A mind map is an approach to the organisation of the human mind that prepares the ground for thinking. Inspired by the function of the mind in handling a situation, this article reports on an empirical study that evaluated the efficiency of mind map techniques and tools in formulating and refining information needs. The study examined graduate students’ Internet information searching. Two simulated search tasks were completed by participants in two search sessions. The results revealed no statistically significant difference between searching with a mind map and without a mind map, and therefore, no advantage could be found for using a mind map in the search process. Participants were happier with their search session when not using mind maps; mind map might help information need clarification, but it is a barrier to interaction and serendipity retrieval. However, this could be due to the search setting where the mind map had to be used as a separate tool and not an integrated component of the search system. The article also discusses some potential benefits of mind mapping for searching.
TaylorRS.Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. Coll Res Libr1968; 29(3): 178–194.
2.
HiemstraD.Information retrieval models. In: GokerADaviesJ (eds) Information retrieval: searching in the 21st century. London; New York: City University London; John Wiley and Sons, 2009, pp. 1–3.
3.
HarterSP.Psychological relevance and information science. J Am Soc Inf Sci1992; 43(9): 602–615.
4.
WilsonTD.On user studies and information needs. J Doc1981; 37(1): 3–15.
5.
PoolH.Theories of the middle range. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1985.
6.
BosmanJRenckstorfK.Information needs: problems, interests and consumption. In: RenckstorfK (ed.) Media use as social action. London: John Libbey, 1996, pp. 43–52.
7.
WilsonTD.On user studies and information needs. J Doc2006; 62(6): 658–670.
8.
MenzelH.The information needs of current scientific research. Libr Quart1964; 34: 4–19.
9.
MenzelH.Can science information needs be ascertained empirically? In: ThayerL (ed.) Communication: concepts and perspectives. Washington, DC: Sparten Books, 1966, pp. 279–295.
10.
MenzelH.Information needs and uses in science and technology. In: CuadraCALukeAW (eds) Annual review of information science and technology, vol. 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966, pp. 41–69.
11.
PaisleyWJ.Information needs and uses. In: CuadraC (ed.) Annual review of information science and technology, vol. 3. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968, pp. 1–30.
12.
RobertsN.Draft definitions: information and library needs, wants, demands and uses: a comment. Aslib Proc1975; 27(7): 308–313.
13.
LundhA.Studying information needs as questions-negotiation in as educational context: a methodological comment. Inform Res2010; 15(4), 1–9.
14.
CaseDO.Looking for information: a survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. 2nd ed.Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press, 2007.
15.
DevadasonFJLingamPP. A methodology for the identification of information needs of users. In: 62nd IFLA general conference – conference proceedings, 25–31 August 1996, pp. 25–31, http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla62/62-devf.htm
16.
IngwersenP.Retrieval interaction information. London: Taylor Graham, 1992.
17.
TaylorRS.The process of asking questions. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol1962; 13(4): 391–396.
18.
Anon. Tietosysteemin rakentaminen [Information system design]. Publication no. 25. Helsinki: Tietojenkäsittelyliitto, 1974. (in Finnish)
19.
BelkinNJOddyRNBrooksHM. Ask for information retrieval: part I. Background and theory. J Doc1982; 38(2): 61–71.
20.
ByströmK.The use of external and internal information sources in relation to task complexity in a journalistic setting. In: IngwersenPPorsNO (eds) Royal School of Librarianship. København: Royal School of Library, 1996, pp. 325–341.
21.
DerrRL.A conceptual analysis of information need. Inform Process Manag1983; 19(5): 273–278.
22.
DervinB.Comparative theory reconceptualized: from entities and states to processes and dynamics. Commun Theor1991; 1(1): 59–69.
23.
BehrensSJ.A conceptual analysis and historical overview of information literacy. Coll Res Libr1994; 55(4): 309–322.
24.
IngwersenP.Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: elements of a cognitive IR theory. J Doc1996; 52(1): 3–50.
25.
BorlundPDreierS.An investigation of the search behaviour associated with Ingwersen’s three types of information needs. Inform Process Manag2014; 50(4): 493–507.
26.
BorlundP.Framing of different types of information needs within simulated work task situations: an empirical study in the school context. J Inf Sci2016; 42(3): 313–323.
27.
ShentonAK.Viewing information needs through a Johari Window. Ref Serv Rev2007; 35(3): 487–496.
28.
ColeC.A theory of information need for information retrieval that connects information to knowledge. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2011; 62(7): 1216–1231.
29.
CooninBLevineC.Reference interviews: getting things right. Ref Libr2013; 54(1): 73–77.
30.
FordN.Introduction to information behavior. London: Facet Publishing, 2015.
31.
SavolainenR.Information need as trigger and driver of information seeking: a conceptual analysis. Aslib J Inform Manag2017; 69(1): 2–21.
32.
RuthvenI.The language of information need: differentiating conscious and formalized information needs. Inform Process Manag2019; 56: 77–90.
BrashersDE.A theory of communication and uncertainty management. In: WhaleyBBSamterW (eds) Explaining communication: contemporary theories and exemplars. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007, pp. 201–218.
36.
RossSAWesterfieldRWJordanBD.Fundamentals of corporate finance. 6th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2003.
37.
PaoML.Concepts of information retrieval. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1989.
38.
AyedRHarrathiFGammoudiMet al. A mind map query in information retrieval: the ‘user query idea’ concept and preliminary results. In: Fourth international conference on computer science, engineering and applications (ICCSEA 2014), Chennai, India, 26–27 July 2014, pp. 197–214, https://airccj.org/CSCP/vol4/csit42519.pdf
39.
LancasterFW.Evaluation of the MEDLARS demand service. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine, 1968.
40.
BeelJGippB.Enhancing search applications by utilizing mind maps. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia, Toronto, ON, Canada, 13–16 June 2010, pp. 303–304. New York: ACM.
41.
BeelJGippBStillerJO.Information retrieval on mind maps – what could it be good for. In: 2009 5th International conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing, Washington, DC, 11–14 November 2009, pp. 1–4. New York: IEEE.
42.
D’AntoniAZippGOlsonVet al. Does the mind map learning strategy facilitate information retrieval and critical thinking in medical students?BMC Med Educ2010; 10(1): 61.
43.
BeelJLangerSGenzmehrMet al. Utilizing mind-maps for information retrieval and user modelling. In: International conference on user modelling. adaptation, and personalization, Aalborg, 7–11 July 2014, pp. 301–313. Cham: Springer.
44.
KellyD.Methods for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems with users. Found Trends Inf Ret2009; 3(1–2): 1–224.
45.
HershWTurpinAPriceSet al. Do batch and user evaluations give the same results. In: Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Athens, 24–28 July 2000, pp. 17–24. New York: ACM.
46.
TurpinAHHershW. Why batch and user evaluations do not give the same results. In: Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, New Orleans, LA, September 2001, pp. 225–231, New York: ACM.
47.
Al-MaskariASandersonM.A review of factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2010; 61(5): 859–868.
48.
CochranWG.Sampling techniques. 3rd ed.New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977.
49.
SteinmetzJTausenBMRisenJL.Mental simulation of visceral states affects preferences and behavior. Pers Soc Psychol B2018; 44(3): 406–417.
50.
ColeC.Taylor’s Q1 ‘visceral’ level of information need: what is it?Inform Process Manag2019; 57(2): 102101.
51.
BorlundP.Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. J Doc2000; 56(1): 71–90.
52.
BorlundPBogersT.Injecting realism into simulated work tasks: a case study of the book domain. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol2018; 55(1): 759–761.
53.
KoolenMBogersTvan den BoschAet al. Looking for books in social media: an analysis of complex search requests. In: HanburyAKazaiGRauberAet al. (eds) Advances in information retrieval (ECIR 2015. Lecture notes in computer science), vol. 9022. Cham: Springer, 2015, pp. 184–196.
54.
BogersTKoolenMMobasherBet al. 2nd workshop on recommendation in complex scenarios (complexrec 2018). In: Recsys, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2 October 2018, pp. 510–511. New York: ACM.
55.
ByströmKHansenP.Conceptual framework for tasks in information studies. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2005; 56(10): 1050–1061.
56.
BuzanTBuzanB.Radiant thinking. The mind map book: how to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain’s untapped potential. New York: Dutton, 1996.
57.
FidelR.Searchers selection of search keys (I–III). J Am Soc Inf Sci1991; 42(7): 490–527.
