getting in synch with screenagers: virtual reference and sustaining the relevance of libraries lynn...

Getting in Synch with Screenagers:

Virtual Reference and Sustaining the Relevance

of Libraries

Lynn Silipigni ConnawayMarie L. RadfordIndependent Reference Publishers GroupALA Annual ConferenceWashington, DCJune 22, 2007

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, & Librarian Perspectives

Funded by Institute of Museum & Library Services Rutgers University & OCLC (10/05-9/07)

Four phases:I. Focus group interviewsII. Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat

transcriptsIII. 600 online surveysIV. 300 telephone interviews

“Screenagers”

Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff Used here for 12-18 year olds Affinity for electronic communication Youngest members of “Millennial

Generation”

The Millennial Generation

Born 1979 – 1994 AKA Net Generation, Generation Y, Digital

Generation, or Echo Boomers 13-28 year olds About 75 million people By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers

(born 1946-1964)

The Millennial Generation

May be most studied generation in history 4x amount of toys than Boomer parents 20

yrs. earlier Born digital, most can not remember life

without computers Confident, hopeful, goal-oriented, civic-

minded, tech savvy Younger members most likely to display

Millennial characteristics

The Millennial Mind (Sweeney, 2006)

Preferences & Characteristics More Choices & Selectivity Experiential & Exploratory Learners Flexibility & Convenience Personalization & Customization Impatient Less Attention to Spelling, Grammar Practical, Results Oriented Multi-taskers & Collaborators

“Screenager” Focus Group Interviews

Location 13 (39%) Urban12 (36%) Suburban 8 (24%) Rural

Gender15 (45%) Male 18 (55%) Female

Age Range 12 – 18 years old

Total = 30 Participants in 3 groups

Ethnicity21 (64%) Caucasian 6 (18%) African- American 6 (18%) Hispanic/Latino

Grade Level 31 (94%) HS 2 (6%) JHS (Grade 7)

Focus Group Interviews: Major Themes

Hold Librarian Stereotypes

Prefer Independent Information Seeking

Google Web surfing

Prefer Face-to-Face Interaction

Focus Group Interviews: Major Themes

Have Privacy/Security Concerns Librarians as “psycho killers” ? Fear of cyber stalkers

Factors Influencing Future VRS Use Recommendation of trusted librarian or friend Marketing Choice of librarian

Phase II: Transcript Analysis

Random sample 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months) 479,673 QuestionPoint sessions total Avg. 33/mo. = 600 total, 492 examined so far

431 usable transcripts Excluding system tests & tech problems

191 of these highlighted today 65 identified as “screenagers” 126 identified as primary/college/adult

Interpersonal Communication Analysis

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.

Transcript Example - Positive

Battle of the SommeQuestion Type: Subject searchSubject Type: History of Europe (940)Duration: 26 minutesUser Location: EnglandLibrarian Location: Hawaii

Transcript Example - Negative

Mental IllnessQuestion Type: Ready referenceSubject Type: Medicine & health (610)Duration: 11 minutesUser Location: AustraliaLibrarian Location: Australia

Facilitators – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)

Higher numbers/averages (per occurrence)Polite expressions 51 (78%) vs. 40 (32%)Alternate spellings 33 (51%) vs. 19 (15%)Punctuation/repeat 23 (35%) vs. 28 (22%)Lower case 19 (29%) vs. 24 (19%)Slang 9 (14%) vs. 3 (02%)Enthusiasm 8 (12%) vs. 9 (07%)Self-correction 7 (11%) vs. 6 (05%)Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (05%) vs. 0

(n=191 transcripts)

Facilitators – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)

Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence)Thanks 72 (110%) vs. 163 (130%)Self Disclosure 41 (63%) vs. 120 (95%)Seeking reassurance 39 (6%) vs. 87 (7%)Agree to suggestion 39 (6%) vs. 93 (74%)Closing Ritual 25 (38%) vs. 69 (55%)Admit lack knowledge 10 (15%) vs. 30 (24%)

(n=191 transcripts)

Barriers – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)

Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript) for:Abrupt Endings 26 (4%) vs. 37 (29%)Impatience 6 (9%) vs. 2 (2%)Rude or Insulting 2 (3%) vs. 0

(n=191 transcripts)

Librarian Perspective

Recent telephone interviews with librarians indicate excitement regarding the ability to reach users not normally served by more traditional reference services

Implications for VRS Providers

VRS is a natural for screenagers (especially live chat reference)

Recommend/market VRS services Reassure that VRS is safe

Encourage their enthusiasm Mentor and learn from them Try new social software applications Introduce new reference sources Facilitate access to online reference sources

Future Directions

Continue to collect & analyze data Online surveys

Librarian survey completed Non-user and User surveys in progress

Telephone interviews 100 with Librarians completed 100 Users in progress 100 Non-users in progress

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 Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Susanna Sabolsci-Boros, Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, Mary Anne Reilly, Vickie Kozo, David Dragos & Timothy Dickey.

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

Questions & Comments

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Email: connawal@oclc.org www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Email: mradford@scils.rutgers.edu www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford