REVISITING CMC AND INTERNET DEBATES

As noted, the lines demarking the two sides of the debate about the impact of computer media and the Internet on social interaction are well drawn (see Table I). Arguments both for and against CMC focus on the “reduced cues” of the environment (Culnan & Markus, 1987; Short et al., 1976), i.e., the way communication is reduced to text-only exchanges, without the additional cues of voice, facial expression, body position, and personal appearance. On the downside, the lack of cues makes CMC ill-suited for conveying confi rmatory communication cues—for example, a smile to go with an ironic comment. Online communication ham- pers the ability to convey messages unambiguously and to verify meaning through other communication cues. On the negative side, this can lead to a lack of trust in the exchange and in the relationship with the other person. Individuals have to work harder to make themselves clear, conventions of communication have to be created and adopted between communicators and among online group members (Clark & Brennan, 1991; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). This process can take more time (Walther, 1995) and more effort (Haythornthwaite et al., 2000) for online than

1 Debates about computer-mediated communication (CMC) began before the presence of the Internet. Arguments that were fi rst made about the alienating effects of text-based CMC, for example, the way the relative anonymity of e-mail led to behaviors such as “fl aming,” have been picked up again regarding the Internet and applied to all aspects of online activity, from online chat rooms to surfi ng the Web. Because these are not synonymous (CMC is only one aspect of the Internet), and because discussion of the Internet follows that of CMC by quite a few years, the distinction is made here between CMC and the Internet.

7 Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication

TABLE I Arguments Against and For Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)

ARGUMENTS AGAINST CMC ARGUMENTS FOR CMC Lean communication

Rich communication Text-based, reduced cues, impoverished

Emoticons and acronyms (McLaughlin et al., 1995), communication environment (Daft &

language cues (Herring, 2002) Lengel, 1986) Ill-suited to emotional, expressive, complex

Group-defi ned genres and rules of conduct communications (Daft & Lengel, 1986)

(Bregman & Haythornthwaite, 2003; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Orlikowski & Yates, 1994;

McLaughlin, et al., 1995) Takes longer to build relationships

Interpersonal self-disclosure, emotional support; (Walther, 1995)

shared history; online communities (e.g., Baym 2000; Haythornthwaite et al., 2000; Hearne & Nielsen, 2004)

DISINTEGRATIVE OUTCOMES INTEGRATIVE OUTCOMES Antisocial fl aming (Lea et al., 1992),

Connects disparate others: Brings in peripheral Irresponsible individual actions

players, spanning time and space (Sproull & (e.g., Dibbell, 1996)

Kiesler, 1991)

Decreased social involvement (Nie, 2001); Maintains connections even when distributed Abandonment of local relationships

(LaRose et al., 2001; Hampton & Wellman, 2002) (Kraut et al., 1998)

for face-to-face communications. This set of criticisms essentially argues that CMC is defi cient in providing a communication environment that allows the kinds of communication exchanges necessary for strong, close ties (the argument here refers primarily to work and friendship ties where interaction and contact are sustaining features of the tie, rather than kin ties where expectations of interaction can be quite different). Whether starting a new relationship or continuing one, CMC has been perceived as inadequate to build and sustain strong, close ties, that is, those requiring trust, self-disclosure, mutual and shared understanding, and resulting in close work and friendship relationships.

Some communicators take advantage of the lack of cues, and the lack of exposure of themselves in online communications. This leads some to engage in fl aming (abusive language), and others to act as “trolls” online (deliberately disrupt- ing online communities). Disruptive and antisocial behavior is easier to engage in online when you don’t have to face the people you are annoying, but so is reveal- ing personal details of yourself and engaging in fantasy behaviors. Arguments for CMC acknowledge the reduced cues of the environment, but fi nd this to be a positive aspect. The reduced cues can increase participation and egalitarian treatment because of the lack of face-to-face interaction; individuals are able to be judged online only by their text-based communication, freed of the binding status asso- ciations inherent in face-to-face situations. Asynchronous CMC allows people to

170 Caroline Haythornthwaite and Anna L. Nielsen

refl ect before posting, giving them time to build an argument or answer to a ques- tion, and to think twice before posting a potentially fl aming response. Anonymous CMC provides a barrier between the self online and the self offl ine, providing the possibility of presenting a new or different persona online.

Those who found positive outcomes for cue-reduced, anonymous CMC may be disappointed at the way social cues have been rediscovered, for example, in language that marks us by gender (Herring, 1996, 1999, 2002), and reintroduced into online communications, such as in emoticons, acronyms, and domains of e-mail addresses (McLaughlin et al., 1995). CMC is not (and perhaps never was) as cue-less as thought, and thus as unable to maintain interpersonal ties. Many studies show that members of online communities develop and feel strong personal ties to others in their CMC environment (Haythornthwaite et al., 2000; Baym, 2002) and are able to recreate aspects of offl ine community, such as introducing roles and rituals, policing rules of behavior (e.g., Baym, 2000; McLaughlin et al., 1995), and creating a communal history (Hearne & Nielsen, 2004).

The arguments against CMC have been taken up anew in discussions of the Internet; CMC is not rich enough to support close interpersonal relations, and therefore those who spend time on the Internet are losing out on the benefi ts of such ties. Geographically based communities suffer when individuals spend time online with strangers and people in other geographic regions. Their time online withdraws support and time spent in the geo-communities in which they live, lead- ing to a loss of social capital in local communities and nations of people “bowling alone” (Putnam, 2000). Studies fi nd support for the disintegrative effects of time online, with reduced interactions with local others, and particularly those in the home (Kraut et al., 1998; Nie, 2001).

Arguments for CMC and the Internet point out that local relationships may not be possible, and that a home-based view ignores the very real ties that exist across distance and give benefi t to individuals. Early CMC studies pointed out how organizations could involve peripheral workers by using e-mail to communi- cate between central and remote offi ces (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). Scholarly net- works online have become a mainstay of international contact and information exchange among like-minded academics ( Walsh & Bayma, 1996; Walsh et al., 2000; Nissenbaum & Price, 2004). Other benefi ts accrue in conjunction with community ties. Recent studies fi nd that students away at college were able to benefi t from e-mail contact with home (LaRose et al., 2001); those who have moved from one neighborhood to another were able to maintain contact with former neighbors (Hampton & Wellman, 2002); and farmers isolated on their farms during the UK foot-and-mouth disease crisis were able to stay in touch with others in the region and around the world while unable to travel to towns, markets, and neighboring farms (Hagar & Haythornthwaite, 2005).

People do not so much bowl alone as bowl with those in their personal net- works, which may extend geographically, supported by travel and CMC ( Wellman

7 Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication

et al., 1996). Geographical communities now often turn to information and communication technologies as ways to enable communities, not as competition to their existence. This movement was captured early in the notion of freenets, now more commonly called community networking initiatives, and discussed by researchers in the area of community informatics (e.g., see the Journal of Community Informatics, http://ci-journal.net/index.php).

One reason the arguments are so polarized is that too often the forms, users, and uses of CMC have been treated as a singular entity. What is found in one situ- ation, with one set of people, is felt to be true for everyone. This is more true for popular press and utopian/dystopian discussions than for contemporary research on CMC, but is still found in views that speak of “the Internet” as if it were one monolithic object, and as if people interacted with “the Internet” and with others through the Internet in one and only one way. Monolithic views ignore differences in who is using the Internet, for what purpose, at what times and places, to and from what cul- tural contexts, with whom, and for what kinds of tasks, interactions, and outcomes.

Two trends are evident in CMC research. First, a number of recent studies unbundle users and uses, articulating differences among online users rather than between those online and those not online. These studies distinguish among online activities of communication, information seeking, relationship maintenance, work, learning, and entertainment, and examine the social relations and worlds maintained through and by means of online communication.

The second major trend treats online and offl ine as two parts of a whole, look- ing for where online and offl ine serve a joint purpose, such as contacting friends and family or keeping a (geo-)community informed and connected. In contrast to studies that seek to deconstruct the Internet into its component parts—for example, categories of users or types of media—this approach looks at how CMC and Internet activity have penetrated into all aspects of life, making it integral to every constituency, disappearing into the background as an invisible infrastructure and a taken-for-granted aspect of life (Bruce & Hogan, 1998; Star, 1999).

The sections that follow explore research that exemplifi es these two major trends in CMC and Internet research, and the way Internet access and use integrates—or infi ltrates—as a standard at work and home.

REVISITING CMC AND INTERNET DEBATES