Yang and Dalal- Digital reference: a survey of its popularity as a reference tool and technologies used by the US academic libraries

Digital Reference: A Survey Of Its Popularity As A Reference Tool And Technologies Used By The US Academic Libraries

IFLA 2013 SATELLITE MEETING ON INFORMATION LITERACY & REFERENCE SERVICES, NATIONAL LIBRARY OF SINGAPORE

August 15-16, 2013

Sharon Q. Yang & Heather Dalal

Rider University New Jersey, USA

Purpose of the Study

• Population-Academic libraries in North America (Canada and the US)

• Questions – How do they provide virtual/digital reference?

– What technologies do they use?

– Evaluation of current practice

– Any possible correlation between the digital reference and characters of libraries and institutions?

Methodology

• A Random sample from 2013 Peterson’s Four-Year Colleges

• Peterson’s is considered the most comprehensive source for colleges and universities

• Library websites of 362 out of 2583 academic institutions

• A sample of 14%

• 95% confidence level

• +5 confidence interval or error rate

340 Available vs. 22 Missing

Yes, 93.9%

No, 6.1%

Library Websites in the Sample

Available 340

Missing 22

Total 362

47.2% of the Libraries Provide Chat

Missing, 6.1%

No, 46.7% Yes, 47.2%

Libraries That Provide Chat

Missing 22

No 169

Yes 171

Total 362

Chat is defined as a widget/box on embedded on a website. Chat does not require user to have a client or account.

Location for Chat on the Web

Missing, 6.1%

None, 46.7%

Sub, 31.2%

Main, 16.0%

Chat Location

Missing 22

None 169

Sub 113

Main 58

Total 362

What Is the Best Location for Chat?

Main, 34%

Sub, 66%

Chat Location

Main 58

Sub 113

Total 171

Top Five Chat Programs Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

LibraryH3lp QuestionPoint LibChat Zoho KnowItNow24/7

Series1 71 29 22 10 7

Chat Technology

The most Popular Chat Technology

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

LibraryH3lp QuestionPoint LibChat Zoho KnowItNow24/7 The rest

Series1 71 29 22 10 7 41

Chat Technology

Who Provided Chat?

In House, 34.3%

No Chat, 46.7%

Consortia, 9.4%

Some librarians that

participate in a consortia

for after hours, 3.6%

Missing, 6.1%

Chat Provider

In House 124

No Chat 169

Consortia 34

Some librarians that participate in a

consortia for after hours 13 Missing 22

Total 362

Use of IM Technology

Missing, 6.1%

No, 87.6%

Yes, 6.4%

IM

Missing 22

No 317

yes 23

Total 362

Though some libraries use the words chat and instant messenger interchangeably, we have defined instant messenger as services that require the user to have an account to

communicate. (i.e. AOL instant messenger)

Most Popular IM Technologies

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Yahoo AIM Google Talk MSN IM (Instant Messenger)

ICQ

Series1 16 15 13 10 3 2

IM Technology

Most Popular IM Technologies

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Yahoo AIM Google Talk MSN IM (Instant Messenger)

ICQ The rest

Series1 16 15 13 10 3 2 7

Chat Technology

How Many Libraries Provide Text?

Missing, 6.1%

No, 69.9%

Yes, 24.0%

Text

Missing 22

No 253

Yes 87

Total 362

Emails

17.4%

9.9%

65.7%

1.7%

5.2%

Email

Library email address present – not specific

to reference 63

No email address for either library or

reference 36

There is an email address for the reference

desk or askalibrarian 238

Only University Email 6

Missing 19

Total 362

How Many Types of Technologies Libraries Offer?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

offer 1 offer 2 offer 3 offer 4 offer 5 Offer 6 Offer 7

Series1 46 58 70 59 29 4 0

Chat, IM, Knowledge Base, Email, Phone, Vedio Chat, Text

Q&A

Presenters

Dr. Sharon Yang, Associate Professor/Systems Librarian ([email protected])

Ms. Heather Dalal, Assistant Professor/Emerging Technologies & Instruction Librarian ([email protected])

Rider University, New Jersey, USA (www.rider.edu; library.rider.edu)

Sharon Yang & Heather Dalal

Rider University New Jersey, USA

Q&A