Paper Presented to IAMCR Conference in Barcelona, 2002

Communication on the University Bulletin Board: How Students Discuss Campus Issues

Toshiko Miyazaki Associate Professor

Gwangho E

Associate Professor

Makie Suzuki Lecturer

Masahiko Ohyama

Lecturer

Keiko Akiyama Assistant

School of Media Science, Tokyo University of Technology

Phone: 81-(0)426-372745 Fax: 81-(0)426-372790 Email: tomiyaz@media.teu.ac.jp Mailing Address: Tokyo University of Technology Katakuracho 1404-1, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-8580 Japan

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction BBS as Constructive Communication Forum: How is it Possible? University Bulletin Board, “Multi-Forest” I The Questionnaire Survey

1. On the Uses of BBS 1) Reading “Multi Forest” 2) The Experience of Posting and the Desire to Post 3) The Reasons for Reading or Not Reading 4) The Reasons for Posting or Not Posting 5) Attitude Towards the Handle Name Use and Deletion of Messages

2. Some Profiles of BBS Users

1) Media Use 2) PC and Internet Use 3) Social Psychological Traits

II Analysis of the Messages Written on the BBS

1 The Writers and the Frequency of Posting 2 The Number of Different Size of Threads 3. The Threads Dealing with Campus Issues

1) Topics, the Number of Postings, and Posting Periods 2) Those who Make Remarks Frequently 3) The Characteristic of the First Writings

III Conclusions

1 The Role of Negotiator /Coordinator 2 Flow and Link of Communication on Campus Issues

2

Communication on the University Bulletin Board:

How Students Discuss on Campus Issues

Toshiko Miyazaki, Gwangho E, M. Suzuki, M. Ohyama, K. Akiyama

Introduction

BBS as Constructive Communication Forum: How is it possible?

There is a great deal of discussion concerning whether new media can develop public communication arena and can serve as a democratic communication forum or not. Opinion varies from very positive to negative, some claiming that they will surely contribute towards making ideal democratic communication, and others, saying that they will just end up as emotional outlets, or at best, a place for releasing one’s stresses and discontent. Positive views often come from the mere inference that equality can be secured in CMC so that it should realize the democratic communication, while negative view often derive from the observation of already existing bulletin boards, which usually conclude that it is indeed difficult to make any democratic or productive communication on CMC, because of flaming and slandering by using handle names or anonymity.

This is partly because anonymity is the particular feature that differentiates CMC from face-to-face communication. It is often taken up as a main topic for research and discussion and taken up as a main cause of the failure of communication. Thus except for the extremely optimistic vision based on the technology myth, research on CMC tends to express pessimistic views, because anyone can participate and criticize without identifying himself. But we should not forget that as a matter of fact there are many BBS and CMC which are functioning well in various places as NPO sites and other individual sites and even in invective (Vrooman, 2002). If so, then what we, the researchers, need to find out is when and what conditions CMC can function as democratic and constructive communication. Thus the main purposes of our research on Campus BBS here 1is to find out, what factors lead to and what conditions activate the CMC to be a forum for participatory communication among the students, and further, by identifying these conditions, we would like to find out how we could utilize the CMC as a tool to develop democracy on campus. Whether the communication on new media can become a tool to bring change to the status quo may depend very much on how the communication arena is prepared and offered, in what size, for what kind of group and

1 This study on BBS is a part of the project of “Media and Communication on Social Issues: Focusing on Computer-Mediated Communication” which is a three year consecutive study of 2000-2002.

3

for what purpose, and with what conditions. For example, even in the case of the visual media, although the established mass media industries have quite a lot of limitations as an industry, if they are used as alternative media by small groups of NGOs, they can function as a powerful media. The media researches need to place more focus in finding some factors and conditions, which promote the active public communication, before reaching a negative conclusion. The forum which new media can provide, such as BBS, is especially interesting in Japan, where communication flow in society still remains very much ‘top-down’, which is also very true in the university, where communication between the faculty and the students is still hierarchical. Depending on the way of using the BBS, it might be possible to realize a more open, constructive forum both for the students and faculty. University Bulletin Board, “Multi-Forest” The electronic bulletin board system, “Multi Forest”, started in the School of Media Science in

October 2000, just one year after the School of Media Science was established. The main purpose of this bulletin board was to activate communication among the students on campus and to listen to their opinions widely so that the faculty and administration departments of the School of Media Science could create a new campus in tandem with the students by listening to their opinions and suggestions. Such a BBS could be an experimental arena for the students and faculty to create active communication with the aim of improving their own campus environment and also to discuss and make the constructive proposals to obtain a better learning environment. In our university all the students are required to possess personal computers and on campus the students can connect to the LAN at various places, such as lecture rooms and a special ‘Media Lobby’ where students can use desk tops with various software and accessories. Here we first report the profiles of BBS users based on the results of the survey on the campus BBS and then by analyzing the written texts on the BBS we will point out some factors and conditions which may contribute to making BBS a more creative and effective discussion arena. I The Questionnaire Survey The questionnaire survey was conducted in May, 2002 with the purpose of finding out some profiles of BBS users and non-users. The respondents were 754 students of the School of Media Science from the first to the fourth year students. The general distribution of the subjects by sex and year is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Attributes of Subjects

4

Sex

Male Female Total

207 96 303 1st year 37.9% 42.3% 39.2%

136 66 202 2nd year 24.9% 29.1% 26.1%

89 36 125 3rd year 16.3% 15.9% 16.2%

114 29 143

University Year

4th year 20.9% 12.8% 18.5% 546 227 773 Total

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 On the Uses of the BBS

1) Reading “Multi Forest”

The students who currently read this bulletin board are 45% , amounting to almost half of the students. The students who did read it before but stopped reading it come to 36%. Although there is not so much difference in the pattern of use by sex, there is a clear tendency that the 1st the 2nd and 3rd year students read much more than the 4th year students who do not come to the campus so often. Among those who do not read, 60.3% is the 1st year students, showing their possibility of reading when they get used to the pc environment and acquire more skills to use it.

Figure 1. Experience of Reading BBS

2) The Experience of Posting and the Desire to Post

5

29% of the students have posted a message on the BBS and want to continue posting, while 14% did post but do not want to do so any more. 12 % of students, 65.1% of which are 1st year students, have never posted a message so far, but have a will to do so, if there is a chance. This result reflects the situation of the first year students who just had 2 months experience of pc and are still at the stage of observing the BBS. Overall 41% of the students are willing to write on the BBS, which is about the same size with those who are reading it.

Figure 2. Experience and Will of Posting

3) The Reasons for Reading or Not Reading

“Killing time” was the most selected reason for reading the BBS (71%), followed by “Knowing the opinions of various people." (44.9%), “Getting various information “(33%), “Knowing today’s topic of communication” (26.2%). On the other hand those who do not read BBS give as major reasons: “Not interested in what is written” (47.6%), “No time to Read” (34.7%). 18.4% chose “the uncomfortable expressions” as a reason not to read.

6

Figure 3. Reason to Read

Figure 4. Reason not to Read

4) The Reason to Post and the Reason Not to Post

The students post their messages mainly because they “get various opinions” (59.2%), and “get necessary information”(41.5), both of which show that they are anxious about and concerned with getting reactions to their own messages. 33.8% of the students post their message because they think there is a possibility to make some improvement by pointing out the issues on campus, while the students who do no want to post think that writing does not solve the problem (19.7%).

7

The biggest reason why the students do not write is that it is “too much trouble” (64.3%). It is quite true that compared with face-to-face communication or e-mails, it takes more effort and courage to write on the BBS, where there is a much bigger audience. There are also quite a few students (26.9%) who are too shy to write, probably because of the more public nature of BBS.

Figure 5. Reason to Post

Figure 6. Reason not to Post

8

5) Attitude Towards Handle Name Use and Deletion of Improper Messages

When those who agree and partially agree are added, 87% of the students support handle name use on the BBS. Also the BBS working group’s right to delete improper messages is approved of by 87 % of the students.

Figure 7. Attitude towards the Handle Name Use

Figure 8. Attitude towards the Deletion of Messages

9

3. Some Profiles of the BBS Users In this analysis BBS Users were categorized into three types: 1) those who have never read the BBS, 2) those who have read it but have not posted a message yet, 3) those who have read and written on the BBS.

1) Media Use and PC Use As can be seen in Tables 2 and 3 concerning the television viewing time and PC use, those who read and write in BBS watch less television and use PC more than those who just read only or who do not read. It is possible that the active writing will naturally increase PC use, and reduce other media use, such as television, although the passive use of just reading does not increase PC use or decrease television use. This implies that the active use of website for group communication may change the overall pattern of media use in general.

Table 2. Differences in Media Use among BBS User Type

TV (min.)

Newspaper

(min.)

Radio (min.)

CD, MD

(min.)

PHS, Cellular Phone Calls

Telephone Calls

No. of DVD, Video used

Books Comics Magazine

s

Mean 159.1 14.9 14.4 107.9 3.2 .4 1.2 2.1 6.4 2.3

N 140 139 139 140 129 132 140 140 142 142

Non-User

SD 141.6 19.5 35.5 108.4 4.5 1.5 1.3 4.2 13.8 3.3 Mean 151.8 18.1 18.6 100.7 2.5 .48 1.3 2.3 5.0 2.7 N 193 191 192 192 176 175 191 191 192 190

Read Only

SD 101.3 50.2 40.3 82.3 4.4 2.4 2.0 3.4 6.8 2.9 Mean 127.1 15.7 17.4 111.6 2.8 .7 1.3 2.8 5.7 2.5 N 145 144 145 145 138 138 145 143 144 142

Read and Write

SD 104.3 20.0 45.3 102.6 4.7 3.0 1.6 4.9 11.2 3.1 Mean 146.4 16.5 17.00 106.1 2.8 .5 1.3 2.4 5.6 2.5 N 478 474 476 477 443 445 476 474 478 474

Total

SD 115.9 35.3 40.5 96.7 4.5 2.4 1.7 4.1 10.6 3.1

Table 3. Differences in PC and Internet Use among BBS Users

BBS User Type Length of PC use PC use per day Length of Internet use Internet use per day

Mean 37.9 206.3 30.3 135.5 N 143 141 143 140

Non-User

SD 27.4 166.3 21.5 121.9 Mean 35.3 264.0 29.0 178.8 N 193 192 192 190

Read Only

SD 28.3 168.6 19.5 138.3 Mean 41.6 318.4 30.0 228.1 N 145 145 145 144

Read and Write

SD 31.9 200.2 20.6 189.5 Total Mean 37.9 263.5 29.7 181.0

N 481 478 480 474 SD 29.2 183.0 20.4 155.4

We also asked the respondents to evaluate on the following items on the function of PC and

10

Internet (Table 4). The factor analysis was conducted, and we found three major factors. The first factor is composed of, one can “expand human relations,” “exchange opinions with those who have the same interests” and “maintain relationships with those who cannot meet each other so often”, which we name “Human Relations Function.” The second factor is composed of one can “get necessary information when one wants”, “get the most recent information” and “expand one’s knowledge and vision”, which we name “Information & Knowledge Function”. The third factor is composed of, “one can have more advantage in getting jobs” and “one will not be behind the times”, which we call “ Practical Function”. Table 5 shows how the evaluations of these three functions are varied among the BBS User Types. The Read and Write Group evaluates “Human relations” Function of the Internet relatively higher than others, while the Read Only Group evaluate “Information” Function higher than others.

Table 4. Factors of Internet Function Evaluation

Factors Evaluation Items 1 2 3

Communality

I get to know many people and expand human relations .764 .147 .075 .612 I can exchange the information or talk with the people with the same interests .757 .190 .117 .623

I can maintain ties with those who I cannot meet usually .688 .249 .046 .537

I get various reactions to my opinions or my works .684 .056 .335 .584

Effective means to let others know my opinions .672 .137 .207 .513

Regardless of the status, sex and age, we can speak on equal terms .639 .139 .076 .433

I can get the necessary information when I want .181 .779 .127 .656

I can get the most recent information .151 .765 .134 .626

I can expand my knowledge and vision .412 .590 .200 .558

I can hold more dominant position than others .190 -.045 .774 .637

I'll get behind the times, if I cannot use PC and Internet .042 .332 .687 .583 If I can use PC and Internet efficiently, I have more advantage in getting a job

.192 .213 .664 .523

Eigen Value 3.26 1.86 1.77 Pct. of Variance Explained(%) 27.16 15.48 14.74

Table 5. Mean Difference of Factor Scores

11

BBS User Type Human Relations Function Information Function Practical Function

Mean -.30 -.04 .02 N 137 137 137 Non-User

SD 1.03 1.12 1.08

Mean .05 .25 -.00 N 190 190 190 Read Only

SD .99 .87 .91

Mean .16 .02 .08 Read and Write

N 145 145 145

SD .94 .98 1.07

Mean -.01 .09 .03 N 472 472 472 Total

SD 1.00 .97 1.01

2) Other Variable Related to BBS User Type

Table 6 shows how the variables such as the individual characteristics of social communication behavior, the participation in social activities and one’s view towards the society are varied among the BBS User Type. Compared with the other groups the Read and Write Group tend to “ask questions in classes or meetings” and “settle the scattered opinions in the meeting” more. They are also more active in and out of campus activities. As for the view towards the society, the Users tend to think that it is possible to change the society more than Non-Users.

Table 6. Differences in Some Social and Social Psychological Traits among BBS User Type

N Mean SD

Non-User 143 1.78 .922

Read Only 192 1.84 .932

Read and Write 145 2.14 1.080 I ask questions in classes or meetings

Total 480 1.91 .987

Non-User 142 2.47 1.109 Read Only 192 2.54 1.053

Read and Write 145 2.94 1.162 When there are various opinions in the meeting, I try to settle them

Total 479 2.64 1.119

Non-User 143 3.15 1.631

Read Only 192 3.28 1.573

Read and Write 145 3.37 1.471 Circle activities on campus

Total 480 3.27 1.560 Circle activities out of campus Non-User 142 1.83 1.299

12

Read Only 192 1.71 1.124

Read and Write 144 2.05 1.426

Total 478 1.85 1.278

Non-User 142 1.48 .848

Read Only 192 1.49 .844

Read and Write 143 1.62 .985 Volunteer activities

Total 477 1.53 .890

Non-User 142 2.98 1.263

Read Only 192 3.08 1.075

Read and Write 145 3.09 1.333 It's possible to change the society to desirable direction

Total 479 3.05 1.212

The interests in the Social Issues were also scored, adding up each score of the 4 items, 5 points each. These 4 items are taken from the recently raised issues; “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” “Scandals of Politicians and Ministries”, ”Seeking Refuge at the Japanese Consul in China”, and “The Bill of Protection of the Individual Information ”. As Table 7 shows, BBS Users show more interests in those social issues than Non-Users.

Table 7. Mean Difference of Interest in Social Issues

N Mean SD

Non-User 143 12.2 4.0

Read Only 193 13.0 3.7

Read and Write 145 13.2 4.3

Total 481 12.8 4.0

If we look at the information source of these issues, regardless of the BBS Use, the most frequently used media is television, but the Read and Write Group use more newspaper and web, compared with other groups(See Table 8).

Table 8. Source of Information – Scandals of Politicians & Ministries/Agencies

13

Non-User Read

Only Read and

Write Total

TV 131 177 134 442

% 93.6 96.7 95.5 95.3

Newspaper 54 65 65 184

% 38.6 35.5 46.1 39.7

Web 16 44 45 105

% 11.4 24 31.9 22.6

Book 2 1 5 8

% 1.4 0.5 3.5 1.7

Magazine 4 9 10 23

% 2.9 4.9 7.1 5

Radio 4 5 4 13

% 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.8

Total 140 183 141 464

% 100 100 100 100 II Analysis of the Messages Written on the BBS In order to find out how and what messages are written, and what dialogues are exchanged, we made analyses on the texts which were written during 10 months, from October 16th, 2000 to August 31st.2001.

1 Writers and the Frequency of Posting The total number of messages written during this period is 4,101, but because the total number of students who posted is 1,170 (counting by each name), this means that on the average one person posted 3.5 times. However, since the total sum of the students at the time of survey was only 1200, and since 27% (N=320) of the students replied in the survey that they have ever written the message in the BBS, there must have been many who used the handle names besides their real name. If we read Table 9 just as it is, on average those who posted less than five times occupy 88% of the total and those who wrote more than 11 times is just 6% (69 students), although these figures have to be read, taking the handle name use into consideration and there are some individuals who wrote more frequently. Table 9 shows the number of students according to the frequency of postings

Table 9. Number of Students by Frequency of Postings

14

Frequency of Posting Number of Students 1 ~ 5 1028 6 ~ 10 73

11 ~15 28 16 ~20 12

21 ~25 6

26 ~30 8 31 ~35 3

36 ~40 4

41 ~45 1 46 ~50 0

51 ~55 2

56 ~60 1 more than 60 4

Total 1170

2 The Number of Different Size of Threads

The number of threads raised during 10 months was 539 in total. Among these 20% of the threads (116) received no reply, which means that 1 out of 5 topics posted got no reaction at all. The threads which got fewer than 3 replies amount to 356 cases, 66% of the total. As for the longer threads, there were 93 threads that received more than 9 replies, 17% of the total. The longest thread which got 137 postings was on the topic of the music club activity. This reflects the high interest of the students in popular music. The next longest thread that has 92 postings dealt with the topic of computer games, which is one of the most popular and frequently discussed topics among the students (Table 10).

Table 10. The Number of Different Size of Threads

Number of Messages Number of Threads 1 116

2 ~ 9 330

10 ~ 19 53 20 ~ 29 19

30 ~ 39 7

40 ~ 49 6 50 ~ 59 5

more than 60 3

total 539

3 The Threads Dealing with Campus Issues

15

Next, we will examine more in detail the long threads with more than 9 replies, which discuss campus issues such as university facilities, curricula, and the lectures. There were 20 such threads that meet the above stated criteria. Since there were 93 threads

with more than 9 replies, among the threads with more than 9 replies, one out of five threads dealt with topics relating to campus issues.

Table 11. The Threads Dealt with the Campus Issues

Title period user

Duration (days)

postings

participants HN

1. I wants to hear various opinions 10/16 - 11/06 7 12 10 0

2. The Media Lobby 11/08 - 11/17 8 17 15 7 3. Renting out Stationery 11/09 - 11/21 5 24 13 9 4. The Japanese Garden on Campus 11/10 - 11/22 4 11 10 7

5. By the Way (The BBS deletion ) 11/21 - 11/29 4 10 5 3

6. The Anxiety in the Media Dept 11/27 - 12/12 7 12 10 8

7 . Please Set a Watch Camera 11/28 - 12/04 4 11 10 11 8. From the Core Seminars 11/29 - 01/30 4 15 9 3 9. Isn’t it such an Overstatement ? 12/01 - 12/06 4 28 23 19

10. About the Bus Stop 12/04 - 12/11 5 10 6 10 11. Please Return our Money 12/11 - 12/19 6 22 16 13 12. Isn't it such a Bad Feeling? 04/27 - 05/18 10 24 18 22

13. About the Media Hall 05/10 - 06/11 6 22 12 21 14. Cutting in the line at the bus stop 05/11 - 05/18 5 18 15 17

15. Isn't cold at the Media Hall? 05/29 - 06/11 6 11 10 11

16. The School Bus 06/01 - 06/13 5 11 9 11 17. Titleless ( on the bus stop ) 06/19 - 06/28 7 43 16 40

18. What are you living for? 07/10 - 07/12 3 16 10 16 19 . The attitude in the Class 07/10 - 07/18 6 45 30 42 20. Thinking about the core-seminar 07/11 - 07/17 4 21 17 19

As we can see in the table the frequency of the use of a handle name increases, as the time passes. This shows that it is much easier for the students to express their opinions on the campus issues directly and frankly, by using handle names (Table 11).

1 Topics, the Number of Postings, and the Posting Periods

16

As can be seen in table 3, the topics on campus issues were most frequently taken up during November, about three weeks after the BBS was established. Amongst these threads the topic of “Attitude in the Class” (45 postings) which discussed private chatting during the class, and “Titleless " (43 postings) which discussed etiquette and manners in getting on the bus, were the longest. Especially on the topic relating to the manners at the bus stop, there were also other threads such as “Cutting into the line” (18 postings) and “School Bus”(11 postings). If “About Bus Stop” (10 postings) which was discussed in December is included, there were 82 postings in total concerning this issue.

And also in November 2001 the discussion on this topic was still continued. If we examine closely the last thread which discusses this topic (“titleless”), there are only 16 people involved in 43 postings, which means that the same person posted multiple times. This shows that this topic, being taken up four times in 9 months, was recognized as an important topic by a specific group of students and the discussion was deepened among them.

2 Those who Make Remarks Frequently

There are 68 individuals who wrote more than 10 times. Among these only 10 persons use their real names, and all the other 85% use either handle name or write anonymously. This result seems to be natural since 80% of the students agreed to use a handle name in the BBS questionnaire conducted at that time. Among these 68 persons who posted more than 10 times, only 11 are BBS working group members. This fact shows that there are a lot more regular participants of BBS, besides BBS working group members. If we look closely at the names of participants in various threads, those who most frequently contribute on any topic (KT, Maboo, Takozo) are also the most active participants on campus issues. (eg. Frequency of contribution KT=265, Maboo=31, Takozo=28). This means that these people are active expressers not only of personal concerns but also of public issues. Such a tendency is in accordance with the result of the Survey conducted in 2000 and 2001, in which we found out that there is almost nobody in the category of active expressers in social matters and at the same time inactive expresser of personal matters. Thus the result of BBS is keeping in with the result of the last two surveys on “Media Communication”, showing that those who express opinions about personal interests have a potential to become active expressers on social issues. With this result we can make the following inference. When writing in the BBS for the first time, there is some sort of hurdle that one has to cross over. If one starts writing with such topic

17

as one’s hobby or personal interests, this first hurdle can easily be crossed. Firstly, one becomes accustomed to posting light messages and then after that experience, it might become possible to write about the public related issues. This suggests that there might be a possibility that the casual and frequent writings about personal issues on the BBS can, with some opportunity, eventually lead to writing about some public issues.

3 The Characteristic of the First Writings

One of the characteristics of the threads on campus issues is the fact that they often contain some provoking or defiant expressions, especially so, when the first writer uses the handle name or write anonymously. The followings are some examples of such first writings. At the bus stop, there are many professors who ignore the students waiting in line, and get into the bus from the front door. This kind of behavior is, for the students who are lining up neatly, quite aggravating. I would not say that professors have to be a model of the students, but “to keep the order” is a common sense that even a nursery child knows well. There is no rule that because one is a professor, he/she does not have to line up. I hope they will also keep orders. Please let me hear your opinions, dear professors. X ( actually X is a professor but there is no honorific title attached ) of " ~“ ( name of lecture ) " is using the time of our class for the worthless matter. He/she spends 30 minutes of our class time for the matter of attendance taking, against our wish to learn and proceed. The teachers at our high school were much better. He/she doesn’t have his own principles. Is the university such a place? Attendance is not important. Those who want to attend will attend, and those who don’t can just stay home. We pay a lot of money to the university. Return the money used for that wasteful time. My family is poor. A little time ago, our professor was telling us as if one of us in the classroom put the projector out of order, although there was no such evidence. Such floorer is no good, isn’t it? The same professor also told us that the students of the first year this year aren’t bright at all. Isn’t this too much to say? This is the infringement of our human rights. Because one is a professor, can one has right to abuse others to such an extent? I don’t dare to say which class, but there aren’t so many students who show up in this class usually, because the professor doesn’t take attendance. But today, since this is the last class, there are so many students in the class who don’t usually show up. And what they all do is just chat and bother others. I come every week here, because I want to listen to the lecture. Please do not trouble others. Why do you come to the university? Please go out if you just want a credit. No attendance will be taken today anyway. You really make me feel depressed. As we see can see above, many of the threads start with a rather defiant or provoking statement. These threads might develop in various ways, depending on how the follower reacts to the first message. But because of the very fact that the first writings are provoking and stimulating, they

18

tend to extract more reactions than others without. Although some of the messages are quite harsh by our standard, they have some merits in them, that is, to activate further communication. On the other hand, it is also true that there’s always a danger that it might develop into the exchange of slanderous expressions or casting aspersions on each other which might even end up with the closing of the website. Fortunately there was no such case in our university BBS. III Conclusions 1 The Role of Negotiator /Coordinator By studying the text more closely, we can find the reason why the discussion went rather smoothly, and even in a productive way in our university BBS. One of the most important reasons is the fact that there is always some person who is playing the role of negotiator or coordinator, trying to amend the discussion to the direction of a more creative and constructive one. The thread, “Deleting improper messages”, which directly relates to the issues of slandering on the BBS, there are only 5 participants (including BBSWG). However, this topic is often discussed at any point of time, when some messages which cast aspersionson the others are found. Notices against such inadequate writings come out spontaneously among those involved in the discussion. The cautions are given not in an arrogant way but in a very soft way, using such expressions as “Aren’t you making a bit overstatement?”, “Let’s stay a bit politer, even if we use the handle name”, “I think the posting with a handle name should not be used in this way. I hope you will understand.” Such cautions appear also in the threads that discuss on the campus issues. The ones who play this kind of role are not always the members of BBS working group but often are a student with a handle name. 2 Flow and Link of Communication on Campus There are three main actors that play important roles on BBS on campus. First is the students=participants of BBS, the second are BBS WG=coordinator and the third is the faculty/administrators. 1) Participants: To protect CMC from the inadequate expressions, we usually make rules called netiquette. Our campus BBS also has one, but such rules tend to be filled with the statements of negative

19

sentences such as “the writer should not use the expressions With such negative images, it is difficult to imagine based on what criteria one can write at all. However, it may be more important to guarantee that the participants are not fooling others but are making discussion seriously. Here we can examine our own validity of writing by checking, 1) if one is telling the truth, based on the facts, 2) if one has right to tell the information in public, and 3) if one honestly means what one is saying. (Habermas, 1986) In addition to make an agreed concrete suggestion the participants need 1) to have a will to solve the problem, and 2) to be willing to negotiate to form a consensus. 2) Coordinator In CMC even if the rules or netiquette for writings are made and written, we cannot expect all people at any time to be rational citizens. There is always a possibility of harsh criticism and slurring, as a result of emotion provoked reactions, and this needs to be dealt with in some way. If there is some actor(s) who is prepared to deal with such a matter immediately, it helps the conversation flow to be more productive. It will be ideal if all the participants can interchangeably play such a role but at the beginning of developing BBS such roles as BBS working group plays to coordinate and facilitate communication are quite important. As stated before, the defiant statements draw more reactions and activate discussion, although an exceeding slandering to the specific individual or group is out of question, but if it is not targeted to the specific individual or a group and does not infringe on human rights, a defiant expression is permissible to some extent. If the rules and netiquettes are too tight, it might hinder free expressions of important remarks and opinions, and also cause repulsion. The interpretation of the code and the degree of permissible range for expression are varied according to the individual. Also, the feeling and impression whether the discussion is going well or not is very much a subjective matter. Moreover, the same individual’s impression can be different if she/he reads in the course of the discussion or after the whole discussion is over. In the first place, it is impossible to get full consent from all the participants of the communication on the interpretations of the words and the styles used. If so, the rules should be kept to a minimum in order to continue to activate communication. It is also one of the ways for the students to learn empirically the way of coping with the various cases flexibly on the spot. There is one another function of BBS WG. They sometimes, but not always, try to react to a message written which did not get any reaction. As we saw in the result of the survey, the students write in BBS because they want reactions. Therefore such care by BBSWG is also quite important to encourage further writings. 3) Faculty and Administrators

Link to Practice and Action

Following the result of the survey on the BBS, 45% of the students read BBS and 29% have

20

written on the BBS. These figure shows that the students are utilizing the BBS in various ways. Among those who are actively using it, 33.8% of them post their message because they think there is a possibility to make some improvement on campus by pointing out the issues and making suggestions. In order to reflect their opinions it is necessary that some mechanism of responding to the students ’ suggestions be incorporated in the flow of communication.

The discussion on the BBS, different from oral discussion, leaves the traces of written words behind. In other words it leaves the written report of participatory interactive communication behind. By reading it later, the writer can verify the discrepancy between what he/she meant and how others interpreted his/her writing. Thus with the record of the written text in front, the participants can look back at the process of discussion objectively and heuristically discover what is necessary to make the discussion constructive. In Japan we hardly have chance to learn and study the way we make a good discussion in our education. By looking closely into how the communication flowed on BBS, it becomes possible to learn how to participate in public communication. Through such a process the virtual communication space can be taken as non-virtual space, in which real human communications

21

are taking place which is clearly linked to the real world. If students have such an experience as the problem being solved by their own suggestion or proposal, it will make them realize that society (in this case university) can be changed by people’s active efforts and involvement, which will further motivate them to actively participate in society. Such an experience has quite a significant meaning in fostering citizenship. In addition the experience on the BBS also offers various learning materials, which make the students realize that there are indeed various people and opinions in the society, and how difficult it is to make a negotiation and reach a consensus. References Davis,D. (2001) New Media and Community: Toward a Theory and Research Agenda (unpublished paper)

Paper Presented at Internet as a Space for Public Communication: Its Potentialities and Limitations, Tokyo, Japan.

Habermas, J. (1986) The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. trans. by T. McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Miyazaki,T.,G,E.,Suzuki,M.,Ohyama,M.and Akiyama,K. (2000) “Social Communication and Media: Focusing on Computer Mediated Communication”. Paper presented at IAMCR 2000, Singapore.

Vrooman, S. (2002) “The Art of Invective: Performing Identity in Cyberspace”, New media and society 4(1): 51-70.

Yoshida, J. (2000) Intanetto-Kukan no Shakaigaku (Sociology of Cyberspace). Kyoto: Sekaishiso-sha.