Eric Gilbert | Karrie Karahalios | Christian Sandvig | University of Illinois
THE NETWORK IN THE GARDEN
1. rural demographics2. brief history of rural telephony3. our quantitative study of rural social media
http://flickr.com/photos/9548969@N02/722111742 (used with permission)
Hundred, West VirginiaPopulation: 344U
UN Demographic Yearbook, 2003.U.S. Census Bureau Summary Files 1 & 3, 2000.
0 10 20 30 40 50
U.S.
World 50%
24%
Rural population
1. rural demographics2. brief history of rural telephony3. our quantitative study of rural social media
“Farmers as a class are troublesome customers to handle and are apt to have an exaggerated idea of their own rights. The bumptiousness of certain farmers can be overcome only by constant efforts to educate them …
Telephone industry executive, 1918(Fischer 96)
RELATED WORK
Falk: rural social capitalSociologia Ruralis, 2000
Larson & Baym: rural internet useUniversity of Kansas, Dept. of Communications, 2007
Relevant social media workAdamic, Baym, boyd, Donath, Ellison, Lampe, Golder, Hancock, Resnick, Terveen, Wellman, Whittaker, …
0 500 1000 1500 2000
N
1661
1721
Rural
Urban0 10 20 30 40 50 60
R
U
MySpace ID
2.7M
54M
0 5 10 15 20 25
R
U
Age
22
240 2 4 6 8 10
R
U
Days since login
10
4
Mann-Whitney p < 0.001
demographics & usage
H5. a preference for strong ties over weak ties
H1. fewer friends and comments
H2. more women
H3. more private profiles
H4. closer friends
rural people will have …
Mann-Whitney p < 0.001
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
R
U
Friends
45
1040 20 40 60 80 100 120
R
U
Comments
118
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
R
U
Unique commenters
11
290 1 2 3 4 5
R
U
Reciprocal relationships
2
5
H1. fewer friends and comments
Chi-square p < 0.001
R
U
Gender distribution
48.5% male
59.4% male
51.5% female
40.6% female
H2. more women
Chi-square p = 0.011
R
U
Male friendships
35.5% male
38.6% male
64.5% female
61.4% female
R
U
Female friendships
42.5% male
43.7% male
57.5% female
56.3% female
Chi-square p > 0.05
H2. more women
Chi-square p < 0.001
Rural
Urban
Pro!le privacy
68.5% public
74.9% public
31.5% private
25.1%
H3. more private profiles
Chi-square p = 0.613Chi-square p < 0.001
R
U
Male pro!le privacy
78.7% public
77.4% public
21.3%
22.6%
R
U
Female pro!le privacy
60.8% public
73.0% public
39.2% private
27.0%
H3. more private profiles
Mann-Whitney p < 0.001
0 50 100 150 200 250
Rural
Urban
Median distance to friends
201.7 mi
88.8 mi
H4. closer friends
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Prob
abili
ty o
f a
stro
ng t
ie
Distance from strong tie (mi)
RuralUrban
P (friend > x) ! e!( x132.84 )0.441
R2 = 0.994
H5. Compared to urban users, rural users’ distribution of friends will preference strong ties over weak ties.
H5. a preference for strong ties over weak ties
H1. fewer friends and comments
H2. more women
H3. more private profiles
H4. closer friends
rural people will have …
Rural people use social media.
Rural and urban people use social media differently.Far fewer friends; friends much closer to home; more private profiles; more women
A rural perspective could shed new light on technology.
Eric Gilbert | Karrie Karahalios | Christian SandvigUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Salganik & Heckathorn. Sampling and Estimation in Hidden Populations Using Respondent-Driven Sampling.
SNOWBALL SAMPLING
sample point
Salganik & Heckathorn. Sampling and Estimation in Hidden Populations Using Respondent-Driven Sampling.
SNOWBALL SAMPLING
sample point