1.
Hosted
by:
Information
Needs,
Seeking,
and
Use
(SIG
USE)
In
collaboration
with:
Social
Informatics
(SIG
SI)
SIGs
of
the
American
Society
for
Information
Science
&
Technology
SIG
USE
Research
Symposium
November
7
2009
This
symposium
will
offer
guided
reflection
on
essential
questions
around
information
behavior
research
and
practice
in
social
and
collaborative
information
environments:
Where
is
collaborative
information
behavior
research
headed?
How
are
we
to
communicate
our
insights
to
researchers
and
practitioners
in
related
areas
of
study
and
design?
How
can
and
should
our
models,
theories
and
findings
inform
the
design
and
delivery
of
collaborative
and
innovative
information
products
and
services?
Collaborative
Information
Seeking
&
Sharing

2.
1
Special
thanks
to
Heather
Barahona
and
Will
Senn
for
their
work.
Printing
Services
provided
courtesy
of:
UNT
College
of
Information
Word
Cloud
courtesy
of:
Wordle.com

3.
2
Welcome!
We
enthusiastically
welcome
the
over
50
registered
attendees,
keynote
speakers,
members,
friends,
and
other
officers
to
the
10th
anniversary
research
symposium
on
Collaborative
Information
Seeking
and
Sharing
of
SIG
USE.
This
symposium
offers
an
opportunity
for
SIG
USE,
as
well
as
other
SIG
members,
to
reflect
on
essential
questions
around
information
behavior
research
and
practice
in
a
collaborative
context:
What
are
the
fundamental
questions
that
we
should
be
looking
at
in
this
line
of
research?
How
are
we
to
move
towards
making
greater
impacts
on
organizations
and
designers?
In
an
effort
to
consolidate
research
that
has
been
undertaken
by
attendees,
the
2009
SIG-­‐USE
Symposium
will
engage
in
reflection
on
where
collaborative
information
behavior
research
is
headed.
Examining
the
transformative
relationship
between
people
and
people,
as
well
as
people
and
information,
is
at
the
heart
of
information
behavior
research.
Taking
a
people-­‐centered
focus
to
our
inquiries,
we
have
amassed
understandings
about
the
way
people
work
with
information,
information
systems
and
the
people
with
whom
they
interact
in
the
process
of
information
seeking
and
sharing.
Communicating
these
insights
to
researchers
and
practitioners
in
related
areas
of
study
and
design,
however,
continues
to
pose
a
challenge
for
our
community.
Thus,
the
reflective
moment
to
be
offered
by
this
year’s
Symposium
will
be
used
to
consider
the
challenge
of
communicating
the
significance
of
USE
research
to
designers
of
products,
systems
and
services.
This
year’s
symposium
is
also
to
be
used
as
another
opportunity
to
bring
together
researchers
in
two
SIGs
(SIG
USE
and
SIG
SI)
to
explore
potential
synergies
between
the
research
interests
of
the
two
communities.
An
afternoon
session
is
requested
so
that
the
USE
symposium
can
follow
a
networking
lunch
run
jointly
by
SIG-­‐USE
and
SIG-­‐SI
(who
are
running
a
morning
symposium).
Please
visit
our
wiki
for
updated
information:
http://www.asis.org/wiki/AM09/index.php/Siguse
Symposium
Organizers:
Nadia
Caidi,
University
of
Toronto,
Canada
Guillermo
Oyarce,
University
of
North
Texas
Soo
Young
Rieh,
University
of
Michigan
Stay
connected
with
SIG
USE
during
and
after
the
conference!
SIG
USE
now
has
a
space
in
Second
Life
on
ASIS&T
Island.
Find
colleagues
in
our
Facebook
group
(SIG
USE),
contribute
your
photos
to
our
Flickr
area,
or
follow
us
on
Twitter.
Look
for
upcoming
events
on
our
SIG
USE
web
site,
as
well
as
links
to
all
of
the
above
social
networking
tools:
http://siguse.org.

4.
3
Symposium
Agenda
Saturday,
November
7,
2009
12:30
–
1:30
Networking
lunch
with
SIG
SI
(location
TBD)
1:30
–
1:40
Introduction
and
logistics
1:40
–
1:55
Award
presentations
1:55
–
2:10
Talk
by
Ya-­‐Ling
Lu,
2009
Chatman
Research
Proposal
Award
Winner
2:10
–
2:40
Keynote
speech
1:
Diane
Sonnenwald
2:40
–
3:40
Small
group
discussion
session
1
and
reporting
1. How
does
our
research
address
the
transformative
relationship
between
people
and
information?
2. What
are
the
fundamental
questions
that
we
should
be
looking
at
in
our
research?
3:40
–
4:00
Break
4:00
–
4:30
Keynote
speech
2:
David
McDonald
4:30
–
5:30
Small
group
discussion
session
2
and
reporting
3. How
are
we
to
move
towards
making
a
greater
impact
on
organizations
and
designers?
4. How
can
or
should
collaborative
information
behavior
research
be
presented
to
translate
effectively
into
the
language
of
other
information
research
communities?
5:30
–
6:00
Wrap-­‐up
by/with
keynote
speakers
and
conclusions

5.
4
Speakers
Elfreda
A.
Chatman
Research
Proposal
recipient
for
2008:
Ya-­‐Ling
Lu
Children’s
Information
Behaviors
in
Coping
with
Daily
Life
This
project
examines
children’s
information
behaviors
in
coping
with
their
daily-­‐life
problems
as
well
as
factors
that
influence
their
information
seeking
in
this
coping
context.
Data
was
collected
through
semi-­‐structured,
open-­‐ended
surveys.
The
sample
consisted
of
641
children,
including
335
girls
and
321
boys,
in
fifth-­‐
and
sixth-­‐
grade
classrooms
from
an
urban
public
elementary
school
in
Taiwan.
This
study
found
that
in
coping
with
daily-­‐
life
problems
nearly
2/3
of
the
participating
children
would
seek
information,
that
6th
graders
were
more
likely
to
do
so,
and
that
gender
did
not
make
information
seeking
more
(or
less)
probable
in
this
coping
context.
Data
from
this
study
also
revealed
five
major
different
information
seeking
behaviors
related
to
coping:
information
seeking
for
problem
solving,
information
seeking
for
escape,
information
seeking
for
a
transition,
information
seeking
to
change
mood,
and
information
avoidance.
Because
children
aim
at
different
goals,
the
types
of
information
they
need
vary.
Keynote:
Diane
Sonnenwald
Head
of
School
&
Professor
at
School
of
information
and
Library
Studies,
UCD,
Dublin,
Ireland
Collaborating
with
Other
Disciplines:
Joys
and
Perils
Drawing
on
over
a
decade
of
collaboration
with
computer
scientists,
chemists
and
researchers
in
other
disciplines
while
conducting
research
on
collaboration
and
the
design
and
evaluation
of
collaboration
practices
and
technology,
Diane
will
share
insights
gained
from
her
research
regarding
the
challenges,
opportunities
and
new
ways
of
conducting
multidisciplinary
research
to
facilitate
information
sharing
and
knowledge
transfer
to
better
enable
our
models,
theories
and
findings
to
inform
the
design
and
implementation
of
collaboration
technology.
Personal
examples
of
successes
and
challenges
will
be
presented.
Diane
H.
Sonnenwald
is
Head
of
School
and
Professor
at
the
School
of
Information
and
Library
Studies
at
UCD,
Dublin,
Ireland,
and
an
adjunct
professor
of
computer
science
at
the
University
of
North
Carolina
at
Chapel
Hill.
She
conducts
research
on
collaboration
and
collaboration
technology
in
a
variety
of
contexts,
including
scientific
collaboration,
industry-­‐academic
collaboration,
and
collaboration
in
emergency
healthcare.
This
research
has
been
published
in
over
90
journal
articles,
conference
papers
and
book
chapters.
She
leads
a
project
investigating
the
potential
of
3D
telepresence
technology
to
improve
emergency
healthcare.
This
project
has
been
funded
by
the
U.S.
National
Library
of
Medicine,
and
is
a
collaboration
with
the
Computer
Science
Department
and
the
School
of
Medicine
at
the
University
of
North
Carolina
at
Chapel
Hill.
Diane
is
also
investigating
the
evaluation
of
distributed
collaborative
work.
Previously
Diane
led
the
nanoManipulator
Collaboratory
Design
&
Evaluation
Research
Project
funded
by
the
National
Institutes
of
Health,
and
the
Collaboration
Effort
at
the
National
Science
Foundation
Science
and
Technology
Center
for
Environmentally
Responsible
Solvents
and
Processes.
In
both
projects
she
and
her
team
investigated
how
new
technology
can
impact
scientific
collaboration
across
distances.
Diane
has
been
a
Fulbright
Professor
in
Finland.
Other
awards
and
recognition
include
a
U.S.
Army
Research
Laboratory
Scientific
Contribution
Award,
UNC
Junior
Faculty
Research
Award,
ALISE
Research
Methodology
Best
Paper
Award,
and
Bell
Communications
Research
Award
of
Excellence.

