1 / 31

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts. Presented by Lynn Silipigni Connaway OCLC Members Council February 14, 2006. Seeking Synchronicity : Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives. $1,103,572 project funded by:

kedem
Download Presentation

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts

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 Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts Presented by Lynn Silipigni Connaway OCLC Members Council February 14, 2006

  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 $684,996 grant • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey and OCLC Online Computer Library Center $405,076 in kind contributions

  3. Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives Project duration 10/1/2005-9/30/2007 Four phases: • Focus group interviews* • Analysis of 1,000 QuestionPoint transcripts • 600 online surveys* • 300 telephone interviews* *Interviews & surveys with VRS users, non-users, & librarians

  4. Phase II:24/7 Transcript Analysis • Generated random sample • July 7, 2004 through June 27, 2005 • 263,673 sessions • 25 transcripts/month = 300 total • 256 usable transcripts • Excluding system tests and technical problems

  5. 5 Analyses • Geographical Distribution • Type of Library • Type of Questions • Katz/Kaske Classification • Subject of Questions • Interpersonal Communication • Radford Classification • Manual and NVivo coding

  6. Geographical Distribution of Question Origination

  7. Type of Library

  8. Type of Questions Combined 1st and 2nd Questions n=273 questions

  9. Subjects of Questions Combined 1st and 2nd Questions n=273 questions

  10. Classification Methodology • Qualitative Analysis • Development/refinement of • category scheme • Careful reading/analysis • Identification of patterns • Time intensive, but reveals complexity

  11. Research Questions • Interpersonal Communication Analysis • What relational dimensions are present? • Are there differences in relational dimensions/patterns of chat users & librarians? • If so, what are they? • How do users & librarians compensate for lack of nonverbal cues? • What is the relationship between content & relational dimensions in determining quality?

  12. Results Interpersonal Communication Analysis • 2 Major Themes • 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.

  13. Manual Coding Results • 200 Transcripts • 177 Usable Transcripts

  14. Librarian Relational Factors (1-200) Librarian Relational Facilitators: Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  15. Client Relational Facilitators:Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  16. Comparison Relational Facilitators:Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  17. Librarian Relational Barriers: Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  18. Client Relational Barriers:Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  19. Comparison of Relational Barriers:Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  20. NVivo Coding • 100 Transcripts • 79 Usable Transcripts

  21. Librarian Relational Facilitators:NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  22. Client Relational Facilitators:NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  23. Comparison Relational Facilitators: NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  24. Librarian Relational Barriers: NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  25. Client Relational Barriers: NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  26. Comparison Relational Barriers: NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  27. NVivo Search Totals n=79 transcripts Includes words in scripts

  28. NVivo Search Totals n=79 transcripts Includes words in scripts

  29. Transcript Reading • Positive VRS experience • Duration = 1 hour 11 minutes • Academic User • Question – Boston drug company - diabetes • Relational Work • Enthusiastic user • Helpful librarian • Less than positive VRS experience • Duration = 39 minutes • Middle school or high school student • Question – physics – car acceleration • Poor reference work • Extreme negative closure

  30. End Notes This is one of the outcomes from the project Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives, Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Co-Principal Investigators. Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center. Project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

  31. Questions • 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