There were a number of articles relating to the cultural implications of expanding media that were informative and/or problematic but given my groups SMS project a discussion of Everyday Contexts of Camera Phone Use: Steps Toward Technosocial Ethnographic Frameworks by Daisuke Okabe and Mizuko Ito seemed most relevant. The purpose of this study was to observe and report on camera phone usage in Tokyo, Japan. Here, we will summarize the impetus, methodology, and findings of the study; then assess flaws in the theoretical framework that include large logical leaps that stem from a very small sample size but also a tendency to view new media (specifically cell tech) as an acceleration of old media rather than a paradigm shift (which they acknowledge).
Seeing that this study was published in 2005 and the rapid development of the technology render the statistics used to justify the study unremarkable to us, let’s just say that skyrocketing data transferring via mobile and the increasing number of camera phones on the market in Tokyo suggested that social usage was worth a gander.
The design and methodology concern a small litmus test of user’s high and low order motives. Two high school students, eight college students, two housewives with children, and three professionals participated in the study. They submitted their last ten photos taken on the their phones and then had a discussion with the academics regarding how they treat each photo. The academic concern is how are these used in a public way: shared with all, some, or fully private. And why.
As for the findings, Okabe and Ito discuss cell photos as a private, semi-private, even journalistic (neta), or a good omen (omamori). For each concept they have an example- pics taken for oneself, or images of the sea for luck/inspiration, teacher mishaps as info sharing etc… Given this isn’t a full academic assessment, let me just say that they have an example to alleviate the constraints of each option but don’t show ones that do not fit this model (or don’t seemingly pervert some social etiquette), which would be fine if the models they wish to examine weren’t present in almost the exact same form in earlier media. There is very little that is new about people’s behavioral interaction with camera phones compared with digital cameras or diaries- in this article. The private-space-in-public aspect of camera phones represent one aspect untouched in the article. Documented, reproducible voyeurism seems a vital development that accompanies camera phones but vacant (for the most part) from other media. They approach this when discussing neta but are too vague. News sharing, while important and broadly socially significant, is a less functionally significant shift through mediums than a re-organization of collecting and sharing (or not sharing) formerly un-documentable scenarios. Be they illicit, explicit, or harmless. We have probably all been photographed on the subway numerous times- what happened to those images?
Also, acceleration is a by-product, or goal, of new technology but academically it is less interesting to examine than new or unintended interactions. Yes one can privately hold a pic without sharing but one can also engage film or pen and paper the same way. Rather, what seems more interesting is how are people using pictures as a substitute for written/voiced language. When does one choose a pic or a text or phone call? Can or does one engage in prolonged interactions via photo?
So, I think has be a long form way of saying that the article’s conceit isn’t thorough enough. To prove that would take a study on my part but the kind of neat, comfortable interactions and conclusions suggest that the scope was too small or the participant selection was skewed. They are just too nice.
