Joao, -> Are computers, PDA's, etc...only mediating communication? I think I agree with where you're going...That is, within the realm of cybercultural studies, one might argue that there is much more going on that just the mediation of communication. For example, PDAs, current messaging and cellular technology, and so on, do much more than mediate conversations. They are effectively changing the way we live and behave, which has some serious implications for the way we interact on a social and cultural level - you'll need to divorce savvy marketing from actual usability, but I still think you'll find individuals creating a slightly different cultural practice through the use of CMC-type devices. I believe the general computer industry is trying to make the experience as human and as everyday as possible as well...it's very interesting to see the field of computing positioning itself in the 'everyday' of modern society and culture. So much so that it becomes as important, or mundane, as opening the fridge or putting on your shoes. Steve PS Please note that my postings are not representative of the company for which I work. Being a part-time student, I am wholly interested in pursuing the academic challenges of how society and culture are embracing technology. -----Original Message----- From: Joao Vieira da Cunha [mailto:jvc@MIT.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:55 PM To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Computer-Mediated-Communication I am puzzled by the use of 'computer mediated communication'. Is IT really 'mediating'? I cannot help but to remember McLuhan's motto 'the medium is the message'. Are computers, PDA's, etc... only mediating communication? Perhaps their role is more encompassing. If we take seriously the role of material artifacts in cognition and representation of reality it is hard to limit computers to the role of mediators. There's a qualitative difference between web-enabled computers and the telephone, at least in the sense that we have a wide margin to represent our identities on-line and very little if any over the phone or other 'mediating' tools. 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. Any thoughts? Joao Joao Vieira da Cunha PhD Student MIT Sloan School of Management At 01:12 PM 2/5/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Hi all,
Sandeep Krishnamurthy asked about the use of the term computer-mediated
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
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
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
really get to the sense of the mediation. To continue with that analogy, 'pen and paper-mediated-interaction' might be better for letter-writing
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/
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l