Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway

1. Seeking Sustainability & Singularity: Evaluating Virtual Reference From User, Non-user, & Librarian Perspectives Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway American Society for Information Science and Technology Conference Austin, Texas November 3-9, 2006

2. Authors • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Associate Professor, • Rutgers University, SCILS • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. • Consulting Research Scientist • Email: connawal@oclc.org • www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm • Grant Website (Slides will be posted):http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity

3. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives $1,103,572 project funding • Institute of Museum & Library Services (IMLS) • $684,996 grant • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey & OCLC, Online Computer Library Center • $405,076 in kind contributions

4. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives • Project duration • Two-year project • October 2005-November 2007 • Four phases • Focus group interviews • Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint transcipts • 600 online surveys • 300 telephone interviews

5. Phase I:Focus Group Interviews • 8 Focus Group Interviews • 2 with VRS librarians • 4 with VRS non-users • Screenagers • Rural • Suburban • Urban • College students • Graduate • 2 with VRS users • College students • Graduate • Undergraduate • Adults

6. Total participants 21 Librarians (25%) 40 Non-users (48%) 23 Users (27%) Total librarians 13 Academic librarians (62%) 3 Public librarians (14%) 1 Government Librarian (5%) 4 Unknown (19%) Participant Demographics8 Focus Group Interviews

7. Participant DemographicsLibrarian Focus Group Interviews • Ethnicity- Librarians • 20 Caucasian (95%) • 1 African- American (5%) • Gender- Librarians • 14 Female (67%) • 7 Male (33%)

8. Participant DemographicsUser Focus Group Interviews • Ethnicity- Users • 15 Caucasian (68%) • 4 Asian (18%) • 2 African- American (9%) • 1 Hispanic/Latino (5%) • Gender- Users • 13 Male (59%) • 9 Female (41%)

9. Participant DemographicsNon-user Focus Group Interviews • Ethnicity- Non-users • 18 Caucasian (45%) • 7 African- American (17.5%) • 6 Hispanic/Latino (15%) • 2 Asian (5%) • 7 Missing (17.5%) • Gender- Non-users • 23 Female (57.5%) • 17 Male (42.5%)

10. VRS Librarians: Positive Themes • Interactivity • Opportunity to reach people and develop relationships • Providing accessibility • Access to librarians • Access to services and databases • Opportunity to learn • No geographic boundaries

11. VRS Librarians: Negative Themes • Performance/Staffing • Job performance • Human resource allocation • Issues about pressure and accountability • Technological problems • Software • Learning curve for VRS librarians and users

12. Non-User (Screenager): Major Themes • Librarian stereotypes • Preference for independent informationseeking • Google • Web surfing • Trust own ability to evaluate web resources more than librarians’ • Preference for face-to-face interaction • Value interpersonal interactions in Face-to Face

13. Non-User (Screenager): Major Themes • Privacy/Security concerns • Librarians as “psycho killers” • Fear of cyber stalkers • Concern for accuracy of information • Chat takes too long • Factors influencing future VRS use • Recommendation • Marketing • Ability to choose a trusted librarian

14. Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes • Most students prefer face-to-face librarian interactions • Reliable • Developing a personal relationship with a librarian • Utilize internet tools for information • Library website, Google, other internet resources

15. Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes • Negative perceptions about VRS: • Sounds like a chat room, not professional, fear of question unsuitability, technology/learning curve • Fear of appearing stupid, or being negatively evaluated by the librarian. • Privacy concerns/ transcripts revealed to professors

16. Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes • Factors influencing future VRS use • Recommendation by librarian/colleague • Developing confidence in service’s use, speed & access • Promotional campaign

17. VRS Users: Positive Major Themes • Convenience • Research/Information retrieval independence • Collaborative – share work • Knowledgeable service provider

18. VRS Users: Positive Major Themes • Pleasant interpersonal environment • Transcript of chat session • Anonymity of VRS • Immediacy of chat vs. email • Allows multi-tasking

19. VRS Users: Negative Major Themes • Just another search engine • Generic responses • Distrust in information provided • Technical improvement suggestions • Face-to-face interaction preferred • Fear of overwhelming the librarian • Concerns about librarians’ lack of subject expertise

20. Future Directions • Phases II, III, & IV • 1000+ Transcript analysis (in progress) • 600 Online surveys (in progress) • 300 Telephone surveys • Build on Phase II, III, & IV results

21. Implications for Future Research • Study of Millennials • Implications for Library 2.0 • Services • Technology • Sources

22. 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 • Special thanks to Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, Vickie Kozo, & Timothy Dickey. • Slides available at project web site:http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

23. Questions and Discussion • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. • Email: connawal@oclc.org • www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm