1 / 36

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Users and Librarians Engaging in Virtual Spaces: Using Critical Incidents to Inform Practice and Education in Chat Reference. Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, OCLC.

shirlyj
Download Presentation

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

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. Users and Librarians Engaging in Virtual Spaces: Using Critical Incidents to Inform Practice and Education in Chat Reference Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, OCLC

  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, Inc. $405,076 in kind contributions • Project duration: 2 ½ Years (10/05-3/08)

  3. Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives • Four phases: • Focus group interviews • Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat transcripts • Online surveys 176 VRS librarians 184 VRS non-users 60 VRS users (in progress, 200 targeted) • 300 telephone interviews

  4. Critical Incident Technique(Flanagan, 1954) • Qualitative technique • Focuses on most memorable event/experience of participants. • Allows categories or themes to emerge rather than be imposed.

  5. Critical Incident Technique:Online Survey Questions • Think about one experience in which you felt a chat reference encounter achieved (or did not achieve) a positive result. • Describe the circumstances and nature of the reference query. • Describe why you felt this encounter was a success (was not a success).

  6. Critical Incident Technique:Online Survey Questions • To Elicit Positive & Negative CI for Non-users • Think about one experience in which you felt you achieved (did not achieve) a positive result after seeking library reference services in any format. • Describe the circumstances and nature of your question. • Describe why you felt the encounter was successful/unsuccessful. • Did the format (face-to-face, telephone, email, or text messaging) help your experience to be successful/contribute to your lack of success? If yes, how?

  7. 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.

  8. Relational Theory & Approach to Interpersonal Communication • Every message has dual dimensions – both content and relational • (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967)

  9. Relational “HOW” message is to be taken Relationship of participants Dual Dimensions • Content • The “WHAT” of the message • Information exchange

  10. Librarian Demographics

  11. Librarian Demographics

  12. Librarians: Positive Result(CI N=143) • Number % • Primarily Relational3 2% • Primarily Content 56 39% • Both Relational & 84 59% • Content

  13. Librarians: Positive Result(CI N=143) • Relational Themes* Number % • Attitude 70 49% • Relationship quality 30 21% • Familiarity 4 3% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme

  14. Librarians: Positive Result(CI N=143) • Content Themes* • Number % • Providing information 125 87% • Demonstrating knowledge 16 11% • Providing instruction 50 35% • Convenience/multi- 11 8% • tasking/ time saving/ • money saving

  15. Librarians: Negative Result(CI N=126) • Number % • Primarily Relational46 36.5% • Primarily Content 45 35.5% • Both Relational & 35 28% • Content

  16. Librarians: Negative Result(CI N=126) • Relational Themes* • Number % • Attitude 68 54% • Relationship quality 32 25% • Approachability 2 2% • Impact of technology 3 2%

  17. Librarians: Negative Result(CI N=126) • Content Themes* • Number % • Information 75 60% • Lack of knowledge 6 5%

  18. User Demographics

  19. User Demographics

  20. Users: Positive Result(CI N=57) • Number % • Primarily Content 38 67% • Both Relational & 16 28% • Content • Primarily Relational 3 5%

  21. Users: Positive Result(CI N=57) • Content Themes* • Number % • Providing information53 93% • Demonstrating knowledge10 18% • Providing instruction3 5% • Convenience/multi- 9 16% tasking/time saving/ • money saving

  22. Users: Positive Result(CI N=57) • Relational Themes* • Number % • Attitude 22 39% • Relationship quality 8 14%

  23. Users: Negative Result(CI N=30) • Number % • Primarily Content 20 67% • Both Relational & 6 20% • Content • Primarily Relational 4 13%

  24. Users: Negative Result(CI N=30) • Content Themes* • Number % • Information 20 67% • Lack of knowledge 7 23%

  25. Users: Negative Result(CI N=30) • Relational Themes* • Number % • Attitude 8 27% • Relationship quality 3 10% • Impact of Technology 1 3%

  26. Non-user Demographics

  27. Non-user Demographics

  28. Non-users: Positive Result(CI N=149) • Number % • Primarily Content96 64% • Both Relational & 50 34% • Content • Primarily Relational32%

  29. Non-users: Positive Result(CI N=149) • Content Themes* • Number % • Providing information 123 83% • Demonstrating knowledge 47 32% • Providing instruction 25 17%

  30. Non-users: Positive Result(CI N=149) • Relational Themes* • Number % • Attitude 43 29% • Relationship quality 21 14% • Approachability 3 2%

  31. Non-users: Negative Result(CI N=106) • Number % • Primarily Content 53 50% • Primarily Relational33 31% • Both Relational & 20 19% • Content

  32. Non-users: Negative Result(CI N=106) • Content Themes* • Number % • Information 66 62% • Lack of knowledge 20 19% • Instruction 7 7%

  33. Non-users: Negative Result(CI N=106) • Relational Themes* • Number % • Attitude 36 34% • Relationship quality 12 11% • Approachability 18 17% • Impact of technology 1 1%

  34. Implications for Education • Important to VRS Users & Non-Users • Accuracy of answers/information • Knowledge of sources & systems • Positive attitude • Good communication skills • User education needed to give more realistic expectations for VRS • Marketing to attract Non-Users

  35. Future Directions • Online survey results have informed development of telephone interviews. • 100 Librarians (completed, analysis in progress) • 100 Users (in progress) • 100 Non-users (in progress)

  36. 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 Patrick Confer, Timothy Dickey, and Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams • Slides available at project web site:http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

More Related