focusing on change: connecting to both millennials and baby boomers presented by: lynn silipigni...
TRANSCRIPT
Focusing on Change: Connecting to Both Millennials and
Baby Boomers
Presented by: Lynn Silipigni Connawayinformation: interactions & impact Conference
Aberdeen, UKJune 27, 2007
Libraries
Then: Resources scarce, attention abundant
Now: Attention scarce, resources abundant
• Competition for attention
Libraries
Then: The user built workflow around the library
Now: The library must build its services around user workflow
• Get into the flow
• Disclose into other environments
Libraries
Provide systems and services to meet the information needs of differing groups
Largest groups
Baby boomers
Cohort #1
Cohort #2
Millennials
Screenagers
Baby Boomers(Luck, 2006; Gillon, 2004)
Actual “boom” in births occurred between 1946 - 1964
1950s - Time of prosperity
1960s & 1970s - Time of social upheaval
Comprise largest part of workforce (45%)
Baby Boomers(Wikipedia, 2007)
Cohort #1
Born 1946 - 1954
Experimental
Individualists
Free spirited
Social cause oriented
Cohort #2
Born 1955 - 1964
Less optimistic
Distrust of government
General cynicism
Baby Boomers Preferences & Characteristics
(Luck, 2006; Gillon, 2004)
Optimistic about life and the future
Personal Gratification
Desire for self-gratification
Longing for personal & spiritual growth
Work/Job for life
American Dream
Self-absorbed – center of attention
Team Orientation
Health, Wellness, and Youth
Involvement
The Millennial Generation Born 1979 – 1994
AKA Net Generation, Generation Y, Digital Generation, or Echo Boomers
13-28 year olds
About 75 million people
By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964)
The Millennial Generation
May be most studied generation in history
4x amount of toys than Boomer parents 20 yrs. earlier
Born digital, most can not remember life without computers
Confident, hopeful, goal-oriented, civic-minded, tech savvy
The Millennial Generation (Sweeney, 2006)
Preferences & Characteristics More Choices & Selectivity
Experiential & Exploratory Learners
Flexibility & Convenience
Personalization & Customization
Impatient
Less Attention to Spelling, Grammar
Practical, Results Oriented
Multi-taskers & Collaborators
Screenagers
Youngest members of “Millennial Generation”
Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff
Used here for 12-18 year olds
Affinity for electronic communication
Two IMLS-Funded ProjectsSense-Making the Information Confluence:
The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives
• Individuals' preferences for finding and using information sources and service
• Why their first choices often donot include library sources and services
Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information NeedsProject funding
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
Ohio State University (OSU)
OCLC, Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC)
Project durationCalendar years, 2004-2006
Project phasesI. Literature reviews and dialogue
II. Sense-making surveys: online & phone
III. Focus group interviews
IV. Semi-structured dialogues
Undergraduate Students: Search
Human resources Dad
Friend
Roommates
Librarians (thorough search)
Google Everything is current
Blogs
Discussion groups
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Undergraduate Students: Search
Electronic databases Lexis Nexis
Amazon.com
Use Amazon.com first, then go to library catalog
Television programs
Discovery Channel
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Graduate Students: Search
Web and Google Quick
Easy
Personal library
Library Databases
EBSCO
Online journals and abstracts
Online books
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Graduate Students: Search Human resources
Friends
Advisors
Class members
Professors
Peers
Colleagues
Experts
Internet
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Faculty: Search Personal library – “quicker than online”
Amazon Google
“quick and dirty”
“first stop”
Human Resources Colleagues Experts/Authorities in field Personal information specialist
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Faculty: Search Online resources
Web sites ending in .ORG Google for definitions
Library Academic journals Journal databases Books Homepage
Electronic journal center
Databases
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Undergraduate Students:Did not use the library
Human resources
Dad
Parents
Professors
Online Encyclopedia
JSTOR
Academic databases
Lexis Nexis
Personal library
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Graduate Students: Did not use the library
Internet and Google Easy
Databases Lexis-Nexis
OhioLink Bookstores Amazon.com Personal library Human resources
Professors Dad Peers Other experts
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Faculty: Did not use the library
Human resources
Experts in academic community
Colleagues
Subscribed services and electronic databases (Prefer to Google for credibility)
PsychInfo
Amazon.com
Google for personal information
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Theoretical Framework
• Role theory
• Rational choice theory
• Satisficing Theory
Role Theory
Roles are social expectations for occupying a status.
Understanding the “person-in-context” by situating a role within the larger social structure.
What demands (expectations) do roles generate for information seekers (student, researcher)?
Rational Choice Theory
Purposive action:
Individuals act rationally within a cost-benefit framework to achieve a desired goal.
Information seekers rationally evaluate the benefits of usefulness and credibility of information versus costs of time and effort of retrieving it.
Satisficing Theory
Theory of optimization
Component of rational choice
Actors implement the most satisfactory means to the most preferred ends.
