Thread View: mod.comp-soc
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by taylor
Wed, 11 Feb 1987 22:35
"Communications Systems for an Information Age"
Author: taylor
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1987 22:35
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1987 22:35
219 lines
8142 bytes
8142 bytes
[This is the first of what I hope will be a mutually beneficial relationship
between the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the
readers and contributors to the mod.comp-soc newsgroup (and mailing list).
Please respond to the group rather than to Sue unless you feel what you
have to say isn't of interest to all. I think this is a new wave...
-- Dave Taylor]
The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment has undertaken a new study,
Communication Systems for an Information Age. The study began in September
of 1986, and will be delivered to Congress in September of 1988. As one of
our ways of securing public input into the conceptualization and production
of the study, we are posting this announcement, to let you know that this
work is going on, and to get your ideas.
A general description of the whole study is available by writing to us:
Linda Garcia (project director), Office of Technology Assessment,
U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C., 20510.
Of particular interest to readers of this digest might be our attention to
the social/cultural aspects of new communication technologies. Below is an
initial list of questions we are considering in this area, written by Susan
Koch, who's responsible for this aspect of the study. If you have any
comments or questions, we'd like to hear about them. You can respond via
the Digest, or by calling Koch at (202) 226-2246.
**************************************************
Below is a list of questions that I have put together to address the
social/cultural aspects of our study, "Communication Systems for an
Information Age." The sub-topics (ie., the small letter entries) are my
initial attempts to start answering the questions. They are NOT
definitive--they're just my attempt to give an idea of what I'm looking
for. I would like reactions both to the general questions and to the
ways that I have gone about formulating them. In many cases, I am not
comfortable with the categorizing schemes I have chosen, and am looking
for input on better ways to carve things up (for example, is there some way
to divide up the various forms of communication, other than by technology,
that might be useful?).
Sue Koch
A. What is the social/cultural role of communication in people's everday
lives?
1. What forms of communication do people participate in, as individuals?
(find a good category system)
a. mail:
personal first class
packages, personal
direct mail ads
business mail (bank, bills)
b. radio:
entertainment prgms: music?
news programs:
weather/time
public interest shows
adverts
c. television (public/commercial)
entertainment prgms
news
sports prgrms
documentaries
children's prgms
movies
adverts
d. face-to-face (find a good category system)
friends
work-related
transaction (bank, clerk)
family
lover
religious
passersby
unwanted/violent/intrusive
e. telephone
f. electronic media
g. art (performance, plays, painting,sculpture,
dance, installations, choral, instrumental,
personal/public distinction... what else to
include, and how to categorize it?)
h. films
i.
j.
k.
2. What systems do these forms of communication pull people into?
What roles are assigned?
a. personal: expression/creation of affect, negotiation of
self-concept, validation...
b. producer/consumer/portrayer of culture:
c. buyer/seller:
d. mutual satisfaction transactions: (does a service rep/customer
interaction fit only in "c"?
e.
f.
g.
3. What can be said quantitatively about people's communication patterns?
a. Network analyses
b. "Typical day" analyses
c. Content analyses
4. What are the processes, structures, and functions of these
interactions? (probably use ethnomethodological, C.A., etc., studies of
processes, and extrapolate for structures and functions)
a. Maintain power relations
b. Maintain public/private distinction
c. Set agendas for discusson
B. Given the roles of communication outlined in `A', what are people's
communication needs?
1. Decide what groups and types of people I am going to be
responsible for in this study, and for each, describe
its communication needs.
a. Groups:
b. Settings:
c. Systems: (economic, political, etc.)
2. Can these communication needs be prioritized?
3. What has been the historical development of people's communication
needs? What has changed? What has remained the same?
4. What has affected these groups' abilities to participate fully in
their various communication opportunities?
C. What are people's future communication needs likely to be?
1. Given the scenarios painted above, how are communication needs likely
to change in the next ten years?
2. What is communication going to look like fifty years from now?
3. What will the important issues be in communication over the next
fifty years? Are access, universal service, etc., likely to continue
to be the big questions?
D. How does technology fit in the characterization given above?
1. In all of the above questions, what is the significance of technology?
2. Are there ways of categorizing media that are sensible or relevant
for groups of users? How do users in these groups see communication
technologies?
3. How are technologically-mediated forms of communication different
from those not so mediated, in the eyes of users in various
settings/groups?
4. How are technologically-mediated forms of communication different from
non-mediated, and from each other in content, form, nature of delivery,
degree of impact, etc.?
E. How do individuals and social units (ie., families, communities, etc.,
relate to the technology-complex--the industry of communication?
1. What are the components of the technology complex? How does it function
as a system? What roles are played in this complex?
2. Trace these roles in a few examplary issues (what would be good issues
to study?) Make sure individuals and social groups are considered here.
3. How does the structure of communication provision, programming,
readership, etc., affect the role of various kinds of messages?
4. What are the traditional mediating factors between users and various
technology-complex forces (e.g., market forces, the advancement of
science)? Government intervention, for example, in rate rgulation and
program content... In what interest were these mediations instituted?
