The purpose of this study is to investigate collaborative image data interaction in social science and humanities research tasks. Since the use of images as research data has expanded during the last decade, we necessitate investigating interactions with image data to support scholarly work better. As earlier studies have focused mostly on collaboration between scholars or collaboration during some specific activity, this study aims to provide a more holistic understanding by covering several types of collaborative activities and actors throughout the data interaction process. The mixed methods analysis is based on qualitative interviews with 21 scholars who utilize images collected from external sources. During the interviews, scholars provided accounts of image data uses in previous or ongoing research tasks. These include tasks conducted alone (n=4), in loosely (n=10) and tightly (n=7) knit groups. The findings indicate that image data interaction is collaborative by nature and takes forms of contributions, coordination, cooperation, and collaboration as presented in the model by Shah [53]. The share of contributions is high, as scholars often receive image data from study participants and organizations. Collaborative activities are done with internal academic, external academic, and non-academic actors, but their roles vary depending on the type of collaborative activity. Collaborative activities take place throughout the image data interaction process and happen particularly during the data gathering and synthesizing and reporting stages. Future research should aim to integrate collaborative activities into models of data interaction, as they represent fundamental ways of working regardless of the type of the research task.

One of the most utilized concepts in CHIIR research is ‘information need’, which has been used as part of research designs in both qualitative and quantitative studies, either as an integral element of experiments and evaluations or as an explanatory aspect of information searching. Its definitions and operationalizations are likewise many and they often remain vague hindering the possibility to credibly compare findings. This tutorial will help participants to use the concept more precisely and appropriately in their own research. The tutorial consists of talks by experienced researchers combined with small group and plenary sessions.

Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine what types of domain and task‐solving information media scholars need while interacting with research data to create new knowledge. The study is situated within information interaction research in information science. The approach is user‐oriented and qualitative. The research data consist of interviews of 25 media scholars about their interactions with research data. In the analysis, deductive and inductive approaches were combined to identify domain and task‐solving information types from the interview data. The results show that media scholars needed two domain information types and three task‐solving information types while interacting with research data. The domain information types were (1) earlier research information and (2) experience‐based domain information. The task‐solving information types were (1) information about methods and tools, (2) information about rules and norms, and (3) self‐created task‐supporting information. Of these, experience‐based domain information and self‐created task‐supporting information have been less considered in prior research on domain and task‐solving information. The findings of this study are useful for providing support for data interaction. Furthermore, the study sheds light on the concepts of domain information and task‐solving information in the context of interacting with research data.

Abstract On account of the complexities related to the use of digitized newspapers, researchers may encounter barriers when interacting with the collections' content. Overcoming barriers that could influence their information interaction should enhance the accessibility and utility of the newspapers. Hence, the study examined the barriers faced in history‐research tasks involving interaction with digitized historical newspapers, with focus on the barriers' contexts and the related task‐based activities. The analysis employed two datasets, from in‐depth interviews and demonstrations of newspaper‐use situations. Content analysis from these complementary data showed that barriers arose in multiple contexts, connected with the collection, task, tools, and socio‐organizational setting. Most barriers were associated with collection context and occurred in information searching and selection activities and in working with information items. Barriers related to the task or to socio‐organizational context arose most often in the planning and monitoring activities and in synthesizing and reporting. Such research‐based insight into the barriers faced can aid in illuminating what is required for providing good support to researchers working with digital newspaper content.

Since the appearance of digital research infrastructures in the humanities in the last decade, important efforts are being made to understand and model scholarly processes. Different methods are used in those investigations, which often result in abstract representations of research phases, taxonomies of scholarly activities, in conceptual frameworks, or in scholarly ontologies. While the aim of these representations is to inform the design of the digital infrastructures, the complexity and diversity of scholarly work pose the question about the applicability of those models for design and evaluation of research infrastructures and tools. In this paper, we explore a methodology to analyze workflows from a micro-perspective, which aims at capturing the transitions between activities. We use two scholarly projects as case studies, describe their research activities in detail by using existing ontologies and describe the connections between activities, and analyse generic transitions. We discuss what kinds of implications this approach has to evaluation and design of information systems and services to facilitate scholars' complex and varied research processes.

To support historians in their work, we need to understand their work‐related needs and propose what is required to support those needs. Although the quantity of digitized historical documents available is increasing, historians' ways of working with the digital documents have not been widely studied, particularly in authentic work settings. To better support the historians' reasoning processes, we investigate history researchers' work tasks as the context of information interaction and examine their cognitive access points into information. The analysis is based on a longitudinal observational research and interviews in a task‐based research setting. Based on these findings in the historians' cognitive space, we build bridges into the document space. By studying the information interactions in real task contexts, we facilitate the provision of task‐specific handles into documents that can be used in designing digital research tools for historians.

The aim of this study was to find out what is historians' task-based information interaction like in digital environments. The study was based on TBII framework [20]. The research was conducted in real-life setting using interview and shadowing. The following task process types were identified: (i) searching secondary sources, (ii) reading and making notes, (iii) collecting and processing data, (iv) analyzing and (v) writing. We found that IR interfaces were not always optimal for historians' use, and that the interfaces should support the expression of information needs better. The data processing consumes a lot of historians' time and they could benefit from designing better tools. We also found out that task process types have an effect on how digital tools or data are being used. Therefore, the context in which the tool or data is being used, should be taken into account when designing tools for historians.

People usually search information by using queries that are targeted to match the wording of the documents in the collections. However, during their search processes they may discover some useful pieces of information they did not expect. Serendipitous searching occurs when people search for information, but during their search process discover unexpected results. One key aspect of serendipity is chance encountering, which means the accidental and unexpected encountering with useful information. In this paper we address to the chance encounters, search success and search interests of information seekers using a national digital library called Finna. This study shows that chance encountering and search success increase with user satisfaction and that digital libraries can support information encountering.

Evaluation is central in research and development of information retrieval (IR). In addition to designing and implementing new retrieval mechanisms, one must also show through rigorous evaluation that they are effective. A major focus in IR is IR mechanisms’ capability of ranking relevant documents optimally for the users, given a query. Searching for information in practice involves searchers, however, and is highly interactive. When human searchers have been incorporated in evaluation studies, the results have often suggested that better ranking does not necessarily lead to better search task, or work task, performance. Therefore, it is not clear which system or interface features should be developed to improve the effectiveness of human task performance. In the present article, we focus on the evaluation of task-based information interaction (TBII). We give special emphasis to learning tasks to discuss TBII in more concrete terms. Information interaction is here understood as behavioral and cognitive activities related to task planning, searching information items, selecting between them, working with them, and synthesizing and reporting. These five generic activities contribute to task performance and outcome and can be supported by information systems. In an attempt toward task-based evaluation, we introduce program theory as the evaluation framework. Such evaluation can investigate whether a program consisting of TBII activities and tools works and how it works and, further, provides a causal description of program (in)effectiveness. Our goal in the present article is to structure TBII on the basis of the five generic activities and consider the evaluation of each activity using the program theory framework. Finally, we combine these activity-based program theories in an overall evaluation framework for TBII. Such an evaluation is complex due to the large number of factors affecting information interaction. Instead of presenting tested program theories, we illustrate how the evaluation of TBII should be accomplished using the program theory framework in the evaluation of systems and behaviors, and their interactions, comprehensively in context.

Abstract We analyze barriers to task‐based information access in molecular medicine, focusing on research tasks, which provide task performance sessions of varying complexity. Molecular medicine is a relevant domain because it offers thousands of digital resources as the information environment. Data were collected through shadowing of real work tasks. Thirty work task sessions were analyzed and barriers in these identified. The barriers were classified by their character (conceptual, syntactic, and technological) and by their context of appearance (work task, system integration, or system). Also, work task sessions were grouped into three complexity classes and the frequency of barriers of varying types across task complexity levels were analyzed. Our findings indicate that although most of the barriers are on system level, there is a quantum of barriers in integration and work task contexts. These barriers might be overcome through attention to the integrated use of multiple systems at least for the most frequent uses. This can be done by means of standardization and harmonization of the data and by taking the requirements of the work tasks into account in system design and development, because information access is seldom an end itself, but rather serves to reach the goals of work tasks.