The paper presents the main preliminary findings of GEITONIA research project (Growing and Enabling of Information Technologies for Online Neighborhoods: Implications and Applications). Focusing on the development of a local social network for neighborhoods of Nea Smyrni community in Attica (Greece), the main results of an exploratory mixed methods research study, are discussed. The local social network is a non-commercial social medium that operates as a mobile application. Residents of the local community will have the opportunity to use the application for a pilot period, create their virtual neighborhoods, interact with other neighbors, and expand local social ties in a continuum of physical and virtual spatialities. Moreover, taking into consideration residents’ perceptions, demands and visions, regarding a local social network for their neighborhoods, the research project aims to enhance the rule that sets the focus on the users, as co-creators and co-producers of communication technologies.
BonsónE.TorresL.RoyoS.FloresF. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.10.001
4.
CastellsM. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
5.
DaraganovaG.PattisonP.KoskinenJ.MitchellB.BilA.WattsM. J.BaumS. (2012). Networks and geography: Modelling community network structures as the outcome of both spatial and network processes. Social Networks, 34(1), 6-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.12.001
6.
FelmleeD. H. (2006). Interaction in social networks. In DeLamaterJ. (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 389-409). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36921-X_16
7.
GardnerP. J. (2011). Natural neighborhood networks: Important social networks in the lives of older adults aging in place. Journal of Aging Studies, 25(3), 263-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2011.03.007
GoldenbergJ.LevyM. (2009). Distance is not dead: Social interaction and geographical distance in the internet era. Cornell University. https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3202v2
10.
GoversR.GoF. (2009). Place branding: Glocal, virtual and physical identities constructed, imagined and experienced. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-24702-4
11.
GruzdA.WellmanB.TakhteyevY. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an imagined community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0002764211409378
12.
HamptonK.WellmanB. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City & Community, 2(4), 277-311. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1535-6841.2003.00057.x
13.
IllenbergerJ.NagelK.FlötterödG. (2013). The role of spatial interaction in social networks. Networks and Spatial Economics, 13(3), 255-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-012-9180-4
14.
KavanaughA.CarrollJ. M.RossonM. B.ZinT. T.ReeseD. D. (2005). Community networks: Where offline communities meet online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00266.x
15.
KniggeL.CopeM. (2006). Grounded visualiza-tion: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(11), 2021-2037. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37327
16.
KoletsiM.EvangelouE.KyriakopoulosE. (2009). Bridging the scientific divide: Building a common language between computer scientists and social scientists to understand the new technologies and digital divide [Poster presentation]. Web Science Conference Society, Athens, Greece. http://edshare.soton.ac.uk/1864/2/posters2.html
LevyP. (1998). Becoming virtual: Reality in the digital age. Plenum Trade.
19.
LipnackJ. L.StampsJ. S. (1986). The networking book. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
20.
MasdenC. A.GrevetC.GrinterR. E.GilbertE.EdwardsW. K. (2014). Tensions in scaling-up community social media: A multi-neighborhood study of nextdoor. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3239-3248). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557319
21.
MateiS.Ball-RokeachS. J. (2001). Real and virtual social ties: Connections in everyday lives of seven ethnic neighborhoods. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 552-566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764201045003012
22.
MatusitzJ. (2007). The implications of the internet for human communication. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 7(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701283439
23.
MelvinP. (1985). Changing contexts: Neighborhood definition and urban organization. American Quarterly, 37(3), 357-367. https://doi.org/10.2307/2712662
24.
PorterC. (2002). A typology of virtual communities: A multi-disciplinary foundation for future research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), JCMC1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00228.x
SampsonR. J.MorenoffJ. D.RowleyT. G. (2002). Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 443-478. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141114
28.
ScottJ. (1991). Social network analysis (1st ed.). Sage.
29.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
30.
ShafferG. (2011). Banding together for bandwidth: An analysis of survey results from wireless community network participants. First Monday, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i5.3331
31.
StraussA.GlaserB. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
32.
TurnerJ. H. (1988). A theory of social interaction. Stanford University Press.
WellmanB.GuliaM. (1999). Net surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual communities as communities. In WellmanB. (Ed.), Networks in the global village (pp. 167-194). Westview Press.
