Mediation, Information, and Communication

Brent D. Ruben

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351317184
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This third volume of Information and Behavior shows broad continuities with previous volumes in this series, but it also represents an important evolution. In emphasizing theoretical advances in mediation, information, and communication processes, this volume has unifying themes at the cutting edge of communication research, linking communication with areas as far-ranging as cognitive psychology, intellectual history, social psychology, policy, and macroeconomics.

A sampling of the contents indicates both continuities and discontinuities of communication research embodied in this volume. Contributions include Joseph Turow, "Mass Communication as Concept"; Gary Grumpert and Robert Cathcart, "A Theory of Mediation;" Leah Lievrouw and T. Andrew Finn, "Common Dimensions of Communication"; Joshua Meyrowitz, "Mediated and Unmediated Behavior"; Kathleen Reardon, "Teaching Children About AIDS"; Sari Thomas, "The Death of Intellectual History and the Birth of the Transient Past"; Sheizaf Rafaeli, "Interacting with Media."

The second part of the work, emphasizing research and policy in specific information societies and regions, includes an opening essay by Everett M. Rogers, and follow-up studies by Judith K. Larsen on "Silicon Valley"; Quentin W. Lindsey on "The North Carolina Research Triangle"; Luis Fonseca, "High Technology in Brazil"; Ruyzo Ogasawara, "High Technology in Japan"; and Mitchell Moss, "Telecommunications and Financial Centers."

The final two portions of the book cover social theory and cultural processes. They include articles by Jerry Salvaggio and Richard Nelson, "Models for Developing Telecommunications and Information Industries"; Everett M. Rogers and James Dearing, "University-Industry Technology Transfer"; Frederick Williams, "The Communications Revolution Revisited"; Rolf Wigand, "Recurring Questions about the Information Society"; Lee Thayer, "Tropes and Things"; Gordon L. Miller, "The Energy of Intelligence"; David Carr, "Thinking in Museums;" Benjamin J. Bates, "Information as an Economic Good"; Jorge Schement and Daniel Stout, "A Time-Line of Information Technology."

PART I

THEORIES OF MEDIATION: VIEWS OF THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS

Introduction

Leah A. Lievrouw and Brent D. Ruben

In the last few years there has been a growing dissatisfaction among communication scholars with the gap that exists between the subfields of interpersonal communication theory and mass media theory. For scholars considering the social impacts of new telecommunications technologies, the dissatisfaction presents itself as struggles to define “mediated interpersonal”—but not mass—channels such as telephone, videotex, facsimile, or electronic mail. For students of popular culture it is expressed in debates over the nature of “mass audiences,” if indeed such groups exist. In information science there is a contradiction between models of information needs (which emphasize meaning) and models of information delivery (which emphasize document retrieval). Among mass media scholars, debates continue over “effects” theories and the differences between mass communication and mass media. In the interpersonal area there is a growing sense that some channels that are not face-to-face per se (such as the telephone) may nonetheless provide a rich context for interaction.

Some scholars have explored the gray area where theories of interpersonal and mass communication intersect (Gumpert & Cathcart, 1979; 1982; 1986; Hawkins, Wiemann, & Pingree, 1988; Miller, 1988; Ruben, 1975; Thayer, 1968). Others have demonstrated the blurred line between interpersonal and mass communication experiences for individuals in developed societies. For example, Meyrowitz (1985) argues that mass-mediated content sacrifices individuals’ regional or local geographic identities in favor of mass-market segmentation, leaving audiences with “no sense of place.” In a similar vein, Beniger (1987) links the mass media with the creation of individually experienced pseudo-communities. Rafaeli (1988) notes that the concept of “interactivity” as applied to newer telecommunications media is gradually being recognized as a technologically loaded euphemism for ordinary human communication behavior.

These are by no means the only examples that provide evidence for the shifting theoretical sensibilities among communication researchers. However, they are representative of work that has laid the foundation for the papers collected in the following section. We invite readers to consider several questions, which we believe provide a general framework for considering the articles as a collection.

What constitutes mediation or mediated communication? Do the media provide a genuinely different communication experience from face-to-face interaction, and if so, how? Are media merely “extensions” of our senses in a McLuhanesque sense? This point of view may suggest that all communication is mediated, whether by light, air, human senses and cognitive-emotional perceptions, or by complex electronic systems, or a combination of both, as Lievrouw and Finn suggest in their study in the present volume. Gumpert and Cathcart argue that it is important to preserve the concept of mediation because it represents the line between differing experiences of technology in the communication context. Another issue that bears examination is the various subcategories of mediation, for example, by time vs. distance, or whether these subcategories overlap. The essay by Sari Thomas on the impacts of different media used by writers on the subsequent historical records of their work brings the time element into sharp focus. Where does the line between interpersonal and mediated communication behavior lie?

What are the current differences between interpersonal and mass communication theory, and in what directions are these subfields headed? A principal issue is whether the two subfields consider human action as essentially different in face-to-face vs. mediated communication contexts. Mass communication theory, in the form of uses and gratifications or sense-making theory, seems to account better for individual differences in perception and participation than do older “bullet” or “hypodermic” theories of the media. Conversely, interpersonal theory is attending more to the social/media environment of dyadic and small-group interaction, and to the impact of technology in relationship formation and evolution. In the present volume, Reardon looks at the persuasive power of a combination of interpersonal and mass-mediated channels for informing children about their health risks for AIDS. Turow argues for the preservation of the “mass media” concept on the grounds that what is important is the ways in which mass media content is produced rather than how it is perceived—i.e., mass media is analogous with mass production in the industrial sense. From another perspective, Rafaeli examines “interactivity” as a construct that traditionally has been used by communication scholars to demarcate the dividing line between interpersonal and mass communication. In his study, Rafaeli finds that we may be able to distinguish between real (i.e., interpersonal, face-to-face, in real time) interaction, which he refers to as “ortho-social” interaction, and the sensation of interaction that is afforded by certain mediated channels such as video-games or computer data bases. This latter type of interaction is referred to by Rafaeli as “para-social” interaction. His scheme thus calls into question a term that many researchers have taken for granted.

Is the unmediated-/mediated-communication dichotomy in communication studies theoretically helpful, or does it prevent us from seeing new ways to conceptualize human interaction? Are there new theories of mediation emerging that might eclipse these differences? A growing group of scholars, several of whom are represented in the present volume (Ball-Rokeach & Reardon, 1988; Rogers, 1986; Rogers & Kincaid, 1981; Ruben, 1975) have argued that the divisions between interpersonal and mass theories owe more to the history and institutional constraints faced by communication research as a field than to any intrinsic differences in human behavior peculiar to one subfield or another. Bridges between the subfields, they argue, can only help illuminate the processes common to each, and possibly open the way for a contemporary general field theory of communication to emerge. Likewise, and in a way that echoes Rafaeli’s efforts to call some given terms into question, Meyrowitz considers “context” or “situation” as a term that has been taken for granted but which is far from being unproblematic when we examine most individuals’ actual communication behavior. Contexts are quite complex, but Meyrowitz suggests that the context or situation may serve as a new level of analysis for considering interpersonal and mass-mediated communication behavior simultaneously.

Is mass media! mass communication “dead” as an area of study? This is a hotly debated question, considering how much of the core of communication research has been founded on assumptions of mass social behavior affected by mass-mediated messages that reach huge segments of a population almost simultaneously (for example, studies on propaganda and persuasion, political campaigns, and even the early Paine Fund studies of motion pictures). In the present collection, Turow as well as Gumpert and Cathcart argue strongly that theories of mass communication are far from moribund, and continue to inform and enrich new theory. Turow explains his support of “mass communication” as a construct; he believes that mass media research has been misled to some extent by a mistaken emphasis on the effects of mediated messages on receivers—individuals—at the expense of looking at how the content itself is mass produced.

Should our notions of media structures be revised to encompass institutions, transportation, and popular culture as well as the traditional electronic and print message channels? Perhaps the focus on “media” as large information-processing institutions based on print or electronic technological infrastructures is too restricting (cf. Budd & Ruben, 1988). Perhaps fashion, mass retailing and marketing, and the shift from land-based to air transportation have all played a role in shaping our mediated and face-to-face symbolic environments. Turow’s essay addresses this issue by suggesting that not enough attention has been paid to the roles of public relations, program syndication, and artist management firms, for example, as social structures that reflect the mass-produced nature of media content.

Would thorough social histories of all types of mediated channels—from the post, to print, to the telephone, to television, computers, and other electronic media—help inform this reassessment? Sari Thomas’s essay traces this issue in the literary arena: what impact do the telephone, travel, and computers have on the primary historical materials writers (or other creative artists) leave behind about their intellectual or creative work processes and interpersonal interactions? Social histories of particular media technologies (e.g., the history of the typewriter as detailed by Jensen [1988]) may help observers identify previously unseen parallels among apparently differing systems.

The studies in this section cannot provide comprehensive answers for such a wide range of questions. But they do contribute substantially to the dialogue that is currently underway in the field. We believe that this conceptual area is of vital importance to the future course that communication researchers and their students may take as they begin to cross the real and perceived boundaries that have divided interpersonal and mass communication theory and research.

References

Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & Reardon, K. K. (1988). Monologue, dialogue and telelog: Comparing an emergent form of communication with traditional forms. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Beniger, J. R. (1987). Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudo-community. Communication Research, 14(3), 352–372.

Budd, R. W., & Ruben, B. D. (1988). Beyond media: New approaches to mass communication (2d ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Gumpert, G., & Cathcart, R. (1979). Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gumpert, G., & Cathcart, R. (1982). Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world (2d ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Gumpert, G., & Cathcart, R. (1986) Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world (3d ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hawkins, R. P., Wiemann, J. M., & Pingree, S. (Eds.) (1988). Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jensen, J. (1988). Using the typewriter: Secretaries, reporters, and authors, 1880–1930. Technology in Society, 10(2), 267–280.

Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.

Miller, G. R. (1988). Media messages and information processing in interpersonal communication: “Generally speaking.” In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Information and Behavior: Volume 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, and S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rogers, E. M. (1986). Communication technology: The new media in society. New York: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, L. (1981). Communication networks: A new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press.

Ruben, B. D. (1975). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and mass communication processes in individual and multi-person systems. In B. D. Ruben, & J. Y. Kim (Eds.), General system theory and human communication. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.

Thayer, L. (1968). Communication and communication systems. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

1

The Critical Importance of Mass Communication as a Concept

Joseph Turow

Some media scholars have argued recently that mass communication has outlived its usefulness as a concept. The present article reviews the term’s history and suggests that this attitude comes from ignoring an entire intellectual tradition relating to it. It further argues that academics who denigrate the relevance of mass communication are, in effect, asking researchers to ignore many key questions about the relationship between power, society, and media. The article shows how a revitalized conception of mass communication can help illuminate a number of key developments central to late twentieth-century life.

During the past several years the rise of new information and communication technologies in the home, office, and elsewhere has sparked a fresh dialogue among communication researchers. A raft of questions centers on the best perspectives to use in examining these phenomena and their relationship to more traditional modes of human interaction.

One term that has drawn a lot of heat in some quarters is “mass communication.” A few years ago the Eastern Communication Association even held a panel debate on whether the term should be abolished. At least a few people at the session agreed that the concept has outlived its usefulness. The gist of their argument was that mass communication means sending messages to huge numbers of individuals who have little in common. The conventional mass media—television, radio, newspapers—have been the vehicles through which mass communication has taken place. But, the argument continues, these vehicles have been undergoing revolutionary changes that have made their characterization as mass media increasingly anachronistic. The rise of cable television and videocassette recorders; the maturing of FM radio and the portability of audiocassette players; the competition that suburban newspapers, “shoppers,” and other print vehicles have brought to the entrenched urban dailies—these and other evidence of fragmented channels have been slicing audiences into smaller and smaller groups. Moreover, the trend in audience and market research has been to utilize the latest telecommunication technologies so that media executives can selectively target particular messages to small numbers of consumers even when channels do reach large audiences.

With channel fragmentation and audience selectability seen as waves of the future, the idea of calling television, radio, and newspapers “mass media”—that is, vehicles that reach huge numbers of disconnected individuals—becomes more and more suspect to the term’s critics. So, by extension, does the term mass communication. The critics urge that the process of mass communication be considered a fading historical stage in the development of more sophisticated technologies that mediate person-to-person communication. By making mass communication obsolete as a description of contemporary phenomena, the critics hope to focus research attention away from the “mass audience” to what they generally consider most important about media—the way persons use them to cope with themselves and others in everyday life.

The subject of coping is indeed important, and its exploration ought to be encouraged. At the same time, justifying research on media and the individual by denying the viability of mass communication as a concept in contemporary scholarly discourse is misguided. This article uses the debate about the term as a jumping point for arguing that it still holds valuable implications for researchers. I suggest that calls for its abolition (if only to make an intellectual point) perpetuate a tradition that ignores the special societal importance of mass communication. That special importance...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Guidelines for Manuscript Preparation and Submission
• PART I Theories of Mediation: Views of the Communication Process
• PART II Information Societies: Developments in Research and Policy
• PART III Current Reflections on Information and Communication Theory
• About the Contributors
• Subject/Citation Index