Communicative ecology

Communicative ecology is a conceptual model used in the field of media and communications research.
The model is used to analyse and represent the relationships between social interactions, discourse, and communication media and technology of individuals, collectives and networks in physical and digital environments. Broadly, the term communicative ecology refers to "the context in which communication processes occur". These processes are seen to involve people communicating with others in their social networks, both face-to-face and using a mix of media and communication technologies .

Rationale

The communicative ecology model enables researchers to take a holistic approach to understanding the dynamic interrelationships between social dimensions, discourse and communications technology in both physical and digital environments. The use of an ecological metaphor markedly expands the potential sphere of inquiry for communications and media research. It shifts the focus away from studies focusing on single communications devices or applications, for example the mobile telephone or email, towards whole system interactions. Consequently, it extends the possibility of research into population change and lifecycles, spatiotemporal dynamics, networks and clusters, and power relations within the frame of a communicative ecology. Also, as ecologies are not isolated entities, further questions regarding the similarities, differences, interrelationships and transactions between ecologies can be examined. A richer understanding can then be derived from micro and macro level analysis of the social and cultural context of communication.
The concept of communicative ecology has emerged amidst concerns that studies attempting to identify causal relationships between discrete technologies and social impacts neglect variables that are salient to the successful implementation and uptake of technologies in situ. This mirrors the way in which the biological field of ecology emerged from the perceived inadequacies of studies of single species of flora and fauna. In a similar way, researchers who use the communicative ecology framework argue that media technologies should not be examined independent of their context of use. They assert that new media must be both studied and designed with reference to the users' wider set of social relationships, the nature of the communication itself and other media in use. Through use of ethnographic approaches a richer, more nuanced understanding of the communicative system of a given setting is able to be developed.
New media are usually introduced into existing communication structures and must compete for attention in relation to the users' existing portfolio of communication tools. Consequently, if a new communication technology does not complement or enhance the existing toolset it risks rejection. The communicative ecology model allows researchers to examine how a new form of media or technology may or may not be integrated into existing communication patterns.
However, the potential utility of the communicative ecology model is far broader than this. Any new form of social intervention, content or technology must be locally appropriate for it to succeed. Hence, the communicative ecology framework is useful for human-computer interaction designers, content creators, and in urban informatics, urban planning, community development and education when seeking opportunities to enhance or augment local, social, and communication practices.

History and usage

The concept of communicative ecology is derived from Altheide's "ecology of communication". Altheide developed this concept to examine the mutually influential relationships between information technology, communication formats and social activities, within the context of people's social and physical environments, as they define and experience them. The concept is influenced by McLuhan's research on media ecology, which demonstrates that new media and technology can influence communicative content, and also the symbolic interactionist perspective of communication as embedded in context. Altheide considers ecology of communication to be a fluid construct that can be used as a frame to investigate the ways in which social activities are being created and modified through the use of technologies that, in turn, give rise to new communication formats. He is particularly interested in the relationship between social activities and technologies for surveillance and control.
The communicative ecology concept has been further developed for use in studies of information and communication technologies initiatives in developing nations. A guide to the study of communicative ecologies using the ethnographic action research method, developed with the support of UNESCO, has spawned a proliferation of empirical research . Many of these investigations have focused on ICT for development projects associated with community technology centres and local information networks in South Asian and African nations. In these studies, local community members are often engaged as active participants in a research and project development process that provides opportunities for them to gain the ICT literacy skills necessary to create locally meaningful content. Many of these research activities investigate and support interventions that aim to alleviate poverty, educate and promote the digital inclusion necessary for citizens to actively participate in civic life and have their voices heard or mobile phones, in relation to broader communication patterns.
More recently, the communicative ecology framework has been extended in studies of the nature of media use to support social networks in urban villages and inner-city apartment buildings. This paper introduced the concept of dimensions to the communicative ecology model. Button and Partridge used the model to examine the online communicative ecology of neighbourhood websites. The model has also been used to investigate how students communicate and reflect on their learning.
A special issue of the Electronic Journal of Communication showcased the versatility of the communicative ecology approach. In this issue, Allison looked at the communicative ecology from the perspective of the individual, whereas Wilkin, Ball-Rokeach, Matsaganis and Cheong used a panoptic perspective to compare the ecologies of geo-ethnic communities. Peeples and Mitchell used the model to explore the social activity of protest. Powell focused on a particular medium, public internet access, in an urban context. Shepherd, Arnold, Bellamy and Gibbs extended the concept to attend to the material and spatial aspects of the communicative ecology of the domestic sphere.
The term "communicative ecology" has also been used in other studies with various interpretations. Interactional sociolinguists use the term to describe the local communicative environment of a particular setting in which discourse is contextualised. Using methods drawn from linguistic anthropology, their research begins with a period of ethnography in which a rich understanding of the local communicative ecology is formed. Discourse is then analysed in relation to this ecological context. Roberts describes a communicative ecology as comprising the identity of participants, the topics of communication and the ways in which things are communicated, including tone of voice, directness, etc. Beier draws on Hymes' work in ethnography of communication and uses the concept to understand the range of communicative practices of the Nanti people as a system of interaction.
From an applied linguistics perspective, McArthur describes a communicative ecology as embracing the nature and evolution of language, media and communication technologies. He uses the term to discuss the interactions between the world's languages and communication technologies. Wagner uses the term to refer to the deep structures of meaning and communicative action that human language shares with other species, particularly the bonobo. In cultural studies of terrorism, White uses the term to describe the interchange of signs within interacting networks of individuals and collectives.
In their study of computer-mediated communication in the workplace, Yates, Orlikowski and Woerner draw upon Erickson's work on genre ecologies to suggest a communicative ecology can be identified by the types and frequencies of communicative practices, such as email threading activities. Their version of communicative ecology is influenced by members of a workplace engaging in common activities, the length of time over which interaction takes place, whether communication media is synchronous or asynchronous and members' linguistic or cultural background.
There is not a single, agreed upon communicative ecology model, rather, this section highlights that there are various approaches to understanding and applying the model in various contexts. Furthermore, concepts that bear some similarity to communicative ecology include actor-network theory, activity theory the communication infrastructure model and the personal communication system.

Characteristics

Often in sociological literature, an ecology is seen to be anchored in a geographical area of human settlement. In the case of a communicative ecology, while the majority of studies have been conducted in physical environments, it is also possible to use the framework to examine ecologies grounded in an online environment. In many cases, communicative ecologies move seamlessly across both kinds of settings. For example, settings may include both public and private spaces, transport infrastructure and websites, in any combination.
Different settings have distinct affordances that may facilitate or hinder communication within an ecology. In a physical setting this might mean a neighbourhood has several coffee shops and parks where residents can interact. In an online setting, certain design features may enable certain types of communication and constrain others. For example, discussion boards facilitate one-to-many or many-to-many collective forms of communication but not one-to-one or peer-to-peer style networked communication that would be better served by SMS or instant messaging.
Similar to biological ecologies, communicative ecologies have lifecycles. They can be described as new or well-established, active or dormant, or in a period of growth or decline. For example, residents of a new master-planned housing estate will have a young communicative ecology that is in a period of growth but may need cultivation in order to become active. In this case, sociocultural animation of the ecology may be required for it to become socially sustainable.
Communicative ecologies can be conceived as having three layers and differing across several spectral dimensions. The nature of a communicative ecology changes as its members engage in and transition between different types of activities.