What effects have they had on communication patterns?
5. How are these mediating factors changing? What does this mean for
groups and their current and future communication needs?
-----
Re: Communications Systems for an Information Age
Author: taylor
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1987 18:39
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1987 18:39
75 lines
4651 bytes
4651 bytes
I would like to respond to Sue Koch's recent posting on the Office of
Technology Assessment study on Communication Systems.
From what was posted I'm confused about the scope of the study, so some
of the comments below may not apply. Specifically, is the study
limited to applications of technology to communication?
I have three points. The first relates to human communication in
general, and the second two apply to items I didn't see in Sue's
outline. Finally, I hope that OTA will solicit input from
non-technologically-oriented people, since these systems affect them
greatly without much choice on their parts and there are issues
of class and discrimination that they're on the receiving end of.
First, I saw no mention of basic research on how humans communicate
in the first place, with no reference to computers and technology. By
this I don't mean the *forms*, as Sue listed, but rather the content.
An example: I've become aware that throughout much of history, human
interactions have been largely value-neutral or negative. A neutral
interaction might be a transaction in a store. But people don't tend
to communicate positively - appreciation, constructive criticism,
active listening, etc. Rather, we tend to get feedback when we've
screwed up, no feedback when we're doing OK, and that feedback is often
a judgement of our worth as people, not a statement that the listener
didn't like our behavior. Examples of what I consider negative
communication are straight criticism, arguments instead of discussions
(and on the net, flaming), office gossip, many parent-child interactions,
and so forth.
I think the fact that so much interaction is value-laden affects how we
are as people and affects our self-esteem and from there, our behavior,
dramatically. From it derives aphorisms and behavior that have a
profound effect on our national and personal identities - the example
that comes to mind is, "It's only illegal if you get caught". Some
people, groups, and philosophies are trying to change this and train
people to communicate positively, but they aren't technologically
oriented and are likely to be missed in any study that focuses on
technology. And I think that this positive/negative split has
important implications for our future as a nation.
I also hope that the study won't ignore human history - we have much to
learn from the past that is so often overlooked.
My second point is that the outline as Sue presented it contains no
recognition of unwritten communication at all, other than the
telephone. Body language is said to comprise up to 90% of the content
of an interaction and it is completely lost in any remote interaction
(email, telephone...).
Thirdly, how does the volume of communication affect the quality of
life? I think it lessens it. As we have to cope with more
information, more communication transactions, we have to pigeonhole
faster. When our pigeonholing is of people, those people's lives can
be affected in a major way. The classic example is in special
education - a person who is categorized as a slow learner tends to
*become* a slow learner.
I hope that the sponsorship of the study by the OTA does not mean that
the human aspects of communication will be ignored in favor of the
technological aspects. Communication systems are *mostly*
non-technological - the technology is really just the medium and
there's so much more to such systems! Also, most communication will
continue to occur without respect to technology, even in an information
age.
I also hope that some comparative cross-cultural work will be done -
how we communicate in this country may or may not bear any similarity
to how it's done in other cultures. For that matter, how people with
access to technology communicate may bear little relation to how it's
done in other classes in our own society.
Barbara Zanzig
{major backbone sites}!tektronix!tekecs!packrat!barbaraz
barbaraz@packrat.gwd.tek.com
Re: Communications Systems for an Information Age
Author: taylor
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1987 18:43
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1987 18:43
37 lines
2932 bytes
2932 bytes
I would like to make a few comments which touch on Sue's interests, but do not address any of the "real" issues which she is more probably interested in. First of all, I (and many people just like me) do not consider that communication is a very good description of what goes on with most communication activities on this planet. Take for example the popularity of "flaming" on the net, oftentimes personal attacks, and usually communications of ideas in contrast, but rarely with the impetus towards teaching and helping to reach common consensus of idea through assuaging of thought. You find extremely sparse instance in any realm of communication wherein the singular idea is met to develop and attain a polarity which is fully comprehensible. Quite the opposite: people share their own ideas, their own views, (or more often, borrowed ones), for various reasons but seldom with a view to accomplishing a singular solution to problems and difficulties. While I except the news in this regard, this very popular unilateral symptom of most discussion seems to be epidemic, but really has nothing to do with the means of communication, excepting in one instance, and this is my point, that the ground rules for communication in the "Information Age" are not set in sympathy with the doctrines of equality which the people should have observed, and to which all leaders should subscribe. By this I mean that the first basis of all communication should adhere to the same goals of education, which by some doctrinare means observes a willingness not only to teach, but to serve. While it appears obvious that the full means, culturally and psychologically, available to achieve this goal, are ensconced in the mind/body of the "system" (as it were), there is a common and acceptable level of mendacity characterizing all of our endeavors, which, I suspect, harbors entirely different values and perhaps (I will not deny the possibility) an entirely different psychology as well. It would seem therefore that a discussion of the means of communication and its reflection OF the participants should focus constantly on the rules of communication as they are understood by the participants, i.e. what is to be accomplished? Tony Marriott
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads