This study explores two general questions:
For Hiltz and Turoff (1978), computer conferencing is a revolutionary medium of communication which will radically transform society, making McLuhan's (1964) "global village" an interpersonal reality (p. xxix):
We will become the Network Nation, exchanging vast amounts of both information and social-emotional communications with colleagues, friends, and 'strangers' who share similar interests, who are spread out all over the nation. Ultimately, ... we will become a 'global village' whose boundaries are demarcated only by the political decisions of those governments that choose not to become part of an international computer network. An individual will, literally, be able to work, shop, or be educated by or with persons anywhere in the nation or the world.
This enthusiasm is echoed by many others (including Englebart, 1982c; Grayson, 1984; Harris, 1984; Krasnoff, 1984a, 1984b, Lerch, 1983; Micossi, 1984; Stahr, 1985; Stone, 1984; and Taylor, 1984). For Keisler (1986) computer conferencing "has much in common with past technical innovations, like the telephone and the typewriter, that have had great social impact". For Feenberg (1986), computer conferencing "is the first technology to provide effective electronic mediation of small group activities." For Turoff (1988), it is "a new communications medium that will become as commonly used by the general public as the telephone is today."
Essential characteristics of computer conferencing (at this stage in its development) include:
In summary, computer conferencing allows large numbers of
geographically distributed individuals to converse in an asynchronous
manner. Restated slightly, we might say that computer conferencing
provides for
For Rogers (1973, p. 192) and the historical field of human
communication, there are "two different types of communication
channels: interpersonal and mass media". In characterizing these
channels, Rogers notes (p. 193) that:
For Reardon and Rogers (1988) this distinction, as fundamental as it
may be to the field of communication, is a reified accident of history
and politics. Proposing that the distinction "has had detrimental
effects on communication theory and research" (p.285), they assert
that it is time "to question the viability and utility of the
categories that divide us" (p. 300).
Writing in the same issue of
"Interpersonal and mass media communication have been divided mainly
on the basis of (1) channel type, (2) the number of potential
recipients of the messages transmitted, and (3) the potential for
feedback" (Reardon and Rogers, 1988, p. 285). Interpersonal
communication is unmediated (or mediated by the individual), transmits
messages to a comparatively small number of recipients, and has a high
feedback potential. Mass media is technologically mediated, transmits
messages to a comparatively high number of recipients, and has a low
feedback potential.
Paradoxical elements of this typological distinction have
traditionally been ignored. It is not possible to communicate in a
completely unmediated environment (isolated individuals in a vacuum
without light or technological intervention). Neither sound nor smell
will cross a vacuum. Sight is contingent on reflected light. Touch
and taste of another individual cannot occur when isolated from that
individual. It seems clear that any communication depends on some
form of mediation, yet we frequently assume, perhaps because there is
no technological intervention, that face-to-face communication is
unmediated.
Problematic cases have also been ignored. Despite early attempts to
market it as a broadcast medium (Pool, 1977), the telephone has
evolved into what is clearly an interpersonal medium. Feedback
potential is high. Participation involves small numbers of people
(almost always two). Yet the telephone is clearly mediated by a
telephone network that allows us to speak with distant others.
Perhaps in part because of its problematic status, studies of the
telephone as an interpersonal medium remain few. Pool's frequently
cited (1977)
Citizen's Band radio provides an even larger challenge. Like the
telephone, C. B. is mediated. Unlike the telephone, its mediators
(transmitters, radio waves, and receivers) are also key elements of
major mass media (radio and television). The challenge is in the
contrast of feedback to number of recipients. Communication on the
medium is clearly interactive, entailing high levels of feedback
potential, but that interaction is broadcast to what is potentially a
fairly large audience (almost certainly tens, possibly hundreds, and
conceivably thousands).
Inconsistencies that have been ignored for citizen's band radio and
the telephone become much more problematic in the study of computer
conferencing. It is possible, in studying the telephone and C.B.
radio from a mass communication perspective, to ignore their
fundamentally interactive character and focus on their audience,
regulation, functions, and effects. It is possible, in studying
citizen's band or the telephone from a interpersonal communication
perspective, to concentrate on the nature of the interaction, which
usually involves only a small number of contributors on any given band
at any given time, while ignoring the technological mediators which
make them possible.
The characteristics of computer conferencing make this approach
impossible. The large and widely distributed audience that is an
inherent possibility in computer conferencing demand attention to the
concerns associated with mass media studies. The potential for that
entire audience to interact demands attention to the concerns
associated with interpersonal communication studies. It is exactly
this kind of problem that drive Reardon and Rogers (1988) to declare
that new communication technologies like computer conferencing which "cannot be easily categorized as either
interpersonal or mass media" (p. 297) will "force basic changes in
communication models and in research methodologies".
Large audiences remain potential in the existing computer conferencing
literature. Although the computer-mediated communication literature
(including computer conferencing) has grown substantially in recent
years, most studies involve "only relatively small numbers of users"
(Kerr and Hiltz, 1982, p. 93); rarely more than a dozen people. The
conferences studied are, moreover, usually of fairly brief duration (a
few weeks or months from beginning to end), and usually with
participants who have little real investment in what occurs (most
often student experimental subjects).
Recent literature, which will be reviewed in somewhat greater detail
in a coming chapter, has started to remedy this
situation:
These studies remain exceptional in their focus on comparitively
large ongoing computer conferences. Most computer conferencing studies
continue to examine small conferences of limited duration. There is
nothing inherently wrong with studies of small and short to moderate
duration computer conferences. A computer conference involving only a
few people can be quite functional for its participants. Studies of
small computer conferencing can, moreover, reveal a great deal about
the nature of the medium, at least some of which will be generalize
to larger computer conferences.
If there is a problem, it is the inherent contradictions computer
conferencing presents to the field of communication. It is possible,
so long as we continue to study small computer conferences, to ignore
its status as a mass medium and restrict ourselves to the traditional
models and concerns of interpersonal communication. It is possible,
so long as we continue to study computer conferences of short
duration, to treat the interaction as if it were programming (in the
sense of television programming); to ignore its status as an
interpersonal medium and restrict ourselves to the models and concerns
of mass communication.
This study seeks to clarify these contradictions in a six year study
of what may be the worlds largest and most active computer
conferencing facility. IBM's "IBMPC" computer conferencing facility
is a large unmoderated in-house computer conferencing facility that
has been in operation for over eight years. IBMPC was the first such
facility in IBM and remains the largest. It contains over 1500 active
conferences (called "forums" on IBMPC), each covering a range of
subjects within a well defined topic or purpose. Well over 10,000 IBM
employees, located at hundreds of locations on six continents (and a
fair number of large and small islands), have made contributions
(called "appends" on IBMPC) to these forums. Over 1000 appends,
totalling around 460 single spaced typewritten pages, are made each
working day. As many as 100,000 IBM employees may read one or more of
these forums on a regular basis.
A number of "mediators", each of which will be described in greater
detail in a later chapter, enable this massive
participation, including:
The kinds of participation volumes associated with IBMPC make it
difficult to ignore the essential ambiguity of computer conferencing
relative to historic definitions of mass communication and
interpersonal communication. This study seeks to directly address
this ambiguity by studying IBMPC as a hybrid; a medium with
characteristics of both interpersonal and mass media. Bridging the
traditions of interpersonal and mass media study is, as both Reardon
and Rodgers (1988) and Berger and Chafee (1988) point out, a difficult
problem itself. Hence the grounding of this study has ultimately
entailed the construction of theory of media that integrates
interpersonal and mass media in a single construct.
Integration of this theory of "medium as process" and the observation
of the IBMPC computer conferencing facility in a single document
results in a minor paradox of presentation. The theory derives, in
large part, from principles abstracted from the observation of IBMPC.
The theory provides, in turn, a set of organizing principles that
ground the observation. Viewed temporally, it makes sense to present
the theory after the observation, as the observation reported was
essentially complete before any of the theory was written down.
Viewed organizationally, it makes sense to present the theory before
the observation, as the theory organizes the presentation that follows
it. This study has opted to take the latter approach, delaying
additional discussion of the IBMPC computer conferencing facility
until after an initial discussion of the theory that organizes the
presentation.
This document is organized in five parts:
An initial discussion of the relationship of these constructs can be
found in an overview of the theory of medium as
process. Specific interrelationships between
constructs are documented in the various chapters of this theoretical
section.
Three typologies of media are presented in this section. The first,
an informal typology based on criteria suggested by Reardon and Rogers
(1988), is presented in
"Characteristics of Media". A formal typology,
generated using the techniques of numerical taxonomy, is also presented.
This formal typology is then tested against a third
typology, generated on the basis of user perceptions of media
according to the dimensions of the second typology. The second and third typologies, which
are highly similar, both support the notion that computer
conferencing, and computer media in general, are neither interpersonal
nor mass media, but a hybrid of the two.
Counter-Theme: Interpersonal Communication and Mass Media
Word-of-mouth communication that occurs in face-to-face interaction
between two or more individuals is classified as
The problem of interpersonal mass media
Paradoxes and problematic cases
A Mass Interpersonal Medium
Limitations in the computer conferencing literature
Overview of IBM's "IBMPC" computer conferencing facility
Studying an Interpersonal Mass Medium
Organization of this document