Table Of ContentLIVING THE WIRED LIFE IN THE WIRED SUBURB:
NETVILLE, GLOCALIZATION AND CIVIL SOCIETY
by
Keith N. Hampton
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
Graduate Department of Sociology
University of Toronto
© Keith Neil Hampton 2001
ABSTRACT
Living the Wired Life in the Wired Suburb: Netville, Glocalization and Civil Society
Keith Neil Hampton
Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Sociology
University of Toronto
2001
This dissertation addresses the question, what will be the fate of community and social relations
as a result of the growth of new home-based information and communication technologies? How
have social networks, social capital and community involvement been affected by the rise of
personal computers, the Internet and computer mediated communication (CMC)? Will the
Internet reconnect the disaffiliated, or will CMC only contribute to a further disengagement of
American community life? Survey and ethnographic data from a long-term study of “Netville,”
a wired suburb near Toronto, are used to investigate the effects of advanced communication
technology on social relationships. Netville was one of the first residential developments in the
world to be built from the ground up with a broadband high-speed local computer network.
Netville provided a unique opportunity to observe the effects of advanced information and
communication technology on people’s daily interactions with family, friends and neighbours.
The “wired” residents of Netville are compared with a similar group of non-wired residents who
lived in the same neighbourhood, but who were never connected to the local computer network.
Greater involvement with friends, family and neighbours is linked to use of CMC. Internet use
is associated with high levels of in-person and telephone contact, the exchange of support, the
growth of personal network and increased community involvement.
ii
TO THE TWO BIGGEST SUPPORTERS ANYONE COULD HAVE:
MY WIFE BRENDA AND MOTHER SUSAN
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Since beginning my graduate program in sociology I have received support from my family,
friends and colleagues. This work is the result of the support and caring they have shown me
during my graduate program.
My strongest and most steadfast support has always come from my wife, Brenda
Hampton, my parents, Susan and Ron Hampton, and my two sisters Leah and Lyndsey Hampton.
They continue to be a source of comfort and have been unwavering in the encouragement they
have shown over the duration of my academic studies.
Barry Wellman, my thesis advisor, has been a constant fixture in my academic life. As
part of the curriculum of my first undergraduate course in community sociology, as a mentor and
as a friend. He arranged for the project, secured funding, collaborated on the survey, and
provided direction at every turn. The trust, guidance and encouragement he has shown
throughout my graduate program has been instrumental to this dissertation and my academic
career.
The two other members of my dissertation committee. William Michelson, and Nancy
Howell, leading authorities in their fields, have been present since the conception of this project
and have offered expert guidance throughout. Each has played a significant role in shaping this
project and in shaping my academic development.
I would also like to thank Dean Behrens and Gerald Gold, the two external examiners on
my examination committee, for offering their insightful comments and questions.
Herbert Gans, who inspired me to study urban sociology, kindly offered his advice and
support in the early stages of this project and remains an inspiration.
iv
This research was supported by grants and a fellowship from the Social Science and
Humanities Research Council of Canada and Communication and Information Technologies
Ontario. At the University of Toronto, I have received support from the faculty and students in
the Department of Sociology, the Centre for Urban and Community Studies, and the Knowledge
Media Design Institute. In particular, the Urban Centre served as my research headquarters when
I was not in Netville.
I would like to express my appreciation to the following people for their assistance and
support:
At the University of Toronto: Nadia Bello, Sivan Bomze, Bonnie Erickson, John
Hannigan, Edward Harvey, Todd Irvine, Charles Jones, Kristine Klement, Emmanuel Koku,
Alexandra Marin, Sarah McMillan, Andrew McKinnon, Dolly Mehra, Nancy Nazer, Christien
Perez, Grace Ramirez, Janet Salaff, Richard Stren, Carlton Thorne, Jack Veugelers and Jeannette
Wright.
Those responsible for creating the Netville development: Paul Hoffert (Executive
Director), Donald Berkowitz, Damien De Shane-Gill, Jerome Durlak, Timothy Hollett, Thomas
Jurenka, Cary Solomon, Liane Sullivan, and Richard Valentine.
My copy editor, Meg Floyd – without whom this dissertation would never have been
finished.
Others: Ross Barclay, Brian Broad, Sherry Herdman, Mark Jones, Allan Olmsted, The
Slonetskys, Marc Smith, Jonathan Taylor and Robert Wood.
My greatest debt is to the residents of Netville who have given their time and patience,
allowing me into their homes and answering many questions.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.1 The Community Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
th
1.1.1 Early Community Theory - The 19 Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
th
1.1.2 Urbanization - Early 20 Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.1.3 Social Network Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.1.4 Lost Again: Contemporary Fears for the Loss of Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.1.5 Social Capital, Home-Centredness and Privatization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.2 Internet and Community: The Utopian/Dystopian Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.3 Recent Survey Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.3.1 Homenet Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.3.2 Stanford Internet Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.3.3 The Pew and UCLA Internet Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.3.4 Looking to the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.4 Glocalization, Social Capital and Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
vi
CHAPTER 2: WELCOME TO NETVILLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.1 Netville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.1.1 The High-Speed Local Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.1.2 The Magenta Consortium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.2.1 Ethnographic Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.2.2 Initial Survey Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.2.3 Changes to the Survey Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.2.4 Sampling Strategy and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.2.5 Asking the Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.3 Generalizability and Self-Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.3.1 Comparing Wired and Non-Wired Netville Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
CHAPTER 3: COMPUTER NETWORKS AS SUPPORT NETWORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.0.1 Plan of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
vii
3.1 Social Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.1.1 Social Contact - Non-Neighbourhood Ties Less Than 50 Kilometres Away . . . . . . 80
3.1.2 Social Contact - Mid-range Ties 50-500 Kilometres Away . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1.3 Social Contact - Ties More than 500 kilometres Away . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.1.4 Comparing Social Contact Across Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.2 Exchange of Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.2.1 Exchange of Support - Non-Neighbourhood Ties Less Than 50 Kilometres Away . 93
3.2.2 Exchange of Support - Mid-range Ties 50-500 Kilometres Away . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.2.3 Exchange of Support - Ties More than 500 Kilometres Away . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.2.4 Comparing the Exchange of Support Across Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
CHAPTER 4: NEIGHBOURHOOD SOCIAL CAPITAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.0.1 Plan of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.1 Early Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.1.1 The Neighbourhood E-mail List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.2 Local Social Ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
viii
4.3 Local Communication Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.3.1 Volume of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.3.2 Mode of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.4 Spatial Distribution of Social Ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.5 Surveillance and the Public Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
CHAPTER 5: COLLECTIVE ACTION IN A WIRED SUBURB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
5.1 The Developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5.2 Grieving for a Lost Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
5.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION – GLOCALIZATION, SOCIAL CAPITAL AND
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
6.0 Summary of the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
6.1 Glocalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
6.2 Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
ix
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
x
