CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all, I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue! Thanks beforehand, Darja -- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint. The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC. I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate. I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible. I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days. ~Jenny -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Dear all, I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue! Thanks beforehand, Darja -- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de _______________________________________________ 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/
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough. I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.) While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile) In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons - including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de _______________________________________________ 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/
Charles, Jenny and Darja, Personally, as an IT security professional, I find the notion of 'digital bug spray' quite appealing :) But as for CMC, while the term has a certain cachet simply through repeated use, it does seem (to me) to suggest a limit on what counts as a valid instance of "communication": the transmissional model of person-->technology-->person and back again. The computer (or a network thereof) is the mediator... a mere tool; only people are privileged as proper communicators. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we always (or ever) have deep, meaningful relationships with our computing platform of choice, but certainly we ought at least to consider that some non-human elements of our vast global technological web might be considered valid communication partners in their own right. If that's even vaguely palatable, what then is the mediator in CMC? "ICT" seems too heavily technology-oriented, while "HCI" seems to ignore the human-to-human aspect. Ought we strive for an all-encompassing term that expresses something like "communication across, through, with, and about computer technology"? Or maybe we should take a step back... what did we call it before the advent of the interwebs? I believe we naively, quaintly referred to it simply as Communication, understanding that it could happen face-to-face or over a telephone line or two-way radio or even video-phone. If it was one-way, from single producer to many consumers, we might narrow it down to "Mass" comm, but it was still communication no matter what technology was used (paper, radio waves, or whatever). "Technical" communication had more to do with communicating technical topics than with any particular medium. In fact, "medium" is the mediator (if not always the message). Can I have mediated communication in which the mediator is a human? Certainly. Can I similarly have direct, unmediated communication with a computer artifact? I think so. And, based on the wonderfully diverse papers I heard in Salford last year, we care about all of those shades of meaning. OK, so where does that leave us? We tend to want to say things that are fairly broadly (if not universally) true, or at least useful across contexts. The internet (yes, including mobile phones) has become a pretty stinkin' huge context, and some folks are wondering whether we need to be attending to the possibilities of communicative relationships with non-human actors. So. If the M (mediated) feels too limiting, and the first C (computer) is too prescriptive, does retreating to "just" Communication feel somehow unsatisfying? Some organizations from the early days of the internet (q.v. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) have folded. I suspect, in part, that the ubiquity of the internet has lessened the interest or impact of groups specifically dedicated to looking at how computers have *changed* traditional fields. Computers are now inextricably *part* of every traditional field. So what does it mean to be an internet researcher? Is there a name we can claim that's different from those organizations that focus on traditional issues in Communication (though acknowledging internet issues)? I suspect that, as a baseline, our organization requires *some* sort of involvement with a technological element. As a newbie in some senses (though an experienced internet dude in others), I'll throw out a few possibilities... just to roil the waters. Human-Computer-Communication (HCC) Networked Communication Networked Human Communication Riding the Shockwave (sorry, just had to) Network Actors, Technologies, Communicating Humans ('natch!) Yikes... time for bed. Steve =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough. I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.) While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile) In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons - including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de _______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough. I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.) While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile) In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons - including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de _______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
Dear all, I did reply off list to suggest Caroline Tagg's book about the discourse of text messaging, though in retrospect I'm not sure that really answers Darja's question. One problem, which has been alluded to, is that the term CMC presupposes that the thing doing the mediating (the "computer"), is what defines the communication in some way. And it might be, but I think it might be dangerous to presuppose this. The other issue is what CMC is contrasted with. Are we saying that "computer-mediated communication" is somehow different from "face-to-face communication"? What about those contexts where face-to-face communication is computer-mediated in a less obvious way? For example, when I go into a coffee shop and am speaking to the cashier, is this "computer-mediated communication"? Well, yes, in the sense that the "computer" (the "till" or "cash register") is mediating our interaction. And if we're extending the term to account for practices such as these, does the term start to lose it's usefulness?
From this perspective, I have a feeling that some of the Scollon's work (e.g. Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice [2001] or Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet [2004]) or work in Literacy Studies (e.g. by David Barton, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear, Guy Merchant) may be useful for you.
Alexander David Pask-Hughes Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk adpaskhughes@hotmail.co.uk Twitter: @adpaskhughes ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Lovaas,Steven [Steven.Lovaas@ColoState.EDU] Sent: 16 July 2013 07:33 To: Charles Ess; Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Charles, Jenny and Darja, Personally, as an IT security professional, I find the notion of 'digital bug spray' quite appealing :) But as for CMC, while the term has a certain cachet simply through repeated use, it does seem (to me) to suggest a limit on what counts as a valid instance of "communication": the transmissional model of person-->technology-->person and back again. The computer (or a network thereof) is the mediator... a mere tool; only people are privileged as proper communicators. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we always (or ever) have deep, meaningful relationships with our computing platform of choice, but certainly we ought at least to consider that some non-human elements of our vast global technological web might be considered valid communication partners in their own right. If that's even vaguely palatable, what then is the mediator in CMC? "ICT" seems too heavily technology-oriented, while "HCI" seems to ignore the human-to-human aspect. Ought we strive for an all-encompassing term that expresses something like "communication across, through, with, and about computer technology"? Or maybe we should take a step back... what did we call it before the advent of the interwebs? I believe we naively, quaintly referred to it simply as Communication, understanding that it could happen face-to-face or over a telephone line or two-way radio or even video-phone. If it was one-way, from single producer to many consumers, we might narrow it down to "Mass" comm, but it was still communication no matter what technology was used (paper, radio waves, or whatever). "Technical" communication had more to do with communicating technical topics than with any particular medium. In fact, "medium" is the mediator (if not always the message). Can I have mediated communication in which the mediator is a human? Certainly. Can I similarly have direct, unmediated communication with a computer artifact? I think so. And, based on the wonderfully diverse papers I heard in Salford last year, we care about all of those shades of meaning. OK, so where does that leave us? We tend to want to say things that are fairly broadly (if not universally) true, or at least useful across contexts. The internet (yes, including mobile phones) has become a pretty stinkin' huge context, and some folks are wondering whether we need to be attending to the possibilities of communicative relationships with non-human actors. So. If the M (mediated) feels too limiting, and the first C (computer) is too prescriptive, does retreating to "just" Communication feel somehow unsatisfying? Some organizations from the early days of the internet (q.v. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) have folded. I suspect, in part, that the ubiquity of the internet has lessened the interest or impact of groups specifically dedicated to looking at how computers have *changed* traditional fields. Computers are now inextricably *part* of every traditional field. So what does it mean to be an internet researcher? Is there a name we can claim that's different from those organizations that focus on traditional issues in Communication (though acknowledging internet issues)? I suspect that, as a baseline, our organization requires *some* sort of involvement with a technological element. As a newbie in some senses (though an experienced internet dude in others), I'll throw out a few possibilities... just to roil the waters. Human-Computer-Communication (HCC) Networked Communication Networked Human Communication Riding the Shockwave (sorry, just had to) Network Actors, Technologies, Communicating Humans ('natch!) Yikes... time for bed. Steve =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough. I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.) While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile) In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons - including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de _______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough. I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.) While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile) In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons - including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de _______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
Susan Herring has an article that addresses state of the field in CMC at: Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T., Eds. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Handbook of pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 3-31). Berlin: Mouton. Prepublication version: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/CMC.pragmatics.intro.herring.et.al.pdf She also has an article that tackles the nomenclature issue but I'm not putting my hands on it at the moment. I've cc'd her so maybe she can contribute that information or one of the other readers may have it as well. Lois On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Pask-Hughes, Alexander < a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
I did reply off list to suggest Caroline Tagg's book about the discourse of text messaging, though in retrospect I'm not sure that really answers Darja's question.
One problem, which has been alluded to, is that the term CMC presupposes that the thing doing the mediating (the "computer"), is what defines the communication in some way. And it might be, but I think it might be dangerous to presuppose this.
The other issue is what CMC is contrasted with. Are we saying that "computer-mediated communication" is somehow different from "face-to-face communication"? What about those contexts where face-to-face communication is computer-mediated in a less obvious way? For example, when I go into a coffee shop and am speaking to the cashier, is this "computer-mediated communication"? Well, yes, in the sense that the "computer" (the "till" or "cash register") is mediating our interaction. And if we're extending the term to account for practices such as these, does the term start to lose it's usefulness?
From this perspective, I have a feeling that some of the Scollon's work (e.g. Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice [2001] or Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet [2004]) or work in Literacy Studies (e.g. by David Barton, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear, Guy Merchant) may be useful for you.
Alexander David Pask-Hughes
Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University
a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk adpaskhughes@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter: @adpaskhughes ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Lovaas,Steven [Steven.Lovaas@ColoState.EDU] Sent: 16 July 2013 07:33 To: Charles Ess; Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Charles, Jenny and Darja,
Personally, as an IT security professional, I find the notion of 'digital bug spray' quite appealing :)
But as for CMC, while the term has a certain cachet simply through repeated use, it does seem (to me) to suggest a limit on what counts as a valid instance of "communication": the transmissional model of person-->technology-->person and back again. The computer (or a network thereof) is the mediator... a mere tool; only people are privileged as proper communicators. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we always (or ever) have deep, meaningful relationships with our computing platform of choice, but certainly we ought at least to consider that some non-human elements of our vast global technological web might be considered valid communication partners in their own right. If that's even vaguely palatable, what then is the mediator in CMC?
"ICT" seems too heavily technology-oriented, while "HCI" seems to ignore the human-to-human aspect. Ought we strive for an all-encompassing term that expresses something like "communication across, through, with, and about computer technology"? Or maybe we should take a step back... what did we call it before the advent of the interwebs? I believe we naively, quaintly referred to it simply as Communication, understanding that it could happen face-to-face or over a telephone line or two-way radio or even video-phone. If it was one-way, from single producer to many consumers, we might narrow it down to "Mass" comm, but it was still communication no matter what technology was used (paper, radio waves, or whatever). "Technical" communication had more to do with communicating technical topics than with any particular medium. In fact, "medium" is the mediator (if not always the message). Can I have mediated communication in which the mediator is a human? Certainly. Can I similarly have direct, unmediated communication with a computer artifact? I think so. And, based on the wonderfully diverse papers I heard in Salford last year, we care about all of those shades of meaning.
OK, so where does that leave us? We tend to want to say things that are fairly broadly (if not universally) true, or at least useful across contexts. The internet (yes, including mobile phones) has become a pretty stinkin' huge context, and some folks are wondering whether we need to be attending to the possibilities of communicative relationships with non-human actors. So. If the M (mediated) feels too limiting, and the first C (computer) is too prescriptive, does retreating to "just" Communication feel somehow unsatisfying?
Some organizations from the early days of the internet (q.v. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) have folded. I suspect, in part, that the ubiquity of the internet has lessened the interest or impact of groups specifically dedicated to looking at how computers have *changed* traditional fields. Computers are now inextricably *part* of every traditional field. So what does it mean to be an internet researcher? Is there a name we can claim that's different from those organizations that focus on traditional issues in Communication (though acknowledging internet issues)? I suspect that, as a baseline, our organization requires *some* sort of involvement with a technological element. As a newbie in some senses (though an experienced internet dude in others), I'll throw out a few possibilities... just to roil the waters.
Human-Computer-Communication (HCC) Networked Communication Networked Human Communication Riding the Shockwave (sorry, just had to) Network Actors, Technologies, Communicating Humans ('natch!)
Yikes... time for bed.
Steve
=================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons - including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons - including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Candidate Department of Information & Library Science, School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com CV: http://www.loisscheidt.com/cv.html Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.com
Hi all, I am interested that CMC is now (perhaps?) being applied to mobile comm. There is a long tradition (on the side of mobile research) of simply calling it mobile communication. My sense is that this has been common for the last decade. Clearly there are exceptions, but there is a legacy along these lines. There is a strong flavor of one-to-one interaction, mediated through telecom networks using mobile phones. More recently there has been the rise of smart phones that combine the more traditional mobile communication (that is one-to-one interaction) with more SNS type of quasi-broadcast mode. Again, there are many shades of this discussion. There are computers involved in all of this so in a broad sense "computer mediated" is applicable. However, it seems as though folding social networking into the mobile handset has given the discussion a turn in the direction of internet or PC-based nomenclature. Rich L. Sent from IPhone On 16. juli 2013, at 15:47, "Lois Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Susan Herring has an article that addresses state of the field in CMC at: Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T., Eds. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Handbook of pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 3-31). Berlin: Mouton. Prepublication version: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/CMC.pragmatics.intro.herring.et.al.pdf
She also has an article that tackles the nomenclature issue but I'm not putting my hands on it at the moment. I've cc'd her so maybe she can contribute that information or one of the other readers may have it as well.
Lois
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Pask-Hughes, Alexander < a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
I did reply off list to suggest Caroline Tagg's book about the discourse of text messaging, though in retrospect I'm not sure that really answers Darja's question.
One problem, which has been alluded to, is that the term CMC presupposes that the thing doing the mediating (the "computer"), is what defines the communication in some way. And it might be, but I think it might be dangerous to presuppose this.
The other issue is what CMC is contrasted with. Are we saying that "computer-mediated communication" is somehow different from "face-to-face communication"? What about those contexts where face-to-face communication is computer-mediated in a less obvious way? For example, when I go into a coffee shop and am speaking to the cashier, is this "computer-mediated communication"? Well, yes, in the sense that the "computer" (the "till" or "cash register") is mediating our interaction. And if we're extending the term to account for practices such as these, does the term start to lose it's usefulness?
From this perspective, I have a feeling that some of the Scollon's work (e.g. Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice [2001] or Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet [2004]) or work in Literacy Studies (e.g. by David Barton, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear, Guy Merchant) may be useful for you.
Alexander David Pask-Hughes
Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University
a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk adpaskhughes@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter: @adpaskhughes ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Lovaas,Steven [Steven.Lovaas@ColoState.EDU] Sent: 16 July 2013 07:33 To: Charles Ess; Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Charles, Jenny and Darja,
Personally, as an IT security professional, I find the notion of 'digital bug spray' quite appealing :)
But as for CMC, while the term has a certain cachet simply through repeated use, it does seem (to me) to suggest a limit on what counts as a valid instance of "communication": the transmissional model of person-->technology-->person and back again. The computer (or a network thereof) is the mediator... a mere tool; only people are privileged as proper communicators. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we always (or ever) have deep, meaningful relationships with our computing platform of choice, but certainly we ought at least to consider that some non-human elements of our vast global technological web might be considered valid communication partners in their own right. If that's even vaguely palatable, what then is the mediator in CMC?
"ICT" seems too heavily technology-oriented, while "HCI" seems to ignore the human-to-human aspect. Ought we strive for an all-encompassing term that expresses something like "communication across, through, with, and about computer technology"? Or maybe we should take a step back... what did we call it before the advent of the interwebs? I believe we naively, quaintly referred to it simply as Communication, understanding that it could happen face-to-face or over a telephone line or two-way radio or even video-phone. If it was one-way, from single producer to many consumers, we might narrow it down to "Mass" comm, but it was still communication no matter what technology was used (paper, radio waves, or whatever). "Technical" communication had more to do with communicating technical topics than with any particular medium. In fact, "medium" is the mediator (if not always the message). Can I have mediated communication in which the mediator is a human? Certainly. Can I similarly have direct, unmediated communication with a computer artifact? I think so. And, based on the wonderfully diverse papers I heard in Salford last year, we care about all of those shades of meaning.
OK, so where does that leave us? We tend to want to say things that are fairly broadly (if not universally) true, or at least useful across contexts. The internet (yes, including mobile phones) has become a pretty stinkin' huge context, and some folks are wondering whether we need to be attending to the possibilities of communicative relationships with non-human actors. So. If the M (mediated) feels too limiting, and the first C (computer) is too prescriptive, does retreating to "just" Communication feel somehow unsatisfying?
Some organizations from the early days of the internet (q.v. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) have folded. I suspect, in part, that the ubiquity of the internet has lessened the interest or impact of groups specifically dedicated to looking at how computers have *changed* traditional fields. Computers are now inextricably *part* of every traditional field. So what does it mean to be an internet researcher? Is there a name we can claim that's different from those organizations that focus on traditional issues in Communication (though acknowledging internet issues)? I suspect that, as a baseline, our organization requires *some* sort of involvement with a technological element. As a newbie in some senses (though an experienced internet dude in others), I'll throw out a few possibilities... just to roil the waters.
Human-Computer-Communication (HCC) Networked Communication Networked Human Communication Riding the Shockwave (sorry, just had to) Network Actors, Technologies, Communicating Humans ('natch!)
Yikes... time for bed.
Steve
=================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons - including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons - including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Candidate Department of Information & Library Science, School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com CV: http://www.loisscheidt.com/cv.html Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.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/
Who cares? I don't mean that to be dismissive, I mean it as a real question. CMC isn't a "thing" without its context. Louis mentions CMC as a "field." And OK, but even that is awfully vague. It seems that this question is often raised as a "that doesn't 'count' in our field"--a label for excluding certain ways of doing research or thinking about it. Without that context, the discussion of what to call this stuff seems to me to be a bit like arguing about angels and pins. Who cares what it's called or how it's clustered? Off-hand, I can think of a few contexts in which people might care: * The purview of a journal. ("Oh, no, we can't publish that in JCMC, because it has to do with mobile communication!") * A curriculum. ("How could we have a CMC degree without ever having a course in social networks‽") * A department. ("We can't hire her, she doesn't really *do* CMC.") * To apply a theory. ("While I can't make the claim that this relationship holds for all media, in CMC, X appears to be related to Y in the following Z ways.") The first three of these seem to me to be largely questions of setting up borders for defending academic silos: again, the sort of "psychiatry isn't a science!" border policing that lets people defend turf. To me, those questions end up being pretty wasteful of time and energy. Isn't it about time for another Crisis in the Field (name your field) special issue? The last of these might have some merit, but requires that the range be provisionally and explicitly defined. I can say that what I am writing about extends to social media, but I need to be clear about what I mean when I say it, and whether it includes telephones (or newspapers, or only Facebook, etc.). I recognize that shorthand may be useful ("This is CMC; these are the important theorists to the field; these are the journals that count; these are the places where it is studied") but ultimately I suspect that it's a lot of work to set up boundaries that have little hope of holding and can do as much injury as good. - Alex On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:05 AM, <Richard.Ling@telenor.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I am interested that CMC is now (perhaps?) being applied to mobile comm. There is a long tradition (on the side of mobile research) of simply calling it mobile communication. My sense is that this has been common for the last decade. Clearly there are exceptions, but there is a legacy along these lines. There is a strong flavor of one-to-one interaction, mediated through telecom networks using mobile phones.
More recently there has been the rise of smart phones that combine the more traditional mobile communication (that is one-to-one interaction) with more SNS type of quasi-broadcast mode. Again, there are many shades of this discussion.
There are computers involved in all of this so in a broad sense "computer mediated" is applicable. However, it seems as though folding social networking into the mobile handset has given the discussion a turn in the direction of internet or PC-based nomenclature.
Rich L.
Sent from IPhone
On 16. juli 2013, at 15:47, "Lois Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Susan Herring has an article that addresses state of the field in CMC at: Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T., Eds. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Handbook of pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 3-31). Berlin: Mouton. Prepublication version: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/CMC.pragmatics.intro.herring.et.al.pdf
She also has an article that tackles the nomenclature issue but I'm not putting my hands on it at the moment. I've cc'd her so maybe she can contribute that information or one of the other readers may have it as well.
Lois
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Pask-Hughes, Alexander < a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
I did reply off list to suggest Caroline Tagg's book about the discourse of text messaging, though in retrospect I'm not sure that really answers Darja's question.
One problem, which has been alluded to, is that the term CMC presupposes that the thing doing the mediating (the "computer"), is what defines the communication in some way. And it might be, but I think it might be dangerous to presuppose this.
The other issue is what CMC is contrasted with. Are we saying that "computer-mediated communication" is somehow different from "face-to-face communication"? What about those contexts where face-to-face communication is computer-mediated in a less obvious way? For example, when I go into a coffee shop and am speaking to the cashier, is this "computer-mediated communication"? Well, yes, in the sense that the "computer" (the "till" or "cash register") is mediating our interaction. And if we're extending the term to account for practices such as these, does the term start to lose it's usefulness?
From this perspective, I have a feeling that some of the Scollon's work (e.g. Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice [2001] or Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet [2004]) or work in Literacy Studies (e.g. by David Barton, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear, Guy Merchant) may be useful for you.
Alexander David Pask-Hughes
Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University
a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk adpaskhughes@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter: @adpaskhughes ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Lovaas,Steven [Steven.Lovaas@ColoState.EDU] Sent: 16 July 2013 07:33 To: Charles Ess; Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Charles, Jenny and Darja,
Personally, as an IT security professional, I find the notion of 'digital bug spray' quite appealing :)
But as for CMC, while the term has a certain cachet simply through repeated use, it does seem (to me) to suggest a limit on what counts as a valid instance of "communication": the transmissional model of person-->technology-->person and back again. The computer (or a network thereof) is the mediator... a mere tool; only people are privileged as proper communicators. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we always (or ever) have deep, meaningful relationships with our computing platform of choice, but certainly we ought at least to consider that some non-human elements of our vast global technological web might be considered valid communication partners in their own right. If that's even vaguely palatable, what then is the mediator in CMC?
"ICT" seems too heavily technology-oriented, while "HCI" seems to ignore the human-to-human aspect. Ought we strive for an all-encompassing term that expresses something like "communication across, through, with, and about computer technology"? Or maybe we should take a step back... what did we call it before the advent of the interwebs? I believe we naively, quaintly referred to it simply as Communication, understanding that it could happen face-to-face or over a telephone line or two-way radio or even video-phone. If it was one-way, from single producer to many consumers, we might narrow it down to "Mass" comm, but it was still communication no matter what technology was used (paper, radio waves, or whatever). "Technical" communication had more to do with communicating technical topics than with any particular medium. In fact, "medium" is the mediator (if not always the message). Can I have mediated communication in which the mediator is a human? Certainly. Can I similarly have direct, unmediated communication with a computer artifact? I think so. And, based on the wonderfully diverse papers I heard in Salford last year, we care about all of those shades of meaning.
OK, so where does that leave us? We tend to want to say things that are fairly broadly (if not universally) true, or at least useful across contexts. The internet (yes, including mobile phones) has become a pretty stinkin' huge context, and some folks are wondering whether we need to be attending to the possibilities of communicative relationships with non-human actors. So. If the M (mediated) feels too limiting, and the first C (computer) is too prescriptive, does retreating to "just" Communication feel somehow unsatisfying?
Some organizations from the early days of the internet (q.v. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) have folded. I suspect, in part, that the ubiquity of the internet has lessened the interest or impact of groups specifically dedicated to looking at how computers have *changed* traditional fields. Computers are now inextricably *part* of every traditional field. So what does it mean to be an internet researcher? Is there a name we can claim that's different from those organizations that focus on traditional issues in Communication (though acknowledging internet issues)? I suspect that, as a baseline, our organization requires *some* sort of involvement with a technological element. As a newbie in some senses (though an experienced internet dude in others), I'll throw out a few possibilities... just to roil the waters.
Human-Computer-Communication (HCC) Networked Communication Networked Human Communication Riding the Shockwave (sorry, just had to) Network Actors, Technologies, Communicating Humans ('natch!)
Yikes... time for bed.
Steve
=================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons - including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons - including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644 daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________ 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Candidate Department of Information & Library Science, School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com CV: http://www.loisscheidt.com/cv.html Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.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/
-- -- // // This email is // [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [x] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net // // Please attribute any stupid errors above to autocorrect on my phone. // (But I probably was typing on a keyboard.)
Quick response: I think we "care" for all of the reasons that you list (for better or worse) but really, the fourth is key. Theories are based on assumptions, and those assumptions are what we test when trying to understand the influence of, in this case, technology on the human communication process. If we literally interpret CMC as "computer-mediated communication" then we might suggest that any medium (go-between) that computationally handles(renders?) a message from a sender to a receiver should be considered. A cell phone certainly being a device that takes my original message, renders it into binary waves that are transmitted to another device and re-rendered in part (i..e, the cell phone can't render my non-verbals such as facial expressions, etc.) before delivered to a receiver. Such research tends to focus on message components that are altered in the rendering/re-rendering process (such as losing non-verbals). If we talk about CMC when we really mean social media, then perhaps we are studying the "masspersonal" nature of information, existing persistently in large, dynamic and semi-public series of social networks. Issues of privacy and negotiating identity, representation and "we are all media" and muted groups theory, etc. With the above examples, CMC as "rendering" and CMC as "social media" aren't really the same thing. Or perhaps one encompassed the other (all social media render messages, therefore they are CMC. But not all CMC are social media, because not all CMC exist in persistent, semi-public networks). I very much like Alex's comments, but I'm not too quick to dismiss the issue of definition (and neither is he, from the onset) - and I'm very happy to see others engaging the discussion as well. Definitions can be limiting, but they focus our theorizing on the particular phenomenon for which the theories are supposed to apply to. Hence, we avoid comparing angels to pins. Of course, after writing this I tell our original poster: "Yes, mobile communication is CMC." =) [Apologies: I've missed several earlier posts in here that I wasn't able to read before I deleted them in my filter - I saw that friend Steven Lovaas posted something, so I'm going to assume his comments were pretty smart. ;p ]
Alexander Halavais <halavais@gmail.com> 16-Jul-13 17:08 >>> Who cares?
Hi all,
I am interested that CMC is now (perhaps?) being applied to mobile comm. There is a long tradition (on the side of mobile research) of simply calling it mobile communication. My sense is that this has been common for the last decade. Clearly there are exceptions, but there is a legacy along these lines. There is a strong flavor of one-to-one interaction, mediated through telecom networks using mobile phones.
More recently there has been the rise of smart phones that combine the more traditional mobile communication (that is one-to-one interaction) with more SNS type of quasi-broadcast mode. Again, there are many shades of this discussion.
There are computers involved in all of this so in a broad sense "computer mediated" is applicable. However, it seems as though folding social networking into the mobile handset has given the discussion a turn in the direction of internet or PC-based nomenclature.
Rich L.
Sent from IPhone
On 16. juli 2013, at 15:47, "Lois Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Susan Herring has an article that addresses state of the field in CMC at: Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T., Eds. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Handbook of pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 3-31). Berlin: Mouton. Prepublication version:
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/CMC.pragmatics.intro.herring.et.al.pdf
She also has an article that tackles the nomenclature issue but I'm
not
putting my hands on it at the moment. I've cc'd her so maybe she can contribute that information or one of the other readers may have it as well.
Lois
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Pask-Hughes, Alexander < a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
I did reply off list to suggest Caroline Tagg's book about the discourse of text messaging, though in retrospect I'm not sure that really answers Darja's question.
One problem, which has been alluded to, is that the term CMC presupposes that the thing doing the mediating (the "computer"), is what defines the communication in some way. And it might be, but I think it might be dangerous to presuppose this.
The other issue is what CMC is contrasted with. Are we saying that "computer-mediated communication" is somehow different from "face-to-face communication"? What about those contexts where face-to-face communication is computer-mediated in a less obvious way? For example, when I go into a coffee shop and am speaking to the cashier, is this "computer-mediated communication"? Well, yes, in the sense that the "computer" (the "till" or "cash register") is mediating our interaction. And if we're extending the term to account for practices such as these, does the term start to lose it's usefulness?
From this perspective, I have a feeling that some of the Scollon's work (e.g. Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice [2001] or Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet [2004]) or work in Literacy Studies (e.g. by David Barton, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear, Guy Merchant) may be useful for you.
Alexander David Pask-Hughes
Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University
a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk adpaskhughes@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter: @adpaskhughes ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Lovaas,Steven [Steven.Lovaas@ColoState.EDU] Sent: 16 July 2013 07:33 To: Charles Ess; Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Charles, Jenny and Darja,
Personally, as an IT security professional, I find the notion of 'digital bug spray' quite appealing :)
But as for CMC, while the term has a certain cachet simply through repeated use, it does seem (to me) to suggest a limit on what counts as a valid instance of "communication": the transmissional model of person-->technology-->person and back again. The computer (or a network thereof) is the mediator... a mere tool; only people are privileged as proper communicators. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we always (or ever) have deep, meaningful relationships with our computing platform of choice, but certainly we ought at least to consider that some non-human elements of our vast global technological web might be considered valid communication partners in their own right. If that's even vaguely palatable, what then is the mediator in CMC?
"ICT" seems too heavily technology-oriented, while "HCI" seems to ignore the human-to-human aspect. Ought we strive for an all-encompassing term that expresses something like "communication across, through, with, and about computer technology"? Or maybe we should take a step back... what did we call it before the advent of the interwebs? I believe we naively, quaintly referred to it simply as Communication, understanding that it could happen face-to-face or over a telephone line or two-way radio or even video-phone. If it was one-way, from single producer to many consumers, we might narrow it down to "Mass" comm, but it was still communication no matter what technology was used (paper, radio waves, or whatever). "Technical" communication had more to do with communicating technical topics than with any particular medium. In fact, "medium" is the mediator (if not always the message). Can I have mediated communication in which the mediator is a human? Certainly. Can I similarly have direct, unmediated communication with a computer artifact? I think so. And, based on the wonderfully diverse papers I heard in Salford last year, we care about all of those shades of meaning.
OK, so where does that leave us? We tend to want to say things that are fairly broadly (if not universally) true, or at least useful across contexts. The internet (yes, including mobile phones) has become a pretty stinkin' huge context, and some folks are wondering whether we need to be attending to the possibilities of communicative relationships with non-human actors. So. If the M (mediated) feels too limiting, and the first C (computer) is too prescriptive, does retreating to "just" Communication feel somehow unsatisfying?
Some organizations from the early days of the internet (q.v. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) have folded. I suspect, in part, that the ubiquity of the internet has lessened the interest or impact of groups specifically dedicated to looking at how computers have *changed* traditional fields. Computers are now inextricably *part* of every traditional field. So what does it mean to be an internet researcher? Is there a name we can claim that's different from those organizations that focus on traditional issues in Communication (though acknowledging internet issues)? I suspect that, as a baseline, our organization requires *some* sort of involvement with a technological element. As a newbie in some senses (though an experienced internet dude in others), I'll throw out a few possibilities... just to roil the waters.
Human-Computer-Communication (HCC) Networked Communication Networked Human Communication Riding the Shockwave (sorry, just had to) Network Actors, Technologies, Communicating Humans ('natch!)
Yikes... time for bed.
Steve
=================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644
daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
I don't mean that to be dismissive, I mean it as a real question. CMC isn't a "thing" without its context. Louis mentions CMC as a "field." And OK, but even that is awfully vague. It seems that this question is often raised as a "that doesn't 'count' in our field"--a label for excluding certain ways of doing research or thinking about it. Without that context, the discussion of what to call this stuff seems to me to be a bit like arguing about angels and pins. Who cares what it's called or how it's clustered? Off-hand, I can think of a few contexts in which people might care: * The purview of a journal. ("Oh, no, we can't publish that in JCMC, because it has to do with mobile communication!") * A curriculum. ("How could we have a CMC degree without ever having a course in social networks‽") * A department. ("We can't hire her, she doesn't really *do* CMC.") * To apply a theory. ("While I can't make the claim that this relationship holds for all media, in CMC, X appears to be related to Y in the following Z ways.") The first three of these seem to me to be largely questions of setting up borders for defending academic silos: again, the sort of "psychiatry isn't a science!" border policing that lets people defend turf. To me, those questions end up being pretty wasteful of time and energy. Isn't it about time for another Crisis in the Field (name your field) special issue? The last of these might have some merit, but requires that the range be provisionally and explicitly defined. I can say that what I am writing about extends to social media, but I need to be clear about what I mean when I say it, and whether it includes telephones (or newspapers, or only Facebook, etc.). I recognize that shorthand may be useful ("This is CMC; these are the important theorists to the field; these are the journals that count; these are the places where it is studied") but ultimately I suspect that it's a lot of work to set up boundaries that have little hope of holding and can do as much injury as good. - Alex On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:05 AM, <Richard.Ling@telenor.com> wrote: - -
including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644
daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Candidate Department of Information & Library Science, School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com CV: http://www.loisscheidt.com/cv.html Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.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/
-- -- // // This email is // [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [x] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net // // Please attribute any stupid errors above to autocorrect on my phone. // (But I probably was typing on a keyboard.) _______________________________________________ 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/
Dear all rather than wondering under which conditions one may embed mobile communication in cmc one may also wonder whether there is such a thing as cmc (with its hint of technological determinism : "computer"-MC and whether it would not be more fruitful to adopt a more wittgensteinian approach, and focus on different "language games" performed in various media (including face to face, and paper media) and settings, and bearing a form of "family resemblance" between them Christian Licoppe Department of Social Science, Telecom Paristech 33 (0)6 87 09 99 48 ----- Mail original ----- De: "Nicholas Bowman" <Nicholas.Bowman@mail.wvu.edu> À: alex@halavais.net, "AoIR-L" <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Envoyé: Mardi 16 Juillet 2013 17:54:23 Objet: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Quick response: I think we "care" for all of the reasons that you list (for better or worse) but really, the fourth is key. Theories are based on assumptions, and those assumptions are what we test when trying to understand the influence of, in this case, technology on the human communication process. If we literally interpret CMC as "computer-mediated communication" then we might suggest that any medium (go-between) that computationally handles(renders?) a message from a sender to a receiver should be considered. A cell phone certainly being a device that takes my original message, renders it into binary waves that are transmitted to another device and re-rendered in part (i..e, the cell phone can't render my non-verbals such as facial expressions, etc.) before delivered to a receiver. Such research tends to focus on message components that are altered in the rendering/re-rendering process (such as losing non-verbals). If we talk about CMC when we really mean social media, then perhaps we are studying the "masspersonal" nature of information, existing persistently in large, dynamic and semi-public series of social networks. Issues of privacy and negotiating identity, representation and "we are all media" and muted groups theory, etc. With the above examples, CMC as "rendering" and CMC as "social media" aren't really the same thing. Or perhaps one encompassed the other (all social media render messages, therefore they are CMC. But not all CMC are social media, because not all CMC exist in persistent, semi-public networks). I very much like Alex's comments, but I'm not too quick to dismiss the issue of definition (and neither is he, from the onset) - and I'm very happy to see others engaging the discussion as well. Definitions can be limiting, but they focus our theorizing on the particular phenomenon for which the theories are supposed to apply to. Hence, we avoid comparing angels to pins. Of course, after writing this I tell our original poster: "Yes, mobile communication is CMC." =) [Apologies: I've missed several earlier posts in here that I wasn't able to read before I deleted them in my filter - I saw that friend Steven Lovaas posted something, so I'm going to assume his comments were pretty smart. ;p ]
Alexander Halavais <halavais@gmail.com> 16-Jul-13 17:08 >>> Who cares?
Hi all,
I am interested that CMC is now (perhaps?) being applied to mobile comm. There is a long tradition (on the side of mobile research) of simply calling it mobile communication. My sense is that this has been common for the last decade. Clearly there are exceptions, but there is a legacy along these lines. There is a strong flavor of one-to-one interaction, mediated through telecom networks using mobile phones.
More recently there has been the rise of smart phones that combine the more traditional mobile communication (that is one-to-one interaction) with more SNS type of quasi-broadcast mode. Again, there are many shades of this discussion.
There are computers involved in all of this so in a broad sense "computer mediated" is applicable. However, it seems as though folding social networking into the mobile handset has given the discussion a turn in the direction of internet or PC-based nomenclature.
Rich L.
Sent from IPhone
On 16. juli 2013, at 15:47, "Lois Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Susan Herring has an article that addresses state of the field in CMC at: Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T., Eds. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Handbook of pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 3-31). Berlin: Mouton. Prepublication version:
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/CMC.pragmatics.intro.herring.et.al.pdf
She also has an article that tackles the nomenclature issue but I'm
not
putting my hands on it at the moment. I've cc'd her so maybe she can contribute that information or one of the other readers may have it as well.
Lois
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Pask-Hughes, Alexander < a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
I did reply off list to suggest Caroline Tagg's book about the discourse of text messaging, though in retrospect I'm not sure that really answers Darja's question.
One problem, which has been alluded to, is that the term CMC presupposes that the thing doing the mediating (the "computer"), is what defines the communication in some way. And it might be, but I think it might be dangerous to presuppose this.
The other issue is what CMC is contrasted with. Are we saying that "computer-mediated communication" is somehow different from "face-to-face communication"? What about those contexts where face-to-face communication is computer-mediated in a less obvious way? For example, when I go into a coffee shop and am speaking to the cashier, is this "computer-mediated communication"? Well, yes, in the sense that the "computer" (the "till" or "cash register") is mediating our interaction. And if we're extending the term to account for practices such as these, does the term start to lose it's usefulness?
From this perspective, I have a feeling that some of the Scollon's work (e.g. Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice [2001] or Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet [2004]) or work in Literacy Studies (e.g. by David Barton, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear, Guy Merchant) may be useful for you.
Alexander David Pask-Hughes
Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University
a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk adpaskhughes@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter: @adpaskhughes ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Lovaas,Steven [Steven.Lovaas@ColoState.EDU] Sent: 16 July 2013 07:33 To: Charles Ess; Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Charles, Jenny and Darja,
Personally, as an IT security professional, I find the notion of 'digital bug spray' quite appealing :)
But as for CMC, while the term has a certain cachet simply through repeated use, it does seem (to me) to suggest a limit on what counts as a valid instance of "communication": the transmissional model of person-->technology-->person and back again. The computer (or a network thereof) is the mediator... a mere tool; only people are privileged as proper communicators. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we always (or ever) have deep, meaningful relationships with our computing platform of choice, but certainly we ought at least to consider that some non-human elements of our vast global technological web might be considered valid communication partners in their own right. If that's even vaguely palatable, what then is the mediator in CMC?
"ICT" seems too heavily technology-oriented, while "HCI" seems to ignore the human-to-human aspect. Ought we strive for an all-encompassing term that expresses something like "communication across, through, with, and about computer technology"? Or maybe we should take a step back... what did we call it before the advent of the interwebs? I believe we naively, quaintly referred to it simply as Communication, understanding that it could happen face-to-face or over a telephone line or two-way radio or even video-phone. If it was one-way, from single producer to many consumers, we might narrow it down to "Mass" comm, but it was still communication no matter what technology was used (paper, radio waves, or whatever). "Technical" communication had more to do with communicating technical topics than with any particular medium. In fact, "medium" is the mediator (if not always the message). Can I have mediated communication in which the mediator is a human? Certainly. Can I similarly have direct, unmediated communication with a computer artifact? I think so. And, based on the wonderfully diverse papers I heard in Salford last year, we care about all of those shades of meaning.
OK, so where does that leave us? We tend to want to say things that are fairly broadly (if not universally) true, or at least useful across contexts. The internet (yes, including mobile phones) has become a pretty stinkin' huge context, and some folks are wondering whether we need to be attending to the possibilities of communicative relationships with non-human actors. So. If the M (mediated) feels too limiting, and the first C (computer) is too prescriptive, does retreating to "just" Communication feel somehow unsatisfying?
Some organizations from the early days of the internet (q.v. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) have folded. I suspect, in part, that the ubiquity of the internet has lessened the interest or impact of groups specifically dedicated to looking at how computers have *changed* traditional fields. Computers are now inextricably *part* of every traditional field. So what does it mean to be an internet researcher? Is there a name we can claim that's different from those organizations that focus on traditional issues in Communication (though acknowledging internet issues)? I suspect that, as a baseline, our organization requires *some* sort of involvement with a technological element. As a newbie in some senses (though an experienced internet dude in others), I'll throw out a few possibilities... just to roil the waters.
Human-Computer-Communication (HCC) Networked Communication Networked Human Communication Riding the Shockwave (sorry, just had to) Network Actors, Technologies, Communicating Humans ('natch!)
Yikes... time for bed.
