E-Valuating Virtual Viewpoints:
Download
1 / 31

E-Valuating Virtual Viewpoints: User, Non-User, and Librarians Perspectives on Live Chat-Based Reference - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 101 Views
  • Uploaded on

E-Valuating Virtual Viewpoints: User, Non-User, and Librarians Perspectives on Live Chat-Based Reference. Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, OCLC.

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 'E-Valuating Virtual Viewpoints: User, Non-User, and Librarians Perspectives on Live Chat-Based Reference' - wynonna


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
E valuating virtual viewpoints 3a user 2c non user 2c and librarians perspectives on live chat based reference

E-Valuating Virtual Viewpoints: User, Non-User, and Librarians Perspectives on Live Chat-Based Reference

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.

Associate Professor,

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

Senior Research Scientist, OCLC

Panel: E-Valuating E-Reference: Transforming Digital Reference through Research and Evaluating

ASIST Annual Meeting

October 24-29 2008

Columbus, OH


E valuating virtual viewpoints 3a user 2c non user 2c and librarians perspectives on live chat based reference

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

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

OCLC, Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

Four phases:

Focus group interviews

Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat transcripts

Online surveys

176 VRS librarians

184 VRS non-users

137 VRS users

Telephone interviews

283 Total


Critical incident technique
Critical Incident Technique

  • Flanagan, 1954

  • Qualitative technique

  • Focuses on most memorable event/experience

  • Allows categories or themes to emerge rather than be imposed


Online survey ci questions
Online Survey CI Questions

Librarians & Users

Think about one experience in which you felt a chat reference encounter achieved (or did not achieve) a positive result

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


Interpersonal communication analysis results
Interpersonal Communication Analysis: Results

Relational Facilitators

Interpersonal aspects of chat conversation that have apositiveimpact on librarian-client interaction & thatenhancecommunication.

Relational Barriers

Interpersonal aspects of chat conversation that have anegativeimpact on librarian-client interaction & thatimpedecommunication.


Relational theory approach to interpersonal communication
Relational Theory & Approach to Interpersonal Communication

Every message has dual dimensions – both content & relational

(Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967)


Librarians positive result ci n 142
Librarians: Positive Result(CI N=142)

Number %

  • Both Relational & 85 60%

    Content

  • Primarily Content 54 38%

  • Primarily Relational3 2%


Librarians positive result ci n 1421
Librarians: Positive Result(CI N=142)

Relational Themes*

Number %

  • Attitude 69 49%

  • Relationship quality 33 23%

  • Familiarity 3 2%

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Librarians positive result ci n 1422
Librarians: Positive Result(CI N=142)

Content Themes*

Number %

  • Providing information 120 85%

  • Providing instruction 49 35%

  • Demonstrating knowledge 14 10%

  • Convenience/multi- 10 7%

    tasking/ time or money

    saving

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Librarians negative result ci n 124
Librarians: Negative Result(CI N=124)

Number %

  • Primarily Relational53 43%

  • Primarily Content 40 32%

  • Both Relational & 31 25%

    Content


Librarians negative result ci n 1241
Librarians: Negative Result(CI N=124)

Relational Themes*

Number %

  • Attitude 67 54%

  • Relationship quality 28 23%

  • Impact of technology 7 6%

  • Approachability 1 1%

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Librarians negative result ci n 1242
Librarians: Negative Result(CI N=124)

Content Themes*

Number %

  • Lack of information 64 52%

  • Lack of knowledge 15 12%

  • Task unreasonable 1 1%

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Users positive result ci n 129
Users: Positive Result(CI N=129)

Number %

  • Primarily Content 79 61%

  • Both Relational & 33 26%

    Content

  • Primarily Relational 17 13%


Users positive result ci n 1291
Users: Positive Result(CI N=129)

Content Themes*

Number %

  • Providing information91 71%

  • Convenience/multi- 36 28% tasking/time saving/

    money saving

  • Providing instruction14 11%

  • Demonstrating knowledge7 5%

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Users positive result ci n 1292
Users: Positive Result(CI N=129)

Relational Themes*

Number %

  • Attitude 36 28%

  • Relationship quality 21 16%

  • Impact of technology 1 1%

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Users negative result ci n 68
Users: Negative Result(CI N=68)

Number %

  • Primarily Content 46 68%

  • Primarily Relational15 22%

  • Both Relational & 7 10%

    Content


Users negative result ci n 681
Users: Negative Result(CI N=68)

Content Themes*

Number %

  • Lack of information 48 71%

  • Lack of knowledge 8 12%

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Users negative result ci n 682
Users: Negative Result(CI N=68)

Relational Themes*

Number %

  • Relationship quality 17 25%

  • Attitude 13 19%

  • Approachability 1 1%

  • Impact of Technology 1 1%

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Non users positive result ci n 154
Non-users: Positive Result(CI N=154)

Number %

  • Primarily Content79 51%

  • Both Relational & 48 31%

    Content

  • Primarily Relational2718%


Non users positive result ci n 1541
Non-users: Positive Result(CI N=154)

Content Themes*

Number %

  • Providing information 75 49%

  • Providing instruction 35 23%

  • Demonstrating knowledge 21 14%

  • Convenience/multi- 18 12% tasking/time saving/

    money saving

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Non users positive result ci n 1542
Non-users: Positive Result(CI N=154)

Relational Themes*

Number %

  • Attitude 51 33%

  • Impact of FtF assisting 32 21% relationship development

  • Relationship quality 25 16%

  • Impact of phone/Email 5 3% assisting information seeking process

  • Approachability 4 3%

  • Familiarity 1 1%

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Non users negative result ci n 100
Non-users: Negative Result(CI N=100)

Number %

  • Primarily Content 52 52%

  • Primarily Relational33 33%

  • Both Relational & 15 15%

    Content


Non users negative result ci n 1001
Non-users: Negative Result(CI N=100)

Content Themes*

Number %

  • Information 60 60%

  • Lack of knowledge 24 24%

  • Instruction 9 9%

  • Task unreasonable 4 4%

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Non users negative result ci n 1002
Non-users: Negative Result(CI N=100)

Relational Themes*

Number %

  • Attitude 47 47%

  • Relationship quality 24 24%

  • Approachability 3 3%

  • Impact of technology 2 2%

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


Implications librarians
Implications: Librarians

  • Value

    • Delivery of accurate answers/ information

    • Polite, interested users

  • Find rude or impatient users disruptive to chat success


Implications users non users
Implications: Users & Non-Users

  • Value

    • Accuracy of answers/information

      • Delivery of specific content

    • Knowledge of sources & systems

    • Positive attitude

    • Good communication skills

  • Younger VRS users

    • Impatient & want info delivered quickly - no fuss

    • Not as concerned as librarians w/ instruction


Recommendations
Recommendations

  • Provide

    • Specific info

    • Variety of formats

    • Friendly & courteous service

    • Marketing to non-users

  • User education needed for more realistic expectations

  • Do not force instruction unless wanted


Future directions
Future Directions

Online survey results informed 283 telephone interviews

  • Collected more critical incidents

  • Analysis in progress


Future directions1
Future Directions

  • Write, write, write!


Special thanks
Special Thanks

Rutgers University & OCLC Grant Project Team

Project Managers:

Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams

Timothy J. Dickey

Research Assistants:

Patrick A. Confer

David Dragos

Jannica Heinstrom

Vickie Kozo

Mary Anne Reilly

Lisa Rose-Wiles

Susanna Sabolsci-Boros

Andrea Simzak

Julie Strange

Janet Torsney


End notes
End Notes

This is an updated version of a presentation given at ALISE 2008

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.

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