Informer
Newsletter of the BCS Information Retrieval Specialist Group
  • Informer Home
  • Issues
    • Autumn 2018
    • Winter 2019
    • Spring 2019
    • Summer 2019
    • Autumn 2019
    • Winter 2020
    • Spring 2020
    • Summer 2020
    • Autumn 2020
    • Winter 2021
    • Spring 2021
    • Summer 2021
    • Autumn 2021
    • Winter 2022
    • Spring 2022
    • Summer 2022
  • Articles by Topic
  • Authors
  • About Informer
Browse: Home / 2014 / January / New year, new direction?

New year, new direction?

By Tony Russell-Rose on 31st January 2014

The start of a new year is always a good time to reflect on the role and impact of groups such as ours, and ask the question ‘ why are we here?’ For many of us on the IRSG committee, the answer is simple: to promote the dissemination of IR knowledge and best practice in all its forms, and to create connections between communities so that research results are visible to practitioners and challenges faced by practitioners are visible to researchers.  But are we delivering on this objective? Do our activities and outputs truly reflect the interests of our members? And how far should we go in understanding those interests?

Perhaps we should start with ourselves, i.e. the committee itself. We’ve always been a very academic bunch, which of course is no bad thing in itself, and no doubt reflects the vibrant IR research community across Europe. But did you know that the composition of the membership tells a different story? A brief review of job titles in the IRSG members’ database would seem to indicate that the proportion of academics may in fact be as low as 10%, with practitioners making up 70% or more (the remaining 20% did not list a job title).

I’d often suspected that practitioners may indeed be the majority, but never to this extent. Which rather begs the question: does our programme of activities and outputs adequately recognise this composition, or does it perhaps reflect our own individual preferences? In particular, does our events programme (e.g. ECIR, ICTIR, FDIA, Search Solutions, etc.) align with the interests of the majority? Or does it not matter, as long as those that do step forward act to promote our goals in whatever way they can? Either way, it feels like a missed opportunity if we don’t at least try to understand better the need as interests of the wider membership, and to take those into account when planning our activities for 2014 and beyond.

So, with that in mind, I’d like to hear your thoughts on whether we’re getting it right. In particular:

  • Does our events programme reflect your interests?
    • Would you like to see us host other events? If so, what sort?
  • Does Informer cover the right range of topics, and in the right manner?
    • What other topics would you like to see us address?
  • Are we, as a committee, sufficiently accessible and representative?
  • If you are relatively new to the IRSG (or can remember such a time), what were your first impressions?

Ironically, although a blog such as this is the ideal forum for this dialogue, we’ve had to switch off comments for now due to the overwhelming amount of spam. So in advance of a lasting solution, you can comment on the mirrored version at isquared.wordpress.com (which has spam filtering), or just email me direct at irsg AT bcs.org.  Let us know what you think.

New year, new direction?

The start of a new year is always a good time to reflect on the role and impact of groups such as ours, and ask the question ‘ why are we here?’ For many of us on the IRSG committee, the answer is simple: to promote the dissemination of IR knowledge and best practice in all its forms, and to create connections between communities so that research results are visible to practitioners and challenges faced by practitioners are visible to researchers. But are we delivering on this objective? Do our activities and outputs truly reflect the interests of our members? And how far should we go in understanding those interests?

Perhaps we should start with ourselves, i.e. the committee itself. We’ve always been a very academic bunch, which of course is no bad thing in itself, and no doubt reflects the vibrant IR research community across Europe. But did you know that the composition of the membership tells a different story? A brief review of job titles in the IRSG members’ database would seem to indicate that the proportion of academics may in fact be as low as 10%, with practitioners making up 70% or more (the remaining 20% did not list a job title).

I’d often suspected that practitioners may indeed be the majority, but never to this extent. Which rather begs the question: does our programme of activities and outputs adequately recognise this composition, or does it perhaps reflect our own individual preferences? In particular, does our events programme (e.g. ECIR, ICTIR, FDIA, Search Solutions, etc.) align with the interests of the majority? Or does it not matter, as long as those that do step forward act to promote our goals in whatever way they can? Either way, it feels like a missed opportunity if we don’t at least try to understand better the need as interests of the wider membership, and to take those into account when planning our activities for 2014 and beyond.

So, with that in mind, I’d like to hear your thoughts on whether we’re getting it right. In particular:

· Does our events programme reflect your interests?

o Would you like to see us host other events? If so, what sort?

· Does Informer cover the right range of topics, and in the right manner?

o What other topics would you like to see us address?

· Are we, as a committee, sufficiently accessible and representative?

· If you are relatively new to the IRSG (or can remember such a time), what were your first impressions?

Ironically, although a blog such as this is the ideal forum for this dialogue, we’ve had to switch off comments for now due to the overwhelming amount of spam. So in advance of a lasting solution, you can comment on the mirrored version at isquared.wordpress.com (which has spam filtering), or just email me direct at irsg AT bcs.org. Let us know what you think.

New year, new direction?

The start of a new year is always a good time to reflect on the role and impact of groups such as ours, and ask the question ‘ why are we here?’ For many of us on the IRSG committee, the answer is simple: to promote the dissemination of IR knowledge and best practice in all its forms, and to create connections between communities so that research results are visible to practitioners and challenges faced by practitioners are visible to researchers.  But are we delivering on this objective? Do our activities and outputs truly reflect the interests of our members? And how far should we go in understanding those interests?

Perhaps we should start with ourselves, i.e. the committee itself. We’ve always been a very academic bunch, which of course is no bad thing in itself, and no doubt reflects the vibrant IR research community across Europe. But did you know that the composition of the membership tells a different story? A brief review of job titles in the IRSG members’ database would seem to indicate that the proportion of academics may in fact be as low as 10%, with practitioners making up 70% or more (the remaining 20% did not list a job title).

I’d often suspected that practitioners may indeed be the majority, but never to this extent. Which rather begs the question: does our programme of activities and outputs adequately recognise this composition, or does it perhaps reflect our own individual preferences? In particular, does our events programme (e.g. ECIR, ICTIR, FDIA, Search Solutions, etc.) align with the interests of the majority? Or does it not matter, as long as those that do step forward act to promote our goals in whatever way they can? Either way, it feels like a missed opportunity if we don’t at least try to understand better the need as interests of the wider membership, and to take those into account when planning our activities for 2014 and beyond.

So, with that in mind, I’d like to hear your thoughts on whether we’re getting it right. In particular:

  • Does our events programme reflect your interests?
    • Would you like to see us host other events? If so, what sort?
    • Does Informer cover the right range of topics, and in the right manner?
      • What other topics would you like to see us address?
      • Are we, as a committee, sufficiently accessible and representative?
      • If you are relatively new to the IRSG (or can remember such a time), what were your first impressions?

Ironically, although a blog such as this is the ideal forum for this dialogue, we’ve had to switch off comments for now due to the overwhelming amount of spam. So in advance of a lasting solution, you can comment on the mirrored version at isquared.wordpress.com (which has spam filtering), or just email me direct at irsg AT bcs.org.  Let us know what you think.

 

About Tony Russell-Rose
Tony Russell-Rose

Tony Russell-Rose is founder of 2Dsearch (https://www.2dsearch.com), a start-up applying artificial intelligence, natural language processing and data visualisation to create the next generation of professional search tools. He is also director of UXLabs, a research and design studio specialising in complex search and information access applications. He has served as vice-chair of the BCS Information Retrieval group and chair of the CIEHF Human-Computer Interaction group. Previously Tony has led R&D teams at Canon, Reuters, Oracle, HP Labs and BT Labs. He is author of "Designing the Search Experience" (Elsevier, 2013) and publishes widely on IR, HCI and NLP.

« Previous Next »

Search

Recent comments

  • Tony Russell-Rose on And finally….from the Editor
  • New Informer – Winter 2021 | Information Interaction on ECIR 2022 and ECIR 2023 – locations confirmed
  • New Informer – Winter 2021 | Information Interaction on Strix Lecture 2020 event – 26 November 2020
  • New Informer – Winter 2021 | Information Interaction on Editorial
  • New Informer – Autumn 2020 | Information Interaction on ECIR 2021 – planning for a virtual conference

Categories

  • Autumn 2022
  • News and alerts
  • ECIR2023
  • Summer 2022
  • Spring 2022
  • IRSG management
  • Winter 2022
  • Autumn 2021
  • ECIR 2022
  • Summer 2021
  • ECIR 2021 Conference Supplement
  • Awards
  • Spring 2021
  • Winter 2021
  • Autumn 2020
  • Summer 2020
  • Spring 2020
  • Winter 2020
  • Autumn 2019
  • Summer 2019
  • Spring 2019
  • Winter 2019
  • Autumn 2018
  • Summer 2018
  • Spring 2018
  • Winter 2018
  • Autumn 2017
  • Summer 2017
  • Spring 2017
  • Winter 2017
  • Autumn 2016
  • Summer 2016
  • Spring 2016
  • Winter 2016
  • Autumn 2015
  • Promotion
  • Summer 2015
  • Spring 2015
  • Winter 2015
  • Autumn 2014
  • Summer 2014
  • Spring 2014
  • Winter 2014
  • Autumn 2013
  • Summer 2013
  • Org Overview
  • Spring 2013
  • Winter 2013
  • Conference Review
  • Feature Article
  • Editorial
  • Events
  • Book Review
  • Autumn 2012
  • Summer 2012
  • Spring 2012
  • Winter 2012
  • Uncategorized

Tags

awards BCS Boolean City University clustering conference conferences design ECIR editorial enterprise seach enterprise search events Faceted search facets HCIR information architecture information discovery Information Retrieval information seeking interaction design IR IR practice IRSG log analysis MSR multimedia retrieval navigation recruitment search Search Solutions search strategies sensemaking site search ss12 survey taxonomy text analytics tutorial user experience user study wayfinding web search weka workshop

Authors

  • Agnes Molnar (1)
  • Alberto Purpura (1)
  • Aldo Lipani (1)
  • Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran (1)
  • Allan Hanbury (1)
  • Amit Kumar Jaiswal (1)
  • Andy Macfarlane (50)
  • Benjamin Kille (1)
  • Benno Stein (1)
  • Birger Larsen (1)
  • Carsten Eickhoff (1)
  • Cathal Gurrin (8)
  • Charlie Hull (2)
  • Chris Madge (1)
  • Thomas Mandl (1)
  • Claudia Hauff (1)
  • Colin Wilkie (1)
  • David Elsweiler (1)
  • David Haynes (1)
  • David Maxwell (1)
  • Deirdre Lungley (1)
  • Dennis Aumiller (2)
  • Djoerd Hiemstra (1)
  • Franco Maria Nardini (1)
  • Frank Hopfgartner (13)
  • Gabriel Tanase (1)
  • Gabriella Kazai (5)
  • Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio (1)
  • Haiming Liu (2)
  • Helen Clegg (1)
  • Helen Lippell (1)
  • Iadh Ounis (1)
  • Ingo Frommholz (9)
  • Joao Magalheis (4)
  • Jochen L. Leidner (3)
  • John Tait (7)
  • Jolanta Pietraszko (1)
  • Jon Chamberlain (4)
  • Jose Alberto Equivel (1)
  • Julie Glanville (1)
  • Kamran Abbasi (1)
  • Katherine Allen (3)
  • Kurt Kragh Sørensen (1)
  • Linda Achilles (1)
  • Luca Soldaini (1)
  • Marc Sloan (2)
  • Marco Palomino (2)
  • Marianne Sweeny (1)
  • Marina Santini (1)
  • Markus Schedl (1)
  • Martin White (144)
  • Mateusz Dubiel (1)
  • Michael Oakes (1)
  • Mike Salampasis (1)
  • Mohammad Aliannejadi (1)
  • Morgan Harvey (1)
  • Nandita Tripathi (1)
  • Natasha Chowdory (1)
  • Norbert Fuhr (1)
  • Olivia Foulds (1)
  • Parth Mehta (2)
  • Paul Cleverley (1)
  • Paul Matthews (2)
  • Pedro Ruas (1)
  • Philipp Mayr (1)
  • Roland Roller (1)
  • Roman Kern (1)
  • Ronan Cummins (2)
  • Sam Marshall (1)
  • Samuel Dodson (1)
  • Selina Meyer (1)
  • Silviu Paun (1)
  • Song Chen (1)
  • Stefan Rueger (1)
  • Stephane Goldstein (1)
  • Stephanie Segura Rodas (1)
  • Steven Zimmerman (8)
  • Thanh Vu (1)
  • Tony Russell-Rose (31)
  • Trung Huynh (1)
  • Tu Bui (1)
  • Tyler Tate (8)
  • Udo Kruschwitz (35)
  • Val Gillet (1)

Copyright © 2023 Informer.

Powered by WordPress and Hybrid.