COMM 633/553 MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

 

Spring 2012

 

Tue 6:20-9:00pm (CI 203)

 

Prof. Keith Hampton

 

Course website: http://ecollege.rutgers.edu

 

COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course examines how newly emerging mediated communication technologies (e.g., mobile phones and Internet) affect social relationships and how social forces affect adoption and usage patterns of mediated technologies.

 

This course provides an overview of recent research on how new information and communication technologies – such as social networking services, blogging, video games, and mobile phones – influence community, social relationships, and public and private spaces. The course is heavily weighted towards the evaluation of empirical work, the study of social network analysis, and research that address sociological research questions. Examples of questions that will be explored in this course include:

 

PREREQUISITS

PhD students: no prerequisites.

MCIS students: MCIS 512.

 

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

At the end of the course students will be able to critically review the theory, methodology, and findings of a research study published on the topic of new information and communication technologies; contribute to a blog; describe the history of studies on new media; and determine and apply appropriate theory and methodologies to the study of new forms of mediated communication.

 

ASSIGNMENTS, ATTENDANCE AND ASSESSMENT

Students are not expected to have personal experience with the technologies discussed in this course. A major component of the course will involve the development and use of a personal blog. Students will receive access to the necessary blogging software and will be provided with basic instruction on how to maintain a blog.

 

Final grades will be based on an evaluation of 10 blog postings on the subject of the weekly course readings (20%), 20 comments on other students’ blog postings (10%), a presentation outlining the final project (10%), class participation (10%), and a final project (50%). Students are urged to pay close attention to due dates, late assignments will not be graded.

 

Final grades will be assigned according to the following scale:

            A:        90-100%

            B+        85-89%

            B          80-84%

            C+        75-79%

            C          70-74%

            D         60-69%

            F          below 60%

 

Course readings, attendance, and participation: Students are expected to have read the week’s readings in advance of the course meeting. Class meetings will be in a seminar format and students should be prepared to participate in a discussion based on the topic and readings of the week. Use of mobile phones and computing devices in class, for purposes unrelated to note taking and direct class participation, will adversely affect your grade. Students are expected to attend all classes; if you expect to miss one or two classes, please use the University absence reporting website – https://sims.rutgers.edu/ssra/ – to indicate the date and reason for your absence. An email will automatically be sent to the instructor from this system. Note that if you miss classes for longer than one week, you should contact a dean of students to help verify your circumstances.

 

Blog Postings: Students are responsible for submitting short commentaries on 10 of the weeks’ readings (500-700 words). Commentaries should focus on a minimum of 4 of the readings from each week and should consist of limited summary; focusing on an evaluation of the readings and identifying 2-3 questions for discussion during the class meeting (focus on the papers’ key issues, strengths and limitations, and a comparison to previous weeks’ readings). Each commentary must be submitted as a post to the student’s personal class blog by 5:00pm on the Sunday before the class meeting.

 

Blog Comments: Each student is responsible for contributing comments to fellow students’ blogs. Comments should be a minimum of 200 words and offer a critique of that week’s posting, seek clarification, compare or contrast postings, or provide additional evidence or new information (such as a link to a related article, website, etc.). Each student must contribute a minimum of 20 comments, credit will be given for a maximum of two comments each week, students cannot comment on the same blog more than three times over the duration of the course. Comments must be posted by 10:00am on the day of class for posts related to that week’s readings.

 

Presentation: The in-class presentation is as an opportunity for students to explore individual interests and to make a preliminary presentation of their final project. Student’s presentations should be 10 minutes long, use PowerPoint, and follow the format of a formal conference presentation. Presentations of papers or proposals should include the following elements:

            -Identification of the key problem.

-Research question(s).

            -Three citations of key research in the area.

-Research methods and procedure.

-Main strengths and weaknesses of your methods.

 

Final Project (due May 1): The final project can take on one of a number of different forms to be negotiated individually with the instructor. Projects should deal with course themes focusing on a topic of interest to the student. Possibilities for the final paper/project include a full research proposal, software or a website, or a paper of near publishable quality based on the analysis of existing data or data collected as part of an original research project (20-25 double spaced pages).

 

The consequences of scholastic dishonesty are very serious. Evidence of plagiarism, cheating, fabrication, facilitation of dishonesty, academic sabotage, criminal activity, or other violations of research or professional ethics will be dealt with severely – at a minimum the student will receive an F in the course. Rutgers academic integrity policy is at http://academicintegrity.rutgers.edu. 

 

OTHER INFORMATION

Students seeking help with the content of this course should contact the instructor either during office hours, or make a separate appointment. While this is a course on mediated communication, when seeking advisement and support, email is no substitute for an in person meeting with the instructor. Students should plan ahead and consult with the instructor in advance of any due dates. Do not expect a detailed response by email to requests for advice or review of materials – contact the instructor for a scheduled in person meeting, or if you feel comfortable bring up your issue at the start of the class meeting.

COURSE MATERIALS

The following books are on reserve at Alexander Library and are available for purchase at the Rutgers bookstore, on Amazon and at other outlets.

Required Texts:

Turkle, Sherry (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.

Gordon, Eric, & Adriana de Souza e Silva (2011). Net Locality: Why Location Matters in a Networked World. Blakwell.

Recommended Texts:

Ling, R. S. (2008). New Tech, New Ties. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

All other readings, files, and grades will be available from the course website: http://ecollege.rutgers.edu.

 

COURSE OUTLINE

 

WEEK 1 (Jan 17) - Introduction and Blogging 101

 

WEEK 2 (Jan 24) - Foundations

Hampton, Keith (2009). Social Ties and Community in Urban Places. In Harry Hiller (Ed.) Urban Sociology 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 86-107.

Rheingold, H. (1993). A slice of life in my virtual community. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Global Networks: Computers and International Communication (pp. 37-80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Turner, F. (2005). “Where the counterculture met the new economy: The WELL and the Origins of Virtual Community.” Technology and Culture 46: 485-512.

Wellman, B., and Gulia M. (1999). Net-Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities.” Pp. 331-366 in Networks in the Global Village, edited by Barry Wellman. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

 

WEEK 3 (Jan 31) – Harmful Effects?

Turkle, Sherry (2011). Alone Together. Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books. (Introduction & Ch. 8, 9, 10)

Kraut, R., Lunmark, V., Patterson, M., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). “Internet Paradox: A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being?” In American Psychologist 53(9): 1017-1031.

Stepanikova, I., Nie, N. H., & He, X. (2010). Time on the Internet at home, loneliness, and life satisfaction: Evidence from panel time-diary data. Computers in Human Behavior 26(3): 329-338.

Block, J. J. (2008). Issues for Dsm-V: Internet Addiction. Am J Psychiatry, 165(3), 306-307.

Chih-Hung, K., Sigmund, H., Gin-Chung, L., Ju-Yu, Y., Ming-Jen, Y., & Cheng-Fang, Y. (2010). The characteristics of decision making, potential to take risks, and personality of college students with Internet addiction. Psychiatry Research, 175(1), 121-125.

Gergen, K. J. (2008). Mobile Communication and the Transformation of the Democratic Process. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies (pp. 297-310). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two decades. American Sociological Review, 71, 353-375.

WEEK 4 (Feb 7) – Networks On- and Off-Line

Wellman, B. (2001). Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Networked Individualism. In L. Keeble & B. Loader (Eds.), Community Informatics: Shaping Computer-Mediated Social Relations. London: Routledge

Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social Networks and Internet Connectivity Effects. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 125 - 147.

Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., Kunkel, A., Ledbetter, A., & Lin, M.-C. (2007). Relational Quality and Media Use in Interpersonal Relationships. New Media Society, 9(5), 735-752.

