1. Virtual Rituals: Applying Goffman’s Face-Work to an Analysis of Live Chat Reference Encounters
Marie L. Radford,
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, &
Jocelyn A. DeAngelis Williams
LRS IV
London, Ontario, Canada
October 10-12, 2007

2. 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 Inc.
$405,076 in kind contributions

3. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives
Project duration: 2 1/2 Years (10/05-3/08)
Four phases:
Focus group interviews
Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint live chat transcripts
600 online surveys
300 telephone interviews

4. Phase II: Transcript Analysis
Random sample
7/04 to 11/06 (18 months)
479,673 QuestionPoint sessions total
Avg. 33/mo. = 850 total, 850 examined
746 usable transcripts
Excluding system tests & tech problems

5. Face-Work
“Much of the activity occurring during an encounter can be understood as an effort on everyone’s 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, 1967, p. 41)

6. Face Defined
Positive social value person claims
Self-image in terms of approved social attributes

7. Face-Work in Encounters
Face is located in flow of events
Feelings about face reinforced by encounters
If better face is established – feel good
If expectations not fulfilled – feel bad or hurt
Neutral experience – expected, not memorable

8. Kinds of Face-Work Rituals – Greetings & Closings
Corrective Process – Repair & Apology
Avoidance Process– Prevent Threats to Face
Poise – Control Embarrassment
Rituals
Ritual Greeting: Librarian – “Hi [user name]. I will start searching for you.”
Ritual Closings: Librarian – “I wish I could help with the million dollars! And thank you for using our Ask a Librarian service! If you discover that you have more questions, or if you need more info, please feel free to contact us again. I hope you have a great day too!”
Corrective Process: User – “Sorry, typo”
Avoidance Process: Librarian – “Don’t worry about typos – I make them too!”
Poise: User - “I would like to know if I will be on a mailing list, and if it would be brodcast to the world”

9. Face-Work in Chat Reference
Goffman provides a powerful way to frame analysis of chat encounters.
Face & face-work appear in flow of transcript (event).
Analysis identifies instances of face-work.
Major categories – see handout.

10. Interpersonal Communication Findings
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.

11. Transcript Examples Positive Face-Work – Relational Facilitators
“Size of an Atom”
Question Type: Subject Search
Subject Type: Life Sciences; Biology (DDC: 570)
Duration: min.
Negative Face-Work – Relational Barriers
“Mesopotamian Government”
Subject Type: History of the Ancient World (DDC: 930)
Duration: 27 min.

12. Face-Work Facilitators – Similarities
Category
Librarians
Users
Greeting Rituals
197
167
Apology 59 56
Seeking Reassurance
448
424
Offering Reassurance
137
119
(n=746 Transcripts)

13. Facilitators – Differences Librarians vs
Facilitators – Differences Librarians vs. Users Librarian Lower Numbers/Occurrence
Category
Librarians
Users
Alternate spelling/ abbreviation single words 76
263
Lower case 29
282
Self disclosure 38
583
Thanks
103
882
Praise/admiration 1 49
Expressions of enthusiasm 20 60
Punctuation for emphasis 87
207
(n=746 Transcripts)

14. Facilitators – Differences Librarians vs
Facilitators – Differences Librarians vs. Users Librarian Higher Numbers/Occurrence
Category
Librarians
Users
Inclusion
137
119
Encouraging Remarks/Praise 83 39
Offering Personal Opinion
254 33
Polite Expressions
371
230
Suggesting Strategy in Tentative way 59 26
Ellipsis
277
207
(n=746 Transcripts)

15. Barriers – Differences Librarians Vs. Users User Higher Numbers/Average
Category
Librarians
Users
Disconfirming 16 74
Abrupt Endings 44
243
Impatience 3 45
Rude or Insulting 22
Goofing Around 2 24
Inappropriate Language 17
(n=746 Transcripts)

16. Barriers – Differences Librarians Vs. Users Higher Numbers/Average
Category
Librarians
Users
Limits Time 13
Ignores Self Disclosure 10
Inappropriate Script or Response 12 4
Failing to Offer Reassurance 26 6
Disclaimer 27
Ignoring cues User wants more help 16
Premature or Attempted Closing 17
Failure to Refer
(n=746 Transcripts)

17. Future Directions Continue to collect & analyze data Online surveys
200 Librarian surveys completed
200 Non-user surveys completed
200 User surveys in progress
Telephone interviews
100 Librarians completed
100 Users in progress
100 Non-users in progress

18. Seeking Synchronicity:
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 Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, & Janet Torsney.
Slides available at project web site:

19. Questions Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
Jocelyn A. DeAngelis Williams