Classifications of Collaborative Search Robert Capra, Katrina Muller, Javier Velasco-Martin University of North Carolina School of Information and Library Science rcapra3@unc.edu, kmuller@unc.edu, jvelasco@unc.edu ABSTRACT We present a set of three collaborative styles that were reported by participants in an interview study we conducted in the summer of 2009 to investigate exploratory and collaborative search behaviors. We give examples of each style from our data and comment on how the styles relate to existing classification schemes and models. We highlight the nature of tight versus loose coupling and how styles may vary based on task, expertise, and the relationship of the collaborators. Author Keywords Information seeking, collaborative search ACM Classification Keywords H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous. INTRODUCTION The study of social and collaborative search is evolving. Researchers are still defining dimensions, classification schemes, and proposing and testing models of collaborative information needs and behaviors. Twidale et al. [8] outline a framework for: classifying collaborative search activities along spatial and temporal dimensions (following CSCW research), distinguishing interactions with regard to product versus process, and considering whether relationship of the collaborators is mutually beneficial or instructional in nature. Hansen and Järvelin [5], also drawing from CSCW literature, outline dimensions for cooperative activities: 1) asynchronous / synchronous, 2) human communication or computer- mediated, 3) tight or loose coupling, 4) awareness, and 5) information sharing aspects. Hansen and Järvelin [5] also give examples of collaborative information retrieval tasks including: task cooperation, task division, sharing search strategies, sharing domain expertise, end product creation, sharing opinions, and sharing internal experience. Golovchinsky et al. [4] suggest a taxonomy of collaboration that includes four dimensions: intent, depth, concurrency, and location. They also outline roles and relationships of the collaborators based on being peers, domain expertise, search expertise, and prospector/miner activities. In Morris’ [6] survey, she reported on methods of collaboration on search process (co-location, use of instant messenger, and dividing a search task into parts), and on methods for collaborating on search products. Morris and Teevan [7] studied properties of groups that engaged in collaborative search activities, examining two dimensions: group membership (implicit or explicit) and group longevity (short term task-based, or longer term trait-based groups). Evans and Chi [3] suggest that “social search” describes information seeking that includes that includes the use of social and expertise networks, shared social workspaces, and collaborative co- located search. Wilson and schraefel [9] adapted and combined and Bates’ model of tactics [1] and Belkin’s model of users [2] and applied them to evaluate collaborative information seeking systems. The goal of this position paper is not to reconcile existing classifications or propose a new model of collaborative search. Rather, we present a set of three collaborative styles that were reported by participants in an interview study of collaborative search behaviors and comment on how these styles relate to and extend the existing models and classification schemes summarized above. We also discuss factors that may affect variation and use of these styles based on our data. INTERVIEW STUDY During the summer of 2009, we interviewed 30 people in three cohorts about their current practices conducting, managing, and sharing information from on-going, exploratory searches. Interviews were conducted with: 1) academic researchers working on on-going research projects, 2) corporate workers who conducted exploratory searches for business purposes, and 3) medical information seekers who had conducted on-going searches for medical information for themselves or a family member. We coded data from the interviews using a combination of open and closed coding and analyzed the data using qualitative analysis techniques. Copyright is held by the author(s).