march 14, 2009 acrl conference seattle, wa i would sort of appreciate a little more understanding:...
TRANSCRIPT
March 14,
2009
ACRL Conference
Seattle, WA
“I would sort of appreciate a little more
understanding:” Engaging Net Gen Students in Virtual
Reference
“I would sort of appreciate a little more
understanding:” Engaging Net Gen Students in Virtual
Reference
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.Associate Professor
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
Senior Research ScientistOCLC Research
Academic Libraries TodayAcademic Libraries Today
Vying for information seekers’ attention
Must re-engineer to accommodate users’ workflows and habits
The Net GenerationThe Net Generation
•Born between 1979 and 1994
• Also known as:
• Millennials
• EchoBoomers
• Gen Y
•Live in a socially networked environment
•Different communication & information-seeking behaviors
ScreenagersScreenagers
•Youngest of the Net Generation
•Born between 1988 and 1994
• Now 15-21 years old
•Affinity for technology
•Expect instant access
IMLS funded project to provide insight into the Net Gen’s perceptions of libraries and VRS
Four phases:
Focus group interviews
Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat transcripts
Online surveys – 496 Total175 VRS librarians
184 VRS non-users
137 VRS users
Telephone interviews - 283 Total
100 VRS librarians
107 VRS non-users
76 VRS users
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives
Online SurveysOnline Surveys
•Descriptive statistical analysis
•Demographic
•Multiple-choice
•Likert-type
•Qualitative analysis
•Open-ended
•2 critical incident (CI) questions
VRS User Demographics (N=137)VRS User Demographics (N=137)
Net Gen (N=49)
•Female (51%, 25)
•Between 19-28 years old (47%, 23)
•Caucasian (67%, 33)
Adult, 29+ (N=88)
•Female (68%, 60)
•Between 36-45 years old (38%, 33)
•Caucasian (84%, 74)
Chat Least Intimidating to VRS Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)
Chat Least Intimidating to VRS Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)
"I am least intimidated by"
04%14%
6%
76%
016%
5%
33%
47%
01020304050607080
FtF Phone Email Text Chat
Net GenVRS Users
Adult VRSUsers
"The probability that I will use reference services again is"
82%
92%
76788082848688909294
Net Gen VRS Users Adult VRS Users
Excellent orVery Good
VRS Users Likely to be Repeat Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)
VRS Users Likely to be Repeat Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)
Recommendation Important to VRS UsersNet Gens (N=49)
Recommendation Important to VRS UsersNet Gens (N=49)
•Used VRS because recommended
•Recommended VRS more than adults
What Attracts Users to VRS Users (N=137)What Attracts Users to VRS Users (N=137)
•Convenience, Convenience, Convenience
• Available 24/7
• Working from home
• At night or on weekends
• Immediate answers
• Lack of cost
• Efficient
•Less intimidating interactions
Why Users Don’t Always Choose VRSNet Gens (N=49)
Why Users Don’t Always Choose VRSNet Gens (N=49)
•Unhelpful answers
•Non-subject specialists
•Slow connections
•Scripted messages
•Cold environment
What Would Attract Users to VRSNet Gens (N=49)
What Would Attract Users to VRSNet Gens (N=49)
•Faster & easier software
•Personalized interface
•Reliable co-browsing
•More service hours
•Kiosk & cybercafe access
•Experienced, tech-savvy librarians
VRS Non-user Demographics (N=184)VRS Non-user Demographics (N=184)
Net Gen (N=122)
•Female (66%, 81)
• 19-28 years old (51%, 62)
•Caucasian (65%, 79)
Adult, 29+ (N=62)
•Female (71%, 44)
• 46-55 years old (31%, 19)
•Caucasian (87%, 52)
FtF is Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)
FtF is Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)
•Adults (81%, 50)
•Net Gens (71%, 87)
FtF is Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)FtF is Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)
“I most enjoy using”
Phone (11.48%)
Email (27.05%)
Text Messaging (12.30%)
FtF (49.18%)
Email is Less Intimidating to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)Email is Less Intimidating to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)
“I am least intimidated by”
Email (50.82%)
Phone (12.30%)
FtF (19.67%)
Text Messaging (17.21%)
Telephone Reference Never Used by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)
Telephone Reference Never Used by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)
•Net Gens (78%, 95)
•Adults (60%, 27)
Convenience Is Important to VRS Non-UsersNet Gens (N=87) Adults (N=51)
Convenience Is Important to VRS Non-UsersNet Gens (N=87) Adults (N=51)
•Net Gens (87%, 76)
•Adults (78%, 40)
Remote Access is Important to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=13)
Remote Access is Important to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=13)
•Net Gens (95%, 39)
•Adults (85%, 13)
Interpersonal Communication is Valued by VRS Non-Users Net Gens (N=86) Adults (N=51)
Interpersonal Communication is Valued by VRS Non-Users Net Gens (N=86) Adults (N=51)
Non-users Valued
•Personal Relationship
•Adults (43%, 22)
•Net Gens (24%, 24)
•Specific Librarian
•Adults (51%, 26)
•Net Gens (42%, 36)
"The Librarian Is Friendly and Polite"
69%
29%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Net Gen VRS Non-users
Adult VRS Non-users
VeryImportantorImportant
Interpersonal Communication is Valued by VRS Non-Users Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=14)
Interpersonal Communication is Valued by VRS Non-Users Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=14)
Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRS Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRS Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)
•VR too complicated
•Adults (53%, 33)
•Net Gens (35%, 43)
•Typing skills poor
•Adults (35%, 22)
•Net Gens (16%, 19)
Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRSNet Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRSNet Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)
•Believe questions might annoy librarian
•Net Gens (29%, 32)
•Adults (16%, 10)
Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRSNet Gens (N=122)
Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRSNet Gens (N=122)
•Don’t know it is available
•Believe librarian couldn’t help
•Lack of 24/7 service
•Satisfied w/ other info sources
Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRS Adults (N=62)Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRS Adults (N=62)
Same as Net-Gen:
• Don’t know it is available
• Believe librarian couldn’t help
• Lack of 24/7 service
• Satisfied w/ other info sources
But also:
• Lack computer skills
• Type slowly
• Complexity of chat environment
Relational Theory and Interpersonal Communication
Relational Theory and Interpersonal Communication
Every message has dual dimensions
-- both content and relational
(Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967)
Critical Incident Technique (CIT)Critical Incident Technique (CIT)
Flanagan (1954)
Qualitative technique
Focuses on most memorable event/experience
Allows categories or themes to emerge rather than be imposed
VRS User Positive CIs Net Gens (N=48)
VRS User Positive CIs Net Gens (N=48)
Successful Experience
Librarian
• Accurate answers/info
• Quick assistance
• Located specific resources
• Convenient
VRS User Negative CIs Net Gens (N=30)
VRS User Negative CIs Net Gens (N=30)
Unsuccessful Experience
Librarian
• Impeded info delivery or retrieval
• Didn’t answer question
VRS Non-user Positive CIsNet Gens (N=108)VRS Non-user Positive CIsNet Gens (N=108)
Successful Experience
Librarian
•Info delivery/retrieval
•Answered questions
•Located specific resources
•Positive attitude (them & task)
VRS Non-user Negative CIsNet Gens (N=74) VRS Non-user Negative CIsNet Gens (N=74)
Unsuccessful Experience
Librarian•Impeded information delivery or retrieval
• Missing resources• Slow providing answers
•Negative attitude to task
What We LearnedWhat We Learned
FtF & VRS Users want
•Extended hours of service
•Access to electronic information
•Interact w/ friendly librarians
•Relationships with librarians
What We Can DoWhat We Can Do
Encourage library use
•Creative marketing
• Promote full range of options
• Reassure young people VRS safe
•Build positive relationships whether FtF, phone, or online
What We Can DoWhat We Can Do
Understand them to serve them better
Enjoy their enthusiasm!
End NotesEnd Notes
This is one of the outcomes from the projectSeeking 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/
ReferencesReferences
Connaway, L. S., Radford M. L., Dickey, T. J., Williams, J. D., & Confer, P. (2008). Sense-making and synchronicity: Information-seeking behaviors of millennials and baby boomers. Libri, 58(2), 123-135.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 327-358.
Prabha, C., Connaway, L. S., Olszewski, L., & Jenkins, L. R. (2007). What is enough? Satisficing information needs. Journal of Documentation, 63(1), 74-89.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1, 3-6.
ReferencesReferences
Radford, M. L., & Connaway, L. S. (2007). “Screenagers” and live chat reference: Living up to the promise. Scan, 26(1), 31-39.
Rushkoff, D. (1996). Playing the future: How kids’ culture can teach us to thrive in an age of chaos. NY: HaperCollins.
Sweeney, R. (2006). Millennial behaviors and demographics. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from http://library1.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/Millennials/Article-Millennial-Behaviors.doc.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics
of human communication. NY: Norton.
March 14,
2009
ACRL Conference
Seattle, WA
Questions & Comments
Questions & Comments
Lynn Silipigni [email protected]