An Investigation Into The Origins and Nature of Research Into Social Networking

An investigation into the
origins and nature of research

into social networking
September 2010
Contents
 Contents..............................................................................................................................1
 Abstract...............................................................................................................................2
 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................3
 1.1 Product Description.............................................................................................................3
 1.2 Approach.............................................................................................................................3
 1.3 Structure of the report.........................................................................................................5
 1.4 Access to publications..........................................................................................................5
 2. Research and Publications..............................................................................................6
 2.1 Overview..............................................................................................................................6
 2.2 ‘Top 5’ publications relevant to Surevine.............................................................................7
 2.3 Selected publications...........................................................................................................7
 2.4 Online Research Reviews and Bibliographies.....................................................................25
 3. People and Places.........................................................................................................26
 3.1 UK based Research Groups................................................................................................26
 3.2 Non-UK based Groups........................................................................................................28
 3.3 Forthcoming Events...........................................................................................................34
 4. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................36
 5. Bibliography..................................................................................................................37
©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 1 of 49

Surevine Ltd, PO Box 1136, Guildford, Surrey GU1 9ND, United Kingdom
Abstract
This report is the product of a five-week Internship at Surevine, undertaken in July-August
2010. It presents the results of an exploratory investigation into research and researchers in
the field of social networking.

1. Introduction
1.1 Product Description
The aims of this project were as follows:
 To consolidate information about previous research in the field of social networking

which might be useful to Surevine in developing their products and services
 To allow Surevine to follow up any papers, or researchers, using the bibliography of the
report
 To provide a broad overview of the different areas of research, the leading researchers
and the papers that have been written.
The principal requirement was to provide leads to research and researchers, and to provide
a properly cited bibliography.
1.2 Approach
1.2.1 Timetable
The investigation took place over the five weeks, 5 July – 6 August 2010, broken down as
follows:
 5 – 28 July: Defined scope of project; undertook investigation

 29 July – 6 August: Compiled report.
1.2.2 Selection of research and publications

Starting by using Google searches, and researching the seemingly most relevant leads, a list
of about fifty research publications was gradually compiled for possible inclusion in this
report. In practice, there were many more publications of potential relevance that could
have been investigated had time allowed.
From this preliminary list of publications, thirty-two were finally selected as the means of
providing an overview for the report. The pieces of research selected were intended only to
be indicative of recent work, and in no sense constitute a comprehensive view of the field.
The research was selected against one or more of the following criteria:
 Potential interest to Surevine - assumed main areas of interest were

- Use of online social networks within organizations
- Properties of online social networks
- Sharing information over online social networks within organizations

- Applying social network analysis to online networks
- Security.
As discussed with Surevine, research into instances of social network Internet sites, for
example Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, was of some interest, but not a priority.
Furthermore, research into system design and development was not to be included.
 Up-to-date - date of the research is clearly an important factor because this is a rapidly
developing field. It was decided that older works should be included where they were of
a fundamental nature; but where a choice presented itself, the most recent work was
selected
 Citations - as indicated by Google Scholar (however, the date of the publication had to
be taken into account since older publications will have had more time to be cited)
 Recommendations - by experts contacted (Appendix 1).
1.2.3 Selection of centres

Preliminary searches indicated that a very considerable number of university research
centres and departments (of Sociology, Business, Management, Information Systems,
Communications, Computer Science, etc.) include staff whose listed research interests
include social networks and networking. This applies not only in the UK but also to the USA
and, judging from the international input to conferences, from across the world generally.
From this considerable number of centres and departments, eleven were selected for
inclusion in this report against one or more of the following criteria:
 Potential interest to Surevine - as in Section 1.2.2 above

 Contacts - having at least one researcher whose interests appeared to coincide with
those of Surevine
 Events - having research-related seminars, conferences, activities etc. which Surevine
may wish to contribute to
 Recommendations - by experts contacted (Appendix 1).
Two points to be noted:
 No single centre was identified that focused specifically on Surevine’s interests

 As with the list of research publications, the list of ‘People and Places’ compiled is not
meant to be comprehensive, but rather provides an overview and a source of potential
areas for further investigation.

1.3 Structure of the report
Section 2, ‘Research and Publications’, provides summaries of the publications selected for
this report. They are categorized by topic, and within each topic listed according to relative
importance to Surevine. More comprehensive summaries are provided for those
publications perceived to be of greater relevance. The summaries contain basic information
only, which should give a flavour of the work. Full references for the articles can be found in
the Bibliography. Two further pieces of information are provided after each summary:
 Whether the publication is cited by other works listed in this report. This gives an
indication of its significance in the field and of connections between publications
 A small selection of other potentially relevant publications cited by the publication in
question. Priority was given to publications concerning online systems, but some
dealing with offline social network analysis are also included.
Whilst trying to avoid unnecessary jargon in the summaries in Section 2, use of the
terminology of the field is unavoidable. If explanations are needed for any of the terms
used or underlying concepts, these can normally be found in the source documents; but
there is a useful glossary in Kilduff and Brass, and expanded explanations of terms in
Newman (2003).
Section 3, ‘People and Places’, outlines the interests of the research centres, and gives
contact details for selected individuals and a list of selected publications. An attempt has
been made to order the centres in terms of potential interest to Surevine.
The references in Section 5, ‘Bibliography’, have been cited in accordance with the
conventions of the English Faculty at the University of Oxford, using the Date System 1. The
Bibliography contains only those publications cited in this report.
1.4 Access to publications

Most of the research publications referred to in this report can be accessed free of charge
on the Internet. However, some journals require payment to view their articles, although
the abstract is available without charge. Publications which can be directly accessed on the
Internet have their websites listed in the Bibliography.
1
There are two main methods for referencing – the Author/Title System and the Date System. The latter is
used here since the date of publication is an important consideration in this investigation.

2. Research and Publications
2.1 Overview
As stated in Section 1.2.2, the selected pieces of research on which information is given in
this report are not intended to provide a comprehensive view of the field. Therefore, they
do not enable any assessment of which are the best-researched areas or where research
gaps lie. From the investigation, however, a number of general points can be made:
 There is seemingly surprisingly little published research directly relevant to Surevine’s

interests – perhaps reflecting the fast-moving pace of developments in the field. As
Land et al. (2007) point out, communications is a field in which research struggles to
keep up with technology
 Of the published work that is relevant, the greater proportion has been undertaken in
the USA2
 However, links between research centres suggest that there is a good deal of US-UK
collaboration, and that the distinction between US research and UK research is in itself
unimportant3
 Most of the research is of an interdisciplinary nature, combining organizational,
behavioural, communications and other expertise
 There seems to be relatively little (non-technical) research on social networking being
funded by the UK Research Councils, although progress of a new inter-Research Council
‘Digital Economy’ programme should be monitored by Surevine4
 The investigation unearthed no single ‘state-of-the-art’ research review on social
networking that Surevine could track for information on research related to a specific
topic. The reviews included in Section 2.4 have material of relevance, but are not
comprehensive.
2.2 ‘Top 5’ publications relevant to Surevine

The following five publications were felt to provide the best match against the criteria listed
in Section 1.2.2. Summaries of these publications are provided in Section 2.3.
2
It will be noted that almost all the work selected for inclusion in Section 2 is by US-based researchers. This
was not a deliberate choice, nor does it imply an absence of UK-based work, as is clear from the research
interests of UK centres included in Section 3.
3
A point stressed in discussion with Dr Bernie Hogan of the Oxford Internet Institute, who himself has worked
in both the US and the UK.
4
The RCUK Digital Economy Research Programme (an estimated £117million over five years, 2009-14) is
“aimed at realising the impact of information and communication technologies for all aspects of business,
society and government”. Its funding is centred on three ‘hubs’: Aberdeen University – work on transforming
rural communities; Newcastle University – new technologies for social inclusion; and Nottingham University –
developing tools for creative industries and communication tools to encourage car-sharing.
http://www.rcukdigitaleconomy.org.uk/home/the-research-councils-uk-digital-economy-programme.html .

1. ‘Patterns and Dynamics of Users’ Behaviour and Interaction: Network Analysis
of an Online Community’, (2009) - see p.14
2. ‘Hyperconnected Net Work: Computer-Mediated Community in a High-Tech

Organization’, (2006) - see p. 8
3. ‘Communication Media Repertoires: Dealing with the Multiplicity of Media

Choices’, (2007) - see p. 10
4. ‘Knowledge Sharing over Social Networking Systems: Architecture, Usage

Patterns and their Application’, (2006) - see p. 17
5. ‘Predicts 2010: Social Software is an Enterprise Reality’, (2009) - see p. 12
2.3 Selected publications

2.3.1 Characteristics of Online Networks
a) Online Networks and Media Use in Organizations
‘Hyperconnected Net Work: Computer-Mediated Community in a High-Tech Organization’,
(2006)
Anabel Quan-Haase, Faculty of Information and Media Studies, Department of Sociology,
University of Western Ontario, Canada
Barry Wellman, Netlab, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, Canada
Book chapter, 53 pages
This study examines how computer-mediated communication (CMC) affects communication

in organizations. Quan-Haase and Wellman use a case study of a medium-sized, high-tech
firm (called KME), examining its use of email and instant messaging (IM) in relation to face-
to-face and phone communication, and comparing communication in two different
departments. Data were collected through a web survey, interviews and observations, and
is used in social network graphs and analysis of employees’ comments.
Quan-Haase and Wellman conclude that KME is hyperconnected (people are always
available for communication), displays local virtuality (using CMC to communicate with
those in physical proximity), and is ‘glocalized’ (global and local communication coexist, and
CMC allows a breakdown of departmental boundaries). However, despite the prospect of
using CMC to bypass hierarchies in organizations and thus make communication more

efficient, Quan-Haase and Wellman find that hierarchy continues to exist in
communications. By comparing departments, it is concluded that the nature of the task
influences the communication medium. Furthermore, they argue that CMC aids, rather
than replaces, face-to-face communication, also concluded by Boase et al., 2006 (see p. 20).
Quan-Haase and Wellman’s ideas of hyperconnectivity, local virtuality and glocalization are
what Surevine hopes to foster in its clients’ organizations. KME’s principal business is the
hosting and facilitation of online communities for other organizations; interestingly,
therefore, KME is very similar to Surevine itself. The small range of CMCs is a slight
limitation to the usefulness of the study to Surevine.
‘From the Computerization Movement to Computerization: A Case Study of a Community

of Practice’, (presentation 2005; published 2007)
Anabel Quan-Haase and Barry Wellman
Conference paper, 29 pages
This paper is linked with Quan-Haase and Wellman’s ‘Hyperconnected Net Work’ study
(above), using the same case study of KME. However, it explores the data from a different
angle. It applies Iacono and Kling’s (1996, 2001) theory of ‘technological action frames’, that
is the anticipated outcomes of technology use, in computerization movements. Quan-Haase
and Wellman examine whether CMC causes what Iacono and Kling call ‘death of distance’,
overcoming barriers to communication caused by physical distance, and ‘democratization’,
overcoming organizational hierarchies to allow employees rather than management to be at
the centre of communication5. It is concluded that, whilst CMC within KME achieves ‘death
of distance’ to some extent, it does not achieve ‘democratization’, with a clear hierarchy still
in place.
The paper is useful to Surevine because it deals specifically with two potential outcomes of
Surevine’s services – to allow easy communication across departments and long distances,
and to establish the key communicators and paths of communication in an organization.
There are some overlaps with the ‘Hyperconnected Net Work’ paper (in particular, Section
3, ‘KME: The Organization’ and Section 4, ‘Research Methods’) which should therefore be
read first.
Other potentially relevant references cited:
5
Full definitions of these terms can be found in Section 2 of the Quan-Haase and Wellman paper, ‘When
Computerization Pervades Work’.

 Iacono, S., Kling, R. (1996), ‘Computerization movements and tales of technological
utopianism’
 Iacono, S., Kling, R. (2001), ‘Computerization movements: The rise of the Internet and
distant forms of work’
 Levin, D., Cross, R. (2004), ‘The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of
trust in effective knowledge transfer’
 Quan-Haase, A., Wellman, B. (2004), ‘Local Virtuality in a High-Tech Networked
Organization’
 Quan-Haase, A., Wellman, B. (2003), ‘Networks of distance and media: a case study of a
high-tech firm’
 Ward, R., Wamsley, G. Schroeder, A., Robins, D. B. (2000), ‘Networked organizational
development in the public sector: a case study of the federal emergency management
administration (FEMA)’.
‘Communication Media Repertoires: Dealing with the Multiplicity of Media Choices’,

(2007)
Mary-Beth Watson-Manheim, Information and Decision Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
France Belanger, Accounting and Information Systems, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, USA
Journal article, 26 pages
This study explores how employees in an organization use communication media to interact
with others in the organization. The report uses as case studies the sales divisions of two
large corporations in the information technology industry. Data were collected through
interviews and observations, and the analysis of employees’ responses established which
media were used for five different communication purposes: coordination, knowledge-
sharing, information gathering, relationship development, and conflict resolution. The
different media considered were: email, face-to-face, phone, teleconference, intranet,
project management software and IM.
The study indicates that email and face-to-face are the most frequently used
communication media, although different communication purposes do inspire different
combinations of media use. For example, for knowledge-sharing purposes employees used
teleconferencing combined with phone, email or IM, whereas for simple coordination tasks
email was the main medium perhaps in combination with tracking software. The findings
suggest that media use is influenced by factors such as incentives, trust, physical proximity,
routine use of media, and the urgency and nature of the task.

The insight this paper provides into how and when employees use media may suggest to
Surevine ways to maximise the effectiveness of their communication solutions, tailoring the
design of different media to different purposes.
Cited by:
 Legerstee (2008)
 Orlikowski, W. J. (2000), ‘Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens

for Studying Technology in Organizations’
 Watson-Manheim, M. B., Bélanger, F. (2002), ‘Support for Communication-Based Work
Processes in Virtual Work’
 Yoo, Y., Alavi, M. (2001), ‘Media and Group Cohesion: Relative Influences on Social
Presence, Task Participation, and Group Consensus’
 Zolin, R., Hinds, P. J., Fruchter, R., Levitt, R. E. (2004), ‘Interpersonal Trust in Cross-
Functional, Geographically Distributed Work: A Longitudinal Study’.
‘Studying Multiple Media Use: A Network Multiplexity Approach’, (2008)

Marcel Legerstee
Master’s thesis, 94 pages
This paper builds on Watson-Manheim and Belanger’s argument (above), by examining

employees’ use of multiple media in relation to their position in three different networks:
‘information exchange’, ‘decision making’ and ‘workplace friendship’. The case study used
for the work was Microsoft Nederland. Data were collected through interviews with
employees and an online questionnaire which established employees’ frequency of
communication with other specific individuals within the organization. It also analysed
employees’ responses to establish which media were used for different communication
purposes, using the five communication purposes put forward by Watson-Manheim and
Belanger. The study takes into account eight different types of communication media,
comprising of ‘traditional media’ (scheduled and ad hoc face-to-face, phone calls,
conference calls, email) and ‘new media’ (IM, Groove and Sharepoint).
In terms of media use the results indicate that there is an overall reliance on email and face-
to-face communication over supposedly more functional ‘new media’ across communication
purposes. Furthermore, one of the conclusions is that the more frequently a pair of
employees turns to each other for information, the more likely they will be consistent in
their use of media.

Legerstee’s study is the only one mentioned in this report to examine the use of more
recent media such as Groove and Sharepoint. Since Surevine creates similar tools for
organizations, this study is relevant.
‘Predicts 2010: Social Software is an Enterprise Reality’, (2009)

Gartner Inc., Stanford, USA
Research report
This report offers five “key predictions” on the use of social software in enterprises. The
predictions are:
 By 2014, social networking services will replace e-mail as the primary vehicle for
interpersonal communications for 20 percent of business users
 By 2012, over 50 percent of enterprises will use activity streams that include
microblogging, but stand-alone enterprise microblogging will have less than 5 percent
penetration
 Through 2012, over 70 percent of IT-dominated social media initiatives will fail
 Within five years, 70 percent of collaboration and communications applications designed
on PCs will be modelled after user experience lessons from Smartphone collaboration
applications
 Through 2015, only 25 percent of enterprises will routinely utilize social network analysis
to improve performance and productivity.
The report discusses current developments in the field and is highly relevant to Surevine.
Gartner’s predictions, and their recommendations to business about social networking,
should be useful when presenting Surevine’s product to clients.
‘Work, friendship and media use for information exchange in a networked organization’,
(1998)
Caroline Haythornthwaite, Faculty of Information Science, University of Illinois, USA
Barry Wellman, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, Canada
This study examines how different kinds of media are used to communicate across work and
friendship ties in a university computer-science research group. Data were collected using a
questionnaire, which established whom individuals communicated with most frequently,
how they communicated and what they were communicating about. There were six
different types of media available: ad hoc and scheduled face-to-face, email, telephone, fax

and videoconferencing, which is a small range of communication media in comparison with
those on offer today.
The authors found that email and face-to-face were the preferred media, and that the more
frequent the communication, the more different types of information were exchanged, and
the more different types of media were used.
The study is a significant work in the field, cited by many of the other papers mentioned in
this report. However, the date may limit its usefulness, since developments in online
communication are likely to have changed communication practices since 1998. For
instance, whilst one of the authors’ conclusions is that face-to-face was the preferred means
of communication for those in weak ties, Boase et al., 2006 (see p. 20) finds that email is
more effective than face-to-face or phone communication in allowing regular contact with
large networks.
Cited by:
 Boase, Horrigan, Wellman and Rainie (2006)

 Gilbert and Karahalios (2009)
 Legerstee (2008).
‘Shaping Electronic Communication: The Metastructuring of Technology in the Context of

Use’, (1994)
Wanda J. Orlikowski and JoAnne Yates, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, USA
Kazuo Okamura, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Japan
Masayo Fujimoto, The Sumitomo Research Institute, Japan
Working paper, published 1995, 21 pages
This study investigates the influence that individuals can hold over the use of
communications technologies. It takes as its case study the use of a computer conferencing
system in a large Japanese firm. It found that the adoption and development of the new
system was significantly influenced by a few individuals who participated in ‘technology-use
mediation’, i.e. they modified the technology and shaped patterns of use within the
organization.
Although dated, the study nevertheless seems relevant to Surevine as it focuses on how
adapting and modifying communication technologies promote effective electronic
communication.

b) Properties of online social networks
‘Patterns and Dynamics of Users’ Behaviour and Interaction: Network Analysis of an
Online Community’, (2009)
Pietro Panzarasa and Tore Opsahl, School of Business and Management, Queen Mary
University of London, UK
Kathleen M. Carley, Institute for Software Research International, School of Computer
Science, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
This article investigates the network structure of an online community, specifically a

network of students at the University of California. The dataset comprised of online
messages sent between students on the network. The researchers compiled a register of
messages, noting who sent and received them, and analysed the data to establish the
structure of the network.
The results indicate that the network has two key properties. First, it is a ‘small world’
network: that is, the number of intermediate connections between two unconnected
individuals is small. Second, it is ‘scale-free’: that is, there are a few individuals with many
connections, many individuals with few connections, and little in between these two
extremes6.
This article is relevant to Surevine because, rather than collecting data from an open
network, it monitors a network within a specific institution, rather like the networks
Surevine develops for its clients. The concluding section ‘Implications for Practice’ is
particularly useful, as it suggests what the results of the study might mean for developers of
online communities, including implications for security, social capital and knowledge-sharing
in networks. In addition, the article argues that “The findings contribute toward a deeper
understanding of distance and the effects of system use on dispersed teams”, which may
not only apply to Surevine’s clients but also to the functioning of Surevine itself.
 Baym, N., Zhang, Y., Lin, M. (2004), ‘Social interactions across media’
 Boase, J. (2008), ‘Personal networks and the personal communication system: Using
multiple media to connect’
 Guimerà, R., Danon, L., Díaz-Guilera, A., Giralt, F., Arenas, A. (2006), ‘The real
communication network behind the formal chart: Community structure in organizations’
6
For comprehensive explanations of ‘small-world’ and ‘scale-free’ networks see Newman, 2003, p. 24 of this
report.

 Stern, M. (2008), ‘How locality, frequency of communication and internet usage affect
modes of communication within core social networks’
 Taylor, W. (2004), ‘Computer-mediated knowledge sharing and individual user
differences: An exploratory study’.
‘Measurement and Analysis of Online Social Networks’, (2007)

Alan Mislove, Max Planck Institute for Software Systems, Germany, and Rice University, USA
Massimiliano Marcon, Krishna P. Gummandi, Peter Druschel, Max Planck Institute for
Software Systems
Bobby Bhattacharjee, University of Maryland, USA
Published conference paper, 14 pages
This paper analyses the structures of multiple online networks, allowing comparisons
between them. Data are gathered from four online social networks: Flickr, Youtube,
LiveJournal and Orkut. The data set contains 11.3 million users and 328 million links, and
from this Mislove et al. examined users’ connections to analyse the structure of the
network.
The results confirm that the sites adhere to the ‘small-world’ model and are ‘scale-free’,
corresponding with the findings of Panzarasa, Opsahl & Carley, 2009. Furthermore, the
social networks studied were found to have high levels of local clustering and symmetrical
links, that is, reciprocity between users.
The study suggests how such characteristics of social networks may affect algorithms and
applications designed for social networks, and Surevine may find this relevant to the design
of their products. However, the focus on large-scale open network sites may limit its
immediate relevance.
 Morselli, R., Bhattacharjee, B., Katz, J., Marsh, M. A. (2006), ‘Keychains: A Decentralized
Public-Key Infrastructure’
‘Functions of Social Networking Services’, (2008)

Alexander Richter and Michael Koch, Cooperation Systems Centre Munich, Germany

This is a broadly theoretical study which identifies six main functions of Social Networking
Services (SNS): Identity management, Expert finding, Context awareness, Contact
management, Network awareness and Exchange. The paper goes on to detail the results of
an online survey into the use of open SNS, and these support the six-fold categorization of
functions. A main finding concerning basic functionality was that the principal purpose of
using SNS is to keep in contact.
By outlining the purposes a social network needs to achieve, the study could support
Surevine’s consideration of the functions of its products. Whilst Richter and Koch’s
categorization of functions is relevant to the design of both closed and open networks, the
online survey investigates online networks, and therefore this section of the article may be
less relevant.
 Koch, M., Richter, A. and Schlosser, A. (2007),‘Services and applications for IT-supported
social networking in companies’.
‘Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes’,

(2000)
Thomas Erickson and Wendy A. Kellogg, IBM T. J. Watson Research Centre
This paper discusses how by incorporating aspects of face-to-face interactions into digital
communication systems, ‘socially translucent systems’ can be created to support effective
online communication over large networks. ‘Socially translucent systems’ are
communication networks which make participants’ activities visible to one another. They
are described as having three main characteristics: visibility, awareness and accountability.
The paper also details how Erickson and Kellogg designed and deployed a working socially
translucent system, ‘Babble’.
Erickson and Kellogg argue for ‘translucence’ rather than ‘transparency’ because of the need
to strike a balance between openness, which engenders trust, and privacy, which maintains
security, a key concern of Surevine. Surevine’s communications systems already use and
build on the functions of the ideal system which Erickson and Kellogg envisage. Such a
system supports coherent online conversations, in which knowledge can be, for example,
stored, searched, navigated, connected and annotated. Furthermore, ‘Babble’ is dated in
comparison with current networking technology. The study therefore illustrates the initial
development of the types of networks Surevine designs.

c) Knowledge Sharing
‘Knowledge Sharing over Social Networking Systems: Architecture, Usage Patterns and
their Application’, (2006)
Tanguy Coenen, Dirk Kenis, Celine Van Damme and Eilblin Matthys, Vakgroep MOSI, Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Brussels
This paper investigates how social networks can support knowledge sharing between
people. It describes the structures and common features of current social networking sites
and systems. It then goes on to argue how social networks can be enhanced to facilitate
knowledge sharing: for instance, there should exist both open and closed groups in the
network, and a tagging system should be deployed to organize information. It is further
argued that effective knowledge sharing can occur once the perspective of an individual or
group is understood, and this can be established by examining how individuals tag the same
resource differently.
The theory is supported by their presenting the Open-Source KnoSoS system which displays
the discussed structure and features for knowledge-sharing 7. It is a product which they
state can be deployed in a range of different environments, e.g. multi-nationals,
governmental and non-governmental organisations.
The KnoSoS system may well now be slightly dated; however, the discussion of features for
knowledge sharing may correspond with, or perhaps expand on, the features of Surevine’s
product.
 Coenen, T. (2006), ‘Structural aspects of social networking systems’.
‘The Impact of Organizational Context and Information Technology on Employee

Knowledge Sharing Capabilities’, (2006)
Soonhee Kim, Syracuse University
Hyangsoo Lee, National Computerization Agency, South Korea
Article, 15 pages
This article investigates the most effective means of knowledge sharing in organizations,
examining five public sector and five private sector organizations. Kim and Lee define
7
KnoSoS is a distribution of the open-source Drupal content management systems to which custom modules
have been added – see Coenen et al., p.196

‘employee knowledge sharing capability’ as the ability of employees to share their work-
related experience, expertise, know-how, and contextual information with other employees
through interactions within or across teams or work units. One of the conclusions reached
by is that in the public sector, social networks, performance-based reward systems and
employee usage of IT were all associated with effective knowledge sharing.
Although the case study is based in South Korea, the focus on public sector organizations
should make the article relevant to Surevine.
Cited by:
 Richter and Koch (2008).
 Jarvenpaa, S. L., Staples, S. D. (2000), ‘The Use of Collaborative Electronic Media for
Information Sharing: An Exploratory Study of Determinants’
 Stowers, G. N. L. (2002), ‘The State of Federal Websites: The Pursuit of Excellence’.
‘The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice’,
(1996)
David Constant and Sara Kiesler, Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Lee Sproull, School of Management, Boston University, USA
Article, 16 pages
This paper uses theories of weak ties and a survey-based case study of employees of a
global computer manufacturer to examine the readiness and value of information shared
between distant employees through a large organizational computer network. The study
found that information providers gave useful advice despite their lack of personal
connection with the seekers. Such information providers were willing to give up the time to
meet the important needs of others because it allowed them to perform as experts.
Surevine looks to connect disparate sectors of businesses, and so people on their networks
will not necessarily know everyone else. The findings of this research on collaboration
between people who are not closely linked may therefore be relevant to the networks
Surevine provides.
Cited by:

