Mediation in librarianship information retrieval Reference interview Humanhuman
Mediation in librarianship & information retrieval Reference interview Human-human interaction Question negotiation © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 1
Processes u In reference: reference interview – long standing concern – a basic & major professional skill of librarians – mostly prescriptive, some theories from communication u In information retrieval (IR): question analysis user-intermediary interaction – connected with humancomputer interaction (HCI) – also prescriptive, theories from HCI & cognitive science © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 2
Reference interview u Broader context: Interview and interviewing as treated in a number of fields – theories from communication v interpersonal, social interaction – theories and practices from sociology - among main methods – theories and practices from journalism – ethical concerns © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 3
Reference interview. . . u Dyadic & (usually) face-toface or by phone u Reference interview characteristics: – purposive by both participants – restricted subject(s) – relies on questions - answers for diagnosis – situation bound; social – possible counseling aspects – connected to informational outcome - level, quantity, type. . . © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 4
Elements to worry about User u Problem, task u Inf. need u Knowledge u Intent u Demographics Librarian u Comm. skills u Knowledge – subject – inf. resources u Affective u Intent Library • Inf. resources • Situation, set-up • Policies, rules Results • Effectiveness, validity, reliability © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 5
Diagnosis u Taylor’s classification of information needs: – Visceral - unexpressed – Conscious - within mind – Formalized - statement – Compromised - as presented u Types of questions asked: – Closed v ‘yes - no’; ‘this-that’ answers – Open v ‘tell me more about project. . . ’ – Neutral v assessing situation, gaps, uses © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 6
Counseling, enabling u Users often do not have – well defined problem – well expressed or specific question – ideas what inf. or resources exist or may be useful – what to do next, as to information or sources u Counseling: – help in definition, focusing – advice on action u Enabling: – instruction on use, technology, structure of resources. . . © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 7
Studies of reference u Process – what goes on? Stages? – reformulations, refinements – still an art, not fully understood u Types of questions – most asked are closed u Communication aspects – verbal & non-verbal – progress in discourse – affective, attentive behavior u Results – validity, reliability, satisfaction – statistics, costs © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 8
IR - problems addressed Provide the users with effective access to & interaction with information resources. 1. How to organize inf. intellectually? 2. How to specify search & interaction intellectually? 3. What systems & techniques to use for those processes? © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 9
Mediation in IR u Dyadic u Triadic Interface User model Computer model User (human interface) © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University Interface Intermediary Computer 10
Elements to worry about u ‘Computer: ’ – stands for a number of things v hardware, software v inf. resources; meta information u Interface: – inf. to & from computer – commands, display, navigation u User: – factors as in previous slide – visualization u Intermediary: – acts as additional interface – factors as in previous slide © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 11
Roles of intermediaries Traditional u mastering – interfaces – databases – technology u searching for users u diagnosis – networking u instruction u assisting u guiding – question analysis u enabling u inf. u counseling u packaging Evolving (due to rise in end-users) u mastering & delivery of results © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University resources – selection etc. u system administration 12
Stages in user intermediary discourse u Presearch interview – opening gambit; socialization – modeling of user; db selection – explanations by intermediary u Online search interaction (if user present during searching) – tactical maneuvering; changes – terms, search tactics; db – feedback; reiteration - dynamic – explanations by both parties u Closure – closing downdrift – focusing on output; evaluation – delivery; advising - next steps © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 13
Discourse categories User problem, task Request, inf. need Expectations u Context u Terminology u System explanations u Search tactics © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University Concepts & terms Boundaries Restrictions How, what, when. . Features, databases Selection, variation – terms, logic, databases Mistake correction 14
Discourse categories (cont. ) u Review & relevance u Actions u Backchannels u Social/ extraneous © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University Review, evaluation – tactics, terms, sources. . . Relevance judging Feedback Description of activities Explanations Communication prompts, fillers, acknowledging. . Social discourse Formalities 15
Art of interviewing purposive social interaction Situational factors – setting, physical environment – rules, regulations, ethics – appearance, demeanor Communication skills – semantics; language – expression, delivery – nonverbal communication – turn taking – encouragement; backchannels Social factors – establishing confidence – rapport © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 16
Interviewing. . . Strategies – progression in stages – opening moves v setting an agenda, stage – exploration, guidance – maintaining focus. re-focusing – feedback, re-iteration – closure Content, questions – from categories in other slides – role of explanation of choices © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 17
Examples from a study u 40 users; question each u 4 intermediaries; triadic HCI u regular setting u videotaped, logged u 48 hrs of tape (72 min. avrg) – presearch: 16 min avrg. – online: 56 min avrg. u User judgments: 6225 items – 3565 relevant or part. relevant – 2660 not relevant u Many variables, measures & analyses © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 18
What do they talk about ? (number of utterances) © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 19
Type of questions asked © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 20
Conclusions u Interaction: complex process u Requires varied knowledge & skills of intermediaries: – communication, interviewing – diagnosis, counseling – inf. resources, meta inf. – systems, networks u Intermediaries role changing u In IR: terminological imperative – most talked & asked u But: GREAT FUN & SATISFACTION © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 21
Thank you Gracias Danke Merci Hvala © Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 22
- Slides: 22