The View From Carnegie 210

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 1:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Zits

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 1:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the consequences of CMC that we reviewed this semester does leave me with lingering concerns. Specifically, what happens when the people we are with physically, in the present moment, have to compete with those who are not physically present for our attention? What does it mean when we use technology to communicate with "absent" individuals when we are supposedly carrying on a conversation with those sitting next to us? Are we ever able to be in the here and now when the "here" has a limitless scope thanks to technology? How does this change in "here" affect our ability to have a deep, reflective conversation when our minds are only half in the here and are half out "there"? How are we able to engage in active listening? How do we contribute in a meaningful way to such conversations? And, if we are no longer able to accomplish these communicative goals, what are the long-term consequences to our relationships and to the development of our social skills?

Renny Gleeson expresses similar concerns in a recent TED Talk.

Tags: CMC communication divided attention technology

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When discussing David Crystal's txtng, the question of whether CMC can support political engagement and political activism was raised. Some of us questioned whether tools like texting really could unite people and bring them together for common action. Crystal discussed the phenomenon of pasalo (pass it on) texts which, after the train bombings in Madrid, brought people together to stand against the act of terrorism. He also discusses flash mobbings where the goal of the community action is perhaps less meaningful, but no less impressive an example of collective action. In our discussion of these acts, we seemed to question whether social upheaval via texting was possible. Would receiving such a message be enough to inspire students to get involved? Would communities come together as a result of a call to arms initiated through CMC? Or, would we simply control the volume and move on to the next message from a friend?

On the front page of the NY Times today, I saw at least one form of evidence that, yes, CMC can support the type of collective action Crystal described. In the article Protests in Moldova Explode, With Help of Twitter the reporter details how the use of text messaging, Facebook, and Twitter brought thousands of young people together in protest. Food for thought.

Tags: collective action protest Twitter

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 2:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Zits

Beer (2008) questions whether it makes sense to continue to distinguish between on-line and off-line friendships, suggesting that as the use of social network sites like Facebook becomes more and more common, the ways we think about and define friendship are sure to be influenced by the on-line world. And, importantly, these changes may often happen in the "background," without a conscious acknowledgement about how the two "worlds" are interacting. Furthermore, Beer points out that as we begin to add other technologies and softwares to our understanding of "mediated" communication (cell phones, iPods, Blackberries, e-mail, blogging, podcasts, etc.) it becomes virtually impossible to identify communication spaces, even face-to-face ones, that aren't in some way mediated. Therefore, instead of separately defining on-line and off-line relationships and "friendships," Beer argues that we should focus on defining these from a more general perspective, incorporating both on-line and off-line notions of friendship along a common continuum.

What then, is a Friend? How does the type, scope, and function of friendship develop apart from the communication space in which it is born? What are the points of intersection, and perhaps, distinctions across what we see as on-line and off-line friendships?

Beer (2008). Social network(ing) sites...revisiting the story so far: A response to danah boyd & Nicole Ellison.  Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 516-529.

Tags: Defining Friendship Facebook Social Network Sites

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The recent controversy over Aric Sigman's article in the Biologist centers around Sigman's claim that Facebook causes cancer. The critiques of this article started appearing on science blogs last week and continues on PsyBlog with a great collection of the points made thus far and a link to a televised debate between Sigman and Ben Goldacre of Bad Science:

From my perspective as a professor of both a CMC junior seminar and a research methods & statistics class, this event is amazing on a number of levels. Primarily, however, consider the danger of spurious correlations in the hands of people who 1) don't understand them or 2) don't care about them. Furthermore, the televised debate also illustrates the uselessness of testimonials in resolving any scientific debate. Both sides can pick and choose the stories that make their case, both sides can argue passionately, and neither has done anything to advance our understanding of the question at hand. Although, the research that has been done does suggest that on-line social networking tools like Facebook tend to be used more by extraverted individuals and tend to be used to communicate with people one already knows.

Boyd, d.m., & Ellison, N. B. (2008).  Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.  Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007).  The benefits of Facebook "friends": Exploring the relationship between college students' use of online social networks and social capital.  Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.

Tags: Cancer Facebook Pseudoscience Spurious Correlations

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 6:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)