Upload
ryan-stuart
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
“I can get everything that I can get at a library and more online, and I don't have to go anywhere.”
Expectations of the Screenager Generation
Presented by
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.Senior Research Scientist
OCLC Research
New York Public LibraryNew York Public LibraryDecember 10, 2008December 10, 2008
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
2
Libraries
• Provide systems and services to meet the information needs of differing groups
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
3
Largest Demographic Groups
•Baby boomers (1945-1964)•Cohort #1 (Born 1946 – 1954)•Cohort #2 (Born 1955 – 1964)
•Millennials (1979 – 1994)•Screenagers (Born 1988 -1994)
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
4
Who Are The Millennials?
• NetGens/EchoBoomers/
Gen Y
• Born 1979 - 1994
• 75 – 80 Million
• Generational divide• 13-28 year olds• By 2010 will outnumber
Baby Boomers
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
5
Screenagers
• Youngest members of “Millennial Generation”
• Term coined in 1996 by Rushkoff
• Used here for 12-18 year olds
• Affinity for electronic communication
• Collaborative
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
6
Millennials:Did Not Use the Library
•“The library is a good source if you have several months.”
•“Hard to find things in library catalog.”
•“Tried [physical] library but had to revert to online library resources.”
•“Yeah, I don't step in the library anymore… better to read a 25-page article from JSTOR than 250-page book.”
•“Sometimes content can be sacrificed for format.”
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
7
Their Information Perspectives
• Information is information
• Media formats don’t matter
• Visual learners
• Process immediately
• Different research skills
• Multi-task
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library - December 10, 2008
8
How They Meet Information Needs
• The Internet•Google•Wikipedia•Amazon.com
• Personal libraries
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library - December 10, 2008
9
How They Meet Information Needs
• People•Family members•Friends•Teachers/Professors
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library - December 10, 2008
10
What Attracts Them to Resources
• Convenience, convenience, convenience• Available 24/7
•Working from home
•At night or on weekends
• Immediate answers
• Lack of cost
• Efficient
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library - December 10, 2008
11
What Attracts Them to Resources
• Independence•Prefer to do own search•Use the Internet•No librarian necessary
• Privacy
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library - December 10, 2008
12
Why They Do Not Use Libraries
Do not know…• Service availability • Librarian can help• 24/7 availability
Satisfied with other information sources
Intimidated by library and librarian
• Too difficult to use• Takes too long• Stereotypes
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library - December 10, 2008
13
Why They DO Use Libraries
• Databases• EBSCO• Lexis-Nexis• JSTOR
• Online journals and abstracts
• BUT …
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library - December 10, 2008
14
• Do not know these resources are provided by the library
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library - December 10, 2008
15
Ideal Information Systems & Services
• “Make library catalogs more like search engines...”
• “Make a universal library card that would work in all libraries.”
• “Space in the library to interact and collaborate - group study areas and areas to spread stuff out.”
• “Make the library like a coffee house.”
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
17
Interpersonal Communication Analysis: Results
• 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.
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
18
Facilitators – DifferencesScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=235)
• Screenagers demonstrated these behaviors less often than Adults
• On average (per transcript): • Thanks • Self Disclosure• Closing Ritual
• On average (per occurrence):• Seeking reassurance• Polite expressions
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
19
• Lower averages (per transcript)• Thanks 51% (75) vs. 68% (159)• Self Disclosure 42% (61) vs. 49% (116)• Closing Ritual 32% (47) vs. 45% (106)
• Lower averages (per occurrence)• Seeking reassurance 62% (91) vs. 59% (139)• Polite expressions 34% (49) vs. 28% (66)
Facilitators – DifferencesScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=235)
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
20
• Screenagers demonstrated these behaviors less often than Adults
• On Average (per occurrence)• Agree to suggestion• Admit lack knowledge• Lower case
• Screenagers demonstrated these behaviors more often than Adults
• On average (per occurrence)• Interjections/Hedges• Slang
Facilitators – DifferencesScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=235)
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
21
Barriers – DifferencesScreenagers (n=146) vs. Others (n=235)
• Screenagers demonstrated these behaviors more often than Adults
• On average (per transcript)• Abrupt Endings• Disconfirming• Impatience• Rude or Insulting• Inappropriate language• Goofing around
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
22
Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954)
• Qualitative technique• Focuses on most memorable
event/experience of participants• Allows categories or themes to emerge
NOT imposed
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
24
Millennial VRS Users: Positive Results (CI N=48)
Number %
• Primarily Content 33 69% • Both Relational & 13 27% Content• Primarily Relational 2 4%
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
25
Millennial VRS Users: Positive Results(CI N=48)
Content Themes* Number
%
• Providing information 36 75%
• Convenience/multi- 14 29% tasking/time saving/
money saving• Providing instruction 5 10%
*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
26
Millennial VRS Users: Positive Results(CI N=48)
Relational Themes* Number %
• Attitude 10 21%
• Relationship quality 8 17%
*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
27
Millennial VRS Users: Negative Results(CI N=30)
Number %
• Primarily Content 23 77% • Primarily Relational 6 20%• Both Relational & 1 3% Content
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
28
Millennial VRS Users: Negative Results(CI N=30)
Content Themes* Number %
• Information 21 70%
• Lack of knowledge 5 17%
*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
29
Millennial VRS Users: Negative Results(CI N=30)
Relational Themes* Number
%
• Relationship quality 6 20%
• Attitude 5 17%
*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
30
Millennial VRS Non-users: Positive Results (CI N=108)
Number %
• Primarily Content 54 50%• Both Relational & 33
31% Content • Primarily Relational 21
19%
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
31
Millennial VRS Non-users: Positive Results (CI N=108)
Content Themes* Number %
• Providing information 54 50%
• Providing instruction 24 22%
• Convenience/multi- 15 13% tasking/time saving/
money saving• Demonstrating knowledge 12 11% *The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can
be coded into more than one theme
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
32
Millennial VRS Non-users: Positive Results (CI N=108)
Relational Themes* Number %
• Attitude 39 36%
• Impact of FtF assisting 20 18% relationship development
• Relationship quality 20 18%
• Impact of phone/Email 3 3% assisting information seeking process
• Approachability 3 3%
*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
33
Millennial VRS Non-users: Negative Results (CI N=74)
Number %
• Primarily Content 35 47%
• Primarily Relational 27 37% • Both Relational & 12 16% Content
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
34
Millennial VRS Non-users: Negative Results (CI N=74)
Content Themes* Number %
• Information 47 64%
• Lack of knowledge 17 23%
• Instruction 5 7%
• Task unreasonable 3 4%*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
35
Millennial VRS Non-users: Negative Results (CI N=74)
Relational Themes* Number %
• Attitude 36 49%
• Relationship quality 20 27%
• Approachability 3 4%
• Impact of technology 2 3%
*The percentages do not total to 100% because each CI can be coded into more than one theme
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
36
What We Learned
• The image of libraries is…
• BOOKS• People do not think of the library as an
important source of electronic information!
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
37
What We Learned
• Books aren’t convenient to retrieve from the library
• Libraries are QUIET• For studying
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
38
What We Learned
Traditional Library Environment Millennial Preferences
Logical, linear learning Multi-tasking
Largely text based Visual, audio, multi-media
Learn from the expert Figure it out for myself
Requires patience Want it now
Metasearch Full text
Complexity Simplicity
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
39
What We Learned
• Libraries are trusted sources of information • Search engines are trusted about the same• Screenagers
• Lack patience to wade through content silos and indexing and abstracting databases
• Like convenience and speed • Do not view paid information as more accurate than
free information
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
40
What We Learned
• Communication critically important!• Difficult process
• Generational differences add to complexity!
• Need user education for more realistic expectations
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library - December 10, 2008
41
A library experience like the experience available on the web
Yes, libraries!
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
42
Implications for Library Services
• Libraries should be “…providing patrons with what they want when and how they want it, and providing patrons with the means to uncover what they want when they aren’t sure what exactly that may be.”
• Good search and discovery tools• Recommender Services• Reviews• Social Networking
• IM• Text Messaging
• Better meta-discovery tools than currently offered by federated technology
• (Pace, 2006)
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
43
What We Can Do
• Encourage & entice them to use libraries• Creative marketing
• Promote full range of services and systems
• Build positive relationships• Regardless of format
• Face-to-Face• Phone• Online
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
44
What We Can Do
Understand them to better serve their information needs
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
45
Additional Resources
• Boomer Nation: The Largest and Richest Generation Ever and how it Changed America, S. Gillon. New York: Free Press, 2004.
• College Student Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources, OCLC, Dublin: OH, 2005. http://www.oclc.org/reports/perceptionscollege.htm
• Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584-2069, N. Strauss & W. Howe. New York: Morrow, 1991.
• Generations at Work, S. Luck, 2006. http://dps.dgs.virginia.gov/Forum2006/Presentations/S201%20PPSluck%20Generations.ppt
• The Google Generation: The Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future, I. Rowlands, et al., 2008. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 290-310. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00012530810887953
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
46
• Growing Up Digital, D. Tapscott. www.growingupdigital.com
• HS senior explains why she doesn’t use the school library, D.L. Whelan. School Library Journal (October 30, 2007) http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6495685.html
• I hear the train a comin’, A. Pace. Presentation at the Charleston Conference. Charleston, SC, Nov. 1, 2006.
• Millennial Behaviors and Demographics, R. Sweeney, 2006. http://library1.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/Millennials/Article-Millennial-Behaviors.doc
• Millennial Net Values: Disconnects between Libraries and the Information Age Mindset, R. McDonald & C. Thomas, 2005. http://dscholarship.lib.fsu.edu/general/4/
• Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, W. Howe & N. Strauss. New York: Random House, 2000.
Additional Resources
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
47
Additional Resources• Mountains, Valleys, and Pathways: Serials Users’ Needs and
Steps to Meet Them. Part I: Identifying Serials Users’ Needs: Preliminary Analysis of Focus Group and Semi-structured Interviews at Colleges and Universities, L.S. Connaway, Serials Librarian, 52(1/2), 223-236, 2007.
• Net Generation Students and Libraries, J. Lippincott. In Educating the Net Generation, Educase, 2005. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101m.pdf
• Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources, OCLC Dublin: OH, 2005. http://www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm
• Playing the Future: How Kids’ Culture Can Teach Us to Thrive in an Age of Chaos, D. Rushkoff. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
48
• Sense-making the Information Confluence: The Hows and the Whys of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs, Brenda Dervin, Ohio State University, Principal Investigator; Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Chandra Prabha, Co-Investigators. Institute for Museums and Library Services Research Grant, 2003-2005. http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/imls/default.htm
• “Screenagers” and Live Chat Reference: Living Up to the Promise, M.L. Radford & L.S. Connaway. Scan, 26(6), 31-39. February, 2007. www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2007/connaway-scan.pdf
• Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester, N. Foster & S. Gibbons, Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2007.
• Youth Health and Wellness: Core Issues and Views on Existing Resources, Ypulse, ISIS, Inc., & YouthNoise, 2008. www.isis-inc.org/in-print/Youth_Health_and_Wellness_Report_2008.php
Additional Resources
Expectations of the Screenager GenerationNew York Public Library – December 10, 2008
49
End Notes• This presentation is one of the outcomes from the project
“Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, & Librarian Perspectives,” Marie L. Radford & Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Co-Principal Investigators. Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Project website: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/
• This presentation is one of the outcomes from the project “Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs." Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Ohio State University, and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., the project is being implemented by Brenda Dervin (Professor of Communication and Joan N. Huber Fellow of Social & Behavioral Science, Ohio State University) as Principal Investigator; and Lynn Silipigni Connaway (OCLC Consulting Research Scientist III) and Chandra Prahba (OCLC Senior Research Scientist), as Co-Investigators. More information can be obtained at: http://imlsosuoclcproject.jcomm.ohio-state.edu/
Questions & Comments
Lynn Silipigni [email protected]