Most of the research in CMC seems to "assume" differences between CMC and other media such as telephone and letter-mail. I have been unable to find research that clearly delineates this difference. Can anyone help me here. Sam --------------------------------- Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com
I cannot speak to differences or similarities between computers and other media, but I have argued taking care not to assume differences between CMC and face-to-face communication without empirical research. For instance, I've argued that there are similarities between CMC and face-to-face talk in terms of arguments, and that by calling certain phenomena "flaming" scholars risk bracketing off computer-based phenomena as automatically different from what happens in face-to-face conversation, before empirical research is even begun. So I argue for extinguishing the term flaming. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/lange/index.html Cheers, Patricia Lange, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow Annenberg Center for Communication --- Sam Tilden <tildensam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Most of the research in CMC seems to "assume" differences between CMC and other media such as telephone and letter-mail.
I have been unable to find research that clearly delineates this difference. Can anyone help me here.
Sam
--------------------------------- Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I am reluctant to be seen as self-aggrandizing (note that I am not necessarily reluctant to BE self-aggrandizing), but here are two of my own articles that provide both review and empirical comparisons of media (traditional and computer-mediated), with lots of references in both: Rice, R. E. (1987). Computer-mediated communication and organizational innovation. Journal of Communication, 37(4), 65-94. Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451-484. ====================================== Ronald E. Rice Arthur N. Rupe Chair in the Social Effects of Mass Communication Co-Director, Carsey-Wolf Center for Film, Television and New Media President of the International Communication Association 2006-2007 Fulbright Professor, Finland 2006 Dept. of Communication, 4840 Ellison Hall University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4020 ph: 805-893-8696; fax: 805-893-7102 rrice@comm.ucsb.edu http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/rice_flash.htm http://www.cftnm.ucsb.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patricia Lange" <pglange@yahoo.com> To: <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [Air-l] null hypothesis
I cannot speak to differences or similarities between computers and other media, but I have argued taking care not to assume differences between CMC and face-to-face communication without empirical research.
For instance, I've argued that there are similarities between CMC and face-to-face talk in terms of arguments, and that by calling certain phenomena "flaming" scholars risk bracketing off computer-based phenomena as automatically different from what happens in face-to-face conversation, before empirical research is even begun.
So I argue for extinguishing the term flaming.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/lange/index.html
Cheers,
Patricia Lange, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow Annenberg Center for Communication
--- Sam Tilden <tildensam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Most of the research in CMC seems to "assume" differences between CMC and other media such as telephone and letter-mail.
I have been unable to find research that clearly delineates this difference. Can anyone help me here.
Sam
--------------------------------- Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/
heh - yep it's always about image isn't it? So now that the self promo door has been opened (or whatever metaphor is suitable here!) my research is directly concerned with the analytical, empirical and historical relation between "CMC" and older modes of networked communication such as the postal system. In particular it investigates how presence is constructed through email and letters: on presence in email and letter mail: Email and Epistolary Technologies: presence, intimacy, disembodiment, Fibreculture Journal, 1.2, 2003, http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue2/issue2_milne.html. on 19th century visiting cards & SMS language and convention: Magic bits of paste-board: texting in the nineteenth century, M/C - A Journal of Media and Culture, 6.6, 2004, http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0401/02-milne.php. and on the aesthetics of postal communications: The Affective and Aesthetic Relations of Epistolary Presence in Louis Armand (ed.), The Avant-Garde under Post Conditions (Prague: Litteraria Pragensia, 2006), 160-177. end of product placement! cheers, esther Dr Esther Milne Lecturer in Media and Communications Faculty of Life and Social Sciences Swinburne University of Technology John Street, Hawthorn VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA tel: +613 92148195 email: emilne@swin.edu.au www.fibreculture.org www.realtimearts.net/
"Ronald E. Rice" <rrice@comm.ucsb.edu> 30/10/2006 10:53 am >>> I am reluctant to be seen as self-aggrandizing (note that I am not necessarily reluctant to BE self-aggrandizing), but here are two of my own articles that provide both review and empirical comparisons of media (traditional and computer-mediated), with lots of references in both: Rice, R. E. (1987). Computer-mediated communication and organizational innovation. Journal of Communication, 37(4), 65-94. Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451-484. ====================================== Ronald E. Rice Arthur N. Rupe Chair in the Social Effects of Mass Communication Co-Director, Carsey-Wolf Center for Film, Television and New Media President of the International Communication Association 2006-2007 Fulbright Professor, Finland 2006 Dept. of Communication, 4840 Ellison Hall University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4020 ph: 805-893-8696; fax: 805-893-7102 rrice@comm.ucsb.edu http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/rice_flash.htm http://www.cftnm.ucsb.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patricia Lange" <pglange@yahoo.com> To: <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [Air-l] null hypothesis
I cannot speak to differences or similarities between computers and other media, but I have argued taking care not to assume differences between CMC and face-to-face communication without empirical research.
For instance, I've argued that there are similarities between CMC and face-to-face talk in terms of arguments, and that by calling certain phenomena "flaming" scholars risk bracketing off computer-based phenomena as automatically different from what happens in face-to-face conversation, before empirical research is even begun.
So I argue for extinguishing the term flaming.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/lange/index.html
Cheers,
Patricia Lange, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow Annenberg Center for Communication
--- Sam Tilden <tildensam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Most of the research in CMC seems to "assume" differences between CMC and other media such as telephone and letter-mail.
I have been unable to find research that clearly delineates this difference. Can anyone help me here.
Sam
--------------------------------- Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ Education is only the beginning. Let's get on with it. Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
But the term identifies a notable behavior: harsh critique of relative unknowns, in a setting in which critique sometimes traverses greater social distance than FTF communication typically permits, and yet in which critique of intimates (sometimes even polite but engaged critique) is similarly likely to be stigmatized - enough so that it even has a name, flaming. Using that term doesn't assume media-specific differences; it encapsulates them. -eg
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Patricia Lange Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:36 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] null hypothesis
I cannot speak to differences or similarities between computers and other media, but I have argued taking care not to assume differences between CMC and face-to-face communication without empirical research.
For instance, I've argued that there are similarities between CMC and face-to-face talk in terms of arguments, and that by calling certain phenomena "flaming" scholars risk bracketing off computer-based phenomena as automatically different from what happens in face-to-face conversation, before empirical research is even begun.
So I argue for extinguishing the term flaming.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/lange/index.html
Cheers,
Patricia Lange, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow Annenberg Center for Communication
--- Sam Tilden <tildensam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Most of the research in CMC seems to "assume" differences between CMC and other media such as telephone and letter-mail.
I have been unable to find research that clearly delineates this difference. Can anyone help me here.
Sam
--------------------------------- Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/
Many assume the term is used for relative unknowns when in fact they may not be as unknown to each other as the outside researcher might assume--again this is a major problem with the term and is an empirical question. --- Ellis Godard <egodard@csun.edu> wrote:
But the term identifies a notable behavior: harsh critique of relative unknowns, in a setting in which critique sometimes traverses greater social distance than FTF communication typically permits, and yet in which critique of intimates (sometimes even polite but engaged critique) is similarly likely to be stigmatized - enough so that it even has a name, flaming. Using that term doesn't assume media-specific differences; it encapsulates them.
-eg
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Patricia Lange Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:36 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] null hypothesis
I cannot speak to differences or similarities between computers and other media, but I have argued taking care not to assume differences between CMC and face-to-face communication without empirical research.
For instance, I've argued that there are similarities between CMC and face-to-face talk in terms of arguments, and that by calling certain phenomena "flaming" scholars risk bracketing off computer-based phenomena as automatically different from what happens in face-to-face conversation, before empirical research is even begun.
So I argue for extinguishing the term flaming.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/lange/index.html
Cheers,
Patricia Lange, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow Annenberg Center for Communication
--- Sam Tilden <tildensam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Most of the research in CMC seems to "assume" differences between CMC and other media such as telephone and letter-mail.
I have been unable to find research that
clearly
delineates this difference. Can anyone help me here.
Sam
--------------------------------- Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Dr. Lange, I read your First Monday paper last evening and found it illuminating. Does your logic extend to "trolls", "trolling", "sock puppets", off topic posting and violations of netiquette? It seems to me that it would, but I don't want to assume the intent. In light of Matthew Allens elaboration of posting policy it would seem that misinterpretation of "intent" could get a person in trouble with the AOIR executive committee. History appears to support this. I suppose I could get removed for this posting if the "intent" is misinterpreted, according to the new rules. Sam Patricia Lange <pglange@yahoo.com> wrote: Many assume the term is used for relative unknowns when in fact they may not be as unknown to each other as the outside researcher might assume--again this is a major problem with the term and is an empirical question. --- Ellis Godard wrote:
But the term identifies a notable behavior: harsh critique of relative unknowns, in a setting in which critique sometimes traverses greater social distance than FTF communication typically permits, and yet in which critique of intimates (sometimes even polite but engaged critique) is similarly likely to be stigmatized - enough so that it even has a name, flaming. Using that term doesn't assume media-specific differences; it encapsulates them.
--------------------------------- Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Sam-- I have just started reading Cybertext by Espen Aarseth. It's a 1997 copyright. The reason I mention it is Aarseth is emphasizing determining "what cybertext is" more clearly without accepting standard assumptions. It might be of use for you. Best, 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 -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tilden Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 1:11 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] null hypothesis Most of the research in CMC seems to "assume" differences between CMC and other media such as telephone and letter-mail. I have been unable to find research that clearly delineates this difference. Can anyone help me here. Sam --------------------------------- Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/
participants (6)
-
Ellis Godard -
Esther Milne -
Pam Brewer -
Patricia Lange -
Ronald E. Rice -
Sam Tilden