Getting Help and Doing Getting Help and Doing Research: What do patrons Research: What do patrons

want? want?

An exploratory study comparing VR An exploratory study comparing VR users with Desk users users with Desk users

OLA Super Conference, 2005OLA Super Conference, 2005Diane Granfield, Ryerson University Diane Granfield, Ryerson University

Mark Robertson, York UniversityMark Robertson, York University

What We Will Cover TodayWhat We Will Cover Today

Impetus for the study: the context of VR, Impetus for the study: the context of VR, then and nowthen and now

MethodologyMethodology Brief literature reviewBrief literature review Results and preliminary analysisResults and preliminary analysis DiscussionDiscussion

Emergence of Chat VREmergence of Chat VR Digital content lead to digital servicesDigital content lead to digital services Declining reference desk usageDeclining reference desk usage Computer labs on campusComputer labs on campus The Net Generation and Non traditional learnersThe Net Generation and Non traditional learners More DE and online coursesMore DE and online courses Reference desk aversion and library anxietyReference desk aversion and library anxiety Learning styles debatesLearning styles debates Adoption of call-centre softwareAdoption of call-centre software 5 years ago: less broadband5 years ago: less broadband

Where we’re at nowWhere we’re at now

The honeymoon is over. The honeymoon is over.

““To chat or not to chat” (Coffman and Arrett)To chat or not to chat” (Coffman and Arrett)

““Virtual Reference: Alive and Well” (Bailey-Virtual Reference: Alive and Well” (Bailey-Hainer)Hainer)

Where should we go with reference Where should we go with reference services? services?

Will users really take to the phone in new Will users really take to the phone in new numbers? numbers?

Is this an either/or debate? Is this an either/or debate? How can I best serve my patrons wherever How can I best serve my patrons wherever

they may be?they may be? What do users want? What do they prefer What do users want? What do they prefer

to do to get help? to do to get help? What are our options? (cost-effective What are our options? (cost-effective

services) services)

Methodology Methodology

The gist of the survey: The gist of the survey: What reference services they useWhat reference services they use What they prefer to do to get help when on and What they prefer to do to get help when on and

off campusoff campus Visits to the libraryVisits to the library Preference for locationPreference for location Types of material they consultTypes of material they consult IM usageIM usage Chat features (VR users only) Chat features (VR users only)

SubjectsSubjects

Reference Desk (York and Ryerson): Reference Desk (York and Ryerson): n=242n=242

Ryerson’s website: n=138Ryerson’s website: n=138 Pop-up survey, VR users: n=123Pop-up survey, VR users: n=123

TOTAL: 503TOTAL: 503

Side bar: focus groups and Side bar: focus groups and transcript analysistranscript analysis

Held 2 focus groups: very preliminary, no Held 2 focus groups: very preliminary, no firm conclusions at this timefirm conclusions at this time

Analyzed over 600 transcripts from our Analyzed over 600 transcripts from our LSSI data for questions asked, user LSSI data for questions asked, user status, location when using VR, subject, status, location when using VR, subject, reference interview, technical problems, reference interview, technical problems, etc. etc.

Will not be covering this material todayWill not be covering this material today

Quick Review of the LiteratureQuick Review of the Literature

Interested in studies that focused on: Interested in studies that focused on:

Comparing the use of different types of Comparing the use of different types of reference services from a patron reference services from a patron perspectiveperspective

User preferences for different types of User preferences for different types of servicesservices

Fagan and Ruppel ( 2002)Fagan and Ruppel ( 2002)

Will IM solve some of “aversion to desk” Will IM solve some of “aversion to desk” tendencies in users?tendencies in users?

Top advantage to VR: convenience and Top advantage to VR: convenience and not having to get up from computernot having to get up from computer

Noted a lot of negative perceptions of deskNoted a lot of negative perceptions of desk 15% liked anonymity of chat15% liked anonymity of chat ““personal touch” noted as appeal of the personal touch” noted as appeal of the

desk desk

Foley (2002)Foley (2002)

Asked why they sent an IM rather than Asked why they sent an IM rather than visiting, calling or emailing reference staff: visiting, calling or emailing reference staff:

Convenience, phone a hassle, or not near Convenience, phone a hassle, or not near one, can’t be online at the same time, not one, can’t be online at the same time, not on campus, instantaneouson campus, instantaneous

Small sample, not much extrapolated Small sample, not much extrapolated about choice making. about choice making.

Nilsen (2004)Nilsen (2004)

Interested in user satisfaction/perceptionsInterested in user satisfaction/perceptions Study focused on VRD, but drew Study focused on VRD, but drew

comparisons to PRD based on earlier comparisons to PRD based on earlier studiesstudies

VRD and PRD provide equally poor VRD and PRD provide equally poor serviceservice

““how well I’m treated” how well I’m treated” Problems with reference interview (or lack)Problems with reference interview (or lack)

Kelley and Orr (2003)Kelley and Orr (2003)

Particular campus heavy with DE studentsParticular campus heavy with DE students Only 32% visited library in past yearOnly 32% visited library in past year Preferences: Access to e-resources Preferences: Access to e-resources

highest; Access to staff significantly less highest; Access to staff significantly less importantimportant

Students studying in a classroom more Students studying in a classroom more likely to visit the librarylikely to visit the library

Physical use of library greater among Physical use of library greater among undergradsundergrads

Stoffel and Tucker (2004)Stoffel and Tucker (2004)

Compared email and chat satisfactionCompared email and chat satisfaction Unfortunately only asked if other services Unfortunately only asked if other services

were used (ie, desk) for follow-upwere used (ie, desk) for follow-up Slightly more satisfied with email (different Slightly more satisfied with email (different

than Nilsen study)than Nilsen study) Service levels and marketing importantService levels and marketing important E-reference services are not used a the E-reference services are not used a the

exclusion of PRDexclusion of PRD

Frederiksen, Cummings, and Ursin. Frederiksen, Cummings, and Ursin. (2004) (2004)

61% of chat non-users indicated that they would 61% of chat non-users indicated that they would think of using chat for research helpthink of using chat for research help

83% not aware of the VR service83% not aware of the VR service Prevalence of IM usage for personal/recreational Prevalence of IM usage for personal/recreational

use leads to a perception in the academic use leads to a perception in the academic community that synchronous communication is community that synchronous communication is frivolousfrivolous

Marketing important for more widespread Marketing important for more widespread adoptionadoption

Alternative reference service models can Alternative reference service models can best be redesigned by looking more best be redesigned by looking more closely at how users are dealing with their closely at how users are dealing with their information problems and how they get information problems and how they get help from reference librarians in help from reference librarians in technological environments. technological environments.

- Soo Young Reih, 1999- Soo Young Reih, 1999

Who uses VR? The IM Who uses VR? The IM Generation?Generation?

AssumptionAssumption: VR is a way to tap into the : VR is a way to tap into the existing popularity of Internet Messenging existing popularity of Internet Messenging (IM) among a new generation of chatters(IM) among a new generation of chatters

Questions: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?

IMs as predictor of VR use?IMs as predictor of VR use?

Percentage of those surveyed who use IM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Desk survey VR survey Ryerson web site survey

Per

cen

tag

e

IMs as predictor of VR use?IMs as predictor of VR use?

All library users seems to show high levels All library users seems to show high levels of IM use (~70% of users)of IM use (~70% of users)

IM does not seem to be a predictor of VR IM does not seem to be a predictor of VR useuse

However, lays foundation for greater However, lays foundation for greater adoptionadoption

Who uses VR? Who uses VR? Remote users?Remote users?

AssumptionAssumption: VR is a way to reach our : VR is a way to reach our users who are increasingly off-campus or users who are increasingly off-campus or not in the librarynot in the library

Location of VR Users At York:Location of VR Users At York:Off-campus: 67%Off-campus: 67%

In library: 16%In library: 16%

On campus, not in library: 16%On campus, not in library: 16%

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

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

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

Where do you prefer to do your Where do you prefer to do your research?research?

Are VR users remote?Are VR users remote?

VR users tend to visit the library less VR users tend to visit the library less frequentlyfrequently

Many VR users do not the Reference Many VR users do not the Reference DeskDesk

VR users prefer to work off-campus more VR users prefer to work off-campus more than other library usersthan other library users

VR and Graduate StudentsVR and Graduate Students

Proportion of graduate student over-Proportion of graduate student over-represented in VRrepresented in VR

UndergradsUndergrads 78%78%

Grad StudentsGrad Students 12%12%

FacultyFaculty 4%4%

StaffStaff 2%2%

UnaffiliatedUnaffiliated 4%4%

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

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

VR & Graduate StudentsVR & Graduate Students

VR seems to appeal to graduate studentsVR seems to appeal to graduate students Graduate students more likely to have Graduate students more likely to have

non-library study space on campusnon-library study space on campus Graduate students more likely to work off-Graduate students more likely to work off-

campuscampus

Perceptions I: VR not just a remote Perceptions I: VR not just a remote serviceservice

Perceptions II: Preferred Options Perceptions II: Preferred Options for Getting Help Off-Campusfor Getting Help Off-Campus

Preferences III: Resources used by Preferences III: Resources used by location of uselocation of use

Expectation of level of serviceExpectation of level of service

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

SatisfactionSatisfaction

Some ConclusionsSome Conclusions

VR satisfies needs not otherwise met:VR satisfies needs not otherwise met:• Remote usersRemote users• Graduate studentsGraduate students

Promotion work ahead: VR still not on the Promotion work ahead: VR still not on the map for many of our Reference Desk map for many of our Reference Desk usersusers

Gap between our expectation of VR Gap between our expectation of VR service and the expectation of the VR userservice and the expectation of the VR user

Questions? Thoughts?Questions? Thoughts?Diane GranfieldDiane Granfield

Ryerson UniversityRyerson Universitydgranfie@ryerson.cadgranfie@ryerson.ca

Mark RobertsonMark RobertsonYork UniversityYork University

markr@yorku.camarkr@yorku.ca