320 likes | 454 Views
Creating Chat Connections: E-valuating Virtual Reference Transcripts. Marie L. Radford ACRL Delaware Valley Chapter November 2, 2007. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives. Project duration: 2 ½ Years (10/05-3/08)
E N D
Creating Chat Connections: E-valuating Virtual Reference Transcripts Marie L. Radford ACRL Delaware Valley Chapter November 2, 2007
Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives Project duration: 2 ½ Years(10/05-3/08) Four phases: • Focus group interviews • Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat transcripts • 600 online surveys • 300 telephone interviews
Phase II: Transcript Analysis • Random sample • 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months) • 500,000+ pool of transcripts • 30-50 per month = 850 total sample • 746 usable transcripts • Excluding system tests & technical problems • 372 classified by age/educational level • 146 “Screenagers” (Middle & High School) • 226 “Others” (College/Adult)
6 Analyses • Geographical Distribution • Originating library • Librarian respondents • Type of Library • Wait Time & Session Time • Type of Questions • Katz/Kaske Classification • Subject of Questions • Dewey Decimal Classification • Interpersonal Communication • Radford Classification
VRS Session Times • Wait time • Mean – 1.87 Minutes • Median – 1 Minute • Minimum – 1 Second • Maximum – 67 Minutes • Session time • Mean – 12.42 Minutes • Median – 12 Minutes • Minimum – 12 Seconds • Maximum – 71 Minutes
Interpersonal Communication Analysis Theoretical Framework Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson (1967)Pragmatics of Human Communication • All messages have both content & relational dimension. • Content = Information (WHAT) • Relational = Relationship Aspects (HOW)
Method • Qualitative Analysis of Transcripts • Development of category scheme • Careful reading/analysis • Identification of patterns
Interpersonal Communication Research Questions • What relational dimensions are present in chat transcripts? • Are there differences in relational dimensions/patterns of chat users & librarians? If so, what are they?
Results • Relational Facilitators • Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a positive impact on the librarian-client interaction and that enhancecommunication. • Relational Barriers • Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a negative impact on the librarian-client interaction and that impede communication.
Transcript Examples – Relational Facilitators “The Size of an Atom” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: Life Sciences, Biology (DDC:570) Duration: 40 min. “Diabetes” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: Business Duration: 43 min., 15 sec.
Transcript Example – Relational Barriers “Mesopotamian Government” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: History of Ancient World (DDC:930) Duration: 27 min. “Telekinetic Powers” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: Parapsychology & Occultism Duration: 7 min., 29 sec.
Facilitators – VRS UsersScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Lower numbers/percentages per transcript SO Thanks 21% (75) vs. 77% (175) Agreement to try what 32% (46) vs. 51% (116) is suggested Closing Ritual 32% (47) vs. 49% (111) Self Disclosure 42% (61) vs. 55% (125) Seeking Reassurance 39% (57) vs. 49% (111) Admit lack knowledge 19% (13) vs. 21% (47)
Facilitators – VRS UsersScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Similar numbers/percentages per transcript SO Alternate Spelling/ 28% (41) vs. 27% (60) Abbreviated Words Informal Language 9% (13) vs. 9% (21) Offering Confirmation 8% (11) vs. 8% (13) Empathy 3% (4) vs. 4% (8)
Barriers – VRS UsersScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Higher numbers/percentages per transcript SO Impatience8% (12) vs. 6% (13) Rude or Insulting 6% (9) vs. 4% (9)
Facilitators - LibrariansScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Lower numbers/percentages per transcript L to SL to O Offering Opinion/Advice 29% (43) vs. 37% (83) Explaining Search Strategy 6% (9) vs. 14% (31) All Lower Case 11% (63) vs. 18% (43) Encouraging Remarks 12% (18) vs. 17% (39)
Facilitators - LibrariansScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Highernumbers/percentages per transcript L to SL to O Seeking Reassurance 61% (89) vs. 51% (115) Greeting Ritual 52% (76) vs. 48% (108) Asking for Patience 39% (57) vs. 35% (80) Explaining Signing off 5% (8) vs. 1% (2) Abruptly
Facilitators - Librarians Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Similarnumbers/percentages per transcript L to SL to O Polite Expressions 57% (83) vs. 56% (127) Inclusion 33% (48) vs. 34% (76) Thanks 22% (32) vs. 23% (51) Makes Sure User Has 18% (27) vs. 20% (45) No More Questions Interjections 8% (11) vs. 9% (20)
Barriers - LibrariansScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Higher numbers/percentages per transcript L to SL to O Abrupt Endings 16% (23) vs. 9% (20) Limits Time 6% (9) vs. 0% (1) Sends to Google 5% (8) vs. 0% (0) Reprimanding 4% (6) vs. 0% (1) Failure/Refusal to 5% (7) vs. 2% (5) Provide Information
Strategies that Work!All Modes of Reference • Basic interpersonal skills • Recognizing that user may need reassurance • Providing reassurance • Awareness of appropriate self-disclosure • When to disclose • Acknowledgment of user’s self-disclosure • Humor – importance of acknowledgment
More Strategies • Greetings & Closings. • Beware negative closure! • Beware robotic scripts! • Inclusion (use of we, let’s, etc.). • Mirror relational strategies. • Don’t b afraid 2 use informal language, abbreviations & emoticons as appropriate :)
Boost Satisfaction • Collaborate across generations • End encounter on a positive note. • Ask “Have I answered your question completely?” • Avoid “Negative Closure” • Invite to return to desk or e-service if further help needed.
Bottom Line • Communication critically important! • Difficult process • Generational differences add to complexity!! • Use your experience & intuition as guides.
Questions? • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford
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, & OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. • Special thanks to Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Patrick Confer, Timothy Dickey, Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Julie Strange, Janet Torsney, & Susanna Sabolski-Boros. • Slides available at project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/