Virtual Windows: Observing Chat Reference Encounters through Transcript Analysis

1. Virtual Windows: Observing Chat Reference Encounters through Transcript Analysis Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D., Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Lawrence Olszewski, Ph.D. 19 IAPS International Conference September 11-16, 2006 Alexandria, Egypt

2. Morphing Idea of Library • Proliferation of digital libraries • Virtual Reference Services (VRS) • Electronic collections • User Preferences • Sources • Internet • Electronic sources • Humans • Parents • Colleagues/Friends • Professors • Interface design • Google-like • Amazon

3. Privacy and Confidentiality • Traditional reference (FtF and Telephone) • Anonymity and privacy assumed • VRS • Verbatim transcripts allow unobtrusive research opportunities • Transcripts provide physical evidence of session

4. Privacy and Confidentiality • Known identity of user • Authenticate and improve service • Identify repeat user • Send follow-up information • Nature and subject of query • Sensitive questions • Medical • Legal • Personal situations • Confidentiality of all queries should berespected

5. Evaluation of VRS • Sustainability of VRS • Factors that influence selection and use of VRS • Behavior of users and librarians in VRS sessions • User and librarian perceptions of satisfaction

6. 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

7. 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

8. Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives • Identify what individuals say they do • Focus group interviews • Online surveys • Telephone interviews • Identify what individuals actuallydo • Transcript analysis

9. 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

10. 6 Analyses • Geographical Distribution • Library receiving query • Library answering query • Type of Library • Type of Questions • Katz/Kaske Classification • Subject of Questions • Dewey Decimal Classification • Session Duration • Interpersonal Communication • Radford Classification

11. n=255

12. n=238

13. n=256

14. n=273

15. n=273

16. n=273

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

18. Positive Transcript Example

19. Positive Transcript Example

20. Negative Transcript Example

21. Negative Transcript Example

22. 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

23. 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

24. Focus Group InterviewsChallenges 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

25. 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

26. Service Implications • Sustainability of VRS • Encourage repeat use • Protect privacy and anonymity • Encryption programs • “Anonymity Button” • Opt-out after registering • Opt-in only for necessary information • Sales/Homework Help models • Build interpersonal relationships • Disclose first name - trusted librarian • Positive relational communication • Trade-offs in service • Personal service vs. personal disclosure • Follow-up capability vs. anonymity • Amazon-like services vs. protection of personal information

27. Conclusions • Current service models do not address privacy issues • Millennial generation wary of virtual environments • Remote communication poses less interpersonal risk than FtF • Positive interpersonal communication imperative for VRS success • Many users appreciate convenience and immediacy of VRS

28. Next Steps • Conduct • Two additional focus group interviews – VRS users • Online survey & telephone interviews with VRS • Users • Non-users • Librarians • Analyses • Gender • User Type • Child/Young adult • Adult • Unknown

29. 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/

30. 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 • Lawrence Olszewski, Ph.D. • Email: olszewsl@oclc.org