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.