Discovering the Unfindable: The Tension Between Findability and Discoverability in a Bookshop Designed for Serendipity

Serendipity is a key aspect of user experience, particularly in the context of information acquisition - where it is known as information encountering. Unexpectedly encountering interesting or useful information can spark new insights while surprising and delighting. However, digital environments have been designed primarily for goal-directed seeking over loosely-directed exploration, searching over discovering. In this paper we examine a novel physical environment - a bookshop designed primarily for serendipity - for cues as to how information encountering might be helped or hindered by digital design. Naturalistic observations and interviews revealed it was almost impossible for participants to find specific books or topics other than by accident. But all unexpectedly encoun-tered interesting books, highlighting a tension between findability and discoverability. While some of the bookshop’s design features enabled information en-countering, others inhibited it. However, encountering was resilient, as it occurred despite participants finding it hard to understand the purpose of even those features that did enable it. Findings suggest the need to consider how transparent or opaque the purpose of design features should be and to balance structure and lack of it when designing digital environments for findability and discoverability

Seeking Serendipity: The Art of Finding the Unsought in Professional Music

Serendipity is a valuable constituent of professional work. In order to ‘control’ the phenomenon it is important to gain insight in its processes and influencing factors. This study examined two cases of serendipitous information behavior in professional improvised music, a domain often associated with unpredictability. The aim of the study was to validate McCay-Peet and Toms’ latest model on work-related serendipitous experiences. The study followed a semi-structured interview procedure that consisted of three one-hour interview sessions to select cases and collect data. Results show that our data fit the model. Process elements like ‘trigger’, ‘connection’, ‘valuable outcome’, ‘unexpected thread’, and ‘perception of serendipity’ were identified, as well as factors such as ‘trigger-rich’, ‘openness’, and ‘prepared mind’. We also identified other factors (i.e., ‘curiosity’, ‘interest’, and ‘initiative’) that might influence serendipitous discovery. Additional (multi) case studies are necessary to generalize findings

Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial

Background Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. Methods We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. Findings Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). Interpretation Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. Funding Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England)

Seeking serendipity: The paradox of control

Purpose - This paper aims to present selected findings of a recent study of serendipity in information seeking, exploring the paradox of control inherent in the concept of "seeking serendipity". Design/methodology/approach - After providing an overview of the research study, the paper locates the research findings in the context of the literature. The discussion explores the research findings in relation to both the paradox of control and the related concept of "seeking serendipity". Findings - The definition/ description of serendipity is examined, the concept of process-perception duality is introduced, and links with the literature are explored. The discussion reassesses the paradox of control in light of the research findings, raising the possibility that information literacy educators have a role to play in developing the perception aspect of serendipity. Practical implications - The paper proposes that, despite the possibly uncomfortable challenges presented by the paradox of control, serendipity deserves more recognition in professional practice. Increased acknowledgement and understanding of serendipity may enable professional practitioners to function more effectively in the unpredictable, dynamic environment that informs the reality of information seeking. Originality/value - The paper adds to the limited existing empirical research investigating serendipity, increasing both academic and practical understanding of the phenomenon. In particular, the introduction of the concept of process-perception duality provides a useful grounding for future research. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Serendipity in a Connected World

Accidental Information Discovery: Cultivating Serendipity in the Digital Age provides readers with an interesting discussion on the ways serendipity—defined as the accidental discovery of valued information—plays an important role in creative problem-solving. This insightful resource brings together discussions on serendipity and information discovery, research in computer and information science, and interesting thoughts on the creative process. Five thorough chapters explore the significance of serendipity in creativity and innovation, the characteristics of serendipity-friendly tools and minds, and how future discovery environments may encourage serendipity

Motifs: Dominant interaction patterns in event structures of serendipity

Introduction. This paper reports on research aimed at detecting motifs that take the form of interaction patterns found in event structures of serendipity. A motif is a frequently recurring theme, pattern or idea that appears within the bounds of a larger structure. Method. Fifty narratives recounting experiences of serendipity in research were analysed from an event-based perspective and described as networks of phenomenological event structures. Analysis. Motif detection is a form of statistical comparison that relies on the algorithmic generation of formal random network models. The Fast Network Motif Detection (FANMOD) software was employed to detect size 3 motifs containing ego occurring within the serendipity networks. Results. Four dominant motifs were detected: the exchange motif, the solo motif, the collaboration motif, and the chain motif. Each motif displayed distinct interaction and attribute patterning. Conclusions. The motif findings provide theoretical justification for the concept of normative interaction patterns in serendipity and support ideas relating to the importance of people and information in serendipity

Motifs: Dominant interaction patterns in event structures of serendipity

Introduction. This paper reports on research aimed at detecting motifs that take the form of interaction patterns found in event structures of serendipity. A motif is a frequently recurring theme, pattern or idea that appears within the bounds of a larger structure. Method. Fifty narratives recounting experiences of serendipity in research were analysed from an event-based perspective and described as networks of phenomenological event structures. Analysis. Motif detection is a form of statistical comparison that relies on the algorithmic generation of formal random network models. The Fast Network Motif Detection (FANMOD) software was employed to detect size 3 motifs containing ego occurring within the serendipity networks. Results. Four dominant motifs were detected: the exchange motif, the solo motif, the collaboration motif, and the chain motif. Each motif displayed distinct interaction and attribute patterning. Conclusions. The motif findings provide theoretical justification for the concept of normative interaction patterns in serendipity and support ideas relating to the importance of people and information in serendipity