6.
5
Keynote
David
McDonald
Faculty
at
the
Information
School
at
University
of
Washington,
Program
Director
for
the
Human
Centered
Computing
program
at
the
National
Science
Foundation
An
Issue
of
Scale:
Moving
toward
a
Paradigm
for
Mass
Participation
Computing
Wide-­‐spread
access
to
the
Internet
and
networked
communications
technologies
have
opened
a
space
of
applications
that
facilitate
new
forms
of
interaction
and
collaboration.
Inviting
large
numbers
of
participants
into
new
collaborative
applications
creates
many
challenges.
When
online
communities
grow,
ensuring
congenial
interactions
among
all
of
the
members
is
nearly
impossible.
Differences
in
perspectives,
beliefs,
and
attitudes
ensure
that
the
multivalent
character
of
social
relations
emerges.
Systems
and
infrastructure
rarely
account
for
mechanisms
that
allow
for
the
effective
management
of
conflict.
Handling
challenges
that
result
from
scale
requires
rethinking
the
way
we
frame
research
questions
about
online
participation
-­‐
a
potentially
new
paradigm.
Dr.
David
W.
McDonald
joined
the
faculty
at
The
Information
School
at
University
of
Washington
in
January
2002.
Dr.
McDonald
is
currently
serving
as
a
Program
Director
for
the
Human
Centered
Computing
program
at
the
National
Science
Foundation
(NSF)
in
the
Computer,
Information
Science
and
Engineering
(CISE)
Directorate.
David
has
ongoing
projects
studying
Wikipedia
and
technology
and
media
use
in
the
home.
He
has
published
research
on
collaborative
authoring,
recommendation
systems,
organizational
memory,
and
public
use
of
large
screen
displays.
His
general
research
interests
span
Computer-­‐Supported
Cooperative
Work
(CSCW)
and
Human-­‐
Computer
Interaction
(HCI).
David
earned
his
Ph.D.
in
Information
and
Computer
Science
at
the
University
of
California,
Irvine.
At
UC
Irvine
he
was
part
of
the
Computing,
Organizations,
Policy
and
Society
(CORPS)
group.
David
has
worked
at
FX
Palo
Alto
Laboratory
in
the
Personal
and
Mobile
technology
group
and
at
AT&T
Labs,
Human
Computer
Interaction
group.

7.
6
Small
Group
Discussion
Session
1
Group
A
Group
B
Group
C
Group
D
Group
E
Louise
Limberg
Heidi
Julien
Cecelia
Brown
Theresa
Anderson
Karen
Fisher
Eileen
Abels
Jonathan
Foster
June
Abbas
Nadia
Caidi
Janet
Arth
Shelagh
K.
Genuis
Crystal
Fulton
Sanda
Erdelez
Jia
Tina
Du
Leanne
Bowler
Sean
P.
Goggins
Brandey
Hemmiger
Isto
Huvila
Stephen
Hockema
Helena
Francke
Min-­‐Chun
Ku
Yaling
Lu
Evelyn
Markwei
Paulette
Kerr
Mamiko
Matsubayashi
Margaret
Lam
Shen-­‐Tzu
Lin
David
McDonald
Kyungwon
Koh
Michael
Nilan
Janet
Mumford
Diane
Mizrachi
Makiko
Miwa
Yutaka
Manchu
Guillermo
Oyarce
Diane
Sonnenwald
Ophelia
Morey
Sanghee
Oh
Eric
Meyers
Theresa
Putkey
Sandra
Toze
Valerie
Nesset
Anindita
Paul
Katie
O’Leary
Nasser
Saleh
Rebekah
Willson
Jeanette
de
Richemond
Kathleen
Reed
Saeed
Sharifabadi
Robert
J.
Sandusky
Borchuluun
Yadamsuren
Stina
Westman
Soo
Young
Rieh
Tiffany
Veinot
Maria
Souden
Fred
Stutzman
Carol
Wood
Ruth
Vondracek
Small
Group
Discussion
Session
2
Group
A
Group
B
Group
C
Group
D
Group
E
Eileen
Abels
Sanda
Erdelez
Eric
Meyers
Tiffany
Veinot
Robert
Sandusky
Theresa
Anderson
Leanne
Bowler
Nadia
Caidi
Crystal
Fulton
June
Abbas
Janet
M.
Arth
Jian
Tina
Du
Jonathan
Foster
Shelagh
K.
Genuis
Helena
Francke
Cecelia
Brown
Karen
Fisher
Stephen
Hockema
Bradley
Hemminger
Yaling
Lu
Isto
Huvila
Sean
Goggins
Heidi
Julien
Min-­‐Chun
Ku
Paulette
Kerr
Kyungwon
Koh
Margaret
Lam
Louise
Limberg
Ophelia
Morey
Shen-­‐Tzu
Lin
David
McDonald
Yataka
Manchu
Evelyn
Markwei
Michael
Nilan
Mamiko
Matsubayashi
Makiko
Miwa
Sanghee
Oh
Janet
Mumford
Katie
O’Leary
Theresa
Putkey
Diane
Mizrachi
Guillermo
Oyarce
Valerie
Nesset
Jeanette
de
Richemond
Soo
Young
Rieh
Nasser
Saleh
Anindita
Paul
Kathleen
Reed
Diane
Sonnenwald
Sandra
Toze
Saeed
Sharifabadi
Borchuluun
Yadamsuren
Ruth
Vondrcek
Maria
Souden
Stina
Westman
Carol
Wood
Rebekah
Willson
Fred
Stutzman

8.
7
2009
SIG
USE
Award
Winners
Best
Information
Behavior
Paper:
$200.00
Tiffany
Veinot,
University
of
Michigan
“A
lot
of
people
didn’t
have
a
chance
to
support
us
because
we
never
told
them…”:
Stigma
management,
information
poverty
and
HIV/AIDS
information/help
networks
Best
Information
Behavior
Poster:
$200.00
Joung
Hwa
Koo
and
Melissa
Gross,
Florida
State
University
Adolescents’
Information
Behavior
when
Isolated
from
Peer
Groups:
Lessons
from
New
Immigrant
Adolescents’
Everyday
Life
Information
Seeking
Honorable
Mention
for
Best
Poster:
Ellen
Rubenstein,
University
of
Illinois
Dimensions
of
Information
Exchange
in
an
Online
Breast
Cancer
Support
Group
Elfreda
Chatman
Award:
$1000.00
Rachael
Clemens
and
Amber
Cushing,
University
of
North
Carolina
Chapel
Hill
Deeply
Meaningful
Contexts:
Probing
the
Boundaries
of
Everyday
Life
Information
Seeking
PhD
Student
Travel
Award:
$500.00
Diane
Mizrachi,
UCLA
Masters
Student
Travel
Award:
$500.00
Margaret
Lam,
University
of
Toronto
Interdisciplinary
Travel
Award:
$200.00
Chirag
Shah,
University
of
North
Carolina
Chapel
Hill
to
attend
the
2010
Computer-­‐Supported
Cooperative
Work
(CSCW)
Conference
Outstanding
Contributions
to
Information
Behavior:
$500.00
Tom
Wilson,
retired

9.
8
Join
Us
for
Exciting
Events!
2009
is
an
exciting
landmark
in
SIGUSE
history.
We
are
looking
forward
to
celebrating
our
anniversary
with
you.
SIG
USE
10th
Anniversary
Reception
Saturday,
November
7th
,
2009,
6.30pm.
Happy
Birthday!
2009
marks
the
10th
Anniversary
of
SIG
USE.
We
invite
everyone
to
celebrate
at
an
evening
reception.
Come
reminisce
with
old
friends
and
meet
newcomers
to
SIG
USE.
SIG
USE
Breakfast
Planning
Meeting
Sunday,
November
8th,
2009,
8am.
Hyatt
Regency
Restaurant.
We
invite
you
to
get
involved
in
next
year's
SIG
USE
event
planning.
SIG
USE
Anniversary
Panel
Celebrating
10
Years
of
SIG
USE:
A
Fish
Bowl
Dialogue
on
Information
Behavior
Research
Past,
Present
&
Future
Tuesday,
November
10th
,
3.30-­‐5pm
What
will
the
next
10
years
of
Information
Behavior
research
bring?
Are
we
at
a
turning
point
in
studying
Information
Behavior?
This
panel
reflects
on
the
development
of
Information
Behavior
research
and
explores
future
directions,
featuring
new
doctoral
work,
ongoing
major
research
studies,
and
new
opportunities
for
topics,
partnerships,
and
funding.

10.
9
List
of
Registered
Attendees
Ms.
June
Abbas
jmabbas@ou.edu
Dr.
David
McDonald
dwmc@u.washington.edu
Ms.
Eileen
G.
Abels
eabels@drexel.edu
Mr.
Eric
Meyers
meyerse@u.washington.edu
Ms.
Theresa
D.
Anderson
theresa.anderson@uts.edu.au
Ms.
Makiko
Miwa
miwamaki@nime.ac.jp
Ms.
Janet
M.
Arth
arth@tc.umn.edu
Ms.
Diane
Mizrachi
mizrachi@library.ucla.edu
Ms.
Leanne
Bowler
lbowler@sis.pitt.edu
Ms.
Ophelia
Morey
otmorey@buffalo.edu
Ms.
Cecelia
Brown
cbrown@ou.edu
Janet
Mumford
jmum@telus.net
Jeanette
de
Richemond
jderichemond@gmail.com
Ms.
Valerie
Nesset
vmnesset@buffalo.edu
Ms.
Jia
Du
jia.du@student.qut.edu.au
Dr.
Michael
S.
Nilan
jlpulver@syr.edu
Dr.
Sanda
Erdelez
sanda@missouri.edu
Ms.
Katie
O'Leary
katieolo@gmail.com
Dr.
Karen
E.
Fisher
fisher@u.washington.edu
Mrs.
Sanghee
Oh
shoh@email.unc.edu
Dr.
Jonathan
Foster
j.j.foster@sheffield.ac.uk
Dr.
Guillermo
Oyarce
oyga@unt.edu
Ms.
Helena
Francke
helena.francke@hb.se
Ms.
Anindita
Paul
ap6v8@mizzou.edu
Dr.
Crystal
Fulton
crystal.fulton@ucd.ie
Ms.
Theresa
Putkey
tputkey@keypointe.ca
Shelagh
Genuis
genuis@ualberta.ca
Kathleen
Reed
kjreed@ualberta.ca
Sean
Goggins
sean.goggins@mizzou.edu
Saeed
R.
Sharifabadi
srezaei@alzahra.ac.ir
Mr.
Bradley
Hemminger
bmh@ils.unc.edu
Ms.
Soo-­‐Young
Rieh
rieh@umich.edu
Mr.
Isto
Huvila
isto.huvila@abo.fi
Mr.
Nasser
Saleh
nasser.saleh@queensu.ca
Ms.
Heidi
E.
Julien
heidi.julien@ualberta.ca
Mr.
Robert
J.
Sandusky
sandusky@uic.edu
Ms.
Paulette
Kerr
pakerr@eden.rutgers.edu
Ms.
Maria
Souden
seramar@umich.edu
Ms.
Kyungwon
Koh
Mr.
Frederic
Stutzman
fred@metalab.unc.edu
Ms
Min-­‐Chun
Ku
minchunku@yahoo.com
Ms.
Sandra
Toze
sandra.toze@dal.ca
Ms.
Margaret
Lam
margaret.lam@gmail.com
Dr.
Tiffany
Veinot
tveinot@umich.edu
Ms.
Louise
Limberg
louise.limberg@hb.se
Ms.
Ruth
Vondracek
ruth.vondracek@oregonstate.edu
Shen-­‐Tzu
Lin
r95126005@ntu.edu.tw
Ms.
Stina
Westman
stina.westman@tkk.fi
Dr.
Yaling
Lu
yalinglu@rci.rutgers.edu
Rebekah
Willson
bwillson@myroyal.ca
Yutaka
Manchu
manchu.yutaka@toshiba-­‐sol.co.jp
Carol
Wood
woodc@daca.mil
Evelyn
Markwei
dedeiaf@yahoo.co.uk
Ms.
Borchuluun
Yadamsuren
by888@mizzou.edu
Ms.
Mamiko
Matsubayashi
mamiko@slis.tsukuba.ac.jp

11.
10
Position
Papers
Abels,
Eileen.....................................................................................................................................................................................................11
Anderson,
Theresa...........................................................................................................................................................................................12
Bar-­‐Ilan,
Judit...................................................................................................................................................................................................13
Borchuluun,
Yadamsuren
&
Erdelez,
Sanda.....................................................................................................................................................14
Brown,
Cecelia
&
Abbas,
June .........................................................................................................................................................................15
Caidi,
Nadia,
Fiser,
Adam
&
Lam,
Margaret.....................................................................................................................................................16
Du,
Tina............................................................................................................................................................................................................17
Foster,
Jonathan,
Wu,
Mei-­‐Mei
&
Lin,
Angela .................................................................................................................................................18
Fulton,
Crystal..................................................................................................................................................................................................19
Genuis,
Shelagh
K. ...........................................................................................................................................................................................20
Goggins,
Sean
&
Erdelez,
Sanda.......................................................................................................................................................................21
Hockema,
Stephen...........................................................................................................................................................................................22
Huvila,
Isto .......................................................................................................................................................................................................23
Julien,
Heidi......................................................................................................................................................................................................24
Lam,
Margaret .................................................................................................................................................................................................25
Limberg,
Louise................................................................................................................................................................................................26
Lueg,
Christopher.............................................................................................................................................................................................27
Miwa,
Makiko ..................................................................................................................................................................................................28
Markwei,
Evelyn ..............................................................................................................................................................................................29
Meyers,
Eric .....................................................................................................................................................................................................30
Morey,
Ophelia................................................................................................................................................................................................31
Mumford,
Janet ...............................................................................................................................................................................................32
Nesset,
Valerie.................................................................................................................................................................................................33
Oh,
Sanghee.....................................................................................................................................................................................................34
Oyarce,
Guillermo
A.........................................................................................................................................................................................35
Paul,
Anindita...................................................................................................................................................................................................36
Phuwanartnurak,
Ammy
Jiranida.....................................................................................................................................................................35
Reed,
Kathleen.................................................................................................................................................................................................38
de
Richemond,
Jeanette ..................................................................................................................................................................................39
Rubenstein,
Ellen .............................................................................................................................................................................................40
Sharifabadi,
Saeed
R. .......................................................................................................................................................................................41
Stutzman,
Fred.................................................................................................................................................................................................42
Willson,
Rebekah .............................................................................................................................................................................................43
Veinot,
Tiffany .................................................................................................................................................................................................44

12.
11
ABELS,
EILEEN
iSchool,
Drexel
University
Reference
services
have
focused
on
the
interaction
between
two
people,
the
librarian
or
information
professional
and
the
patron
or
information
seeker.
In
general,
the
interaction
between
the
two
is
more
of
a
conversation
than
a
collaborative
effort.
Some
collaboration
between
librarians
has
occurred
and
with
the
introduction
of
digital
cooperative
reference
services,
there
has
been
an
increase
in
collaboration
between
librarians
to
provide
reference
respond
to
reference
questions
is
not
new.
Margaret
Hutchins
(1944)
encouraged
librarians
to
“call
on
other
[librarians]
for
suggestions”.
More
recently,
the
Reference
and
User
Services
Association’s
Guidelines
for
Behavioral
Performance
of
Reference
and
Information
Service
Providers
(2004)
recommended
multi-­‐librarian
collaboration
for
question
answering.
In
the
RUSA
guidelines,
the
following
is
stated:
“[guideline]
5.4…
Consults
other
librarians
or
experts
in
the
field
when
additional
subject
expertise
is
needed.”
Some
research
findings
suggest
that
librarian-­‐to-­‐librarian
collaboration
during
reference
transactions
may
improve
accuracy
and
augment
performance
(e.g.,
McKenzie,
2003;
Kemp
&
Dillon,
1988;
Nolan,
1992;
Quinn,
2001;
Pomerantz,
2006).
In
addition
to
question
answering
services
provided
by
libraries,
many
online
Q&A
services
have
emerged.
Despite
the
collaborative
nature
of
many
social
networking
tools
on
the
internet,
reference
services
and
question
answering
services
have
remained
more
or
less
a
one
to
one
or
one
to
many
type
of
interaction
rather
than
a
true
collaboration.
Even
in
question
answering
services
in
which
an
information
seeker
requests
an
answer
to
a
question,
the
different
responses
received
are
generated
individually
and
the
information
seeker
selects
the
best
answer.
Collaborative
reference
services,
in
which
librarians
and
patrons
collaborate
would
require
a
paradigm
shift
in
current
models
of
reference
services.
There
are
many
questions
related
to
collaborative
reference
services.
The
following
are
just
a
few
examples:
Will
collaborative
reference
service
outperform
“traditional”
reference
services
in
terms
of
the
quality
of
the
responses
and
patron
satisfaction?
What
will
an
effective
collaborative
environment
look
like?
Are
current
reference
service
models
applicable
to
a
collaborative
reference
service?
References:
Hutchins,
M.
(1944).
Introduction
to
Reference
Work.
Chicago,
IL:
American
Library
Association.
Jackson,
L.,
&
Hansen,
J.
(2006).
Creating
Collaborative
Partnerships:
Building
the
Framework.
Reference
Services
Review,
34(4),
575-­‐588.
4
Kemp,
J.,
&
Dillon,
D.
(1989).
Collaboration
and
the
Accuracy
Imperative:
Improving
Reference
Service
Now.
RQ,
29(1),
62-­‐70.
McKenzie,
P.J.
(2003).
User
Perspectives
on
Staff
Cooperation
During
the
Reference
Transaction.
The
Reference
Librarian,
83/84,
5-­‐22.
Nolan,
C.W.
(1992).
Closing
the
Reference
Interview:
Implications
for
Policy
and
Practice.
RQ,
31(4),
513-­‐521.
Pomerantz,
J.,
&
Stutzman,
F.
(2006).
Collaborative
Reference
Work
in
the
Blogosphere.
Reference
Services
Review,
34(2),
200-­‐212.
Quinn,
B.
(2001).
Cooperation
and
Competition
at
the
Reference
Desk.
The
Reference
Librarian,
34(72),
65-­‐82.
Reference
and
User
Services
Association.
(2004).
Guidelines
for
Behavioral
Performance
of
Reference
and
Information
Service
Providers.
Retrieved
9
July
2009,
from
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesbehavioral.cfm.

13.
12
ANDERSON,
THERESA
University
of
Technology,
Sydney
Social
Relevance:
witnessing
personal/interpersonal
interplay
in
collaborative
information
environments
Relevance
is
a
central
concept
for
information
science
used
as
a
measurement
for
evaluating
information
systems.
However,
it
is
a
concept
that
significantly
extends
far
beyond
this
traditional
domain,
since
it
is
also
at
the
heart
of
the
human
communication
of
meaning.
It
is
an
essentially
human
construct
that
is
embedded
in
the
everyday
practices
of
communication,
information
seeking
and
knowledge
generation.
In
the
context
of
information
behaviour
research,
exploring
human
judgments
of
relevance
overlaps
with
explorations
of
other
core
information
concepts
like
cognitive
authority
and
credibility.
In
each
instance,
research
reveals
rich
layers
of
meaning
and
practice
at
both
personal
and
social
levels
of
human
judgments
of
information.
In
keeping
with
this
year’s
symposium
themes,
this
paper
discusses
the
diverse
social
and
contextual
dimensions
of
such
judgments,
particularly
within
the
complexity
of
computer-­‐mediated
information
activities
in
collaborative
information
environments.
When
examined
from
the
searcher’s
–as
opposed
to
the
system’s
–
perspective,
the
social
and
collaborative
aspects
are
seen
to
be
far
more
embedded
in
these
practices
than
is
accounted
for
in
many
depictions
of
collaborative
information
retrieval.
The
inherently
interactive
character
of
judgments
of
relevance,
credibility
and
cognitive
authority
means
that
social
and
private
aspects
are
interwoven
in
the
seeking
and
gathering
of
information.
Witnessing
the
collaborative
character
of
seemingly
individual
information
seeking
reveals
just
how
embedded
social
communication
is
in
these
judgments.
Equally,
study
of
information
practices
in
social
or
collaborative
contexts
reveals
great
diversity
in
the
individual
responses
to
a
collaborative
context.
Our
understanding
of
collaborative
systems
must
take
into
account
such
‘real-­‐life’
experiences
of
searchers
and
searcher
communities.
And
yet,
experience
shows
that
it
can
be
difficult
to
translate
this
understanding
of
human
practices
–
at
the
individual
as
well
as
at
the
collaborative
level
–
into
effective
designs
of
collaborative
environments.
This
proposed
paper
builds
on
the
author’s
individual
efforts
to
move
between
information
seeking,
information
retrieval
and
CSCW
communities
to
share
research
findings
on
this
very
topic.
It
discusses
both
a
theoretical
framework
and
case
studies
developed
in
an
effort
to
communicate
this
learning
so
that
it
might
be
effectively
applied
to
the
design,
development
and
evaluation
of
collaborative
IR
systems.

14.
13
BAR-­‐ILAN,
JUDIT
Department
of
Information
Science,
Bar-­‐Ilan
University,
Israel
Collaborative
Image
Tagging
In
a
recently
completed
research
we
studied
the
effects
of
collaboration
on
users’
image
tagging
behavior.
Our
users
were
presented
with
12
images
related
to
Jewish
cultural
heritage.
They
were
asked
to
tag
the
images
in
order
to
facilitate
their
retrieval
by
others.
In
the
first
phase
of
the
experiment
each
user
was
asked
to
tag
the
images
without
seeing
the
tags
assigned
by
others.
In
the
second
stage
the
tags
assigned
by
at
least
two
users
in
the
first
stage
were
shown
to
all
the
participants.
In
addition
the
users
were
encouraged
to
interact
though
a
discussion
forum
set
up
for
each
image.
This
was
the
place
to
try
to
convince
the
other
participants
to
remove
specific
tags
or
to
add
a
new
tag
that
the
user
considered
as
an
important
tag,
but
did
not
appear
in
the
list,
because
he
was
the
only
participant
that
assigned
the
tag
to
the
image.
The
users
were
allowed
to
change
the
tags
assigned
by
them
in
the
previous
phase:
to
delete
existing
tags,
to
edit
them,
to
add
tags
from
the
displayed
list
of
tags
or
to
add
a
brand
new
tag.
The
experiment
was
conducted
with
three
groups
of
about
40
participants
each.
Our
findings
show
that
in
each
group
the
number
of
assigned
tags
increased
in
the
second
phase
by
more
than
20%
on
average;
the
number
of
distinct
tags
decreased
in
81%
of
the
cases,
and
the
most
popular
tags
became
even
more
popular
after
the
second
stage.
Our
findings
suggest
that
collaboration
and
interaction
lead
to
convergence
of
image
tags.
In
this
case,
like
in
many
other
Web
2.0
applications,
the
“wisdom
of
the
crowds”
phenomenon
is
at
work.
In
addition,
like
in
many
other
situations,
we
also
witness
the
“rich-­‐get-­‐richer”
phenomenon,
where
initially
popular
tags
become
even
more
popular
after
the
users
are
allowed
to
collaborate.
This
research
was
supported
by
THE
ISRAEL
SCIENCE
FOUNDATION
(grant
No.
307/07),
and
is
joint
work
with
Maayan
Zhitomirsky-­‐Geffet,
Yitzchak
Miller
and
Snunith
Shoham,
all
from
the
Department
of
Information
Science
at
Bar-­‐Ilan
University.

