exploring how user-generated content in canadian public libraries can impact readers’ advisory...
TRANSCRIPT
Exploring how user-generated content in Canadian public libraries can impact readers’ advisory servicesLouise Spiteri. Dalhousie University. Halifax, NSLaurel Tarulli. Sacred Heart School. Halifax, NSJen Pecoskie. Independent researcher
The context
2
The social environment of the public libraryPublic libraries are social environments that encourage the interaction, sharing, and communication of ideas, opinions, and many other types of information. In Readers’ Advisory (RA) services information professionals help clients find items that match their reading interests, traditionally via a face-to-face discussion initiated by the reader.
3
Reader expectationsSocial media websites like Goodreads and LibraryThing provide popular platforms for people to share and discuss their reading interests. Various online public access catalogues (OPACs) are integrating social discovery platforms such as BiblioCommons, SirsiDynix, and Encore, which allow users to connect with each other through user-generated content such as reviews, comments, recommendations, or tags.
4
Social information and readers’ advisoryWith the increasing popularity and use of social websites, such as Goodreads and LibraryThing, it is necessary to explore the implication of user-generated content for RA, to strengthen RA services, and to benefit readers who have become accustomed to sharing and benefiting from other users’ suggestions.
5
10
Defining readers’ advisory (RA)Readers’ advisory services foster an environment where reading is a valued activity and readers’ advisory staff advocate the importance and joy of reading within the community. Successfully helping the user to find the next great fiction read or connecting a reader to what interests them in the non-fiction collection involves collection knowledge, readers’ services skills and good conversation.
Southern Ontario Library Services (http://bit.ly/1TaNUzh)
Aspects of RARA is traditionally a face-to-face discussion initiated by the reader or library staff, and is based on the reference interview.
RA can be intimidating to readers: ShynessA lack of awareness of RA servicesPerception of library staff as authority figuresFear of being judgedPerceived differences in age, gender, or culture
11
The value of user-generated content to RAReaders can discuss their views on booksReaders can make recommendations for future reading Readers can provide tags (and thus access points) to
supplement or complement Library of Congress Subject Headings
Readers can discuss the emotional impact of books upon them
RA staff can share their own experiences with the books and enter into a conversation with readers.
12
Two studiesWe will discuss the findings of two studies that examined
user-generated content in the bibliographic records for 22 fiction titles. The same set of data was used for both studies:
The first study looked more broadly at the nature of Library of Congress Headings, tags, and reviews that were found in the records.
The second study examined in depth the affective content extracted from the user reviews.
13
Study 1: Content Analysis of LCSH, Tags, and Reviews
14
Study 1 Research Questions1. What kind of content do users contribute about adult
fiction titles, i.e., tags and reviews/comments?
2. What categories of access points do users provide about the content of adult fiction titles, e.g., location, subject, genre, and so forth?
3. How do user-contributed access points parallel those in traditional face-to-face RA model?
15
MethodologyUser-generated content was examined for 22 adult fiction titles in 43 Canadian public libraries that use the BiblioCommons, SirsiDynix, and Encore social discovery systems. The titles were selected from the following lists: Giller Prize Shortlist
Canadian Governor General’s Literary Awards
Man Booker Prize Shortlist
Pulitzer Prize Fiction Finalists
Commonwealth Writer’s Prize Winners 16
Grounded theory The derived LCSH and Tags and Reviews were analysed
and coded into categories independently by four researchers (2 each for LCSH/Tags and Reviews)
A fourth researcher examined all the sets of categories and created final sets.
17
What content do users provide about books?
18
No. of LCSH
No. of Tags
LCSH per title
Tags per title
Records without LCSH
Records without
tags
Total 3501 4541 89.40 108.85 68 259
Average 159.14 206.41 4.49 4.95 3.09 11.77
What content do users provide about books? 19
Unique LCSH Unique tags
Total 339 192
Average per title 15.41 8.73
No. of records with reviews
Unique reviews
Total 678 632
Average per title 30.82 28.73
20
LSCH Tags
Awards 2 (0.31%) 40 (19.23%)
Format 4 (0.62%) 9 (4.32%)
Genre 320 (48.84%) 30 (14.42%)
Historical event 6 (0.93%) 4 (1.92%)
Location 75 (11.68%) 18 (8.65%)
People 101 (15.73%) 16 (7.69%)
Period 140 (21.81%) 4 (1.92%)
Tone 0 (0%) 21 (10.09%)
Topic 116 (18.06%) 59 (28.36%)
Main categories represented by LCSH and Tags (Abbreviated)
21
Categories in user reviews
User access points vs. RA models
22
Tag categories RA categories
Administrative note No equivalent
Author No equivalent
Awards Award/recognition
Format No equivalent
Genre Genre
Historical event Setting; Real Events; Factual information
Location Setting
Pace Pacing
Paratext Paratext
People Specific characters; Charac. occupations
Period Time
User categories
vs. RA categories
23
Reviews categories RA categories
Personal note No equivalent
Plot Plot development; Ending
Protagonists Specific characters
Readability Readability
Recommendation Award/recognition; Advice to reader
Tone Emotional experience
Topic Subject
No equivalent Characters’ relationships
No equivalent Intended audience
No equivalent Literary influences
No equivalent Size or length of book
Conclusions: Study 1
24
Cataloguers provide an objective stance about a book, but readers provide what it contains in a factual sense and what it contains in an emotional or reading experience sense.
LCSH denote the “who, what, where, when, and type” of a work; while the tags do contain these elements, what is noticeable is their description of the tone or mood of a work.
Conclusions: Study 1Tags express important aspects of a work not easily expressed by
subject headings. Tags and reviews place heavy emphasis on affective aspects of work (readability, tone, mood, experience).
“Aboutness” or thematic emphasis indicates a distinction between objectivity vs. “the feel” of a work. Readers provide a more complete picture of a title: what it contains factually as well as what it contains in an emotional and reading experience sense.
25
Study 2: Building affective taxonomies from reader reviews
26
Goal of the study
27
To create useful taxonomies of emotions, moods, and associations that could be used to assist readers as they narrow the focus of their searches for works of fiction, either through facets supplied by the social discovery system layer on a library catalogue (e.g., narrow the results by a specific types of emotions, such as sadness, joy, and so forth), or through interactions with readers’ advisory staff.
Research questions
28
1. What emotions are discussed as part of the reader’s reading experience?
2. What tones did the reading experience elicit for the reader?
3. What associations to external factors do readers make as part of their reading experience?
MethodologyThe reviews obtained from the first study were explored in depth.
Using Grounded Theory, two researchers independently coded the reviews into three pre-determined categories based on observations from the first study: Emotions, Tones, and Associations (Memories).
A third researcher reviewed the derived sets and created taxonomies for Emotions, Tones, and Associations.
29
Theoretical bases for the taxonomies
EmotionsAppraisal theory
Basic emotions theory
Prototype theory
Social psychology
Tones
Library & Information Science
Appeals theory
RA studies
Associations
Cognitive psychology
Neurobiology
30
31
Basic Emotions Sub-emotions
Anger Anger; Annoyance, Displeasure; Entrapment; Frustration
Disgust Disgust, Dislike
Engagement Captivation; Curiosity; Engagement; Reflection
Fear Confusion; Difficulty; Disorientation; Fear, Stress; Uncertainty
Happiness Anticipation; Excitement; Joy; Pleasure
Love Admiration; Attraction; empathy; Enchantment; Lust; Sensitivity
9 basic emotions 44 unique emotions
Taxonomy of Emotions
32
Engagement 168 (26%)
Happiness 154 (23.69%)
Sadness 148 (22.76%)
Fear 55 (8.46%)
Surprise 38 (5.84%)
Anger 28 (4.3%)
Love 21 (3.23%)
Uncategorized 21 (3.23%)
Disgust 17 (2.61)
Total 1633
Number of basic
emotions in reviews
33
Taxonomy of tones
34
Realistic 125 (22.77%)
Imaginative 92 (16.76)
Frightening 72 (13.13%)
Dramatic 62 (11.29%)
Charming 49 (8.93%)`
Humourous 35 (6.38%)
Sad 34 (6.19%)
Conventional 29 (5.28%)
Complex 23 (4.19%)
Optimistic 16 (2.91%)
Cerebral 12 (2.18%)
Total 549
No. of basic tones in reviews
35
Taxonomy of associations
36
Object 58 (43.93%)
Agents 53 (40.15%)
Experiences 29 (21.97%)
Places 6 (4.55%)
Events 3 (2.27%)
Activities 2 (1.52%)
Periods 1 (0.76%)
Total 132
Number of basic associations in the reviews
37
Conclusions: Study 2The presence of 141 unique emotions, which occurred 650 times
in the reviews serves as a strong indicator of the importance of affect in readers’ interactions with the books they read.
The MARC record provides only the bare-bone description of the content of the work; the user reviews provide the added richness and nuances of the work that can help provide other readers with a greater understanding of the work.
Conclusions: Study 2Reading experience cannot be expressed well in the MARC
record. Affective access points can serve as an important addition to the bibliographic records for works of fiction.
The derived taxonomies for Emotions, Tones, and Associations could be used as facets by which to narrow the results of a search, e.g., narrow the results by books that are humourous and surprising, or omit books that are frightening or sad.
38
Conclusions: Study 2The broader categories could be used as suggested placeholders
for users who wish to add tags to fiction titles (e.g., what Emotions did this book evoke?).
RA staff could use these taxonomies to assist readers in selecting items to read, or to generate suggested reading lists that correspond to these taxonomies (e.g., books that are imaginative and cerebral).
These taxonomies can help readers define more clearly their reading experience and why they enjoy (or not) reading certain works.
39
Looking for partnersWe would be very interested in partnering with any libraries to explore further the possibilities of how user-generated metadata could be used to enhance the RA and search experience. This would allow us to test our theories in a real environment
40
Contact information
Louise Spiteri
@cleese6
About Me: https://about.me/louisespiteri
41