presented by lynn silipigni connaway, ph.d. senior research scientist oclc research

“I can get everything that I can get at a library and more online, and I don't have to go anywhere.”

Expectations of the Screenager Generation

Presented by

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.Senior Research Scientist

OCLC Research

New York Public LibraryNew York Public LibraryDecember 10, 2008December 10, 2008

Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008

2

Libraries

• Provide systems and services to meet the information needs of differing groups


3

Largest Demographic Groups

•Baby boomers (1945-1964)•Cohort #1 (Born 1946 – 1954)•Cohort #2 (Born 1955 – 1964)

•Millennials (1979 – 1994)•Screenagers (Born 1988 -1994)


4

Who Are The Millennials?

• NetGens/EchoBoomers/

Gen Y

• Born 1979 - 1994

• 75 – 80 Million

• Generational divide• 13-28 year olds• By 2010 will outnumber

Baby Boomers


5

Screenagers

• Youngest members of “Millennial Generation”

• Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff

• Used here for 12-18 year olds

• Affinity for electronic communication

• Collaborative


6

Millennials:Did Not Use the Library

•“The library is a good source if you have several months.”

•“Hard to find things in library catalog.”

•“Tried [physical] library but had to revert to online library resources.”

•“Yeah, I don't step in the library anymore… better to read a 25-page article from JSTOR than 250-page book.”

•“Sometimes content can be sacrificed for format.”


7

Their Information Perspectives

• Information is information

• Media formats don’t matter

• Visual learners

• Process immediately

• Different research skills

• Multi-task

Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library - December 10, 2008

8

How They Meet Information Needs

• The Internet•Google•Wikipedia•Amazon.com

• Personal libraries


9

How They Meet Information Needs

• People•Family members•Friends•Teachers/Professors


10

What Attracts Them to Resources

• Convenience, convenience, convenience• Available 24/7

•Working from home

•At night or on weekends

• Immediate answers

• Lack of cost

• Efficient


11

What Attracts Them to Resources

• Independence•Prefer to do own search•Use the Internet•No librarian necessary

• Privacy


12

Why They Do Not Use Libraries

Do not know…• Service availability • Librarian can help• 24/7 availability

Satisfied with other information sources

Intimidated by library and librarian

• Too difficult to use• Takes too long• Stereotypes


13

Why They DO Use Libraries

• Databases• EBSCO• Lexis-Nexis• JSTOR

• Online journals and abstracts

• BUT …


14

• Do not know these resources are provided by the library


15

Ideal Information Systems & Services

• “Make library catalogs more like search engines...”

• “Make a universal library card that would work in all libraries.”

• “Space in the library to interact and collaborate - group study areas and areas to spread stuff out.”

• “Make the library like a coffee house.”


17

Interpersonal Communication Analysis: Results

• 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.


18

Facilitators – DifferencesScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=235)

• Screenagers demonstrated these behaviors less often than Adults

• On average (per transcript): • Thanks • Self Disclosure• Closing Ritual

• On average (per occurrence):• Seeking reassurance• Polite expressions


19

• Lower averages (per transcript)• Thanks 51% (75) vs. 68% (159)• Self Disclosure 42% (61) vs. 49% (116)• Closing Ritual 32% (47) vs. 45% (106)

• Lower averages (per occurrence)• Seeking reassurance 62% (91) vs. 59% (139)• Polite expressions 34% (49) vs. 28% (66)



20

• Screenagers demonstrated these behaviors less often than Adults

• On Average (per occurrence)• Agree to suggestion• Admit lack knowledge• Lower case

• Screenagers demonstrated these behaviors more often than Adults

• On average (per occurrence)• Interjections/Hedges• Slang



21

Barriers – DifferencesScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=235)

• Screenagers demonstrated these behaviors more often than Adults

• On average (per transcript)• Abrupt Endings• Disconfirming• Impatience• Rude or Insulting• Inappropriate language• Goofing around


22

Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954)

• Qualitative technique• Focuses on most memorable

event/experience of participants• Allows categories or themes to emerge

NOT imposed


24

Millennial VRS Users: Positive Results (CI N=48)

Number %

• Primarily Content 33 69% • Both Relational & 13 27% Content• Primarily Relational 2 4%


25

Millennial VRS Users: Positive Results(CI N=48)

Content Themes* Number

%

• Providing information 36 75%

• Convenience/multi- 14 29% tasking/time saving/

money saving• Providing instruction 5 10%

*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


26

Millennial VRS Users: Positive Results(CI N=48)

Relational Themes* Number %

• Attitude 10 21%

• Relationship quality 8 17%



27

Millennial VRS Users: Negative Results(CI N=30)

Number %

• Primarily Content 23 77% • Primarily Relational 6 20%• Both Relational & 1 3% Content


28


Content Themes* Number %

• Information 21 70%

• Lack of knowledge 5 17%



29


Relational Themes* Number

%


• Attitude 5 17%



30

Millennial VRS Non-users: Positive Results (CI N=108)

Number %

• Primarily Content 54 50%• Both Relational & 33

31% Content • Primarily Relational 21

19%


31



• Providing information 54 50%

• Providing instruction 24 22%

• Convenience/multi- 15 13% tasking/time saving/

money saving• Demonstrating knowledge 12 11% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can

be coded into more than one theme


32



• Attitude 39 36%

• Impact of FtF assisting 20 18% relationship development


• Impact of phone/Email 3 3% assisting information seeking process

• Approachability 3 3%



33

Millennial VRS Non-users: Negative Results (CI N=74)

Number %

• Primarily Content 35 47%

• Primarily Relational 27 37% • Both Relational & 12 16% Content


34



• Information 47 64%

• Lack of knowledge 17 23%

• Instruction 5 7%

• Task unreasonable 3 4%*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme


35



• Attitude 36 49%


• Approachability 3 4%

• Impact of technology 2 3%



36

What We Learned

• The image of libraries is…

• BOOKS• People do not think of the library as an

important source of electronic information!


37

What We Learned

• Books aren’t convenient to retrieve from the library

• Libraries are QUIET• For studying


38

What We Learned

Traditional Library Environment Millennial Preferences

Logical, linear learning Multi-tasking

Largely text based Visual, audio, multi-media

Learn from the expert Figure it out for myself

Requires patience Want it now

Metasearch Full text

Complexity Simplicity


39

What We Learned

• Libraries are trusted sources of information • Search engines are trusted about the same• Screenagers

• Lack patience to wade through content silos and indexing and abstracting databases

• Like convenience and speed • Do not view paid information as more accurate than

free information


40

What We Learned

• Communication critically important!• Difficult process

• Generational differences add to complexity!

• Need user education for more realistic expectations


41

A library experience like the experience available on the web

Yes, libraries!


42

Implications for Library Services

• Libraries should be “…providing patrons with what they want when and how they want it, and providing patrons with the means to uncover what they want when they aren’t sure what exactly that may be.”

• Good search and discovery tools• Recommender Services• Reviews• Social Networking

• IM• Text Messaging

• Better meta-discovery tools than currently offered by federated technology

• (Pace, 2006)


43

What We Can Do

• Encourage & entice them to use libraries• Creative marketing

• Promote full range of services and systems

• Build positive relationships• Regardless of format

• Face-to-Face• Phone• Online


44

What We Can Do

Understand them to better serve their information needs


45

Additional Resources

• Boomer Nation: The Largest and Richest Generation Ever and how it Changed America, S. Gillon. New York: Free Press, 2004.

• College Student Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources, OCLC, Dublin: OH, 2005. http://www.oclc.org/reports/perceptionscollege.htm

• Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584-2069, N. Strauss & W. Howe. New York: Morrow, 1991.

• Generations at Work, S. Luck, 2006. http://dps.dgs.virginia.gov/Forum2006/Presentations/S201%20PPSluck%20Generations.ppt

• The Google Generation: The Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future, I. Rowlands, et al., 2008. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 290-310. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00012530810887953


46

• Growing Up Digital, D. Tapscott. www.growingupdigital.com

• HS senior explains why she doesn’t use the school library, D.L. Whelan. School Library Journal (October 30, 2007) http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6495685.html

• I hear the train a comin’, A. Pace. Presentation at the Charleston Conference. Charleston, SC, Nov. 1, 2006.

• Millennial Behaviors and Demographics, R. Sweeney, 2006. http://library1.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/Millennials/Article-Millennial-Behaviors.doc

• Millennial Net Values: Disconnects between Libraries and the Information Age Mindset, R. McDonald & C. Thomas, 2005. http://dscholarship.lib.fsu.edu/general/4/

• Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, W. Howe & N. Strauss. New York: Random House, 2000.



47

Additional Resources• Mountains, Valleys, and Pathways: Serials Users’ Needs and

Steps to Meet Them. Part I: Identifying Serials Users’ Needs: Preliminary Analysis of Focus Group and Semi-structured Interviews at Colleges and Universities, L.S. Connaway, Serials Librarian, 52(1/2), 223-236, 2007.

• Net Generation Students and Libraries, J. Lippincott. In Educating the Net Generation, Educase, 2005. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101m.pdf

• Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources, OCLC Dublin: OH, 2005. http://www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm

• Playing the Future: How Kids’ Culture Can Teach Us to Thrive in an Age of Chaos, D. Rushkoff. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.


48

• Sense-making the Information Confluence: The Hows and the Whys of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs, Brenda Dervin, Ohio State University, Principal Investigator; Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Chandra Prabha, Co-Investigators. Institute for Museums and Library Services Research Grant, 2003-2005. http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/imls/default.htm

• “Screenagers” and Live Chat Reference: Living Up to the Promise, M.L. Radford & L.S. Connaway. Scan, 26(6), 31-39. February, 2007. www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2007/connaway-scan.pdf

• Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester, N. Foster & S. Gibbons, Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2007.

• Youth Health and Wellness: Core Issues and Views on Existing Resources, Ypulse, ISIS, Inc., & YouthNoise, 2008. www.isis-inc.org/in-print/Youth_Health_and_Wellness_Report_2008.php



49

End Notes• This presentation is one of the outcomes from the project

“Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, & Librarian Perspectives,” Marie L. Radford & Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Co-Principal Investigators. Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Project website: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

• This presentation is one of the outcomes from the project “Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs." Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Ohio State University, and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., the project is being implemented by Brenda Dervin (Professor of Communication and Joan N. Huber Fellow of Social & Behavioral Science, Ohio State University) as Principal Investigator; and Lynn Silipigni Connaway (OCLC Consulting Research Scientist III) and Chandra Prahba (OCLC Senior Research Scientist), as Co-Investigators. More information can be obtained at: http://imlsosuoclcproject.jcomm.ohio-state.edu/

Questions & Comments

Lynn Silipigni [email protected]

presented by lynn silipigni connaway, ph.d. senior research scientist oclc research

Documents

library catalog

librarythe library

physical library

online library resources

abstractsbut expectations

information sourcesintimidated

dont step

year oldsby