Thought Paper: September 6

The digital divide, cyberculture, media access, online research methodology, new media, Internet or internet, media usage, online commerce, virtual societies, online surveys, the politicizing of new technologies, and as the King of Siam would say “etc., etc., etc.” Will more broadband connections and computers enable more people to use the Internet? If we educate older persons on the use of new technologies, will there be an improvement in their lives? Do we need other people to contact us 24/7 with a touch of a button? Cell phones, computers, Blackberries, the Internet, iPhones—are they enabling or constraining? These topics, concepts, and questions are just a few of what new media research is studying.

Are these ramblings of a Luddite? No, I embrace new media. I have taught new media design and I use new media technologies, but one brief statement from the Media Access preface peeks my curiosity:

Yet there are indications that [Internet] adoption has reached a plateau, with some new users opting out of the cyberworld after a period of initial, frustrating use…. Despite its popularity, the Internet does not appear to be an economically self-sustaining medium in the sense that mass media such as television and newspapers are. We suspect this may have more to do with the user’s ability to benefit from the content than physical access to technology (p. x).

Does new media usage and adoption have more to do with factors of sociology, and culture than just availability and access? Why have the new media technologies not been universally adopted? Why are thousands of blogs being created daily and then quickly abandoned by their creators? Are we expecting the Internet and other technologies to follow the path set by television, radio, and newspapers? Is using the models and paradigms of traditional media studies an appropriate approach to view and study new media and cyberculture? New media communication defies simple classification—is it a tool of mass or interpersonal communication, education or entertainment, self-expression or mass conformity, or is it the voice of the masses or the power elite.

It seems that much of the recent study of new media focuses on the systems and technologies; I look forward to the search of why people choose to use the technology and why they choose one technology while ignoring another. My and my wife’s usage of and adoption of various new media illustrate many of the questions raised in the field. I have designed and taught the design of Web sites for the last six years, yet in our household we continued to use dial-up service even thought broadband was readily available. I have used a cell phone for many years, but my wife has only recently acquired one and still resists using it. I have created a blog and must admit I fall into the category of those that have done little to continually update it. I have pages on social networks, such as Facebook.com and MySpace.com, and an avatar in Second Life, yet have largely abandoned my participation.

The readings talk to the complexity of the issues surrounding the study of new media and new media technologies. As David Silver states in Critical Cyberculture Studies:

Internet studies. New media studies. Digital media studies. Digital arts and culture studies. Cyberculture studies. Critical cyberculture studies. Networked culture studies. Informatics. Information science. Information society studies. Contemporary media studies.

Naming, not to mention mapping, an academic field is a tricky proposition (p. 1).

If merely naming the field is complex and a challenge, studying this field will at least be interesting.