Like this:

Question: Discuss the different ways the concept of interactivity is defined. What is your definition of interactivity?

A couple of semesters ago, I worked on a literature review for a proposed thesis and that was my first exposure to the academic literature related  to interactivity. I was overwhelmed by the different approaches to the topic and had a very difficult time in trying to explain what the heck interactivity was. It makes me feel a little better now to know that I’m not the only one! As Kiousis noted in the abstract of  his 2002 article in the New Media & Society Journal, “theoretical and operational definitions are exceedingly scattered and incoherent.”

Rafaeli was one of the first to attempt to examine the nature of interactivity in computer mediated environments and in 1988 he came up with a definition that had to do with how communication exchanges related to earlier transmissions.  In 1997 he revised that definition to include the extent messages relate to each other and especially to previous messages.

In 2000 Downes and McMillan attempted to identify key dimensions of interactivity by using concepts found in the literature on the topic as well as interviewing 10 thought leaders in the field. The authors playfully noted that those interviewed defined interactivity as “something old, something new, something borrowed from other disciplines and something both people and computers do.” Aside from the modern take on an old adage, Downes and McMillan concluded that computer mediated interactivity is both message and participant based. From the message perspective, two way communication enables all participants to communicate, the timing of interaction is flexible and the communication environment creates a sense of place. From the participant point of view, participants perceive they have some control, they feel like it is responsive and they believe they are exchanging information as opposed to being persuaded.

Kiousis pulled all the available literature together in 2002 to come up with a new definition and suggested that “interactivity is both a media and psychological factor that varies across communication technologies, communication contexts and people’s perceptions.”  Kiousis utilized Chaffee’s 1991 framework for concept explication to arrive at his conclusions.

Kiousis’ conceptual definition includes three primary elements: the structure of technology, the communication context and user perception.  Kiouis says that operational definistion includes three factors: 1) the technological structure of media,  2) characteristics of communication settings and 3) individual’s perceptions.

So what do I think interactivity is? As noted in the blog title and with all due respect to Justice Potter Stewart: “I know it when I see it!”

From a practical application to my own work at Texas Parks and Wildlife, I view interactivity as the use of technology to facilitate communication with our constituents, the ability of constituents to comunicate with us (and with each other) through this medium, and the perception of our customers that we are  transparent in what we do and that we are responsive to their comments and concerns.

I believe that ties in nicely with Kiousis’ conceptual and operational definitions.

On a more practical note, the more I delve into this arena, the more I realize that our primary communication tool, the TPWD website, is woefully inadequate. The next “big thing” we will be working on in my shop is a complete overhaul of our site.

Hmm, I wonder if there is any role Dr. Cindy Royal’s students at Texas State University could play as we undertake this huge project?

Hmm, indeed. Could this be an opportunity for students studying new media to take what they are learning and actually apply it in a real world setting?

I am open to discussion if you are interested….

Advertisement