Human-Machine Communication (HMC) in Communication Studies: The Paradigm Shift and Essential Approaches

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 36, 203 - 220, 31.12.2021

Bilge Narin

https://doi.org/10.31123/akil.988494

Cited By: 1

Öz

We live in an age where technologies that interact with people such as virtual assistants and social bots have become widespread. Developments in such artificial intelligence technologies that gain social features by interacting with people, point to a transformation and breaking in the essential paradigm of communication, which defines communication merely as the transfer of meaning between people. In the field of communication sciences, where communication has been conceptualized as a human process that has been carried out through machines for a long time; it is worth examining what it means for machines to overcome the tool/device role and to become communicators in a communication process. In this context, the present research focuses on the rising position of human-machine communication in the communication sciences by questioning how it transformed the fundamental communication paradigm. Human-machine communication (HMC), both as a concept and research area within the communication sciences, focuses on the effects of interaction between people and technology on individuals, society, and humanity. This research focuses on a small number of leading academic studies in the field, centering human-machine communication as a new field of study. The main approaches of these studies are categorized and defined under the titles of “Computers Are Social Actors (CASA)”, “Perceived Understanding Framework”, “Disclosure Processing Framework”, and “Discursive / Narrative / Linguistic Approaches.” The approaches categorized and analyzed in the present study could provide both theoretical and methodological basis for new studies in the field of human-machine communication.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Human-machine communication, algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Social Bot, Communication Sciences

İletişim Çalışmalarında İnsan-Makine İletişimi: Paradigma Değişikliği ve Temel Yaklaşımlar

Öz

Sanal asistanlar ve sosyal botlar başta olmak üzere, insanlarla makinelerin etkileşime girdikleri teknolojilerin yaygınlık kazandığı bir çağda yaşamaktayız. İnsanlarla etkileşim kurarak toplumsal özellikler kazanan bu tür yapay zekâ teknolojilerinde görülen gelişmeler, iletişimi yalnızca insanlar arasında anlam aktarımı olarak tanımlayan temel iletişim paradigmasında da bir dönüşüme ve kırılmaya işaret etmektedir. İletişimin uzun zamandır makineler aracılığıyla gerçekleştirilen bir insan süreci olarak kavramsallaştırıldığı iletişim bilimleri alanında; makinelerin aracı/araç rolünü aşarak iletişimci haline gelmesinin ne anlama geldiği ve iletişim çalışmalarına potansiyel olarak ne getirdiği incelemeye değer bir konudur. Bu kapsamda, bu araştırma insan-makine iletişiminin iletişim bilimleri disiplini içindeki yükselen konumuna odaklanarak; temel iletişim paradigmasını nasıl dönüşüme uğrattığını sorgulamaktadır. İletişim bilimleri içinde hem bir kavram hem de araştırma alanı olarak insan-makine iletişimi (İMİ), insanlar ile teknoloji arasındaki etkileşimin bireyler, toplum ve insanlık üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Bu araştırma ise, yeni bir çalışma alanı olarak insan-makine iletişimini merkeze alarak, alanda gerçekleştirilen az sayıdaki öncü akademik çalışmayı “Bilgisayarlar Toplumsal Aktörlerdir”, “Algılanan Anlaşılma Çerçevesi”, “Açıklama İşleme Çerçevesi” ve “Söylemsel/Anlatısal/Dilsel Yaklaşımlar” başlıkları altında kategorileştirip serimleyerek tartışmaya açmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında kategorize edilip incelenen yaklaşımların, insan-makine iletişimi alanda yapılacak yeni araştırmalara kuramsal ve metodolojik bir temel oluşturması umulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İnsan-makine iletişimi, Algoritmalar, sosyal bot, Yapay Zekâ, İletişim Bilimleri

