Kiousis, S. (2002) Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society, SAGE Publications, Vol 4(3):355–383. Available at:http://rcirib.ir/articles/pdfs/cd1%5CIngenta_Sage_Articles_on_194_225_11_89/Ingenta866.pdf
Summary
In his article, Kiousis tried to define again the meaning of interactivity. He suggested that definition of interactivity could be a hybrid of conceptual definition and operational definition. In his research, he analyzed previous studies, which tried to define interactivity.
He used a two-dimensional analysis of literature, which compared object emphasized theories with intellectual perception theories. Object emphasized theories concerned technology, communication setting and perceiver. Intellectual perception theories considered the fields of communication and non-communication. Non-communication fields, where the term interactivity is used are for example sociology, psychology, computer sciences, etc.
The author brings out several definitions given by academics through time. He also brings out the problems with these definitions, as why they are not sufficient for explaining the concept of interactivity. He also states that the definitions do not have consensus and are often described from a point of view of different fields, which also changes the meaning of interactivity. The author does not want to alter the efforts of other researchers, but rather eliminates the not essential components and merges the essential ones.
Finally he concludes that interactivity consists of structure of technology, communication context and user perception.
Kiousis suggests that interactivity is in one hand media and in the other hand a psychological variable. Interactivity is media in a sense that it needs some kind of technology, which makes the communication possible and mediates the communication. Interactivity as a psychological variable means that interactivity reveals, when the users perceive the interaction. Thus it can be concluded that interactivity depends on both - the technology as well as human perception.
No comments:
Post a Comment