Observing serendipity in digital information environments

We often interact with digital information environments to find useful information. But sometimes useful information finds us unexpectedly, propelling us in new and exciting directions. We might come across information serendipitously when looking for information on something else, or when we are not looking for anything in particular. In previous studies, people have self‐reported that they come across information serendipitously. However, there has been limited success in directly observing people doing so. To see if we could have more success, we conducted naturalistic observations of 45 users interacting with different types of digital information environments. Without priming them about serendipity, we asked the users to conduct self‐chosen naturalistic information tasks, which varied from broad tasks such as browsing online news to narrow tasks such as finding a particular product to buy. We noted several examples where users either 1) stated they were looking for information on a particular topic or product and unexpectedly found useful/potentially useful information about something else or 2) unexpectedly found useful/potentially useful information when not looking for anything in particular. Our findings suggest that, with a carefully‐considered approach, serendipity‐related information interaction behaviour can be directly observed. Direct observation allows designers of digital information environments to better understand this behaviour and use this understanding to reason about ways of designing new or improving existing support for serendipity.

[1]  Victoria L. Rubin,et al.  Everyday serendipity as described in social media , 2010, ASIST.

[2]  Ann Blandford,et al.  “Making my own luck”: Serendipity strategies and how to support them in digital information environments , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[3]  Sarah Sharples,et al.  A user-centred mobile diary study approach to understanding serendipity in information research , 2011, Inf. Res..

[4]  Toine Bogers,et al.  Measuring serendipity in the lab: The effects of priming and monitoring , 2013 .

[5]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  On serendipity and organizing , 2010 .

[6]  Borchuluun Yadamsuren,et al.  Incidental exposure to online news in everyday life information seeking context: Mixed method study , 2009, ASIST.

[7]  Elaine Toms,et al.  Understanding and facilitating the browsing of electronic text , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[8]  Abigail McBirnie,et al.  Seeking serendipity: the paradox of control , 2008, Aslib Proc..

[9]  Robert K. Merton,et al.  The travels and adventures of serendipity , 2004 .

[10]  Sanda Erdelez,et al.  Investigation of information encountering in the controlled research environment , 2004, Inf. Process. Manag..

[11]  Sanda Erdelez,et al.  Incidental exposure to online news , 2010, ASIST.

[12]  Elaine Toms,et al.  Chance Encounters in the Digital Library , 2009, ECDL.

[13]  Marija Norvaisaite,et al.  Review of: Fisher, Karen E., Erdelez, Sandra, and McKechnie, Lynne E.F. Theories of information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. 2005 , 2006, Inf. Res..

[14]  Sandra Erdelez Information Encountering: It's More Than Just Bumping into Information , 2005 .

[15]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Discovery is never by chance: designing for (un)serendipity , 2009, C&C '09.

[16]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Coming across information serendipitously - Part 1: A process model , 2012, J. Documentation.

[17]  Elaine Toms,et al.  The process of serendipity in knowledge work , 2010, IIiX.

[18]  Nigel Ford,et al.  Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study , 2003, J. Documentation.

[19]  Elaine Toms,et al.  The serendipity quotient , 2011, ASIST.