All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A chatroom ethnography: Evolution of community, norms, nonverbal communication
Unformatted Document Text:  A Chatroom Ethnography 23 cues. Here nonverbals were restricted to smiley faces (e.g., -), a few accents or manners of speaking to make the conversation have a “sound” (e.g., get outta school or YEEE YEAH BIZZACH), and emphasis tools to extend the “sound” of words (e.g., hooowdy!!). Because this was a group that was just introducing themselves, it seems to follow that they are also the most interested in making sure that they are clear and understood. Thus, the nonverbal cues used would make sense in making themselves look attractive or interesting. This also suggests that they might be aware that not all people are likely to understand either the internet/chat room specific cues, nor the colloquialisms or accents used to make their language have a particular sound. Numerous interpersonal relationships. The interesting finding in this seemingly linear progression between knowledge and connectivity with nonverbal use is this group. There were, by far, the most variance, frequency, and complexity of nonverbal cues used in this observation. In each of the previous categories, additional nonverbal messages were added such as: laughing (e.g., MWAHAHAHAHA, lol@ = laughing at), accents (e.g., I A UGLY ASS NIGGA, dood wuzzaaaaaaaaah, im outtie), actions (e.g., (((((Leigh)))) = a hug to that person, ::pinches bens third nipple::, and <yawn>), types of smiley faces (e.g., :-)~, :P), and new sounds were added (e.g., grrrrrr, ugh, mmmmmmmm), and expressions of what people would like to be doing—like thinking out loud (e.g., ::was talking with Madi and is in a good mood now:: ). One possible explanation for the dramatic spike here, that is different than in the last observation, with a demonstrated greater complexity of prior interpersonal relationships, is that unlike the people in there, fewer people here had offline interactions with each other, but also had very rich interactions that they wanted to promote. Thus, as a way of comparing the chat rooms with many

Authors: Diers, Audra.
first   previous   Page 23 of 32   next   last



background image
A Chatroom Ethnography
23
cues. Here nonverbals were restricted to smiley faces (e.g., -), a few accents or manners of
speaking to make the conversation have a “sound” (e.g., get outta school or YEEE YEAH
BIZZACH), and emphasis tools to extend the “sound” of words (e.g., hooowdy!!). Because this
was a group that was just introducing themselves, it seems to follow that they are also the most
interested in making sure that they are clear and understood. Thus, the nonverbal cues used
would make sense in making themselves look attractive or interesting. This also suggests that
they might be aware that not all people are likely to understand either the internet/chat room
specific cues, nor the colloquialisms or accents used to make their language have a particular
sound.
Numerous interpersonal relationships. The interesting finding in this seemingly linear
progression between knowledge and connectivity with nonverbal use is this group. There were,
by far, the most variance, frequency, and complexity of nonverbal cues used in this observation.
In each of the previous categories, additional nonverbal messages were added such as: laughing
(e.g., MWAHAHAHAHA, lol@ = laughing at), accents (e.g., I A UGLY ASS NIGGA, dood
wuzzaaaaaaaaah, im outtie), actions (e.g., (((((Leigh)))) = a hug to that person, ::pinches bens
third nipple::, and <yawn>), types of smiley faces (e.g., :-)~, :P), and new sounds were added
(e.g., grrrrrr, ugh, mmmmmmmm), and expressions of what people would like to be doing—like
thinking out loud (e.g., ::was talking with Madi and is in a good mood now:: ). One possible
explanation for the dramatic spike here, that is different than in the last observation, with a
demonstrated greater complexity of prior interpersonal relationships, is that unlike the people in
there, fewer people here had offline interactions with each other, but also had very rich
interactions that they wanted to promote. Thus, as a way of comparing the chat rooms with many


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 23 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.