Messaging And Formality: Will IM Follow in the Footsteps of Email? Tracey Lovejoy & Jonathan Grudin Microsoft, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052, USA [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: One virtue of instant messaging is informality. As messaging is used more in work settings, being able to consult an exchange later can be beneficial. However, archived communication often becomes more formal. We describe a case study of IM use that illustrates such a transition. In this and some other respects, messaging seems to be paralleling the history of email use. This points to an ongoing tension between our need for informal interaction, even in workplaces, and the ease and occasional benefits of archiving digital information. Keywords: Instant messaging, informal communication, email 1 From Field Notes Setting: “News International,” a media company. Participants: Joan, a Director whom one of us was shadowing; two of her colleagues; and her boss. Joan was locked out of IM. She hadn’t upgraded to the new client that she was supposed to have installed weeks ago. The old client solely allowed conversation between employees of her company, the new client allowed conversation with external companies that adopted it. As a co-worker helped her install the new IM client, he talked about the changes. Joan was surprised and seemed alarmed when he mentioned that IM conversations were now automatically saved. Directly following this interaction Joan went to a team meeting. The first thing she did was ask her boss if she was aware that the new IM saved all conversations. Her boss said yes, and that as a consequence her communications via IM were now far shorter than previously, because she was much more careful about what she wrote, knowing that someone could review them. There was consensus among the 3 women in the room that prior to this upgrade, email had been used for formal communication and IM was used for more informal chatting. They felt that now IM would become more like email, more formal communication. 2 Messaging & Informal Interaction Text messaging and instant messaging are primarily used for informal interaction. Obviously true for teen and student IM exchanges, it is also reported in studies of IM use in workplaces such as News International. Nardi, Whittaker and Bradner (2000) wrote “the tenor of instant messages is typically casual, informal, and friendly. One user contrasted it with email: ‘It’s more casual so you can be more quirky.’ Relaxed grammar and spelling are the norm. Standard capitalization is often ignored though caps may be used for emphasis. Multiple exclamation points and question marks are sprinkled liberally throughout Instant messages. This informality lends Instant messages a kind of intimacy that is often absent from other types of mediated communication.” Similarly, Isaacs et al. (2002) concluded “IM is often used for informal workplace communication,” although they found a stronger work-related focus than had been generally reported. 3 Saving IM Conversations Text messaging and instant messaging have historically not been archived. This could change. Especially when IM is used for work purposes, people may wish to save the occasional interesting exchange or retrieve a URL or other information. For IM use between enterprises or with customers, corporations may log it for protection, to monitor forquality, or to send a transcript to a customer to reduce the likelihood of a follow-up call. Server-side logging as at News International is likely to be built into all IM systems. Some IM clients now allow a user to save exchanges automatically or with a Save command. Other clients force copying and pasting. Efforts to integrate communication—email, fax, voice mail, IM—will lead to the archiving of once ephemeral discussions. For a moment, return to News International: Setting: Later the same day. Participants: A Vice President and 15 people from around the company are brainstorming on how to boost morale. The VP wanted the air of the meeting to be casual, informal and comfortable. When one of us asked if we could take pictures or tape record the meeting, the VP asked us not to, explaining that if people knew they were being recorded they would be less likely to speak their minds freely. The VP viewed recording as formal, stifled and less comfortable, whereas an absence of recording promoted casual, informal and comfortable communication. Thus, the new IM policy can be seen as promoting formality. This may not be perceived as a drawback by management, given the public perception that IM is heavily used for social chatting with friends and relatives. Management may welcome steps that are seen as promoting more disciplined IM use. 4 Recording and Formality More and more human interaction is digitally mediated. The cost and difficulty of archiving digital information is decreasing dramatically. Text costs nothing. Napster has shown that large quantities of audio are not an obstacle. Video is still expensive, but archives are appearing on the Web and Moore’s Law will be in effect long enough to handle it. With any communication medium, times will arise when it would be useful to record an interaction. With this technically trivial, recording capabilities are likely to be provided unless we make a decision to forego those benefits. It is important to reflect on the consequences of either choice. Why might we choose not to provide the possibility of recording? What can we gain by avoiding re-examination or strict accountability? Ephemeral interaction is conducive to informality, an opportunity to adopt a different posture for a time. Recording and potential accountability do not inevitably lead to formality. Nor are they the only sources of formality in interaction. If a recording seems unlikely to be used, behaviour may be unaffected. Our knowledge that cameras record cash machine transactions and monitor public places does not affect us. Knowing that an employer could be recording email, people still use it carelessly, as subpoenaed email archives in court cases have revealed. And transient face-to-face exchanges can be formal. Cultural and social conventions govern the formality of much interaction. Nevertheless, if recording of IM becomes commonplace, it is likely to lead to greater formality. Whether an exchange is recorded on the server by the organization, or on a client by the people involved, knowing