"if it is too inconvenient i'm not going after it:" factors shaping user information...

“If it is too inconvenient I’m not going after it”: Factors Shaping User Information Behavior

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

Senior Research Scientist

OCLC Research

NFAIS WebinarDecember 19, 2011

2

Digital Information Seeker

• Report of findings from selected OCLC, JISC & RIN User Behaviour Project

• Funded by JISC

• Analysis of 12 user behaviour studies• Conducted in US and UK• Published within last 5 years• Synthesis

• Better understand user information-seeking behaviour

• Identify issues for development of user-focused services and systems

3

“The majority of researchers in all disciplines have adapted readily to the widespread availability of digital content, accessible directly from their desktops.”

(Consortium of University Research Libraries, and Research Information Network. 2007. Researchers' use of academic libraries and their services: A report. London: Research

Information Network and Consortium of University Research Libraries (CURL), p. 23)

4

The power

of convenience

5

Convenience in the User Studies Data

• Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources (OCLC, 2005)

• Search engines a “lifestyle fit” for speed & convenience

• Key criterion in resource choice is speed

• College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources (OCLC, 2006)

• Use the library less since they began using the Internet

6

Convenience in the User Studies Data

• Sense-making the Information Confluence (2003-2005)

• Convenience a factor for using • Internet search engines• Electronic database• College/university libraries

7

Convenience in the User Studies Data

Researchers and Discovery Services (RIN, 2006)

• Researchers value the convenience of desktop access

Researchers’ Use of Academic Libraries (CURL and RIN, 2007)

• Convenience a major factor in behaviors

• Users expect not to spend much time in locating an item

8

Convenience in the User Studies Data

Information Behavior of the Researcher of the Future (CIBER, 2008)

• Users demand 24/7 access, instant gratification

JISC National E-books Observatory Project (JISC, 2009)

• Article downloads have nearly doubled

• Convenience a major factor in usage

9

Convenience in the User Studies Data

• Seeking Synchronicity (2008)• VRS users

• Cited convenience as affecting decision to use service

• Rated the chat medium as the “most efficient” of all reference modes

• Non-VRS users• Stated they find information

themselves• Stated they would use VRS

because it’s convenient

10

• D2D of full-text digital content• Transparency of ranking results• Evaluative information included

in catalog• More robust metadata

Common Findings:User Desires

11

Common Findings:User Behaviors

• Use snippets from e-books• View only a few pages• Short visits

• Prefer quick chunks of information• Very little time using content• Use basic search

• Simple searching of Google-like interfaces• Power browsing• Natural language

• “Squirreling” of downloads

12

Common Findings:The Library

• = Books• Desire Selective Dissemination of

Information (SDI)• More digital content = Better• Use for research• Use less since Internet available

13

Common Findings:The Library

• Criticize physical library & traditional services

• Faculty praise physical collection

• Electronic databases not perceived as library sources

• Frustration with locating and accessing full-text copies

14

Common Findings:User Literacy Skills

• Information literacy skills• Lacking• Not kept pace with

digital literacy• Researchers self-taught &

confident

15

Common Findings:The Web

• Search engine first choice• Starting point • Easy and convenient to use• Quick searches to become familiar with

subjects• Rate search engines better lifestyle fit than

libraries• Trust Google to understand

16

Common Findings:The Search

• Search strategies differ by context

• Database interfaces hinder access

• Desire enhanced functionality & content to evaluate resources

• Prefer natural language

17

Common Findings:The Catalog

“It is very clear that Google has emerged as a real force in the accessing and discovery of research content which is rivalling university library catalogues.”

(Hampton-Reeves, Stuart, Claire Mashiter, Jonathan Westaway, Peter Lumsden, Helen Day,

Helen Hewerston, and Anna Hart. 2009. Students’ use of research content in teaching and learning: A report of the Joint Information Systems Council

(JISC), p. 30)

18

Common Findings:The Catalog

• Value databases & other online sources

• Do not understand what resources available in libraries

• Cannot distinguish between databases held by a library & other online sources

• Library OPACs difficult to use

19

Common Findings:The Catalog

• Search behaviors vary by discipline• Desire seamless process from D2D

• Sciences most satisfied• Social Sciences & Arts & Humanities have

serious gaps• Foreign language materials• Multi-author collections• Journal back files• Lack of specialist search engines

20

Common Findings:Metadata

• Inadequately cataloged resources result in underuse

• Library ownership of sources essential data element

• Differences exist between the catalog data quality priorities of users & librarians

21

Contradictory Findings

• “Google generation”• Search engine speed• Support for library OPAC advanced search

options & social features

22

Conclusions

• Preference for independent information seeking• Confident in research abilities

23

What Does This Mean for Libraries?

• Keep talking• Keep moving• Keep the gates open• Keep it simple

24

Implications for Information Services

• Market services• Better advertise library brand• Provide search help at time of

need• Chat & IM help during search

• Provide more authoritative, reliable digital sources

• E-journals, data sets, VREs, open source materials, multimedia objects, blogs

• Develop economic model for resources

25

Implications for Information Systems

• Make library experience more like the Web• Google, Amazon.com, iTunes

• Build on & integrate search engine features• Adopt user-centered development approach

• Longitudinal data

• Talk to and listen to users

26

Implications for Research

• Investigate how and why people get information in different contexts and situations

• Theoretical research combining individual and social factors that influence information-seeking behaviors

• Longitudinal studies of users

DigitalVisitorDigitalResident

28

Old people just don’t get this stuff

29

Research Addressing Digital Learners

• Need for a longitudinal study “to identify how individuals engage in both the virtual and physical worlds to get information for different situations” (Connaway & Dickey 2010, p.56).

• The information literacy of young people, has not improved with the widening access to technology: in fact, their apparent facility with computers disguises some worrying problems (Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research 2008).

• Academic staff perceive students as being more digitally capable than is really the case (Beetham, McGill, and Littlejohn 2009).

30

“I think that lots of like companies and people away from my generation think that we rely and we’re obsessed with gadgets and gizmos and everybody has to buy the newest iPhone and iPad and newest everything. At the end of the day, as a student, are you really know is that is what the internet is for. How you get to it – it doesn’t matter if you don’t own a computer and you have to come to the library to use it. Um…like it’s available to you and you don’t care like how you get it.”

(WorldCat.org Focus Group Interview UKU4th year university student)

31

“…our generation isn’t technology orientated. I think it’s always a stereotype.”

(Participant UKS4)

32

=

33

Video: goo.gl/dny1h

Paper: goo.gl/RFSLz

34

35

Visitors and Residents: What motivates engagement with the digital information environment?• Funded by

• JISC

• OCLC• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

• Oxford University• David White

• University of North Carolina, Charlotte

• Donna Lanclos, Ph.D.

36

Visitors and Residents Study

37

38

Objectives

• Eliminate assumed links between age and technological engagement

• Create a matrix of implementation options

39

Phase 1 Pilot stage: Months 1-6

• Emerging educational stage• 30 participants

• 15 in the US• 15 in the UK

• Quantitative data: Demographics, number of occurrences of technologies, sources, and behaviors.

• Qualitative data: Themes and direct quotes.

40

Phase I Participant Demographics

• 30 participants• 19 females, 11 males• 21 Caucasian, 3 African-American, 1 Caucasian-

Thai, 1 Hispanic, 4 unidentified• 15 secondary students• 15 university students

41

US vs. UK Participant Ages

16 years old

17 years old

18 years old

19 years old

20-30 years old

30+ years old

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

5

2

7

1

0

1

6

1

4

0

3

USUK

42

US vs. UK Participant University MajorsUS (8 of 15)

• 5 Engineering

• 1 Political Science

• 1 Pre-Business

• 1 Undeclared

UK (7 of 15)

• 3 Teaching

• 1 Chemical Biology

• 1 Chemistry

• 1 History

• 1 Languages

43

Participant Interview Questions

1. Describe the things you enjoy doing with technology and the web each week.

2. Think of the ways you have used technology and the web for your studies. Describe a typical week.

3. Think about the next stage of your education. Tell me what you think this will be like.

44

Participant Interview Questions, cont.

4. Think of a time when you had a situation where you needed answers or solutions and you did a quick search and made do with it. You knew there were other sources but you decided not to use them. Please include sources such as friends, family, teachers, coaches, etc.

5. Have there been times when you were told to use a library or virtual learning environment (or learning platform), and used other source(s) instead?

45

Participant Interview Questions, cont.

6. If you had a magic wand, what would your ideal way of getting information be? How would you go about using the systems and services? When? Where? How?

7. What comments or questions do you have for me? Is there anything you would like me to explain? What would you like to tell me that you’ve thought about during the interview?

46

I. Place

A. Internet

1. Search engine

a. Google

b. Yahoo

2. Social Media

a. FaceBook

b. Twitter

c. You Tube

d. Flickr/image sharing

e.. Blogging

B. Library

1. Academic

2. Public

3. School (K-12)

C. Home

D. School, classroom, computer lab

E. Other

Codebook

47

II. Sources

A. Human

1. Mother

2. Father

3. Extended family (siblings, cousins, relatives, children, spouses)

4. Experts/Professionals

5. Friends/Colleagues (‘mates’)

6. Teachers/Professors

7. Peers (school, university colleagues but not ‘friends’)

8. Librarians

9. Other

B. Digital

1. E-books

2. Online textbooks

3. Databases

4. Websites

Codebook

48

Facebook is for administration & social communication

49

EnglishThe Free Encyclopedia3 642 000+ articles 

日本語フリー百科事典750 000+ 記事

DeutschDie freie Enzyklopädie1 233 000+ Artikel 

EspañolLa enciclopedia libre761 000+ artículos 

FrançaisL’encyclopédie libre1 106 000+ articles 

РусскийСвободная энциклопедия

714 000+ статей 

ItalianoL’enciclopedia libera

803 000+ voci 

PortuguêsA enciclopédia livre685 000+ artigos 

PolskiWolna encyklopedia

802 000+ haseł 

NederlandsDe vrije encyclopedie688 000+ artikelen 

Don’t mention Wikipedia!

50

Sources

51

Contact

52

Agency

53

54

Convergence“Google doesn’t judge me” (UKF3)

55

People

56

Are they as confident as they say?

57

Diaries

•6 US and 6 UK transitional stage students•Share information-seeking situations each month•Communicate them in any format

58

Diaries

All selected EMAIL

Why? “It’s for formal communication”

59

Current Project Status

•Completed 30 interviews Emerging Stage students•Collected 12 diaries for 3 months•Developed code book•Analyzed 30 interviews•Began 30 interviews

• Establishing Stage students• Embedding Stage students• Experienced scholars

•Collecting 30 diaries for 4-6 months

60

Future Phases

• Phase 3: Months 13-24• Track 24 participants• Online survey of 400 students and

scholars• Continue diaries

• Phase 4: Months 25-36• Add 6 Emerging Stage students• Continue diaries

61

Selected Readings

Beetham, Helen, Lou McGill, and Allison Littlejohn. Thriving in the 21st Century:

Learning Literacies for the Digital Age (LLiDA Project). Glasgow: The Caledonian

Academy, Glasgow Caledonian University, 2009.

http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/llida/LLiDAReportJune2009.pdf.

Bullen, Mark, Tannis Morgan, and Adnan Qayyum. Digital Learners in Higher

Education: Generation is Not the Issue. Canadian Journal of Learning and

Technology, 37, no. 1 (Spring 2011).

http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/550/298.

Calhoun, Karen, et al. Online Catalogs: What Users and Librarians Want: An OCLC

Report. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, 2009.

http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/onlinecatalogs/default.htm.

Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research. Information

Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future: A CIBER Briefing Paper. London:

CIBER, 2008.

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmemes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf

.

Connaway, Lynn Silipigni. 2007. “Mountains, valleys, and pathways: Serials users’

needs and steps to meet them. Part I: Identifying Serials Users’ Needs:

Preliminary Analysis of Focus Group Interviews and Semi-structured Observations

at Colleges and Universities.” Serials Librarian 52(1/2): 223-236.

62

Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Timothy J. Dickey. The Digital Information Seeker: Report of

the Findings from Selected OCLC, RIN, and JISC User Behaviour Projects. 2010. London:

HECFCE.

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf

.

Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Timothy J. Dickey, and Marie L. Radford. “‘If it is too

inconvenient I’m not going after it:’ Convenience as a Critical Factor in

Information-seeking Behaviors.” Library & Information Science Research 33,

no. 3 (2011): 179-90.

Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Chandra Prabha, and Timothy J. Dickey. Sense-making

the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University

User Satisficing of Information Needs. Phase III: Focus group Interview Study.

Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03-0062-03, to Institute of

Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Columbus, Ohio: School of

Communication, The Ohio State University, 2006.

http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/imls/default.htm.

Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Marie L. Radford. Seeking Synchronicity:

Revelations and Recommendations for Virtual Reference. Dublin, OH: OCLC

Research, 2011. http://www.oclc.org/reports/synchronicity/full.pdf.

Selected Readings

63

Consortium of University Research Libraries, and Research Information

Network. Researchers‘ Use of Academic Libraries and Their Services: A

Report. London: Research Information Network and Consortium of University

Research Libraries (CURL), 2007.

http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/researchers-use-academic-libraries-and-their-serv

.

De Rosa, Cathy. College Students‘ Perceptions of Libraries and Information

Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online

Computer Library Center, 2006.

http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/perceptionscollege.htm.

De Rosa, Cathy. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to

the OCLC Membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center,

2005. http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/2005perceptions.htm.

Dervin, Brenda, CarrieLynn D. Reinhard, Zack Y. Kerr, Mei Song, and Fei C. Shen,

eds. Sense-making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of

College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs. Phase II: Sense-

making Online Survey and Phone Interview Study. Report on National

Leadership Grant LG-02-03-0062-03 to Institute of Museum and Library

Services, Washington, D.C. Columbus, Ohio: School of Communication, Ohio

State University, 2006.

http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/imls/default.htm.

Selected Readings

64

Selected ReadingsHampton-Reeves, Stuart, Claire Mashiter, Jonathan Westaway, Peter Lumsden, Helen

Day, Helen Hewerston, and Anna Hart. Students’ Use of Research Content in

Teaching and Learning: A Report of the Joint Information Systems Council (JISC).

2009.

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/aboutus/workinggroups/studentsuseresearchcontent.pdf

.

JISC and UCL. JISC National e-Books Observatory Project: Key Findings and

Recommendations: Final Report. 2009.

http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/imls/default.htm.

Nicholas, David, Ian Rowlands, and Paul Huntington. Information Behaviour of the

Researcher of the Future: A CIBER Briefing Paper. London: CIBER, 2008.

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf

.

Prabha, Chandra, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, and Timothy J. Dickey. Sense-making the

Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User

Satisficing of Information Needs. Phase IV: Semi-structured Interview Study.

Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03-0062-03, to Institute of Museum

and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Columbus, Ohio: School of Communication,

The Ohio State University, 2006.

http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/imls/default.htm.

65

Selected ReadingsRadford, Marie L., and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating

Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-user, and Librarian Perspectives: IMLS

Final Performance Report. Report on Grant LG-06-05-0109-05, to Institute of

Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online

Computer Library Center, 2008.

http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/default.htm.

Research Information Network. E-journals: Their Use, Value and Impact. London:

Research Information Network, 2009.

http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/e-journals-their-use-value-and-impact

.

Research Information Network. Researchers and Discovery Services: Behaviour,

Perceptions and Needs. London: Research Information Network, 2006.

http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/researchers-and-discovery-services-behaviour-perc.

Warwick, Claire, Isabel Galina, Melissa Terras, Paul Huntington, and Nikoleta Pappa.

“The Master Builders: LAIRAH Research on Good Practice in the Construction of

Digital Humanities Projects.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23, no. 3 (2008):

383-96. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/13810/.

66

Selected ReadingsWhite, David , and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. Visitors and Residents: What Motivates

Engagement with the Digital Information Environment. 2011. Funded by JISC,

OCLC, and Oxford University. http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/vandr/.

White, David S., and Alison Le Cornu. “Visitors and Residents: A New Typology for

Online Engagement.” First Monday 16, no. 9 (2011).

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3171/3049.

Wong, William, Hanna Stelmaszewska, Nazlin Bhimani, Sukhbinder Barn, and Balbir

Barn. User Behaviour in Resource Discovery: Final Report. 2009.

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/inf11/userbehaviourbusandecon.aspx

.

67

Image Credit

• Slide 4: Vending machines: midoisyuhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/midorisyu/752223850/

• Slide 24: Conversation: Peter Nijenhuishttp://www.flickr.com/photos/peternijenhuis/199686509/

• Slide 27: Porto Riberia: lanier67• http://www.flickr.com/photos/lanier67/5253473681

• Slide 54: Glasses face: peterburnham, http://www.flickr.com/photos/pburnham/5238764188/

68

The researchers would like to thank Dr. Alison LeCornu and Erin Hood for their assistance in keeping the team organized, scheduling and conducting interviews, and assisting with the analysis of the data, and the dissemination of the results of the Digital Visitors and Residents project.

69

Discussion

Lynn Silipigni Connaway

connawal@oclc.org