Don't sweat it--it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes.
Gene Spafford [129]

A simple definition of computer-mediated communication (CMC) as "communication among people who are connected by networked computers" [32] belies the complexity of the "process by which people create, exchange, and perceive information using networked telecommunications systems that facilitate encoding, transmitting, and decoding messages" [32]. CMC is a technology, a communications medium and a space within which people form communities [66]. The research in CMC systems reflects the changes in the technology, the populations using the technology, the uses made of those systems, and the contexts of those uses. In the previous chapter, I situated Usenet interaction among the CMC systems used on the Internet. In this chapter, I situate Usenet research by presenting traditional CMC studies, I then present an overview of recent research on Internet CMC systems and finally, I look at the existing research on Usenet.

The traditional study of computer-mediated communication and groups has relied on data from organizational case studies [43, 58, 115, 130], field and laboratory experiments [3, 39, 44, 59, 135, 150, 151], educational settings [19, 56, 57, 63, 119] and computer conferencing systems [101]. The early research on CMC, mostly in organizations or laboratory experiments, led to its being characterized as inherently impersonal, lacking in normative reinforcement and with less socio-emotional content than other forms of communication [59, 115, 130]. Social presence theory, where social presence is the quality of the medium to transmit visual and non-verbal vocal cues [127], has been used to account for the impersonal nature of CMC [59, 115]. Because the non-verbal cues are those that carry relational information, the reduced social presence of CMC accounts for communication with less socio-emotional content [150]. Sproull and Kiesler's social context cues theory [130] states that social context, the aspects of the physical environment including contextual, visual, aural and status cues, predicts that a sender will have a greater sense of anonymity with less awareness of and sensitivity to others as the number of cues is reduced [149]. The reduction in social context cues with its perceived anonymity, detachment from audience and social norms is believed also to result in an equality of participation and status among users [90, 101, 115, 130].

The research in organizational settings considers the influence of CMC on the quality of group decisions, group leadership, participation and time to decision. In a case study of organizational use of email and discussion groups, Hiltz reported that increases in the productivity could not be seen in such a short study, but that the professional interconnections did enlarge and strengthen [58]. Rice, relying on survey data, elaborated on the use of the "new media" stating that computer conferencing systems were rated more satisfactory for tasks requiring lower amounts of intimacy, conflict, or socio-emotional content [115]. The weaknesses he found were missing nonverbal feedback, missing direct interpersonal contact, infrequency of participation by some members, intransigent or rigid negotiations and multiple threading in the discussions, which "may develop and create confusion or information overload" [115]. Even though the social context cues theory predicts that the fewer the cues available the more impersonal, less inhibited and less adaptive a system will be, Sproull and Kiesler note that electronic groups can provide opportunities for social relationships [130].

Field and laboratory experiments have attempted to explain the influence of CMC in group settings. Unable to determine why computer-mediated groups (CMG) did not reach agreement, Hiltz, et al., speculated that time, turn-taking, and lesser socio-emotional content influenced the process [59]. Eveland and Bikson found the CMG developed a different structure and working procedures which took advantage of the asynchronous, distributed nature of the system but which required a high level of computer support [39]. Ahern documented the need for CMC systems to relate messages to previous messages in order to sustain continuous discourse [3]. Straus and McGrath found few differences between groups using CMC and FtF groups in the quality of work completed but did find large differences in productivity favoring FtF groups [135]. Drawing conclusions about CMGs based on experimental studies such as these has been criticized due to the atypical, captive audience used in the studies, the small number of people in the groups and the contrasting of CMC with FtF [108].

Other studies contradict the above assessments. Most educational studies focus on effective on-line teaching techniques, descriptions of the collaborative learning environments, and efficacy of such learning environments. In a report on a system used at the New Jersey Institute of Technology and using results based on a post-course questionnaire and comparison of course grades, Hiltz reported that learning did take place, that faculty and students worked harder, and that satisfaction with the course was good [57]. These kinds of results are published in other reports [19, 56, 63, 119, 152] without regard to the negative portrayal of CMC. Electronic social groups emerge in organizational settings despite the reduced cues theories [43, 116, 130]. High levels of socio-emotional content are evident in field experiments when interaction time is not restricted [116, 150] and when future interaction is anticipated [148]. A field study [118] and experiments testing the relationship of anonymity and equalization of participation and status [64, 121, 151] also contradict the social context cues theory, finding gender and status accounting for differences in interaction quantity and style. Another study found that email users develop consistent mis-perceptions when judging personality traits of those with whom they communicate but do not know, ranking them higher in thinking and judging dimensions on a Myers-Briggs type scale [44]. The only clear agreement among all these studies is that CMC is the exchange of textual messages delivered via computer.

All of these studies used email or conferencing systems and treated the results as if CMC were one medium with one type of interaction. As explained in Chapter III, email is an asynchronous, interpersonal dialogue with encapsulated, private messages distributed point to point. The conferencing systems used were either synchronous, group multilogues with fragmented, public messages similar to IRC or asynchronous, group multilogues with encapsulated, private messages similar to listserv. Only in the Walther study [148] was there any discussion of synchronicity differences accounting for differences in results. These studies presuppose that CMC is a tool rather than a context which affects communication [92]. In addition, all of these studies contrast CMC with FtF interaction, using FtF as the preferred standard of communication [108].

With the growth and popularity of the Internet, CMC has expanded into areas of interaction unanticipated by the founders of ARPANET including MUDs and IRC. Internet communication adds new complexity to the ranges of expression possible via CMC. These changes are reflected in the research on Internet CMC systems that will be discussed in the next section. This Internet research does not assume that CMC is an impoverished medium but instead utilizes ethnographic methods to characterize the wealth of interactions found in these contexts.

Recent research on Internet interpersonal communication has included work on MUDs [23, 25, 28, 111, 113], IRC [30, 112, 122, 146], listserv [54, 55] and Usenet newsgroups [8, 12, 100, 109]. In addition, new book publications are focusing attention on cyberculture [67, 126, 132, 145]. In contrast to the previous CMC research results, a primary component of Internet CMC is social communication [49]. Jones asserts that CMC "is not just a tool; it is at once technology, medium, and engine of social relations" [66]. Yet, most of what is known about the social uses of the computer and CMC has been focused on sensational incidents of sexual harassment [36, 123], gender-switching [21, 133, 145], flaming [34, 55] and gender issues [27, 54, 123].

Both listserv studies [54, 55] looked at gender differences in on-line interactions. Herring argues that women and men have recognizably different posting styles, contrary to the claim that CMC neutralizes distinctions of gender, and that women and men have different communicative ethics [54, 55]. For example, they value different kinds of on-line interactions; men value candor, originality and firm beliefs whereas women value expressions of appreciation and helpfulness [55]. These studies corroborate the findings of experimental studies on anonymity [64, 121, 151].

The work on MUDs [25, 28, 111, 113] and IRC [112, 122, 146] argue that each is a culture with unique shared vocabulary, shared language signifiers, behavioral norms and interpersonal relationships. Other forms of innovative uses of CMC are virtual theater on IRC and interactive writing as performance [30]. These studies reflect innovative behavior and adaptation to the CMC context that has also been found in a study of a bulletin board system (BBS) [72]. These studies demonstrate that people who use CMC for enjoyment manipulate text to enhance their communication, develop relational skills and express individuality and originality. Elizabeth Reid emphasizes that MUDing interweaves the play with social rules and expectations, that "descriptions, communicative commands and specialized language and textual forms enable the social understandings which link people together and allow the evolution and transmission of social norms" [111]. Metacommunicative intent can be expressed by embedding words in text [102]. Subtle differences in tone and style can be achieved with paralinguistic features [72] such as emoticons, intentional misspelling, capitalization, grammatical markers and repetition of words. Embedded words express emotion and explicit actions (e.g., ). Emoticons or smileys imitate facial expressions (e.g., ":-)" for a smile), misspellings depict verbalizations (e.g., "soooooo goooood" to simulate the spoken form) and capitalization is used for shouting (e.g., "HEY YOU!"). Grammatical markers are repeated punctuation symbols and provide emphasis (e.g., "!!!!!") as do repeated words (e.g., "yes yes yes").

The books on cyberculture also draw attention to the expressive aspects of CMC. CyberSociety is a collection of essays which tries to "assist its readers to become aware and critical of the hopes we have pinned on computer-mediated communication and of the cultures that are emerging among network users" [67]. These ten essays include a discussion of community, power and Netiquette in a range of Internet contexts including MUDs, IRC and Usenet. The purpose of Cultures of Computing is "to explore a wide range of cultural practices associated with the design and use of computers" [132]. These thirteen essays provide a different look at cybersociety, from collaborative writing to distance education, from the visual culture of engineers to the use of multimedia for the study of character development in Bali, from cyberpunks to MUDs. Cultures of Internet is a set of essays on the development of Internet CMC. These articles describe the development of the Internet, the role of governmental policies from censorship to Minitel, and rise of virtual conviviality from MUDs to psychoanalysis to cyberfeminism [126]. In contrast to these collections of essays is Turkle's Life on the Screen, in which the author shows how people use computers to reevaluate their identities and relationships. She also discusses "experiences of virtual environments that confirm a dramatic shift in our notions of self, other, machine, and world" [145].

These studies and essays describe CMC as a rich communicative context. Thornberry uses systems analysis tools to define and delineate CMC as well as present insights into the social and cultural changes anticipated by widespread usage of CMC [143]. In her study CMC is equated with Internet communication, including both informational and interpersonal services. She presents characteristics of CMC users and systems, psychological aspects and characteristics of CMC in use. This is a view of CMC as a global communicative context with far reaching implications. Yet, CMC networks are local phenomena as well as global networks [125]; the studies in the next section concentrate on the local phenomena of Usenet.

With all the attention on Internet cybersociety, little is known about one of the earliest cybercultures, Usenet. Rather than sensational, most Usenet newsgroups are massive quantities of mundane, routine interactions [13]. In order to more fully understand the impact of CMC on users' lives and their workplaces, more attention must be given to these popular, social, and routine computer-mediated groups.

In his anecdotal report on virtual culture, Rheingold asserts that "there is no such thing as a single, monolithic on-line subculture" [114]. Agreeing with Rheingold in his study of the culture of the Internet and Usenet, North came to the conclusion that the Internet formed a "pan-societal superstructure" [100]. He argued that Usenet contained key aspects of culture within its written adaptations to a text-only medium by citing examples of pervasive mythological themes, acquisition of prestige, use of Netiquette for social conformity, and the use of a reciprocal economic exchange system.

North's ethnographic approach is in contrast to the quantitative approach taken by the ProjectH participants [109]. The ProjectH data is selected from Bitnet lists, CompuServe sections and Usenet newsgroups. Groups were randomly selected from the three networks until there were twenty lists from each network with traffic of one hundred messages. Thirty lists of one hundred messages were coded based on content into the database. This collaborative project was itself carried out via the Internet and is an unprecedented effort among a large group diverse in interests, time, age, status and geographical location [109]. Although this study shows that such a project can be accomplished, ProjectH participants remind others "that an extensive coordinating overhead is necessary to resolve conflict and foster cooperation" [138].

One analysis to come from this dataset uses an associative neural network to construct sets of features of typical messages that contribute to longer lasting threads [16]. Such features include medium length messages, statement of fact, and an appropriate subject line. Another study, using a statistical analysis of the dataset, found that messages are "predominantly factual, conversational, agreeable, and supportive" [108]. Although their contention was that interactivity increased the engagement of CMG participants, only 10% of the messages were considered as interactive and 52% were considered reactive. There were no other measures of engagement of the participants except by levels of a thread. The statistics did reveal that "interactive messages contain more opinions, more self disclosure, and more than twice as much use of the first-person plural pronouns" [108], indicating personal involvement with the medium. This study asserts that not all networked content is interactive and that messages, threads and groups can be more or less interactive. In addition, although group CMC is not necessarily interactive, it is more often humorous, playful and reactive.

Aycock's ethnography of rec.games.chess (r.g.c) presents a "Foucauldian perspective on fashioning of self online" [8]. The four components necessary for this social construction of identity include the way people speak of themselves, the degree and kind of commitment to a shared interest, its adoption into personal routines and the goal of personal transformation. Commitment to chess in r.g.c requires a moderate stance which includes the use of smileys and flames, smileys to add emotional nuance and flames to express formulaic anger. The use of smileys to denote emotional intention is congruent with other research. This interpretation of flaming is not. Instead of an example of extreme socio-emotional content caused by a lack of nonverbal cues, flaming is portrayed as a display of commitment and moderate emotional involvement. The only other treatment of flames as salient to on-line culture is Dery's Flame Wars [34].

Baym's ethnographic study of rec.arts.tv.soaps (r.a.t.s) is a more comprehensive treatment of a newsgroup. She addresses the issues of community and CMC groups, agreement and disagreement, as well as humor and identity in a newsgroup [12]. Using the practice theory approach to culture which examines the discourse, institutions and members of a group, she argues convincingly that "Usenet discourse can operate as a culture-creating force" [13]. Her analysis of the discussion is in terms of thought and discursive practices, which leads to insights into the community, rather than an analysis of abstract issues, which ignores any situated actions [136]. The conclusion that r.a.t.s participants build a rich and well-organized community with clear patterns of practice is based partly in the shared culture of soap viewing, partly in the culture of fandom, and partly in the affordances of CMC. Her analysis of r.a.t.s discussion includes insights into the function of humor as well as agreement and disagreement on a newsgroup. Baym argues that Usenet discourse is a hybrid of oral and written communication which is also asserted by Ferrara, et al., who call it interactive written discourse (IWD) [42]. Humor is critical to creating social meaning on-line. Grounded in previous on-line messages, "humor is a primary mechanism for the establishment of individuality, as participants combine the shared meanings and play with the shared parameters of the group in idiosyncratic ways" [14]. Agreement and disagreement serve different functions in Usenet than they do in FtF conversation. Both agreement and disagreement provide a mechanism for putting an interpretation into the public sphere while keeping it grounded in previous discussion and for building solidarity based on the category and prevalence of elaborations [11].

Although Rheingold reports that on-line environments such as the WELL are communities, he does not provide any evidence beyond the anecdotal. North's study concludes that Usenet is a culture; however, his conclusion, applied to a vast environment, is founded on the selected postings from a few of the more than 6,000 newsgroups. The studies which have emerged using the ProjectH database provide a general description of CMC in on-line discussion systems, but without contextual cues they provide no insight into the ways CMC is used in formation and maintenance of a computer-mediated community. Aycock's study of r.g.c and identity does not provide any insight to the larger issues of CMC and community. Baym's study, on the other hand, provides substantial evidence from one newsgroup that it is a community with a unique culture. Her work provides an excellent framework for the continued study of communication and culture. She does not, however, include any effect of the computer in the community beyond the Usenet structural affordances of header, signature and quotation. Her perspective places r.a.t.s in the context of soap-opera fandom and treats CMC as a tool for communication rather than the context of communication.

Usenet is not one or thirty newsgroups; it is thousands of groups. These studies are just beginning to touch on the complexity of interactions among these groups. CMC has changed since the early days of the Internet. While sitting alone in front of a computer screen, you are connected not to dozens or hundreds but literally to thousands of people from around the world [84]. Anecdotal accounts abound with tales of utopian or dystopian effects of this new medium of communication. Organizational studies portray a hostile or negative environment while Internet studies paint a playful one. These conflicting aspects of CMC do not necessarily negate the research that has been carried out in the subcontexts of CMC. Indeed, Walther consolidates the various CMC theories into a theory of impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction [149]. Since CMC has been shown to reduce personal influences providing an impersonal effect and since impersonal communication is sometimes advantageous, intentional depersonalization of the medium has implications for Group Decision Support Systems where anonymity may enhance the decision making process [149]. Given time to learn this new form of communication and time for social information exchange, people have used CMC in satisfying interpersonal relationships. In more recreational situations such as MUDs and IRC, CMC has surpassed the level of affection and emotion of parallel FtF interaction which Walther calls hyperpersonal communication [149]. Thus, computer mediation is not inherently impersonal or hyperpersonal, but like communication is both.

This chapter has been an overview of CMC research, Internet communication research and Usenet research. Usenet is a hybrid of oral and written communication in the very social space of cybersociety. It provides the opportunity for interpersonal and hyperpersonal interactions. New cultural meanings of CMC technologies are created as people use them in new ways [24]. AGM, the newsgroup studied in this research, presents an excellent forum in which to examine the interpersonal and hyperpersonal effects of CMC.