Mobile media and communication: A new field, or just a new journal?

Transcription

1 MMC / Mobile Media & CommunicationCampbell Broader issues of mobile communication studies Mobile media and communication: A new field, or just a new journal? Mobile Media & Communication 1(1) 8 13 The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav DOI: / mmc.sagepub.com Scott W. Campbell University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, USA Abstract This journal represents a step forward in the development of mobile communication studies as a field. This field has been establishing itself through a number of other initiatives as well, including conferences, symposiums, edited books, listservs, and centers for research. Despite this momentum, little attention has been given to defining and justifying the field itself. This essay begins by questioning whether there really is, or should be, a distinct field of study for research and theory on mobile media and communication. I then proceed to address this question by highlighting themes in the literature that illustrate how mobile communication is distinct from other forms of mediated communication and information exchange, with correspondingly distinctive social consequences. The essay argues that there are indeed justifiable reasons for treating mobile communication studies as a field. However, like the technology itself, this field is or at least should be highly integrated with research and theory of media and communication more broadly. Keywords cell phone, field of study, mobile communication, mobile communication studies, mobile media, mobile phone This journal not only provides a venue for sharing research, it reflects a shared identity among a small but growing number of scholars. In the past decade or so there has been a good deal of momentum toward developing the new field of mobile communication studies. This new field has been establishing itself through a number of initiatives, including conferences and symposiums, edited books, listservs, centers for research, and now this journal all dedicated to understanding the social implications of mobile media and mobile communication. While these initiatives have helped develop a research Corresponding author: Scott W. Campbell, Department of Communication Studies, University of Michigan, 105 S. State Street, #5438, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA swcamp@umich.edu

2 Campbell 9 community, less attention has been given to defining and justifying the field itself. This is understandable, considering the emergent nature of mobile communication technology and its social ramifications. Indeed, what we mean by mobile communication today is quite different, in many respects at least, than what this phrase entailed a decade ago. Complicating matters further is the remarkably diverse network of scholars who study mobile media and communication, which is characteristically international, interdisciplinary, and multi-methodological. My purpose here is to take a step back to reflect on what it is that actually makes mobile communication studies a field. My point of entry will be to first challenge this notion by asking whether there actually are grounds for having such a field. That is, what is it that makes mobile media and communication distinctive from other networked flows of communication and information? Is there really a need for these conferences, symposiums, research centers, and publication venues dedicated to understanding the implications of mobile media and communication? In other words, why study mobile communication, per se? As I discuss below, the lines separating mobile communication from other forms of networked connectivity are becoming increasingly blurred. Therefore, any attempt to address the questions above must be rooted in a definition. Because the technology is rapidly evolving, conventional notions of a cell phone will not do. Indeed, such terminology may even seem silly in the near future, if not already to some. By mobile communication technology, I mean devices and services that supported mediated social connectivity while the user is in physical motion. This interaction may take place through voice, text, picture, video, or otherwise. This is not to suggest that mobile communication technology is restricted to direct human interaction. It may also support other forms of media consumption, information exchange, and even tracing the movement of objects that are in motion. I am also not suggesting that such devices are necessarily used while on the go, but rather that they afford i.e., make possible mobility during mediated communication. This point is very important considering many rely on the technology as a means of basic connectivity, which I address below. In thinking through justifications for treating mobile communication studies as its own field, it is tempting to point to the technology s unprecedented rate of adoption and use. The International Telecommunication Union (2012) reports that in 2011 global penetration for mobile subscriptions reached 87 percent of all people, compared to just onethird of households having internet access. In fact, mobile communication is recognized as the fastest diffusing medium on the planet ever (Castells, Fernandez-Ardevol, Qiu, & Sey, 2006). These adoption trends are frequently utilized as rationales for studying mobile communication; however, on their own they fall short of providing theoretical grounds for scholarly inquiry. As one of my faculty colleagues likes to say: So what? A lot of people eat baked beans too, but we don t study them! The idea here is that we need to dig deeper than adoption rates to identify distinctive characteristics of the technology that provide grounds for theoretical arguments about its role in social change. Thus, my intent here is to examine some of the key contours of mobile media and communication that justify research in this area, not to mention the formation of a new field of study. Due to limitations in space, an exhaustive review of the literature highlighting the unique properties of mobile communication is beyond the scope of this essay. Rather, my

3 10 Mobile Media & Communication 1(1) approach will be to draw attention to a few select themes in the literature as examples that help illustrate what makes mobile media and communication (both as artifact and process) distinct from other forms of mediated interaction. By highlighting what is unique about mobile communication, my aim is to make explicit some (again, not all) of the theoretical grounds for studying mobile media and communication and to generate dialogue on whether we really have a new field of study, or just a new journal for the field of new media more broadly. One of my core arguments is that mobility matters. Mobility is a fundamental characteristic of the technology that gives rise to a host of distinctive social consequences and considerations. While the differences between mobile and fixed media may be obvious, the distinctions become less clear when thinking about other forms of wireless connectivity such as laptop computers and netbooks. And the waters have become even murkier with the emergence of digital media tablets, warranting research on their uses for better understanding of where these devices fit in the mix. Like mobile media, portable technologies are highly flexible in that they afford flows of information and communication in different places. However, portable media are carried from place to place, whereas mobile communication is possible during transition, freeing the user to connect with others while moving about within and across space. Instead of carrying a device to a location that offers the requisite infrastructure, individuals can use mobile communication in the moment. Of course, mobile communication requires its own infrastructure, qualifying claims about anytime-anywhere connectivity, but assuming users are within (increasingly ubiquitous) network coverage, they are essentially unanchored. The affordance of mobility is meaningful because it allows for flows of information and communication to be more seamlessly weaved into the rhythms of everyday life, which has important social ramifications. For example, several scholars have theorized about the relational implications of the anytime-anywhere, individual addressability that mobility affords. Licoppe (2003) identifies a new form of connected presence where friends and family members stay connected through short, frequent calls and messages throughout daily life. Others have advanced similar notions, including ambient accessibility (Ito & Okabe, 2005), perpetual contact (Katz & Aakhus, 2002), and telecocoons (Habuchi, 2005). Ling (2008) argues that harnessing the affordance of mobility in this way is consequential because it leads to heightened social cohesion among network ties. It tightens the flows of interaction, fills in the gaps between faceto-face meet-ups, and gives rise to new rituals that both signify and strengthen relational bonds. On the other hand, Turkle (2011) argues that the very same affordances and appropriations have the capacity to diminish our relationships by creating the illusion of companionship, with expectations shifting from the demands of friendship to the technology itself. My point here is not so much about whether mobility helps or hinders social relationships. Rather, the point is that distinctive affordances of mobile communication technology, and the appropriation of those affordances, give rise to this debate in the first place. In addition to changes in how people relate to each other, the affordance of mobility also has distinctive implications for how users relate to space. One of the most obvious aspects of this is the way that mobile communication challenges traditional norms for behavior in public settings. While the flows of information and

4 Campbell 11 communication through mobile devices may occur seamlessly among network ties, they have also introduced new seams to the social fabric in the forms of disturbances, disruptions, and distractions for users and co-present others in shared space. On the other hand, scholars have also identified uses of the technology that alter how people relate to space in ways that connect them to both people and places while on the go. One example can be seen in the ways that mobile devices can serve as locative media, using place-specific information to guide users to desired locations, and even to other individuals, while in transition (e.g., de Souza & Frith, 2012). Through the use of locational services and mobile social networks, users are able to log and share their locations with others as they move about from place to place (e.g., Humphreys, 2007). Thus, mobile communication has the capacity to disrupt a user s connection to spaces and co-present others, while also serving as a new way to interface with locations as hubs of social activity. Of course, many of these affordances can be observed with other media, raising questions about what is special here. Indeed, other media formats are used to withdraw from places as well as find them. However, the affordance of mobility introduces new dynamics to these processes by connecting users to each other and to locations, possibly both at the same time, while physically in motion and/ or engaged in everyday life activities. Another characteristic of mobile media is that devices tend to be small. Size is one of the important mechanisms of mobility because it means that individuals are both able and willing to carry, use, and even wear the technology virtually anywhere. In fact, Ling (in press) argues it is becoming a structured part of society in the sense that people now structure interaction with the assumption that we are mutually available to one another. Because of this always-on, always-on you quality of mobile communication technology (Turkle, 2008), many individuals conceptualize it as an extension of the self, to the extent that it is personalized and customized in ways that express the user s identity (e.g., Campbell, 2008). The technology is personalized in a number of ways, including information and media content stored inside the device as well as aesthetic customizations to the exterior. Thus, there are symbolic properties of mobile communication technology that heighten the user s sense of connection to it. We see this with other artifacts as well; however, these dynamics play out uniquely with mobile media, evidenced by research indicating distinctive forms of attachment that users develop toward mobile communication technology (Vincent, 2006). So far, much of my argument about the distinctive qualities of mobile media and communication has centered on the affordance of mobility. Another aspect that makes the technology distinct from other forms of networked connectivity and therefore theoretically compelling to study is cost. Indeed, many individuals primarily rely on mobile communication as an affordable means of basic connectivity. This is especially true in the developing world (Castells et al, 2006; Donner, 2005). Although the adoption rate for mobile telephony still lags in developing societies, it is notably high compared to other media at 79 percent in 2011 (ITU, 2012). Towers are relatively cheap to build, and prepay is easy to administer. Thus, mobile infrastructure, devices, and services are simply more affordable than other wireless and fixed media, providing opportunities for connectivity in developing societies that were previously beyond their reach. New forms of basic connectivity afforded through mobile communication have a number of profound

5 12 Mobile Media & Communication 1(1) consequences for the developing world, including changes in health care, democratic process, small business enterprise, and domestic relations. Concluding remarks The arguments advanced in this essay offer grounds for thinking and talking about scholarship on mobile media and communication as a field in its own right. Of course, the technology is also part of the larger mix of mediated communication and information exchange. Mobile communication is increasingly integrated with other media systems through affordances and appropriations that intersect with them. For example, many use the technology to listen to music that was downloaded from a computer, log in to accounts accessible through other types of devices, and download apps that work across platforms. Like the technology itself, the field of mobile communication is or at least should be integrated for understanding of the social implications of this technology and its uses in the context of the larger media landscape. Therefore, it seems appropriate to consider mobile media and communication not as a stand-alone field, but rather as a field (in its own right) that is integrally connected to the study of media and communication more broadly. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. References Campbell, S. W. (2008). Mobile technology and the body: Apparatgeist, fashion, & function. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J., & Sey, A. (2006). Mobile communication and society: A global perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. de Souza e Silva, A., & Frith, J. (2012). Mobile interfaces in public spaces: Locational privacy, control, & urban sociality. New York, NY: Routledge. Donner, J. (2005). The social and economic implications of mobile telephony in Rwanda: An ownership/access typology. In P. Glotz, S. Bertschi, & C. Locke (Eds.), Thumb culture: The meaning of mobile phones for society (pp ). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag. Habuchi, I. (2005). Accelerating reflexivity. In M. Ito, D. Okabe, & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life (pp ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Humphreys, L., (2007). Mobile social networks and spatial practice: A case study of Dodgeball. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 17. Retrieved from: indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/humphreys.html International Telecommunication Union (2012). The world in 2011: ICT facts and figures. Retrieved from: Ito, M., & Okabe, D. (2005). Technosocial situations: Emergent structuring of mobile use. In M. Ito, D. Okabe, & M. Matsuda (Eds.), Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life (pp ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

6 Campbell 13 Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. A. (2002). Conclusion: Making meaning of mobiles a theory of Aparatgeist. In J. Katz, & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp ). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Licoppe, C. (2003). Two modes of maintaining interpersonal relations through telephone: From the domestic to the mobile phone. In J. Katz (Ed.), Machines that become us: The social context of communication technology (pp ), New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Ling, R. (2008). New tech, new ties: How mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ling, R. (in press). Taken for grantedness: The embedding of mobile communication into society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Turkle, S. (2008). Always-on/always-on you: The tethered self. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books. Vincent, J. (2006). Emotional attachment and mobile phones. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 19(1), Author biography Scott W. Campbell is Associate Professor and Pohs Endowed Professor of Telecommunications in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Most of his recent studies have examined the implications of new media for civic and political life.