1. Understanding our Users Ethnographic Research at the University of Rochester Vicki Burns vburns@library.rochester.edu University of Rochester November 17, 2010 Vicki Burns vburns@library.rochester.edu University of Rochester November 17, 2010

2. Goals for Today  Review of ethnographic research at University of Rochester Libraries  Resulting changes in programs and services  Case study: development of UR Research (IR Plus)  Review of ethnographic research at University of Rochester Libraries  Resulting changes in programs and services  Case study: development of UR Research (IR Plus)

3. The University of Rochester  Founded in 1850  3 campuses:  River Campus  Eastman School of Music  University of Rochester Medical Center  4608 undergrads, 2900 grad students, 1258 faculty  Carnegie Level I research university  Founded in 1850  3 campuses:  River Campus  Eastman School of Music  University of Rochester Medical Center  4608 undergrads, 2900 grad students, 1258 faculty  Carnegie Level I research university 3

4. 4

6. How it all began  IMLS Grant  Main objectives  Customize DSpace for faculty  Provide insight into how faculty do their work  IMLS Grant  Main objectives  Customize DSpace for faculty  Provide insight into how faculty do their work 6

7. Ethnographic Perspective  Close Observation  Examine within the context of everyday life  Put our assumptions aside—see through another’s eyes  Open ended questions  Aha..moments—generate new questions and new ideas  Close Observation  Examine within the context of everyday life  Put our assumptions aside—see through another’s eyes  Open ended questions  Aha..moments—generate new questions and new ideas

8. Work Practice A social scientist uses ethnographic methods to study users’ actual work activities and habits. 8

9. Participatory Design  Collaborative approach to technology development  Involves collaboration among designers, developers and end users facilitated by social scientists  “Work practice” studies  Collaborative approach to technology development  Involves collaboration among designers, developers and end users facilitated by social scientists  “Work practice” studies 9

10. Research Timeline  2003/04: Faculty  2004/06: Undergraduate students  2006/08: Graduate students  2007/09: Search Techniques -multi campus  2008/09: Science libraries in digital age  2010/11: Undergraduate Refresher  2003/04: Faculty  2004/06: Undergraduate students  2006/08: Graduate students  2007/09: Search Techniques -multi campus  2008/09: Science libraries in digital age  2010/11: Undergraduate Refresher

11. https://lists.rochester.edu/wa.exe?A0= ANTHROLIB Listserv for Ethnography in Libraries

13. Undergraduate Research  Research begun Fall 2004  Led by Anthropologist Nancy Fried Foster  Used ethnographic research techniques  Pre-study: faculty interviews  Objectives broadened to gain broad insight into student lives  More than 100 students participated  More than 1/3 of library staff involved  Research begun Fall 2004  Led by Anthropologist Nancy Fried Foster  Used ethnographic research techniques  Pre-study: faculty interviews  Objectives broadened to gain broad insight into student lives  More than 100 students participated  More than 1/3 of library staff involved

14. Planning brainstorming collaboration training faculty work practice study the question our methods project plan retrospective interviews “what don’t we know”? faculty expectations exploratory investigation of student work practice Undergraduate Work Practice Study: UA multiphase project

15. Methodologies Used Retrospective interviews Photo Surveys Mapping diaries Reference desk survey Interviews in student union Design workshops for web page Design Charettes Late night dorm visits Retrospective interviews Photo Surveys Mapping diaries Reference desk survey Interviews in student union Design workshops for web page Design Charettes Late night dorm visits

16. Retrospective Interviews (a glance at data gathered with a work practice method) Stephanie Alyssa

17. “To participate, you must:  Be an undergraduate AND  Working on a paper that requires you to find books and/or articles OR  Working on a project that requires you to find data”

18. Photo Survey

19. Things you always carry with you

20. Something you couldn’t live without

21. Mapping Diary

22. Design Charrette

23. Mahogany bookshelves, Old style lamps Nice cozy feel Computer Lounge with 802.11g WiFi With Nintendo WiFi Connection Movies and video games on big projection screen

25. New space every day

34. Web Page Redesign

36. Late Night Dorm Visits

37. What did we learn…..Briefly  Students are on the go for hours at a time  Every day is different  Connected to parents  Carry their belongings with them  Need a variety of facilities and services  Their “day” is not our “day”  Willing to talk and work with us  Students are on the go for hours at a time  Every day is different  Connected to parents  Carry their belongings with them  Need a variety of facilities and services  Their “day” is not our “day”  Willing to talk and work with us

38. In summary, we found students  Confident about their ability to find information  Heavy users of libraries’ catalog and databases  Do not take the first hits from a Google search  Divide their research and writing into chunks  Confident about their ability to find information  Heavy users of libraries’ catalog and databases  Do not take the first hits from a Google search  Divide their research and writing into chunks

39. For reference/subject librarians some sobering results  Lack of clarity about role of librarian or even what library staff had come to their class  Equate librarians with books  See faculty or teaching assistants as subject experts  Consulted with a librarian on faculty recommendation  Lack of clarity about role of librarian or even what library staff had come to their class  Equate librarians with books  See faculty or teaching assistants as subject experts  Consulted with a librarian on faculty recommendation

40. So what have we done ?

41. Some changes  Strength our subject library/department liaison program  Increased collaboration with College Writing Center  Developed new guidelines for library instruction  Developed theme “every class has a librarian”  Strength our subject library/department liaison program  Increased collaboration with College Writing Center  Developed new guidelines for library instruction  Developed theme “every class has a librarian”

42.  Streamline services  Involve students in space planning and renovation  Redesigned our web site  Began long term project: eXtensible Catalog  Streamline services  Involve students in space planning and renovation  Redesigned our web site  Began long term project: eXtensible Catalog

43. Long-term Benefits  Understand how our undergraduates live and work on campus  Understand their use of the library  High staff participation and engagement  Greater comfort for trying new ideas  Continuing this type of research  Understand that students’ concept of library service is different from ours  Understand how our undergraduates live and work on campus  Understand their use of the library  High staff participation and engagement  Greater comfort for trying new ideas  Continuing this type of research  Understand that students’ concept of library service is different from ours

45. Case Study Developing UR Research (IR +) Case Study Developing UR Research (IR +)

46. Developing a Repository:  2002 Library Investigates IR Software  Chose D-space  Three initial collections (one from each campus)  March 2003 UR Research launched  2002 Library Investigates IR Software  Chose D-space  Three initial collections (one from each campus)  March 2003 UR Research launched 46

47. Install it and they will …  Not Come  Even with lots of marketing  Faculty:  Universal lack of interest  Did not see the value of putting their work into the repository  Why?  Not Come  Even with lots of marketing  Faculty:  Universal lack of interest  Did not see the value of putting their work into the repository  Why? 47

48. Work Practice Studies  Faculty Study 2003  Graduate Student Study 2006-2008  Funded by IMLS Grants   Faculty Study 2003  Graduate Student Study 2006-2008  Funded by IMLS Grants 

49. What faculty want  Work with co-authors  Track different versions of same document  Keep up with their fields  Work from different computers, locations, and platforms  Control ownership, access, security  Easy access to other people’s work  Work with co-authors  Track different versions of same document  Keep up with their fields  Work from different computers, locations, and platforms  Control ownership, access, security  Easy access to other people’s work

50.  Have someone else take care of servers, etc.  Not be any busier  Have someone else take care of servers, etc.  Not be any busier

51. Graduate Students Shared some of the faculty concerns but had additional ones:  Struggling to learn literature in their fields  Collecting vast quantities of materials, both print and online  Collaborating with others  Using a wide variety of technology  Worried about keeping their work safe Shared some of the faculty concerns but had additional ones:  Struggling to learn literature in their fields  Collecting vast quantities of materials, both print and online  Collaborating with others  Using a wide variety of technology  Worried about keeping their work safe

52. Trying to keep track of stuff “This computer has it from draft five onwards, earlier drafts are I think on this computer … My first draft is never my final draft.” 52

53. Collecting lots of stuff: print + online "I had to buy another book shelf.” "I have at least 1,000 [PDFs on this computer], if not more.” 53

54. Challenge Is it possible to design an institutional repository that faculty and graduate students find useful and attractive enough to incorporate into their work routines?

55. Sharing work Work in progress: “the dissertation group that I’m in has been really helpful … Not only because I’ve been having people encouraging me consistently with my own writing, but because I can see them writing, too.” (English) With other universities: “We have a big collaboration with some other universities, so we will have teleconferencing, like, every week.” (Optics) Work in progress: “the dissertation group that I’m in has been really helpful … Not only because I’ve been having people encouraging me consistently with my own writing, but because I can see them writing, too.” (English) With other universities: “We have a big collaboration with some other universities, so we will have teleconferencing, like, every week.” (Optics) 55

56. Enter IR+ Identified essential requirements for our campus:  Universally accessible private workspace  Support for authoring and collaboration  Evidence of usage  Ways to showcase an individual’s work As opposed to: Providing a receptacle for finished work. Identified essential requirements for our campus:  Universally accessible private workspace  Support for authoring and collaboration  Evidence of usage  Ways to showcase an individual’s work As opposed to: Providing a receptacle for finished work.

57. Components of IR+ 1.Institutional Repository  Name authority  Contributor pages  Usage statistics  Editing rights 1.Institutional Repository  Name authority  Contributor pages  Usage statistics  Editing rights

58. Components of IR+, cont. 2. User Workspace  Web based file system  File Sharing 3.Portfolio Pages  Personal showcase 2. User Workspace  Web based file system  File Sharing 3.Portfolio Pages  Personal showcase

61. 61

62. Organization of IR+

63. IR+ Administrators Nathan Sarr nsarr@library.rochester.edu Suzanne Bell sbell@library.rochester.edu

64. References  Bell, Suzanne and Nathan Sarr. “Case Study: Re-engineering an Institutional Repository to Engage Users.” New Review of Academic Librarianship 16 (S1) (2010):77-89. Web. 22 October 2010.  Foster, Nancy Fried and Susan Gibbons. “Understanding Faculty to Improve Content Recruitment for Institutional Repositories.” D-Lib Magazine 11 (1) 2005. Web. 1 November 2010. Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html  Foster, Nancy and Susan Gibbons, eds. Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries 2007. Available at: http://docushare.lib.rochester.edu/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection- 4436. http://docushare.lib.rochester.edu/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection- 4436  Bell, Suzanne and Nathan Sarr. “Case Study: Re-engineering an Institutional Repository to Engage Users.” New Review of Academic Librarianship 16 (S1) (2010):77-89. Web. 22 October 2010.  Foster, Nancy Fried and Susan Gibbons. “Understanding Faculty to Improve Content Recruitment for Institutional Repositories.” D-Lib Magazine 11 (1) 2005. Web. 1 November 2010. Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html  Foster, Nancy and Susan Gibbons, eds. Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries 2007. Available at: http://docushare.lib.rochester.edu/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection- 4436. http://docushare.lib.rochester.edu/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection- 4436

65. Slides available http://bit.ly/bURZ0W