1. Communication Is (Still) Changing
1. Communication Is (Still) Changing
The nature of communication has undergone a substantial change in the past 20 years—and the change is not over. Email has had a profound effect on the way people keep in touch. Communications are shorter and more frequent than when letters were the norm; response time has greatly diminished; we are even surprised if someone we wish to contact does not have an email address. Although there are still a few people who print out their emails in order to read and respond to them, most of us are accustomed to the daily duty of reading and answering emails that have arrived since we turned off the computer the night before, and to keeping up with them as they trickle (or flood) in during the day.
Even as we have gotten used to email, though, the nature of communication continues to change. Instant messaging has created another method of interaction, one where the length of messages is shorter and the style of the interaction is more conversational—but where it is acceptable and common to pay partial attention. Broadcast technologies like Twitter transform these short bursts of communication from one-on-one conversations to little news (or trivia) programs: we can “tune in” when we want an update or have something to say, and “channel surf” to other activities in between updates.
The expectations we place on those we communicate with vary from medium to medium, as has always been the case. Sending a letter through the postal mail sets up an expectation of a response that will come in days; email, in hours; instant messaging, in minutes. We expect the letter-writer to devote a certain amount of time and attention to responding. With email, the expected time investment is smaller. With instant messaging, we understand that the other party’s attention may wander between messages in some cases and remain focused on us, as with a phone call, in others.
New environments like virtual worlds present additional opportunities and challenges for communication. In such settings, there is a visual component to the online interaction that is lacking in email or instant messaging: we can see a “body” that goes with the voice or text conversation. Affordances like this can help foster a feeling of presence and give us clues about when the other person is listening, when he or she wishes to speak, and when his or her attention is directed elsewhere. This is not to say that these environments offer the same contextual cues as face-to-face communication—they do not; but there is an added dimension to interactions in these spaces that does not occur in other online contexts.
Online communication tools also have the potential to increase our awareness of the movements of our professional or social contacts. Twitter, for instance, offers an at-a-glance update of things people we know happen to be doing: who is outside cleaning their gutters, who is writing a new blog post, who is about to have lunch with a friend. Clive Thompson (2007) calls this phenomenon social proprioception, named after the physical quality of proprioception that tells a creature where its extremities are by the reception of stimuli produced within the organism. Social proprioception tells us where the nodes of our community are and provides a sense of connectedness to and awareness of others without direct communication. Technologies like Twitter enable us to have this sense even when the members of our community are not within sight.
As with all things,
As with all things, technology which provides a step change in our modes of direction helps to form segmentation within society. This is not, however, a bad thing, as it allows different groups which operate through different modes of communication to develop ideas independently, to an extent where those ideas can be examined critically by others without any novel components being railroaded by the accepted view of the most vocal.
One potential problem of our near-instantaneous model of communication is that we have both wild ideas which appeal to the masses transported globally, and sound, but novel, ideas which do not appeal which are 'put down' in short order.
This is not to say that I think the instantaneous mode of communication is a bad thing, it is not. I, personally, fully embrace a model of communication which enables me to communicate, preferably asynchronously, but with a minimum of delay. Indeed, when people are using asynchronous communications, counter to intuition, it provides the minimum of delay, because synchronous communication requires the concurrent readiness and willingness of both parties to communicate. Asynchronicity allows for the many-many communication of today.
However, if I take my mother as an example of someone who operates in a different modality, she prefers face to face communication, the telephone and letter writing. Now, this is partly because she is not keen on technology, but she also feels rushed by the more instantaneous asynchronous communication I prefer, and feels that there is a lack of information in purely textual media.
On the other hand, I see all communication as a form of negotiating meaning. Whilst the originator of an utterance or written phrase may have a meaning in mind when they produce the content, the resulting meaning is inferred by the receiver in the context of what is known about the originator, the intervening medium, and the environment of the receiver. Whether this is face to face, on the telephone, in a letter, or in one of the many forms of computer mediated communication, the process remains the same.
I tend to find that there is, in fact, less opportunity for misinterpretation following a brief exchange of SMS, email or similar communications than when parties are relying on voice.
Apart from anything else, people are rather bad at controlling the inflexions in their voices, and although such inadvertent emphasis can provide clues about the mental states of the communicator, they often do not directly add to the interpretation of the intended meaning of the utterance. Textual communication forces deliberate conveyance of mood, through use of such devices as emoticons (and even our Vice Chancellor has recently been observed to use these in email).
Vocal communication, it seems to me, is probably best used for those environments where the main purpose of communication is about building the emotional aspects of relationships. However, we should recognise that in a way, it unfairly biases us against those who speak a different language or dialect, and can cause significant delay in the promulgation of ideas.
Which is to say, of course, that I think it has a useful and valid place in our suite of communication tools - the artificial barriers to communication help form small enclaves in which ideas can form and reach a level of maturity. But the ubiquitous presence of speech is not necessary, and probably deleterious to the optimal environment for intellectual exploration and development.
In general, then, my position is that we should make sure there are a variety of communication tools available. This helps support those with disability, but (forgive me) more importantly it actively promotes the heterogeneity of experience which enables the global community to operate as close to its potential as possible.
As an example of the way that specification of acceptable modes of communication can have a negative affect on a community's development, the forthcoming NMC seminar is to be held using voice chat in Second Life. As a consequence, I am unable to present a session ("Thank God", I hear you cry!) because my institution would never countenance opening the requisite number of ports.
Instant communication is an
Instant communication is an interesting trend, It wasn't that long ago when mail was really the only way to connect with people on the other side of the globe. These technologies, Twitter among them, help connect global citizens. As a result, a new vocabulary is created as we adopt the phrases or slang of others. In many ways, these technologies bind us in places where we migh expect; we all have kid stories, friend stories, etc. In other ways, we are brought closer by the sheer sameness of humanity (walked the dog, did the dishes). It is amazing to chat, instantly, with people from all over the world via posts on Twitter or through a program like Skype. Our world becomes smaller; our missions become joined.