The View From Carnegie 210

In the best case of stars aligning, I had two people recommend a new music website to me this weekend...and one of them sent a link directly in my email, so of course, I couldn't resist. Pandora allows users to create music stations based on their song or artist preferences. Seems like a simple concept, but it is oh so addicting! It wasn't hard for me to quickly develop 19 different stations ranging from Sunrise Radio to DeVotchKa Radio. And, if that isn't enough to keep you busy, you can elect to "Quick Mix" your stations...creating strange mixes that entertain for hours. Another great feature is that you can look up other people's mixes...for example, you can find people who have the same station and then check out what else they have created. Who knew that there would be five users already who have Jo's Lament Radio? It's pretty cool! But, be warned...remember what happened when Pandora opened that box...information overload is the plague of our times!

Check it out at Pandora.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 5:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Writing 10 years ago about the linguistics of email, Baron (1998) examines several challenges in determining its defining features. The author considers these challenges a direct reflection of the underlying difficulty in distinguishing written from spoken language. In other words, although the casual observer may like to categorize email use as either one or the other form of communication, such an identification presupposes that one can clearly determine what defines writing and speaking in the first place. Flexibility and fluidity are defining features of language in general, and this dynamic nature is clearly represented in the modalities we utilize for the expression of language as well.

In addition to this fundamental challenge, Baron also suggests that identifying the defining features of email is difficult because, as a relatively "new" form of communication, it is a system in flux. As she notes, "Email is more a moving linguistic target than a stable system..." (p. 144).

Still, Baron conducts a thorough comparison of email to written and spoken language on four dimensions including social dynamics, format, grammar, and style. In general, Baron concludes that email is most like writing in terms of social dynamics, most like speech in its lexical features and style, and reflects a mix of writing and speech in terms of format and its use of syntax (p. 155). I wonder whether users of email appreciate this multi-faceted structure, and suspect, instead, that its informal nature pairs it with speech in the minds of most people.

Two of the most interesting points raised by Baron seem to be issues that remain unresolved in current considerations of email. Specifically, Baron describes the papertrail paradox and the social relationship paradox. The papertrail paradox derives from the seeming one-to-one privacy and temporary of nature of email (evidenced by the informal content and structure of most email) versus the consequences of the "permanent record" that can be created by email storage and the ability of users to include undisclosed recipients to their messages. This seems to imply that most users ignore the writing-like consequences of email while focusing on its speech-like benefits.

Regarding the social relationship paradox, Baron points out that, "at the same time that email facilitates social exchange, it also raises a shield between participants that...both facilitates and protects against personal revelation" (p. 157). Several features of this paradox are intriguing. For example, as noted in the discussion by Ducheneaut & Watts (2005), email seems to be the "great leveler" in terms of institutional and organization communication, facilitating communication among participants that otherwise might not occur. In particular, the low salience of participant features fosters communication between people of different rank and status. Interestingly, Baron notes that this may be particularly true of female students communicating with male faculty (p. 147).

Still, Baron emphasizes social context and the characteristics of the users in determining the features of email. She argues that user choices, individual differences in message composition, and social decisions will play the biggest role in defining the modality.

Finally, Baron provided some interesting predictions regarding the future of email. First, she suggests that the use of emoticons would decrease as users adjusted to the lack of paralinguistic cues in email (much like we adjusted to not seeing the other person in telephone conversations). In addition, she suggests email could replace the telephone as the primary means of communication for one-to-one discussions (p. 165). Ten years into the future, do these predictions hold?

Baron, N.S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of email. Language & Communication, 18(2), 133-170.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Currently, I'm working on a draft of a paper based on the senior project of 2008 Allegheny Alum, Natalie Nagy. The paper examines some interesting dynamics between recipient characteristics and the personalization of emails written by undergraduates. As part of the process, I have been scouring the literature about email...its characteristics and functions...and about potential sex differences in computer-mediated communication (CMC). Over the next few weeks, I'll share some of the more interesting tidbits.

Ducheneaut & Watts (2005) present a review of 30 years of research on email from an industrial-organizational perspective. They organize this research into three levels of analysis or themes including: email as a file cabinet, email as a production facility, and email as a communication genre (p. 14). Although this classification system is largely a reflection of the development of the technology over time, the authors encourage a unification of these themes in order to establish a realistic sense of the interaction between the email interface and the email user.

In reviewing the email as a file cabinet theme, Ducheneaut & Watts point out that email is not just a new system of communication, but is also a system of management for institutional memory and task progress. For example, the authors refer to the use of the inbox as a visual reminder for tasks that need to be completed and consider the challenges of creating a filing system that will support user retrieval of important documents. What are the implications of this dual functionality (i.e., communication vs. management system)? Is this characteristic reflected in newer forms of CMC (e.g., texting, IM)?

Ducheneaut & Watts also review the attempts of previous researchers to apply the themes of Speech Act Theory to email interfaces. In one system (Coordinator, Flores et al., 1988), users would identify their emails in terms of their speech act functions (e.g., directive, commissive). Not surprisingly, this system was unsuccessful. One of the advantages of using email is that it provides the opportunity to finesse a request in ways that are not possible in face-to-face communications. Requiring the user to boldly signal the purpose of an email seems in direct opposition to the facework that is a part of American culture.

Finally, regarding email as a communication genre, Ducheneaut & Watts argue that email is an institutional equalizer. Because the features of the user and recipient (e.g., position, age, gender, etc.) are not as salient in email, there is an opportunity for a, "change [in] interpersonal perception" (p. 32). In other words, this new environment may be a safer place for contributions that users would otherwise be hesitant to share. In an educational setting, for example, this may broaden the learning opportunities for students. With fewer status signals available, perhaps students feel more comfortable interacting with professors through email. And, because the use of email over time seems to strengthen institutional relationships, email communications with professors could facilitate eventual face-to-face interactions.

Ducheneaut, N., Watts, L.A. (2005). In search of coherence: A review of e-mail research. Human-Computer Interaction, 20(1), 11-48.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 4:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Created using Wordle and the quotes that have inspired me over the last 30 years.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 4:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The summer has begun and work in the lab is in full swing. I am lucky to have two full-time summer research assistants this year, as well as three students who are volunteering at various times across the summer. As I put project plans together for my students, however I am struck by how much my research program has transformed from the specialized to the general. This summer, we have quite a Renaissance lab including projects spanning the disciplines of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, second language acquisition, and educational psych.

Of course, this is not the first time I've recognized the change in the way I approach my work. The scope of the research in my lab is the result of a steady transformation from a narrowly focused graduate student to a multi-tasking assistant professor working at a liberal arts college.

The obvious question is what effect this transformation has had on my goals and my productivity. Realistically, it takes longer to do the leg-work involved in researching the different fields from which our projects derive. And, juggling these various projects is tricky. But, one the other hand, I feel as if I am doing exactly what I wanted to be able to do the whole time I was completing my dissertation. At that time, I dreamed of being able to go after questions that were simply interesting. The general approach has allowed both my students and I to be curious. And, with this approach, because your projects are not all connected by a common theme, they are connected instead by a commitment to strong design. Consequently, the research process becomes the real focus of your work.

A lot of very difficult challenges lay down this generalist approach...but I think the rewards can be worth the extra effort of taking this path.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The 5th Biennial Intramural Conference was last month (May 13-14). This was my second visit to the conference and there are several reasons why it is one of my favorite Allegheny events.

First, one of the main reasons I pursued a career in academia is because I love to learn...about most anything. I couldn't imagine a time in my life when I wouldn't be exploring new ideas. The Intramural Conference is THE place to continue this pursuit. During the busy school year, we have very few opportunities to come together to discuss our interests and research...and never without the looming stack of papers to grade or the lecture to finish. Having the opportunity to sit and listen to projects from Biology, History, English, Environmental Science, and Philosophy (just to name a few of the disciplines represented) is a rare treat.

Second, along with learning new ideas, the Intramural Conference is a great place to really get to know the faculty at Allegheny College. Conversations over breakfast, lunch, and dinner were just as important to building connections across disciplines as the post-presentation discussions.

Finally, the atmosphere of the conference seems to change drastically depending upon the combination of attendees. The difference in experience from my first visit to the conference to this year was dramatic...illustrating just how unique the conference can be.

Please see this year's program for a list of the presenters and a description of their talks. In addition, you can also download slides from my presentation on Modeling Psychological Science at a Liberal Arts College.

Posted by Aimee Knupsky at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)