Library Science Articles PDF

The Library in the Life
of the User
Engaging with People Where
They Live and Learn
Compiled and co-authored by
Lynn Silipigni Connaway
The Library in the Life of the User:
Engaging with People Where They
Live and Learn
This compilation is © 2015 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
Individual copyright and licensing details related to the papers included

in this compilation are noted on their respective cover pages.
October 2015
OCLC Research
Dublin, Ohio 43017 USA
www.oclc.org
ISBNs: 1-55653-500-7 (978-1-55653-500-0)

OCLC Control Number: 924929722
Please direct correspondence to:

Lynn Silipigni Connaway
Senior Research Scientist, OCLC Research
lynn_connaway@oclc.org
Suggested citation:
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, comp. 2015. The Library in the Life of the User: Engaging with
People Where They Live and Learn. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Research. http://www.oclc.
org/content/dam/research/publications/2015/oclcresearch-library-in-life-of-user.pdf.
We’ve normalized some of the references and URLs in this report for consistency. URLs that
were not working at the time of publication were noted and their hyperlinks were removed
from the PDF file of this report. Alternative links were included when possible. The pagination
in these reports differs from the originals. Please keep this in mind when citing this work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research represented in this compilation was made possible by several strategic
partnerships as well as funding for several of the projects by the Institute of Museum
and Library Services (IMLS), in collaboration with The Ohio State University
and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and with Jisc, in collaboration
with Oxford University and the University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
Special thanks to Lorcan Dempsey for popularizing the phrase “The Library
in the Life of the User” and also to the following colleagues for their help in
editing and publishing this report: Melissa Renspie, Erin Hood, Linda Shepard,
Brad Gauder, Jeanette McNicol, Matt Carlson and Eric Childress.
CONTENTS
Introduction, by Lynn Silipigni Connaway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
1. Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities,

by Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Ixchel M. Faniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. What is Enough? Satisficing Information Needs, by Chandra Prabha,

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Lawrence Olszewski and Lillie Jenkins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3. “Screenagers” and Live Chat Reference: Living Up to the Promise,

by Marie L. Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4. Sense-making and Synchronicity: Information-seeking Behaviors of Millennials and Baby

Boomers, by Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Marie L. Radford, Timothy J. Dickey, Jocelyn
De Angelis Williams and Patrick Confer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5. The Digital Information Seeker: Report of Findings from Selected OCLC, RIN
and JISC User Behaviour Projects, by Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Timothy J. Dickey . . . . 97
6. “If it is too inconvenient I’m not going after it:” Convenience as a Critical Factor
in Information-seeking Behaviors, by Lynn Silipigni Connaway,
Timothy J. Dickey and Marie L. Radford. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7. User-centered Decision Making: A New Model for Developing

Academic Library Services and Systems, by Lynn Silipigni Connaway,
Donna Lanclos, David White, Alison Le Cornu and Erin M. Hood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8. Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital

Information Environment? by Lynn Silipigni Connaway, David White,
Donna Lanclos and Alison Le Cornu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
9. “I always stick with the first thing that comes up on Google. . .”

Where People Go for Information, What They Use, and Why
by Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Donna M. Lanclos and Erin M. Hood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
10. Meeting the Expectations of the Community: The Engagement-centered Library,

by Lynn Silipigni Connaway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
INTRODUCTION
The study of user behaviors, also referred to as information behavior, information-seeking

behavior research, or user studies is not a new line of inquiry. In 1931, Ranganathan wrote,
“Perhaps the most convenient method of studying the consequences

of this law will be to follow the reader from the moment he
enters the library to the moment he leaves it…” (337)
This reference to “follow the reader” sounds very similar to the ethnographic studies
and observations that have become more prevalent in LIS user behavior research. In
1940, when making a case for local funding of public libraries, McDiarmid stated:
“In order to answer the question, ‘What type of library service is

needed in the community?’… a great deal must be known regarding
the area to be served. What are the important factors in the library’s
community environment? What social changes have altered
this environment? These are questions which require historical,
geographical and social data and, hence, an important part of an
effective library survey is a study of the community itself.” (11)
The current economic climate, much like the environment McDiarmid described in 1940, has
drawn much attention to assessment in school and academic libraries as a way to articulate
the value of libraries within the academic environment. Assessment involves analyzing the
data made available through educational systems to measure student success, such as
retention and GPA, against service and resources provided by the library. It also involves
utilizing the data generated by library systems and services, such as web analytics and
feedback from those within the academic community regardless of whether they use the
library. If they do use the library, it is imperative to identify how and why they use it. If they
do not use the library, it is equally important to discover how and what they use to get
their information and to learn why they use these services and resources instead of those
provided by the library. We refer to this as user-centered assessment (Connaway 2014b).
Since the library is not the only game in town to get information and “the majority
of the population does not use libraries to get information” (Connaway 2013, 83), it
is important for the library to become embedded in the lifestyles of their users and
potential users (those who may not or who seldom use library services).1
Introduction
i
As a way to put this into a practical perspective, Dempsey (2015) discusses the importance
of thinking about the library in the life of the user instead of the traditional model of thinking of
the user in the life of the library. Again, this leads back to the fact that there are many more
convenient and familiar ways of getting information today than from the traditional library
environment. Many people do not think of the library as the first place to get their information.
This may be attributed to people not knowing that the services exist or that some of the existing
services are not familiar or do not fit into their workflows. Research indicates that people
associate the library with books and do not consider the library in relation to online resources or
reference services (Connaway, Dickey, and Radford 2011; Connaway, Lanclos, and Hood 2013;
Connaway and Radford 2011; De Rosa et al. 2005; De Rosa et al. 2010; Prabha, Connaway, and
Dickey 2006), which could be addressed with branding initiatives and marketing campaigns.
To address these issues we have developed an OCLC research theme titled user
studies. The rationale for this research activity is that by providing the library community
with behavioral evidence about individuals’ perceptions, habits, and requirements,
we can ensure that the design of future library services is all about the user.2
We have concentrated on identifying how people engage with technology and get
their information for both personal and academic situations. We have learned that
the context and situation of the information need often dictate how people behave
and engage with technology. These also influence how and why they select to use
resources, usually discovered through a web browser and that include freely available
resources, such as Wikipedia; human resources; and library resources.
Our research indicates the importance of developing relationships and engaging with
people. If they know us and trust us, they will seek us out when they need information and
they will recommend us and our services to others. When asked to identify successful
virtual reference encounters users cited instances when they did not receive an answer,
but when they had a good rapport with the librarian and the librarian was kind and helpful.
This exemplifies the importance of engagement and relationship building in both the online
and physical environments for the development of successful and effective services.
Based on our research, the following questions were asked in the

comments on “The Elusive User” blog post (Connaway 2014a).
1. If we try to identify how people find information and how and why they get their information
as well as how and why they choose to engage with specific technology, could we, as
librarians, provide services and systems that will meet some of these needs?
2. Is this attempting to take on more than librarians have the capacity to do, especially in
today’s environment of limited resources, or, is this something that we have an interest in
pursuing?
3. Should we only concentrate on those who currently use our resources and services,
subsequently developing personalized or “boutique” library services
(Priestner and Tilley 2012)?
These are questions that need to be openly discussed in order to develop a research agenda,
recommendations, and a plan for integrating the library into the life of the user. As the
information environment changes, we need to envision services that will fill a gap in people’s
The Library in the Life of the User: Engaging with People Where They Live and Learn
ii
professional and personal lives. Engagement around emerging issues, such as developing
data management plans and reuse practices and policies, networks of people and knowledge,
and creative designs for both physical and virtual spaces provide opportunities for librarians
to develop a library that fits into the lives of its users (Bannon, Guillermo, and Palfrey 2014).
This volume contains the following contributions, which represent a decade

of our collaborative work in the user studies OCLC Research theme.
1. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Ixchel M. Faniel. 2015. “Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting
user behaviours, shifting priorities.” SRELS Journal of Information Management 52, no. 1:
3–23. http://i-scholar.in/index.php/sjim/article/view/60392/51360.
S.R. Ranganathan’s Five Laws of Library Science provide a broad framework for
designing and evaluating library programs, activities and services. Even today,
the laws continue to be extensively cited suggesting their continued relevance.
This paper attempts to interpret the five laws in the present day context of
information abundance, digital revolution, currently available resources and
services, and user behaviors. It also includes ideas for the development of
library services that will better connect with users. After examining the changing
roles of the Five Laws on the basis of findings of recent research, the paper
suggests reordering and reframing of the Five Laws of Library Science.
2. Prabha, Chandra, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Lawrence Olszewski, and Lillie Jenkins. 2007.
“What is enough? Satisficing information needs.” Journal of Documentation 63, no. 1: 74–89.
http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/newsletters/prabha-satisficing.pdf.
In an “overloaded” information environment, many information users tend to
experience a sense of information inadequacy and anxiety. Insight into information
seeking can be gained by understanding how users seek information sources
and how they choose content to meet their needs. Yet the library and information
science literature has neglected to study how individuals decide what and how
much information is enough to meet their needs or goals. This paper extends the
information-seeking, -searching, and -gathering process to include how and when
individuals stop looking for information, given a goal or a task that creates the need
for information. It provides examples of satisficing information needs in relation
to the academic tasks that create a need for information in the first place. Role
theory and rational choice theory provide a framework for understanding why users
decide to stop looking for more information when searching for information.
3. Radford, Marie L., and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. 2007. “‘Screenagers’ and live chat
reference: Living up to the promise.” Scan 26, no. 1: 31–39. http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/
research/publications/newsletters/connaway-scan.pdf.
“Screenagers” are defined as 12-18-year-old members of the Millennial Generation
because of their affinity for electronic communication via computer, phone, television,
etc. screens (see Rushkoff 1996). These young Millennials are at home in the instant
messaging and chat environment. Their communication and information-seeking
behaviors often are distinctly different from those of other age cohorts and radically
different from those of the baby boomer generation. Libraries are providing Web-
based virtual reference services (VRS) as alternatives to traditional face-to-face (FtF)
Introduction
iii
reference services to meet the information needs of virtual as well as FtF library users.
This paper presents the revealing results of an international study of communication
and information-seeking including a series of three focus group interviews with 12–18
year olds and analysis of a random sample of 431 live chat reference transcripts
drawn from an international population. Focus group interviews with groups of urban,
suburban, and rural screenagers were conducted with the cooperation of public
and school librarians in collaboration with public school teachers. The findings from
these interviews reveal their communication and information-seeking preferences.
These groups have revealed that they use IM for socializing and collaborative
homework, yet perceive library VRS differently than these other virtual encounters;
they also express a preference for FtF encounters with librarians. Implications
and recommendations for school library chat reference services are identified.
4. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Marie L. Radford, Timothy J. Dickey, Jocelyn De Angelis Williams,
and Patrick Confer. 2008. “Sense-making and synchronicity: Information-seeking behaviors
of Millennials and Baby Boomers.” Libri 58, no. 2: 123–135. http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/
research/publications/library/2008/connaway-libri.pdf.
A major challenge facing today’s libraries is to develop and update both traditional and
digital collections and services to meet the needs of the multiple generations of users
with differing approaches to information seeking. The different characteristics and
information needs of Boomers and Millennials present a dichotomy for library service
and system development. This paper includes the results of two research projects
that investigated habits and needs of library users and potential users. Both studies
employed a multi-method research design to identify how and why individuals seek
and use information. The first study reports the findings of focus group interviews with
seventy-eight randomly selected participants, and fifteen semi-structured interviews
with a subset of these participants. The second study reports the results of focus group
interviews with twenty-three Millennials, and an analysis of 492 virtual reference services
(VRS) transcripts. The studies indicate that both generations consistently identify Google
and human sources as the first sources they use for quick searches. The younger
Millennials (Screenagers) mentioned consulting parents most frequently, while the
older Millennials consult friends and professors. Boomers indicated they consult their
personal libraries and colleagues. The findings have implications for the development
of next generation library online catalogs, as well as services, including VRS.
5. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Timothy J. Dickey. 2010. The digital information seeker:
Report of findings from selected OCLC, RIN, and JISC User Behavior Projects. http://www.
jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf.
A cursory search in Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts retrieved
2,486 items published 1958-2009 for the term user studies and 986 items published
during the same time period for the term user behavior. This indicates the massive
amount of literature available in the area of user behavior studies. This report is not
intended to be the definitive work on user behavior studies but to identify common as
well as contradictory findings reported in twelve major studies that were funded by
non-profit and government agencies published 2005–2009 and specifically addressed
electronic content, users’ perceptions of their information-seeking behaviors, and
library catalogs. The contradictory findings, may be attributed to the design of the
twelve studies. The research design is a combination of large-scale quantitative
iv
studies as well as qualitative studies that provide rich portraits of specific user groups.
Many of the findings presented in this meta-analysis could be used as hypotheses
for subsequent testing and generalization; therefore, the next logical step is to further
explore and quantify these findings by conducting large, random-sample online and
interview surveys. The findings from the twelve studies indicate that users want
access to even more full-text digital content. Though they value the traditional library
services and human sources of information, users are adapting to new realities in
the information world, and new opportunities in access to information resources.
*Note: Only the Executive Summary (pages 1–5) of this report is included in this publication.
6. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Timothy J. Dickey, and Marie L. Radford. 2011. “‘If It Is too
inconvenient I’m not going after it:’ Convenience as a critical factor in information-seeking
behaviors.” Library & Information Science Research 33, no. 3: 179–190.
In today’s fast-paced world, anecdotal evidence suggests that information tends to
inundate people, and users of information systems want to find information quickly
and conveniently. Empirical evidence for convenience as a critical factor is explored
in the data from two multi-year, user studies projects. Convenience is a situational
criterion in people’s choices and actions during all stages of the information-seeking
process. The concept of convenience can include their choice of an information
source, their satisfaction and ease of use with the source, and their allocation
of time for information seeking. Convenience especially is prevalent among the
millennials in both studies, but also is present in all demographic categories—age,
gender, academic role, or user or potential user of virtual reference services. These
two studies further indicate that convenience is a factor for making choices in a
variety of situations, including both academic information seeking and everyday-
life information seeking, although it plays different roles in different situations.
7. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Donna Lanclos, David White, Alison Le Cornu, and Erin M.
Hood. 2012. “User-centered decision making: A new model for developing academic
library services and systems.” IFLA World Library and Information Congress 2012 Helsinki
Proceedings: Libraries Now! Inspiring, Surprising, Empowering. http://conference.ifla.org/
sites/default/files/files/papers/wlic2012/76-connaway-en.pdf.
The Digital Visitors and Residents project is a longitudinal study that tracks US and UK
participants’ shifts in their motivations and forms of engagement with technology and
information as they transition between four educational stages. The quantitative and
qualitative methods, including ethnographic methods that devote individual attention to
the subjects, yield a very rich data set enabling multiple methods of analysis. Instead
of reporting general information-seeking habits and technology use, this study explores
how the subjects get their information based on the context and situation of their needs
during an extended period of time, identifying if and how their behaviors change.
8. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, David White, Donna Lanclos, and Alison Le Cornu. 2013. “Visitors
and Residents: What motivates engagement with the digital information environment?”
Information Research 18, no. 1, http://informationr.net/ir/18-1/infres181.html.
We have little understanding of what motivates individuals to use particular technologies
or spaces when engaging with the information environment. This lack of understanding
Introduction
v
also makes the task of facilitating digital literacy skills challenging. There are multiple
ways to engage in the information environment. Both physical and digital libraries as well
as a large number of open-access choices creates a competitive information environment
for schools and universities. The findings indicate that school or university resources
are not necessarily the first choices of the students and other members of the academic
community, who often choose the most convenient, easiest to use sources. The
findings from this research can inform academic institutions of current and perspective
students’ expectations of services and systems based on their engagement with
technology and their information-seeking behavior in different contexts and situations.
9. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Donna M. Lanclos, and Erin M. Hood. 2013. “‘I always stick with
the first thing that comes up on Google…’ Where people go for information, what they use,
and why.” EDUCAUSE Review Online (6 December), http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/i-
always-stick-first-thing-comes-google-where-people-go-information-what-they-use-and-why.
Networked environments and affordable devices make it easy and convenient to
access free information sources, whether human, digital, or physical. This paper
utilizes the visitors and residents framework to identify ways academic communities
discover, access, and evaluate digital information. The research focuses on where
people look for information, what sources they use, and why they choose and return
to these sources instead of other sources. One of the major findings identified in the
paper is the importance of relationship building in the context of engaging with the
academic community. The findings indicate that individuals do contact other people
when they need help or specific information. Examples for engagement are provided.
10. Connaway, Lynn Silipigni. 2013. “Meeting the expectations of the community: The
engagement-centered library.” Library 2020: Today’s Leading Visionaries Describe
Tomorrow’s Library, edited by J. Janes, 83–88. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
In order for libraries to be relevant in 2020, they will need to continue to adapt
and provide services for people to use, create, and curate information and
content. It will be important for librarians to develop partnerships with those who
create, collect, and analyze data sets in order to provide policies, systems, and
services for the storage, access, preservation, and shared use of these data
sets. Librarians, library users, and potential users indicate that relationships are
important. This may call for a different type of librarian in the future—one who
embraces change. New technologies, modes of communication, and delivery of
services will continue to force librarians to rethink the services of the moment. This
will require developing relationships with members of the community to provide
user-centered services and systems that meet their needs and expectations.
Libraries are impacted by the ways in which individuals engage with technology; how
they seek, access, contribute, and use information; and how and why they demonstrate
these behaviors and do what they do. This selection of work represents a progressive
line of inquiry that builds on our research findings and highlights our work in the areas of
embedding the library in community workflows and engaging individuals in context. It has
provided the library community with behavioral evidence about individuals’ perceptions,
habits, and requirements to help ensure that future library services are designed around
a set of expectations that have been influenced by consumer technologies and modern
research and learning environments—designed for the life of today’s library user.
vi
NOTES
1. See my blog post on hangingtogether.org, “The Elusive User” for more thoughts about this.
2. See the OCLC Research User Studies web page at http://www.oclc.org/research/themes/
user-studies.html for more information about this theme.
Introduction
vii
REFERENCES
Bannon, Brian, Tessie Guillermo, and John Palfrey. 2014. “The Public Library Reimagined.” Panel
presented at Aspen Ideas Festival, 29 June, in Aspen, Colorado. http://www.aspeninstitute.org/
policy-work/communications-society/our-work/dialogue-public-libraries.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni. 2013. “Meeting the Expectations of the Community: The Engagement-
Centered Library.” In Library 2020: Today’s Leading Visionaries Describe Tomorrow’s Library.
edited by J. Janes. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, p. 83–88.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni. 2014a. “The Elusive User.” Hangingtogether.org (blog).

http://hangingtogether.org/?p=4451.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni. 2014b. “Why Libraries? A Call for Use-centered Assessment.” Textos
Universitaris de Biblioteconomia I Documentacio 32, http://bid.ub.edu/en/32/connaway3.htm.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Timothy J. Dickey, and Marie L. Radford. 2011. “’If It Is Too
Inconvenient I’m Not Going After It:’ Convenience as a Critical Factor in Information-seeking
Behaviors.” Library & Information Science Research 33, no. 3: 179–190.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Donna Lanclos, and Erin M. Hood. 2013. “‘I Find Google A Lot Easier
than Going to the Library Website.’ Imagine Ways to Innovate and Inspire Students to Use the
Academic Library.” In Proceedings of the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL)
2013 conference, p. 289–300. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/
confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/Connaway_Google.pdf.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Marie L. Radford. 2011. Seeking Synchronicity: Revelations and
Recommendations for Virtual Reference. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research.
http://www.oclc.org/reports/synchronicity/full.pdf.
Dempsey, Lorcan. 2015. “From Infrastructure to Engagement: Thinking About the Library in the
Life of the User.” Keynote presented at Minitex 24th Annual Interlibrary Loan Conference, 12
May, in St. Paul. http://www.slideshare.net/lisld/from-local-infrastructure-to-engagement-thinking-
about-the-library-in-the-life-of-the-user.
De Rosa, Cathy, Joanne Cantrell, Matthew Carlson, Peggy Gallagher, Janet Hawk, and Charlotte
Sturtz. 2010. Perceptions of Libraries, 2010: Context and Community. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online
Computer Library Center.
De Rosa, Cathy, Joanne Cantrell, Diane Cellentani, Janet Hawk, Lillie Jenkins, and Alane Wilson.
2005. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership.
Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
IMLS. Institute of Museum and Library Services. https://www.imls.gov/.
Jisc. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/.
viii
McDiarmid, E. W. 1940. The Library Survey: Problems and Methods. Chicago: American Library
Association.
Prabha, Chandra, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, and Timothy J. Dickey. 2006. Sense-making the
Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of
Information Needs. Phase IV: Semi-structured Interview Study. Columbus, OH: School of
Communication, The Ohio State University.
Priestner, Andy, and Elizabeth Tilley, eds. 2012. Personalising Library Services in Higher
Education: The Boutique Approach. Farnham, England: Ashgate.
Ranganathan, Shiyali Ramamrita. 1931. The Five Laws of Library Science. London: Edward
Goldston, Ltd.
Rushkoff, Douglas. 1996. Playing the Future: What We Can Learn from Digital Kids. New York:
HarperCollins.
Introduction
ix
1
Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting
User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

OCLC Research
Ixchel M. Faniel, Ph.D.

OCLC Research
A reprint of:
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Ixchel M. Faniel, and K. S. Raghavan. 2015. “Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User
Behaviours, Shifting Priorities.” SRELS Journal of Information Management. 52(1), February 2015, p. 3–23.
http://i-scholar.in/index.php/sjim/article/view/60392/51360.
© 2015 Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission.
The article is an abridged version of: Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Ixchel M. Faniel. 2014. Reordering Ranganathan:
Shifting User Behaviors, Shifting Priorities. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research. http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/
publications/library/2014/oclcresearch-reordering-ranganathan-2014.pdf
The abridgement was done by Dr. K. S. Raghavan.
INTRODUCTION
When Ranganathan proposed his Five Laws of Library Science, he came out with
a comprehensive framework and guideline for evaluating library programmes,
library activities, and for formulating library policies and strategies. This is clearly
indicated by the fact that these statements continue to be extensively cited even
today, more than eight decades after their publication. Not only this, there have
even been attempts at reformulating these laws to suit the present context of
the Web, e-resources, multimedia resources and the resulting developments
in information services. Despite the fact that even at the time these laws were
formulated books were not the only kind of resources—magazines, newspapers,
films, audiorecordings and even microfiche were already in use—Ranganathan
stated his first law as “Books are for use.” This only suggests that he used the
term ‘books’ as a substitute for all kinds of media that existed at that time and
those that might come into existence in future. “Books are for use” is simply
too powerful a statement and too succinct to warrant much improvement.
Ranganathan, like Melvile Dewey, came on the scene at a time when information was scarce;
preserving library collections was a major professional concern of librarians. “Books are for
use” was the driver. Dewey’s classification system was essentially meant to help library users
understand how to access materials. Books continue to hold a powerful place in our cultural
psyche irrespective of whether it is read on paper or on a computer screen; the point is not,
and never was, the medium. When we say, “I just read a great book,” what is meant is that we
had positive and worthwhile experience digesting new information and transferring someone
else’s thoughts and ideas into our own. Conversely, when we say, “Oh, it was an awful book,”
what is meant is that it was not worth our time. These experiences hold true for information
or entertainment in any media. A Facebook like or Tweet about a research presentation or a
review on Goodreads transmits the same message: “I [processed] this [content], and I would
[recommend/not recommend] it to [audience].” It is essentially a new way of saying, “books are
for use,” “every reader his or her book,” or “every book its reader.” So are the following examples:
• Facebook post for a YouTube video;

• Embedded link to a scholarly article in a blog post;
• Good Google search rank on a particular phrase;
• Book cover picture on an Interest page.
The difference is that the notions of ‘book’ and ‘reader’ have expanded and are becoming
increasingly more and more complex. Applying Ranganathan’s laws to the situation
obtaining now shows the difference between the time in which Dewey and Ranganathan
worked and the information environment in which we operate today (table 1). We have
moved from an era of content scarcity to one of incredible abundance and diversity,
which is being contributed to by a multitude of channels and contributors. These
differences are at the centre of what has changed the interpretations of the five laws.
2
TABLE 1. RANGANATHAN’S FIVE LAWS: ORIGINAL AND NEW CONCEPTIONS
Ranganathan’s original
New conceptions in the current environment
statements
First law Books are E-books are Netflix is for Blackboard is

