Users and Intermediaries in Information Retrieval: What Are They Talking About?

  • Tefko Saracevic
  • Amanda Spink
  • Mei-Mei Wu
Part of the International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 383)


Discourse between users and intermediaries (human agents), as they interact when searching large databases, serves the function of user modeling. Selected data from a real-life study are presented, categorizing the utterances and elicitations (questions) into seven categories. The results provide an empirical picture of constructing user models through discourse and searching. A stratified interaction model is used as a theoretical model and framework.


Information Retrieval User Modeling Relevance Feedback Belief Revision Query Expansion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, B. L. (1991). Cognitive research in information science. In Williams, M. ed., Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 26:3–37.Google Scholar
  2. Belkin, N. J., Brooks, H. M. and Daniels, P. J. (1987). Knowledge elicitation using discourse analysis. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 27:127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belkin, N. J. (1993). Interaction with text: Information retrieval as information seeking behavior. Information Retrieval: 10. Von der Modellierung zur Anwendung. Konstanz, Germany: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 55–66.Google Scholar
  4. Belkin, N. J., Cool, C., Stein, A., and Thiel, U. (1995). Cases, scripts, and information seeking strategies: On the design of interactive information retrieval systems. Expert Systems with Applications 9:379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brajnik, G., Guida, G., and Tasso, C. (1987). User modeling in intelligent information retrieval. Information Processing & Management 23:305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brajnik, G., Mizzaro, S., and Tasso, C. (1996). Evaluating user interfaces to information retrieval systems: A case study of user support. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM/SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 128–136.Google Scholar
  7. Croft, W. B., and Thompson, R. (1987). I3R: A new approach to the design of document retrieval systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 38:389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Efthimidiadis, E. N. (1996). Query expansion. In Williams, M. ed., Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 31:121–187.Google Scholar
  9. Harter, S. P. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43:602–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ingwersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation 52:3–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kobsa, A., and Wahlster, W., eds. (1989). User Models in Dialog Systems. Berlin: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Logan, B., Reece, S., and Sparck Jones, K. (1994). Modeling information retrieval agents with belief revision. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM/SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 91–100.Google Scholar
  13. Luhn, H. P. (1961). Selective dissemination of new scientific information with the aid of electronic processing equipment. American Documentation 12:131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mooers, C. (1951). Zatocoding applied to mechanical organization of knowledge. American Documentation 2:20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oddy, R. N. (1977). Information retrieval through man-machine dialogue. Journal of Documentation 33:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Radford, M. L. (1996). Communication theory applied to the reference encounter: An analysis of critical incidents. The Library Quarterly 66:123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saracevic, T. (1996a). Modeling interaction in information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Information Science 33:3–9.Google Scholar
  18. Saracevic, T. (1996b) Relevance reconsidered. In Ingewersen, P., and Pors, N. O., eds., Information Science: Integration in Perspectives. Copenhagen: Royal School of Librarianship. 201–218.Google Scholar
  19. Saracevic, T., Mokros, H., and Su, L. (1990). Nature of interaction between users and intermediaries in online searching: A qualitative analysis. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 21:41–54. Google Scholar
  20. Spink, A., Goodrum, A., Robins, D., and Wu, M. M. (1996). Search intermediary elicitations during mediated online searching. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM/SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spink, A., and Saracevic, T. (1997). Interactive information retrieval: Sources and effectiveness of search terms during mediated online searching. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  22. Spink, A., and Losee, R.M. (1996). Feedback in information retrieval. In Williams, M., ed., Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 31:33–78.Google Scholar
  23. Taylor, R. S. (1968). Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & Research Libraries 29:178–194.Google Scholar
  24. Wu, M. M. (1992). Information Interaction Dialogue: A Study of Patron Elicitation in IR Interaction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tefko Saracevic
    • 1
  • Amanda Spink
    • 2
  • Mei-Mei Wu
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Communication, Information and Library StudiesRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.School of Library and Information SciencesUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Social EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, R.O.C.

Personalised recommendations