[Air-l] CMC, ICT, digital communication

[Christopher J. Richter]

Umbrella terms can be useful in certain contexts, but virtually by
definition they are also vague, ambiguous and abstract--the more so the
bigger the umbrella.

Ambiguity is not necessarily a bad thing (it is one basis for the
effectiveness of poetry), and in any case is inevitable in
communication.  We can minimize it by defining how we each use a
specific term in our specific writings.  But as far as trying to get all
the rest of us to agree on the specific correct term, or the precise
meaning of such a term . . . . it may make for a good discussion process
(or a flame war), but I think is unlikely to yield a product.

Christopher J. Richter
Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Communication Studies
Hollins University
P.O. Box 9652
Roanoke VA, 24020
Tel. 5403626358
Fax 5403626286
e-mail crichter at hollins.edu
web www.hollins.edu
 
-----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 12:25 PM
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