A while ago a read an article by Boczkowski & Lievrouw, titled “Bridging STS and communication studies: Scholarship on media and information technologies.”  In fact, it became a book chapter in “The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition” (2007). One of the points Boczkowski & Lievrouw make in their chapter is about the terminology.  They are offering to use the acronym MIT (Media and Information Technology) instead of ICT (Information and Communication technology).  The rationale behind this suggestion is the emphasis on the significance of content in the process of communication.

I think this is a very interesting chapter and I have been trying to use their acronym ever since.  However, using it a ran into two problems.  First, the more substantive problem - it seems that missing out the process of communication from describing the domain of my inquiry is damaging to the cause.  The process of communication and the communication enabling technologies are important factor in what i am trying to look at.  Second, on the more mundane level, the term MIT doesn’t fly because of a very strong brand of MIT the institute of technology.

This is where i would like to propose a different acronym to use for definition of my field of inquiry.   It was created in one of our conversations with Tarleton (i bet the entire credit actually goes to him) where we discussed this issue.  The acronym is MICT (pronounced “mist) and it stands for Media, Information, and Communication Technology.  I think this term does a more comprehensive job in capturing the field of inquiry both Tarleton and I (also probably Josh in our department and many other people elsewhere) are focusing on.

I am actually making a more elaborate argument about it in one of the papers i am writing at the moment, but i would love to hear any immideate thoughts from you.