Some years ago, computer-mediated communication (CMC) was regarded as a new mode of communication; its patterns unidentified, its opportunities unexplored. Today, this mode of communication has replaced the familiar face-to-face communication. This means that CMC can now be qualified as an independent discipline with its own laws and patterns behind its functioning. To better understand what issues are critical to CMC today, the issues of the Journal of Computer-Based Communication for the past twenty years were researched. This research revealed that, on the whole, there are three major issues discussed among CMC experts: the difference between the traditional face-to-face communication and CMC, the role of cultural factor in CMC, and the evaluation of CMC competence.
The first issue that was identified based on the research is the difference between the traditional face-to-face communication and CMC. This issue was an expected one because as CMC keeps replacing the traditional face-to-face communication in more and more contexts, it seems to be rational to attempt to understand the peculiar characteristics of this new mode of communication that is about to become (or, has already become) the dominant one. In this respect, one of the major and most meaningful findings that the studies on this issue offer is that CMC, as a mode of communication, helps to eliminate cultural and proficiency-level differences in teams so that each team member can account for a relatively equal recognition or for, at least, an unbiased treatment (Bazarova & Yuan, 2013). It follows, then, that there are substantial grounds behind CMC’s replacing the traditional face-to-face communication: for example, it has turned out to be a more emotionally comfortable mode of communication than the face-to-face mode.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Issues in Computer Mediated Communication".
Since one of the core differences between the traditional face-to-face communication and CMC is that the latter helps to eliminate the cultural implication barrier, it is not surprising that the role of the cultural factor is another issue that is actively researched in this field. This issue is particularly interesting because the view on the cultural factor changed with the development of CMC and new studies being carried out. Thus, for instance, the research by Bazarova & Yuan (2013) determined that CMC was characterized by eliminating or, at least, minimizing cultural differences. However, a newer research by Hansen, Fabriz, and Stehle (2015) showed that the issue is not as simple as it might appear at first sight. More specifically, it demonstrated that the cultural identity of the addressant is not only identified by the addressee but likewise affects the addressee’s writing style and communication behavior. This means that as the CMC develops, it adopts more rules underpinning the traditional face-to-face communication and the cultural factor is a good example of it.
The third issue in CMC is more than predictable: since CMC replaces the traditional face-to-face communication, there appears the need for understanding how to measure CMC competence for people need to know what developmental goals to target and how to know whether they make any progress and become better communicators. In this regard, it should be pointed out that the concept of CMC competence is relatively new and any evaluation framework should be perceived as experimental. On the whole, most frameworks rely on the traditional communication measurement models readjusting them to the specifics of CMC. Thus, for instance, the model described in the study by Spitzberg (2006) is a close imitation of the traditional communication measurement model with such components as skills, media factors, message factors, contextual factors, and outcomes. It can be, thus, suggested that this issue will be further explored and the existing measurement models will be continually revised with the discovery of new knowledge about CMC.
- Bazarova, N. N., & Yuan, C. (2013). Expertise recognition and influence in intercultural groups: differences between face‐to‐face and computer‐mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 437-453.
- Hansen, M., Fabriz, S., & Stehle, S. (2015). Cultural cues in students’ computer‐mediated communication: Influences on e‐mail style, perception of the sender, and willingness to help. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(3), 278-294.
- Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer‐mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 629-666
