Beyond the Numbers - The Need for Qualitative Research in CMC

Abraham Maslow once said, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as though it were a nail."

In this essay, I will depart a bit from my review of the research. In this essay, I will focus more on a critique of it and on the limits of scientific method in social science research.

Modern social science research has been dominated by quantitative methods of research. This is true of CMC research as well. Chi square, standard deviations, co-efficients of correlation are everywhere. Indeed, it's as if it can't be counted, it doesn't count. Quantitative research has become the only tool in the toolbox and ever research question has become a nail.

Certainly scientific method and quantitative studies have their place. However, sometimes they leave important questions unanswered or, worse, they appear to lead to an answer which later is determined to be obviously wrong.

There are limits to scientific inquiry and quantitative research. Let's take an everyday example. If you wanted to know what I had for breakfast, you could pump my stomach and analyse the results. If you wanted to be less intrusive, you could sit at my breakfast table, measure everything on my plate and watch me eat it. However, if you wanted to know if I enjoyed my breakfast, you would have to ask me. It would be unscientific, subjective, and imprecise, but it would be the best way to get the answer.

Of course, you could do a survey of 1000 people and find out if they liked a certain food and if a majority of them did, that would mean I did as well. But you see the problem, that assumption would probably be even more unreliable than asking me. It would be more scientific, more precise, and more prone to error. You used a hammer to saw a piece of wood.

So, what's the alternative? Unfocused theorizing? Purely subjective reporting of impressions? Certainly not. We need systematic ways to understand the functioning of CMC and virtual communities without depending entirely on quantitative measures.

One may argue, correctly, that qualitative measures such as phenomenology, participant-observer, hermaneutics and other forms of naturalistic inquiry are limited in terms of broad applicability. For instance, the anthropologist studying a single tribe by living with them for several years may understand that tribe well, but not necessarily the one on the other side of the hill.

This is true. However, any avid reader of quantitative research in the social sciences knows that simply because a study is statistically-based doesn't mean it necessarily has wide applicability either. For instance, much research about online education is based on the experiences of a single class. Additionally, in most studies, the majority of subjects are students at major universities where the studies are being conducted. Generally, social scientists know a lot about white, middle class, college students, but not much about anyone else.

What is true in terms of size and diversity of subjects in the studies is also true in terms of time. Many studies of virtual communities are more like snapshots than movies. They often focus on a few days to a few weeks of messages. These messages are lifted outside the social context of the virtual community and may be misunderstood because of that lack of context.

So, what are some alternatives?

First, participant-observer studies. Popular for years among cultural anthropologists, the participant-observer lives with the cultural group they are studying. It may take several years to fully understand that group. Certainly, they stay around long enough to understand the shared history of the group. It is a tricky approach. the participant-observer must be in some way engaged in the life of the group, but must always remain somewhat aloof from the group. Nevertheless, by developing a careful approach to notekeeping and self-discipline, the participant-observer can often understand many things that the quantitative researcher might miss.

In CMC research, being a participant-observer, could mean being part of several online communities, interacting with them, but maintaining a certain amount of social distance from them. Notetaking would include not only content analysis of specific messages in the group, but also recognizing and recording interaction patterns between group members, tracking the social history of the group, watching the reaction of long-time group members to "newbies," and paying attention to the cycles and "seasons" of group activity.

A second approach, suggested by Quentin Jones (1997), is called cyber-archeology. Jones postulates that virtual communities exist in virtual settlements and they leave cyber-artifacts behind. These artifacts include communication structures, nonverbal aspects of an essentially verbal medium, standards of practice and terms of service for groups as well as behavior patterns of members of the group. While Jones lacks specificity concerning procedures for conducting a cyber-dig, it is an intriguing idea.

A third method is the phenomenological method. In the phenomenological approach, the researcher conducts in-depth interviews with a few subjects to gain a deep understanding of the experience of that person from the inside out. Rudestam and Newton (1992) put it this way:

When phenomenology is applied to research the focus is on what the person experiences in a language that is as loyal to the lived experience as possible (Polkinghorne, 1989) Thus, phenomenological inquiry attempts to describe and elucidate the meanings of human experience more than other forms of inquiry, phenomenology attempts to get beneath how people describe their experience to the structures that underlie consciousness. (p.33)

Early erroneous observations which denied the existance of true community online or discounted anecdotal evidence of intimacy bonds existing in cyberspace might have been avoided if someone had thought of the simple expedient of actually talking to some netizens in depth about their online experiences.

We can learn much from quantitative approaches to CMC research, but we must not forget the value of qualitative approaches as well. There is a place for a hammer, but also one for a scalpel.

Getting to Know You -- Again -- Online

Remember that guy you went to the prom with in high school? What about that second cousin you hung out with at the last family reunion five years ago? And whatever happened to those people on your college debate team? Where are they now? What are they doing?

One of the interesting phenomena of computer-mediated communiation is how it has facilitated the ability to reconnect with people with whom you have lost touch. If you have ever searched for a former class member or renewed an acquaintance with a long-lost relative, you are not alone.

A study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (2000) found that people are using the internet to improve communication between family and friends and to reconnect with those with whom they have lost touch. Unlike many research studies where the sample size is limited to a few college students, the Pew study had over 3500 respondents to their survey. (Just a note: The Pew Internet and American Life Project provides many different "snapshots" of the impact of computers on everyday life from online dating to religious uses of the internet.)

The survey also had the unique feature of not only asking what people did online in general, but also asked what they had done "yesterday." (p. 9)

Over half of those online (55 percent) said that the use of email has improved their connection with family members. Almost 60 percent say that they communicate more frequently with family members after obtaining email. (p. 7)

A similar pattern holds for significant friends. The survey found that 66 percent of have improved our relationships with significant friends through the use of email and 60 percent of us communicate more frequently with friends because of it. (p. 7)

But we are not only keeping in touch, we are also reaching out. Pew (p. 8) estimates that 26 million Americans have used the internet to reconnect with a family member and to begin communicating regularly with that person. According to the report, 24 million have used the internet to search for a family member online. (p. 8)

One interesting detail was that an estimated 16 million Americans say they have learned more about their family members since obtaining email. (p. 8)

Email is becoming the primary mode of communication for some families. Among those who email relatives 40 percent communicate more with that person by email than in person (p. 8). Siblings email more often than than they talk on the phone. (p. 8) Parents and children talk on the phone about as often as they email each other. (p. 8)

Some of the reasons for this are interesting as well. One is the question of time. For both family members (62 percent) and friends (72 percent) respondents said that they liked email because they "can stay in touch without having to spend so much time talking to them." (p. 8) I don't know if this is a commentary on our busy lives or the relationships we have with family and friends, but I find myself preferring to fire off an email to a freind rather than pick up the phone and call, especially if it is a minor item like confirming the time of a social event.

Also, nearly 1/3 of the respondents say that it is easier to say frank or unpleasant things in an email than face to face. They also believe that blunt emails are good for their families.

When I was a kid in the --- well sometime before the advent of the internet --- the computer was the stuff of science fiction. The idea of a "personal computer" was so exotic that it was something out of Star Trek . We have come a long way in terms of how the computer has become embedded in daily life. The fact that we communicate with our families as much, if not more, online as we do in person or on the phone shows that the computer has moved from being a technological marvel to being a household appliance.

Internet Use and Social Isolation: Unravelling the Paradox

Internet users are isolated...
no wait...
Internet users are social...
no wait...

Reading social science research can be confusing. And this is not exclusively because of the big words they use to describe everyday activities. The most confusing thing about social science research is that two researchers investigating the same phenomenon will come up with contradictory results.

This is especially true of one area of CMC research relating to the sociality of Internet users. While the popular image of the heavy Internet user continues to be that of the social outcast, loner, without any "real world" relationships, researchers have been painting a more complex picture.

Some of the research into this area indicates that heavy Internet use correlates with greater social isolation. (Kraut, et al., 1998) However, other research indicates that Internet users have more social contact than nonusers. (Robinson, Kestnbaum, Neustadtl, and Alvarez , 2000) So, what's going on here?

Perhaps you've heard the story of the four blind men who were trying to describe an elephant. One man grabbed a hold of the elephant's trunk and said, "An elephant is very much like a tree." The second man put his hand against the elephant's side and said, "No, an elephant is very much like a wall." The third line man grabbed a hold of the elephant’s ear and argued, "You are both wrong. An elephant is like a leaf." The fourth man, holding on to the elephant's tail, contradicted them all by saying, "No, an elephant is definitely like a rope."

Recent research by Shanyang Zhao (2006), of Temple University, indicates something similar has happened with the study of social isolation and Internet usage. The problem according to Zhao is that researchers have typically not differentiated between different types of Internet use.

Zhao (2006) divides Internet use into two broad categories: social and nonsocial. Social Internet use includes e-mail, chat rooms, instant messaging, discussion boards and newsgroups. And nonsocial use would be like Web surfing, listening to Internet radio, downloading music, and checking the news.

The study found that those who use the Internet primarily for nonsocial activities that fewer social contacts than those who did not use the Internet at all. Heavy nonsocial users experienced the greatest social isolation.

However, social Internet users have more social contact than either nonsocial users or people who do not use the Internet at all. Heavy social Internet users showed the greatest amount of social contact of all categories.

One could assume that the majority of this social contact came from online sources. However, that assumption would be wrong. Zhao found that social Internet users also maintained many of their social contacts by the more traditional means of telephone and in person visits. E-mail users, particularly, used e-mail to stay in contact with people with whom they had a face-to-face relationship. Chat users also had significant numbers of face-to-face contacts, however, they also had many contacts which were exclusive to the Internet.

By contrast, nonsocial users had fewer face-to-face or telephone social contacts than the social Internet users.

Zhao (2006) was careful to point out that his study was descriptive in nature and did not imply anything about causation. Indeed, one might assume that Internet use is driven by the personality of the Internet user. In other words, someone who is a social person will engage in social activities online as well as off-line. That would explain the higher number of social contacts in face-to-face settings. Likewise, those who are more solitary in their "3-D" life would probably follow more solitary pursuits online as well. Thus, the Internet becomes an extension of one's personality. Of course, that could be the substance for a different type of study.

There is another possibility for differences in the research results, as well. Many of the studies finding that internet users had fewer social contacts came from a time when there were fewer internet users. Consider that in 1999 about 28 percent of households had internet service in the US. In 2005 that number had nearly doubled to 55 percent. Additionally, nearly 73 percent of Americans use the internet on a regular basis. The internet is no longer the exclusive domain of technically oriented individuals, academics and business people taking care of business. The internet population has broadened out to be more representative of the culture at large rather than being a culture unto itself. That means that the internet, today, has a different, more diverse population than it did just a few years ago.

For the time being, the lesson may well be that when we evaluate studies of CMC, we may need to pay more attention to the selection of subjects in interpreting the results.

References:

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53 (9), 1017-1031.

Robinson, J. P., Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. S. (2002). Information technology and social time displacement. IT & Society, 1 (1), 21-37.

Zhao, S. (2006). Do Internet users have more social ties? A call for differentiated analyses of Internet use. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), article 8. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/zhao.html

Impersonal, Interpersonal or Hyperpersonal?

Hyperpersonal communication

A couple of days ago, we looked at some research relating to the development of intimacy among virtual strangers in cyberspace. At that time we mentioned a term, Hyperpersonal. This term was coined by Joseph Walther (1996) to describe a particular type of communication which seems to take place in text-based communication.

Walther identified three types of communication which take place online: impersonal, interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal. Impersonal communication is communication which simply takes care of business. This is like when you receive an e-mail from your boss reminding you that your quarterly reports are due in next week. At one time, researchers viewed all online communication as being essentially impersonal. (Short and Christie, 1976; Parks and Floyd, 1996). Especially in the early days of e-mail, when it was used primarily in business and academic settings, much of computer mediated communication to focus primarily on business and was in personal in nature. Researchers also based their assessment of online communication on traditional studies of relationship development which often emphasized physical presence as an element essential to the development of a relationship.( Nardi and Whittaker, 2002)

However, while researchers were denying the development of relationships online, people were developing them. At first, these were considered to be anomalous. They were considered to be the exception rather than the rule. And, in the early days of the Internet, this is probably true. But as the anecdotal evidence began to emerge, researchers could no longer ignore second type of computer mediated communication which was interpersonal in nature.

Online interpersonal communication is "more socially oriented" (Turner, Grube, and Meyers, 2001). No longer were employees merely sending e-mails to invite other employees to face-to-face meetings or to check on how a certain report is coming along. People began to use e-mail to share personal information like the birth of a child, buying a new car, seeking advice about marital problems, and it just chatting socially. This interpersonal communication online took place with both individuals with whom the person had a face-to-face relationship as well as those with whom they did not. One's social circle began to include people whom the individual had never met in person. Thus the Internet became a medium for developing interpersonal relationships.

Indeed, relationships can develop very quickly and very intimately online. The lack of visual cues believes individuals to asking more intimate questions earlier in a relationship than they would in face-to-face settings. (Hian, Chuan, Trevor & Detenber, 2004). This is one aspect of what Walther (1996) calls Hyperpersonal communication. According to Walther Hyperpersonal communication occurs when “users experience commonality and are self-aware, physically separated, and communicating via a limited-cues channel that allows them to selectively still present and edit; to construct and reciprocate representations of their partners and relations without the interference of environmental reality" (p. 33).”

Walter (1996) sets forth four elements that define Hyperpersonal communication. First, we create an idealized perception of the receiver. Secondly, because we are able to sell select what we reveal to the other individual we create an idealized image of ourselves for them. Third, the asynchronous channels of communication allow us to self-edit to a greater extent than does the more spontaneous face-to-face environment. And, finally, a feedback loop is created reinforcing our idealized perceptions of the other and of ourselves. This reciprocal process which occurs in all relationships, according to Walther, is intensified in minimal-cue interaction.

What Hyperpersonal communication produces is an intense, and sometimes overly intimate relationship with the other individual. Similarities between the two individuals are magnified and the differences are minimized. One experiences in intense sense of commonality with the other.

On the plus side, such identification can provide a very powerful therapeutic tool when used in conjunction with an online support group. Many people facing physical or emotional challenges today turned to the Internet for information, education, and support. The Hyperpersonal nature of such groups lets the person know that they are not alone, and that their experience is not unique. This can contribute greatly to learning to cope with or overcome challenges in one's life.

However, the downside of this is that we may create a false image of the other. Turner, et al. put it this way:

This exaggerated sense of the relationship is built on social
identity-deindividuation (SIDE) theory. SIDE theory predicts that in the
absence of face-to-face cues and prior personal knowledge, social context cues present in CMC take on particular value and may lead over attribution of similarity (Walther, 1996).

One of the obvious dangers of Hyperpersonal communication online has to do with online predators. After only a few e-mail exchanges or a few minutes in a chat room, an individual can begin to believe they know more about the person at the other end than they really do. This might lead them to reveal more personal information that would be safe to do, or it might lead them to meet with an individual in a less than safe manner.

Children and teens in particular need to be educated about this aspect of the Internet. However, even adults can be at risk. A woman who met a man in a bar might not even consider accepting a ride with him after only one encounter. Yet that same moment, after a few days of interacting through e-mail and instant messaging might give out her home address because she feels a strong connection with the individual.

There is no doubt that the Internet is no longer limited to impersonal communication. Certainly, it can be a powerful tool for building relationships both business and personal with individuals around the world. It can also be a powerful tool for helping individuals work through personal challenges in online support groups. And, by exercising reasonable caution, online relationships may lead to satisfying face-to-face relationships. I know two women who met their husbands online. However, there is a real danger that the Hyperpersonal nature of some types of online communication may put the incautious individual at risk.

References:


Nardi, B., & Whittaker, S. (2002). The role of face-to-face communication in distributed work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 83–112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Parks, M. R., & Floyd, R. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 80-96.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of Telecommunication. London: John Wiley

Turner,J., Grube,J. and Meyers, J. (2001) Developing an optimal match with in online communities: an exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support. Journal of communication, 51 (2), 231-251.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.

Getting to Know You in Cyberspace

Whenever you meet someone new, you're faced with an unknown quantity. You don't know if this person is going to be someone you're going to like or dislike. You don't know if they are honest or dishonest. You don't know whether they are interesting or boring. You don't know is building a relationship with them is going to be worth the effort.

So in your early encounters with a new person you try to find out more about them. You employ what social psychologists call uncertainty reduction strategies. The strategies can be roughly divided into two categories: passive and interactive. Passive strategies include such things as assessing their appearance, watching their behaviors, gestures, facial expressions, listing to their tone of voice, etc. Interactive strategies are "direct and obtrusive exchanges with targets." (Tidwell and Walther, 2002, p. 322) Basically, this means asking them questions and clarifying their answers.

Traditional uncertainty reduction theory (URT) assumes the physical presence of the individuals when meeting each other. Nonverbal cues are considered to be factors involved in the process of getting to know the other person. Tidwell and Walther (2002) have called this a "unstated boundary condition" (p. 321) for the interactions to take place. In other words, traditional URT assumes that the initial contact with another individual will take place in a face-to-face setting. However, in today's world, we often have our first initial contact with another person online in a text based environment.

In CMC we have a communication setting which is stripped of nonverbal cues which are present in face-to-face encounters. Consequently, most of the passive uncertainty reduction strategies are unavailable to us. So, then, how do we get to know each other online is the question.

Tidwell and Walther (2002) explore this question in a study which compared people getting to know each other in face-to-face settings versus online settings. They found that in face-to-face settings people tended to ask peripheral questions while paying attention to nonverbal cues. Online, the subjects tended to ask more significant questions and conversely they provided a higher levels of self-disclosure in their responses. In the absence of the nonverbal cues the subjects tended to ask questions which would be considered obtrusive or impolite in a face-to-face setting. However, online, this boldness was expected.

The researchers theorize that human beings adapt their communication techniques based on what they have available. They put it this way:

The social information processing theory (SIP) of CMC (Walther 1992) argues that without nonverbal cues, communicators adapt their relational behaviors to the remaining cues available in CMC such as content and linguistic strategies, as well as chronemic (Walther and Tidwell, 1995) and typographic cues (Walther and D'Addario, 2001).

What that means is that when people don't have certain tools available to them to communicate in a certain way, they will find alternative means of achieving the same result.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone. Consider the development of the deaf culture. Unable to hear not only words but tone of voice, deaf people develop their own language using hand signals and exaggerated facial expressions to achieve the same ends that hearing people achieved through spoken language. Today, we do not consider this means of communication to be inferior to spoken language. We simply see it as part of the miraculous adaptability of the communicative capability of human beings.

Likewise, visually impaired individuals cannot read facial expressions or gestures. They depend on tone of voice or touch to reduce uncertainty. In some ways, the visually impaired person communicates in a way similar to that of the individual communicating online. Of course, the visually impaired individual does have tone of voice, but the visual nonverbal cues are missing. This leads to a difference in how the visually impaired evaluate others.

My mother is visually impaired. Several years ago, back in the 1960s, a young man came to our church and told about how his conversion to Christianity helped him overcome drug addiction. The young man had a beard and long hair, and the church was a fairly conservative church. The next day, my mother received a phone call from someone in the church complaining about this young man's long hair and beard. My mother, on the other hand, have been really blessed by this individual's testimony. Her comment to the other person was, "I don't know. I was blessed by him. But I had to judge him on the words he spoke not on the beard he wore." In other words, she depended on a different criteria for reducing her uncertainty about the individual. And that was a criteria very much like the criteria that individuals in online settings apply.

One of the observations of the researchers in this study related to communication research in general. It was stated in technical terms, but the essence of the observation was that as new communication technology emerges we need to develop new research models to accommodate those technologies. Frequently, when reading many of the research articles about CMC, I find researchers referring to communication theories formulated in the 1970s and early 80s when computer mediated communication made up an infinitesimal portion of daily communication.

As the Times change, as the technologies change, and as the comfort level of the individual with the technology changes, we may need to see the theoretical models of communication also change. But, isn't that one of the things that makes research so exciting. It is never finished.

Reference:

Tidwell, L. and Walther, J. (2002) Computer-mediated communication the effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Communication Research, 28, 317 -- 346.

Walther, J. (1992) Interpersonal effects in computer mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Interpersonal effects in computer mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90., 52-90.

Walther, J. and D'addario, K. (2001) The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 323-345.

Walther, J. and Tidwell, L. (1995). Nonverbal cues in computer mediated communication, and the effect of chronemics on relational communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 5, 355-378.

Hyperpersonal Communication: CMC and the Development of Intimacy among Strangers

When I first proposed teaching interpersonal communication online almost five years ago, I was met with skepticism from several members of the curriculum committee. They considered the internet as a medium to be impersonal in nature. The only way I could appease these old fuddy---- er --- esteemed senior members of the committee was to add four face-to-face meetings. Eventually, over time, we were able to reduce the number of meetings to a voluntary orienation meeting.

This perception of the internet as being an impersonal medium comes from the text-based nature of most online communication. This type of communication strips out the nonverbal cues human beings have long depended on to read emotion, mood and the unspoken nuances of interaction. This is called the "cues filtered out" (CFO) model (Hian, Chuan, Trevor & Detenber, 2004). This theory assumes that because online communication lacks nonverbal cues, such as facial expression, posture, gestures and tone of voice, it is necessarily impersonal and, thus, resistant to the development of intimate relationships.

However, a study by Lee Bee Hian and associates found that, in fact, "relational intimacy" developed more quickly online than in face-to-face relationships. In the study subjects worked on projects online and in face-to-face settings. While the intimacy level remained mostly the same for the face-to-face group over the course of the project, the intimacy level grew significantly in the online group. There appeared to be no difference based on gender or the type of task as regards the results.

The researchers theorized that online one creates an idealized image of the other person and, for their part, can take more time to present themselves in the best possible light. We have the ability to edit what we say more completely before we say it. Additionally, the absence of non-verbal cues reduces the risk of judging other individuals on appearance or nonverbal behavior which is often misinterpreted. In this case "rich context" communication may actually slow down the process of development of intimacy.

The researchers also point out that "emotive" nonverbal cues are present in online communication. These include emoticon such as the smiley :-) or frowney :-( and the abreviations such as LOL (laugh out loud) which take the place of nonverbal cues.

The implications of this research include both positives and negatives. On the positive side, online relationships can develop a degree of intimacy comparable to online ones. Also, online collaboration in a work setting can improve the bonding of co-workers even if they are in different locations. However, there is a dark side to this. In social online settings individuals may reveal too much personal identifying information too quickly online putting themselves at risk. Also, online communities can make implicit demands on an individual to reveal more about themselves than they would be likely to do in other social settings. I have found myself chastised at times for not telling more personal information in certain online communities I belong to. There has emerged in some places online an expection of intimacy among strangers which can be disturbing and dangerous.

Yes, intimacy is possible online. But the warning is that it may develop so rapidly that reasonable caution is ignored.

Reference:

Hian, L., Chuan, S., Trevor, T. and Detenber, B. (2004) Getting to know you: Exploring the development of relational intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 9 (3), April. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue3/detenber.html . Retrieved June 12, 2006.

Students as Teachers: The Leveling Effect of Online Education

Remember being in school. You sat in a desk along with a bunch of other people in the room. You all looked forward and listened to the instructor tell you what you needed to know. When there was any discussion, it was usually teacher directed. The teacher asked questions, and you responded to those questions.

For years, those of us in education knew this wasn't exactly the best model. We knew that students learn best when they were discovering the information for themselves. We also knew that most classroom discussions ended up being dominated by one or two students who were excessively vocal, while others sat quietly in the back of the room. Yet, it was hard to break away from that model. For one thing, the physical setting encouraged it. Rows of chairs facing forward encouraged teacher-oriented classes. And if you broke up that format, you risked finding a note on your desk from the next teacher to use the room that you didn't put the chairs back in the "right" order. Also, time constraints held you back. Even if you got a good discussion going, 50 minutes later you had to stop and could rarely get everyone's comments in during that time.

Online education is changing that model. Robert Heckman, Syracuse University, School of Information Studies, and Hala Annabi The Information School, University of Washington, (2005) compared the content of discussions in face-to-face classrooms with those found in online course discussion boards. They came up with a number of conclusions.

One thing they discovered was a social leveling effect. The instructor was no longer the center of the class. In the face-to-face classes, the instructor was the primary source of cognitive information. The instructor was frequently interrupting the discussion to insert instructional material. They found that this happened much less often in the online courses. Additionally, frequently the students took over this task. They tended to help or inform other students more often than the instructor. The instructor was no longer the central character in the course. The students gained much greater social prominence.

Secondly, they found that the responses from the online students contained more cognitive information. In other words, the responses contained more depth and where better thought out than those in the face-to-face discussions. This makes sense, because the students have more time to deliberately formulate a response online whereas in the face-to-face setting, the responses are spontaneous and therefore, were likely to be surface level responses. They more likely focused on emotional information or opinion rather than on reasoning.

In general, they found that the students to take more ownership of the learning experience. Students depended more on their own exploration of the topic and discussion with other students than on the teacher for their learning experiences. And when that happens, the students are more likely to integrate what they learn into their daily lives.

Does this mean that online education is necessarily superior to face to face instruction. Hardly. There are advantages and disadvantages to any mode of content delivery in education. However, this is a strength of the online model. It is a strength that instructors can play to when designing online courses.

Of course, this has implications for the self perception of the instructors. Most of us view ourselves as a "fountain of knowledge" that the students come to for wisdom. Online instruction, however, this brings us back to a more Socratic model in which the role of the instructor is that of one who leads the student to discover knowledge on their own rather than one who delivers that knowlege in a package.

The online instructor, then, must be willing to subordinate his or her ego enough to turn over the learning experience to the student. For many of us this is hard, but, if we say that the student comes first, we must mean it.

References:

Heckman, R., and Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 7. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/heckman.html

Connecting through similarity

Whether you know it or not you are more easily influenced by people with whom your share some similarity than with someone very different than you. Communication researchers have long known this to be true of face to face encounters. However, a study by NICOLAS GUEGUEN (2003) of the Universite de Bretagne-Sud, Vannes, France, found a similar influence in computer-mediated communication.

Gueguen sent e-mails to 50 students asking them to participate in a survey on eating habits. In 25 of these e-mails the first name of the hypothetical researcher was the same as the first name of the recipient. In the other 25 it was different. More of the students in the first group responded to the survey than those in the second.

The researcher concluded

These results confirm the efficacy of similarity between the helper and the solicitor on helping behavior and are consistent with previous studies on helping behavior where similarity was manipulated by physical appearance or convergence of attitudes .

Certainly, this is the type of information that spammers might use in increasing the efficiency of their advertising. However, being aware of this technique, creates a more informed consumer.

But you don't need to be deceitful or manipulative to put this in principle to work in a more positive setting. For instance, if you're e-mailing a fellow member of a service club in another state seeking assistance on a project for the club in your area, emphasizing the similar challenges between your club and theirs, could increase your chances of a positive response.

So, the basic lesson here is: If you are trying to influence someone else's behavior, even online, emphasize those things you share in common with them.

Reference:

Nicolas Gueguen (2003) Help on the Web: The effect of the same first name between the sender and the receptor in a request made by e-mail . The Psychological Record. Gambier: Summer .Vol.53, Iss. 3; pg. 459

Computer Mediated Communication - What does it mean to you?

The fact you are reading this says something about you and about our culture. Today we form relationships, communicate with friends and family, collaborate with co-workers, even seek romantic relationships online. The researchers call this "Computer-Mediated Communication" or CMC for short.

We are learning a lot about who communicates online, how we do it, what works, what doesn't work, and where we might go from here.

Online communication is fascinating in many ways. First, it is global in nature. In the past, only HAM radio operators, who formed a very small portion of the population, formed such long distance relationships. In addition to being global, it is also unique in that relationships are often formed with people one will never see in the flesh. Again, except for HAM's and those with pen pals, few people in the past formed any significant relationships without a face-to-face component. In fact, the process tends to be turned around. In traditional relationship building, you begin with a face-to-face relationship and then move on to a mediated (telephone, letter) relationship. However, an increasing number of relationships begin online and migrate to face-to-face, as in the case of "online dating."

Online communication also presents the challenge of being primarily text-based communication. This changes the process in several ways. First, it tends to be less spontaneous. The act of typing produces a deliberate editing of one's thoughts. That last sentence, for instance, went through four different variations in the process of writing it. However, being text-based also encourages an increased depth of communication. I wrote an email to a discussion group once called "An Expectation of Intimacy among Strangers." The point I made is that we often move very rapidly from first meeting to significant self-disclosure. Close knit online communities begin to expect such candor from their group members. Being text based, though, removes the typical nonverbal cues we depend on especially to determine emotional content of communication. This can lead to messages being misunderstood because someone doesn't see the playful smile or hear the ironic tone in one's voice. However, it can also be a plus. Frequently, we make snap judgments of people based on physical appearance, race, gender, hairstyle or clothing. Removal of those cues forces us to judge a person on the content of one's message rather than the cut of one's hair.

In this blog we will review some of this research and discuss the implications of that research in our online communication. After all, it's no longer a question of whether you will communicate online or not. It's just a matter of when, and how well.