Kaynakça

• Afifi, W. A. & Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Motivations underlying topic avoidance in close relationships. S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the Secrets of Private Disclosures (s. 165-180) içinde. Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
• Arksey, H. & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol, 8 (1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.
• Banks, J. & de Graaff, Maart M.A. (2020). Toward an Agent-Agnostic Transmission Model: Synthesizing Anthropocentric and Technocentric Paradigms in Communication. HMC Human-Machine Communication, 1, 19-36. https://doi.org/ 10.30658/hmc.1.2.
• Barnlund, D. C. (2008). A Transactional Model of Communication. C. David Mortensen (Ed.), Communication Theory (s. 47-57) içinde. New Brunswick: NJ: Transaction.
• Beattie, A.; Edwards, A. P. & Edwards, C. (2020). A Bot and a Smile: Interpersonal Impressions of Chatbots and Humans Using Emoji in Computer-mediated Communication. Communication Studies, 71 (3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1725082.
• Boden, M. A. (2006). Mind as machine: A history of cognitive science: Volume 1. Oxford University Press.
• Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou. (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Cahn, D. D. (1990). Perceived understanding and interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(2), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590072005.
• Chandrashekar, S. & Hockema, S. (2009). Online access, participation and information credibility assessment. Proceedings of the Science and Technology for Humanity (TICSTH), IEEE. Toronto International Conference, Toronto, 26–27, September 2009, 10.1109/TIC-STH.2009.5444397.
• Christian, B. (2012). The Most Human Human: What artificial intelligence teaches us about being alive. New York: NY: Anchor Books.
• Chaudoir, S. R. & Fisher, J. D. (2010). The Disclosure Processes Model: Understanding Disclosure Decision Making and Postdisclosure Outcomes Among People Living With a Concealable Stigmatized Identity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 236-256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018193.
• Craig R. T. (1999). Communication Theory as a Field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119-161.
• Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A. & Ahrenberg, L. (1993). Wizard of Oz studies-Why and how. Knowledge-Based Systems, 6(4), 258–266.
• Dance, F. E. X. (1970). The “Concept” of Communication. Journal of Communication, 20(2), 201-210.
• Dautenhahn, K. (2004). Socially intelligent agents in human primate culture. S. Payr ve R. Trappl (Ed.), Agent Culture: Human-Agent İnteraction in a Multicultural World (s. 45-71) içinde. Mahwah: New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Demmans Epp, Carrrie, McEwen, R., Campigotto, R., & Moffatt, K. (2015). Information practices and user interfaces: Student use of an iOS application in Special Education. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9392-6.
• Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. USA: Macmillan.
• Edwards, A. P. (2018). Animals, Humans, and Machines: Interactive implications of ontological classification. A. L. Guzman (Ed.), Human-Machine Communication: Rethinking communication, technology, and ourselves (s. 29-50) içinde. New York, Berlin: Peter Lang.
• Edwards, A. P., Westerman, D., Edwards, C., & Spence, P. R. (2019). Communication is ... Transhuman. Tyma, A. ve Edwards, A. P. (Ed.) Communication Is … Perspectives on Theory (s. 49-67) içinde. USA: Cognella.
• Faggin, F. (2019). Silicio. Milano: Mondadori.
• Fogg, B. J., & Nass, C. (1997). Silicon sycophants: The effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46(5), 551-561. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0104.
• Fortunati, L., Cavallo, F. & Sarrica, M. (2018). Multiple Communication Roles in Human-robot Interactions in The Public Space. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12, 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0509-0.
• Fortunati, L., & Edwards, A. P. (2020). Opening Space for Theoretical, Methodological, and Empirical Issues. HMC Human-Machine Communication, 1, 7-18. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.1.
• Frankish K. & Ramsey, W. M. (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gambino, A., Fox, J. & Ratan, R. A. (2020). Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm. HMC Human-Machine Communication, 1, 71-85. 10.30658/hmc.1.5
• Groom, V. & Nass, C. (2007). Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human–robot teams. Interaction Studies, 8 (3), 483-500. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.8.3.10gro
• Gunkel, D. J. (2012). Communication and artificial intelligence: Opportunities and challenges for the 21st century. Communication+ 1, 1(1): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.7275/R5QJ7F7R
• Guzman, A. L. (2018). What is Human-Machine Communication, Anyway? Human-Machine Communication: Rethinking communication, technology, and ourselves. New York: Peter Lang.
• Guzman, A. L. (2019). Human-Machine Communication: Bridging Disciplinary, Technological, and Theoritical Divides, Invited Forum: Artificial Intelligence and Journalism. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(3), 681-683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019859901.
• Guzman, A. L. (2020). Ontological Boundaries Between Humans and Computers and the Implications for Human-Machine Communication. HMC Human-Machine Communication, 1: 37-54. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.3.
• Guzman, A. L. & Lewis, S. C. (2019). Artificial Intelligence and Communication: A Human-Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691.
• Haraway, D. (1985). A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 15(2), 65-107.
• Hayles, K. N. (1999). How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. USA: The University of Chicago Press.
• Ho, A., Hancock, J. & Miner, A. S. (2018). Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot. Journal of Communication, 68(4), 712-733. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy026.
• Hourcade, J. P., Bullock-Rest, N. E. & Hansen, T. E. (2012). Multitouch tablet applications and activities to enhance the social skills of children with autism spectrum disorders. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0383-3.
• Jones, S. (2014). People, Things, Memory and Human-Machine Communication. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 10(3), 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.10.3.245_1.
• Leiner, B. M., Cerf, V. G., Clark, D. D., Kahn, R. E., Kleinrock, L., Lynch, D. C., Postel, J., Roberts, L. G. & Wolff, S. (1997). A brief history of the internet. Internet Society: e-OTI: An International Electronic Publication of the Internet Society.
• Lewis, S. C., Guzman, A. L., & Schmidt, T. R. (2019). Automation, journalism, and human-machine communication: Rethinking roles and relationships of humans and machines in news. Digital Journalism, 7(4), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1577147.
• Ling, H. Y. & Björling, E. A. (2020). Sharing Stress With a Robot: What Would a Robot Say? HMC Human-Machine Communication, 1, 133-159. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.8.
• Lucas, G. M., Gratch, J., King, A. & Morency, L.-P. (2014). It’s Only A Computer: Virtual Humans Increase Willingness to Disclose. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 94-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.043.
• McEwen, R. (2014). Mediating sociality: The use of iPod Touch™ devices in the classrooms of students with autism in Canada. Information, Communication & Society, 17(10), 1264–1279. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.920041.
• McEwen, R., Atcha, A., Lui, M., Shimaly, R., Maharaj, A., Ali, S. & Carroll, S. (2020). “Interlocutors and Interactions: Examining the Interactions Between Students With Complex Communication Needs, Teachers, and Eye-Gaze Technology.” HMC Human Machine Communication, 1, 113-131. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.7.
• Mitsunaga, N., Miyashita, T., Ishiguro, H., Kogure, K. & Hagita, N. (2006). Robovie-iv: A communication robot interacting with people daily in an office. Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference, 5066-5072.
• Morton, T. L. (1978). Intimacy and reciprocity of exchange: A comparison of spouses and strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.1.72.
• Nass, C. & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and Mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (1), 81-103.
• Nass, C., Moon, Y. & Green, N. (1997). Are Computers Gender-Neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 864-876.
• Nass, C., Steuer, J. & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. Proceedings of SIGCHI’94 Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 72-78.
• Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The Psychological Implications of Concealing a Stigma: A Cognitive-Affective-behavioral Model. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.328.
• Pickard, M. D., Roster, C. A., & Chen, Y. (2016). Revealing Sensitive Information in Personal Interviews: Is self-disclosure easier with humans or avatars and under what conditions? Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.004.
• Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Vintage Books.
• Quinn, D. M., & Chaudoir, S. R. (2009). Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: The impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 634–651. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015815.
• Qiu, S., Anas, S. A., Osawa, H., Rauterberg, M. & Hu, J. (2016). E-gaze glasses: simulating natural gazes for blind people. Proceedings of the TEI’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, ACM, 563-569. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2856518.
• Qiu, S., Han, T., Rauterberg, M., & Hu, J. (2018). Impact of simulated gaze gestures on social interaction for people with visual impairments. N. Wognum, J. Stjepandic, M. Pellicciari, C. Bil, & M. Peruzzini (Eds.), Transdisciplinary Engineering Methods for Social Innovation of Industry 4.0: Proceedings of the 25th ISPE Inc. International Conference on Transdisciplinary Engineering (Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering; Vol. 7) (s. 249-258) içinde. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-898-3-249.
• Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge: CSLI Publications.
• Reeves, J. (2016). Automatic for the People: The Automation of Communicative Labor. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 13(2), 150-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2015.1108450.
• Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an Interpersonal Process. S. W. Duck (Ed.) Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions (s. 367–389) içinde. New York, NY:Wiley.
• Reis, H. T., Lemay, E. P., & Finkenauer, C. (2017). Toward Understanding Understanding: The importance of feeling understood in relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(3), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12308.
• Riskin, J. (2007). Genesis Redux: Essays in the history and philosophy of artificial life. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press Books.
• Schramm, W. (1972). Nature of Communication Between Humans. Schramm, W. & Robersts, D. F. (Ed.) The Process and Effects of Mass Communication (s. 3-53) içinde. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
• Schramm, W. & Roberts, D. F. (1971). The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Schuetzler, R. M., Giboney, J. S., Grimes G. M. & Nunamaker, J. F. (2018). The influence of conversational agents on socially desirable responding. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Manoa, HI: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 283-292.
• Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana ve Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
• Sundar, S. S. & Nass, C. (2000). Source orientation in human-computer interaction: Programmer, networker, or independent social actor?, Communication Research, 27(6), 683-703. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365000027006001.
• Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, 59, 433-460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433.
• Turkle, S. (1984). The Second Self: Computers and Human Spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Westerman, D., Cross, A. C. & Lindmark, P. G. (2019). I Believe in a Thing Called Bot: Perceptions of the Humanness of ‘Chatbots’. Communication Studies, 70(3), 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1557233.
• Westerman, D., Edwards, A. P., Edwards, C., Luo, Z. & Spence, P. R. (2020). I-It, I-Thou, I-Robot: The Perceived Humanness of AI in Human-Machine Communication. Communication Studies, 71(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1749683.
• Zhou, R., Hentschel, J. & Kumar, N. (2017). Goodbye text, hello emoji: Mobile communication on wechat in China. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, 748-759. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025800.