1. Getting Help and Doing Research: What do patrons want? An exploratory study comparing VR users with Desk users OLA Super Conference, 2005 Diane Granfield, Ryerson University Mark Robertson, York University

2. What We Will Cover Today  Impetus for the study: the context of VR, then and now  Methodology  Brief literature review  Results and preliminary analysis  Discussion

3. Emergence of Chat VR  Digital content lead to digital services  Declining reference desk usage  Computer labs on campus  The Net Generation and Non traditional learners  More DE and online courses  Reference desk aversion and library anxiety  Learning styles debates  Adoption of call-centre software  5 years ago: less broadband

4. Where we’re at now The honeymoon is over. The honeymoon is over. “To chat or not to chat” (Coffman and Arrett) “Virtual Reference: Alive and Well” (Bailey- Hainer)

5. Where should we go with reference services?  Will users really take to the phone in new numbers?  Is this an either/or debate?  How can I best serve my patrons wherever they may be?  What do users want? What do they prefer to do to get help?  What are our options? (cost-effective services)

6. Methodology The gist of the survey:  What reference services they use  What they prefer to do to get help when on and off campus  Visits to the library  Preference for location  Types of material they consult  IM usage  Chat features (VR users only)

7. Subjects  Reference Desk (York and Ryerson): n=242  Ryerson’s website: n=138  Pop-up survey, VR users: n=123  TOTAL: 503

8. Side bar: focus groups and transcript analysis  Held 2 focus groups: very preliminary, no firm conclusions at this time  Analyzed over 600 transcripts from our LSSI data for questions asked, user status, location when using VR, subject, reference interview, technical problems, etc.  Will not be covering this material today

9. Quick Review of the Literature Interested in studies that focused on:  Comparing the use of different types of reference services from a patron perspective  User preferences for different types of services

10. Fagan and Ruppel ( 2002)  Will IM solve some of “aversion to desk” tendencies in users?  Top advantage to VR: convenience and not having to get up from computer  Noted a lot of negative perceptions of desk  15% liked anonymity of chat  “personal touch” noted as appeal of the desk

11. Foley (2002)  Asked why they sent an IM rather than visiting, calling or emailing reference staff: Convenience, phone a hassle, or not near one, can’t be online at the same time, not on campus, instantaneous  Small sample, not much extrapolated about choice making.

12. Nilsen (2004)  Interested in user satisfaction/perceptions  Study focused on VRD, but drew comparisons to PRD based on earlier studies  VRD and PRD provide equally poor service  “how well I’m treated”  Problems with reference interview (or lack)

13. Kelley and Orr (2003)  Particular campus heavy with DE students  Only 32% visited library in past year  Preferences: Access to e-resources highest; Access to staff significantly less important  Students studying in a classroom more likely to visit the library  Physical use of library greater among undergrads

14. Stoffel and Tucker (2004)  Compared email and chat satisfaction  Unfortunately only asked if other services were used (ie, desk) for follow-up  Slightly more satisfied with email (different than Nilsen study)  Service levels and marketing important  E-reference services are not used a the exclusion of PRD

15. Frederiksen, Cummings, and Ursin. (2004)  61% of chat non-users indicated that they would think of using chat for research help  83% not aware of the VR service  Prevalence of IM usage for personal/recreational use leads to a perception in the academic community that synchronous communication is frivolous  Marketing important for more widespread adoption

16.  Alternative reference service models can best be redesigned by looking more closely at how users are dealing with their information problems and how they get help from reference librarians in technological environments. - Soo Young Reih, 1999

17. Who uses VR? The IM Generation?  Assumption: VR is a way to tap into the existing popularity of Internet Messenging (IM) among a new generation of chatters  Questions: Do IMers really see VR as analogous?Do IMers really see VR as analogous? Are IMers more likely to use VR?Are IMers more likely to use VR? Is IM use an indication of the potential of VR?Is IM use an indication of the potential of VR?

18. IMs as predictor of VR use?

19.  All library users seems to show high levels of IM use (~70% of users)  IM does not seem to be a predictor of VR use  However, lays foundation for greater adoption

20. Who uses VR? Remote users?  Assumption: VR is a way to reach our users who are increasingly off-campus or not in the library Location of VR Users At York: Off-campus: 67% In library: 16% On campus, not in library: 16%

21. Desk & Web site users: In the past year how often have you visited the Library?

22. VR users: In the last year how often have you visited the Library?

23. VR users: Frequency of use of Reference Desk over the last year

24. Where do you prefer to do your research?

25. Are VR users remote?  VR users tend to visit the library less frequently  Many VR users do not the Reference Desk  VR users prefer to work off-campus more than other library users

26. VR and Graduate Students  Proportion of graduate student over- represented in VR Undergrads78% Grad Students12% Faculty4% Staff2% Unaffiliated4%

27. Where do Undergrads & Grads like to do their research?

28. Preferences for Getting Help: Undergrad. Vs. Grad.

29. VR & Graduate Students  VR seems to appeal to graduate students  Graduate students more likely to have non-library study space on campus  Graduate students more likely to work off- campus

30. Perceptions I: VR not just a remote service

31. Perceptions II: Preferred Options for Getting Help Off-Campus

32. Preferences III: Resources used by location of use

33. Expectation of level of service

34. Expectations: What’s important to a VR user?

35. Satisfaction

36. Some Conclusions  VR satisfies needs not otherwise met: Remote usersRemote users Graduate studentsGraduate students  Promotion work ahead: VR still not on the map for many of our Reference Desk users  Gap between our expectation of VR service and the expectation of the VR user

37. Questions? Thoughts? Diane Granfield Ryerson University dgranfie@ryerson.ca Mark Robertson York University markr@yorku.ca