1 / 19

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts. Presented by Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Marie L. Radford QuestionPoint Users Group Meeting June 25, 2006 New Orleans, Louisiana.

brooke-gentry
Download Presentation

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts Presented by Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Marie L. Radford QuestionPoint Users Group Meeting June 25, 2006 New Orleans, Louisiana

  2. Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives • $1,103,572 project funded by: • Institute of Museum and Library Services $684,996 grant • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey and OCLC Online Computer Library Center $405,076 in kind contributions

  3. 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

  4. Phase II:24/7 Transcript Analysis • Generated random sample • July 7, 2004 through June 27, 2005 • 263,673 sessions • 25 transcripts/month = 300 total • 256 usable transcripts • Excluding system tests and technical problems

  5. 6 Analyses • Geographical Distribution • Library receiving query • Library answering query • Type of Library • Type of Questions • Katz/Kaske Classification • Subject of Questions • Dewy Decimal Classification • Session Duration • Interpersonal Communication • Radford Classification

  6. n=255

  7. n=238

  8. n=256

  9. n=273

  10. n=273

  11. n=273

  12. Service Duration • Mean Service Duration: 13:53 • Median Service Duration: 10:37

  13. Focus Group InterviewsReasons for Using VRS • Convenient • Efficient • More reliable than search engines & free • Allows multi-tasking • Email follow-up & provision of transcript • Pleasant interpersonal experience • Librarian on first name basis – more personalized • Less intimidating than physical reference desk • Feel comfortable abruptly ending session

  14. Focus Group InterviewsReasons for not using VRS • Graduate students • Fear of • Bothering librarian • Looking stupid & advisors finding out • Questions may not be taken seriously • Potential technical problems • Bad experiences in FtF influence expectations of VRS • Screenagers • Virtual stalkers (“psycho killers”) • Not finding a trusted librarian • Unsure of what to expect

  15. Focus Group Interviews Challenges for Users & Non-Users • Speed and technical problems • Delayed response time • Librarians are not in users’ libraries • Fear of no subject expertise • Fear of overwhelming librarian

  16. Focus Group Interviews Suggestions from Users & Non-Users • Inclusion of multiple languages • Access to subject specialists • Better marketing and publicity • Information on how to connect and use VRS • Reassurance that users will not bother librarians – the library wants the service to be used • Faster technology • Improved interface design • More color • More attractive

  17. Next Steps • Conduct • Three focus group interviews – VRS users • Online survey & telephone interviews with VRS • Users • Non-users • Librarians • Analyses • Gender • User Type • Child/Young adult • Adult • Unknown

  18. End Notes This is one of the outcomes from the project Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives, Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Co-Principal Investigators. Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center. Project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

  19. Questions • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. • Email: connawal@oclc.org • www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm

More Related