240 likes | 320 Views
Service Sea Change: Clicking with “Screenagers” through Virtual Reference. Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Marie L. Radford Association of College & Research Libraries 13th National Conference Baltimore, MD March 29-April 1, 2007. Presenters. Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D .
E N D
Service Sea Change: Clicking with “Screenagers” through Virtual Reference Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Marie L. Radford Association of College & Research Libraries 13th National Conference Baltimore, MD March 29-April 1, 2007
Presenters • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. • Consulting Research Scientist, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. • Email: connawal@oclc.org • www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Associate Professor, Rutgers University, SCILS • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford • Grant Website (slides posted here):http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity
Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives $1,103,572 project funded by: • 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
Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives Project duration: 2 Years(10/05-9/07) Four phases: • Focus group interviews • Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint live chat transcripts • 600 online surveys • 300 telephone interviews
“Screenagers” • Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff • Used here for 12-18 year olds • Affinity for electronic communication • Youngest members of “Millennial Generation”
The Millennial Generation • Born 1979 – 1994 • AKA Net Generation, Generation Y, Digital Generation, or Echo Boomers • 13-28 year olds • About 75 million people • By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964)
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 • Younger members most likelyto display Millennial characteristics
The Millennial Mind(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
Millennials, “Screenagers” • Implications for academic libraries? • For traditional & virtual reference services? • For the future? • Research project designed to answer these questions through focus group interviews & transcript analysis.
Phase I: Focus Group Interviews • 8 in total • 4 with non-users • 3 with “Screenagers” (rural, suburban, & urban) • 1 with college students (graduate) • 2 with VRS librarians • 2 with VRS users (college students & adults)
Location 13 (39%) Urban 12 (36%) Suburban 8 (24%) Rural Gender 15 (45%) Male 18 (55%) Female Age Range 12 – 18 years old Ethnicity 21 (64%) Caucasian 6 (18%) African- American 6 (18%) Hispanic/Latino Grade Level 31 (94%) HS 2 (6%) JHS (Grade 7) 3 “Screenager” Focus Group Interviews33 Total Participants
Focus Group Interviews: Major Themes • Hold Librarian Stereotypes • Prefer Independent Information Seeking • Google • Web surfing • Prefer Face-to-Face Interaction
Focus Group Interviews: Major Themes • Have Privacy/Security Concerns • Librarians as “psycho killers” ? • Fear of cyber stalkers • Factors Influencing Future VRS Use • Recommendation of trusted librarian or friend • Marketing • Choice of librarian
Phase II: Transcript Analysis • Random sample • 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months) • 479,673 QuestionPoint sessions total • Avg. 33/mo. = 600 total, 492 examined so far • 431 usable transcripts • Excluding system tests & tech problems • 191 of these highlighted today • 65 identified as “Screenagers” • 126 identified as primary/college/adult
Classification Method Qualitative Analysis • Development/refinement of category scheme • Careful reading/analysis • Identification of patterns Time intensive, but reveals complexities!
Interpersonal Communication Analysis: 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 Positive Example – Relational Facilitators “Natural Resources of Washington” Question Type: Ready Reference Subject Type: Economics Duration: 19 min., 21 sec. Negative Example – Relational Barriers “Bumper Cars” Question Type: Subject Subject Type: Physics Duration: 39 min.
Barriers – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript) for: Abrupt Endings 26 (.4%) vs. 37 (.29%) Impatience 6 (.09%) vs. 2 (.02%) Rude or Insulting 2 (.03%) vs. 0 (n=191 transcripts)
Facilitators – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence) Thanks 72 (1.1%) vs. 163 (1.3%) 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)
Facilitators – More DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) • Higher numbers/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 (.02%) Enthusiasm 8 (.12%) vs. 9 (.07%) Self-correction 7 (.11%) vs. 6 (.05%) Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (.05%) vs. 0 (n=191 transcripts)
Implications for Practice VRS is a natural for Screenagers (especially live chat reference) • Do recommend/market your VRS services • Do reassure that VRS is safe • Do not throw wet blanket on their enthusiasm • Do encourage, mentor, & learn from them • Do use basic service excellence skills • Do try new social software applications
Future Directions • Complete Phase II • Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint transcripts • Complete Phases III & IV • Online Surveys (in progress) • Telephone Surveys(coming soon, if interested in participating e-mail us: vrsgrant@rci.rutgers.edu)
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 Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Susanna Sabolsci-Boros, Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, Vickie Kozo, & Timothy Dickey. • Slides available at project web site:http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/
Questions • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. • Email: connawal@oclc.org • www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford