This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 09 October 2014, At: 17:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cataloging & Classification QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20

End-User Understanding of IndexingLanguage InformationAthena Salaba aa Kent State University , Kent, OHPublished online: 30 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Athena Salaba (2009) End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information,Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47:1, 23-51, DOI: 10.1080/01639370802451983

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639370802451983

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47:23–51, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0163-9374 print / 1544-4554 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01639370802451983

End-User Understanding of IndexingLanguage Information

ATHENA SALABAKent State University, Kent, OH

This study examines end-user interactions with indexing languageinformation during subject searching in a library catalog and theirunderstanding of this information and its function in term selec-tion. Participants were asked to interact with the indexing language(Library of Congress Subject Headings) and were asked to expresstheir general understanding of the information provided and eachspecific type of information included in the indexing language. Inaddition, participants were asked to express their understanding ofthe function of indexing language information in term selection, itsusefulness and desirability as an integrated tool into the informa-tion retrieval system during subject searching. Study findings andtheir implications are discussed and future research is considered.

KEYWORDS Controlled vocabularies, indexing languages, con-trolled languages, end-user study, end-user understanding, infor-mation searchers, subject access, subject retrieval

INTRODUCTION

Subject access is an area within information storage and retrieval that hasbeen the topic of major research for many decades. However, no solutionsexist for many subject access problems users experience. Numerous studieshave considered the effectiveness of controlled vocabularies and authoritycontrol, but few have examined the effectiveness of specific information thatmight be available to the user through a thesaurus or controlled vocabularyor the interaction between the user and the controlled vocabulary.

This article focuses on indexing languages as a source for term selectionand the interaction of searchers with the online indexing language during

Received August 2008; revised September 2008; accepted September 2008.Address correspondence to Athena Salaba, Kent State University, P.O. Box 5190, Kent,

OH 44240-0001. E-mail: asalaba@kent.edu.

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

24 A. Salaba

and after subject searches. During these interactions, searchers’ understand-ing, perceptions, and use of information provided by indexing languages,especially semantic relationships, are examined. However, before examiningthe specific information that indexing languages provide, it is necessary todefine knowledge organization systems, controlled vocabularies, and index-ing languages.

Knowledge organization systems (KOS) are systems based on concepts,used to organize knowledge in general or within a specific domain. The termKOS is intended to “encompass all types of schemes for organizing infor-mation and promoting knowledge management.”1 Examples of KOS includeauthority files, glossaries, gazetteers, dictionaries, controlled vocabularies,semantic networks, and ontologies.

A controlled vocabulary, most simply defined by Lancaster,2 is an author-ity list. Lancaster adds that most controlled vocabularies incorporate somekind of semantic structure designed to control synonyms, distinguish amonghomographs, and link terms with closely related meanings. He identifiesthree types of controlled vocabularies: bibliographic classification schemes,lists of subject headings, and thesauri.

Indexing languages are defined by Hutchins3 as standardized versionsof natural language. They typically include information such as preferredterms and scope and usage notes (SN). They may also include definitionsof terms, general cross references with no indication of relationship type,and specific cross references that include semantic relationships betweenterms. Indexing languages typically include three types of these semanticrelationships: equivalence (indicated as use/use for), hierarchical (indicatedas broader term/BT, narrower term/NT ), and associative (indicated as relatedterm/RT ).

In the current study, “indexing languages” refers to sets of controlledterms representing topics/concepts, structured to show semantic relation-ships between terms. More specifically, these “indexing languages” are alsoused in an information retrieval (IR) system to describe the topic of theresources and retrieve information on a topic. Based on this definition, thisstudy looks at searchers’ perceptions of subject lists and thesauri of controlledterms; syndetic structures that include equivalent, hierarchical, and associa-tive relationships among concepts; and notes for term definition, scope, andusage.

In the past, indexing languages were developed for use by profession-als and primarily used to aid the indexer or cataloger in finding the mostappropriate term to represent concept(s) discussed in a resource, to assignterms as access points, and to help intermediaries find the most appropriateterms for searching an IR system. Bates4 and others suggested in the 1980sthat end-user thesauri are needed to aid the end user searching for informa-tion on a topic. Today, with increased availability of bibliographic databases

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 25

and online library catalogs (online public access catalogs or OPACs)5 viathe World Wide Web (WWW), searchers interact with IR systems directlywithout intermediaries, outside libraries, or information centers. In addi-tion, the popularity of the single box keyword search might have misledsystem designers to overlook the benefits of controlled vocabularies andthe availability of indexing language information to end-users. As Grossand Taylor6 indicate in their study of keyword searches in a library cata-log, one third of the hits would have been lost if subject headings wereno longer available. In addition to the loss of hits, loss of other functionswould occur, such as grouping of related topics, suggesting other entries,and reducing irrelevant hits. Indeed, the need to determine a searcher’sunderstanding and use of indexing languages is greater now than everbefore.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Use of Indexing Language Information in Term Selectionby Subject Searchers

Van Pulis and Ludy7 examined subject searchers’ use of indexing languageinformation available through vocabulary-controlled catalogs in a large re-search library. One of their findings was that users indicated that they foundwhat they sought in most cases, even though they rarely used the synde-tic structure. The authors suggest that users do not understand the avail-able information or are unaware of how the information can help themwith their subject searches. They conclude that online aids and user in-struction would assist users to effectively use available indexing languageinformation.

Many research studies examine term selection for query expansion.Efthimiadis8 suggests that searcher consultation of an indexing languagemay help the searcher to select appropriate terms. According to him, thetwo key elements in a query expansion include: (1) the source from whichterms will be selected and (2) the method used to select terms for queryexpansion. Sources of terms for query expansion include: (1) search re-sults, information such as descriptors, subject headings included in theretrieved records and (2) knowledge structures that can be collection-dependent, such as algorithmic processes, characteristics of the collection;and(or) collection-independent, such as thesauri, dictionaries, and indexinglanguages.

When considering sources for term selection, the majority of queryformulation/expansion studies find that indexing languages are well-suitedas tools for providing terms that can be used in both the query formulationand expansion stages of information retrieval.9 Spink and Saracevic10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

26 A. Salaba

emphasize the need for user-centered research on term selection and queryexpansion. Most user-centered term selection studies that have looked atthe use of thesauri focused on professional searchers or mediated searcheswhere an end user works with a professional searcher to select terms.11

Very few studies have looked at non-professional end-users’ use of indexinglanguages when selecting terms to formulate, reformulate, or expand aquery.

Vakkari12 studied changes in term usage and term selection tacticsand found that use of structured terminological support, such as index-ing languages, improves search results, encourages novice searchers toselect narrower terms, and helps them better understand their topic andinterrelated parts. Shiri, Revie, and Chowdhury13 examined the effects ofa thesaurus-enhanced interface to a Web-based database on term selec-tion, user interactions with thesauri, and user behaviors. Users selected12% of the terms they browsed in the thesaurus and stated that the the-saurus provided additional terms they did not think of. The majority ofusers in this and a later study found the thesaurus very useful, especiallyfor narrowing topics and searching on a different perspective of the sametopic.14

Nielsen15 examined how associatively derived thesaurus terms affectuser satisfaction and IR system interaction among researchers who are subjectexperts and experienced (professional) information searchers. She foundthat searchers wanted and needed the support of a thesaurus primarily forquery formulation, while very few participants used the thesaurus to increaseconcept understanding.

Blocks16 evaluated the integration of an experimental thesaurus, FACET,for end-user searching among museum and library professionals. She foundthat thesaurus information was helpful in solving problems during the wholesearch process, indicating that interface support and integration for all as-pects and stages of IR interface interaction are important. However, usershad difficulties in selecting terms among several options; some misunder-stood their meaning. Extended hands-on training in query formulation anduse of the thesaurus increased the effectiveness of term selection for queryformulations.

Beaulieu, and Oakes and Taylor17 found that users had difficultiesselecting among system-suggested terms because they did not under-stand how these terms might impact their queries. Similarly, Greenberg18

found that users’ knowledge of thesauri is limited but when askedabout their preference, users prefer thesauri to be employed automati-cally while they are searching, as long as they have the option to man-ually interact and select terms. In addition, Greenberg found that sys-tems provide few or no explanations of the functions of thesauri throughend-user tutorials and they often include terminology confusing to theusers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 27

End-User Thesauri

In the 1980s, the concept of searching an end-user thesaurus was introduced.This type of thesaurus is created with the end-user in mind, and based oninformation and terms that end-users themselves use and need to assist themin term selection during subject searching. It would be used as a search vo-cabulary rather than an indexing vocabulary. Bates19 called for a “front-endsystem mind” to help users explore topics and make mental associationswithout necessarily controlling and standardizing term choices. The vocabu-lary concept and its importance for end-user searching are supported by theliterature.20

METHODOLOGY

This study explores the interaction of end-users with an indexing languageduring subject searching, user understanding of indexing language infor-mation, the use of this information, and user understanding of indexinglanguage function when they are executing a subject search in an onlinecatalog. Specifically, this study asks the following research question: Howdo end-users perceive indexing language information and the function ofindexing language information in subject searching?

In order to address the research question, it is important to captureusers’ perceptions, their cognitive processes, actions, and interactions. Be-cause of its exploratory nature, this qualitative study employs a combinationof data collection methods in order to obtain rich descriptions that willenable the researcher to address the research question based on users’ per-ceptions. The use of multiple methods is referred to as triangulation and it“reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenonin question.”21 Triangulation is seen as an alternative to validation22 and it isthe preferred qualitative research practice. The method of analysis is basedon the grounded theory approach23 and qualitative data analysis as describedby Miles and Huberman.24

This study explores the term selection process and user interaction withan IR system in online catalogs. The online catalog of a large research uni-versity in the Midwest was used. Bibliographic records in the online cata-log include subject headings from the Library of Congress Subject Headings(LCSH),25 its predominant indexing language. The system displays informa-tion related to subject headings, such as scope notes and cross references(when users click the “More Info” button), which is typical of many onlinecatalog interfaces. Also typical is the selective display of cross references,because many systems display references to narrower and related terms butnot broader terms.26 Study participants first interacted with indexing lan-guage information as displayed by the system while conducting their ownsubject searches, so researchers could determine their natural responses to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

28 A. Salaba

the system and the indexing language. Then, LCSH information from Clas-sification Web27 (Library of Congress’ Web-based tool that makes LCSH in-formation available online and searchable) was displayed to participants,who were asked to reflect on the types of indexing language information,their understanding of this information, and its potential use in their sub-ject searches. The information from Classification Web was chosen to assureinteraction with all indexing language information, including references tobroader terms.

The population for this study is graduate students in a large researchuniversity in the Midwest, the University of Wisconsin—Madison. The re-searcher selected this population based on the assumption that most gradu-ate students are familiar with online catalogs and have had some need andexperience searching bibliographic databases (including online catalogs) forinformation on a specific topic for courses and research. Two groups ofparticipants were chosen. The first group consisted of nine non-LIS graduatestudents (hereinafter referred to as Group 1-GG students), approximatelyhalf from social sciences and humanities and half from physical sciences andlife sciences. A second group consisted of seven graduate students from theSchool of Library and Information Studies (LIS) that had already completedthe introductory organization of information course (hereinafter referred toas Group 2-LG students). The second group was used because the conceptof indexing languages and their function in term selection is introduced inthe aforementioned course and, therefore, it was assumed that these partici-pants have a basic understanding of indexing language information. Non-LISparticipants were labeled P10, P20, P30, . . . up to P100. The LIS participantswere labeled P210, P220, . . . up to P270.

For data collection this study used questionnaires, transaction logs, ver-bal protocols, and interviews. Questionnaires were used to collect user back-ground information, such as education, catalog use, and indexing languageuse. Transaction logs were used to capture user searches in the IR systemand their interaction with the indexing language information. Verbal proto-cols allowed the recording of user expressions during their search and theircognitive behavior. Finally, interviews were used for follow up questions ontheir interaction, behavior, understanding, and use of information.

Participants were asked to search for information on a subject to fulfilltheir own need. Once participants stated that their search was complete, theywere asked to repeat the search in the indexing language (LCSH, throughClassification Web) using the same terms used in the online catalog withthe help of the researcher because all participants were unfamiliar withClassification Web. Participants were asked questions focusing on their un-derstanding of the information displayed to them, their ability to define thecross reference labels, what they thought the function of this informationwas, if they would choose any of the terms presented to them to expandtheir search, and how the suggested terms relate to the terms they used in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 29

their original search. In addition, researchers asked a number of questions tofurther clarify participants’ system interaction. Examples include the reasonthey chose or did not choose to view the indexing language information andthe reasons for search option used.

The researcher had anticipated that some terms might not producerecords in the indexing language that included all types of indexing languageinformation. Not all terms have scope notes or references to broader, nar-rower, and related terms. Thus, to ensure that each participant commentedon all types of indexing language information and answered all plannedquestions, a backup term was used at the end of the search. Informationfor the term “Clothing and dress” from LCSH, using Classification Web, wasdisplayed to all participants. The heading “Clothing and dress” was chosenas a general, non-domain specific heading with which all participants wouldbe familiar. The record in LCSH for the above heading includes all types ofindexing language information (see Appendix).

FINDINGS

During the post-search interview, participants were asked to express theirunderstanding of keyword search and subject browse, indicate whether theyhave a preference, and specify when they prefer to use each option. Thesefindings are discussed next, to examine the premise that a relationship mightexist among searchers preference and understanding of keyword and subjectsearch, understanding of the appropriate use of each, and their consequentuse and understanding of indexing language information.

Understanding the Difference between Keyword Searchand Subject Browse

All participants tried to express their understanding of the difference be-tween keywords and subjects. Participants used six dimensions to expressunderstanding of “keyword” and “subject” and the difference between thetwo. These dimensions are topic coverage, retrieved set, situation, indexingprocess, and location of term in a description. One interesting observationis that only one participant, a Group 1-GG student, differentiated betweenkeyword search and subject browse.

Most participants from both groups said that subject browse wouldresult in a broader topic area, where keywords could pinpoint a specifictopic (topic coverage). In general, even though participants said that sub-ject browse results in a broader area, their statements suggest that theuse of keywords yields a larger number of hits than subject browse (re-trieved set). Retrieved set was often discussed in relation to the relevance or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

30 A. Salaba

accuracy of the retrieved items. Participant statements suggest that they per-ceive that even though subjects represent a broader area than keywords,results from a subject search are more relevant to their query than the resultsof a keyword search, which retrieves a narrower area and more irrelevantresults. Participants indicated that the choice between keywords or subjectsis context-related and most often related to topic familiarity and familiaritywith the system terms or indexing language (situation). The more familiarthey are with the topic or the terms the system uses, the more likely they areto browse by subject.

The most contradictions were noted when participants were asked howkeywords or subjects included in catalog records are decided on. Most ofthe Group 1-GG students were not clear as to whether keywords or subjectswere the assigned terms. Finally, both groups differentiated keywords fromsubjects by the location of the term in the record. Keywords were most oftenthought to be located in the title or elsewhere in the record.

Overall, participants (especially Group 1-GG) do not clearly understandthe difference between keyword search and subject browse. Their definitionsof these options are often contradictory. Group 2-LG students generally havea clearer understanding of the two options but not for all dimensions. Thisconfusion between keyword and subject search directly affects use and un-derstanding of indexing language information during searches.

User Understanding of Indexing Language Information

Users have a very basic or unclear understanding of the function of the in-dexing language information when initially interacting with this information.After they interact with the specific information included in the indexinglanguage, users’ understanding of their function increases. After detailed in-teraction, users state that all indexing language information, and narrowerterm references in particular, are very helpful for term selection.

Data for this study are taken mainly from interviews with participantswho interacted with the indexing language information and answered ques-tions about their understanding of this information, its function in term se-lection, and its perceived helpfulness for term selection.

GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF INDEXING LANGUAGE INFORMATION

Assessment of overall understanding of indexing language information wasmainly derived from interviews conducted when users interacted with theindexing language. Not all participants interacted with or expressed an un-derstanding of the indexing language information during search sessions,although they were asked to comment on all available information.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 31

Participants used their own search terms to find indexing language in-formation; if the indexing language produced no matches, the model term“clothing and dress” was used to display indexing language information.Initially, they were asked to express their understanding of the indexinglanguage information, in general, before they interacted with each piece ofinformation. The general initial understanding is that the indexing languageprovides suggestions for terms that might be related to the entry term (theterm they searched for, or the term for which they chose to view indexinglanguage information). This understanding was not shared among all non-LISgraduate students.

The non-LIS graduate students were unaware that the information wasavailable to them in the online catalogs while they were searching on theirtopic, even if they interacted with this information. The LIS students had abetter initial understanding of indexing language information and awarenessof its availability in the online catalogs but did not always remember thisonline catalog feature while searching. In one case, the participant did notmake the connection between the information interacted with while search-ing and the information displayed during the interview. Neither group ofparticipants understood the purpose of the “More Info” button or did notunderstand that clicking “More Info” would provide access to the indexinglanguage information.

During the interview, participants were given the chance to interact withthe indexing language information. After their initial interaction, when theywere asked about their understanding of the information conveyed by theindexing language, they were asked to interact with and comment on eachspecific type of information available including scope notes, used for/usereferences, broader, narrower, and related term links, and general “see also”references. Participants were also asked if they found each type of infor-mation helpful for term selection in a topic search and if they would haveselected a suggested term when they interacted with indexing language in-formation related to their topic. Because participants interacted with indexinglanguage information for both the user term (their own topic) and the term“clothing and dress,” the term “entry term” is used to refer to these terms.

SCOPE NOTE

When stating their understanding of scope notes and their functionality,participants used expressions such as:

compares with other term; suggests other term; to distinguish from otherterm; related terms; you are not where you want to be, go there in-stead; different aspect; clarify; state differences; draws attention to otherterms; defines limitations; different intentions; defines term; ways termis interpreted; define scope; what it is not; territories to divide; what itcovers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

32 A. Salaba

Both groups of participants differentiated between system and user whenexpressing their understanding of the information in scope. The followingstatement illustrates this distinction: “it explains how the computer, how thesystem interprets the term ‘clothing and dress’ because this might be differentfrom what you expect and allow for suggestions and without it all thesebelow might not make sense because they are based on this interpretationof the term” (P10).28

Overall, participants understand the purpose of the scope note as fol-lows: define the entry term under which it appears, distinguish a term fromother similar terms, and direct users to an appropriate term (based on sys-tem interpretation). Participants find these notes helpful, expressing theirfunctions as follows:

• defines the term• allows them to make term selection decisions• directs them to a different aspect of the topic• triggers new concepts and terms that can be included in their queries• clarifies and confirms term selection• saves user time and getting frustrated

Participants suggest that brevity could improve scope notes; long text makesthe note hard to read and easy to ignore. Users are accustomed to hy-perlinked information and associate any linked term with something worthviewing. Blocks of texts like scope notes do not include linked terms andare often overlooked. Participant P30 states that “first of all, the way it is putup there, I don’t know if that’s something you want to hear but I wouldn’tactually read it, ah, put it on red or something and then link that for me,so it would get more efficient.” Participant P70 states, “I think it is . . . outof habit . . . I would like to read short notes, not three sentences like that,”and participant P220 indicates that “I’d find it useful. I didn’t actually read itbefore you pointed it out to me. You know, I just went down to these. I didthe first time I looked at it but I wouldn’t now that I’ve seen it, yes I think itwould be useful.”

USED FOR/USE INFORMATION

The overall understanding of the “Used for” and “Use” (UF/USE) referencesto represent equivalence relationships is that several terms are similar orcover the same concept and that one is preferable for searching the presentsystem. Participants understand the system is directing them to change theirquery terms or (preferably) direct them via hyperlink to the “chosen” (system-preferred) term. This information is not always clear to the participants. Someparticipants understand that these terms have equal, similar, or closely related

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 33

meanings but they do not express the understanding of the “preferred” termin an indexing language. In other words, the function of this information isunclear. The following statements indicate that these participants think termslisted under “used for” are valid terms that will produce results in a search:

No idea! . . . Well, I’ll take a guess for you. I would assume that “edu-cational technology” is used for; maybe this is a broader description forwhat you’re searching for if you use that heading. (P30)Used for . . . is that like I could use this keyword to search for thisinformation. (P50)Yeah, it’s another way to see the topic, yeah, if there is some varia-tion, parent involvement, parent participation and parent interaction withchild, yeah, they have the same meaning but both show the educationwith the parent. (P70)

In present online catalogs, “Use” references are more common than “Usedfor” references. Most participants interacted with the “Used for” referencesbut not all interacted with the “Use” reference. Participants may have had abetter understanding of “Use” references if they had interacted with them.

BROADER TERM

Participants’ understanding of “Broader term” is defined in two ways: inrelation to the topic coverage and in relation to the retrieval of a broaderterm search. Topic coverage is defined as the range of a subject area a term iscovering. For example, participants often express that a broader term coversa broader area of the subject that includes the entry term. This is seen in thefollowing participant statements:

Technology would be a larger classification, educational technologywould be a subsection of technology. (P30)Could be comprehension of anything, other than just text. You know, itcould be pictures, it might be cognitive activities of the mind, so it’s, it isvery broad. (P60)

Several participants define “Broader term” in regard to the number of re-trieved resources and the number of topics retrieved. Often, participants usestatements about both topic coverage and retrieved resources to expressan understanding of “Broader term.” Examples of statements relating to thenumber of retrieved resources include:

If I use this term, choose this broader terms it would be like I used the“medical assessment,” I would get a lot of results. I might have to, itmight be a hundred, I will have to go through them one-by-one until Ilocate the one that might be useful to me. (P10)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

34 A. Salaba

Broader term might just be Alien plants might capture more . . . more . . .

more titles on the subject than Invasive plants. (P80)

It is interesting that several Group 1-GG students stated that all resourcescovered by a broader term and the resources on its narrower topic(s) willbe retrieved with one query when searching under a broader term. Forexample, P70 states: “the system might suggest to look at, look at and click,look at this [broader] topic to . . . I might find all the information in thistopic” (P70) and P50’s statement “Okay, Broader term. I can just search bynuclear spectroscopy and maybe I can find out something about this massspectrometry” (P50). This understanding of broader term and its function hassome system design and retrieval implications. A system could be designedto include all narrower terms when a broader term is used in a subject search.IR systems are often designed to retrieve resources specifically assigned thebroader term and exclude retrieval of resources specifically assigned a termnarrower than the search term.

When asked if they would have selected a broader term for their searchor if they would find broader term information helpful, most participantsstated that the information is helpful and, in many cases, they would have se-lected at least one broader term. Several participants said broader terms weretoo broad for their search needs and they therefore would not have searchedfor a broader term. One participant stated that the suggested broader termwas not broad enough. This suggests that display of multiple levels ofthe vocabulary hierarchy might have been more helpful for that particularinstance.

