B ROWSING

The second perspective is technical in that it aims to identify requirements needed to support and improve the design of collaborative information retrieval systems (Reddy, Jansen and Spence, 2010). Examples of technical-perspective studies included these that were conducted with the purpose of designing interfaces to support collaborative information retrieval (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004) and supporting collaborative web-based searching (e.g., Morris & Horvitz, 2007). The importance of collaborative information seeking in organisational settings was highlighted by a number of researchers such as Talja and Hansen (2005), Foster (2006; 2010), Morris (2008), Ikeya, Awamur & Sakai (2010). Shah (2010) provided a thorough literature review about this area.

A detailed analysis of studies that investigated, in particular, the information seeking of academics is given in section 2.8.

2.6.2.2 Browsing

Chang (2001, p. 286) developed a dimensional taxonomy of browsing patterns which groups browsing activities into five categories as follows.

a) ‘Seeking a specific item’ which includes the following:

• ‘Non-browsing’, when a book index is used to find specific information.

• Situational browsing, which refers to scanning nearby items while locating a specific item.

• Opportunistic browsing which entails scanning items incidental to locating a specific item.

b) ‘Looking for some things with specific characteristics’ which includes:

• Systematic browsing which entails looking through citations under a specific heading.

• Evaluative browsing which involves examining objects to evaluate common characteristics such as books on a library shelf.

• Focus browsing which involves going to a resource after consulting a bibliographic tool.

c) ‘Browsing to keep up-to-date’ which is called monitor browsing and entails a continuous scanning of a source such as a journal, which provides information about new developments in a field.

d) ‘Learning or finding out’ which includes:

• ‘Indicative browsing’ which refers to scanning parts of an object (e.g., a newspaper’ in order to learn specific information.

• ‘Preparatory browsing’ which stands for learning something not specified. For example, when a person is looking through a known journal for potentially interesting articles.

e) ‘Goal free browsing’ which entails browsing that does not have a stated goal in mind.

The above categorization of browsing was based on the nature of the purpose behind browsing. On the other hand, Case (2012, p.102-104) described browsing based on the level of specificity of the associated purpose or goal (well-defined, semi-defined, poorly defined, and undefined) and also in relation to four different contexts as follows.

a) In the context of library or bookstore usage: finding materials by a particular author or on a specific subject was associated with a well-defined purpose while finding books, tapes, or articles on a general subject was associated with a semi-defined purpose. Similarly, finding any materials of potential interest was associated with a poorly defined purpose whereas discovering previously unknown interests was associated with undefined purpose.

b) In the context of electronic information resources usage: finding specific pages or records using controlled terms or attributes was associated with a well-defined purpose while findings records or pages matching general, natural language terms was associated with a semi-defined purpose. In a similar vein,

following links to pages that pique interest was associated with a poorly defined purpose whereas accidently encounter pages of interest were associated with undefined purpose.

c) In the context of TV/radio usage: locating specific programme (e.g., on a specific channel) was associated with a well-defined purpose while choosing a specific TV channel or radio frequently was associated with a semi-defined purpose. Similarly, watching or listening to whatever catches attention, purposively was associated with a poorly defined purpose whereas serendipitous viewing or listening unintentionally was associated with undefined purpose.

d) In the context of shopping: finding an item of a particular brand in a category was associated with a well-defined purpose while finding items in a category (e.g., breakfast cereals) was associated with a semi-defined purpose. In a similar vein, finding something to eat (e.g., packaged food) was associated with a poorly defined purpose whereas passing by or seeing items for sale without intent to buy was associated with undefined purpose.

According to Marchionini (1995, p. 106), attempts to distinguish different types of browsing while being different in terms of the terminology used, they generally fall into three types identified based on the specificity of the object or goal of search (the information needed). These are: directed (Herner, 1970) or specific (Apted, 1971) browsing; semidirected and predictive (Herner, 1970) or generally purposeful (Apted, 1971); undirected (Herner, 1970) or general browsing (Apted, 1971). The first type “is often driven by a specific object or target” and thus indicates that the objective of the search is “specific and known by the information seeker” (e.g., scanning a list for a known item). The second type of browsing “has a less definite target and proceeds less systematically” (Marchionini, 1995, p.106) such as exploring “a space to select objects with similar benefits or preferences (choosing one object from many desirable objects) (Marchionini, 1995, p. p. 109) whereas the third type has no real goal and very little focus but can also lead to the identification of something of interest to a person such as

“repeatedly changing television channels to find something of interest to watch”(Marchionini, 1995, p. 106).

Marchionini’s (1995, p. 105, 115, 122) analysis of browsing focused on electronic browsing as follows: “browsing has become much more important as more information resources migrate to electronic environments”. It highlighted the limitations of browsing such as causing possible information overload and distraction to users, and its inefficiency when it comes to well-defined retrieval. It also suggested features and techniques to support electronic browsing such as providing alternative level of detail (e.g., citation, abstract), text features (e.g., highlights, fonts), selection (e.g., hierarchical menus), and monitoring (e.g., histories, bookmarks). He defined browsing as “an approach to information seeking that is informal and opportunistic and depends heavily on the information environment” (Marchionini, 1995, p. 100). He also distinguished between ‘across-document browsing’ and ‘within-document browsing’. The former entails browsing through records or books in order to find items for a close examination. The latter refers to “perusing a document to extract its gist or to locate a relevant passage” (Marchionini, 1995, p. 101).