Upload
frayne
View
33
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Seeking Synchronicity: Viewpoints of VRS Users, Librarians, and Non-Users on Live Chat Reference. Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey British Columbia Library Conference Burnaby, BC April 17, 2009. Libraries Today – Rapid Change. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Seeking Synchronicity:Viewpoints of VRS Users, Librarians, and
Non-Users on Live Chat Reference
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate ProfessorRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
British Columbia Library ConferenceBurnaby, BC
April 17, 2009
Libraries Today – Rapid Change
• Vying for information seekers’ attention
• Must re-engineer to accommodate users’ workflows & habits
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, & Librarian PerspectivesIMLS, Rutgers Univ. & OCLC funded project
Focus group interviewsTranscript analysis (850)Online surveys (496)
175 VRS librarians, 184 VRS non-users, 137 VRS users
Telephone interviews (283) Total100 VRS librarians, 107 VRS non-users, 76 VRS users
Online Surveys
•Descriptive statistical analysis– Demographic– Multiple-choice– Likert-type
•Qualitative analysis– Open-ended – 2 critical incident (CI) questions
The Net Generation
•Born 1979 - 1994• Millennials• EchoBoomers• Gen Y
•Socially networked environment •Different communication & information-seeking behaviors
Screenagers
• Youngest of Net Generation
• Born 1988 -1994– Now 15-21 years old
• Affinity for technology• Expect instant access
VRS User Demographics (N=137)
Net Gen (N=49)•Even nos. M-F •19-28 years old
(47%, 23)•Caucasian (67%, 33)
Adult, 29+ (N=88)•Female (68%, 60)•36-45 years old
(38%, 33)•Caucasian (84%, 74)
Chat Least Intimidating to VRS Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)
"I am least intimidated by"
04%14%
6%
76%
016%
5%
33%
47%
01020304050607080
FtF Phone Email Text Chat
Net GenVRS UsersAdult VRSUsers
"The probability that I will use reference services again is"
82%
92%
76788082848688909294
Net Gen VRS Users Adult VRS Users
Excellent orVery Good
VRS Users Likely to be Repeat Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)
Recommendation Important to VRS UsersNet Gens (N=49)
• Used VRS because recommended
• Recommended VRS more than adults
What Attracts Users to VRS? Users (N=137)
•Convenience– Available 24/7
• Working from home• Nights or weekends
– Immediate answers – Lack of cost – Efficient
•Less intimidating
Why Users Don’t Always Choose VRS?Net Gens (N=49)
• Unhelpful answers• Non-subject specialists• Slow connections• Scripted messages• Cold environment
What Would Attract Users to VRS?Net Gens (N=49)
•Faster & easier software•Personalized interface•Reliable co-browsing•More service hours•Kiosk & cybercafe access•Experienced, tech-savvy librarians
VRS Non-user Demographics (N=184)
Net Gen (N=122)•Female (66%, 81)• 19-28 years old
(51%, 62) •Caucasian (65%, 79)
Adult, 29+ (N=62)•Female (71%, 44) • 46-55 years old (31%, 19) •Caucasian (87%, 52)
FtF Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)
• Adults (81%, 50)
• Net Gens (71%, 87)
FtF Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)
“I most enjoy using”
Phone (11.48%)
Email (27.05%)
Text Messaging (12.30%)
FtF (49.18%)
Email Less Intimidating to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)
“I am least intimidated by”
Email (50.82%)
Phone (12.30%)
FtF (19.67%)
Text Messaging (17.21%)
Phone Reference Never Used by VRS Non-users
Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)
• Net Gens (78%, 95)
• Adults (60%, 27)
Convenience Also Important to VRS Non-UsersNet Gens (N=87) Adults (N=51)
•Net Gens (87%, 76)
•Adults (78%, 40)
Remote Access Important to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=13)
•Net Gens (95%, 39)
•Adults (85%, 13)
Interpersonal Communication Valued by VRS Non-users
Net Gens (N=86) Adults (N=51)
•Personal Relationship– Adults (43%, 22)– Net Gens (24%, 24)
•Specific Librarian– Adults (51%, 26) – Net Gens (42%, 36)
"The Librarian Is Friendly and Polite"
69%
29%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Net Gen VRS Non-users
Adult VRS Non-users
VeryImportantorImportant
Interpersonal Communication Valued by VRS Non-Users
Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=14)
Why Don’t Non-Users Choose VRS? Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)
•Too complicated– Adults (53%, 33)– Net Gens (35%, 43)
•Typing skills poor– Adults (35%, 22)– Net Gens (16%, 19)
Why Don’t Non-Users Choose VRS?Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)
•Believe questions might annoy librarian
–Net Gens (29%, 32)–Adults (16%, 10)
Why Don’t Non-Users Choose VRS?Net Gens (N=122)
•Don’t know it is available•Believe librarian couldn’t
help•Lack of 24/7 service•Satisfied w/ other info sources
Why Don’t Non-Users Choose VRS ?Adults (N=62)
• Same as Net-Gen:• Don’t know it is available• Believe librarian couldn’t help• Lack of 24/7 service• Satisfied w/ other info sources
• But also:• Lack computer skills• Type slowly• Complex chat environment
Critical Incident Technique (CIT)
• Flanagan (1954)• Qualitative technique• Focuses on most
memorable event/experience
• Allows categories or themes to emerge rather than be imposed
VRS User Positive CIs Net Gens (N=48)
Successful Experience• Accurate
answers/info • Quick assistance• Located specific
resources • Convenient
VRS User Negative CIs Net Gens (N=30)
Unsuccessful Experience• Librarian
– Impeded info delivery or retrieval
– Didn’t answer question
VRS Non-user Positive CIsNet Gens (N=108)
• Successful Experience Librarian– Info delivery/retrieval – Answered questions– Located specific resources – Positive attitude (them &
task)
VRS Non-user Negative CIsNet Gens (N=74)
Unsuccessful Experience
Librarian– Impeded information
delivery or retrieval• Missing resources• Slow providing answers
– Negative attitude to task
Librarians - What is Important for Success? (N=82)
• Content – Highly Valued• Accuracy of answers/information
• Relational – Highly Attuned• User’s positive attitude• User’s willingness to be patient & open to
suggestions
What We Learned
• FtF & VRS Users want– Extended hours of service – Access to electronic
information– Interact w/ friendly
librarians – Relationships with
librarians– Personalized service
Encourage Future Users - What We Can Do
• Creative marketing – Promote range of options– Promote convenience– Reassure VRS is safe– Teach VR in Info. Literacy
• Emphasize personal service– Build positive relationships
FtF, phone, or online
What We Can Do
• Understand them to provide better service
• Can’t beat ‘em – join ‘em• Leverage impatience• Enjoy their enthusiasm!
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 Co- PI, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, OCLC
• Project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/
Questions & Comments?
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey