February 2002 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: Lurking
by u.matzat＠t-online.de 06 Feb '02

06 Feb '02

I am busy wading through my saved emails - that's the reason I react so lately to the thread on lurking in electronic group discussions. In December I finished my Ph.D. thesis at the Department of Sociology, University of Groningen (the Netherlands) which is of interest for those analyzing 'lurking' or active participation in electronic discussions. The thesis contributes to answering the question under which conditions some electronic groups on the Internet reach a high degree of active member participation (posting) in group discussions while other Internet groups fail to involve many members. The focus is more on structural properties of the electronic group (e.g. does it stimulate the discussion if an electronic group is embedded in face-to-face networks of researchers?) than on properties of individuals (e.g. does it stimulate the discussion if a member is an altruist?) that faciliate the involvement of members in group discussions. You don't have to read the whole book. In chapters 5 and 6 of the book, three models for explaining the active participation of researchers in discussions of academic mailing lists are presented and empirically tested. These models rely on three different basic arguments about which incentives influence the provision of help and information in discussions of electronic groups: 1. a hope for reciprocity 2. the goal to obtain some status in the research community 3. the goal to make new contacts to other researchers Since these models are instruments for finding out what are crucial structural properties, they leave out ideas about altruistic motivations, like group attachment etc, that could stimulate group discussions. Matzat, U. (2001). Social Networks and Cooperation in Electronic Communities. A theoretical-empirical Analysis of Academic Communication and Internet Discussion Groups. Amsterdam: Thela Publishers (ISBN 90-367-1541-5) The models make use of economic price-theory in a very simple way, so that the reasoning and results are understandable for Internet researcher who may not be familiar with micro-economics. By the way, the book is also online available at the university library of the University of Groningen :-): http://www.ub.rug.nl/eldoc/dis/ppsw/u.matzat/ Best wishes, Uwe PS: The project information on my web-site is not yet up-dated. I am sorry! +++++++++++++++++++++ Uwe Matzat Interuniversity Center for Social Science Theory and Methodology (ICS) Department of Sociology University of Groningen Grote Rozenst. 31 9712 TG Groningen The Netherlands u.matzat(a)ppsw.rug.nl Social Networks and Academic Internet Discussion Groups: http://www2.ppsw.rug.nl/~matzat Tel: +31/50/3636237 (NL) or +49/2841/173112 (GER) +++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

Computer-Mediated-Communication.
by Sandeep Krishnamurthy 06 Feb '02

06 Feb '02

Friends, All of you have seen the term computer-mediated-communication(e.g. http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/) A friend recently asked me about the PC-centric nature of this definition. "Why is this not screen-mediated-communication or device-mediated communication?", he asked me. I argued that, starting with the Internet, connectivity with others (or community, if you like) had to be a component of CMC, but not other forms of screen-based-communication. By this standard, communicating through PDAs or e-mail devices such as Blackberry was, indeed, CMC. But, checking out the weather on a kiosk was not. What do you think? Is the term CMC too restrictive? Best, Sandeep -- To learn more about me, visit-http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep

2 1

US ATP over
by Gina Neff 06 Feb '02

06 Feb '02

Dear Air, I thought some of you might be interested in this little news item. White House Slashes Technology Grants Program by 42 Percent VentureReporter.net Tuesday, February 05, 2002, 0:00 AM ET The Bush administration has slashed the high-tech grants program, called the Advanced Technology Program <http://www.atp.nist.gov/>, by 42 percent, from $185 million in 2002 to $108 million next year. The White House said that the program amounted to corporate welfare, and could be easily replaced by private venture funding efforts. New grants would be reduced to $35 million. The program, created in 1988 to prevent the country from falling behind other countries in the areas of high-tech research and development, has averaged $150 million in grants yearly since its launch. Gina Neff Department of Sociology Columbia University ginasue(a)panix.com 212.568.0965

1 0

COSIGN 2002 cfp
by Andy Clarke 06 Feb '02

06 Feb '02

Please distribute the following call widely. Apologies in advance for cross-posting and multiple copies. ***************************************************** * * First Call For Papers * --------------------- * * COSIGN 2002 * * The 2nd International Conference on * * COMPUTATIONAL SEMIOTICS FOR GAMES AND NEW MEDIA * * Augsburg (Germany) * * 2nd September - 4th September, 2002 * * http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2002/ * ****************************************************** CONFERENCE SCOPE ==================== This cross-disciplinary conference explores the ways in which semiotics (and related theories such as structuralism and post-structuralism) can be applied to creating and analysing computer systems. It is intended for anyone with an interest in areas of overlap (or potential overlap) between semiotics and computers. This would include, but is not limited to, the following: computer scientists; HCI and AI practitioners; creators of expert systems; digital artists; designers; critics; semioticians; narratologists; etc. Semiotics is the study of signs, symbols and signification, and is therefore the study of how meaning is created, encoded and understood. Computational semiotics is understood here to be the application of semiotic theories to computer systems and interactive digital media. Three possible aspects of this are: - The way in which meaning can be created by, encoded in, or understood by, the computer (using systems or techniques based upon semiotics). - The way in which meaning in interactive digital media is understood by the viewer or user (again using systems or techniques based upon semiotics). - The way in which semiotics can be used as the starting point for a system for looking critically at the content of interactive digital media. Media that make use of the unique capabilities of digital systems are of particular interest to this conference. These include: hypermedia; content analysis systems (particularly those that extract higher-level meaning); the semantic web (and similar systems); multimedia and the internet; digital art, net art and other technology-based or technology-oriented art forms, computer games, interactive narratives and other forms of interactive entertainment; virtual reality systems and virtual environments. COSIGN 2002 invites submissions in the following categories: 1. Academic Papers 2. Artworks 3. Posters 4. Technical Demonstrations Details of the submission procedures are given below. Authors of accepted papers will be required to prepare an electronic version for the online conference proceedings (PDF), which will supplement the traditional printed volume. Information about the conference are available at the following web address: http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2002/ The programme and online proceedings for COSIGN 2001 are available at the following web address: http://www.kinonet.com/conferences/cosign2001/program.html IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES ============================= Academic Papers and Artworks Submission date: 27th March 2002 Acceptance will be notified on or around 6th May 2002 Camera-ready copy by 10th June 2002 Posters and Technical Demonstrations Submission date: 22nd April 2002 Acceptance will be notified on or around 21st May 2002 Camera-ready copy by 10th June 2002 SUBMISSION PROCEDURE ==================== 1. ACADEMIC PAPERS Papers are invited on any subject that explores areas of overlap (or potential overlap) between semiotics and interactive digital media. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, the following: - The use of semiotics in artificial intelligence and expert systems. - Software architectures and technologies using, based upon or inspired by semiotic theories, systems or models. - The use of semiotics in the creation of generative narrative systems, interactive digital games, entertainment and artworks. - The use of semiotics in the study and criticism of digital interactive media. - Narratology in games and new media. - Semiotic-orientated HCI. - Semiotics and Hypermedia. Papers should demonstrate an understanding of - and engagement with - the principles of semiotics (understood here as the study of signs) and gain something from this engagement. All papers must be submitted electronically (in either Postscript, Microsoft Word, RTF or PDF format) to Frank Nack at the following address: Frank.Nack(a)cwi.nl ------------------------------------------------------ Submission date for Academic Papers: 27th March 2002 Acceptance will be notified on or around 6th May 2002 PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 ------------------------------------------------------ 2. ARTWORKS In addition to academic and theoretical papers, presentations of artworks of all forms and in all formats are invited. We are particularly interested in digital art, net art and other technology-based or technology-oriented art forms. Selection of work for presentation at the conference will be based upon its relevance to the themes of the conference, its interest in demonstrating or exploring the potential of new media, and its challenging of perceptions, theoretical assumptions, or understanding in any areas related to the conference. Selection may also be constrained by practical requirements for equipment, safety, etc. Final decisions will be made by the Artwork Committee. Artworks will be assessed on the basis of documentation of the work presented in the form of an online website. The website should display the following: - A textual description of the proposed artwork and any illustrations - A biography of the artist(s)/author(s) - Contact details Please submit the URL of the website containing your proposal in an email to Andy Clarke at the following address: andy(a)kinonet.com Those wishing to submit additional supporting material, such as videotapes, should contact Andy Clarke to make arrangements for this. No responsibility is taken by the COSIGN organisers for any such material, and all expenses for its return must be met by the artist. ------------------------------------------------------- Submission date for Artworks: 27th March 2002 Acceptance will be notified on or around 6th May 2002 PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 ------------------------------------------------------- 3. POSTERS There will be an opportunity for researchers to present new work and ideas that are not yet ready for the full presentation. Short papers will be presented in poster format, and will be included in both the hardcopy and electronic proceedings. All papers must be submitted electronically (2 to 4 pages of A4 size, double spaced, in either Postscript, Microsoft Word, RTF or PDF format) to Clive Fencott at the following address: P.C.Fencott(a)tees.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------- Submission date: 22nd April 2002 Acceptance will be notified on or around 21st May 2002 PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 ------------------------------------------------------- 4. TECHNICAL DEMONSTRATIONS Demonstrations of relevant leading-edge work and work in progress are invited. Submissions will be peer-reviewed to ensure quality. Demonstration proposals must be submitted electronically (in either Postscript, Microsoft Word, RTF or PDF format) to Craig Lindley at the following address: craig.lindley(a)interactiveinstitute.se Those wishing to submit supporting material, such as videotapes, should contact Craig Lindley to make arrangements for this. ------------------------------------------------------------- Submission date for Technical Demonstrations: 22nd April 2001 Acceptance will be notified on or around 21st May 2001 PDF copy for the proceedings by 10th June 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------- ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION PROCEDURE ================================ Authors and artists who have difficulty in making their submission in the appropriate form (as outlined above) should contact: Frank Nack CWI - INS2 Kruislaan 413 P.O. Box 94079, NL-1090 GB Amsterdam Email: Frank.Nack(a)cwi.nl Phone: +31 20 592 4223 Fax: +31 20 592 4312 ORGANISING COMMITTEE ==================== Elisabeth Andre - University of Augsburg (Germany) Andy Clarke - Kinonet (UK) Clive Fencott - University of Teeside (UK) Craig Lindley - Interactive Institute (Sweden) Grethe Mitchell - University of East London and Kinonet (UK) Frank Nack - CWI (Netherlands) PROGRAMME COMMITTEE =================== Elisabeth Andre - University of Augsburg (Germany) Wilton Azevedo - Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo, (Brazil) Paul Brna - Leeds University (UK) Kevin Brooks - Motorola Human Interface Labs (USA) Andrew Clarke - Kinonet (UK) Clive Fencott - University of Teeside (UK) Mathias Fuchs - Sibelius Academy, Helsinki (Finland) Werner Kriechbaum - IBM (Germany) James Lester - North Carolina University (USA) Craig Lindley - Interactive Institute (Sweden) Grethe Mitchell - University of East London and Kinonet (UK) Frank Nack - CWI (Netherlands) Mirko Petric -University of Split (Croatia) Paolo Petta - OFAI (Austria) Doug Rosenberg - University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA) Ola Stockfelt - University of Goteborg/University of Skovde (Sweden) Robert Wechsler - Palindrome Inter-media Performance Group (Germany) ARTWORK COMMITTEE ================= Jorge Luiz Antonio - Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo (Brazil) Andrew Clarke - Kinonet (UK) Silvia Eckermann - Digital Artist (Austria) Fatima Lasay - University of the Philippines (Philippines) Luca Marchetti - Anomos (France) Grethe Mitchell - University of East London and Kinonet (UK) Timothy Portlock - University of Illinois (USA) Emma Posey - Bloc (UK) David Rokeby - Digital Artist (Canada) Doug Rosenberg - University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA) ************************************************ ---------- end of cfp

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Computer-Mediated-Communication
by Zunt＠aol.com 05 Feb '02

05 Feb '02

In a message dated 2/5/2002 5:09:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, jvc(a)MIT.EDU writes: > I don't want to quabble around words, although I do like computer-aided > communication more than computer-mediated communication, what I am > interested in is in being rigorous around the role of IT in communication > and find out if it's more than that of a mediator. Hmmm. The tacit evaluation conveyed in the adjective "computer-aided" troubles me from time to time--when I'm feeling especially fussy ;>). It seems to me that computers often hamper various enterprises as frequently as they aid them, whether those enterprises fall within the fields of evaluation, design, diagnosis, communication, or whatever. So given the choice, I'd stick with the notion of mediation, especially as I try to evaluate alternative interface designs from a variety of perspectives. But I'm not always happy with the notion of 'mediation,' nor with the limited concept of 'computer.' As someone has already hinted, the field of cyborgology encourages us to think more in terms of human-machine integration; that goes far beyond both CMC and CAC, and sometimes provides me with a better frame of reference. Cheers, Bob Briggs Westport, MA

1 0

Computer-Mediated-Communication
by E. Sean Rintel 05 Feb '02

05 Feb '02

Hi all, Sandeep Krishnamurthy asked about the use of the term computer-mediated communication. First, in response to your friend's suggestions: >screen-mediated-communication The screen on any device is not the system that controls the mediation - the 'computer' and,software do that, while is where the mediated interaction occurs. To call CMC 'screen-mediated-communication' might be akin to calling letter writing 'page-mediated-interaction' - it doesn't really get to the sense of the mediation. To continue with that analogy, 'pen and paper-mediated-interaction' might be better for letter-writing - if one writes in pen, but what if one writes a letter on a computer, prints it out and sends it? 'page-mediated-communication' brings us, ironically, closer to a generalized representation of the literal 'display of mediation' , but in fact it still does not really get to what the mediation is. We 'writing a letter' is a gloss for a form of mediated interaction between (at least) two people that involves one doing some kind of writing 'onto' (we can include printing) some kind of physical paper, then physical postage of the physical paper in such a way as the written material produced in one time is physically made available to another person. So I think the lesson from that is that the 'name' of any medium somehow captures the 'sense of interaction' of the medium... >device-mediated communication? This is probably too general - a telephone could be device-mediated, as could, indeed, face-to-face interaction (the device being organic but a mechanical contrivance of a sort). So, on to CMC. Like, 'device', 'computer' has certainly become a term that is now almost too general. However, by the same token most 'CMC systems', or 'CMC media' have their own names - 'email', IRC' etc. So in some ways it doesn't matter that 'computer' is so general because (a) we have specific names when we need them and (b) CMC is a good enough superordinate category to differentiate it from at least face-to-face interaction, letter writing and telephone interaction in the sense that we understand those as not involving computers as we now know them. On the other hand, when the actual stuff occuring via CMC systems is discussed, it is referred to by names that are more general, and different, than the names of the CMC system. So, people talk about 'interaction' in chat rooms, or 'reading' a web page. What I am very confusingly getting at is that the term 'CMC' is situated within realm of discourse about communication, and that it, at least, fulfils a task of differentiation from some other forms of communication. It is not necessary for it to do duty on every level, though, hence other names. This brings me to your point: >me. I argued that, starting with the Internet, connectivity with others (or >community, if you like) had to be a component of CMC, but not other forms of >screen-based-communication. By this standard, communicating through PDAs or >e-mail devices such as Blackberry was, indeed, CMC. But, checking out the >weather on a kiosk was not. > >What do you think? Is the term CMC too restrictive? I would disagree that CMC actually has to involve interaction at all. To me CMC could be a checking out the weather on a kiosk webpage because CMC covers the notion that I'm looking at communication on a computer. If I want to talk about some kind of interaction happening via a computer, I could also use CMC. But, as I said above, CMC doesn't have to do the duty of specifically referring to every possible form of CMC. Checking out the weather on a kiosk is patently not the same kind of interactive communication as talking about the weather via email, but to differentiate those we would want other terms anyway. If we were serious about delineating interaction systems withing CMC, we might alter the *last* term to make the kind of communication more specific, e.g. 'Computer-Mediated Interaction' or 'Computer-Mediated Webcasting' etc. On a practical level, CMC has also served very nicely to indicate what many people are researching, and there is something to be said for that, too. Then again, people have mooted lots of other terms to more specifically delineate what they are doing, such as 'online-ethnography' or 'cyber-sociology'. I wish my computer had mediated this email to improve its intelligability. ;) Until anon, Sean -- E. Sean Rintel Communication Department University at Albany State University of New York 1400 Washington Avenue Albany, NY, USA, 12222-0001 http://www.albany.edu/~er8430/

2 1

EURESCOM offers opportunity to re-use European household panel on ICT use
by frankthomasft＠netscape.net 05 Feb '02

05 Feb '02

"ICT uses in everyday life" The results of the EURESCOM project "ICT uses in everyday life" which had ended in June 2001 provides a deeper understanding of how users respond to current and new ICTs. The material provides insight into users intensity of use and how they incorporate them into their everyday routines. This project explains private use and non-use of Internet and mobile services. This is done through a combination of socio-demographic, behavioural, attitudinal, and life-style factors. The heart of the project is a cross-national household survey performed in nine European countries during October to December 2000. A random sample of more than 9,000 households were included in the survey. The foundation for the design of the questionnaire was provided by a series of 36 focus groups in six countries. These groups included non-users, Internet users, mobile telephone users, and users of both Internet and mobile telephones. EURESCOM is now offering under certain conditions - to organisations, companies and academia the opportunity to utilise the P903 Quantitative Survey Data and associated materials of this project. If you are interested in this offer, please register at http://www.eurescom.de/public/projects/P900-series/P903/ICT-data/default.asp -- Dr. Frank Thomas FTR 34 rue Jean-Baptiste Pigalle 75009 Paris France __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

1 0

RE: [Air-l] gender, age, social support and info tech use?
by frankthomasft＠netscape.net 05 Feb '02

05 Feb '02

Eszter Hargittai <eszter(a)phoenix.Princeton.EDU> wrote: Hi Eszter, I do not knwo if I sent you a paper I wrote with Zbigniew Smoreda of France Télécom R&D on "Social networks and residential ICT adoption and use". The paper us based upon a nine-country representative population survey (field phase end of 2000) and was of Presentation at the EURESCOM Summit 2001, 13-15 November 2001, Heidelberg. Yuo, and everyone else can download it from http://www.eurescom.de/public/projects/P900-series/P903/ICT-data/default.asp The text and the slides are not one-to-one so have a look at both. In the slides we present a segmentation of advanced ICT user by a combination of social network caracteristics and life style. Amitiés Frank Thomas >Hi, > >My study (http://www.webuse.org ) looks at differences in people's online >skills. As I try to write up some of my findings, I'm seeking some >related literature. > >I'm looking for references on theorizing gender and age differences in >the use of information technologies as well as the role of social support >networks in people's use of info tech. Let me clarify as these can all >mean lots of things. > >I'm less interested in pointers to differences in what people do (e.g. x% >women do this online y% men do that online) and more curious to find >literature that tries to explain these differences. In particular, I'm >interested in theorizing gender and age differences in people's ability to >use technologies (especially info tech). I'm thinking there may also be a >gender*age interaction effect and would be especially curious to see >pieces that address that relationship. > >Please note that I am NOT looking for literature on gender identity >expression online and am in general less interested here in the literature >on use of email, chat and other person-to-person communication media.. my >focus is on the ability to use technologies. I know of a lot of >gender-related literature on the former, less on the latter. > >Regarding social support networks, I'm looking for references on the >effects of people's social support networks on their use of information >technologies. Please note that I am NOT looking for the reverse - that is: >how use of info tech enhances or doesn't one's social capital - I'm >interested in works that discuss how one's social support networks may >affect one's use of info tech. (I realize this can get tricky as once >people start using info tech some of their social support networks may be >from interactions via those media.) I'm mainly curious about 1. how people >may be motivated to start using info tech due to their networks; and 2. >how they may turn to their support networks for help with use of info >tech. > >Thanks for pointers to specific pieces (i.e. something more specific then >"xyz.org may have this info"). Also, I don't mean to be hostile by >stating what I'm not interested in, I'm just trying to focus since there >is so much material out there and I don't want to waste people's time. > >I'll post a compilation of responses to the list. Thanks! > >Eszter > >--- >http://www.eszter.com > > >_______________________________________________ >Air-l mailing list >Air-l(a)aoir.org >http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l > -- Dr. Frank Thomas FTR 34 rue Jean-Baptiste Pigalle 75009 Paris France __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

1 0

Search Engine Rankings
by John Monberg 05 Feb '02

05 Feb '02

The Search Engine Watch Web site organizes an extensive set of resources about search engines. Information about usage rates is here: http://www.SearchEngineWatch.com/reports/index.html Regards, John Monberg Department of Communication University of Louisville

1 0

Re: Computer-Mediated-Communication
by Wendy Robinson 05 Feb '02

05 Feb '02

I think Sandeep asks a very important question, well borne out by recent research on STS/cell phone communities, IM, Blackberry, wireless-enabled PDAs, et al. CMC harkens back to a more US-centric time, well before the proliferation of Net-enabled gadgets that we have today and that are emerging, if slowed down by the global tech recession. Such a reconsideration may return us to an earlier time of the first networks (electricity, telephony, broadcast) before stationary systems, necessitated by a plug, were institutionalized. And it could take us forward to cyborg studies. Thus, IMHO, the question connects CMC to the larger issues and theory of technoculture, opening up and amplifying Internet studies as well as making the topic more inclusive -- if perhaps too much so, as Steve brought out. Thanks, Sandeep! Wendy Robinson Duke University

1 0