This week’s readings shed light on the trade offs between face-to-face conversation (FtF) and the developing computer mediated communication (CMC). From CMC as solely a medium for the transmission of data and email in its early years, we have now warped it to create our own unique community, adhering to various societal needs. Last week we discussed in class how we feel text based communication is impersonal and we only practice it for our convenience. We have already identified these limitations such as non-verbal cues, which at times disclose more about a communicator and conversation than the actual words being spoken. Interestingly, the readings pointed out that because of the lack of non-verbal cues, CMC communicators rely heavily on minimal cues and eventually engage in expression that cannot be done through FtF. I can think of various examples that we use via facebook, aim, or other blog/networking sites, such as the common happy faces, the “hehe”, overemphasis on text using “!”, and text slang like, “kewl.” Through this expression, we save ourselves from becoming a transactional being like the computer. The new ways of expression we create through CMC shape our individuality.
On the other hand, the readings noted that through CMC communicators strengthen their decision-making process, rationality, and increased task orientation all through a transactional process. Surprisingly, the anonymity of a CMC group creates greater cohesiveness. Here there is a greater distribution of group member communication, and a lack of dominance or charisma between members that create effective CMC groups. With these barriers that we find in common FtF communication absent, communicators in CMC have significantly higher levels of self disclosure and hyperpersonality (psychological processes that exceed FtF interpersonal communication). This we saw happen in the chat rooms on Wednesday. Anonymity allows one to comfortably express their true self, which is why we saw people randomly disclose their likes and dislikes in a wide range of topics in the chat rooms. The notion of hyperpersonality, was clearly illustrated in the dialog between Dark Mystery and The Flame, where Dark Mystery said something along the lines of , “The Flame looks at the ground and sees a hose..” The creativity here wouldn’t normally be used in FtF conversation.
Some questions I have for discussion are:
1. How do you feel about the inevitable over reliance on minimal cues that we use to get to know communicators through CMC? Do you find it a hassle, impractical, or convenient? How do you rely on these cues?
2. Research shows that long term CMC groups have less attraction and affinity if they see a still picture of a fellow communicator. Why do you think this is?
3. The readings reveal how CMC groups are task effective. Our last reading discussed collective action through CMC. Do you think collective action movements via CMC have a better chance than through FtF communication?
Friday, January 25, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
CMC and Collective Action
The readings for this week generally defined computer mediated communication and the topics with which CMC research is concerned. One topic which continually came up was the revolutionarily interactive nature of CMC, and the new ways in which humans are communicating because of it. Individuals are now able to express and discuss their ideas and opinions in a highly organized, real-time structure that promotes rationality. Power is decentralized, and without the pressure of external forces that might be found offline (distance, social pressure, time, government…) great power is given to the masses. People have twisted this power into many different forms, nevertheless the internet has changed the way we live by giving us new ways to communicate as well as the place in which to gather, debate, test our ideas and opinions, and form the launching pad for collective action. There have been cases already in which people have demonstrated the power CMC gives us. Below are links to a few notable events that were greatly impacted by CMC. I’m linking to Wikipedia as just one more example of how CMC is changing the way we aggregate and access information.
- Incident in the
- Warblogging during the second gulf war revolutionized war reporting, holding governments highly accountable for their actions.
- ‘Rathergate’ scandal in which the blogging community stood toe to toe with the CBS corporation in exposing forgeries presented as news, resulting in the resignation of several of CBS’ top officials.
My question to the class is: do you think this kind of collective action will continue to take place on the internet? If so how might emerging technologies assist or hinder our ability to do so?
Syllabus
... because it doesn't hurt to have another copy on our course blog. Click here for the latest version, though.
Communication 321: Communication in the Virtual Group
Spring 2008 M W 10:00 – 11:50 in ASC 240
Instructor: Elaine Chan
Office: Ph.D. Office
Hours: M W 12:00 – 1:00, and by appointment
Course Description
Over the course of the semester we will be examining the social and psychological effects of computer-mediated communication and its associated technologies and cultures. The readings in the course include individual, group, and community-level phenomenon, and often are empirically-based. The goal of the course is to provide the student a broad overview of theories and research concerning communication online.
Course Materials
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., and Tomic, A. (2004) Computer-Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet. Los Angeles: Sage. You can purchase it online at Amazon.com and elsewhere.
Other required readings (mostly articles) will be made available to you via Blackboard or hyperlinks. Assigned readings are subject to change – please check the schedule of classes regularly for the most updated version.
Components of the Course Grade:
· Blog posts and comments – personal posts based on course readings on assigned weeks (300-500 words) 16% and comments on other students’ postings on other weeks 16% [course blog]
· Assignments – four, 1-2 page assignments 30% [assignments]
· Class participation - based on contributions to in-class discussion 10%
· Final paper – students will have the opportunity to do research on an online medium or community of their choice, 8-10 pages 28%
Blog Postings and Comments: Students will sign up for assigned weeks (3 or 4) on which they will submit blog post commentaries on the readings for the upcoming week (300-500 words). Good commentaries will:
- focus on all of the readings for the upcoming week
- do not merely summarize, but focus instead on an evaluating the readings
- identify 3-4 questions for discussion during the class meeting
(focus on the papers’ key issues, strengths and limitations, and a comparison to previous weeks’ readings).
Postings should be made to the class blog by 10pm on the Friday before we will discuss the assigned readings.
On other (unassigned) weeks, each student should post comments (min. 125 words) to their fellow students’ blog commentary. Excellent comments can offer a critique of that week’s posting, seek clarification, compare or contrast postings, or provide additional evidence or new information (such as a link to a related article, website, etc.).
Each student must contribute a minimum of 15 comments. Students can earn credit for a maximum of two comments each week.
Class Participation: Good participation in class discussion extremely similar to good comments in a blog thread, without a specific word limitation. Note that you must attend class in order to participate.
Final Paper: Throughout the semester you will be tracking one or two online sites / communities that are interesting to you. Your paper should include both material from the course readings and independent research in your analysis of the site. More information about final paper specifications will be provided later in the semester.
Academic Integrity Policy
The School of Communication is committed to the highest standards of academic excellence and ethical support. It endorses and acts on the school policies and procedures detailed in the SCampus section titled: "University Student Conduct Code." See especially Appendix A: "Academic Dishonesty Sanction Guidelines." The policies, procedures, and guidelines will be assiduously upheld. They protect your rights, as well as those of the faculty. It is particularly important that you are aware of and avoid plagiarism, cheating on exams, fabricating data for a project, submitting the same paper to more than one professor, or submitting a paper authored by anyone but yourself. If you have questions about any of these matters, confer with the instructor.
Academic Accommodation based on Disability
Any student requesting academic accommodation based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP. Please be sure the letter is delivered to the instructor as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The phone number for DSP is (213) 740-0776.
Schedule of Classes
MONDAY JANUARY 14
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 16
ONLINE COMMUNICATION MEDIA
· Scholz, T. (2007). A history of the social web.
· Pew Internet and American Life: Activities Americans Have Ever Done Online.
· Activities Americans Do Each Day
MONDAY JANUARY 21
NO CLASS
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 23
CMC AS NEW TECHNOLOGY
· TLT, pages 1-7, 14-33, 75-79, 163-169, 181-186, 228-231 Click for readings
MONDAY JANUARY 28
MEDIA RICHNESS
· TLT, pages 45-57
· Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.[PDF]
** ASSIGNMENT # 1 DUE **
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 30
SELF DISCLOSURE
· Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity.
MONDAY FEBRUARY 4
LANGUAGE
· TLT, pages 118-128
· Walther, J. B., & D'Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19 (3), 323-345.
· Browse NetLingo The Internet Dictionary
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 6
IMPRESSION FORMATION
· Jacobson, D. (1999). Impression formation in cyberspace: Online expectations and offline experiences in text-based virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue1/jacobson.html
MONDAY FEBRUARY 11
IDENTITY / SELF-REPRESENTATION
· TLT, pages 95-106
· Boyd, D. & Heer, J. (2006) Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on Friendster.
http://www.danah.org/papers/HICSS2006.pdf
· Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 13
ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS I
· TLT, pages 137-142.
· Madden, M. & Lenhart, A. (2006). Online Dating. Pew Internet & American Life. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Dating.pdf
MONDAY FEBRUARY 18
NO CLASS
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 20
ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS II
· Hitch, G., Hortacsu, A. & Ariely, D. (2006). What makes you click: An empirical analysis of online dating.
http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2006/0106_0800_0502.pdf
· Egan, J. (2003). Love in the time of no time. New York Times Magazine.
MONDAY FEBRUARY 25
REDUCED SOCIAL CUES
· TLT, pages 58-80
· Yee, N. & Bailenson, J.N. (2007). The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior. Human Communication Research, 33, 271-290.
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 27
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
· TLT, pages 148-159
· Wikipedia article on Megan Meier suicide controversy
· Zetter, K. (2007). Cyberbullying suicide stokes the Internet fury machine. Wired. http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/vigilante_justice
and follow-up
MONDAY MARCH 3
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR II
· Foo, C.Y. & Koivisto, E.M.I. (2004). Defining grief play in MMORPGS: Player and developer perceptions. ACM International Conference Proceedings.
· Anderssen, E. (2007, September 7). Frontier justice: Can virtual worlds be civilized? Globe and Mail.
** ASSIGNMENT # 2 DUE **
WEDNESDAY MARCH 5
COMPULSIVE USE
· Griffiths, M. (2000). Does internet and computer “addiction” exist? Some case study evidence. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 3(2), 211-218.
· Payne, J.W. (2006, November 14). Caught in the web: More people say heavy internet use is disrupting their lives, and medical experts are paying attention.
· Clark, N. (2007). WTF is game addiction?
MONDAY MARCH 10
COOPERATION
· Jensen, C., Farnham, S., Drucker, S., & Kollock, P. (2000). The effect of communication modality on cooperation in online environments. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings, 470-477.
WEDNESDAY MARCH 12
RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
· Cummings, J., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.
MONDAY MARCH 17 & WEDNESDAY MARCH 19
NO CLASS – SPRING RECESS
MONDAY MARCH 24
SOCIAL NETWORKING
· Boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html
WEDNESDAY MARCH 26
SOCIAL NETWORKING
· Rosen, C. (2007). Virtual friendship and the new narcissism. The New Atlantis. Summer 2007, 15-31.
· Doctorow, C. (2007). How your creepy ex-co-workers will kill Facebook. Information Week.
** ASSIGNMENT # 3 DUE **
MONDAY MARCH 31
PRIVACY
· Rainie, L., Horrigan, J., Lenhart, A., Spooner, T., Carter, C., (2000). Trust and privacy online: Why Americans want to rewrite the rules. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Trust_Privacy_Report.pdf
· Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9), http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/barnes/index.html
WEDNESDAY APRIL 2
ONLINE COMMUNITY I
· Baym, N. (1998). The emergence of on-line community. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community, (pp. 35-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MONDAY APRIL 7
ONLINE COMMUNITY II
· Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A. Q., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., de Diaz, I. I., et al. (2003). The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/wellman.html
WEDNESDAY APRIL 9
SOCIAL WELLNESS
· Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html
MONDAY APRIL 14
PLAYING TOGETHER
· Steinkuehler, C. A., and Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as "third places." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/steinkuehler.html
** ASSIGNMENT # 4 DUE **
WEDNESDAY APRIL 16
PLAYING TOGETHER II
· Wired Travel Guide: Second Life (2006)
· My virtual life. (2006). Business Week.
MONDAY APRIL 21
THE VIRTUAL COMMONS
· Kollock, P. & Smith, M. (1996) Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/vcommons.htm
WEDNESDAY APRIL 23
THE EVERYDAY INTERNET
· Ling, R. & Yttri, B. (2002). Hypercoordination. In J. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.) Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
· Bakardjieva, M. and Smith, R. (2001). The Internet in Everyday Life. New Media and Society 3(1) 67-83.
MONDAY APRIL 28
REVIEW
WEDNESDAY APRIL 30
** FINAL PAPER DUE **
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)