1
Screenagers and Virtual (Chat) Reference The
Future is Now!

• Presented by
• Marie L. Radford
• and
• Lynn Silipigni Connaway
• New Jersey Association of School Librarians
• October 29-31, 2006
• Long Branch, New Jersey

2
Authors

• Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.
• Associate Professor,
• Rutgers University, SCILS
• Email mradford_at_scils.rutgers.edu
• www.scils.rutgers.edu/mradford
• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
• Consulting Research Scientist
• Email connawal_at_oclc.org
• www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm
• Grant Website (Slides will be posted)
  http//www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicit
  y

3
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
• 405,076 in kind contributions

4
Seeking Synchronicity Evaluating Virtual
Reference Services from User, Non-User, and
Librarian Perspectives

• Project duration 2 Years (10/05-9/07)
• Four phases
• Focus group interviews
• Analysis of 1,000 QuestionPoint live chat
  transcripts
• 600 online surveys
• 300 telephone interviews

5
Screenagers

• Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff
• Used here for 12-18 year olds
• Affinity for electronic communication computer,
  phone, television (etc.)
• Youngest members of Millennial Generation

6
The Millennial Generation

• Born 1979 1994
• AKA Next Gen, Net Generation, Generation Y,
  Nexters, Nintendo Generation, Digital Generation,
  or Echo Boomers
• 12-27 year olds
• About 75 million people
• By 2010 will outnumber Baby Boomers (born
  1946-1964)

7
The Millennial Generation

• May be most studied
• generation in history
• 4x amount of toys than Boomer parents 20 yrs.
  earlier
• Born digital, most cant remember life without
  computers
• Confident, hopeful, goal-oriented, civic-minded,
  tech savvy
• Younger members most likely to display Millennial
  characteristics

8
The Millennial Mind (Sweeney, 2006)

• Preferences Characteristics
• More Choices, More Selectivity
• Experiential Exploratory Learners
• Flexibility Convenience
• Personalization Customization
• Impatience
• Less Attention to Spelling, Grammar
• Practical Results Oriented
• Multitaskers

9
More on Millennial Mind (Sweeney, 2006)

• Preferences Characteristics
• Digital Natives
• Gamers
• Nomadic Communication Style
• Media Variety
• Collaboration Intelligence
• Balanced Lives
• Less Reading

10
Millennials, Screenagers

• So what does all this mean
• For libraries?
• For reference services?
• For virtual reference services (VRS)?
• For the future of the above?
• Research trying to find out!

11
Phase IFocus Group Interviews

• 8 Focus Group Interviews (so far)
• 4 with non-users
• 3 with Screenagers (rural, suburban, urban)
• 1 with college students (graduate)
• 2 with VRS librarians
• 2 with VRS users (college students adults)
• 2 more planned (need help)
• 2 more with screenager users

12
3 Screenager Focus Groups

• 33 Participants
• 13 (39) Urban
• 12 (36) Suburban
• 8 (24) Rural
• Gender
• 15 (45) Male
• 18 (55) Female
• Age Range
• 12 18 years old

• Ethnicity
• 21 (64) Caucasian
• 6 (18) African- American
• 6 (18) Hispanic/Latino
• Grade Level
• 31 (94) HS
• 2 (6) JHS

13
FG Results - Major Themes

• Librarian Stereotypes
• Preference for Independent Information Seeking
• Google
• Web surfing
• Preference for Face-to-Face Interaction

14
More FG Themes

• Privacy/Security Concerns
• Librarians as psycho killers ??
• Fear of cyber stalkers
• Factors Influencing Future VRS Use
• Recommendation
• Marketing
• Choice of librarian

15
Phase II Transcript Analysis

• Generated random sample
• 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months)
• 479, 673 QuestionPoint sessions total
• Avg. 33/mo. 600 total, 492 examined so far
• 431 usable transcripts
• Excluding system tests tech problems
• 191 of these highlighted today
• 65 identified as Screenagers
• 126 identified as primary/college/adult

16
Classification Methodology

• Qualitative Analysis
• Development/refinement of category scheme
• Careful reading/analysis
• Identification of patterns
• Time intensive, but reveals complexities!

17
Results Interpersonal Communication Analysis

• 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.

18
Transcript Examples

• Negative Example Relational Barriers
• Positive Example Relational Facilitators

19
Barriers Differences Screenagers (n65) vs.
Others (n126)

• Higher numbers/avg. (per transcript)
• Abrupt Endings 26 (.4) vs. 37 (.29)
• Impatience 6 (.09) vs. 2 (.02)
• Rude or Insulting 2 (.03) vs. 0

20
Facilitators Differences Screenagers (n65) vs.
Others (n126)

• Lower numbers/averages (per occurrence)
• Thanks 72 (1.11) vs. 163 (1.29)
• Self Disclosure 41 (.63) vs. 120 (.95)
• Seeking reassurance 39 (.6) vs. 87 (.7)
• Agreement try suggestion 39 (.6) vs. 93 (.74)
• Closing Ritual 25 (.38) vs. 69 (.55)
• Admitting lack of knowledge 10 (.15) vs. 30
  (.24)

21
Facilitators Differences Screenagers (n65) vs.
Others (n126)

• Higher numbers/averages (per occurrence)
• Polite expressions 51 (.78) vs. 40 (.32)
• Alternate spellings 33 (.51) vs. 19 (.15)
• Punctuation/repeat 23 (.35) vs. 28 (.22)
• Lower case 19 (.29) vs. 24 (.19)
• Slang 9 (.14) vs. 3 (.02)
• Enthusiasm 8 (.12) vs. 9 (.07)
• Self-correction 7 (.11) vs. 6 (.05)
• Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (.05) vs. 0

22
Implications for Practice

• VRS is a natural for Screenagers
• Recommend/market services (QandANJ)
• Reassure that QandANJ is safe
• Dont throw a wet blanket on their enthusiasm
• Do encourage, mentor them, learn from them
• Basic service excellence skills
• See handouts for recommendations!

23
Future Directions

• Phases III IV
• Online Surveys (in progress)
• Telephone Surveys
• Building on these results
• Need your help to recruit!!

24
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/synchronicit
  y/

25
Questions

• Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.
• Email mradford_at_scils.rutgers.edu
• www.scils.rutgers.edu/mradford
• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.
• Email connawal_at_oclc.org
• www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm