non-profit web sites
Hi everyone, I am seeking advice in relation to a subject that I am currently researching. I am doing a study on non-profit web sites -what are the online discourses articulated by ethnic community-based groups in the US? I have conducted interviews with webmasters. However, my colleagues are raising serious doubts about the representativeness of the information and opinions provided by the webmasters. Because of the nature of the technology they believe that the web sites and their contents are just products of webmasters and not of the entire association. In other words, if you carry out research in non-profit groups, and you conduct interviews with for example the director of the group, how representative would be her opinions in relation to those of the rest of the group? Could I take for good the contents posted on the web sites as products of the entire association? Any suggestion, advice, bibliographical reference would be much appreciate it. Thanks Pedro J. Oiarzabal Center for Basque Studies/322 University of Nevada, Reno NV 89557 -USA 1-775-784-4854 Fax: 1-775-784-1355 pjo@unr.edu http://basque.unr.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Hi Pedro, I've not read anything on web cases studies of non-profit websites, but I've worked in web development for many years and have conducted similar studies, so I'll share some practical experience and opinions on the matter. When the web started, Webmasters were generally jacks-of-all-trades who worked on technical, editorial and visual components of websites. In many cases, institutions would send all content to a single Webmaster or web team, and if they reviewed all content, they were the single source of knowledge for the company/organization's website content. Now, it's become more common to divide these roles into technical, editorial, and visual tasks. A few years back, I case studied three leading UK non-profit websites and we arranged interviews with various staff from each site: the programme directors, editors, technical staff, info architects, etc... The feedback we received after interviewing several staff answered most of our questions, but no single person could answer them all. For another study, last year, I worked on an audit of 48 non-profit websites and the biggest challenge was to get the organizations to assign a focal point who could collect the information from the various website stakeholders. And again it was quite challenging to find one person who could easily answer questions across a range of website issues. In centralized websites, in general the manager usually provides a clear big-picture perspective, the technical people can tell you about log file trends and other interesting technical details, the content editors should know the users and how what they're interested in, and the person who answers email requests will really know their users. Furthermore, in a decentralized website, such as one run on an institutional CMS, the knowledge of users may only reside in the departments that produce content and who react to client requests. In these cases, the Webmaster or web team would only provide the infrastructure and would be the wrong persons to contact. So to answer your question, I would argue you need to contact the people who produce content and interact with the users. Then contact the technical people to make sure you have good statistics and other insights. Also, I think it is important to contact the higher level Directors who may be technically lost, but can set the stage in broad and easy to understand language (afterall, the Internet is a digital network that connects human networks and it's the people and issues that count). And remember, few Webmasters and web team are the same, so the range of skills, aptitudes and tasks are often randomly distributed among the members. There may be one key person, but there may be 3 people that cover the key areas. So perhaps you would need to ask "who does what" before arranging interviews. I'm venturing further into this area over the next three years and would be interested to learn how your approach works out. Good luck on your project. Brian pjo@unr.edu Sent by: air-l-bounces@lis To tserv.aoir.org air-l@listserv.aoir.org cc 18/07/2006 17:04 Subject [Air-l] non-profit web sites Please respond to air-l@listserv.ao ir.org Hi everyone, I am seeking advice in relation to a subject that I am currently researching. I am doing a study on non-profit web sites -what are the online discourses articulated by ethnic community-based groups in the US? I have conducted interviews with webmasters. However, my colleagues are raising serious doubts about the representativeness of the information and opinions provided by the webmasters. Because of the nature of the technology they believe that the web sites and their contents are just products of webmasters and not of the entire association. In other words, if you carry out research in non-profit groups, and you conduct interviews with for example the director of the group, how representative would be her opinions in relation to those of the rest of the group? Could I take for good the contents posted on the web sites as products of the entire association? Any suggestion, advice, bibliographical reference would be much appreciate it. Thanks Pedro J. Oiarzabal Center for Basque Studies/322 University of Nevada, Reno NV 89557 -USA 1-775-784-4854 Fax: 1-775-784-1355 pjo@unr.edu http://basque.unr.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ 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/
Hello all, I'm trying to sort out the differences in etymology and meaning between CMC, ICT and digital communication. I'm having a hard time-- other than recognizing the academic/educational basis for ICT and its roots in IT, it seems to me that these terms are used interchangeably. Any thoughts? best wishes, jillana Jillana Enteen jillana@jillana.net
Jillana, I would agree, if you look at a time line, I remember reading about CMC over 15 years ago, and I'll go out on a limb here and say that quite a lot of the research on CMC was done pre-mass adoption of Internet. So services like CompuServe, CIX and AOL that provided walled gardens that were not originally part of the Internet. CMC also referred to mailing lists like this one, e-mail, usenet groups, all these systems were pre-html technologies. ICT appears to me to be a catch all term, and I find digital communication a little ambiguous. Martin. m.k.garthwaite@lse.ac.uk MSc candidate media@lse On 7/24/06, Jillana Enteen <jillana@jillana.net> wrote:
Hello all,
I'm trying to sort out the differences in etymology and meaning between CMC, ICT and digital communication. I'm having a hard time-- other than recognizing the academic/educational basis for ICT and its roots in IT, it seems to me that these terms are used interchangeably.
Any thoughts?
best wishes, jillana Jillana Enteen jillana@jillana.net
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- Martin Garthwaite +447957 764819 +4420 7871 9656 (Skypein - call me and wherever in the world I am I'll either talk to you or get a voice mail) Skype id mgarthwaite1330 MS IM marting@gmail.com
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 On 7/24/06, Martin Garthwaite <marting@gmail.com> wrote:
Jillana,
I would agree, if you look at a time line, I remember reading about CMC over 15 years ago, and I'll go out on a limb here and say that quite a lot of the research on CMC was done pre-mass adoption of Internet. So services like CompuServe, CIX and AOL that provided walled gardens that were not originally part of the Internet. CMC also referred to mailing lists like this one, e-mail, usenet groups, all these systems were pre-html technologies.
ICT appears to me to be a catch all term, and I find digital communication a little ambiguous.
Martin. m.k.garthwaite@lse.ac.uk MSc candidate media@lse
On 7/24/06, Jillana Enteen <jillana@jillana.net> wrote:
Hello all,
I'm trying to sort out the differences in etymology and meaning between CMC, ICT and digital communication. I'm having a hard time-- other than recognizing the academic/educational basis for ICT and its roots in IT, it seems to me that these terms are used interchangeably.
Any thoughts?
best wishes, jillana Jillana Enteen jillana@jillana.net
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- Martin Garthwaite
+447957 764819 +4420 7871 9656 (Skypein - call me and wherever in the world I am I'll either talk to you or get a voice mail) Skype id mgarthwaite1330 MS IM marting@gmail.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/
-- Mark Bell MA student in Ball State University's Digital Storytelling program http://www.storygeek.com "The future is here...it's just not widely distributed." - Tim O'Reilly
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
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
Folks, I agree with the need for an umbrella term. I am not sure I like "online communication" for the reason "online" is a vague word. Does "online" mean on the "Internet", or a LAN's or both? You could say "online" meant plugged into a digital network, then why not say that? What about "Digital Networked Communication"? Mark -- Mark Bell MA student in Ball State University's Digital Storytelling program http://www.storygeek.com "The future is here...it's just not widely distributed." - Tim O'Reilly On 7/24/06, Pam Brewer <pam.brewer@murraystate.edu> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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/
I guess it depends on whether we are trying to focus on communication specifically, or on technology use in general? ICT (or information and communication technologies) sort of becomes an umbrella term for all things that allow us to communicate and access information - very useful when talking about phones, internet and everything in between. Yet if we are talking specifically about communication between people, information access becomes a tricky thing to explain - does googling for information about a car or the location of a restaurant on a computer or a cell phone qualify? Lately, I've been using simply "mediated communication" as an umbrella term, I guess because it gets away from words like "online" - which to me seems to signify a computer and rules out a regular landline phone, or "networked" - which to me seems to be an even more ambiguous and relatively overused term. Maybe "mediated communication" is a bit too broad, but I've been using it to define any kind of communication between people that is not face-to-face communication - i.e. mediated by some medium. Irina Mark Bell wrote:
Folks,
I agree with the need for an umbrella term. I am not sure I like "online communication" for the reason "online" is a vague word. Does "online" mean on the "Internet", or a LAN's or both? You could say "online" meant plugged into a digital network, then why not say that?
What about "Digital Networked Communication"?
Mark
-- I was even thinking a little about the future, that place where people are doing a dance we cannot imagine, a dance whose name we can only guess. Nostalgia, by Billy Collins
On 7/24/06, Irina Shklovski <irinas+@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
... phone qualify? Lately, I've been using simply "mediated communication" as an umbrella term, I guess because it gets away from words like "online" - which to me seems to signify a computer and rules out a regular landline phone, or "networked" - which to me seems to be an even more ambiguous and relatively overused term. Maybe "mediated communication" is a bit too broad, but I've been using it to define any kind of communication between people that is not face-to-face communication - i.e. mediated by some medium.
Well, face-to-face communication IS also mediated through our voice, body, language, etc., but I guess people use in conventional way the phrase "mediated communication" as the all sorts of communication but face-to-face one. I've not been a fan of this particular distinction between mediated and f2f because the phrase "face-to-face communication" seems to presuppose that there are individuals (at least two or more) as separate entities first and then they engage in communication... sort of like James W Carey's critic of the transmission model of communication; because it seems to privilege enable-bodied Western beings (e.g., how do the deaf, the blind, or Islamic women with their face covered with a veil engage in face-to-face communication without seeing each other, without showing their face to each other, etc.?); and because it seems to place us back to real/virtual, offline/online, authentic/secondary, physical/digital, or all sorts of misleading dichotomies that other scholars have already critiqued. Anyway, whatever term/phrase we choose to apply for our research... leaves out something. I think it's more useful being reflexive about how terms shape our research, how they operate in participant/author/reader relations evolving around research, etc. than thinking of what is UNIVERSALLY the right term. Our participants' experience is too complicated to be neatly categorized into the labels we cling onto and force to them. Cheers, Han -- Han N. Lee, Ph.D. Student Department of Communication, Machmer Hall University of Massachusetts 240 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003-9278 Curriculum Project Assistant Commonwealth College 408 Goodell Building 140 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003-9272 vm: 413) 577-0729
To join in the discussion in regard to f2f vs, "mediated" communication: John Peters has a discussion in his excellent book, Speaking into the Air, about f2f communication being privileged since John Dewey as the one assured of the communication circle being completed: message(s) constructed and received with their intended meanings fully intact. He uses the parable of Jesus sowing seeds on rocky ground to argue that mass communications' broadcasting of its messages is actually more likely to connect just by numbers, and that the idea that people talking one on one to each other (or in an approximation of that configuration) necessarily means they understand each other is often far from the case. I always found that helpful to keep in mind--and, what's more, amusing. Sarah Sarah Stein, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Dept of Communication Chair, Teaching, Learning & Technology Roundtable (TLTR) Box 8104, N.C. State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8104 Ph: 919-515-9740; Fax 919-515-9456
On 7/24/06, Irina Shklovski <irinas+@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
... phone qualify? Lately, I've been using simply "mediated communication" as an umbrella term, I guess because it gets away from words like "online" - which to me seems to signify a computer and rules out a regular landline phone, or "networked" - which to me seems to be an even more ambiguous and relatively overused term. Maybe "mediated communication" is a bit too broad, but I've been using it to define any kind of communication between people that is not face-to-face communication - i.e. mediated by some medium.
Well, face-to-face communication IS also mediated through our voice, body, language, etc., but I guess people use in conventional way the phrase "mediated communication" as the all sorts of communication but face-to-face one.
I've not been a fan of this particular distinction between mediated and f2f because the phrase "face-to-face communication" seems to presuppose that there are individuals (at least two or more) as separate entities first and then they engage in communication... sort of like James W Carey's critic of the transmission model of communication; because it seems to privilege enable-bodied Western beings (e.g., how do the deaf, the blind, or Islamic women with their face covered with a veil engage in face-to-face communication without seeing each other, without showing their face to each other, etc.?); and because it seems to place us back to real/virtual, offline/online, authentic/secondary, physical/digital, or all sorts of misleading dichotomies that other scholars have already critiqued.
Anyway, whatever term/phrase we choose to apply for our research... leaves out something. I think it's more useful being reflexive about how terms shape our research, how they operate in participant/author/reader relations evolving around research, etc. than thinking of what is UNIVERSALLY the right term. Our participants' experience is too complicated to be neatly categorized into the labels we cling onto and force to them.
Cheers,
Han
-- Han N. Lee, Ph.D. Student Department of Communication, Machmer Hall University of Massachusetts 240 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003-9278
Curriculum Project Assistant Commonwealth College 408 Goodell Building 140 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003-9272 vm: 413) 577-0729 _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Sarah Stein, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Dept of Communication Chair, Teaching, Learning & Technology Roundtable (TLTR) Box 8104, N.C. State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8104 Ph: 919-515-9740; Fax 919-515-9456
Perhaps I am waaaay off here, but I'd always thought of "CMC" as referring to the interaction that occurred through the mediation of certain "ICT." That is, doesn't ICT stand for "information and communication technology"? whereas CMC stands for "computer mediated communication"? If this is the case, it could be that ICT is gaining favor over CMC precisely because ICT permits more specification of what KIND of mediation (or what KIND of "computer") a particular application or use or network or device is offering, whereas CMC (as Andrew pointed out) is a little broad and can problematically imply a monolithic computer-mediated experience. On the use of "online" as a substitute for "digital" or "CM," it seems that it depends on what you want to study - if you're looking at mobile phone use, for instance, then you're definitely covered by "ICT" or "CMC," even if it's a little stretch to conceptualize a phone as a "computer" (though in "computer"'s broader meaning I think it works, and more and more phones do what computers do, anyway). You're not so obviously covered by the term "online," though. It's nice to have unifying terms, but I suspect there will always be some measure of difference in how people in different disciplines and with different foci will use them, conceptualize them, and deem them as in/appropriate. Very interested to see this discussion continue... Lauren On 7/24/06, Pam Brewer <pam.brewer@murraystate.edu> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- lauren m. squires lx: http://polyglotconspiracy.net cmc: http://sociocmc.blogspot.com
This reminds me of the classic arguments of Clark and Kozmo. I tend to agree with Kozmo that the medium does change the message. Andrew does bring to our attention that our termonalogy is too vague. For instance, with CMC, what do we mean by a computer? Would an iPod count? How about text messaging on a cell phone? Both devices are arguably computers and the certainly change the way we communicate. On the other hand, audio or video confercing systems do not change the content of the message to the extent that pod casting and text messaging do. Such systems usually involve computers. I also see a distinct difference between computer mediated and online. Yes, online communication is usually mediated by computers but computers can mediate communication without being online. This would also depend on your definition of communication. For instance, does Shakespear still communicate? Is a computer based tutorial communicating? I think both Shakespear and computer tutorials commmunicate. It is fascinating to explore how our communication is changed by the methods we have to communicate. Charlie Balch Professor CIS Arizona Western College Doctoral Candidate, LSU Yuma, AZ -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Pam Brewer Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:46 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] CMC, ICT, digital communication 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 _______________________________________________ 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/
I would add that ICT has historically been used much more in outside North America, with CMC used in the US and Canada in the past. Regards, Zane Zane Berge, Ph.D. Associate Professor berge@umbc.edu www.emoderators.com
Hi Jillana, :-) I think the special issue (2005, vol.21, no.4) of The Information Society may be helpful in answering your question. Some of the authors in the issue discuss how the internet/CMC/ICT is conceptualized for its study/discipline(?)/field to be thought of. The authors in the issue say that there isn't really any clear-cut difference among CMC, ICT and digital communication, and all other sorts. Rather they serve as vague umbrella terms that in a way provide us with a coherent sense or shared faith of "it"--whatever it is that we are studying, organized under, have created specific journals (e.g., NEW MEDIA & Society, Journal of COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION) for so that we can submit our research to and get tenured, etc. Also I recall from the AoIR conference in Chicago that someone did a content-analysis-like study on all the published articles of Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication and presented what types of articles have been published and how the terms have changed over a decade to refer to "it". CMC was widely used in the beginning then has faded away, sort of. Now ICT seems used more widely. Anyway, although it's just a case of one particular journal, it should be worth looking at. Then again, there are at least two different ways of answering that question. That is, as scholars who are pioneers of internet research in its early stage and shaping what "it" is, we can discuss what CMC, ICT, and digital communication SHOULD mean. Or we can look at what CMC, ICT, and digital communication DO mean grounded in empirical data (e.g., users' everyday language, popular media's rhetoric). I prefer the later. Cheers, Han -- Han N. Lee, Ph.D. Student Department of Communication, Machmer Hall University of Massachusetts 240 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003-9278 Curriculum Project Assistant Commonwealth College 408 Goodell Building 140 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003-9272 vm: 413) 577-0729 On 7/24/06, Jillana Enteen <jillana@jillana.net> wrote:
Hello all,
I'm trying to sort out the differences in etymology and meaning between CMC, ICT and digital communication. I'm having a hard time-- other than recognizing the academic/educational basis for ICT and its roots in IT, it seems to me that these terms are used interchangeably.
Any thoughts?
best wishes, jillana Jillana Enteen jillana@jillana.net
_______________________________________________ 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 (13)
-
Brian Cugelman -
Charlie Balch -
Han N. Lee -
Irina Shklovski -
Jillana Enteen -
Lauren M. Squires -
Ledbetter, Andrew Michael -
Mark Bell -
Martin Garthwaite -
Pam Brewer -
pjo＠unr.edu -
Sarah Stein -
Zane Berge