1. The world’s libraries. Connected. Conceptualizing Collaboration & Community in Virtual Reference & Social Q&A Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Chair, Dept. of Library & Information Science Rutgers University, NJ Nicole A. Cooke, Ph.D. Assistant Professor University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist OCLC Stephanie Mikitish Ph.D. Student Rutgers University, NJ Mark Alpert Ph.D. Student Rutgers University, NJ Chirag Shah, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Rutgers University, NJ CoLIS Copenhagen, Denmark 19-22 August 2013

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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?

5. 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

6. The world’s libraries. Connected. Theoretical Framework: Communities of Practice (CoP)

7. 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)

8. The world’s libraries. Connected. Joint enterprises Feature mutual engagement Shared repertoire of resources & sensibilities Distinct Dimensions of CoP

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. The world’s libraries. Connected. Combination of open & closed questions Topics Collaboration Referrals Comparison of VRS to SQA Critical incidents (Flanagan, 1954) Interview Questions

14. 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

15. The world’s libraries. Connected. Results

16. The world’s libraries. Connected. Librarian Demographics (N=25) 76%, n=19 11.76 60%, n=15 52%, n=13

17. The world’s libraries. Connected. Participants reported that VRS were slightly busier than FtF services

18. The world’s libraries. Connected. 40% reported that overall reference volume was increasing

19. The world’s libraries. Connected. Successful Interactions “There were lots of happy faces, so the user seemed pleased.”

20. The world’s libraries. Connected. Successful Interactions provided an “opportunity to educate the patron”

21. The world’s libraries. Connected. Referrals One-quarter mentioned referring question to another librarian

22. 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.”

23. The world’s libraries. Connected. Collaboration Majority collaborated >once a week E-mail most common mode, then FtF FtF easiest in shared physical settings

24. The world’s libraries. Connected. Reasons for Collaboration Unable to answer question Give user more comprehensive answer

25. The world’s libraries. Connected. Facilitators to Collaboration Perceive other librarians as willing to help Know who to ask for help

26. 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

27. The world’s libraries. Connected. VRS & SQA Compared VRS More synchronous Authoritative Complex questions Objective SQA Asynchronous Less authoritative Simpler questions More opinionated answers

28. The world’s libraries. Connected. Collaboration with Subject Experts Librarians expressed a willingness to consult non-librarian experts, particularly professors

29. The world’s libraries. Connected. Questions Appropriate for SQA Objective, ready reference, fact-based Yes/no questions Questions based on experience or opinion

30. The world’s libraries. Connected. Conclusion

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. The world’s libraries. Connected. VRS librarians constitute a CoP in approach to referrals & collaboration

35. The world’s libraries. Connected. Analysis of data from Remaining librarian interviews 50 VRS/SQA user interviews 3 expert design sessions Next Steps

36. 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 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

37. 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.htmhttp://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

38. 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

39. The world’s libraries. Connected. Questions? Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Chair, Dept. of Library & Information Science Rutgers University, NJ mradford@rutgers.edu @MarieLRadford Nicole A. Cooke, Ph.D. Assistant Professor University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign nacooke@illinois.edu Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist OCLC connawal@oclc.org @LynnConnaway Stephanie Mikitish Ph.D. Student Rutgers University, NJ mikitish@eden.rutgers.edu Mark Alpert Ph.D. Student Rutgers University, NJ mark.alpert@rutgers.edu Chirag Shah, Ph.D. Associate Professor Rutgers University, NJ chirags@rutgers.edu