Satisficing describes stopping-behavior: actors “settling” in terms of preference satisfaction
Millennials
Information-seeking behavior
Role theory
Rational choice theory
Satisficing
Baby Boomers
Information-seeking behavior
Role theory
Rational choice theory
Emerging Themes:Internet
Convenient
Current
Familiarization tool
Emerging Themes:Library
Use for research
Access to databases, abstracts, and indexes
Desire ability to customize library portals
Value as place
Notes
This presentation is one of the outcomes from the project “Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs." Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Ohio State University, and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., the project is being implemented by Brenda Dervin (Professor of Communication and Joan N. Huber Fellow of Social & Behavioral Science, Ohio State University) as Principal Investigator; and Lynn Silipigni Connaway (OCLC Consulting Research Scientist III) and Chandra Prahba (OCLC Senior Research Scientist), as Co-Investigators. More information can be obtained at: http://imlsosuoclcproject.jcomm.ohio-state.edu/
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
Non-User (Screenager): Major Themes
Librarian stereotypes Preference for independent information
seeking
Google Web surfing Trust own ability to evaluate web resources more
than librarians’
Preference for face-to-face interaction Value interpersonal interactions in Face-to Face
Non-User (Screenager): Major Themes
Privacy/Security concerns Librarians as “psycho killers”
Fear of cyber stalkers
Concern for accuracy of information Chat takes too long
Factors influencing future VRS use Recommendation
Marketing
Ability to choose a trusted librarian
Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes
Most students prefer face-to-face librarian interactions
Reliable
Developing a personal relationship with a librarian
Utilize internet tools for information
Library website, Google, other internet resources
Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes
Negative perceptions about VRS:
Sounds like a chat room, not professional, fear of question unsuitability, technology/learning curve
Fear of appearing stupid, or being negatively evaluated by the librarian.
Privacy concerns/ transcripts revealed to professors
Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes
Factors influencing future VRS use
Recommendation by librarian/colleague
Developing confidence in service’s use, speed & access
Promotional campaign
VRS Users: Positive Major Themes
Convenience
Research/Information retrieval independence
Collaborative – share work
Knowledgeable service provider
VRS Users: Positive Major Themes
Pleasant interpersonal environment
Transcript of chat session
Anonymity of VRS
Immediacy of chat vs. email
Allows multi-tasking
VRS Users: Negative Major Themes
Just another search engine
Generic responses
Distrust in information provided
Technical improvement suggestions
Face-to-face interaction preferred
Fear of overwhelming the librarian
Concerns about librarians’ lack of subject expertise
Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior (1967)
Erving Goffman1922-1982
Essay: “On Face-Work: An analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction”
“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, p. 41)
Face Defined
Positive social value person claims
Self-image in terms of approved social attributes
Relational Theory & Approach to Interpersonal Communication
Every message has dual dimensions – both content and relational
(Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967)
Dual Dimensions
Content
The “WHAT”
Information exchange
Relational
“HOW” message is to be taken
Relationship of participants
Two Views
Users
Highly value Librarian’s attitude & personal qualities
Some value interpersonal aspects more than receipt of information
Librarians
More likely to value content, transfer of information
Also value relationship qualities (but to a lesser degree)
Interpersonal Communication Analysis: Results
Relational Facilitators
Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a positive impact on the librarian-client interaction and that enhance communication.
Relational Barriers
Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a negative impact on the librarian-client interaction and that impede communication.
Facilitators – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)
Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence)
Thanks 72 (110%) vs. 163 (130%)
Self Disclosure 41 (63%) vs. 120 (95%)
Seeking reassurance 39 (6%) vs. 87 (7%)
Agree to suggestion 39 (6%) vs. 93 (74%)
Closing Ritual 25 (38%) vs. 69 (55%)
Admit lack knowledge 10 (15%) vs. 30 (24%)
(n=191 transcripts)
Facilitators – More Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)
Higher numbers/averages (per occurrence)Polite expressions 51 (78%) vs. 40 (32%)
Alternate spellings 33 (51%) vs. 19 (15%)
Punctuation/repeat 23 (35%) vs. 28 (22)
Lower case 19 (29%) vs. 24 (19%)
Slang 9 (14%) vs. 3 (2%)
Enthusiasm 8 (12%) vs. 9 (7%)
Self-correction 7 (11%) vs. 6 (5%)
Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (5%) vs. 0
(n=191 transcripts)
Barriers – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)
Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript) for:
Abrupt Endings 26 (40%) vs. 37 (29%)
Impatience 6 (9%) vs. 2 (2%)
Rude or Insulting 2 (3%) vs. 0
(n=191 transcripts)
Facilitators – Differences Millennials (n=189) vs. Adults (n=48)
Lower averages (per transcript)
Thanks 113 (60%) vs. 34 (71%)
Self Disclosure 86 (46%) vs. 30 (63%)
Lower averages (per occurrence)Seeking reassurance 108 (57%) vs. 38
(79%)
Closing Ritual 83 (44%) vs. 25 (52%)
Polite expressions 55 (29%) vs. 17 (35%)
(n=237 transcripts)
Facilitators – More Differences Millennials (n=189) vs. Adults (n=48)
Higher averages (per occurrence)
Agree to suggestion 132 (70%) vs. 22 (46%)
Lower case 36 (19%) vs. 5 (10%)
Greeting Ritual 36 (19%) vs. 5 (10%)
Admit lack knowledge 36 (19%) vs. 3 (6%)
Interjections 36 (19%) vs. 3 (6%)
Slang 14 (7%) vs. 0
(n=237 transcripts)
Barriers – Differences Millennials (n=189) vs. Adults (n=48)
Higher averages (per transcript) for:
Abrupt Endings 72 (38%) vs. 15 (31%)
Impatience 9 (5%) vs. 1 (2%)
Rude or Insulting 3 (2%) vs. 0
(n=237 transcripts)
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 Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Susanna Sabolsci-Boros, Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, Mary Anne Reilly, Vickie Kozo, David Dragos & Timothy Dickey.
• Slides available at project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/
Conclusions
Create a library experience which matches the experience of the web
Easy search functionality
Integrated library search for all sources
Social networking software
Recommender service
Click-through to online sources
Point of need reference services
Instant messaging reference services
