Seeking Synchronicity:Viewpoints of VRS Users, Librarians, and

Non-Users on Live Chat Reference

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate ProfessorRutgers, The State University of New Jersey

British Columbia Library ConferenceBurnaby, BC

April 17, 2009

Libraries Today – Rapid Change

• Vying for information seekers’ attention

• Must re-engineer to accommodate users’ workflows & habits

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, & Librarian PerspectivesIMLS, Rutgers Univ. & OCLC funded project

Focus group interviewsTranscript analysis (850)Online surveys (496)

175 VRS librarians, 184 VRS non-users, 137 VRS users

Telephone interviews (283) Total100 VRS librarians, 107 VRS non-users, 76 VRS users

Online Surveys

•Descriptive statistical analysis– Demographic– Multiple-choice– Likert-type

•Qualitative analysis– Open-ended – 2 critical incident (CI) questions

The Net Generation

•Born 1979 - 1994• Millennials• EchoBoomers• Gen Y

•Socially networked environment •Different communication & information-seeking behaviors

Screenagers

• Youngest of Net Generation

• Born 1988 -1994– Now 15-21 years old

• Affinity for technology• Expect instant access

VRS User Demographics (N=137)

Net Gen (N=49)•Even nos. M-F •19-28 years old

(47%, 23)•Caucasian (67%, 33)

Adult, 29+ (N=88)•Female (68%, 60)•36-45 years old

(38%, 33)•Caucasian (84%, 74)

Chat Least Intimidating to VRS Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)

"I am least intimidated by"

04%14%

6%

76%

016%

5%

33%

47%

01020304050607080

FtF Phone Email Text Chat

Net GenVRS UsersAdult VRSUsers

"The probability that I will use reference services again is"

82%

92%

76788082848688909294

Net Gen VRS Users Adult VRS Users

Excellent orVery Good

VRS Users Likely to be Repeat Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)

Recommendation Important to VRS UsersNet Gens (N=49)

• Used VRS because recommended

• Recommended VRS more than adults

What Attracts Users to VRS? Users (N=137)

•Convenience– Available 24/7

• Working from home• Nights or weekends

– Immediate answers – Lack of cost – Efficient

•Less intimidating

Why Users Don’t Always Choose VRS?Net Gens (N=49)

• Unhelpful answers• Non-subject specialists• Slow connections• Scripted messages• Cold environment

What Would Attract Users to VRS?Net Gens (N=49)

•Faster & easier software•Personalized interface•Reliable co-browsing•More service hours•Kiosk & cybercafe access•Experienced, tech-savvy librarians

VRS Non-user Demographics (N=184)

Net Gen (N=122)•Female (66%, 81)• 19-28 years old

(51%, 62) •Caucasian (65%, 79)

Adult, 29+ (N=62)•Female (71%, 44) • 46-55 years old (31%, 19) •Caucasian (87%, 52)

FtF Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

• Adults (81%, 50)

• Net Gens (71%, 87)

FtF Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)

“I most enjoy using”

Phone (11.48%)

Email (27.05%)

Text Messaging (12.30%)

FtF (49.18%)

Email Less Intimidating to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)

“I am least intimidated by”

Email (50.82%)

Phone (12.30%)

FtF (19.67%)

Text Messaging (17.21%)

Phone Reference Never Used by VRS Non-users

Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

• Net Gens (78%, 95)

• Adults (60%, 27)

Convenience Also Important to VRS Non-UsersNet Gens (N=87) Adults (N=51)

•Net Gens (87%, 76)

•Adults (78%, 40)

Remote Access Important to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=13)

•Net Gens (95%, 39)

•Adults (85%, 13)

Interpersonal Communication Valued by VRS Non-users

Net Gens (N=86) Adults (N=51)

•Personal Relationship– Adults (43%, 22)– Net Gens (24%, 24)

•Specific Librarian– Adults (51%, 26) – Net Gens (42%, 36)

"The Librarian Is Friendly and Polite"

69%

29%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Net Gen VRS Non-users

Adult VRS Non-users

VeryImportantorImportant

Interpersonal Communication Valued by VRS Non-Users

Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=14)

Why Don’t Non-Users Choose VRS? Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

•Too complicated– Adults (53%, 33)– Net Gens (35%, 43)

•Typing skills poor– Adults (35%, 22)– Net Gens (16%, 19)

Why Don’t Non-Users Choose VRS?Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

•Believe questions might annoy librarian

–Net Gens (29%, 32)–Adults (16%, 10)

Why Don’t Non-Users Choose VRS?Net Gens (N=122)

•Don’t know it is available•Believe librarian couldn’t

help•Lack of 24/7 service•Satisfied w/ other info sources

Why Don’t Non-Users Choose VRS ?Adults (N=62)

• Same as Net-Gen:• Don’t know it is available• Believe librarian couldn’t help• Lack of 24/7 service• Satisfied w/ other info sources

• But also:• Lack computer skills• Type slowly• Complex chat environment

Critical Incident Technique (CIT)

• Flanagan (1954)• Qualitative technique• Focuses on most

memorable event/experience

• Allows categories or themes to emerge rather than be imposed

VRS User Positive CIs Net Gens (N=48)

Successful Experience• Accurate

answers/info • Quick assistance• Located specific

resources • Convenient

VRS User Negative CIs Net Gens (N=30)

Unsuccessful Experience• Librarian

– Impeded info delivery or retrieval

– Didn’t answer question

VRS Non-user Positive CIsNet Gens (N=108)

• Successful Experience Librarian– Info delivery/retrieval – Answered questions– Located specific resources – Positive attitude (them &

task)

VRS Non-user Negative CIsNet Gens (N=74)

Unsuccessful Experience

Librarian– Impeded information

delivery or retrieval• Missing resources• Slow providing answers

– Negative attitude to task

Librarians - What is Important for Success? (N=82)

• Content – Highly Valued• Accuracy of answers/information

• Relational – Highly Attuned• User’s positive attitude• User’s willingness to be patient & open to

suggestions

What We Learned

• FtF & VRS Users want– Extended hours of service – Access to electronic

information– Interact w/ friendly

librarians – Relationships with

librarians– Personalized service

Encourage Future Users - What We Can Do

• Creative marketing – Promote range of options– Promote convenience– Reassure VRS is safe– Teach VR in Info. Literacy

• Emphasize personal service– Build positive relationships

FtF, phone, or online

What We Can Do

• Understand them to provide better service

• Can’t beat ‘em – join ‘em• Leverage impatience• Enjoy their enthusiasm!

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 Co- PI, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, OCLC

• Project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

Questions & Comments?

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

mradford@scils.rutgers.edu