1. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts Presented by Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Marie L. Radford QuestionPoint Users Group Meeting June 25, 2006 New Orleans, Louisiana

2. 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

3. Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives Project duration 10/1/2005-9/30/2007 Four phases: • Focus group interviews* • Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint transcripts • 600 online surveys* • 300 telephone interviews* *Interviews & surveys with VRS users, non-users, & librarians

4. 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

5. 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

6. n=255

7. n=238

8. n=256

9. n=273

10. n=273

11. n=273

12. Service Duration • Mean Service Duration: 13:53 • Median Service Duration: 10:37

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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/

19. Questions • 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