contemplating digital orality

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.

This 1996 article is quite dated in many of its discussions, including its characterization of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). While Walther never directly defines CMC in this article, he uses the term largely to refer only to text-based communication, such as email and chat. However, we now communicate online through other methods that offer various levels of modality, such as audio and video. Yet, within this article, Walther puts forth many ideas that are foundational to both my study and to the current state of CMC. Read the rest of this entry »

Nowak, K. L., Watt, J., Walther, J. B., Pascal, C., Hill, S., & Lynch, M. (2004/01/01/). Contrasting time mode and sensory modality in the performance of computer mediated groups using asynchronous videoconferencing. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Place of Publication: Los Alamitos, CA, USA; Big Island, HI, USA. Country of Publication: USA.

A foundational issue to my dissertation research is the question of what real differences there are between Face to Face (FtF) communication and various media, specifically video communication. This issue can be viewed from various perspectives, such as comprehension and retention, enjoyment, social bonding, ease of use, willingness to participate, etc. I frequently struggle with trying to avoid falling into the trap of perceiving one communication medium as inherently superior or inferior and instead attempt to look toward identifying what the real differences are and how they affect our communication choices and perceptions. However, identifying a given method’s superiority, or even a hierarchical inferiority-to-superiority structure of communication media is a common approach (e.g. theories of media richness, media synchronicity, and media naturalness). Generally, it is seen that Read the rest of this entry »

Kim, Junghyun. “Interpersonal Interaction in Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) : Exploratory Qualitative Research based on Critical Review of the Existing Theories” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Marriott Hotel, San Diego, CA, May 27, 2003.

Yet another theory Junghyun Kim discusses in his 2003 article.

Created by J.B. Walther (1992), this theory exemplifies Kim’s Personal Interaction Perspective, stating that, “CMC is no less personal than FtF communication, given sufficient time for message exchange and interpersonal relationship development.” (Kim 8). However, there does not seem to be a clear standard for what constitutes “sufficient time.” Therefore, while this theory seeks to measure interaction by time and rate of messages exchanged, the concepts are too vague to really apply them to experiments.

Read the rest of this entry »

This theory is foundational to my own research, with my current working dissertation title being: “The Online Video Conversation: Social Presence in the Asynchronous Online Classroom.” I will detail this much further later. However, I am now giving this overview, since I am discussing Junghyun Kim’s 2003 article this/last week, and he addresses this theory therein.

Basically, developed by John Short, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie in 1976, social presence theory measures communication media based on the degree of awareness of the other person in a communication interaction. In most cases, the higher the social presence level, the better the understanding of both speaker and message. The level is altered with the removal or addition of each communication modality, such as speech, non-verbal cues, and immediacy of exchange or feedback. Read the rest of this entry »

This is another theory that I am discussing based on its mention in Junghyun Kim’s 2003 article.

As Kim notes, this approach (Walther, Anderson, Park 1994) argues that the “[L]ack of Nonverbal cues in CMC makes it difficult (or at least more difficult) for people to interact with each other, as compared to FtF communication.” (Kim 6). However, this approach is problematic, Read the rest of this entry »