Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science (한국문헌정보학회지)

Korean Society For Library And Information Science (한국문헌정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluating and Comparing the Search & Discovery Features: Focusing on the Public Libraries OPACs and the Internet Bookstores

탐색과 디스커버리 기능 평가 연구 - 공공도서관 OPAC과 인터넷 서점을 중심으로 -

  • 한승희 (서울여자대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2016.01.27
  • Accepted : 2016.02.17
  • Published : 2016.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Discovery is an emerging concept to enhance the search capabilities of library resources with the Next Generation Library Catalog. This paper defined the Discovery feature based on the information search behavior, and then derived the elements that make up its function. After that, the 11 regional representatives libraries' OPACs and 3 Internet bookstores are evaluated and compared against Search & Discovery capabilities. As a result, the Internet bookstores were superior to the libraries' OPACs for all the elements that make up the Discovery functions. This study verified that the public libraries OPACs are still concentrating on known item search, and it is hard for the users to meet a serendipity which is gained through the Discovery functions.

디스커버리는 차세대 도서관 목록과 더불어 도서관 자원의 탐색 기능을 향상하기 위해 대두된 개념이다. 이 논문에서는 정보탐색행태 관점에서 디스커버리 기능을 정의하고, 그 기능을 구성하는 요소를 도출한 후, 공공도서관을 대표하는 11개의 지역대표도서관의 온라인 목록과 3개의 인터넷 서점을 대상으로 탐색과 디스커버리 기능을 평가하여 비교하였다. 평가 결과, 디스커버리를 구성하는 모든 기능에서 인터넷 서점이 도서관 온라인 목록에 비해 우수한 것으로 나타났다. 이를 통해 공공도서관 온라인 목록은 여전히 알고 있는 자료 탐색에 집중하고 있으며, 이용자는 디스커버리 기능을 통해 얻을 수 있는 우연한 발견의 기회를 갖기 어렵다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 도태현, 정영미. 2013. 대학도서관의 차세대 OPAC 기능 채택과 확산 현황. 한국도서관.정보학회지, 44(2): 197-215.(Doh, Tae-Hyun and Jung, Young-Mi. 2013. "A Study on the Next Generation OPACFunctionalities Diffusion Status and Adoption by Academic Libraries." Journal of KoreanLibrary and Information Science Society, 44(2): 197-215.)
  2. 오경은, 김기영. 2008. 문헌분류방식에 따른 도서탐색용이성에 관한 연구: 공공도서관과 대형서점의 분류방식을 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 25(4): 25-42.(Oh, Kyong-Eun and Kim, Gi-Yeong. 2008. "A Study on the Convenience in Finding BooksAccording to Classifications: Focused on the Classifications in Public Libraries and Bookstores."Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 25(4): 25-42.) https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2008.25.4.025
  3. 이성숙. 2012. 트랜잭션 로그 분석을 통한 웹기반 온라인목록의 검색행태 추이 분석. 한국비블리아학회지, 23(2): 209-233.(Lee, Sung-Sook. 2012. "Trends of Web-Based OPAC Search Behavior via Transaction LogAnalysis." Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 23(2):209-233.) https://doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2012.23.2.209
  4. 이은주. 2014. 디스커버리(Discovery) 통합색인의 품질평가에 관한 연구: EDS를 사례로 하여. 한국도서관.정보학회지, 45(3): 415-440.(Lee, Eun-Ju. 2014. "A Study on Quality Evaluation of Discovery Central Index: The Caseof EDS (EBSCO Discovery Service)." Journal of Korean Library and Information ScienceSociety, 45(3): 415-440.)
  5. 한승희, 이지연. 2006. 과학기술분야 연구자의 정보요구별 탐색행태 분석. 제13회 한국정보관리학회 학술대회 논문집, 2006년 8월 1일, 17-22.(Han, Seung Hee and Lee, Jee Yeon. 2006. "Searching Behavior of Scientists and TechnologistsBased on Their Information Needs." In Proceedings of the 13th Korean Society for InformationManagement, August 1, 2006, 17-22.)
  6. Baker, S. L. and Shepherd, G. W. 1987. "Fiction Classification Schemes: The Principles Behind Them and Their Success." RQ, 27(2): 245-251.
  7. Bates, M. J. 2002. "Toward an Integrated Model of Information Seeking and Searching." New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 3: 1-15.
  8. Booth, M. et al. 2012. "From Search to Discovery." In Proceedings of ALIA Biennial Conference 2012, July 10-13, 2012, Sydney: Hilton Hotel. [online] [cited 2015. 6. 14.]
  9. Breeding, M. 2010. "The State of the Art in Library Discovery 2010." Computers in Libraries, 30(1): 31-34.
  10. Case, D. O. ed. 2012. Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs and Behavior. UK: Emerald Group Pub.
  11. Chang, S. and Rice, E. 1993. "Browsing: A Multidimensional Framework." Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 28: 231-76.
  12. Chickering, W. and Yang, Q. 2014. "Evaluation and Comparison of Discovery Tools: An Update." Information Technology and Libraries, 33(2): 5-30.
  13. Foster, A. and Ford, N. 2003. "Serendipity and Information Seeking: An Empirical Study." Journal of Documentation, 59(3): 321-340. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410310472518
  14. Macgregor, G. and McCulloch, E. 2006. "Collaborative Tagging As a Knowledge Organisation and Resource Discovery Tool." Library Review, 55(5): 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530610667558
  15. Mercun, T. and Zumer, M. 2008. "New Generation of Catalogues for the New Generation of Users: A Comparison of Six Library Catalogues." Program, 42(3): 243-261. https://doi.org/10.1108/00330330810892668
  16. Merriam-Webster. 1828. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. [online] .
  17. Pradhan, D. R., Trivedi, K. and Arora, J. 2011. "Searching Online Resources in New Discovery Environment: A State-of-the-Art Review." In Proceedings of the 8th International CALIBER, March 2-4, 2011, Goa: Goa University. [online] [cited 2015. 12. 1.]
  18. Sadeh, T. 2013. "From Search to Discovery." In Proceedings of IFLA WLIC 2013, Aug 19, 2013, Singapore. [online] [cited 2015. 7. 7.] .
  19. Stohn, C. 2015. How Do Users Search and Discover?: Findings from Ex Libris User Research. Jerusalem: EX Libris. [online] [cited 2015. 8. 23.]
  20. Woodward, A. 2005. Creating the Customer-Driven Library: Building on the Bookstore Model. Chicago: American Library Association.