Social Q & A and virtual reference-comparing apples and oranges with the help of experts and users

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 63, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 2020-2036

  Shah, Chirag ^a   Kitzie, Vanessa ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

comparison; electronic reference services; qualitative analysis; social Q A; user satisfaction

Indexed keywords

COMPARISON; END USERS; HYBRID SOLUTION; LITERATURE REVIEWS; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTION ANSWERING; REFERENCE SERVICES; USER SATISFACTION; VIRTUAL REFERENCE;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION SERVICES; LIBRARIES;

FRUITS;

EID: 84866492138     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.22699     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Adamic, L.A., Zhang, J., Bakshy, E., &, Ackerman, M.S., (2008). Knowledge sharing and Yahoo Answers: Everyone knows something. Proceeding of the 17th International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW '08) (pp. 665-674). New York: ACM Press.
2. Agosto, D.E., Rozaklis, L., MacDonald, C., &, Abels, E.G., (2011). A model of the reference and information service process: An educator's perspective. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 50 (3), 235-244.
3. Altman, I., &, Taylor, D., (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration theory. In, M.E. Roloff, &, G.R. Miller, (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 257-277). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4. Bales, S., &, Wang, P., (2005). Consolidating user relevance criteria: A meta-ethnography of empirical studies. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 42 (1) [poster presentation]. doi: 10.1002/meet.14504201277
5. Barry, C.L., (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (3), 149-159.
6. Barry, C.L., &, Schamber, L., (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34 (2/3), 219-236.
7. Bolander, R.C., Connaway, L.S., &, Radford, M.L., (2006). Seeking synchronicity: OCLC and Rutgers researchers explore virtual reference services by analyzing chat transcripts. NextSpace, 2, 18-19. Available at: http://www.oclc.org/nextspace/002/research.htm
8. Borlund, P., (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (10), 913-925.
9. Brown, S.W., (2008). The reference interview: Theories and practice. Library Philosophy and Practice, 10 (1), 1-8.
10. Bruce, H., (1994). A cognitive view of the situational dynamism of user-centered relevance estimation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 142-148.
11. Carter, D.S., &, Janes, J., (2000). Unobtrusive data analysis of digital reference questions and service at the Internet Public Library: An exploratory study. Library Trends, 49 (2), 251-265.
12. Cool, C., (1993). Information retrieval as symbolic interaction: Examples from humanities scholars. In, S. Bonzi, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science (pp. 274-277). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
13. Dervin, B., &, Nilan, M., (1986). Information needs and uses. In, M.E. Williams, (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 21, pp. 3-33). White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry.
14. Foley, M., (2002). Instant messaging reference in an academic library: A case study of the University of Buffalo. College & Research Libraries, 63, 36-45.
15. Froehlich, T.J., (1994). Relevance reconsidered-Towards an agenda for the 21st century: Introduction to special topic issue on relevance research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (3), 124-134.
16. Gazan, R., (2006). Specialists and synthesists in a question answering community. Proceedings of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 43 (1), 1-10.
17. Gazan, R., (2007). Seekers, sloths and social reference: Homework questions submitted to a question-answering community. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 13 (2), 239-248. doi: 10.1080/13614560701711917
18. Gazan, R., (2010). Microcollaborations in a social Q & A community. Information Processing & Management, 46 (6), 693-702. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2009.10.007
19. Gazan, R., (2011). Social Q & A. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (12), 2301-2312. doi: 10.1002/asi.21562
20. Harper, F.M., Raban, D., Rafaeli, S., &, Konstan, J.A., (2008). Predictors of answer quality in online Q & A sites. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08) (pp. 865-874). New York: ACM Press.
21. Hirsh, S.G., (1999). Children's relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources [Electronic version]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50 (14), 1265-1283.
22. Hjørland, B., (2010). The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 61 (2), 217-237.
23. Janes, J., Hill, C., &, Rolfe, A., (2001). Ask-an-expert services analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 (13), 1106-1121.
24. Jeon, J., Croft, W.B., Lee, J.H., &, Park, S., (2006). A framework to predict the quality of answers with non-textual features. In SIGIR '06: Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 228-235). New York: ACM Press.
25. Kaske, N., &, Arnold, J., (2002). An unobtrusive evaluation of online real time library reference services. Paper presented at the Library Research Round Table, American Library Association, Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA. http://www.lib.umd.edu/groups/digref/LRRT.html
26. Kim, S., Oh, J.S., &, Oh, S., (2007). Best-answer selection criteria in a social Q & A site from the user-oriented relevance perspective. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 44 (1), 1-15.
27. Kim, S., &, Oh, S., (2009). Users' relevance criteria for evaluating answers in a social Q & A site. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (4), 716-727.
28. Kim, S., Oh, S., &, Oh, J.-S., (2008, October). Evaluating health answers in a social Q & A site. Poster presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Columbus, OH.
29. Kitzie, V., &, Shah, C., (2011, October). Faster, better, or both? Looking at both sides of the online question and answering coin. Poster presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, New Orleans.
30. Lueg, C.P., (2008). Querying information systems or interacting with intermediaries? Towards understanding the informational capacity of online communities. In Proceedings of the 71st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST'08) (pp. 1-6). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
31. Liu, Y., Jiang, B., &, Agichtein, E., (2008). Predicting information seeker satisfaction in community question answering. In SIGIR '08: Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 483-490). New York: ACM Press.
32. Liu, Q., Agichtein, E., Dror, G., Gabrilovich, E., Maarek, Y., Pelleg, D., &, Szpektor, I., (2011). Predicting web searcher satisfaction with existing community-based answers. In SIGIR '11: Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 415-424). New York: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2009916.2009974
33. Mabry, C.H., (2004). The reference interview as partnership: An examination of librarian, library user, and social interaction. The Reference Librarian, 40 (83/84), 41-56.
34. McClure, C.R., Lankes, R.D., Gross, M., &, Choltco-Devlin, B., (2001). Statistics, measures, and quality standards for assessing digital reference library services: Guidelines and procedures. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED472588)
35. McLaughlin, K.L., &, Sonnenwald, D., (2002). User perspectives on relevance criteria: A comparison among relevant, partially relevant and not-relevant judgments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53 (5), 327-342.
36. Mon, L., &, Randeree, E., (2009). On the boundaries of reference services: Student perceptions of questioning on Library 2.0. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 50 (3), 164-175.
37. Morin, A.C., (2004). Approaching best practices and guidelines for digital reference. In, R.D. Lankes, J. Janes, L.C. Smith, &, C.M. Finneran, (Eds.), The virtual reference experience: Integrating theory into practice (pp. 185-198). New York: Neal-Schuman.
38. Naylor, S., Stoffel, B., &, Van Der Laan, S., (2008). Why isn't our chat reference used more? Findings of focus group discussions with undergraduate students. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47 (4), 342-354.
39. Oh, S., (2011). The relationships between motivations and strategies of health answerers in social Q & A: An exploratory review of health answerers' behaviors Yahoo! answers. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48 (1), 1-9.
40. Oh, S., Oh, J.S., &, Shah, C., (2008). The use of information sources by internet users in answering questions. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45 (1), 1-13.
41. Ong, C.-S., Day, M.-Y., &, Hsu, W.-L., (2009). The measurement of user satisfaction with question answering systems. Information & Management, 46 (7), 397-403.
42. Park, T.K., (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: An empirical study. Library Quarterly, 63, 318-351.
43. Pomerantz, J., (2005). A conceptual framework and open research questions for chat-based reference service. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (12), 1288-1302.
44. Pomerantz, J., &, Luo, L., (2006). Motivations and uses: Evaluating virtual reference service from the users' perspective. Library & Information Science Research, 28 (3), 350-373.
45. Pomerantz, J., Luo, L., &, McClure, C.R., (2006). Peer review of chat reference transcripts: Approaches and strategies. Library & Information Science Research, 28 (1), 24-48.
46. Pomerantz, J., Nicholson, S., Belanger, Y., &, Lankes, R.D., (2004). The current state of digital reference: Validation of a general digital reference model through a survey of digital reference services. Information Processing & Management, 40 (2), 347-363.
47. Raban, D.R., (2007). User-centered evaluation of information: A research challenge. Internet Research, 17 (3), 306-322.
48. Radford, M., (1993). Relational aspects of reference interactions: A qualitative investigation of the perceptions of users and librarians in the academic library. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. DAI A54/07, 2368.
49. Radford, M.L., &, Connaway, L.S., (2006). Relational communication in chat reference (.ppt: 128K/15 slides). Presented by Marie Radford at the 10th New Jersey Communication Association Conference, 25 March, Montclair State University, NJ.
50. Rees, A.M., &, Saracevic, T., (1966). The measurability of relevance. Proceedings of the American Documentation Institute, 3, 225-234.
51. Ronan, J., Reakes, P., &, Ochoa, M., (2006). Application of reference guidelines in chat reference interactions: A study of online reference skills. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 13 (4), 3-30.
52. Rosenbaum, H., &, Shachaf, P., (2010). A structuration approach to online communities of practice: The case of Q & A communities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (9), 1933-1944.
53. Saracevic, T., (1996). Relevance reconsidered '96. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science: Integration in Perspective (pp. 201-218). Copenhagen, Denmark: The Royal School of Librarianship.
54. Saracevic, T., (2007a). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II: Nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (13), 1915-1933.
55. Saracevic, T., (2007b). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (13), 2126-2144.
56. Schamber, L., (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in multimedia information seeking and use situations. Information Processing & Management, 30 (2), 205-221.
57. Schamber, L., (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 29, 3-48.
58. Shachaf, P., (2009, August). Social reference and library reference service [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the 2009 International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) satellite meeting on Emerging Trends in Technology: Libraries between Web 2.0, Semantic Web and Search Technology. Florence, Italy.
59. Shachaf, P., (2010). Social reference: A unifying theory. Library & Information Science Research, 32 (1), 66-76.
60. Shachaf, P., &, Horowitz, S., (2008). Virtual reference service evaluation: Adherence to RUSA behavioral guidelines and IFLA digital reference guidelines. Library & Information Science Research, 30 (2), 122-137.
61. Shachaf, P., &, Rosenbaum, H., (2009, February). Online social reference: A research agenda through a STIN framework. Paper presented at the 2009 iConference, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Available at: http://www.ischools.org/iconferences/papers/
62. Shah, C., (2011, February). Measuring effectiveness and user satisfaction in Yahoo! Answers. First Monday; 16 (2-7).
63. Shah, C., Oh, J.S., &, Oh, S., (2008, November/December). Exploring characteristics and effects of user participation in online social Q & A sites. First Monday, 13 (9).
64. Shah, C., Oh, S., &, Oh, J.S., (2009). Research agenda for social Q & A. Library & Information Science Research, 31 (4), 205-209.
65. Shah, C., &, Pomerantz, J., (2010). Evaluating and predicting answer quality in community QA. Proceedings of the 33rd International Association for Computing Machinery's Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR) Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR '10) (p. 411). New York: ACM Press.
66. Slater, R., (2006). Reference Desk Notes: An online knowledge management system. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 11 (3). 69-83.
67. Surowiecki, J., (2004). Wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. New York: Doubleday.
68. Tang, P., &, Solomon, P., (2001). Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation: On the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 (8), 676-685.
69. Taylor, R.S., (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
70. Taylor, A.R., Cool, C., Belkin, N.J., &, Amadio, W.J., (2007). Relationships between categories of relevance criteria and stage in task completion. Information & Processing Management, 43 (4), 1071-1084.
71. Virtual Reference Desk Project. (1998). Virtual Reference Desk AskA Software: Decision points and scenarios.
72. Wang, P., &, Soergel, D., (1998). A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I: Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49 (2), 115-133.
73. Ward, J., &, Barbier, P., (2010). Best practices in chat reference used by Florida's Ask a Librarian Virtual Reference Librarians. The Reference Librarian, 51 (1), 53-68.
74. White, M., Abels, E., &, Kaske, N., (2003). Evaluation of chat reference service quality: A pilot study. D-Lib Magazine, 9 (2). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february03/white/02white.html
75. Wilson, P., (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
76. Xu, Y., &, Chen, Z., (2006). Relevance judgment: What do information users consider beyond topicality ? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (7), 961-973.
77. Zhang, J., Ackerman, M.S., &, Adamic, L.A., (2007). Expertise networks in online communities: Structure and algorithms. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '07) (pp. 221-230). New York: ACM Press.
78. Zhuo, F., Love, M., Norwood, S., &, Massia, K., (2006). Applying RUSA Guidelines in the analysis of chat reference transcripts. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 13 (1), 75-88.
79. Zipf, G.K., (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.