@charbooth
IL 2009   L O C A L   U S E R   R E S E A R C H   UC Berkeley




* O b l i g a t o r y    C l e v e r      S u...
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley
@charbooth
IL 2009
                       UC Berkeley




          technolust
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley




   us      them
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley
@charbooth
IL 2009
                             UC Berkeley




          @ weelib ra rian
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley
@charbooth
IL 2009
                         UC Berkeley




          @ wi llk urt
@charbooth
IL 2009
                         UC Berkeley




          @ wi llk urt
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley
@charbooth
IL 2009
                      UC Berkeley




          @ griffey
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley
@charbooth
IL 2009
          UC Berkeley
@charbooth
 IL 2009    L O C A L   U S E R   R E S E A R C H    UC Berkeley




* O b l i g a t o r y   C l e v e r     S ...
@charbooth
IL 2009       L O C A L    U S E R   R E S E A R C H       UC Berkeley




T a k i n g     t h e     A s s   o ...
@charbooth
IL 2009       L O C A L   U S E R   R E S E A R C H        UC Berkeley




o r ,     P u t t i n g   t h e   A ...
the point.




    * und ersta nding local patr on cultur es is essentia l
      to cr ea ting used and useful (technolog ...
the digital divide.




  them                us
them.
them.
us.
(them   *   us)/context = ?
the panacea.




               LIBRARY 2.0



               them     us
the questions.




    * did lib r ar y 2.0 and us/them think ing created a one-
     size-fit s all app r oach to technolo...
our context.


                              Oh ioLINK participan t

  20, 00 0+ stude nts                                ...
the 2.0 “strategy”.

                  wikis


                          Meebo reference


                               ...
the (staff) problem.

                                                         = normal
                wikis
            ...
the (user) problem.



                               Meebo reference
         Second… Life


                            ...
the (user) problem.



                               Meebo reference
         Second… Life


                            ...
the solution.

 * investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
  need s/cultures of Ohio University students.
the solution.

 * investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
  need s/cultures of Ohio University students.


      ...
the solution.

 * investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
  need s/cultures of Ohio University students.


      ...
the methodology.

 * investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
  need s/cultures of Ohio University students.


   ...
findings | student technology ownership
findings | use of emerging technologies by age

                                      age of respondent
                  ...
findings | use of emerging technologies by age

                                       age of respondent
                 ...
findings | use of emerging technologies by age

                                       age of respondent
                 ...
findings | use of emerging technologies by age

                                       age of respondent
                 ...
findings | relative technology unfamiliarity
findings | in-person and virtual library use


                         library web visits
  library computer use         ...
findings | open-ended library assessment
findings | library technology receptivity
findings | library technology receptivity

                                    Digital      Status               Academic ...
findings | library predisposition

                                      Digital      Status               Academic       ...
the discovery.


             * generat ional assump ti ons




                 li brary pred isposit ion
local user research.




                   redefining
  them                         us
the report   +   sample survey instrument.

                    ti nyurl.com/i i-b ooth
the end.




           * cha r boot h | @charb ooth
            e-l ea rning li brarian | uc berk eley
            cboot ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

local user research: taking the 'ass' out of assumption

1,245

Published on

Slides from a presentation I gave at the 2009 Internet Librarian conference in Monterey, California, on 27 October 2009. I discussed findings from a research report I published in April of 2009: Informing Innovation (tinyurl.com/ii-booth), and the importance of investigating local technology/library cultures for project planning and prioritization.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,245
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

local user research: taking the 'ass' out of assumption

  1. 1. @charbooth IL 2009 L O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C H UC Berkeley * O b l i g a t o r y C l e v e r S u b t i t l e
  2. 2. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley
  3. 3. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley
  4. 4. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley technolust
  5. 5. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley us them
  6. 6. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley
  7. 7. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley @ weelib ra rian
  8. 8. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley
  9. 9. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley
  10. 10. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley @ wi llk urt
  11. 11. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley @ wi llk urt
  12. 12. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley
  13. 13. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley
  14. 14. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley
  15. 15. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley @ griffey
  16. 16. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley
  17. 17. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley
  18. 18. @charbooth IL 2009 UC Berkeley
  19. 19. @charbooth IL 2009 L O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C H UC Berkeley * O b l i g a t o r y C l e v e r S u b t i t l e . . .
  20. 20. @charbooth IL 2009 L O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C H UC Berkeley T a k i n g t h e A s s o u t o f A s s u m p t i o n
  21. 21. @charbooth IL 2009 L O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C H UC Berkeley o r , P u t t i n g t h e A s s i n A s s e s s m e n t
  22. 22. the point. * und ersta nding local patr on cultur es is essentia l to cr ea ting used and useful (technolog y) ser vices. envir onmenta l scan ning is a scalab le mea ns of using data to test your notions of true/fa lse.*
  23. 23. the digital divide. them us
  24. 24. them.
  25. 25. them.
  26. 26. us.
  27. 27. (them * us)/context = ?
  28. 28. the panacea. LIBRARY 2.0 them us
  29. 29. the questions. * did lib r ar y 2.0 and us/them think ing created a one- size-fit s all app r oach to technology develop ment? what motivates user s to integ ra te lib ra ries into their per sonal lear ning envir onments ?*
  30. 30. our context. Oh ioLINK participan t 20, 00 0+ stude nts be ta-toleran t cultu re ohio university libraries large cen tr al fac ility sup er wh ite 24/ 5 in fo com mons
  31. 31. the 2.0 “strategy”. wikis Meebo reference browser toolbars emerging Skype reference services video kiosks social site profiles podcasts blogs
  32. 32. the (staff) problem. = normal wikis = benign Meebo reference = risqué = scary browser toolbars emerging skype reference services video kiosks social site profiles text reference podcasts Second Life blogs video blogs
  33. 33. the (user) problem. Meebo reference Second… Life video kiosks? blogs text reference skype reference browser toolbars social site profiles video blogs “wikis” …podcasts
  34. 34. the (user) problem. Meebo reference Second… Life video kiosks? blogs text reference skype reference technolust browser toolbars social site profiles video blogs “wikis” …podcasts
  35. 35. the solution. * investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y need s/cultures of Ohio University students.
  36. 36. the solution. * investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y need s/cultures of Ohio University students. env ir o nm e nt al sc a n evaluate needs prioritize goals challenge assumptions understand users
  37. 37. the solution. * investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y need s/cultures of Ohio University students. env ir o nm e nt al sc a n use adoption use perceptions technology library skills ownership skills receptivity
  38. 38. the methodology. * investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y need s/cultures of Ohio University students. env ir o nm e nt al sc a n Survey 1 Survey 2 time f ra m e Wi nt e r Q ua r t e r 2 0 0 7- 8 Sp ri n g Q u ar t er 2 0 0 8 55 o n l in e q ues t i on s , mo s tl y 22 o n l in e q ues t i on s , m ul t i pl e desi g n clos ed - f or m ( Li ke r t s c al e , m ul t . choi c e a nd o p en r es po ns e choi c e ) scop e te ch n o l og y a nd l i br a r y u s e lib r ar y us e a nd p er c e pt i on s 3,648 r es po n d ent s (1 8% o f 1,651 r es po n d ent s (8 % o f samp l e st ude nt bo d y ) st ude n t bo d y ) ince n ti v e 3 $100 p ri zes a w ar d ed 1 $100 p ri ze aw ar de d prom o ti o n all- s tu d en t e ma i l , l i b r ar y b l o g all- s tu d en t e ma i l , l i b r ar y b l o g anal y si s de s c ri pt i ve s , c ro ss ta b s cod ed v er ab a ti m r es po ns e s
  39. 39. findings | student technology ownership
  40. 40. findings | use of emerging technologies by age age of respondent 1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 31+ w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3% s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0% blogs 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0% w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3% p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1% t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1% wikis 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8% f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5% m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9% f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8% y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5% t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5% d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%
  41. 41. findings | use of emerging technologies by age age of respondent 1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 31+ w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3% * s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0% blogs 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0% w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3% * p o d c as t s t e x t in g 2 9% 8 9% 2 9% 8 5% 3 5% 6 7% 3 7% 5 8% 4 1% 5 1% * wikis 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8% f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5% m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9% * f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8% y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5% t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5% * d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%
  42. 42. findings | use of emerging technologies by age age of respondent 1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 31+ w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3% s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0% blogs 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0% * w e b - b a s ed i m p o d c as t s 7 1% 2 9% 6 6% 2 9% 5 9% 3 5% 5 4% 3 7% 4 3% 4 1% * t e x t in g wikis 8 9% 6 5% 8 5% 7 1% 6 7% 7 4% 5 8% 7 3% 5 1% 7 8% f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5% * m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9% f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8% * y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5% t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5% d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%
  43. 43. findings | use of emerging technologies by age age of respondent 1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 31+ w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3% s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0% blogs 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0% w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3% p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1% t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1% wikis 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8% f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5% m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9% f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8% y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5% * t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5% d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%
  44. 44. findings | relative technology unfamiliarity
  45. 45. findings | in-person and virtual library use library web visits library computer use library visits
  46. 46. findings | open-ended library assessment
  47. 47. findings | library technology receptivity
  48. 48. findings | library technology receptivity Digital Status Academic Status n a t i ve i m m i gr a nt u n d e rg r ad u a t e g r a d ua t e Very r e ce p t i ve 23% 42% 23% 33% S o m e wh a t r e c ep t iv e 53% 47% 53% 45% N o t r e c ep t i v e 24% 11% 24% 22%
  49. 49. findings | library predisposition Digital Status Academic Status n a t i ve i m m i gr a nt u n d e rg r ad u a t e g r a d ua t e * Very r e ce p t i ve S o m e wh a t r e c ep t iv e 23% 53% 42% 47% 23% 53% 33% 45% * N o t r e c ep t i v e 24% 11% 24% 22% * * *
  50. 50. the discovery. * generat ional assump ti ons li brary pred isposit ion
  51. 51. local user research. redefining them us
  52. 52. the report + sample survey instrument. ti nyurl.com/i i-b ooth
  53. 53. the end. * cha r boot h | @charb ooth e-l ea rning li brarian | uc berk eley cboot h@li brary .berkeley .edu bl og: infomat ional.com
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×