Seeking Synchronicity:
Evaluating Virtual
Reference Transcripts
Presented by
Lynn Silipigni Connaway
and
Marie L. Radford
QuestionPoint Users Group Meeting
June 25, 2006
New Orleans, Louisiana
Seeking Synchronicity:
Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from
User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives
• $1,103,572 project funded by:
– Institute of Museum and Library Services
$684,996 grant
– Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
and OCLC Online Computer Library Center
$405,076 in kind contributions
Seeking Synchronicity:
Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from
User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives
Project duration
10/1/2005-9/30/2007
Four phases:
I. Focus group interviews*
II. Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint
transcripts
III. 600 online surveys*
IV. 300 telephone interviews*
*Interviews & surveys with VRS users, non-users, & librarians
Phase II:
24/7 Transcript Analysis
•
Generated random sample
–
–
–
•
July 7, 2004 through June 27, 2005
263,673 sessions
25 transcripts/month = 300 total
256 usable transcripts
–
Excluding system tests and technical problems
6 Analyses
•
Geographical Distribution
• Library receiving query
•
•
•
Library answering query
Type of Library
Type of Questions
• Katz/Kaske Classification
•
Subject of Questions
•
Dewy Decimal Classification
Session Duration
•Interpersonal Communication
•
• Radford Classification
Librarian Location - Question Received
California = 77
Maryland = 47
Australia = 36
Massachusetts = 21
North Carolina = 14
Utah = 8
Washington = 8
New York = 7
Canada = 7
Delaware = 6
Kansas = 5
Arizona = 4
Pennsylvania = 4
United Kingdom = 1
Other States = 10
0
n=255
10
20
30
40
50
Number of Questions
60
70
80
90
Librarian Location - Question Referred/Answered
California = 88
Australia = 36
Maryland = 35
Massachusetts = 10
Connecticut = 9
New York = 8
North Carolina = 7
Washington = 7
Canada = 7
Hawaii = 6
Colorado = 4
Michigan= 4
Pennsylvania = 4
Germany = 1
Other states = 12
0
n=238
10
20
30
40
50
60
Number of questions
70
80
90
100
Type of Library Receiving Question
90
80
Number of Questions
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Consortium
n=256
Public
University
National
Law
State
Not
Available
K-12
Type of Question Asked
Holdings
6%
Inappropriate
0%
Subject Search
37%
Procedural
25%
Research
2%
Ready Reference
30%
n=273
Procedure and Subject
Compuer science,
information & general
works
Philosophy &
4%
psychology
1%
Library procedure &
miscellaneous
25%
Religion
0%
Social sciences
31%
History & geography
16%
Language
1%
Literature
5%
Arts & recreation
4%
n=273
Technology
5%
Science
8%
Dewey Decimal Classification
Compuer science,
information & general
works
5% Philosophy &
psychology
1%
History & geography
21%
Religion
0%
Literature
6%
Arts & recreation
5%
Technology
7%
n=273
Science
11%
Language
2%
Social sciences
42%
Service Duration
• Mean Service Duration:
13:53
• Median Service Duration:
10:37
Focus Group Interviews
Reasons for Using VRS
•
•
•
•
•
•
Convenient
Efficient
More reliable than search engines & free
Allows multi-tasking
Email follow-up & provision of transcript
Pleasant interpersonal experience
– Librarian on first name basis – more personalized
• Less intimidating than physical reference desk
– Feel comfortable abruptly ending session
Focus Group Interviews
Reasons for not using VRS
• Graduate students
– Fear of
• Bothering librarian
• Looking stupid & advisors finding out
– Questions may not be taken seriously
– Potential technical problems
– Bad experiences in FtF influence expectations of VRS
• Screenagers
– Virtual stalkers (“psycho killers”)
– Not finding a trusted librarian
– Unsure of what to expect
Focus Group Interviews
Challenges for Users & Non-Users
• Speed and technical problems
• Delayed response time
• Librarians are not in users’ libraries
– Fear of no subject expertise
• Fear of overwhelming librarian
Focus Group Interviews
Suggestions from Users & Non-Users
• Inclusion of multiple languages
• Access to subject specialists
• Better marketing and publicity
– Information on how to connect and use VRS
– Reassurance that users will not bother librarians – the
library wants the service to be used
• Faster technology
• Improved interface design
– More color
– More attractive
Next Steps
• Conduct
– Three focus group interviews – VRS users
– Online survey & telephone interviews with VRS
• Users
• Non-users
• Librarians
• Analyses
– Gender
– User Type
• Child/Young adult
• Adult
• Unknown
End Notes
•
•
•
This is one of the outcomes from the project
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual
Reference Services from User, Non-User, and
Librarian Perspectives, Marie L. Radford and
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Co-Principal
Investigators.
Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University and
OCLC, Online Computer Library Center.
Project web site:
http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchr
onicity/
Questions
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.
Email: mradford@scils.rutgers.edu
www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
Email: connawal@oclc.org
www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm