Kristo Vaher

Following is an opinion and short summary of this paper by S. Kiousis.

Kiousis’ paper acts almost like a sequel to Jens F. Jensens paper previously looked at here. It deals with the similar problem that Jensen dealt with, attempting to define Interactivity. Somewhat unsurprisingly, he ends up in a similar situation as Jensen, without a clear definition (or explication, as the title) of the word. Instead Kiousis hopes that his work allows others to reach a better end result in the future by somewhat showing the way to future research. Large part of the paper dealt with – somewhat similarly to Jensen – going over previous definitions of the word (including that of Jensen in numerous occasions). Despite using Chaffee’s framework, most of the steps were covered with quotes and references.

This made the paper rather difficult to read, for it was full of various good ideas and references to (likely more interesting) sources. However, despite the path towards his conclusions being difficult to follow, he rarely changes his mind (differently from Jensen) while on that path and I could see early on the direction he is taking. He begins by setting up a question whether interactivity is something that is tied to the technology, or is it something that us – as users – perceive?

He then begins solving the problem by using Chaffee’s framework of concept explication. The first step was to provide general background of interactivity. He mentions that the standard for what makes one medium more interactive than another is quite ambiguous, as in the empirical literature it has been employed as both an assumed variable to describe a medium and as dependant variable gauging people’s perceptions. He says that the likely reason why there is little consensus, is because as long as we all accept that the term implies degree of receiver feedback and is linked to new technologies, no problem exists. This pinpoints the root of the problem in my personal opinion, which I also mentioned in Jensens literature review, that Interactivity is nothing more than a buzzword and cannot really be defined as a specific property with specific set of features that apply to all ‘interactive’ technology or communication in general.

Important step was to survey relevant literature on the concept of interactivity. He mentions early on, that the amount of literature on the topic is rather immense. Kiousis then mentions that only by shifting the focus to explicit definition of Interactivity – instead of implied or tacit conceptions – can the supposed explication still remain in focus.

He decides to arrange the definitions in a two-dimensional table, one axis defining the intellectual perspective (communication and non-communication) and another the emphasis on the object (technology, communication setting and perceiver). Kiousis will be using this table as a ‘hub’ of various concepts and ideas found in literature.

First focusing on communication definitions, he begins with mentioning that any discussion of interactivity draws from its roots in Cybernetic theory and the emphasis it has on feedback, which turned into a core component of many interactivity conceptions. This means that interactivity would have to be an attribute of the channel through which communication occurs. And if a system permits third-order dependency among participants, it is deemed interactive.

But Kiousis also mentions, that it definitely cannot be just about the amount of technological options available to manipulate content and that many devices, with their wide range of options, end up overburdening the user. He also refers to Jensen’s quote that interactivity is a ‘measure of potential ability to let the user exert an influence on the content and/or form of the mediated communication’. Potential being the key word.

Kiousis also mentions that while majority see Interactivity as technological aspect, there are those who focus on perception. The early literature is then summarized as:

• complexity of choice available
• effort that users must exert
• responsiveness to the user
• monitoring of information use
• ease of adding information
• facilitation of interpersonal communication

And another definition is given, primarily focused on computer-mediated communication as:

• direction of communication
• timing flexibility
• sense of place
• level of control
• responsiveness and the perceived purpose of communication

In that example, Kiousis believes timing flexibility warrants further discussion. Since there are multiple examples of systems that are deemed interactive, yet may often be time delayed, such as online forums and e-mail (though in recent years, this aspect is slowly fading as more and more people are real-time notified of e-mails and any other communication they are involved in through, for example, mobile devices in 3G networks).

Turning to non-communication definitions, Kiousis mentions that while communication is the most obvious channel of interactivity, there are parts of interactivity which are not governed over by communication channels. Psychological work on interactivity prefers the individual to be its object of focus. He brings out an interesting analogy by Leary which compares evolution of interactivity to the development of the interpersonal in psychology: ‘both concepts are related to very wide and deep irrevocable changes in the way people see the world.’

Kiousis then says that face-to-face standard for interactivity is problematic, because most interactive experiences are associated with technologically-mediated environments, something I agree with. In order to reach a clear conclusion, interactivity should only be looked at through technological perspective. Interactivity just might be a technological layer that is engineered to represent non-technological interaction as naturally as possible. Kiousis mentions that in a broad sense, this has made any modern definition of interactivity gradually become more user-based.

He fills his two-dimensional table as follows:

He continues by bringing out problems related to a large number of definitions by other authors, mentioning that problems arise when features are accentuated over one another as well as how much users interpretations can change the definition that was relatively correct at a specific time. It becomes quickly obvious that changed perception over time might be the biggest problem for the definition of interactivity. He sums things up by saying that little consensus has been reached concerning interactivity and that most definitions are simply too broad to not have cracks within them.

He then decides to modify the definition, merging multiple conceptions into a hybrid definition which encompasses central aspects of previously reviewed definitions and remove any non-essential components from the definition. He ends up with a graph that spreads the definition into three branches: structure of technology, communication context and user perception. And he attempts to define interactivity using these three branches to end up with a singular definition.

Kiousis focuses on technology as the key component of interactivity, anything from telephone to computer systems and networks and the environment anything from telephone wire to virtual reality. Communication ranges from simple information transfer to sophisticated movements in video games or through the internet, encompassing both linear and non-linear communication paths. Kiousis also mentions – as I did during Jensens paper review – that such communication can also take place between computer systems, considering it perfectly natural.

He ends up with ‘operational definition’ of interactivity, how the current definition might be applied. He mentions early on that this is a good starting point for future research to build upon. Kiousis will use this definition as a method of grading the interactivity of a system, by scrutinizing attributes of the software program, the content of communication transmissions and the user perceptions.

The computer system is to be examined first, based on logical measures of interactive technology: speed, range and mapping (the latter applied more to virtual reality and video games). To grade the technological complexity, one looks at how the system activates the five senses (visual senses, acoustic senses etc).

Second set of operational measures concentrates on the environment in which interactive communication takes place. Namely two: one of third-order dependency and one of social presence (ability of users to convey their presence in communication).

Third set of measures would focus on perceived levels of interactivity, but Kiousis thinks that this can only be detected by questionnaires once the grading is completed: how well a communication experience simulated interpersonal communication.

Composite of all three branches would create a complete interactivity score. This could be used to reveal that interactivity levels can vary across technology, communication settings and individuals perceptions.

Kiousis believes that on the whole, the operational definition not only describes the essence of the theoretical definition of interactivity, but may also help broaden the concept’s boundries. This I personally agree with.

While Kiousis does reach a simple-to-grasp concept how to grade interactivity, it is still far from an actual definition. But differently from both the sources he quoted as well as sources Jensen quoted, his definition is quite a bit more timeless and can be applied without requiring adjustments also for tomorrows technology.

As a method of grading interactivity and basis for future research, Kiousis conclusion works. But as a definition, it is just as unclear, which leads me to personally conclude that interactivity, for all intents and purposes, is nothing more than a technological representation of interpersonal communication, between people, people and computers and computers themselves.

One Response to “About Spiro Kiousis ‘Interactivity – a concept explication’”