Isn't it too early to praise or condemn the internet?
This week’s readings seem to be a complete 180 from our class discussions and previous readings. This week we read about the positive affects of the internet, the other side of the debate. The internet is another medium for communication, which would lead some to believe that the internet should have a positive affect on society. The internet provides many ways to communicate with people: instant messaging, emails, chat rooms, live web camera telephone calls, among many others. Although the internet holds the possibility of having a positive affect on social capital, the studies presented have flaws that must first be addressed.
The studies by Robinson et al. and Baym et al. are based on the use of a diary. At first, this method seems to be an accurate way to conduct research. In an ideal setting, the diary method would work very well for this type of research. However, we do not live in an ideal world and the diary method presents flaws in its execution. People do not necessarily fill out the diary accurately. It is hard for people to repeatedly fill out the diary throughout the day. When people remember to fill it out, it is still hard to remember every movement and interaction. Memory distortion clearly impacts the results of the diaries; therefore, they provide inaccurate information. Robinson et al. asked respondents to record everything that they had done “yesterday,” the past 24 hours. In my experience doing a diary, it is incredibly difficult to recall what I did two hours ago, much less the next day. Participants were not asked to record their actions as it happened, meaning many people probably did not report accurately. Baym et al. not only used a diary, which would result in flaws, but they also used the word “significant.” As we have seen in earlier studies, wording is very important. Participants must define “significant” social interactions on their own terms. Without a set definition, answers are skewed based on each participant’s personal definition and understanding of the word. Finally, Quan-Haase et al. did not use a random sample; therefore, we cannot use this study to make any generalizations for the rest of the population.
Regardless of the flaws in each of the studies, the information presented is still valuable for discussion. Robinson presented the idea that internet users were more involved in conversations at home. This conclusion may be a result of the internet’s ability to provide people with a wider range of information. However, Robertson also contradicts himself, he says that the internet increases time spent with friends and co-workers, but less time is spent with family. Most of us have family at home, so it is a clear contradiction to find that the internet increases involvement in conversations at home, but decreases the amount of time spent with family.
The article “Capitalizing on the Net” introduced an idea that I find quite persuasive. This article presents the internet as a supplement to social interaction. With any introduction of a new medium of communication, there seems to be a flurry of activity that comes along with it. The internet is merely another form of communication that we use in our daily lives, but because it is relatively new to us today, we seem to make a big deal out of it. Quan-Haase et al state, “But what if Putnam is only measuring old forms of community and participation, while new forms of communication and organization underneath his radar are connecting people?” Putnam discusses the decline of social capital, but what if Quan-Hasse et al are correct? We may not be looking in the right places, and the definition of community and even social capital are changing. It is possible that as a result of a new technology, community is shifting; therefore, what appears to Putnam as a decline may actually just be a shift or change.
Baym et al. found that people use the internet to fulfill different social needs. I agree with this statement, however, the study only pertains to college students. College students are very different from the general public because they are in a community that encourages face to face interaction. In the college world, the internet is a supplement to the social interactions that a person already has. Although many people are close to their families, they are close to their friends at school. College students generally live in one area, thus, promoting face to face interaction, while the internet serves as sort of meeting ground for college students at all hours of the day.
It is my belief that it is far to early to praise or condemn the internet. What about the study that found the internet decreases the social networks of introverts? How does that relate to the idea that the internet is a supplement to our daily lives? Also, if the internet is just another technology for communication, then why are there so many internet addicts?