Conceptualizing Collaboration & Community in Virtual Reference & Social Q&A
description
Transcript of Conceptualizing Collaboration & Community in Virtual Reference & Social Q&A
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Conceptualizing Collaboration & Community in Virtual Reference & Social Q&A
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.Chair, Dept. of Library & Information ScienceRutgers University, NJ
Nicole A. Cooke, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.Senior Research ScientistOCLC
Stephanie MikitishPh.D. StudentRutgers University, NJ
Mark AlpertPh.D. StudentRutgers University, NJ
Chirag Shah, Ph.D. Assistant ProfessorRutgers University, NJ
CoLISCopenhagen, Denmark
19-22 August 2013
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• 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• Construct design specifications
Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability through Collaboration between Virtual Reference & Social Q&A Sites
http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/synergy/default.htm
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• VRS• Global reach
• Anytime/anywhere access
• Cooperative services may reduce costs
• Librarians have deep subject expertise
Virtual Reference Services (VRS) & Social Q&A (SQA)
• SQA• Crowd-sourcing
• Good in lean economic times
• Social & collaborative
• Anyone can provide answers
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• Lack of library funding• Service reductions• Some VRS discontinued or
endangered
• Empirical data needed to explore possibilities to enhance VRS
Why Cyber Synergy?
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• 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?
Research Questions
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.
• Joint enterprises• Feature mutual
engagement• Shared repertoire of
resources & sensibilities
Distinct Dimensions of CoP
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• Learning focus• Depend on interactions
between members• Voluntary• Customizable• Individual• Encourage members to
solve problems & develop new approaches/tools
• Share expertise, share weakness
More Dimensions of CoP
(Wenger, 1998, 2004)
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• Insufficient time• “Information hoarding”• Low levels of collegiality• Shifting group memberships• Lack trust building opportunities• Geographical gaps• Promotes heterogeneity
Barriers to CoP
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• VRS librarians• Shared interest in serving
user information needs• Operate within community
for sharing information• Hold shared practice
through MLIS degree
VRS Librarians as CoP
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• Phone interviews with 25 VRS librarians
• Recruited via professional list-servs, personal contacts, & OCLC’s QuestionPoint (QP) librarian blog
• Responses collected with SurveyMonkey
• Anonymous
Data Collection – Phone Interviews
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• Combination of open & closed questions
• Topics• Collaboration• Referrals• Comparison of VRS to
SQA• Critical incidents
(Flanagan, 1954)
Interview Questions
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• Descriptive for demographic data & Likert style questions
• Line-by-line qualitative analysis to identify:
• Recurring themes • Representative
quotations
• Code book developed• NVivo software
Data Analysis
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• Majority collaborated
>once a week • E-mail most common
mode, then FtF• FtF easiest in shared
physical settings
The world’s libraries. Connected.
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.
“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.”
Barriers to Collaboration
The world’s libraries. Connected.
VRS & SQA Compared
VRS
More synchronous
Authoritative
Complex questions
Objective
The world’s libraries. Connected.
Collaboration with Subject Experts
Librarians expressed a willingness to consult non-librarian experts,
particularly professors
The world’s libraries. Connected.
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.
• Usually refer to another librarian• Factors in addressing/referring
difficult questions• Content knowledge• Shared professional standards• Technological familiarity
Difficult Questions
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• Believe other librarians are willing to collaborate
• Shared professional ideals and expertise
• Seen as value-added service
• FtF enables collaboration
Collaboration
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• Analysis of data from• Remaining librarian interviews• 50 VRS/SQA user interviews• 3 expert design sessions
SQA & Collaboration• Librarians view SQA as:
• Less authoritative• Less complex• Less objective
• 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.
VRS librarians constitute a CoP in approach to referrals & collaboration
The world’s libraries. Connected.
• Analysis of data from• Remaining librarian interviews• 50 VRS/SQA user interviews• 3 expert design sessions
Next Steps
The world’s libraries. Connected.
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.
References
The world’s libraries. Connected.
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, 1-6, 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.
References
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.Chair, Dept. of Library & Information ScienceRutgers University, [email protected]@MarieLRadford
Nicole A. Cooke, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorUniversity of Illinois [email protected]
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.Senior Research [email protected]@LynnConnaway
Stephanie MikitishPh.D. StudentRutgers University, [email protected]
Mark AlpertPh.D. StudentRutgers University, [email protected]
Chirag Shah, Ph.D. Associate ProfessorRutgers University, [email protected]