JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Beyond Categories: A Structural Analysis of the Social Representations of Information Users` Collective Perceptions on `Relevance`
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Beyond Categories: A Structural Analysis of the Social Representations of Information Users` Collective Perceptions on `Relevance`
Ju, Boryung; O`Connor, Daniel O.;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Relevance has a long history of scholarly investigation and discussion in information science. One of its notable concepts is that of `user-based` relevance. The purpose of this study is to examine how users construct their perspective on the concept of relevance; to analyze what the constituent elements (facets) of relevance are, in terms of core-periphery status; and to compare the difference of constructions of two groups of users (information users vs. information professionals) as applied with a social representations theory perspective. Data were collected from 244 information users and 123 information professionals through use of a free word association method. Three methods were employed to analyze data: (1) content analysis was used to elicit 26 categories (facets) of the concept of relevance; (2) structural analysis of social representations was used to determine the core-periphery status of those facets in terms of coreness, sum of similarity, and weighted frequency; and, (3) maximum tree analysis was used to present and compare the differences between the two groups. Elicited categories in this study overlap with the ones from previous relevance studies, while the findings of a core-periphery analysis show that Topicality, User-needs, Reliability/Credibility, and Importance are configured as core concepts for the information user group, while Topicality, User-needs, Reliability/Credibility, and Currency are core concepts for the information professional group. Differences between the social representations of relevance revealed that Topicality was similar to User-needs and to Importance. Author is closely related to Title while Reliability/Credibility is linked with Currency. Easiness/Clarity is similar to Accuracy. Overall, information users and professionals function with a similar social collective of shared meanings for the concept of relevance. The overall findings identify the core and periphery concepts of relevance and their relationships in terms of coreness, similarity, and weighted frequency.
 Keywords
Social Representations Theory;Structural analysis;Relevance;Information users` collective perceptions;Core-periphery analysis;Similarity analysis;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Abric, J. - C. (1976). Jeux, conflits et rpresentations sociales. (These d'etat). Aix-en-Provence: Universite de Provence.

2.
Abric, J. - C. (1987). Cooperation, competition et representations sociales. Cousset, Switzerland: Del Val.

3.
Abric, J. - C. (1993). Central system, peripheral system: Their functions and roles in the dynamics of social representations. Papers of Social Representations, 2(2), 75-78.

4.
Abric, J. - C. (1994). Les representations socials: aspects théoriques. In J. -C. Abric (Ed.), Pratiques socials et representations (pp. 11-36). Paris: PUF.

5.
Abric, J. - C. (2001). A structural approach to social representations. In K. Deaux, & G. Philogéne (Eds.), Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 42-47). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

6.
Abric, J. - C., & Vacherot, G. (1976). Methodologie et etude experimentale des representations sociales: tache, partenaire et comportement en situation de jeu. Bulletin de Psychologie, 29, 63-71.

7.
Barry, C. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45(3), 149- 159. crossref(new window)

8.
Barry, C., & Schamber, L. (1998). User criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34(2-3), 219-236. crossref(new window)

9.
Belkin, N., & Vickery, A. (1985). Interaction in information systems. West Yorkshire, UK: The British Library Board.

10.
Bookstein, A. (1979). Relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 30(5), 269-273.

11.
Borgatti, S., & Everett, M. (1999). Models of core / periphery structures, Social Networks 21, 375-395.

12.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis.Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

13.
Bruce, H. (1994). A cognitive view of the situational dynamism of user-centered relevance estimation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45(3), 142-148. crossref(new window)

14.
Cooper, W. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7(1), 19-37. crossref(new window)

15.
Cuadra, C., & Katter, R. (1967). Opening the black box of "relevance." Journal of Documentation, 23 (4), 291-303. crossref(new window)

16.
Cuadra, C., & Katter, R. (1968). Implications of relevance research for library operations and training. Special Libraries, 59(7), 503-506.

17.
Cronin, B. (2008). The sociological turn in information science. Journal of Information Science, 34 (4), 465-475. crossref(new window)

18.
Dervin, B. (1983). Information as a user construct: The relevance of perceived information needs to synthesis and interpretation. In S. A. Ward & L. J. Reed (Eds.), Knowledge structure and use: Implication for synthesis and interpretation (pp. 153-184). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

19.
Doise, W., Clemence, A., & Lorenzi-Cioldo, F. (1993). The Quantitative Analysis of Social Representations. (J. Kaneko, Trans.). New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

20.
Farr, R. (1996). The Roots of Modern Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.

21.
Flament, C. (1984). From the bias of structure balance to the Representation of the group. In Farr, R. & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social Representations (pp. 269- 285). Paris: Cambridge University Press.

22.
Flament, C. (1986). L'Analyse de Similitude: Une technique pour les recherches sur les representations sociales. In W. Doise (Ed.), L'Etude des presentations sociales (pp. 139-156). Paris: Delachaux & Niestle.

23.
Flament, C. (1994). Consensus, salience and necessity in social representations - Technical note. Papers on Social Representations, 3(2), 1-9.

24.
Foskett, D. (1972). A note on the concept of "relevance." Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(2), 77-78. crossref(new window)

25.
Fraser, C. (1994). Attitudes, social representations and widespread beliefs. Papers on Social Representations, 3(1), 1-13.

26.
Gluck, M. (1995). Understanding performance in information systems: Blending relevance and competence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 46(6), 446-460. crossref(new window)

27.
Gluck, M. (1996). Exploring the relationship between user satisfaction and relevance in information systems. Information Processing & Management, 32(1), 89-104. crossref(new window)

28.
Guimelli, C. (1993). Locating the central core of social representations: Toward a method. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 555-559. crossref(new window)

29.
Hammond, S. (1993). The descriptive analyses of shared representations. In G. Breakwell & D. Canter (Eds.), Empirical Approaches to Social Representations (pp. 205-222). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

30.
Hirsh, S. (1999). Children's relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(14), 1265-1283. crossref(new window)

31.
Hovardas, T. & Korfiatis, K. (2006). Word associations as a tool for assessing conceptual changes in science education. Learning and Instruction, 16, 416- 432. crossref(new window)

32.
Howard, D. (1994). Pertinence as reflected in personal constructs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45(3), 172- 185. crossref(new window)

33.
Hjorland, B. (2002). Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(4), 257-270. crossref(new window)

34.
Hjorland, B. (2010). The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2). 217- 237.

35.
Janes, J. (1994). Other people's judgment: A comparison of users' and others' judgments of document relevance, topicality, and utility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45(3), 160-171. crossref(new window)

36.
Jodelet, D. (1989). Representations sociales: Un domaine en expansion. In D. Jodelet (Ed.), Les representations socials (pp. 47-78). Paris: PUF.

37.
Ju, B. & Gluck, M. (2011). Calibrating users' views on relevance: Social representations approach. Journal of Information Science, 37(4), 429-438. crossref(new window)

38.
Jung, Y. (2010). Users' understandings of the virtual economy in social virtual worlds: Consumption and entrepreneurship of virtual goods. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

39.
Jung, Y., Pawlowski, S., & Wiley-Patton, S. (2009). Conducting social cognition research in IS: A methodology for eliciting and analyzing social representations. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24, (35). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol24/iss1/35

40.
Katter, R. V. (1968). The influence of scale form on relevance judgments. Information Storage and Retrieval, 4(1), 1-11. crossref(new window)

41.
Kemp, D. (1974). Relevance, pertinence, and information system development. Information Storage and Retrieval, 10(2), 37-47. crossref(new window)

42.
Maglaughlin, K., & Sonnenwald, D. (2002). User perspectives on relevance criteria: A comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant judgments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(5), 327-342. crossref(new window)

43.
Markova, L., & Wilkie, P. (1987). Representations, concepts and social change: The phenomenon of AIDS. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17, 389-410. crossref(new window)

44.
Moliner, P. (1995). A two-dimensional model of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 27- 40. crossref(new window)

45.
Moscovici, S. (1963). Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology, 14, 231-260. crossref(new window)

46.
Moscovici, S. (1973) 'Foreword', pp. Xiii in C. Herzlich: Health and Illness. A Social Psychological Analysis. London: Academic Press.

47.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social Influence and Social Change. London, UK: Academic Press.

48.
Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social Representations (pp. 3-70). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

49.
Moscovici, S., & Marková, I. (1998). Presenting social representations: A conversation. Culture & Psychology, 4(3), 371-410. crossref(new window)

50.
Moscovici, S. (2001). Why a theory of social representations? In K. Deaux & G. Philogene (Eds.), Representations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions (pp. 8-36). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

51.
Park, T. (1992). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: An empirical study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

52.
Park, T. (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: An empirical study. Library Quarterly, 63(3), 318-351. crossref(new window)

53.
Pawlowski, S., Kaganer, E., & Cater III, J. (2007). Focusing the research agenda on burnout in IT: Social representations of burnout in the profession. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 612-627. crossref(new window)

54.
Saracevic, T. (1975). RELEVANCE: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26(6), 321-343. crossref(new window)

55.
Saracevic, T., Kantor, P., Chamis, A., & Trivision, D. (1988). A study of Information seeking and retrieving. I. Background and methodology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(3), 161-176. crossref(new window)

56.
Saracevic, T. (2007a). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II: Nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 1915-1933. crossref(new window)

57.
Saracevic, T. (2007b). Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2126-2144. crossref(new window)

58.
Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M., & Nilan, M. (1990). A reexamination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26(6), 755-776. crossref(new window)

59.
Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia environment. Proceedings for the American Society for Information Science, 28, 126- 133.

60.
Schmitt, N. (1998). Quantifying word association responses: what is native-like? System, 26(3) 389- 401.

61.
Stemler. S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/ getvn.asp?v=7&n=17

62.
Swanson, D. (1986). Subjective versus and objective relevance in bibliographic retrieval systems. Library Quarterly, 56(4), 389-398. crossref(new window)

63.
System Development Corporation (1967). Experimental studies of relevance judgments: Final report (TM Series No.: 3520/001/00; 3520/002/00;3520/003/ 00). Santa Monica, CA: System Development Corporation.

64.
Tafani, E. (2001). Attitudes, engagement et dynamique des representations socials: Etudes experimentales. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociales, 14(1), 7-29

65.
Tang, T., & Solomon, P. (2001). Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation: On the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(8), 676- 685. crossref(new window)

66.
Toms, E., O'Brien, H., Kopak, R., & Freund, L. (2005). Searching for relevance in the relevance of search. In F. Crestani & I. Ruthven (Eds.), Proceedings of Forth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS 2005) (pp. 59-78). Amsterdam: Springer.

67.
Verges, P. (1992). L'evocation de l'argent: Une methode pour la definition du noyau central d'une representation. Bulletin de Psychologie, Special Issue: Nouvelles voies en psychologie sociale, XLV (405), 203-209.

68.
Vickery, B. (1959). Subject analysis for information retrieval. Proceedings of International Conference on Scientific Information (pp.855-856). Washington D.C: National Research Council.

69.
Wagner, W., Duveen, G., Farr, R., Jovchelovitch, S., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Markova, I., & Rose, D. (1999). Theory and method of social representation. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 95-125. crossref(new window)

70.
Wagner, W., Valencia, J., & Elejabarrieta, F. (1996). Relevance, discourse and the 'hot' stable core of social representations - A structural analysis of word associations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 331-351. crossref(new window)

71.
Wachelk, J., & Lins, A. (2008). Changing masks: A masking effect on young people's social representation on aging? Current Research in Social Psychology 13(19), 232-242.

72.
Wang, P. (1994). A cognitive model of document selection of real users of information retrieval systems, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

73.
Wang, P., & White, M. (1995). Document use during a research project: A longitudinal study. Proceedings of the 58th ASIS Annual Meeting (pp. 181-188). Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.

74.
Wang, P. (1997). The design of document retrieval systems for academic users: Implications of studies on users' relevance criteria. Proceedings of American Society for Information Science, 34, 162-173.

75.
Weber, R. (1985). Basic Content Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.

76.
Wilson, P. (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9, 457-471. crossref(new window)

77.
Wilson, P. (1978). Some fundamental concepts of information retrieval. Drexel Library Quarterly, 14, 10-24.