1614 Differing Challenges and Different Achievements TXDOL¿FDWLRQVZLOOUHPDLQWKHVHFRQGEHVWRSWLRQ in terms of quality assurance. A new framework is necessary now before there is a proliferation of e-learning offerings claiming to be of university- degree standard, when they are not. There are a number of factors that could be contributing to the failure of anyone developing quality standards for e-learning. Firstly, there are GLI¿FXOWLHVVXUURXQGLQJWKHGH¿QLWLRQRIHOHDUQ- ing itself. The term is used to refer to many differ- ent approaches, from an electronically delivered training material to more advanced media-rich content, such as video-streaming, and sophisti- FDWHG³FODVVURRPWRROV´6HFRQGO\WKHUHDUHWKH GLI¿FXOWLHVVWHPPLQJIURPPHGLDK\SHWKDWUDLVHV expectations unrealistically. Early e-learning, in particular, often took the form of text on screen, rather than text in a textbook. The education and training sector have been slow to integrate the creative opportunities that e-learning affords them. Learning could be made as exciting as a PlayStation game, but so far, it hasn’t been. Thirdly, in many universities and organzia- tions, it was taken for granted that if the e-learning system was provided, people would use it. This has not turned out to be the case. It is like taking a horse to water but not being able to make it drink. E-learning needs to be marketed and introduced to students, rather than being thrust in front of them with them being left to get on with it. There have also been problems with the tech- nology itself. Despite efforts at standardization, compatibility between all courseware and learn- ing-management systems is far from achieved, making collaborations such as Univesitas21 and the Global University Alliance partnerships in principle, rather than in practice. This has meant that purchasers have had to narrow down course selection to single platforms (Gold, 2003). Once standardization has been achieved, Singh and Reed (2002) see content becoming portable between university courses and learning-man- agement systems, allowing different learning applications to share content and track data, giving greater variety in e-learning offerings and combinations. The future for e-learning is uncertain. If uni- versities continue to try and introduce it within their current structures and frameworks, they ZLOOIDLODVWKH\DUHWU\LQJWR¿WDVTXDUHSHJ into a round hole. If, on the other hand, they em- brace and exploit the differences that e-learning can offer, then they will expand the sphere of higher education beyond current expectations. However, they must address the issue of social interaction within e-learning, be it between tutor and student, or amongst students, as this appears to be a critical factor in e-learning success. This is a challenge both for the e-learning providers and the e-learners themselves. The demand for e-learning is increasing. Evans and Haase (2000) surveyed more than 2,500 people and found that 42% would be very likely to participate in online higher education if a particular course or pro- gram was offered that is not currently available. This could signal that the market is ready for a massive expansion and change in the provision. Recognizing the differences that e-learning offers E\FDWHJRUL]LQJHTXDOL¿FDWLRQVVHSDUDWHO\ZLWK their own process for assuring quality could be D¿UVWVWHSGRZQWKLVURDG,WZRXOGEULQJWRWKH forefront the challenges that e-learning poses, ensuring that students have a much more realistic idea of the additional challenges they will face when undertaking their studies to those taught in a more traditional, social environment. REFERENCES Abeles, T. P. (2005). Institutional change in The Academy. On the Horizon—The Strategic Plan- ning Resource for Education Professionals, 13(2), 63-68. Alexander, S. (2001). E-learning developments and experiences. Education and Training,43(4/5), 240-248. 1615 Differing Challenges and Different Achievements Anderson, L. (2003, March 24). Fresh ways of OHDUQLQJDWWKHWRXFKRID¿QJHUFinancial Times Special Report: Business Education, p. I. Baldwin-Evans, K. (2004). Employees and e- learning: What do the end-users think? Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(7), 269-274. Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press. Birchall, D., & Smith, M. (2002). Scope and scale of e-learning delivery amongst UK Business Schools. London: CEML. Bourne, J. R., McMaster, E., Reiger, J., & Camp- bell, J. O. (1997). Paradigms for on-line learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(2), 38-56. Canning, R. (2002). Distance or dis-stancing education? A case study in technology based learning. Journal of Further and Higher Educa- tion, 26(1), 29-42. Crook, C., & Barrowcliff, D. (2001) Ubiquitous computing on campus: Patterns of engagement by university students. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13(2), 245-256. De Boer, W., & Collis, B. (2002). A changing pedagogy in e-learning: From acquisition to contribution. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 13(2), 87-101. Delahaye, B. L., Limerick, D. C., & Hearn, G. (1994). The relationship between andragogical and pedagogical orientations and the implications for adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly. 44(4), 187-200. Diebold, J. (1996). The next revolution in comput- ers. In E. Cornish (Ed.), Exploring your future: Living, learning and working in the information age. (pp. 42-45). MD: World Future Society. Dupuis, E. A. (1998, Fall/Winter) The times they are a changin: Students, technology and in- structional services. Reference Services Review, 11-16, 32. Evans, J. R., & Haase, I. M. (2000). What’s ahead for online higher education: A consumer perspec- tive. Futures Research Quarterly, 16(3), 35-48. )RQWDLQH * 3UHVHQFH LQ ³WHOHODQG´,Q K. E. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook on online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training (pp. 23-52). London: Sage Publications. Gibbons, H. S., & Wentworth, G. P. (2001). An- drological and pedagogical training differences for online instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4,(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall43/ gibbons_wentworth43.html Gold, M. (2003). Eight lessons about e-learning IURP¿YHRUJDQLVDWLRQVAmerican Society for Training and Development, 57(8), 54. Hines, A. (1996). Jobs and infotech. In E. Cornish (Ed.), Exploring your future: Living, learning and working in the information age (pp. 7-11). MD: World Future Society. Hudson, B. (2002). Critical dialogue online: Personas, covenants and candlepower. In K. E. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Hand- book on online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training (pp. 53-90). London: Sage Publications. Julien, A. (2005). Classifying e-trainer s tandards. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5/6), 291-303. Keisler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1987). Social psychological aspects of computer-medi- a t e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I n R . F i n n e g a n , G . S a l a m a n , & K. Thompson (Eds.), Information technology: Social issues—a reader (pp. 247-2626). UK: Open University and Hodder & Stoughton. 1616 Differing Challenges and Different Achievements Kerker, S. (2001). Confessions of a learning pro- gram dropout. The New Corporate University R eview, 9(2)2-3, 10-11. Lawther, P. M., & Walker, D. H. T. (2001). An evaluation of a distributed learning system. Edu- cation and Training, 43(2), 105-116. London, S. (2003, March 24). The networked world changes everything. Financial Times Special Report: Business Education, p. VI. Manicas, P. (2000). Higher education at the brink. I n S . I n a y a t u l l a h & J . G i d l e y ( E d s .) , The university in transformation: Global perspectives on the futures of the university (pp. 31-40). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Margules, D. (2002). University teaching and OHDUQLQJ :K\ D PRUH ÀH[LEOH DSSURDFK" Re- trieved from http://www.ioe.ac.uk/schools/leid/ oet%20html%20docs/Margules_D.htm Mazone, J. G. (1998). The essentials of effective online instruction. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 16(3), 104-110. Miller, M. M., & Dunn, S. L. (1996). From the industrial to the virtual university. Futures Re- search Quarterly, 12(4), 71-84. Moshinskie, J. (2001, August). Tips for ensuring effective e-learning. HR Focus, 78(8), 6-8. Murray, S. (2003, March 24). Web based systems change the MBA landscape. Financial Times Special Report: Business Education, p. III. 3RQG:.7ZHQW\¿UVWFHQWXU\HGXFD- tion and training: Implications for quality assur- ance. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3/4), 185-192. Rooney, D., & Hearn, G. (2000). Of minds, markets and machines: How universities might WUDQVFHQG WKH LGHRORJ\ RIFRPPRGL¿FDWLRQ ,Q S. Inayatullah & J. Gidley (Eds.), The university in transformation: Global perspectives on the futures of the university (pp. 91-104). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Rovai, A. A. P. (2002). A preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education classroom communities in traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 41-56. Salmon, G. (2002, April). Hearts, minds & screens: Taming the future. Keynote speech presented at the EduCAT Summit: Innovation in E-Education, Hamilton, New Zealand. 6FKR¿HOG15\ODQFH:DWVRQ(Man- agement and leadership training and development delivered through e-learning outside the business schools. London: CEML. Schrum, L., & Hong, S. (2002). Dimensions and strategies for online success: Voices from experienced educators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 57-67. Schrage, M. (1999). Sorry, no keg parties here. This university is on the desktop. Fortune, (11), 224. Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2002). Demystifying e- learning standards. Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(2), 62-65. Williams, C. (2002). Learning on-line: A review RIUHFHQWOLWHUDWXUHLQDUDSLGO\H[SDQGLQJ¿HOG Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(3), 263-272. This work was previously published in Social Implications and Challenges of E-Business, edited by F. Li, pp. 15-27, copyright 2007 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global). 1617 Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Chapter 5.15 Social Implications of E-Mentoring: Development of an E-Mentoring Model Veronica M. Godshalk Pennsylvania State University, USA ABSTRACT E-mentoring, also known as online mentoring or virtual mentoring, is changing the way that traditional mentor and protégé dyad members interact with each other. Mentoring has been widely known for its ability to enhance the career development, and to provide psychosocial support, for more junior organizational members. Through the use of computer-mediated communication technology, e-mentoring may allow individuals to bridge geographic and time differences. How- ever, there is still much we do not know about e-mentoring and its social effects. This chapter focuses on whether or not computer-mediated communication (CMC) technology will allow for true mentoring relationships to develop, as well as what personal characteristics may be necessary to grow these virtual relationships. A model and proposition for future research are offered. INTRODUCTION It is indisputable that computer-mediated commu- nication technology (CMC), that is the Internet, e- mail, instant messaging and related technologies, is changing the social landscape and the process of how we communicate with one another. Harris Interactive reported that more than 156 million adults, or 73% of the U.S. population age 18 and older, were communicating online in 2004. The Harris Interactive study characterized online users DVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRI³PDLQVWUHDP´$PHULFDLQWKDW 30% of users reported having a college degree or greater, and 48% noted annual household incomes of $50,000 or greater (Harris Interactive, 2004). Eurostat reports that close to 54% of European Internet users link up every day or almost every day, and 82% link up weekly. In Europe, student use is particularly high (ranging from 42 to 96%) on a daily basis as is use by people educated at a graduate level (Eurostat, 2005). 1618 Social Implications of E-Mentoring As these individuals continue to use CMC, Kock (2004) suggests that this new digital media is creating new social situations and communication behaviors. Social scientists cannot entirely agree on what these social changes may be (DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001; Nie & Ebring, 2000; Lin, 2001) or if computer-mediated WHFKQRORJ\FDQVXEVWLWXWHVXI¿FLHQWO\IRUface-to- face (FtF) communication (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). Given the social implications of CMC use and the challenges facing the e-busi- ness environment, it is agreed that investigating these phenomena during the early stages of the new medium’s diffusion and institutionalization is incredibly important research (DiMaggio et al., 2001). E-mentoring is a recent social construction using CMC. Whether it is called e-mentoring, or online mentoring, telementoring, cybermentoring or virtual mentoring (Single & Muller, 2001), e- mentoring can be characterized as an ongoing, computer-mediated relationship that involves the receipt of mentoring functions between junior (inexperienced) and senior (more experienced) partners. E-mentoring relationships are evolving from traditional mentoring relationships due to CMC. Traditional, FtF mentoring involves the mentor providing psychosocial and vocational support functions. The setting and pursuit of goals for personal and professional development is an important element in the transfer of learn- ing in mentor-protégé relationships, and mentors often offer feedback and information to help the protégé attain his or her goals (Godshalk & Sosik, 2003; Kram, 1985). Through the use of CMC, e-mentoring relationships are changing social patterns and communication styles, and allowing e-mentors to provide similar support functions for e-protégés. Mentors provide protégés with three broad functions: career development (i.e., exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, sponsorship, challenging assignments), psychosocial support LHDFFHSWDQFH DQG FRQ¿UPDWLRQ FRXQVHOLQJ friendship) and role modeling (demonstrating, articulating and counseling regarding appropriate behaviors implicitly or explicitly) (Kram, 1985; Scandura, 1992). The career development func- tions provide vocational support and are associ- ated with protégé outcomes, including enhanced knowledge, skills and abilities, opportunities for promotion, and increased compensation. Vocational support also is provided through role modeling, which allows protégés to understand appropriate interpersonal behavior and culture within the organizational context, and aids pro- tégés in performing tasks and communicating well with superiors, peers and subordinates. The psychosocial functions provide socio-emotional (social) support and are associated with protégé outcomes, such as job and career satisfaction, career balance, and increased expectations of career success (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Dreher & Cox, Jr., 1996; Scandura, 1992; Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). E-mentoring appears to be a necessary form of relationship, given the technology-dependent environment within which we work and the need to interact using CMC. Increased use of com- munication technology expands opportunities for individuals to obtain information that will con- tribute to successful career advancement. Relying solely on FtF mentors may become impossible given the globalized workforce and geographi- cally dispersed subject matter experts. In fact, Hamilton and Scandura (2003) stated that the key distinction between e-mentoring and traditional mentoring is in the amount of face-time between mentor and protégé. Many researchers have sug- gested that savvy professionals would be well advised to establish a network of developmental relationships (Baugh & Scandura, 1999; Higgins & Kram, 2001). This network can include indi- viduals within and outside a person’s organization or industry. The network allows the individual to consult experienced professionals, who might aid in navigating complex organizational, subject 1619 Social Implications of E-Mentoring matter and career path issues. E-mentoring has the potential to provide individuals with such a developmental network, since many e-mentors may not be located within one’s organization or even physically located close by. Students, too, may be aided by e-mentoring in that support can be given in understanding career and discipline- VSHFL¿FDUHDVRIVWXG\6LQJOH0XOOHU Single & Single, 2005). E-mentoring allows for an increase in the protégé’s network struc- tural diversity, that is, the range and density of a professional’s network (Higgins, 2004). Ensher and Murphy (2005) suggest that e- PHQWRULQJLVD PXWXDOO\EHQH¿FLDOUHODWLRQVKLS in which learning, career and emotional support occur primarily through computer-mediated means. Sproull and Kiesler (1999) note that given the rapid rise of the Internet and e-mail, it is likely that CMC will aid in developing relationships like e-mentoring relationships. Single and Single (2005) concluded that e-mentoring is an alternative mode of relationship that facilitates the expansion of mentoring opportunities. However, no research to date has investigated the possibility of whether or not CMC users are able to develop highly in- terpersonal relationships, like mentoring relation- ships. Also, we need to understand what personal characteristics and environmental conditions are necessary to support such relationships. This is because even traditional mentoring relationships can become dysfunctional (Eby & McManus, 2004; Scandura, 1998), and e-mentoring must deal with the environmental CMC distance and personal issues, such as a lack of nonverbal cues, informal and misunderstood communications and delayed feedback, that might cause e-mentoring relationships to fail. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to investigate whether or not CMC technology will allow for the development of e-mentoring rela- tionships, and what personal characteristics are necessary on the part of the e-mentor and e-pro- tégé. A model will be developed and propositions will be offered for future research. Theory will be garnered from the mentoring literature, com- munication media and business communication literatures, and sociology. Since e-mentoring is a new avenue by which individuals are transform- ing their careers via the Internet, an investigation of the social implications of this phenomenon is warranted. Given our technology-driven home, school and work environments, understanding who might adopt, pursue and gain from e-mentor- ing relationships seems an appropriate research G L U H F W LRQ W K D W Z L O O P D N H D VLJ Q L ¿ F D Q W F R QW U L E XW LRQ to our literature. CAN CMC USERS DEVELOP AN ENVIRONMENT TO SUPPORT HIGHLY INTERPERSONAL, E-MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS? Since the advent of CMC, the development and emergence of the Internet in the early 1980s and widespread use over the last decade, researchers K D YH E H H Q U H À H F W L QJ R Q³$ JH Q H U D O T X H V W L R Q U D L V H G by the diffusion of CMC systems is the extent to which human communication is altered by such media” (Rice & Love, 1987, p. 86). Communica- tion technologies are transforming the nature, form and temporal aspects of work. Compared to traditional means, electronic-communication technology carries more information faster, at a lower cost and to more people. However, the process of how we communicate with each other has been altered, that is, no longer FtF, creating a variety of social issues in many settings. 6SHFL¿FDOO\ VRFLDO LPSOLFDWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ the use of technology can be found impacting human relations in organizational settings (Ge- phart, 2002). CMC shortens the time between events and their consequences, reduces internal and external organizational buffers, increases the number and variety of people involved in decision making, increases vertical and hori- zontal communication, and allows or increases interorganizational interdependence (Hinds & 1620 Social Implications of E-Mentoring Kiesler, 1995; Huber 1990; Sproull & Kiesler, 1999; Rice & Gattiker, 2001). The emergence of virtual relationships and communities, which are distinct from social communities, highlights the diffuse, globalized and digitized nature of today’s CMC-based organizations (Gephart, 2002). Com- munication technologies affect the potential for and dynamics of information exchange as well as interpersonal relationships (Flanagin & Waldeck, 2004). Communication-technology use, therefore, has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the organization, develop positive connections with others, and give novice employees the ability to OHDUQ³WKHURSHV´IURPH[SHULHQFHGLQGLYLGXDOV who may or may not be organizational members (Flanagin & Waldeck, 2004). :KLOHWKHPDQ\EHQH¿WVRI&0&KDYHEHHQ noted extensively, CMC technology is not without G U D ZED FN V&0& K D V E H H Q L G H QW L ¿ H G D V D O H V V S H U- sonal, less socio-emotional or more task-oriented medium by some researchers (Connolly, Jessup, & Valacich, 1990; Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, 1986; 5 LF H / RYH &0&V SHFL¿FDO O\H PDL OLV F R Q V L G H U H G D YH U \ ³ O H D Q´F RP P X Q L F D W L R Q F K D Q Q H O because nonverbal cues are not present. Media, such as videoconferencing or the telephone, are considered richer because of the inclusion of sound or expression, which encourages paralanguage cues. Two theories, social presence theory (Short et al., 1976) and media richness theory (Daft et al., 1987), are aligned with these descriptions RI&0&6RFLDOSUHVHQFHWKHRU\FODVVL¿HVFRP- munications media along a continuum according WRYDULRXVGHJUHHVRI³DZDUHQHVV´RIWKHRWKHU person. This theory posits communication is effec- tive when the medium has the appropriate social presence required for the level of interpersonal involvement necessary for the task. Media rich- ness theory categorizes communications media DORQJDFRQWLQXXPRI³ULFKQHVV´ZKHUHWKHPHGLD is able to transmit nonverbal cues, provide feed- back, convey personality traits and support the use of natural language. Daft and Lengel (1986) note that FtF communication is considered the ³ULFKHVW´PHGLDDQGLVPRVWHIIHFWLYHIRUUHGXFLQJ discussion ambiguity. E-mail, on the other hand, is not considered very rich because of inherent limitations in offering nonverbal cues and pro- viding immediate feedback. Thus, the general FRQFOXVLRQRIHDUO\&0&UHVHDUFKLVWKDW³&0& because of its lack of audio or video cues, will be perceived as impersonal and lacking in normative reinforcement, so there will be less socio-emo- tional content exchanged” (Rice & Love, 1987, p. 88). Contrasting these perspectives, other research- ers suggest that more enhanced use of CMC has given rise to new theories and models to explain media-use behavior. Walther (1996) has posited that CMC users are able to develop highly inter- personal, online relationships. His model, using social information processing theory, assumes that communicators using CMC, like other communicators, are driven to develop social relationships. To do so, previously unfamiliar users become acquainted with others by forming simple impres- sions through textually conveyed information … The key difference between … CMC and FtF communication has to do not with the amount of social information exchanged but with the rate of social information exchanged [his italics]. (Walther, 1996, p. 10) CMC communications take longer to decipher because of the lack of nonverbal cues, hence these r e l a t i o n s h i p s m a k e t a k e l o n g e r t o d e v e l o p. Wa l t h e r suggests that when users have time to exchange information, build impressions, compare values and provide timely feedback, CMC allows for highly interpersonal relationships to develop. Walther states that when users expect to have a long term association, CMC is no less personal than FtF. While Walther (1996) suggests that CMC PD\ EH LQHI¿FLHQW ZKHQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK )W) communications, there is less reason to think 1621 Social Implications of E-Mentoring that as was once thought. Empirical studies are supporting his claims. Studies have found that GXHWRLQVXUPRXQWDEOHIDFWRUVOLNHVRFLDOLQÀX- ences or geographic distances, users may choose ³OHDQ´FRPPXQLFDWLRQVPHGLDOLNHHPDLODQG then modify their behavior to make up for the ODFNRI³VRFLDOSUHVHQFH´RU³ULFKQHVV´DVVRFLDWHG with the media’s use (Fulk, Schmitz, & Steinfeld, 1990; Lee, 1994; Markus, 1994; Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997). Researchers purporting theories of VRFLDOLQÀXHQFH)XONHWDO)XON and social construction of reality (Lee, 1994) VWUHVV WKDW WKH G\DG¶V VRFLDO LQÀXHQFHV SHHU cultural or communication schema similarity) have a stronger affect on the individual’s use of communication media, than does the media’s traits (social presence or richness). That is, when LQGLYLGXDOVH[SHULHQFHLQÀXHQFHVIURPSHHUVRU superiors to use CMC or when the organization’s culture embraces CMC as a primary mode of communication, individuals with these social LQÀXHQFHVZLOOVLPLODUO\HPEUDFHDQGXVHWKH dominant communication schema. Also, when individuals understand that geographic and time differences are commonplace in their global- ized work environments, they are motivated to use the communication technology available to them to develop relationships that may assist in their completion of assignments (Hammer & Mangurian, 1987; Dimmick, Kline, & Stafford, 2000). Therefore, it appears that group norms DQGVRFLDOLQÀXHQFHVPD\KDYHJUHDWHULPSDFWRQ the individual and his choice of communication technology than the richness of the media’s traits. The following propositions are hence offered regarding these environmental conditions: Proposition 1: E-mentoring dyad members, who H[SHULHQFHKLJKOHYHOVRIVRFLDOLQÀXHQFHUHJDUG- ing the use of communication technology, such as SHHURUVXSHUYLVRULQÀXHQFHRUWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ¶V F XO WXUDOL Q À XHQ F H Z LOOE HPR UHOL N HO\ WR X VH &0 & and more actively engaged in an e-mentoring relationship than those who do not experience VRFLDOLQÀXHQFH Proposition 2: E-mentoring dyad members who experience greater geographic distance and time differences will be more likely to use CMC and more actively engaged in an e-mentoring relationship than those who do not experience geographic distance and time differences. WHAT PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT E-MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS? Other theories are available to inform our notions of how CMC may allow for highly interpersonal, HPHQWRULQJUHODWLRQVKLSVDQGVSHFL¿FFKDUDFWHU- istics potential e-mentors and e-protégés should demonstrate. Walther’s (1992) relationship devel- opment theory and Carlson and Zmud’s (1999) channel expansion theory emphasize that it is the user’s knowledge and experience base that allows the individual to participate in increasingly rich communication over time. Dyad members reach out (even using CMC), and may go out of their way, to develop relationships. CMC users may invoke knowledge-building experiences, that is, previous experience with the communication technology, the discussion topic, the organizational context or the dyad coparticipant, to enhance their relation- ship. Carlson and Zmud found strongest support for CMC-channel experience and experience with the communications partner, as well as some support for organizational context experience, as indicators of perceived media richness. Based RQWKHVH¿QGLQJVHPHQWRULQJSDUWQHUVVKRXOG build their relationships on previous experiences with CMC use, the organizational context and previous FtF communication (if possible) with the partner. Kock (2004) suggests that the higher the similarity in communication schema alignment, 1622 Social Implications of E-Mentoring the lower the degree of cognitive effort required, hence the more effective the e-mentoring com- munications. While individuals may differ on how they choose to communicate with others due to cultural or other learned behaviors, fundamental differences affect communication negatively (Tan, :DWVRQ:HL6SHFL¿FDOO\ZKHQVFKHPD misalignment exists, Kock suggests an increase LQ³WKHDPRXQWDQGLQWHQVLW\RIFRPPXQLFDWLRQ necessary to accomplish collaborative tasks and reach a shared understanding of concepts and ideas needed to complete tasks” (2004, p. 337). A communication schema misalignment (i.e., com- munication verbiage or contextual misunderstand- ings, differences in rate of feedback response or even humor misinterpretations) will detract from the e-mentoring relationship, since dyad mem- bers will experience a more task-oriented focus and less personal communications and therefore identify less with the e-mentor (Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 2001). The more the e-mentor and e-protégé have cognitively adapted to the CMC medium, the lower the degree of cognitive effort required and, therefore, the more effective the relationship. The individual’s use of knowledge-building ex- periences permit the user to perceive the media channel as increasingly rich (while the media’s traits remain constant) and allow for effective interpersonal communication. These theories ar- gue that the participants’ knowledge, experience, communication schema similarity and informed use of the communication technology enhances the relationship, more so than the richness or complexity of the technology itself. Therefore, Proposition 3: E-mentoring dyad members who have greater knowledge-building experience, such as experience with e-mail use (CMC), the communication partner or organizational con- text, will be more likely to use CMC and more actively engaged in an e-mentoring relationship than those who have low levels of knowledge and communication experience. Proposition 4: E-mentoring dyad members with similar communication schema will be more likely to use CMC and more actively engaged in an e-mentoring relationship than dyads with more diverse communication schema. Further, evidence is available to suggest other individual personality characteristics may enhance the e-mentoring relationship. Recent studies on online communities have found that these communities provide their participants with social support (Rheingold, 1993). Social support is gained from participants interacting with each RWKHUDQG¿QGLQJFRPPRQLQWHUHVWVVLQFHPRVW interaction between online actors is cognitively and affectively based. Compared to real-life social networks, online communities are more often based on participants’ shared interests, rather than shared demographic characteristics (Well- man & Gulia, 1999). Perceived similarity, that is shared attitudes and values, has been found to be more positively related to effective e-mentoring relationships than actual demographic similarity (Ensher, de Janasz, & Heun, 2004). Chicoat and DeWine (1985) found that audioconferencing partners produced higher ratings of their partner’s attitude similarity, social attractiveness and physi- cal attractiveness than did those partners using video or FtF communications. So it may be that perceptions of similarity, regardless of the type of media used, are more important in establish- ing and maintaining CMC-based e-mentoring relationships. Hence, Proposition 5: E-mentoring dyad members with high levels of perceived similarity will be more likely to use CMC and more actively engaged in an e-mentoring relationship than dyads with low levels of perceived similarity. Two other individual-level variables, self- monitoring and communication apprehension, have been suggested as important factors in the socialization process because of their focus on 1623 Social Implications of E-Mentoring self-presentation and interpersonal communica- tion competence (Flanagin & Waldeck, 2004). These variables are core concepts related to the uncertainty reduction theory that postulates that individuals engage in interactive strategies, such as direct communication, to obtain relevant information from others (Berger, 1979). Self- monitoring is related to one’s interest in obtain- ing information from others in the environment. 6HOIPRQLWRULQJ LVGH¿QHGDV DSUDJPDWLFVHOI presentation that assists individuals in identifying RQHVHOIZLWKUHJDUGWRWKHVSHFL¿FVRFLDOVLWXDWLRQ and roles that are present (Snyder, 1987). High self-monitors pay close attention to the social situation and adapt their behavior accordingly. High self-monitors strive to understand the dy- namics of their environment and behave in a way that is acceptable to those around them, all while causing minimal disruption to others (Snyder & Coupland, 1989). In order to reduce uncertainty in WKHLUHQYLURQPHQWKLJKVHOIPRQLWRUVZRXOG¿QG the most inconspicuous mechanism by which to gather information. Flanagin and Waldeck suggest that high self-monitors would readily use CMC to gather the necessary information that would DOORZWKHPWR¿WLQWRDQGIHHOFRPIRUWDEOHDERXW their environment. These researchers state that KLJKVHOIPRQLWRUV³PD\UHJDUGHPDLODVDZD\ of obtaining information from trusted others in an unobtrusive manner” (Flanagin & Waldeck, 2004, p. 150). Low self-monitors, on the other hand, may be more apt to rely on traditional FtF channels of communication, since they are less selective and socially adept in understand- ing when, how and why to ask for information (Sypher & Sypher, 1983) and are less afraid to reveal their uncertainties (Flanagin & Waldeck, 2004). Therefore: Proposition 6: E-mentoring dyad members who are high self-monitors will be more likely to use CMC as a primary mode of communication and will become more actively engaged in an e-men- toring relationship than low self-monitors. Communication apprehension (CA) can be GH¿QHGDV³DQLQGLYLGXDO¶VOHYHORIIHDURUDQ[LHW\ associated with either real or anticipated commu- nication with another person” (McCroskey, 1997, p . 82). I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h i g h C A t e n d t o r e s p o n d t o situations in which they feel anxious by avoiding or withdrawing from communication. In work settings, high CAs are perceived as less compe- tent, less attractive, potentially less successful, SURGXFWLYHDQGVDWLV¿HGRQWKHMREDQGDVKDYLQJ PRUHGLI¿FXOW\LQHVWDEOLVKLQJUHODWLRQVKLSVZLWK co-workers than their more verbal counterparts. High CAs are less likely to receive supervisory positions and are more likely to be dismissed from their jobs than low CAs (Richmond, 1997). How- ever, given CMC advantages in providing a forum for information sharing without the discomfort of FtF interaction and other characteristics, such as anonymity and absence of status differences, (Postmes et al., 2001; Weisband, Schneider, & Connolly, 1995), high CAs will more readily use CMC to establish relationships and gather necessary information than would their low CA counterparts. In fact, low CA individuals may relish and miss the FtF interactions that allow them to differentiate themselves from high CAs. While it is acknowledged that low CAs will prob- ably engage in e-mentoring relationships at the same rate (or possibly at a greater rate) as high CAs, it is believed that high CAs will use CMC as a primary mechanism for communication due to their inherent apprehension towards FtF com- munication. Hence, Proposition 7: E-mentoring dyad members who have high CA will be more likely to use CMC as a primary mode of communication than individu- als low in CA. Future Research Opportunities Taken together, these propositions support Walther’s (1996) and Carlson and Zmud’s (1999) assertions that CMC allows for highly interper- . Professionals, 13(2), 63-68. Alexander, S. (2001). E-learning developments and experiences. Education and Training,43(4/5), 240-248. 1615 Differing Challenges and Different Achievements Anderson, L. (2003,. 2004; Scandura, 1998), and e-mentoring must deal with the environmental CMC distance and personal issues, such as a lack of nonverbal cues, informal and misunderstood communications and delayed. Once standardization has been achieved, Singh and Reed (2002) see content becoming portable between university courses and learning-man- agement systems, allowing different learning applications