1 / 19

Virtual Rituals: Applying Goffman’s Face-Work to an Analysis of Live Chat Reference Encounters

Virtual Rituals: Applying Goffman’s Face-Work to an Analysis of Live Chat Reference Encounters. Marie L. Radford, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, & Jocelyn A. DeAngelis Williams LRS IV London, Ontario, Canada October 10-12, 2007.

talli
Télécharger la présentation

Virtual Rituals: Applying Goffman’s Face-Work to an Analysis of Live Chat Reference Encounters

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Virtual Rituals:Applying Goffman’s Face-Work to an Analysis of Live Chat Reference Encounters Marie L. Radford, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, & Jocelyn A. DeAngelis Williams LRS IV London, Ontario, Canada October 10-12, 2007

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

  3. Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives Project duration: 2 1/2 Years(10/05-3/08) Four phases: • Focus group interviews • Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint live chat transcripts • 600 online surveys • 300 telephone interviews

  4. Phase II: Transcript Analysis • Random sample • 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months) • 479,673 QuestionPoint sessions total • Avg. 33/mo. = 850 total, 850 examined • 746 usable transcripts • Excluding system tests & tech problems

  5. Face-Work “Much of the activity occurring during an encounter can be understood as an effort on everyone’s part to get through the occasion and all the unanticipated and unintentional events that can cast participants in an undesirable light, without disrupting the relationships of the participants” (Goffman, 1967, p. 41)

  6. Face Defined • Positive social value person claims • Self-image in terms of approved social attributes

  7. Face-Work in Encounters • Face is located in flow of events • Feelings about face reinforced by encounters • If better face is established – feel good • If expectations not fulfilled – feel bad or hurt • Neutral experience – expected, not memorable

  8. Kinds of Face-Work • Rituals– Greetings & Closings • Corrective Process – Repair & Apology • AvoidanceProcess– Prevent Threats to Face • Poise – Control Embarrassment

  9. Face-Work in Chat Reference • Goffman provides a powerful way to frame analysis of chat encounters. • Face & face-work appear in flow of transcript (event). • Analysis identifies instances of face-work. • Major categories – see handout.

  10. Interpersonal Communication Findings • Relational Facilitators • Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a positive impact on the librarian-client interaction and that enhancecommunication. • Relational Barriers • Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a negative impact on the librarian-client interaction and thatimpede communication.

  11. Transcript Examples Positive Face-Work – Relational Facilitators “Size of an Atom” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: Life Sciences; Biology (DDC: 570) Duration: 39.75 min. Negative Face-Work – Relational Barriers “Mesopotamian Government” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: History of the Ancient World (DDC: 930) Duration: 27 min.

  12. Face-Work Facilitators – Similarities (n=746 Transcripts)

  13. Facilitators – DifferencesLibrarians vs. UsersLibrarian Lower Numbers/Occurrence (n=746 Transcripts)

  14. Facilitators – DifferencesLibrarians vs. UsersLibrarian Higher Numbers/Occurrence (n=746 Transcripts)

  15. Barriers – DifferencesLibrarians Vs. UsersUserHigher Numbers/Average (n=746 Transcripts)

  16. Barriers – DifferencesLibrarians Vs. UsersHigherNumbers/Average (n=746 Transcripts)

  17. Future Directions • Continue to collect & analyze data • Online surveys • 200 Librarian surveys completed • 200 Non-user surveys completed • 200 User surveys in progress • Telephone interviews • 100 Librarians completed • 100 Users in progress • 100 Non-users in progress

  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 • Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University, & OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. • Special thanks to Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, & Janet Torsney. • Slides available at 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 • Jocelyn A. DeAngelis Williams • Email: jocelyn.scils@rutgers.edu

More Related