Upload
wheatley-hamza
View
20
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Seeking Sustainability & Singularity:
Evaluating Virtual Reference From User, Non-user, & Librarian
Perspectives
Presented by Marie L. Radford
andLynn Silipigni Connaway
American Society for Information Science and Technology Conference
Austin, TexasNovember 3-9, 2006
Authors
• Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.– Associate Professor,– Rutgers University, SCILS– Email: [email protected]– www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford
• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.– Consulting Research Scientist– Email: [email protected]– www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm
• Grant Website (Slides will be posted): http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity
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
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
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
Participant Demographics8 Focus Group Interviews
• 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 DemographicsLibrarian Focus Group Interviews
• Ethnicity- Librarians– 20 Caucasian (95%) – 1 African- American (5%)
• Gender- Librarians– 14 Female (67%) – 7 Male (33%)
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%)
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%)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
VRS Users: Positive Major Themes
• Convenience
• Research/Information retrieval independence
• Collaborative – share work
• Knowledgeable service provider
VRS Users: Positive Major Themes
• Pleasant interpersonal environment
• Transcript of chat session
• Anonymity of VRS
• Immediacy of chat vs. email
• Allows multi-tasking
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
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
Implications for Future Research
• Study of Millennials– Implications for Library 2.0
• Services• Technology• Sources
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/
Questions and Discussion
• Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.– Email: [email protected]– www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford
• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.– Email: [email protected]– www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm