One of the attendees at a recent meeting at the BLSCI (Bernard L. Schwartz Communication Institute) raised the phrase “enabling constraints” in the context of discussing how technology forces changes in communication. In particular, she referred to the small screen used for the presentation of messages as a constraint.
My first, admittedly flip, reaction was that “enabling constraints” was an oxymoron. But as we got deeper into the discussion I backed away from my initial thinking. While a small screen may be a constraint, especially when we approach communication from a traditional point of view, the enabling aspect of this constraint is connectivity.
The inevitability of technologial advances will, it seems to me, cause us to rethink communication. If communication changes then our approach to teaching communication also needs to chnge. See Another Look at Communication Effectiveness for additional points on this issue.
What actions should we in academia take to determine whether this is an issue that needs to be addressed?
In the discussion at the meeting Jim refers to, the idea of an enabling constraint seemed tied to rapidly developing technologies, and while I agree that technology can often set the parameters for our communication, there are many other enabling constraints that have little to do with technology. We submit cover letters and resumes that are often each limited to one page so we don’t bore our potential employers; instructors may require several shorter essays rather than one long one due at the semester’s end to manage the work of grading; we find catchy, succint ways to describe something we want to advertise for purposes of both attention and cost. In these examples, writers are constrained by page or word-count limitations that can enable them to learn critical thinking, editing, and revising skills, among others. To think that technology is the only impetus for an enabling constraint would be to close our eyes to those we have been responding to far before a given technology came on the market. (and yes, I realize that even pen and paper are technologies!)
Reply to Jody
From time-to-time there are people like Jody who, thankfully, pull our heads out of the clouds (or elsewhere) and help us plant our feet solidly on the ground.
She also wards us against techno-dependency. I was a third party in a two-way e-mail discussion by parties across the hall from one another. Yikes! And they were occasionally in violation of Drogan’s Third Law: Never put things in an e-mail you would not like to hear read in court. Yikes again!
We have matched our over reliance on technology with an under reliance on healthy skepticism.
By the way, we need to assure a healthy supply of Jodys.
Reply to James Drogan