Two’s not always company: collaborative information seeking across task types
| Pages | 22-35 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2016-0075 |
| Published date | 16 January 2017 |
| Date | 16 January 2017 |
| Author | Chirag Shah,Chathra Hendahewa,Roberto González-Ibáñez |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Information behaviour & retrieval,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management |
Two’s not always company:
collaborative information seeking
across task types
Chirag Shah
School of Communication and Information, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
Chathra Hendahewa
Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, and
Roberto González-Ibáñez
Departamento de Ingeniería Informática, Universidad de Santiago de Chile,
Santiago, Chile
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate when and how people working collaboratively could be
assisted in a fact-finding task, specifically focusing on team size and its effect on the outcomes of such a task.
This is a follow-up to a previously published study that examined exploratory search tasks.
Design/methodology/approach –This research investigates the effects of team size on fact-finding tasks
using a lab study involving 68 participants –12 individuals, ten dyads, and 12 triads. The evaluation
framework developed in the preceding work is used to compare the findings with respect to the earlier
traditional exploratory task (Task 1) and the complex fact-finding task reported here (Task 2), with task type
being the only difference.
Findings –The analyses of the user study data show that while adding more people to an exploratory search
task could be beneficial in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, such findings do not apply in a complex
fact-finding task. Indeed, results showed that the individuals were more efficient and effective doing Task 2
than they were in Task 1. Moreover, they outperformed the dyads and triads in Task 2 with respect to these
two measures, which relate to the coverage of useful information and its relation to the expression of
information needs. If the total time taken by each team is disregarded, the dyads and triads did better than the
individuals in answering the fact-finding questions. But considering the time effect, this performance boost
does not keep up with the increased group size.
Originality/value –The findings shed light not only on when, how, and why certain collaborations become
successful, but also how team size affects specific aspects of information seeking, including information
exposure, information relevancy, information search, and performance. This has implications for system
designers, information managers, and educators. The presented work is novel in that it is the first empirical
work to show the difference in individual and collaborative work (by dyads and triads) between exploratory
and fact-finding tasks.
Keywords Evaluation, Tasks, Group work, Information seeking, Collaborative search, Fact-finding
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Working collaboratively could be beneficial in many situations that present an extremely
difficult or even impossible task for an individual. Many recent works have shown the
effectiveness of collaborative work in information-intensive tasks. Examples of such works
range from healthcare (Reddy and Jansen, 2008) and education to office work (Hansen and
Järvelin, 2005) and design (Olson et al., 1992). However, these works often ignore potential
downsidesto collaboration. It may seemthat most informational problemscould be addressed
better with multiple people working together. The question is –when is it not true?
The current paper investigates this question with a user study designed with two
independent variables: task type (exploratory search and problem solving), and team size
Aslib Journal of Information
Management
Vol. 69 No. 1, 2017
pp. 22-35
© Emerald PublishingLimited
2050-3806
DOI 10.1108/AJIM-06-2016-0075
Received 5 June 2016
Revised 16 August 2016
24 October 2016
23 November 2016
Accepted 23 November 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2050-3806.htm
22
AJIM
69,1
To continue reading
Request your trial