PLA National Conference

Minneapolis, MNMarch 25-29, 2008

Exceeding Expectations: E-Reference Excellence in

Collaborative VR

Exceeding Expectations: E-Reference Excellence in

Collaborative VR

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.

Panel:Best Practices in

Cooperative Virtual Reference

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

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

Project duration

• 10/1/2005-3/30/2008

Four phases:

• Focus group interviews*

• Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint transcripts

• 496 online surveys*

• 283 telephone interviews*

* Interviews & Surveys with VRS Users, Non-users, & Librarians

Librarian VRS Providers: DemographicsLibrarian VRS Providers: Demographics

175 Online Surveys:

• Majority female & Caucasian

• Academic librarians outnumber public librarians

• More urban than suburban or rural

• Most 41-50 years old

100 Telephone Interviews:

• Majority female & Caucasian

• Public librarians outnumber academic librarians

• More urban than suburban or rural

• Most 31-50 years old

Recommendations for

Cooperative

Virtual Reference

Services

Research Findings: Cooperative VRSResearch Findings: Cooperative VRS

•Survey respondents (N=175): Eliminates geographic boundaries (96%)

•Focus group interview participants

• “Virtual umbrella”

• Provides “dissolution of the boundary.”

Recommendations: Cooperative VRSRecommendations: Cooperative VRS

DAZZLE ‘EM (FROM A DISTANCE)

• ADVERTIZE COOPERATION

• PROMOTE GLOBAL/LOCAL PRESENCE

• SEIZE OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD RAPPORT

Research Findings: Cooperative VRSResearch Findings: Cooperative VRS

What is Reported to be Difficult?

More public librarians than academic librarians experience difficulty answering questions from different geographic areas

• Working in a consortium (38%)

• Different libraries and policies

• Working with database access rights (18%)

Recommendations : Cooperative VRSRecommendations : Cooperative VRS

OVERCOME BOUNDARIES & HEIGHTEN AWARENESS OF REMOTE ACCESS ISSUES

• DON’T TEASE OR BAIT AND SWITCH

• GUIDE USERS BEYOND CONSORTIAL

LIMITS

Research Findings: Cooperative VRSResearch Findings: Cooperative VRS

Survey Respondents (N=175):

• Consistently rated chat second only to FtF

• Satisfaction in a successful encounter very high (71%)

• Users’ satisfaction in a successful encounter very high (65%)

• Ability to provide reference excellent or very good (>50%)

Recommendations: Cooperative VRSRecommendations: Cooperative VRS

DEVELOP & SHARE EXPECTATIONS

EXCEED EXPECTATIONS

AIM FOR EXCELLENT SERVICE & CULTIVATE REPEAT USERS

Recommendations for

Individual VRS Providers

Librarians &

Staff

Research Findings: VRS LibrariansResearch Findings: VRS Librarians

Challenges Reported in Online Survey (N=175)

• User impatience (79%)

• Negative encounters in critical incidents (N=173)

• Unrealistically high user expectations (47%)

• Homework help (17%)

Rarely or never experience

• Prank questions (46%)

• Inappropriate language (60%)

• Inappropriate questions (50%)

• Rude users (50%)

Research Findings: VRS LibrariansResearch Findings: VRS Librarians

BUT Survey Respondents

rated VRS second to FtF for users

saying “thanks”

Recommendations: VRS LibrariansRecommendations: VRS Librarians

START OFF ON THE RIGHT FOOT!

ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE

• MAINTAIN A PROFESSIONAL TONE

• BE YOURSELF

Research Findings: VRS LibrariansResearch Findings: VRS Librarians

Positive Online Survey Critical Incidents (N=173)

Query clarification & reference interview (19%)

•Challenge - Nonverbal cues missing (83%)

• Information Literacy instruction (15%)

Recommendations: VRS LibrariansRecommendations: VRS Librarians

DO NOT DISMISS QUESTIONS OUT

OF HAND

CLARIFY THE QUESTION

Research Findings: VRS LibrariansResearch Findings: VRS Librarians

Positive Online Survey Critical Incidents (N=175)

VRS is especially good in providing:

• Specific resources (62%)

• Database searches for articles (26%)

• Specific websites (86%)

VRS is less effective in providing:

• Technical support (11%)

• Library policy info. (11%)

Recommendations: VRS LibrariansRecommendations: VRS Librarians

INCREASE ACCURACY –

ANSWER THE SPECIFIC QUESTION

PROVIDE A VARIETY OF RESOURCES

Research Findings: VRS LibrariansResearch Findings: VRS Librarians

Online Survey (N=175)

•VRS is “good” in ability to refer users to subject specialists

•Challenge – Disappearing users (88% reported)

• Public librarians report even higher incidence of disappearing users

• But… all able to handle such challenges (ability

excellent or very good).

Recommendations: VRS LibrariansRecommendations: VRS Librarians

MANAGE COMPLEX OR MULTIPLE QUERIES

• REFER COMPLEX QUESTIONS

THEY DISAPPEARED?

COMPLETE INQUIRY

ANYWAY

End NotesEnd Notes

This is one outcome from the project, Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives, Marie L. Radford & Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Co-Principal Investigators.

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

Special thanks to Patrick Confer, Timothy J. Dickey, Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, & Janet Torsney.

These slides available at project website: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

Questions & CommentsQuestions & Comments

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

• Email: connawal@oclc.org

• www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.

• Email: mradford@scils.rutgers.edu

• www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford