Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication (ICCMC) | The Edge

The E-Journal of Intercultural Relations, Fall 1998, Vol. 1(4)   Posted: 11/3/98; Updated 1/3/99   Editorial Essay

Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication (ICCMC) William B. Hart Editor, The Edge Department of Communication & Theatre Arts Old Dominion University

 

This editorial is based on a paper presented at the Conference on Theory and Research on Culture and Communication, California State University, Fullerton, March, 1996. Many of the relevant statistics were updated for this essay.

Introduction

Intercultural communication, to no surprise, is not new. On a small scale, intercultural communication occurred long ago when culturally diverse people first interacted (Italians with Chinese, Persians with Africans, etc.). Within the past few centuries, however, the number of interactions between culturally diverse people has greatly increased due to the increase in world population and the advances in technology (Frederick, 1993; Mowlana, 1997; Rogers & Steinfatt, 1999; Samovar & Porter, 1994). The world population and technological advances have grown at an exponential rate. Undoubtedly all related aspects, such as personal interaction, has also grown at an exponential rate (Stevenson, 1994).

Table 1
Top 15 Countries in Internet Usage in Year 2000
Rank	Country	Internet Users in Millions
1	U.S.	132.3
2	Germany	22.9
3	Japan	21.9
4	United Kingdom	17.0
5	France	12.6
6	Canada	11.6
7	Italy	10.6
8	Australia	8.0
9	Netherlands	5.4
10	Brazil	5.2
11	Russia	5.0
12	Spain	4.4
13	China	3.8
14	Sweden	3.7
15	South Korea	3.2
	Top 15 Countries	267.5
	Europe	102
	Worldwide	327
(Source: www.c-i-a.com/199809iu.htm)

Past advances in transportation and telecommunication technologies (e.g., ships, jets and telephones) have brought ever increasing waves of intercultural contact. One of the newly and rapidly developing telecommunication technologies, the Internet, is bringing the next wave of increased contact. The Internet and its precursors have in the past been commonly used to send and receive vast amounts of business and scientific data around the globe. Increasing in popularity, however, is the use of the Internet for person-to-person communication, called computer-mediated communication. Over the computer networks, people exchange written documents instantaneously, easily, at low cost, and over long distances. Examples of computer-mediated communication include electronic mail (e-mail) and computer conferencing. The growth of global computer networks and the increased power and lowering cost of computers has brought computer-mediated communication to many people around the world.  An estimated 327 million participants worldwide will be using the Internet by the year 2000 (see Table 1).  Not only will the overall number of Internet users increase, but the number of countries represented will also increase. By the year 2000,  there will be 38 countries with over one million Internet users ("300 Million Users," 1998).

In the past it took some effort to get involved in intercultural communication. In the past most people would have had to travel on long and difficult trips to come in contact with the culturally different (Frederick, 1993). Nowadays, on the global computer networks, we can, with a few key strokes on our computer terminals, near instantaneously come in contact with the culturally different. We do not have to physically travel to partake in intercultural communication. Instead, we can electronically travel through cyberspace and partake in a new form of communication: intercultural computer-mediated communication.

Given the likely increase in intercultural interaction over global computer networks, it becomes apparent then that because people from different cultures are 'on the net' and because cultural differences can effect communication and lead to possible misunderstandings and conflict, intercultural computer-mediated communication (ICCMC) merits study.  This editorial takes on the task of framing some of the important questions that should be asked at the outset of the study of ICCMC. This editorial poses some initial questions and gives a preliminary answer to some of the major questions.  More detailed answers are given in the articles of this issue. 

Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication

Of the literature reviewed for this editorial, only two studies specifically focus on intercultural computer-mediated communication (Ishii, 1993; Shapard, 1990). Specifically in the area of ICCMC, Shapard asserts that "the significance of these issues is largely ignored, and that is a big mistake"(Shapard, 1994). Why are the issues of intercultural interaction on computer networks ignored? Why the lack of research in intercultural computer-mediated communication? This editorial specifically focuses on these questions and offers one possible answer.

Traditional Communication Typology

A possible reason for the relative lack of research into ICCMC could be because, in general, the "role of media in personal communication has, by and large, been overlooked" (Cathcart & Gumpert, 1983, p. 267-268). In an article titled "Mediated Interpersonal Communication: Toward a New Typology," Cathcart and Gumpert (1983) offer a conceptual reason for the oversight. In commonly accepted definitions of communication, Cathcart and Gumpert (1993) note that the media component is often missing. For example, Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953) define communication as "the process by which and individual (the communicator) transmits stimuli (usually verbal) to modify the behavior of other individuals (the audience)"(p. 12).

Where in definitions of communication there is a lack of the media component, the definitions of 'mass communication' more than make up for it. Cathcart and Gumpert (1993) note that 'mass communication' definitions take on too much of the media component of communication.

A definition which holds that mass communication connotes all mass media of communication in which a mechanism of interpersonal reproduction intervenes between the speaker and the audience makes "medium" synonymous with 'mass communication'. (p.268).

But as Cathcart and Gumpert note: "All media are not mass media"(p.268). In other words, media like the telephone and computer communication should not be considered 'mass media.' Even media that are often thought of as 'mass media' could be used as person-to-person (interpersonal) communication, for example ham radio.

Mass communication refers to a specific utilization of medium...In the typology of human communication, 'media' should not be relegated solely to the category 'mass communication,' nor should it be excluded from the other categories: interpersonal communication, group communication, and public communication (p. 268).