In overall Kiousis seems to have taken investigation fo interactivity really seriously. I liked his way of Although it might also be affected by his abstract where he says that in his view interactivity has both media and psychological factor.
Like a correct metaanalysis, Kiousis gives an overview of previous articles and definitions about interactivity. He also uses several thoughts and theory from Jensens article that we read for task 5. His way of working and analysis is really interesting, for later understanding he explains visually and puts together 3 dimensions: technology, communication and user perception. Later in the article he builds his theory on the same graphic.Kousis finds it important to consider both computer mediated and non-computer mediated communication. It seems to him that several researchers consider too much on technological tools that are used for communication and that help to fill the criteria that they have set for "interactivity".
In article conclusion it's said that interactivity could 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, and many- to-many) both synchronously and asynchronously and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency).
As the graphical picture above already gives all the important terms of Kiousis definition, I will not start to name them once more.
Like said above, Kiuosis tries to build together one stronger theory that would fit several previous definitions under it. For me it seems a logical way, often researchers look at the things too narrowly and a metaanalysis helps to take most important details and sew them together into a big picture.
References:
Kiousis, S. (2002) "Interactivity: a concept explication", New Media & Society, 4(3): 355–383.
