@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