Archives
Questions &Answers
Michael Stefanone is assistant professor in the Department of Communication, College of Arts and Sciences.
What is Web 2.0?
Web 2.0 is the second generation of Web-based services and applications, characterized by some of the most popular sites today—those that depend on user-generated content, like YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and Wikipedia. The second-generation Web is fundamentally about participation.
Do you blog?
I do not blog, but am fascinated by the most prolific type of blogging behavior, which is essentially the use of blogs as a publicly accessible personal journal. On one hand, blogs may reduce the costs associated with maintaining relationships with close friends and family due to their asynchronous "broadcast" format. There could be real benefits to this, especially if you have a large, geographically dispersed social support network that regularly reads your blog. However, there may be risks inherent in this behavior, as well, if you consider the public nature of intimate, personal journal content. After all, there is a positive relationship between the amount of information people know about you and the level of constraint regarding your future behavior. Basically, people enjoy increased behavioral freedom when they have control over access to their personal information. Politicians come to mind—so much of their lives is a matter of public record; the public's constant access to this information regularly impacts their behavior. This seems generally unappealing for the average person. I wonder what impact non-directed self-disclosure, like content found on journal-style blogs, is having on people's relationships. I'll stop disclosing my personal thoughts on this now. It's ironic I'm answering these questions, isn't it?
Have technological innovations democratized information?
Technology, like the Internet, had the utopian promise of assuring equal access to information. I don't think this has come to pass. There is still a very real digital divide separating those who can benefit through access to the Internet, and those who can't. Further, there is some evidence that the Internet is facilitating balkinization, where people seek and find others of like mind and attitude, reinforcing beliefs and attitudes. Consider recent corporate behavior in terms of copyright and intellectual property, as well, and I think you'll find very few democratic processes at work.
What is the role of these new technologies in the academic world?
My experience with technology has been a positive one, ranging from the incorporation of communication technology in the classroom (UBLearns), to gains in efficiency in terms of collaboration with distant colleagues, like sharing documents through email attachments and using free collaborative tools (check out Google Docs & Spreadsheets). As a broader range of content becomes digital and efforts to digitally archive existing print content continue, ease of access to libraries continues to increase as well.
It seems that everyone is online now, so we can just fire off an email or an instant message (IM) instead of picking up the phone or making a personal visit. Has person-to-person communication become impersonal?
No. If you review literature focusing on communication technology and relationships, you'll find that there was concern about cold, hostile, impersonal communication environments. But you can't talk about communication technology without accounting for the social context it's used in. The question is, are communication channels like email and IM fundamentally impersonal? Can you only accomplish warm, personal interaction through high bandwidth channels, like face-to-face communication? Well, it depends. For example, when I read an email from a close friend, I would rate that as a very rich experience in terms of my accessibility to the nuances of their message, like sarcasm and humor. This is possible due to the relational maturity I share with this close friend. However, it is much more difficult to get that level of information from a relative stranger's email. That is the importance of social context. I believe people use communication technology to support their existing relationships, and that people would rate their communication through these mediated channels as warm and personal. Research, including my own, suggests that this is the case.
You teach a graduate seminar entitled "Privacy in the Information Age." Can there be any expectation of privacy when we log on? Is Big Brother watching us through our computers?
The "expectation" for privacy is a critical variable in this debate. I suppose there could be an expectation for privacy regarding certain aspects of online behavior. However, given the complexity and dynamic nature of both domestic and foreign telecommunication policies, and the morphing of the telecommunications landscape (i.e., how do you classify cable, which delivers both television and IP-based content), I wouldn't count on it today. Today, information about you and me is a heavily traded commodity, regardless of whether this data originates from online behavior. People should be aware that information like your purchasing behavior at the supermarket, the car you drive and clothes you wear is used to create profiles that allow others to make assumptions about your future behavior. Check out the business models of Acxiom and ChoicePoint.
What's your take on MySpace and Facebook?
In the past, I incorporated Facebook into my classes on communication technology, with some success. There are potentially many benefits that may accrue to users. And costs. People with detailed social network profiles create informational asymmetries to the extent that people can "research" your profile and perhaps use that information for strategic goal pursuit. If someone knows your likes and dislikes, they may, for example, deceptively suggest they share those same beliefs to falsely create the perception of common ground, which is linked to perceived similarity and liking.