CoLIS
Copenhagen, Denmark
19-22 August 2013
Conceptualizing Collaboration
& Community in Virtual
Reference & Social Q&A
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.
Mark Alpert
Chair, Dept. of Library & Information Science
Rutgers University, NJ
Ph.D. Student
Rutgers University, NJ
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
Chirag Shah, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
OCLC
Assistant Professor
Rutgers University, NJ
Stephanie Mikitish
Nicole A. Cooke, Ph.D.
Ph.D. Student
Rutgers University, NJ
Assistant Professor
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability through
Collaboration between Virtual Reference
& Social Q&A Sites
• Provide evidence for modeling new
ways to collaborate in VRS
• Collaboration with Social Q&A (SQA)
• Three phases
• Transcript Analysis
• 500 VRS transcripts
• Telephone interviews
• 50 librarian interviews, 50 user
interviews
• Design Sessions
http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/synergy/default.htm
• Construct design specifications
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Virtual Reference Services (VRS)
& Social Q&A (SQA)
• SQA
• VRS
• Crowd-sourcing
• Global reach
• Good in lean economic
times
• Anytime/anywhere
access
• Social & collaborative
• Cooperative services may
reduce costs
• Anyone can provide
answers
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• Librarians have deep
subject expertise
Why Cyber Synergy?
• Lack of library funding
• Service reductions
• Some VRS discontinued or
endangered
• Empirical data needed to explore
possibilities to enhance VRS
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Research Questions
• How can VRS become more collaborative, within and
between libraries, & tap more effectively into librarians’
subject expertise?
• What can VRS learn from SQA to better serve users &
attract potential users?
• How can we design systems & services within &
between VRS and SQA for better quality and
sustainability?
• In what ways can the Communities of Practice (Wenger,
1998, 2004) framework contribute to our understanding
of collaboration barriers & opportunities in the VRS
environment?
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Theoretical Framework:
Communities of Practice
(CoP)
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Communities of Practice (CoP):
“Groups of people who share a
concern, a set of problems, or a
passion about a topic, and who
deepen their knowledge and
expertise in this area by interacting
on an ongoing basis.”
(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4)
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Distinct Dimensions of CoP
• Joint enterprises
• Feature mutual
engagement
• Shared repertoire of
resources &
sensibilities
The world’s libraries. Connected.
More Dimensions of CoP
• Learning focus
• Depend on interactions
between members
• Voluntary
• Customizable
• Individual
• Encourage members to
solve problems & develop
new approaches/tools
• Share expertise, share
weakness
(Wenger, 1998, 2004)
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Barriers to CoP
• Insufficient time
• “Information hoarding”
• Low levels of collegiality
• Shifting group memberships
• Lack trust building opportunities
• Geographical gaps
• Promotes heterogeneity
The world’s libraries. Connected.
VRS Librarians as CoP
• VRS librarians
• Shared interest in serving
user information needs
• Operate within community
for sharing information
• Hold shared practice
through MLIS degree
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Data Collection – Phone Interviews
• Phone interviews with 25
VRS librarians
• Recruited via
professional list-servs,
personal contacts, &
OCLC’s QuestionPoint
(QP) librarian blog
• Responses collected
with SurveyMonkey
• Anonymous
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Interview Questions
• Combination of open &
closed questions
• Topics
• Collaboration
• Referrals
• Comparison of VRS to
SQA
• Critical incidents
(Flanagan, 1954)
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Data Analysis
• Descriptive for
demographic data &
Likert style questions
• Line-by-line qualitative
analysis to identify:
• Recurring themes
• Representative
quotations
• Code book developed
• NVivo software
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Results
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Librarian Demographics (N=25)
76%, n=19
11.76
60%, n=15
52%, n=13
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Participants
reported that VRS
were slightly
busier than FtF
services
The world’s libraries. Connected.
40% reported
that overall
reference
volume was
increasing
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Successful Interactions
“There were lots of happy
faces, so the user seemed
pleased.”
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Successful Interactions
provided an “opportunity to
educate the patron”
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Referrals
One-quarter mentioned referring
question to another librarian
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Difficulties
Barrier to Referrals
Lack of lead time,
usually because “the
paper was due too soon
for me to answer.”
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Collaboration
•
•
•
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Majority collaborated
>once a week
E-mail most common
mode, then FtF
FtF easiest in shared
physical settings
Reasons for Collaboration
• Unable to answer question
• Give user more
comprehensive answer
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Facilitators to Collaboration
• Perceive other librarians as willing to help
• Know who to ask for help
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Barriers to Collaboration
“There are librarians who are hostile in
body language and sometimes verbally
if it interferes with their other duties.
They have made it very clear that I
should not ask and so I do not.”
The world’s libraries. Connected.
VRS & SQA Compared
VRS
SQA
More
synchronous
Asynchronous
Authoritative
Less
authoritative
Complex
questions
Simpler
questions
Objective
More
opinionated
answers
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Collaboration with
Subject Experts
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Librarians expressed a
willingness to consult
non-librarian experts,
particularly professors
Questions Appropriate for SQA
•
•
•
Objective, ready reference, fact-based
Yes/no questions
Questions based on experience or opinion
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Conclusion
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Difficult Questions
• Usually refer to another librarian
• Factors in addressing/referring
difficult questions
• Content knowledge
• Shared professional standards
• Technological familiarity
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Collaboration
• Believe other librarians
are willing to collaborate
• Shared professional
ideals and expertise
• Seen as value-added
service
• FtF enables
collaboration
The world’s libraries. Connected.
SQA & Collaboration
• Librarians view SQA as:
• Less authoritative
• Less complex
• Less objective
• Analysis of data from
• Not against collaborating with
experts
• Willing to expand CoP to
other experts if demonstrate
• Professional expertise
• Extensive knowledge
• Demonstrate professional
expertise or extensive
knowledge
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• Remaining librarian interviews
• 50 VRS/SQA user interviews
• 3 expert design sessions
VRS librarians constitute a CoP in
approach to referrals & collaboration
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Next Steps
• Analysis of data from
• Remaining librarian interviews
• 50 VRS/SQA user interviews
• 3 expert design sessions
The world’s libraries. Connected.
References
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2002). Motivation and Barriers to Participation in Virtual Knowledge-Sharing Communities of Practice,
Paper presented at 3rd European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities (OKLC), Athens, Greece, 5-6 April.
Correia, A. M. R., Paulos, A., & Mesquita, A. (2010). Virtual communities of practice: investigating motivations and constraints in the processes
of knowledge creation and transfer. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 8(1), 11-20.
Cramton, C. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346–371.
Ellis, D., Oldridge, R., & Vasconcelos, A. (2004). Community and virtual community, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38,
145–186.
Faraj, S., & Wasko, M. M. (2001). The web of knowledge: an investigation of knowledge exchange in networks of practice. Retrieved from
http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/Farajwasko.pdf
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.
Gannon-Leary, P., & Fontainha, E. (2007). Communities of practice and virtual learning communities: Benefits, barriers and success factors.
eLearning Papers, 5. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1018066
Gibson, C.B., & Manuel, J.A. (2003). Building trust: Effective multicultural communication processes in virtual teams. In C.B. Gibson & S.G.
Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work (pp. 59-86). San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.
Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791–815.
Kirkup, G. (2002). Identity, community and distributed learning. In M. Lea, & K. Nicoll, (Eds.), Distributed learning: Social, cultural approaches to
practice (pp. 182-195). London: Routledge/Falmer.
The world’s libraries. Connected.
References
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
McDermott, R. (1999) Learning across teams: How to build communities of practice in team organizations. Knowledge Management
Review, 8, 32–36.
Nincic, V. (2006). “Why don’t we trade places…”: Some issues relevant for the analysis of diasporic web communities as learning
spaces. The international handbook of virtual learning environments (1067-1088). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Radford, M. L., Connaway, L. S., & Shah, C. (2011-2013). Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability through Collaboration between Virtual
Reference and Social Q&A Sites. Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), Rutgers University, and OCLC.
Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/synergy/default.htm
Ranganathan, S.R. (1957). The Five Laws of Library Science. Madras: Madras Library Association; London: G. Blunt and Sons.
Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623-639.
Smith, P., Barty, K., & Stacey, E. (2005). Limitations of an established community of practice in developing online innovation, breaking
down boundaries: international experience in open, distance and flexible education. Proceedings of the 17th ODLAA conference, 16, ODLAA, Adelaide.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2004). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey
Business Journal, Jan – Feb., 1-8.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Cyber Synergy Grant
•Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability through Collaboration
between Virtual Reference and Social Q & A Sites
• $250,000.00 grant funded by IMLS, OCLC, and Rutgers University
• Co-PIs
• Marie L. Radford, Rutgers University
• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, OCLC
• Chirag Shah, Rutgers University
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Questions?
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.
Mark Alpert
Chair, Dept. of Library & Information Science
Rutgers University, NJ
mradford@rutgers.edu
@MarieLRadford
Ph.D. Student
Rutgers University, NJ
mark.alpert@rutgers.edu
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
Chirag Shah, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
OCLC
connawal@oclc.org
@LynnConnaway
Associate Professor
Rutgers University, NJ
chirags@rutgers.edu
Stephanie Mikitish
Nicole A. Cooke, Ph.D.
Ph.D. Student
Rutgers University, NJ
mikitish@eden.rutgers.edu
Assistant Professor
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
nacooke@illinois.edu
The world’s libraries. Connected.