Revisiting the Internet Debate

View the most recent version.

The data presented in this paper contribute to our understanding of how the Internet is aiding the transformation of relations—with family and relatives, with community members, in voluntary organizations, and at work (not studied here). Although there has been much talk about negative effects of the Internet, the evidence presented here does not support the notion that the Internet is increasing social isolation. Rather, research is showing that the Internet is fostering participation with community members and in social organizations. To a great extent, this is basically an enhancement of existing relationships—people now have other media to connect them. In addition to in-person encounters, scheduled meetings, landline and mobile phones, they can email, chat online, send instant messages, blog and comment, and stay mutually aware through social networking sites.

By ignoring the new forms of social engagement that the Internet has fostered, observers might come to the conclusion that the Internet is the domain of asocial individuals. On the contrary, the present study addresses this claim by illustrating the Internet's emerging role in social and civic life. It finds that most Internet users socialize and make plans for gatherings, and get a substantial amount of important everyday information—such as news and weather—through the Internet. With respect to social cohesion, Internet users also use new forms of civic engagement that are not encompassed by conventional measures.

All of the sources used in this study—several national surveys from Statistics Canada and the Connected Lives studies in East York (Toronto) and Chapleau (rural Ontario) by the University of Toronto's NetLab—show that the majority of Canadians use the Internet. As rates of access to the Internet escalate, the questions shift from the old concern of access to the Internet to how people are using the Internet and the impacts it is having on their lives. Differences in rates of Internet access are now accompanied by interest in what differences—in terms of how the Internet is used—mean for different parts of society. This 'use divide' reflects differences in peoples' engagement with a variety of online activities and their Internet skills (Montagnier 2007, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2004, Hargittai 2002). Although some gaps persist between certain socio-economic groups in terms of both access to and use of the Internet, the evidence suggests that not only has Internet access increased rapidly over a relatively short time in Canada, but that the level of use also tends to increase with individuals' level of experience (or years spent) on the Web (Quan-Haase and Wellman et al. 2002, Boase et al. 2006, Underhill and Ladds 2007). In short, people are using the Internet because they want to, and not because they have to. These findings are consistent with recent findings that "the Information Society is also a talkative society" (Sciadas 2006, p. 13), where: "…key outcomes of the ICTs are manifested in shifting behavioural patterns everywhere, with real consequences. Moreover, the pattern of communications has changed, something exemplified by the rise in long distance and the explosion in international calling made possible by liberalized markets and falling prices. Such expanded circles of communication have found an even better expression through e-mail that knows no boundaries. People make the choice to expand their associations and move from geographically-defined communities to communities of interest. As well, they are willing to pay for their choices" (Sciadas 2006, p. 20).

Further, evidence from NetLab's East York and Chapleau studies suggests that evolving patterns of information and communications technology use have resulted in some social shifts:

• Households have moved away from being a combination of tight leisure groups during nights and weekends but with little workday communication, to becoming networked households. On the one hand, each member of the household is more apt to go their separate ways physically, on separate agendas. However, spouses and their children use email and mobile phones to keep in more frequent contact with each other even as they do not see each other in person (Kennedy and Wellman 2007).

• Communities have become complex social networks, in which many of those in a person's social network are not directly connected with each other and where Internet contact has supplemented and to some extent replaced in-person contact. Although heavy users of the Internet may not have as much in-person contact with friends and relatives, they have a great deal of electronic contact with their network members, and they often use the Internet to arrange meetings. Their overall level of contact is high, with the Internet and telephone (both mobile and wired) adding to in-person contact. Moreover, the Internet has been a boon to staying in contact with far-flung friends and relatives who do not live within comfortable travel distance. This pattern is especially apparent among new Canadians and rural Canadians.

• The way people find information is changing. Rather than a limited dialectic between mass media and friends' opinions, evidence reveals that many people now search actively online for what they have heard about, check out their information with friends and with other media, and then go search again. The result is that many people are actively using the Internet to inform themselves where information from traditional media outlets may have been limited.

Widespread use has its consequences. Social transformation is occurring along with participation, but evidence shows that we should expect neither a dysfunctional society of loners nor a blissful society of happy networkers. Rather, we are facing a society that is differently cohesive from the one we have known. As Sciadas' (2006) recent review of Canadians' communications patterns put it:

…

(T)he only inference that can be supported is that people communicate more than ever and their patterns of associations are wider. Whether or not this is done with shorter communication sessions remains to be confirmed, but it is definitely with more frequency. In any event, the theories of people becoming closed-in or socially withdrawn are not supported by the evidence presented here. (Surely there are those who spend all-day in on-line solitude, but this is not the case for the society at large). The pattern of communication and interaction has changed. The reality is that people are talking to other people – whether to the person next door or to someone thousands of miles and time zones away. Thus, it is not that people are becoming anti-social; it is that people are becoming differently social (p. 17).

Conclusions

In 2000, following a workshop of officials and academics tasked with identifying "desired indicators" of socially cohesive activities, as well as indicators of activities that work against social cohesion, a report by the Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD) on "Social Cohesion in Canada: Possible Indicators" stated: "Hours spent watching TV/playing on computer/playing video games can be considered individualized activities which take away potential time for interaction with family, friends, neighbours etc." (p. 53).

Eight years later, grouping these three activities together—TV, computer, and video games—is perhaps less meaningful. Is "watching TV" the same as "playing on computer" and "playing video games?" What exactly does "playing on computer" mean today? Is it playing against the computer or with other users in online communities? Does "playing on computer" refer to spending time on the computer, does it include information gathering and even communication like email, or is it strictly related to what we would now call "gaming?" How does it differ from "playing video games?" While a clear difference may have once existed between "screen time" and time spent interacting with others, today the distinction is less clear.

By contrast, a 2006 Australian study that considered how different levels of Internet access affected social and civic participation noted that: "Any decline in social capital cannot be attributed to the Internet… There are strong indications that the reverse is the case: that those with Internet access are more likely to be actively involved in such social capital building activities as volunteering to work for community organisations and lobbying politicians… Social capital can occur in new forms that have emerged from Internet interactions and relationships, often labelled as 'virtual', but in effect as real as any other" (Alessandrini 2006). Unfortunately, the Australian study only considers Internet access generally, and then looks at how Internet users compare with non-users in their social activities. It says nothing about what people actually did when they were online.

This is where the present article fills a knowledge gap. It presents a comprehensive look at what Canadians do when they are online, how their online behaviour is interrelated with their offline behaviour, and how it is embedded in people's lives. The findings reveal a two-sided tale of how social cohesion is being transformed through technology. It is a story which has heavy Internet users spending less time in in-person contact with family and friends, and knowing their neighbours less well than others. However, much of what these users do online qualifies as social capital-building activities. Emailing and chatting, for instance, are social activities mostly carried out with friends and family.

Further examination of different socio-demographic groups reveals that they have embraced technology not to escape social contact or other traditional activities but to enhance them. For example, Internet users spend more time reading books than non-users. Young Canadians aged 15 to 24 are the most active in using the Internet to search for volunteer opportunities, and approximately one-fifth of all volunteers use the Internet to carry out volunteer activities, with moderate users of the Internet being especially active in volunteering. Recent immigrants use the Internet to a greater extent than other Canadians, most likely to get information and maintain contacts in the language in which they are the most proficient. Older Canadians who use the Internet are nearly as likely as young Canadian Internet users to send and receive email. And Canadian seniors are more likely to play games with others online than middle-aged adults.

Does this mean immigrants are not learning English or French, or that seniors are becoming reclusive? What is more likely is that immigrants and seniors are finding companionship online where few opportunities exist in their physical environment. But, as the data also show, people prefer to spend time in direct in-person contact with others. In other words, people are using the Internet to create and enhance opportunities for networking where there were none before, while still valuing a chat over coffee as much as a chat online.

