Eastwood users lost

USERS LOST:Reflections on the past, future,

and limits of information science

A presentation by Meg Eastwood

on the 1997 paper by Dr. Tefko Saracevic

INF384H September 12, 2011

Part One:What is Information Science, and why does it matter for Information

Retrieval?

What is IR?

“the undisputed objective of IR is to provide potentially relevant answers to users’

questions” (pg. 17)

Is IR a branch of Computer Science or Information Science?

Information science: “trying to organize and make accessible the universe of knowledge records, literature, in a way that ‘texts’ most likely to be relevant or of value to users are made most accessible intellectually and physically” (pg. 23)

Computer science: “systematic study of algorithmic processes that describe and transfer information” (Denning et al., 1989)

Three “Senses” of Information

1. “signals or messages for decisions involving little or no cognitive processing” (pg. 17)

0 1

Three “Senses” of Information

2. “Information involving cognitive processing and understanding”

3. Information that involves cognitively-processed messages and a context (pg. 17-18)

Photo courtesy of Lowell Observatory Archives

Part Two:History and Motivations of Information Science

The Beginnings of Information Science

Vannevar Bush’s 1945 paper:

• Defined “the massive problem of making more accessible a bewildering store of knowledge” (Bush 1945)

• Proposed a technological solution: the “Memex”

Photo from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vannevar_Bush_portrait.jpg

Focus of Information Science

“The proper study for information science is the problem of effective and efficient interface between people and literatures” pg. 20

Specialties within Information Science

FIG. 3.Top 100 authors in information science, 1980–1987. from White and McCain 1998, pg. 345

Domain Cluster versusRetrieval Cluster

Traditional Systems-Centered Approach to IR

• Calvin Mooers, 1951:– Defined IR as as “embrac[ing] the intellectual aspects of

the description of information and its specification for search, and also whatever systems, techniques or machines that are employed to carry out the operation.”

• Focuses on algorithms and “computational advantages” (pg. 22)

• “People and users are absent” (pg. 21)

Human-Centered Approach to IR

• “cognitive, situational, and interactive studies and models involving the use of retrieval systems”

• Mantra: “results have implications for systems design and practice” (pg. 21)

From http://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/08/tron-in-tron.jpg

Two Distinct Education Systems in IR

Shera model

• Attempted to integrate IR courses into traditional library school curriculum and connect it to professional practice

• Strengths:– “Service framework”– “User-oriented”

Salton model

• Education is integrated with experimental research as part of a computer science curriculum

• Strengths:– Firm grounding in math and

algorithms– Students prepared to contribute

to research in field

Part Three:Limits of Information Science

“Natural Limits” of Information Science

• Human knowledge records are too diverse for a general IR solution

• Every person searches for, assesses, and copes with information differently

Discussion• Did Saracevic described the history of IR in unbiased manner?

• What did you think of Saracevic’s definition of Information Science?

• Have the relationships between the two camps of IR (systems-centered versus human-centered approach) changed since 1997?

• Research• Education

• Natural limits of IR?

References

• Saracevic, T. (1997). Users lost: reflections on the past, future, and limits of information science. SIGIR Forum 31 (2):16-27.

• White, H.D. & McCain, K. W. (2008).

Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49 (4):327–355.