Author
Abstract
The problem of measurement in information retrieval research is traced to its source in the first retrieval tests. The problem is seen as presenting a chronic dilemma for the field. This dilemma has taken three forms as the discipline has evolved: (1) The dilemma of measurement in the archetypal approach: Stated relevance versus user relevance; (2) the dilemma of measurement in the probabilistic approach: Realism versus formalism; and (3) the dilemma of measurement in the Information Retrieval‐Expert System (IR‐ES) approach: Linear measures of relevance versus logarithmic measures of knowledge. It is argued that the dilemma of measurement has remained intractable even given the different assumptions of the different approaches for three connected reasons—the nature of the subject matter of the field; the nature of relevance judgment; and the nature of cognition and knowledge. Finally, it is concluded that the original vision of information retrieval research as a discipline founded on quantification proved restricting for its theoretical and methodological development and that increasing recognition of this is reflected in growing interest in qualitative methods in information retrieval research in relation to the cognitive, behavioral, and affective aspects of the information retrieval interaction. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Suggested Citation
David Ellis, 1996.
"The dilemma of measurement in information retrieval research,"
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 47(1), pages 23-36, January.
Handle:
RePEc:bla:jamest:v:47:y:1996:i:1:p:23-36
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199601)47:13.0.CO;2-4
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:47:y:1996:i:1:p:23-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.