“Screenagers” and Virtual (Chat) Reference: The Future is Now!

Presented by Marie L. Radford

andLynn Silipigni Connaway

New Jersey Association of School LibrariansOctober 29-31, 2006

Long Branch, New Jersey

Authors• Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.

– Associate Professor,– Rutgers University, SCILS– Email: mradford@scils.rutgers.edu– www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford

• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.– Consulting Research Scientist– Email: connawal@oclc.org– www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm

• Grant Website (Slides will be posted): http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity

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 – $405,076 in kind contributions

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives

Project duration: 2 Years (10/05-9/07)

Four phases:I. Focus group interviewsII. Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint live

chat transcriptsIII. 600 online surveysIV. 300 telephone interviews

“Screenagers”

• Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff

• Used here for 12-18 year olds

• Affinity for electronic communication computer, phone, television (etc.)

• Youngest members of “Millennial Generation”

The Millennial Generation

• Born 1979 – 1994• AKA Next Gen, Net Generation, Generation Y,

Nexters, Nintendo Generation, Digital Generation, or Echo Boomers

• 12-27 year olds • About 75 million people• By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers

(born 1946-1964)

The Millennial Generation

• May be most studied generation in history

• 4x amount of toys than Boomer parents 20 yrs. earlier

• Born digital, most can’t remember life without computers

• Confident, hopeful, goal-oriented, civic-minded, tech savvy

• Younger members most likely to display Millennial characteristics

The Millennial Mind(Sweeney, 2006)

• Preferences & Characteristics– More Choices, More Selectivity– Experiential & Exploratory Learners– Flexibility & Convenience– Personalization & Customization– Impatience– Less Attention to Spelling, Grammar– Practical & Results Oriented– Multitaskers

More on Millennial Mind(Sweeney, 2006)

• Preferences & Characteristics– Digital Natives– Gamers– Nomadic Communication Style– Media Variety– Collaboration & Intelligence– Balanced Lives– Less Reading

Millennials, “Screenagers”

• So what does all this mean… – For libraries?– For reference services?– For virtual reference services (VRS)?– For the future of the above?

• Research trying to find out!

Phase I:Focus Group Interviews

• 8 Focus Group Interviews (so far)– 4 with non-users

• 3 with “Screenagers” (rural, suburban, & urban)• 1 with college students (graduate)

– 2 with VRS librarians– 2 with VRS users (college students & adults)

• 2 more planned (need help)– 2 more with screenager users

3 “Screenager” Focus Groups

• 33 Participants – 13 (39%) Urban– 12 (36%) Suburban – 8 (24%) Rural

• Gender– 15 (45%) Male – 18 (55%) Female

• Age Range – 12 – 18 years old

• Ethnicity– 21 (64%) Caucasian– 6 (18%) African- American– 6 (18%) Hispanic/Latino

• Grade Level – 31 (94%) HS – 2 (6%) JHS

FG Results - Major Themes

• Librarian Stereotypes

• Preference for Independent Information Seeking – Google– Web surfing

• Preference for Face-to-Face Interaction

More FG Themes

• Privacy/Security Concerns– Librarians as “psycho killers” ??– Fear of cyber stalkers

• Factors Influencing Future VRS Use– Recommendation– Marketing– Choice of librarian

Phase II: Transcript Analysis

• Generated random sample– 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months)– 479, 673 QuestionPoint sessions total– Avg. 33/mo. = 600 total, 492 examined so far

• 431 usable transcripts – Excluding system tests & tech problems

• 191 of these highlighted today– 65 identified as “Screenagers”– 126 identified as primary/college/adult

Classification Methodology

Qualitative Analysis

• Development/refinement of category scheme

• Careful reading/analysis

• Identification of patterns

Time intensive, but reveals complexities!

Results Interpersonal Communication Analysis• 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.

Transcript Examples

Negative Example – Relational Barriers

Positive Example – Relational Facilitators

Barriers – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)

• Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript)– Abrupt Endings 26 (.4%) vs. 37 (.29%)

– Impatience 6 (.09%) vs. 2 (.02%)

– Rude or Insulting 2 (.03) vs. 0

Facilitators – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)

• Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence)– Thanks 72 (1.11%) vs. 163 (1.29%)– Self Disclosure 41 (.63%) vs. 120 (.95%)– Seeking reassurance 39 (.6%) vs. 87 (.7%)– Agreement try suggestion 39 (.6%) vs. 93

(.74%)– Closing Ritual 25 (.38%) vs. 69 (.55%)– Admitting lack of knowledge 10 (.15%) vs. 30

(.24%)

Facilitators – Differences Screenagers (n=65) vs. Others (n=126)

• Higher numbers/averages (per occurrence)– Polite expressions 51 (.78%) vs. 40 (.32%)– Alternate spellings 33 (.51%) vs. 19 (.15%)– Punctuation/repeat 23 (.35%) vs. 28 (.22)– Lower case 19 (.29%) vs. 24 (.19%)– Slang 9 (.14%) vs. 3 (.02%)– Enthusiasm 8 (.12%) vs. 9 (.07%)– Self-correction 7 (.11%) vs. 6 (.05%)– Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (.05%) vs. 0

Implications for Practice• VRS is a natural for Screenagers

• Recommend/market services (QandANJ)

• Reassure that QandANJ is safe

• Don’t throw a wet blanket on their enthusiasm

• Do encourage, mentor them, & learn from them

• Basic service excellence skills

• See handouts for recommendations!

Future Directions

• Phases III & IV – Online Surveys (in progress)– Telephone Surveys

• Building on these results

• Need your help to recruit!!

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 and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center.

• Special thanks to Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, Vickie Kozo, & Timothy Dickey.

• Slides available at project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

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