Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Virtual Rituals: Applying Goffman’s Face-Work to an Analysis
of Live Chat Reference Encounters
Marie L. Radford,Lynn Silipigni Connaway, &Jocelyn A. DeAngelis Williams
LRS IVLondon, Ontario, CanadaOctober 10-12, 2007
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 Inc.
– $405,076 in kind contributions
Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives
Project duration: 2 1/2 Years (10/05-3/08)
Four phases:I. Focus group interviews
II. Analysis of 1,000+ QuestionPoint live chat transcripts
III. 600 online surveys
IV. 300 telephone interviews
Phase II: Transcript Analysis
• Random sample– 7/04 to 11/06 (18 months)– 479,673 QuestionPoint sessions total– Avg. 33/mo. = 850 total, 850 examined
• 746 usable transcripts – Excluding system tests & tech problems
Face-Work
“Much of the activity occurring during an encounter can be understood as an effort on everyone’s part to get through the occasion and all the unanticipated and unintentional events that can cast participants in an undesirable light, without disrupting the relationships of the participants”
(Goffman, 1967, p. 41)
Face Defined
• Positive social value person claims
• Self-image in terms of approved social attributes
Face-Work in Encounters
• Face is located in flow of events– Feelings about face reinforced by
encounters
– If better face is established – feel good
– If expectations not fulfilled – feel bad or hurt
– Neutral experience – expected, not memorable
Kinds of Face-Work
• Rituals – Greetings & Closings
• Corrective Process – Repair & Apology
• Avoidance Process– Prevent Threats to Face
• Poise – Control Embarrassment
Face-Work in Chat Reference
• Goffman provides a powerful way to frame analysis of chat encounters.
• Face & face-work appear in flow of transcript (event).
• Analysis identifies instances of face-work.
• Major categories – see handout.
Interpersonal Communication Findings
• 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.
Transcript Examples
Positive Face-Work – Relational Facilitators
“Size of an Atom”
Question Type: Subject Search
Subject Type: Life Sciences; Biology (DDC: 570)
Duration: 39.75 min.
Negative Face-Work – Relational Barriers
“Mesopotamian Government”
Question Type: Subject Search
Subject Type: History of the Ancient World (DDC: 930)
Duration: 27 min.
Face-Work Facilitators – Similarities
Category Librarians Users
Greeting Rituals 197 167
Apology 59 56
Seeking Reassurance 448 424
Offering Reassurance 137 119
(n=746 Transcripts)
Facilitators – Differences Librarians vs. Users
Librarian Lower Numbers/Occurrence
Category Librarians Users
Alternate spelling/ abbreviation single words
76 263
Lower case 29 282
Self disclosure 38 583
Thanks 103 882
Praise/admiration 1 49
Expressions of enthusiasm 20 60
Punctuation for emphasis 87 207(n=746 Transcripts)
Facilitators – Differences Librarians vs. Users
Librarian Higher Numbers/Occurrence
Category Librarians Users
Inclusion 137 119
Encouraging Remarks/Praise 83 39
Offering Personal Opinion 254 33
Polite Expressions 371 230
Suggesting Strategy in Tentative way
59 26
Ellipsis 277 207(n=746 Transcripts)
Barriers – DifferencesLibrarians Vs. Users
User Higher Numbers/Average
Category Librarians Users
Disconfirming 16 74
Abrupt Endings 44 243
Impatience 3 45
Rude or Insulting 0 22
Goofing Around 2 24
Inappropriate Language 0 17
(n=746 Transcripts)
Barriers – DifferencesLibrarians Vs. Users
Higher Numbers/Average
Category Librarians Users
Limits Time 13 0
Ignores Self Disclosure 10 0
Inappropriate Script or Response 12 4
Failing to Offer Reassurance 26 6
Disclaimer 27 0
Ignoring cues User wants more help 16 0
Premature or Attempted Closing 17 4
Failure to Refer 10 0
(n=746 Transcripts)
Future Directions
• Continue to collect & analyze data– Online surveys
• 200 Librarian surveys completed• 200 Non-user surveys completed• 200 User surveys in progress
– Telephone interviews• 100 Librarians completed• 100 Users in progress• 100 Non-users in progress
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, & OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
• Special thanks to Patrick Confer, Julie Strange, & Janet Torsney.
• Slides available at project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/
Questions
• Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.– Email: [email protected]– www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mradford
• Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.– Email: [email protected]– www.oclc.org/research/staff/connaway.htm
• Jocelyn A. DeAngelis Williams– Email: [email protected]
