Core Competency E

Design, query, and evaluate information retrieval systems.

Statement of Competence
Information retrieval systems are an integral part of any information professional’s job in the 21st Century. In order to successfully work in the field, one needs to know the basics of the system they will be working with. On a base level, this means being able to operate the system by querying it and sifting through results to find the answer to the question. It also means being able to evaluate the system for effectiveness, informally for their own knowledge and formally, upon request, for supervisors or members of the IT department. Additional knowledge is the ability to design an information retrieval system. This is not a required skill for most public, academic, or special collections library positions, but there are places in software development for those who are educated in both information science and technical services.

Querying an information retrieval system is the first step toward understanding how they work. It is possible to start becoming familiar with a public library’s system before one is employed, in the capacity of patron. The basic information retrieval system used by public libraries (usually referred to as an Online Public Access Catalogue or OPAC) is used to locate materials in the library. In most of these systems, the searcher has two options. The first is a keyword search where they can search for the title, author’s name, subject, other keywords, or a combination of any of these. The second is an advanced search where those pieces of information can be entered in individual boxes for more specific results. For example, if a patron knows they are looking for Holes by Louis Sachar they enter “Holes” in the title area, “Sachar, Louis” where the system asks for the author, and clicks search. To get even more specific the searcher can filter results by type of material (book, movie, audiobook), genre (fiction, nonfiction, biography), or age group (adult, juvenile, unspecified), among others. If the same patron is not sure of the title of this book but know it is a children’s novel about delinquent boys at camp, they could search for the information they know in the keywords box, such as “crime + boys + camp.” The results of the second search would be much more diverse than the first, but Holes would likely be on the list because these words appear in the description of the book. In an academic setting such as the databases provided to us as SJSU graduate students, the full-text databases we use are similar to OPACs used by library patrons. Querying these systems also affords the user a choice of keyword or advanced searching, and the specificity of results varies accordingly. The difference between these two is the information they each provide. Searching “Holes by Louis Sachar” would reveal book results on a public library OPAC, scholarly reviews of using that book for library programming in an academic full-text database, and shopping results in a Google search. This is why it is important to choose carefully which information retrieval system one uses for their purposes. Choosing the correct system for the job is almost as important as choosing the best search terms and filters.

Evaluation of an information retrieval system is an important skill to possess when working as an information professional in any forum. The more an information professional uses a system, the more effectively they will be able to judge how well it works for their organization’s purposes. In order to do this, the evaluator must have a solid understanding of the way these systems work. They must know the best way to find the results they need or their evaluation will not be valuable to the organization. For example, two public librarians are asked to evaluate their system’s OPAC to determine whether the organization would benefit from an upgrade. The first employee, a children’s librarian with a background in technical services, recognizes that the current system does not filter its results well enough to be considered effective. In her report, she notes that the items in the catalogue are not attached to a sufficient number of tags to be easily found with keyword searches, and the ability to filter results to only present materials appropriate for children, teens, and adults is virtually nonexistent. For these reasons she recommends not just an OPAC upgrade, but a complete changeover to a more effective system. The second librarian is in adult services with a background in archiving, and has not studied retrieval systems in depth. His report is short and pronounces the current system useable because he was able to find adequate information with simple queries, not recognizing that the usability of the website is flawed. He does not study the system in enough depth and the conflicting reports leave their supervisor confused. This situation is an example of how a person’s understanding and querying of an information retrieval system directly affects their skills when evaluating that system and deciding whether it works for the purposes of their organization.

The design of an information retrieval system is a complicated and technical process. Before designing, an information professional must understand every aspect of the type of system they are creating. Structure of the system is an important thing to consider soon after beginning, because the structure of the system will dictate the ease or difficulty a user will encounter. After mastering query and evaluation, an individual can design an information retrieval system that is user-friendly and affords several search options depending on the searcher’s preference. The designer needs to be aware of the type of system they are designing and make sure that each searchable item is properly tagged with applicable keywords. Adding a filtering feature, such as the ability to find only children’s books in the above-mentioned public library OPAC, would make the system approachable. The most practical thing a system designer can do is think back to their experiences querying and evaluating systems in the past, both the good and the bad. This way they will include features they found helpful and exclude those that alienate the user, and the end result will be an effective and valuable information retrieval system.

Evidence
Exercise 1
View Here (opens in new window)

Description
I completed this assignment during LIBR 202: Information Retrieval System Design in the Fall 2014 semester. The file used for this portfolio is a revision of the original assignment, requested by my professor in order to help me better understand the purpose of the exercise. Exercise 1 tested the students’ knowledge of how to operate an information retrieval system by asking us to present queries for the Library Literature & Information Science Full Text database provided by SJSU. My original list of ten queries leaves out “descriptor/thesaurus-driven queries,” which is rectified in my resubmission by diversifying the search terms I use. In the second part of the assignment, we were asked to use the website RefWorks in conjunction with the SJSU database in order to save articles for future reference. In my original submission I did not provide adequate evidence that I had uploaded full text articles to RefWorks, so in the revision I provided a third screenshot showing this. On the whole, this assignment acts as clarification of using databases and citing references for students new to the SJSU iSchool. It provides knowledge of the excellent resources available to us during our time as Library and Information Science students, which we may not have otherwise thought to explore.

Argument
I feel the exercise demonstrates my understanding of Competency E because it shows my growth in the area of querying an information retrieval system. As a core class required within the first year of Library and Information Science study, LIBR 202: Information Retrieval System Design starts at the beginning of information retrieval systems and walks students through the process of querying, evaluating, and designing a system. This exercise in particular indicates my growth in the area of query because I revised my work in order to better understand what was being asked of me. As I mention above, querying is the first step to a full understanding of Competency E and a stepping stone to evaluating and designing information retrieval systems.

In my first attempt at Exercise 1, my library database queries would return adequate results. However, the revised versions show much more detailed search terms that would narrow down the results and more sufficiently give me articles that pertain to my area of study. I will use the first search term (number 1) on each list as an example. The original search term I used is “fundamental concepts of information-seeking behaviors.” This would return a sufficient number of results on the broad subject of information-seeking behaviors, and I would spend a considerable amount of time sifting through them to find what I needed. In the revision this same search term reads, “fundamental concepts of information-seeking behaviors OR fundamental concepts of information-seeking conduct AND online learning.” The revised term tells the information retrieval system that I will accept results on either information-seeking behaviors or conduct, but definitely want the articles to concern learning in an online forum. The change between the original submission and the revision show that my knowledge of querying an information retrieval system grew as I gained more understanding of the fundamentals of Competency E.

Journal Indexing
View Here (opens in new window)

Description
The second assignment that I have chosen to show my understanding of Competency E is entitled “Journal Indexing.” I completed the assignment during LIBR 247: Vocabulary Design in the Spring of 2015. As the title suggests, this short paper goes through the finer points of indexing a journal article from beginning to end. First I establish the subject matter of the article I chose to index: “Indexing as Problem Solving: A Cognitive Approach to Consistency.” I describe the method I used to establish that the article’s purpose is to help the reader understand the finer points of the indexing process, and then write a formal aboutness statement to support this description. The third step in the assignment was to translate the aboutness statement into indexing terms. This means to make a list of terms that one could attach to the article as tags, so a user would find the article quickly and easily if they searched, for example, “indexer” or “peer evaluation.” In the assignment, I state that the list of terms were chosen because they appear repeatedly in the article, and they vary in specificity in relation to the subject of indexing itself. The selection of these indexing terms make it possible for a large variety of users to find the article in an information retrieval system. The next step is to list terms that do not appear in the article but would still relevantly connect to the article in a database. After that, I assign existing terms in two different databases that would act as descriptors for the article. Finally, I compare all the steps completed in the assignment in a conclusion. This section connects my aboutness statement, chosen search terms, and assigned existing database terms. It also includes a self-evaluation in which I recognize that the process is linear.

Argument
This assignment touches on all three parts of Competency E, therefore showing my understanding of the competency as a whole. It shows my knowledge of querying an information retrieval system because I come up with two original lists amounting to fifteen terms, and one list of existing database terms amounting to seven, that one could use to search a database for the featured article. The commentary throughout the assignment shows that I understand and can adequately perform the evaluation of an information retrieval system. These sections show my proficiency in this area by providing succinct assessments of finding the article “Indexing as Problem Solving: A Cognitive Approach to Consistency” in a hypothetical information database. Additionally, the commentary details my thought process throughout the assignment and includes reasons for each indexing choice I make. This shows that I can successfully evaluate an information retrieval system by recognize the most important aspects of indexing. Finally, the assignment begins to show my proficiency in designing an information retrieval system. Throughout the paper I describe the process of journal indexing in fine detail and demonstrate that I am knowledgeable about what type of indexing term would culminate in a successful database search. The next logical step after this is the ability to design one’s own information retrieval system. This assignment shows my mastery of Competency E because it covers all three parts of the competency and shows that I adequately understand each one.

Paper Craft Thesaurus
View Here (opens in new window)

Description
My third piece of evidence for Competency E was also completed in the Spring 2015 semester during LIBR 247: Vocabulary Design. The Paper Craft Thesaurus was a group project completed by myself and two other team members whose names have been redacted for purposes of this portfolio and replaced with initials. For the project, students were instructed to choose a topic, identify the intended user base, and classify our chosen terms in such a way that users would be able to quickly and easily find what they are looking for if the terms were translated into a database. In the introduction where we explain why we chose to focus on paper crafting, and that our intended audience are people of any age, gender, or profession who have an interest in, or passion for, paper crafting. We also explain that for the purposes of the thesaurus, the definition of paper crafting includes anything made predominantly out of paper from cardmaking to origami. The parts of the thesaurus are also explained in detail for the reader’s ease of navigation. The two main parts of the thesaurus are the Alphabetical Index, which includes broader and narrower terms, and the Classified Index, in which the terms are arranged according to facets and subfacets. Our group’s main concern during the construction of this thesaurus was whether users would find it easy to navigate and understand. We attempted to ensure usability and understanding by consulting existing paper craft sources written or maintained by experts, because our intended audience would have certain technical terms in mind.

The Paper Craft Thesaurus was a group effort, with each of the three members performing separate duties and then coming together to assemble the finished product. My contribution began with compiling an initial list of terms for the group to review and edit as needed. After this was done I wrote the first draft of the project introduction. The team compiled the Classified Index first, after which I rearranged that list into the Alphabetical Index. We split the Alphabetical Index into three parts and each group member figured out the broader, narrower, related, and other terms for one third of the list. Finally, I was responsible for performing a final edit to the project as a whole before the group decided it was ready to submit to the professor. It was my job to get final approval from the other two group members, finalize project formatting, and turn it in for credit.

Argument
The aim of LIBR 247 is to learn how to construct your own thesaurus using methods and techniques learned throughout the course. This assignment is the final project for the class, and the culmination of all the small assignments completed during the rest of the semester, such as my second example for Competency E which focuses on journal indexing. I feel this assignment is evidence of my mastery of Competency E because the construction of a thesaurus using broader, narrower, and related terms is a skill that can be directly applied to the design of an information retrieval system. The process of selecting terms and organizing them into searchable order is a step in the direction of designing an information retrieval system. As I mentioned above, the design of such a system is the final step in understanding them. I am confident that the Paper Craft Thesaurus group project provided me with a sufficient understanding of Competency E and helped me understand the technical aspects of designing and maintaining an information retrieval system.

Conclusion
As a public library employee, I consult our OPAC system on a daily basis. At this early point in my career as an information professional I feel comfortable querying in any information retrieval system, and evaluating the two I know intimately: the Phoenix Public Library catalogue and the SJSU online databases. Although I took two classes directly concerning system design during my time as a SJSU student, I feel I would need much more instruction and study on the subject before advancing to the design stage in a professional capacity. At the moment I am content to query systems that already exist, and informally evaluate them upon request. My future in libraries might eventually involve some light information retrieval system design, but that remains to be seen.