NARROWER TERM

Narrower term understanding is often expressed in terms of hierarchy. Theoverall understanding of narrower term and its function by the participantsis that it covers a more specific topic than the entry term, and if a useris interested in the more specific topic, they need to select the narrowerterm. When stating their understanding of narrower terms and their func-tion, participants used relevance, number of retrieved resources, and otherexpressions to indicate specificity. Examples for each instance follow:

I think if you pick a broader term you’ll end up with some records youcan use and some that you can’t and if you pick a narrow term maybeyour, maybe you can get a higher percentage of the results that you canuse but you are missing out on some, other ones. (P210)It is telling me I will give you thousands with this terms [clothing anddress] and you would not be able to go through them, therefore I suggestyou look at narrower terms. (P10)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 35

It . . . told me to look up those subject headings or whatever we’re goingto call these for more specific information within educational technology.(P30)I have the opportunity to search for specific types of clothing. (P60)That all of clothing is broken down to all these . . . subtopics, so if youput in clothing and you are interested in doll clothes you can go to dollclothes. (P100)

When asked if they would have selected any of the narrower terms suggestedby the indexing language, or if information related to narrower term in theindexing language would be helpful, all participants stated that they wouldhave selected several narrower terms for their search and that narrower terminformation is the most helpful of the indexing language information withwhich they interacted.

RELATED TERM

Participants cannot easily express their understanding of the associative re-lationship, known as related term in most indexing languages. Generally,participants consider related terms as topically related to the entry term anddifferent from broader and narrower terms. Few participants express whatexactly a related term is. Examples of participant expressions of their under-standing of related term and its function include:

I don’t know any other way to put it, except for kind of like if yougo to Amazon and find a book and, you know, they give you the linkthat says well, if this interests you, this might also interest you. It is notreally saying that “clothing and dress” is a subsection or a heading of anyevents, just saying you might also find interesting or relevant materials. . . by looking under these two. (P30)Well, similar but not the same. I guess you can get different things withmass media and war . . . and slightly different things with war in . . . Iguess war coverage in mass media is what it means? I don’t know, Ithink that’s a fine distinction. (P100)It means that fashion and clothing and dress aren’t part of the samehierarchy really, so they are not broader terms or narrow terms to eachother, but they have something to do with each other. (P210)

Several participants express their understanding in a more visual way, forexample:

It is similar in some way but it is not . . . it is not . . . above or below theterms in some sort of hierarchical level . . . so . . . fashion is sort of similarto clothing and dress but it is not necessarily a direct part of sort of thelineage of terminology of this. (P230)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

36 A. Salaba

I think of it as like broader term is on top, the term itself is in the middle,the narrow terms like . . . and the related term is sort of in the side ofthat, representing it visually. (P240)

This visualized expression suggests that some users might better understandthis information if it is visually, graphically presented.

When asked if related term information is useful in term selection or ifthey would have selected a related term, most participants stated that it isuseful information because it provides a different aspect of the topic. As anillustration, participant P220 stated: “I never looked at related terms muchbefore but I think that is actually helpful. You know, coming at things froma different angle, you get stuck in your mind and I think that is a very goodidea, so I think it is very helpful” (P220).

One participant expressed that a related term is the same as the broaderterm, and another expressed that the related term information is the resultof the scope note: “it kind of goes with the note up here, that if you werelooking for something specifically to costume you might want to go therefirst. Or Fashion, but Clothing and dress, it is not that by using these termsare broader or narrower, it’s like a completely different search tree” (P20).

BROADER–NARROWER–RELATED TERM RELATIONSHIP

Because most indexing languages use the three (broader, narrower, and re-lated) groups for suggested terms, participants were asked to express theirunderstanding of the relationship among these three groups. Most partici-pants from both groups find the three groups distinct enough to warrantthe need to keep them separate. When asked how the three differ, severalparticipants, especially among Group 1-GG, did not clearly understand thedifference. Statements such as “I do think the related term could be a subsetof the broader term. It does not necessarily mean it is a focused term ornarrow term. So, those two, I think, make it a little bit more difficult for meto differentiate” (P60) and “broader term means that Clothes and dress areonly under these terms but Costume and Fashion [related terms], maybe theyboth exist under the broader term, yah, maybe they are . . . I don’t know”(P70) indicate no clear understanding of the difference between broader,narrower term groups and the related terms and their function. Statementssuch as “this is just me talking about this specific one. Fashion . . . yah, no, Ithink that those are two good related terms; I don’t think they’re. . ., becausewhen I think of fashion I think of clothing in terms of the business side ofclothing, costume, place, theater. Whereas I can see clothing and dress as asubsection of . . . wow, that’s really broad. No, I guess, I think they’re, thatthis section, I think they are right on” (P30) indicate a distinction betweenbroader, narrower, and related terms.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 37

Group 2-LG, on the other hand expressed the differences with moreclarity, and most defined the difference in relation to the hierarchy underwhich terms might fall. Examples of such expressions among LIS studentsinclude:

It means that fashion and clothing and dress aren’t part of the samehierarchy really, so they are not broader terms or narrow terms to eachother, but they have something to do with each other. (P210)It is kind of about the same level of specificity as clothing and dress andsort of related but there is not a hierarchical relationship, like this is, it isnot that the clothing and dress is part of Fashion or that the related termis part of clothing and dress. I think of it as like broader term is on top,the term itself is in the middle, the narrow terms like . . . and the relatedterm is sort of in the side of that, representing it visually. (P240)It is more parallel, kind of like moving across instead of moving downto narrow and up to broader, in relation to clothing and dress. (P260)

GENERAL “SEE ALSO” REFERENCES

In most cases, participants of both groups have a basic understanding ofthe general “see also” reference but are unclear as to how to proceed. Inother words, the function of this information is not as clear. The basic un-derstanding is that users can find related information under other topics. Itis unclear to many of them what these topics or terms are. Examples of clearunderstanding of the general “see also” reference and its function include:

Well, I guess if you are looking for, lets say you’re are doing somekind of a cultural project and you wanted the clothing customs of somecertain group, you would, actually look under that group and then lookmaybe for, well, maybe, well, I don’t know where they would put itbut something that says clothing, or ethnic clothing, customary clothing.(P30)If you are looking for clothing that a certain person wears, maybe a filmor something that you might need to look under that person’s name.(P80)

The following statements indicate unclear or no understanding of this index-ing language information and its function:

I don’t know. I don’t know what it means, it does not provide any link,just a sentence, so I don’t know what this means. I know it is related tosocial class, ethnic group and individual person but there is no link togo there. I am not sure if I go to this page, I might ignore this. (P70)Individual . . . I don’t understand that. (P50)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

38 A. Salaba

Not as clear as the other note. I am guessing that it is a subdivision ofclothing and dress. So you put Clothing and dress and then . . . I don’tknow, I don’t know. (P250)

Overall, Group 2-LG better understands the function of this note and how toproceed based on this note. They express this understanding with statementssuch as “if you looking for the clothes that a specific person wore, you canlook under that person’s name and under the name might be clothing, so youcan find that. And like I could even put in homeless or even homelessnessor homeless persons and there could be a clothing section. But same withethnic groups, you could put in Ghana or something and then clothingmight be a choice” (P210). Group 1-GG had a basic understanding of thisinformation but could not always express how to proceed in term selection.

Suggestions Related to Indexing Language Information

After each participant interacted with and expressed their understanding ofthe information types in the indexing language, as well as their functions interm selection, they were asked to reflect on their overall understanding ofthe information, its usefulness for term selection when searching the catalogfor a topic, and if they would change the indexing language information.

The participants shared the overall understanding that the indexing lan-guage information and its function distinguishes the entry term’s meaningand usage by the system from similar terms and makes suggestions to searchunder related terms. These suggested terms might be:

• broader and therefore might cover a bigger subject area that may includethe entry term and it might also result in more hits

• narrower and therefore will result in more specific information• related and therefore will remind the user of other aspects of the topic and

allow them to change direction in their term selection• direct them to totally different topics that will have some related topical

component through the general “see also” references.

Participants find the indexing language information very helpful for termselection and would like to receive such information while searching fora topic. They find the narrower term the most helpful information in anindexing language. In addition, several participants expressed that they finda combination of two groups, narrower and broader, or narrower and related,as very helpful information.

Some of the suggestions relating to enhancements or what needs to bemodified include:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 39

• more clearly label displays of different indexing language information andavailability of indexing language information in the searching interface

• include explanations (definitions or scope notes) of why or how certainsuggested terms relate to the entry term, including terms listed under the“used for” group. Participants often questioned the inclusion of certainterms under a relationship group and stated that an explanation of thesystem’s decision would be helpful

• hyperlink valid terms for direct search, including terms under the BT, NT,and RT groups and terms in scope notes and general “see also” referencesso that searchers can locate a suggested term without having to copy ortype it in the search box

• avoid lengthy textual notes. If not possible, include hyperlinked examples;participants stated on several occasions that they rarely pay attention tolengthy text blocks, but if text blocks include a hyperlink, they would bemore likely to notice and might read the text

• split lengthy narrower term lists into categories; listing a large number ofnarrower terms in alphabetical order was viewed as a disadvantage; a morelogical ordering of lengthy lists (into categories) would make navigating alengthy list easier

• display information more visually, rather than just as a linear list of terms:participants stated that not all searchers think in a linear way nor arethey able to cognitively process information presented in a list format;displaying indexing language information in other ways might help certaintypes of searchers to comprehend this information

• avoid bias in the inclusion of suggested terms: several participants com-mented on the fact that only women’s clothing and the term “women” wasused throughout the information for “clothing and dress” and questionedthe biased treatment of the topic

In addition, participants expressed disagreement in the determination ofcertain terms as members of one of the BT, NT, or RT groups. Examples ofsuch statements include:

The related term. I think I would make these [labels] more clear. Hm, Ithink if you asked me to come up with a list it would be very different.Hm, the narrow term has so many suggestions, that’s why I think thatthe related terms might not be very necessary. But if you are searchingon a topic that you are not very familiar this might be very helpful. (P10)I think this website information is very helpful, except with SA [“seealso”], and maybe this part [points to the scope note] maybe is too long,yah. But I really like the NT part, the narrow term part. (P70)I think ah, like used for, I might have a click on everything to explain.Explain what they are. (P70)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

40 A. Salaba

Apparel, Clothes, Clothing, Dress. . . Well, I’m curious. Used for and itsays Women Clothing, Women Dress, Women’s clothing, does that meanthat they don’t have anything of men’s clothing? I don’t, I don’t know.(P80)I do agree, although it, it seems to be for the female gender. (P60)You know, I like things to be clickable and easy. (P100)It is very big [pointing to the narrower terms list]. I’m not sure. It seemslike that could be . . . it seems that they are just in alphabetical orderright now, just trying to group it or clump it in some way so that similarparts of clothing could be together, might get just too subjective but itdoes look like . . . maybe there is not a narrow term that says dress, thereis dress accessories but not just plain old dress, is there something likeskirts? I mean the parts . . . it seems the terms they’re using here . . . yeah,I mean just some of the simple terminology that I would come to mymind seems to be sort of missing. (P230)

Display of Indexing Language Information While Searchingfor a Topic

During interviews, all participants expressed that indexing language infor-mation is very helpful for term selection and that they would like to receivethis information while searching the catalog for their topic. Some of thisinformation was available in the system they searched during their searchsession. However, many participants had not interacted with this informationeither because they were unaware of its availability, or they were aware ofits availability in the IR system but not of its availability through the “moreinfo” button. Participants were asked if they would prefer to have the index-ing language information displayed directly, as part of the search results, orindirectly, when they chose to view it. Three categories of responses werereceived: (1) definitely display the information directly, (2) definitely displaythe information indirectly, and (3) contradictory responses between cognitiveprocess and behavior. Both direct and indirect preferences are supported bycognitive (how they think) and behavioral (how they act) reasons.

Participants preferring direct display indicate that they would not havethought to check for indexing language information if it were not explicitand also that the indexing language information helps them think about theirterm selection. For example:

Ideally, I would’ve liked to have seen the search results followed by this,so that as I scan these search results, if I didn’t find what I wanted to, Iwouldn’t have to go all the way back and redo the search, I could seeinstant references to related. (P60)Directly [added emphasis]. Because I might not, even if it says a buttonoff some place, see related terms, I’m looking off in that corner of thescreen. I’m thinking about it. And maybe at some point I would look atit and say Oh, but it . . . but probably not at the beginning of my search.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 41

But if it . . . came up right away or something . . . oh your looking for thistry also these terms, I think I would write them down right away and sayok I’ll have to try these too. (P80)Integrated. Yah, so if you know, like the titles would come up and thenthe see also would come kinda like that because I don’t think I wouldgo any other way. I don’t, I wouldn’t take the extra step to go and lookup extra search terms. (P100)

Participants preferring indirect display indicate that they process informa-tion better when displays are not cluttered, or when viewing one piece ofinformation at a time. For example:

I would prefer it if it was an actual button or something like that becauseI want the page to be short. Although I know that there is a disadvantageto that. (P10)Hm, I’d rather get that page that says here is what it’s about, here is whowrote it, and they have a link and if I want to click on it and go see . . .

probably because if it comes up and it’s not what I’m looking for, thenI just wasted a bunch of time, here if the other way, I can kinda decidemyself. (P30)

Some participants had no preference, seeing advantages and disadvantagesfor both:

If I could, you see, I probably would have never gone for more informa-tion. So, but is one of the reasons that I did not go for more informationbecause that [online catalog] page is so cluttered and it just looks so, youknow who knows what to hit next, so, yah, I’d be afraid to add, afraid tojust add more to that page, but more information about what? Even if thatbutton said, it said, there were two labels, it said broader or narrower, orI mean more information means nothing. (P20)I think I want like, I don’t want everything to be displayed right away . . .

I want to click on a button. I don’t mind” and then says “So, if that wouldgive some information up here. Like if I try mass spectroscopy and thenit says there is no result, and then if right after that it says you may trythis keyword instead . . . Yah, it can make it quicker. I think the systemcan do that” (P50—14:24)

Summary of the Overall Interaction with IndexingLanguage Information

During the initial interaction with the indexing language information, partic-ipants stated their basic understanding of the indexing language informationand its function as other suggested terms to view to find information on theirtopic. After interacting with each specific information type included in theindexing language, such as the scope note, USE references directing them to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

42 A. Salaba

preferred terms, references to used for, broader, narrower and related terms,and general “see also” references, participants in general expressed a betterunderstanding of each information type and its function in term selectionwhile searching for a topic. Participants had a much clearer understandingof the meaning and function of references to broader and narrower terms inthe term selection process. Differences between related terms and the groupof broader and narrower terms were not as clear among the participants. Theinformation that was least clear as to meaning and function was the general“see also” reference.

Overall, participants expressed that all the indexing language informa-tion they interacted with would be very helpful for term selection and theywould like to receive this information when searching in the catalog. Themost useful information is narrower term references. Several suggestionswere made for enhancing indexing language information and its display, butparticipants would not change the overall structure of indexing languageinformation.

Group 2-LG had a better initial understanding of indexing languageinformation and its function than Group 1-GG. They also had a better un-derstanding of the more problematic information, such as Use/Used Forreferences, scope notes, and the general “see also” references and theirfunction. Group 2-LG demonstrated this understanding by providing exam-ples of how one would proceed to use that information for term selection.In addition, they were able to clearly articulate their understanding of mostof the information with which they interacted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

According to Hutchins,29 indexing languages (or document languages [DLs],as he defines all indexing languages used in IR systems) function primar-ily as a communication channel between documents and potential readers.This communication function means that the more “nearly the fundamentalstructural principles of DLs conform to the mode of thinking, writing andunderstanding of the majority of their users, the better they can performtheir functions.” Therefore, it is important to incorporate findings of end-user understanding of indexing language information into the structure ofthese languages.

Users’ understanding of indexing language information and its functionin term selection can be generalized in the following statement: primarily, it isa source for suggested terms for exploring or searching and, in addition, it canbe seen as a device that defines the terms and how they are used in the sys-tem as opposed to how they are perceived by the users. This generalizationcan be translated (although not stated as such by participants) as the users’perception of indexing language information as a communication channel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 43

between the system and the potential user. The participants’ statements indi-cate that they are able to make the connection between this information andits function in term selection and their own way of thinking about how termsare related, the scope of a term, and what will happen to their search if theyuse a suggested term. Conversely, expressions of unclear understanding ofthe information and its function might indicate that not all indexing languageinformation is stated in a way that end-users can effectively use in their termselection and, therefore, might have practical implications in addition to the-oretical implications. Sometimes participants disagree with the inclusion ofcertain terms under one of the categories listed in indexing languages or ex-pect to see terms that have not being included as P230 states in “well beauty,Personal beauty and customs seem kind of odd. I mean, I guess . . . clothingmay be a part of . . . I guess they could a part of, I mean I don’t disagree thatthey are broader terms but if I was searching for something in clothing anddress I don’t know that those things would be of interest of me . . . and seeingthat some of the subjects up here are more sort of textiles and the actual man-ufacturing of clothing, it seems odd that they are not broader terms” (P230).

Understanding the function of indexing language information is impor-tant for the effective use of this information by end-users in term selectionwhile interacting with the IR system for subject searching. Van Pulis andLudy30 suggest that searchers did not use the terms suggested by the sys-tem because they did not understand their function, a finding also reportedby others.31 In this study, scope notes, general “see also” references, andthe difference between related terms and narrower/broader terms was notalways clear for most participants but mostly understood by non-LIS gradu-ate students (Group1-GG). Vakkari32 reports difficulties in understanding thedifference between RTs and NTs among novice searchers.

Overall, participants find indexing language information very helpfuland desirable in term selection. Especially helpful is the suggestion of nar-rower terms for finding more specific information, scope notes for distin-guishing the meaning and use of the term, and the suggestion of relatedterms for finding similar information, different aspects, or perspectives of thesame subject area. This finding is supported by Vakkari’s33 suggestion thatindexing language information helps novice searchers improve search resultsby using NTs, differentiate the topic terms, and interrelate its parts, and byShiri and Revie’s34 findings that users discover a significant number of termsfrom the thesaurus for query expansion (primarily ones with hierarchical orassociative relationships), and that users see a thesaurus as a tool for find-ing narrower and broader terms and also for term awareness. Binding andTudhope35 found that searching within scope notes was useful for identify-ing other potential terms of interest. Nielsen36 found that searchers wantedand needed the support of a thesaurus primarily for query formulation; fewused the thesaurus to increase concept understanding. An interesting findingin Nielsen’s studies is that users used many related terms while browsing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

44 A. Salaba

the thesaurus but not while searching the database. More research is neededto test end-user perceptions of what indexing language information is moreuseful and desirable in term selection, actual use of this information whilesearching, and the reasons end-users used or chose not to use terms in queryformulation (compared to what they say would be useful while interactingwith the indexing language).

Differences between the non-LIS graduate student group and the LISstudent group in understanding of indexing language information and itsfunction in term selection indicate that searchers with basic indexing lan-guage familiarity have a better understanding of this information and itsfunction and how to use it in term selection while searching the IR system,and tend to consult this information and assigned subject headings duringsubject searching. This finding comports with the effect of searcher trainingin term selection by Van Pulis and Ludy, and by Blocks.37

Here again, we see that cognitive science theories offer explanations ofusers’ understanding of indexing language information as an attempt by thesystem to help them define the terms, distinguish terms, and select termsby triggering new terms as supported by the data of this study. In addi-tion, both Rosch’s38 basic-level category theory and the Spreading ActivationModel of Human Memory by Collins and Loftus39 offer some insight into theusers’ perception that indexing language information and especially links tosemantically related terms are very helpful in term selection and are con-sidered desirable during their interaction with the IR system. The basic-levelcategory theory might also explain why users find broader and narrowerterms helpful, although this contradicts assumptions in indexing theories,such as that users only need to narrow their terms; and practices in systemdesign, such as not displaying broader terms in a library catalog or not al-ways integrating indexing language information and IR systems. This leadsus to the discussion of practical implications of this study.

Several participants expressed ways to enhance indexing language in-formation and make them more user-friendly: including term definitions,explaining how suggested concepts are related to an entry term, hyperlink-ing suggested terms (especially within lengthy text blocks), avoiding lengthynotes, and making information more user friendly through natural languageexpressions and examples of how to use the information. The concepts ofend-user thesauri and search thesauri as vocabularies for searching basedon user needs discussed in the literature40 are still applicable and, as someof the participants’ suggestions indicate, might be what users need to helpthem with term selection.

Two practical implications of the findings of this study are discussedlater. These are the integration of indexing language information withthe IR systems and end-user training. Participants agree with the types ofinformation included in the indexing language and the grouping of suggestedterms into broader, narrower, and related. Because there were contradictions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 45

in participants’ explanations of the function of broader and related terms, ex-planatory notes for each group might help the end user. Participants often ex-pressed disagreement about the terms included under each group, and a biasin the inclusion and exclusion of certain terms was noted by several partici-pants, although they were not specifically asked to reflect on this issue. Biasin indexing languages is an issue addressed by Sanford Berman, Hope Olson,Bowker and Star, and others over the years. It is interesting that this problemis noted not only by professionals and researchers but also by library users.

A number of participants noted that the list of narrow terms can bevery long and difficult to browse. This finding suggests a need for examin-ing ways of splitting long lists of narrow terms into manageable groups thatmake sense to searchers. The inclusion of more specific narrow term rela-tionships, as was also suggested in the final report to the ALCTS/CCS SubjectAnalysis Committee,41 should be further considered and investigated. In ad-dition, further investigation in the visual representation of indexing languageinformation to the user is warranted. Johnson and Cochrane42 developed aninterface that displays related terms as a cloud, separate from the tree struc-ture display of broader and narrower terms. Studies addressing visualizationof information in a broader context (not specifically for indexing languageinformation), which can be used as a basis for further study of visualizationof indexing language information, include Herman, Melancon, and Marshall,and Sebrechts, Vasilakis, Miller, Cugini, and Laskowski,43 among others. Inaddition, the work of the Thinkmap, Inc.44 group for the development of theVisual Thesaurus serves as an example of a possible design for visualizationof indexing language information.

The development of end-user thesauri, indexing languages designedwith end-user needs in mind, assuming use by those other than professionals,is an imperative consideration. Those constructing future indexing languagesthat can serve as end-user thesauri should consider including clearer notes,examples of how to formulate subject searches (especially in the case ofgeneral “see also” notes), hyperlinks to preferred terms, and definitions ofterms and their scope.

This study found that basic indexing language familiarity is related notonly to the understanding of this information but also to the way users inter-act with the IR system. Several participants that had bibliographic instructionwere unaware of the availability of indexing language information and howto use this information in term selection. This suggests a need for changesin user education. In addition, because many library users interact with thelibrary catalog or other IR systems outside the library, from a remote loca-tion, it is imperative to consider online user education and integration ofthis education with the IR system in an unobtrusive but noticeable way. It isnot the researcher’s suggestion that this information needs to be at the levelof an LIS course. All participants better understood most of the indexinglanguage information once they had an opportunity to interact with each

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

46 A. Salaba

piece. So, basic education about the kinds of information available, theirdefinitions and functions, and how to use this information in term selection,would provide them with basic skills.

Van Pulis and Ludy, and especially Blocks45 emphasize the importanceof user training for query formulation and system support for query formu-lation and integration of this support throughout all stages of the searchprocess. Blocks found that users with some knowledge of thesauri had noproblems using the thesaurus even in complex situations. Greenberg46 alsopoints out that current catalogs or information retrieval systems have lit-tle or no tutorials explaining the functions of indexing languages to end-users. One of the problems users faced in this study was that systemsupport was not integrated into the interface throughout the entire searchprocess.

This study examined end-user understanding of indexing language in-formation and its function in term selection. Participant understandings wereexpressed after their interaction with the IR system and while they wereinteracting only with the indexing language information. Future research isneeded to determine whether user-expressed understandings could be oper-ationalized during interactions with the IR system and while searching on atopic. In addition, a pre- and post-indexing language interaction experimentwould allow us to examine the effects of indexing language understandingon term selection and end-user satisfaction.

One limitation of this study was the indexing language used. LCSH isa widely used indexing language with which most academic library usershave an opportunity to interact, but there are several other indexing lan-guages used in library environments, such as the Medical Subject Headings(MeSH),47 and thesauri used for indexing journal articles that are availableto users through journal databases. An exploration of user interactions withother indexing languages might shed more light on user understanding ofindexing language information and its function in term selection. In addi-tion, experimental research with different structures of indexing languages,making additional types of information relating to subject terms available toend-users, end-user thesauri or vocabularies, ontologies, and their effective-ness in term selection can be examined.

NOTES

1. Gayle Hodge, Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Au-thority Files (Washington, DC: Digital Library Federation, Council on Library and Information Resources,2000). Available from: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub91/contents.html

2. F. W. Lancaster, Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. (Champaign:University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, 1998), 15.

3. W. John Hutchins, Languages of Indexing and Classification (London: Peter Peregrinus, 1975).4. Marcia J. Bates, “Subject Access in Online Catalogs: A Design Model,” Journal of the American

Society for Information Science 37, (6) (1986): 357–376.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 47

5. The term “online catalogs” is used in the remainder of this study to refer to online public accesscatalogs (OPACs).

6. Tina Gross and Arlene G. Taylor, “What Have We Got to Lose? The Effect of Controlled Vocab-ulary on Keyword Searching Results,” College & Research Libraries 66, no. 3 (2005): 212–230.

7. Noelle Van Pulis and Lorene E. Lundy, “Subject Searching in an Online Catalog with AuthorityControl,” College & Research Libraries 49 (1988): 523–533.

8. Efthimis N. Efthimiadis, “Query Expansion,” Annual Review of Information Science and Tech-nology (ARIST) 31 (1996): 121–187.

9. Raya Fidel, “Searchers’ Selection of Search Keys: II. Controlled Vocabulary or Free-text Search-ing,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42, no.7 (1991b): 501–514; Efthimiadis,“Query Expansion”; A. Spink and T. Saracevic, “Interaction in Information Retrieval: Selection and Ef-fectiveness of Search Terms,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48, no.8 (1997):741–761.

10. A. Spink, “Term Relevance Feedback and Mediated Database Searching: Implications for Infor-mation Retrieval Practice and Systems Design,” Information Processing & Management 31, no. 2 (1994):161–171; Spink and Saracevic, “Interaction in Information Retrieval: Selection and Effectiveness of SearchTerm.”

11. Raya Fidel, “Online Searching Styles: A Case-study-based Model of Searching Behavior,” Journalof the American Society for Information Science 35, no. 4 (1984): 211–221. Raya Fidel, “Searchers’ Selectionof Search Keys: I. The Selection Routine,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42,no. 7 (1991): 490–500. Raya Fidel, “Searchers’ Selection of Search Keys: II. Controlled Vocabulary orFree-text Searching”; Raya Fidel, “Searchers’ Selection of Search Keys: III. Searching Styles,” Journal ofthe American Society for Information Science 42, no. 7 (1991): 515–27. Tefko Saracevic and Paul Kantor,“A Study of Information Seeking and Retrieving: II. Users, Questions, and Effectiveness,” Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science 39, no. 3 (1988): 177–96. Tefko Saracevic and Paul Kantor,“A Study of Information Seeking and Retrieving: III. Searchers, Searches, and Overlap,” Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science 39, no. 3 (1988): 197–214. Tefko Saracevic and others, “A Studyof Information Seeking and Retrieving: I. Background and Methodology,” Journal of the American Societyfor Information Science 39, no. 3 (1988): 161–190.

12. Pertii Vakkari, “Cognition and Changes of Search Terms and Tactics During Task Performance:A Longitudinal Case Study,” in Proceedings of the RIAO 2000 Conference: Content-based MultimediaInformation Access (Paris: CID, 2000).

13. Ali Asghar Shiri, Crawford Revie, and Gobinda Chowdhury, “Assessing the Impact of UserInteraction with Thesaural Knowledge Structures: A Quantitative Analysis Framework,” in Challenges inKnowledge Representations and Organization for the 21st Century (Wurzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2002).

14. Ali Shiri and Crawford Revie, “Query Expansion Behavior Within a Thesaurus-enhanced SearchEnvironment,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57, no. 4 (2006):462–478.

15. Marianne Lykke Nielsen, The Word Association Method: A Gateway to Word-task Based Retrieval(Abo: Abo Akademi University Press, 2002); Marianne Lykke Nielsen, “Task-based Evaluation of Asso-ciative Thesaurus in Real-life Environment,” Proceedings of the American Society for Information Scienceand Technology, 41 (2004): 437–447.

16. Dorothee Blocks, “A Qualitative Study of Thesaurus Integration for End-user Searching” (PhDdiss., University of Glamorgan/Prifysgol Morgannwg, 2004).

17. M. Beaulieu, “Experiments on Interfaces to Support Query Expansion,” Journal of Documen-tation 53, no. 1 (1997): 8–19; Michael P. Oakes and Malcolm J. Taylor, “Automated Assistance in theFormulation of Search Statements for Bibliographic Databases,” Information Processing & Management34, no.6 (1998): 645–688.

18. Jane Greenberg, “User Comprehension and Searching with Information Retrieval Thesauri,”Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 37, no. 3/4 (2004): 103–120.

19. Marcia J. Bates, “Subject Access in Online Catalogs: A Design Model,” Journal of the AmericanSociety for Information Science 37, no. 6 (1986): 357–376.

20. F. W. Lancaster, Vocabulary Control for Information Retrieval (Arlington, VA: Information Re-sources Press, 1986); James D. Anderson and Frederick A. Rowley, “Building End-user Thesauri fromFull Text,” in Advances in Classification Research: Proceedings of the 2nd ASIS SIG/CR Classification Re-search Workshop, 27–31 October, 1991, eds. Barbara H. Kwasnik and Raya Fidel (Medford, NJ: LearnedInformation, 1992): 1–13; Pauline A. Cochrane, “Indexing and Searching Thesauri, the Janus or Proteus of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

48 A. Salaba

Information Retrieval,” in Classification Research for Knowledge Representation and Organization, eds. N.J. Williamson and M. Hudon (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1992): 161–178; J. L. Milstead, “Thesauri in a Full-textWorld,” in Visualizing Subject Access for 21st Century Information Resources, eds. Pauline A. Cochraneand Eric Johnson (Urbana-Champaign: Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Universityof Illinois, 1998): 28–38; Pauline A. Cochrane and Eric Johnson, eds., Visualizing Subject Access for 21stCentury Information Resources (Urbana-Champaign: Graduate School of Library and Information Science,University of Illinois, 1998).

21. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (Thou-sand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1998): 4.

22. Norman K. Denzin, The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1989).

23. John W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions(Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998); Barney Glazer and Anselm Strauss, The Discovery of GroundedTheory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Hathorne, N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1967); and Anselm Straussand Juliet M. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing GroundedTheory (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998).

24. Matthew B. Miles and Michael Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook(Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1994).

25. Library of Congress, Library of Congress Subject Headings, available through Classification Web,Library of Congress, http://classificationweb.net/

26. Gregory Wool, “LC referencing in OPACs—Why bother?” in Final Report to the ALCTS/CCSSubject Analysis Committee, ALA. ALCTS. CSS. Subject Analysis Committee. Subcommittee on SubjectRelationships-Reference Structures, (Appendix G), May 31,1997. Available from: http://www.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/appendixf.cfm; and Gregory Wool, “Reportof a Preliminary Survey of Subject Referencing in OPACs,” in Final Report to the ALCTS/CCS Subject Anal-ysis Committee, ALA. ALCTS. CSS. Subject Analysis Committee. Subcommittee on Subject Relationships-Reference Structures (Appendix F), 1997. Available from: http://www.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/appendixg.cfm

27. Library of Congress, Classification Web. Available from: http://classificationweb.net/28. Non-LIS participants were labeled P10, P20, P30, . . . up to P100. The LIS participants were

labeled P210, P220, . . . up to P270.29. Hutchins, Languages of Indexing and Classification, 127.30. Van Pulis and Lundy, “Subject Searching in an Online Catalog with Authority Control.”31. Michael P. Oakes and Malcolm J. Taylor, “Automated Assistance in the Formulation of Search

Statements for Bibliographic Databases,” Information Processing & Management 34, no. 6 (1998): 645–668;and Dorothee Blocks and others, “Qualitative Evaluation of Thesaurus-based Retrieval,” in Proceedings(ECDL 2002) 6th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries, eds.Maristella Agosti and Constantino Thanos (London: Springer, 2002): 346–361.

32. Vakkari, “Cognition and Changes of Search Terms and Tactics During Task Performance.”33. Ibid.34. Shiri and Revie, “Query Expansion Behavior Within a Thesaurus-enhanced Search Environment”;

and Ali Shiri and Crawford Revie, “Usability and User Perceptions of a Thesaurus-Enhanced SearchInterface,” Journal of Documentation 61, no. 5 (2005): 640–656.

35. Ceri Binding and Douglas Tudhope, “KOS at your Service: Programmatic Access to KnowledgeOrganization Systems,” Journal of Digital Information 4, no. 4 (2004): Article No. 265. Available from:http://jodi.tamu.edu/Articles/v04/i04/Binding/

36. Nielsen, The Word Association Method; and Nielsen, “Task-based Evaluation of Associative The-saurus in Real-life Environment.”

37. Van Pulis and Lundy, “Subject Searching in an Online Catalog with Authority Control.”38. Eleanor Rosch, “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories,” Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General 104 (1975): 192–233; Eleanor Rosch, “Principles of Categorization,” in Cognitionand Categorization, eds. Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara B. Lloyd (Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum Associates, 1978):27–48.

39. Allan M. Collins and Elizabeth F. Loftus, “A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing,”Psychological Review 82, no. 6 (1975): 407–428.

40. Bates, “Subject Access in Online Catalogs: A Design Model”; Svenonius, “Unanswered Questionsin the Design of Controlled Vocabularies”; Milstead, “Thesauri in a Full-text World”; Cochrane and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 49

Johnson, Visualizing Subject Access for 21st Century Information Resources; Anderson and Rowley,“Building End-user Thesauri from Full Text”; Nielsen, The Word Association Method.

41. Dee Michel, Pat Kuhr, and Jane Greenberg, “Checklist of Candidate Subjects Rela-tionships for Information Retrieval,” in Final Report to the ALCTS/CCS Subject Analysis Com-mittee, ALA. ALCTS. CSS. Subject Analysis Committee. Subcommittee on Subject Relationships-Reference Structures, (Appendix C), 1977. Available from: http://www.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/appendixc.cfm

42. Eric H. Johnson and Pauline A. Cochrane, “A Hypertextual Interface for a Searcher’s The-saurus,” in Digital Libraries ‘95: The Second Annual Conference on the Theory and Practice of Dig-ital Libraries (College Station, Tex.: Hypermedia Research Laboratory, 1995): 77–86. Available from:http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/DL95/papers/johncoch/johncoch.html.

43. M. Herman, G. Melancon, and M. S. Marshall, “Graph Visualization and Navigation in InformationVisualization: A Survey,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 61, no. 1 (2000):24–43; Marc M. Sebrechts and others, “Visualization of Search Results: A Comparative Evaluation of Text,2D, and 3D Interfaces,” in Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research andDevelopment in Information Retrieval, (Berkeley, Calif.: ACM, 1999): 3–10.

44. Thinkmap, Inc., Thinkmap Visual Thesaurus. Available from: http://www.visualthesaurus.com/45. Van Pulis and Lundy, “Subject Searching in an Online Catalog with Authority Control”; and

Blocks, “Qualitative Study of Thesaurus Integration for End-user Searching.”46. Greenberg, “User Comprehension and Searching with Information Retrieval Thesauri.”47. National Library of Medicine, Medical Subject Headings. Available from: http://www.nlm.nih.

gov/mesh/

APPENDIX A

“Clothing and Dress” Heading from LCSH

HEADING: Clothing and dressScope Note: Here are entered works on clothing from the standpoint of

utility as a covering for the body, and works on the art ofdress. Works on the clothing of particular places or periodsas well as on costume for the theater, movies or specialoccasions, e.g. court receptions, carnivals, masquerades,etc. are entered under Costume.

Used For/See From: ApparelClothesClothingDressGarmentsWomen ClothingWomen DressWomen’s clothing

Search Also Under: subdivision “Clothing” under names of individual personsand under classes of persons and ethnic groups

Broader Term: Beauty, PersonalManners and customs

Related Term: CostumeFashion

Narrower Term: ApronsBelt togglesBelts (Clothing)Bloomer costumeBlouses

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

50 A. Salaba

BodicesButtonholesButtonsChildren’s clothingCloaksProtective clothingClothing and dress measurementsCoatsCollarsColor in clothingDarts (Clothing)DecolletageDress accessoriesDressmakingEmergency clothing supplyFootwearFur garmentsGathers (Sewing)GlovesHeadgearHosieryInterfacings (Clothing)KimonosLapelsLeather garmentsLiveryMaternity clothesMen’s clothingMillineryNeckwearNewspapers Sections, columns, etc. FashionOverallsPassementeriePlacketsPleats (Sewing)PocketsRiding habitSarisScarvesSeams (Sewing)ShawlsSkirtsSleepwearSleevesSmocksSport clothesStoles (Clothing)SweatersTailoringTernosPantsTucks (Sewing)UnderwearUniformsVestsWaists

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

End-User Understanding of Indexing Language Information 51

Work clothesPrinted fashion apparelCourts and courtiers ClothingHot weather clothingVintage clothingEvening gownsGartersSuits (Clothing)JacketsDressesLeggingsCoverallsShoulder strapsJumpsuitsLatex garmentsPaper garmentsCustom-made clothingKnitwearPlastic garments

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

7:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4