Steve
=================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644
daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
I don't mean that to be dismissive, I mean it as a real question. CMC isn't a "thing" without its context. Louis mentions CMC as a "field." And OK, but even that is awfully vague. It seems that this question is often raised as a "that doesn't 'count' in our field"--a label for excluding certain ways of doing research or thinking about it. Without that context, the discussion of what to call this stuff seems to me to be a bit like arguing about angels and pins. Who cares what it's called or how it's clustered? Off-hand, I can think of a few contexts in which people might care: * The purview of a journal. ("Oh, no, we can't publish that in JCMC, because it has to do with mobile communication!") * A curriculum. ("How could we have a CMC degree without ever having a course in social networks‽") * A department. ("We can't hire her, she doesn't really *do* CMC.") * To apply a theory. ("While I can't make the claim that this relationship holds for all media, in CMC, X appears to be related to Y in the following Z ways.") The first three of these seem to me to be largely questions of setting up borders for defending academic silos: again, the sort of "psychiatry isn't a science!" border policing that lets people defend turf. To me, those questions end up being pretty wasteful of time and energy. Isn't it about time for another Crisis in the Field (name your field) special issue? The last of these might have some merit, but requires that the range be provisionally and explicitly defined. I can say that what I am writing about extends to social media, but I need to be clear about what I mean when I say it, and whether it includes telephones (or newspapers, or only Facebook, etc.). I recognize that shorthand may be useful ("This is CMC; these are the important theorists to the field; these are the journals that count; these are the places where it is studied") but ultimately I suspect that it's a lot of work to set up boundaries that have little hope of holding and can do as much injury as good. - Alex On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:05 AM, <Richard.Ling@telenor.com> wrote: - -
including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644
daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Candidate Department of Information & Library Science, School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com CV: http://www.loisscheidt.com/cv.html Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.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/
-- -- // // This email is // [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [x] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net // // Please attribute any stupid errors above to autocorrect on my phone. // (But I probably was typing on a keyboard.) _______________________________________________ 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/
Ah! I was waiting for the debate over the over-privileging of technology/machine in the "C"MC definition. To be honest, I don't know if we've (as a field) really specified why "computer" is so important (besides the fact that "we are using computing technology" - to the extent that we have really explained 'computing' as an important feature. Is pen and pencil a computational task in the same way rendering a message via text is, for example?). Some might see this discussion as "navel-gazing" but to be honest, I like when we all push each other's views. I don't personally buy the Wittgensteinian approach and I do tend to (and, to be frank, want to) privilege the machine, but it is now on me to actually draft the arguments, right? Apologies for the exploding e-mail box. If there are any bloggers out there (I moderate "On Media Theory ( http://onmediatheory.blogspot.de/ )..." but I haven't posted since semester break) I'd be curious to read/write/share thoughts on this in a more deliberate and less obtrusive (for those who don't want to read the spam of our conversation), permanent space. I'm also eager to track down the Herring et al. article references earlier. The original question of course was one about embedding 'mobile' in 'CMC' and to that I say, "sure." Darja, thanks for the discussion prompt, >>und 'allo aus Erfurt, Thuringen!<<. ~nick Nicholas David Bowman, Ph.D. ( http://ndbowman.info/ )Assistant Professor of Communication Studies; Research Associate, Media and Interaction Lab West Virginia University Vice-Chair, Game Studies Interest Group International Communication Association Interim Social Media Director Eastern Communication Association ______________________ Twitter @bowmanspartan Skype ID: nicholasdbowman On Media Theory... ( http://onmediatheory.blogspot.com/ )
Christian Licoppe <christian.licoppe@telecom-paristech.fr> 16-Jul-13 18:08 >>> Dear all
rather than wondering under which conditions one may embed mobile communication in cmc one may also wonder whether there is such a thing as cmc (with its hint of technological determinism : "computer"-MC and whether it would not be more fruitful to adopt a more wittgensteinian approach, and focus on different "language games" performed in various media (including face to face, and paper media) and settings, and bearing a form of "family resemblance" between them Christian Licoppe Department of Social Science, Telecom Paristech 33 (0)6 87 09 99 48 ----- Mail original ----- De: "Nicholas Bowman" <Nicholas.Bowman@mail.wvu.edu> À: alex@halavais.net, "AoIR-L" <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Envoyé: Mardi 16 Juillet 2013 17:54:23 Objet: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Quick response: I think we "care" for all of the reasons that you list (for better or worse) but really, the fourth is key. Theories are based on assumptions, and those assumptions are what we test when trying to understand the influence of, in this case, technology on the human communication process. If we literally interpret CMC as "computer-mediated communication" then we might suggest that any medium (go-between) that computationally handles(renders?) a message from a sender to a receiver should be considered. A cell phone certainly being a device that takes my original message, renders it into binary waves that are transmitted to another device and re-rendered in part (i..e, the cell phone can't render my non-verbals such as facial expressions, etc.) before delivered to a receiver. Such research tends to focus on message components that are altered in the rendering/re-rendering process (such as losing non-verbals). If we talk about CMC when we really mean social media, then perhaps we are studying the "masspersonal" nature of information, existing persistently in large, dynamic and semi-public series of social networks. Issues of privacy and negotiating identity, representation and "we are all media" and muted groups theory, etc. With the above examples, CMC as "rendering" and CMC as "social media" aren't really the same thing. Or perhaps one encompassed the other (all social media render messages, therefore they are CMC. But not all CMC are social media, because not all CMC exist in persistent, semi-public networks). I very much like Alex's comments, but I'm not too quick to dismiss the issue of definition (and neither is he, from the onset) - and I'm very happy to see others engaging the discussion as well. Definitions can be limiting, but they focus our theorizing on the particular phenomenon for which the theories are supposed to apply to. Hence, we avoid comparing angels to pins. Of course, after writing this I tell our original poster: "Yes, mobile communication is CMC." =) [Apologies: I've missed several earlier posts in here that I wasn't able to read before I deleted them in my filter - I saw that friend Steven Lovaas posted something, so I'm going to assume his comments were pretty smart. ;p ]
Alexander Halavais <halavais@gmail.com> 16-Jul-13 17:08 >>> Who cares?
Hi all,
I am interested that CMC is now (perhaps?) being applied to mobile comm. There is a long tradition (on the side of mobile research) of simply calling it mobile communication. My sense is that this has been common for the last decade. Clearly there are exceptions, but there is a legacy along these lines. There is a strong flavor of one-to-one interaction, mediated through telecom networks using mobile phones.
More recently there has been the rise of smart phones that combine the more traditional mobile communication (that is one-to-one interaction) with more SNS type of quasi-broadcast mode. Again, there are many shades of this discussion.
There are computers involved in all of this so in a broad sense "computer mediated" is applicable. However, it seems as though folding social networking into the mobile handset has given the discussion a turn in the direction of internet or PC-based nomenclature.
Rich L.
Sent from IPhone
On 16. juli 2013, at 15:47, "Lois Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Susan Herring has an article that addresses state of the field in CMC at: Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T., Eds. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Handbook of pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 3-31). Berlin: Mouton. Prepublication version:
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/CMC.pragmatics.intro.herring.et.al.pdf
She also has an article that tackles the nomenclature issue but I'm
not
putting my hands on it at the moment. I've cc'd her so maybe she can contribute that information or one of the other readers may have it as well.
Lois
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Pask-Hughes, Alexander < a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
I did reply off list to suggest Caroline Tagg's book about the discourse of text messaging, though in retrospect I'm not sure that really answers Darja's question.
One problem, which has been alluded to, is that the term CMC presupposes that the thing doing the mediating (the "computer"), is what defines the communication in some way. And it might be, but I think it might be dangerous to presuppose this.
The other issue is what CMC is contrasted with. Are we saying that "computer-mediated communication" is somehow different from "face-to-face communication"? What about those contexts where face-to-face communication is computer-mediated in a less obvious way? For example, when I go into a coffee shop and am speaking to the cashier, is this "computer-mediated communication"? Well, yes, in the sense that the "computer" (the "till" or "cash register") is mediating our interaction. And if we're extending the term to account for practices such as these, does the term start to lose it's usefulness?
From this perspective, I have a feeling that some of the Scollon's work (e.g. Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice [2001] or Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet [2004]) or work in Literacy Studies (e.g. by David Barton, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear, Guy Merchant) may be useful for you.
Alexander David Pask-Hughes
Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University
a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk adpaskhughes@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter: @adpaskhughes ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Lovaas,Steven [Steven.Lovaas@ColoState.EDU] Sent: 16 July 2013 07:33 To: Charles Ess; Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Charles, Jenny and Darja,
Personally, as an IT security professional, I find the notion of 'digital bug spray' quite appealing :)
But as for CMC, while the term has a certain cachet simply through repeated use, it does seem (to me) to suggest a limit on what counts as a valid instance of "communication": the transmissional model of person-->technology-->person and back again. The computer (or a network thereof) is the mediator... a mere tool; only people are privileged as proper communicators. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we always (or ever) have deep, meaningful relationships with our computing platform of choice, but certainly we ought at least to consider that some non-human elements of our vast global technological web might be considered valid communication partners in their own right. If that's even vaguely palatable, what then is the mediator in CMC?
"ICT" seems too heavily technology-oriented, while "HCI" seems to ignore the human-to-human aspect. Ought we strive for an all-encompassing term that expresses something like "communication across, through, with, and about computer technology"? Or maybe we should take a step back... what did we call it before the advent of the interwebs? I believe we naively, quaintly referred to it simply as Communication, understanding that it could happen face-to-face or over a telephone line or two-way radio or even video-phone. If it was one-way, from single producer to many consumers, we might narrow it down to "Mass" comm, but it was still communication no matter what technology was used (paper, radio waves, or whatever). "Technical" communication had more to do with communicating technical topics than with any particular medium. In fact, "medium" is the mediator (if not always the message). Can I have mediated communication in which the mediator is a human? Certainly. Can I similarly have direct, unmediated communication with a computer artifact? I think so. And, based on the wonderfully diverse papers I heard in Salford last year, we care about all of those shades of meaning.
OK, so where does that leave us? We tend to want to say things that are fairly broadly (if not universally) true, or at least useful across contexts. The internet (yes, including mobile phones) has become a pretty stinkin' huge context, and some folks are wondering whether we need to be attending to the possibilities of communicative relationships with non-human actors. So. If the M (mediated) feels too limiting, and the first C (computer) is too prescriptive, does retreating to "just" Communication feel somehow unsatisfying?
Some organizations from the early days of the internet (q.v. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) have folded. I suspect, in part, that the ubiquity of the internet has lessened the interest or impact of groups specifically dedicated to looking at how computers have *changed* traditional fields. Computers are now inextricably *part* of every traditional field. So what does it mean to be an internet researcher? Is there a name we can claim that's different from those organizations that focus on traditional issues in Communication (though acknowledging internet issues)? I suspect that, as a baseline, our organization requires *some* sort of involvement with a technological element. As a newbie in some senses (though an experienced internet dude in others), I'll throw out a few possibilities... just to roil the waters.
Human-Computer-Communication (HCC) Networked Communication Networked Human Communication Riding the Shockwave (sorry, just had to) Network Actors, Technologies, Communicating Humans ('natch!)
Yikes... time for bed.
Steve
=================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644
daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
I don't mean that to be dismissive, I mean it as a real question. CMC isn't a "thing" without its context. Louis mentions CMC as a "field." And OK, but even that is awfully vague. It seems that this question is often raised as a "that doesn't 'count' in our field"--a label for excluding certain ways of doing research or thinking about it. Without that context, the discussion of what to call this stuff seems to me to be a bit like arguing about angels and pins. Who cares what it's called or how it's clustered? Off-hand, I can think of a few contexts in which people might care: * The purview of a journal. ("Oh, no, we can't publish that in JCMC, because it has to do with mobile communication!") * A curriculum. ("How could we have a CMC degree without ever having a course in social networks‽") * A department. ("We can't hire her, she doesn't really *do* CMC.") * To apply a theory. ("While I can't make the claim that this relationship holds for all media, in CMC, X appears to be related to Y in the following Z ways.") The first three of these seem to me to be largely questions of setting up borders for defending academic silos: again, the sort of "psychiatry isn't a science!" border policing that lets people defend turf. To me, those questions end up being pretty wasteful of time and energy. Isn't it about time for another Crisis in the Field (name your field) special issue? The last of these might have some merit, but requires that the range be provisionally and explicitly defined. I can say that what I am writing about extends to social media, but I need to be clear about what I mean when I say it, and whether it includes telephones (or newspapers, or only Facebook, etc.). I recognize that shorthand may be useful ("This is CMC; these are the important theorists to the field; these are the journals that count; these are the places where it is studied") but ultimately I suspect that it's a lot of work to set up boundaries that have little hope of holding and can do as much injury as good. - Alex On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:05 AM, <Richard.Ling@telenor.com> wrote: - -
including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644
daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Candidate Department of Information & Library Science, School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com CV: http://www.loisscheidt.com/cv.html Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.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/
-- -- // // This email is // [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [x] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net // // Please attribute any stupid errors above to autocorrect on my phone. // (But I probably was typing on a keyboard.) _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
Bring on the navel gazing! Seriously, though, I think we need to be thoughtful about our covering terms. The ways of categorizing and the names of those categories shape how we then subsequently think of those categories and what gets included and excluded (as others have said; I am reminded of Lakoff's discussion of metaphors and the ways we use language and it uses us to shape understanding of our shared reality.) Anyway, for me computer-mediated communication frames and privileges the human communication that occurs via computer (with the help of the Internet, of course). But, I don’t quite know where to put mobile. The lineage of scholarship on mobile has not historically used CMC as a covering term (I think Rich noted that), because until recently mobile phones, while having microchips, were not the sort of processors we have in current smart phone technology. But, now that we have these amazing smart phones (heh, *smart* phones), I don't know, maybe we should apply CMC as the categorizing term. I noted my preference for digital media as a term. It describes a particular set of channels that serve as the means to communication (the parallel term for me is mass media). But, now Charles and others have forced me to think more about what gets included and what gets excluded with that term. I thought I knew, but now I don't! The joys of navel gazing, one's perspective shifts. ~Jenny -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Bowman Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:43 PM To: AoIR-L; Christian Licoppe Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Ah! I was waiting for the debate over the over-privileging of technology/machine in the "C"MC definition. To be honest, I don't know if we've (as a field) really specified why "computer" is so important (besides the fact that "we are using computing technology" - to the extent that we have really explained 'computing' as an important feature. Is pen and pencil a computational task in the same way rendering a message via text is, for example?). Some might see this discussion as "navel-gazing" but to be honest, I like when we all push each other's views. I don't personally buy the Wittgensteinian approach and I do tend to (and, to be frank, want to) privilege the machine, but it is now on me to actually draft the arguments, right? Apologies for the exploding e-mail box. If there are any bloggers out there (I moderate "On Media Theory ( http://onmediatheory.blogspot.de/ )..." but I haven't posted since semester break) I'd be curious to read/write/share thoughts on this in a more deliberate and less obtrusive (for those who don't want to read the spam of our conversation), permanent space. I'm also eager to track down the Herring et al. article references earlier. The original question of course was one about embedding 'mobile' in 'CMC' and to that I say, "sure." Darja, thanks for the discussion prompt, >>und 'allo aus Erfurt, Thuringen!<<. ~nick Nicholas David Bowman, Ph.D. ( http://ndbowman.info/ )Assistant Professor of Communication Studies; Research Associate, Media and Interaction Lab West Virginia University Vice-Chair, Game Studies Interest Group International Communication Association Interim Social Media Director Eastern Communication Association ______________________ Twitter @bowmanspartan Skype ID: nicholasdbowman On Media Theory... ( http://onmediatheory.blogspot.com/ )
Christian Licoppe <christian.licoppe@telecom-paristech.fr> 16-Jul-13 18:08 >>> Dear all
rather than wondering under which conditions one may embed mobile communication in cmc one may also wonder whether there is such a thing as cmc (with its hint of technological determinism : "computer"-MC and whether it would not be more fruitful to adopt a more wittgensteinian approach, and focus on different "language games" performed in various media (including face to face, and paper media) and settings, and bearing a form of "family resemblance" between them Christian Licoppe Department of Social Science, Telecom Paristech 33 (0)6 87 09 99 48 ----- Mail original ----- De: "Nicholas Bowman" <Nicholas.Bowman@mail.wvu.edu> À: alex@halavais.net, "AoIR-L" <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Envoyé: Mardi 16 Juillet 2013 17:54:23 Objet: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Quick response: I think we "care" for all of the reasons that you list (for better or worse) but really, the fourth is key. Theories are based on assumptions, and those assumptions are what we test when trying to understand the influence of, in this case, technology on the human communication process. If we literally interpret CMC as "computer-mediated communication" then we might suggest that any medium (go-between) that computationally handles(renders?) a message from a sender to a receiver should be considered. A cell phone certainly being a device that takes my original message, renders it into binary waves that are transmitted to another device and re-rendered in part (i..e, the cell phone can't render my non-verbals such as facial expressions, etc.) before delivered to a receiver. Such research tends to focus on message components that are altered in the rendering/re-rendering process (such as losing non-verbals). If we talk about CMC when we really mean social media, then perhaps we are studying the "masspersonal" nature of information, existing persistently in large, dynamic and semi-public series of social networks. Issues of privacy and negotiating identity, representation and "we are all media" and muted groups theory, etc. With the above examples, CMC as "rendering" and CMC as "social media" aren't really the same thing. Or perhaps one encompassed the other (all social media render messages, therefore they are CMC. But not all CMC are social media, because not all CMC exist in persistent, semi-public networks). I very much like Alex's comments, but I'm not too quick to dismiss the issue of definition (and neither is he, from the onset) - and I'm very happy to see others engaging the discussion as well. Definitions can be limiting, but they focus our theorizing on the particular phenomenon for which the theories are supposed to apply to. Hence, we avoid comparing angels to pins. Of course, after writing this I tell our original poster: "Yes, mobile communication is CMC." =) [Apologies: I've missed several earlier posts in here that I wasn't able to read before I deleted them in my filter - I saw that friend Steven Lovaas posted something, so I'm going to assume his comments were pretty smart. ;p ]
Alexander Halavais <halavais@gmail.com> 16-Jul-13 17:08 >>> Who cares?
Hi all,
I am interested that CMC is now (perhaps?) being applied to mobile comm. There is a long tradition (on the side of mobile research) of simply calling it mobile communication. My sense is that this has been common for the last decade. Clearly there are exceptions, but there is a legacy along these lines. There is a strong flavor of one-to-one interaction, mediated through telecom networks using mobile phones.
More recently there has been the rise of smart phones that combine the more traditional mobile communication (that is one-to-one interaction) with more SNS type of quasi-broadcast mode. Again, there are many shades of this discussion.
There are computers involved in all of this so in a broad sense "computer mediated" is applicable. However, it seems as though folding social networking into the mobile handset has given the discussion a turn in the direction of internet or PC-based nomenclature.
Rich L.
Sent from IPhone
On 16. juli 2013, at 15:47, "Lois Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Susan Herring has an article that addresses state of the field in CMC at: Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T., Eds. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Handbook of pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 3-31). Berlin: Mouton. Prepublication version:
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/CMC.pragmatics.intro.herring.et.al.pdf
She also has an article that tackles the nomenclature issue but I'm
not
putting my hands on it at the moment. I've cc'd her so maybe she can contribute that information or one of the other readers may have it as well.
Lois
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Pask-Hughes, Alexander < a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
I did reply off list to suggest Caroline Tagg's book about the discourse of text messaging, though in retrospect I'm not sure that really answers Darja's question.
One problem, which has been alluded to, is that the term CMC presupposes that the thing doing the mediating (the "computer"), is what defines the communication in some way. And it might be, but I think it might be dangerous to presuppose this.
The other issue is what CMC is contrasted with. Are we saying that "computer-mediated communication" is somehow different from "face-to-face communication"? What about those contexts where face-to-face communication is computer-mediated in a less obvious way? For example, when I go into a coffee shop and am speaking to the cashier, is this "computer-mediated communication"? Well, yes, in the sense that the "computer" (the "till" or "cash register") is mediating our interaction. And if we're extending the term to account for practices such as these, does the term start to lose it's usefulness?
From this perspective, I have a feeling that some of the Scollon's work (e.g. Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice [2001] or Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet [2004]) or work in Literacy Studies (e.g. by David Barton, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear, Guy Merchant) may be useful for you.
Alexander David Pask-Hughes
Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University
a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk adpaskhughes@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter: @adpaskhughes ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Lovaas,Steven [Steven.Lovaas@ColoState.EDU] Sent: 16 July 2013 07:33 To: Charles Ess; Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Charles, Jenny and Darja,
Personally, as an IT security professional, I find the notion of 'digital bug spray' quite appealing :)
But as for CMC, while the term has a certain cachet simply through repeated use, it does seem (to me) to suggest a limit on what counts as a valid instance of "communication": the transmissional model of person-->technology-->person and back again. The computer (or a network thereof) is the mediator... a mere tool; only people are privileged as proper communicators. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we always (or ever) have deep, meaningful relationships with our computing platform of choice, but certainly we ought at least to consider that some non-human elements of our vast global technological web might be considered valid communication partners in their own right. If that's even vaguely palatable, what then is the mediator in CMC?
"ICT" seems too heavily technology-oriented, while "HCI" seems to ignore the human-to-human aspect. Ought we strive for an all-encompassing term that expresses something like "communication across, through, with, and about computer technology"? Or maybe we should take a step back... what did we call it before the advent of the interwebs? I believe we naively, quaintly referred to it simply as Communication, understanding that it could happen face-to-face or over a telephone line or two-way radio or even video-phone. If it was one-way, from single producer to many consumers, we might narrow it down to "Mass" comm, but it was still communication no matter what technology was used (paper, radio waves, or whatever). "Technical" communication had more to do with communicating technical topics than with any particular medium. In fact, "medium" is the mediator (if not always the message). Can I have mediated communication in which the mediator is a human? Certainly. Can I similarly have direct, unmediated communication with a computer artifact? I think so. And, based on the wonderfully diverse papers I heard in Salford last year, we care about all of those shades of meaning.
OK, so where does that leave us? We tend to want to say things that are fairly broadly (if not universally) true, or at least useful across contexts. The internet (yes, including mobile phones) has become a pretty stinkin' huge context, and some folks are wondering whether we need to be attending to the possibilities of communicative relationships with non-human actors. So. If the M (mediated) feels too limiting, and the first C (computer) is too prescriptive, does retreating to "just" Communication feel somehow unsatisfying?
Some organizations from the early days of the internet (q.v. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) have folded. I suspect, in part, that the ubiquity of the internet has lessened the interest or impact of groups specifically dedicated to looking at how computers have *changed* traditional fields. Computers are now inextricably *part* of every traditional field. So what does it mean to be an internet researcher? Is there a name we can claim that's different from those organizations that focus on traditional issues in Communication (though acknowledging internet issues)? I suspect that, as a baseline, our organization requires *some* sort of involvement with a technological element. As a newbie in some senses (though an experienced internet dude in others), I'll throw out a few possibilities... just to roil the waters.
Human-Computer-Communication (HCC) Networked Communication Networked Human Communication Riding the Shockwave (sorry, just had to) Network Actors, Technologies, Communicating Humans ('natch!)
Yikes... time for bed.
Steve
=================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644
daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
I don't mean that to be dismissive, I mean it as a real question. CMC isn't a "thing" without its context. Louis mentions CMC as a "field." And OK, but even that is awfully vague. It seems that this question is often raised as a "that doesn't 'count' in our field"--a label for excluding certain ways of doing research or thinking about it. Without that context, the discussion of what to call this stuff seems to me to be a bit like arguing about angels and pins. Who cares what it's called or how it's clustered? Off-hand, I can think of a few contexts in which people might care: * The purview of a journal. ("Oh, no, we can't publish that in JCMC, because it has to do with mobile communication!") * A curriculum. ("How could we have a CMC degree without ever having a course in social networks‽") * A department. ("We can't hire her, she doesn't really *do* CMC.") * To apply a theory. ("While I can't make the claim that this relationship holds for all media, in CMC, X appears to be related to Y in the following Z ways.") The first three of these seem to me to be largely questions of setting up borders for defending academic silos: again, the sort of "psychiatry isn't a science!" border policing that lets people defend turf. To me, those questions end up being pretty wasteful of time and energy. Isn't it about time for another Crisis in the Field (name your field) special issue? The last of these might have some merit, but requires that the range be provisionally and explicitly defined. I can say that what I am writing about extends to social media, but I need to be clear about what I mean when I say it, and whether it includes telephones (or newspapers, or only Facebook, etc.). I recognize that shorthand may be useful ("This is CMC; these are the important theorists to the field; these are the journals that count; these are the places where it is studied") but ultimately I suspect that it's a lot of work to set up boundaries that have little hope of holding and can do as much injury as good. - Alex On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:05 AM, <Richard.Ling@telenor.com> wrote: - -
including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644
daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Candidate Department of Information & Library Science, School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com CV: http://www.loisscheidt.com/cv.html Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.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/
-- -- // // This email is // [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [x] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net // // Please attribute any stupid errors above to autocorrect on my phone. // (But I probably was typing on a keyboard.) _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
Dear All, I think that the classical CMC studies (for instance Pr. Susan Herring's papers (1999 & 2013) on the practice of electronic chat) nicely and precisely demonstrate how this kind of communication is mediated, for instance how the technological mediation becomes relevant into the sequential organization of chat. The CMC tradition offers also a methodological interest because main studies are based on a detailed analysis of a corpus of ordinary exchanges on the Internet. Both this theoretical backgound (examining the relevance of technology for the organization of remote communication) and this methodological perspective (analysing a corpus of natural exchanges) have been developped in some mobile phone studies (see for instance Relieu 2002 ; Hutchby and Barnett 2005 ; Arminen, I and Leinonen, M.2006). At the same time, mobile phone communicational exchanges tend to overthrow one of the main hypothesis of classical CMC studies on the autonomy of on line exchanges. Because many mobile communicational exchanges are deeply rooted into the web of other practices (findind his way for instance) there are many reasons to consider these exchanges as hybrid, both shaped by the dynamics of the mediated context and by the organization of communicational involvments into the nearby environment (for instance Relieu, 2009). References Arminen, I and Leinonen, M. (2006) Mobile phone call openings: tailoring answers to personalized summonses, Discourse Studies, June 2006; vol. 8, 3: pp. 339-368 Hutchby, I. and Barnett, S. (2005) 'Aspects of the Sequential Organisation of Mobile Phone Conversation', Discourse Studies, 7(2), pp. 147-171 Herring, S. C. (2013). Relevance in computer-mediated conversation. In S. C. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Berlin: Mouton. Prepublication version: http://ella.slis.ind iana.edu/~herring/relevance.pdf Herring, Susan C. 1999 Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4(4). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html Relieu, M. (2009) Mobile phone “work”: disengaging and engaging mobile phone activities with concurrent activities. In R., Ling, and S., Campbell (Eds.). The reconstruction of space and time: Mobile communication practices. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> À: "AoIR-L" <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Envoyé: Mercredi 17 Juillet 2013 06:14:46 Objet: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Bring on the navel gazing! Seriously, though, I think we need to be thoughtful about our covering terms. The ways of categorizing and the names of those categories shape how we then subsequently think of those categories and what gets included and excluded (as others have said; I am reminded of Lakoff's discussion of metaphors and the ways we use language and it uses us to shape understanding of our shared reality.) Anyway, for me computer-mediated communication frames and privileges the human communication that occurs via computer (with the help of the Internet, of course). But, I don’t quite know where to put mobile. The lineage of scholarship on mobile has not historically used CMC as a covering term (I think Rich noted that), because until recently mobile phones, while having microchips, were not the sort of processors we have in current smart phone technology. But, now that we have these amazing smart phones (heh, *smart* phones), I don't know, maybe we should apply CMC as the categorizing term. I noted my preference for digital media as a term. It describes a particular set of channels that serve as the means to communication (the parallel term for me is mass media). But, now Charles and others have forced me to think more about what gets included and what gets excluded with that term. I thought I knew, but now I don't! The joys of navel gazing, one's perspective shifts. ~Jenny -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Bowman Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:43 PM To: AoIR-L; Christian Licoppe Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Ah! I was waiting for the debate over the over-privileging of technology/machine in the "C"MC definition. To be honest, I don't know if we've (as a field) really specified why "computer" is so important (besides the fact that "we are using computing technology" - to the extent that we have really explained 'computing' as an important feature. Is pen and pencil a computational task in the same way rendering a message via text is, for example?). Some might see this discussion as "navel-gazing" but to be honest, I like when we all push each other's views. I don't personally buy the Wittgensteinian approach and I do tend to (and, to be frank, want to) privilege the machine, but it is now on me to actually draft the arguments, right? Apologies for the exploding e-mail box. If there are any bloggers out there (I moderate "On Media Theory ( http://onmediatheory.blogspot.de/ )..." but I haven't posted since semester break) I'd be curious to read/write/share thoughts on this in a more deliberate and less obtrusive (for those who don't want to read the spam of our conversation), permanent space. I'm also eager to track down the Herring et al. article references earlier. The original question of course was one about embedding 'mobile' in 'CMC' and to that I say, "sure." Darja, thanks for the discussion prompt, >>und 'allo aus Erfurt, Thuringen!<<. ~nick Nicholas David Bowman, Ph.D. ( http://ndbowman.info/ )Assistant Professor of Communication Studies; Research Associate, Media and Interaction Lab West Virginia University Vice-Chair, Game Studies Interest Group International Communication Association Interim Social Media Director Eastern Communication Association ______________________ Twitter @bowmanspartan Skype ID: nicholasdbowman On Media Theory... ( http://onmediatheory.blogspot.com/ )
Christian Licoppe <christian.licoppe@telecom-paristech.fr> 16-Jul-13 18:08 >>> Dear all
rather than wondering under which conditions one may embed mobile communication in cmc one may also wonder whether there is such a thing as cmc (with its hint of technological determinism : "computer"-MC and whether it would not be more fruitful to adopt a more wittgensteinian approach, and focus on different "language games" performed in various media (including face to face, and paper media) and settings, and bearing a form of "family resemblance" between them Christian Licoppe Department of Social Science, Telecom Paristech 33 (0)6 87 09 99 48 ----- Mail original ----- De: "Nicholas Bowman" <Nicholas.Bowman@mail.wvu.edu> À: alex@halavais.net, "AoIR-L" <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Envoyé: Mardi 16 Juillet 2013 17:54:23 Objet: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included? Quick response: I think we "care" for all of the reasons that you list (for better or worse) but really, the fourth is key. Theories are based on assumptions, and those assumptions are what we test when trying to understand the influence of, in this case, technology on the human communication process. If we literally interpret CMC as "computer-mediated communication" then we might suggest that any medium (go-between) that computationally handles(renders?) a message from a sender to a receiver should be considered. A cell phone certainly being a device that takes my original message, renders it into binary waves that are transmitted to another device and re-rendered in part (i..e, the cell phone can't render my non-verbals such as facial expressions, etc.) before delivered to a receiver. Such research tends to focus on message components that are altered in the rendering/re-rendering process (such as losing non-verbals). If we talk about CMC when we really mean social media, then perhaps we are studying the "masspersonal" nature of information, existing persistently in large, dynamic and semi-public series of social networks. Issues of privacy and negotiating identity, representation and "we are all media" and muted groups theory, etc. With the above examples, CMC as "rendering" and CMC as "social media" aren't really the same thing. Or perhaps one encompassed the other (all social media render messages, therefore they are CMC. But not all CMC are social media, because not all CMC exist in persistent, semi-public networks). I very much like Alex's comments, but I'm not too quick to dismiss the issue of definition (and neither is he, from the onset) - and I'm very happy to see others engaging the discussion as well. Definitions can be limiting, but they focus our theorizing on the particular phenomenon for which the theories are supposed to apply to. Hence, we avoid comparing angels to pins. Of course, after writing this I tell our original poster: "Yes, mobile communication is CMC." =) [Apologies: I've missed several earlier posts in here that I wasn't able to read before I deleted them in my filter - I saw that friend Steven Lovaas posted something, so I'm going to assume his comments were pretty smart. ;p ]
Alexander Halavais <halavais@gmail.com> 16-Jul-13 17:08 >>> Who cares?
Hi all,
I am interested that CMC is now (perhaps?) being applied to mobile comm. There is a long tradition (on the side of mobile research) of simply calling it mobile communication. My sense is that this has been common for the last decade. Clearly there are exceptions, but there is a legacy along these lines. There is a strong flavor of one-to-one interaction, mediated through telecom networks using mobile phones.
More recently there has been the rise of smart phones that combine the more traditional mobile communication (that is one-to-one interaction) with more SNS type of quasi-broadcast mode. Again, there are many shades of this discussion.
There are computers involved in all of this so in a broad sense "computer mediated" is applicable. However, it seems as though folding social networking into the mobile handset has given the discussion a turn in the direction of internet or PC-based nomenclature.
Rich L.
Sent from IPhone
On 16. juli 2013, at 15:47, "Lois Scheidt" <lscheidt@indiana.edu> wrote:
Susan Herring has an article that addresses state of the field in CMC at: Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T., Eds. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Handbook of pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 3-31). Berlin: Mouton. Prepublication version:
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/CMC.pragmatics.intro.herring.et.al.pdf
She also has an article that tackles the nomenclature issue but I'm
not
putting my hands on it at the moment. I've cc'd her so maybe she can contribute that information or one of the other readers may have it as well.
Lois
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Pask-Hughes, Alexander < a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
Dear all,
I did reply off list to suggest Caroline Tagg's book about the discourse of text messaging, though in retrospect I'm not sure that really answers Darja's question.
One problem, which has been alluded to, is that the term CMC presupposes that the thing doing the mediating (the "computer"), is what defines the communication in some way. And it might be, but I think it might be dangerous to presuppose this.
The other issue is what CMC is contrasted with. Are we saying that "computer-mediated communication" is somehow different from "face-to-face communication"? What about those contexts where face-to-face communication is computer-mediated in a less obvious way? For example, when I go into a coffee shop and am speaking to the cashier, is this "computer-mediated communication"? Well, yes, in the sense that the "computer" (the "till" or "cash register") is mediating our interaction. And if we're extending the term to account for practices such as these, does the term start to lose it's usefulness?
From this perspective, I have a feeling that some of the Scollon's work (e.g. Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice [2001] or Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet [2004]) or work in Literacy Studies (e.g. by David Barton, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear, Guy Merchant) may be useful for you.
Alexander David Pask-Hughes
Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University
a.pask-hughes@lancaster.ac.uk adpaskhughes@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter: @adpaskhughes ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Lovaas,Steven [Steven.Lovaas@ColoState.EDU] Sent: 16 July 2013 07:33 To: Charles Ess; Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Charles, Jenny and Darja,
Personally, as an IT security professional, I find the notion of 'digital bug spray' quite appealing :)
But as for CMC, while the term has a certain cachet simply through repeated use, it does seem (to me) to suggest a limit on what counts as a valid instance of "communication": the transmissional model of person-->technology-->person and back again. The computer (or a network thereof) is the mediator... a mere tool; only people are privileged as proper communicators. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we always (or ever) have deep, meaningful relationships with our computing platform of choice, but certainly we ought at least to consider that some non-human elements of our vast global technological web might be considered valid communication partners in their own right. If that's even vaguely palatable, what then is the mediator in CMC?
"ICT" seems too heavily technology-oriented, while "HCI" seems to ignore the human-to-human aspect. Ought we strive for an all-encompassing term that expresses something like "communication across, through, with, and about computer technology"? Or maybe we should take a step back... what did we call it before the advent of the interwebs? I believe we naively, quaintly referred to it simply as Communication, understanding that it could happen face-to-face or over a telephone line or two-way radio or even video-phone. If it was one-way, from single producer to many consumers, we might narrow it down to "Mass" comm, but it was still communication no matter what technology was used (paper, radio waves, or whatever). "Technical" communication had more to do with communicating technical topics than with any particular medium. In fact, "medium" is the mediator (if not always the message). Can I have mediated communication in which the mediator is a human? Certainly. Can I similarly have direct, unmediated communication with a computer artifact? I think so. And, based on the wonderfully diverse papers I heard in Salford last year, we care about all of those shades of meaning.
OK, so where does that leave us? We tend to want to say things that are fairly broadly (if not universally) true, or at least useful across contexts. The internet (yes, including mobile phones) has become a pretty stinkin' huge context, and some folks are wondering whether we need to be attending to the possibilities of communicative relationships with non-human actors. So. If the M (mediated) feels too limiting, and the first C (computer) is too prescriptive, does retreating to "just" Communication feel somehow unsatisfying?
Some organizations from the early days of the internet (q.v. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) have folded. I suspect, in part, that the ubiquity of the internet has lessened the interest or impact of groups specifically dedicated to looking at how computers have *changed* traditional fields. Computers are now inextricably *part* of every traditional field. So what does it mean to be an internet researcher? Is there a name we can claim that's different from those organizations that focus on traditional issues in Communication (though acknowledging internet issues)? I suspect that, as a baseline, our organization requires *some* sort of involvement with a technological element. As a newbie in some senses (though an experienced internet dude in others), I'll throw out a few possibilities... just to roil the waters.
Human-Computer-Communication (HCC) Networked Communication Networked Human Communication Riding the Shockwave (sorry, just had to) Network Actors, Technologies, Communicating Humans ('natch!)
Yikes... time for bed.
Steve
=================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644
daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ =================== Steven Lovaas IT Security Manager Colorado State University steven.lovaas@colostate.edu 970-297-3707 =================== ________________________________________ From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja - This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an accurate (much less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though not nearly as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main processing and transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate (necessarily) with analogue inputs and outputs. (We remain stubbornly embodied, for better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not digitally-based.)
While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it does seem to me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we examine in the various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us simply call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether within mobile devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the processing that takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between these devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication devices. I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term being too restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital media" too restrictive? But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for the sake of discussion? (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so much ... Smile)
In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or two to suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but that mobile communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication, others mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
I don't mean that to be dismissive, I mean it as a real question. CMC isn't a "thing" without its context. Louis mentions CMC as a "field." And OK, but even that is awfully vague. It seems that this question is often raised as a "that doesn't 'count' in our field"--a label for excluding certain ways of doing research or thinking about it. Without that context, the discussion of what to call this stuff seems to me to be a bit like arguing about angels and pins. Who cares what it's called or how it's clustered? Off-hand, I can think of a few contexts in which people might care: * The purview of a journal. ("Oh, no, we can't publish that in JCMC, because it has to do with mobile communication!") * A curriculum. ("How could we have a CMC degree without ever having a course in social networks‽") * A department. ("We can't hire her, she doesn't really *do* CMC.") * To apply a theory. ("While I can't make the claim that this relationship holds for all media, in CMC, X appears to be related to Y in the following Z ways.") The first three of these seem to me to be largely questions of setting up borders for defending academic silos: again, the sort of "psychiatry isn't a science!" border policing that lets people defend turf. To me, those questions end up being pretty wasteful of time and energy. Isn't it about time for another Crisis in the Field (name your field) special issue? The last of these might have some merit, but requires that the range be provisionally and explicitly defined. I can say that what I am writing about extends to social media, but I need to be clear about what I mean when I say it, and whether it includes telephones (or newspapers, or only Facebook, etc.). I recognize that shorthand may be useful ("This is CMC; these are the important theorists to the field; these are the journals that count; these are the places where it is studied") but ultimately I suspect that it's a lot of work to set up boundaries that have little hope of holding and can do as much injury as good. - Alex On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:05 AM, <Richard.Ling@telenor.com> wrote: - -
including
texting and voice communication on mobile phones certainly counts as CMC. (Indeed, the current generation of smart phones offer more computational processing power and memory than the supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW. Maybe we could call it super-computer mediated communication, just to gum up the works further?)
Again, many thanks - - charles
On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer@syr.edu> wrote:
This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss about these days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do with the Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many devices "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe even quaint.
The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and communication technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication technologies' (or simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my covering terms, rather than CMC.
I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym that makes me think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I can't really articulate.
I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the telephone and e-mail are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook or Twitter, which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as possible.
I would be curious what others think about the jargon and covering terms we use these days.
~Jenny
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Darja Dayter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
Dear all,
I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these days. Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for instance? It would be great if you could point me in the direction of sources that deal explicitly with this issue!
Thanks beforehand, Darja
-- Darja Dayter, M.A. Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel. 0921/55-4644
daria.dayter@uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Lois Ann Scheidt Doctoral Candidate Department of Information & Library Science, School of Informatics & Computing Indiana University, Bloomington IN USA Webpage: http://www.loisscheidt.com CV: http://www.loisscheidt.com/cv.html Blog: http://www.professional-lurker.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/
-- -- // // This email is // [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [x] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur // http://alex.halavais.net // // Please attribute any stupid errors above to autocorrect on my phone. // (But I probably was typing on a keyboard.) _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
On 2013-07-17 02:10, Marc Relieu wrote:
At the same time, mobile phone communicational exchanges tend to overthrow one of the main hypothesis of classical CMC studies on the autonomy of on line exchanges. Because many mobile communicational exchanges are deeply rooted into the web of other practices (findind his way for instance) there are many reasons to consider these exchanges as hybrid, both shaped by the dynamics of the mediated context and by the organization of communicational involvments into the nearby environment (for instance Relieu, 2009).
I don't quite follow that but it sounds very interesting. Can you please expand on that a little bit? Kevin
participants (12)
-
Alexander Halavais -
Charles Ess -
Christian Licoppe -
Darja Dayter -
Jennifer Stromer-Galley -
krguidry＠mistakengoal.com -
Lois Scheidt -
Lovaas,Steven -
Marc Relieu -
Nicholas Bowman -
Pask-Hughes, Alexander -
Richard.Ling＠telenor.com