Malcolm ParksUniversity of Washington, Department of Communication
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01462.x
The Internet is not really disappearing in any literal sense, of course. But it is becomingless visible as the result of widespread use and incorporation into everyday activity.Internet use has become a regular activity for 60–70% of the population in NorthAmerica, Europe, and several Asian countries, and for over 20% of the populationworldwide (World Internet Usage Statistics News and World Population Statistics,2008). Many Internet-based applications are so commonplace and so integrated intoour daily activities that they are easily taken for granted. In recognition of howordinary Internet use has become, we should probably stop capitalizing the word‘‘Internet,’’ as others have suggested (Turow & Kavanaugh, 2003). More important,we should recognize that while the growth of the Internet has attracted large numbersof people to CMC research, the field has suffered from some of the same hyperboleand chaos that has characterized the growth of the Internet itself. As we pause torefocus our priorities, I believe we might benefit from appreciating the value ofbetter descriptive research, the need to organize research efforts around underlyingcommunicative processes rather than surface technologies, and the benefits oftracking changes in CMC and its contexts over time.
Far too much of what we think we know about Internet use comes fromuncertain combinations of commercially motivated marketing research, globalsurveys (e.g., PEW Internet studies), proclamations of self-appointed Internetexperts, breathless first-person accounts, and low grade ethnographies. Lackingis high-quality descriptive research that identifies the prevalence of and variance intheoretically relevant variables in generalizable samples. Although it may not havethe cache of theoretic work, high-quality descriptive plays several essential functionsin theory development. First, it helps counterbalance the understandable tendencyto overemphasize the newest, most fashionable applications. Second, descriptivework with large representative samples promotes critical evaluation of prevailingstereotypes and assumptions regarding Internet use. For example, social networksites, as well as several other social venues on the Internet, are often viewed through the
lens of a community metaphor, but we actually do not know whether they generallydisplay the level of engagement or connectivity characteristic of communities. Third,descriptive research assists in identifying the triggering or boundary conditions oftheory (see Walther, in press, for a discussion of this often overlooked theoreticrequirement). Liu and his colleagues, for example, have conceptualized applicationssuch as MySpace as arenas for elaborate ‘‘taste performances’’ involving expressionsof personal preferences and group affiliations (Liu, 2007; Liu, Maes, & Davenport,2006). This theoretic perspective is, however, constrained by an unstated triggeringcondition—namely that most users display their preferences and affiliations insufficient number and detail to constitute a performance. Yet recent descriptiveresearch suggests that only a small proportion of MySpace users display preferencesand affiliations on their profiles (Parks, 2008; Thelwall, 2008). This in turn limitsthe generalizability and application of the theory. Finally, descriptive research callsattention to overlooked phenomena that merit explanation. For example, althoughbroadband access has reached a clear majority of Americans, descriptive work hasrevealed that a substantial portion of people either make light use of it or areholdouts (Horrigan, 2007). Hargittai (2007) noted that variations in the use of socialnetworking applications are not adequately accounted for in the existing literature.The same observation can be made about variations in the used of nearly every CMCform.
Advances in our understanding of computer-mediated communication will, Ibelieve, come more rapidly if we place the fundamental communicative processesinvolved in the foreground. This may require shifts in our ways of organizingprofessionally. The long term intellectual value of grouping ourselves into professionalassociations and divisions for Internet research is open to question. At a minimum,progress requires shifting our attention away from the surface features of technologiesto the underlying communicative processes they serve. This will assist CMCresearchers in recognizing common cause with researchers working on broaderdomains and theories of communication. It will also encourage a greater level of rigorand theoretic care. As Walther (in press) recently observed, CMC research has not yetadequately addressed underlying assumptions, has failed to develop typologies thatwould allow meaningful comparison of technologies, failed to articulate boundaryconditions for theoretic perspectives, and, in too many cases, has devoted inadequateattention to underlying explanatory mechanisms. These are the issues will sustainCMC research in the long term.
Moving beyond a ‘‘technocentric’’ focus will also make it easier to examine thebroader context in which CMC now occurs. I note two examples. Increasing numbersof people appear to text message, check their social network application, surf thenet, watch television, and listen to their iPods all at more or less the same time. Weknow something about distraction effects, but we know very little about the effects,if any, of regular, simultaneous multimedia use on attention, problem-solving, andface-to-face interaction. We know very little about the motivations for simultaneous
media use and very little about the strategies people use to manage the challenges ofsimultaneous media use.
Another set of research priorities are suggested by the fact that many ofour relationships have become ‘‘mixed-mode’’ (Walther & Parks, 2002). That is,relationships have become multimedia affairs in which people draw on differentinteractive media at different points for different tasks. Understanding how peoplemake these choices will inform theory and may have practical implications formedia designers who often appear to operate as if every social process is anequally good candidate for a web-based application. We also need to understandmore about ‘‘mode-switching’’ in everyday interaction. An excellent foundation isprovided by the research on how people manage long-distance relationships and theresearch on how people who have met online transition to face-to-face interaction(e.g., Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Ramirez & Zhang, 2007). We should build on thatfoundation by, first, moving beyond dramatic changes in mode (e.g., going frombeing exclusively on line to meeting F2F) to examine how people in establishedrelationships make, interpret, and manage each other’s media choices on a dailybasis.
Finally, our understanding will benefit from greater attention to the way inwhich CMC technologies and their uses change over time. At the outset we shouldnot assume that the newest applications are necessarily the most important or thatthe use and impact of applications does not change over time. Media researchersare often early adopters and are easily drawn to studying the ‘‘next big thing.’’But early effects may be quite different than later effects. The reversal of fortunesuffered by advocates of the ‘‘Internet paradox’’ is a powerful reminder that userbehavior may change greatly with experience (Kraut et al., 2002). Results that arehere today can easily be gone tomorrow. Moreover, given that the Internet ischaracterized by small populations of rapidly evolving technologies, most of whichfail, focusing on the newest applications can easily lead us to invest time and energyin applications with very limited prospects. I sometimes wonder, for instance, if someaspects of my own early work on MOOs might not simply be obsolete (Parks &Roberts, 1998).
Tracking social technologies over time will not only inform CMC research,but also opens windows to a new understanding of the way in which innovationand diffusion occurs more generally. Research on the diffusion of innovationshas traditionally focused on relatively ‘‘finished’’ products or services that do notchange much during the diffusion process. But this approach is questionable withregard to the Internet, which is, after all, not a discrete technology but rather asort of ‘‘metatechnology’’ that hosts populations of related and rapidly evolvingapplications. The design of many of these applications is fluid, responding notonly to adoption decisions, but also to direct modification by users (Neff & Stark,2003). Innovation in many technologies has become a much more user-centered,user-driven process (von Hippel, 2005). One of our research priorities should
therefore be to examine the mutual influence processes linking innovators andusers.
As communication scholars our interests extend beyond social technologies tothe discourse regarding those technologies. I also advocate much more systematicattention to the arc of public discourse surrounding new communicative technologies.Many have noted the tensions between utopian and dystopian narratives regardingthe Internet. Others have explored historical narratives on social technologies (e.g.,Marvin, 1987). A few have examined the way technologies such as the personalcomputer are covered in the press (Cogan, 2005). I know of no attempts, however,to track the public discourse surrounding a given Internet application over time.Have public narratives about social networking sites, for example, changed over thepast 3–4 years in predictable ways? Do we talk about instant messaging or onlinedating sites the same way now as we did in the past? Do public narratives on diversesocial technologies follow similar trajectories over time? Research on questions suchas these could inform both theory and public understanding.
The enormous growth of Internet-related applications and computer-based gamesover the past 15 years generated global interest and attracted a new generation ofresearchers to CMC research. But these technologies are rapidly becoming a normalpart of everyday life. Put simply, the new media are no longer so new. Sustainingand growing CMC research will require that we move beyond current fashions andbecome much more serious about describing our phenomena of interest, situatingthose phenomena within the broader context of communication theory, and trackingCMC-related phenomena over time. These are the tasks that will energize us longafter the Internet ‘‘disappears’’ from the spotlights of popular and academic fashion.
References
Cogan, B. (2005). ‘‘Framing usefulness:’’ An examination of journalistic coverage of the
personal computer from 1982–1984. Southern Communication Journal, 70(3), 248–265.
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Patterns of communication channel use in the maintenance
of long-distance relationships. Communication Research Reports, 19, 118–129.
Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network
sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 14. Retrieved June 20,
2008, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html.
Horrigan, J. B. (2007). A Typology of Information and Communication Technology Users.
Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_ICT_
Typology.pdf.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002).
Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49–74.
Liu, H. (2007). Social network profiles as taste performances. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Marvin, C. (1987). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communications in
the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Neff, G., & Stark, D. (2003). Permanently beta: Responsive organization in the Internet era.
In P. Howard & S. Jones (Eds.), Society online: The Internet in context (pp. 173–188).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parks, M. (2008). Characterizing the communicative affordances of MySpace: A place for friends
or a friendless place? Paper presented at the International Communication Association,
Montreal, Canada.
Parks, M., & Roberts, L. D. (1998). ‘‘Making MOOsic’’: The development of personal
relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social &
Personal Relationships, 15(4), 517–537.
Ramirez, A., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching
on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74, 287–310.
Thelwall, M. (2008). Social networks, gender, and friending: An analysis of MySpace member
profiles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8),
1321–1330.
Turow, J., & Kavanaugh, A. L. (2003). Introduction: The wired homestead. In J. Turow &
A. L. Kavanaugh (Eds.), The wired homestead: An MIT Press sourcebook on the Internet
and the family (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walther, J. B. (in press). Computer-mediated communication. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff
& D. Roskos-Ewolsen (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer mediated
communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp, J. A. Daly & G. R. Miller (Eds.), The
handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
World Internet Usage Statistics News and World Population Statistics. (2008). Retrieved August
8, 2008, from http://www.Internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
About the Authors
Malcolm Parks, Associate Professor, conducts research on interpersonal relationships,persuasion, organizational change, and social networks. Current projects includestudies of how social network factors might account for differences in the strengthof attitudes on controversial issues, ways organizations can influence the health oftheir employees and clients, and the nature of interaction on social network sites likeMySpace. His work examines interaction in both face-to-face and online settings. Heteaches undergraduate and graduate courses in interpersonal communication, socialscientific methods, computer-mediated communication, communication networks,and community. He is also affiliated with the Health Marketing and CommunicationResearch Center.
Parks was the recipient of the 1996 Woolbert Award for disciplinary impact from theNational Communication Association and the Hammer Award from the Office of theVice President of the United States for his applied work in organizational innovation.His research has been supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Centers forDisease Control, and the Army Research Organization, and the U.S. Air Force Officeof Prevention and Health Services Assessment.
