Service Sea Change: Clicking with Screenagers through Virtual Reference Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Marie L. Radford Association of College & Research Libraries 13th National Conference Baltimore, MD March 29-April 1, 2007

Presenters Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. –Consulting Research Scientist, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. – – Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. –Associate Professor, Rutgers University, SCILS – – Grant Website (slides posted here):

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non- User, and Librarian Perspectives $1,103,572 project funded by: Institute of Museum & Library Services (IMLS) –$684,996 grant Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey & OCLC, Online Computer Library Center –$405,076 in kind contributions

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non- User, and Librarian Perspectives Project duration: 2 Years (10/05-9/07) Four phases: I.Focus group interviews II.Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint live chat transcripts III.600 online surveys IV.300 telephone interviews

Screenagers Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff Used here for year olds Affinity for electronic communication Youngest members of Millennial Generation

The Millennial Generation Born 1979 – 1994 AKA Net Generation, Generation Y, Digital Generation, or Echo Boomers year olds About 75 million people By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers (born )

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 Younger members most likely to display Millennial characteristics

The Millennial Mind (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

Millennials, Screenagers Implications for academic libraries? –For traditional & virtual reference services? –For the future? Research project designed to answer these questions through focus group interviews & transcript analysis.

Phase I: Focus Group Interviews 8 in total 4 with non-users –3 with Screenagers (rural, suburban, & urban) –1 with college students (graduate) 2 with VRS librarians 2 with VRS users (college students & adults)

3 Screenager Focus Group Interviews 33 Total Participants Location 13 (39%) Urban 12 (36%) Suburban 8 (24%) Rural Gender 15 (45%) Male 18 (55%) Female Age Range 12 – 18 years old Ethnicity 21 (64%) Caucasian 6 (18%) African- American 6 (18%) Hispanic/Latino Grade Level 31 (94%) HS 2 (6%) JHS (Grade 7)

Focus Group Interviews: Major Themes Hold Librarian Stereotypes Prefer Independent Information Seeking –Google –Web surfing Prefer Face-to-Face Interaction

Focus Group Interviews: Major Themes Have Privacy/Security Concerns –Librarians as psycho killers ? –Fear of cyber stalkers Factors Influencing Future VRS Use –Recommendation of trusted librarian or friend –Marketing –Choice of librarian

Phase II: Transcript Analysis Random sample –7/04 to 11/06 (18 months) –479,673 QuestionPoint sessions total –Avg. 33/mo. = 600 total, 492 examined so far 431 usable transcripts –Excluding system tests & tech problems 191 of these highlighted today –65 identified as Screenagers –126 identified as primary/college/adult

Classification Method Qualitative Analysis Development/refinement of category scheme Careful reading/analysis Identification of patterns Time intensive, but reveals complexities!

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.

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.

Barriers – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript) for: Abrupt Endings 26 (.4%) vs. 37 (.29%) Impatience 6 (.09%) vs. 2 (.02%) Rude or Insulting 2 (.03%) vs. 0 (n=191 transcripts)

Facilitators – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126) Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence) Thanks 72 (1.1%) vs. 163 (1.3%) 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 (.02%) Enthusiasm 8 (.12%) vs. 9 (.07%) Self-correction 7 (.11%) vs. 6 (.05%) Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (.05%) vs. 0 (n=191 transcripts)

Implications for Practice VRS is a natural for Screenagers (especially live chat reference) Do recommend/market your VRS services Do reassure that VRS is safe Do not throw wet blanket on their enthusiasm Do encourage, mentor, & learn from them Do use basic service excellence skills Do 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 us:

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 Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Susanna Sabolsci-Boros, Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, Vickie Kozo, & Timothy Dickey. Slides available at project web site:

Questions Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. – – Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. – –