Focusing on change connecting to both millennials and baby boomers
Download
1 / 55

Focusing on Change: Connecting to Both Millennials and Baby Boomers - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 144 Views
  • Uploaded on

Focusing on Change: Connecting to Both Millennials and Baby Boomers . Presented by: Lynn Silipigni Connaway information: interactions & impact Conference Aberdeen, UK June 27, 2007. Libraries. Then : Resources scarce, attention abundant Now : Attention scarce, resources abundant

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Focusing on Change: Connecting to Both Millennials and Baby Boomers' - aelwen


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Focusing on change connecting to both millennials and baby boomers l.jpg

Focusing on Change: Connecting to Both Millennials and Baby Boomers

Presented by: Lynn Silipigni Connaway

information: interactions & impact Conference

Aberdeen, UK

June 27, 2007


Libraries l.jpg
Libraries

Then: Resources scarce, attention abundant

Now: Attention scarce, resources abundant

  • Competition for attention


Libraries3 l.jpg
Libraries

Then: The user built workflow around the library

Now: The library must build its services around user workflow

  • Get into the flow

  • Disclose into other environments


Libraries4 l.jpg
Libraries

  • Provide systems and services to meet the information needs of differing groups

    • Largest groups

      • Baby boomers

        • Cohort #1

        • Cohort #2

      • Millennials

        • Screenagers


Baby boomers luck 2006 gillon 2004 l.jpg
Baby Boomers(Luck, 2006; Gillon, 2004)

  • Actual “boom” in births occurred between 1946 - 1964

  • 1950s - Time of prosperity

  • 1960s & 1970s - Time of social upheaval

  • Comprise largest part of workforce (45%)


Baby boomers wikipedia 2007 l.jpg

Cohort #1

Born 1946 - 1954

Experimental

Individualists

Free spirited

Social cause oriented

Cohort #2

Born 1955 - 1964

Less optimistic

Distrust of government

General cynicism

Baby Boomers(Wikipedia, 2007)


Baby boomers preferences characteristics luck 2006 gillon 2004 l.jpg
Baby BoomersPreferences & Characteristics(Luck, 2006; Gillon, 2004)

  • Optimistic about life and the future

  • Personal Gratification

    • Desire for self-gratification

  • Longing for personal & spiritual growth

  • Work/Job for life

  • American Dream

  • Self-absorbed – center of attention

  • Team Orientation

  • Health, Wellness, and Youth

  • Involvement


The millennial generation l.jpg
The Millennial Generation

  • Born 1979 – 1994

  • AKA Net Generation, Generation Y, Digital Generation, or Echo Boomers

  • 13-28 year olds

  • About 75million people

  • By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964)


The millennial generation9 l.jpg
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


The millennial generation sweeney 2006 l.jpg
The Millennial Generation(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


Screenagers l.jpg
Screenagers

  • Youngest members of “Millennial Generation”

  • Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff

  • Used here for 12-18 year olds

  • Affinity for electronic communication


Two imls funded projects l.jpg
Two IMLS-Funded Projects

Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives

  • Individuals' preferences for finding and using information sources and service

  • Why their first choices often donot include library sources and services


Slide13 l.jpg
Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs

Project funding

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)

Ohio State University (OSU)

OCLC, Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC)

Project duration

Calendar years, 2004-2006

Project phases

  • Literature reviews and dialogue

  • Sense-making surveys: online & phone

  • Focus group interviews

  • Semi-structured dialogues


Undergraduate students search l.jpg
Undergraduate Students: Search

  • Human resources

    • Dad

    • Friend

    • Roommates

    • Librarians (thorough search)

  • Google

    • Everything is current

  • Blogs

  • Discussion groups

These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.


Undergraduate students search15 l.jpg
Undergraduate Students: Search

  • Electronic databases

    • Lexis Nexis

  • Amazon.com

    • Use Amazon.com first, then go to library catalog

  • Television programs

    • Discovery Channel

These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.


Graduate students search l.jpg
Graduate Students: Search

  • Web and Google

    • Quick

    • Easy

  • Personal library

  • Library

    • Databases

      • EBSCO

    • Online journals and abstracts

  • Online books

These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.


Graduate students search17 l.jpg
Graduate Students: Search

  • Human resources

    • Friends

    • Advisors

    • Class members

    • Professors

    • Peers

    • Colleagues

    • Experts

  • Internet

These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.


Faculty search l.jpg
Faculty: Search

  • Personal library – “quicker than online”

  • Amazon

  • Google

    • “quick and dirty”

    • “first stop”

  • Human Resources

    • Colleagues

    • Experts/Authorities in field

    • Personal information specialist

These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.


Faculty search19 l.jpg
Faculty: Search

  • Online resources

    • Web sites ending in .ORG

    • Google for definitions

  • Library

    • Academic journals

    • Journal databases

    • Books

    • Homepage

  • Electronic journal center

  • Databases

These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.


Undergraduate students did not use the library l.jpg
Undergraduate Students:Did not use the library

  • Human resources

    • Dad

    • Parents

    • Professors

  • Google

  • Online Encyclopedia

  • JSTOR

  • Academic databases

    • Lexis Nexis

  • Personal library

These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.


Graduate students did not use the library l.jpg
Graduate Students: Did not use the library

  • Internet and Google

    • Easy

  • Databases

    • Lexis-Nexis

  • OhioLink

  • Bookstores

  • Amazon.com

  • Personal library

  • Human resources

    • Professors

    • Dad

    • Peers

    • Other experts

These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.


Faculty did not use the library l.jpg
Faculty: Did not use the library

  • Human resources

    • Experts in academic community

    • Colleagues

  • Subscribed services and electronic databases (Prefer to Google for credibility)

    • PsychInfo

  • Amazon.com

  • Google for personal information

These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.


Theoretical framework l.jpg
Theoretical Framework

  • Role theory

  • Rational choice theory

  • Satisficing Theory


Role theory l.jpg
Role Theory

Roles are social expectations for occupying a status.

Understanding the “person-in-context” by situating a role within the larger social structure.

What demands (expectations) do roles generate for information seekers (student, researcher)?


Rational choice theory l.jpg
Rational Choice Theory

  • Purposive action:

  • Individuals act rationally within a cost-benefit framework to achieve a desired goal.

  • Information seekers rationally evaluate the benefits of usefulness and credibility of information versus costs of time and effort of retrieving it.


Satisficing theory l.jpg

Satisficing Theory

Theory of optimization

Component of rational choice

Actors implement the most satisfactory means to the most preferred ends.

Satisficing describes stopping-behavior: actors “settling” in terms of preference satisfaction


Millennials l.jpg
Millennials

  • Information-seeking behavior

    • Role theory

    • Rational choice theory

    • Satisficing


Baby boomers l.jpg
Baby Boomers

  • Information-seeking behavior

    • Role theory

    • Rational choice theory


Emerging themes internet l.jpg
Emerging Themes:Internet

  • Convenient

  • Current

  • Familiarization tool


Emerging themes library l.jpg
Emerging Themes:Library

  • Use for research

    • Access to databases, abstracts, and indexes

  • Desire ability to customize library portals

  • Value as place


Notes l.jpg
Notes

This presentation is one of the outcomes from the project “Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs." Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Ohio State University, and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., the project is being implemented by Brenda Dervin (Professor of Communication and Joan N. Huber Fellow of Social & Behavioral Science, Ohio State University) as Principal Investigator; and Lynn Silipigni Connaway (OCLC Consulting Research Scientist III) and Chandra Prahba (OCLC Senior Research Scientist), as Co-Investigators. More information can be obtained at: http://imlsosuoclcproject.jcomm.ohio-state.edu/


Slide32 l.jpg
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives

  • Project duration

    • 10/1/2005-9/30/2007

  • Four phases:

    • Focus group interviews*

    • Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint transcripts

    • 600 online surveys*

    • 300 telephone interviews*

*Interviews & surveys with VRS users, non-users, & librarians


Non user screenager major themes l.jpg
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 themes34 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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 themes36 l.jpg
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 themes37 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
VRS Users: Positive Major Themes

  • Convenience

  • Research/Information retrieval independence

  • Collaborative – share work

  • Knowledgeable service provider


Vrs users positive major themes39 l.jpg
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 l.jpg
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


Interaction ritual essays on face to face behavior 1967 l.jpg
Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior (1967)

Essay: “On Face-Work: An analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction”

“Much of the activity occurring during an encounter can be understood as an effort on everyone’s part to get through the occasion and all the unanticipated and unintentional events that can cast participants in an undesirable light, without disrupting the relationships of the participants”

(Goffman, p. 41)

Erving Goffman

1922-1982


Face defined l.jpg
Face Defined

  • Positive social value person claims

  • Self-image in terms of approved social attributes


Relational theory approach to interpersonal communication l.jpg
Relational Theory & Approach to Interpersonal Communication

Every message has dual dimensions – both content and relational

(Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967)


Dual dimensions l.jpg

Relational

“HOW” message is to be taken

Relationship of participants

Dual Dimensions

  • Content

    • The “WHAT”

    • Information exchange


Two views l.jpg

Users

Highly value Librarian’s attitude & personal qualities

Some value interpersonal aspects more than receipt of information

Librarians

More likely to value content, transfer of information

Also value relationship qualities (but to a lesser degree)

Two Views


Interpersonal communication analysis results l.jpg
Interpersonal Communication Analysis: Results

  • Relational Facilitators

    • Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have apositiveimpact on the librarian-client interaction and thatenhancecommunication.

  • Relational Barriers

    • Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have anegativeimpact on the librarian-client interaction and thatimpedecommunication.


Facilitators differences screenagers n 65 vs others n 126 l.jpg
Facilitators – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)

  • Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence)

    Thanks 72 (110%) vs. 163 (130%)

    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 differences screenagers n 65 vs others n 126 l.jpg
Facilitators – More DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)

  • Highernumbers/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 (2%)

    Enthusiasm 8 (12%) vs. 9 (7%)

    Self-correction 7 (11%) vs. 6 (5%)

    Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (5%) vs. 0

    (n=191 transcripts)


Barriers differences screenagers n 65 vs others n 126 l.jpg
Barriers – DifferencesScreenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)

  • Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript) for:

    Abrupt Endings26 (40%) vs. 37 (29%)

    Impatience6 (9%) vs. 2 (2%)

    Rude or Insulting2 (3%) vs. 0

    (n=191 transcripts)


Facilitators differences millennials n 189 vs adults n 48 l.jpg
Facilitators – DifferencesMillennials (n=189) vs. Adults (n=48)

  • Lower averages (per transcript)

    Thanks 113 (60%) vs. 34 (71%)

    Self Disclosure 86 (46%) vs. 30 (63%)

  • Lower averages (per occurrence)

    Seeking reassurance108 (57%) vs. 38 (79%)

    Closing Ritual 83 (44%) vs. 25 (52%)

    Polite expressions 55 (29%) vs. 17 (35%)

    (n=237 transcripts)


Facilitators more differences millennials n 189 vs adults n 48 l.jpg
Facilitators – More DifferencesMillennials (n=189) vs. Adults (n=48)

  • Higheraverages (per occurrence)

    Agree to suggestion 132 (70%) vs. 22 (46%)

    Lower case 36 (19%) vs. 5 (10%)

    Greeting Ritual 36 (19%) vs. 5 (10%)

    Admit lack knowledge 36 (19%) vs. 3 (6%)

    Interjections 36 (19%) vs. 3 (6%)

    Slang 14 (7%) vs. 0

    (n=237 transcripts)


Barriers differences millennials n 189 vs adults n 48 l.jpg
Barriers – DifferencesMillennials (n=189) vs. Adults (n=48)

  • Higher averages (per transcript) for:

    Abrupt Endings72 (38%) vs. 15 (31%)

    Impatience 9 (5%) vs. 1 (2%)

    Rude or Insulting3 (2%) vs. 0

    (n=237 transcripts)


Notes53 l.jpg
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, Mary Anne Reilly, Vickie Kozo, David Dragos & Timothy Dickey.

  • Slides available at project web site:http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/


Conclusions l.jpg
Conclusions

  • Create a library experience which matches the experience of the web

    • Easy search functionality

      • Integrated library search for all sources

    • Social networking software

    • Recommender service

    • Click-through to online sources

    • Point of need reference services

      • Instant messaging reference services


Questions and comments l.jpg

Questions and Comments

Lynn Silipigni Connaway

[email protected]

Marie L. Radford

[email protected]


ad