1. Seeking Sustainability & Singularity: Evaluating Virtual Reference From User, Non-user, & Librarian Perspectives Presented by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway American Society for Information Science and Technology Conference Austin, Texas November 3-9, 2006

2. Authors Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. –Associate Professor, –Rutgers University, SCILS –Email: mradford@scils.rutgers.edumradford@scils.rutgers.edu –www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradfordwww.scils.rutgers.edu/ Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. –Consulting Research Scientist –Email: connawal@oclc.org –www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htmwww.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm Grant Website (Slides will be posted): http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity

3. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives $1,103,572 project funding 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

4. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives Project duration –Two-year project October 2005-November 2007 Four phases –Focus group interviews –Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint transcipts –600 online surveys –300 telephone interviews

5. Phase I: Focus Group Interviews 8 Focus Group Interviews –2 with VRS librarians –4 with VRS non-users Screenagers –Rural –Suburban –Urban College students –Graduate –2 with VRS users College students –Graduate –Undergraduate Adults

6. Participant Demographics 8 Focus Group Interviews Total participants –21 Librarians (25%) –40 Non-users (48%) –23 Users (27%) Total librarians –13 Academic librarians (62%) – 3 Public librarians (14%) – 1 Government Librarian (5%) – 4 Unknown (19%)

7. Participant Demographics Librarian Focus Group Interviews Ethnicity- Librarians –20 Caucasian (95%) – 1 African- American (5%) Gender- Librarians –14 Female (67%) – 7 Male (33%)

8. Participant Demographics User Focus Group Interviews Ethnicity- Users –15 Caucasian (68%) – 4 Asian (18%) – 2 African- American (9%) – 1 Hispanic/Latino (5%) Gender- Users –13 Male (59%) – 9 Female (41%)

9. Participant Demographics Non-user Focus Group Interviews Ethnicity- Non-users –18 Caucasian (45%) – 7 African- American (17.5%) – 6 Hispanic/Latino (15%) – 2 Asian (5%) – 7 Missing (17.5%) Gender- Non-users –23 Female (57.5%) –17 Male (42.5%)

10. VRS Librarians: Positive Themes Interactivity –Opportunity to reach people and develop relationships Providing accessibility –Access to librarians –Access to services and databases Opportunity to learn No geographic boundaries

11. VRS Librarians: Negative Themes Performance/Staffing –Job performance –Human resource allocation –Issues about pressure and accountability Technological problems –Software –Learning curve for VRS librarians and users

12. Non-User (Screenager): Major Themes Librarian stereotypes Preference for independent information seeking –Google –Web surfing –Trust own ability to evaluate web resources more than librarians’ Preference for face-to-face interaction –Value interpersonal interactions in Face-to Face

13. Non-User (Screenager): Major Themes Privacy/Security concerns –Librarians as “psycho killers” –Fear of cyber stalkers Concern for accuracy of information –Chat takes too long Factors influencing future VRS use –Recommendation –Marketing –Ability to choose a trusted librarian

14. Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes Most students prefer face-to-face librarian interactions –Reliable –Developing a personal relationship with a librarian Utilize internet tools for information –Library website, Google, other internet resources

15. Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes Negative perceptions about VRS: –Sounds like a chat room, not professional, fear of question unsuitability, technology/learning curve –Fear of appearing stupid, or being negatively evaluated by the librarian. –Privacy concerns/ transcripts revealed to professors

16. Non-User Graduate Students: Major Themes Factors influencing future VRS use –Recommendation by librarian/colleague –Developing confidence in service’s use, speed & access –Promotional campaign

17. VRS Users: Positive Major Themes Convenience Research/Information retrieval independence Collaborative – share work Knowledgeable service provider

18. VRS Users: Positive Major Themes Pleasant interpersonal environment Transcript of chat session Anonymity of VRS Immediacy of chat vs. email Allows multi-tasking

19. VRS Users: Negative Major Themes Just another search engine Generic responses Distrust in information provided Technical improvement suggestions Face-to-face interaction preferred Fear of overwhelming the librarian Concerns about librarians’ lack of subject expertise

20. Future Directions Phases II, III, & IV –1000+ Transcript analysis (in progress) –600 Online surveys (in progress) –300 Telephone surveys Build on Phase II, III, & IV results

21. Implications for Future Research Study of Millennials –Implications for Library 2.0 Services Technology Sources

22. 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/ http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

23. Questions and Discussion Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. –Email: mradford@scils.rutgers.edumradford@scils.rutgers.edu –www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradfordwww.scils.rutgers.edu/ Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. –Email: connawal@oclc.org –www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm