Assessing interactivity in computer-mediated research

Almost every scholarly examination of the concept of interactivity to date has mentioned conceptualization difficulties (Rafaeli 1988; Moore 1989; Heeter 2000; Schultz 2000; McMillan 2002). This chapter is an attempt to proceed beyond complaints about ambiguity and overuse of the interactivity concept. Both theory and practice require a well-defined, clear and measurable definition for interactivity. Interactivity shows up in a very large number of titles and publications and is very often cited in technical and marketing discourse. Despite both scientific and popular interest, the literature to date has provided too little focus on why interactivity matters and a surprising dearth of empirical reports on outcomes of interactivity. A basic common understanding of the concept is required, one that has enough openness to enable multidisciplinary examination of interactivity from different perspectives. Interactivity has been a matter of debate and interest for almost three decades now. It is located at the confluence of mass and interpersonal communication and perhaps serves as one of the bridges of these two. Similarly, interactivity is poised between traditional and innovative media, as an explaining construct. An important theoretical contribution would be to understand how interactivity can be used to traverse the transition between mass, interpersonal and intrapersonal (psychological), as well as the connection between old and new. In both cases, the advantage is in preserving the links to all sides, not in assigning the construct exclusively to one side. One of the interesting features of the concept of interactivity is its continued prominence in scholarly thought despite technological changes. In this chapter, we argue that interactivity is not unique to computers or networks and cannot be reserved solely for the discussion of so-called ‘New Media’. Restricting analysis of interactivity to the domain of computerized and new technology alone problematizes comparisons with traditional media as well as with further developments of the new media. If we study only ‘new media’, we are constrained in our ability to build a cumulative theory based on evidence, because the domain of ‘New Media’ itself changes rapidly. The term ‘New Media’ is old and misleading, since any latest technology is always new (Marvin 1988): furthermore, it does not necessarily create new concepts, though it can highlight some. CHAPTER 6