local user research: taking the 'ass' out of assumption
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

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

on

  • 1,984 views

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: ...

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,984
Views on SlideShare
1,940
Embed Views
44

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
13
Comments
0

3 Embeds 44

http://infomational.wordpress.com 34
http://www.slideshare.net 9
http://www.facebook.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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

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

  • @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
  • @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 u b t i t l e . . .
  • @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
  • @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
  • 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.*
  • 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 technology develop ment? what motivates user s to integ ra te lib ra ries into their per sonal lear ning envir onments ?*
  • 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
  • the 2.0 “strategy”. wikis Meebo reference browser toolbars emerging Skype reference services video kiosks social site profiles podcasts blogs
  • 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
  • the (user) problem. Meebo reference Second… Life video kiosks? blogs text reference skype reference browser toolbars social site profiles video blogs “wikis” …podcasts
  • the (user) problem. Meebo reference Second… Life video kiosks? blogs text reference skype reference technolust browser toolbars social site profiles video blogs “wikis” …podcasts
  • 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. env ir o nm e nt al sc a n evaluate needs prioritize goals challenge assumptions understand users
  • 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
  • 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
  • findings | student technology ownership
  • 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%
  • 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%
  • 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%
  • 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%
  • findings | relative technology unfamiliarity
  • findings | in-person and virtual library use library web visits library computer use library visits
  • findings | open-ended library assessment
  • findings | library technology receptivity
  • 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%
  • 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% * * *
  • 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 h@li brary .berkeley .edu bl og: infomat ional.com