Shifts of focus on various aspects of user information problems during interactive information retrieval

The author presents the results of additional analyses of shifts of focus in IR interaction. Results indicate that users and search intermediaries work toward search goals in nonlinear fashion. Twenty interactions between 20 different users and one of four different search intermediaries were examined. Analysis of discourse between the two parties during interactive information retrieval (IR) shows changes in topic occurs, on average, every seven utterances. These twenty interactions included some 9,858 utterances and 1,439 foci. Utterances are defined as any uninterrupted sound, statement, gesture, etc., made by a participant in the discourse dyad. These utterances are segmented by the researcher according to their inentional focus, i.e., the topic on which the conversation between the user and search intermediary focus until the focus changes (i.e., shifts of focus). In all but two of the 20 interactions, the search intermediary initiated a majority of shifts of focus. Six focus categories were observed. These were foci dealing with: documents; evaluation of search results; search strategies; IR system; topic of the search; and information about the user.

[1]  Paul B. Kantor,et al.  A Study of Information Seeking and Retrieving. III. Searchers, Searches, and Overlap* , 1988 .

[2]  Riichiro Mizoguchi,et al.  Task analysis interview based on task ontology , 1995 .

[3]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Study of Interactive Feedback During Mediated Information Retrieval , 1997, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[4]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  Overview of the Okapi projects , 1997, J. Documentation.

[5]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[6]  Bert R. Boyce,et al.  Beyond topicality : A two stage view of relevance and the retrieval process , 1982, Inf. Process. Manag..

[7]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Intelligent Information Retrieval: Whose Intelligence? , 1996, ISI.

[8]  Barbara J. Grosz,et al.  Focusing and Description in Natural Language Dialogues , 1979 .

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

[10]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Elicitation Behavior During Mediated Information Retrieval , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[11]  Michael B. Eisenberg,et al.  A re-examination of relevance: toward a dynamic, situational definition , 1990, Inf. Process. Manag..

[12]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems , 1997, J. Documentation.

[13]  Tefko Saracevic,et al.  Practice and personhood in professional interaction: Social identities and information needs , 1995 .

[14]  Stephen P. Harter,et al.  Psychological Relevance and Information Science , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[15]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  On relevance weights with little relevance information , 1997, SIGIR '97.

[16]  Raya Fidel,et al.  Moves in online searching , 1985 .

[17]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Users and Intermediaries in Information Retrieval: What Are They Talking About? , 1997 .

[18]  Carol A. Hert.  User Goals on an Online Public Access Catalog , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[19]  Carol Collier Kuhlthau.  Inside the Search Process: Information Seeking from the User's Perspective. , 1991 .

[20]  Hong Xie,et al.  Planned and Situated Aspects in Interactive IR: Patterns of User Interactive Intentions and Information Seeking Strategies , 1997 .

[21]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface , 1989 .

[22]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Knowledge Elicitation Using Discourse Analysis , 1987, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[23]  David Robins,et al.  Shifts of Focus in Information Retrieval Interaction. , 1997 .

[24]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Cognitive models and information transfer , 1984 .

[25]  Micheline Beaulieu,et al.  Experiments on interfaces to support query expansion , 1997, J. Documentation.

[26]  Tefko Saracevic,et al.  The Stratified Model of Information Retrieval Interaction: Extension and Applications , 1997 .

[27]  J. Sinclair,et al.  Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils , 1975 .

[28]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Distributed expert problem treatment as a model for information system analysis and design , 1982 .

[29]  Carol L. Barry.  User-Defined Relevance Criteria: An Exploratory Study , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[30]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Ask for Information Retrieval: Part I. Background and Theory , 1997, J. Documentation.

[31]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Human-computer interaction in information retrieval: nature and manifestations of feedback , 1998, Interact. Comput..

[32]  David Robins.  Dynamics and Dimensions of User Information Problems as Foci of Interaction in Information Retrieval. , 1998 .

[33]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Information Retrieval Interaction , 1992 .

[34]  K. Weick.  FROM SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS , 2021, The New Economic Sociology.

[35]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Interaction in information systems : a review of research from document retrieval to knowledge-based systems , 1985 .

[36]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .