 259-264.
