1 / 31

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

E-Valuating Virtual Viewpoints: User, Non-User, and Librarians Perspectives on Live Chat-Based Reference. Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, OCLC.

brier
Download Presentation

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

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. E-Valuating Virtual Viewpoints: User, Non-User, and Librarians Perspectives on Live Chat-Based Reference Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, OCLC Panel: E-Valuating E-Reference: Transforming Digital Reference through Research and Evaluating ASIST Annual Meeting October 24-29 2008 Columbus, OH

  2. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives $1,103,572 project funded by Institute of Museum and Library Services Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey OCLC, Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Four phases: Focus group interviews Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat transcripts Online surveys 176 VRS librarians 184 VRS non-users 137 VRS users Telephone interviews 283 Total

  3. Critical Incident Technique • Flanagan, 1954 • Qualitative technique • Focuses on most memorable event/experience • Allows categories or themes to emerge rather than be imposed

  4. Online Survey CI Questions Librarians & Users Think about one experience in which you felt a chat reference encounter achieved (or did not achieve) a positive result Non-users Think about one experience in which you felt you achieved (did not achieve) a positive result after seeking library reference services in any format

  5. Interpersonal Communication Analysis: Results Relational Facilitators Interpersonal aspects of chat conversation that have apositiveimpact on librarian-client interaction & thatenhancecommunication. Relational Barriers Interpersonal aspects of chat conversation that have anegativeimpact on librarian-client interaction & thatimpedecommunication.

  6. Relational Theory & Approach to Interpersonal Communication Every message has dual dimensions – both content & relational (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967)

  7. Librarians: Positive Result(CI N=142) Number % • Both Relational & 85 60% Content • Primarily Content 54 38% • Primarily Relational3 2%

  8. Librarians: Positive Result(CI N=142) Relational Themes* Number % • Attitude 69 49% • Relationship quality 33 23% • Familiarity 3 2% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  9. Librarians: Positive Result(CI N=142) Content Themes* Number % • Providing information 120 85% • Providing instruction 49 35% • Demonstrating knowledge 14 10% • Convenience/multi- 10 7% tasking/ time or money saving *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  10. Librarians: Negative Result(CI N=124) Number % • Primarily Relational53 43% • Primarily Content 40 32% • Both Relational & 31 25% Content

  11. Librarians: Negative Result(CI N=124) Relational Themes* Number % • Attitude 67 54% • Relationship quality 28 23% • Impact of technology 7 6% • Approachability 1 1% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  12. Librarians: Negative Result(CI N=124) Content Themes* Number % • Lack of information 64 52% • Lack of knowledge 15 12% • Task unreasonable 1 1% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  13. Users: Positive Result(CI N=129) Number % • Primarily Content 79 61% • Both Relational & 33 26% Content • Primarily Relational 17 13%

  14. Users: Positive Result(CI N=129) Content Themes* Number % • Providing information91 71% • Convenience/multi- 36 28% tasking/time saving/ money saving • Providing instruction14 11% • Demonstrating knowledge7 5% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  15. Users: Positive Result(CI N=129) Relational Themes* Number % • Attitude 36 28% • Relationship quality 21 16% • Impact of technology 1 1% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  16. Users: Negative Result(CI N=68) Number % • Primarily Content 46 68% • Primarily Relational15 22% • Both Relational & 7 10% Content

  17. Users: Negative Result(CI N=68) Content Themes* Number % • Lack of information 48 71% • Lack of knowledge 8 12% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  18. Users: Negative Result(CI N=68) Relational Themes* Number % • Relationship quality 17 25% • Attitude 13 19% • Approachability 1 1% • Impact of Technology 1 1% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  19. Non-users: Positive Result(CI N=154) Number % • Primarily Content79 51% • Both Relational & 48 31% Content • Primarily Relational2718%

  20. Non-users: Positive Result(CI N=154) Content Themes* Number % • Providing information 75 49% • Providing instruction 35 23% • Demonstrating knowledge 21 14% • Convenience/multi- 18 12% tasking/time saving/ money saving *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  21. Non-users: Positive Result(CI N=154) Relational Themes* Number % • Attitude 51 33% • Impact of FtF assisting 32 21% relationship development • Relationship quality 25 16% • Impact of phone/Email 5 3% assisting information seeking process • Approachability 4 3% • Familiarity 1 1% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  22. Non-users: Negative Result(CI N=100) Number % • Primarily Content 52 52% • Primarily Relational33 33% • Both Relational & 15 15% Content

  23. Non-users: Negative Result(CI N=100) Content Themes* Number % • Information 60 60% • Lack of knowledge 24 24% • Instruction 9 9% • Task unreasonable 4 4% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  24. Non-users: Negative Result(CI N=100) Relational Themes* Number % • Attitude 47 47% • Relationship quality 24 24% • Approachability 3 3% • Impact of technology 2 2% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  25. Implications: Librarians • Value • Delivery of accurate answers/ information • Polite, interested users • Find rude or impatient users disruptive to chat success

  26. Implications: Users & Non-Users • Value • Accuracy of answers/information • Delivery of specific content • Knowledge of sources & systems • Positive attitude • Good communication skills • Younger VRS users • Impatient & want info delivered quickly - no fuss • Not as concerned as librarians w/ instruction

  27. Recommendations • Provide • Specific info • Variety of formats • Friendly & courteous service • Marketing to non-users • User education needed for more realistic expectations • Do not force instruction unless wanted

  28. Future Directions Online survey results informed 283 telephone interviews • Collected more critical incidents • Analysis in progress

  29. Future Directions • Write, write, write!

  30. Special Thanks Rutgers University & OCLC Grant Project Team Project Managers: Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams Timothy J. Dickey Research Assistants: Patrick A. Confer David Dragos Jannica Heinstrom Vickie Kozo Mary Anne Reilly Lisa Rose-Wiles Susanna Sabolsci-Boros Andrea Simzak Julie Strange Janet Torsney

  31. End Notes This is an updated version of a presentation given at ALISE 2008 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. Slides available at project web site:http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

More Related