BKNWKNPL.RVW 980328 "Network and Netplay", Fay Sudweeks/Margaret McLaughlin/Sheizaf Rafaeli, 1998, 0-262-69206-6, U$35.00 %A Fay Sudweeks %A Margaret McLaughlin %A Sheizaf Rafaeli %C 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1399 %D 1998 %G 0-262-69206-6 %I MIT Press %O U$35.00 800-356-0343 fax: 617-625-6660 www-mitpress.mit.edu %P 313 p. %T "Network and Netplay: Virtual Groups on the Internet" Because of the title, or rather the subtitle, I was somewhat disappointed by this book. Not that the papers are without interest, but they do not, or at least only tangentially, deal with groups and communities and their activities on the net. The collection of papers is characterized by formal style and the general topic of aspects of computer mediated communications (CMC), but is otherwise fairly random in terms of subject, approach, and even background. The first study is interesting not because of its results (it almost doesn't have any) but due to the intriguing research possibilities it suggests. The researchers theorized that there were gender differences in computer mediated communications, and that 1) women used more graphical accents (smileys, emoticons, and the like) while 2) men were more challenging and 3) used more flames. Some of the study protocol is detailed, but the source of sample messages for the study is not. With the plethora of mailing list archives plus Usenet news archives such as DejaNews and Rendezvous similar studies could now be done with enormous, and almost completely randomized, samples, which would allow multidimensional analyses. Chapter two likewise news postings examines in terms of tension or conflict. The intent, however, was to test some established observations of verbal (face to face) conversations in comparison to electronic discourse. The results are generally supportive, but the paper reports some problems with methodology (which are not, unfortunately, spelled out in detail). Chapter three is truly occult. It appears to be an attempt to define the nature of computer mediated communication overall. I say "appears" because the author seems not only determined to hold fast to the most arcane jargon of his own field (and I'm not even sure what that field is), but to coin new terms. "Telelogue" is a proposed equivalent to CMC (OK, I'll admit that "computer mediated communications" is pretty cumbersome), polylogue is many-to-one, dialogue is the usual one-to-one, but I still can't figure out what monologue is meant to be in the context of the paper. Those parts of the piece that I have been able to figure out do *not* correspond with my experience on the net, or are rather trivial and obvious observations. A review of the playful aspects of IRC (Internet Relay Chat) is compared with Caillois's "classic" taxonomy of play in chapter four. The essay is, however, weakened by a poor exegesis of the typology. (I am not sure why counting rhymes are spontaneous while lotteries are difficult.) The use of a single IRC session is acceptable given that it is being used as an illustration rather than for research. However, the paper fails to deal with self-selection issues, such as the fact that the play drive seems to be necessary for discovery learning and a thorough mastery of a relatively little used technology. (Comments about IRC addiction also seem to indicate a relatively naive level of knowledge of the medium.) Chapter five is an anecdotal review of media use and preferences by Usenet news participants. Although the methodology appears sound, the conclusions are uninteresting. Usenet responses to failures of normative behaviour (or netiquette) is studied in great detail in chapter six, but the results are, again, disappointing. The primary result of a survey of Relcom (a Russian Usenet technology system) participants in chapter seven seems to have been that the participants approved of the survey. Chapter eight asks a very important and interesting question: why do some people involve themselves in risky online communications? Unfortunately, the study is based on a self- reported, and pretty much self-selected, survey, and only deals with perceptions of secrecy, at least as far as the paper reports. A paper on the "Mr. Bungle" multi-user domain "virtual rape" case, in chapter nine, concentrates on sociological and historical studies of rape and really has little to say about online communications. (It also has absolutely none of the poetry of the Dibbell account.) Chapter ten defines both its terms and methods poorly, and so it is difficult to say what results, if any, it produces aside from the fact that people in conversation tend to want to agree. The same data set appears to be used in chapter eleven for a turgid example of neural net analysis that does not appear to come to any conclusions. Chapter twelve appears to try to build a conceptual model of community building on the Internet, but does so by looking at the World Wide Web, surely the least "communing" technology on the net. The book concludes in chapter thirteen with a report on the ongoing development of an online avatar intended for use in guiding children through explorations on the net. It is somewhat depressing to see how little artificial intelligence has progressed in twenty years. The addition of abstracts and biographical notes included with the papers would have been a great help in getting something out of the essays. The intent, approach, and background of the authors varies greatly from item to item, and some introduction would probably help ease the sense of dislocation when reading through the book. For those interested in social study of interpersonal communications conducted via computer, the text does provide a series of examples and an extensive bibliography. As far as guidance is concerned the work provides little: many of the papers could best be used as the proverbial bad examples. However, given limited material available in this field, at least it does provide examples to critique. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKNWKNPL.RVW 980328