A thread on the 'quality’ of F2F vs online interaction.

While ‘communication is key’, what we know about communication, inc. online, often rests on stereotypes or anecdata.

So when it comes to the ‘quality’ of online interaction, what is fact and what is communication myth?

1. The biggest assumption is that being ‘in person’ equates to better ‘quality’ (I’m mostly avoiding 'F2F' because we *are* F2F when video is enabled). But I’m putting a hypothesis out there:

(In)effective communicators are (in)effective communicators regardless of modality

2. There are lots of myths about what constitutes communication ‘quality’ even before we get to differentials across modalities. When it comes to remote interaction, the focus is often on already-tenuous things (e.g., rapport) rather than how people simply *get stuff done*.

3. Assumptions about the constraints of remote platforms are built off other misunderstandings and myths about interaction. For instance, if ‘communication is 93% non-verbal’ then it seems logical that remote platforms reduce access to our resources for interacting

4. But just as @maxatkinson myth-busted the ‘fact’ that 93% of communication is non-verbal (by pointing out that we wouldn’t be able to interact in the dark, or on the phone, or need to learn other languages…), we need to myth-bust assertions about how people interact remotely.

I tweeted in April: "If anyone thinks you can't do subtle things with gaze, 'body language', etc. on video chats, me and a family member just did a mutual down-the-camera eye roll , precision-timed as the third participant (who was being grumpy) looked away so didn't see us"

5. Social interaction is comprised of *actions* (e.g., greetings, closings, questions, invitations...) & organized through a machinery that people deploy in agile ways. We do all actions with whatever resources we have (e.g., gesture, embodied conduct, speaking, writing...).

6. #EMCA research shows that we do pretty much the same *actions* regardless of modality, across settings from first dates to healthcare. Being co-present doesn’t equate to or guarantee communication quality. We’ve all experienced and observed awful *in-person* encounters

7. Think about multiparty meetings at work, with a Chair. Entire fields of study and self-help are dedicated to Chairing, participating, leading, etc., a ‘good’ in-person meeting. Again, being co-present doesn’t equate to or guarantee quality, equality, satisfaction, rapport...

8. In fact, we handle many of the same contingencies in remote and in-person meetings in similar ways. For instance, we might tell the Chair that someone has been “trying to get in” (in-person) or “has their hand up” (remotely)

9. You might have noticed in pre-Covid times that when one person dials into a meeting in which everyone else is co-present, it’s a bit rubbish for the remote participant – because the basic resources for interacting are now not shared

10. This is why hybrid models generate problems. Having half of a meeting’s participants dial in while the rest are co-present around one camera+screen+microphone generates the worst of all worlds because the participants have unequal access to the resources we use to interact.

11. However, when everyone is remote, you might have noticed that you can ‘see’ more. And there are some democratizing (e.g., increased channels for participating: "in the chat") & other benefits to being online. You still need a good Chair, but then we’re back to (1).

12. I am *not* arguing that all modalities are the same. They all afford & constrain how we interact. But what we are actually trying to do is important. Check out e.g. @LucasSeuren on telemedicine; @adamdavidlong on courtrooms, & @AnaKuzminykh @seanrintel on #videomeetings

13. Upshot: before asserting things about remote interaction, we need to understand much more about what counts as ‘quality’ in *any* interaction in order to make evidence-based comparisons and claims.

#EMCA