Do nondomain experts enlist the strategies of domain experts?

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 54, Issue 9, 2003, Pages 836-854

  Drabenstott, Karen M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIGITAL LIBRARIES; EXPERT SYSTEMS; GATEWAYS (COMPUTER NETWORKS); RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

DOMAIN EXPERTS; INFORMATION GATEWAYS; INTEGRATED LIBRARY SYSTEMS; NONDOMAIN EXPERTS;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

EID: 0038141045     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.10281     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Bakowski, V.B. et al. (1990). Mounting local tapes: The NOTIS interface combines turnkey ease and adaptability. Online, 14, 38-45.
2. Bates, M.J. (1979). Information search tactics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 30, 205-215.
3. Bates, M.J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13, 407-424.
4. Bath University. (1972). Experimental information service in the social sciences 1969-1971: Final report. Bath: Bath University Library.
5. Becker, J., & Hayes, R.M. (1963). Information storage and retrieval. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
6. Belkin, N.J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 5, 133-143.
7. Bhavnani, S.K. (2002). Domain-specific search strategies for the effective retrieval of healthcare and shopping information. Proceedings of CHI 2002 (pp. 610-611).
8. Bodi, S. (2002). How do we bridge the gap between what we teach and what they do? Some thoughts on the place of questions in the process of research. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28, 109-114.
9. Borgman, C.L. (1983). Research report prepared for OCLC on end user behavior on The Ohio State University Libraries' online catalog: A computer monitoring study. Dublin, OH: OCLC. OCLC Research Report Series OCLC/OPR/RR-83/7.
10. Coblenz, K., & Tagliacozzo, R. (1970). Matching query terms to catalog subject headings. In M. Kochen (Ed.). Integrative mechanisms in literature growth: Final report (vol. IV, pp. 111-126). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Mental Health Research Institute.
11. Coupe, J. (1993). Undergraduate library skills: Two surveys at Johns Hopkins University. Research Strategies, 11, 188-201.
12. Drabenstott, K.M., & Vizine-Goetz, D. (1994). Understanding subject headings for online retrieval. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
13. Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation, 45, 171-212.
14. Ellis, D. (1993). Modelling the information-seeking patterns of academic researchers: A grounded-theory approach. Library Quarterly, 63, 469-486.
15. Fister, B. (1992). The research process of undergraduate students. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 18, 163-169.
16. Greer, A., Weston, L., & Alm, M. (1991). Assessment of learning outcomes: A measure of progress in library literacy. College & Research Libraries, 52, 549-557.
17. Hancock, M. (1987). Subject searching behaviour at the library catalogue and at the shelves: Implications for online interactive catalogues. Journal of Documentation, 43, 303-321.
18. Hernon, P. (1982). Use of microformatted government publications. Microform Review, 11, 237-252.
19. Hock, R. (2001). The extreme searchers guide to Web search engines: A handbook for the serious searcher, 2nd ed. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
20. Hogeweg-De Haart, H.P. (1984). Characteristics of social science information: A selective review of the literature: Part II. Social Science Information Studies, 4, 15-30.
21. Jansen, B.J., Spink, A., & Saracevic, T. (2000). Real life, real users, and real needs: A study and analysis of user queries on the Web. Information Processing & Management, 36, 207-227.
22. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1988). Developing a model of the library search process: Cognitive and affective aspects. RQ, 28, 232-242.
23. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 361-371.
24. Kunkel, L., Weaver, S.M., & Cook, K.N. (1996). What do they know? An assessment of undergraduate library skills. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22, 430-434.
25. Leckie, G.J. (1996). Desperately seeking citations: Uncovering faculty assumptions about the undergraduate research process. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 20, 201-208.
26. Line, M.B. (1971). The information uses and needs of social scientists: An overview of INFROSS. Aslib Proceedings, 23, 412-434.
27. Markey, K. (1983). The process of subject searching in the library catalog: Final report of the subject access research project. Columbus, OH: OCLC, Inc.
28. Meyer, J. (1985). NOTIS: The system and its features. Library Hi Tech, 3, 81-90.
29. Outsell Inc. (2000). Today's students, tomorrow's FGUs. Information About Information Briefing, 3, 1-25.
30. Payette, S.D., & Rieger, O.Y. (1997). Z39.50: The user's perspective. D-Lib Magazine 3, 4 (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april97/cornell/04payette.html).
31. Peters, T.A. (1989). When smart people fail: An analysis of the transaction log of an online public access catalog. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 15, 267-273.
32. Peters, T.A., et al. (1993). Transaction log analysis. Library Hi Tech. 11, 37-106.
33. Slone, J.J. (2000). Encounters with the OPAC: On-line searching in public libraries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 757-773.
34. Spink, A., et al. (2001). Searching the Web: The public and their queries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 226-234.
35. Stenstrom, P., & McBride, R.B. (1979). Serial use by social science faculty: A survey, College & Research Libraries, 40, 426-431.
36. Stieg, M.F. (1981). The information needs of historians. College & Research Libraries, 42, 549-560.
37. Stoan, S.K. (1984). Research and library skills: An analysis and interpretation. College & Research Libraries, 45, 99-109.
38. Tagliacozzo, R., & Semmel, D. (1970). The generation of query terms in subject searches. In M. Kochen (Ed.), Integrative mechanisms in literature growth: Final report (vol. IV, 97-109). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Mental Health Research Institute.
39. Tan, W. (1998). Subject access on Internet: Highlights of the metasearch engines. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 36, 20-29.
40. Taylor, R.S. (1968). Question negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College and Research Libraries, 29, 178-189.
41. Tiefel, V. (1995). Library user education: Examining its past, projecting its future. Library Trends, 44, 318-338.
42. Tolle, J.E. (1983). Current utilization of online catalogs: Transaction log analysis. Dublin, OH: OCLC. OCLC Research Report Series OCLC/OPR/RR-83/2.
43. Tomaiuolo, N. (1999). Are metasearches better searches? Searcher, 7, 30-34.
44. Valentine, B. (1993). Undergraduate research behavior: Using focus groups to generate theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19, 300-304.
45. Van Rijsbergen, C.J. (1979). Information retrieval, 2nd ed. London: Butterworths.
46. Van Styvendaele, J.H. (1977). University scientists as seekers of information: Sources of reference to periodical literature. Journal of Librarianship, 9, 270-277.
47. Wood, D.N., & Bower, C.A. (1969). The use of social science periodical literature. Journal of Documentation, 9, 108-122.