"If It Is Too Inconvenient I'm Not Going After It:" Factors Shaping User Information Behavior.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

"If It Is Too Inconvenient I'm Not Going After It:" Factors Shaping User Information Behavior.

on

  • 135 views

Webinar hosted by NFAIS (National Federation of Advanced Information Services), December 19, 2011.

Webinar hosted by NFAIS (National Federation of Advanced Information Services), December 19, 2011.

http://www.oclc.org/research/news/2011-12-12.htm

Statistics

Views

Total Views
135
Views on SlideShare
135
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Joint Information Systems Committee. De Rosa, Cathy. 2005. Perceptions of libraries and information resources: A report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.De Rosa, Cathy. 2006. College students' perceptions of libraries and information resources: A report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.Dervin, Brenda, CarrieLynn D. Reinhard, Zack Y. Kerr, Mei Song, and Fei C. Shen, eds. 2006. Sense-making the information confluence: The whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs. Phase II: Sense-making online survey and phone interview study. Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03-0062-03 to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Columbus, Ohio: School ofCommunication, Ohio State University. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Chandra Prabha, and Timothy J. Dickey. 2006. Sense-making the information confluence: The whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs. Phase III: Focus group interview study. Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03-0062-03, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Columbus, Ohio: School of Communication, The Ohio State University.Prabha, Chandra, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, and Timothy J. Dickey. 2006. Sense-making the information confluence: The whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs. Phase IV: Semi-structured interview study. Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03-0062-03, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Columbus, Ohio: School of Communication, The Ohio State University.Research Information Network. 2006. Researchers and discovery services: Behaviour, perceptions and needs. London: Research Information Network.Consortium of University Research Libraries, and Research Information Network. 2007. Researchers' use of academic libraries and their services: A report. London: Research Information Network and Consortium of University Research Libraries (CURL).Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research. 2008. Information behaviour of the researcher of the future: A CIBER briefing paper. London: CIBER.Radford, Marie L., and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. 2008. Seeking synchronicity: Evaluating virtual reference services from user, non-user, and librarian perspectives: IMLS final performance report. Report on Grant LG-06-05-0109-05, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.Calhoun, Karen, et al. 2009. Online catalogs: What users and librarians want: An OCLC report. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC.Research Information Network. 2009. E-journals: Their use, value and impact. London: Research Information Network.JISC and UCL. 2009. JISC national e-books observatory project: Key findings and recommendations: Final report.Hampton-Reeves, Stuart, Claire Mashiter, Jonathan Westaway, Peter Lumsden, Helen Day, Helen Hewerston, and Anna Hart. 2009. Students’ use of research content in teaching and learning: A report of the Joint Information Systems Council (JISC).Wong, William, Hanna Stelmaszewska, NazlinBhimani, Sukhbinder Barn, and Balbir Barn. 2009. User behaviour in resource discovery: Final report.
  • Researchers particularly appreciate desktop access to scholarly content, from e-journals to VRS (DIS, p. 33).Researchers and discovery services, 2006 Valuation of the convenience of desktop accessResearchers' use of academic libraries, 2007Immediate access from desktop computer is taken for grantedSeeking synchronicity, 2008 VRS' convenience is from home computerStudents' use of research content, 2009 Home computer is main way they gain access
  • The Research Information Network in the UK conducted these studies of professional, postdoctoral researchers in the first case, and in the second, nearly 3000 researchers and librarians.
  • The CIBER study brings evidence to bear on the “digital natives“ narrative, and the JISC produced a large transaction log analysis of e-resource usage.
  • Digital Information Seeker, pg. 4.In addition, some common findings regarding content and resources arise: More digital content of all kinds and formats is almost uniformly seen as better. People still tend to think of libraries as collections of books. Despite this, researchers also value human resources in their information-seeking. Sense-making the information confluence: Phases 1-4 and Final Report. DIS, p. 9.Participants also discussed enhancements and changes to the library’s electronic resources (Connaway, Prabha, and Dickey 2006, p. 16). These include Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI) [although the participants did not use this term, this is the service they described], 24/7 reference, and expanded online sources, including all print and other physical materials available online (Connaway, Prabha, and Dickey 2006, p. 16-17).College students’ perceptions, 2006Students trust library, but are visiting less since they began using Internet
  • Connaway, Lynn Silipigni. 2007. “Mountains, valleys, and pathways: Serials users’ needs and steps to meet them. Part I: Identifying Serials Users’ Needs: Preliminary Analysis of Focus Group Interviews and Semi-structured Observations at Colleges and Universities.” Serials Librarian 52(1/2): 223-236. However, these respondents also offer frequent criticisms of traditional library services. (p. 3-4). In this situation, both undergraduate and graduate students offer a high concentration of responses in three categories: positive comments on the ease of the web as an information source, some positive commentary on library resources (though their use of library resources were very frequently through electronic intervention), and criticism of the physical library. …However, the faculty provide a variety of data which uniquely praise the virtues of the physical library collection, and which consider credibility, authority, and trustworthiness as criteria for judging an information source. (p.5). However, the respondents do not perceive these databases as “library sources” and express frustration with their inability to locate or access full-text copies of journals and books. They suggest the library provide recommender and discovery services like those available through Amazon. (p. 10).
  • Wong, William, Hanna Stelmaszewska, NazlinBhimani, Sukhbinder Barn, and Balbir Barn. 2009. User behaviour in resource discovery: Final report. DIS, p. 23.  Information literacy skills are generally lacking; they have not necessarily kept pace with digital literacy (Wong et al. 2009, p. 6). Research Information Network . Researchers and discovery services. DIS, p. 11. Most researchers are self-taught in the use of discovery services with 62% of the researchers reporting they had no formal training (ibid, p. 64). However, they are relatively confident in their own skills (Research Information Network 2006, p. 9). Seeking SynchronicityPreference for Independent Information Seeking:“Try research on my own first. And if I get really stuck and I can’t find anything, ask for help if I have to.” (Non-user focus group – Springfield, PA) (High School)I had library instruction in school on how to use databases and conduct research. I feel pretty confident that I can do it on my own now (NTI-44)It's just on the situation; I pretty much go to the internet first, because _everything's_ there already, but if I am unsure about things, then I might ask around, or might ask people. NTI-74 Some College 19-28Professors are credible in what they are talking about most of the time. NTI-100 Some College 19-28I found the book I wanted and it was in a library, so I then went into the library and found it myself … If I’m looking for a book I usually I keep to myself and do everything myself. NTI-29 Some College 19-28First I try to do it myself.. It is just easier, the information is just there. You can access the information quickly and it is also a good starting point to figure out what is out there. Then you can narrow down your search from there. So I always start out using the internet, to get an overview. It is just the first step, and natural. NTI-59 Some College 19-28Okay, the, I tend to usually research things myself pretty well, so I don't have to resort to contacting a reference librarian NTI-97 Some Graduate 19-28Because there are plentiful sources online, some of them are garbage I believe, but they usually give you a hint of where to go. I will try to find info in general and then go to the library catalog or ask a librarian. That’s what I do. NTI-56 Masters 29-35 
  • Even more evidence exists for the increasing centrality of Google and other search engines in researchers’ behaviours. DIS, p. 27.Perceptions of libraries, 2005Search engines dominant place to beginSearch engine as lifestyle fitSearch engines are preferred over librariesCollege students’ perceptions, 2006Search engines overwhelming first choice for an information search94% lifestyle fitResearcher of the future, 2008Prefer natural language searching and trust Google to understand themConnaway, Lynn Silipigni. 2007. “Mountains, valleys, and pathways: Serials users’ needs and steps to meet them. Part I: Identifying Serials Users’ Needs: Preliminary Analysis of Focus Group Interviews and Semi-structured Observations at Colleges and Universities.” Serials Librarian 52(1/2): 223-236. The focus group interview data indicate a heavy reliance upon Google and other web browsers and sources. (p. 3-4). Graduate students also rank Google as the first source for quick searches. (p. 3-4).The preliminary analysis of the focus group interviews and semi-structured observations suggests that college and university information seekers use Google and other web sources and browsers for quick searches and to familiarize themselves with subjects. (p.11).In this situation, both undergraduate and graduate students offer a high concentration of responses in three categories: positive comments on the ease of the web as an information source,…(p.5).Seeking Synchronicity“I wouldn’t really trust my librarian. I trust Google.” (Non-user focus group – Denton, MD) (High School) “I find something on Google and there’s enough information on it and it seems logical, I’ll just go with it.”“Especially if it’s something like you’re doing a paper in class and you already know the subject pretty well and all you’re looking for are sources to validate what you, you’re putting like your argument on paper. You validate your argument. I really don’t double check it. I’m like well ‘this is what I’m trying to say. This is the source I’m going to use.’ But if it’s like a research paper, I’ll double check my sources a couple of times just to make sure it’s the right information.” (Non-user focus group – Denton, MD) (High School)Generally when I need something and I don't know where to get it, I go to the Internet. I search on Google or Yahoo. NTI-80 Some Graduate 19-28
  • Wong, William, Hanna Stelmaszewska, NazlinBhimani, Sukhbinder Barn, and Balbir Barn. 2009. User behaviour in resource discovery: Final report. DIS, p. 23. Search strategies change by context, during the course of the process (Wong et al. 2009, p. 7). Users found access hindered by the difficulty of using database interfaces (Wong et al. 2009, p. 7). Digital Information Seeker, pg. 4.The realities of the online environment observed above led several studies to some common conclusions about changing user behaviours: Users are beginning to desire enhanced functionality in library systems. They also desire enhanced content to assist them in evaluating resources. Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research. 2008. Information behaviour of the researcher of the future: A CIBER briefing paper. DIS, p. 15. Younger people tended to spend little time, and with little effectiveness in evaluating search results. They preferred natural-language searching and trusted Google to understand them. Many do not find library resources intuitive (CIBER 2008, p. 12).
  • Hampton-Reeves, Stuart, Claire Mashiter, Jonathan Westaway, Peter Lumsden, Helen Day, Helen Hewerston, and Anna Hart. 2009. Students’ use of research content in teaching and learning: A report of the Joint Information Systems Council (JISC). DIS, p. 22. In situations of formal research for these students, this leads them to the library catalogue first and to use it more (32%, n=137, N=428; Hampton-Reeves et al. 2009, p. 24). However, the researchers stated, “it is very clear that Google has emerged as a real force in the accessing and discovery of research content which is rivalling university library catalogues” (Hampton-Reeves et al. 2009, p. 30). Sense Making28 Undergraduate Students participated in focus group interviews“… the thing about Google is that I generally find the little some things under the search results and relevance to anything to actually be fairly good… You know, if I use the library catalog, it will give me a list of a thousand things, but there is really no ranking that I can understand.”“I stay away from the library and the library’s online catalog.”“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.”“Sometimes content can be sacrificed for format.”“I stay away from the library and the library’s online catalog.”Faculty (Focus Group)“[Google] is user friendly…library catalog is not.” –
  • Sense-making the information confluences: Phases 1-4 and Final Report. DIS, p. 9. Faculty response in a focus group interview, “I do use Google, but …[I also] use two different library homepages” (Connaway, Prabha, and Dickey 2006, p. 12).The participants acknowledged the value of databases and other online sources to both academic and personal information needs. Some users did not understand what resources were actually available in libraries nor could they distinguish between databases held by a library and sources merely available online (Connaway, Prabha, and Dickey 2006, p. 13-14).Calhoun, Karen, et al. 2009. Online catalogs: What users and librarians want: An OCLC report. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. DIS , p. 18 One survey respondent suggested, “I wish the results page would list a short blurb (one line) about the book similar to the way Google shows you a tiny bit about what a site link is about” (Calhoun et al. 2009, p. 17).“Make it as easy as a Google Book Search,” one survey respondent requested when discussing the catalog (Calhoun et al. 2009, p. 14).Sense-making the information confluence: Phases 1-4 and Final Report. DIS, p. 9.Participants also stated that library OPACs are difficult to use; this belief is held by all types of participants (Connaway, Prabha, and Dickey 2006, p. 11-14). Participants also discussed enhancements and changes to the library’s electronic resources and suggestions to “make the library catalog more like search engines” (Connaway, Prabha, and Dickey 2006, p. 16). These include Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI) [although the participants did not use this term, this is the service they described], 24/7 reference, and expanded online sources, including all print and other physical materials available online (Connaway, Prabha, and Dickey 2006, p. 16-17).
  • Research Information Network. 2006. Researchers and discovery services: Behaviour, perceptions and needs. London: Research Information Network. DIS, p. 11.“Increasingly, the boundary between resources themselves and discovery services is a permeable one” (Research Information Network 2006, p. 5). There is a need for a seamless process from discovery-to-delivery (D2D). Some disciplinary differences exist in the researchers’ satisfaction with D2D services. Researchers in the sciences are most satisfied. Arts and Humanities researchers indicated serious problems in unavailable content, irrelevant information in result lists, and in the discovery of non-English content (Research Information Network 2006, p. 75).Other specific gaps in D2D provision included foreign language materials (especially for social sciences and Arts and Humanities researchers; Research Information Network 2006, p. 75), chapters in multiauthor collections, short journal back files, and lack of specialist search engines (Research Information Network 2006, p. 67).De Rosa, Cathy. 2005. Perceptions of libraries and information resources: A report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center. DIS, p. 6.“Make a way to search through all the databases with one search engine, instead of having to search each database individually,” stated a 21-year-old from the United States (De Rosa 2005, p. 1-19).Calhoun, Karen, et al. 2009. Online catalogs: What users and librarians want: An OCLC report. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. DIS , p. 18 “The end user’s experience of the delivery of wanted items is as important, if not more important, than his or her discovery experience” (Calhoun et al. 2009, p. v). End users who participated in the focus group interviews indicated that they wanted the retrieved results to be obviously relevant and suggested that catalogs “use weighting in the search algorithm” (Calhoun et al. 2009, p. 14). They also suggested the catalog contain helps to the user for navigation within the catalog and evaluation of sources.“End users rely on and expect enhanced content.” Thirty-two percent of survey respondents’ preferred more subject information and 18% indicated a preference for summaries, abstracts, and tables of content (Calhoun et al. 2009, p. 13).“An advanced search option and facets help end users refine searches, navigate, browse and manage large result sets” (Calhoun et al. 2009, p. 15-16).“The focus group interview participants offered a mixed reaction to social features” in the catalog (Calhoun et al. 2009, p. 18-19).
  • Calhoun, Karen, et al. 2009. Online catalogs: What users and librarians want: An OCLC report. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. DIS, p. 18.“Important differences exist between the catalog data quality priorities of end users and those who work in libraries.” Fifty-two percent of the librarians indicated that the most desired data enhancement was to “Merge duplicate records” (Calhoun et al. 2009, p. 25). This enhancement might improve users’ searching tasks and their retrieved results. However, users necessarily would not understand the implications of duplicate records on searching and retrieval; therefore, they probably would not mention this.
  • Digital Information Seeker, pg. 4-5.In a few cases, the above findings from the studies under review offered evidence that runs counter to popular perceptions of the current information scene. Many popular media claims about the “Google generation” may not be supported by all the evidence. In choosing among search engines, some evidence indicates that speed may not be the most important evaluative factor. The studies that addressed library OPACs provide little support for the advanced search options which are still popular in these systems.
  • “Digital literacies and information literacies do not go hand in hand” (ibid, p. 20).Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research. 2008. Informationbehaviour of the researcher of the future: A CIBER briefing paper. London: CIBER.
  • All of this will affect the role of the librarian who might increasingly have to help students clarify and interpret tasks and briefs, find the appropriate resources and run information skills sessions. Dr.Connaway identifies a few key issues for libraries to consider:1.            Keep talking:  Librarians need to market and promote their services and be very transparent about what they offer, in addition to ‘books’.2.            Keep moving:  Librarians need to provide a range of tools and services in different media.  Some people prefer walking into a library and talking face-to-face.  Some like to talk to a librarian, others to communicate virtually. While some users want to hold a book, many want electronic access.  Librarians need to offer a wide range of services and resources which is difficult in the current economic environment.3.            Keep the gates open:  Libraries need to remove the barriers between discovering and accessing information.  Older materials need to be made available digitally as researchers perceive a wealth of digital and varied resources as ‘better’.4.            Keep  it simple:  Researchers are very familiar with other web-based searches like Google, Yahoo or Amazon.  Library web services ought to look similar despite providing very detailed ways of searching for information.  The majority of users search by keywords and library search tools must have a simple and convenient interface. 
  • In order to entice people to use libraries and to change their perceptions of libraries, the library experience needs to become more like that available on the web (e.g., Google, Amazon.com, iTunes, etc.) and to be embedded in individual workflows. The web environment is familiar to users; therefore, they are comfortable and confident choosing to search for information there. Librarians need to adapt or seek to purchase services and systems that are designed to replicate the web environment so that they are perceived as convenient and easy to use. Access to sources, not the discovery of sources, is the concern of information-seekers. People lack the patience to wade through content silos and indexing and abstracting databases. They expect seamless access to resources such as full text e-journals, online foreign-language materials, e-books, a variety of electronic publishers’ platforms, and virtual reference desk services (Connaway, & Dickey, 2010, p. 46-47). To meet these expectations, it is recommended that librarians should provide moreauthoritative, reliable digital sources through the library systems and services, from e-journals to curateddata sets, as well as emerging services such as virtual research environments (VREs), open source materials, non-text-based and multimedia objects, and blogs. Librarians also mustadvertise the library brand and its resources better to academics, researchers, students, and the general public. Demonstrating the library’s value can be accomplished by identifying and promoting collections and services. One size does not fit all for library services, which need to be offered in multiple delivery modes to meet the different information needs of users in different situations. This versatility and flexibility is difficult in the current economic environment, but warrants further investigation.The development of an economic model for the allocation of resources for the different delivery modes for library services would benefit all types of libraries. This would not only enable optimal scheduling of human resources for services but also the allocation of funds for both electronic and print resources based on user preferences.
  • There is a need for further study of user behaviors to address how library users find information in different contexts and situations. Vakkari (1997) calls for “studies which will concentrate more on contextual factors, and then combine the results with those of studies using more individual factors” (p.463). An approach like this would provide theoretical research that combines both the individual and social factors that influence information-seeking behaviors (Connaway & Dickey, 2010).  As seen above, in some situations information seekers will readily sacrifice content for convenience. Convenience is thus one of the primary criteria used for making choices during the information-seeking process. Convenience includes the choice of the information source (is it readily available online or in print), the satisfaction with the source (does it contain the needed information and is it easy to use), and the time it will take to access and use the information source (how long will it take to access). In the current environment, most people do not have time to spend searching for information or for learning how to use a new information source or access method. In order to be one of the first choices for information, library systems and interfaces need to look familiar to people by resembling popular web interfaces and library services need to be easily accessible and to require little or no training to use. Convenience is a critical factor for users across all demographic categories, and is liable to remain so going forward.
  • The findings will be used to create a matrix of implementation options allowing those designing and delivering digital platforms and services to make informed decisions relative to engagement and motivation for individuals at each of the educational stages.
  • The initial 6-month pilot stage has focused on the Emerging educational stage to refine the research methodology and to establish the value of the work to the stakeholders. In the US the project worked in close partnership with the University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC) to recruit participants, from different socio-economic groups from both private and public secondary schools as well as first-year university students. In the UK participants were drawn from Oxford Brooks University, Warwick University and secondary schools in Oxford and Leicester.Thirty individuals in the Emerging Educational Stage (late stage secondary/high school and 1st year university) were recruited -15 in the US and 15 in the UK. Of the 30 participants recruited 6 in the US and 6 in the UK were asked to document their information seeking activities for a 3-month period. They were closely facilitated through this process and communicated with the research team in the medium of their choice over this period.The quantitative data include demographics; number of occurrences for different types of technologies, sources, and behaviours.The qualitative data provide themes that identify behaviours and sources for different contexts and situations and include direct quotes and behaviours.
  • Economic class: We recorded the residential post-code/ zipcodes for the participants as a way to identify broad socio-economic categories (given what we knew about socio-economic homogeneity in the cities in which we were working). Attempts were made to recruit secondary students from schools with a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds. This is basically a convenience sample of students—those who were willing to be interviewed by us, in institutions that allowed us entry.We also asked questions about parents’ educational backgrounds, and current/past vocations, to enrich our picture of interviewee backgrounds.
  • US (15 of 30)5 are 17 years-old2 are 18 years-old7 are 19 years old1 is 28 years oldUK (15 of 30)1 is 16 years old6 are 17 years old1 is 18 years old4 are 19 years old1 is 34 years old1 is 36 years old1 is 57 years old
  • This was done to give us the potential to discuss behaviors in contextAre there certain things they do because they are engineers? Because they are education students? If not, why not?
  • Appendix A: Participant interview questions – Secondary/High school and University level.Secondary/High School Student Interview QuestionsDescribe the things you enjoy doing with technology and the web each week.Think of the ways you have used technology and the web for your studies. Describe a typical week.Think about the next stage of your education. Tell me what you think this will be like.Think of a time when you had a situation where you needed answers or solutions and you did a quick search and made do with it. You knew there were other sources but you decided not to use them. Please include sources such as friends, family, teachers, coaches, etc.Have there been times when you were told to use a library or virtual learning environment (or learning platform), and used other source(s) instead? If you had a magic wand, what would your ideal way of getting information be? How would you go about using the systems and services? When? Where? How?What comments or questions do you have for me? Is there anything you would like me to explain? What would you like to tell me that you’ve thought about during this interview?
  • The codebook was created with a grounded analysis of the interviews of the Emerging group, and is to date one of our most significant research findings. There was significant back and forth among researchers about the content of the codebook, via emails and Skype conversations. We started writing the codebook in May, and the final version came about in mid-September.The content of the codebook reveals the priorities and practices of the Emerging group, but can also be used to analyze the remaining groups we have yet to interview. (for instance, we can use the codebook to analyze faculty interviews even if we don’t have a code for LinkedIn) Discuss the content of the codebook.
  • How we used the codebook: First: the 3 researchers and research assistant coded the same two transcripts, one US and one UK (both secondary school). We met and re-met and coded and re-coded until there was agreement. THEN we went our separate ways to code. BUT we still communicate with each other in our coding processes, because of the remote nature of our collaboration. Coding is done on paper, for the most part, and then the codes are entered into word, or scanned and sent to research assistants, who enter the coding into NVivo9. When the research assistants are entering the coding, they notice discrepancies, document them, and generate a discussion about what was intended, and what should the final coding be.This continuous communication provides more consistency in coding across the researchers. We will, once all of the coding is input, measure inter-coder reliability as well.
  • “I just type it into Google and see what comes-up…” (UKS2 00:16:21) “I simply just type it into Google and just see what comes up” (UK4 00:13:36)I always stick with the first thing that comes up on Google because I think that’s the most popular site which means that’s the most correct. (USS1 0:21:57 “I knew that the internet wouldn’t give me a wrong answer.” (UKS4 00:24:10)
  • “That’s the only problem, just knowing what information to use and why.” (UKS1 00:24:05)“Perfect thing, I think it would be that all the useful, accurate, reliable information would like glow a different colour or something so I could tell without wasting my time going through all of them.” (UKS2 00:37:09)
  • Establishing Stage students = second/third year undergraduateEmbedding Stage students = postgraduate/graduate students and Ph.D. studentsExperienced scholars = scholars and researchers

"If It Is Too Inconvenient I'm Not Going After It:" Factors Shaping User Information Behavior. "If It Is Too Inconvenient I'm Not Going After It:" Factors Shaping User Information Behavior. Presentation Transcript

  • “If it is too inconvenient I‟m not going after it”: Factors Shaping User Information Behavior Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist OCLC Research NFAIS Webinar December 19, 2011
  • Digital Information Seeker • Report of findings from selected OCLC, JISC & RIN User Behaviour Project • Funded by JISC • Analysis of 12 user behaviour studies • Conducted in US and UK • Published within last 5 years • Synthesis • Better understand user information-seeking behaviour • Identify issues for development of userfocused services and systems 2
  • “The majority of researchers in all disciplines have adapted readily to the widespread availability of digital content, accessible directly from their desktops.” (Consortium of University Research Libraries, and Research Information Network. 2007. Researchers' use of academic libraries and their services: A report. London: Research Information Network and Consortium of University Research Libraries (CURL), p. 23) 3
  • The power of convenience 4
  • Convenience in the User Studies Data • Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources (OCLC, 2005) • Search engines a “lifestyle fit” for speed & convenience • Key criterion in resource choice is speed • College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources (OCLC, 2006) • Use the library less since they began using the Internet 5
  • Convenience in the User Studies Data • Sense-making the Information Confluence (20032005) • Convenience a factor for using • Internet search engines • Electronic database • College/university libraries 6
  • Convenience in the User Studies Data Researchers and Discovery Services (RIN, 2006) • Researchers value the convenience of desktop access Researchers’ Use of Academic Libraries (CURL and RIN, 2007) • Convenience a major factor in behaviors • Users expect not to spend much time in locating an item 7
  • Convenience in the User Studies Data Information Behavior of the Researcher of the Future (CIBER, 2008) • Users demand 24/7 access, instant gratification JISC National E-books Observatory Project (JISC, 2009) • Article downloads have nearly doubled • Convenience a major factor in usage 8
  • Convenience in the User Studies Data • Seeking Synchronicity (2008) • VRS users • Cited convenience as affecting decision to use service • Rated the chat medium as the “most efficient” of all reference modes • Non-VRS users • Stated they find information themselves • Stated they would use VRS because it‟s convenient 9
  • Common Findings: User Desires • D2D of full-text digital content • Transparency of ranking results • Evaluative information included in catalog • More robust metadata 10
  • Common Findings: User Behaviors • Use snippets from e-books • View only a few pages • Short visits • Prefer quick chunks of information • Very little time using content • Use basic search • Simple searching of Google-like interfaces • Power browsing • Natural language • “Squirreling” of downloads 11
  • Common Findings: The Library • = Books • Desire Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI) • More digital content = Better • Use for research • Use less since Internet available 12
  • Common Findings: The Library • Criticize physical library & traditional services • Faculty praise physical collection • Electronic databases not perceived as library sources • Frustration with locating and accessing full-text copies 13
  • Common Findings: User Literacy Skills • Information literacy skills • Lacking • Not kept pace with digital literacy • Researchers self-taught & confident 14
  • Common Findings: The Web • Search engine first choice • Starting point • Easy and convenient to use • Quick searches to become familiar with subjects • Rate search engines better lifestyle fit than libraries • Trust Google to understand 15
  • Common Findings: The Search • Search strategies differ by context • Database interfaces hinder access • Desire enhanced functionality & content to evaluate resources • Prefer natural language 16
  • Common Findings: The Catalog “It is very clear that Google has emerged as a real force in the accessing and discovery of research content which is rivalling university library catalogues.” (Hampton-Reeves, Stuart, Claire Mashiter, Jonathan Westaway, Peter Lumsden, Helen Day, Helen Hewerston, and Anna Hart. 2009. Students‟ use of research content in teaching and learning: A report of the Joint Information Systems Council (JISC), p. 30) 17
  • Common Findings: The Catalog • Value databases & other online sources • Do not understand what resources available in libraries • Cannot distinguish between databases held by a library & other online sources • Library OPACs difficult to use 18
  • Common Findings: The Catalog • Search behaviors vary by discipline • Desire seamless process from D2D • Sciences most satisfied • Social Sciences & Arts & Humanities have serious gaps • Foreign language materials • Multi-author collections • Journal back files • Lack of specialist search engines 19
  • Common Findings: Metadata • Inadequately cataloged resources result in underuse • Library ownership of sources essential data element • Differences exist between the catalog data quality priorities of users & librarians 20
  • Contradictory Findings • “Google generation” • Search engine speed • Support for library OPAC advanced search options & social features 21
  • Conclusions • Preference for independent information seeking • Confident in research abilities 22
  • What Does This Mean for Libraries? • • • • Keep talking Keep moving Keep the gates open Keep it simple 23
  • Implications for Information Services • Market services • Better advertise library brand • Provide search help at time of need • Chat & IM help during search • Provide more authoritative, reliable digital sources • E-journals, data sets, VREs, open source materials, multimedia objects, blogs • Develop economic model for resources 24
  • Implications for Information Systems • Make library experience more like the Web • Google, Amazon.com, iTunes • Build on & integrate search engine features • Adopt user-centered development approach • Longitudinal data • Talk to and listen to users 25
  • Implications for Research • Investigate how and why people get information in different contexts and situations • Theoretical research combining individual and social factors that influence information-seeking behaviors • Longitudinal studies of users 26
  • Digital Visitor Digital Resident
  • Old people just don‟t get this stuff 28
  • Research Addressing Digital Learners • Need for a longitudinal study “to identify how individuals engage in both the virtual and physical worlds to get information for different situations” (Connaway & Dickey 2010, p.56). • The information literacy of young people, has not improved with the widening access to technology: in fact, their apparent facility with computers disguises some worrying problems (Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research 2008). • Academic staff perceive students as being more digitally capable than is really the case (Beetham, McGill, and Littlejohn 2009). 29
  • “I think that lots of like companies and people away from my generation think that we rely and we‟re obsessed with gadgets and gizmos and everybody has to buy the newest iPhone and iPad and newest everything. At the end of the day, as a student, are you really know is that is what the internet is for. How you get to it – it doesn‟t matter if you don‟t own a computer and you have to come to the library to use it. Um…like it‟s available to you and you don‟t care like how you get it.” (WorldCat.org Focus Group Interview UKU4th year university student) 30
  • “…our generation isn‟t technology orientated. I think it‟s always a stereotype.” (Participant UKS4) 31
  • = 32
  • Video: goo.gl/dny1h Paper: goo.gl/RFSLz 33
  • 34
  • Visitors and Residents: What motivates engagement with the digital information environment? • Funded by • JISC • OCLC • Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. • Oxford University • David White • University of North Carolina, Charlotte • Donna Lanclos, Ph.D. 35
  • Visitors and Residents Study 36
  • 37
  • Objectives • Eliminate assumed links between age and technological engagement • Create a matrix of implementation options 38
  • Phase 1 Pilot stage: Months 1-6 • Emerging educational stage • 30 participants • 15 in the US • 15 in the UK • Quantitative data: Demographics, number of occurrences of technologies, sources, and behaviors. • Qualitative data: Themes and direct quotes. 39
  • Phase I Participant Demographics • 30 participants • 19 females, 11 males • 21 Caucasian, 3 African-American, 1 Caucasian-Thai, 1 Hispanic, 4 unidentified • 15 secondary students • 15 university students 40
  • US vs. UK Participant Ages 8 7 6 5 4 US 7 3 UK 6 5 2 4 3 1 0 2 0 1 1 16 years old 17 years old 18 years old 19 years old 1 0 0 20-30 years 30+ years old old 41
  • US vs. UK Participant University Majors US (8 of 15) UK (7 of 15) • 5 Engineering • 3 Teaching • 1 Political Science • 1 Chemical Biology • 1 Pre-Business • 1 Chemistry • 1 Undeclared • 1 History • 1 Languages 42
  • Participant Interview Questions 1. Describe the things you enjoy doing with technology and the web each week. 2. Think of the ways you have used technology and the web for your studies. Describe a typical week. 3. Think about the next stage of your education. Tell me what you think this will be like. 43
  • Participant Interview Questions, cont. 4. Think of a time when you had a situation where you needed answers or solutions and you did a quick search and made do with it. You knew there were other sources but you decided not to use them. Please include sources such as friends, family, teachers, coaches, etc. 5. Have there been times when you were told to use a library or virtual learning environment (or learning platform), and used other source(s) instead? 44
  • Participant Interview Questions, cont. 6. If you had a magic wand, what would your ideal way of getting information be? How would you go about using the systems and services? When? Where? How? 7. What comments or questions do you have for me? Is there anything you would like me to explain? What would you like to tell me that you‟ve thought about during the interview? 45
  • I. Place Codebook A. Internet 1. Search engine a. Google b. Yahoo 2. Social Media a. FaceBook b. Twitter c. You Tube d. Flickr/image sharing e.. Blogging B. Library 1. Academic 2. Public 3. School (K-12) C. Home D. School, classroom, computer lab E. Other 46
  • II. Sources Codebook A. Human 1. Mother 2. Father 3. Extended family (siblings, cousins, relatives, children, spouses) 4. Experts/Professionals 5. Friends/Colleagues („mates‟) 6. Teachers/Professors 7. Peers (school, university colleagues but not „friends‟) 8. Librarians 9. Other B. Digital 1. E-books 2. Online textbooks 3. Databases 4. Websites 47
  • Facebook is for administration & social communication 48
  • Don‟t mention Wikipedia! English The Free Encyclopedia 3 642 000+ articles Deutsch Die freie Enzyklopädie 1 233 000+ Artikel Français L’encyclopédie libre 1 106 000+ articles Italiano L’enciclopedia libera 803 000+ voci Polski Wolna encyklopedia 802 000+ haseł 日本語 フリー百科事典 750 000+ 記事 Español La enciclopedia libre 761 000+ artículos Русский Свободная энциклопедия 714 000+ статей Português A enciclopédia livre 685 000+ artigos Nederlands De vrije encyclopedie 688 000+ artikelen 49
  • Sources 50
  • Contact 51
  • Agency 52
  • 53
  • Convergence “Google doesn’t judge me” (UKF3) 54
  • People 55
  • Are they as confident as they say? 56
  • Diaries •6 US and 6 UK transitional stage students •Share information-seeking situations each month •Communicate them in any format 57
  • Diaries All selected EMAIL Why? “It‟s for formal communication” 58
  • Current Project Status •Completed 30 interviews Emerging Stage students •Collected 12 diaries for 3 months •Developed code book •Analyzed 30 interviews •Began 30 interviews • Establishing Stage students • Embedding Stage students • Experienced scholars •Collecting 30 diaries for 4-6 months 59
  • Future Phases • Phase 3: Months 13-24 • Track 24 participants • Online survey of 400 students and scholars • Continue diaries • Phase 4: Months 25-36 • Add 6 Emerging Stage students • Continue diaries 60
  • Selected Readings Beetham, Helen, Lou McGill, and Allison Littlejohn. Thriving in the 21st Century: Learning Literacies for the Digital Age (LLiDA Project). Glasgow: The Caledonian Academy, Glasgow Caledonian University, 2009. http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/llida/LLiDAReportJune2009.pdf. Bullen, Mark, Tannis Morgan, and Adnan Qayyum. Digital Learners in Higher Education: Generation is Not the Issue. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37, no. 1 (Spring 2011). http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/550/298. Calhoun, Karen, et al. Online Catalogs: What Users and Librarians Want: An OCLC Report. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, 2009. http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/onlinecatalogs/default.htm. Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research. Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future: A CIBER Briefing Paper. London: CIBER, 2008. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmemes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni. 2007. “Mountains, valleys, and pathways: Serials users‟ needs and steps to meet them. Part I: Identifying Serials Users‟ Needs: Preliminary Analysis of Focus Group Interviews and Semi-structured Observations at Colleges and Universities.” Serials Librarian 52(1/2): 223236. 61
  • Selected Readings Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Timothy J. Dickey. The Digital Information Seeker: Report of the Findings from Selected OCLC, RIN, and JISC User Behaviour Projects. 2010. London: HECFCE. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerrep ort.pdf. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Timothy J. Dickey, and Marie L. Radford. “„If it is too inconvenient I‟m not going after it:‟ Convenience as a Critical Factor in Information-seeking Behaviors.” Library & Information Science Research 33, no. 3 (2011): 179-90. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Chandra Prabha, and Timothy J. Dickey. Sense-making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs. Phase III: Focus group Interview Study. Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03- 0062-03, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Columbus, Ohio: School of Communication, The Ohio State University, 2006. http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/imls/default.htm. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Marie L. Radford. Seeking Synchronicity: Revelations and Recommendations for Virtual Reference. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research, 2011. http://www.oclc.org/reports/synchronicity/full.pdf. 62
  • Selected Readings Consortium of University Research Libraries, and Research Information Network. Researchers„ Use of Academic Libraries and Their Services: A Report. London: Research Information Network and Consortium of University Research Libraries (CURL), 2007. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/researchers-useacademic-libraries-and-their-serv. De Rosa, Cathy. College Students„ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 2006. http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/perceptionscollege.htm. De Rosa, Cathy. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 2005. http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/2005perceptions.htm. Dervin, Brenda, CarrieLynn D. Reinhard, Zack Y. Kerr, Mei Song, and Fei C. Shen, eds. Sensemaking the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs. Phase II: Sense-making Online Survey and Phone Interview Study. Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03-0062-03 to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Columbus, Ohio: School of Communication, Ohio State University, 2006. http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/imls/default.htm. 63
  • Selected Readings Hampton-Reeves, Stuart, Claire Mashiter, Jonathan Westaway, Peter Lumsden, Helen Day, Helen Hewerston, and Anna Hart. Students‟ Use of Research Content in Teaching and Learning: A Report of the Joint Information Systems Council (JISC). 2009. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/aboutus/workinggroups/studentsuseresearchcontent.pdf. JISC and UCL. JISC National e-Books Observatory Project: Key Findings and Recommendations: Final Report. 2009. http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/imls/default.htm. Nicholas, David, Ian Rowlands, and Paul Huntington. Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future: A CIBER Briefing Paper. London: CIBER, 2008. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf. Prabha, Chandra, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, and Timothy J. Dickey. Sense-making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs. Phase IV: Semi-structured Interview Study. Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03-006203, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Columbus, Ohio: School of Communication, The Ohio State University, 2006. http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/imls/default.htm. 64
  • Selected Readings Radford, Marie L., and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-user, and Librarian Perspectives: IMLS Final Performance Report. Report on Grant LG-06-05-0109-05, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 2008. http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/default.htm. Research Information Network. E-journals: Their Use, Value and Impact. London: Research Information Network, 2009. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminatingresearch/e-journals-their-use-value-and-impact. Research Information Network. Researchers and Discovery Services: Behaviour, Perceptions and Needs. London: Research Information Network, 2006. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and- accessing-information-resources/researchers-and-discovery-services-behaviour-perc. Warwick, Claire, Isabel Galina, Melissa Terras, Paul Huntington, and Nikoleta Pappa. “The Master Builders: LAIRAH Research on Good Practice in the Construction of Digital Humanities Projects.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23, no. 3 (2008): 383-96. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/13810/. 65
  • Selected Readings White, David , and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment. 2011. Funded by JISC, OCLC, and Oxford University. http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/vandr/. White, David S., and Alison Le Cornu. “Visitors and Residents: A New Typology for Online Engagement.” First Monday 16, no. 9 (2011). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3171/3049. Wong, William, Hanna Stelmaszewska, Nazlin Bhimani, Sukhbinder Barn, and Balbir Barn. User Behaviour in Resource Discovery: Final Report. 2009. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/inf11/userbehaviourbusandecon.aspx. 66
  • Image Credit • Slide 4: Vending machines: midoisyu http://www.flickr.com/photos/midorisyu/752223850/ • Slide 24: Conversation: Peter Nijenhuis http://www.flickr.com/photos/peternijenhuis/199686509/ • Slide 27: Porto Riberia: lanier67 • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lanier67/5253473681 • Slide 54: Glasses face: peterburnham, http://www.flickr.com/photos/pburnham/5238764188/ 67
  • The researchers would like to thank Dr. Alison LeCornu and Erin Hood for their assistance in keeping the team organized, scheduling and conducting interviews, and assisting with the analysis of the data, and the dissemination of the results of the Digital Visitors and Residents project. 68
  • Discussion Lynn Silipigni Connaway connawal@oclc.org 69