 Kim and Lee (2006)
 Panzarasa, Opsahl and Carley (2009).
‘Sharing Expertise: Beyond Knowledge Management’, (2003)

Mark Ackerman, University of Michigan, USA
Volkmar Pipek and Volker Wulf, University of Siegen, Germany
Book, 426 pages
If the date is not too much of a limitation, the third section of this book (‘Exploring
Technology for Sharing Expertise’, p.199-400) might be of interest to Surevine: it provides
detailed descriptions of computer systems that enable knowledge sharing electronically,
performing functions such as routing queries, assembling people and work, and expanding
naturally occurring networks within organizations.
Cited by:
d) Tie strength
Publications on tie strength are based on Granovetter’s seminal work ‘The Strength of Weak
Ties’ (1973) - see p. 24.8
‘Predicting Tie Strength with Social Media’, (2009)

Eric Gilbert and Karrie Karahalios, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
This paper builds on Granovetter’s 1973 work, and provides a brief overview of how
research into tie strength has developed. It presents a statistical model to predict tie
strength, based on data collected on the strength of a set of individuals’ Facebook
friendships. The model is shown to be fairly successful, as it is able to predict tie strength
with over 85% accuracy. The findings suggest that the key indicators of tie strength are
intimacy between individuals and intensity of their relationship.
8
According to Granovetter, the “strength of a tie is a combination of the amount of time, the emotional
intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterise the tie”
(Granovetter, 1973 : 1361). Strong ties are frequent and long-lasting – people who are trusted; weak ties
are infrequent and distant – people who are acquaintances. Weak ties often provide access to new
information not circulating in the closely knit network of strong ties (Gilbert & Karahalios, 2009, p.2)

As in Panzarasa, Opsahl & Carley, 2009, the conclusion of the report contains a useful
‘Practical Implications’ section which illustrates how modelling tie strength can improve
aspects of social media design such as privacy controls, friend suggestions and information
prioritization; although it must be remembered that the paper focuses on tie strength in a
social network site.
‘The strength of Internet ties’ (2006)

Jeffrey Boase, University of Toronto
John B. Horrigan, Associate Director, Pew Internet Project
Barry Wellman, University of Toronto
Lee Rainie, Director, Pew Internet Project, Pew Internet and American Life Project,
Washington
Research report, 52 pages
This is a report into how Americans use the Internet for communication. The second half of
the report focuses specifically on how Americans use the Internet to make major decisions.
The report is based on the findings of the ‘Social Ties Survey’ conducted by Pew in 2004,
which examined the scope, nature and usage of people’s social networks, and their use of
IT. The findings correspond with Wellman’s theory of ‘networked individualism’: individuals
rely not on a single community but on a variety of people and resources, the use of which
depends on the situation.
This report is clearly structured and easy to dip into. A limitation is that it discusses public
use of the Internet as a whole, rather than the closed social networks for business which
Surevine delivers, but sections such as ‘Keeping in Contact with Core and Significant Ties’
and ‘Email and Network Size’ are likely to be useful nevertheless. Furthermore, findings on
the use of the Internet to make decisions connect with ideas of knowledge sharing and
finding expertise.
Cited by:
 Panzarasa, Opsahl and Carley (2009).
2.3.2 Social Network Sites

‘Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise: McKinsey Global Survey Results’, (2008)
McKinsey & Co., McKinsey Quarterly, July 2008
Research report

This report presents the results of McKinsey's second annual survey on the business use of
Web 2.0 technologies - including wikis, blogs, social networks, and mash-ups. It shows that
companies that are deriving value from the tools are now shifting from using them
experimentally to adopting them as a part of a broader business practice.
Surevine might be interested in McKinsey’s analysis of how businesses are adopting new
communication technologies.
‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship’, (2007)

danah m. boyd, School of Information, University of California, Berkeley
Nicole B. Ellison, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media,
Michigan State University
Journal article
This article provides a literature review of research on social network sites, together with a
comprehensive definition of them and an overview of their development.
The focus on sites means that the paper may not be of immediate interest to Surevine.
However, it is regarded as an important piece of work, recommended to this project by
contacts at the Oxford Internet Institute and the University of Surrey. The background it
provides on the rise of online networking, and its full bibliography, should be of interest.
Cited by:
Related reading:
 Beer, D. (2008), ‘Social Network(ing) Sites…revisiting the story so far: A response to

danah boyd and Nicole Ellison’
 boyd, d. (2007), ‘The Significance of Social Software’.
‘Social Networking: a quantitative and qualitative report into attitudes, behaviours and
use’, (2008),
Ofcom
This report provides a research-based snapshot of UK trends in people’s use of social

networking sites and their attitudes to this form of communication.

The work focussed on the social aspects of social network sites and excluded online
networks for business. Nevertheless, the statistics collected, and the analysis and discussion
of issues of use and non-use of sites, should be of general interest.
‘Online Social Networks – Research Report’, (2008)

Department of Communities and Local Government
This report deals with the fundamentals of social networking sites: their rise, role, definition
and categorization; and then discusses access to social networking sites in line with the
government’s ‘Digital Equality’ policy.
It is a report of which Surevine should be aware but is of general, not specific, interest.
‘Sharing, Privacy and Trust in Our Networked World’, (2007)

OCLC (Online Computer Library Center)
Research report, Section 3 p.3.1-3.40
This report again looks at social participation and cooperation on the Internet as a whole.
However, Section 3, ‘Privacy, Security and Trust’, may be of interest to Surevine as it
contains a statistical analysis of reactions of the general public to security on the Internet.
2.3.3 Social Network Analysis

There is a considerable body of methodological work on the use of Social Network Analysis
to examine the structure of online and offline social networks and networking activities. A
glance at some of the papers presented at the UK Social Network Analysis conferences (see
Appendix 2) will give an indication of the range of research. The six publications listed in
this section come from some of the leading names in this field, and should serve to provide
background information on Social Network Analysis. An accessible introduction to methods
and concepts in analysing network structure is provided by Scott (2000) and more recently
Carrington and Scott (2010).
a) Application of Social Network Analysis to online networks

‘An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network’, (1996)
Barry Wellman, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto

Working paper and book chapter, 25 pages
This paper was written almost 15 years ago, but it still seems useful as an introduction to
the ways in which social network analysis can be applied to computer-mediated
communication. Wellman briefly explains a variety of characteristics of social network
analysis, such as density, range and exclusivity of networks, and then demonstrates how
these can apply to computer networks.
‘Studying Online Social Networks’, (1997)

Laura Garton, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, Department of Sociology, University
of Toronto
Caroline Haythornthwaite, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Barry Wellman, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto
Journal article
This again rather dated paper suggests how a social network approach can be applied to
studying computer-supported communication within small groups. It describes how
computer-supported communication can be analysed using a social network approach,
detailing basic concepts of social network analysis, and how to collect and analyse data.
b) Analysis of networks offline

‘The structure and function of complex networks’, (2003)
M. E. J. Newman, Department of Physics, University of Michigan, USA
Review article, 89 pages
This paper thoroughly reviews the concepts, techniques and models of social network
analysis. Section II describes different types of network (social, information, technological
and biological networks); Section III describes properties of these networks, including the
small-world effect, scale-free networks, and clustering; Sections IV to VII describe work on
the mathematical modeling of networks; and Section VIII details processes taking place in
networks. If Surevine needed a better understanding of social network analysis, or of
particular elements of the field, this paper would be a good place to start.
Related reading:
 Scott, J. (2000), ‘Social Network Analysis: A Handbook’

 Watts, D. J. (2004), ‘The “New” Science of Networks’.

‘The strength of weak ties’ (1973), and
‘The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited’ (1983)
M. Granovetter, Department of Sociology, Stanford University
Articles, 20 and 32 pages respectively
A landmark piece of work in the field of social network analysis, cited by many of the papers
listed in this report. Granovetter argues that placing the emphasis on weak ties instead of
strong ties allows relationships between groups, rather than just within groups, to be
discussed. By using weak ties, an individual can gain access to densely-knit groups other
than their own group of close contacts. So individuals with few weak ties will be confined
within their own group, thus deprived of information and contacts from distant parts of the
social system.
Granovetter’s 1983 ‘ revisited’ paper reviews empirical studies which test his earlier
hypothesis, and reconsiders aspects of the original argument.
Cited by:

 Mislove, Marcon, Gummandi et al. (2007)
 Panzarasa, Opsahl and Carley (2009)
‘The Rise of the Network Society’, (2009)

Manuel Castells, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute, University of Catalonia, and University of
Southern California
Book, 566 pages
Another seminal work, with 11,984 citations on Google Scholar (30/07/10), this book is the
first volume of a trilogy collectively known as ‘The Information Age’. First published in 1996,
it has been updated in the 2009 Second Edition. Chapters of potential interest to Surevine:
Chapter 1, The Information Technology Revolution; Chapter 5, The Culture of Real Virtuality:
the Integration of Electronic Communication, the End of the Mass Audience, and the Rise of
Interactive Networks.
Cited by:
 Boase, Horrigan, Wellman and Rainie (2006).

2.4 Online Research Reviews and Bibliographies
‘Bibliography of Research on Social Network Sites’
danah boyd, School of Information, University of California, Berkeley
An up-to-date bibliography of research on social network sites specifically. Publications go

up to 2010.
‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship’, (2007)

danah boyd and Nicole Ellison
Includes a literature review of research into social network sites. See p. 21 for the summary
of this article.
'Organizational Social Network Research: Core Ideas and Debates', (2010)

Martin Kilduff, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, UK
Daniel J. Brass, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, USA
This review discusses the issues raised by research into social networks. It also contains a
glossary of social network terms. The bibliography includes publications up to 2010.
Social Network References (Academic Bibliography)

Jonathon N. Cummings, Sloan School of Management, MIT
A bibliography of research into social networks, from the 1940s to around 2002.
‘Social Networks in Organizations: Antecedents and Consequences’

Daniel J. Brass, C. M. Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, USA.
This document provides a list of research publications, up to about 2007, on (offline) social
networks within organizations, with brief summaries of their main arguments. It is
categorized by topic areas, and lists publications within each topic in chronological order.
There are sixteen topics in total; those of possible interest to Surevine are: Physical and
Temporal Proximity, Workflow and Hierarchy, and Creativity/Innovation. It provides a full
bibliography.

3. People and Places
Outlined below are the research interests and activities of eleven UK and non-UK based
centres whose work has relevance to Surevine. Within each category (i.e. UK and non-UK),
the centres are listed broadly in order of probable potential interest. Individuals referred to
are ones with perhaps the most relevant research backgrounds, but they are only indicative
of the work going on at the centres. Furthermore, individuals and centres are not working
in isolation – there appears to be a good deal of collaboration, as indicated by the ‘Links’
section. Full details of the staff, their research and publications can be accessed on the
centres’ websites.
3.1 UK based Research Groups

Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford
www.oii.ox.ac.uk
This Institute was formed in 2001 as an academic centre for the study of the societal
implications of the Internet. Since 2003, it has undertaken a 2-yearly survey - the Oxford
Internet Survey - on Internet access, use and attitudes, which represents the UK’s input to
the world-wide survey, the World Internet Project.
Research and activities which might be of interest to Surevine include:
 Current research on Privacy Value Networks: http://www.pvnets.org/

 Past research on :
- Breaking Barriers to eGovernment: http://www.egovbarriers.org/
- Virtual communities of practice: the open source software community:
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/?id=28
- VOSON: Virtual Observatory for the Study of Online Networks:
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/?id=24
 2008 Social Networking Conference: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/events/. See in particular the

session on 'Businesses and Online Social Networks' for two papers :
- Richard Allan (Cisco) 'Social networking and business practice : a case study in the
telecoms industry'
- Ruth Ward (Allen & Overy) 'Social Software in a hard world'.
Potential contact:

Dr Bernie Hogan, Research Fellow
 Interests : social networks, human-computer interaction, methodology, social

informatics, social accessibility
 Publications of possible interest to Surevine :
- Hogan, B. and Quan-Haase, A. (2010), ‘Persistence and Change in Social Media’.
- Hogan, B. (2008), ‘Analysing Social Networks via the Internet’
 Links to Barry Wellman, A Quan-Haase.

 Contact details:
- Email : bernie.hogan@oii.ox.ac.uk
- Website: http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/hogan/
Queen Mary College, University of London, School of Business and Management
www.busman.qmul.ac.uk
This school’s interdisciplinary research focuses on the connections between economic,

social, political and cultural life and modern business, and includes work on knowledge
diffusion and network dynamics.
Potential contacts:
Dr Pietro Panzarasa, Senior Lecturer in Organisational Theory and Behaviour.
 Interests: social networks, network topology and dynamics, knowledge transfer and
sharing, innovation and knowledge creation, online communication.
 Links to Tore Opsahl, now Research Associate at Imperial College Business School.
 Publications of possible interest to Surevine:
- Panzarasa, P., Opsahl, T., Carley, K. M. (2009), ‘Patterns and Dynamics of Users’
Behaviour and Interaction: Network Analysis of an Online Community’.
- Panzarasa, P., Opsahl, T. (2006), ‘The network structure and evolution of online
communication’.
- Panzarasa, P., Opsahl, T. (2006), ‘The structure and evolution of an online
communication network’.
- Email : p.panzarasa@qmul.ac.uk
- Email : tore@opsahl.co.uk

3.2 Non-UK based Groups
NetLab, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto
www.chass.utoronto.ca
NetLab studies the intersection of online and offline networks – social, communication and
computer – in communities and at work.
Potential contact:
Barry Wellman, Director of NetLab, and Professor of Sociology, University of Toronto
 Research Fellow, Pew Internet and American Life Project

 International Coordinator, International Network for Social Network Analysis
 Interests : social networks in communities and organisations, community sociology,
social network theory and methods, ‘glocalization’, ‘networked individualism’
- Over 200 publications listed on website.
- See publications referred to on pages 8, 9, 12, 20, & 23.
- Boase, J., Wellman, B. (2006), ‘Personal Relationships: On and Off the Internet’.
- Quan-Haase, A., Wellman, B. (2003), ‘Networks of distance and media: a case
study of a high-tech firm ‘.
- Quan-Haase, A., Wellman, B. (2004), ‘Local Virtuality in a High-Tech Networked
Organization’.
- Wellman, B. (1996), ‘An electronic group is virtually a social network’
- Wellman, B., Rainie, L. (2011 - forthcoming), ‘Networked: The New Social
Operating System’.
 Links to Lee Rainie, Pew Project; Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute
- Email: wellman@chass.utoronto.ca
- Website: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/main.html

Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington DC
http://www.pewinternet.org/
This is one of the projects of the Pew Research Centre, a non-partisan ‘fact-tank’ providing
information on issues shaping America and the world. The Internet project conducts
research on societal impacts of the Internet. Areas of research include social networking,
providing commentaries, reports and presentations mainly on the use of social network
sites.
Potential contact:
Lee Rainie, Director of Pew Project

- Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B., Rainie, L. (2006), ‘The strength of internet
ties’
- Wellman, B., Rainie, L. (2011- forthcoming), ‘Networked: The New Social
Operating System’.
- Email : lrainie@pewinternet.org
LINKS Centre, University of Kentucky
www.linkscenter.org
An international centre for research on social networks in business.
Potential contacts:
Professor Daniel Brass, Director of LINKS, Professor of Innovation Management
 Interests: antecedents and consequences of social networks in organisations.

- Brass, D J, ‘Social Networks in Organizations : Antecedents and Consequences’
- Email: dbrass@uky.edu
Professor Steve Borgatti , Gatton College of Business & Economics, University of Kentucky

 Interests: social networks and cultural domains. Areas of application include solving
management problems, including managing the informal networks of an organization.
- Borgatti, S. P. (2005), ‘Creating knowledge: Network structure and innovation’.
- Website: http://www.steveborgatti.com
MIT Media Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sociable Media Group
http://www.media.mit.edu/
The MIT Media Lab is dedicated to developing technologies for the future. The Sociable
Media Group investigates issues of society and identity, designing experimental
technologies for social interaction.
Potential contact:
Judith Donath, Director

- Offenhuber, D., Donath, J. (2008), ‘Comment Flow: Visualizing Communication
along Network Path’
- boyd, d., Lee, H.-Y., Ramage, D., Donath, J. (2002), ‘Developing Legible
Visualizations for Online Social Spaces’
- Assogba,Y. (2009), ‘Creative Networks: Socio-Technical Tools for Loosely Bound
Cooperation’
 Links to danah boyd

- Email: judith@media.mit.edu
- Website: http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/judith/

University of Surrey, Digital World Research Centre
www.dwrc.surrey.ac.uk
A multi-disciplinary centre in the Faculty of Arts & Human Sciences. Early work
concentrated on the social impact of new technologies such as mobile phones, e-books and
the Internet. Current work is focused on understanding new forms of media production and
consumption, and developing ways of supporting them with novel
media genres, formats, devices and services.
Potential contacts:
Professor David Frohlich, Director

- Land, V., Frohlich, D. M., Lumkin, M. (2007), ‘Cross-media communication
patterns’.
- Email: d.frohlich@surrey.ac.uk
- Website: http://dwrc.surrey.ac.uk/people-professorfrohlich.shtml
Kristina Langhein, DWRC Co-ordinator & Communications Consultant
- Email : k.langhein@surrey.ac.uk
University of Greenwich Centre for Business Network Analysis
www.gre.ac.uk/schools/business/enterprise/research/business_network_research_group
This centre focuses on the business applications of social network analysis, examining both
intra- and inter-organisational networks. It has the largest concentration of business
network analysts in the UK. It applies the techniques of organizational network analysis to a
wide range of business problems, including information flows and knowledge sharing. It
was the host for the 5th UK Social Networks Conference, 2009.
Potential contacts:
Riccardo De Vita, Lecturer in Economic Sociology

- De Vita, R., Pais, I.,Marmo, R. (2010), ‘The structure of business social network
sites : the case of Milan IN’.
- De Vita, R., Conaldi, G. (2010 ), ‘Network properties and innovation generation :
comparing intra-organizational networks in the Open Source Software industry’.
- Email : r.devita@greenwich.ac.uk
Dr Bruce Cronin, Director of Greenwich Centre
 Interests: the role of business networks in strategy and innovation, inter-organizational

collaboration.
 Consultant to Unilever, The Pensions Regulator, Pearson, The London Knowledge
Network, and more.
 Links to Martin Everett, University of Manchester.
- Email : b.cronin@greenwich.ac.uk
Mitchell Centre for Social Network Analysis, University of Manchester Social Networks
Group
www.ccsr.ac.uk/msng
A cross disciplinary group based in the School of Social Sciences, aiming to promote the
application and development of social network analysis methodology. Host for the 6 th UK
Social Networks Conference, 2010.
Potential contact:
Professor Martin Everett, Department of Sociology, Professor of Social Network Analysis,

Director of Mitchell Centre
 Interests: development and application of methods of social network analysis,

particularly centrality, positional analysis and core-periphery models; application of
social network analysis in private and public sector environments.
 Consultant to Unilever, Qinetiq, the Home Office, Ministry of Defence, DSTL, and more.
 Senior Associate of Ranmore Consulting, Dorking
 Co-author of UNICET
 Links to Steve Borgatti, University of Kentucky LINKS Center
- Email: martin.everett@manchester.ac.uk

Judge Business School, University of Cambridge
www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/research/faculty
The Business School’s Organisational Analysis Research Group studies organisational

behaviour, strategy and marketing, including innovation through relationships and
networks.
Potential contact:
Professor Martin Kilduff, Professor of Management Studies
 Interests: social networks in organisations, with emphasis on cognitive and personality

effects on the positions individuals occupy, and the effects of these positions on
performance, promotions, etc.
- Kilduff, M., Tsai, W. (2003), ‘Social networks and organizations’
- Kilduff, M., Crossland, C., Tsai, W., Krackhardt, D. (2008), ‘Organizational network
perceptions versus reality: a small world after all?’
- Email: m.kilduff@jbs.cam.ac.uk
Salford Business School, University of Salford – Information Systems, Organisations and

Society Research Centre (ISOS)
http://www.isos.salford.ac.uk/
The Centre conducts research into social and organisational aspects of information systems
and information and communication technologies, including work on social networking and
social media in organisational and social contexts’.
Potential contact:
Dr Marie Griffiths, Academic Fellow
 Interests: social networking, social media

 Contact details :
- Email : m.griffiths@salford.ac.uk

3.3 Forthcoming Events
It will be evident from the number of conference papers cited in this report that there are
many groups and associations holding conferences of potential interest to Surevine. Listed
here are some known forthcoming and on-going events.
September 2010: Gartner ‘Portals, Content & Collaboration’ (PCC) Summit

15-16 September 2010, London
This summit will focus on workplace technologies, such as portals, content management,
social networking, mashups, online communications tools, eDiscovery, search technologies,
Web 2.0 and emerging collaboration tools. Analysts will explore how these technologies
raise overall organizational productivity and how they impact on employees, and also how
enterprises must change to get business results. Includes exhibition and trade displays.
http://www.gartner.com/technology/summits/emea/portals/index.jsp
February 2011: Sunbelt XXXI Conference of the International Network for Social Network
Analysis
8-13 Feb 2011, Florida.
Programme not yet available.
http://insna.org
March/April 2011: 20th International World Wide Web Conference

28 March – 1 April 2011, Hyderabad, India
Programme not yet available.
http://www.www2011india.com/program.html
July 2011: 7th UK Social Networks Conference

7-9 July 2011, University of Greenwich, London
Programme to be published by 30 April 2011.
Following the practice of preceding UK Social Networks Association conferences, this will be
an interdisciplinary conference for researchers and practitioners working in the area of
social networks. Topics covered in the 6th Annual UK Social Networks Conference included
‘Business’ and ‘New Media’ - see Appendix 2 for titles of papers presented at those sessions.

http://sites.google.com/site/uksocialnetworkassociation
2011: Annual Intra-Organizational Networks Conference (ION)
Date and Programme not yet announced, LINKS Center, University of Kentucky
http://www.linkscenter.org/ion/
2012: COOP (International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems)
Date and Programme not yet announced, France.
http://www.coopsys.org/
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) Workshops
For future events: http://www.w3.org/participate/eventscal.html
For the papers of 2009 WC3 Workshop of the Future of Social Networking, many of which
seem relevant to Surevine’s interests: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/msnws/papers/.
Digital Content Knowledge Network
Regular events are organised by the DCKM, South East Media Network, to encourage
collaboration between technology industries, media companies and universities.
http://www.semn.org.uk/information/Digital-Content-Knowledge-Network.ASPX

4. Conclusion
Although this investigation has, in the time available, been able to consider only a relatively
small proportion of the total research that bears on Surevine’s interests, two clear
conclusions seem to emerge.
Firstly, there is a significant body of work which informs the broad area of Surevine’s
interests, particularly in understanding processes of communication in organisations and in
factors affecting users’ choices of traditional media. Within this body of research there are
well-established concepts, and a considerable amount of methodological work on network
structures. Some recent work has also considered practical implications for designers.
Secondly, however, research of direct relevance to Surevine – looking at the role of ‘new
media’, how organisations are responding to new networking options, success factors and
security issues – is more limited. As several researchers acknowledge, the rapid
development of networking services is such that academic research lags behind.
Nevertheless, as the information on ‘People and Places’ makes clear, there is a strong
research base in the UK, as well as abroad, which spreads across a range of centres with
which Surevine may wish to forge contact.
If, in future, Surevine wishes to update or develop this particular investigation, it might be
appropriate to concentrate on the principal UK centres identified here and conduct more in-
depth discussions about ongoing work related to specific topics. In the meantime, it is
hoped that pursuing some of the information and contacts given in this report will prove
fruitful.

5. Bibliography
Ackerman, A., Pipek, V., Wulk, V. (Eds.) (2003), Sharing Expertise: Beyond Knowledge
Management, MIT Press.
Assogba, Y. (2009), ‘Creative Networks: Socio-Technical Tools for Loosely Bound

Cooperation’, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/yannick/yannick_assogba_thesis_final.pdf .
Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., Lin, M.-C. (2004), ‘Social interactions across media’, New Media
Society, 6(3), 299-318.
Beer, D. (2008), ‘Social Network(ing) Sites…revisiting the story so far: A response to danah boyd and
Nicole Ellison’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(2), 516-529.
Boase, J. (2008), ‘Personal networks and the personal communication system: Using multiple media
to connect’, Information, Communication and Society, 11(4), 490-508.
Boase, J., Wellman, B. (2006), ‘Personal Relationships: On and Off the Internet’, in Vangelisti, A.,
Perlman, D. (Eds.) (2006), Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, Cambridge, pp.709-723.
Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B., Rainie, L. (2006), ‘The strength of internet ties’, Pew Research
Center Report, Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington DC.
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Internet_ties.pdf.pdf .
Borgatti, S. P. (2005), ‘Creating knowledge: Network structure and innovation’, LINKS Center Essay.
boyd, d. (2007), ‘The Significance of Social Software’, in Burg, T. N., Schmidt, J. (Eds.), BlogTalks
Reloaded: Social Software Research and Cases, pp.15-30.
http://www.danah.org/papers/BlogTalksReloaded.pdf .
boyd, d. m., Ellison, N. B. (2007), ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship’, Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1).
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html .
boyd, d., Lee, H.-Y., Ramage, D., Donath, J. (2002), ‘Developing Legible Visualizations for Online
Social Spaces’, HICSS’02, 4. http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/danah/HICSS2002.pdf .
boyd, d., ‘Bibliography of Research on Social Network Sites’,

http://www.danah.org/researchBibs/sns.php .

Brass, D. J., ‘Social Networks in organizations : Antecedents and consequences’,
http://gatton.uky.edu/Faculty/brass/index.html .
Carrington,P., Scott, J., (eds), (2010),Handbook of Social Network Analysis, Sage
Castells, M. (2009), The Rise of the Network Society, Wiley-Blackwell (2nd edition).
Coenen, T. (2006), ‘Structural aspects of social networking systems and their influence on
knowledge sharing’, Proceedings of Web Based Communities, San Sebastian, Spain.
Coenen, T., Kenis, D., Van Damme, C., Matthys, E. (2006), ‘Knowledge sharing over Social
networking Systems : Architecture, usage patterns and their application’, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, 4277, 189-198. Pay for paper
http://www.springerlink.com/content/dlnq4k2l2p54np81/
Constant, D., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S. (1996), ‘The kindness of strangers: the usefulness of
electronic weak ties for technical advice’, Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kiesler/publications/PDFs/Constantkindness.pdf .
Cummings, J. N. ‘Social Network References (Academic Bibliography)’,

http://www.socialnetworks.org/ .
Department of Communities and Local Government (2008), Online Social Networks –

Research Report. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/1000435.pdf .
De Vita, R., Conaldi, G. (2010), ‘Network properties and Innovation generation: comparing
Intra-organizational networks in the Open Source Software industry’.
De Vita, R., Pais, I., Marmo, R. (2010), ‘The structure of business social network sites: the
case of Milan IN’, from Sunbelt XXX Social Networks Conference.
http://www.slideshare.net/MilanIN/the-structure-of-business-social-network-sites-the-case-of-
milanin .
Erickson, T., Kellogg, W. A. (2000), ‘Social translucence: an approach to designing systems

that support social processes’, ACM transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 59-
83. http://www.pliant.org/personal/Tom_Erickson/st_TOCHI.html .
Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., Wellman, B. (1997), ‘Studying online social networks’,
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1).
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/garton.html#Abstract .

Gartner (2009), ‘Predicts 2010: Social Software is an Enterprise Reality’, Gartner Special
Report. Press release at http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1293114 . Pay for full report at
http://www.gartner.com/resId=1243515
Gilbert, E., Karahalis, K. (2009), ‘Predicting Tie Strength with Social Media’, Proc. Of the 27th
International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 211-220, ACM, New
York. http://social.cs.uiuc.edu/papers/pdfs/chi09-tie-gilbert.pdf .
Granovetter, M. S. (1973), ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
1360-80.
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/soc/people/mgranovetter/documents/granstrengthweakties.pdf .
Granovetter, M. S. (1983), ‘The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited’,

Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.128.7760&rep=rep1&type=pdf .
Guimerà, R., Danon, L., Díaz-Guilera, A., Giralt, F., Arenas, A. (2006), ‘The real
communication network behind the formal chart: Community structure in organizations’,
Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 61(4), 653-667.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.1838&rep=rep1&type=pdf .
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), 1101-14.
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/workfriendshipmedia/workfriend.PDF .
Hogan, B. (2008), ‘Analysing Social Networks via the Internet’, in Fielding, N., Lee, R., Blank,
G. (Eds.), The Handbook of Online Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hogan, B. and Quan-Haase, A. (2010), ‘Persistence and Change in Social Media’. Bulletin of
Science, Technology and Society.
Iacono, S., Kling, R. (1996), ‘Computerization movements and tales of technological

utopianism’, in Kling, R. (Ed.), Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social
change (2nd ed.), San Diego: Academic Press, pp.85-105.
Iacono, S., Kling, R. (2001), ‘Computerization movements: The rise of the Internet and
distant forms of works’, in Yates, J. and van Maanen, J. (Eds.), Information technology and
organizational transformation: History, rhetoric and practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
pp.93-136.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Staples, S. D. (2000), ‘The Use of Collaborative Electronic Media for
Information Sharing: An Exploratory Study of Determinants’, The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 9(2/3), 129-154.
Kilduff, M., Brass, D. J., ‘Organizational Social Network Research: Core Ideas and Debates’,
www.linkscenter.org/papers/annals.pdf .
Kilduff, M. and Tsai, W. (2003), Social networks and organizations, London: Sage.
Kilduff, M., Crossland, C., Tsai, W. and Krackhardt, D. (2008), ‘Organizational network
perceptions versus reality: a small world after all?’, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 107(1), 15-28.
Kim, S., Lee, H. (2006), ‘The impact of organizational context and information technology on
employee knowledge sharing capabilities’, Public Administration Review, 66 (3), 370-385.
Pay for article at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118561395/abstract?
CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Koch, M., Richter, A. and Schlosser, A. (2007), ‘Services and applications for IT-supported
social networking in companies’, Wirtschaftsinformatik, 6(49), 448-455.
Land, V., Frohlich, D. M., Lumkin, M. (2007), ‘Cross-media communication patterns’,

Proceedings of ECSCW (European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work).
Legerstee, M. (2008), ‘Studying Multiple Media Use: A Network Multiplexity Approach’,

ERIM.
http://www.erim.eur.nl/portal/page/portal/ERIM/Research/Centres/SBNi/Projects/NWoW/About/
Who_are_we/ST2007/Legerstee%20(2008)%20Studying%20Multiple%20Media%20Use.pdf .
Levin, D. Z., Cross, R. (2004), ‘The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of
trust in effective knowledge transfer’, Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.
McKinsey & Co (2008), ‘Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise: McKinsey Global Survey Results’.
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Building_the_Web_20_Enterprise_McKinsey_Global_Survey_21
74#
Mislove, A., Marcon, M., Gummandi, K. P., Druschal, P., Bhattacharjee, B. (2007),
‘Measurement and Analysis of Online Social Networks’, Proc. Of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM
Conference on Internet Measurement, Association of Computing Machinery, New York, 29-
42. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.109.4432&rep=rep1&type=pdf .

Morselli, R., Bhattacharjee, B., Katz, J., Marsh, M. A. (2006), ‘Keychains: A Decentralized
Public-Key Infrastructure’. http://www.lib.umd.edu/drum/bitstream/1903/3332/1/0.pdf .
Newman, M. E. J. (2003), ‘The structure and function of complex networks’, SIAM review, 45
(2), 167-256. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/courses/2004/cscs535/review.pdf .
OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) (2007), Sharing, Privacy and Trust in our networked
world, OCLC, Ohio. http://www.oclc.org/reports/sharing/default.htm .
Ofcom (2008), Social networking: a quantitative and qualitative report into attitudes,
behaviours and use.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/report.
pdf
Offenhuber, D., Donath, J. (2008), ‘Comment Flow: Visualizing Communication along

Network Paths’, MIT Media Lab, in Sommerer, C., Mignonneau, L., King, D. (2008) Interface
Cultures: Artistic Aspects of Interaction (1st ed.), Transcript.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000), ‘Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for
Studying Technology in Organizations’, Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., Fujimoto, M. (1994), ‘Shaping electronic
communication: the metastructuring of technology in the context of use’, MIT Sloan
Working Paper, 3611-3693. Without some figures http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/CCSWP167.html
Pay for full article http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/4/423
Panzarasa, P., Opsahl, T. (2006), ‘The network structure and evolution of online
communication’, Proceedings of European Conference on Complex Systems, Saïd Business
School, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Panzarasa, P., Opsahl, T. (2006), ‘The structure and evolution of an online communication
network’, Proceedings of the International Sunbelt Social Network Conference 26,
International Network for Social Network Analysis, Vancouver, Canada.
Panzarasa, P., Opsahl, T., Carley, K. M. (2009), ‘Patterns and Dynamics of Users’ Behaviour
and Interaction: Network Analysis of an Online Community’, Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 60(5), 911-932.
Pay for article http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121675899/abstract or email Tore

Opsahl for access at tore@opsahl.co.uk

Quan-Haase, A., Wellman, B. (2004), ‘Local Virtuality in a High-Tech Networked
Organization’, Analyse & Kritik, 28.
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/distance_local-virtuality/Quan-Haase-
Wellman.pdf .
Quan-Haase, A., Wellman, B. (2003), ‘Networks of distance and media: a case study of a
high-tech firm’, Paper presented at the Conference on Trust and Communities, Bielefield,
Germany.
Quan-Haase, A., Wellman, B. (2006), ‘Hyperconnected Net Work’, in Heckscher, C. and

Adler, P. (Eds.) (2006), The Firm as a Collaborative Community: Reconstructing Trust in the
Knowledge Economy, New York: Oxford University Press.
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/trust/07-Heckscher-chap07.pdf .
Quan-Haase, A., Wellman, B. (2007), ‘From the Computerization Movement to

Computerization: A Case Study of a Community of Practice’, in Kraemer, K., Elliott, M.
(2007), Computerization Movements and Technology Diffusion: From Mainframes to
Ubiquitous Computing – Essays in Honor of Rob Kling, Medford MA: Information Today.
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/computerization_movement/computerizati
on_movement.pdf .
Richter, A., Koch, M. (2008), ‘Functions of Social Networking Services’, Proc. Of the
International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 87-98.
http://www.kooperationssysteme.de/wp-
content/uploads/coop08_richterkoch_functions_of_social_networking_services_final.pdf .
Scott, J (2000), Social Network Analysis : A Handbook, Sage Publications, London.
Soonhee, K., Hyangsoo, L. (2006), ‘The Impact of Organizational Context and Information
Technology on Employee Knowledge Sharing Capabilities’, Public Administration Review,
66(3), 370-385.
Stern, M. (2008), ‘How locality, frequency of communication and internet usage affect
modes of communication within core social networks’, Information, Communication and
Society, 11(5), 591-626.
Stowers, G. N. L. (2002), ‘The State of Federal Websites: The Pursuit of Excellence’, IBM
Center for The Business of Government.
http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/FederalWebsites.pdf .

