The discussion of what subjects and tone are appropriate for ITForum is interesting in its own right, but it has also crystallized some reactions to the original paper that I was having trouble clarifying. Hope it's not entirely too late to comment!
Bonham, Cifuentes, and Murphy presented a good introduction to the concept of communication being influenced by the media used in distance education. It all made sense, and seemed fairly clear and straightforward. Who could argue with a balanced view such as "By modeling appropriate conventions and making explicit what those conventions are, we are preparing teachers to create useful cultures..."?
But even identifying those "appropriate conventions" can be quite a challenge, as we see from the reality of our recent on-line interaction. When one is engaged in putting general principles into practice, suddenly the focus changes. I think the article stopped just when it was really getting interesting! That is, just when something useful and tangible was about to emerge from the general introduction to the concept of distance education cultures.
I'm also more than a little disappointed that the big fuzzy area of computer-mediated communication (CMC) wasn't broken down some, particularly since the authors talked about communication on the "genre" level. CMC encompasses a lot of territory, with some unique features which I am quite sure factor into the creation of the culture.
Here's a quick list of CMC variables. Which ones do you think relate to culture creation as well? (Feel free to add to the original list.)
Examples: E-mail is private, sent to one (or a few selected) individual(s). Listservs are public, sent to a controlled list; moderation varies. Bulletin boards (and Usenet groups) are public, and the distribution is as identifiable as for a listserv. All of these are examples of asynchronous interactions. "Chat" is private synchronous interaction; "MOO's", "MUSE's" and the like are public synchronous interactions. (I don't have very much experience with the last two, and am curious as to how their conventions work.)
I participate on a number of listservs, participate in Usenet groups, and use e-mail a lot. I have noticed a number of differences in tone between not only the varied forms of CMC, but between different examples of the same form--what the paper would refer to as "genre," I suppose. Moderation plays a big part; so does the level of sophistication of the participants. One of the listservs I participate in is currently having discussions similar to ITForum [except much more irritable ;^) ] on what constitutes appropriate interaction. Reading that list is a object lesson.
Which leads me to my "vote" for this "culture"--let's follow usual list netiquette, which includes staying pretty much "on task" and designating anything not as "TAN:
The reason for this view is not that I think warmth, personality, and friendship have no place; they're vitally important, and one of the real strengths of CMC. But I have seen them flourish best in tightly-focused lists where individuals respect the purpose of the list. A large proportion of "off-subject" posts usually results in irritation, and the eventual loss of the best participants.
Organization by subject categories is pretty much all the structure the has. Let's respect it!
P.S.: In my humble opinion, "lurking" is an honorable form of participation!