Focusing on Change: Connecting to Both Millennials and Baby Boomers Presented by: Lynn Silipigni Connaway information: interactions & impact Conference Aberdeen, UK June 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 s - Time of prosperity 1960s & 1970s - Time of social upheaval Comprise largest part of workforce (45%)

Baby Boomers (Wikipedia, 2007) Cohort #1 Born Experimental Individualists Free spirited Social cause oriented Cohort #2 Born 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 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

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 year olds Affinity for electronic communication

Two IMLS-Funded Projects 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 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 Project funding Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) Ohio State University (OSU) OCLC, Online Computer Library Center, Inc. (OCLC) Project duration Calendar years, Project phases I.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 Google 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:

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 services 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. 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 Goffman 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 everyones 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 Librarians 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:

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

Questions and Comments Lynn Silipigni Connaway Marie L. Radford