Search results

In order to understand the totality, diversity and richness of human information behavior, increasing research attention has been paid to examining serendipity in the context of information acquisition. However, several issues have arisen as this research subfield has tried to find its feet; we have used different, inconsistent terminology to define this phenomenon (e.g. information encountering, accidental information discovery, incidental information acquisition), the scope of the phenomenon has not been clearly defined and its nature was not fully understood or fleshed-out.

In this paper, information encountering (IE) was proposed as the preferred term for serendipity in the context of information acquisition.

A reconceptualized definition and scope of IE was presented, a temporal model of IE and a refined model of IE that integrates the IE process with contextual factors and extends previous models of IE to include additional information acquisition activities pre- and postencounter.

By providing a more precise definition, clearer scope and richer theoretical description of the nature of IE, there was hope to make the phenomenon of serendipity in the context of information acquisition more accessible, encouraging future research consistency and thereby promoting deeper, more unified theoretical development.

Belkin and Robertson (1976a) reflected on the ethical implications of theoretical research in information science and warned that there was potential for abuse of knowledge gained by undertaking such research and applying it to information systems. In particular, they identified the domains of advertising and political propaganda that posed particular problems. The purpose of this literature review is to revisit these ideas in the light of recent events in global information systems that demonstrate that their fears were justified.

The authors revisit the theory in information science that Belkin and Robertson used to build their argument, together with the discussion on ethics that resulted from this work in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The authors then review recent literature in the field of information systems, specifically information retrieval, social media and recommendation systems that highlight the problems identified by Belkin and Robertson.

Information science theories have been used in conjunction with empirical evidence gathered from user interactions that have been detrimental to both individuals and society. It is argued in the paper that the information science and systems communities should find ways to return control to the user wherever possible, and the ways to achieve this are considered.

The ethical issues identified require a multidisciplinary approach with research in information science, computer science, information systems, business, sociology, psychology, journalism, government and politics, etc. required. This is too large a scope to deal with in a literature review, and we focus only on the design and implementation of information systems (Zimmer, 2008a) through an information science and information systems perspective.

The authors argue that information systems such as search technologies, social media applications and recommendation systems should be designed with the recipient of the information in mind (Paisley and Parker, 1965), not the sender of that information.

Information systems designed ethically and with users in mind will go some way to addressing the ill effects typified by the problems for individuals and society evident in global information systems.

The authors synthesize the evidence from the literature to provide potential technological solutions to the ethical issues identified, with a set of recommendations to information systems designers and implementers.

The authors wanted to provide an enriched understanding of how lawyers keep up-to-date with legal developments. Maintaining awareness of developments in an area (known as “monitoring”) is an important aspect of professional’s information work. This is particularly true for lawyers, who are expected to keep up-to-date with legal developments on an ongoing basis.

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with a group of lawyers who authored and published current awareness content for LexisNexis – a large publishing organisation. The interviews focused on identifying the types of electronic, printed and people-based current awareness resources the lawyers used to keep up-to-date with legal developments and the reasons for their choices.

The lawyers mostly used electronic resources (particularly e-mail alerts and an electronic tool that alerted them to changes in website content), alongside interpersonal sources, such as colleagues, customers and professional contacts. Printed media, such as journals and newspapers, were used more rarely and usually to complement electronic and person-based resources. A number of factors were found to influence choice. These included situational relevance, presentation, utility and trustworthiness, the speed of content acquisition and interpretation facilitated by the resource.

The authors' findings enrich their understanding of lawyers’ monitoring behaviour, which has so far received little direct research attention. Their design suggestions have the potential to feed into the design of new and improvement of existing digital current awareness resources. Their findings have the potential to act as “success criteria” by which these resources can be evaluated from a user-centred perspective.

In “Coming across information serendipitously – Part 1: a process model” the authors identified common elements of researchers' experiences of “coming across information serendipitously”. These experiences involve a mix of unexpectedness and insight and lead to a valuable, unanticipated outcome. In this article, the authors aim to show how the elements of unexpectedness, insight and value form a framework for subjectively classifying whether a particular experience might be considered serendipitous and, if so, just how serendipitous.

The classification framework was constructed by analysing 46 experiences of coming across information serendipitously provided by 28 interdisciplinary researchers during critical incident interviews. “Serendipity stories” were written to summarise each experience and to facilitate their comparison. The common elements of unexpectedness, insight and value were identified in almost all the experiences.

The presence of different mixes of unexpectedness, insight and value in the interviewees' experiences define a multi‐dimensional conceptual space (which the authors call the “serendipity space”). In this space, different “strengths” of serendipity exist. The classification framework can be used to reason about whether an experience falls within the serendipity space and, if so, how “pure” or “dilute” it is.

The framework provides researchers from various disciplines with a structured means of reasoning about and classifying potentially serendipitous experiences.

Websites, search engines, recommender systems, artificial intelligence and digital libraries have the potential to support serendipity for unexpected interaction with information and ideas which would lead to favored information discoveries. This paper aims to explore the current state of research into serendipity particularly related to information encountering.

This study provides bibliometric review of 166 studies on serendipity extracted from the Web of Science. Two bibliometric analysis tools HisCite and RStudio (Biblioshiny) are used on 30 years of data. Citation counts and bibliographic records of the papers are assessed using HisCite. Moreover, visualization of prominent sources, countries, keywords and the collaborative networks of authors and institutions are assessed using RStudio (Biblioshiny) software. A total of 166 papers on serendipity were found from the period 1989 to 2022, and the most influential authors, articles, journals, institutions and countries among these were determined.

The highest numbers of 11 papers were published in the year 2019. Makri and Erdelez are the most influential authors for contributing studies on serendipity. “Journal of Documentation” is the top-ranking journal. University College London is the prominent affiliation contributing highest number of studies on serendipity. The UK and the USA are the prominent nations contributing highest number of research. Authorship pattern for research on serendipity reveals involvement of single author in majority of the studies. OA Green model is the most preferred model for archiving of research articles by the authors who worked on serendipity. In addition, majority of the research outputs have received a citation ranging from 0 to 50.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper may be the first bibliometric analysis on serendipity research using bibliometric tools in library and information science studies. The paper would definitely open new avenues for other serendipity researchers.

This research seeks to gain a detailed understanding of how researchers come across information serendipitously, grounded in real‐world examples. This research was undertaken to enrich the theoretical understanding of this slippery phenomenon.

Semi‐structured critical incident interviews were conducted with 28 interdisciplinary researchers. Interviewees were asked to discuss memorable examples of coming across information serendipitously from their research or everyday life. The data collection and analysis process followed many of the core principles of grounded theory methodology.

The examples provided were varied, but shared common elements (they involved a mix of unexpectedness and insight and led to a valuable, unanticipated outcome). These elements form part of an empirically grounded process model of serendipity. In this model, a new connection is made that involves a mix of unexpectedness and insight and has the potential to lead to a valuable outcome. Projections are made on the potential value of the outcome and actions are taken to exploit the connection, leading to an (unanticipated) valuable outcome.

The model provides researchers across disciplines with a structured means of understanding and describing serendipitous experiences.

In several existing studies of Information Encountering (IE), a recurring sub-phenomenon of serendipity arises that indicates the potential for certain unexpected encounters with information to be transformative. The author labels this sub-phenomenon Transformative Information Encountering (TIE), deriving its definition from an application of Transformative Education (TE) theory to existing understandings of IE. This paper aims to discuss the potential for librarians and archivists to promote TIE through everyday practices.

After defining and identifying TIE in existing studies of IE, this article will put models of IE in conversation with theories of TE and propose ways in which TIE may arise in the everyday work of librarians and archivists.

In TE theory, there are three phases of the process of critical premise reflection that may be especially relevant to the work of libraries and archives. These are a disorienting dilemma (phase 1); recognition that the process of transformation is shared (phase 4); and acquiring knowledge and skills (phase 7). Each of these aligns with aspects of IE models.

Understanding how TIE might inform everyday Library and Information Science (LIS) work may increase the positive impact cultural institutions have on the communities they serve.

While several IE studies have suggested the existence of TIE as a sub-phenomenon, none thus far have attempted to define it or apply an understanding of it to LIS work.

How and why does serendipity plays an important role in a relatively small percentage of entrepreneurial successes? The concentration of entrepreneurs in the transition economy of Mongolia stimulated the authors’ desire to research these questions and to attempt to discover instances where serendipity played a major role in an entrepreneur’s success. This study does not pertain to the deliberate search for serendipitous innovation (those that are not a result of pure luck) or where mistakes play a prominent role in accounts of serendipity, e.g. Viagra, Teflon, Post it Notes and a plethora of others. This paper aims to relate to accounts of pure luck as in being in the right place at the right time.

The authors conducted one intensive face-to-face interview (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia) and two brief clarifying sessions conducted over Skype (Melbourne, Australia). During the face-to-face interview, open-ended questions were asked, copious notes were taken and electronic recordings were made. Recordings and notes were transcribed and used to develop this paper. During the Skype interviews, the authors took the opportunity to cross-check and verify responses from the face-to-face interview. This technique allowed the authors to accurately recount stories, points-of-view and to quote the respondent directly. Using qualitative data from the interviews enabled the authors to circumvent exaggeration and to preserve the probity of content within this study.

Serendipitous lightning is a rare phenomenon that has been acknowledged in scholarly papers but not fully researched. There are many samples of people finding something new and valuable, but are they attributable to serendipitous lightning? Little has been said about the phenomenon that begs the questions: Is it something that is too difficult to analyse and explain? Can you look for it? Can you plan for it? With no scientific basis, is it unexplainable and best left alone?

Although Mongolia has experienced an upsurge in entrepreneurial activity since the collapse of the Soviet Union and its economic support, Mongolia may not have been a suitable location for this study. It was a matter of convenience as the authors were there on another project at that time. The scope of the study was limited by the lack of suitable respondents in a city of only 1.3 million inhabitants, which is over half of the total population of Mongolia. Time and costs were major considerations that limited this study. Examples of serendipitous lightning were extremely difficult to identify with the authors finding one suitable interviewee from a total of 55 scoping interviews. This equates to a 0.02% strike rate for the sample; however, there is no suggestion that further examples would not be forthcoming from a larger sample size.

Serendipitous lightning is a rare phenomenon that has been acknowledged in scholarly articles but has not been fully researched. The authors’ intention was to stimulate discussion of serendipitous lightning and to entice more people to become engaged and interested in researching the phenomenon. In addition, the authors contend that it is serendipitous lightning that ignites the fuse and whether the “flash of brilliance” is recognised and acted on depends heavily on the entrepreneur’s alertness and propensity to act swiftly. As such it is felt that there is evidence supporting the extension of existing theory on serendipity.