I was just thinking about some of the terminology I used to use writing papers in grad school.  Somehow, the terms “synchronous” and “asynchronous” communication just popped into my head tonight. Well, communication and cognition professor Sam Bradley would probably explain that a thought didn’t actually just “pop into my head,” but that’s what it felt like.

And when thinking about synchronous and asynchronous communication, I started thinking that maybe the line between these two form of communication is becoming less well defined. I should probably try to define these terms. This is an oversimplification, but basically:

synchronous communication: real time, such as face-to-face conversation, talking on the phone, live chat on a Web site

asynchronous communication: not dependent on timing, such as leaving posts on message board, e-mail

In the 1990’s, when Internet access began to increase in households across the world, we saw a few great examples of these classifications. Web sites were generally static and consisted of content being placed in cyber space for any to read on their own time. The fact that users could get content on their own time was the asynchronous part of the communication. Message boards began gaining popularity, another example of asynchronous communication, as a user could pose a question for a community and return to the forum minutes, hours or even weeks later to see responses.

At the same time, online chats allowed users to connect to each other in a more conversational format. These synchronous chats could be used for various purposes including discussion between people with similar interests on topics like music, sports and whatever else you can think of. Some companies have utilized chats connecting customers with customer service representatives. Instant messaging also represented a form of synchronous communication, as it connected two people sitting at their computers.

These are just a few examples of synchronous and asynchronous communication. But what is clear is that most ways of connecting people were fairly easy to define as one or the other. But now, it seems to me that people want the freedom of asynchronous communication (we do things on our own time, think DVR) while still having the ability to get real time feedback in a conversational format.

That’s where text messaging and Twitter come into play. Cell phones are everywhere, carried by people young and old. But a phone conversation requires both parties to be available at the same moment. So text messages were invented and a person can send a text to a friend knowing that the friend can return a message when they have time. This is actually less frustrating than playing phone tag with voicemails, although it is nearly the same (except text vs. audio). But despite lacking the constraints of time dependency, texting can feel like a conversation. When cell phone users opt to text back and forth with very little delay between messages, you get something similar to real time conversation. Text messaging seems like asynchronous communication wearing synchronous communication’s clothing. Or is it the other way around?

And the line becomes even more blurred with Twitter. You can have a conversation with a community of people by broadcasting thoughts to all who follow you. When two or more Twitter users are tweeting at the same time, it is essentially synchronous communication. But the technology gives users the ability to express thoughts and return to check for responses by scrolling through messages or checking replies with the @username.

As technologies advance, they provide more versatile communication. The communication becomes more difficult to define in categories but more powerful and convenient for everyone.