New Media & Community - g42

Cell phones and other forms of new media like wireless internet have impacted society, raising issues and concerns that would not have been applicable just a few years ago. A comparison of Ling et al’s two studies from 1997 and 2002 illustrate the effects of increasing pervasiveness upon new media within a short span of five years. Though many of Ling’s statements regarding the social impact of cell phones are consistent across his two papers, he presents a variety of facts that imply the changing use and views of cell phones between the dates of his two studies. His first study states that at the time of his research, 1997, only 25% of Norwegian citizens owned a mobile phone. Comparatively, his second study published in 2002 says that 75% of this country’s population owns a cell phone, which is a remarkable increase in only a few short years, indicating the greater pervasiveness of the medium in society. Similarly, in the first Ling study, the reactions to cell phone use presented were more harsh and critical, expressing extreme irritation, whereas in the second study it appears that members of society had better adapted to the medium and were more familiar with and accepting of the norms associated with cell phone use. Ling’s first study says that in 1997, cell phone use in restaurants was a “metaphor for vulgarity”, with study participants stating that talking on cell phones in airports was “unreasonable” and irritating and was “very disgusting” when used outside of a store. In my opinion, these findings are not very relevant or applicable to today’s environment or even that of Ling’s 2002 study, because now cell phones are so widespread in our society and the views of appropriate situations of their use have much changed. I think that today hardly anyone would view mobile phone use in an airport or outside of a store as improper and offensive uses, as such activities are commonplace in our current environment where even children have cell phones targeted at them, such as Disney Mobile.

A comparison of Ling’s 2002 study to his 1997 one is quite interesting in that the majority of these intensely negative sentiments toward cell phones seem to have dissipated. Instead, it appears that people have developed means of responding to both the ringing of their own phone and that of a companion. Ling discusses how cell phone users employ various disengagement rituals, such as closing of body language, verbal cues or leaving of the area when answering a cell phone call. His observations and discussion imply that these tactics of disengagement are regarded as norms and appear not to cause offense to “co-present individuals”, which perhaps is due to the greater prevalence of cell phone usage. However, though Ling’s findings are thought-provoking and correlate with my own opinions of the changing acceptance of cell phones, his data in the second study is purely observational and is not supported with quantitative data, presenting a limitation in his research. Also, his sample is limited to people living in Oslo who he has happened to observe using their cell phones. This sample is not representative or generalizable at all to global use of mobile phones or even to Norway’s use of cell phones because of its limited sample area and non-randomized sample selection, presenting bias in his results.

Goldberger’s article discusses the impact of cell phones upon our sense of place and community. He states that cell phones function to transport the user out of the space he or she is currently occupying to a virtual place, and the user no longer pays attention to the public environment that they are in. Instead of “sharing the communal experience of urban life”, cell phone users ignore their environment, stripping people of their interaction with the public space. The article presents a contrasting viewpoint to that of Ling, whose 1997 study reports that the jarring abruptness of the phone’s ring greatly disturbs others that share the same physical space. Goldberger instead feels that the phone’s ring is not its biggest offense in public, but that instead the phone’s greatest offense is that it “renders a public space less public”, leading the user into seclusion within his phone conversation. Though Goldberger presents an interesting view of the impact of mobile phones on public space and community, he does not support his statements with any data whatsoever. He instead only states his own opinions and observations without any scholarly research of his own or of others to back up his ideas, which renders his article full of much personal bias.

Hampton et al’s study also discusses the effect of new media use upon public spaces, yet in contrast with Goldberger who primarily discusses cell phones and streets, these researchers study Wi-Fi internet’s connection to social interaction within the public realm of coffeehouses. Hampton et al discovered that community was indeed found in Wi-Fi cafes, as exemplified by the tendency of place makers to seek out social interactions with fellow coffeehouse patrons, which was often facilitated by their use of the Wi-Fi medium on their laptops. Goldberg instead found that the new medium of cell phones harmed community, as people did not have shared experiences in public spaces as much anymore, instead often retreating to their own private place through their cell phone use. However, a limitation can be found in the sample that Hampton et al used in this study, as their observations only took place in Seattle and Boston. The researchers only assessed the Wi-Fi café users of two cities, and it could be possible that inhabitants of these two cities differ systematically in their coffeehouse or internet use than people in other areas of the country, which could bias their results and prevents generalizability. Because Boston and Seattle are both relatively large cities, their inhabitants could perhaps differ systematically in Wi-Fi café use than people from small towns or other parts of the country, for example. Though this study did include participants from varied parts of the country who were traveling, it would probably have been more effective if the researchers had observed people in Wi-Fi cafes from more states and chose cities/towns both small and large, which would have provided a more representative sample of the US.

Questions:

1. What kinds of research should Goldberger have used to provide support for his opinions?
2. To what extent has the increased pervasiveness of cell phones in society today changed views and customs regarding their use?