[Air-l] CMC, ICT, digital communication

[Charlie Balch]

This reminds me of the classic arguments of Clark and Kozmo. I tend to agree
with Kozmo that the medium does change the message. Andrew does bring to our
attention that our termonalogy is too vague.

For instance, with CMC, what do we mean by a computer? Would an iPod count?
How about text messaging on a cell phone? Both devices are arguably
computers and the certainly change the way we communicate.  On the other
hand, audio or video confercing systems do not change the content of the
message to the extent that pod casting and text messaging do. Such systems
usually involve computers.

I also see a distinct difference between computer mediated and online. Yes,
online communication is usually mediated by computers but computers can
mediate communication without being online. This would also depend on your
definition of communication. For instance, does Shakespear still
communicate?  Is a computer based tutorial communicating? I think both
Shakespear and computer tutorials commmunicate.

It is fascinating to explore how our communication is changed by the methods
we have to communicate. 

Charlie Balch
Professor CIS Arizona Western College
Doctoral Candidate, LSU
Yuma, AZ


-----Original Message-----
From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
[mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Pam Brewer
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:46 AM
To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
Subject: Re: [Air-l] CMC, ICT, digital communication

Andrew and all--

I think it's important that we only file a term as "archaic" if it has
ceased to serve the function for which it was coined.  We gain a lot of
knowledge capital from using these terms consistently over time.  That is,
our field constructs a lot of contextual information regarding a term that
is valuable.  It seems that the reservations with "computer-mediated
communication" stem from the fact that communication mediated by technology
has become more and more varied.  I particularly like some of Andrew's
suggestions here--that we use the specific terms whenever possible but that
we have a common broader term--I am drawn to "online communication" for the
reasons Andrew has outlined, and, as I consider it, I don't see the more
complex CMC as conveying any more or different meaning.

Pam

Pamela Estes Brewer
Lecturer -- Coordinator, Professional Writing Department of English and
Philosophy Murray State University PhD Student in Technical Communication &
Rhetoric, Texas Tech University
270-809-4719
fax 270-809-4545
pam.brewer 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/