Upload
jolios85
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
1/16
he current issue and
ful
text
archive oí
this journal is
available
at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
qualitative
study
of
collaborative
information
seeking
aul
Prekop
Information Technology Division, Defence Science & Technology
Organisation, Department
of
Defence, Canberra, Australia
Keywords
Information systems, Information retrieval, Information technology
bstract
Much
of
the existing information seeking literature only considers information
seeking when performed by an individual information seeker. This paper describes a study that
explicitly considers information seeking from a collaborative perspective. The s tudy used a
grounded theory approach
of
a complex, real world, example
of
collaborative information seeking
activity, drawn from the military domain.
Introduction
Information seeking forms an important part of many human actIvltIes,
ranging from decision-making and problem solving through to resource
allocation and system management (Rouse and Rouse,
1984).
While many
different models of information seeking have been proposed (Brown, 1991),
implicit in most of them is the assumption that the information seeker is an
individual. Recently, researchers have begun to challenge this assumption, and
to explore the collaborative dimensions of information seeking. Studies of
collaborative information seeking, within various contexts (McDonald and
Ackerman, 1998; Koschmann and Stahl, 1998; Twidale and Nichols, 1998)
have begun to emerge, and within the computer supported collaborative
work
(CSCW)
domain, experimental technology
to
support collaborative
information seeking activities have been developed (Cohen
et al.,
1998; Romano
et al., 1999 .
This paper presents details
of
a qualitative study of the collaborative
dimensions of information seeking. The study describes the collaborative
information seeking behaviours performed by a working group created to
perform the cornmand and control support
(C2S)
study. The
C2S
study was a
large and complex review of the Australian Defence Force's
(ADF)
cornmand
and control capability, and was conducted over three years. The C2S study
working group performed all the information collection and analysis that made
up the C2S study. This paper codifies the collaborative information seeking
behaviours of the
C2S
working group as they collected the information needed
for the
C2S
study.
Collaborative
information
seeking
Received 4 October 2001
Revised 15 April 2002
Accepted 6 May 2002
Joumal of Documentation,
he
author wishes to thank Dr Leoni Warne for her invaJuable help and guidance.
Vol.
58
No. 5, 2002
, pp .
533·547.
©
Cornmonwealth of Australia.
MCB
UP Limited,
0022·0418
533
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htmhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
2/16
5 4
lDQ
58 5
ata collection and
analysis
Two types of data were collected from the working group, the minutes
of
the
working group s meetings, and semi-structured interviews with a sample
of
working group participants.
There were 40 working group meetings each lasting an average of just over
two hours. The meetings had a formal structure with n agenda circulated
before each meeting, and formal actions assigned to meeting participants. One
person recorded the majority 82.5 per cent) of the minutes; a second participant
recorded
12.5
per cent of the meetings, with the remaining two meetings, 5 per
cent, being recorded by two other, different participants.
A total of
28
active[l] participants were involved in the C2S study, with an
average
of
nine participants involved at any time. Due to posting cycles, and
the general movement of staff within the ADF, membership of the working
group went through three major changes during the C2S study s lifetime. Out
of the eight participants who were involved in the C2S study during its final
stages, five were selected for interview. Of the five, two were DSTO
representatives (referred
to
as DST01 and DST02) who had been involved in
the working group since the start, the remaining three were ADF
representatives (referred to as ADF1, ADF2 and ADF3) who had been involved
in the working group for
t
least one year. The ADF participants also
represented a good cross-section of the different ADF representatives who
participated in the C2S study. The five participants were interviewed using
structured interviews
K
vale, 1996). The interviews were recorded and
transcribed. Each interview lasted for an average
40
minutes.
To capture the richness of information seeking behaviours, a qualitative
research approach (Kaplan and Duchon, 1988) based on grounded theory
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967) was used to guide data collection and analysis.
Grounded theory has been successfully applied to previous work in
information seeking for example Ellis, 1989).
Initially, the meeting minutes were open coded as suggested by Glaser and
Strauss
1967).
Candidate categories and their properties were identified. As the
analysis progressed, similar categories were merged, and the properties of the
remaining categories expanded. The initial collection of 13 categories tended to
describe the responsibilities of the individual participants and the roles they
tended to adopt (later to be described as the roles), and repeating interactions
that occurred in the meetings (later to be described as pattems). These initial
collections of categories were used as the starting point for the second stage of
data collection and analysis.
During the second stage, the first round of interviews was undertaken . The
interviews were used to add depth to the initial set of categories. Participants
were asked about their information seeking behaviours during their
participation in the C2S study. These descriptions were compared with the
behaviours and pattems uncovered in the meeting minutes. The two sets
of
codes were combined; with the interview data adding several new codes, as
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
3/16
well
as adding
a deeper explanation to
many
of the codes uncovered in the
minutes data.
n initial attempt to identify the relationships grounded theory describes
this
as
axial coding Glaser and Strauss, 1967)) between the different categories
was attempted
during
this stage. As attempts to identify the relationships
between the codes were undertaken, the role of context in understanding the
relationship between the working group participants, their roles, and their
information seeking
patterns
emerged. Out of the
data
already collected
an
initial set of contexts was identified.
The three groups, the roles,
patterns and
context, were used as the
starting
point for the third and final
stage
of analysis. During this final stage the
last
interviews were conducted.
The
goal of these interviews
was
to
add
depth to
the previously identified roles, patterns
and
contexts to see if they faithfully
described the information seeking behaviour of the working group
participants. As with the previous round of interviews, this round of interviews
added a deeper explanation to
many
of the codes already uncovered,
as
well
as
uncovering an additional role, that had
not
been identified previously. During
this stage, the overarching relationships between the three
groups
of categories
were also identified grounded theory describes this as selective coding Glaser
and Strauss, 1967)), and the key perspective of the description identified
grounded theory describes this as the analytical
story
Glaser and Strauss,
1967)).
Collaborative
infonnation seeking
The
analysis of the C2S
study
working group identified three components
as
being important to the collaborative information seeking activity, information
seeking roles, information seeking patterns,
and
the contexts in which the roles
and
patterns
are performed. The relationship between the three components is
shown
in Figure l
Context describes the collection of events, histories, culture, knowledge and
understanding, which exist together at a point in time Dervin, 1996;
Sonnenwald, 1999).
For
the
C2S study
working group, two contexts were
identified: the collaborative information seeking context shown in the top of
the figure)
and
the organisational context shown in the bottom of the figure).
The two contexts
are
described in more detail later.
As well as context, information seeking roles also emerged as being
important to the collaborative information seeking activity. Roles describe the
behaviours
and
the responsibilities of the participants within the working
group poole, 1992). Roles were
both
formally assigned
and
informally adopted
through explicit and tacit negotiation Shaw, 1981). Participants also enacted
multiple roles, and several participants enacted the
same
role. The seven roles
are
shown
in the top half of Figure 1 The roles are described in more detail
later.
The final component identified within the
C2S
study group was the
information seeking patterns. In this case, the patterns describe prototypical
Collaborative
information
seeking
535
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
4/16
lDO
58 5
lofo Seeking
lnstigator
Info indexer/
lnfo Verifier
Abstractor
5 6
igure 1
Model of collaborative
infonnation seeking
lnfo Gatherer
Organisatiooal
Group
Administrator
Context
actions, interactions and behaviours perronned by participants adopting any of
the various roles. The patterns are described in more detaillater.
ontext and participants
Two important contexts were identified within the gathered data. Each context
captures a specific collection of events, histories, culture, knowledge and
understanding that exists together, for a point
in
time (Dervin,
1996;
Sonnenwald, 1999), and influences the behaviour
of
the working group
participants.
The first context identified was the collaborative infonnation seeking
context, which captures what
is
collectively known, understood, felt and
believed, as well as the history of the working group, and the group s nonns,
social rules and social structures (Hartley,
1997; Wood et al 1992). These
properties affected all the activities that were perronned within the working
group.
t
is within this context that the collaborative infonnation seeking
activity tool place, and where the participants enacted the various collaborative
infonnation seeking roles.
The second context, the organisational context, describes where each
participant perronning within the collaborative infonnation seeking activity
is
drawn from. The concept of an organisational context
is
used to describe a
unique organisation for example, the Anny, or project procurement, and so on)
that contains specialist information and knowledge. Each organisation tends to
have its own important issues, perspective, knowledge, and other important
factors, that influence members of that organisation. Two important elements
of the organisational context emerged as being important
to
collaborative
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
5/16
information seeking, the participant s organisational perspective, and their
organisational gateway.
As participants enact the various roles they bring with them an
organisational perspective, as a result of the organisational context they are
drawn from. The following extract from ADF3 captures this:
They [the participants] obviously wear the hat of the organisation they re coming from so,
whether you like the individual or not there s a hat of whether you like them or not or
whether you can relate to them. There s the hat of what do they contribute to the
intellectual debate around the working group and there s the hat they wear in an
organisational sense where you may not like them, and may not think they re very good but
actually they re the person that you need to have the conduit through to the organisation
ADF3).
Many of the participants interviewed were very conscious of their
organisational perspectives, and how these influenced the way they enacted
their roles. ADFl, for example, was not only very conscious of the perspective
he brought to the collaborative information seeking activity, but was also very
conscious of the perspective brought by other participants. This is reiterated by
ADF3, who was not only deliberate
in
the perspective he used, but also aware
of the perspective other participants brought, and the influence these
perspectives had in shaping the final out
come
DSTOl echoed this view and
described the different organisational perspectives the participants had as
being useful in knowing which participant would be likely to answer specific
questions, or have access to specific information.
Participants also bring with them an organisational gateway back into their
organisational context. An organisational gateway is a conduit from the
collaborative information seeking context into the organisational context the
participant is drawn from. The two-way nature of the gateway means that
participants not only represent their organisational context within the
collaborative information seeking context, but also represent the collaborative
information seeking context back to their organisational context. The following
extract from DST02 illustrates this
well:
Early on we relied almost entirely on them [the participants] being our eyes and ears into the
environments [organisations] we were looking
t
(DST02).
The organisational gateway acts as a way of accessing both formal and
informal information within the organisational context. In general, the
information needed by the working group tended to flow from the
collaborative information seeking context through a participant s
organisational gateway into the organisational context the participant is
drawn from. This tended
to
trigger the referral
of
unsolicited information from
the organisational context into the collaborative information seeking context.
As
wiU
be shown later, when discussing the various roles, understanding of a
participant s organisational gateway was also important
in
assigning the
various roles.
Collaborative
information
seeking
5 7
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
6/16
lDOC
58 5
5 8
Collaborative information seeking roles
Roles describe behaviours and actions participants perform and the
responsibilities they have (Shaw, 1981). In many ways, roles are analogous to
the information seeking behaviours developed by Ellis 1989) and the
informabon seeking personalties developed by Palmer
1991)
and Bonner t al
1998).
Information gatherer
The main task of the information gatherer was to find
and gather specific information. This role is well described by the existing
literature on individual information seeking for example Kuhlthau, 1991;
Westbrook, 1993; Vickery and Vickery, 1987). When performed within a
collaborative information seeking activity, several interesting questions
emerged.
The first was how and why participants adopted, or were assigned the
information gatherer role. The voluntary adoption of an informabon gatherer
role tended to depend on how closely the participant felt the information that
needed to be gathered matched the information available to them vía their
organisational gateway and perspective.
As well as voluntarily adopting information seeking roles, information
seeking instigators
a
role responsible for assigning the information gatherer
role
to
a working group participant) would also assign information seeking
roles to specific participants. Deciding which participant to assign to an
information seeking role was generally based on an understanding of the
participant s organisational perspective and gateway. This understanding was
built up over time trom explicit advertisements made by the participants, or as
a result of the previous roles they had enacted. This pattern of advertising
information availability is described in more detaillater.
The information gatherer role existed within the collaborative information
seeking context, while the actual information gathering took place wíthin the
participant s organisational context. An interesting effect occurred when the
participant enacting the informabon gatherer role moved back into their
organisational context to actually gather the needed informabon. They would
often pass the ínformation request to a subordinate or expert information
seeker within their organisabonal context. In extreme cases, the informabon
request would pass through several people in this way. While the
information request was passed, the collaborative information seeking context
that exísted when the information request was developed was seldom passed.
As a result, the subordinate or expert information seeker actually gathering the
information was often gathering t without a complete understanding of the
context that created the information need. DST01 describes this as a type of
Chinese whispers, which often returned information that was not very useful or
relevant.
Information referrer The main task of the information referrer was to direct
unsolicited information from the participant s organisational context into the
collaborative information seeking context. The following extract trom ADF2
describes his actions as
he
acted in the role of an information referrer:
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
7/16
60 e-mails in a
send it
to
me, but
chuck something out in the filter than not
..
I'd
nm
a bit of a filter over it and if it was useful, 1 would send it. In the back of
At,,,,,1 ,,,,1
Collaborative
most of the groups were 1 think
information
or you sort of had that awareness
Most of it [ínfonnation was I'd be
and they'd suddenly say oh must send you that document or I've
DSTOl
the descríbed
participants acting as informabon
rAt ,A ' ,Arc
would her
to working meetings, informabon
or
purposeful their advertisement of
potential information as the
when away from work. 1 tend to try and
, - UH,na ' ,
information sources. I'm trying
to
let people know what I'm
-0I ' t1l ' 1 want to be so they can do a bit of self before
that most oí the has to be at my end, but ít's easier
to
t
in the first instance
ADF3).
all were as expEdt and purposeful as
In
advertisement
information ínterests and For for
information and
primarBy on personal
almost
describes activity as a social
interactions with organisational members.
nformation The task of information verifier was
all 'ual. \ . .
the Verification gathered information is
an
implicit individual information see for
Kuh1thau, Westbrook,
1993).
within information
activity
regardless
in verification was an and
part of collaborative informabon with all the information
the source, Verification to
on two key areas.
The was
gathered. following
the accuracy and
\ - ,c, , -n. 'H5' Checking that it was valid, that 1 got, that 1 wasn 't happy with,
~ ' ' ' , h a doing more digging when was insufficient stuff And then
5 9
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
8/16
l Qe
58,5
540
had to it all together and send
it
back , . , If it
readable, so on], but not always " it didn't ,. to say if
contentious d
try
and check it from someone else (DST02).
and
was
and utility.
information relates ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ J 1983)
the initial information
is illustrated
ADF3:
. , . bringing
in
our wealth of to tease out some 1 mean 1 was delíberately
controversial
at
times. I'd throwa pebble in the water you
Iíke
and argue about
something and turn around and argue back the other way beca use 1 fe1t that
we
couldn't just agree on
at
face value. We needed to it and tease it and
sort
it
around a líttle bit
1cn--:>rC'
the the
gateway when performing the information
similar approach to ínformation verification is descríbed
ADF2, sees only the accuracy quality the information as being
important, but also how it can and how useful and
it to work undertaken.
Injormation
The main
the information
COO ' T 1 r 1
instigator was to direct participants to specific information. The
from DST01 the
of
the information " 'c . a ln
.....
. . . I'd initiate the information
U v v ~ u u ó
and monitor it
in
terms will we actually get the
documents we seek and
if
we didn't them then I'd seek them other Or
stepping in myse1f if someone hadn't to hold of a document (DSTOl).
the aboye the information
, , , , , , n .L U L A
in place somedentifying the initial information need, then
activity to that need. Once the . seeking
the informabon instigator monitors
if As previously, the
information need is perfonned by
an information need movmg
well by existing
sense-making model .
r l ,f f . :>r .on f individual
UH
.•
U
.......'"
,n r .rrn-:>t· ,r .n seeking seems
collaborative p f ( ) C e S S E ~ information need
(mostly seen withín methods used to the
information
Within the collaborative information seeKm,g
were ofien by an
, n T I , r T T l ~
information
http:///reader/full/ff.:%3Er.onhttp:///reader/full/ff.:%3Er.on
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
9/16
shared
work. All infonnation instigators found that they built
with particular participants
past
different levels
activity
information u ·
, -' .f>'-'Á
for
as pointers within
advertisements, infonnation seeking
of infonnation an infonnation
¡ ; ; ' U . L U ' -Á
previous roles.
v , u u ~ Á ~ o f w h a t l n l l o m l a t l o n
advertise particular of
infonnation. infonnation instigator used advertisements to
participants to gather needed infonnation (by enacting
infonnation gatherer role). DST01 describes the
explicit of what infonnation participants were to .,."'rn",,.,.·
Well a lot of it was talked about during the working
gT Up
And so
in
group everyone can talk about
who
would be the most
to
go and
And 1 was quite
in
those
how
people
knew that were the
persono
But that have been purely due
to
theír in the but it my and 1 11 find that out while some of them
who
were around the table knew that they had access
to
that documentation
(DSTOl).
build
can access from
infonnation seeking
as the \ ' L ' ~ 7 1 . ,
infonnation can access.
Infonnation seeking n
as a guide quality of the infonnation
role as a result
who she
participants. view is echoed by
Injormation indexer/abstracter
collaborative infonnation
infonnation indexerlabstracter.
like a librarían or
by providing well
organisational summaries and pointers were used the
infonnation infonnation gatherers to gather actually
needed infonnation. Various fonns of role have been within
the Ehrlich and Cash 1994) identified a within
study customer support agents, McDonald and Ackennan 1998)
ít IT
1996)
it a
, U J ' U H . U
organisation.
The following
infonnation index/
as
group:
The way
to
find out was the members
of
the working group or through other
contacts that we
had
t
previous operations. 1 knew a from [previous work] because
we
knew that were doing this because
we
had sat
n
watched them, so
we
said
to
them
information on this, and would say
«Oh
such and such is that" or
this
t
the moment or he ís the new , so there was that and
the we didn't know or we didn't know how to we had to rely on the
environmental representative like the Navy guy who would know and then
he
would have
to
Collaborative
infonnation
54
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
10/16
know who knew it. he didn t know he would have to go and find out who knew and then he
lDO
us the name and then we would pay these visits. And then . so it was
58,5
the person to person contact (DST02).
would
The
tent::tea to
informabon indexer/abstracter role
advertisements were generally
group. AIso, as the trom
likely to be to enact an information
H J . U ' v A \ . . J . f
the
participants
be
recommended to the information and ínformation U L U ' F ' >
as a of an information activity. Informabon gatner ers
information instigators al so to up an understanding of
which participants are likely be able an information indexer/
organisational context, based on pastbstracter for a particular
with
Group
administrator
role was not involved in the
actual informabon but was responsible
support to group, and was
organising information that resulted trom information
(similar in many ways to Kuhlthau s (1991) presentation stage, or Westbrook s
(1993) closing of formal and
parts extract
tro
the rac ' r , ,n
The other role that was almost like information tallying. She was very
had this set up where al the minutes were kept.
So
that was
to do that in would have been hard. Then we could find
and she catalogued,
a lot of stuff (DST02).
• cataloguing the
•
•
the group administrator
information seeking acbvities;
keeping minutes of
scheduling
UJ.\..\.-uu¡.;,::>,
• distributing collected ínformation.
Group manager As with the group administrator the group role
was not directly involved the collaborative
activity. The
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
11/16
key focus for this role was managing the
C S
study working group. The
following extract from DST01 illustrates the group manager role:
My
main motivation in terms of the working group was to keep it working. To keep people
attending. o keep them working with the team, to keep them well informed. o get them
to
become part of the analysis process, to feel as though they owned the analysis (DSTOl).
As the aboye quote illustrates, a large part of the group manager role inc1uded
most of the expected group management functions, inc1uding sertling conflicts
between group participants, resolving ambiguities, guiding the overall
direction of the work of the group, monitoring the progress of the work, and so
on (DST02, DST01). A similar view was echoed by DST02 who described the
group manager role as being responsible for ensuring the group s work
maintained its momentum, as well as ensuring disputes and problems were
resolved.
Information seeking patterns
The third component of the collaborative information seeking activity within
the
C S
study was the partems of interactions between the roles within the
contexts. Partems describe prototypical actions, interactions and behaviours
performed by participants adopting any one of the roles. Partems were
identified late in the analysis of the data, and the data already collected did not
facilitate the identification of all the parterns that may have existed within the
working group. Only three partems are described in this paper. Future research
will focus on identifying additional partems important to collaborative
information seeking.
Information seeking
by
recommendation The information seeking by
recornmendation pattem is tightly tied to the information referrer role. The
main elements of this partern are:
(1) Advertising in terest
The information seeking instigator advertises an
interest in particular information.
(2) Recommendation
Using the advertisement as a guide, the information
referrer forwards unsolicited information, or references
to
information to
the information seeking instigator.
(3) Tasking information seeking
The information seeking instigator may
task an information gatherer.
The partem begins with the advertisement of the information seeking
instigator s information needs. The advertisement may take the form of a
formal presentation of information needs, or more cornmonly, through informal
discussions between the information seeking instigator and potential
information referrers.
Using the advertisement as a guide, information referrers
forward information
to
the information seeking instigator they
feel
satisfies the
instigator s information need.
n
important characteristic of this partem is that it is not deliberate,
but opportunistic. The information referrer does not deliberately seek out
Collaborative
information
seeking
54
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
12/16
lDOC
58,5
satisfy the information
relevant'
specifically
0 1 1-1-.,,,1
they will
relevant information.
An interesting,
optíonal final of
deliberately
an
point
information . and
advertisernent
ó+ó ó
would forward her
information based on their and their
the and objectives
ro ..,0" this,
and notes that once she advertised her
,nto .o tc-
to an
individual or a group found she often of
information referral network.
Direct questioning This information seeking
of all the identified,
seeKmg driven by the inforrnatíon seeking
pattern are:
ínstigator a e ( : l Q { ~ on
1) Instigator questions The
(2)
Questions formalised Information
lal1.",-"um
sorne way.
Questions
to
participants
and organisational n.:>,·"n,OI"""
based on
their organisational
(4)
Informatíon is found by partícipants their
the inforrnation.
Informatíon returned
to
instígator or agent The
the information back to the instigator.
with
information needs.
organísational
1 \ ' , , , 1
a relevant
next information
,-,.,,,,ya,., information 1S returned to the information
of individual
to the .
gathered m IOrnr1atlOn elal. ).Ll\.-' information need,
activity stops. f the information
"'",'·
ara, . . . not
needs, activity through p ~ , ' p r ~
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
13/16
Advertising information paths pattern is so much about
SeeKln,g
Collaborative
information as it
is
about providing paths by which to
information
information. mam of this are:
seeking
1) Participants advemse their organisational perspective and gateway
Participants their ability to information on a specific
topie.
2) Information gatherer or information indexerlabstracter tasked
participant is used irnmediately or sorne time as an 1 n , , ~
or information indexer/abstracter.
As in the the begins participants
what information resources they can access vía theír organisational gateway.
Information instigators use the to identify
- n N - >
participants fulfil an information specific
information. use of a to as a
tISl:: m,ent may irnmediate, or more likely occur sorne
initial advertisement is made.
directions
begun to as an
the rnt,ornaatlOn cornmunity,
supported collaborative cornmunity
to be able
to
support collaborative information
technology, a understanding of collaborative
real world collaborative
collaborative
ídentified
the
To
5 5
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
14/16
JDQC
date, only one example of collaboratíve ínformatíon
C an r , . n -
so the descriptions in this cannot yet
the of collaborative information seeking
that must
objectives.
Future work needs
descriptive model
of
. . : > ' - , ~ r u u . l .
activities. will
to the
its applicability to 11t-t-",,..,
References
Bonner,
M.,
Casey, ME., Greenwood, ]., johnstone, D., Keane,
D.
and S.L. (1998),
"Inforrnation behaviour a preliminary investigation",IRMA International
Conference,
May
17-20, 1998, Idea Group
MA
Brown,
M.E.
(1991), A modeloí behaviour", 54th ASIS Annual
Meeting, Medford, New]ersey, 27-31
October,
1991, Learned Information, Medford, Nj.
Snowdon, D., JW. and
G. CSCW'98
workshop
Report", SIGCHI Bulletin, Vol. 31 No. 3.
Cohen, AL., Maglio, P.P. and R
(1998),
"The expertise browser: how
to IA ,>,..,,,
distributed
org;anlZa1tlorla
knowledge", paper at the Conference on Computer
Work (CSCW'98), Workshop on Collaborative Inforlllation
14-18 November.
An overview oí research: concepts, methods and results", paper
presented at the Annua! Meeting of the Internationa! Communication Dalias,
May,
available at
artdervin83.html
Dervin, B. (1996), "Given a context by any other name: methodological tools for the
International Conference on
Research in
Information
Needs,
Seeking and
Use in Different Contexts, Tampere, Finland, 14-16 August, Taylor
London.
B.
and
M.
(1986), "Information needs and use , in Williams, M.E. Annual
Review
o
Information
Science
and
Technology,
Vol.
21,
American for Information
' U , Sil ver MD.
K. and informabon finding as a
collaborative , paper at the Libraries 1994 Coníerence on the
Theory and Practice oí
College
Station, TX,
19-21
June.
D. (1989),
A
behavioural approach to iníormation retrieval system design", ]ouma o
LJO,-;urr.ientatto n. VoL 45 No. 3,
pp.
171-212.
Glaser,
B.G.
and AL.
(1967),
The Discovery Grounded Aldine Publishing
Company, Chicago, IL.
P.
(1997), Communication, London.
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
15/16
to ídentify ínformation
R and Duchon,
D.
(1988),
methods
in
informationsystemsresearch:acase
T.and
G. (1998),
learning:
c>uU 'Ull'lS
collaborative information seekin¡(, paper presented
at
the Conference on
vV I 11I J ' J . L C l
Work
(CSCW'98),
Workshop on Collaborative Infonnation
W
A,
14-18 November.
C.C.
(1991),
"Inside the search information from the user's
perspective",
the
American VoL
42 No.
5,
pp.361-71.
K
vale,
S. (1996),
Inter1JÍews -
n
Introduction
to Qualitative
Research
Inlormation
uU' ' 'CA:l,UVU-:>,
Londan.
McDonald,D.W. andAckerman,M.S. (1998), "Just talkto
me:
fíeldstudyofpVf,,:.rl·ic:p locatíon",
presented
at
theConferenceonComputer Cooperative
(CSCW'98),
WA,
14-18
November.
t f T W '
A.
(1996), "Informationneedsintechnicalwork
designof tools",CSCW journal
VoL
5
No.
1, pp.
"Scientists and information: usíngcluster
lJo,r;U11Ienl,a1:l
8/16/2019 Prekop 2002 a Qualitative Study of Collaborative Information Seeking
16/16