1 / 27

Meeting Information Needs: Non-Users' Behavior & Preferences

This study examines the behaviors and information-seeking preferences of non-users of virtual reference services, exploring why they choose alternative resources and what might influence them to try virtual reference. Findings reveal a reliance on the internet, personal networks, and librarians for information retrieval. Non-users value convenience, trustworthiness, and independence in their information-seeking process. The study suggests strategies to promote virtual reference services to non-users.

eknowlton
Download Presentation

Meeting Information Needs: Non-Users' Behavior & Preferences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. “I Find What I Need”Behaviors and Information-Seeking Preferences of Non-Users of Virtual Reference Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, OCLC Timothy J. Dickey, Ph.D. Post Doctoral Researcher, OCLC Jocelyn A. DeAngelis Williams Ph.D. Candidate, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

  2. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, & Librarian Perspectives • Funded by IMLS, Rutgers, OCLC • Project duration • 10/1/2005-3/30/2008 • Four phases • Focus group interviews* • Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint transcripts • 496 online surveys* • 283 telephone interviews* • * Interviews & Surveys with VRS Users, Non-users, & Librarians

  3. Phase I: Focus Groups • 4 Focus Groups (40 non-users interviewed): • 3 with “Screenagers” (rural, suburban, & urban) • 1 with college students (graduate) • 2 with VRS librarians • 2 with VRS users (college students & adults)

  4. 184 Online Surveys: Majority female & Caucasian Public library users outnumber school & academic library users More suburban than urban or rural Most 12-28 years old 107 Telephone Interviews: Majority female & Caucasian Public library users outnumber school & academic library users More suburban than urban or rural Most 19-28 years old Phases III & IV: Surveys & Interviews

  5. Two Theoretical Perspectives • Goffman (1959, 1967) • Impression Management • Ritual nature of human interaction • Facework & Facethreat • Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson (1967) • Every message has dual dimensions • Content = Information (What) • Relational = Interpersonal aspects (How to interpret)

  6. Libraries Today • Meet the information needs of differing groups • Largest groups: • Baby boomers (1945-1964) • Cohort #1 (Born 1946 – 1954) • Cohort #2 (Born 1955 – 1964) • Millennials (1979 – 1994) • Screenagers (Born 1988 -1994)

  7. Non-user Behaviors and Information-Seeking Preferences • Research Questions: • How do non-users of VRS meet information needs? • Why do they choose resources other than VRS? • What features attract them to these other resources? • What might influence them to try VRS?

  8. Major Findings • Non-user Behaviors and Information-Seeking Preferences

  9. How Do Non-users of VRS Meet Information Needs? • The Internet • Google • Wikipedia

  10. How Do Non-users of VRS Meet Information Needs? • People • (Phone to) Family members • Friends • Teachers/Professors • Experts in field/subject area

  11. How Do Non-users of VRS Meet Information Needs? • Librarians • Value of FtF interaction • Librarians’ expertise

  12. Why do Non-users Choose Resources Other than VRS? • Privacy/Security Concerns • Prefer a known librarian • Not “some psycho serial killer”

  13. Why do Non-users Choose Resources Other than VRS? • Trustworthiness & Accuracy • Librarian might... • be chatting with too many people • not be a specialist • withhold information knowingly

  14. Why do Non-users Choose Resources Other than VRS? • Independence • Prefer to do own search • Use the Internet • No librarian necessary

  15. What Features Attract VRS Non-users to Other Resources? • Convenience, convenience, convenience • Working from home • At night or on weekends • Millennials especially value convenience

  16. What Features Attract VRS Non-users to Other Resources? • Convenience & staying home • “To be honest with you, I don’t like to walk to the library.” (NTI-109)

  17. What Features Attract VRS Non-users to Other Resources? • Convenience & impatience • Work under deadlines • Cannot wait

  18. Reasons for Non-use of VRS • Boomers & Millennials Do not know • Service availability (the single greatest factor!) • Librarian can help • 24/7 availability Satisfied with other information sources

  19. Reasons for Non-use of VRS • Boomer concerns… • Their own • Computer literacy & • Typing speed • Complexity of chat environment

  20. What is Important for VRS Success? • Accuracy of answers/information • Especially value specific information requested • Librarian’s • Knowledge of sources & systems • Positive attitude • Good communication skills

  21. Some Concerns with VRS • Can VRS blend convenience & quality? • Quality of interaction • Librarian’s willingness to market & help • Personalized help

  22. What Might Influence Non-users to try VRS? • The Library can be Inconvenient • Limited hours • Limited collection • Depth • Breadth • Resources hard to use

  23. What Might Influence Non-users to try VRS? • Libraries are associated with BOOKS • Books aren’t convenient to retrieve from the library • Libraries are QUIET • For studying

  24. What Might Influence Non-users to Try VRS? • Creative marketing • Promote full range of reference options • Reassure that chat is safe • Build positive relationships 1 person at a time • Regardless of format • FtF • Phone • Online

  25. Future Directions for Study • Data collection completed • Analyses nearly completed • Studying critical factors by participant’s age & other demographics • Increasing, merging, & crossing-over from one mode to another (FtF, Phone, Chat, E-mail, etc.)

  26. End Notes • This is one outcome from the project, Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives, Marie L. Radford & Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Co-Principal Investigators. • Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University and OCLC. Special thanks to Patrick Confer, Heather Lea Moulaison, Andrea Simzak, Jannica Heinstrom, Lisa Rose-Wiles, and David M. Dragos. • These slides available at project website: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

  27. Questions & Comments • 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

More Related