Time and space in collaborative information seeking: The clash of effectiveness and uniqueness

Collaboration takes place at different time-space conditions. Past research has shown that these two dimensions may have different implications in the collaboration process, as well as on its outcomes, depending upon the task being performed. In collaborative information seeking (CIS), as a relatively new topic in information science, little is known about the effects of different temporal-spatial contexts. To address this, we conducted a user study involving 80 participants in 40 pairs, which were assigned to four experimental conditions, namely: co-located, remotely located with text chat, remotely located with audio chat, and asynchronous. Using quantitative methods, we investigated the effects of these conditions on communication, information synthesis, productivity, and user experience. Results regarding the space dimension suggest that information seeking behaviors of co-located users tend to overlap thus affecting their coverage of diverse and useful information. Conversely, when team members are remotely located, limited interaction allows them to work more independently, leading them to explore more diverse and useful information with the added value of less cognitive and affective load. With respect to the time dimension, we found that asynchronous collaboration enables participants to reach high levels of independency at the cost of effectiveness. These results provide practical implications about how various spatial-temporal contexts in CIS could influence factors such as productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, and uniqueness.

[1]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[2]  Meredith Ringel Morris,et al.  A survey of collaborative web search practices , 2008, CHI.

[3]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[4]  Danushka Bollegala,et al.  Collaborative exploratory search in real-world context , 2011, CIKM '11.

[5]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Assessing the scenic route: measuring the value of search trails in web logs , 2010, SIGIR.

[6]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces , 1992, CSCW '92.

[7]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  Adapting communicative strategies to computer mediated communication: an analysis of task performance and dialogue structure , 2003 .

[8]  Maribeth Back,et al.  A Taxonomy of Collaboration in Online Information Seeking , 2009, ArXiv.

[9]  Roberto I. González-Ibáñez,et al.  Evaluating the synergic effect of collaboration in information seeking , 2011, SIGIR.

[10]  Meredith Ringel Morris,et al.  CoSense: enhancing sensemaking for collaborative web search , 2009, CHI.

[11]  Nesrin Özdener,et al.  The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: text versus voice chat , 2008 .

[12]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  W. Jochems,et al.  The Effect of Functional Roles on Group Efficiency , 2004 .

[14]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  The Application of Work Tasks in Connection with the Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems: Empirical Results , 1999, MIRA.

[15]  Jonathan Foster,et al.  Collaborative information seeking and retrieval , 2006, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  T. D. Wilson,et al.  Review of: Nahl, Diane and Bilal, Dania, Eds. Information and emotion: the emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research and theory. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc., 2007 , 2008, Inf. Res..

[17]  Chirag Shah,et al.  Coagmento- A Collaborative Information Seeking, Synthesis and Sense-Making Framework (an integrated , 2009 .

[18]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  Introducing objects in spoken dialogue: The influence of conversational setting and cognitive load on the articulation and use of referring expressions , 2007 .

[19]  R. P. Fishburne,et al.  Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel , 1975 .

[20]  Chirag Shah,et al.  Collaborative Information Seeking: A Literature Review , 2010 .

[21]  R. Daft,et al.  Information Richness. A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design , 1983 .

[22]  Alan F. Smeaton,et al.  Collaborative searching for video using the Fischlar system and a DiamondTouch table , 2006, First IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems (TABLETOP '06).

[23]  John C. Tang,et al.  Three's company: understanding communication channels in three-way distributed collaboration , 2010, CSCW '10.

[24]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  The Effects of Media and Task on User Performance: A Test of the Task-Media Fit Hypothesis , 2000 .

[25]  Andrew Parker,et al.  Knowing What We Know: Supporting Knowledge Creation and Sharing in Social Networks , 2001 .

[26]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  SearchTogether: an interface for collaborative web search , 2007, UIST.

[27]  Robert Villa,et al.  A study of awareness in multimedia search , 2008, JCDL '08.

[28]  David M. Nichols,et al.  Browsing is a collaborative process , 1997, Inf. Process. Manag..

[29]  D. Watson,et al.  Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[30]  Hui-Tzu Min,et al.  The impact of media on collaborative learning in virtual settings: The perspective of social construction , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[31]  Chirag Shah,et al.  Coagmento: A system for supporting collaborative information seeking , 2011, ASIST.

[32]  Diane H. Sonnenwald,et al.  Information behavior in dynamic group work contexts: interwoven situational awareness, dense social networks and contested collaboration in command and control , 2000, Inf. Process. Manag..