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

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

SLA PNW Regional Conference October 2006 D. L. Cohen Information Services Special Libraries Association Northwest Regional Conference.

Advertisements

Virtual Windows: Observing Chat Reference Encounters through Transcript Analysis Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D., Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Lawrence Olszewski,

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway 2006 ALISE Conference San Antonio,

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts Presented by Lynn Silipigni Connaway OCLC Members Council February 14, 2006.

Behaviors and Preferences of Digital Natives: Informing a Research Agenda ASIST Annual Conference October 18-25, 2007 Milwaukee, WI Sponsored by Special.

Getting Better All the Time: Improving Communication & Accuracy in Virtual Reference Reference Renaissance: Current and Future Trends Denver, CO August.

Marie L. Radford, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, &

Thriving on Theory: A New Model for Synchronous Reference Encounters Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of NJ Lynn.

CREATing a New Theoretical Model for Reference Encounters in Synchronous Face-to-Face and Virtual Environments Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor,

Getting in Synch with Screenagers: Virtual Reference and Sustaining the Relevance of Libraries Lynn Silipigni Connaway Marie L. Radford Independent Reference.

Relational Communication in Chat Reference Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway New Jersey Communication Association Montclair State University,

Meeting the Information Needs of College and University Users: Preliminary Results of a Two-Year, Multidisciplinary User Investigation NFAIS 47 th Annual.

The Whys & Hows of Students & Faculty Finding What They Want Insights from interviews* Iowa OCLC Users Group Conference May 27, 2005 Lynn Silipigni Connaway,

Service Sea Change: Clicking with Screenagers through Virtual Reference Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Marie L. Radford Association of College & Research.

Reflections of Reference Practice: Analyzing Virtual Reference Transcripts Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway 2007 ALISE Conference.

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Transcripts Presented by Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Marie L. Radford QuestionPoint Users Group Meeting.

ARE WE GETTING WARMER? QUERY CLARIFICATION IN VIRTUAL REFERENCE Marie L. Radford Lynn Silipigni Connaway Library Research Round Table ALA Annual Conference.

Screenagers and Virtual (Chat) Reference: The Future is Now! Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway New Jersey Association of School.

Focusing on Change: Connecting to Both Millennials and Baby Boomers Presented by: Lynn Silipigni Connaway information: interactions & impact Conference.

Face-Work in Chat Reference Encounters Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway Library Research Round Table June 24, 2006 ALA, New Orleans,

PLA National Conference Minneapolis, MN March 25-29, 2008 Exceeding Expectations: E-Reference Excellence in Collaborative VR Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

Users and Librarians Reveal Critical Factors for Virtual Reference Service Excellence Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Best Practices.

Library Research Round Table ALA Annual Conference Anaheim, CA June 26-July 2, 2008 I Find What I Need Behaviors and Information-Seeking Preferences of.

“Hmmm…Just a Moment While I Keep Looking:” Interpersonal Communication in Chat Reference Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Acting Dean, Pratt Institute School of.

Chapter 3 Customer Service Skills for User Support Agents

OCLC Research Webinar November 15, 2011 Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist OCLC Research Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor.

Shared Expectations: Getting Comfortable, and Providing Quality Service in Cooperative Virtual Reference Lynn Silipigni Connaway Marie L. Radford Best.

11 Collaboration and Crowdsourcing: Synergistic Solutions for Sustainable Virtual Reference, an Analysis of Critical Incidents Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.,

Webinar 16 April 2008 Smiling Online: Applying face-to-face reference skills in a virtual environment Presented by Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior.

New York State Communication Association

Marie L. Radford, PhD, Rutgers University & Lynn Silipigni Connaway, PhD, OCLC Presented at the Fifth Annual iConference University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist OCLC Reference.

Mixed Emotions: The Affective Experience of Librarians During Virtual Reference Instructional Work Susan Wengler Ph.D. Student Rutgers, The State University.

QuestionPoint Chat Tutorial for Chat providers. Log on to QuestionPoint at

EPIC Online Publishing Use and Costs Evaluation Program: Summary Report.

The world’s libraries. Connected. Convergence & Synergy: Social Q&A Meets Virtual Reference Services ASIS&T, 75 TH Annual Meeting 30 October 2012

Customer Focus Module Preview

California County Law Libraries “Ask the Law Librarian” Chat Reference Service Presented by Ralph Stahlberg, Director, Reference and Research LA Law Library.

Extending Our Virtual Reach: A Longitudinal Study of Query Type & Accuracy in Live Chat & IM Reference Marie L. Radford, Ph.D., Rutgers University Lynn.

Seeking Synchronicity: Viewpoints of VRS Users, Librarians, and Non-Users on Live Chat Reference Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor Rutgers, The.

Health Sciences and Practice & Medicine Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine Higher Education Academy Subject Centres Helen Buttivant Public Health Speciality.

Chapter 3: Verbal Communication Skills

IFS410 End User Support Chapter 3 Communication and Customer-service Skills.

Best Practices of Text Reference Service: A Synergistic View Lili Luo School of Library and Information Science San Jose State University.

Workshop Track One: Relationship-centered Communication to Improve Clinical Quality and Patients' Experience of Care Session Three: Education, Negotiation.

Improving Participation in Adult Education Web 2.0 tools for strengthening competencies of adult education providers.

In search for patterns of user interaction for digital libraries Jela Steinerová Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia

MAC Fall Symposium: Learning What You Want to Know and Implementing Change Elizabeth Yakel, Ph.D. October 22, 2010.

Supporting users for facing the production phase at the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia Federico Carvajal Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.

Seeking Sustainability & Singularity: Evaluating Virtual Reference From User, Non-user, & Librarian Perspectives Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn.

The world’s libraries. Connected. Social Q&A Meets Virtual Reference Services Convergence and Synergy: ASIS&T, 75 TH Annual Meeting 30 October 2012

The world’s libraries. Connected. Qualitative Inquiry in Social and Cultural Contexts The Critical Incident Technique CoLIS, Copenhagen, Denmark August.

School of SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY MEDICINE University of BRISTOL Shall we meet for coffee? Experiments in ways of bridging the researcher commissioner gap:

Introduction to Interacting with Peers in Math. Interacting with peers—tutoring, giving feedback, collaborating—is a strategy to learn and check understanding.

Digital Reference Services in the Public Library Nancy O’Neill Santa Monica Public Library

Click, Call, or Come on In! Connecting to Millennials in FtF & VR Encounters R U Communicating? Speaking the Language of Millennials ACRL, University Library.

ASK?AWAY USERS GROUP October 19, 2006 AGENDA Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives.

Michal Fedeles, PhD Director, Continuing Health Education, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences Simon Fraser University Céline Cressman, MSc Collaborator,

Virtual Reference in CARL Libraries Susan Beatty Head Information Commons University of Calgary Library Peggy White Head Science & Technology Liaison Services.

Conducting the Chat by Katherine Ott Clayton State University Training tips for new staff in the art of virtual chat reference service!

On Virtual Face-Work: An Ethnography of Two Live Chat Reference Interactions Marie L. Radford, Ph.D., Rutgers University, New Jersey Gary P. Radford, Ph.D.,

E-Valuating Virtual Viewpoints: User, Non-User, and Librarians Perspectives on Live Chat-Based Reference Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rutgers,

The world’s libraries. Connected. “You don’t want to be a dead-end” VRS Librarians on Collaboration & SQA iConference 15 February 2013

ALISE Philadelphia 9 January 2008 Users and Librarians Engaging in Virtual Spaces: Using Critical Incidents to Inform Practice and Education in Chat Reference.

A worldwide library cooperative OCLC Online Computer Library Center QuestionPoint Institution Administration QuestionPointTraining Russian State Library.

Welcome to Tutor Certification and Introduction to Tutoring Facilitator: Christie Bogle.

OCLC Online Computer Library Center 1 Using Library Perception Information and Impact Data.

Introduction to Interacting with Peers in Math. What is Interacting with Peers? Interacting with peers—tutoring, giving feedback, collaborating—is a strategy.

Maryland AskUsNow! Joe Thompson Project Coordinator: Maryland AskUsNow! Baltimore County Public Library 26 multi-type participating library systems Participant.

Collaboration, Interpersonal Communication, and Business Etiquette

Presentation transcript:

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

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

Phase II: Transcript Analysis Random sample  7/04 to 11/06 (18 months)  500,000+ pool of transcripts  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)

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

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

VRS Transactions by Library Type

VRS Questions by Location of Originating Library

VRS Questions by Location of Librarian Respondents

Wait Time for VRS Users

VRS Mean Wait Time by Library Type

VRS Mean Session Times by Library Type

VRS Questions by Type

VRS Questions by Subject

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)

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Facilitators – VRS Users Screenagers (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 Reassurance39% (57) vs. 49% (111) Admit lack knowledge 19% (13) vs. 21% (47)

Facilitators – VRS Users Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) Similar numbers/percentages per transcript S O 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)

Barriers – VRS Users Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) Higher numbers/percentages per transcript SO Impatience 8% (12) vs. 6% (13) Rude or Insulting 6% (9) vs. 4% (9)

Facilitators - Librarians Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) Lower numbers/percentages per transcript L to S L 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)

Facilitators - Librarians Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) Higher numbers/percentages per transcript L to S L to O Seeking Reassurance 61% (89) vs. 51% (115) Greeting Ritual52% (76) vs. 48% (108) Asking for Patience39% (57) vs. 35% (80) Explaining Signing off 5% (8) vs. 1% (2) Abruptly

Facilitators - Librarians Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) Similar numbers/percentages per transcript L to S L to O Polite Expressions57% (83) vs. 56% (127) Inclusion 33% (48) vs. 34% (76) Thanks22% (32) vs. 23% (51) Makes Sure User Has 18% (27) vs. 20% (45) No More Questions Interjections 8% (11) vs. 9% (20)

Barriers - Librarians Screenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=226) Higher numbers/percentages per transcript L to S L 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

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

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 :)

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.

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

Questions? Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. – –

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: