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