“Hmmm…Just a Moment While I
Keep Looking:” Interpersonal
Communication in Chat Reference
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.
Acting Dean, Pratt Institute
School of Information & Library Science mradford@prodigy.net
Joseph A. Thompson,
Maryland Ask Us Now!
Jthompson@bcpl.net
ALA, Orlando, FL June 26, 2004

Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson (1967)
(Pragmatics of Human Communication)

All messages have both a content and relational dimension.

Content = Information (WHAT)

Relational = Relationship Aspects (HOW)





What relational dimensions are present in chat transcripts?
Are there differences in the relational dimensions/patterns of chat users & librarians? If so, what are they?
How do users & librarians compensate for lack of nonverbal cues in chat reference?
What is the relationship between content & relational dimensions in determining the quality of chat reference encounters?






Pilot Study - Results Reported at VRD Conference,
2004
Data - 44 S.S. Green Award Transcripts (courtesy
LSSI)
Main Study
Data – 245 Randomly Selected Transcripts

State-wide service – Maryland AskUsNow
Qualitative Analysis – 3 Coders

Refinement of category scheme from Pilot Study


Careful reading/analysis
Identification of patterns




Interesting Results!
Refinement of Categories Developed in Pilot Study
Development of Recommendations



Facilitators
Avoiding Barriers
Dealing with Rude/Impatient Users

(N=245)





Rapport Building 203 (83%)
Deference 110 (45%)
Compensating 4 Lack of NV Cues 97
(40%)
Greeting Ritual-Unscripted 76 (31%)
Closing Ritual-Unscripted 69 (28%)






Deference 170 (69%)

Thanks (131-53%)
Rapport Building 127 (52%)
N=245
Closing Ritual 83 (34%)
Compensation 4 Lack of NV Cues 76
(31%)
Greeting Ritual 35 (14%)

(N=245)

Relational Disconnect / Failure to Build
Rapport 43 (18%)





Robotic Answer (13 – 5%)
Reprimanding (10 - 4%)
Limits Time (10 – 4%)
Lack of attention – Ignoring Q (8 – 3%)
Condescending (5 - 2%)


More Relational Disconnect / Failure to Build
Rapport 43 (18%)


Ignoring User Self-Disclosure (4 - 2%)
Misunderstands User’s Question (4 – 2%)






Inappropriate Script (4 – 2%)
Failing to Offer Reassurance (3 - 1%)
Mirrors User’s Rude Behavior (2 – 1%)
Disconfirming (2 – 1%)
Ignoring humor (1<1%)
Use of Inappropriate Language/Profanity (1<1%)


Negative Closure 51 (21%)

Librarian Continues After User has Disconnected
(18-7%)






Abrupt Ending (16 – 7%)
Disclaimer (9 – 4%)
Premature/Attempted Closing (8 – 3%)
Ignoring cues user wants more help (5 – 2%)
Premature Referral (3 – 1%)
Sends to Google (2 – 1%)

N=245



Closing Probs/Signing Off Abruptly (95-39%)
Relational Disconnect (33 - 13%)


Impatience (24 – 10%)
Poor Attitude/Rude/Insulting/FLAMING (10 - 4%)




Disconfirming (7 – 3%)
Use of Profanity/Inappropriate Language (5 – 2%)
Failure/Refusal to Provide Information When
Asked (4 - 2%)
Derisive use of spelling out NV behaviors (2 – 1%)
Mistakes/Misunderstandings (2-1%)

Recommendations -
Facilitating Interpersonal Communication in Virtual Reference Encounters



General Considerations

Basic interpersonal skills – transferable.


Interpersonal dynamics are present & important.
Time spent is mostly in searching.
Greeting

Personal greeting

Look for and respond to self-disclosure
Strategies for Building Rapport


Self-disclose as appropriate
Acknowledgment of user’s self-disclosure

Inclusion & Reassurance




Compensation for Lack of Nonverbal
Cues


Mirror user’s style
Use ellipse (can prevent premature closure by users) Awareness of appropriate selfdisclosure
Closing
Relational Barriers to Avoid

Recommendations – Encounters with
Rude/Impatient Users







Use interpersonal skills
Be polite/professional
Apologize as appropriate
Strategies for impatient users
Thank them for complaints
Realize rude users are in the minority
Do not take rude behavior personally

Future Directions
Evaluation Issues & Next Steps



Research Question Remains Unanswered

What is the relationship between content & relational dimensions in determining the quality of chat reference encounters?
Interviews/focus groups/surveys with librarians & chat users
Development of evaluation model with both relational & content dimensions


Joe Thompson – Maryland AskUsNow!