Web Search pp 255-275 | Cite as

Search Engines and Expertise about Global Issues: Well-defined Landscape or Undomesticated Wilderness?

  • J. Fry
  • S. Virkar
  • R. Schroeder
Part of the Information Science and Knowledge Management book series (ISKM, volume 14)


This chapter investigates the ‘winner-takes-all’ hypothesis in relation to how academic researchers access online sources and resources. Some have argued that the Web provides access to a wider range of sources of information than offline resources. Others, such as Hindman et al. (2003), have shown that access to online resources is highly concentrated, particularly because of how Internet search engines are designed. With researchers increasingly using the Web and Internet search engines to disseminate and locate information and expertise, the question of whether the use of online resources enhances or diminishes the range of available sources of expertise is bound to become more pressing. To address this question four globally relevant knowledge domains were investigated using large-scale link analysis and a series of semi-structured interviews with UK-based academic researchers. We found there to be no uniform ‘winner-takes-all’ effect in the use of online resources. Instead, there were different types of information gatekeepers for the four domains we examined and for the types of resources and sources that are sought. Particular characteristics of a knowledge domain’s information environment appear to determine whether Google and other Internet search engines function as a facilitator in accessing expertise or as an influential gatekeeper.


Search Engine Digital Library Information Environment Global Issue Information Seek 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams A, Blandford A (2005) Digital libraries’ support for the user’s information journey. Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries 2005, Denver, CO, USA, June 7–11, pp 160–169Google Scholar
  2. Adams A, Blandford A, Lunt P (2005) Social empowerment and exclusion: a case study on digital libraries. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 12.Google Scholar
  3. Barabasi A (2003) Linked: the new science of networks. Perseus Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates MJ (1996) Learning about the information seeking of interdisciplinary scholars and students. Library Trends 45: 155–164Google Scholar
  5. Beauvisage T (2004) A semantics of users’ paths through the web. Unpublished PhD, University of Paris X: Nanterre, Paris (translated by Van Couvering, Web Behaviour: Search engines in context, draft paper)Google Scholar
  6. Becher T, Trowler P (2001) Academic tribes and territories: intellectual inquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldas A (2005) On the origins of the web species and complexity. Paper presented to the New Approaches to Research on the Social Implications of Emerging Technologies Workshop, Oxford, 15–16 AprilGoogle Scholar
  8. Van Couvering E (2006) Web behaviour: search engines in context. Available at: Accessed 3 August 2006
  9. Dahl R (1989) Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dutton WH, Gillet SE, McKnight LW, Peltu M (2003) Broadband Internet: the power to reconfigure access. Forum discussion paper no. 1, Oxford Internet Institute, August 2003Google Scholar
  11. Fallows D (2005) Search engine users: Internet searchers are confident, satisfied and trusting–but they are also unaware and naïve. Report of the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available at: Accessed 3 August 2006
  12. Fry J (2006) Studying the scholarly web: how disciplinary culture shapes online representations. Cybermetrics, 10. Available at: Accessed 3 August 2006
  13. Fry J, Talja S (2004) The cultural shaping of scholarly communication: explaining e-journal use within and across academic fields. In: ASIST 2004: Proceedings of the 67th ASIST Annual Meeting 41. Medford, NJ.: Information TodayGoogle Scholar
  14. Fry J, Talja S (2007) The intellectual and social organization of academic fields and the shaping of digital resources. Journal of Information Science 33: 115–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Granka LA, Joachims T, Gay G (2004) Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in www-search. Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp 478–479Google Scholar
  16. Hindman M, Tsioutsiouliklis K, Johnson J (2003) Googlearchy: how a few heavily-linked sites dominate politics on the web. Available at:–hindman.pdf. Accessed 7 February 2006
  17. Hjørland B, Albrechtsen H (1995) Toward a new horizon in information science : domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46: 400–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jansen BJ, Spink A (2006) How are we searching the world wide web? a comparison of nine search engine transaction logs. Information Processing and Management 42: 248–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson DE, Case DO, Andres J, Allard SL, Johnson NE (2006) Fields and pathways: contrasting or complementary views of information seeking. Information Processing and Management 42: 569–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhlthau CC (1993) Seeking meaning: a process approach to library and information services. Ablex, Norwood, NJGoogle Scholar
  21. Merton RK (1988) The Matthew effect in science II, Isis 79: 606–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mote LJB (1962) Reasons for the variation of information needs of scientists. Journal of Documentation 18: 169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Palmer CL, Neumann LJ (2002) The information work of interdisciplinary humanities scholars: exploration and translation, Library Quarterly 72: 85–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Park HW, Thelwall M (2005) The network approach to web hyperlink research and its utility for science communication. In Christine Hine (Ed.) Virtual methods: issues in social research on the Internet. Berg, Oxford: 171–181Google Scholar
  25. Pennock DM, Flake GW, Lawrence S, Glover EJ, Giles CL (2002) Winners don’t take all: characterizing the competition for links on the web. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 5207–5211zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pew Internet and American Life Survey (2005) Search engine users: Internet searchers are confident, satisfied and trusting–but they are also unaware and naïve. Available at: Accessed 12 July 2006
  27. Pharo N, Jarvelin K (2006) Irrational searchers and IR-rational researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57: 222–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schneider SM, Foot KA (2002) Online structure for political action: exploring presidential websites from the 2000 American election, Javnost (The Public) 9: 43–60Google Scholar
  29. Schroeder R, Caldas A, Mesch G, Dutton W (2005) The world wide web of science: reconfiguring access to information, First International Conference on e-Social Science, Manchester 22–24 June, Available at: Accessed 6 March 2007
  30. Solomon P (1999) Information mosaics: patterns of action that structure. In Wilson, T., and Allen, D.K. (Ed.) Exploring the contexts of information behaviour (pp. 150–175). UK. London: Taylor GrahamGoogle Scholar
  31. Spink A, Wolfram D, Jansen BJ, Saracevic T (2001) Searching the web: the public and their queries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52: 226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thelwall M (2006) Interpreting social science link analysis research: a theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57: 60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thelwall M, Vaughan L, Björneborn L (2005) Webometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 39: 81–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Törmä S, Vakkari P (2004) Discipline, availability of electronic resources and the use of Finnish national electronic library–FinELib. Information Research 10 Available at–1/paper204.html. Accessed 13 July 2006
  35. Tuominen K, Talja S, Savolainen R (2003) Multiperspective digital libraries: the implications of constructionism for the development of digital libraries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54: 561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vakkari P, Talja S (2005) The influence of the scatter of literature on the use of electronic resources across disciplines: a case study of FinElib. In: A. Rauber et al. (Eds.) ECDL 2005, LNCS 3652, pp 207–217Google Scholar
  37. Walsh JP, Bayma T (1996) Computer networks and scientific work. Social Studies of Science 26: 661–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang P, Berry MW, Yang Y (2003) Mining longitudinal web queries: trends and patterns. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54: 743–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whitley R (2000). (2nd ed.) The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Fry
    • 1
  • S. Virkar
    • 2
  • R. Schroeder
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceLoughborough UniversityLeicester-shireUK
  2. 2.Oxford Internet InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.Oxford Internet InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations