1 / 23

Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway

Seeking Sustainability & Singularity: Evaluating Virtual Reference From User, Non-user, & Librarian Perspectives. Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway American Society for Information Science and Technology Conference Austin, Texas November 3-9, 2006. Authors.

holleb
Download Presentation

Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway

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. Seeking Sustainability & Singularity: Evaluating Virtual Reference From User, Non-user, & Librarian Perspectives Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway American Society for Information Science and Technology Conference Austin, Texas November 3-9, 2006

  2. Authors • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Associate Professor, • Rutgers University, SCILS • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. • Consulting Research Scientist • Email: connawal@oclc.org • www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm • Grant Website (Slides will be posted):http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity

  3. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives $1,103,572 project funding • 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

  4. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives • Project duration • Two-year project • October 2005-November 2007 • Four phases • Focus group interviews • Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint transcipts • 600 online surveys • 300 telephone interviews

  5. Phase I:Focus Group Interviews • 8 Focus Group Interviews • 2 with VRS librarians • 4 with VRS non-users • Screenagers • Rural • Suburban • Urban • College students • Graduate • 2 with VRS users • College students • Graduate • Undergraduate • Adults

  6. Total participants 21 Librarians (25%) 40 Non-users (48%) 23 Users (27%) Total librarians 13 Academic librarians (62%) 3 Public librarians (14%) 1 Government Librarian (5%) 4 Unknown (19%) Participant Demographics8 Focus Group Interviews

  7. Participant DemographicsLibrarian Focus Group Interviews • Ethnicity- Librarians • 20 Caucasian (95%) • 1 African- American (5%) • Gender- Librarians • 14 Female (67%) • 7 Male (33%)

  8. Participant DemographicsUser Focus Group Interviews • Ethnicity- Users • 15 Caucasian (68%) • 4 Asian (18%) • 2 African- American (9%) • 1 Hispanic/Latino (5%) • Gender- Users • 13 Male (59%) • 9 Female (41%)

  9. Participant DemographicsNon-user Focus Group Interviews • Ethnicity- Non-users • 18 Caucasian (45%) • 7 African- American (17.5%) • 6 Hispanic/Latino (15%) • 2 Asian (5%) • 7 Missing (17.5%) • Gender- Non-users • 23 Female (57.5%) • 17 Male (42.5%)

  10. VRS Librarians: Positive Themes • Interactivity • Opportunity to reach people and develop relationships • Providing accessibility • Access to librarians • Access to services and databases • Opportunity to learn • No geographic boundaries

  11. VRS Librarians: Negative Themes • Performance/Staffing • Job performance • Human resource allocation • Issues about pressure and accountability • Technological problems • Software • Learning curve for VRS librarians and users

  12. Non-User (Screenager): Major Themes • Librarian stereotypes • Preference for independent informationseeking • Google • Web surfing • Trust own ability to evaluate web resources more than librarians’ • Preference for face-to-face interaction • Value interpersonal interactions in Face-to Face

  13. Non-User (Screenager): Major Themes • Privacy/Security concerns • Librarians as “psycho killers” • Fear of cyber stalkers • Concern for accuracy of information • Chat takes too long • Factors influencing future VRS use • Recommendation • Marketing • Ability to choose a trusted librarian

  14. Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes • Most students prefer face-to-face librarian interactions • Reliable • Developing a personal relationship with a librarian • Utilize internet tools for information • Library website, Google, other internet resources

  15. Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes • Negative perceptions about VRS: • Sounds like a chat room, not professional, fear of question unsuitability, technology/learning curve • Fear of appearing stupid, or being negatively evaluated by the librarian. • Privacy concerns/ transcripts revealed to professors

  16. Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes • Factors influencing future VRS use • Recommendation by librarian/colleague • Developing confidence in service’s use, speed & access • Promotional campaign

  17. VRS Users: Positive Major Themes • Convenience • Research/Information retrieval independence • Collaborative – share work • Knowledgeable service provider

  18. VRS Users: Positive Major Themes • Pleasant interpersonal environment • Transcript of chat session • Anonymity of VRS • Immediacy of chat vs. email • Allows multi-tasking

  19. VRS Users: Negative Major Themes • Just another search engine • Generic responses • Distrust in information provided • Technical improvement suggestions • Face-to-face interaction preferred • Fear of overwhelming the librarian • Concerns about librarians’ lack of subject expertise

  20. Future Directions • Phases II, III, & IV • 1000+ Transcript analysis (in progress) • 600 Online surveys (in progress) • 300 Telephone surveys • Build on Phase II, III, & IV results

  21. Implications for Future Research • Study of Millennials • Implications for Library 2.0 • Services • Technology • Sources

  22. 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 and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center • Special thanks to Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, Vickie Kozo, & Timothy Dickey. • Slides available at project web site:http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

  23. Questions and Discussion • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. • Email: connawal@oclc.org • www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm

More Related