Information Research Weblog

I thought a little non-serious questionnaire analysis might amuse you - I'm in the process of a rough and ready analysis of the questionnaires returned by readers of Information Research and three of the questions generated some interesting responses. Well, actually, they are all interesting, otherwise I wouldn't have asked them, would I?

However, the three I have in mind tonight are those that asked for the 'most interesting paper', the paper that had been 'most useful recently', and which paper would get 'the best paper award'.

Naturally, there is just about as much variety as there are responses, and the first thing to note is that, in general, people didn't respond to these questions: 39 non-respondents to the first, 45 to the second, and 60 to the third—out of about 90 analysed to date.

Of those selected as 'the most interesting', the following attracted more than two votes:

• Brooks-Web search: how the Web has changed information-paper 154
• Heinstrom-Five personality dimensions and their influence on information behaviour-paper 165
• Wilson-The Nonsense of Knowledge Management-paper 144

Of those selected as 'the most useful', the following attracted more than two votes:

• Dervin-Human studies and user studies-paper166
• Franklin and Plum-Library usage patterns in the electronic information environment-paper 187
• Heinstrom-Five personality dimensions-paper165
• Jarvelin and Ingwersen-Information seeking research needs extension-paper 212

Of those selected for the 'best paper award', the following attracted more than two votes:

• Miller-I=0-paper140
• Wilson-The Nonsense of Knowledge Management-paper144

What does it all mean? Well, I guess there's some correlation between the number of hits a paper gets and the probability of it being selected, and that choice will be dictated by current concerns and interests. But, looking at the list, I think that they are all pretty good papers :-)