How Apathy Leads to Media Bankruptcy, Not Richness 1

How Apathy Leads to Media Bankruptcy, Not Richness 1

No Opt-in?

How Apathy Leads to Media Bankruptcy, Not Richness

Andrew D. Lewandowski

Georgetown University

Abstract

This paper focuses on the forms of resistance found in both the game LandGrab and the academic assignment surrounding game play (read: this one) that leads to cursory readings of media and communication theories and frameworks. The central premise is that because the game and assignment were not opt-in, meaningful and consequential communicative implications cannot fully emerge beyond those that are academically self-serving. As such, user and peer motivation will be analyzed from both social science and cultural perspectives in order to apply real theories and frameworks and, most importantly, to uncover their respective shortcomings in explaining user and peer motivation.

Keywords: communication, technology, media richness, user motivation

No Opt-in?

How Apathy Leads to Media Bankruptcy, Not Richness

Online game play is celebrated as a cathartic, virtual social haven where computer mediated hyperreal relationships can form in place of face-to-face interactions. Such virtual worlds have serious social implications in their ability to create rich interactions, relationships and power structures through implementation or use. But what happens when online game play is used for academic purposes? Do students acting as participant truly invest themselves in online game play, or is such an exercise farcical?

When considering the theoretical implications surrounding LandGrab it is important to also examine the setting in which game play took place, and the motivations behind both the game and the assignment. In a concerted academic effort to appropriate media and communication theories and frameworks, what gets lost is the degree to which such applications are befitting and expropriated. The main problem surrounding game play of LandGrab and the subsequent academic assignment in that neither activity was opt-in. Rather, game and academic play were compulsory assignments meant to demonstrate media and communication theories and frameworks with the goal of elucidating meaning at the game’s conclusion, and the assignment’s beginning. Having established the circumstances surrounding LandGrab, questions regarding the problem of user or student motivation arise. Why did students continue to play LandGrab (having established no opt-inor opt-out options)? Were there academic motivations that took precedence over user satisfaction of game play? This raises additional questions about the offline versus online interactions among peers in the course. How politicized was game play both in face-to-face (FtF) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) settings? Was there a sense of collectivism among teammates, or did individual interests take precedence? Did a strong sense of apathy towards the game and assignment dominate attitudes? And finally, the central question which this paper aims to answer is: How apropos is the application of media and communications theories and frameworks to game play of LandGrab anyway, considering the contrived circumstances surrounding the subsequent academic assignment?

In an attempt to answer the preceding central question in addition to the periphery questions, this paper aims to appropriate both online and offline interactions of game play and the academic assignment to three central media and communication theories and frameworks: structuration, media richness, and participatory culture. By applying the personal and social interactions to these theories and frameworks, one may begin to understand the motivations behind both game play and the academic assignment, as well as the subsequent and respective success or successes of each. This straightforward method of applying theory to practice, or practice to theory depending on one’s perspective or mode of application, can help elucidate the appropriateness, effectiveness and robustness of these theories to this specific situation.

LandGrab began as an assignment for an introductory Communication, Culture and Technology course in a master’s level program, an actuality not to be dismissed as insignificant minutia. The disseminated literature regarding the assignment described game play as a “social media experiment,” one with the purpose of providing an opportunity to “observe and experience the implementation of a new communication technology within the context of an organization and watch the dynamics that unfold as a result” (Coventry and Turner, 2010). The purpose of playing the game as a class would culminate in a product: a mini research plan, as the literature describes it. Immediately, it was established that game play had a purpose, and that compulsory participation would bear significance in terms of course fulfillment and grades. The real significance, however, of these conditions lies in how they affect the motivations behind participation. Attempting to explore communication implications of new technologies through participation is a valid and earnest action to take. However, a problem of forced or contrived application arises when considering that users or peers (contextual terms at best) did not elect to participate in either the game or assignment freely; rather, both were requirements, game play was not opt-in (nor was it explicitly opt-out), and the assignment left students feeling stressed at their ability to concoct meaningful academic implications.

In exploring the limits of considering the game and assignment as contrived and fore mostly dictated by apathetic attitudes and motivations, it’s important to also consider the reciprocal approach to truly demonstrate a holistic understanding. That is, considering game play and the subsequent assignment as a rich and substantive application of media and communication theories and frameworks. As such, this paper will attempt to make such appropriations and argue their validity, however with the explicit disclosure that there will be an undertow of skepticism for the simple yet arguably powerful fact that neither the game nor the assignment was opt-in.

Before diving into media and communication theories and frameworks, a review of what it means to communicate in person versus in a virtual environment serves to provide rudimentary assumptions of the technologies and practices that will be discussed later. Walther (1996) argues that computer-mediated communication (CMC) can be just as personal as face-to-face (FtF) communication (p. 4). He addresses many misconceptions of CMC by highlighting its strengths. For example, CMC was found to be more task-oriented when a group was working toward a common resolution (p. 5). This could certainly be applied to LandGrab, where the common task of participating in the game to elucidate academic inquiries was a focal purpose—perhaps more central than actual game play itself. In Walther’s work, CMC was found to be impersonal and interpersonal, or both, depending heavily on specific context and circumstances regarding group interaction in virtual settings (p. 5-16). In LandGrab, there is an impersonal aspect of essentially being an anonymous player, but also an interpersonal aspect when individual players begin a conversation through the game’s built-in messaging system. How users decide to negotiate their intentions and abilities with the available resources within the game determines such levels of CMC richness.

Walther also sheds light on the nuances of CMC, giving credence to a posterior analysis of LandGrab. He posits that because there is a lack of nonverbal cues in CMC, an otherwise staple in FtF communication, both the expression and the deciphering of cues sent through a one code system is “retarded.” And the only way to enhance the expression and deciphering is through the accrual of interpersonal effects, which he argues develops “in proportion to the accumulation of message exchanges” (p. 10). Certainly in the overall game play of LandGrab, which in this instance could be considered either impulsive or premeditated, the fact that game play was so hasty and limited lead to a low level of CMC richness. Complicating matters is the fact that students not only played the game and communicated via computer, but that they regularly saw their peers who were also their opponents. How can CMC develop into something interpersonal when FtF interactions trumped in quality in the class’ interactions with and outside of LandGrab? More importantly, it seems time was unarguably limited, which Walther considers essential to accruing interpersonal effects which leads to a more robust CMC experience.

With basic tenets of CMC established, the true goal of LandGrab was to apply practice to theory while the subsequent goal of the assignment was to apply theory to practice. Having established the premise, one could make strong arguments for the application of media and communication theories and frameworks. The three theories and/or frameworks of (skeptical) focus, then, remain: structuration, media richness, and participatory culture.

The structurational perspective grew out of the burgeoning relationship between technology and organizations, initially proposed in slightly differing models by Barley, Orlikowski, and DeSanctis and Poole through their respective research (as cited in Orlikowski, 2000, p. 404). Essentially, structuration posits technology as embodying structures, which are then appropriated by users as they use and interact with the technology (Orlikowski, 2000, p. 405). Structuration can help explain the social habits of users in relation to their technology use, and how such habits affect their appropriation of the rules and resources surrounding their technological interactions. Applied simply, it is the rules and resources that determine the practices of LandGrab as a technology. The overarching model of structuration that Orlikowski argues for is one marked by the marriage of existing rules and resources, which then translate into the actual practices of the technology, which was originally proposed by Giddens. Moreover, it is the facilities (land, buildings, technology), norms (codes of conduct, etiquette), and interpretive schemes (categories, assumptions) that act as agents in cooperation with technologies-in-practice, or the structure (p. 409-411). In LandGrab, users played the game with a given set of facilities—the actual game, its map, its tools—that enabled existing norms to transpire. For example, the rule of “one person per turn” is built in to the facility of the game through existing codes of conduct that exist is similar, tangible (non-virtual) games like Risk. This is a straightforward enough application of the tenets of structuration; however, what is missing is the user granularity associated with the interpretive schemes aspect.

Orlikowski and Gash argue, “People also draw on their skills, power, knowledge, assumptions, and expectations about the technology and its use (as cited in Orlikowski, 2000, p.410). It’s not enough to simply apply existing rules and resources to the practice of technology when such application relies heavily on what users also bring to the technology. Why were many students apathetic towards game play? What caused users to ignore the facilities or tools of LandGrab in lieu of existing tools that fit into norms? Orlikowski considers similar thoughts when considering the motivations of users. “Technologies-in-practice can be and are changed as [users] experience changes in awareness, knowledge, power, motivations, time, circumstances, and the technology (p. 411). Motivation, time and circumstances could be pivotal in explaining the distance many students exercised toward game play. Once again, because play was not opt-in organic motivation of game play may have degenerated. Additionally, the fact that even during game play students rejected LandGrab’s main messaging tool in lieu of more familiar and instant modes of communication (e.g. email, text messaging, etc.) may give credence to the notion that it is the restraints of time and circumstances that caused apathy toward the game. Why invest one’s time and energy into becoming literate with LandGrab’s in-game messaging system when there are alternative and normal modes available?

The media richness hierarchy is a communication theory born out of the need for corporate executives to understand the implications of their use of medium to communicate. Lengel and Daft (1988) conducted a three-year program of research into managerial communications to understand how corporations could use various media effectively, which also resulted in additional “rules” to communicate by (p. 225). Part of their central findings though, which is adaptable to other communication settings (read: LandGrab), is a hierarchy of media richness. The basis for the model is the assumption that “media differ markedly in their capacity to convey information” and that FtF communication is the richest medium. As such, they divide media richness into four categories or levels. Starting with the lowest and ending with the highest levels of media richness, they are: 1.) impersonal static media (flyers, bulletins, generalized computer reports); 2.) personal static media (memos, letters, tailored computer reports); 3.) interactive media (telephone, electronic media); and 4.) physical presence (FtF) (p. 226). While some examples of media may be outdated (this study is from 1988, after all), deducing and applying these levels of media richness to LandGrab is rather forthright. Initial and prolonged game play, uncomplicated by literacy of the game, could be considered level 3, or interactive media. Using the in-game messaging system, however, could be considered a lower level 2, or personal static media. Interaction beyond the virtual boundaries of the game could represent the highest level 4 of media richness, which is face-to-face communication.

However, the media richness model may fall short because it does not take into account the level of investment or the motivations that implores a particular user/student/person to communicate on a certain level of richness. The original research was conducted in corporate settings where there are assumed high levels of investment and devotion to communication because of various factors such as career, status or income. Applying the media richness model, then to the experiences surrounding LandGrab and the academic assignment offer only a cursory application of the model. My group as an example, we all began the game confused (low game literacy and confusion surrounding the academic assignment), felt its purpose was contrived and demonstrated overall apathetic attitudes towards the entire assignment. We never met in person as a team, nor did we ever use the in-game messaging system to communicate. It’s probably safe to say our level of media richness in regards to communicating and strategizing with one another was relatively low. Lengel and Daft explain, “Non-routine communications have greater potential for misunderstanding, and are often characterized by time, pressure, ambiguity, and surprise” (p. 226). One could say our team’s lack of investment could be due to knowing the game only lasts four weeks, or that we weren’t motivated because of our perceived ambiguous nature of the game play and academic assignment. What is certain is the media richness model does not take into account such personal variables, instead assigning meaning to specific modes of communication rather than specific motivations of communication.

In Henry Jenkins’ (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, he posits the rapid changing landscape of media can be attributed to three central precepts: media convergence, participatory culture, and collective intelligence (p. 2). The focus in relation to LandGrab, however, is on participatory culture, which he argues stands in direct opposition to older, more passive forms of media spectatorship. Participatory culture rejects the notion that media producers and consumers occupy separate roles; rather, it promotes the idea that consumers are actually participants who interact with media in new and changing ways, dictated by no such set of rules (p.3). Jenkins gives many examples of consumers exercising their newfound power through popular cultural references, such as American Idol, Harry Potter and CNN. In these preceding examples, users participate in contestant voting, create extended wizard anthologies, and report first-hand accounts of the news, respectively.

There is an implicit and complementary argument throughout Media Convergence though, which is that the axiom of participatory culture is choice; that is, choosing to participate, to become empowered, and to operate in an activist role. In the case of LandGrab, no such election of participation of game or assignment play occurred beyond the basic requirements. Some users, of course, did elect to participate more fully and some even started their own periphery games. It is safe to say their increase of motivation and excitement over the game and assignment affects all arguments. However, the game and academic assignment were not opt-in and compulsory. This can greatly affect the level or depth of participation, which in turn affects the level of richness. Why didn’t my group feel the need to participate in the game fully, interacting with the medium in new and exciting ways? Put simply, we elected not to. Although the game was not opt-in, our attitudes were definitely a brusque opt-out.

The preceding media and communication theories and frameworks analyses may seem perfunctory, but their dogged form serves an exacting function to the notion of individual motivation, investment and purpose. The intention of this paper was to explore why students felt so apathetic towards the game and assignment, and how this apathy translates into less meaningful theoretical practices in the context of this assignment. At the heart of the problem is the simple fact that neither the game nor the assignment was opt-in, enabling sometimes resistive behavior to occur.