Metacommunication on the one hand,

The concept of metacommunication refers to shared, but usually unstated, taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of communication itself. It is communication about communication. Bateson[1] defined metacommunication as the level of communication where "the subject of discourse is the relationship between the speakers."

see Metacommunication in roleplay in john hawks weblog
Gregory_Bateson

But, recently, someone else starts using the term, metacommunication, as "communication about communication technology."

The below is a comment made by me while reviewing an article on this issue: (will be updated)

The model embaraces both empirical and qualitative theoretical paradigms in order to explain adoption and appropriation of cell phone technologies. On the one hand, authors take into account of "diffusion theory," and "theory planned behavior (TPB)" as explanatory constructs of technology adoption. On the other hand, the authors also look into the various qualitative theoretical approches of "appropriation" -- i.e., re-invention, social shaping, self identification, etc. -- to understand the process of technology appropriation. Combining the two and UGA, the authors propose several variables as key components which he/she argues will explain the cell phone adoption and usage; and briefly report their empirical findings.

As the authors claim upfront that the article aims to grasp higher degree of explanation of technolgical appropriation; and as they explain at the end (p.27) that the empirical finding based on the model contribute to the progress of mobile research, I would respectively issues and points that the atuhors made. Still, a question remains: i.e., what kinds of roles does the integrated model (MTA) take in the explanation of communication technology adoption and appropriation? In the end, the author just presents the five patterns (clusters) of cell phone appropriations, which neither explains the dynamic (evoling and changing) nature of appropriation and adoption (the only way to accomplish this would be constantly re-doing the same survey); nor presents the detailed information about innovative use of technologies. It merely becomes a snapshot of something.

One minor point is that the concept, "metacommunication" has been wisely used in other areas such as communication, anthropology, marketing. It is the concept, initially held by Bateson(1976), that refers to shared, but usually unstated, taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of communication itself. When I encountered the term, I initially took it as Bateson's idea, which turned out to be obviously different. Therefore, whether this (clarification of the term, metacommunication) should be addressed or not remains, I think, the authors' decision.

Other than the above point, I think the manuscript is well organized and written; and points that it makes are clear and consise.