- This one is an older article from 1996, the beginning of pervasive computing. To work effectively with young adult readers, I need to understand how we got where we are. This article is a good building block for that.
Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
Walther (1996) reviews some previous literature on the subject of CMC, some of which describes CMC as inappropriate for task-related communication, and some of which describes it as a poor choice for interpersonal communication. This dichotomy of differing opinions on CMC inspired Walther to investigate why, if CMC is apparently good for nothing, so many people continue to use if for those very purposes. He proposes integrating the conflicting theories by considering them to be conditional – that certain theories apply in certain situations and not in others. The author predicts that it is possible that CMC might, given the right sets of circumstances, surpass FTF (face-to-face) communication in some settings.
Even though American culture places high value on friendliness and intimate interactions, there is a time and a place for those things, and professional communications are generally an area where the ability to reduce emotional content and individual flavor might be more appropriate. Some research suggests that using CMC in a work environment can act as an equalizer, allowing those who would tend to be more passive to participate on more equal footing with those who might dominate in FTF conversation. Walther acknowledges that some of this research has been heavily questioned, but maintains his position that in some circumstances, CMC can have a beneficial democratizing effect.
Walther’s position seems to be to take in a broad spectrum of previous research and instead of making sweeping statements about which ones are right and which ones are wrong, finding situations in which various parts of the body of research in this area apply. This inclusive approach makes more sense given that even in 1996, CMC was fairly integrated into both professional and personal levels.
The issue of whether CMC is impersonal at its very core due to the absence of the kinds of cues found in FTF interactions is pervasive. Numerous articles cited address the absence of “social cues,” and the Social Presence Theory (Short, Williams, and Christie, 1976) asserts that the fewer cues there are, the more impersonal the interaction will be. Walther rejects the notion that CMC is an inherently impersonal mode of communication.
As useful as Walther’s integration of different theories is, he acknowledges that this approach makes it more difficult to come to a consensus; however, this is only a problem if consensus is the goal. If it is more appropriate to point out that CMC spawns new kinds of situations which must be examined individually, then that is a type of consensus – kind of like agreeing to disagree. Some studies revealed that the nature of CMC conversations became more personal than was expected, with the sender presenting a “best-of” of themselves, the receiver maintaining idealized versions of the sender. Walther concludes that CMC is neither impersonal nor hyperpersonal by nature, rather, that the nature of interactions involving CMC is a means to an end – a tool that can, depending upon the levels of investment and purpose of the user, be one, both, or a combination.
Walther (1996) reviews some previous literature on the subject of CMC, some of which describes CMC as inappropriate for task-related communication, and some of which describes it as a poor choice for interpersonal communication. This dichotomy of differing opinions on CMC inspired Walther to investigate why, if CMC is apparently good for nothing, so many people continue to use if for those very purposes. He proposes integrating the conflicting theories by considering them to be conditional – that certain theories apply in certain situations and not in others. The author predicts that it is possible that CMC might, given the right sets of circumstances, surpass FTF (face-to-face) communication in some settings.
Even though American culture places high value on friendliness and intimate interactions, there is a time and a place for those things, and professional communications are generally an area where the ability to reduce emotional content and individual flavor might be more appropriate. Some research suggests that using CMC in a work environment can act as an equalizer, allowing those who would tend to be more passive to participate on more equal footing with those who might dominate in FTF conversation. Walther acknowledges that some of this research has been heavily questioned, but maintains his position that in some circumstances, CMC can have a beneficial democratizing effect.
Walther’s position seems to be to take in a broad spectrum of previous research and instead of making sweeping statements about which ones are right and which ones are wrong, finding situations in which various parts of the body of research in this area apply. This inclusive approach makes more sense given that even in 1996, CMC was fairly integrated into both professional and personal levels.
The issue of whether CMC is impersonal at its very core due to the absence of the kinds of cues found in FTF interactions is pervasive. Numerous articles cited address the absence of “social cues,” and the Social Presence Theory (Short, Williams, and Christie, 1976) asserts that the fewer cues there are, the more impersonal the interaction will be. Walther rejects the notion that CMC is an inherently impersonal mode of communication.
As useful as Walther’s integration of different theories is, he acknowledges that this approach makes it more difficult to come to a consensus; however, this is only a problem if consensus is the goal. If it is more appropriate to point out that CMC spawns new kinds of situations which must be examined individually, then that is a type of consensus – kind of like agreeing to disagree. Some studies revealed that the nature of CMC conversations became more personal than was expected, with the sender presenting a “best-of” of themselves, the receiver maintaining idealized versions of the sender. Walther concludes that CMC is neither impersonal nor hyperpersonal by nature, rather, that the nature of interactions involving CMC is a means to an end – a tool that can, depending upon the levels of investment and purpose of the user, be one, both, or a combination.
No comments:
Post a Comment