Post on 27-Mar-2015
transcript
Service Sea Change: Clicking with “Screenagers”
through Virtual ReferenceLynn Silipigni Connaway
andMarie L. Radford
Association of College & Research Libraries13th National Conference
Baltimore, MDMarch 29-April 1, 2007
Presenters• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
– Consulting Research Scientist, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
– Email: connawal@oclc.org– www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm
• Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.– Associate Professor, Rutgers University, SCILS– Email: mradford@scils.rutgers.edu– www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford
• Grant Website (slides posted here): http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-
User, and Librarian Perspectives
$1,103,572 project funded by:• Institute of Museum & Library Services (IMLS)
– $684,996 grant• Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey &
OCLC, Online Computer Library Center – $405,076 in kind contributions
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-
User, and Librarian Perspectives
Project duration: 2 Years (10/05-9/07)
Four phases:I. Focus group interviews
II. Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint live chat transcripts
III. 600 online surveys
IV. 300 telephone interviews
“Screenagers”
• Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff
• Used here for 12-18 year olds
• Affinity for electronic communication
• Youngest members of “Millennial Generation”
The Millennial Generation
• Born 1979 – 1994• AKA Net Generation, Generation Y,
Digital Generation, or Echo Boomers• 13-28 year olds• About 75 million people• By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers
(born 1946-1964)
The Millennial Generation
• May be most studied generation in history
• 4x amount of toys than Boomer parents 20 yrs. earlier
• Born digital, most can not remember life without computers
• Confident, hopeful, goal-oriented, civic-minded, tech savvy
• Younger members most likely to display Millennial characteristics
The Millennial Mind(Sweeney, 2006)
• Preferences & Characteristics– More Choices & Selectivity– Experiential & Exploratory Learners– Flexibility & Convenience– Personalization & Customization– Impatient– Less Attention to Spelling, Grammar– Practical, Results Oriented– Multi-taskers & Collaborators
Millennials, “Screenagers”
• Implications for academic libraries? – For traditional & virtual reference services?– For the future?
• Research project designed to answer these questions through focus group interviews & transcript analysis.
Phase I: Focus Group Interviews
• 8 in total
• 4 with non-users– 3 with “Screenagers” (rural, suburban,
& urban)
– 1 with college students (graduate)
• 2 with VRS librarians
• 2 with VRS users (college students & adults)
3 “Screenager” Focus Group Interviews33 Total Participants
• Location 13 (39%) Urban12 (36%) Suburban 8 (24%) Rural
• Gender15 (45%) Male 18 (55%) Female
• Age Range 12 – 18 years old
• Ethnicity21 (64%) Caucasian 6 (18%) African- American 6 (18%) Hispanic/Latino
• Grade Level 31 (94%) HS 2 (6%) JHS (Grade 7)
Focus Group Interviews: Major Themes
• Hold Librarian Stereotypes
• Prefer Independent Information Seeking
– Web surfing
• Prefer Face-to-Face Interaction
Focus Group Interviews: Major Themes
• Have Privacy/Security Concerns– Librarians as “psycho killers” ?– Fear of cyber stalkers
• Factors Influencing Future VRS Use– Recommendation of trusted librarian or friend– Marketing– Choice of librarian
Phase II: Transcript Analysis
• Random sample– 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months)– 479,673 QuestionPoint sessions total– Avg. 33/mo. = 600 total, 492 examined so far
• 431 usable transcripts – Excluding system tests & tech problems
• 191 of these highlighted today– 65 identified as “Screenagers”– 126 identified as primary/college/adult
Classification Method
Qualitative Analysis
• Development/refinement of category scheme
• Careful reading/analysis
• Identification of patterns
Time intensive, but reveals complexities!
Interpersonal Communication Analysis: Results
• Relational Facilitators– Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that
have a positive impact on the librarian-client interaction and that enhance communication.
• Relational Barriers– Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that
have a negative impact on the librarian-client interaction and that impede communication.
Transcript ExamplesPositive Example – Relational Facilitators
“Natural Resources of Washington”Question Type: Ready ReferenceSubject Type: EconomicsDuration: 19 min., 21 sec.
Negative Example – Relational Barriers “Bumper Cars”
Question Type: SubjectSubject Type: PhysicsDuration: 39 min.
Barriers – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)
• Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript) for:Abrupt Endings 26 (.4%) vs. 37 (.29%)
Impatience 6 (.09%) vs. 2 (.02%)
Rude or Insulting 2 (.03%) vs. 0
(n=191 transcripts)
Facilitators – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)
• Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence)Thanks 72 (1.1%) vs. 163 (1.3%)
Self Disclosure 41 (.63%) vs. 120 (.95%)
Seeking reassurance 39 (.6%) vs. 87 (.7%)
Agree to suggestion 39 (.6%) vs. 93 (.74%)
Closing Ritual 25 (.38%) vs. 69 (.55%)
Admit lack knowledge 10 (.15%) vs. 30 (.24%)
(n=191 transcripts)
Facilitators – More Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)
• Higher numbers/averages (per occurrence)Polite expressions 51 (.78%) vs. 40 (.32%)Alternate spellings 33 (.51%) vs. 19 (.15%)Punctuation/repeat 23 (.35%) vs. 28 (.22)Lower case 19 (.29%) vs. 24 (.19%)Slang 9 (.14%) vs. 3 (.02%)Enthusiasm 8 (.12%) vs. 9 (.07%)Self-correction 7 (.11%) vs. 6 (.05%)Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (.05%) vs. 0
(n=191 transcripts)
Implications for Practice
VRS is a natural for Screenagers (especially live chat reference)
• Do recommend/market your VRS services• Do reassure that VRS is safe• Do not throw wet blanket on their enthusiasm• Do encourage, mentor, & learn from them• Do use basic service excellence skills• Do try new social software applications
Future Directions
• Complete Phase II– Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint
transcripts
• Complete Phases III & IV
– Online Surveys (in progress)
– Telephone Surveys (coming soon, if interested in participating e-mail us: vrsgrant@rci.rutgers.edu)
End Notes
• This is one of the outcomes from the project Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives.
• Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University, & OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
• Special thanks to Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Susanna Sabolsci-Boros, Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, Vickie Kozo, & Timothy Dickey.
• Slides available at project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/
Questions
• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.– Email: connawal@oclc.org– www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm
• Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.– Email: mradford@scils.rutgers.edu– www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford