Varying Definitions Of Online Communication. Write A Paper ✓ Solved

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION. Write a paper d

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION. Write a paper discussing varying definitions of online communication, synthesizing empirical findings and theoretical perspectives. Include and cite the following sources: Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002); Hu, Y., Wood, J. F., Smith, V., & Westbrook, N. (2004); Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002); Underwood, H., & Findlay, B. (2004). Provide at least ten credible references and use in-text citations.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

Online communication is a broad, evolving concept that scholars define in multiple ways depending on disciplinary focus, communication medium, and theoretical orientation. Definitions vary from narrow, technical descriptions that emphasize channels and tools (e.g., email, instant messaging, social networks) to broader conceptualizations that foreground social processes (e.g., identity construction, intimacy, social support) and outcomes (e.g., relationship quality, impression formation). This paper synthesizes empirical and theoretical perspectives to map divergent definitions of online communication, showing how differences in emphasis—technical medium, synchronicity, social presence, and relational outcomes—shape how researchers and practitioners understand digital interaction (Walther, 1996; Cummings et al., 2002).

Technical and Medium-Based Definitions

One common definitional approach treats online communication as exchange mediated by information and communication technologies (ICTs), focusing on affordances such as synchronicity (real-time vs. delayed), permanence (archived vs. ephemeral), and multimodality (text, audio, video) (Baym, 2010). From this lens, online communication is primarily a set of behaviors enabled by particular platforms. This approach is useful for design and usability research because it links communication outcomes to specific technical features (Herring, 2004). For example, instant messaging and chat are characterized by high synchronicity, whereas email and forums are asynchronous; these differences have measurable effects on turn-taking, pacing, and conversational repair (Hu et al., 2004).

Social and Relational Definitions

Another strand emphasizes interpersonal processes: online communication as a site for forming and maintaining relationships, disclosing personal information, and negotiating intimacy (Tidwell & Walther, 2002). Research from this perspective treats the medium as a context that alters social cues and impression management, rather than merely a channel. For instance, the hyperpersonal model posits that reduced cues in computer-mediated contexts can lead to intensified impressions and accelerated intimacy under certain conditions (Walther, 1996). Empirical studies show that online exchanges can produce relationships comparable in quality to face-to-face ties, depending on frequency, reciprocity, and self-disclosure (Cummings et al., 2002; Hu et al., 2004).

Function-Oriented Definitions

Function-oriented definitions concentrate on the purposes online communication serves: information exchange, social support, coordination, identity performance, or entertainment. Underwood and Findlay (2004) explore how Internet relationships function alongside primary offline relationships, showing that digital exchanges can supplement, displace, or transform offline ties. Function-centered definitions are often favored in applied domains (health communication, education, organizational communication) since they link mode to outcomes like knowledge transfer, adherence to interventions, or team coordination (Joinson, 2003).

Discursive and Cultural Definitions

From a discourse and cultural perspective, online communication is defined by emerging norms, genres, and practices that vary across platforms and communities. This approach highlights language, identity performance, and the co-construction of meaning in digital spaces. Turkle (2011) and Baym (2010) document how platform affordances shape conversational norms and self-presentation strategies. Herring (2004) emphasizes the role of community-specific norms in shaping communicative acts, illustrating that 'online communication' cannot be understood without attention to local discourse practices.

Integrative Definition and Dimensions

Integrating these perspectives suggests a multidimensional definition: online communication is interaction mediated by digital technologies characterized along at least four conceptual dimensions—technical affordances (synchronicity, multimodality), social presence (cue richness, perceived immediacy), functional purpose (information, relationship-building, coordination), and cultural/discursive norms (genre, community rules). This integrative definition recognizes that differences in research findings often stem from which dimension is foregrounded. For example, studies emphasizing technical affordances will highlight differences between synchronous and asynchronous media (Hu et al., 2004), while those centered on social presence will examine impression formation and intimacy (Tidwell & Walther, 2002).

Implications for Research and Practice

Recognizing multiple definitions of online communication has methodological and practical consequences. Methodologically, researchers should specify the dimension they foreground and operationalize constructs accordingly (Herring, 2004; Walther, 1996). Practically, designers and communicators should align platform affordances with desired outcomes: for rapid coordination, prioritize synchronous, low-latency channels; for reflective deliberation, prefer asynchronous archives (Baym, 2010). In health or counseling contexts, understanding how online disclosure differs from face-to-face exchange helps practitioners craft appropriate digital interventions (Joinson, 2003).

Conclusion

Definitions of online communication vary because the phenomenon itself spans technological, social, functional, and cultural domains. A robust conceptualization treats online communication as multidimensional, explicitly acknowledging the technical affordances, social presence effects, functional aims, and discursive norms that together shape digital interaction. This integrative stance facilitates clearer theorizing and better-aligned research designs and interventions, enabling scholars and practitioners to move beyond singular, medium-centric definitions toward richer, more explanatory accounts (Cummings et al., 2002; Tidwell & Walther, 2002).

References

• Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103–106.
• Hu, Y., Wood, J. F., Smith, V., & Westbrook, N. (2004). Friendships through IM: Examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10.
• Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317–348.
• Underwood, H., & Findlay, B. (2004). Internet relationships and their impact on primary relationships. Behaviour Change, 21(2), 87–98.
• Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.
• Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Polity Press.
• Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning.
• Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books.
• Joinson, A. N. (2003). Understanding the psychology of Internet behaviour: Virtual worlds, real lives. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Baym, N. K., & Boyd, D. (2012). Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 320–329.