The dynamics of interactive information retrieval, Part II: An empirical study from the activity theory perspective

Activity theory is a powerful theoretical instrument to untangle the " complications. " Based on activity theory, a comprehensive framework is proposed in Part I (Y. Xu, 2007) of this report to describe interactive information retrieval (IIR) behavior. A set of propositions is also proposed to describe the mechanisms governing users' cognitive activity and the interaction between users' cognitive states and manifested retrieval behavior. An empirical study is carried out to verify the propositions. The authors' experimental simulation of 81 participants in one search session indicates the propositions are largely supported. Their findings indicate IIR behavior is planned. Users adopt a divide-and-conquer strategy in information retrieval. The planning of information retrieval activity is also partially manifested in query revision tactics. Users learn from previously read documents. A user's interaction with a system ultimately changes the user's information need and the resulting relevance judgment, but the dynamics of topicality perception and novelty perception occur at different paces.

[1]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  A language modeling approach to information retrieval , 1998, SIGIR '98.

[2]  Rong Tang,et al.  Towards the Identification of the Optimal Number of Relevance Categories , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[3]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? , 1990, Inf. Process. Manag..

[4]  Yunjie Calvin Xu,et al.  Relevance judgment: What do information users consider beyond topicality? , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[5]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Validation of a model of information seeking over multiple search sessions , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[6]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: a summary and generalisation of a longitudinal study , 2001, J. Documentation.

[7]  Pertti Vakkari,et al.  Changes of search terms and tactics while writing a research proposal: A longitudinal case study , 2003, Inf. Process. Manag..

[8]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  Using graded relevance assessments in IR evaluation , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Cognitive Perspectives of Information Retrieval Interaction: Elements of a Cognitive IR Theory , 1996, J. Documentation.

[10]  Chad Galloway,et al.  Relevance judging, evaluation, and decision making in virtual libraries: A descriptive study , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Hong Xie,et al.  Shifts of interactive intentions and information-seeking strategies in interactive information retrieval , 2000, Journal of the American Society for Information Science.

[12]  Efthimis N. Efthimiadis,et al.  Interactive query expansion: A user-based evaluation in a relevance feedback environment , 2000, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[13]  Pia Borlund,et al.  The IIR evaluation model: a framework for evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems , 2003, Inf. Res..

[14]  S. P. Harter.  Psychological relevance and information science , 1992 .

[15]  Yunjie Calvin Xu,et al.  The dynamics of interactive information retrieval behavior, Part I: An activity theory perspective , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  Djoerd Hiemstra,et al.  A Linguistically Motivated Probabilistic Model of Information Retrieval , 1998, ECDL.