Use/User Studies in Knowledge Organization

Abstract

The study examines the research streams of user studies in Knowledge Organization literature. Authors give particular attention to the distinction of use and user, which has not been clearly defined thus causing lack of consensus in theoretical and methodological approaches to users. Qualitative content analysis was used to systematically review the literature and to identify the emerging themes. This analysis provides insights for future discussions on the validity of user studies in Knowledge Organization (KO) and suggestions for future research.

Keywords:

• Knowledge Organization (KO)
• Knowledge Organization System (KOS)
• user studies
• research method
• domain analytic approach
• cognitive approach
• systematic literature review
• qualitative content analysis

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Wilfrid F. Lancaster, “Vocabulary Control in Information Retrieval Systems,” Advances in Librarianship 7 (1977): 1–40; Charles Ammi Cutter, Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalog: Pt. 2 of Public Libraries in the United States of America: Their History, Condition and Management (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1876).

2 Inkyung Choi, “Is User Studies User-oriented? Domain Analytic Approach to User Studies in Information Organization” (poster presented at iConference 2015, Newport Beach, California, USA, March 24–27, 2015), https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/73949.

3 Birger Hjørland, “User-Based and Cognitive Approaches to Knowledge Organization: A Theoretical Analysis of the Research Literature,” Knowledge Organization 40, no. 1 (2013): 11–27.

4 Inkyung Choi and Hur-Li Lee, “A Keyword Analysis of User Studies in Knowledge Organization: The Emerging Framework,” in Knowledge Organization for a Sustainable World: Challenges and Perspectives for Cultural, Scientific, and Technological Sharing in a Connected Society: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference, ed. José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani and Vera Dodebei (Würzburg, Germany: Ergon Verlag, 2016), 116–24.

5 Choi and Lee, “A Keyword Analysis of User Studies in Knowledge Organization.”

6 Charles A. Cutter, Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalog, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904), 6.

7 Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis, “Culture and Identity in Knowledge Organization,” in Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference (Würzburg, Germany: Ergon Verlag, 2008), 5–8.

8 Francis Miksa, “Information Organization and the Mysterious Information User,” Libraries & the Cultural Record 44, no. 3 (2009): 343–70.

9 Hjørland, “User-Based and Cognitive Approaches to Knowledge Organization.”

10 Lin Wang and Junping Qiu, “Domain Analytic Paradigm: A Quarter Century Exploration of Fundamental Ideas in Information Science,” Journal of Documentation 78, no. 5 (2021): 1027–52.

11 Hjørland, “User-Based and Cognitive Approaches to Knowledge Organization”; Miksa, “Information Organization and the Mysterious Information User.”

12 Hjørland, “User-Based and Cognitive Approaches to Knowledge Organization,” 19.

13 Edward Benoit III, “# MPLP Part 1: Comparing Domain Expert and Novice Social Tags in a Minimally Processed Digital Archives,” The American Archivist 80, no. 2 (2017): 407–38; Christina Manzo, Geoff Kaufman, Sukdith Punjasthitkul, and Mary Flanagan, “‘By the People, For the People’: Assessing the Value of Crowdsourced, User Generated Metadata,” Digital Humanities Quarterly 9, no. 1 (2015): 1–21.

14 Allyson Carlyle, “Matching LCSH and User Vocabulary in the Library Catalog,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 10, no. 1–2 (1989): 37–63; Carolyn O. Frost, “Faculty Use of Subject Searching in Card and Online Catalogs,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 13, no. 2 (1987): 86–92.

15 Ray R. Larson, “The Decline of Subject Searching: Long-Term Trends and Patterns of Index Use in an Online Catalog,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42, no. 3 (1991): 197–215.

16 Pauline A. Cochrane and Karen Markey, “Catalog Use Studies–since the Introduction of Online Interactive Catalogs: Impact on Design for Subject Access,” Library and Information Science Research 5, no. 4 (1983): 337–63; Sharon Seymour, “Online Public Access Catalog User Studies: A Review of Research Methodologies, March 1986-November 1989,” Library and Information Science Research 13, no. 2 (1991): 89–102.

17 Kathleen Bauer and Alice Peterson‐Hart, “Does Faceted Display in a Library Catalog Increase Use of Subject Headings?” Library Hi Tech30, no. 2 (2012): 347–58; Luis Villén-Rueda, Jose A. Senso, and Félix de Moya-Anegón, “The Use of OPAC in a Large Academic Library: A Transactional Log Analysis Study of Subject Searching,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 33, no. 3 (2007): 327–37.

18 Hur-Li Lee, “Information Structures and Undergraduate Students,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 34, no. 3 (2008): 211–9; Karen Markey, Online Catalog Use: Results of Surveys and Focus Group Interviews in Several Libraries (Dublin, OH: OCLC, 1983).

19 Jennifer E. Knievel, Jina Choi Wakimoto, and Sara Holladay, “Does Interface Design Influence Catalog Use? A Case Study,” College & Research Libraries 70, no. 5 (2009): 446–59; Irina Trapido, “Library Discovery Products: Discovering User Expectations through Failure Analysis,” Information Technology & Libraries 35, no. 3 (2016): 9–26.

20 Jonathan Schatz, Nadia Stennes-Spidahl, Samantha Mills, and Aaron J. Loehrlein, “Bibliographic Induction: How KO Systems Can Enable Optimized Browsing by Supporting Library Users’ Prior Knowledge,” in Proceedings from North American Symposium of Knowledge Organization 4 (2013).

21 Hur-Li Lee and Hope A. Olson, “Hierarchical Navigation: An Exploration of Yahoo! Directories,” Knowledge Organization 32, no. 1 (2005): 10–24.

22 Ali Shiri and Crawford Revie, “Usability and User Perceptions of a Thesaurus-Enhanced Search Interface,” Journal of Documentation 61, no. 5 (2005): 640–56.

23 Traugott Koch, Koraljka Golub, and Anders Ardö, “Users Browsing Behaviour in a DDC-Based Web Service: A Log Analysis,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 42, no. 3–4 (2006): 163–86.

24 Tessel Bogaard, Laura Hollink, Jan Wielemaker, Jacco van Ossenbruggen, and Lynda Hardman, “Metadata Categorization for Identifying Search Patterns in a Digital Library,” Journal of Documentation 75, no. 2 (2019): 270–86.

25 Elaine Svenonius, The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).

26 Annelise M. Pejtersen, “Design of a Classification Scheme for Fiction Based on an Analysis of Actual User-Librarian Communication, and Use of the Scheme for Control of Librarians Search Strategies,” in Theory and Application of Information Research, ed. Ole Harbo and Leif Kajberg (London: Mansell, 1980).

27 Shiri and Revie, “Usability and User Perceptions of a Thesaurus-Enhanced Search Interface.”

28 Xiao Hu, Jeremy Ng, and Shengping Xia, “User-Centered Evaluation of Metadata Schema for Nonmovable Cultural Heritage: Murals and Stone Cave Temples,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 69, no. 12 (2018): 1476–87.

29 Ying Zhang and Athena Salaba, “What Do Users Tell Us about FRBR-Based Catalogs?” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 50, no. 5–7 (2012): 705–23; IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, “Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report” (1998, 2009).

30 Sung-Min Kim, “Towards Organizing and Retrieving Classical Music Based on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)” (PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, 2015), http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/25923/.

31 Shu-Jiun Chen and Hur-Li Lee “Art Images and Mental Associations: A Preliminary Exploration,” in Knowledge Organization in the 21st Century: Between Historical Patterns and Future Prospects: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference, ed. Wiesław Babik (Würzburg, Germany: Ergon Verlag, 2014), 144–51; Alexandre Fortier and Elaine Ménard, “What Do Museum Website Users Expect from Linked Open Data?” in Challenges and Opportunities for Knowledge Organization in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, ed. Fernanda Ribeiro and Maria Elisa Cerveira (Baden-Baden, Germany: Ergon Verlag, 2018), 900–7.

32 Heather Moulaison-Sandy, Ngoc-Minh Pham, Karen Snow, and Brian Dobreski, “Terminology Preferences of the LGBTQ + Community: A User Study,” in Information for a Better World: Normality, Virtuality, Physicality, Inclusivity: 18th International Conference (Nature Switzerland, Cham: Springer, 2023), 180–8.

33 Marit Kristine Ådland and Marianne Lykke, “Tags on Healthcare Information Websites,” in Challenges and Opportunities for Knowledge Organization in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, ed. Fernanda Ribeiro and Maria Elisa Cerveira (Baden-Baden, Germany: Ergon Verlag, 2018), 684–92.

34 Margaret E. I. Kipp, Jihee Beak, and Inkyung Choi, “Motivations and Intentions of Flickr Users in Enriching Flickr Records for Library of Congress Photos,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68, no. 10 (2017): 2364–79.

35 Chengzhi Zhang, Hua Zhao, Xuehua Chi, and Shuitian Ma, “Information Organization Patterns from Online Users in a Social Network,” Knowledge Organization 46, no. 2 (2019): 90–103.

36 Hjørland, “User-Based and Cognitive Approaches to Knowledge Organization.”

37 Cochrane and Markey, “Catalog Use Studies.”

38 Choi, “Is User Studies User-Oriented?”

39 Choi and Lee, “A Keyword Analysis of User Studies in Knowledge Organization.”

40 Juliet M. Corbin and Anselm Strauss, “Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria,” Qualitative Sociology 13, no. 1 (1990): 3–21.

41 Choi and Lee, “A Keyword Analysis of User Studies in Knowledge Organization.”

42 J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch, “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data,” Biometrics 33, no. 1 (1977): 159–174.

43 Hjørland, “User-Based and Cognitive Approaches to Knowledge Organization.”