[Air-l] CMC, ICT, digital communication

Tue Jul 25 06:40:17 PDT 2006

Thanks for all your thoughts on this. I'm eager to see how the  
discussion continues.

Hans' suggestion to look at the Information Society is particularly  
interesting--especially since the journal cannot be accessed online  
for one year after it's publication date (the reason: embargo--i'd  
love to hear the explanation). The inaccessibility of a journal about  
online communication and "information" speaks volumes to the general  
discussion about appropriate terms--and what we expect of online  
communication and information.

I do think it's necessary to find an umbrella term to talk about  
digital networked communication (I use this term tentively)--one that  
takes into account that we cannot anticipate how what we  
"communicate," (and here, coming from a post-structuralist and  
cultural studies background, I mean much the same as Hans--that  
language cannot be transparent and communication is and cannot be  
received or interpreted in ways identical to how we send it) or how  
the bytes we transmit will "travel," (i.e. the route of the  
information) or how they will be received. In other words,  
understanding that information is transmitted digitally from  
"others" (other people, other places) encourages a media-specific  
term, but assuming that this term, as Charlie points out, means  
computer to computer is now out of the question.

Similarly, assuming what we send will be read as we expect it--even  
if you are invested in the idea that communication does occur--should  
also be inherent in terminology (and thus far, is not). Think of  
different browser qualities (safari verses outlook explorer or  
computer versus blackberry, for instance)--what people see can vary  
greatly from what is sent.

In the past, it has been useful to place television in one category  
when considering broadcasting and/or spectatorship, and telephony in  
another, when examining the implications of (almost) instantaneous  
voice transmission.

Consequently, I find it imperative to have a category (as most have  
agreed) that takes into account the increasing flexibility--where we  
might as easily be watching a downloaded television show on our ipod  
OR on our harddrive, networked television or talk through regular  
telephones via vonage as surfing the internet--yet the way  
information arrives is related. The term must maintain an awareness  
of the complexity of these new vehicles for digital transmission and  
increasing possible interfaces for their consumption.

This is not to discourage specific considerations--which should use  
terms as specifically as possible. At this point, studying "internet  
use" may be too broad--www or IRC or mobile-to-mobile SMS, located in  
a particular moment and among specific users speaks more to the point.

I find it interesting, and compelling, that CMC is outdated. And as a  
"former" scholar of CMC, I'm still pondering over what term might  
speak best for my framework.

thanks and best wishes--
jillana
Jillana Enteen
jillana at jillana.net

On Jul 24, 2006, at 10:20 PM, Christopher J. Richter wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>