Virtual Rituals: Applying Goffman’s Face-Work to an Analysis of Live Chat Reference Encounters Marie L. Radford, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, & Jocelyn A. DeAngelis Williams LRS IV London, Ontario, Canada October 10-12, 2007

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 Inc. $405,076 in kind contributions

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives Project duration: 2 1/2 Years (10/05-3/08) Four phases: Focus group interviews Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint live chat transcripts 600 online surveys 300 telephone interviews

Phase II: Transcript Analysis Random sample 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months) 479,673 QuestionPoint sessions total Avg. 33/mo. = 850 total, 850 examined 746 usable transcripts Excluding system tests & tech problems

Face-Work “Much of the activity occurring during an encounter can be understood as an effort on everyone’s part to get through the occasion and all the unanticipated and unintentional events that can cast participants in an undesirable light, without disrupting the relationships of the participants” (Goffman, 1967, p. 41)

Face Defined Positive social value person claims Self-image in terms of approved social attributes

Face-Work in Encounters Face is located in flow of events Feelings about face reinforced by encounters If better face is established – feel good If expectations not fulfilled – feel bad or hurt Neutral experience – expected, not memorable

Kinds of Face-Work Rituals – Greetings & Closings Corrective Process – Repair & Apology Avoidance Process– Prevent Threats to Face Poise – Control Embarrassment Rituals Ritual Greeting: Librarian – “Hi [user name]. I will start searching for you.” Ritual Closings: Librarian – “I wish I could help with the million dollars! And thank you for using our Ask a Librarian service! If you discover that you have more questions, or if you need more info, please feel free to contact us again. I hope you have a great day too!” Corrective Process: User – “Sorry, typo” Avoidance Process: Librarian – “Don’t worry about typos – I make them too!” Poise: User - “I would like to know if I will be on a mailing list, and if it would be brodcast to the world”

Face-Work in Chat Reference Goffman provides a powerful way to frame analysis of chat encounters. Face & face-work appear in flow of transcript (event). Analysis identifies instances of face-work. Major categories – see handout.

Interpersonal Communication Findings 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 Positive Face-Work – Relational Facilitators “Size of an Atom” Question Type: Subject Search Subject Type: Life Sciences; Biology (DDC: 570) Duration: 39.75 min. Negative Face-Work – Relational Barriers “Mesopotamian Government” Subject Type: History of the Ancient World (DDC: 930) Duration: 27 min.

Face-Work Facilitators – Similarities Category Librarians Users Greeting Rituals 197 167 Apology 59 56 Seeking Reassurance 448 424 Offering Reassurance 137 119 (n=746 Transcripts)

Facilitators – Differences Librarians vs Facilitators – Differences Librarians vs. Users Librarian Lower Numbers/Occurrence Category Librarians Users Alternate spelling/ abbreviation single words 76 263 Lower case 29 282 Self disclosure 38 583 Thanks 103 882 Praise/admiration 1 49 Expressions of enthusiasm 20 60 Punctuation for emphasis 87 207 (n=746 Transcripts)

Facilitators – Differences Librarians vs Facilitators – Differences Librarians vs. Users Librarian Higher Numbers/Occurrence Category Librarians Users Inclusion 137 119 Encouraging Remarks/Praise 83 39 Offering Personal Opinion 254 33 Polite Expressions 371 230 Suggesting Strategy in Tentative way 59 26 Ellipsis 277 207 (n=746 Transcripts)

Barriers – Differences Librarians Vs. Users User Higher Numbers/Average Category Librarians Users Disconfirming 16 74 Abrupt Endings 44 243 Impatience 3 45 Rude or Insulting 22 Goofing Around 2 24 Inappropriate Language 17 (n=746 Transcripts)

Barriers – Differences Librarians Vs. Users Higher Numbers/Average Category Librarians Users Limits Time 13 Ignores Self Disclosure 10 Inappropriate Script or Response 12 4 Failing to Offer Reassurance 26 6 Disclaimer 27 Ignoring cues User wants more help 16 Premature or Attempted Closing 17 Failure to Refer (n=746 Transcripts)

Future Directions Continue to collect & analyze data Online surveys 200 Librarian surveys completed 200 Non-user surveys completed 200 User surveys in progress Telephone interviews 100 Librarians completed 100 Users in progress 100 Non-users in progress

Seeking Synchronicity: 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, & OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Special thanks to Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, & Janet Torsney. Slides available at project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

Questions Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Lynn Silipigni Connaway, 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 Jocelyn A. DeAngelis Williams Email: jocelyn.scils@rutgers.edu