15.
14
BORCHULUUN,
YADAMSUREN1
&
ERDELEZ,
SANDA2
1
Doctoral
Candidate,
School
of
Information
Science
and
Learning
Technologies,
University
of
Missouri
2
Associate
Professor,
School
of
Information
Science
and
Learning
Technologies,
University
of
Missouri
Collaborative
news
reading
behavior
This
position
paper
presents
the
preliminary
findings
from
an
ongoing
study
on
incidental
exposure
to
online
news
in
everyday
life
information
seeking
context.
The
mixed
method
study
with
web
survey,
interview,
and
think
aloud
sessions
were
conducted
for
this
study.
146
respondents
participated
in
the
web
survey
and
20
people
were
interviewed.
The
preliminary
results
from
the
study
show
that
news
reading
is
not
an
individual
behavior,
but
collaborative
process
of
finding
news
sources,
news
stories,
and
sharing
them
with
others.
The
study
respondents
said
that
the
Internet
provides
numerous
opportunities
for
them
to
share
and
read
news
collaboratively.
It
appears
that
many
respondents’
news
selection
depends
on
what
other
people
read
in
the
given
day.
They
check
the
popular
storied
picked
by
the
digital
crowd
at
the
specific
spots
on
news
websites,
such
as
“Most
e-­‐mailed,”
and
“Most
read.”
They
visit
the
crowd
surfing
websites,
such
as
diggit.com
to
follow
the
selection
of
stories
by
other
readers.
The
respondents
said
that
they
read
the
comments
sections
for
news
stories
and
exchange
their
ideas
and
other
sources
related
to
the
stories.
Social
networking
sites
are
becoming
a
big
avenue
for
collaborative
news
reading.
These
findings
indicate
that
studies
of
news
reading
behavior
with
the
theoretical
lenses
of
Savolainen’s
(1995)
everyday
life
information
seeking
model
and
Erdelez’s
(1997)
Information
Encountering
model
could
address
the
emerging
aspects
for
transformative
relationship
between
news
consumers
and
different
forms
of
news
stories.
Based
on
the
present
study,
the
fundamental
questions
we
should
be
looking
at
are
the
nature
of
collaborative
news
reading
behavior
and
its
implications
on
designing
the
different
online
news
services.
We
should
closely
study
the
tools
news
consumers
use
to
collaborate
and
share
news
stories
and
how
the
interface
design
and
news
selection
methods
on
news
sites
could
affect
information
behavior
of
users,
who
come
to
these
sites
later.
It
would
be
interesting
to
study
the
types
of
news
readers
who
come
to
the
news
sites
first
and
serve
as
“digital
gatekeepers”
for
future
visitors.
The
places
where
people
share
news
should
be
another
important
venue
for
further
research
in
collaborative
news
reading
behavior.
The
ways
of
sharing
news
with
others
(e-­‐mail,
personal
communication,
conversation,
social
networking
and
special
interest
group
sites)
would
add
much
more
on
our
research
in
collaborative
news
reading.
Research
on
news
reading
behavior,
including
social
aspects
of
news
reading
and
collaborative
news
reading
behavior
could
have
impact
on
the
design
of
online
news
websites,
social
networking
sites,
blogs
and
many
other
news-­‐oriented
information
systems.
With
the
rapid
technology
development
and
spread
usage
of
the
Internet
in
our
daily
lives,
the
traditional
definition
of
news
is
changing.
People
have
much
broader
definition
of
news,
not
only
focusing
on
stories
coming
from
the
traditional
news
organizations.
Thus,
our
studies
on
social
behavior
of
news
reading
and
collaborative
aspect
in
this
realm
could
have
much
greater
impact
in
terms
of
how
to
design
of
the
news
sites
affects
public
opinion
and
public
communication
in
society.
In
order
to
effectively
communicate
our
research
on
collaborative
news
reading
to
other
research
communities,
we
should
use
the
language
of
their
field.
Audience
studies
in
mass
communication
with
the
usage
of
the
Dependency
theory,
Gatekeeping
theory
and
Uses
&
Gratifications
theory
could
be
a
good
starting
point
to
see
how
we
could
improve
the
language
to
present
our
research
studies.
On
the
other
hand,
we
should
present
our
paper
for
the
different
research
communities
so
that
they
could
use
the
language
of
our
field.

16.
15
BROWN,
CECELIA
&
ABBAS,
JUNE
University
of
Oklahoma
Scholar’s
Perceptions
of
Institutional
Repositories
for
Collaborative
Institutions
worldwide
have
created
a
host
of
openly
accessible
online
repositories
populated
with
locally
produced
scholarly
works.
Online
institutional
repositories
(IRs)
are
touted
as
innovative
mechanisms
for
scholars
to
organize
and
store
their
research
related
information
and
for
broad
dissemination
and
long-­‐term
preservation
of
an
institution’s
intellectual
capital.
Provision
of
outlets
for
scholars
to
quickly
and
easily
share
thoughts,
ideas,
and
data
beyond
the
confines
of
traditional
communication
channels
can
transform
the
way
they
communicate
with
one
another
and
hence
advance
understanding
of
the
world
and
create
new
knowledge.
Information
professionals
appreciate
these
attributes
of
IRs
yet
scholars
in
other
fields
who
are
accustomed
to
the
traditional
peer-­‐reviewed
system
of
scholarly
communication
may
not
recognize
the
benefits
of
openly
accessible
IRs.
Yet,
for
an
IR
to
be
successful
and
enduring
it
must
be
considered
beneficial
to,
and
used
by,
the
intended
audience.
Therefore,
as
the
initial
step
in
the
development
of
our
institution’s
IR,
our
research
seeks
to
first
understand
the
perceptions
held
by
faculty
members
in
a
range
of
disciplines
about
the
benefits,
drawbacks,
and
uses
of
IRs
for
their
scholarly
information
seeking
and
sharing.
By
being
informed
and
guided
by
the
information
habits,
needs,
and
desires
of
the
audience
for
whom
the
IR
is
designed,
it
is
hoped
that
the
resultant
IR
will
align
well
with
the
ways
our
users
want
and
need
to
share
and
seek
scholarly
information.
Also,
by
using
the
research
as
an
opportunity
to
convey
the
benefits
of
an
IR
to
the
scholars
whose
information
needs,
uses,
and
desires
we
are
continually
are
striving
to
fulfill,
our
research
will
provide
the
foundation
for
the
creation
of
an
effective
and
sustainable
scholarly
information
service.

17.
16
CAIDI,
NADIA,
FISER,
ADAM
&
LAM,
MARGARET
University
of
Toronto
Trial
by
Fire:
Teaching
Community
Engagement
The
potentials
and
challenges
of
collaborative
information
seeking
and
sharing
are
never
as
evident
as
when
one
undertakes
a
‘real
life’
project
that
entails
working
with
stakeholders.
The
need
to
establish
trust
emerges,
as
issues
of
consensus
building,
defining
what
is
desired
vs.
possible,
what
is
needed
vs.
useful
come
forward.
The
necessary
skills
to
maintain
effective
communication
—
such
as
listening
skills,
creativity
and
even
a
dose
of
humour
—
are
not
honed
nearly
enough
at
our
iSchools.
What
can
we
do
to
prepare
the
next
generation
of
information
professionals
to
work
effectively
in
a
collaborative
context?
At
the
Univ.
of
Toronto,
the
On-­‐Demand
Book
Service
(ODBS)
project
served
as
the
core
curriculum
material
for
a
course
on
"Information
and
Culture
in
a
Global
Context".
Conceived
in
collaboration
with
the
KO
Research
Institute
(KORI),
the
ODBS
has
the
vision
of
utilizing
ICTs
to
bring
physical
books
into
remote
communities
that
lack
the
access
to
printed
content
that
we
all
take
for
granted.
In
the
process
of
negotiating
the
project
with
the
stakeholders
involved,
students
confronted
the
real
challenges
faced
by
isolated
Northern
native
communities
in
the
form
of
four
teams:
community
research,
digital
contents,
system
design,
and
communication
&
outreach.
Students
experienced
a
‘trial
by
fire’
mode
of
learning,
while
being
mentored
by
members
of
our
partner
communities
through
recurrent
videoconferencing
and
online
discussions
(odbs.knet.ca).
These
mentors
also
facilitated
community
engagement
at
various
stages
of
the
class.
By
participating
in
a
real
world
project,
the
students
discovered
for
themselves
the
need
for
collaborative
and
participatory
research.
They
left
a
rich
legacy
consisting
of
surveys,
collection
development
policy,
wireframe
system
design,
promotional
materials
and
final
team
reports.
These
artifacts
represent
not
only
the
groundwork
for
the
future
of
the
ODBS
project,
but
also
the
surprising
outcomes
that
a
community-­‐based
project
can
offer
the
various
stakeholders
of
such
a
course.

18.
17
DU,
JIA
TINA
Faculty
of
Science
and
Technology,
Queensland
University
of
Technology
Modeling
Web
Searching
Process
This
paper
outlines
dissertation
research
to
develop
a
sound
Web
search
model
which
can
detail
user’s
cognitive
processes
during
Web
searching.
Web
search
models
are
a
significant
and
important
area
of
Web
research.
Web
search
is
a
complex
behavior
involving
users’
cognitive
efforts.
To
more
deeply
understand
the
dynamic
and
interactive
behaviors
involved
in
the
Web
search,
we
need
to
examine
in
more
detail
important
aspects
of
users’
Web
search
behavior,
such
as
multitasking,
cognitive
coordination
and
cognitive
shifting.
Web
searching
includes
multitasking
processes
and
the
allocation
of
cognitive
resources
among
several
tasks,
and
shifts
in
cognitive,
problem
and
knowledge
states
at
different
levels.
Cognitive
shifting
is
also
an
important
research
area
for
understanding
users’
cognitive
processes
associated
with
Web
searching.
In
addition,
cognitive
coordination
mechanisms
allow
humans
to
manage
dependences
among
information
tasks
and
the
resources
available.
However,
few
studies
have
modeling
the
nature
of
and
relationship
between
multitasking,
cognitive
coordination
and
cognitive
shifts
during
Web
searching.
According
to
the
pioneering
information
scientists’
statement,
the
key
to
the
future
of
information
systems
and
searching
processes
lay
not
in
increased
sophistication
of
technology,
but
in
increased
understanding
of
human
involvement
with
information.
Modeling
how
users
conduct
Web
search
interactions
from
cognitive
perspectives
has
important
implications
for
the
design
of
Web
search
engines.
The
study
aims
to
model
the
relationship
between
multitasking,
cognitive
coordination
and
cognitive
shifts
during
Web
search.
Research
questions
to
be
addressed
in
this
study
are:
(1)
how
do
users
conduct
Web
searching
on
multiple
information
problems?
(2)
What
are
the
different
levels
of
cognitive
coordination
during
Web
searching?
(3)
What
are
the
types
of
cognitive
shifts
occurring
during
specific
information
problems
searching?
A
preliminary
model
was
developed
based
on
the
pilot
study
results
depicting
the
relationship
that
cognitive
coordination
is
the
hinge
linking
multitasking
episode
and
cognitive
shifts
that
move
users’
through
their
Web
search
interactions.

19.
18
FOSTER,
JONATHAN1
,
WU,
MEI-­‐MEI2
&
LIN,
ANGELA1
1
Department
of
Information
Studies,
University
of
Sheffield,
UK
2
Graduate
Institute
of
Library
&
Information
Studies,
National
Taiwan
Normal
University,
Taiwan
Collaborative
Information
Seeking
and
Sharing
in
Educational
Settings:
Identifying
the
Challenges
Collaborative
information
seeking
and
sharing
has
rapidly
become
an
established
area
of
study
in
recent
years
with
research
having
now
been
completed
in
a
range
of
domains
and
contexts
(e.g.
Foster,
in
press).
One
of
the
contexts
in
which
studies
have
been
conducted
are
educational
settings.
In
such
settings
students
are
often
presented
with
a
learning
activity
designed
to
motivate
them
to
seek,
evaluate,
and
use
information
on
a
collaborative
basis.
Designing
and
facilitating
learning
activities
that
encourage
collaborative
information
behaviour
transforms
the
relationship
between
students
and
information
by
introducing
the
role
of
the
student
peer
as
an
important
influence
on
the
identification
and
negotiation
of
information
needs,
the
development
of
search
strategies,
and
the
sharing,
evaluation,
and
use
of
the
information
once
retrieved.
In
doing
so
a
set
of
new
factors
enter
into
the
student-­‐information
relationship
that
include
the
deployment
of
social
and
interpersonal
skills,
discussion
skills,
and
the
use
of
technology
that
enables
students
to
search,
share,
evaluate,
and
present
information
together.
Our
approach
to
understanding
collaborative
information
behavior
in
educational
settings
has
been
to
observe
students’
participation
in
group
learning
activities
that
motivate
students
to
seek
and
use
information
on
a
collaborative
basis.
In
doing
so
we
have
sought
to
understand
the
conditions
that
enable
and
constrain
students’
participation
in
these
activities
and
the
information
tasks
that
are
embedded
within
them.
Enabling
conditions
that
we
have
identified
to
date
include
the
ability
to
identify
different
information
sources;
formulation
of
a
group
focus;
the
deployment
of
discussion
skills
including
the
use
of
collaborative
forms
of
talk;
an
emphasis
on
information
seeking
as
meaning-­‐making
rather
than
the
retrieval
and
use
of
information
per
se;
and
the
utilization
of
technology
that
aids
in
the
organisation,
analysis,
and
presentation
of
information
(Foster,
2009;
Wu
and
Foster,
2009).
Constraining
conditions
and
barriers
include:
the
impact
of
students’
levels
of
domain
knowledge
on
topic
identification;
division
of
labour
and
role
assignment
within
the
group;
the
varying
abilities
of
different
groups
to
search,
share,
organize
and
integrate
information;
students’
levels
of
communication
and
social
skills;
and
group’s
dependence
on/independence
from
the
tutor.
Educational
tools
that
aid
students
in
the
collaborative
search
and
discussion
of
the
information
that
is
being
sought,
shared,
and
presented,
need
to
be
developed,
implemented,
and
evaluated.
The
facilitation
of
collaborative
learning
activities
and
information
also
impacts
on
tutors
and
their
own
professional
development
needs
should
also
be
addressed.
From
a
pedagogical
standpoint
there
are
many
educational
benefits
to
be
derived
from
motivating
students
to
engage
in
collaborative
information
behavior.
These
include
developing
their
cooperative
planning
and
search
skills;
and
their
communication,
information
management,
and
social
skills.
The
dissemination
of
these
benefits
can
act
as
a
bridge
to
other
information
research
communities
to
the
involvement
of
other
information
research
communities
in
collaborative
information
behavior
research.
References
Foster,
J.,
(Ed.)
(in
press).
Collaborative
information
behavior:
User
engagement
and
communication
sharing.
Hershey,
PA:
IGI
Global.
Foster,
J.
(2009).
Understanding
interaction
in
information
seeking
and
use
as
a
discourse.
Journal
of
Documentation,
65(1),
83-­‐105.

20.
19
Wu,
M-­‐M.
&
Foster,
J.
(2009,
October).
Collaborative
information
seeking
strategies
for
group
investigation.
Paper
presented
at
the
Social
Change
and
Library
Services
Conference,
Taichung,
Taiwan:
National
Chung
Hsing
University,
Graduate
Institute
of
Library
and
Information
Science.
FULTON,
CRYSTAL
University
College
Dublin
Collaboration
is
now
a
high
priority
for
researchers
across
a
range
of
disciplines,
with
collaborative
efforts
occurring
within
and
between
groups.
The
symposium
offers
an
important
opportunity
to
address
both
our
potential
and
ongoing
collaboration
as
researchers,
as
well
as
insights
we
have/continue
to
gain
from
observing
collaboration
between
individuals/groups
in
the
field.
As
researchers
of
Information
Behaviour,
we
are
well
positioned
to
take
part
in
new
and
ongoing
collaboration,
not
least
because
of
our
interdisciplinary
tradition
in
LIS,
as
well
as
the
encompassing
nature
of
Information
Behaviour
which
extends
to
a
vast
array
of
topics
and
contexts.
How
we
collaborate
and
manage
collaboration
would
seem
to
be
two
of
the
key
challenges
for
creating
sustained
partnerships.
For
instance,
what
particular
means
of
collaboration
will
help
highlight
our
research
and
its
potential
contribution
to
research
with
other
individuals
and
groups?
How
can
and
should
we
lead
collaborative
research?
A
combination
of
our
seemingly
endless
LIS
identity
struggle
and
the
ongoing
lack
of
external
awareness
of
our
area
and
work
mean
that
it
can
be
all
too
easy
to
be
invisible
or
cast
in
a
supporting
role
–
when
we
have
the
potential
to
do
much
more.
What
lessons
are
there
to
be
learned
from
the
individuals/groups
we
study?
One
of
my
current
research
interests
involves
exploring
how
older
adults
explore
information
together.
While
older
adults
are
often
tagged
as
isolated,
lagging
behind
in
trends
in
technology,
etc.,
some
older
adults
adopt
particular
collaborative
approaches
to
tackling
information
problems.
How
can
the
groups
we
study
inform
our
understanding
of
collaboration
and
own
collaborative
practices?

21.
20
GENUIS,
SHELAGH
K.
Interdisciplinary
PhD
Candidate,
School
of
Library
and
Information
Studies,
and
the
Faculty
of
Nursing
University
of
Alberta,
Canada
As
a
new
researcher
in
the
area
of
Information
Needs,
Seeking
&
Use,
my
doctoral
research
focuses
on
the
day-­‐
to-­‐day
experiences
of
individuals
as
they
interact
with
and
integrate
health
information
in
situations
where
health
evidence
is
uncertain
and
evolving.
Much
has
been
written
about
evidence-­‐based
practice
(EBP)
within
health
fields,
and
the
challenges
encountered
when
striving
to
translate
medical
knowledge
into
practice;
however,
little
attention
is
paid
to
(1)
the
provisional,
emergent
and
incomplete
nature
of
medical
evidence
(Upshur
2001),
and
(2)
knowledge
translation
(KT)
as
an
personal,
on-­‐going
process
of
social
construction
(Gherardi
2006).
The
dilemma
presented
by
emergent
or
evolving
health
information
is
magnified
for
consumers
making
health
decisions
within
the
context
of
everyday
life.
Within
this
context
individuals
are
frequently
translating,
assimilating
and
responding
to
health
information
mediated
by
a
wide
range
of
formal
and
informal
sources
including
health
professionals,
the
media,
internet
sources,
advertising,
and
personal
contacts.
While
some
of
these
information
sources
focus
on
static
information
provision
and
many
involve
one-­‐on-­‐one
interaction,
social
and
collaborative
environments
(e.g.
online
discussion
groups
and
blogs,
as
well
as
face-­‐to-­‐
face
group
environments)
draw
attention
to
(1)
information
encounters
as
reality-­‐constructing,
meaning-­‐making
experiences
and
(2)
health
information
as
something
that
is
“moved
and
shaped
in
unique
ways”
within
the
context
of
the
individual’s
relationships
with
other
people
as
well
as
their
time
and
space
(Dervin
1983,
169).
While
research
related
to
EBP
and
KT
continues
to
emphasize
the
uptake
of
knowable
reality,
research
related
to
Information
Behavior
and
social/collaborative
environments
has
potential
to
make
valuable
theoretical
and
practical
contributions
to
health
fields
by
bringing
focus
to
the
social
nature
of
KT.
This,
in
turn,
draws
attention
beyond
evidence
as
implementable
‘fact’
to
a
constructionist
view
of
KT
as
an
active
process
in
which
new
understanding
is
constructed
from
encountered
information,
existing
knowledge
structures,
personal
experience,
and
socio-­‐cultural
environments
(Talja,
Tuominen,
and
Savolainen
2005).
Research
focusing
on
KT
as
a
socially
constructed
process
will
not
only
illuminate
the
transformative
relationship
between
information
and
people,
it
will
inform
development
of
effective
products
and
services
which
will
facilitate
effective
health
information
behaviour.
References
Dervin,
B.
1983.
Information
as
a
user
construct:
The
relevance
of
perceived
information
needs
to
synthesis
and
interpretation.
In
Knowledge
Structure
and
Use:
Implications
for
Synthesis
and
Interpretation,
eds.
Spencer
A.
Ward,
and
Linda
J.
Reed,
153-­‐83.
Philadelphia:
Temple
University
Press.
Gherardi,
S.
2006.
From
organizational
learning
to
knowing
in
practice.
In
Organizational
knowledge:
The
texture
of
workplace
learning,
ed.
S.
Gherardi,
1-­‐44.
Malden,
MA:
Blackwell.
Talja,
S.,
K.
Tuominen,
and
R.
Savolainen.
2005.
"Isms"
in
information
science:
Constructivism,
collectivism
and
constructionism.
Journal
of
Documentation
61
(1):
79-­‐101.
Upshur,
R.
E.
2001.
The
status
of
qualitative
research
as
evidence.
In
The
Nature
of
Qualitative
Evidence,
eds.
J.
M.
Morse,
J.
M.
Swanson,
and
A.
J.
Kuzel,
5-­‐26.
Thousand
Oaks:
Sage.

22.
21
GOGGINS,
SEAN1
&
ERDELEZ,
SANDA2
1
Drexel
University,
2
University
of
Missouri
Collaborative
Information
Behavior
in
Online
Groups
We
are
in
an
age
where
social
information,
reference
information
and
situational
information
are
presented
electronically,
quickly,
and
across
contexts.
People
adapt
to
these
changing
information
horizons
(Sonnenwald,&
Wildemuth,
2001)
primarily
as
individuals.
Online
social
network
sites
like
Facebook
and
Myspace
demonstrate
the
potential
for
incorporating
external,
social
feedback
within
the
boundaries
of
an
individual’s
information
horizon.
The
goal
of
our
research
is
to
build
theory
to
explain
how
electronically
mediated
communities’
and
groups’
share,
develop
and
build
information
collaboratively.
Completely
online
graduate
student
courses
provide
an
especially
compelling
test
bed
for
understanding
the
transformative
relationships
that
are
possible
between
people
and
information.
These
groups
are
distinct
from
more
extensively
researched
online
groups
and
communities
–
Facebook
Groups,
Wikipedia
groups
and
teams
in
the
free
and
open
source
software
movement
(FOSS)
–
in
three
significant
ways.
First,
their
members
have
a
common
organizational
affiliation,
similar
to
work
groups
or
student
groups
in
face-­‐to-­‐face
settings.
Second,
also
like
members
of
face-­‐to-­‐face
groups,
an
organizational
leader
or
instructor
often
assigns
group
members
to
their
groups.
Finally,
like
many
but
not
all
FOSS
and
Wikipedia
groups,
the
groups
we
study
do
not
meet
face-­‐to-­‐face.
We
learned
that
collaborative
information
behavior
in
technology
mediated
groups
is
challenging
because
members
share
some
information
resources
in
common,
such
as
those
contained
within
the
collaborative
tools
they
use,
but
also
rely
on
information
resources
unique
to
each
individual’s
physical
location
and
internet
use
habits.
Sonnenwald
(1999)
first
identified
these
different
arrays
of
available
information
resources
as
Information
Horizons,
suggesting
that
information
resources
are
used
to
a
greater
and
lesser
extent
depending
how
near
on
ones
horizon
they
are.
How
the
Information
Horizons
of
the
online
group
members
we
study
influence
collaborative
information
behavior
within
these
groups
is
illustrative
of
phenomena
emerging
from
the
use
of
technology
to
establish
and
maintain
online
groups.
Collaboration
around
information
in
these
groups
is
influenced
by
the
specific
information
in
the
group’s
field
of
view,
and
member
information
horizons
similarly
influence
the
group’s
collaborative
information
practices.
The
goal
of
our
participation
is
to
share
what
we
have
learned
so
far
with
the
SIGUSE
community.

23.
22
HOCKEMA,
STEPHEN
University
of
Toronto
Thanks
to
the
rise
of
digital
“social
media”,
collaborative
information
behavior
is
no
longer
(if
it
ever
was)
a
subset
of
information
behavior
in
general.
For
example,
the
Web
is
transforming
from
its
origins
as
a
place
primarily
to
find
and
access
documents
to
a
place
to
also
interact
with
other
people.
Technologies
that
support
participation
in
online
culture
also
simultaneously
support
and
transform
information
access
by,
among
other
things,
supporting
a
social
process
of
credibility
assessment
for
information
necessary
to
effectively
find,
filter
and
assess
it.
Indeed,
better
understanding
of
these
processes
has
the
potential
to
transform
our
understanding
of
Information
itself,
with
new
forms
of
non-­‐traditional
(e.g.,
non-­‐document-­‐based)
information
being
socially
co-­‐constructed
along
with
group
identities.
For
example,
when
a
team
coordinates
a
strategy
in
the
massively-­‐multiplayer
online
game
World
of
Warcraft
(as
happens
many
thousands
of
times
a
day,
in
just
one
of
many
related
digital
social
media
contexts),
complex
information
behaviors
take
place
in
real-­‐time
in
which
information
is
shared
and
filtered,
credibility/authority
is
established,
objectives
are
negotiated,
and
information
needs
are
constructed
and
assigned
to
support
the
collective
action,
while
simultaneously,
more
traditional
information
exchanges
(more
grounded
in
the
“real
world”)
are
also
occurring.
Such
environments
are
as
yet
under-­‐studied
in
the
context
of
CIB,
yet
have
the
potential
to
inform
and
refine
theories
that
pertain
to
“more
traditional
information
settings”.
While
I
expect
that
many
of
the
fundamental
questions
for
understanding
collaborative
information
behavior
will
overlap
with
similar
questions
for
information
behavior
in
general,
the
questions
that
particularly
interest
me
include:
• How
do
group
identity
(and
individual
roles
within
groups)
dynamically
co-­‐evolve
with
the
information-­‐
seeking
goals
and
behaviors
of
the
group?
• How
do
credibility
and
authority
emerge
within
collaborative
teams
and
how
is
this
mediated
by
the
ICTs
they
use?
• How
are
processes
related
to
the
coordination
of
teams
intertwined
with
their
collective
information
behaviors?
For
example,
...
• How
does
the
process
of
recording,
compiling
and
categorizing
group
work
and
decisions
throughout
a
collaborative
effort
affect
the
group's
collective
information
goals?
• How
does
(real-­‐time
or
delayed,
mediated
or
direct)
communication
among
group
members
about
the
information
they’ve
found
individually
affect
the
process,
both
in
terms
of
dynamic
filtering
and
the
group’s
evolving
information
goals?
While
the
World
of
Warcraft
example
above
was
meant
to
illustrate
potentially
“new”
types
of
emergent
information,
there
are
also
myriads
of
more
mundane
ways
that
we
marshal
information
to
work
together
to
solve
problems
and
make
decisions
every
day.
(“What/Where
should
we
eat
for
dinner?”
“Would
you
take
the
401
or
the
Gardiner
to
get
there?”
“What’s
our
policy
on
expense
reports
related
to
alcohol
at
meals?”,
etc.)
Information
practices
must
be
understood
as
embedded
within
these
social/cultural
contexts,
be
they
familial,
organizational,
educational,
etc.
Our
research
cannot
be
independent
of
research
coming
from
sociology
and
the
cognitive
sciences
on
group
decision-­‐making
and
problem
solving.
Management
schools
already
teach
these
topics;
we
need
to
make
it
obvious
how
our
research
integrates
into
this
discourse.
Designers
understand
that
the
tools
they
create,
even
tools
they
envision
as
being
for
single
users,
are
going
to
be
embedded
in
these
social
contexts
and
often
used
collaboratively
by
groups
(for
example,
an
iPhone
app
for
finding
a
restaurant
being
used
in
a
car
full
of
people).
To
have
an
impact
on
their
practice,
we
need
to
make
the
connections
of
our
work
to
these
common
environments
and
scenarios
explicit
and
clear.
Note:
Full
abstract
online
at
SIG
USE
wiki

24.
23
HUVILA,
ISTO
Uppsala
University
Generally
speaking,
the
USE
research
may
be
argued
to
follow
very
tightly
the
changing
relationship
between
people
and
information.
Empirical
research
on
actual
user
behaviour
brings
us
close
to
the
transformations
that
are
happening
at
the
very
moment
when
they
are
happening.
I
have
found
numerous
instances
of
evidence
on
that
on
my
research
on
the
information
workaof
various
groups
of
users
including
archaeologists,
corporate
finance
and
cultural
heritage
professionals.
On
the
other
hand,
it
is
possible
that
the
more
abstract
level
of
USE
research
that
focuses
on
higher
level
models
may
actually
miss
many
of
the
changes
because
of
the
level
of
investigation.
A
still
actual
very
fundamental
question
is
the
theoretical
and
practical
applicability
of
our
results.
How
the
evolving
information
practices
and
systems
reflect
the
increased
understanding
of
information
behaviour
and
how
different
individual
studies
contribute
to
a
better
general
understanding
of
the
studied
phenomena.
Another
equally
fundamental
question
is
that
what
do
we
exactly
mean
with
collaboration
and
what
collaboration
means
at
the
present
and
in
the
future.
An
approach
to
a
greater
impact
of
USE
research
is
to
bridge
the
gap
between
USE
research
and
practice
is
to
translate
out
findings
to
the
language
and
to
the
frameworks
of
organisations
and
designers.
Designers
need
to
know
the
implications
expressed
in
language
of
design
and
in
a
form
that
matches
with
the
instruments
designers
have
in
their
disposal.
A
collaborative
information
system
can
be
used
to
remedy
several
types
of
issues
in
information
interactions,
but
not
all
of
them.
Similarly
management,
organisation,
mentoring
and
other
interventions
are
keys
to
some
types
of
change.
Research
does
not
have
merely
practical
implications,
but
implications
on
many
different
types
of
practices
at
the
same
time
and
that
the
implications
are
not
isolated,
but
need
to
be
concerted.
In
my
own
research
on
cultural
heritage
professionals
I
have
sensed
very
strongly
that
not
only
different
issues
need
to
be
addressed
same
time,
but
it
can
be
very
sensitive
how
and
in
what
order
individual
issues
are
discussed.
The
communicative
problem
between
different
information
research
communities
is
a
complex
issue,
but
one
possible
quite
effective
remedy
could
be
an
increased
inter-­‐branch
research
interest
and
active
seeking
of
implications
of
e.g.
USE
research
to
e.g.
IR,
KO,
DL
or
IA.

25.
24
JULIEN,
HEIDI
School
of
Library
&
Information
Studies,
University
of
Alberta
One
of
the
fundamental
directions
towards
which
our
research
on
collaborative
information
behavior
should
be
moving
is
increased
focus
on
the
social
construction
of
information
behavior.
It
is
increasingly
recognized
that
information
behavior
is
not
only
an
individual
concern
(we
have
decades
of
research
focusing
on
cognitive,
behavioral,
and
increasingly
affective
variables
in
individuals),
but
it
is
also
a
matter
of
social
construction.
That
is,
the
ways
in
which
people
think
about,
access,
evaluate,
use,
etc.
information
are
profoundly
influenced,
shaped,
and
directed
by
their
social
interactions.
To
quote
from
the
most
recent
ASIST
review
of
information
behaviour
(2009,
335),
“McKenzie
(2006)
argued
that
“information
practices,”
specifically
the
use
of
texts,
can
be
contextualized
within
larger
social
practices
to
understand
how
these
texts
mediate
social
relations
within
local
contexts….
Talja
and
Hansen
(2006)
addressed
“collaborative
information
behavior”
as
an
important
component
of
social
information
practices,
especially
information
sharing.”
It
is
evident,
therefore,
that
some
recent
research
in
the
area
is
focusing
on
information
behaviour
as
a
social
construct.
This
is
a
potentially
fruitful
direction
for
the
field.
Fundamental
questions
arising
from
increasing
concern
for
the
social
construction
of
information
behavior
would
include:
What
are
the
social
practices
which
mediate
information
behavior
in
different
situations/workplaces/contexts?
What
are
the
variables
of
interest
in
social
practices,
and
how
do
these
influence
outcomes
evident
in
collaborative
information
behavior?
References
Fisher,
K.
&
Julien,
H.
(2009).
Information
behavior.
In
B.
Cronin
(Ed.),
Annual
review
of
information
science
&
technology,
vol.
43
(pp.
317-­‐58).
Medford,
NJ:
Information
Today.
McKenzie,
P.
J.
(2006).
Mapping
textually
mediated
information
practice
in
clinical
midwifery
care.
In
A.
Spink,
&
C.
Cole
(Eds.),
New
directions
in
human
information
behavior
(pp.
73-­‐92).
Dordrecht,
The
Netherlands:
Springer.
Talja,
S.
&
Hansen,
P.
(2006).
Information
sharing.
In
A.
Spink,
&
C.
Cole
(Eds.),
New
directions
in
human
information
behavior
(pp.
113-­‐134).
Dordrecht,
The
Netherlands:
Springer.