Conceptualizing Collaboration Colis 2013

7/29/2019 Conceptualizing Collaboration Colis 2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conceptualizing-collaboration-colis-2013 1/39

The world’s libraries. Connected.

Conceptualizing Collaboration& Community in VirtualReference & Social Q&A

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.Chair, Dept. of Library & Information ScienceRutgers University, NJ

Nicole A. Cooke, Ph.D. Assistant Professor University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.Senior Research Scientist

OCLC

Stephanie MikitishPh.D. StudentRutgers University, NJ

Mark AlpertPh.D. StudentRutgers University, NJ

Chirag Shah, Ph.D. Assistant Professor

Rutgers University, NJ

CoLISCopenhagen, Denmark

19-22 August 2013




• Provide evidence for modeling new

ways to collaborate in VRS

• Collaboration with Social Q&A (SQA)

• Three phases

• Transcript Analysis

• 500 VRS transcripts

• Telephone interviews

• 50 librarian interviews, 50 user

interviews

• Design Sessions

• Construct design specifications

Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability through

Collaboration between Virtual Reference

& Social Q&A Sites

http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/synergy/default.htm







• VRS

• Global reach

• Anytime/anywhere

access

• Cooperative services may

reduce costs

• Librarians have deep

subject expertise

Virtual Reference Services (VRS)& Social Q&A (SQA)

• SQA

• Crowd-sourcing

• Good in lean economic

times

• Social & collaborative

• Anyone can provide

answers




• Lack of library funding

• Service reductions• Some VRS discontinued or

endangered

• Empirical data needed to explore

possibilities to enhance VRS

Why Cyber Synergy?




• How can VRS become more collaborative, within and

between libraries, & tap more effectively into librarians’

subject expertise?

• What can VRS learn from SQA to better serve users &attract potential users?

• How can we design systems & services within &

between VRS and SQA for better quality and

sustainability?

• In what ways can the Communities of Practice (Wenger,

1998, 2004) framework contribute to our understanding

of collaboration barriers & opportunities in the VRS

environment?

Research Questions




Theoretical Framework:Communities of Practice

(CoP)




Communities of Practice (CoP):

“Groups of people who share a

concern, a set of problems, or a

passion about a topic, and whodeepen their knowledge and

expertise in this area by interacting

on an ongoing basis.”

(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4)




• Joint enterprises

• Feature mutualengagement

• Shared repertoire of

resources &sensibilities

Distinct Dimensions of CoP




• Learning focus

• Depend on interactions

between members

• Voluntary

• Customizable

• Individual

• Encourage members to

solve problems & developnew approaches/tools

• Share expertise, share

weakness

More Dimensions of CoP

(Wenger, 1998, 2004)




• Insufficient time

• “Information hoarding”

• Low levels of collegiality• Shifting group memberships

• Lack trust building opportunities

• Geographical gaps

• Promotes heterogeneity

Barriers to CoP




• VRS librarians

• Shared interest in serving

user information needs

• Operate within community

for sharing information

• Hold shared practice

through MLIS degree

VRS Librarians as CoP




• Phone interviews with 25

VRS librarians

• Recruited via

professional list-servs,

personal contacts, &

OCLC’s QuestionPoint

(QP) librarian blog

• Responses collectedwith SurveyMonkey

• Anonymous

Data Collection – Phone Interviews




• Combination of open &

closed questions

• Topics

• Collaboration

• Referrals

• Comparison of VRS to

SQA

• Critical incidents

(Flanagan, 1954)

Interview Questions




• Descriptive for

demographic data &

Likert style questions

• Line-by-line qualitative

analysis to identify:

• Recurring themes

• Representative

quotations

• Code book developed

• NVivo software

Data Analysis




Results




Librarian Demographics (N=25)

76%, n=19

11.76

60%, n=15

52%, n=13




Participants

reported that VRS

were slightly

busier than FtF

services




40% reported

that overallreference

volume was

increasing




Successful Interactions

“There were lots of happyfaces, so the user seemed

pleased.”




