This document summarizes a study analyzing chat transcripts from Georgetown Law Library's virtual reference service between 2008-2009. Key findings include that students were the primary users and asked most ready reference, extended reference, technical, and policy questions. The months of September, March, and February had the most chat traffic. The study impacted Georgetown's chat services by increasing training, changing staffing models, and identifying opportunities for future research like analyzing question types and gaps in legal research instruction.

1. Chat 2.0: Renovating Virtual Reference
Yasmin Morais Sara Sampson
Cataloging Librarian Head of Reference
Charles A. & Hilda H.M. Mason Law Library Georgetown Law Library
University of the District of Columbia

2. Agenda
• Review of content analysis
– Methodology
– Findings
• Impact of study on chat service at
Georgetown Law
• Ideas for future research

3. Georgetown Law’s Chat History
• Started as a pilot in January 2005 with limited hours
Wednesday – Saturday
• Full implementation of Live Help in Spring 2005
• Approximately 67 hours of chat service now available
during academic year
– 40 hours during breaks and summer
• Use Timpani software (LivePerson service)

4. Methodology
• Content analysis of chat transcripts from 2008
– Accessed
– Analyzed
– Coded
– Double-checked
– Data entry and analysis

5. Definition of Query Types
Four query types:
– Ready Reference
– Extended Reference
– Technical
– Policy

6. Query Types By Groups

7. Combined Query Types

8. Student Question Types

9. Faculty Question Types

10. Alumni Question Types

11. Summary of Findings
• Transcripts yielded a total of 2,303 reference
queries
• September, March, and February were top
months for chats
• Students led on all four query types
• After students, alumni led faculty on both
reference and policy queries
• After students, faculty are asking more known
items and technical queries than alumni

12. Anecdotal Findings
• Students use chat service while in the library.
• Students really like this service.
• We answer really tough questions!
• Never assume patrons know what services we
offer (e.g., ILL)
• Never assume patrons know how to find items
in our collection (e.g., e-journal finder)

13. Impact of Study on
Georgetown’s Chat Service
• Increased Training
– Software features
– Reference Roundtable
– Chat vs. in-person reference
• Change in staffing model
– Multiple back-ups
– Staff chat from offices instead of reference desk
– No change in who staffs reference
• Collaborative Reference
• Virtual Research Consultations

14. Ideas for Future Research
• How do sub-groups (e.g. part-time students vs.
full-time students) use chat differently?
• Did we give the right answers to our patrons?
• Do they repeatedly ask for things that we don’t
have in our collection?
• Where are the patrons when they use chat?
• What subjects are they asking about?
• Do questions reveal a gap in legal research
instruction?

15. Questions or Comments?
• The final version of this presentation will be
posted on the Georgetown Law Library’s
website www.ll.georgetown.edu

16. Acknowledgements
• This project would not have been possible without the help of the following
persons at the Georgetown Law Library:
– Sara Burriesci – Electronic Services Librarian, who facilitated transcript
retrieval
– Barbara Monroe – Collection Development Librarian for assistance
with the institutional memory of chat at Georgetown
– Todd Venie, Leslie Street, Erie Taniuchi and Marina Veljanovska all
worked very hard to help with the coding of the transcripts.
– Georgetown Law Library’s Scholarly Writing Committee for review of
the draft article
– Georgetown Law Library’s generous two-week scholarly leave
facilitated completion of the draft article, which resulted from the
project