My study grew out of our desire to repurpose our section of Kairos so that it functions better within the journal and provides a space for representing numerous voices discussing issues of interest to our readers. In repurposing our section, we asked these questions:
- Do online journal readers want to interact with the journal editors, writers, and each other?
- Is our section of Kairos interactive in any meaningful way?
- Should interactivity should be part of an online journal?
- If our
section of Kairos is not about
interactivity, what should it be about?
It is important to note that my study was conducted just after Kairosnews was released. Based on the contributions of readers so far, the news appears to be the right sort of space to provide an appealing type of interaction for online journal readers.
Do online journal readers want to interact with the journal editors, writers, and each other?
Based on the initial investigation that I did concerning the desire of readers for interaction in formats currently available within the space of online journals or journals with an online presence, my answer would be a resounding no. After looking at nine other journals online related to computers, writing, or writing instruction, I found that seven of the nine had some sort of section or sections dedicated to responses or contributions from their readers. In an overwhelming number of cases, those sections evidenced little, if any, use. For example, in the last nine issues, the online version of College Composition and Communication has a section where they post abstracts of articles from the journal and invite readers to add responses directly to those articles. Only one reader has responded to any one of the articles. Likewise, the journal Currents in Electronic Literacy provides a discussion forum for topics/issues related to the journal’s content in its six online issues. In three issues, no topics/threads are posted; the other three issues have three threads and three responses, six threads and thirteen responses, and one thread, respectively.
Is our section of Kairos interactive in any meaningful way?
K-Interactive is not really interactive in the strictest sense. There is no consistent place for readers to add responses. While the Kairos Meet the Authors MOOs that we hold as conversations with writers of articles from previous issues are totally open and do allow a measure of response from readers to the webtexts published in Kairos, these MOOs are static, providing a snapshot of a previous dialogue. They do not allow for immediate response or ongoing response.
Because most readers see the MOOs in the form of logs which are very time consuming to code, I investigated whether these logs are being visited by our readers. To roughly gauge this, I looked at the data generated by weblog analysis software (which locates unique hits) regarding visits to the K-Interactive section of Kairos. The data I analyzed is from January 1, 1996 through April 17, 2002, minus a couple of months for which the data did not turn out. According my preliminary review of this data, the average percentage of people who visited the K-Interactive section of Kairos through a log of a MOO discussion is 1.3%, which is quite small, generally representing about 13-20 people in any particular month. For many months, this percentage is actually closer to 0%. When the MOOs are recorded, they are typically attended by the writers invited, the Response co-editors, and 5-10 others. It appears from the data that, in general, the MOOs involve and reach a very small portion of people who read Kairos.
Should interactivity should be part of an online journal?
The impulse for interactivity appears to be a good one. It seems to be positive for journals to encourage readers to contribute, critique, and dialogue with the journal’s content and writers. Additionally, the technology makes response and interaction possible in a way that is far more immediate and, in some ways, egalitarian than the mode of publishing letters to the editor used by some print journals. Encouraging immediate response would seem to help create a sense of a vibrant community busy discussing the engaging and/or maddening ideas they read in the online publication. But that is not what appears to happen, and, despite the appeal of our optimistic plans, perhaps online journals and the spaces they presently provide are not the place for that sort of interactive community.
Investigating the reasons why the interactive portions of Kairos and other online journals are not used and read is an interesting topic better left for another study. However, some obvious reasons do come to mind, such as the fragmentation of people’s attention, the fact that people have many other online spaces where they can interact, such as on listservs and in weekly MOO discussions, and finally, perhaps because online journals feel like too formal a place to encourage interaction. Regarding paucity of visits to the MOO logs in Kairos, perhaps readers find the discussions too difficult to read or see the discussions as only relevant in the moment and, as a result, not worthy of rereading.
If our section of Kairos is not about interactivity, what should it be about?
Based on my preliminary review of the weblog data, other portions of K-Interactive have significant numbers of readers, as many as 250 hits per month for some articles. The Voices from the Field and Voices from the Classroom pieces, which tend to highlight practical advice for teaching writing with technologies or relate the experiences/assignment of a particular teacher or program, receive many hits. A number of those pieces published four to five years ago are still receiving many hits today. It appears that this is what the soon to be renamed section should focus on, providing a place where various voices from the field can relate their experiences and pedagogical approaches and even display the work of some of their students. This would still exploit the dialogic aspects and mission of the section, but in ways that readers appear to favor. It may be time to give readers what their actions and the web data about the journal indicate they want, rather than expend energy providing opportunities for types of interactivity that our readers, through their inaction, deem unwanted.
Introducing Praxis | Works cited
vol. 7 Iss. 3 Fall 2002