Unifying PIM Research: Fostering a Connection Between Descriptive PIM Studies and Prescriptive Outcomes

Descriptive Personal Information Management (PIM) studies inform us about PIM behavior and their findings should guide the design and development of PIM tools to support the behavior under study. Unfortunately, judging from the literature, descriptive studies do not always provide useful recommendations and PIM tool research is often carried out separately. This paper discusses what appears to be a possible research dichotomy and ways to bring the research back together. Three solutions are suggested: 1) PIM workshops where both types of studies are presented and researchers meet should be important venues for dissemination of results, cross-fertilization between different research areas, and collaboration between researchers; 2) A bridging methodology to translate research findings explicitly into design criteria could bring research and practice closer together; and 3) A general PIM framework based on the three essential PIM activities (finding/refinding activities, keeping activities, and meta-level activities).

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

[2]  William W. Cohen,et al.  Improving graph-walk-based similarity with reranking: Case studies for personal information management , 2010, TOIS.

[3]  Mark Baillie,et al.  On Understanding the Relationship Between Recollection and Refinding , 2009, J. Digit. Inf..

[4]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  The Turn - Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context , 2005, The Kluwer International Series on Information Retrieval.

[5]  Tiffany C. Veinot,et al.  A multilevel model of HIV/AIDS information/help network development , 2010, J. Documentation.

[6]  P. Ingwersen.  Cognitive Information Retrieval. , 1999 .

[7]  Loren G. Terveen,et al.  Let's Stop Pushing the Envelope and Start Addressing It: A Reference Task Agenda for HCI , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Note to self: examining personal information keeping in a lightweight note-taking tool , 2009, CHI.

[9]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[10]  David Ellis,et al.  The Physical and Cognitive Paradigms in Information Retrieval Research , 1992, J. Documentation.

[11]  T. D. Wilson,et al.  Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective , 1997, Inf. Process. Manag..

[12]  References , 1971 .

[13]  William Jones.  Personal Information Management , 2007, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[14]  Diane Kelly,et al.  Understanding what works: Evaluating PIM tools , 2007 .

[15]  Diane Kelly.  Evaluating personal information management behaviors and tools , 2006, CACM.

[16]  José Luis Vicedo González,et al.  TREC: Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  David R. Karger,et al.  Haystack: per-user information environments , 1999, CIKM '99.

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

[19]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction , 1988 .

[20]  Jacek Gwizdka,et al.  Personal information management , 2004, CHI EA '04.

[21]  Ian Smith,et al.  Taking email to task: the design and evaluation of a task management centered email tool , 2003, CHI '03.

[22]  Anne Diekema,et al.  Personal information management practices of teachers , 2011, ASIST.

[23]  David Elsweiler,et al.  Keeping Found Things Found: The Study and Practice of Personal Information Management , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  A. Anastasi.  Individual differences. , 2020, Annual review of psychology.