[Air-l] CMC, ICT, digital communication

[Lauren M. Squires]

Perhaps I am waaaay off here, but I'd always thought of "CMC" as
referring to the interaction that occurred through the mediation of
certain "ICT."  That is, doesn't ICT stand for "information and
communication technology"? whereas CMC stands for "computer mediated
communication"?  If this is the case, it could be that ICT is gaining
favor over CMC precisely because ICT permits more specification of
what KIND of mediation (or what KIND of "computer") a particular
application or use or network or device is offering, whereas CMC (as
Andrew pointed out) is a little broad and can problematically imply a
monolithic computer-mediated experience.

On the use of "online" as a substitute for "digital" or "CM," it seems
that it depends on what you want to study - if you're looking at
mobile phone use, for instance, then you're definitely covered by
"ICT" or "CMC," even if it's a little stretch to conceptualize a phone
as a "computer" (though in "computer"'s broader meaning I think it
works, and more and more phones do what computers do, anyway).  You're
not so obviously covered by the term "online," though.  It's nice to
have unifying terms, but I suspect there will always be some measure
of difference in how people in different disciplines and with
different foci will use them, conceptualize them, and deem them as
in/appropriate.

Very interested to see this discussion continue...
Lauren

On 7/24/06, Pam Brewer <pam.brewer at murraystate.edu> wrote:
> Andrew and all--
>
> I think it's important that we only file a term as "archaic" if it has
> ceased to serve the function for which it was coined.  We gain a lot of
> knowledge capital from using these terms consistently over time.  That is,
> our field constructs a lot of contextual information regarding a term that
> is valuable.  It seems that the reservations with "computer-mediated
> communication" stem from the fact that communication mediated by technology
> has become more and more varied.  I particularly like some of Andrew's
> suggestions here--that we use the specific terms whenever possible but that
> we have a common broader term--I am drawn to "online communication" for the
> reasons Andrew has outlined, and, as I consider it, I don't see the more
> complex CMC as conveying any more or different meaning.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela Estes Brewer
> Lecturer -- Coordinator, Professional Writing
> Department of English and Philosophy
> Murray State University
> PhD Student in Technical Communication & Rhetoric, Texas Tech University
> 270-809-4719
> fax 270-809-4545
> pam.brewer at murraystate.edu
>
>
> On March 1, 2006, Murray State University will begin moving all its phone
> numbers in the 762 exchange to an 809 exchange. My new numbers will be
> 270-809-4719 (office), and 270-809-4545 (FAX).
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
> [mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Ledbetter, Andrew
> Michael
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:25 AM
> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
> Subject: Re: [Air-l] CMC, ICT, digital communication
>
>
> I've struggled with the term "CMC" in my own writing. While I wouldn't agree
> that the term is "archaic" (as many scholars still use the term frequently),
> it does "feel" dated to me. Of course, that may just be my own subjective
> feeling. But, in my own writing, I have tried to refer to specific media as
> much as possible (e-mail, IM, chat, Facebook, etc.) rather than using the
> term "CMC"... which might be a healthy move on the whole, since we know that
> there are significant qualitative and quantitative differences in
> communication across those media, despite their common online nature.
>
> Yet, simultaneously, people sometimes seem to think about, and socially
> construct, online communication channels as a unified whole. Thus, it seems
> reasonable that we have an umbrella term to refer to such media. Recently, I
> have tended to use "online communication"---it is less verbose than
> "computer-mediated communication", seems less intrusive than an acronym, and
> seems broad enough to include a lot of different technologies (e.g., both
> Internet and non-Internet interaction, etc.). In short, it seems to get the
> job done all right, though I'm sure the term has shortcomings too. But of
> course, I'm sure appropriate terminology varies from discipline to
> discipline.
>
> Andrew M. Ledbetter
> Ph.D. Candidate and Graduate Teaching Assistant
> Department of Communication Studies
> University of Kansas
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org on behalf of Mark Bell
> Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 11:00 AM
> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
> Subject: Re: [Air-l] CMC, ICT, digital communication
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
> As far as I have been told, CMC is an outdated term. One professor told me
> it was archaic and vague - asking if we should also refer to "pen mediated
> communication". There certainly is a lot of research into how we communicate
> in the digital, multi-channel, immersive environment, so we should have a
> unifying term.
>
> It sounds like we need a new term but I agree digital communication and ICT
> are far too broad. The work I am doing with Wikipedia is definitely
> stigmergic in nature (or at least I hope to prove it is) but that is very
> different from IM or email.
>
> M
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
>


-- 
lauren m. squires
  lx: http://polyglotconspiracy.net
  cmc: http://sociocmc.blogspot.com