Hi Frances, yeah, the article is relatively balanced. I just had a problem with him saying virtual relationships can never be of the same quality as f2f ones. Otherwise, I do value f2f obviously!!! I just don’t think we should necessarily always assume that virtual is a poor relation. I don’t know if it was clear (i prob said it on fb) but i think the non-classroom part of campus culture has a valuable socialization purpose (a hidden or subtly hidden curriculum) beyond the classroom learning; even the classroom learning can (if done well) have that value of preparing students to handle f2f work environments, for example. So then in that sense, students also need to have a virtual component to prepare them to also have good online relationships at work and personally and for future professional development because this can open up doors.

RE: the 70% of comm is non-verbal … I responded about so much of our f2f relationships already have large portions that do not depend on visual/tactile communication. And seriously, you can have someone you see EVERY day and talk to for HOURS f2f but be closer to someone you met only online, right?

I did not mean to generalize that everyone enjoyed rhizo14 to the same extent or felt the same way (i did use the word “collectively” but that was just the ppl who commented on that article, obviously). And obviously my relationships with diff ppl on rhizo14 are different from each other, not all go beyond a professional respect, but some do. And some outside rhizo14 as well. I think it is possible for someone to have many deep online relationships but possibly not have enjoyed rhizo14 or not thought it amazing (thankfully, quite a few of those views were aired in the collaborative autoethnography, for which I am grateful, or else the resultant research would be skewed towards those who loved it (it still would be, I suspect, but less than I had anticipated).

(Cannot remember the details of what you said about the Gilbert article on fb, so giving u a fresh start 🙂