seeking synchronicity: evaluating virtual reference transcripts presented by lynn silipigni connaway...
TRANSCRIPT
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual
Reference Transcripts
Presented by Lynn Silipigni Connaway
andMarie L. Radford
QuestionPoint Users Group MeetingJune 25, 2006
New Orleans, Louisiana
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 $684,996 grant
– Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey and OCLC Online Computer Library Center $405,076 in kind contributions
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives
Project duration10/1/2005-9/30/2007
Four phases:I. Focus group interviews*II. Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint
transcriptsIII. 600 online surveys*IV. 300 telephone interviews*
*Interviews & surveys with VRS users, non-users, & librarians
Phase II: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
6 Analyses
• Geographical Distribution• Library receiving query• Library answering query
• Type of Library• Type of Questions
• Katz/Kaske Classification • Subject of Questions
• Dewy Decimal Classification• Session Duration •Interpersonal Communication
• Radford Classification
Librarian Location - Question Received
Other States = 10
United Kingdom = 1
Pennsylvania = 4
Arizona = 4
Kansas = 5
Delaware = 6
Canada = 7
New York = 7
Washington = 8
Utah = 8
North Carolina = 14
Massachusetts = 21
Australia = 36
Maryland = 47
California = 77
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Number of Questionsn=255
Librarian Location - Question Referred/ Answered
Other states = 12
Germany = 1
Pennsylvania = 4
Michigan= 4
Colorado = 4
Hawaii = 6
Canada = 7
Washington = 7
North Carolina = 7
New York = 8
Connecticut = 9
Massachusetts = 10
Maryland = 35
Australia = 36
California = 88
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of questionsn=238
Type of Library Receiving Question
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Consortium Public University National Law State NotAvailable
K-12
Num
ber
of Q
uest
ions
n=256
Type of Question Asked
Procedural25%
Research2%
Subject Search37%
Inappropriate0%
Holdings6%
Ready Reference30%
n=273
Procedure and Subject
Language1%
Science8%
Technology5%
Arts & recreation4%
Literature5%
History & geography16%
Library procedure & miscellaneous
25%
Philosophy & psychology
1%
Compuer science, information & general
works4%
Social sciences31%
Religion0%
n=273
Dewey Decimal Classification
Arts & recreation5%
Literature6%
History & geography21%
Philosophy & psychology
1%
Compuer science, information & general
works5%
Religion0%
Social sciences42%
Technology7% Science
11%Language
2%
n=273
Service Duration
• Mean Service Duration: 13:53
• Median Service Duration: 10:37
Focus Group InterviewsReasons for Using VRS
• Convenient• Efficient• More reliable than search engines & free• Allows multi-tasking• Email follow-up & provision of transcript• Pleasant interpersonal experience
– Librarian on first name basis – more personalized• Less intimidating than physical reference desk
– Feel comfortable abruptly ending session
Focus Group InterviewsReasons for not using VRS
• Graduate students– Fear of
• Bothering librarian• Looking stupid & advisors finding out
– Questions may not be taken seriously– Potential technical problems– Bad experiences in FtF influence expectations of VRS
• Screenagers– Virtual stalkers (“psycho killers”)– Not finding a trusted librarian– Unsure of what to expect
Focus Group Interviews Challenges for Users & Non-Users
• Speed and technical problems• Delayed response time• Librarians are not in users’ libraries
– Fear of no subject expertise
• Fear of overwhelming librarian
Focus Group Interviews Suggestions from Users & Non-Users
• Inclusion of multiple languages• Access to subject specialists• Better marketing and publicity
– Information on how to connect and use VRS– Reassurance that users will not bother librarians – the
library wants the service to be used
• Faster technology• Improved interface design
– More color– More attractive
Next Steps• Conduct
– Three focus group interviews – VRS users– Online survey & telephone interviews with VRS
• Users• Non-users• Librarians
• Analyses– Gender– User Type
• Child/Young adult• Adult• Unknown
End Notes
• This is one of the outcomes from the project Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives, Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Co-Principal Investigators.
• Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center.
• Project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/
Questions
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.Email: [email protected]/~mradford
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.Email: [email protected]/research/staff/connaway.htm