Instant messaging on campus: Use and integration in university students' everyday communication

Information Society

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 105-115

  Quan Haase, Anabel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Academic work; Computer mediated communication (CMC); Information and communication technologies (ICTs); Instant messaging (IM); Internet; Multitasking; Social change; Social networks; Social relationships; University students

Indexed keywords

EID: 40749092877     PISSN: 01972243     EISSN: 10876537     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01972240701883955     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Alcoba, N., and Leong, M. 2006. Instant messaging gets bad rap, linguists say. National Post, August 2.
2. Associated Press. 2006. Poll: Teens, adults separated by 'IM gap.' CNN.com, November 8. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/12/ 08/im.poll.ap/index.html (accessed July 3, 2007).
3. Balayeva, J., and Quan-Haase, A. 2006. Virtual office hours: Students perceptions on communicating with their professors. Paper presented at the Canadian Communications Association, Toronto, Canada, June 1-3.
4. Baron, N. S. 2004. See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23(4):397-423.
5. Baron, N. S. In press. Adjusting the volume: The impact of technology and multitasking on discourse control, In Mobile communication and social change in a global context, ed. J. E. Katz. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Baron, N. S., and Ling, R. 2003. IM and SMS: A linguistic comparison. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers, Toronto, ON, Canada, October 15-18.
7. Baron, N. S., Squires, L., Tench, S., and Thompson, M. 2005. Tethered or mobile? Use of away messages in instant messaging by American college students. In Mobile communications: Re-negotiation of the social sphere, eds. R. Ling and P. E. Pedersen, pp. 293-311. New York: Springer-Verlag.
8. Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., and Lin, M.-C. 2004. Social interactions across media: Interpersonal communication on the Internet, telephone and face-to-face. New Media and Society 6(3):299-318.
9. Bell, M. A., Berry, M. A., and Van Roekel, J. L. 2004. Internet and personal computing fads. New York: Haworth Press.
10. Boneva, B. S., Quinn, A., Kraut, R. E., Kiesler, S., and Shklovski, I. 2006. Teenage communication in the instant messaging era. In Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology, eds. R. E. Kraut, N. Brynin, and S. Kiesler, pp. 201-218. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Bradner, E., Kellogg, W. A., and Erickson, T. 1999. Social affordances of Babble: A field study of chat in the workplace. Paper presented at the ECSCW '99, the Sixth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Copenhagen, Denmark, September.
12. Bradner, E., Kellogg, W. A., and Erickson, T. 1998. Babble: Supporting conversation in the workplace. SIGGROUP Bulletin 19(3):8-10.
13. Business Wire. 2005. With nearly 12 billion instant messages each day, IM is growing into a serious business collaboration tool, IDC finds. Business Wire, October 5. http://www.findarticles.com/ p/articles/mi.m0EIN/is_2005. Oct.5/ai.n15661786 (accessed October 16, 2006).
14. Campbell, S. 1994. Campus email for everyone: Making it work in real life. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College.
15. Castells, M. 2001. The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. CBC News. 2005. Microsoft, Yahoo to link up instant messaging services. CBC, October 12, 2005. http://www.cbc.ca/money/ story/2005/10/12/ messaging-051011.html (accessed July 3, 2007).
17. Chatterjee, S., Abhichandani, T., Li, H., Tulu, B., and Byun, J. 2005. Instant messaging and presence technologies for college campuses. IEEE Network 19(3):4-13.
18. Collins, J. L., and Quan-Haase, A. 2007. "I'm there, but I might not want to talk to you," University students' social accessibility in instant messaging. Paper presented at the Roundtables of the Communications and Information Technology Section, American Sociological. Association, August 11-14, New York.
19. comScore Networks. 2006. Europe surpasses North America in instant messenger users. ComScore Networks, April 10. http://www. comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=800 (accessed October 16, 2006).
20. Cummings, J. N., Lee, J. B., and Kraut, R. 2006. Communication technology and friendship during the transition from high school to college. In Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology, eds. R. E. Kraut, N. Brynin, and S. Kiesler, pp. 809-851. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. 1984. Information richness: A new approach to managerial behaviour and organizational design. In Research in organizational behavior, eds. L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw, pp. 191-233. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
22. Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science 32(5):554-571.
23. Desai, C. M. 2003. Instant messaging reference: How does it compare? The Electronic Library 21(1):21-30.
24. Donath, J., and Boyd, D. 2004. Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal 22(4):71-82.
25. Erickson, T., and Kellogg, W. A. 2000. Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 7(1):59-83.
26. Faulhaber, G. R. 2002. Network effects and merger analysis: Instant messaging and the AOL-Time Warnercase. Telecommunications Policy 26(5/6):311-333.
27. Flanagin, A. J. 2005. IM online: Instant messaging use among college students. Communication Research Reports 22(3):175-187.
28. Flanagin, A. J., and Metzger, M. 2001. Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Computer Research 27(1): 153-181.
29. Fox, B. 2003. Instant anger hits messaging patent. New Scientist, January 18.
30. Fresco, A. 2005. Standard English out, text creeps in. The Times (Australia), November 1.
31. Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
32. Gray, T., Liscano, R., Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Radhakrishnan, K., and Cho, Y 2003. Context and intent in call processing. In Feature interactions in telecommunications and software systems VII, eds. D. Amyot and L. Logrippo, pp. 177-186. Ottawa: IOS Press.
33. Grinter, R. E., and Palen, L. 2002. Instant messaging in teen life. Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '02), New Orleans, LA, November 16-20.
34. Hernon, P., and Pastine, M. 1977. Students' perceptions of academic librarians. College and Research Libraries 38(2): 129-139.
35. Hogan, P. 2006. AOL-speak is destroying language's beauty. Chicago Maroon, April 14.
36. Hu, Y., Wood, J. F., Smith, V., and Westbrook, N. 2004. Friendships through IM: Examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 10(1).
37. Huang, A. H., and Yen, D. C. 2003. Usefulness of instant messaging among young users: Social vs. work perspective. Human Systems Management 22(2): 63-72.
38. Jacobs, G. E. 2004. Complicating contexts: Issues of methodology in researching the language and literacies of instant messaging. Reading Research Quarterly 39(4):394-406.
39. Jacobs, G. E. 2006. Tactical redesign of cyberspace and self within IM profiles. Paper presented at the AERA, San Francisco, CA, April.
40. Jones, S., and Johnson-Yale, C. 2005. Professors online: The Internet's impact on college faculty. First Monday 10(9). http:// firstmonday. org/issues/issue10_9/jones/ (accessed April 13, 2006).
41. Jones, S., and Madden, M. 2002. The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today's technology. PEW Internet and American Life, September 15. http://www. pewInternet. org/pdfs/PIP- College_Report.pdf (accessed July 3, 2007).
42. Kindred, J., and Roper, S. L. 2004. Making connections via instant messenger (IM): Student use of IM to maintain personal relationships. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication V:48-54.
43. Kubey, R. W., Lavin, M. J., and Barrows, J. R. 2001. Internet use and collegiate academic performance decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication 51(2):366-382.
44. Latané, B. 1981. The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist 36(4):343-356.
45. Latané, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., and Zheng, L. 1995. Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(8):795-805.
46. Lee, J. 2002. I think, therefore IM: Text shortcuts invade schoolwork, and teachers are not amused. New York Times, September 19.
47. Lee, K. C., and Perry, S. D. 2004. Student instant message use in a ubiquitous computing environment: Effects of deficient self-regulation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 48(3):399-420.
48. Lenhart, A., Madden, M., and Hitlin, P. 2005. Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. PEW Internet and American Life, July 27. http://www.pewInternet. org/PPF/r/162/ report_display.asp (accessed July 3, 2007).
49. Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., and Lewis, O. 2001. Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet's impact on friendships and family relationships. PEW Internet and American Life, June 21. http://www.pewInternet. org/pdfs/PIP.Teens_Report.pdf (accessed July 3, 2007).
50. Leung, L. 2001. College student motives for chatting on ICQ. New Media and Society 3(4):483-500.
51. Lewis, C., and Fabos, B. 2005. Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly 40(4):470-501.
52. Matthews, D., and Schrum, L. 2003. High-speed Internet use and academic gratifications in the college residence. Internet and Higher-Education 6(2): 125-144.
53. Nippert-Eng, C. 1996. Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54. Quan-Haase, A. 2007. University students' local and distant social ties: Using and integrating modes of communication on campus. Information, Communication & Society 10(5):671-693.
55. Quan-Haase, A., and Wellman, B. 2004. How does the Internet affect social capital? In Social capital and information technology, eds. M. Huysman and V. Wulf, pp. 151-176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Quan-Haase, A., B. Wellman, K. Hampton, and J. Witte. 2002. Capitalizing on the Net: Social contact, civic engagement, and sense of community. In Internet and everyday life, eds. B. Wellman and C. Haythornthwaite, pp. 291-324. Oxford: Blackwell.
57. Quan-Haase, A., Cothrel, J., and Wellman, B. 2005. Instant messaging as social mediation: A case study of a high-tech firm. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 10(4). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/quan- haase.html (accessed April 13, 2006).
58. Radicati Group. 2005. Instant messaging market, 2005-2009. July 1. http://www.radicati.com (accessed August 22, 2006).
59. Rapp, D. 2002. I've got to get a message to you: Instant messaging started an MIT computer-science department project. Technology Review 105(8):88.
60. Rice, R. E. 1993. Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research 19(4):451-484.
61. Roper, S. L., and Kindred, J. 2005. "IM here," Reflections on virtual office hours. First Monday 10(11). http://www.firstmonday.org/ issues/ issue10_11/roper/index.html#author (accessed April 13, 2006).
62. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., and Parker, J. G. 1998. Peer interactions, relationships and groups. In Handbook of child psychology : Social, emotional, and personality development, eds. N. Eisenberg, pp. 933-1016. New York: Wiley.
63. Ruppel, M., and Fagan, J. C. 2002. Instant messaging reference: Users' evaluation of library chat. Reference Services Review 30(3): 183-197.
64. Scott, J. 1990. Social network's. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65. Shiu, E., and Lenhart, A. 2004. How Americans use instant messaging. PEW Internet and American Life, September 1. http://www. pewInternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Instantmessage_Report.pdf (accessed April 13, 2006).
66. Sproull, L. S., and Kiesler, S. B. 1991. Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67. Squires, L. 2003. College students in multimedia relationships: Choosing, using, and fusing communication technologies. Paper presented at the Association of Internet Researchers, Toronto, ON, October 15-18.
68. Swope, M., and Katzer, J. 1972. Why don't they ask questions? RQ 12(2):161-166.
69. Tagliamonte, S., and Denis, D. 2006. LOL for real! Instant messaging in Toronto teens. Paper presented at the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States Annual Meeting, Toronto, ON, July 31-August 5.
70. Thurlow, C. 2003. Generation txt? Exposing the sociolinguistics of young people's text-messaging. Discourse Analysis Online 1(1). http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003-paper.html (accessed July 3, 2007).
71. Truss, L. 2006. Eats, shoots & leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation. New York: Penguin Books.
72. Wasserman, S., and Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
73. Wikipedia. 2006. BlitzMail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzmail (accessed November 21, 2006).
74. Wymer, K. 2006. The professor as instant messenger. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 7. http://chron.icle.com/ jobs/2006/02/ 2006020701c.htm (accessed November 21, 2006).
75. Zerubavel, E. 1979. Private and public time: The temporal structure of social accessibility and professional commitments. Social Forces 58(1):38-58.