March 14,

2009

ACRL Conference

Seattle, WA

“I would sort of appreciate a little more

understanding:” Engaging Net Gen Students in Virtual

Reference

“I would sort of appreciate a little more

understanding:” Engaging Net Gen Students in Virtual

Reference

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.Associate Professor

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

Senior Research ScientistOCLC Research

Academic Libraries TodayAcademic Libraries Today

Vying for information seekers’ attention

Must re-engineer to accommodate users’ workflows and habits

The Net GenerationThe Net Generation

•Born between 1979 and 1994

• Also known as:

• Millennials

• EchoBoomers

• Gen Y

•Live in a socially networked environment

•Different communication & information-seeking behaviors

ScreenagersScreenagers

•Youngest of the Net Generation

•Born between 1988 and 1994

• Now 15-21 years old

•Affinity for technology

•Expect instant access

IMLS funded project to provide insight into the Net Gen’s perceptions of libraries and VRS

Four phases:

Focus group interviews

Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat transcripts

Online surveys – 496 Total175 VRS librarians

184 VRS non-users

137 VRS users

Telephone interviews - 283 Total

100 VRS librarians

107 VRS non-users

76 VRS users

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

Online SurveysOnline Surveys

•Descriptive statistical analysis

•Demographic

•Multiple-choice

•Likert-type

•Qualitative analysis

•Open-ended

•2 critical incident (CI) questions

VRS User Demographics (N=137)VRS User Demographics (N=137)

Net Gen (N=49)

•Female (51%, 25)

•Between 19-28 years old (47%, 23)

•Caucasian (67%, 33)

Adult, 29+ (N=88)

•Female (68%, 60)

•Between 36-45 years old (38%, 33)

•Caucasian (84%, 74)

Chat Least Intimidating to VRS Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)

Chat Least Intimidating to VRS Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)

"I am least intimidated by"

04%14%

6%

76%

016%

5%

33%

47%

01020304050607080

FtF Phone Email Text Chat

Net GenVRS Users

Adult VRSUsers

"The probability that I will use reference services again is"

82%

92%

76788082848688909294

Net Gen VRS Users Adult VRS Users

Excellent orVery Good

VRS Users Likely to be Repeat Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)

VRS Users Likely to be Repeat Users Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)

Recommendation Important to VRS UsersNet Gens (N=49)

Recommendation Important to VRS UsersNet Gens (N=49)

•Used VRS because recommended

•Recommended VRS more than adults

What Attracts Users to VRS Users (N=137)What Attracts Users to VRS Users (N=137)

•Convenience, Convenience, Convenience

• Available 24/7

• Working from home

• At night or on weekends

• Immediate answers

• Lack of cost

• Efficient

•Less intimidating interactions

Why Users Don’t Always Choose VRSNet Gens (N=49)

Why Users Don’t Always Choose VRSNet Gens (N=49)

•Unhelpful answers

•Non-subject specialists

•Slow connections

•Scripted messages

•Cold environment

What Would Attract Users to VRSNet Gens (N=49)

What Would Attract Users to VRSNet Gens (N=49)

•Faster & easier software

•Personalized interface

•Reliable co-browsing

•More service hours

•Kiosk & cybercafe access

•Experienced, tech-savvy librarians

VRS Non-user Demographics (N=184)VRS Non-user Demographics (N=184)

Net Gen (N=122)

•Female (66%, 81)

• 19-28 years old (51%, 62)

•Caucasian (65%, 79)

Adult, 29+ (N=62)

•Female (71%, 44)

• 46-55 years old (31%, 19)

•Caucasian (87%, 52)

FtF is Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

FtF is Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

•Adults (81%, 50)

•Net Gens (71%, 87)

FtF is Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)FtF is Preferred by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)

“I most enjoy using”

Phone (11.48%)

Email (27.05%)

Text Messaging (12.30%)

FtF (49.18%)

Email is Less Intimidating to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)Email is Less Intimidating to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122)

“I am least intimidated by”

Email (50.82%)

Phone (12.30%)

FtF (19.67%)

Text Messaging (17.21%)

Telephone Reference Never Used by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

Telephone Reference Never Used by VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

•Net Gens (78%, 95)

•Adults (60%, 27)

Convenience Is Important to VRS Non-UsersNet Gens (N=87) Adults (N=51)

Convenience Is Important to VRS Non-UsersNet Gens (N=87) Adults (N=51)

•Net Gens (87%, 76)

•Adults (78%, 40)

Remote Access is Important to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=13)

Remote Access is Important to VRS Non-users Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=13)

•Net Gens (95%, 39)

•Adults (85%, 13)

Interpersonal Communication is Valued by VRS Non-Users Net Gens (N=86) Adults (N=51)

Interpersonal Communication is Valued by VRS Non-Users Net Gens (N=86) Adults (N=51)

Non-users Valued

•Personal Relationship

•Adults (43%, 22)

•Net Gens (24%, 24)

•Specific Librarian

•Adults (51%, 26)

•Net Gens (42%, 36)

"The Librarian Is Friendly and Polite"

69%

29%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Net Gen VRS Non-users

Adult VRS Non-users

VeryImportantorImportant

Interpersonal Communication is Valued by VRS Non-Users Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=14)

Interpersonal Communication is Valued by VRS Non-Users Net Gens (N=41) Adults (N=14)

Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRS Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRS Net Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

•VR too complicated

•Adults (53%, 33)

•Net Gens (35%, 43)

•Typing skills poor

•Adults (35%, 22)

•Net Gens (16%, 19)

Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRSNet Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRSNet Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

•Believe questions might annoy librarian

•Net Gens (29%, 32)

•Adults (16%, 10)

Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRSNet Gens (N=122)

Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRSNet Gens (N=122)

•Don’t know it is available

•Believe librarian couldn’t help

•Lack of 24/7 service

•Satisfied w/ other info sources

Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRS Adults (N=62)Why Non-Users Do Not Choose VRS Adults (N=62)

Same as Net-Gen:

• Don’t know it is available

• Believe librarian couldn’t help

• Lack of 24/7 service

• Satisfied w/ other info sources

But also:

• Lack computer skills

• Type slowly

• Complexity of chat environment

Relational Theory and Interpersonal Communication

Relational Theory and Interpersonal Communication

Every message has dual dimensions

-- both content and relational

(Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967)

Critical Incident Technique (CIT)Critical Incident Technique (CIT)

Flanagan (1954)

Qualitative technique

Focuses on most memorable event/experience

Allows categories or themes to emerge rather than be imposed

VRS User Positive CIs Net Gens (N=48)

VRS User Positive CIs Net Gens (N=48)

Successful Experience

Librarian

• Accurate answers/info

• Quick assistance

• Located specific resources

• Convenient

VRS User Negative CIs Net Gens (N=30)

VRS User Negative CIs Net Gens (N=30)

Unsuccessful Experience

Librarian

• Impeded info delivery or retrieval

• Didn’t answer question

VRS Non-user Positive CIsNet Gens (N=108)VRS Non-user Positive CIsNet Gens (N=108)

Successful Experience

Librarian

•Info delivery/retrieval

•Answered questions

•Located specific resources

•Positive attitude (them & task)

VRS Non-user Negative CIsNet Gens (N=74) VRS Non-user Negative CIsNet Gens (N=74)

Unsuccessful Experience

Librarian•Impeded information delivery or retrieval

• Missing resources• Slow providing answers

•Negative attitude to task

What We LearnedWhat We Learned

FtF & VRS Users want

•Extended hours of service

•Access to electronic information

•Interact w/ friendly librarians

•Relationships with librarians

What We Can DoWhat We Can Do

Encourage library use

•Creative marketing

• Promote full range of options

• Reassure young people VRS safe

•Build positive relationships whether FtF, phone, or online

What We Can DoWhat We Can Do

Understand them to serve them better

Enjoy their enthusiasm!

End NotesEnd Notes

This is one of the outcomes from the projectSeeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference

Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives

Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University, & OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

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

ReferencesReferences

Connaway, L. S., Radford M. L., Dickey, T. J., Williams, J. D., & Confer, P. (2008). Sense-making and synchronicity: Information-seeking behaviors of millennials and baby boomers. Libri, 58(2), 123-135.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 5, 327-358.

Prabha, C., Connaway, L. S., Olszewski, L., & Jenkins, L. R. (2007). What is enough? Satisficing information needs. Journal of Documentation, 63(1), 74-89.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1, 3-6.

ReferencesReferences

Radford, M. L., & Connaway, L. S. (2007). “Screenagers” and live chat reference: Living up to the promise. Scan, 26(1), 31-39.

Rushkoff, D. (1996). Playing the future: How kids’ culture can teach us to thrive in an age of chaos. NY: HaperCollins.

Sweeney, R. (2006). Millennial behaviors and demographics. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from http://library1.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/Millennials/Article-Millennial-Behaviors.doc.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics

of human communication. NY: Norton.

March 14,

2009

ACRL Conference

Seattle, WA

Questions & Comments

Questions & Comments

Lynn Silipigni Connawayconnawal@oclc.org