seeking synchronicity: evaluating virtual reference transcripts presented by marie l. radford and...
Post on 27-Mar-2015
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference
Transcripts
Presented by Marie L. Radford
andLynn Silipigni Connaway
2006 ALISE Conference San Antonio, TX, January 16-19, 2006
Presenters
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.Associate Professor,Rutgers University, SCILSEmail: mradford@scils.rutgers.eduwww.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.Consulting Research ScientistEmail: connawal@oclc.orgwww.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm
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 & OCLCToday’s presentation 300 transcripts (24/7, National & International)Additional 1000+ transcripts (QuestionPoint & 24/7)
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
3 Analyses
• Type of Questions• Katz/Kaske Classification
• Subject of Questions
• Interpersonal Communication • Radford Classification• Manual and NVivo coding
6%0%
25%
2%
30%
37%
Holdings
Inappropriate
Procedural
Research
ReadyReference
Specific Search
Types of Questions
Combined 1st and 2nd Questionsn=273 questions
Subjects of Questions64
35
3027
20
1511 11 11
9 9 8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1
Procedural
Law
General/Multidiscilinary
Science
History
Business
Education
Literature
Biography
Social Science
Recreation
Geography
Combined 1st and 2nd Questionsn=273 questions
Classification Methodology
• Qualitative Analysis
• Development/refinement of category scheme
• Careful reading/analysis
• Identification of patterns
Time intensive, but reveals complexity
Research QuestionsInterpersonal 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?
•Relational FacilitatorsInterpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a positive impact on the librarian-client interaction and that enhance communication.
•Relational BarriersInterpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a negative impact on the librarian-client interaction and that impede communication.
Results
Interpersonal Communication Analysis
2 Major Themes
Manual Coding Results
• 200 Transcripts– 177 Usable Transcripts
Librarian Relational Factors (1-200)
Librarian Relational Facilitators:Manual Analysis
132
8674
64
41
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
LF 1 RapportBuilding
LF 2 Deference LF 5 ClosingRitual
LF 4 GreetingRitual
LF 3 Rep. OfNon-Verbal
Cues
n=177 transcripts
121102
62
4027
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
CF 1 Deference CF 2 RapportBuilding
CF 3 ClosingRitual
CF 4 Rep. OfNon-Verbal
Cues
CF 5 GreetingRitual
Client Relational Facilitators:Manual Analysis
n=177 transcripts
Comparison Relational Facilitators: Manual Analysis
132
86
41
6474
102121
4027
62
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
RapportBuilding
Deference Rep. Of NVCues
Greeting Ritual Closing Ritual
Librarians Clients
n=177 transcripts
3425
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
LB 1 Relational Disconnect LB 2 Negative Closure
Librarian Relational Barriers: Manual Analysis
n=177 transcripts
78
33
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
CB 1 Closing Problems CB 2 Relational Disconnect
Client Relational Barriers: Manual Analysis
n=177 transcripts
34 3325
78
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Librarians Clients
Relational Disconnect Negative Closure
Comparison of Relational Barriers: Manual Analysis
n=177 transcripts
NVivo Coding
• 100 Transcripts– 79 Usable Transcripts
Librarian Relational Facilitators:NVivo Analysis
n=79 transcripts
3832
63
37
26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
LF1 RapportBuilding
LF2 Deference LF3 NonverbalCues
LF4 GreetingRitual
LF5 ClosingRitual
Relational Facilitators
Nu
mb
er
of
Tra
ns
cri
pts
Client Relational Facilitators:NVivo Analysis
n=79 transcripts
51
11 9
56
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
CF1 Deference CF2 RapportBuilding
CF3 ClosingRitual
CF5 GreetingRitual
CF4 NonverbalCues
Relational Facilitators
Nu
mb
er o
f T
ran
scri
pts
Comparison Relational Facilitators: NVivo Analysis
n=79 transcripts
63
38 3732
26
5156
9 11
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
RapportBuilding
Deference Nonverbal Cues Greeting Ritual Closing Ritual
Relational Facilitators
Nu
mb
er o
f T
ran
scri
pts
Librarian Client
Librarian Relational Barriers: NVivo Analysis
n=79 transcripts
2122
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
LB2 Negative Closure LB1 Relational Disconnect
Relational Barriers
Nu
mb
er o
f T
ran
scri
pts
Client Relational Barriers: NVivo Analysis
n=79 transcripts
40
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
CB1 Closing Problems CB2 Relational Disconnect
Relational Barriers
Nu
mb
er o
f T
ran
scri
pts
Comparison Relational Barriers: NVivo Analysis
n=79 transcripts
22 21
40
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Negative Closure/Closing Problems Relational DisconnectRelational Barriers
Nu
mb
er o
f T
ran
scri
pts
Librarian Client
NVivo Search Totals
Word Total Percent
sorry 20 25.32
thank you 51 64.56
thanks 34 43.04
thank u 3 3.80
n=79 transcriptsIncludes words in scripts
NVivo Search Totals
Word Total Percent
sorry 20 25.32
thank you 51 64.56
thanks 34 43.04
thank u 3 3.80
thanx 0 0.00
TY 0 0.00
ty 0 0.00
n=79 transcriptsIncludes words in scripts
NVivo Search TotalsPerson Word Total Percent
Librarian sorry 14 17.72
Client sorry 7 8.86
Librarian thank you 36 45.57
Librarian thanks 18 22.78
Client thank you 28 35.44
Client thanks 24 30.38
Client thank u 3 3.80
n=79 transcriptsIncludes words in scripts
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
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
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/
top related