Text-based interaction/Social science stuff

[Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.]

In "Cues in, Cues out" the authors argue that "for good or ill, the Internet is a profoundly social medium" (530). To this I respond: No kidding. The word "internet" itself refers to a linking, a sharing of information. How could it be anything BUT social?

They also choose to focus their attention on "text-based interaction" (532). By "text" they seem to assume "words"--chat, MUD, MOO, etc. However, it seems odd to separate the "word" part of online interaction from the visual--even the text is arranged in a visual way, arranged to promote a chronological reading. "Threads" on BBs and some MUDs show not only chronological relations, but developmental ones; topics split, have subtopics and replies. Replies are the heart of BBs, blogs, fan platforms, etc--and these, while mainly textual, have a visual component that encourages a "community" feel, encourages a particular reading of the community (one way or another, depending on the type of community). To call the icons, music, and visual arrangment in general "extraneous" by omitting it from your study is the same as omitting adverbs and adjectives from a study of a piece of literature. You'll get the plot, the structure, the basic point, but the subtle meanings will most certainly be lost. It's not about delivering a message or completing a "task."

Nonverbal cues "filtered out"--researchers assume, the authors say, that the low bandwidth of "text only" communication leads to self absorption and lower social interaction abilities because the social cues used in f2f conversation are not 'present' (visual, embodied). This is, of course, the point of disability studies that focus on the internet, the glory of the online utopianist movement. The noncorporeal means cues are filtered out--but that's good! Those cues restrain us! Contain us! Put us in a chair! Gibson's Idoru plays with this, and comes to few, if any conclusions (although the third part of the trilogy might answer some of those...)Is the body really needed? Are our social cues worth anything?

[Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American Psyschologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.]


Key idea: Depersonalization. When you go online, you "leave something behind" (Matei). This can create counter productive behaviors--or it can create positive behaviors.
"Is computer-mediated communication simply disorderly, perhaps because there is no constraint on interruptions and distracting remarks?" (1129)
"...in computer communication there is less influence and control of a dominant person, moderator, or leader" (1130).

Baym, N. (1998). The emergence of on-line community. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0 (pp. 35-68). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

"Writers who position themselves as participants as well as observers often emphasize emotion in their use of 'community'" (36).
"The dominant concern underlying most criticism of online community is that in an increasingly fragmented off-line world, on-line groups substitute for 'real'(i.e. geographically local) community, falling short in several interwoven regards" (36).
On B Anderson: "I argue here that an on-line community's 'style' is shaped by a range of preexisting structures, including external contexts, temporal structure, system infrastructure, group purposes, and participant characteristics" (38).