IL 2009@charbooth

UC BerkeleyL O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C H

* O b l i g a t o r y C l e v e r S u b t i t l e

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

@charbooth

UC BerkeleyIL 2009

@charbooth

UC BerkeleyIL 2009

technolust

themus

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

@weelib ra r ian

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

@wi l lkur t

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

@wi l lkur t

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

@gr i f fey

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

L O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C HIL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

* O b l i g a t o r y C l e v e r S u b t i t l e . . .

L O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C H

T a k i n g t h e A s s o u t o f A s s u m p t i o n

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

L O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C H

o r , P u t t i n g t h e A s s i n A s s e s s m e n t

IL 2009@charbooth

UC Berkeley

the point.

* understanding local patron cul tures is essent ia l

to crea t ing used and usefu l (technology) serv ices.

envi ronmenta l scanning is a scalab le means

of using data to test your not ions of true/fa lse.*

the digital divide.

them us

them.

them.

us.

(them * us)/context = ?

them us

LIBRARY 2.0

the panacea.

the questions.

* did l ib rary 2.0 and us/them th ink ing created a one-

size-fit s al l approach to technology deve lopment?

what mot ivates users to integ ra te lib ra ries in to

the ir personal learning env ironments?*

our context.

20,000+ students

large cen tr al fac i l it y

be ta-to leran t cul tu re

24/5 in fo commons

Oh ioLINK part icipan t

super wh i te

ohio

university

libraries

wikis

video kiosks

Skype reference

Meebo reference

blogs

social site profiles

browser toolbars

podcasts

the 2.0 “strategy”.

emerging services

wikis

Meebo reference

blogs

social site profiles

browser toolbars

podcasts

the (staff) problem.

= normal

= benign

= risqué

= scary

skype reference

video kiosks

text reference

video blogs

Second Life

emergingservices

“wikis”

video kiosks?

skype reference

Meebo reference

blogs

social site profiles

browser toolbars

…podcasts

text reference

video blogs

Second… Life

the (user) problem.

“wikis”

video kiosks?

skype reference

Meebo reference

blogs

social site profiles

browser toolbars

…podcasts

the (user) problem.

text reference

video blogs

Second… Life

technolust

the solution.

* invest igate the actual technology and library

needs/cu l tures of Ohio Univers i ty students.

the solution.

understand users

challenge assumptions

prioritize goals

evaluate needs

environmental scan

* invest igate the actual technology and library

needs/cu l tures of Ohio Univers i ty students.

technology

adoption

ownershipskills

use

library

perceptions

receptivityskills

use

the solution.

environmental scan

* invest igate the actual technology and library

needs/cu l tures of Ohio Univers i ty students.

the methodology.

S u r v e y 1 Survey 2

timeframe Winte r Quarte r 200 7-8 Sp rin g Qu ar t er 2008

design

55 on l ine q uest i ons , mos tl y closed-f or m ( Liker t scale , mul t . choice)

22 on l ine q uest i ons , mul t iple choice a nd o p en response

scope te chnology and l i bra ry us e lib rary use a nd p erce pt i ons

sample 3,648 r es pondents (1 8% o f st ude nt body)

1,651 r es pondents (8 % of st udent body)

incentive 3 $100 p ri zes aw ar d ed 1 $100 p ri ze awar de d

promotion all-s tu d en t e mai l , l ib rary b log all-s tu d en t e mai l , l ib rary b log

analysis descri pt i ves , c rosstab s cod ed veraba ti m response s

environmental scan

* invest igate the actual technology and library

needs/cu l tures of Ohio Univers i ty students.

findings | student technology ownership

Digital“immigrant”

Digital“native”

age of respondent

1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 3 1 +

w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%

s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%

b l o g s 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%

w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3%

p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1%

t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1%

w i k i s 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8%

f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%

m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%

f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%

y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%

t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%

d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%

findings | use of emerging technologies by age

age of respondent

1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 3 1 +

w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%

s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%

b l o g s 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%

w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3%

p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1%

t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1%

w i k i s 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8%

f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%

m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%

f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%

y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%

t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%

d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%

findings | use of emerging technologies by age

*

*

*

*

*

age of respondent

1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 3 1 +

w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%

s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%

b l o g s 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%

w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3%

p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1%

t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1%

w i k i s 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8%

f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%

m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%

f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%

y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%

t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%

d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%

findings | use of emerging technologies by age

*

*

*

*

findings | use of emerging technologies by age

age of respondent

1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 3 1 +

w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%

s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%

b l o g s 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%

w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3%

p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1%

t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1%

w i k i s 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8%

f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%

m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%

f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%

y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%

t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%

d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%

*

findings | relative technology unfamiliarity

findings | in-person and virtual library use

library computer use library visitslibrary web visits

findings | open-ended library assessment

findings | library technology receptivity

(% of total respondents using each technology)

36%

16%

6%

80%

86%

17%

findings | library technology receptivity

Digital St a t u s Academic Status

n a t i ve i m m i gr a nt u n d e rg r ad u a t e g r a d ua t e

V e r y r e ce p t i ve 23% 42% 23% 33%

S o m e wh a t r e c ep t iv e 53% 47% 53% 45%

N o t r e c ep t i v e 24% 11% 24% 22%

findings | library predisposition

Digital St a t u s Academic Status

n a t i ve i m m i gr a nt u n d e rg r ad u a t e g r a d ua t e

V e r y r e ce p t i ve 23% 42% 23% 33%

S o m e wh a t r e c ep t iv e 53% 47% 53% 45%

N o t r e c ep t i v e 24% 11% 24% 22%

**

**

*

the discovery.

* generat ional assumpti ons

li brary pred isposit ion

local user research.

them usredefin ing

the report + sample survey instrument.

ti nyur l .com/i i-booth

the end.

* cha r booth | @charbooth

e-l ea rning li brar ian | uc berke ley

cbooth@li brary .berke ley .edu

blog: in fomat ional .com