Thanks for all your thoughts on this. I'm eager to see how the discussion continues. Hans' suggestion to look at the Information Society is particularly interesting--especially since the journal cannot be accessed online for one year after it's publication date (the reason: embargo--i'd love to hear the explanation). The inaccessibility of a journal about online communication and "information" speaks volumes to the general discussion about appropriate terms--and what we expect of online communication and information. I do think it's necessary to find an umbrella term to talk about digital networked communication (I use this term tentively)--one that takes into account that we cannot anticipate how what we "communicate," (and here, coming from a post-structuralist and cultural studies background, I mean much the same as Hans--that language cannot be transparent and communication is and cannot be received or interpreted in ways identical to how we send it) or how the bytes we transmit will "travel," (i.e. the route of the information) or how they will be received. In other words, understanding that information is transmitted digitally from "others" (other people, other places) encourages a media-specific term, but assuming that this term, as Charlie points out, means computer to computer is now out of the question. Similarly, assuming what we send will be read as we expect it--even if you are invested in the idea that communication does occur--should also be inherent in terminology (and thus far, is not). Think of different browser qualities (safari verses outlook explorer or computer versus blackberry, for instance)--what people see can vary greatly from what is sent. In the past, it has been useful to place television in one category when considering broadcasting and/or spectatorship, and telephony in another, when examining the implications of (almost) instantaneous voice transmission. Consequently, I find it imperative to have a category (as most have agreed) that takes into account the increasing flexibility--where we might as easily be watching a downloaded television show on our ipod OR on our harddrive, networked television or talk through regular telephones via vonage as surfing the internet--yet the way information arrives is related. The term must maintain an awareness of the complexity of these new vehicles for digital transmission and increasing possible interfaces for their consumption. This is not to discourage specific considerations--which should use terms as specifically as possible. At this point, studying "internet use" may be too broad--www or IRC or mobile-to-mobile SMS, located in a particular moment and among specific users speaks more to the point. I find it interesting, and compelling, that CMC is outdated. And as a "former" scholar of CMC, I'm still pondering over what term might speak best for my framework. thanks and best wishes-- jillana Jillana Enteen jillana@jillana.net On Jul 24, 2006, at 10:20 PM, Christopher J. Richter wrote:
Umbrella terms can be useful in certain contexts, but virtually by definition they are also vague, ambiguous and abstract--the more so the bigger the umbrella.
Ambiguity is not necessarily a bad thing (it is one basis for the effectiveness of poetry), and in any case is inevitable in communication. We can minimize it by defining how we each use a specific term in our specific writings. But as far as trying to get all the rest of us to agree on the specific correct term, or the precise meaning of such a term . . . . it may make for a good discussion process (or a flame war), but I think is unlikely to yield a product.
Christopher J. Richter Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Communication Studies Hollins University P.O. Box 9652 Roanoke VA, 24020 Tel. 5403626358 Fax 5403626286 e-mail crichter@hollins.edu web www.hollins.edu
-----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 12:25 PM 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
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/