1 / 16

“Hmmm…Just a Moment While I Keep Looking:” Interpersonal Communication in Chat Reference

“Hmmm…Just a Moment While I Keep Looking:” Interpersonal Communication in Chat Reference. Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Acting Dean, Pratt Institute School of Information & Library Science mradford@prodigy.net Joseph A. Thompson, Maryland Ask Us Now! Jthompson@bcpl.net

kayla
Download Presentation

“Hmmm…Just a Moment While I Keep Looking:” Interpersonal Communication in Chat Reference

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. “Hmmm…Just a Moment While I Keep Looking:” Interpersonal Communication in Chat Reference Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Acting Dean, Pratt Institute School of Information & Library Science mradford@prodigy.net Joseph A. Thompson, Maryland Ask Us Now! Jthompson@bcpl.net ALA, Orlando, FL June 26, 2004

  2. Theoretical Framework Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson (1967) (Pragmatics of Human Communication) • All messages have both a content and relational dimension. • Content = Information (WHAT) • Relational = Relationship Aspects (HOW)

  3. ResearchQuestions • What relational dimensions are present in chat transcripts? • Are there differences in the relational dimensions/patterns of chat users & librarians? If so, what are they? • How do users & librarians compensate for lack of nonverbal cues in chat reference? • What is the relationship between content & relational dimensions in determining the quality of chat reference encounters?

  4. Methodology • Pilot Study - Results Reported at VRD Conference, 2004 • Data - 44 S.S. Green Award Transcripts (courtesy LSSI) • Main Study • Data – 245 Randomly Selected Transcripts • State-wide service – Maryland AskUsNow • Qualitative Analysis – 3 Coders • Refinement of category scheme from Pilot Study • Careful reading/analysis • Identification of patterns

  5. Results • Interesting Results! • Refinement of Categories Developed in Pilot Study • Development of Recommendations • Facilitators • Avoiding Barriers • Dealing with Rude/Impatient Users

  6. Librarians – Relational Facilitators (N=245) • Rapport Building 203 (83%) • Deference 110 (45%) • Compensating 4 Lack of NV Cues 97 (40%) • Greeting Ritual-Unscripted 76 (31%) • Closing Ritual-Unscripted 69 (28%)

  7. Users – Relational Facilitators N=245 • Deference 170 (69%) • Thanks (131-53%) • Rapport Building 127 (52%) • Closing Ritual 83 (34%) • Compensation 4 Lack of NV Cues 76 (31%) • Greeting Ritual 35 (14%)

  8. Librarians – Relational Barriers (N=245) • Relational Disconnect / Failure to Build Rapport 43 (18%) • Robotic Answer (13 – 5%) • Reprimanding (10 - 4%) • Limits Time (10 – 4%) • Lack of attention – Ignoring Q (8 – 3%) • Condescending (5 - 2%)

  9. Librarians – Relational Barriers • More Relational Disconnect / Failure to Build Rapport 43 (18%) • Ignoring User Self-Disclosure (4 - 2%) • Misunderstands User’s Question (4 – 2%) • Inappropriate Script (4 – 2%) • Failing to Offer Reassurance (3 - 1%) • Mirrors User’s Rude Behavior (2 – 1%) • Disconfirming (2 – 1%) • Ignoring humor (1<1%) • Use of Inappropriate Language/Profanity (1<1%)

  10. Librarian – Relational Barriers Cont. • Negative Closure 51 (21%) • Librarian Continues After User has Disconnected (18-7%) • Abrupt Ending (16 – 7%) • Disclaimer (9 – 4%) • Premature/Attempted Closing (8 – 3%) • Ignoring cues user wants more help (5 – 2%) • Premature Referral (3 – 1%) • Sends to Google (2 – 1%)

  11. Users – Relational Barriers N=245 • Closing Probs/Signing Off Abruptly (95-39%) • Relational Disconnect (33 - 13%) • Impatience (24 – 10%) • Poor Attitude/Rude/Insulting/FLAMING (10 - 4%) • Disconfirming (7 – 3%) • Use of Profanity/Inappropriate Language (5 – 2%) • Failure/Refusal to Provide Information When Asked (4 - 2%) • Derisive use of spelling out NV behaviors (2 – 1%) • Mistakes/Misunderstandings (2-1%)

  12. Recommendations - Facilitating Interpersonal Communication in Virtual Reference Encounters • General Considerations • Basic interpersonal skills – transferable. • Interpersonal dynamics are present & important. • Time spent is mostly in searching. • Greeting • Personal greeting • Look for and respond to self-disclosure • Strategies for Building Rapport • Self-disclose as appropriate • Acknowledgment of user’s self-disclosure • Inclusion & Reassurance

  13. Recommendations • Compensation for Lack of Nonverbal Cues • Mirror user’s style • Use ellipse (can prevent premature closure by users) Awareness of appropriate self-disclosure • Closing • Relational Barriers to Avoid

  14. Recommendations – Encounters with Rude/Impatient Users • Use interpersonal skills • Be polite/professional • Apologize as appropriate • Strategies for impatient users • Thank them for complaints • Realize rude users are in the minority • Do not take rude behavior personally

  15. Future Directions Evaluation Issues & Next Steps • Research Question Remains Unanswered • What is the relationship between content & relational dimensions in determining the quality of chat reference encounters? • Interviews/focus groups/surveys with librarians & chat users • Development of evaluation model with both relational & content dimensions

  16. Implications for Practice & Training • Joe Thompson – Maryland AskUsNow!

More Related