The Notion of Context in “Information Interaction in Context”

Tefko Saracevic, PhD Rutgers University [email protected]

; http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~tefko/ 1

Central ideas

 Everybody knows what is context.

RIGHT!

RIGHT? ?? ???

Tefko Saracevic  Everybody knows where to look for context.

RIGHT!

RIGHT? ?? ???

2

Problems at hand

A.

B.

Theoretical: Finding a conceptual foundation for CONTEXT in the context of human information interaction Practical: In searching for information using not only CONTENT information from a query (as we do now well), but also CONTEXT information (as we do now badly, or not at all)  Dealing here with A only Tefko Saracevic 3

ToC

1.

2.

3.

4.

Human-information interaction Context Five axioms related to context in information interaction Implications Tefko Saracevic 4

User – information – [and what else?]

1. Human-information interaction

Tefko Saracevic 5

Tefko Saracevic

Elements, processes to consider

6

What do we mean by it?

“Information is anything that can change person’s knowledge.” (Belkin, 1978) Information as we consider it includes    objects in the world potentially conveying information what is transferred from people or objects to a person’s cognitive system components of internal knowledge in people’s mind Tefko Saracevic 7

What do we mean by it?

Process in which humans purposefully engage in order to change their state of knowledge (Marchionini, 1995) A conscious effort to acquire information in response to a need or gap in your knowledge (Case, 2002) The process of construction within information seeking involves fitting information in with what one already knows and extending this knowledge to create new perspectives (Kuhlthau, 2004) Tefko Saracevic 8

Information seeking concentrations

 Purposeful process to:    change state of knowledge respond to an information need or gap fit information in with what one already knows  All cognitive: To seek information people seek to change the state of their knowledge  Some critiques: Broader social, cultural, environmental … factors not included Tefko Saracevic 9

What do we mean by it?

 “HCI is a discipline concerned with the design, evaluation and implementation of interactive computing systems for human use and with the study of major phenomena surrounding them.” (CHI Curriculum, 1996, 2009)  Many fields and areas involved  CHI conferences huge, popular   in these conferences next to nothing on context; but some papers consider social impact note: is CHI the same as HCI?

Tefko Saracevic 10

CHI concentrations

 Primary concentration on interfaces

– that is where interaction occurs

  design, effectiveness, innovations, issues … includes both software and hardware  Important part: user satisfaction  however, no rigorous definition what it means  often mixed with usability, usefulness  no theoretical base Tefko Saracevic 11

What do we mean by it?

 “... the interactive communication processes that occur during the retrieval of information by involving all the major participants in IR, i.e. the user, the intermediary, and the IR system.” (Ingwersen, 1992)  Often distinguished as direct (or end user searching) and mediated Tefko Saracevic 12

Concentrations

Direct (end user searching) A process where users interact with and search an IR system by and for themselves  prevalent today; everybody is a searcher Mediation: A process where an intermediary – a searcher – acts on behalf of a user who seeks information Informal mediators: colleagues, friends, family … Formal mediators: searchers, teachers …  but is disappearing fast in academic & public institutions, not so in commerce & some fields Tefko Saracevic 13

What do we mean by it?

 "how human beings interact with, relate to, and process information regardless of the medium connecting the two." (Nahum Gershon, 1995, credited with coining the term)  At CHI 2006 a debate: is it a separate field?

Tefko Saracevic 14

Michigan IS

 “Research in this area [i.e. HII] examines the behavior of people in the use of information embedded in systems, services, networks, and devices (information seeking, intermediation, information retrieval, design and evaluation of information systems and services, information visualization, and information use in various environments).” Tefko Saracevic 15

and at IS, Washington

(Center for Human-information Interaction)  “Cognitive Work Analysis provides a multi-pronged analytical framework for studying various human interactions with information. It helps researchers and other professionals to study the work people do, the tasks they perform, the decisions they make, the way they interact with information channels, systems and products, and the collaborative, organizational and social context in which they perform their work—all for the purpose of designing more effective systems and services.” Tefko Saracevic 16

As to: What do we mean by it?

 Not quite clear  although intuitively well understood Tefko Saracevic 17

Milieu for interaction

2. Context

Tefko Saracevic 18

Context: What do we mean by it?

“Context - Linguistic context, context of use: Discourse that surrounds a language and helps to determine its interpretation Context – circumstance, setting: The set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event; “the historic context” “ Wordnet  from Latin: contextus "a joining together," contexere "to weave together" Tefko Saracevic 19

Concentrations - properties

 Language:   surrounds a language helps in interpreting, giving meaning  Circumstances:   provides a setting surrounds an event, situation There is no term more often used, less often defined and, when defined, defined so variously, as context. Context has the potential to be virtually anything that is not defined as the phenomenon of interest.

Dervin, 1997 Tefko Saracevic 20

and context

 Is there such a thing as context-free information?

Tefko Saracevic 21

and context

 Theoretically, context may be considered as “objectified” (entities – actors, structures, attributes which affect the research object) (constructing meaning from data) & “interpretive” Talja et al 1999  Many information seeking studies involved TASK or SITUATION as context  But: there is more to task then task itself Tefko Saracevic 22

Task assumptions, properties

 Information seeking is not an end in itself  It serves a work task  task is a process in relation to which information is needed  Tasks have been categorized from simple to complex (and a number in-between)   complex tasks have a number of sub-tasks the more complex a task the complexity of information needed increases  Implication: user modeling & searching should be oriented toward tasks Tefko Saracevic 23

HCI theories & context

 Many HCI theories derived from various fields  but criticized for not informing design  Theories not strong on context  some exceptions: activity theory; & anthropological argument: human action is constantly constructed and reconstructed from dynamic interactions with the material and social worlds  In design: contextual inquiry & contextual design based on understanding of context of use Tefko Saracevic 24

Tefko Saracevic model from: ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction 25

and context

 “Context is one of the most important concepts in information seeking and retrieval research. However, the challenges of studying context are great; thus, it is more common for researchers to use context as a post hoc explanatory factor, rather than as a concept that drives inquiry.” Kelly (2006) Tefko Saracevic 26

Ingwersen model of IR interaction

(

earliest IR model with explicit context) Information objects Social/organizational environment Interface/ intermediary Query Request IR system setting Tefko Saracevic Individual user’s cognitive space Interactive communication of cognitive structures Cognitive transformations & influences 27

Tefko Saracevic Saracevic’s stratified model of IR interaction

Context

social, cultural

Situational

tasks; work context...

Affective

intent; motivation ...

Cognitive

knowledge; structure...

Query

characteristics …

Surface level INTERFACE Engineering

hardware; connections...

Processing

software; algorithms …

Content

inf. objects; representations...

28

Context in two models

Ingwersen

  Individual user’s cognitive space    Work task/interests Current cognitive state Problem/goal    Uncertainty Information need Information behavior Social/org. environment    Domains/goals Tasks Preferences Tefko Saracevic

Saracevic strata

    Cognitive  knowledge; structure … Affective  intent; motivation … Situational  task; work context … Social, cultural context 29

User modeling for searching

User modeling is a process of identifying, understanding, and defining user information needs, context, requirements, and preferences, together with factors or attributes in the profile of the user that affect subsequent search for information.

Tefko Saracevic 30

Mediation & user modeling

 Professional mediation involves diagnosing the user’s problem and identifying what interventions would be helpful  professional searchers mediate the interaction of users with information  In practice user modeling heavily involves context  mediators make many search decisions based on context information Tefko Saracevic 31

IR testing and context

 Majority of IR tests rest on traditional model  all TREC tracks with one exception – interactive track  “At its core, the modern-day test collection is little different from the structures that the pioneering researchers in the 1950s and 1960s conceived of.” (Sanderson, 2010)  Context not present  Many calls to change testing model not headed Tefko Saracevic 32

and context

Tefko Saracevic Where is Taj Mahal? 33

Principles without proof

3.Axioms about context

Tefko Saracevic 34

Axiom is …

(from Latin axiōma a principle, from Greek axioun to consider worthy)  A principle that is accepted as true without proof  A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim  (Mathematics) a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; maxim  (Philosophy / Logic) a self-evident statement Tefko Saracevic 35

Inspired by …

Paul Watzlawick (1921 2007)

 Theoretician in communication theory (Austria, Switzerland, California)

Communication axioms

 In his theory on communication, defined five basic axioms that are necessary to have a functioning communication between two individuals. If one of these axioms is somehow disturbed, communication might fail.

Tefko Saracevic 36

Most famous of Watzlawick’s axioms

Axiom 1

One Cannot Not Communicate (Man kann nicht nicht kommunizieren)

I.e. - explanation

“Every behavior is a kind of communication. Because behavior does not have a counterpart (there is no anti behavior), it is not possible not to communicate.” “… lousy grammar, impeccable logic.” Tefko Saracevic 37

Context: Axiom 1

Statement

One cannot not have a context in information interaction .

Id est – i.e.

  Every interaction is conducted within a context.

Because context-less information interaction is impossible, it is not possible not to have a context.

Tefko Saracevic 38

Axiom 2

Statement

Every interaction has a content and relationship aspect – context is the later and classifies the former.

Id est

 It means that all interactions, apart from information derived from meaning of words or terms describing the content, have more information to be derived from context.

Tefko Saracevic 39

Axiom 3

Statement

The nature of information interaction including context is asymmetric; it involves differing processes and interpretation by parties involved.

Id est

 Contexts are asymmetric as well. Medium or systems context is primarily about meanings; user context is primarily about situations.

Tefko Saracevic 40

Axiom 4

Statement

Context is multilayered. It extends beyond users or systems.

Id est

 In interactions it is customary to consider direct context, but context extends indirectly to broader social context also. Tefko Saracevic 41

Axiom 5

Statement

Context is not self revealing, nor is it self-evident.

Id est

 Context may be difficult to formulate and synthesize. But plenty can go wrong when not taken into consideration in interactions.

Tefko Saracevic 42

Tough problems

4. In conclusion

Tefko Saracevic 43

People

 In information interactions people act & compensate in many ways including errors & failures  Considerable amount of research is devoted to these processes Tefko Saracevic 44

Information retrieval

 Considerable amount of research is devoted to IR but almost exclusively from system not people orientation  TREC is a great success in that respect Tefko Saracevic 45

Interaction & information retrieval

 Interaction is central to IR particularly including searching of the Web  Design of interfaces for IR interaction still lacking  many users have difficulties  so do many professionals  TREC is a colossal failure in that respect Tefko Saracevic 46

Symbolic connections between HII research & IR research Tefko Saracevic 47

Tough problem

 Integrating human-information interaction research with IR research  Meaning that   HII research must be directed toward results directly informing IR IR research must be radically redirected Tefko Saracevic 48

Tougher problem

 Creating a different mindset in all  To see and act on the necessity to view, research, and implement Human-information interaction in all its facets Tefko Saracevic 49

Toughest problem

 To integrate context in IR theory and practice  Yet professional searchers do that all the time  They understand context axioms intuitively Tefko Saracevic 50

Question

 Can HII, IR and HCI truly progress without addressing tough, tougher, and toughest problems??

Tefko Saracevic 51

Thank you M.C. Escher and the Escher Foundation Tefko Saracevic 52

Tefko Saracevic

Presentation in Wordle

53