1 / 32

Creating Chat Connections: E-valuating Virtual Reference Transcripts

This project analyzes the effectiveness of virtual reference services by examining 850 live chat transcripts, conducting 600 online surveys, and engaging in 300 telephone interviews. The study, which ran from October 2005 to March 2008, focuses on various factors such as user demographics, wait and session times, and interpersonal communication within chat interactions. Insights reveal relational facilitators and barriers in librarian-client communications, enhancing the understanding of the dynamics involved in virtual reference services.

tallys
Télécharger la présentation

Creating Chat Connections: E-valuating Virtual Reference Transcripts

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. Creating Chat Connections: E-valuating Virtual Reference Transcripts Marie L. Radford ACRL Delaware Valley Chapter November 2, 2007

  2. Seeking Synchronicity:Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives Project duration: 2 ½ Years(10/05-3/08) Four phases: • Focus group interviews • Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat transcripts • 600 online surveys • 300 telephone interviews

  3. Phase II: Transcript Analysis • Random sample • 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months) • 500,000+ pool of transcripts • 30-50 per month = 850 total sample • 746 usable transcripts • Excluding system tests & technical problems • 372 classified by age/educational level • 146 “Screenagers” (Middle & High School) • 226 “Others” (College/Adult)

  4. 6 Analyses • Geographical Distribution • Originating library • Librarian respondents • Type of Library • Wait Time & Session Time • Type of Questions • Katz/Kaske Classification • Subject of Questions • Dewey Decimal Classification • Interpersonal Communication • Radford Classification

  5. VRS Session Times • Wait time • Mean – 1.87 Minutes • Median – 1 Minute • Minimum – 1 Second • Maximum – 67 Minutes • Session time • Mean – 12.42 Minutes • Median – 12 Minutes • Minimum – 12 Seconds • Maximum – 71 Minutes

  6. VRS Transactions by Library Type

  7. VRS Questions by Location of Originating Library

  8. VRS Questions by Location of Librarian Respondents

  9. Wait Time for VRS Users

  10. VRS Mean Wait Time by Library Type

  11. VRS Mean Session Times by Library Type

  12. VRS Questions by Type

  13. VRS Questions by Subject

  14. Interpersonal Communication Analysis Theoretical Framework Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson (1967)Pragmatics of Human Communication • All messages have both content & relational dimension. • Content = Information (WHAT) • Relational = Relationship Aspects (HOW)

  15. Method • Qualitative Analysis of Transcripts • Development of category scheme • Careful reading/analysis • Identification of patterns

  16. Interpersonal Communication Research Questions • What relational dimensions are present in chat transcripts? • Are there differences in relational dimensions/patterns of chat users & librarians? If so, what are they?

  17. Results • 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 that impede communication.

  18. Transcript Examples – Relational Facilitators “The Size of an Atom” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: Life Sciences, Biology (DDC:570) Duration: 40 min. “Diabetes” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: Business Duration: 43 min., 15 sec.

  19. Transcript Example – Relational Barriers “Mesopotamian Government” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: History of Ancient World (DDC:930) Duration: 27 min. “Telekinetic Powers” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: Parapsychology & Occultism Duration: 7 min., 29 sec.

  20. Facilitators – VRS UsersScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Lower numbers/percentages per transcript SO Thanks 21% (75) vs. 77% (175) Agreement to try what 32% (46) vs. 51% (116) is suggested Closing Ritual 32% (47) vs. 49% (111) Self Disclosure 42% (61) vs. 55% (125) Seeking Reassurance 39% (57) vs. 49% (111) Admit lack knowledge 19% (13) vs. 21% (47)

  21. Facilitators – VRS UsersScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Similar numbers/percentages per transcript SO Alternate Spelling/ 28% (41) vs. 27% (60) Abbreviated Words Informal Language 9% (13) vs. 9% (21) Offering Confirmation 8% (11) vs. 8% (13) Empathy 3% (4) vs. 4% (8)

  22. Barriers – VRS UsersScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Higher numbers/percentages per transcript SO Impatience8% (12) vs. 6% (13) Rude or Insulting 6% (9) vs. 4% (9)

  23. Facilitators - LibrariansScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Lower numbers/percentages per transcript L to SL to O Offering Opinion/Advice 29% (43) vs. 37% (83) Explaining Search Strategy 6% (9) vs. 14% (31) All Lower Case 11% (63) vs. 18% (43) Encouraging Remarks 12% (18) vs. 17% (39)

  24. Facilitators - LibrariansScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Highernumbers/percentages per transcript L to SL to O Seeking Reassurance 61% (89) vs. 51% (115) Greeting Ritual 52% (76) vs. 48% (108) Asking for Patience 39% (57) vs. 35% (80) Explaining Signing off 5% (8) vs. 1% (2) Abruptly

  25. Facilitators - Librarians Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Similarnumbers/percentages per transcript L to SL to O Polite Expressions 57% (83) vs. 56% (127) Inclusion 33% (48) vs. 34% (76) Thanks 22% (32) vs. 23% (51) Makes Sure User Has 18% (27) vs. 20% (45) No More Questions Interjections 8% (11) vs. 9% (20)

  26. Barriers - LibrariansScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) • Higher numbers/percentages per transcript L to SL to O Abrupt Endings 16% (23) vs. 9% (20) Limits Time 6% (9) vs. 0% (1) Sends to Google 5% (8) vs. 0% (0) Reprimanding 4% (6) vs. 0% (1) Failure/Refusal to 5% (7) vs. 2% (5) Provide Information

  27. Strategies that Work!All Modes of Reference • Basic interpersonal skills • Recognizing that user may need reassurance • Providing reassurance • Awareness of appropriate self-disclosure • When to disclose • Acknowledgment of user’s self-disclosure • Humor – importance of acknowledgment

  28. More Strategies • Greetings & Closings. • Beware negative closure! • Beware robotic scripts! • Inclusion (use of we, let’s, etc.). • Mirror relational strategies. • Don’t b afraid 2 use informal language, abbreviations & emoticons as appropriate :)

  29. Boost Satisfaction • Collaborate across generations • End encounter on a positive note. • Ask “Have I answered your question completely?” • Avoid “Negative Closure” • Invite to return to desk or e-service if further help needed.

  30. Bottom Line • Communication critically important! • Difficult process • Generational differences add to complexity!! • Use your experience & intuition as guides.

  31. Questions? • Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. • Email:mradford@scils.rutgers.edu • www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford

  32. 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 Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Patrick Confer, Timothy Dickey, Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Julie Strange, Janet Torsney, & Susanna Sabolski-Boros. • Slides available at project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

More Related