Robinson, John. (forthcoming). Internet Use and Social/Media Time: 1995-2010.

Wang, H., & Wellman, B. (2010). Social Connectivity in America. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1148-1169.

Hampton, K. N., Sessions, L., & Ja Her, E. (2011). Core Networks, Social Isolation, and New Media: Internet and Mobile Phone Use, Network Size, and Diversity. Information, Communication & Society, 14(1), 130-155.

 

WEEK 5 (Feb 14) – New Spaces and New Relationships

Berman, J., & Bruckman, A. (2001). The Turing Game. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 7(3), 83

Toma, C., Hancock, J., & Ellison, N. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34: 1023-1036.

Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2009). Putting Your Best Face Forward: The Accuracy of Online Dating Photographs. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 367-386.

Andrew, T. F., & Judith, S. D. (2005). Homophily in online dating: when do you like someone like yourself? Paper presented at the CHI '05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems.

Steinkuehler, C. A., & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 885-909.

Hampton, K. N., Lee, C. J., & Her, E. J. (2011). How New Media Afford Network Diversity: Direct and Mediated Access to Social Capital Through Participation in Local Social Settings. New Media & Society 13(7), 1031-1049.

Byun, S., Ruffini, C., Mills, J. E., Douglas, A. C., Niang, M., Stepchenkova, S., et al. (2009). Internet Addiction: Metasynthesis of 1996–2006 Quantitative Research. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(2), 203-207.

 

WEEK 6 (Feb 21) – Social Networking Services

Facebook 'linked to rise in syphilis'. (2010). The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/7508945/Facebook-linked-to-rise-in-syphilis.html

Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B, & Lampe, C. (2008). Social Capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29: 434-445.

McFarlane, M, Bull, SS, and Rietmeijer, CA. (2000). The Internet as a newly emerging risk environment for sexually transmitted diseases. JAMA 284(4): 443-6.

Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Social Networking Sites and Our Lives: How People’s Trust, Personal Relationships, and Civic and Political Involvement are Connected to Their Use of Social Networking Sites and Other Technologies. Washington, DC: Pew Research.

Ugander, J., Karrer, B., Backstrom, L., & Marlow, C. (2011). The Anatomy of the Facebook Social Graph. Arxiv preprint arXiv:1111.4503.

Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316-327.

Takhteyev, Y., Gruzd, A., & Wellman, B. (2012). Geography of Twitter networks. Social Networks 34(1), 73–81.

WEEK 7 (Feb 28) – Mobile Life

Humphreys, L. (2005). Cellphones in public: social interactions in a wireless era. New Media & Society, 7(6), 810-833.

Ling, R. S. (2008). New Tech, New Ties. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (pp. TBD).

Chen, Y., & Katz, J. (2009). Extending family to school life: College students' use of the mobile phone. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(2), 179-191.

Hampton, K. N., & Gupta, N. (2008). Community and Social Interaction in the Wireless City. New Media & Society, 10(6), 831-850.

Hampton, K. N., Livio, O., & Goulet, L. S. (2010). The Social Life of Wireless Urban Spaces: Internet Use, Social Networks, and the Public Realm. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 701-722.

 

WEEK 8 (Mar 6) – Locative Media

Grinberg, Emanuella (2010). 3D illusion in street tries to change drivers’ attitudes .CNN.com http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/09/3d-illusion-in-street-tries-to-change-drivers-attitudes/?hpt=C2

Zraick, Karen (2010). Phone Apps Aim to Fight Harassment. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/nyregion/08hollaback.html

Kolowich, Steve (2010). Just Walk on By. Inside Higher Ed. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/18/experiment

Gordon, Eric & de Souza e Silva, Andriana (2011). Net Locality: Why Location Matters in a Network World. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Humphreys, L. (2007). Mobile social networks and social practice: A case study of Dodgeball. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 17.

 

WEEK 9 (Mar 13) - Spring Break

 

WEEK 10 (Mar 20) - Presentations

 

WEEK 11 (Mar 27) - Civic / Political Engagement

Boczkowski, P. J. (2009). Technology, Monitoring, and Imitation in Contemporary News Work. Communication, Culture & Critique, 2(1), 39-59.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2006). From unequal access to differentiated use. In D. B. Grusky & S. Szelényi (Eds.), The Inequality Reader (pp. 549-565).

Rheingold, H. (2008). Mobile Media and Political Collective Action. In J. Katz (ed), Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies (pp. 225-239).

Gil de Zúñiga, H., Veenstra, A., Vraga, E., & Shah, D. (2010). Digital Democracy: Reimagining Pathways to Political Participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(1), 36-51.

Haragittai, Eszter & Shaw, Aaron (2011). The Internet, Young Adults and Political Engagement around the 2008 Presidential Election. Working paper.

Hampton, K. N. (2011). Comparing Bonding and Bridging Ties for Democratic Engagement: Everyday Use of Communication Technologies within Social Networks for Civic and Civil Behaviors. Information, Communication & Society, 14(4), 510-528.

 

WEEK 12 (April 3) - Local and Place-Based Community

Hampton, K.N. and Wellman, B. (2003). “Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb.” City and Community 2(4), 277-311.

Hampton, K. N. (2007). Neighborhoods in the network society: The e-neighbors study. Information, Communication and Society, 10(5), 714-748.

Hampton, K. N. (2010). Internet Use and the Concentration of Disadvantage. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1111-1132.

Mok, D., Wellman, B., & Carrasco, J. (2010). Does Distance Still Matter in the Age of the Internet? Urban Studies, 47(13), 2747-2783.

Sessions, L. F. (2010). How Offline Gatherings Affect Online Communities -- When virtual community members ‘meetup’. Information, Communication & Society, 13(3), 375 - 395.

WEEK 13 (April 10) – Children & Youth

Morris, A. (2011, Feb 7). They Know What Boys Want. New York Magazine. Pp 32-37.

Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters: profiles of bullies and victims. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1349-1371.

Boyd, danah. (Forthcoming). “White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook.” In Digital Race Anthology (Eds. Lisa Nakamura and Peter Chow-White). Routledge.

Draper, N. R. A. (in press). Is your teen at risk? Discourses of adolescent sexting in United States television news. Journal of Children and Media.

Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y.-l. P. (2010). Predictors and Consequences of Differentiated Practices on Social Network Sites. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 515 - 536.

 

WEEK 14 (April 17) - Video Games

Yamaguchi, M. (October 23, 2008). Angry online divorcee ‘kills’ virtual ex-hubby. MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27337812/

Anderson, C., & Dill, K. (2000). Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772-790.

Anderson, C., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E., Bushman, B., Sakamoto, A., et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 151-173.

Dill, KE, Brown, BP, & Collins MA (2008). Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44(5): 1402-1408.

Williams, D & Skoric, M (2005). Internet Fantasy Violence. Communication Monographs 72(2): 217-233.

Jenkins, H. (1999). Testimony before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee. http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/0504jen.pdf

James, B. W., Darren, M., Stephanie Sargent, W., Wendi, K., Gary, L. H., Doĝan, E., et al. (2009). Health-Risk Correlates of Video-Game Playing Among Adults. American journal of preventive medicine, 37(4), 299-305.

Biddiss, E., & Irwin, J. (2010). Active Video Games to Promote Physical Activity in Children and Youth: A Systematic Review. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 164(7), 664-672.

Bonis, J. (2007). Acute Wiitis. New England Journal of Medicine 356: 2431-2432.

Cowley, A. D., & Minnaar, G. (2008). Watch out for Wii Shoulder. BMJ, 336(7636), 110-d-.

 

WEEK 15 (April 24) – Catch-up and Discuss Final Projects