S OCIAL N ETWORKS

S OCIAL N ETWORKS

Social network studies look at CMC use in terms of who is communicat- ing with whom (Garton et al., 1997). This view cuts across notions of similar users to address directly what people are doing with each other online, and via differ- ent media. Networks of interconnectedness rather than aggregates of groups or users are examined. These studies take into consideration context, group activities, and structures, as well as media use (e.g., Haythornthwaite, 2002; Haythornthwaite et al., 1998; Wellman et al., 1996).

Some results from social network studies of media use suggest that the con- fl icting results found for the use of CMC and of the Internet may be reconciled by looking more closely at the kinds of ties various media support (Haythornthwaite, 2002, 2005). Network studies have found that media use differs according to the strength of the tie between communicating pairs. However, the difference is not in what media are used, but how many; those with stronger ties use more of the available media to communicate than do those who maintain weaker ties (Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998; Haythornthwaite, 2001, 2002; Koku et al., 2001). Moreover, it appears that pairs add media to their repertoire in the same way. Those who are weakly tied, and use only one or two media to communicate, use the same one or two media. Strongly tied pairs also use these media, but add on more private and asynchronous means of communication (Haythornthwaite, 2002, 2005).

While there have been CMC debates about what kinds of messages could

be sent via the lean medium of e-mail versus the rich medium of face-to-face meetings, and Internet debates about what kinds of relationships can be maintained online versus those that need the rich contexts of home or offi ce, both have failed to acknowledge that we use both online and offl ine for a variety of messages and relationships. We maintain some strong ties, talking about all sorts of things through any and all means available, and we maintain many weak ties, with interaction about only a few things, maintained through one generally available means of commu- nication. Network views take us beyond the aggregate views that until now gave all-or-nothing statistics about use of a medium, failing to capture the variability in use across the many kinds of ties we maintain.

While there are advances in understanding the role of CMC and online interaction in relation to offl ine activities, there are still few studies that examine the use of multiple media. As each new CMC application is introduced, it takes its place in individuals’ communication repertoires alongside existing media. Yet,

176 Caroline Haythornthwaite and Anna L. Nielsen

many studies still continue to examine one medium, for example, e-mail or blogs or instant messaging. Looking at the use of multiple means of communication is an essential step for understanding the place of each medium in the communica- tion behaviors of individuals, groups, and communities. General notions of multiple media use suggest a complementarity among media, in keeping with media richness perspectives. In this case, one means of communication is considered appropriate for immediate, emotionally charged communications (usually considered to be face-to- face communication) and another for more instrumental informational exchanges, such as setting up a meeting (e.g., e-mail). Early writings attempted to place media along a richness scale from rich to poor in terms of immediacy of feedback, ability to carry cues, etc., and to consider and examine what communications should be channeled through each means (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Trevino et al., 1990; Rice, 1992; Rice & Shook, 1990). More recent research has taken a different view of multiple media use and has examined use by individual pairs rather than across organizations or organizational groups (e.g., managers). This work shows that the closer the tie, the more media pairs use to communicate: that is, rather than substitute one medium for another for different kinds of communications, pairs add media. This has been shown to hold among co-located researchers (Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998), online learners (Haythornthwaite, 2001), and distributed scientists (Koku et al., 2001).