skip to main content
10.1145/3406522.3446031acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Rethinking Interest in Studies of Interactive Information Retrieval

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 March 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Interest characterizes a cognitive-emotional relationship between people and information and is a key construct in human information interaction. As a motivational variable, interest has been widely studied in psychology and education, but has received less consistent and theory-driven attention in the field of interactive information retrieval (IIR). In this perspective paper we examine the role of interest and review how it has been studied and operationalized in IIR research. We draw upon a survey of 58 research studies that have manipulated, controlled or measured searcher interest in some way. The intent of the paper is to raise the profile of interest as a user-centred variable in IIR and to advocate for more conceptual and methodological consistency in future studies to better evaluate the impact of interest in information search.

References

  1. Ritu Agarwal & Elena Karahanna. 2000. Time flies when you're having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q, 24, 4 (Dec 2000), 665--694. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250951.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Mary Ainley, Suzanne Hidi, and Dagmar Berndorff. 2002. Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 3 (September 2002), 545--561. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Ioannis Arapakis, J. M. Jose, and P. D. G. Gray. 2008. Affective feedback: an investigation into the role of emotions in the information seeking process. In Proc. of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference (SIGIR '08), 395--402. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1390334.1390403Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ioannis Arapakis, Miguel Barreda-Ángeles, and Alexandre Pereda-Baños. 2019. Interest as a proxy of engagement in news reading: spectral and entropy analyses of EEG Activity Patterns. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 10, 1 (January 2019), 100--114. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2682089Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ioannis Arapakis, Mounia Lalmas, B. Cambazoglu, Mari?Carmen Marcos, and Joemon Jose. 2014. User engagement in online news: under the scope of sentiment, interest, affect, and gaze. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65, (October 2014). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23096Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Panos Balatsoukas and Ian Ruthven. 2010. What eyes can tell about the use of relevance criteria during predictive relevance judgment? In Proceedings of the third symposium on Information interaction in context (IIiX '10), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 389--394. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1840784.1840844Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Albert Bandura. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co, New York, NY, US.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Marcia J. Bates. 1989. The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Rev. 13, 5 (January 1989), 407--424. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024320Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Nicholas J. Belkin (1980), Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Can. J. Inf. Sci., 5, 133--143.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Pia Borlund. 2003. The concept of relevance in IR. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. Hoboken 54, 10 (August 2003), 913--925.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Pia Borlund. 2016. A study of the use of simulated work task situations in interactive information retrieval evaluations: a meta-evaluation. J. Doc. 72, 3 (January 2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2015-0068Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Pia Borlund, Sabine Dreier, and Katriina Byström. 2012. What does time spent on searching indicate? In Proceedings of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (IIIX '12), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 184--193. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2362724.2362756Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Pia Borlund and Nils Pharo. 2019. A need for information on information needs. Inf. Res. 24, 4 (2019). http:// http://informationr.net/ir/24-4/colis/colis1908.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Leanne Bowler. 2010. The self-regulation of curiosity and interest during the information search process of adolescent students. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 7 (2010), 1332--1344. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21334Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Melissa Burt and Chern Li Liew. 2012. Searching with clustering: An investigation into the effects on users? search experience and satisfaction. Online Inf. Rev. 36, 2 (January 2012), 278--298.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211229075Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Katriina Byström and Preben Hansen. 2005. Conceptual framework for tasks in information studies. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56, 10 (2005), 1050--1061. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20197Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Mark Claypool, Phong Le, Makoto Wased, and David Brown. 2001. Implicit interest indicators. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces (IUI '01), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 33--40. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/359784.359836Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. E. Cosijn and Peter Ingwersen. 2000. Dimensions of relevance. Inf. Process. Manag. 36, 4 (2000), 533--550.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ashlee Edwards and Diane Kelly. 2016. How does interest in a work task impact search behavior and engagement? In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR '16), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 249--252. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2854946.2855000Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ashlee Edwards and Diane Kelly. 2017. Engaged or frustrated?: disambiguating emotional state in search. In Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR '17), Association for Computing Machinery , New York, NY, USA, 125--134. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3077136.3080818Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. David Elsweiler, Max L. Wilson, and Lunn Brian Kirkegaard. 2011. Understanding casual-leisure information behaviour. In New Directions in Information Behaviour, Amanda Spink and Jannica Heinström (eds.). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 211--241. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/S1876-0562(2011)002011a012Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Raya Fidel. 2012. Human Information Interaction: An Ecological Approach to Information Behavior, Raya Fidel, MIT Press (2012), p. 368, ISBN-13: 978-0-262-01700-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Terri Flowerday, Gregory Schraw, and Joseph Stevens. 2004. The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. J. Exp. Educ. 72, 2 (2004), 93--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Luanne Freund, Rick Kopak, and Heather O?Brien. 2016. The effects of textual environment on reading comprehension: Implications for searching as learning. J. Inf. Sci. 42, 1 (February 2016), 79--93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515614472Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Luanne Freund and Barbara M. Wildemuth. 2014. Documenting and studying the use of assigned search tasks: RepAST. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 51, 1 (2014), 1--4. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2014.14505101122Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Sara M. Fulmer and Jan C. Frijters. 2011. Motivation during an excessively challenging reading task: the buffering role of relative topic interest. J. Exp. Educ. 79, 2 (February 2011), 185--208. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2010.481503Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Souvick Ghosh, Manasa Rath, and Chirag Shah. 2018. Searching as learning: exploring search behavior and learning outcomes in learning-related tasks. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval (CHIIR '18), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 22--31. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3176349.3176386Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Richard Glassey and Leif Azzopardi. 2011. Finding interest in the stream. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 48, 1 (2011), 1--4. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2011.14504801297Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Jacek Gwizdka and Irene Lopatovska. 2009. The role of subjective factors in the information search process. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 12 (2009), 2452--2464. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21183Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Suzanne Hidi and K. Ann Renninger. 2006. The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development. Educ. Psychol. 41, 2 (June 2006), 111--127. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Suzanne Hidi and K. Ann Renninger. 2019. Interest development and its relation to curiosity: needed neuroscientific research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 31, 4 (July 2019), 833--852.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Peter Ingwersen and Kalervo Järvelin. 2005. The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. David H. Jonassen. 2000. Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 48, 4 (December 2000), 63--85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Kellar, M., Watters, C., Duffy, J., and Shepherd, M. 2004. Effects of time spent reading as an implicit measure of interest. In Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 41 (2004). Providence, RI, 168--175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Soojung Kim and Dagobert Soergel. 2005. Selecting and measuring task characteristics as independent variables. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 42, 1 (2005). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504201111Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Walter Kintsch. 1980. Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics 9, 1 (June 1980), 87--98. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90013--3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Claus-Peter Klas, Norbert Fuhr, and André Schaefer. 2004. Evaluating strategic support for information access in the DAFFODIL system. In Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 476--487. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30230-8_43Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Andreas Krapp. 2000. Interest and human development during adolescence: an educational-psychological approach. In Motivational Psychology of Human Development. 109--128. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(00)80008-4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Andreas Krapp. 2002. An educational-psychological theory of interest and its relation to self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (p. 405--427). University of Rochester Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Andreas Krapp. 2007. An educational--psychological conceptualisation of interest. Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 7, 1 (April 2007), 5--21. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-007-9113-9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Maria Lebow and Heather L. O'Brien. 2012. Is there a role for physiological methods in the evaluation of human-information interaction? Working Paper. DOI10.14288/1.0107446 URI http://hdl.handle.net/2429/45315.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Yuelin Li and Nicholas J. Belkin. 2008. A faceted approach to conceptualizing tasks in information seeking. Inf. Process. Manag. 44, 6 (November 2008), 1822--1837. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2008.07.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Jingjing Liu, Chang Suk Kim, and Caitlin Creel. 2015. Exploring search task difficulty reasons in different task types and user knowledge groups. Inf. Process. Manag. 51, 3 (May 2015), 273--285. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2014.10.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Irene Lopatovska. 2009. Searching for good mood: examining relationships between search task and mood. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 46, 1 (2009), 1--13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2009.1450460222Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Irene Lopatovska and Hartmut B. Mokros. 2008. Willingness to pay and experienced utility as measures of affective value of information objects: Users? accounts. Inf. Process. Manag. 44, 1 (January 2008), 92--104. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.01.020Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Lori McCay-Peet, Elaine G. Toms and E. Kevin Kelloway. 2015. Examination of relationships among serendipity, the environment, and individual differences. Inf Process Manag, 51, 4, 391--412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.02.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Mark A. McDaniel, Paula J. Waddill, Kraig Finstad, and Tammy Bourg. 2000. The effects of text-based interest on attention and recall. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 3 (September 2000), 492--502. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.492Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Austin Lee Nichols and Jon K. Maner. 2008. The good-subject effect: investigating participant demand characteristics. J. Gen. Psychol. 135, 2 (April 2008), 151--166. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.135.2.151--166Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Heather O'Brien. 2016. Theoretical perspectives on user engagement. In Why Engagement Matters: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives of User Engagement in Digital Media, Heather O'Brien and Paul Cairns (eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 1--26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27446-1_1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Heather L. O'Brien, Jaime Arguello and Rob Capra. 2020. An empirical study of interest, task complexity, and search behaviour on user engagement. Inf Process Manag, 57, 3 (May, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Heather O'Brien, Luanne Freund, and Stina Westman. 2014. What motivates the online news browser? News item selection in a social information seeking scenario. Inf. Res. Int. Electron. J. 19, 3 (2014). Retrieved October 11, 2020 from https://research.aalto.fi/en/publications/what-motivates-the-online-news-browsernews-item-selection-in-a-soGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Heather L. O'Brien, Paul Cairns, and Mark Hall. 2018. A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 112, (April 2018), 28--39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Heather L. O'Brien and Mahria Lebow. 2013. Mixed-methods approach to measuring user experience in online news interactions. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64, 8 (2013), 1543--1556. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22871Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Heather L. O'Brien and Lori McCay-Peet. 2017. Asking 'good' questions: questionnaire design and analysis in interactive information retrieval research. In Proc. of the 2017 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. (CHIIR '17), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 27--36. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3020165.3020167Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Heather L. O'Brien and Jocelyn McKay. 2016. What makes online news interesting? Personal and situational interest and the effect on behavioral intentions. Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 53, 1 (2016), 1--6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301150Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Heather L. O'Brien and Elaine G. Toms. 2008. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 6 (April 2008), 938--955. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20801Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Suvi Oksanen and Pertti Vakkari. 2012. In search of a good novel, neither reading activity nor querying matter, but examining search results does. In Proc. of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (IIIX '12), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 12--20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2362724.2362731Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Reinhard Pekrun. 2019. The murky distinction between curiosity and interest: state of the art and future prospects. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 31, 4 (December 2019), 905--914. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09512-1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Peter L. T. Pirolli. 2007. Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with Information (1st ed.). Oxford University Press, Inc., USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Arti Poddar and Ian Ruthven. 2010. The emotional impact of search tasks. In Proc. of the third symposium on Information interaction in context (IIiX '10), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 35--44. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1840784.1840792Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. K. Ann Renninger and Suzanne Hidi. 2015. The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement. Routledge. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771045Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. K. Ann Renninger, Suzanne Hidi, and Andreas Krapp, eds. 2014. The Role of interest in Learning and Development. Psychology Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807430Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. K. Ann Renninger and Robert H. Wozniak. 1985. Effect of interest on attentional shift, recognition, and recall in young children. Dev. Psychol. 21, 4 (July 1985), 624--632. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.4.624Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Ashley A. Rowland, Eva Knekta, Sarah Eddy, and Lisa A. Corwin. 2019. Defining and measuring students? interest in biology: an analysis of the biology education literature. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, 3 (2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-02-0037Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Ian Ruthven. 2019. Making meaning: a focus for information interactions research. In Proc. of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR '19), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 163--171. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3295750.3298938Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Ian Ruthven, Mark Baillie, and David Elsweiler. 2007. The relative effects of knowledge, interest and confidence in assessing relevance. J. Doc. 63, 4 (January 2007), 482--504. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710758986Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, (2000), 68--78. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Carol Sansone, Danielle M. Geerling, Dustin B. Thoman, and Jessi L. Smith. 2019. Self-regulation of motivation: a renewable resource for learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of Motivation and Learning, K. Ann Renninger and Suzanne E. Hidi (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 87--110. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823279.006Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Tefko Saracevic. 1997. The stratified model of information retrieval interaction: extension and applications. Proc. ASIS Annual. Meet. 34, (1997), 313--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Reijo Savolainen and Jarkko Kari. 2006. User-defined relevance criteria in web searching. J. Doc. 62, 6 (January 2006), 685--707. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410610714921Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Klaus R. Scherer, Angela Schorr, and Tom Johnstone. 2001. Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Paul J. Silvia. 2008. Interest?the curious emotion. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1 (February 2008), 57--60. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678721.2008.00548.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Frans van der Sluis. 2013. When Complexity becomes Interesting: An Inquiry into the Information eXperience. (August 2013). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3990/ 1.9789036505673Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Frans van der Sluis, Egon L. van den Broek, Richard J. Glassey, Elisabeth M. A. G. van Dijk, and Franciska M. G. de Jong. 2014. When complexity becomes interesting. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65, 7 (2014), 1478--1500. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23095Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Frans van der Sluis, Richard J. Glassey, and Egon L. van den Broek. 2012. Making the news interesting: understanding the relationship between familiarity and interest. In Proc. of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (IIIX '12), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 314--317. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2362724.2362783Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Hitoshi Terai, Hitomi Saito, Yuka Egusa, Masao Takaku, Makiko Miwa, and Noriko Kando. 2008. Differences between informational and transactional tasks in information seeking on the web. In Proc. of the second international symposium on Information interaction in context (IIiX '08), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 152--159. OI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1414694.1414728Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Dustin B. Thoman, Jessi L. Smith, and Paul J. Silvia. 2011. The resource replenishment function of interest. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2, 6 (November 2011), 592--599. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611402521Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Elaine G. Toms. 2000. Understanding and facilitating the browsing of electronic text. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 52, 3, 423--452. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0345Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Elaine G. Toms, Richard Kopak, Joan Bartlett, Luanne Freund, J. Heaton, and A. Olsen. 2001. Selecting versus describing: the efficacy of categories in exploring the Web. In Proceedings of the 10th Text Retrieval Conference, Gaithersburg, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Ryen W. White and Resa A. Roth. 2009. Exploratory Search: Beyond the Query-Response Paradigm. Morgan Claypool Publishers. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2200/S00174ED1V01Y200901ICR003Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Allan Wigfield and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. 2002. The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In Development of Achievement Motivation, Allan Wigfield and Jacquelynne S. Eccles (eds.). Academic Press, San Diego, 91--120. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50006-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Barbara M. Wildemuth and Luanne Freund. 2012. Assigning search tasks designed to elicit exploratory search behaviors. In Proc. of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction and Information Retrieval (HCIR '12), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4:1--4:10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2391224.2391228Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Yunjie (Calvin) Xu and Zhiwei Chen. 2006. Relevance judgment: What do information users consider beyond topicality? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57, 7 (2006), 961--973. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20361Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. Yinglong Zhang, Rob Capra, and Yuan Li. 2020. An in-situ study of information needs in design-related creative projects. In Proc. of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR '20), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 113--123. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3343413.3377973Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Rethinking Interest in Studies of Interactive Information Retrieval

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHIIR '21: Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval
        March 2021
        384 pages
        ISBN:9781450380553
        DOI:10.1145/3406522

        Copyright © 2021 Owner/Author

        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 14 March 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate55of163submissions,34%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader