Focusing on Change: Connecting to Both Millennials and Baby Boomers

1. Focusing on Change: Connecting to Both Millennials and Baby Boomers Presented by: Lynn Silipigni Connaway information: interactions & impact Conference Aberdeen, UK June 27, 2007

2. Libraries Then: Resources scarce, attention abundant Now: Attention scarce, resources abundant • Competition for attention

3. Libraries Then: The user built workflow around the library Now: The library must build its services around user workflow • Get into the flow • Disclose into other environments

4. Libraries • Provide systems and services to meet the information needs of differing groups • Largest groups • Baby boomers • Cohort #1 • Cohort #2 • Millennials • Screenagers

5. Baby Boomers(Luck, 2006; Gillon, 2004) • Actual “boom” in births occurred between 1946 - 1964 • 1950s - Time of prosperity • 1960s & 1970s - Time of social upheaval • Comprise largest part of workforce (45%)

6. Cohort #1 Born 1946 - 1954 Experimental Individualists Free spirited Social cause oriented Cohort #2 Born 1955 - 1964 Less optimistic Distrust of government General cynicism Baby Boomers(Wikipedia, 2007)

7. Baby BoomersPreferences & Characteristics(Luck, 2006; Gillon, 2004) • Optimistic about life and the future • Personal Gratification • Desire for self-gratification • Longing for personal & spiritual growth • Work/Job for life • American Dream • Self-absorbed – center of attention • Team Orientation • Health, Wellness, and Youth • Involvement

8. The Millennial Generation • Born 1979 – 1994 • AKA Net Generation, Generation Y, Digital Generation, or Echo Boomers • 13-28 year olds • About 75million people • By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964)

9. The Millennial Generation • May be most studied generation in history • 4x amount of toys than Boomer parents 20 yrs. earlier • Born digital, most can not remember life without computers • Confident, hopeful, goal-oriented, civic-minded, tech savvy

10. The Millennial Generation(Sweeney, 2006) • Preferences & Characteristics • More Choices & Selectivity • Experiential & Exploratory Learners • Flexibility & Convenience • Personalization & Customization • Impatient • Less Attention to Spelling, Grammar • Practical, Results Oriented • Multi-taskers & Collaborators

11. Screenagers • Youngest members of “Millennial Generation” • Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff • Used here for 12-18 year olds • Affinity for electronic communication

12. Two IMLS-Funded Projects Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives • Individuals' preferences for finding and using information sources and service • Why their first choices often donot include library sources and services

13. Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs Project funding Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) Ohio State University (OSU) OCLC, Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC) Project duration Calendar years, 2004-2006 Project phases • Literature reviews and dialogue • Sense-making surveys: online & phone • Focus group interviews • Semi-structured dialogues

14. Undergraduate Students: Search • Human resources • Dad • Friend • Roommates • Librarians (thorough search) • Google • Everything is current • Blogs • Discussion groups These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.

15. Undergraduate Students: Search • Electronic databases • Lexis Nexis • Amazon.com • Use Amazon.com first, then go to library catalog • Television programs • Discovery Channel These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.

16. Graduate Students: Search • Web and Google • Quick • Easy • Personal library • Library • Databases • EBSCO • Online journals and abstracts • Online books These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.

17. Graduate Students: Search • Human resources • Friends • Advisors • Class members • Professors • Peers • Colleagues • Experts • Internet These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.

18. Faculty: Search • Personal library – “quicker than online” • Amazon • Google • “quick and dirty” • “first stop” • Human Resources • Colleagues • Experts/Authorities in field • Personal information specialist These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.

19. Faculty: Search • Online resources • Web sites ending in .ORG • Google for definitions • Library • Academic journals • Journal databases • Books • Homepage • Electronic journal center • Databases These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.

20. Undergraduate Students:Did not use the library • Human resources • Dad • Parents • Professors • Google • Online Encyclopedia • JSTOR • Academic databases • Lexis Nexis • Personal library These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.

21. Graduate Students: Did not use the library • Internet and Google • Easy • Databases • Lexis-Nexis • OhioLink • Bookstores • Amazon.com • Personal library • Human resources • Professors • Dad • Peers • Other experts These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.

22. Faculty: Did not use the library • Human resources • Experts in academic community • Colleagues • Subscribed services and electronic databases (Prefer to Google for credibility) • PsychInfo • Amazon.com • Google for personal information These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.

23. Theoretical Framework • Role theory • Rational choice theory • Satisficing Theory

24. Role Theory Roles are social expectations for occupying a status. Understanding the “person-in-context” by situating a role within the larger social structure. What demands (expectations) do roles generate for information seekers (student, researcher)?

25. Rational Choice Theory • Purposive action: • Individuals act rationally within a cost-benefit framework to achieve a desired goal. • Information seekers rationally evaluate the benefits of usefulness and credibility of information versus costs of time and effort of retrieving it.

26. Satisficing Theory Theory of optimization Component of rational choice Actors implement the most satisfactory means to the most preferred ends. Satisficing describes stopping-behavior: actors “settling” in terms of preference satisfaction

27. Millennials • Information-seeking behavior • Role theory • Rational choice theory • Satisficing

28. Baby Boomers • Information-seeking behavior • Role theory • Rational choice theory

29. Emerging Themes:Internet • Convenient • Current • Familiarization tool

30. Emerging Themes:Library • Use for research • Access to databases, abstracts, and indexes • Desire ability to customize library portals • Value as place

31. Notes This presentation is one of the outcomes from the project “Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs." Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Ohio State University, and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., the project is being implemented by Brenda Dervin (Professor of Communication and Joan N. Huber Fellow of Social & Behavioral Science, Ohio State University) as Principal Investigator; and Lynn Silipigni Connaway (OCLC Consulting Research Scientist III) and Chandra Prahba (OCLC Senior Research Scientist), as Co-Investigators. More information can be obtained at: http://imlsosuoclcproject.jcomm.ohio-state.edu/

32. 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

33. Non-User (Screenager): Major Themes • Librarian stereotypes • Preference for independent information seeking • 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

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

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

40. 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

41. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior (1967) Essay: “On Face-Work: An analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction” “Much of the activity occurring during an encounter can be understood as an effort on everyone’s part to get through the occasion and all the unanticipated and unintentional events that can cast participants in an undesirable light, without disrupting the relationships of the participants” (Goffman, p. 41) Erving Goffman 1922-1982

42. Face Defined • Positive social value person claims • Self-image in terms of approved social attributes

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

44. Relational “HOW” message is to be taken Relationship of participants Dual Dimensions • Content • The “WHAT” • Information exchange

45. Users Highly value Librarian’s attitude & personal qualities Some value interpersonal aspects more than receipt of information Librarians More likely to value content, transfer of information Also value relationship qualities (but to a lesser degree) Two Views

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

47. Facilitators – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence) Thanks 72 (110%) vs. 163 (130%) Self Disclosure 41 (63%) vs. 120 (95%) Seeking reassurance 39 (6%) vs. 87 (7%) Agree to suggestion 39 (6%) vs. 93 (74%) Closing Ritual 25 (38%) vs. 69 (55%) Admit lack knowledge 10 (15%) vs. 30 (24%) (n=191 transcripts)

48. Facilitators – More DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Highernumbers/averages (per occurrence) Polite expressions 51 (78%) vs. 40 (32%) Alternate spellings 33 (51%) vs. 19 (15%) Punctuation/repeat 23 (35%) vs. 28 (22) Lower case 19 (29%) vs. 24 (19%) Slang 9 (14%) vs. 3 (2%) Enthusiasm 8 (12%) vs. 9 (7%) Self-correction 7 (11%) vs. 6 (5%) Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (5%) vs. 0 (n=191 transcripts)

49. Barriers – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript) for: Abrupt Endings26 (40%) vs. 37 (29%) Impatience6 (9%) vs. 2 (2%) Rude or Insulting2 (3%) vs. 0 (n=191 transcripts)

50. Facilitators – DifferencesMillennials (n=189) vs. Adults (n=48) • Lower averages (per transcript) Thanks 113 (60%) vs. 34 (71%) Self Disclosure 86 (46%) vs. 30 (63%) • Lower averages (per occurrence) Seeking reassurance108 (57%) vs. 38 (79%) Closing Ritual 83 (44%) vs. 25 (52%) Polite expressions 55 (29%) vs. 17 (35%) (n=237 transcripts)