Transcript Information seeking

The Notion of Context in
“Information Interaction in Context”
Tefko Saracevic, PhD
Rutgers University
[email protected]; http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~tefko/
1
Central ideas
Everybody knows
what is context.
RIGHT!
RIGHT? ?? ???
Everybody knows where
to look for context.
RIGHT!
RIGHT? ?? ???
Tefko Saracevic
2
Problems at hand
A. Theoretical: Finding a conceptual foundation
for CONTEXT in the context of humaninformation interaction
B. Practical: In searching for information
using not only CONTENT information from a
query (as we do now well), but also
CONTEXT information (as we do now badly,
or not at all)
Dealing here with A only
Tefko Saracevic
3
ToC
1. Human-information interaction
2. Context
3. Five axioms related to context in
information interaction
4. Implications
Tefko Saracevic
4
User – information – [and what else?]
1. Human-information interaction
Tefko Saracevic
5
Elements, processes to consider
Tefko Saracevic
6
What do we
mean by it?
“Information is anything that can change
person’s knowledge.” (Belkin, 1978)
Information as we consider it includes
 objects in the world potentially conveying
information
 what is transferred from people or objects to
a person’s cognitive system
 components of internal knowledge in people’s
mind
Tefko Saracevic
7
What do we
mean by it?
Process in which humans purposefully engage in
order to change their state of knowledge
(Marchionini, 1995)
A conscious effort to acquire information in
response to a need or gap in your knowledge
(Case, 2002)
The process of construction within information
seeking involves fitting information in with what
one already knows and extending this knowledge to
create new perspectives
(Kuhlthau, 2004)
Tefko Saracevic
8
Information seeking
concentrations
Purposeful process to:
 change state of knowledge
 respond to an information need or gap
 fit information in with what one already knows
All cognitive:
To seek information people seek to change the
state of their knowledge
Some critiques: Broader social, cultural,
environmental … factors not included
Tefko Saracevic
9
What do we
mean by it?
“HCI is a discipline concerned with the design,
evaluation and implementation of interactive
computing systems for human use and with the
study of major phenomena surrounding them.”
(CHI Curriculum, 1996, 2009)
 Many fields and areas involved
CHI conferences huge, popular
 in these conferences next to nothing on context; but
some papers consider social impact
 note: is CHI the same as HCI?
Tefko Saracevic
10
CHI concentrations
Primary concentration on interfaces – that is
where interaction occurs
 design, effectiveness, innovations, issues …
 includes both software and hardware
Important part: user satisfaction
 however, no rigorous definition what it means
 often mixed with usability, usefulness
 no theoretical base
Tefko Saracevic
11
What do we
mean by it?
“... the interactive communication processes
that occur during the retrieval of information
by involving all the major participants in IR,
i.e. the user, the intermediary, and the IR
system.” (Ingwersen, 1992)
Often distinguished as direct (or end user
searching) and mediated
Tefko Saracevic
12
Concentrations
Direct (end user searching)
A process where users interact with and search an
IR system by and for themselves
 prevalent today; everybody is a searcher
Mediation:
A process where an intermediary – a searcher – acts
on behalf of a user who seeks information
Informal mediators: colleagues, friends, family …
Formal mediators: searchers, teachers …
 but is disappearing fast in academic & public
institutions, not so in commerce & some fields
Tefko Saracevic
13
What do we
mean by it?
"how human beings interact with, relate to,
and process information regardless of the
medium connecting the two." (Nahum Gershon, 1995,
credited with coining the term)
At CHI 2006 a debate: is it a separate field?
Tefko Saracevic
14
Michigan IS
“Research in this area [i.e. HII] examines the
behavior of people in the use of information
embedded in systems, services, networks, and
devices (information seeking, intermediation,
information retrieval, design and evaluation
of information systems and services,
information visualization, and information use
in various environments).”
Tefko Saracevic
15
and at IS, Washington
(Center for Human-information Interaction)
 “Cognitive Work Analysis provides a multi-pronged
analytical framework for studying various human
interactions with information. It helps researchers
and other professionals to study the work people do,
the tasks they perform, the decisions they make, the
way they interact with information channels, systems
and products, and the collaborative, organizational
and social context in which they perform their
work—all for the purpose of designing more
effective systems and services.”
Tefko Saracevic
16
As to:
What do we
mean by it?
 Not quite clear
 although
intuitively well
understood
Tefko Saracevic
17
Milieu for interaction
2. Context
Tefko Saracevic
18
Context:
What do we mean by it?
“Context - Linguistic context, context of use:
Discourse that surrounds a language and helps
to determine its interpretation
Context – circumstance, setting:
The set of facts or circumstances that
surround a situation or event; “the historic
context” “ Wordnet
from Latin: contextus "a joining together,"
contexere "to weave together"
Tefko Saracevic
19
Concentrations - properties
 Language:
 surrounds a language
 helps in interpreting, giving meaning
Circumstances:
 provides a setting
 surrounds an event, situation
There is no term more often used, less often defined and, when
defined, defined so variously, as context.
Context has the potential to be virtually anything that is not defined
as the phenomenon of interest.
Dervin, 1997
Tefko Saracevic
20
and context
 Is there such a thing as context-free
information?
Tefko Saracevic
21
and context
Theoretically, context may be considered as
“objectified” (entities – actors, structures, attributes which affect the research object) & “interpretive”
(constructing meaning from data)
Talja et al 1999
Many information seeking studies involved
TASK or SITUATION as context
 But: there is more to task then task itself
Tefko Saracevic
22
Task assumptions, properties
Information seeking is not an end in itself
 It serves a work task
 task is a process in relation to which information
is needed
Tasks have been categorized from simple to
complex (and a number in-between)
 complex tasks have a number of sub-tasks
 the more complex a task the complexity of
information needed increases
Implication: user modeling & searching should
be oriented toward tasks
Tefko Saracevic
23
HCI theories &
context
Many HCI theories derived from various fields
 but criticized for not informing design
 Theories not strong on context
 some exceptions: activity theory; & anthropological
argument: human action is constantly constructed and
reconstructed from dynamic interactions with the
material and social worlds
In design: contextual inquiry & contextual
design based on understanding of context of use
Tefko Saracevic
24
model from:
ACM SIGCHI Curricula for
Human-Computer Interaction
Tefko Saracevic
25
and context
“Context is one of the most important
concepts in information seeking and retrieval
research. However, the challenges of
studying context are great; thus, it is more
common for researchers to use context as a
post hoc explanatory factor, rather than as a
concept that drives inquiry.” Kelly (2006)
Tefko Saracevic
26
Ingwersen model of IR interaction
(earliest IR model with explicit context)
Social/organizational
environment
Information objects
Interface/
intermediary
Query
Request
Individual user’s
cognitive
space
Interactive
communication
of cognitive structures
IR system setting
Tefko Saracevic
Cognitive
transformations
& influences
27
Saracevic’s stratified model of IR interaction
Context
social, cultural
Situational
tasks; work context...
Affective
intent; motivation ...
Cognitive
knowledge; structure...
Query
characteristics …
Surface level
INTERFACE
Engineering
hardware; connections...
Processing
software; algorithms …
Content
inf. objects; representations...
Tefko Saracevic
28
Context in two models
Ingwersen
 Individual user’s cognitive
space






Work task/interests
Current cognitive state
Problem/goal
Uncertainty
Information need
Information behavior
 Social/org. environment
Saracevic strata
 Cognitive
 knowledge; structure …
 Affective
 intent; motivation …
 Situational
 task; work context …
 Social, cultural context
 Domains/goals
 Tasks
 Preferences
Tefko Saracevic
29
User modeling
for searching
User modeling is a process of
identifying, understanding,
and defining user
information needs, context,
requirements, and
preferences, together with
factors or attributes in the
profile of the user that
affect subsequent search
for information.
Tefko Saracevic
30
Mediation & user modeling
Professional mediation involves diagnosing the
user’s problem and identifying what
interventions would be helpful
 professional searchers mediate the interaction of
users with information
In practice user modeling heavily involves
context
 mediators make many search decisions based on
context information
Tefko Saracevic
31
IR testing and context
Majority of IR tests rest on traditional model
 all TREC tracks with one exception – interactive
track
“At its core, the modern-day test collection is
little different from the structures that the
pioneering researchers in the 1950s and 1960s
conceived of.” (Sanderson, 2010)
Context not present
Many calls to change testing model not headed
Tefko Saracevic
32
and context
Where is Taj Mahal?
