[comp.groupware] Communication media- which are better?

droberts@ai.mit.edu (David Robertson) (03/29/91)

I'd like to take a stab at responding to this thread about
"better" media.  I think that it's not a useful way to
think about communication media.

I'm familiar with two streams of research related to the 
relationship of different types of media to the communications 
they carry:
	- The "Information processing" perspective on organizations
	  (Authors in this area:  Galbraith, Daft, some of Herb 
	  Simon's work, ...)
	- An english group working on the social psychology of 
	  telecommunications.

The book by the last group "The Social Psychology of Telecommunications" 
(Short, Williams, and Christie, Wiley:  1984) I found to be 
reasonably good.  They evaluate the "social presence" of various 
means of communicating- face-to-face, video (with audio), audio 
only (e.g. telephone), and electronic mail.  Their research method
was reasonably careful and their constructs were carefully defined.  

The former group ranks media by its "richness"- its ability to
resolve uncertainty and ambiguity (uncertainty is the lack of
information- collecting more information will resolve uncertainty; 
ambiguity is the presence of confusion- it is unclear what
questions should be asked).

It is interesting that the two groups, using completely 
different constructs arrive at identical rankings of media 
(in terms of richness or social presence).

Yet I find the whole idea of a ranking of media unappealing.
I agree that face-to-face meetings are better for resolving problems
(especially those that may have some emotional content), for 
brainstorming, and some social interactions.  Yet I have found that
some of my most personal intimate conversations were on the phone.
With face-to-face interactions, the social cues can sometimes
distract; with the phone, it is sometimes easier to focus on the topic.
There are other probems with media ranking:  let me digress a bit
to illustrate what I mean.

Schon's great book "The Reflective Practitioner" examines the 
interactions between a teacher of architecture and his student.  
Schon shows that the interaction between the two occurs through
both conversation and changes to the design together.  The 
conversation in itself is meaningless, as much of it refers 
to changes in the drawings:  "if we put this there, then that 
improves the movement through here" is accompanied by changes 
to the drawing.  Is this a new medium of communication?  It 
certainly is not conversation- the words alone have no meaning.  
Examining the changes to the drawing alone would also 
have little meaning.  Yet together, the words and actions are a very 
rich means of communicating.  I argue that this is a different medium
of communication.

Yet this "words and pictures" medium is useless for other types of 
communication.  For example, what if the teacher and the student were
romantically involved and having difficulties?  Would an interaction using
the drafting board be the best medium for resolving those difficulties?

Media cannot be ranked.  Media have various effectivess for different messages.
Mechanical engineers have little use for electronic mail, for example (or for
any media that does not allow graphical data).  What is needed is a discussion
of the dimensions that determine the correct choice of media.  I think there is
more to this than uncertainty, ambiguity, or social presence.

That's my $0.02.  Comments?

-David Robertson