Date: Fri 53 Jun 1992 17:22:51 CST
From: Jim Thomas<
[email protected]>
Subject: File 2--Study of E-Mail/Computer-Mediated Communication
A novel study is being proposed by a number of participants of the
bitnet Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) newsgroup. It may be the
first such study--done by researchers scattered around the world who
have never met--of its kind. The CMC forum focuses on academic
discussions related to the impact of computer and related technology
on forms, content, and structure of communication. Those interested
can subscribe by sending the command: JOIN CMC <name> to:
COMSERVE@RPIECS Here is a summary of the research:
++++++ original post follows +++++++
Date- Wed, 3 Jun 1992 19-19-00 IST
From- Sheizaf Rafaeli <
[email protected]>
Subject- E-Group study update
E-Groups study, outline #3, update
As promised, here is a short summary of what has happened (for those
tuning-in late):
It began with a discussion of the dynamics of discussions. David
Levine, of UC Berkeley, proposed a 'bad posts drive out good'
postulate, that ignited many of us. A group of us have agreed to
attempt a joint study of the longevity and process of e-group
discussions.
We are now doing two things:
1) Mobilizing: identifying participants and collecting 'pledges'.
2) Conceptualizing: identifying research questions and hypotheses,
with an eye toward a study or two.
There seem to be, in the works, two parallel efforts. One line of
inquiry will be qualitative. The purpose in this study will be an
in-depth analysis of the dynamics occuring within a list. Prof. Brenda
Danet will, I hope, fill in more details on this effort.
The second project is shaping up to be a content-analysis of a
representative sample of archived discussions, which may (later) be
linked to surveys of users, moderators, participant observations, etc.
Under discussion are the hypotheses such a data set can address.
The e-group content analysis is an attempt to quantify group behavior
(formation, cohesion, dispersal) on e-lists. The hypotheses suggested so
far predict sensitivity of the threads of discussion to combinations of
the following variables:
* Length of messages
* language of message
* presence and nature of subject header
* presence and nature of stylized signature
* writer status
* writer gender
* dependency on previous messages (posts)
* use of quotes from previous posts
* tone (sarcasm, information, plea, threat, support, 'lecture')
* use of questions, challenges
* extent of use of nonverbal cues in message
* presence of "flames"
* metacommunication, that is communication about communication
* personal interest vested in post
* reference to external communication sources
We intend to 'massage' these concepts into a workable codebook. If the
numbers of participants stay where they are right now, the onerous
nature of content analysis grunt work wont even be that bad. We should
be able to generate reliable data.
The codebook will then be used to content-analyze series of messages.
Hopefully, we will end up with enough data to identify threads of
discussions, and "communities" forming, lasting and/or disbanding.
Eventually, if this works, we'll have at least two products on our
hands:
a. a large data set all can dip into.
b. the experience of having collaborated without meeting.
I believe either of the two is good enough reason to try.
Under discussion, currently, are:
1) Hypotheses and research questions.
2) Items for inclusion in the codebook.
3) Individual lists for inclusion in the sample,
or - alternatively - a method for selecting lists.
Nothing is set in stone yet. It is all, literally, bits in the wind. So
join in, Please!
Sheizaf Rafaeli
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
[email protected]
or KBUSR@HUJIVM1
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
