A new model of information behaviour based on the Search Situation Transition schema

Information Research

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2004, Pages

  Pharo, Nils ^a  

^a OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 9744265607     PISSN: 13681613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (47)

1. Audunson, R. (1999). Between professional field norms and environmental change impetuses: a comparative study of change processes in public libraries. Library & Information Science Research, 21(4), 523-552.
2. Belkin, N.J., Marchetti, P. G. & Cool, C. (1993). BRAQUE: design for an interface to support user interaction in information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 29(3), 325-344.
3. Belkin, N.J. & Vickery, A. (1985). Interaction in information systems. London: British Library.
4. Borlund, P. (2000). Evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Åbo (Turku) Finland: Åbo Akademi University Press, 2000. (Doctoral dissertation.)
5. Borlund, P. & Ingwersen, P. (1997). The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 53(3), 225-250.
6. Byström, K (1999). Task complexity, information types and information sources: examination of relationships. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere. (Doctoral dissertation, Acta Universitatis Tamperensis; 688).
7. Byström, K. & Hansen, P. (2002). Work tasks as units for analysis in information seeking and retrieval studies. In H. Bruce, R. Fidel, P. Ingwersen & P. Vakkari (Eds.), Emerging frameworks and methods (pp. 239-251). Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited
8. Byström, K. & Järvelin, K. (1995). Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Information Processing and Management, 31(2), 191-213.
9. Cosijn, E. & Ingwersen, P. (2000). Dimensions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 36(4), 533-550.
10. Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation, 45(3), 171-212.
11. Eloranta, K.T. (1979). Menetelmäeksperttiyden analyysi menetelmäkoulutuksen suunnittelun perustana [The analysis of method expertise as a basis for planning methodology Education]. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.
12. Fidel, R. (1985). Moves in online searching. Online Review, 9(1), 61-74.
13. Frohmann, B. (1994). Discourse analysis as a research method in library and information science. Library and Information Science Research, 16(2), 119-138.
14. Hansen, P. (1999). User interface design for information retrieval interaction: a task-oriented approach. In T. Aparac, T. Saracevic, P. Ingwersen & P. Vakkari. (Eds.), Digital libraries: interdisciplinary concepts, challenges and opportunities: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Conceptions of the Library and Information Science (CoLIS 3), (pp. 191-205). Zagreb: University of Zagreb.
15. Hjørland, B. & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Towards a new horizon in information science: domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400-425.
16. Hölscher, C. & Strube, G. (2000). Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies. Computer Networks, 33(1-6), 337-346.
17. Ingwersen, P. (1982). Search procedures in the library analysed from the cognitive point of view. Journal of Documentation, 38(3), 165-191.
18. Ingwersen, P. (1992). Information retrieval interaction., London: Taylor Graham
19. Ingwersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: elements of a cognitive information retrieval theory. Journal of Documentation, 52(1), 3-50.
20. Järvelin, K. (1986). On information, information technology and the development of society: an information science perspective. In P. Ingversen, L. Kajberg & A.M. Pejtersen (Eds.), Information technology and information use: towards a unified view of information and information technology, (pp. 35-55). London: Taylor Graham.
21. Järvelin, K. and Wilson, T.D. (2003) On conceptual models for information seeking and retrieval research. Information Research, 9(1) Retrieved 15 January, 2004 from http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper163.html
22. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1993). Seeking meaning: a process approach to library and information services. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
23. Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Marchionini, G. Lin, X. & Dwiggins, S. (1990). Effects of search and subject expertise on information seeking in a hypertext environment. In D. Henderson. (Ed.), ASIS '90: proceedings of the 53rd ASIS Annual Meeting (pp. 129-141). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
25. Newell, A. (1969). Heuristic programming: Ill-structured problems. In Aronofsky, J., (Ed.), Progress in operations research, III (pp. 360-414). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
26. Pharo, N. (2002). The Search Situation and Transition method schema: a tool for analysing Web information search processes. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press. (Doctoral dissertation. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, 871). Retrieved 5th August, 2004 from http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5355-7.pdf
27. Pharo, N. & Järvelin, K. (2004). The Search Situation and Transition method: a tool for analysing Web information search processes. Information Processing and Management, 40(4), 633-654
28. Rasmussen, J. (1990). A model for the design of computer integrated manufacturing systems: identification of information requirements of decision makers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 5(1), 5-16.
29. Reid, J. (1999). A new, task-oriented paradigm for information retrieval: implications for evaluation of information retrieval systems. In T. Aparac, T. Saracevic, P. Ingwersen & P. Vakkari, (Eds.), Digital libraries: interdisciplinary concepts, challenges and opportunities: proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Conceptions of the Library and Information Science (CoLIS 3) (pp. 97-108). Zagreb, Croatia: University of Zagreb.
30. Saracevic, T. (1996). Relevance reconsidered '96. In P. Ingwersen & N.O. Pors, (Eds.), Information science: integration in perspective (pp. 201-218). Copenhagen: Royal School of Library and Information Science.
31. Saracevic, T., Kantor, P., Chamis, A.Y. & Trivison, D. (1988). A study of information seeking and retrieving. I. Background and methodology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(3), 161-176.
32. Shepherd, M. & Watters, C. (1998). The evolution of cybergenres. In R.H. Sprague, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS '98), Volume II. (pp. 97-109). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Computer Society Press.
33. Spink, A (1997). Study of interactive feedback during mediated information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(5), 382-394.
34. Spink, A., Greisdorf, H. & Bateman, J. (1998). From highly relevant to not relevant: examining different regions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 34(5), 599-622.
35. Spink, A., Wilson, T.D., Ford, N., Foster, A. & Ellis, D. (2002). Information-seeking and mediated searching. Part 1. Theoretical framework and research design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(9), 695-703.
36. Strauss, A. & J. Corbin (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37. Vakkari, P. (1999). Task complexity, problem structure and information actions. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 819-837.
38. Vakkari, P (2000). Cognition and changes of search terms and tactics during task performance: a longitudinal study. Proceedings of the RIAO'2000 Conference. (pp. 894-907) Paris: C.I.D.
39. Vakkari, P (2001). A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: a summary and generalisation of a longitudinal study. Journal of Documentation, 7(1), 44-60.
40. Vakkari, P. (2003). Task-based information searching. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 413-464.
41. Wersig, G. (1971). Information - Kommunikation - Dokumentation: ein Beitrag zur Orientierung der Infromations- und Dokumentationswissenschaften. München-Pullach: Verlag Dokumentation.
42. Wersig, G. & Windel, G. (1985). Information science needs a theory of 'information actions'. Social Science Information Studies, 5(1), 11-23
43. Wilson, T.D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 37(1), 3-15
44. Wilson, T.D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249-270.
45. Wilson, T.D., Ford, N., Ellis, D., Foster, A. E. & Spink, A. (2002) Information seeking and mediated searching: Part 2. Uncertainty and its correlates. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(9), 704-715.
46. Wilson, T.D. & Walsh, C. (1996). Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective. London: British Library Research and Innovation Centre. (British Library Research and Innovation Report 10) Retrieved 5th August, 2004 from http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/infbehav/prelims.html
47. Xie, H. (2000). Shifts of interactive intentions and information-seeking strategies in interactive information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(9), 841-857