html5-img
1 / 30

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts. Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway 2006 ALISE Conference San Antonio, TX, January 16-19, 2006 . Presenters Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers University, SCILS

ephraim
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 Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway 2006 ALISE Conference San Antonio, TX, January 16-19, 2006

  2. Presenters • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Associate Professor, • Rutgers University, SCILS • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. • Consulting Research Scientist • Email: connawal@oclc.org • www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm

  3. Interpersonal Dimensions of Chat Research Stream • S.S. Green Award 44 transcripts • (courtesy LSSI) • Maryland AskUsNow! 245 transcripts • (courtesy Maryland AskUsNow! Statewide Consortium) • Library Lawline 113 transcripts • (courtesy NELLCO Regional Consortium) • Seeking Synchronicity IMLS Grant • Rutgers & OCLC • Today’s presentation 300 transcripts • (24/7, National & International) • Additional 1000+ transcripts (QuestionPoint & 24/7)

  4. 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. 3 Analyses • Type of Questions • Katz/Kaske Classification • Subject of Questions • Interpersonal Communication • Radford Classification • Manual and NVivo coding

  6. Types of Questions Combined 1st and 2nd Questions n=273 questions

  7. Subjects of Questions Combined 1st and 2nd Questions n=273 questions

  8. Classification Methodology • Qualitative Analysis • Development/refinement of • category scheme • Careful reading/analysis • Identification of patterns • Time intensive, but reveals complexity

  9. Research Questions • Interpersonal Communication Analysis • What relational dimensions are present? • Are there differences in relational dimensions/patterns of chat users & librarians? • If so, what are they? • How do users & librarians compensate for lack of nonverbal cues? • What is the relationship between content & relational dimensions in determining quality?

  10. Results • Interpersonal Communication Analysis • 2 Major Themes • 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.

  11. Manual Coding Results • 200 Transcripts • 177 Usable Transcripts

  12. Librarian Relational Factors (1-200) Librarian Relational Facilitators: Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  13. Client Relational Facilitators:Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  14. Comparison Relational Facilitators: Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  15. Librarian Relational Barriers: Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  16. Client Relational Barriers: Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  17. Comparison of Relational Barriers:Manual Analysis n=177 transcripts

  18. NVivo Coding • 100 Transcripts • 79 Usable Transcripts

  19. Librarian Relational Facilitators:NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  20. Client Relational Facilitators:NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  21. Comparison Relational Facilitators: NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  22. Librarian Relational Barriers: NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  23. Client Relational Barriers: NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  24. Comparison Relational Barriers: NVivo Analysis n=79 transcripts

  25. NVivo Search Totals n=79 transcripts Includes words in scripts

  26. NVivo Search Totals n=79 transcripts Includes words in scripts

  27. NVivo Search Totals n=79 transcripts Includes words in scripts

  28. NVivo 2.0: Advantages • Advantages • Move subnodes between nodes at any time • Ability to create a hierarchical classification scheme • Proximity and Boolean searching • Group documents and nodes into sets for use in searching and analysis • Programmatically calculate descriptive statistics after coding

  29. NVivo 2.0: Disadvantages • Disadvantages • User interface does not match standard Microsoft application • Cannot double click on a document or node to open • Cannot scroll through a document using the mouse scroll wheel • Cannot import nodes • Cannot set certain tools to always appear • Must manually display the Coder bar and coding strips each time for every document/transcript • NVivo 7 to be released in Feb. 2006 • May alleviate disadvantages

  30. 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 and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center. Project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

More Related