Transcript Why Not Libraries? Users Identify Their Information Preferences Presented by Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Consulting Research Scientist OCLC Research Email: [email protected] www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm CO-ASIST Dublin, OH March 6, 2007

Why Not Libraries?
Users Identify Their Information
Preferences
Presented by
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
Consulting Research Scientist
OCLC Research
Email: [email protected]
www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm
CO-ASIST
Dublin, OH
March 6, 2007
Why Not Libraries?
“...faculty use a variety of strategies for negotiating the digital
morass. For most, the path of least resistance is the one usually
taken – a Google search, a walk down the hall or an email to a
colleague, a visit to the website of a trusted archive, or often
one’s own eclectic ‘collection’ of digital stuff.”
Harley, Diane, Jonathan Henke, Shannon Lawrence, Ian Miller, Irene Perciali, David Nasatir, Charis Kaskiris
and Cara Bautista. 2006. Use and users of digital resources: A focus on undergraduate education
in the humanities and social sciences.
http://digitalresourcestudy.berkeley.edu/report/digitalresourcestudy_final_report.pdf. (2 May 2006, 8-2)
Users Identify Their
Information Preferences
Two IMLS-funded projects
Individuals' preferences for finding and using information
sources and service
•Why their first choices often do
not include library sources and services
•
Sense-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
•
Users Identify Their
Information Preferences

Two IMLS-funded projects


Individuals' preferences for finding and using
information sources and service
Why their first choices often do
not include library sources and services


Sense-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
Sense-Making the Information Confluence:
The Whys and Hows of College and University User
Satisficing of Information Needs
Project funding
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
Ohio State University (OSU)
OCLC, Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC)
Project duration
Calendar years, 2004-2006
Project phases
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Literature reviews and dialogue
Sense-making surveys: online & phone
Focus group interviews
Semi-structured dialogues
Focus Group Interviews:
Phase III

5 academic institutions
•
•

44 colleges and universities
100 mile radius from Columbus, Ohio
Total of 8 focus group interviews



31 faculty
19 graduate students
28 undergraduate students
Situation 1:
Quick Search
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, professors,
colleagues, etc.
Quick Search:
Undergraduate Students

Human resources




Google




Dad
Friend
Roommates
Everything is current
Blogs
Discussion groups
Electronic databases

Lexis Nexis
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Quick Search:
Undergraduate Student Comments
“… the thing about Google is that I generally find the little
somethings under the search results and relevance to
anything to actually be fairly good… You know, if I use the
library catalog, it will give me a list of a thousand things,
but there is really no ranking that I can understand.”
“I stay away from the library and the library’s online
catalog.”
Quick Search:
Graduate Students

Web and Google




Quick
Easy
Personal library
Library

Databases



EBSCO
Online journals and abstracts
Human resources


Friends
Advisors
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Quick Search:
Graduate Student Comments
“…you need to know which database with
abstracting, indexing… Google, I don't have to
know, I go to one spot.”
“I have been going to library web sites and
using their stuff…e.g., EBSCO… Library as
portal to online sources … will also go to
university library ... and search (for) articles I
need.
Quick Search:
Faculty



Personal library – “quicker than online”
Amazon
Google



Human resources




“quick and dirty”
“first stop”
Colleagues
Electronic journal center
Library homepage
Databases
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Quick Search:
Faculty Comments
“Google is my first place to find something quickly.”
“[Google] is user friendly… library catalog is not.”
“Yeah, well, actually I was going to be different and not say
Google. I do use Google, but… [I also] use two different
library homepages… and I will go into the research
databases… do a search there and then I will end [up]…
limiting myself to the articles that are available online.”
Situation 2:
Did not use the library
Have there been times when you did
not use a library and used other
sources instead?
Did not use the library:
Undergraduate Students

Human resources







Google
Online Encyclopedia
JSTOR
Academic databases


Dad
Parents
Professors
Lexis Nexis
Personal library
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Did not use the library:
Undergraduate Student Comments
“The library is a good source if you have several months.”
“Hard to find things in library catalog.”
“Tried [physical] library but had to revert to online library
resources.”
“Yeah, I don't step in the library anymore… better to read a
25-page article from JSTOR than 250-page book.”
“Sometimes content can be sacrificed for format.”
Did not use the library:
Graduate Students

Internet and Google


Databases






Easy
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.
Did not use the library:
Graduate Student Comments
“Also I just go ask my dad, and he'll tell me how to
put in a fence, you know? So why sort through all
this material when he'll just tell me”
“Don’t use university online system. Don’t like it.”
“…first thing I do, is, I go to Google… I don't go into
the [library] system unless I have to because there's
like 15 logins, you have to get into the research
databases. Then it takes you out of that to
OhioLink…”
Did not use the library:
Faculty

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.
Did not use the library:
Faculty Comments
“If I have a student mention a book and I'm not familiar with
that book, Amazon.com gives me a brief synopsis, … reader
reviews of the book, so it's a good, interesting first source to
go to for that kind of information.”
“…before I came to the library to use the MLA database, I
did a Google search and it turns out that there is a professor
at Berkeley who keeps a really, really nice and fully
updated… page with bibliographic references.”
Situation 3:
Thorough Search
Think of an academic situation where
you needed answers or solutions and
you did a thorough search.
Describe the situation
Thorough Search:
Undergraduate Student

Human resources



Google
Amazon.com


Librarians
Use Amazon.com first, then go to library
catalog
Television programs

Discovery Channel
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Thorough Search:
Undergraduate Student Comments
“I use OhioLink, but I don't really need to come into a library,
as long as I have a computer at home.”
“Discovered Lexis-Nexis, and those articles are brilliant, give
lots of information… get so much information going through
library and Lexis-Nexis, and articles are ten time’s better [than
web].”
“Go to Google… can [pinpoint]… I will find Google articles and
then [go] to library and find a couple articles...”
Thorough Search:
Graduate Students

Human resources








Class members
Professors
Peers
Colleagues
Experts
Library
Internet
Online books
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Thorough Search:
Graduate Student Comments
“I'm not trust(ing) everything that's on the
Internet, but I will print off all the
information and I get ideas that I will also
go to the university library and search some
article I need.”
Thorough Search:
Faculty

Online resources



Library




Web sites ending in .ORG
Google for definitions
Academic journals
Journal databases
Books
Human Resources



Experts
Authorities in field
Personal information specialist
These are not listed in order of the number of occurrences.
Thorough Search:
Faculty Comments
“So if I have athlete that has low back pain and, and I have a question
about a particular exercise that would be helpful or, or not helpful or
that sort of thing, …
I'd rather get on the phone and talk with a therapist that works with
back people all the time, because you can cut right to the chase - ask a
specific question and there is some credibility there that you, that is
already built in. In talking to this regional expert about how they do
things that is directly applicable to what I need to do and it is, it is
immediate. It's credible, and it's very specific to what I am looking for.”
“I'm suspicious of people who are publishing on-line because usually the
peer review is much less rigorous.”
Situation 4:
Magic Wand
If you had a magic wand, what would
your ideal information system and
services provide?
How would you go about using the systems
and services?
When? Where? How?
Magic Wand:
Undergraduate Student Comments
“Make library catalogs more like search engines or
OhioLink.”
“Make a universal library card that would work in
all libraries.”
“Space in the library to interact and collaborate group study areas and areas to spread stuff
out.”
Magic Wand:
Graduate Student Comments
“More staff, roaming personnel”
“Book delivery from library through campus mail”
“Drive-up pickup or drop off delivery service since
parking is a problem.”
“Make the library like a coffee house.”
Magic Wand:
Faculty Comments
“Lessen the intimidation factor”
“Better signage and other pathfinders”
“Bookstore environment”
Semi-structured Dialogue:
Phase IV

15 participants




6 faculty
4 graduate students
5 undergraduate students
Situations

Academic
Recall how you go about writing your most recent assignment or research.




Personal
What sources did you consult
How did you decide on using them
Where did you locate them?
Show us one of your favorite websites, one you use frequently.
Emerging Themes:
Internet





More than one-half use Google
More than one-third use other search engines
Familiarization tool
Convenient
Current information
The findings are not generalizable because of the small, non-random sample.
Emerging Themes:
Internet
Internet as indispensable for familiarization
Graduate student comments
“Without Google it takes away that initial familiarizing yourself with
what’s out there. We wouldn’t know what the good keywords were when
we go to a more academic database.”
“…but if I want more in-depth information then I would go to the library
and find books or whatever.”
Faculty comment
“… I find Google really, really useful as a fast familiarizing tool.”
Emerging Themes:
Internet
Internet as convenient
Graduate student comment
“I obviously turn to electronics first, then library second… because it’s
convenient. But if I want more in-depth info, then I go to the library.”
Internet as current
Faculty comment
“They’re a bunch of sites I go to everyday. Now none of them are
academic. I don’t go to any academic sites everyday.”
Emerging Themes:
Library


Used for research
Desire ability to customize library portals



Inclusion of recommender services
Enhanced discovery services
Databases, abstracts, and indexes



8% use electronic databases
Do not perceive as “library sources”
Unable to locate or access full-text copies of
journals and books
Emerging Themes:
Library
Library as customizable: Recommender Services
Undergraduate student comments
“Oh people who liked these have also liked this. Maybe you should check this
out.”
“It would be more like Amazon than, say, the current library catalog.”
“I’ll try to find something where I can search inside of a book… I would have
descriptions, maybe, you know like, amazon.com has.”
“Well, I have our library [web page] here open and… there’s a lot of
information and there’s nowhere to search. This is the opening to the catalog
but there’s no box to search.”
Emerging Themes:
Library
Graduate student comment
“Ok. I definitely don’t like going to the library because I
think it’s time consuming... They don’t have someone
there that can have the journals and books out ready for
you.”
Faculty comment
“The library is much less self-contained. It’s now connected to other
libraries. So, interlibrary loan, shared electronic resources, Ohiolink, is
much more important to us now.”
END NOTES
This presentation is one of the outcomes from the project “SenseMaking 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.ohiostate.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
Seeking Synchronicity:
Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from
User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives

$1,103,572 project funded by:


Institute of Museum and Library Services
$684,996 grant
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center,
Inc. $405,076 in kind contributions
Phase I:
Focus Group Interviews

8 Focus Group Interviews


2 with VRS librarians
4 with VRS non-users

Screenagers




College students


Rural
Suburban
Urban
Graduate
2 with VRS users

College students
Graduate
 Undergraduate
Adults


Participant Demographics:
8 Focus Group Interviews

Total participants




21 Librarians (25%)
40 Non-users (48%)
23 Users (27%)
Total librarians




13 Academic librarians (62%)
3 Public librarians (14%)
1 Government Librarian (5%)
4 Unknown (19%)
Participant Demographics:
Librarian Focus Group Interviews

Ethnicity-Librarians



20 Caucasian (95%)
1 African- American (5%)
Gender-Librarians


14 Female (67%)
7 Male (33%)
Participant Demographics:
User Focus Group Interviews

Ethnicity-Users





15 Caucasian (68%)
4 Asian (18%)
2 African- American (9%)
1 Hispanic/Latino (5%)
Gender-Users


13 Male (59%)
9 Female (41%)
Participant Demographics:
Non-user Focus Group Interviews

Ethnicity-Non-users






18 Caucasian (45%)
7 African- American (17.5%)
6 Hispanic/Latino (15%)
2 Asian (5%)
7 Missing (17.5%)
Gender-Non-users


23 Female (57.5%)
17 Male (42.5%)
VRS Librarians:
Positive Themes

Interactivity


Providing accessibility




Opportunity to reach people and
develop relationships
Access to librarians
Access to services and databases
Opportunity to learn
No geographic boundaries
VRS Librarians:
Negative Themes

Performance/Staffing




Job performance
Human resource allocation
Issues about pressure and
accountability
Technological problems


Software
Learning curve for VRS librarians and
users
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



Concern for accuracy of information


Librarians as “psycho killers”
Fear of cyber stalkers
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
24/7-QuestionPoint
Transcript Analysis

Previous sample: 24/7




New sample: QuestionPoint




July 7, 2004 through June 27, 2005
263,673 sessions
25 transcripts/month = 300 total
December 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006
298,237 sessions
50 transcripts/month= 450 total
Total transcripts analyzed: 750
6 Analyses

Geographical Distribution





Type of Library
Wait Time & Session Time
Type of Questions


Katz/Kaske Classification
Subject of Questions


Originating library
Librarian respondent
Dewey Decimal Classification
Interpersonal Communication

Radford Classification
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
VRS Transactions
by Library Type
300
262
Number of Transcripts
250
234
200
187
172
150
165
137
100
64
40
50
63
37 37
13
7
0
2
10
0
Public
N = 723
QuestionPoint
Backup
Academic
Consortium
National
Law
Originating library (N=723)
State
Other Special
Respondent (N=707)
VRS Questions
by Location of Originating Library
US-N. Central, 6.4%
US-Southeast, 13.1%
US-S. Central, 2.9%
US-West, 2.2%
US-Northeast, 17.3%
Australia, 9.8%
Non-US,
17.0%
England, 3.2%
Canada, 2.8%
Other countries, 1.2%
US-Pacific, 40.0%
N = 730
Location of VRS
Librarian Respondents
US-N. Central, 3.4%
US-Southeast, 20.5%
US-S. Central, 3.1%
US-West, 1.7%
Australia, 10.5%
US-Northeast, 21.4%
Non-US,
17.0%
England, 3.7%
Canada, 2.0%
Other countries, 0.8%
US-Pacific, 35.8%
N = 712
Wait Time for VRS
9 to 67 minutes
3.3%
1.5 to 8 minutes
21.6%
30 seconds or less
37.2%
MEAN = 1.87 minutes
MEDIAN = 1 minute
N = 658
31-90 seconds
37.8%
VRS Mean Wait Time
by Library Type
Law, 9.03
National, 2.78
State, 1.80
Consortium, 1.71
QuestionPoint Backup, 1.61
Other Special, 1.22
Public, 1.13
Academic, 1.04
0
N = 657
1
2
3
4
5
Minutes
6
7
8
9
10
VRS Mean Session Times
by Library Type
Consortium, 16.60
Law, 14.82
QP Backup, 14.52
State, 14.41
Academic, 14.07
Public, 13.68
National, 11.67
0
2
4
6
8
10
Minutes
N = 577
12
14
16
18
20
VRS Questions by Type
Subject Search, 30.0%
Ready Reference, 26.8%
Policy and Procedural, 20.6%
No Question, 11.3%
Holdings, 7.8%
Research, 2.6%
Inappropriate, 1.4%
Directional, 0.2%
Reader's Advisory, 0.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Percent of Occurrence
N = 810
25%
30%
35%
VRS Questions by Subject
Social Sciences 23.8%
Procedural, 17.6%
History & Geography, 13.6%
Other, 12.2%
Technology, 7.1%
Science, 7.0%
Arts & Recreation, 5.1%
Compupter Science & General, 4.1%
Literature, 3.5%
Language, 1.3%
Religion, 1.2%
Philosophy & Psychology, 1.0%
Inappropriate, 1.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
Percent of Occurrence
N = 761
20%
25%
30%
Results
Interpersonal Communication Analysis
2 Major Themes

Relational Facilitators


Aspects with positive impact on interaction
that enhance communication.
Relational Barriers

Aspects with negative impact on interaction
that impede communication.
Comparison of
Relational Facilitators
450
400
409
372
350
357 344
300
250
233
216
200
170
214
153
150
77
100
50
0
Rapport
Building
N=558
Deference
ReRep. Of NV
Cues
Greeting
Ritual
Closing Ritual
Librarian
User
Comparison of
Relational Barriers
250
214
200
150
113
100
88
User
77
50
0
Relational Disconnect
N=558
Librarian
Closing Problems
Transcript Examples

Positive Example – Relational Facilitators





“Natural Resources of Washington”
Question Type: Ready Reference
Subject Type: Economics
Duration: 19 min., 21 sec.
Negative Example – Relational Barriers




“Bumper Cars”
Question Type: Subject
Subject Type: Physics
Duration: 39 min.
Implications for Practice






Recommend/market your VRS services
Reassure that VRS is safe
Kindle users’ enthusiasm
Encourage, mentor, and learn from user
Use basic service excellence skills
Try new social software applications
Future Directions

Complete Phase II


Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint
transcripts
Complete Phases III & IV


Online Surveys (in progress)
Telephone Surveys (coming soon)

If interested in participating e-mail us:
[email protected])
End Notes

This is one outcome from the project Seeking
Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services
from User, Non-User, & Librarian Perspectives, Marie L.
Radford & Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Co-Principal
Investigators.

Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University and OCLC, Online
Computer Library Center, Inc.

Special thanks to Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Patrick
Confer, Julie Strange, Susanna Sabolcsi-Boros, &
Timothy Dickey.

These slides available at project website:
http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/
Questions and Comments


Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

Email: [email protected]

www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.

Email: [email protected]

www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford