Andrew and all-- I think it's important that we only file a term as "archaic" if it has ceased to serve the function for which it was coined. We gain a lot of knowledge capital from using these terms consistently over time. That is, our field constructs a lot of contextual information regarding a term that is valuable. It seems that the reservations with "computer-mediated communication" stem from the fact that communication mediated by technology has become more and more varied. I particularly like some of Andrew's suggestions here--that we use the specific terms whenever possible but that we have a common broader term--I am drawn to "online communication" for the reasons Andrew has outlined, and, as I consider it, I don't see the more complex CMC as conveying any more or different meaning. Pam Pamela Estes Brewer Lecturer -- Coordinator, Professional Writing Department of English and Philosophy Murray State University PhD Student in Technical Communication & Rhetoric, Texas Tech University 270-809-4719 fax 270-809-4545 pam.brewer@murraystate.edu On March 1, 2006, Murray State University will begin moving all its phone numbers in the 762 exchange to an 809 exchange. My new numbers will be 270-809-4719 (office), and 270-809-4545 (FAX). -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Ledbetter, Andrew Michael Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:25 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] CMC, ICT, digital communication I've struggled with the term "CMC" in my own writing. While I wouldn't agree that the term is "archaic" (as many scholars still use the term frequently), it does "feel" dated to me. Of course, that may just be my own subjective feeling. But, in my own writing, I have tried to refer to specific media as much as possible (e-mail, IM, chat, Facebook, etc.) rather than using the term "CMC"... which might be a healthy move on the whole, since we know that there are significant qualitative and quantitative differences in communication across those media, despite their common online nature. Yet, simultaneously, people sometimes seem to think about, and socially construct, online communication channels as a unified whole. Thus, it seems reasonable that we have an umbrella term to refer to such media. Recently, I have tended to use "online communication"---it is less verbose than "computer-mediated communication", seems less intrusive than an acronym, and seems broad enough to include a lot of different technologies (e.g., both Internet and non-Internet interaction, etc.). In short, it seems to get the job done all right, though I'm sure the term has shortcomings too. But of course, I'm sure appropriate terminology varies from discipline to discipline. Andrew M. Ledbetter Ph.D. Candidate and Graduate Teaching Assistant Department of Communication Studies University of Kansas ________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org on behalf of Mark Bell Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 11:00 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] CMC, ICT, digital communication Folks, As far as I have been told, CMC is an outdated term. One professor told me it was archaic and vague - asking if we should also refer to "pen mediated communication". There certainly is a lot of research into how we communicate in the digital, multi-channel, immersive environment, so we should have a unifying term. It sounds like we need a new term but I agree digital communication and ICT are far too broad. The work I am doing with Wikipedia is definitely stigmergic in nature (or at least I hope to prove it is) but that is very different from IM or email. M