the role of temporality in mediated communication and technology convergence

This article was downloaded by: [University of York]On: 09 October 2014, At: 02:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Information,Communication &SocietyPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rics20

THE ROLE OFTEMPORALITYIN MEDIATEDCOMMUNICATIONAND TECHNOLOGYCONVERGENCET. Andrew FinnPublished online: 02 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: T. Andrew Finn (1999) THE ROLE OF TEMPORALITYIN MEDIATED COMMUNICATION AND TECHNOLOGY CONVERGENCE,Information, Communication & Society, 2:2, 174-200, DOI:10.1080/136911899359691

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136911899359691

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rics20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/136911899359691

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136911899359691

of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall notbe liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

T H E R O L E O F T E M P O R A L I T Y I N M E D I A T E D C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D

T E C H N O L O G Y C O N V E R G E N C E

T. Andrew Finn

University of Kentucky

A b s t r a c tThis article examines two components of temporality that have implications for electronically mediated communication. One is the dichotomy of simultaneous/non-simultaneous communication and then the varying degreesof non-simultaneity that are possible. The other is the fundamental differencebetween timed and untimed communication. Timed communication is tempo-rally based and sequential, while untimed communication, such as print andstill image content, is spatially based.

The article argues that there are two fundamental types of mediatedcommunication: communication mediated across time and communicationmediated across space. The implications of temporality for both forms ofmediated communication are examined in detail. The implications of tempor-ality and mediated communication for multimedia, technology convergence,and research are discussed.

K e y w o r d s

communication and information technology, convergence,electronic communication, mediated communication, multimedia,

temporality, time

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Much has been written in recent years about the issue of convergence. Thisconvergence is taking place at several levels. The convergence of content,whether in transmission or presentation, normally refers to the impact of the digital computer and the ability to combine digital text, graphics, voice and video signals (Cotton and Oliver 1993; Negroponte 1995; Vaughan 1994).In addition, these changes in technology, along with market, distribution andregulatory changes, are a major factor in industry convergence, as witnessed bythe mergers and acquisitions in a variety of entertainment and telecommu-nications businesses (Bakhshi 1996; Baldwin et al. 1997; Boam 1997). Forcommunication scholars, there is another type of convergence afoot. This canbe viewed as a convergence of information and communication, of deliverychannels, and of mass and personal communication channels (Gorman 1988;

Information, Communication & Society 2:2 1999 174–200 1369–118X © Taylor & Francis Ltd 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Tait and Mills 1998; Yof� e 1997). Prime examples of these trends can be seenas libraries, newspapers, magazines, college courses and even voice and videocontent go ‘on-line’ side by side with internet phone and various forms ofelectronic text communication.

Claims about content convergence often operate from examples. Thus, it is observed that the television and computer are converging, or voice and text are converging, or text and graphics are converging (Cotton and Oliver1993; Negroponte 1995; Vaughan 1994). However, the speci� c nature of theconvergence, the implications, or why the convergence is happening now aretypically not articulated.

This article addresses these questions, either directly or indirectly, by exam-ining the communication technologies that mediate human communication.This focus is not meant to suggest that the medium determines the effect of thecommunication act. On the contrary, it is now considered axiomatic that thecontext of communication is a major contributor to any explanation of mediaeffects (Berger 1995; Fulk and Stein� eld 1990; Lea 1992; Rogers 1986). Thereare numerous examples of models and approaches to mediated communicationthat stress the importance of social context and related variables, in both mass and interpersonal communication situations (Anderson and Meyer 1988; Fulk and Stein� eld 1990; Gumpert and Cathcart 1986; Hesse et al. 1988;Schramm 1965). Yet researchers often approach mediated communication invery different ways, making comparisons across this work dif� cult.

The purpose of this article is to examine the role of temporality in commu-nication, particularly in the ways communication can be mediated (across time and across space). The conceptualization of temporality used here is takenfrom a comprehensive model of communication and information technologyrecently presented by Finn and Lane (1998). The article provides a discussion of the implications of temporality and mediated communication for a variety ofissues related to media convergence, multimedia, and research. Before turningto these topics, an overview of several previous treatments of mediatedcommunication is presented.

P R E V I O U S T R E A T M E N T S O F M E D I A T E D C O M M U N I C A T I O N

Hundreds of books and research studies make reference to mediated communica-tion. It is sometimes de� ned in terms of communication across distance(Schramm 1965), sometimes in terms of the packaging and editing of massmedia messages (Anderson and Meyer 1988; Berger 1995), and sometimes notde� ned at all (DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach 1989). However, detailed discussions

T E M P O R A L I T Y A N D T E C H N O L O G Y C O N V E R G E N C E

1 7 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

about the nature and varieties of mediated communication are relatively rare.Yet to understand the variety of communication situations we observe in modern society, a closer examination of the meaning of ‘mediated’ is essential.It is clear from even a casual reading of the literature in this area that mediatedcommunication is not a unitary concept. For example, Ball-Rokeach andReardon (1988) compare mass and interpersonal communication to telelogiccommunication (their term for personal telecommunications technologies) onat least thirteen system, social, and user-oriented dimensions. Similarly,Danowski (1988), while focusing on organizational communication, provides a perspective on infographic segmentation in organizations, or the use of auto-mated auditing of communication records. While these and other conceptualviews of communication and information technologies have been offered in the past, this review of the literature focuses on three relatively comprehensiveconceptualizations of mediated communication.

The Nature of Channe ls

The earliest treatment of mediated communication comes from one of theseminal works in mass communication (Schramm 1965). In a section entitled‘The nature of channels’, Schramm points out that channels can be differ-entiated on at least four ‘useful scales’.

His � rst scale is space/time, with print and still images being ‘space-organized’, radio and the telephone being ‘time-organized’, and face to face(FtF) and television being both time- and space-organized. Space-organizedforms of communication are perceived – and measured – in spatial units (suchas pages for books), while time-organized forms of communication areperceived in temporal units, such as seconds, minutes, or hours. Thus, whileSchramm does not invoke Innis’ notion of communication bias here (Innis1991), he does distinguish these characteristics of channels based on howhumans will perceive messages sent across such channels.

While this is to some extent simply a parallel for visual and auditory channels of information, Schramm points out an important difference betweenspace- and time-based channels: the rate of presentation, or intake, is not underthe control of the receiver with time-based channels. While this was true in1965, the technology has changed dramatically since then, as will be seenbelow.

The second scale Schramm uses is the degree of participation allowed by achannel. He proposes a rank-order of channels based essentially on the degreeof feedback and social participation they allow. Somewhat curiously, however,after FtF, meetings, and the telephone, he ranks � lm, television, and radio as

T . A N D R E W F I N N

1 7 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

higher in participation than the telegraph and letters. It is clear from therankings that he sees participation as a combination of feedback and involve-ment or focus, or ‘group bond’. Interestingly, Schramm’s ranking is virtuallyidentical to the typical rank-order of channels for social presence, or the degree towhich a channel can convey the presence of the communicators (Short et al.1976; Rice 1993). It should be noted, however, that traditionally the concept ofsocial presence has only been applied to two-way media (see Duthler et al. 1997for an exception).

Schramm’s third scale is speed, or timeliness. He ranks mass media, and massmedia only, from maximum timeliness to minimum timeliness: television andradio � rst, followed by newspapers, magazines, � lm and books.

Finally, his fourth scale is permanence of the channel or medium. This scaleranks the mass media exactly the reverse of the speed scale. And while Schrammdoes not de� ne permanence, it appears to mean more than simply the physicaldurability of the medium. For example, it is not clear why magazines areconsidered more permanent than newspapers, or why the completelytransitory nature of live radio and television (in the days before recording was commonplace) was never mentioned. Curiously, Schramm (1965) dealtwith both mass and interpersonal media in his discussion of the � rst two scales,but only ranked mass communication channels along his dimensions of speedand permanence.

Mediamo rpho si s

Fidler (1997) presents an interesting categorization of media in his historicaltreatment of communication technologies. He argues that all media come out ofone of three domains: the interpersonal domain, the broadcast domain, or thedocument domain. The interpersonal domain includes two-way interactions suchas face-to-face and telephone communication. Fidler (1997) argues that this is the only domain that offers the possibility of ‘unmediated communication’. Itmust be assumed he is talking about face-to-face communication here, and heapparently considers the natural media of light and air as so transparent as to notbe media at all (Lievrouw and Finn 1990). He even extends the de� nition of theinterpersonal domain to include human–computer interactions if the computerassumes the role of a surrogate human. While the present author agrees thathuman–computer contact should be considered a genuine interaction (Finn andLane 1998), it blurs some very useful distinctions to argue that it is similar to interpersonal communication. For example, it suggests that one-on-onenature of interpersonal interaction is more important than the interpersonalcomponent.


1 7 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The broadcast domain includes not only radio and television, but � lm,theatre, public speeches and art. Finally, the document domain includes all text and visual content in newspapers, magazines, books and the internet.Fidler’s categories have the advantage of encompassing traditional forms of both mass and interpersonal communication. But some forms of mediatedcommunication do not � t neatly into any one of the three categories. Forexample, � ne art and video games appear to be classi� ed as broadcast simplybecause they do not � t the other categories. In addition, some of the traditionalprint media, such as newspapers, could be classi� ed as broadcast media underhis de� nition.

But Fidler raises a number of thought-provoking ideas, and demonstrateshow dif� cult it is to � nd exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories. Thisoverview of other conceptualizations of mediated communication concludeswith the third example, which focuses on interpersonal mediated communi-cation exclusively.

Media ted In terpersona l Co mmun i cat ion

Cathcart and Gumpert (1986) present a typology of ‘mediated interpersonalcommunication.’ They describe four types of communication that fall under this label. Interpersonal mediated communication is any interaction between peoplethat uses an additional medium to extend the communication beyond thepresent time or space. Examples include almost all forms of person-to-personvoice, text, or video communication. Media-simulated interpersonal communicationrefers to para-social interactions (Horton and Wohl 1956). Person–computerinterpersonal communication is any interaction between a person and a computerprogram that simulates dyadic communication (similar to Fidler’s classi� cationof human–computer interaction. Unicommunication is communication from an individual to those that come in contact with that individual (in the non-electronic form of clothes, bumper stickers, and one’s car, house, or otherpossessions).

Most of what communication scholars normally consider mediatedcommunication falls under Cathcart and Gumpert’s � rst de� nition. Since theyare concerned with forms of mediated interpersonal communication, and notattributes of electronic communication, their � rst category subsumes allwritten, voice, and visual forms of interpersonal communication. While onecan take issue with Cathcart and Gumpert’s categories or their focus, mostreaders will probably agree with their conclusions:

In summary, there may be other types of mediated interpersonal communication which we


1 7 8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

have not recognized. There are, of course, other forms of communication which need to beplaced in an updated communication typology. . . .

We could go on, but the point is that a typology which compartmentalizes thought andresearch and prevents investigations of important types and forms of human communicationcannot be tolerated. We are quite convinced that the traditional division of communicationstudy into interpersonal, group and public, and mass communication is inadequate because itignores the pervasiveness of media. We propose that media be incorporated in de�nitions ofcommunication and that we begin to realign our research to account for the signi� cant impactof media.

(1986: 75)

The rest of this article is consistent with the advice of Cathcart and Gumpertregarding the traditional division of the � eld of communication. After a prelim-inary discussion of the indispensable role of time in disentangling various formsof communication, the article presents a typology of mediated communicationthat cuts across the traditional areas of interpersonal, group, organizational, andmass communication.

A B R I E F H I S T O R Y O F T I M E A N D C O M M U N I C A T I O N

Scholars have been studying and referring to mediated communication for manyyears. The term is normally used to convey a sense of communication ‘carriedacross’ distance or time. Much has also been written about the nature of time,and its meaning in human experience (Adam 1990; Ornstein 1969; Rifkin1989; Sherover 1975). Yet most research studies of electronic mail, voice mail,or other new communication technologies, while sometimes distinguishingbetween simultaneous and non-simultaneous communication, do not take theconcept much further. One exception is the addition of ‘timeliness’ to a generalmeasure of task appropriateness (Rice 1993). Another is the detailed treatmentof temporal issues by Hesse, Werner and Altman (1988). They argue for anintegrated context that includes the social and physical environment,communicators (people), and time. For Hesse et al. (1988) four components oftime are particularly salient in human communication (see Rifkin 1989 for amore general treatment of each). These include temporal scale (duration),sequencing, pace (of a discussion) and salience (orientation to the past, present,or future). While the � rst three can be thought of as part technology variableand part the subjective perception of the communicators, salience is strictlybased in the communicators’ perceptions. Hesse et al. (1988) use this approachto discuss many examples of how temporal issues impact human communicationand the study of it.


1 7 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The approach taken in the present article is decidedly different, since it focuses only on attributes of temporality that can be considered channel or technology variables, and thus considered across contexts, independent ofsocial and communicator variables. While such factors must be encompassedfor any real understanding of speci� c communication situations, one of thestrengths of examining temporal variables independent of social factors is thatone can address the communication capabilities and constraints of any giventechnology more directly. In this context there are two primary aspects oftemporality worth distinguishing when examining the capacity of commu-nication and information technologies for human communication. They includethe degree of non-simultaneity and timed Vs untimed communication. Beforediscussing these components of time, a brief discussion is presented of the termsused in the literature to express temporal relationships.

Cl ar i fy ing the Termino logy o f T ime

There are several sets of terms used as synonyms for simultaneous and non-simultaneous. Two of the most popular pair of alternatives leave room forambiguity. The � rst pair is the terms synchronous and asynchronous. The termsynchronous is often used (Rogers 1986) to refer to communication in whichsender and receiver are exchanging messages at the same time, while sharingchannels and receiving immediate feedback. Similarly, asynchronous is used torefer to communication where there is no immediate feedback (Rogers 1986;McGrath and Hollingshead 1994; Negroponte 1995).

While synchronous has a meaning similar to simultaneous, it has anothermeaning in the telecommunications and computer world (Dordick 1986). Incomputer parlance, synchronous events happen in a speci� c time relationship to each other, but may not occur simultaneously. IBM computers have for yearsused what is known as synchronous transmission of data, while competingtransmission protocols use asynchronous transmission, which avoids synchron-izing the transmission by using start and stop bits (Newton 1998). Because ofthis other meaning prevalent in the communications industry, communicationscholars are better avoiding using the term synchronous to mean simultaneoushuman communication.

A second, and more unfortunate, set of terms intended to meansimultaneous and non-simultaneous are real time and non-real time (Bretz1983). There are two reasons to avoid using these terms as synonyms forsimultaneous and non-simultaneous. First, real time was not simply picked up by the computer industry; it has its origins in the world of computers.


1 8 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Real-time refers to the actual time that a physical process takes place (Newton1998). If this de� nition of real time is somewhat confusing, consider real-timecomputer processing as the opposite of batch processing. Batching meansstoring for processing later (so far so good), while real time means processingimmediately. That is, as immediately as a busy computer can get to it.Ultimately, the term was invented to describe a process of (near) immediateaccess to computer resources, and there isn’t a good analogue in interpersonalcommunication.

The second reason to avoid real time as a synonym for simultaneous is thatthere is another, more useful de� nition for real time in human communication:a message that takes exactly as long to receive as it does to send, or a messagethat is experienced at the same rate by all receivers. This is traceable toSchramm’s (1965) distinction of ‘time-organized’ media and is the secondaspect of temporality with a large impact on communication. Since ‘real time’is sometimes used today to mean simultaneous, I will forgo my preference forrede� ning real-time communication here and simply refer to this second aspectof temporality as timed and untimed communication. As will be seen in thesection below on timed and untimed communication, it is distinct from, butrelated to, the degree of non-simultaneity.

T he Degree of Non- S imu l t anei t y

This � rst aspect of temporality is what typically comes to mind when peoplediscuss time and communication. When communication scholars refer to timein an interaction they typically use one of several conventions to describe ‘live’Vs stored (recorded) interaction. This dimension has been referred to assimultaneous Vs non-simultaneous communication (Lievrouw and Finn 1990),or, more precisely, as the degree of non-simultaneity (Finn and Lane 1998).

This is based on the notion that simultaneity is not a continuum, rangingfrom very simultaneous to very non-simultaneous. Simultaneous and non-simultaneous communication are more accurately a dichotomy. This viewensures recognition of the fundamental difference between simultaneous andnon-simultaneous forms of communication, and prevents confusion whentechnologies from one category appear similar to those from the other. Thesimplest test to determine whether a communication is essentially simultaneousor essentially non-simultaneous is whether or not the message is stored. If amessage is � rst put in a storage medium of any type, it is a non-simultaneousform of communication. If it is not � rst stored, then its form is simultaneous.Within this dichotomy, there are a range of communication options. First, some


1 8 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

simultaneous communication technologies suffer from technical limitations thatprevent a satisfying simultaneous interaction and result in what will bedescribed as ‘near simultaneous’ communication. Second, based on howquickly a system can deliver stored content, there is also a wide range of non-simultaneous systems, from slightly non-simultaneous to highly non-simultaneous. Several examples will highlight and clarify these distinctions,beginning with forms of simultaneous communication.

Face-to-face and telephone communication present the clearest cases ofsimultaneous communication: there is direct, two-way communication, all parties can talk at once, and any incoming message is interruptible. From atechnical point of view, this is true of any face-to-face or telephone interaction,though social constraints may inhibit people from speaking or interrupting. Yet many telephone conversations over great distances, particularly satellitecalls, encounter delays of one second or more. Because even delayed calls sharesthe basic attributes common to all simultaneous communication, they remain,in essence, a form of simultaneous communication. Audio and video confer-encing provide another example of delay that looks like non-simultaneouscommunication at � rst glance: the use of half-duplex speakerphones introducesa delay in feedback, since only one party can talk at a time. If a second partybegins to talk too early, the speakerphone returns control to the party in the room and thus ‘clips’ off what the party at the other end is saying. Yetcommunication over these systems is still essentially simultaneous, since it isdirect, two way, and interruptible. However, there are times when it will be useful to distinguish such delayed simultaneous communication as ‘nearsimultaneous’ communication (Finn and Lane 1998). Live radio and television,such as sporting events and live talk shows, are also simultaneous. Since there isoften a delay of several seconds built into the transmission, these too can beconsidered near simultaneous.

Then there are a series of communication technologies that are clearly non-simultaneous, from internet chatrooms, e-mail, and voice mail to postal mail,newspapers, magazines, � lm and books. The longer it takes for a sender’smessage to reach the receiver(s), the higher the degree of non-simultaneity.Thus a big advantage of e-mail over postal mail is that it has a lower degree ofnon-simultaneity; it is delivered to its destination in a matter of minutes ratherthan days. Note that e-mail technology or postal mail technology get theirdegree of non-simultaneity from the system’s ability to deliver content to itsdestination. Any given message may not be read for hours or days after it isdelivered. Such considerations enter the realm of the social uses of a channeland are not related to the technology’s degree of non-simultaneity.


1 8 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Internet chatrooms (as well as MUDs and instant messaging systems, such asICQ) present an interesting class of non-simultaneous options, since they canappear to allow an exchange of content as rapidly as some forms of (near)simultaneous communication. The fundamental difference, as de� ned here, is that these forms of non-simultaneous communication can approachsimultaneity but, because they must be stored before they can be transmitted,they can never achieve simultaneity. The sole exceptions would be commu-nication such as a receiver reading a note as the sender is writing it. While anunusual occurrence, this would be the one form of stored communication thatcould be considered simultaneous communication.

The degree of non-simultaneity component of temporality has implicationsfor both one way and two-way communication. For example, some of the mostcommon treatments of temporality have been in terms of the immediacy offeedback from the receiver (Williams 1987), and the degree to which thereceiver can exert control on the interaction (Rogers 1986). The degree of non-simultaneity is the component of temporality that has a direct bearing on theseissues. The second aspect of temporality that affects how communication ismediated it whether or not the communication is ‘timed’.

T imed and U nt imed Co mmun icat ion

Human experience is measured in time. Whether it is a FtF meeting with afriend, a newsreader providing a summary of the morning news, or a voice mailmessage from a co-worker, we normally take in the temporality of humanexperience, or audio and video information, at the same rate which the senderis transmitting it. Thus, it takes 30 minutes to watch 30 minutes of news andone minute to listen to a one-minute voice mail message (though in some casesadvances in technology is changing this). Similarly, we all watch movies at thesame rate. Thus, face-to-face, audio and video forms of communication are allexamples of timed communication (Schramm 1965).

In contrast, we know that people read text at different rates, � ip throughmagazines at different speeds, and take variable amounts of time to walkthrough an art exhibit. Regardless of the type of content, all still image visuals,whether text, graphics, or still picture information, fall into the category ofuntimed communication. That is, the rate of presentation is under the controlof the receiver (Klapper 1965). In timed communication, on the other hand,the receiver takes in the communication at the rate it is presented by themedium itself.

Untimed communication is communication that is not typically measured in time, but in some other scale. For example, we measure newspapers,


1 8 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

magazines and books in pages, but we measure movies, television content andspeeches in terms of hours and minutes. Similarly, the header of an e-mailmessage usually describes the length of the message in lines, but the header of avoice mail message describes its length in minutes and seconds.

As will be seen below, this is a useful distinction. As mentioned above, it isalso a better de� nition of the adjective ‘real-time:’ I believe that real-timecommunication is best de� ned as communication that takes as long to ‘receive’as it does to send (though I have no illusion this re-de� nition will occur). Aswith FtF communication, the experience of time in the interaction appears tobe real, or normal. That is, the rate of communication is linked to the passageof time. People can talk faster, or squeeze more into a broadcast, but it will stilltake all receivers the same amount of time to receive the message.

The distinction between timed and untimed communication may seem so obvious as to be trivial. Admittedly, it is so fundamental that it is typicallytaken as a given in communication research and is seldom mentioned in the communication literature (Finn and Lane 1998). Yet these is no reason tocontinue to ignore the distinction if it is useful. Three brief examples reinforcethe claim that the difference between timed and untimed communication has far-reaching effects. First, the inability to merge timed and untimedcommunication is a fundamental reason why efforts at of� ce automation failedin the 1970s (Uhlig et al. 1982). Simply put, there was no way at that time to merge voice and text content in the same systems. Digital storage of text was common; digital storage of voice was still experimental. Second, models ofdistance education were, until recently, split between those that providedinstructor input in timed formats, as in video and/or audio content, and thosethat provided instructor input in untimed formats, primarily text content(Mood 1995). As will be seen below, the multimedia options of the WorldWide Web now allow for the providing instructional content in a variety offormats through the integration of text, audio and video content. Third, peopleoften complain about the slow rate of input when listening to voice mail,watching a training tape, or even attending a (FtF) lecture (Finn 1986). Takingin such messages at a constant speed, the receiver has no control over theamount of time it will take to receive the information. Consequently, receiversare often looking for alternatives to the constraints of timed electroniccommunication systems.


1 8 4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Co mb in ing the D imens ions of T i me

For comparison purposes, Table 1 positions a number of commonly used massand personal communication technologies within the appropriate componentsof temporality discussed above. Timed communication, such as audio and videocontent, can be stored (i.e. made non-simultaneous), but untimed commu-nication must be stored. As implied above, all simultaneous communication istimed, since simultaneous communication cannot occur once content is stored.Again, even communication in chatrooms or through instant messaging is storedand then delivered. While the � ow of conversation can be interrupted, noindividual message is interruptible unless it has not yet been sent.

Another way of looking at the intersection of these two components oftemporality is that timed communication can be either simultaneous (e.g.telephone calls) or non-simultaneous (e.g. answering machine messages) whileuntimed communication can only be non-simultaneous. By de� nition, there isno untimed, simultaneous communication. Even if one reads text as it is beingwritten, a rare form of messaging, the input of everyone reading it is tied to the rate of output. As mentioned, while the simultaneous/non-simultaneous


1 8 5

Table 1 Temporality attributes of selected mass and personal communicationtechnologies

Timed communication Untimed communication

Type of content FtF, voice, video only Text, still image only

Systems for live radio nonesimultaneous live televisionCommunication face to face

telephoneaudio and videoconferencesall forms of personal radio(CB, shortwave, etc.)

Technologies for pre-recorded radio text and graphics Web pagesnon-simultaneous pre-recorded television newspaperscommunication � lm magazines

music CDs, DVD booksaudio and videocassettes all forms of Internet chatCD-ROMs all forms of e-mailvoice mail personal (postal) lettersanswering machines memos and reportshome videos

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

component of time is frequently referenced (Rice 1984; Rogers 1986), thetimed/untimed component of time is a distinction not explicitly recognized inmost discussions of new technology effects and research. Yet this will likelychange, since developments in technology now make it is possible to alter therate of presentation of timed content, particularly digitized content.

Al te r ing T imed Co mmun i cat ion

A useful feature of stored content is that it can be manipulated. Although digitalsignals are the easiest to manipulate, information in analog storage can also bemanipulated. Consequently, a number of communication technologies allowthe modi� cation of timed content. Three examples will highlight the advantagesof this manipulation. First, the use of slow-motion has come to play a major partin a variety of endeavours, from sports to crime-� ghting. Switching from timedto ‘slo-mo’ allows sports fans or the police to view a situation more closely anddetermine exactly what happened.

A second example of moving beyond timed viewing comes with the‘zapping’ of commercials when watching a videotape of television programs.Because we’re watching the material stored on tape, this non-simultaneouscommunication provides the option of speeding up, or fast forwarding, thematerial. As with slow motion, we normally lose the audio when we speed up the video. But in zapping, the viewer typically is interested in skipping overcertain content and will recognize the return of the program they are interestedin from the video portion of the signal alone (Sapolsky and Forrest 1989). We have probably all used fast forward on our VCRs to view the video as we look for the scene we want. This is really a type of searching behaviour; we do not ordinarily characterize it as such because this form of analog storage isnot usually thought of as a database. In choosing to alter the timed dimension ofthis communication we may lose some of the information (particularly theaudio), but we are still changing the timed information sent to us.

Finally, the best example may be the relatively new feature of many voicemail systems which allow the user to speed up the playback of messages. Withpitch correction, these messages sound quite normal, but are spoken at a fasterpace. This option is designed to overcome one of the primary objections toreceiving messages/information by voice: that it takes too long. Interestingly,while there is as yet no published studies on this topic, an informal poll (by this author) of users with this capability indicates that many have tried thisfeature but abandoned its use. They report � nding it tiring to use, and a bitunnatural.


1 8 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

In summary, preliminary evidence indicates that timed communication ismodi� ed for faster or slower input only in speci� c situations. This suggests that most of the timed communication we engage in will probably remaintimed, until we have seamless speech-to-text (voice recognition) and text-to-speech (voice synthesis). At that point people will be able to choose theirpreferred modes for input and output of communication and information. It is often assumed that the choice will be voice for input and text for output – since these are regarded as the fastest modes available for most people.However, this focus on ef� ciency ignores other unique and speci� c attributesof text and voice communication that will be factored into media choice decisions.

While the two components of temporality discussed above represent onlyone dimension of a comprehensive model of communication and informationtechnology (Finn and Lane 1998), they are suf� cient for the following dis-cussion of three speci� c types of mediated communication.

F O R M S O F M E D I A T E D C O M M U N I C A T I O N

The typology of mediated communication discussed in this article starts where Schramm’s (1965) ‘scales’ started: it begins with space and time. At the most fundamental level, there are two primary ways that communicationcan be mediated: across time and across distance (Lievrouw and Finn 1990).Historically, mediation across time has typically come � rst with each new typeof communication system; then, once a transmission technology was inventedfor each type of information, mediation across distances (telecommunication)also became a reality.

Commun ica t ion Media ted A cross T ime

By de� nition, mediating communication across time implies non-simultaneouscommunication and requires storage. The invention of drawing and then writ-ing provided the earliest examples of storing and preserving communication,and thereby allowing mediation across time. To some extent writing can be seenas capturing the spoken word, but a great deal is lost – as well as added – in thisconversion. Over centuries there have been tremendous improvements in thetechnology for text and still visual images, including advances in colour, ink,paints, and mass production techniques such as the printing press (McLuhan1962). The invention of photography (daguerreotype) in 1835 ushered in a newera of still visual image storage, and the truest visual rendering of places andevents up to that date.


1 8 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

But it was not until the invention of the phonograph in 1877 that storagemedia for human communication moved beyond writing, print, graphics, andother still visual images. The phonograph ushered in a revolution: for the � rsttime a sequential, temporal event (speech or music) could be captured andreproduced. While the phonograph was eventually used primarily for music, itis worth noting that it was initially viewed as a recording device for humanspeech. Grammar is, in fact, the root of the term gramophone.

At about the same time a series of inventions (1878–1893), beginning with‘sequential photography’ and culminating with the kinetiscope, revolutionizedthe perception of the still photographic image much as the phonograph hadrevolutionized the experience of voice. Like the phonograph before it, thesecreations represented the ability to store a representation of a temporal,sequential event. Silent movies followed soon after, and it took until 1927 to master the art of adding the audio track to create full-length ‘talkies’. At that point, an analog form of storage medium had been invented for each of themajor types of today’s telecommunications content (text, voice, still image andmoving image). But mediating it across distances – aside from simply storingand physically carrying the stored content elsewhere – required harnessing thepower of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Co mmun i cat ion Medi a ted Acro ss D is tances

While the presence or absence of a storage medium is the key to mediatingcommunication across time, a transmission medium is the key to mediatingacross space, or distances. It should be noted that the very earliest forms of mediated communication were provided by devices for spanning distances,such as smoke signals and drums. But these used the same media that carry FtFsignals: the visible spectrum of light and the atmosphere.

The era of modern telecommunications began with the invention of thetelegraph in 1844. Morse code provided an additional layer of language, butallowed text messages to be transmitted almost instantaneously over longdistances. The electronic transmission of voice followed relatively close behindwith the invention of the telephone in 1876. When the wireless tapped thesecrets of the radio spectrum in 1895, communication could be mediated across large distances without the use of a physical connection. Early modern(electronic) telecommunications was primarily a means to span distances –whether ship-to-shore, across the city, or across the country. Commercial radio,then television, completed the invention of the � rst technologies that couldtransmit text, voice, image and video signals across large distances.


1 8 8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 2 provides a convenient comparison of the storage media and thetransmission media that have been invented to manage text, voice, image, andmoving image signals. While there are other timelines of communication andinformation technology published elsewhere (Fidler 1997; Schement and Stout1990; Winston 1998), this summary is designed to highlight speci� c trends.Table 2 includes more recent improvements on the initial inventions that carried each type of content, from the Internet to digital radio, fax and personalvideo. Several things are worth noting. First, that the storage of text and still visual images (writing, printing, drawing and painting) was inventedhundreds of years before the storage of voice or moving images. These earlystorage technologies were also available long before any electronic transmissionof signals. Second, as has been well documented and commented upon by


1 8 9

Table 2 The chronology of mediated communication: approximate dates for inventionof storage and transmission technologies for four primary types of communicationcontent

Invention of storage technologies Invention of transmission media

Text writing (3300 BC) telegraph (1844)printing (1457) e-mail/Internet (1969)typewriter (1868) World Wide Web (1992)digital storage (1946)

Voice phonograph (1877) telephone (1876)magnetic tape (1951) wireless (1895)compact disc (1979) radio (1910)voice mail (1980) digital radio (1985)digital audio tape (1987) Online audio (1993)

Still Image drawing (30,000 BC) television (1941)painting (30,000 BC) fax (1973)photography (1839) graphics (1985)digital graphics (1970) digital images (1985)

World Wide Web (1992)

Moving Image movies (1909) television (1941)talkies (1927) picturephone (1964)videotape (1951) digital video (1990)consumer videotape (1964) personal video (1993)digital storage: videodisk online video (1994)(1983)

Notes: All dates are approximate; the goal is to provide a basis for comparison. In recent cases,the dates presented are for availability of a commercially viable product.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

scholars, we have seen more advancement in communication technology in thetwentieth Century than in all the previous history combined (McLuhan 1962;Schramm 1965; Rogers 1986). In addition, the trend towards convergence incommunication and information technologies continues unabated. Third, whenradio and television were � rst invented, virtually everything broadcast wassome type of live performance (Head et al. 1994; Winston 1998). It was onlyafter these media were relatively well established that recorded material wasused as a major source of programming. Today, of course, the vast majority ofradio and television programming is pre-recorded (Anderson and Meyer 1988).Finally, with the exception of early transmission technologies such as drums and smoke signals, which used the natural media of air and light, in every casestorage technologies were invented � rst, then transmission technologies for thesame content.

It should be obvious by now that mediation across time and mediation acrossdistance are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most communication technologiesthat are used to mediate across time are also effective at mediating commu-nication across distances. As long as the storage medium is relatively portable,whether print media such as newspapers, magazines, or books, or electronicmedia such as CDs, magnetic tapes, or computer disks, most storage media notonly mediate across time but across distance as well (Schramm 1965; Lievrouwand Finn 1990). However, the reverse is not true: communication technologiesthat mediate across distances are not automatically capable of communicatingacross time. Typically, a storage device must be added (for example, a VCR to atelevision, an answering machine to a telephone).

Ed i t ing and Packag ing S imu l taneous and Non- S i mu l taneo us Commun i cat ion

Packaged communication refers to editing, modifying, or rehearsing thejuxtaposition of words, images, and/or sounds to create a message that is much more complex and sophisticated than a straightforward interpersonalexchange. This content can then be performed, stored, or sent across largedistances. Packaged messaged are often complex combinations of a variety ofadvanced editing and presentation techniques that, in some cases, have becomeavailable only in relatively recent years (Anderson and Meyer 1988; Berger1995). It is worth noting that Anderson and Meyer (1988) use the term mediatedcommunication to mean mass communication. They apparently prefer this term,in part, because of the packaged aspect of the messages.

While it can be argued that all forms of communication are packaged to some extent, there are gradations. Packaging of simultaneous communication


1 9 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

is a different process than packaging of non-simultaneous communication.Packaging of simultaneous communication implies rehearsal of some type.People practise speeches, actors memorize lines, live performances arerehearsed, television networks plan the coverage of live events, sports teamsrun set plays and people often plan what they wish to say in FtF or telephonecommunication.

Persona l communicat ion examples

In general, personal communication is less packaged than mass communication,and simultaneous communication is less packaged than non-simultaneouscommunication. When someone prepares a résumé for a job application, thatperson packages themselves in the text of the document. When that sameperson goes to a job interview, they may spend time preparing and rehearsing,but the messages presented in a job interview, which consists of simultaneous,timed communication, are less amenable to control through editing andpackaging. In addition, face-to-face or telephone exchanges may simply bebased on thinking ahead or whatever comes to mind and, thus, exhibit aminimum of rehearsal and packaging.

Mass communicat ion examples

All forms of mass print technologies, including newspapers, magazines, books,and web sites, are non-simultaneous and consequently are heavily packaged.Today all forms of mass broadcasting are also heavily packaged. As mentionedabove, in the early days of radio (and television), most programmes wereperformed in the studio and broadcast live (simultaneous). But even when mostof the content was live, it was possible to provide rudimentary packaging of the messages. This includes the addition of sounds and visuals (such as voice-overs and audio mixing, fades and other camera modi� cations, and other special effects), and the juxtaposition of scenes within programmes and with advertisements. Music on phonograph records was one of the fewtypes of recordings available prior to the use of tape, but the low quality of earlyrecordings limited its use in radio.

It was the introduction of convenient, stored media for radio and televisionmessages that ushered in the golden era of packaged messages. Onceprogrammes, announcements, and ads could be recorded for insertion into theprogramme schedule at the discretion of the broadcaster, the nature of radioand television content changed dramatically. Producers and broadcasters wereno longer limited to the repertoire of their announcers and performers. The


1 9 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

programming became more slick, most notably in the pace of the broadcast: itwas much easier to move from message to message quickly and seamlessly. Tothe extent that shorter sequences and quicker cuts are today blamed for areduction in viewers’ attention spans, it could be said to have begun with the useof pre-recorded content.

While the degree of packaging is often dif� cult to quantify, it is clear that thereis typically substantially more packaging in non-simultaneous communicationthan there is in simultaneous communication. Non-simultaneous commu-nication, because it is stored, allows communicators a variety of options,including editing and juxtaposing material that would be dif� cult or impossibleto manipulate in simultaneous situations. In addition, both non-simultaneoustimed and untimed communication can be heavily packaged.

E d i t ing and Pack ag ing T imed and Unt imedCo mmun icat ion

Mass communicat ion examples

Packaged communication appeared in print, the most prevalent form ofuntimed communication, long before most other modern communicationmedia were invented. Almost by de� nition, the written word is edited, orpackaged. But packaging goes far beyond simply having the time to consider and reconsider one’s words. For example, newspaper and magazine typesettershave long been able to make headlines of different sizes and typefaces, as well asuse colour, juxtapose different articles, advertisements, cartoons, graphics andphotographs. As highlighted in Table 2, untimed non-simultaneous communica-tion has been in existence for thousands of years and mass communication versions of it, including books, magazines and newspapers, have graduallybecome more sophisticated and more heavily edited and packaged. This couldbe said to represent the printed version of McLuhan’s ‘communal mosaic’(Berger 1995).

Persona l communicat ion examples

For centuries non-simultaneous, untimed communication in the realm ofpersonal communication consisted primarily of personal letters (see Tables 1 and 2). The packaging of letters changed relatively little for most of that same period. The cost of technologies to provide additional packaging capa-bilities has traditionally been beyond the reach of individuals. It was not untilthe innovation of the typewriter (1868) that business correspondence andpersonal letters were able to move to the printed, rather than the written,


1 9 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

word. Still, it required the invention of the computer and the popularization ofword processing programs in the 1980s before individuals gained the ability to provide sophisticated packaging of text information. Part of the importanceof desktop multimedia is that it brings control of a variety of packagingtechniques under the control of a single individual.

However, packaged communication has been more a hallmark of mass communication than personal communication, at least until now. This isbecause packaged communication, whether in the print or broadcast media, is a relatively complex and time-consuming process. In examining mass commu-nication content it is usually impossible to identify a single sender of theinformation. Unlike interpersonal communication, where we each originateour own messages, message creation and sending are much more a group effortin mass communication (Anderson and Meyer 1988).

Until the 1990s, the technology and preparation time needed to create highlypackaged messages was beyond the reach of most individuals, and therefore notused much in personal communication or in small businesses. In addition,packaged messages in mass communication were always one-way commu-nication. Advances in computer technologies have changed that, and people cannow create very sophisticated packaged messages in which receivers have somecontrrol over the presentation of the content.

Mult imed ia Commun icat io n

Multimedia may be the ultimate form of technology convergence. Multimedia istypically de� ned as the integration of some combination of text, audio, stillimages, and video or other moving images, with the presentation under thecontrol of the user (Cotton and Oliver 1993; Straubhaar and LaRose 1996).Putting the presentation under the control of the user, which typically involvesdigital signals and a computer, is what separates today’s de� nition of multi-media from more traditional combinations of these same content types, such astelevision, � lm, newspapers, magazines, facsimile and even FtF presentations.These may use multiple media, and may have been around for decades, but such one-way uses of multiple media is not what is meant here by multimedia.User control is also what makes multimedia an interactive process. Previously,receivers had little control over the presentation of non-simultaneous content.

There have been extensive writings about multimedia recently (Blattner andDannenberg 1992; Cotton and Oliver 1993; Shneiderman 1997; Vaughn1998). Rather than recount much of the traditional view of multimedia and itsexpected impact, a couple of issues that do not receive much attention are


1 9 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

worth addressing. One is that there are at least two distinct perspectives aboutmultimedia of interest to communication scholars.

The � rst, and most dominant, views the use of multimedia from the perspective of mass communication. Here the main change is an increase in theinteractivity of the communication. For many designers, directors and creators,this is a logical extension of the mass media information, entertainment and advertising forms available today. Videogames, information retrieval and selection, learning tools, interactive CD-ROM – all will be more sophisticated,more integrative of different modes, and more interactive, and give the receivermore control over the interaction. These are highly packaged forms of commu-nication, but the receiver is given much more control over the presentation of the content than in the past.

The second approach to multimedia starts with personal communication ratherthan mass communication. Its goal is to anticipate the developments and con-vergence among such communication tools as the telephone, e-mail, voice mail,fax, videoconferencing and other tools for two-way personal communication.In many ways the changes coming on the personal communication side of thehouse will be more revolutionary than on the mass communication side. Modesof mass communication have been combined since the invention of writing anddrawing. But beyond FtF (the original multimedia option), channels of personalcommunication have, for the most part, involved single-mode communication(e.g. the telephone, early e-mail). Multimedia probably came � rst to mass communication messages because of the desire, or need, to grab the audience’sattention. It has been slow to come to personal communication in part becausethe receiver is, presumably, already interested in the personal communication.Only recently is multimedia found in personal non-simultaneous commu-nication, as e-mail and other forms of electronic text communication are supplemented by multimedia attachments and electronic greeting cards. Two-way interactive versions of this type of communication are stored digitally andare thus amenable to easy manipulation and display.

Multimedia has now made it to the desktop, � rst in the business world but also in the home. People now create multimedia messages for person-to-person communication as well. Examples include the use of personal videocalls, presentation graphics, fax servers, voice-annotated fax and telemedicineimages.

In addition, the user interfaces for traditional voice systems are now beingconverted to visual interfaces. That is, timed communication can now bemanaged through an interface to an untimed technology. There are now visual,computer-screen displays for easier mastery of of� ce telephone features and


1 9 4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

voice mail interfaces. This helps overcome the temporal, sequential nature of the auditory menu structure used by voice mail and its cumbersome list ofmessages. It is also an example of multimedia in a personal communicationsystem. In addition, many voice mail systems are now offering multimediamailboxes, which can also receive fax and e-mail as well as voice mail messages.A logical extension of personal video systems in the of� ce will be the inclusionof video messages as well. The importance of these aspects of multimedia for the purposes of this article are related to the new dimension added tomultimedia when temporal-based media, such as voice and video, are added to print and still media.

S U M M A R Y O F I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R C H A N G E S I N C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N D I N F O R M A T I O N

T E C H N O L O G Y

A � nal component of the puzzle of mediated communication is the wildcard ofadditional new forms of communication that continue to emerge with virtuallyevery technological breakthrough. The multimedia landscape continues itsrapid pace of change. For example, the storage and transmission of voice andvideo � les was added to the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1994. More recently,live (simultaneous) voice and video transmissions have been added to theWWW, in the form of news feeds and other information. Consequently, theWWW is no longer limited to carrying stored, non-simultaneous information.

One implication of these changes is that on-line personal communication islikely to become more like mass communication: packaged, edited and pre-sented in multimedia formats. A second implication is that mass communicationwill become more like personal communication: two-way and interactive, orthe appearance of interactivity through sophisticated software (Gumpert andCathcart 1986). A third is that the barrier between timed and untimed forms ofcommunication is being torn down.

In the past, research on new technology has followed a fairly standardpattern: as each new technology is created, its attributes, uses and effects areexamined. But this examination often takes place in a relative vacuum (Rice1984; Fulk and Stein� eld 1990). The short history of electronic communicationresearch suggests that researchers still struggle to � nd suitable theoreticalorientations or even common attributes across the existing variety of newtechnologies. By disentangling the components of temporality, across both massand personal communication systems, this article has attempted to provide aroadmap for understanding the experience of time in any new communicationtechnology that is invented.


1 9 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

S U M M A R Y O F I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R R E S E A R C HO N M E D I A T E D C O M M U N I C A T I O N

The components of temporality presented in this article have severalapplications in research on mediated communication. First, this explication of the components of temporality, one of the primary dimensions of thecommunication and information technology model1 (Finn and Lane 1998),provides a detailed rationale for conceptualizing temporality in terms of thedegree of non-simultaneity and timed Vs untimed communication. Thus, thiswork serves as a detailed explanation of how temporality takes its placealongside the dimensions of space, capacity, interactivity and control in thatmodel.

Second, the article highlights the opportunity researchers have for providingmore precise de� nitions and operationalizations of the concepts used indiscussions of mediated communication. This goes beyond the terms discussedin this article, such as real time and asynchronous. For example, the termcomputer-mediated communication has been used by literally hundreds of authors,yet few provide a de� nition of it. It generally implies electronic text commu-nication with a medium level of non-simultaneity, but today many other types of communication are now ‘computer-mediated’. More speci� city in the use of this and other terms will help clarify hypothesized relationships andgeneralizations alike.

Third, the distinctions made here concerning temporality can facilitatecomparisons across mass and personal mediated communication situations. As more types of mass communication imitate or truly allow for interactivity, or even two-way communication, direct comparisons with mediated personalcommunication situations will become more common. As Cathcart andGumpert (1986) maintain, the relatively arti� cial distinctions between massand interpersonal communication have slowed our willingness to examinemediated communication across different type of technologies.

Finally, as multimedia communication technologies continue to create new mixes of communication channels, individual technologies have becomemore complex. For example, there are dozens of studies of ‘voice mail’ now available in the literature. Yet even before voice mailboxes becamemultimedia mailboxes, handling fax and e-mail messages along with voice, therewere numerous differences in voice mail systems, depending upon whomanufactured the system and how it was implemented (Finn 1999). In addition,boundaries that appeared fundamental to the nature of particular electroniccommunication systems are being crossed by new forms of technology. Onesuch boundary is the nature of timed communication, whether simultaneous or


1 9 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

non-simultaneous. Until now researchers have paid little attention to this aspectof communicating over audio and video channels, instead simply accepting it asa given – an attribute of the technology. Now that non-simultaneous timedcontent can be edited and packaged nearly as easily as untimed content, and thepace of timed content can be altered, researchers would do well to re-examinethe traditional assumptions about such systems and consider these variations intheir conceptualizations about the impacts of communication technology onhuman communication.

This article has focused on the relation between temporality and communi-cation, and the nature of mediated communication. It is intended as a tool foruncovering commonalties and highlighting differences among a variety of formsof electronic communication. Its value will emerge to the extent it proveshelpful in disentangling components of electronically mediated communicationand behaviour.

T. Andrew Finn107 Grehan Building

University of KentuckyLexington, KY 40506-0042

�[email protected]

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T

The author would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for extensive andhelpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

N O T E

1 To reduce possible confusion when discussing the Finn and Lane (1998) model, future references to this approach will be termed the communication and information technology(CIT) model, not the communication and information systems model, as originally refer-enced in the 1998 paper.

R E F E R E N C E S

Adam, B. (1990) Time and Social Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press.Anderson, J.A. and Meyer, T.P. (1988) Mediated Communication: A Social Action

Perspective, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Bakhshi, S.K. (1996). ‘Network Alliances among Telecommunications

Operators and European Union Liberalization: A Structuration-BasedAnalysis, unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbus, OH: the Ohio StateUniversity.

Baldwin, T.F., McVoy, D.S. and Stein� eld, C. (1997) Convergence: IntegratingMedia, Information, and Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ball-Rokeach, S.J. and Reardon, K. (1988) ‘Monologue, Dialogue, and


1 9 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Telelog: Comparing an Emergent Form of Communication with TraditionalForms’, in R.P. Hawkins, J.M. Wiemann and S. Pingree (eds) AdvancingCommunication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Berger, A.A. (1995) Essentials of Mass Communication Theory, Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Blattner, M.M. and Dannenberg, R.B. (1992) Multimedia Interface Design, NewYork: ACM Press.

Boam, C. (1997) ‘Giving the Phoenix Wings: The Deutsche Telekom/FranceTelecom/Sprint Alliance’, comment in Communications Law Conspectus, pp. 73–96. Available in Lexix-Nexis: LAWREV Library, ALLREV � le.

Bretz, R. (1983) Media for Interactive Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Cathcart, R. and Gumpert, G. (1986) ‘Mediated Interpersonal Commu-

nication: Toward a New Typology’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 69: 267–77.Cotton, B. and Oliver, R. (1993) Understanding Hypermedia: From Multimedia to

Virtual Reality, London: Phaidon Press.Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986) ‘Organizational Information

Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Determinants’, ManagementScience 32(5): 554–71.

Danowski, J. (1988) ‘Organizational Infographics and Automated Auditing:Using Computers to Unobtrusively Gather as Well as AnalyzeCommunication’, in G. M. Glodhaber and G. A. Barnett (eds) Handbook ofOrganizational Communication, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

DeFleur, M.L. and Ball-Rokeach, S.J. (1989) Theories of Mass Communication,5th edn, New York: Longman.

Dordick, H. (1986) Understanding Modern Telecommunications, New York:McGraw-Hill.

Duthler, K., Picherit, G. and Finn, T.A. (1997) ‘Factors Affecting SocialContext and Communication System Variables in Four Distance EducationCommunication Situations’, paper presented at the InternationalCommunication Association Conference, Montreal.

Fidler, R. (1997) Mediamorphosis: Understanding New Media, Thousand Oaks,CA: Pine Forge Press.

Finn, T.A. (1986) ‘An Introduction to Voice Mail’, 1986 Of� ce AutomationConference Digest, Washington, DC: AFIPS Press.

Finn, T.A. (1999) ‘Ten Attributes of Communication and InformationSystems’, paper presented at the International Communication AssociationConference, San Francisco.

Finn, T.A. and Lane, D.R. (1998) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Organizing Communication and Information Systems’, paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, Jerusalem,July.

Fulk, J., Schmitz, J. and Stein� eld, C. (1990) ‘A Social In� uence Model ofTechnology Use’, in J. Fulk and C. Stein� eld (eds) Organizations andCommunication Technology, Newbury, CA: Sage, pp. 117–40.


1 9 8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Fulk, J. and Stein� eld, C. (1990) Organizations and Communication Technology,Newbury, CA: Sage.

Gorman, M. (ed.) (1988) ‘Convergence’, Proceedings of the Second NationalConference of the Library and Information Technology Association, Boston:American Library Association.

Gumpert G. and Cathcart R. (eds) (1986) Inter/Media: InterpersonalCommunication in a Media World, (3rd edn), New York: Oxford University.

Gumpert, G. and Cathcart, R. (1990) ‘A theory of mediation’, in B. Rubenand L. Lievrouw (eds) Mediation, Information, and Communication, Informationand Behavior, vol. 3 New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 21–36.

Head, S., Sterling, C. and Scho� eld, L. (1994) Broadcasting in America: A Surveyof Electronic Media, Boston: Houghton Mif� in.

Hesse, B.W., Werner, C.M. and Altman, I. (1988) ‘Temporal Sspects ofComputer-Mediated Communication’, Computers in Human Behavior 4:147–65.

Horton, D. and Wohl, R.R. (1956) ‘Mass Communication and Para-SocialInteraction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance’, Psychiatry 19: 215–29.

Innis, H.A. (1991) The Bias of Communication, (reprint edition), Toronto:University of Toronto Press.

Klapper, J.T. (1965) ‘The comparative effects of various media’, in W.Schramm (ed.) The Process and Effects of Mass Communication, Urbana, IL:University of Illinois Press, pp. 91–106.

Lea, M. (Ed.) (1992) Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication, New York:Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Lievrouw, L. and Finn, T.A. (1990) ‘Identifying the Common Dimensions ofCommunication: The Communication Systems Model’, in B. Ruben and L.Lievrouw (eds) Mediation, Information, and Communication, Information andBehavior, vol. 3 New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 37–65.

McGrath, J.E. and Hollingshead, A.B. (1994) Groups Interacting with Technology,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLuhan, M. (1962) The Gutenberg Galaxy, Toronto: University of TorontoPress.

Mood, T.A. (1995) Distance Education: An Annotated Bibliography, Englewood,CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital, New York: Knopf.Newton, H. (1998) Newton’s Telecomm Dictionary, 14th edn, New York: Flatiron

Publishing.Ornstein, R. (1969) On the Experience of Time, New York: Penguin Books.Poole, M.S. and DeSanctis, G. (1990) ‘Understanding the Use of Group

Decision Support Systems: The Theory of Adaptive Structuration’, in J.Fulk and C. Stein� eld (eds) Organizations and Communication Technology,Newbury, CA: Sage, pp. 173–93.

Rice, R.E. (1993) ‘Media Appropriateness: Using Social Presence Theory toCompare Traditional and New Oorganizational Media’, HumanCommunication Research 19(4): 451–84.


1 9 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Rice, R.E., and Associates (1984) The New Media: Communication, Research, andTechnology, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rifkin, J. (1987) Time Wars: The Primary Con� ict in Human History, New York:Simon and Schuster.

Rogers, E.M. (1986) Communication Technology: The New Media in Society, NewYork: Free Press.

Sapolsky, B.S. and Forrest, E. (1989) ‘Measuring VCR ad-voidance’, in M.R. Levy (ed.) The VCR Age: Home Video and Mass Communication, NewburyPark, CA: Sage, pp. 148–67.

Schement, J.R. and Stout, D.A. (1990) ‘A Time-Line of InformationTechnology’, in B. Ruben and L. Lievrouw (eds) Mediation, Information, andCommunication, Information and Behavior vol. 3, New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction, pp. 395–424.

Schramm, W. (1965) ‘The Nature of Channels’, in W. Schramm (ed.) TheProcess and Effects of Mass Communication, Urbana, IL: University of IllinoisPress, pp. 87–90.

Sherover, C.M. (1975) The Human Experience of Time: The Development of itsPhilosophic Meaning, New York: New York University Press.

Shneiderman, B. (1997) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for EffectiveHuman–Computer Interaction, 3rd edn, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Short, J., Williams, E. and Christie, B. (1976) The Social Psychology ofTelecommunications, New York: Wiley.

Straubhaar, J. and LaRose, R. (1996) Communications Media in the InformationSociety, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Tait, A. and Mills, R. (1998) The Convergence of Distance and ConventionalEducation: Patterns of Flexibility for the Individual Learner, New York:Routledge.

Uhlig, R., Farber, D. and Bair, J. (1982) The Of� ce of the Future: Communicationand Computers, New York: North-Holland Publishing.

Vaughn, Tay (1998) Multimedia: Making it Work, New York: Osborne McGraw-Hill.

Williams, F. (1987) Technology and Communication Behavior, Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Winston, B. (1998) Media Technology and Society: A History from the Telegraph tothe Internet, London: Routledge.

Yof� e, D.B. (ed.) (1997) Competing in the Age of Digital Convergence, Cambridge,MA: Harvard Business School Press.


2 0 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

2:22

09

Oct

ober

201

4

the role of temporality in mediated communication and technology convergence

Documents