For class, I read the article “Networked Interactivity” by Rafeali et al. Rafaeli focused on computer mediated communication, and how it compares to in-person communication particularly when it comes to interactivity. He basically concluded that although CMC is effective, it does not achieve true interactivity, which he defined as “a theoretical construct that grapples with the origins of captivation, fascination, and allure that can be inherent in computer-mediated groups.”

I interpreted interactivity as communication that depends on each person to build off the last comment, as well as the context of the last comment. It is not one-sided, and requires active and engaged participants. I agree with Rafaeli in the sense that CMC doesn’t not provide as rich of a interactive experience as in-person interactions, but I do not believe that CMC falls short.

Since March 2020, we have had to transition much of what we do to virtual settings. Rafeali’s article was published in 1997, long before zoom and social media. Work and school were now CMC, and I believe interactivity was achieved in most instances. For example, my internship was fully remote this summer. I learned a lot, made new connections and great friends! Interactivity was definitely achieved, and I know that it is possible to build connections through CMC.

A lot has changed since Rafeali put forth his argument, and though I still agree with him for the most part, CMC has come a long way. I would argue that zoom and teams allow for almost as much interactivity, and potentially more productivity when you consider that employees no longer need to commute.

My view seems to reflect Finholt and Sproull, who “observed CMC groups within an organization behaving like real social groups, despite the fact that their members shared no physical space, were invisible, and their interaction was asynchronous. Although I missed my professors and coworkers, I do feel that CMC is effective, and hybrid models are definitely the future.