Successful Interactions

provided an “opportunity to

educate the patron”




Referrals

One-quarter mentioned referring

question to another librarian




Difficulties

Barrier to Referrals

Lack of lead time,

usually because “thepaper was due too soon

for me to answer.”




Collaboration• Majority collaborated

>once a week

• E-mail most commonmode, then FtF

• FtF easiest in shared

physical settings




Reasons for Collaboration

• Unable to answer question

• Give user morecomprehensive answer




Facilitators to Collaboration

• Perceive other librarians as willing to help

• Know who to ask for help




“There are librarians who are hostile in

body language and sometimes verballyif it interferes with their other duties.

They have made it very clear that I

should not ask and so I do not.”

Barriers to Collaboration




VRS & SQA Compared

VRS

Moresynchronous

Authoritative

Complexquestions

Objective

SQA

Asynchronous

Lessauthoritative

Simpler questions

Moreopinionated

answers




Collaboration withSubject Experts

Librarians expressed awillingness to consult

non-librarian experts,

particularly professors




Questions Appropriate for SQA

• Objective, ready reference, fact-based

• Yes/no questions

• Questions based on experience or opinion




Conclusion




• Usually refer to another librarian

• Factors in addressing/referring

difficult questions

• Content knowledge

• Shared professional standards

• Technological familiarity

Difficult Questions




• Believe other librarians

are willing to collaborate

• Shared professional

ideals and expertise

• Seen as value-added

service

• FtF enables

collaboration

Collaboration




• Analysis of data from

• Remaining librarian interviews

• 50 VRS/SQA user interviews

• 3 expert design sessions

SQA & Collaboration

• Librarians view SQA as:

• Less authoritative

• Less complex

• Less objective

• Not against collaborating withexperts

• Willing to expand CoP to

other experts if demonstrate

• Professional expertise

• Extensive knowledge

• Demonstrate professionalexpertise or extensiveknowledge




VRS librarians constitute a CoP in

approach to referrals & collaboration




• Analysis of data from

• Remaining librarian interviews

• 50 VRS/SQA user interviews

• 3 expert design sessions

Next Steps




Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McDermott, R. (1999) Learning across teams: How to build communities of practice in team organizations. Knowledge Management

Review, 8 , 32 –36.

Nincic, V. (2006). “Why don’t we trade places…”: Some issues relevant for the analysis of diasporic web communities as learningspaces. The international handbook of virtual learning environments (1067-1088). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Radford, M. L., Connaway, L. S., & Shah, C. (2011-2013). Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability through Collaboration between Virtual

Reference and Social Q&A Sites. Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), Rutgers University, and OCLC.Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/synergy/default.htm

Ranganathan, S.R. (1957). The Five Laws of Library Science. Madras: Madras Library Association; London: G. Blunt and Sons.

Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623-639.

Smith, P., Barty, K., & Stacey, E. (2005). Limitations of an established community of practice in developing online innovation, breakingdown boundaries: international experience in open, distance and flexible education. Proceedings of the 17th ODLAA conference, 1-6, ODLAA, Adelaide.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2004). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey

Business Journal, Jan – Feb., 1-8.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

References






Cyber Synergy Grant

•Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability through Collaborationbetween Virtual Reference and Social Q & A Sites

• $250,000.00 grant funded by IMLS, OCLC, and Rutgers University• Co-PIs

• Marie L. Radford, Rutgers University

• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, OCLC

• Chirag Shah, Rutgers University



Th ld’ lib i C t d

Questions?Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.Chair, Dept. of Library & Information ScienceRutgers University, [email protected]@MarieLRadford

Nicole A. Cooke, Ph.D. Assistant Professor University of Illinois [email protected]

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.Senior Research [email protected]@LynnConnaway

Stephanie MikitishPh.D. StudentRutgers University, [email protected]

Mark AlpertPh.D. StudentRutgers University, [email protected]

Chirag Shah, Ph.D. Associate Professor Rutgers University, [email protected]

Conceptualizing Collaboration Colis 2013

Documents

Transcript of Conceptualizing Collaboration Colis 2013