Examinations of search interactions, experiences and communication in collaborative search

Purpose This study aims to explore the characteristics of collaborative information searching by comparing the differences in search experience and interaction between collaborative search mode and individual search mode and by analyzing the communication content and patterns during collaborative searches. Design/methodology/approach A user experiment was conducted using the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum (CLEF)-Social Book Search platform, recruiting 16 individual and 18 collaborative participants. Each of the participants was required to complete two types of book search tasks in a lab setting. Interactions with the system were logged, and participants' experiences were captured through pre/post-search questionnaires. Additionally, the communication among collaborative participants was recorded and coded. Findings This study identified characteristics of collaborative information searching in three aspects. (1) Search experience: collaborative searchers showed a higher appreciation for the system’s functionality and aesthetics and were more engaged than individual searchers, despite experiencing slightly more mental strain. (2) Search strategies: in focus tasks, collaborative searchers made more decisions than individual searchers, indicating a need for book sorting. In open tasks, collaborative searchers take longer before making decisions, likely due to a higher level of interest and participation. (3) Communication content and pattern: collaborative searchers mainly discussed understanding and judgment of books and task plan. Searchers with same cognitive style talked more about search operations than those with different cognitive styles, while less about book judgment. Three communication patterns were identified: understanding-judgment, judgment-dominant and balanced. Judgment-dominant participants generally reported higher satisfaction with their search results than those in the other two patterns. Originality/value This study enhances understanding of collaborative search by comparing it with individual search and analyzing communication content, potentially inspiring collaborative search system and experiment design. Additionally, the coding table for communication between collaborative searchers offers valuable insights for future research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Aslib Journal of Information Management
Published
2024-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-04-2024-0275
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.78
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Examinations of search interactions, experiences and communication in collaborative search

Pengyi Zhang, Chang Liu, Lu Zhang
1 citations
Aslib Journal of Information Management
Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
0.78
article

Examinations of search interactions, experiences and communication in collaborative search

Pengyi Zhang, Chang Liu, Lu Zhang
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to explore the characteristics of collaborative information searching by comparing the differences in search experience and interaction between collaborative search mode and individual search mode and by analyzing the communication content and patterns during collaborative searches. Design/methodology/approach A user experiment was conducted using the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum (CLEF)-Social Book Search platform, recruiting 16 individual and 18 collaborative participants. Each of the participants was required to complete two types of book search tasks in a lab setting. Interactions with the system were logged, and participants' experiences were captured through pre/post-search questionnaires. Additionally, the communication among collaborative participants was recorded and coded. Findings This study identified characteristics of collaborative information searching in three aspects. (1) Search experience: collaborative searchers showed a higher appreciation for the system’s functionality and aesthetics and were more engaged than individual searchers, despite experiencing slightly more mental strain. (2) Search strategies: in focus tasks, collaborative searchers made more decisions than individual searchers, indicating a need for book sorting. In open tasks, collaborative searchers take longer before making decisions, likely due to a higher level of interest and participation. (3) Communication content and pattern: collaborative searchers mainly discussed understanding and judgment of books and task plan. Searchers with same cognitive style talked more about search operations than those with different cognitive styles, while less about book judgment. Three communication patterns were identified: understanding-judgment, judgment-dominant and balanced. Judgment-dominant participants generally reported higher satisfaction with their search results than those in the other two patterns. Originality/value This study enhances understanding of collaborative search by comparing it with individual search and analyzing communication content, potentially inspiring collaborative search system and experiment design. Additionally, the coding table for communication between collaborative searchers offers valuable insights for future research.

Aslib Journal of Information Management
Peking University (CN), National Science Library (CN)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
0.78
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.