Tefko Saracevic
33
Principles without proof
3.Axioms about context
Tefko Saracevic
34
Axiom is …
(from Latin axiōma a principle, from Greek
axioun to consider worthy)
A principle that is accepted as true without
proof
 A self-evident or universally recognized
truth; a maxim
(Mathematics) a generally accepted
proposition or principle, sanctioned by
experience; maxim
(Philosophy / Logic) a self-evident statement
Tefko Saracevic
35
Inspired by …
Paul Watzlawick (19212007)
 Theoretician in
communication theory
(Austria, Switzerland,
California)
Tefko Saracevic
Communication axioms
 In his theory on
communication, defined
five basic axioms that
are necessary to have a
functioning
communication between
two individuals. If one
of these axioms is
somehow disturbed,
communication might
fail.
36
Most famous of Watzlawick’s
axioms
Axiom 1
One Cannot Not
Communicate (Man
kann nicht nicht
kommunizieren)
I.e. - explanation
“Every behavior is a kind
of communication.
Because behavior does
not have a counterpart
(there is no antibehavior), it is not
possible not to
communicate.”
“… lousy grammar, impeccable logic.”
Tefko Saracevic
37
Context: Axiom 1
Statement
One cannot not have
a context in
information
interaction.
Tefko Saracevic
Id est – i.e.
 Every interaction is
conducted within a
context.
 Because context-less
information interaction
is impossible, it is not
possible not to have a
context.
38
Axiom 2
Statement
Every interaction has
a content and
relationship aspect
– context is the
later and classifies
the former.
Tefko Saracevic
Id est
 It means that all
interactions, apart from
information derived
from meaning of words
or terms describing the
content, have more
information to be
derived from context.
39
Axiom 3
Statement
The nature of
information
interaction including
context is
asymmetric; it
involves differing
processes and
interpretation by
parties involved.
Tefko Saracevic
Id est
 Contexts are
asymmetric as well.
Medium or systems
context is primarily
about meanings; user
context is primarily
about situations.
40
Axiom 4
Statement
Context is
multilayered. It
extends beyond
users or systems.
Tefko Saracevic
Id est
 In interactions it is
customary to consider
direct context, but
context extends
indirectly to broader
social context also.
41
Axiom 5
Statement
Context is not selfrevealing, nor is it
self-evident.
Tefko Saracevic
Id est
 Context may be difficult
to formulate and
synthesize. But plenty
can go wrong when not
taken into consideration
in interactions.
42
Tough problems
4. In conclusion
Tefko Saracevic
43
People
In information interactions people act &
compensate in many ways including errors &
failures
Considerable amount of research is devoted
to these processes
Tefko Saracevic
44
Information retrieval
Considerable amount of research is devoted
to IR but almost exclusively from system not
people orientation
TREC is a great success in that respect
Tefko Saracevic
45
Interaction & information
retrieval
Interaction is central to IR particularly
including searching of the Web
Design of interfaces for IR interaction still
lacking
 many users have difficulties
 so do many professionals
TREC is a colossal failure in that respect
Tefko Saracevic
46
Symbolic
connections
between HII
research & IR
research
Tefko Saracevic
47
Tough problem
Integrating human-information interaction
research with IR research
Meaning that
 HII research must be directed toward results
directly informing IR
 IR research must be radically redirected
Tefko Saracevic
48
Tougher problem
Creating a different mindset in all
To see and act on the necessity to view,
research, and implement Human-information
interaction in all its facets
Tefko Saracevic
49
Toughest problem
To integrate context in IR theory and
practice
Yet professional searchers do that all the
time
They understand context axioms intuitively
Tefko Saracevic
50
Question
Can HII, IR and HCI truly progress without
addressing tough, tougher, and toughest
problems??
Tefko Saracevic
51
Thank you
M.C. Escher and the
Escher Foundation
Tefko Saracevic
52
Presentation in Wordle
Tefko Saracevic
53