-검정.jpg){kind=logo}
- 권한신청
- P-ISSN1225-598X
- E-ISSN2982-6292
폭소노미에 따른 웹 분류 연구 - 이용자 태깅 행위 분석을 중심으로 -
A Qualitative Exploration of Folksonomy Users’ Tagging Behaviors
- 다운로드 수
- 조회수
초록
본 연구는 실제 폭소노미를 사용하는 참여자의 태깅 경험, 태깅과 폭소노미에 대한 인식을 파악하며, 폭소노미에 따른 웹 분류의 의미에 대해 탐구하고자 한다. 세 개의 폭소노미 시스템 Connotea, CiteULike, Delicious의 12명 참여자와 함께 정성적 연구의 틀 내에서 웹 설문, 인터뷰, 일기연구를 수행하였다. 참여자들의 태깅 행위를 이루는 기본구성요소를 파악하고, 태깅활동에 참여하게 되는 동기와 그 태깅동기들이 참여자들이 사용하는 태그에 어떻게 반영되는지를 조사하였다. 또한 정보탐색(information foraging) 이론을 적용하여 참여자들이 태깅을 통해 참여하는 사회성과 상호작용성에 대한 경험과 인식을 분석하고, 정보냄새로서의 태그에 대하여 논의하였다. 이용자 참여를 기반으로 하는 본 연구의 실증적 연구결과들은 폭소노미를 활용한 웹 정보서비스를 다양한 각도에서 이해하는데 도움을 주고, 웹 정보자원의 분류와 조직에 있어서 폭소노미의 유용화를 연구하는 개념적 틀을 제시함으로써 폭소노미 현상의 연구 향상에 기여할 수 있을 것으로 기대한다.
- keywords
- Folksonomy, Tagging Behavior, Information Foraging Theory, Information Scent, Internet Classification, Folksonomy, Tagging Behavior, Information Foraging Theory, Information Scent, Internet Classification, 폭소노미, 태깅행위, 정보탐색이론, 정보냄새, 웹분류
Abstract
This study aims to explore how users are tagging in order to utilize a folksonomy and whether they understand the social and interactive aspects of tagging in three different folksonomic systems, Connotea (www.connotea.org), Delicious(http://delicious.com), and CiteULike(www.citeulike.org). The study uses internet questionnaires, qualitative diary studies, and follow-up interviews to understand twelve participants’ tagging activities associated with folksonomic interactions. The flow charts developed from the twelve participants showed that tagging was a quite complex process, in which each tagging activity was interconnected, and a variety of folksonomic system features were employed. Three main tagging activities involved in the tagging processes have been identified: item selection, tag assignment, and tag searching and discovery. During the tag assignment, participants would describe their tagging motivations related to various types of tags. Their perception of the usefulness of types of tags was different when their purpose was for social sharing rather than personal information management. While tagging, participants recognized the social potential of a folksonomic system and used interactive aspects of tagging via various features of the folksonomic system. It is hoped that this empirical study will provide insight into theoretical and practical issues regarding users’ perceptions and use of folksonomy in accessing, sharing, and navigating internet resources.
- keywords
- Folksonomy, Tagging Behavior, Information Foraging Theory, Information Scent, Internet Classification, Folksonomy, Tagging Behavior, Information Foraging Theory, Information Scent, Internet Classification, 폭소노미, 태깅행위, 정보탐색이론, 정보냄새, 웹분류
참고문헌
김동숙, 정연경. 2010. 폭소노미 태그의 생성과 성장에 관한 연구: Librarything을 중심으로. 한국문헌정보학회지 , 44(4): 203-230.
김성희, 이형미. 2009. 디지털화 문화유산 태그의 패턴 및 특성 분석. 한국비블리아학회지 ,20(3): 171-185.
박태연, 김성희. 2009. 리소스 유형에 따른 태그의 특성 및 기능 분석. 한국문헌정보학회지 ,43(4): 327-351.
이성숙. 2008. 대학도서관 폭소노미 태그의 형태적 특성에 관한 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지 ,42(4): 463-480.
이성숙, 정서영. 2009. 국내 도서관 폭소노미 태그의 일반적 패턴 연구. 한국비블리아학회지 ,20(1): 137-150.
조재인. 2008. 한국정보서비스의 폭소노미 분석 연구. 한국문헌정보학회지 , 42(4): 95-112.
Barsalou, L. W. 1983. “Ad hoc categories.” Memory & Cognition, 11(3): 211-227.
Chi, E. H., Pirolli, P., Chen, K, & Pitkow, J. 2001. “Using information scent to model userinformation needs and actions on the web.” CHI-CONFERENCE, 3(1): 490-497.
Choo, C. & Turnbull, D. 2000. “Information seeking on the web: An integrated model ofbrowsing and searching.” FirstMonday, 5(2). [online]. [cited. 2011.1].<http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_2/choo/index.html>.
Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fu, W. & Priolli, P. 2007. “SNIF-ACT: A cognitive model of user navigation on the WorldWide Web.” Human Computer Interaction, 22(4): 355-412.
Golder, S. A. & Humberman, B. A. 2006. “Usage patterns of collaborative tagging system.”Journal of Information Science, 32(2): 198-208.
Guy, M. & Tonkin, E. 2006. “Folksonomies: Tidying up tags?” D-Lib Magazine, 12(1).[online]. [cited. 2011.1]. <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january06/guy/01guy.html>.
Hjørland, B. 2003. “Fundamentals of knowledge organization.” Knowledge Organization,30(2): 87-111.
Iyer, H. 1995. Classificatory Structures: Concepts, Relations and Representation. Frankfurt/Main: Indeks Verlag.
Jacob, E. K. 2004. “Classification and categorization: A difference that makes a difference.”Library Trends, 52(3): 515-540.
Jacob, E. K. 1991. “Classification and categorization: Drawing the line. In B. H. Kwasnikand R. Fidel, eds. Proceedings of the 2nd ASIS SIG/CR Classification Workshop, 67-83.
Jacoby, J. 2005. “Optimal foraging.” In K. Fisher et al., eds. Theory of Information Behavior,New Jersey: Information Today, Inc, 257-264.
Kalbach, J. 2000. “Designing for information foragers: A behavioral model for informationseeking on the World Wide Web.” Internetworking, 3(3). [online]. [cited. 2011.1].<http://www.internettg.org/newsletter/dec00/article_information_foragers.html>.
Kipp, M. 2007. “@Toread and cool: Tagging for time, task and emotion.” Paper presentedat the 8th Information Architecture Summit, Las Vegas. [online]. [cited 2011.1].<http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00011414/>.
Kipp, M. & Campbell, D. 2006. “Patterns and inconsistencies in collaborative taggingpractices: An examination of tagging practices.” In Proceedings of the American Societyfor Information Science and Technology, 1-18.
Kwasnik, B. 1999. “The Role of classification in knowledge representation and discovery.”Library Trends, 48(1): 22-47.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about theMind. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.
Marlow, C. et al. 2006. “HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, flickr, academic article, to read.”In Proceeding of the 17th Conference on Hypertext & hypermedia. New York, NY: ACMPress. [online]. [cited 2011.1]. <http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1149949>.
Mathes, A. 2004. “Folksonomies: Cooperative classification and communication throughshared metadata.” [online]. [cited 2011.1].<http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html>.
Meho, L. & Tibbo, H. 2003. “Modeling the information-seeking behavior of social scientists:Ellis’s study revisited.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science andTechnology, 54(6): 570-587.
Murphy, G. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pirolli, P. & Fu, W. 2003. “SNIF-ACT: A model of information foraging on the WorldWide Web.” In P. Brusilovsky et al. eds. Proceedings of the 9th International Conferenceon User Modeling, 45-54.
Pirolli, P. & Card , S. 1999. “Information foraging.” Psychological Review, 106(4): 643-675.
Pirolli, P. et al. 2005. “Information scent and web navigation: Theory, models, and automatedusability evaluation.” In Proceedings of Human Computer International 22-27 July 2005 LasVegas, NV, USA. [online]. [cited 2011.1].<http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/papers/2005/HCII/HCII_2005_Web_Info_Scent-v2.pdf>.
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded theory proceduresand techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Voss, J. 2006. “Collaborative thesaurus tagging in the Wikipedia way.” Wikimetrics researchpapers, 1(1). [online]. [cited 2011.1]. <http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0604/0604036.pdf>.
- 다운로드 수
- 조회수
- 0KCI 피인용수
- 0WOS 피인용수