concepts assingment

concept 1: Asynchronicity

The definition of Asynchronous communication is a blurred one. It is not merely the opposite of Synchronous. Computer Mediated Communication actually exists on an axis of time and because the lag times can vary; some communication is more asynchronous than others. Instant messaging, considered synchronous is often conducted with long delays between responses making it asynchronous. Email, typically asynchronous can be conducted in a near synchronous manner. I actually like Shelton's (2009) attempt at conceptualizing asynchronous communication three dimensionally, not just in terms of time but also existing on axes of "scope" and "permanence." Scope refers to the sphere of involvement. Email is commonly one to one. Blogs are one to many; Wikis, and Discussion boards are many to many. By permanence, Shelton (2009) is referring to the quality of durability. Communication has a shelf life before it loses its relevance. Phone conversations are ephemeral. The content is usually forgotten as soon as the conversation is finished. Other forms, because they are predominantly text based tend to linger longer and therefore have some value. It is interesting to contemplate where something new like Twitter would fit into all of this. The communication exchange is kind of uni directional. You can follow certain people but they don't have to reciprocate by following you which is useful to celebrities such as Britney Spears who has nearly one and half million followers. The information would also seem to have a short life in terms of value before it becomes old news.

Just on a personal level, the advantages of asynchronous communication can be revealed by comparing it to some of the potential problems that people face when in real time situations, such as in face to face or on the phone. Sometimes, in these circumstances proper etiquette is easily forgotten with people talking over one another or just talking without thinking. Also, the attitudes they display through their body language, such as judging or moralizing can be barriers to good communication (Bolton 1987). This is where conversing asynchronously come into its own. An email isn't an ephemeral conversation; it persists. When you receive it, it sits there on you computer and you don't have to respond immediately. John Suler (2007) says that when he receives an emotional charged email, he waits for the emotion to settle down before he replies. Similarly, when i write an email, i can save it as a draft, reflect on it and edit it before i decide to send it. In other words, I can think before i write and avoid misunderstanding and regrets that i might have had if the conversation had been face to face.

The benefits extend beyond the personal. For example, I am only able to participate and further my education because of the benefits of asynchronous communication. The information and communications have permanence and i can access them at my convenience. I'm not constrained by time and place. I find relevant readings for my course work and participate with other students by means of the many to many nature of the discussion board. And then i communicate my learning through a blog, where others can view and comment. This is all possible because of asynchronous communication.

References:

Bolton, R. (1987). People skills How to assert yourself, listen to others, and resolve conflicts. Brookvale, NSW: Simon & Schuster.

Shelton, T. (2007, April 07). Grokking Twitter: Presence, Scope and Permanence. In Ted Shelton. Weblog post retrieved April 26, 2009, from http://tedshelton.blogspot.com/2007/04/grokking-twitter-presence-scope-and.html

Ted Shelton is the founder and CEO of the conversation group, set up to examine how new technologies are changing the way business is done. He has spent many years working as a software developer in high tech industries. In this article, he articulates his thoughts about asynchronous communication and attempts to develop a model through which to view these various communications. Of particular interest are his thoughts about Twitter and how to view it through his model. His slant is more business focused than general use. His conclusions are that Twitter is most useful for within a defined group and where information has short term benefit. This was very helpful to me as it encouraged me to view asynchronous communication in terms other than time.

Suler, J. (2007). The psychology of text relationships. In The Psychology of Cyberspace. Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/psytextrel.html

Weiss, J. B., & Campion, T. R. (2007). Blogs, wikis, and discussion forums: Attributes and implications for clinical information systems. In Medinfo 2007: Proceedings of the 12th World Congress on Health (Medical) Informatics; Building Sustainable Health Systems. Retrieved May 01, 2009, from http://search.informit.com.au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=781745715885285;res=IELHSS

This article is aimed at health informaticians hoping to increase understanding of the possibilities given by blogs, wikis and discussion forums. It compares and contrasts each of these asynchronous communication forms in terms of seven attributes: display, display of knowledge, participation, visibility of author and tone of voice. For example, in terms of display of entries, Blogs are defined as reverse chronological, wikis are topical, and Discussion forums are chronological within topics.These comparisons really reinforced my understanding of these communication forms. The authors go on to describe two case studies using the attribute model including using blogs and wikis as part of project to provide social support for cancer patients.




Concept 17: The impact of text based real time chat

Synchronous or real time chat encompasses both instant messaging and conversations that occur in public chat rooms. Although it may be obvious, these technologies are text based and using them well depends on one's writing ability. This would preclude some people who find communicating by means of text difficult at the best of times. After all it is a very minimalist form of communication: just words typed on a screen without the usual overlay of auditory and visual extras that are present in a face to face conversation. Others, who love text might revel in this form of communication.

Conversations are also conducted at a much slower pace than in face to face.There is a lag time as participants send and receive messages over networked computers (Suler,1987). Really they are a form of asynchronous communication with a short delay between exchanges and really should really be classified as near synchronous. The slight delay allows time for reflective responses in a conversation to take place, a quality it shares with more asynchronous types of communication. So that even in a seemingly chaotic multi participant multi threaded chat room, users usually are able to make sense of what is going on by screening out a lot of the noise and focus on particular users or conversation threads (Suler,1987).

Online text based conversations are also characterized by invisibility; participants don't see each other. And in some cases, particularly in chat rooms they might not know each other. These factors contribute to a type of behavior in Cyberspace that is less restrained than would occur in face to face encounters. Suler (2004) calls it online disinhibition. Much of the media coverage of this has been negative in this regard, for example, stories about cyberbullying or flaming in chat rooms. However, the lack of inhibition exhibited online cuts both ways. It does manifest in pro social behavior. Research by Valkenburg and Peter (2009) on the use of instant messaging amongst teenagers found positive correlations between disinhibition and self disclosure which in turn actually enhanced their existing friendships. Their findings applied only to those who used messaging to maintain existing friendships; they didn't apply to conversing with strangers for example, in public chat rooms.

What i found fascinating about this study was that the participants were invisible but not anonymous; they knew each other in the first place, and yet still chose to disclose more than they might do in face to face encounters. This seems counterintuitive. However, sometimes the visual cues present in face to face conversation act as barriers to communication and they can diminish self disclosure and honesty. Lack of eye contact for example, communicates not listening and disrespect for the person speaking. Lots of people know the experience of someone not really listening to them. Communicating by text can avoid some to these disruptive aspects of face to face encounters.


References:

Suler, J. (1987, October). Psychological dynamics of online synchronous conversations in text-driven chat environments. In Psychology of Cyberspace. Retrieved May 03, 2009, from http://www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/texttalk.html

John Suler is a professor of Psychology at Rider University and has written extensively on the psychological aspects of computer mediated conversations. This article describes the nature of synchronous online chat that typifies public chat rooms.He describes the phenomenon of group "free association" that occurs when the owner and recipient of messages is not clear. This effect is compounded when messages don't appear exactly in sequence. He also describes the skill of disassociation that occurs when people have multiple conversations going at the same time without each other knowing, a highly developed skill without comparison in face to face encounters.

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326. Retrieved May 5, 2009, from EBSCOhost, from
http://web.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=103&sid=a8bfd36d-e373-442f-9ea4-9f5e1720db65%40sessionmgr107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=13621589

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). Social Consequences of the Internet for Adolescents: A Decade of Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 1-5. Wiley InterScience. (2009, February 23). Retrieved April 30, 2009, from http://web.ebscohost.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=103&sid=a8bfd36d-e373-442f-9ea4-9f5e1720db65%40sessionmgr107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=13621589

This paper is a review of the recent literature concerning the social consequences of Computer Mediated Communication. Patti M Valkenburg is professor and Jochen Peter is an associate professor at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research. This paper focuses on instant messaging more than public chat rooms.They debunk popular views that frequent use of online technologies such as IM has a detrimental social cost. Instead they reveal just the opposite: that enhanced self disclosure in online communications increases personal and social well being.

Concept 26: Privacy and Security


According to Jisuk Woo (2006), The threat to people's privacy today is not from governments and commercial organizations intruding on our space, but from the willingness of individuals to trade off their privacy by willingly giving out their personal information in exchange for benefits. Perhaps the Web 2.0 phenomenon has something to do with it where everything has been "Ajax'd" ( Harris, 2006). Web 2.0 services like Diigo, Delicious and Google Docs are very convenient and i have used them extensively in this course. But is my privacy at risk? I don't know and should i care? I think i take reasonable steps with privacy. For example i'm careful with passwords, the keys to my online life and i have set up my browser to intercept cookies for review before they reside on my computer. But I wonder if people get somewhat paranoid about what could happen. In any case, if their was some infringement of my privacy i don't think i would be too anxious because the information isn't that personal.

But what about something like Facebook, a social networking sites whose whole premise is to share personal information? Privacy issues here are real enough. In a recent article in the Age, the dangers of sharing personal information online were highlighted with the release, by the privacy commissioners of various countries, of an educational animated video called "Think before you upload"(Milovanovic, 2009).

In a study by Strater and Richter Lipford (2008) on the issue of privacy on Facebook, the authors found that users generally underestimated the risks inherent in sharing material on the net, for example, the potential for others to use the material in ways the originator might deem embarrassing. The authors also found that the perception that users had of their intended audience was sometimes wrong. More people had access to a users profile than the user thought because of poor privacy settings.

According to Woo (2006), the answer to protecting privacy on the net lies in deception. He argues that policies aiming to provide privacy are ineffective these days. Instead, users should be able to protect their privacy by disguising their true identity and concealing their personal information. In other words lying. I am not sure if i completely agree with him, but the idea of user responsibility is right on the mark. Users need to understand the risks and have to take responsibility for their own privacy.

In most cases though it's a trade off. You sacrifice one thing at the expense of the other. Sometimes i might be able to maintain complete anonymity or privacy and still reap some benefit. For example, i could use a pseudonym and a disposable email address when using Diigo, and then i could enjoy the benefits of collecting and annotating my sources whilst still enjoying a degree of anonymity .Other times i don't want to be anonymous. With Facebook, users willingly shed some of their privacy. They want to share themselves: their photos, interests, messages and contacts. Why? Because they aim to strengthen the social bonds between their friends, both real and virtual. Its called enhancing social capital and Facebook has been shown to do that (Ellison et al., 2007). Users just have to learn to mitigate the risks associated with doing it.

References:

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebook "Friends:" Social capital and college students' Use of Online Social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4). Retrieved May 8, 2009, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html

Harris, W. (2006, June 3). Why Web 2.0 will end your privacy. In Bit-tech.net. Weblog post retrieved May 6, 2009, from http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2006/06/03/web_2_privacy/

Milovanovic, S. (2009, May 6). Social site warning for Teenagers. The Age. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/web/social-site-warning-for-teens/2009/05/05/1241289177088.html

Strater, K., & Richter Lipford, H. (2008, September). Strategies and struggles with privacy in an online social networking community. Retrieved May 7, 2009, from ACM digital library.http://portal.acm.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/citation.cfm?id=1531514.1531530&coll=portal&dl=ACM&CFID=15605080&CFTOKEN=55032916

This a qualitative study into the ways users maintain their privacy on the social networking site, Facebook. The authors are academics from the University of North Carolina in the USA. Eighteen students from the Department of Psychology participated in the study. Uses logged into the Facebook profiles and their disclosures and privacy settings were noted. Interviews and questionnaires were subsequently undertaken. Results indicated that users rarely reflect on their privacy except when setting up their profile unless the suffer a privacy intrusion. Facebook itself also came under criticism for poor default and complicated privacy settings. Research is relevant to my concept because it underscores the notion of user responsibility.

Woo, J. (2006). The right not to be identified: privacy and anonymity in the interactive media environment. New Media & Society, 8(6), 949-967. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Sage journals online. http://nms.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/cgi/content/abstract/8/6/949

JIsuk Woo is an Associate Professor at Seoul National University's Graduate School of Public Administration.He discusses the concept of privacy, from how it developed as a response to the intrusions by governments and the media through to todays digital networked environment where he says the concept is flawed. He argues that current conceptions of privacy are passive and outdated in todays digital world, that users need to take responsibility for their own privacy, through deception. This work is relevant to my paper because it discusses how threats to individual privacy are often the result of users willingly divulging information about themselves in exchange for some benefit rather than an actual intrusion.


Concept 33: Information and Attention

I don't think there is any contention that information is increasing at a phenomenal rate on the internet. When i search for information on Google, i feel overwhelmed by the vastness of it all. The problem is that i simply don't have the capacity to attend to all of it. This is a theme highlighted by Goldhaber (1997). According to him, there exists a scarcity of attention relative to the plethora of information on the net screaming at us to be noticed. I agree with his proposition because experience has shown that i can only really pay attention properly to one thing at time. Sometimes i slice up my attention paying partial attention but its a diminished attention. So there exists this situation where people are writing blogs, websites and uploading photos and videos on the net, all clambering to get noticed in a world where the capacity to notice is limited.

This places the designers of web content in an unenviable position. How to possibly grab that attention and hold it ?

Nielson (1997) has a lot to say about designing web content with the aim of getting attention. He advocates designing with the behavior of consumers in mind who are lazy and inpatient. They browse and scan instead of read. They also read slower on the screen than they would on the printed page (Kurniawan et al., 2001). Nielson (1997) for example, advocates shorter pieces of content with plenty of links so users don't have to scroll down the page. He says users won't stick around long if they can't find what they are looking for. They don't need much of an excuse to move on to the next site.

I tend to agree with Nielson in some respects. Certainly scrolling down long pages of text on a computer screen is tedious and annoying, but so are lots of links. I find holding my attention on a computer screen difficult because i tire easily. Perhaps it is the resolution of the text or the size of the screen. But could it be hypertext? How ironic would it be that Web sites are designed with plenty of links intending to hold my attention, but that the act of reading them weakens my attention. Zimming (2005) has found hypertext to be a real culprit. His research shows that hypertext leads to non linear reading which leads to fragmented reading, and that this infact undermines attention.

One solution i think would be to ensure that the print view button is well placed so that people have the option to easily print out what they want to read. Even with the ability to annotate on Web 2.0 services like Diigo, it's not the same as annotating in the margins. There is something about paper that lends itself to holding one's attention. In Zimming's research ,80 percent of participants said that they frequently printed out documents to read. One reason is practical: paper is portable. Apart from the fact that i am not at my computer all the time, some of my best attention occurs not in front of a screen but when i am reading whilst relaxing in a cafe.

References:

Godlhaber, Michael H. "The Attention economy and the nett." First Monday 2 (1997). 1 May 2009 <http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/519/440>.

This article is a more formal treatment of a subject that he has written and spoken by the author many times. Here is appears in a peer reviewed journal. His premise is that the whole economy as we know it is undergoing significant change due to the internet and that attention is the new currency. The more you have, the more successful you will be. This article has been cited 167 time in Google Scholar. This article has helped me understand the limits of attention.

Kurniawan, Sri H., and Panayiotis Zaphiris. "Reading online or on Paper: which is faster?" 9 th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. 2001. 03 May 2009 <http://agrino.org/pzaphiri/Papers/hcii2001_reading_posterr.pdf>.

Nielson, Jakob. "Why web users scan instead of read." Useit.com. Oct. 1997. 9 May 2009 <http://www.useit.com/>.

Zimming, Lui. "Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the last ten years." Journal of Documentation 61 (2005): 700-12. 9 May 2009 <http://www.emeraldinsight.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/2780610601.html>.

This qualitative study examines how reading habits have changed with introduction of digital media. Screen based reading behavior such as browsing, scanning and non linear reading facilitated by the use of hypertext is arising, but at the expense of sustained attention. A shallower rather than deep concentrated reading is also found. Majority of participants indicated that they always printed documents when required to read deeply. Study suggests paper will never be replaced entirely be digital media. supports my concept discussion in arguing that making it easy for web content to be printed is one way to hold peoples attention.