Taylor, W. (2004), ‘Computer-mediated knowledge sharing and individual user differences:
An exploratory study’, European Journal of Information Systems, 13(1), 52-64.
Ward, R., Wamsley, G., Schroeder, A., Robins, D. B. (2000), ‘Networked organizational
development in the public sector: a case study of the federal emergency management
administration (FEMA)’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(11),
1018-1032. http://ajibik.typepad.com/pubs/files/FEMA.pdf .
Watson-Manhem, M. B., Belanger, F. (2007), ‘Communication Media Repertoires: Dealing

with the Multiplicity of Media Choices’, MIS Quarterly, 31(2), 267-293.
http://csz.csu.edu.tw/pp/IM%20ranks/01.MIS%20Quarterly/COMMUNICATION%20MEDIA
%20REPERTOIRES_%20DEALING%20WITH%20THE%20MULTIPLICITY%20OF%20MEDIA%20CHOICES.
(Institutional).pdf .
Watson-Manheim, M. B., Bélanger, F. (2002), ‘Support for Communication-Based Work

Processes in Virtual Work,’ E-Service Journal, 1(3), 61-82.
Watts, D. J. (2004), ‘The “New” Science of Networks’, Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 243-
270.
Wellman, B. (1996), ‘An electronic group is virtually a social network’, Working Paper in
Kiesler, S. (ed.) (1997), Culture of the Internet, Mahwah NJ, pp. 179-205.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.28.4128&rep=rep1&type=pdf .
Wellman B., Rainie, L. (2011), Networked: The New Social Operating System, MIT Press.
Yoo, Y., Alavi, M. (2001), ‘Media and Group Cohesion: Relative Influences on Social
Presence, Task Participation, and Group Consensus’, MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 371-390.
Zolin, R., Hinds, P. J., Fruchter, R., Levitt, R. E. (2004), ‘Interpersonal Trust in Cross-
Functional, Geographically Distributed Work: A Longitudinal Study’, Information and
Organization, 14(1), 1-26.

Appendix 1 – List of Contacts
People contacted in connection with this project are listed below. I acknowledge with
thanks the help and advice given.
Mark Brady, Consultant, Serco ExperienceLab, London
Owen Daly-Jones, Director, Serco ExperienceLab, London
Riccardo De Vita, Lecturer, University of Greenwich Centre for Business Network Analysis
Professor Martin Everett, Director of Mitchell Centre for Social Network Analysis, University
of Manchester Social Networks Group
Professor David Frohlich, Director of Digital World Research Centre, University of Surrey
Dr Marie Griffiths, Academic Fellow, Salford Business School
Dr Bernie Hogan, Research Fellow, the Oxford Internet Institute
Dr Kristina Langhein, Centre Co-ordinator & Communications Consultant, Digital World

Research Centre, University of Surrey
Tore Opsahl, Research Associate, Imperial College Business School
Dr Pietro Panzarasa, Senior Lecturer, Queen Mary School of Business and Management

Appendix 2 – Sample of Papers for the 6th UK Social
Networks Conference, April 2010
A selection of the papers presented at this conference are listed below to enable the reader
to gauge whether these annual UK conferences will be of interest. Those listed are from the
sessions on ‘Business’ and ‘New Media’. A large proportion of the remaining papers are on
methods. Abstracts of all the papers presented are on:
www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/sociology/events/sn/
 Syed Muhammad Ali Abbas, Manchester Metropolitan University

- ‘An agent-based model of segregation in Facebook’.
 Dominik Batorski, Pawel Kucharski, University of Warsaw

- ‘Patterns of change in communication network.’
 Dimitris Christopoulos, et al, University of Western England

- ‘Local governance networks in Europe : a comparative study.’
 Bruce Cronin, University of Greenwich

- ‘The evolution of UK directorate networks.’
 R De Vita, G Conaldi
- ‘Network properties and innovation generation : Comparing intra-organisational
networks in the Open Source Software industry.’
 C Gianelle, University of Sienna

- ‘Employment agencies make the world smaller. Network analysis of labour
mobility using administrative records.’
 Mohd Hazman, et al, Newcastle University

- ‘Social network and intra-organisational knowledge transfer among top
managers.’
 Bernie Hogan, University of Oxford

- ‘Re-evaluating media multiplexity with egonetwork data.’
 Justin IU, Australian National University

- ‘Using social networks to promote financial inclusion in Australia.’
 John Kelly, University of Limerick

- ‘Project coalitions – a network perspective.’
 B Pauksztat, R Wittek, University of Groningen

- ‘Effects of employee voice on the quality of personal relationships at work : a
longitudinal network analysis using SIENA.’
 M A Pearson, Edinburgh Napier University

- ‘Decision frontiers and uncertainty mapping in transaction flow networks.’
 Y Rochat, D Jilli, University of Lausanne

- ‘Centrality and community detection in a mobile social network.’
 Anne ter Wal, P Criscuolo, Ammon Salter, Imperial College Business School
- ‘The role of cognitive proximity in shaping knowledge sharing in professional
services firms.’
 G Wiltshire, P Omerod, B Rosewell, Volterra Consulting Ltd

- ‘Beyond copying.’

©Surevine Ltd, 2010
No reproduction without permission.
All rights reserved.


An Investigation Into The Origins and Nature of Research Into Social Networking

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Investigation Into The Origins and Nature of Research Into Social Networking

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An investigation into the

origins and nature of research

 1.1 Product Description.............................................................................................................3

 1.3 Structure of the report.........................................................................................................5

 1.4 Access to publications..........................................................................................................5

 2. Research and Publications..............................................................................................6

 2.2 ‘Top 5’ publications relevant to Surevine.............................................................................7

 2.3 Selected publications...........................................................................................................7

 2.4 Online Research Reviews and Bibliographies.....................................................................25

 3. People and Places.........................................................................................................26

 3.1 UK based Research Groups................................................................................................26

 3.2 Non-UK based Groups........................................................................................................28

 3.3 Forthcoming Events...........................................................................................................34

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 1 of 49

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 2 of 49

 To consolidate information about previous research in the field of social networking

 5 – 28 July: Defined scope of project; undertook investigation

1.2.2 Selection of research and publications

 Potential interest to Surevine - assumed main areas of interest were

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 3 of 49

1.2.3 Selection of centres

 Potential interest to Surevine - as in Section 1.2.2 above

Two points to be noted:

 No single centre was identified that focused specifically on Surevine’s interests

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 4 of 49

1.4 Access to publications

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 5 of 49

 There is seemingly surprisingly little published research directly relevant to Surevine’s

2.2 ‘Top 5’ publications relevant to Surevine

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 6 of 49

2. ‘Hyperconnected Net Work: Computer-Mediated Community in a High-Tech

3. ‘Communication Media Repertoires: Dealing with the Multiplicity of Media

4. ‘Knowledge Sharing over Social Networking Systems: Architecture, Usage

5. ‘Predicts 2010: Social Software is an Enterprise Reality’, (2009) - see p. 12

2.3 Selected publications

This study examines how computer-mediated communication (CMC) affects communication

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 7 of 49

‘From the Computerization Movement to Computerization: A Case Study of a Community

Other potentially relevant references cited:

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 8 of 49

‘Communication Media Repertoires: Dealing with the Multiplicity of Media Choices’,

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 9 of 49

Other potentially relevant references cited:

 Orlikowski, W. J. (2000), ‘Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens

‘Studying Multiple Media Use: A Network Multiplexity Approach’, (2008)

This paper builds on Watson-Manheim and Belanger’s argument (above), by examining

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 10 of 49

‘Predicts 2010: Social Software is an Enterprise Reality’, (2009)

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 11 of 49

 Boase, Horrigan, Wellman and Rainie (2006)

‘Shaping Electronic Communication: The Metastructuring of Technology in the Context of

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 12 of 49

This article investigates the network structure of an online community, specifically a

Other potentially relevant references cited:

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 13 of 49

‘Measurement and Analysis of Online Social Networks’, (2007)

Other potentially relevant references cited:

‘Functions of Social Networking Services’, (2008)

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 14 of 49

Other potentially relevant references cited:

‘Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes’,

©Surevine 2010 Version 2.3 Page 15 of 49

Other potentially relevant references cited: