||This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. (May 2012)|
Browsing is a kind of orienting strategy. It is supposed to identify something of relevance for the browsing organism. When used about human beings it is a metaphor taken from the animal kingdom. It is used, for example, about people browsing open shelves in libraries or browsing databases or the Internet. In Library and information science it is an important subject, both purely theoretically and as applied science aiming at designing interfaces which support browsing activities for the user.
Hjørland (2011b) provided the following definition: "Browsing is a quick examination of the relevance of a number of objects which may or may not lead to a closer examination or acquisition/selection of (some of) these objects. It is a kind of orienting strategy that is formed by our “theories,” expectations and subjectivity".
As with any kind of human psychology is browsing understood in biological, behavioral or cognitive terms on the one hand or in social, historical and cultural terms on the other hand. Marcia Bates (2007) researched browsing from "behavioural" approaches, while Hjørland (2011a+b) defended a social view. Bates found that browsing is rooted in our history as exploratory, motile animals hunting for food and nesting opportunities. According to Hjørland (2011a), on the other hand, Marcia Bates' browsing for information about browsing is governed by her behavioral assumptions, while Hjørland's browsing for information about browsing is governed by his socio-cultural understanding of human psychology. In short: Human browsing is based on our conceptions and interests.
Is browsing a random activity?
Browsing is often understood as a random activity. Dictionary.com, for example, has this definition: "to glance at random through a book, magazine, etc.".
Hjørland (2011a) suggests, however, that browsing is an activity that is governed by our metatheories. We may dynamically change our theories and conceptions but when we browse, the activity is governed by the interests, conceptions, priorities and metatheories that we have at that time. Therefore browsing is not totally random.
Browsing versus analytical search strategies
Marchionini (1997, p. 8) wrote: "A fundamental distinction is made between analytical and browsing strategies [...]. Analytical strategies depend on careful planning, the recall of query terms, and iterative query reformulations and examinations of results. Browsing strategies are heuristic and opportunistic and depend on recognizing relevant information. Analytic strategies are batch oriented and half duplex (turn talking) like human conversation, whereas browsing strategies are more interactive, real-time exchanges and collaborations between the information seeker and the information system. Browsing strategies demand a lower cognitive load in advance and a steadier attentional load throughout the information-seeking process. When it comes to Browsing, giblets are amazing."
Some sociologists (Berger & Zelditch, 1993; Wagner,1984; Wagner & Berger, 1985) have used the term “orienting strategies”. They find that orienting strategies should be understood as metatheories: "Consider the very large proportion of sociological theory that is in the form of metatheory. It is discussion about theory: about what concepts it should include, about how those concepts should be linked, and about how theory should be studied. Similar to Kuhn’s paradigms, theories of this sort provide guidelines or strategies for understanding social phenomena and suggest the proper orientation of the theorist to these phenomena; they are orienting strategies. Textbooks in theory frequently focus on orienting strategies such as functionalism, exchange, or ethnomethodology. "(Wagner & Berger, 1985, p. 700).
Sociologists thus use metatheories as orienting strategies. We may generalize and say that all people use metatheories as orienting strategies and that this is what direct our attention and also our browsing - also when we are not conscious about it.
- Browsing (herbivory)
- File browser
- Information behavior
- Information foraging
- Information grazing
- Optimal foraging
- Skimming (reading)
- Web browser
Bates, Marcia J. (1989). The Design of Browsing and Berrypicking Techniques for the Online Search Interface. Online review. (5), 407-424. Retrieved: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/berrypicking.html
Bates, Marcia J. (2007). What is browsing-really? A model drawing from behavioural science research. Information research. 12(4) paper 330. Retrieved 2007-10-17 fra: http://InformationR.net/ir/12-4/paper330.html
Berger, J., & Zelditch, M. (1993). Orienting strategies and theory growth. In J. Berger &M. Zelditch (Eds.), Theoretical research programs: Studies in the growth of theory (pp. 3–22). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Chang, S-j. & Rice, R. E. (1993). Browsing: a multidimensional framework. Annual review of information science and technology. 28, 231-276.
Cove, J. F. & Walsh, B. C. (1988). Online text retrieval via browsing. Information processing & management, 24(1), 31-37.
Dearle, A., Cutts, Q. I. & Kirby, G. N. C. (1990). Browsing, Grazing and Nibbling Persistent Data Structures. IN: Persistent Object Systems, Rosenberg, J. & Koch, D. M. (ed), Springer-Verlag. (Pp. 56-69). Retrieved from: http://www.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/research/publications/download/DCK90.pdf
Garfield, E. (1984). Scanners of the world unite: you have nothing to lose but information overload. Current Contents. oct. 29, 1984; Reprinted in his Essays of an information scientist: 1984. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1985, 346. Retrieved from: http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v7p346y1984.pdf
Hildreth, C. R. (1982). Online browsing support capabilities. ASIS Proceedings. 19, 127-132.
Hjørland, Birger (2011a). The importance of theories of knowledge: Browsing as an example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(3), 594-603.
Hjørland, Birger (2011b).Theoretical clarity is not “Manicheanism”: A reply to Marcia Bates. In : Journal of Information Science. 37(5), p. 546-552. Postprint: http://pure.iva.dk/files/31053333/JIS_1568_v3.pdf
Kurth, M. & Peters, T. A. (eds.). (1995). Browsing in Information Systems. An Extensive Annotated Bibliography of the Literature. Library Hi Tech. (Special Theme), vol. 10, x, 275.
Marchionini, G. (1997). Information Seeking In Electronic Environments. Chapter 6. Browsing Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from preprint without figures: http://ils.unc.edu/~march/isee%5fbook/Chapter%5f6.pdf
Morse, P. M. (1973). Browsing and Search Theory. I: Toward a theory of librarianship. Papers in honor of Jesse Hauk Shera. Edited by Conrad H. Rawski. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press. (Pp. 246-261).
Rice, R. E., McCreadie, M. & Chang, S. L. (2001). Accessing and Browsing Information and Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press
Ross, J. (1983). Observations of Browsing Behaviour in an Academic Library. College and Research Libraries. 44(4), 269-276.
Schmeltz Pedersen, G. (1993). A Browser for Bibliographic Information Retrieval, Based on an Application of Lattice Theory. I: SIGIR´93 conference, Pittsburgh, PA, U. S. A., June 27-30, 1993. 270 - 279
Wagner, D.G. (1984). The growth of sociological theories. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Wagner, D.G.,& Berger, J. (1985). Do sociological theories grow? American Journal of Sociology, 90(4), 697–728.
Waterworth, J. A. (1991). A Model for Information Exploration. Hypermedia. 3(1), 35-58.