The challenge is that present indicators of social cohesion may not capture the transformation of communication patterns and the contribution that technology is making to social networking. When Putnam (2004) states that "Dense social networks in a neighborhood—barbecues or neighborhood associations or whatever—can deter crime, for example, even benefiting neighbors who don't go to the barbecues or belong to the association," he clearly does not have neighbours in mind who organize and network online. And when the CCSD report states that "frequency of contact with family, friends" is "a direct indicator of social participation and participation in intimate social networks," it does not specify whether such contact is limited to in-person interaction, or whether it also includes telephone and Internet contact—essentially email at the time, but now expanded to instant messaging, social networking sites, blogs, and so on.

Putnam's evocative image of a neighbourhood barbecue is probably more appealing to most than an image of friends and family communicating by sitting in front of their computer screens. Yet, the data presented here alert us to how important it will be to properly capture online social activities in any social indicators. If Canadians shift some of their interaction with family, friends and neighbours to online environments there may, indeed, be less in-person contact. Consequently, indicators measuring only offline activities would show the social cohesion glass emptying, while it is actually filling up through increasing online contact.

The evidence shows that, apart from a small minority of reclusive, heavy users, offline activities are not entirely displaced by online ones. Rather, most people desire in-person contact with family, friends and neighbours. They will also use whatever tools are available to them—telephone, the Internet—to maintain their ties when they are unable to get together. In addition, there are also those communities that would never have a chance of coming together physically. These virtual social networks can provide support for people with specialized interests where physical gatherings with typical limitations of time and space would simply not be feasible.

Therefore the following main findings and considerations become relevant:

• More and more, community is extending beyond face-to-face interaction with small groups of neighbours. In order to understand how social cohesion is being transformed, it is important to capture the full gamut of online and offline social activities.

• The Internet and its users are becoming increasingly diverse. This study has illustrated the extent to which Internet users with different backgrounds, based on social and demographic characteristics, vary in terms of the online activities they choose to participate in. In the case of the time use data, a distinction was also made between moderate and heavier users of the Internet. There remains a need to study the diversity of Internet users and behaviours further. Rather than relying on a simplistic categorization of Internet users and non-users, there would be a benefit to recognizing the sensitivity of the contexts and conditions under which various social activities are conducted by different social actors.

• The results suggest a need to be open to the possibility that social networks may become less intense but more numerous. Whether more but shallower networks are better than fewer but more in-depth networks remains to be studied.

• Care should be taken not to assume that new activities in Canadians' lives mean that traditional activities are discarded, especially when considering Internet use through time use surveys. This might sound counterintuitive ("the day still has only 24 hours") but as people multitask in unfamiliar ways (watching TV, chatting, talking on the phone all at the same time) there is good evidence that the notion of "more effectively deployed attention" (Benkler 2006) is real. Recent Canadian data reveal that as many as one-quarter of Canadians watch television while accessing the Internet, and that one-third listen to the radio while also going online (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) 2007). These multi-tasking activities are especially popular among young Canadians.

In closing, the rapid diffusion and the ever-widening scope of Internet use have given rise to both utopian and dystopian views with regards to its impact on society. While some may think that older media and societal arrangements are already obsolete and irrelevant, "traditionalists" tend to see the Internet only as a pernicious imposition on traditional community. Yet, the Internet has strengths in its own right. Its present and future impacts should be judged on their own merit and must be clearly separated from nostalgic notions of pre-Internet community living, where people sat around pubs, cafés and parlours communing—something that has not really been the case for a very long time. Particularly in Canada, long, cold winters encouraged Canadians to stay home and watch television, listen to the radio and read. Thus the advent of the Internet is breeding a more social era, with active communication and information seeking activities compared to the more passive traditional forms of entertainment such as television.