Untitled - socium.ge

222 Keith N. Hamptonby the least experienced Internet users, those who do not already own a homecomputer and do not expect all the functionality of a full Internet connection,and there is no way to measure how the use of this technology may haveaffected the results of the survey.Every study has its methodological strengths and weaknesses. However,the biggest concern with the findings of Kraut et al. (1998) and Nie andErbring (2000) is not in their methodology, but how they and most otherInternet dystopians frame Internet use. Like virtual community enthusiasts,there is a tendency within these studies to privilege the Internet as a socialsystem removed from the other ways in which people communicate. The useof computer-mediated communication in maintaining existing socialnetworks, and in the formation of new social ties, are omitted or regarded asinsignificant. Limiting the analysis to communication with network membersoutside of cyberspace neglects the possibility that computer-mediated communicationcould substitute for other means of social contact. It is impossible todetermine if the size of people’s social networks, or the frequency of contact,decreases as a result of Internet use, or if the Internet allows people to shift themaintenance of social ties to a new communication medium. Alternatively, theInternet may even allow people to reinvest time spent on in-person or telephonecontact in the maintenance of a greater number of social networkmembers online, as was the case with the adoption of the telephone (Fischer,1992). Indeed, 90 percent of participants from Nie and Erbring’s (2000) studyused e-mail, 10 per cent used chat rooms to communicate with familymembers, 12 per cent used chat rooms to communicate with friends that theyalready had before going online, and 16 per cent reported using chat rooms tocommunicate with new friends they had met online.It may be argued that the “social presence” (Short et al., 1976) or “mediarichness” (Daft and Lengel, 1986) of computer-mediated communicationresults in the exchange of fewer social cues online than people experience withface-to-face interactions, but there is little doubt that computer-mediatedcommunication could be used in the exchange of aid and support (e.g.,Haythornthwaite and Wellman, 1998). Explaining the affect of the Internet onsocial relations by peering into cyberspace and ignoring the network of socialrelations that extended to other social settings, or neglecting the value ofonline ties in supporting new and existing community relations, fails toconsider the cross-cutting nature of community, including the many ways andthe many places people interact.One Form of Communication Amongst ManyMore recently, a number of studies have been published that both recognizethe value of computer-mediated communication – as a legitimate, supportive