Task 6: "Interactivity: a concept explication." A summary.

The article at hand was written by Spiro Kiousis and published by SAGE Publications in their New Media & Society magazine in 2002. The title suggests that the concept of "interactivity" will be explicated (clarified). In the abstract Kiousis states that interactivity is both a media and psychological factor that varies across communiation technologies , communication contexts and people's perceptions.

Kiousis argues that with the ongoing influx of new communication technologies, many traditional concepts in mass communication are being redefined, reworked, and reinvented. Many scholars have highlighted the confusion embedded in theoretical discussions surrounding the concept of interactivity. These questions inquire wheter interactivity is a characteristic of the context in which messages are exchanged; is it strictly dependent upon the technology used in communication interactions; or is it a perception in users' minds?

Kiousis executed the following steps to complete the project:

(1) provide a general background of interactivity;

In this step Kiousis states that one must first pinpoint some relevant assumptions (e.g. that interactivity is associated with new communication technologies). He arrives to a conclusion that the paucity of theoretical concencus can have dramatically different implications in more practical and operational terrains.

(2) survey relevant literature on the concept;

Kiousis explains that the literature review of interactivity is cumbersome due to the vast implicit and explicit definitions prepared by researchers from many different academic and professional perspectives. It's important to narrow the focus. Kiousis defines two dimensions for the literature: 1) Intellectual perspective; 2) Object emphasized.

(3) identify the concept's central operational properties;

Kiousis states that while based on the literature reviews, it is clear that operational definitions of interactivity revolve around measuring specific dimensions or subconcepts of the term. He then provides an lengthy overview of relevant theory.

(4) locate present definitions of the concepts;

Kiousis provides a few examples of the definitions of interactivity and then arrives to the conclusion that some common variables exist (provided as follows).

Two-way or multiway communication should exist, usually through a mediated channel. The roles of message sender and receiver should be interchangeable among participants. In addition, some third-order dependency among participants is usually necessary. For the most part, communicators can be human or machine, often contingent upon whether they can function as both senders and receivers. Individuals should be able to manipulate the content, form, and a pace of a mediated environment in some way. Users should be able to perceive differences in levels of interactive experiences.

(5) evaluate and modify those definitions;

Kiousis argues that there's no need to overthrow or improve previous definitons. It's better to merge them into a single hybrid definition by eliminating all the non-essential parts.

(6) propose a conceptual definition;

Kiousis provides a conceptual definition as follows:

Interactivity can be defined as the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many), both synchronously and asynchronously, and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency). With regard to human users, it additionally refers to their ability to perceive the experience as a simulation of interpersonal communication and increase the awareness of telepresence.

(7) propose an operational definition; and

Kiousis links the operational definitions with the conceptual definition:

(8) discuss the implications on future research of the arrived-at-definition.

Kiousis does not elaborate much on this topic. He simply states that definitions have been outlined that have blended the most important elements of prior conceptions into concise framework. He says that interactivity will remain a controversial concept in the literature, but it is hoped that this explication has granted a clearer picture of interactivity and how it may be studied in future investigations.

Task 5: "Interactivity. Tracking a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies." A review.

The article chosen for the review at hand, is titled „Interactivity - Tracking a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies." It's written by Jens F. Jensen in 1998, so it’s not very recent. Although the article lacks novelty, it most certainly provides an insight on when and how the term "interactivity" was first coined and what lies beneath this ambiguous word.

Newsweek was correct in 1993 when they commented on the new hype and suggested that it's a "zillion dollar industry." The predictions were correct as well - an interactive life will indeed put the world at your fingertips. Or mine for that matter.

The term interactivity was described as follows:

a huge amount of information available to anyone at the touch of a button, everything from airline schedules to esoteric scientific journals to video versions of off-off-off Broadway. Watching a movie won’t be a passive experience. At various points, you’ll click on alternative story lines and create your individualized version of “Terminator XII”. Consumers will send as well as receive all kinds of data ... Video camera owners could record news they see and put it on the universal network ... Viewers could select whatever they wanted just by pushing a button ... Instead of playing rented tapes on their VCRs, ... [the customers] may be able to call up a movie from a library of thousands through a menu displayed on the TV. Game fanatics maybe able to do the same from another electronic library filled with realistic video versions of arcade shoot-’em-ups ... (Newsweek, 1993:38).

What it means, is that roughly 20 years ago, industry professionals were able to predict the future. All of the above has become a reality.

Jensen suggests that interactivity is a "media studies blind spot." Back in 1990s none of the handbooks in the field of communication had listed the term. A shift in the paradigm had occured, but the discourse had remained unchanged. Jensen goes on to explain how interactivity can be categorized and perceived, thus providing a structure necessary for the conteporary discourse in new and interactive media.

Task 3: Similarities and differences. Process comparison.

Kristo's process

Kristo has used a very clean cut approach to describe the process of creating his study plan. It's basically a visualization of the curriculum functionality. Activities related to personal life (e.g. work, hobbies, other commitments), have not been taken into account.

On the plus side, this is what the process of creating a study plan, should look like. If a person is not engaged with work or family matters, he/she has the ability to create a study plan according to the perfect scenario and this is it. On the minus side, this is usually not the case with master's students. Most of us/them have daily commitments (be it a child, a day job or even both).

The process visualization can be viewed here:

http://waher.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/planning.jpg

Maarja's process

Maarja has described her studyplan creation process in great detail. On the plus side, her approach is very focused on her person and her needs. Her process is a very good example of personal time management. On the minus side, it's not universal. The process can be used as a guideline, but the outcome will be different for every person.

The level on detail regarding the process of creating a study plan, is satisfactory. It takes into account small things like color coding and large things like the curriculum. What it (the visualization) lacks, is the description of other commitments (e.g. work, family).

The process visualization can be viewed here: http://maarjapajusalu.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/task2.png

Maibritt's process

I love the fact that Maibritt has it all figured out (in great detail). She has an overview about how she's bound to spend most of her weeks/days/hours. Maibritt also has to take into account other variables aside from school (e.g. work and family). On the plus side, she has described all her variables. On the minus side, her decision making process seems a bit vague and hard to understand.

The process visualization can be viewed here: http://maibrittk.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-interactive-environments-task-two.html

Norbert's process

Norbert's process is probably the one I can relate to. He has to take into account the same variables as I do (work, family, hobbies etc). The process description is fairly similar to the one I've described in my weblog. On the plus side, it's nice to see that there are other's who prefer the macro view of things regarding time management. On the minus side, this example lacks visualization. Not that it's necessary, but it would have been interesting to compare Norbert's process to mine.

Gert's process

Most of the participants have used a mindmap of some sort to describe show that "these things are connected" and "I make a decision based on these criteria" (as did I). What I really liked about Gert's process descripton, was the fact that he broke it all down to factors and priorities. It's a very clear way of expressing all the variables that need to be taken into account while creating one's study plan. The next step would have been to explain the personal priorities and how they affect the choices at hand. The level of detail may have been a bit greater, but other than that, it's very neat process description visualization.

The process visualization can be viewed here: http://zavatski.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/image3.png

Conclusion

After reading all the different process descriptions and looking at various process visualizations, I started noticing the things my initial mindmap was lacking. For example, I do describe priorities, but I don't name them clearly. Also, my process is considering the macro view with not enough focus on "how I decide which courses to choose." In conclusion, I've received a few great ideas on how to improve my mindmap and plan my activities more efficiently. I really liked that a lot of the participants used a structured approach (e.g. a mindmap or other visualization).

Task 2: Time management and process mapping

I've always enjoyed structuring the world around me. It is my way of solving the puzzle of life and creating order out of chaos. By applying structure to any problem/assignment, it's size and scope become easier to grasp.

Time management (creating a study plan does fall into this category) has never been (nor will it ever be) easy. See example: http://wulffmorgenthaler.com/strip.aspx?id=696e818d-68b1-4dfc-9365-c6b822fc518f

Nowadays day planners have been replaced with interactive tools (such as Outlook Calendar/Google Calendar and interactive tasklists), but time management has not become easier. With the help of new tools (and in a new interactive age) we are simply able to do more, but the amount of things that require our attention, is horrific.

While planning my activities, I must take into account all of the following:

• My day job
• My two companies
• IMKE curriculum
• Driving school
• Family and friends

There are probably more variables to this equation (creating a study plan), but the above list is essential.

My day job is a "must be" element in this equation - 8 hours per day, 5 days a week. Luckily the organization supports self improvement, thus attending a few important lectures/exams occasionally is not a problem. That covers work and school (IMKE curriculum/master's studies). The two companies and related activities are currently on hold. Everything related to the driving school is scheduled either before or after work. If there's any time left, I usually spend it with my family/partner and friends.

An explanatory (XMind) mindmap portrays the situation more clearly (click to enlarge):

Task 1: Previous experience with webpublishing

Everybody remembers the 90's - computer screens were small, cellphones were big and anybody who was anybody, had to have a personal webpage. At least that's how it was for the digital natives while growing up. In that sense I was no different. I started experimenting with MS Frontpage and Macromedia Dreamweaver. I learned how to manipulate HTML and became very interested in ICT.

After a short while, content management systems (CMS) were the new cool thing. CMS's made the web more accessible for anyone who had something to say, but did not have the technical competence to publish said information on the web. A few of these content management systems became more famous than others. Wordpress, for example, was first released in 2003. Blogger.com was first launched in 1999. Another popular CMS (at least back in the day) was b2evolution (http://b2evolution.net/). It's still available, but has become less popular due to vast competition.

Regarding personal experience, I can only guess the number of CMS's I've tried. But it's safe to say that I've tried at least 50 different webpublishing platforms (CMS, blogging, forum software). It may seem a lot of hassle, but in reality, it's not hard to try and test several webpublishing platforms during a single day.

But webpublishing does not end with CMS's. We have Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Orkut, MySpace and many more. The creator of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, suggested that the future of the web is social. In other words, webpublishing in all it's variety is bound to become even more popular than it is today. People will continue to express themselves online, be it pictures, videos on texts.

IMKE students use wiki's and blogs (as do I). They (IMKE students) have a Facebook fanpage to share information regarding course's and one can't access the information without having a Facebook account. Facebook is a must have platform due to networking purposes. People do publish pictures, texts and videos and seek information about their friends and family, but the platform may be perceived as a marketing and networking tool as well.

It's very hard to quantify experience, but it's safe to say that I use most of the popular webpublishing tools out there today.