Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Users in Context

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Lectures on Information Retrieval (ESSIR 2000)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1980))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Users as actors in interactive information retrieval (IIR) are seen in the contexts of their perceived work tasks and information seeking behaviour. The paper models IIR processes by demonstrating a variety of approaches, ranging from Ingwersen’s cognitive communication model for IR interaction, over Saraceveic’ stratified model which includes a typology of relevance conceptions, to Borlund’s model of work task perception, information need development and relevance assessments. Other associated models and perspectives of IIR are discussed when appropriate to the major focus points of the contribution: information need development and typology; understanding of relevance in IIR; and experimental problems in IIR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bates, M. J. The Design of Browsing and Berry-Picking Techniques for the Online Search Interface. Online and CD-ROM Review, 13(5):407–424, 1989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beaulieu, M. Experiments with Interfaces to Support Query Expansion. Journal of Documentation, 53:8–19, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Belkin, N. J., Cool, C., Stein, A., Thiel, U. Case, Scripts, and Information Seeking Strategies: On the Design of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 9:379–395, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Belkin, N. J., Kantor, P., Fox, E. A., Shaw, J. A. Combining the Evidence of Multiple Query Representation for Information Retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 31:431–448, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Belkin, N. J., Oddy, R., Brooks, H. ASK for Information Retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 38(3):61–71, 1982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Borlund, P. Experimental Components for the Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems. Journal of Documentation, 56(1):71–90 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Borlund, P., Ingwersen, P. The Development of a Method for the Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems. Journal of Documentation, 53(3):225–250, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Borlund, P., Ingwersen, P. Measures of Relative Relevance and Ranked Half-Life: Performance Indicators for Interactive IR. In: Wilkinson, R., Croft, B.W., van Rijsbergen, C. J. (eds.): Proceedings of the 21st ACM-Sigir Conference on Research and Development of Information Retrieval. York Press, Melbourne, Australia (1998) 324–331.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Byström, K., Järvelin, K. Task Complexity Affects Information Seeking and Use. Information Processing & Management, 31(2):191–214, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell, I. Interactive Evaluation of the Ostensive Model Using a New Yest Collection of Images with Multiple Relevance Assessments. Information Retrieval, 2:87–114, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cleverdon, C. W., Keen, E. M. Factors Determining the Performance of Indexing Systems. Vol. 1: Design. Vol. 2: Results. Aslib Cranfield Research Project, Cranfield, UK, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cooper, W. S. A Definition of Relevance for Information Retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7(1):19–37, 1971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cosijn, E., Ingwersen, P. Dimensions of Relevance. Information Processing & Management, 36:533–550, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dervin, Brenda, Nilan, M. Information Needs and Uses. In: Williams, M. E. (ed.): Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. Learned Information for the Am. Soc. for Information Science, Medford, NJ (1986) 3–33.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G.. Foo, F. Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Information Retrieval Studies: An Author Co-Citation Analysis, 1987–1997. Journal of Information Science: Principles and Practice, 25(1):67–78, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Garfield, E. From Citation Indexes to Informetrics: Is the Tail Wagging the Dog? Libri: International Library Review, 48:67–80, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harman, D. K. The TREC Conferences. In: Sparck Jones, K. and Willett, P. (eds.): Readings in Information Retrieval. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1997) 247–256.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hjørland, B. Information Seeking and Subject Representation: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Information Science. Greenwood Press, London, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Iivonen, M. Consistency in the Selection of Search Concepts and Search Terms. Information Processing & Management, 31(2):173–190, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ingwersen, P. Search Procedures in the Library Analysed from the Cognitive Point of View. Journal of Documentation, 38(3):165–191, 1982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ingwersen, P. Cognitive Analysis and the Role of the Intermediary in Information Retrieval. In: Davies, R., (ed.): Intelligent Information Systems. Horwood, Chichester, West Sussex, England, 1986. 206–237.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ingwersen, P. Information Retrieval Interaction. Taylor Graham, London, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ingwersen, P. Cognitive Perspectives of Information Retrieval Interaction: Elements of a Cognitive IR Theory. Journal of Documentation, 52(1):3–50, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ingwersen, P. Cognitive Information Retrieval. In: Williams, M. (ed.): Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, (2000), In press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Järvelin, K., Kekälainen, J. IR Evaluation Methods for Retrieving highly Relevant Documents. In: Belkin, N. J., Ingwersen, P., Mun-Kew Leong (eds.): Proceedings of the 23rd ACM-Sigir Conference on Research and Development of Information Retrieval. SIGIR Forum, 34:41–48, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kuhlthau, C. C. Inside the Search Process: Information Seeking from the User’s Perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42:361–371, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuhlthau, C. C. The Role of Experience in the Information Search Process of an early Career Information Worker: Perceptions of Uncertainty, Complexity, Construction, and Sources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(5):399–412, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mizzaro, S. Relevance: The Whole History. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(9):810–832, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ørom, A. 2000. Information Science, Historical Changes and Social Aspects: A Nordic Look. Journal of Documentation, 56:12–26, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pharo, N. Web Information Search Strategies: A Model for Classifying Web Interaction. In: Aparac, T., Saracevic, T., Ingwersen, P., Vakkari, P. (eds.): Proceedings from the 3rd International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, CoLIS 3: Digital Libraries: Interdisciplinary Concepts, Challenges and Opportunities. University Of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia (1999) 207–218.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pors, N. O. Information Retrieval, Experimental Models and Statistical Analysis. Journal of Documentation, 56(1)(2000) 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Reid, J. A New, Task-Orientated Paradigm for Information Retrieval: Implications for Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems. In: Aparac, T., Saracevic, T., Ingwersen, P., Vakkari, P. (eds.): Proceedings from the Third International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, CoLIS 3: Digital Libraries: Interdisciplinary Concepts, Challenges and Opportunities. University of Zagreb, Croatia (1999) 97–108.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Saracevic, T. Relevance Reconsidered’ 96. In: Ingwersen, P., Pors, N. O. (eds): Information Science: Integration in Perspective. Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark (1996) 201–218.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Schamber, L. Relevance and Information Behavior. In: Williams, M. (ed.): Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 29:3–48, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M., Nilan, M. A Re-Examination of Relevance: Toward a Dynamic, Situational Definition. Information Processing & Management, 26(6):755–776, 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., Bateman, J. From Highly Relevant to not Relevant: Examining Different Regions of Relevance. Information Processing & Management, 34(5):599–621, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Spink, A., Greisdorf, H. Regions of Relevance Study, Part 1: Measuring and Mapping Users’ Relevance Judgements. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, (2000). In press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Taylor, R. S. Question Negotiation and Information Seeking in Libraries. College and Research Libraries, 29:178–194, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Turtle, H., Croft, W. B. Inference Methods For Document Retrieval. ACM-SIGIR Forum. June, 1–24, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Vakkari, P. Growth of Theories on Information Seeking: An Analysis of Growth of a Theoretical Research Program on the Relation between Task Complexity and Information Seeking. Information Processing & Management, 34:361–382, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Vakkari, P. Task Complexity, Problem Structure and Information Actions: Integrating Studies on Information Seeking and Retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 35(6):819–837, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Vakkari, P. Relevance and Contributing Information Types of Searched Documents in Task Performance. In: Belkin, N. J., Ingwersen, P., Mun-Kew Leong (eds.): Proceedings of the 23rd ACM-Sigir Conference on Research and Development of Information Retrieval. SIGIR Forum, 34:2–9, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Vakkari, P., Hakkala, N. Changes in Relevance Criteria and Problem Stages in Task Performance. Journal of Documentation, 56(5):540–562, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. van Rijsbergen, C.J., Lalmas, M. An Information Calculus for Information Retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47:385–398, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Voorhees, E.M. Variations in Relevance Judgements and the Measurement of Retrieval Effectiveness. In: Croft, B. W., Moffat, A., van Rijsbergen, C. J., Wilkinson, R. and Zobel, H. (eds): Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGIR Conference on research and development of Information retrieval. ACM Press/ York Press, Melbourne, Australia 315–323, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wang, P. Users’ Information Needs at Different Stages of a Research Project: A Cognitive View. In: Vakkari, P. (eds): Information Seeking in Context. Taylor Graham, London (1997) 307–318.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Wang, P., White, M. D. A Cognitive Model of Document Use during a Research Project. Study II. Decisions at the Reading and Citing Stages. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(2):98–114, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wilson, P. Situational Relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9:457–471, 1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wilson, T. D. On User Studies and Information Needs. Journal of Documentation, 37(1):3–15, 1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wilson, T. D. Models in Information Behaviour Research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3):249–270, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Winograd, T., Flores, C. F. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Addison-Wesley, Norwood, NJ, 1986.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Xie, H. Shifts of Interactive Intentions and Information-Seeking Strategies in Interactive Information Retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51:841–857, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal School of Librarianship and Information Science, Birketinget 6, DK 2300, Copenhagen S, Denmark

    Peter Ingwersen

Authors
  1. Peter Ingwersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informatica, Universitá di Padova, Via Ognissanti,72, 35131, Padova

    Maristella Agosti

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde, G1 1XH, Glasgow, Scotland,UK

    Fabio Crestani

  3. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, ITIM, Via Ampere, 56, 20131, Milano, Italy

    Gabriella Pasi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ingwersen, P. (2000). Users in Context. In: Agosti, M., Crestani, F., Pasi, G. (eds) Lectures on Information Retrieval. ESSIR 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1980. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45368-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45368-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41933-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45368-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation