Service Sea Change: Clicking with

1
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

2
Presenters

• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
• Consulting Research Scientist, OCLC Online
  Computer Library Center, Inc.
• Email connawal_at_oclc.org
• www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm
• Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.
• Associate Professor, Rutgers University, SCILS
• Email mradford_at_scils.rutgers.edu
• www.scils.rutgers.edu/mradford
• Grant Website (slides posted here)
  http//www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicit
  y

3
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

4
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

5
Screenagers

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

6
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)

7
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 likely to display Millennial
  characteristics

8
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

9
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.

10
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)

11
3 Screenager Focus Group Interviews33 Total
Participants

• 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)

12
Focus Group Interviews Major Themes

• Hold Librarian Stereotypes
• Prefer Independent Information Seeking
• Google
• Web surfing
• Prefer Face-to-Face Interaction

13
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

14
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

15
Classification Method

• Qualitative Analysis
• Development/refinement of category scheme
• Careful reading/analysis
• Identification of patterns
• Time intensive, but reveals complexities!

16
Interpersonal Communication Analysis Results

• Relational Facilitators
• Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation
  that have a positive impact on the
  librarian-client interaction and that enhance
  communication.
• Relational Barriers
• Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation
  that have a negative impact on the
  librarian-client interaction and that impede
  communication.

17
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.

18
Barriers Differences Screenagers (n65) vs.
Others (n126)

• 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
• (n191 transcripts)

19
Facilitators Differences Screenagers (n65)
vs. Others (n126)

• 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)
• (n191 transcripts)

20
Facilitators More Differences Screenagers
(n65) vs. Others (n126)

• 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
• (n191 transcripts)

21
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

22
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_at_rci.rutgers.edu)

23
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/synchronicit
  y/

24
Questions

• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
• Email connawal_at_oclc.org
• www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm
• Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.
• Email mradford_at_scils.rutgers.edu
• www.scils.rutgers.edu/mradford