Abstract
Colleagues, friends, let me begin by expressing how pleased, and humbly honored I am to be a recipient of the Gerard Salton Award. Gerry was a great man, and to receive the award named for him is very special. For me personally, it is especially meaningful, given the sometime disputatious nature of our professional interactions, and what seemed, on the surface, to be quite different ideas about information retrieval. I say, on the surface, because in the end, I believe that he and I both shared the same goal for the field, although we approached it from quite different positions. In this presentation, I will speak at some length on that goal, and on how I think it might be best addressed. I am humbled also by the honor of having joined the ranks of the previous recipients of this award; the founders, leaders and innovators in information retrieval (IR), from the earliest beginnings of the field to today. It has been my distinct good fortune to have known all of the previous recipients, to have collaborated with many of them, to have argued with all of them, to have learned from them, and, I hope, to have been able to appropriately incorporate their insights into my own work. Today, following the example of many of my predecessors, I'd like to take this opportunity to, in Sue Dumais's words of 2009, "present a personal reflection on information retrieval." This will include an overview of my history in IR, a discussion of my personal take on its proper goals, and on how those might be best achieved, and saying something about the challenges that IR theory, experiment and practice face both now, and in the future, and how we might best address those challenges. I came to the field of IR from a starting point in information science; specifically, with the concern of addressing general problems of information in society. I initially thought that the best way to do this would be to establish a firm framework for a science of information. Acting on my then understanding of what a science constituted, I began the project of defining information. Fortunately for me, I did this at University College, London, with B.C. Brookes as my Ph.D. supervisor, and Steve Robertson my office mate. It didn't take long for me to be disabused of a) the idea that information could be defined; and b) that defining its phenomena of interest was a necessary precondition to a "real" science. Instead, perhaps under the influence of the great pragmatist, Jeremy Bentham, founder of University College, I turned to attempting to develop a concept of information which would lead to being able to predict its effect on a person's state of knowledge, which I took at that time as what IR systems should be attempting to do.