for use for reading watching for studying
Second law Every reader Every listener Every artist his Every student
his/her book his/her iTunes Photoshop his/her
EasyBib
Third law Every book Every blog Every Google Every digital
its reader its reader map its traveler repository its
researcher
Fourth law Save the time Save the time Save the time Save the
of the reader of the listener of the traveler time of the
researcher
Fifth law Library is

a growing
organism
Interestingly the fifth law —“Library is a growing organism”—has not changed. The library is
growing given the increasingly daunting array of content facilitated by librarians for individuals
to discover access and share. Libraries must provide access to not only externally produced
content but also content produced within the academic community.40 Librarians have moved
beyond their doors to bring relevant content to their user community and to make visible to the
outside world the content created by their user community clearly indicating an expansion in
the places in which librarianship occurs and the tools librarians use to help those they serve
achieve their goals. This brings us to the crucial issue being examined in this research, which
is: if materials have become so abundant that “books are for use” is now less about scarcity
and more about choice, availability, findability and share-ability, what does that do to the five
laws? This is not to suggest that it is time to abandon the laws, which are an enormously
helpful way to link the goals of librarianship with concrete programmes and activities. What
is being suggested here is that a reordering of the five laws be considered in a world where
information is becoming increasingly abundant in multiple formats and in a variety of settings.
This will help us keep topmost in our mind the way in which the digital and Web revolutions have
transformed the balance in our relationships with the user community, resources and services.
The following sections will look at what today’s librarians, library researchers and information
scientists have said about the changing roles of the five laws and also review relevant
literature to show how the five laws still apply, but where, we believe, it’s time for a change
in focus and emphasis. Findings from our research on user behaviour also will be included
to show how the Five Laws of Library Science are as relevant today as they were in 1931.
Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities
3
The new first law: save the time of the reader
Ranganathan had predicted that the fourth law, “save the time of the reader,” will become
more important once the requirements for the first three laws are satisfied. Given the vast
array of content being offered through a multitude of information service providers, scarcity
of time is the most pressing issue facing people today. It is proposed here that “save the time
of the reader” has become the most important of Ranganathan’s five laws and should be
the lens through which to interpret the others. Recent research indicates that in the changed
environment both saving time and convenience have become important to today’s information
seekers.25,28 As libraries have begun to operate alongside other information service providers,
such as Google, Amazon and Facebook, how people experience library services, particularly
online service, has become more important.40 Three aspects of time are discussed here:
• Time as simply time; a measure of how long it takes a user to achieve a desired outcome;
• Time as a shorthand for convenience or almost any efficiency-based value that users ascribe
to their experience with a library;
• Time as stand-in for the entire service experience beyond the actual quality of content,
materials, resources, etc.
EXAMINING THE LAW IN TODAY’S ENVIRONMENT

“Save the time of the reader” touches many aspects of how the library services are designed
and delivered; Gorman suggests that if applied correctly, the results have the potential to be
transformative.54 While preserving, cataloguing, presenting and distributing content continue
to be important aspects of librarianship, it is necessary to consider how these are carried
out as patrons want to satisfy their information needs not only quickly, but also conveniently.
Libraries must deliver online services that are compelling enough to attract their intended
community,51,52 ,64 provide meta-searching capabilities to support searching entire sets of
electronic resources, and link resolvers so that readers get access to the best source.16
TIME AS TIME
“Time as time” is the most literal reading of the law. Its significance can be linked to rational
choice theory. It is also supported by Savolainen’s91 concept of time as a context in information
seeking and gratification. What is different today is that it operates within the bounds of different
resources and information activities. Today, people are inundated with information requiring
review and evaluation to make choices, and time has become a significant constraint as a
result.28 They also are contributing more information. Moreover, many information activities are
taking place online. Students’ information searches have evolved from browsing books in the
stacks to submitting online queries to Google because it is quicker.2 “Millennials, by their own
admission, have no tolerance for delays.”96 They respond quickly to communications from others
and expect the same in return,75 especially from their information sources.17,18,27,29,101 According to
a Pew Research Center report, teachers report that digital technologies “encourage students to
assume all tasks can be finished quickly and at the last minute.”82 Yet, librarians and instructors
still are adjusting to meet the needs of students. Undergraduate and graduate students reported
a preference for searching the Web instead of the online library catalogue, because the Web
was fast and easy.48 Not surprisingly, the Internet and Wikipedia are used extensively to get an
initial overview of a topic.80 Head and Eisenberg report that “almost all” of the students in their
study “used course readings, library resources, and public Internet sites such as Google and
4
Wikipedia, when conducting courserelated research.”56 However, students’ use of Wikipedia
has been compared to a “covert, underground Learning Black Market”24,25,106 as its use often
is not acknowledged. In the United States and the United Kingdom, students reported citing
references in Wikipedia articles, but not the actual Wikipedia articles, because they believed
instructors did not value them as much as traditional information sources24–26. Librarians also
have been adjusting their systems and services for scholars who are now required to provide
better management and more accurate metadata for their scholarly works, including research
data. Operating within time constraints is an issue especially in the absence of automated
methods for metadata generation as these are labour-intensive and time consuming processes
suggesting the need for better understanding how scholars work and providing support for
improving their efficiency.21,44 For instance, national and professional bodies in archeology
have developed guidelines for data documentation to describe the types of documentation
expected, preferred file formats and data points desired.1,8,9,60,76 However, the guidelines often
do not accommodate the realities of field research; so their use in the area has been limited.47
TIME AS CONVENIENCE
Convenience encompasses more than the time it takes to fulfill an information need. There
is research to suggest that convenience is more important to people than quick service.25,28
Convenience is defined as “1.) fitness or suitability for performing an action or fulfilling a
requirement; and 2.) something (as an appliance, device, service) conducive to comfort or
ease” (Merriam-Webster.com). Convenience can be physical or virtual and is based on the
context and situation at the time of the need.23,26,30,31 Convenience influences people’s choices
and actions throughout the information-seeking process.28 Libraries do not seem to score
high because of limited hours, travel time and the time needed to do their research in the
library.25,26,31,81 Search engines are preferred; they are faster and more convenient—easier
to use, cost-effective and reliable (i.e., always available).37 A set of resources may be used
consistently simply because that method is now predictable and familiar.56 A study reported
that 74% of respondents did not choose the Internet because it was the best source; they
chose the Internet because it was the most convenient or easiest to use (93%) and did not
cost much in time or money. Simon93 had coined the term ‘satisfice’ (a combination of satisfy
and suffice) to refer to this kind of user behaviour. Library catalogues have long been the
point of discovery and delivery of content. However, today’s patrons are more likely to find
out about material using other online sources. Web searching has driven higher expectations
for online library catalogues. Users expect the interface to be familiar to them, which means
seeing their search results rated, reviewed and ranked by relevancy.10,18,23,25,26,28,31,40 Library
catalogues have long been the point of discovery and delivery of content. Web searching
has driven higher expectations for online library catalogues. Unfortunately, libraries have not
consistently employed their usage data to fully mobilize discovery services in the same way
as Google40 or Amazon. Providing seamless points of access to the content people discover
through other online services could be a point of distinction for libraries. There are studies to
suggest that people ranked delivery of items as important.10,20 The library services developed
with little input from end users are not easy to use and may have even alienated the users
rather than engaged them. Librarians have to acknowledge that individuals have relocated
much of their information activities to the Internet; therefore, librarians need to utilize the Web
as a place to engage people in new and different ways. Understanding the offline and online
lives of our communities will reveal opportunities to engage with them at times and in ways
that are both natural and surprising. We must remember that libraries represent a very small
subset of the information resources and activities people need today. And the new environment
5
challenges librarians to move from a simple declaration of “save the time of the reader” to a more
complex and interconnected priority of: Embed library systems and services into users’
existing workflows. A library should not add procedural drag to the information activities of its
community by asking users to learn separate systems for accessing separate types of media.
How can librarians make that happen? Start by accepting “save the time of the reader” as the
first law, then modify approaches to the other laws accordingly. Here are a few suggestions for
librarians to start rethinking how to apply the spirit of the “save the time of the reader” law:
Inform users
Marketing library services is important and libraries should make the total package of
library services appealing and inspiring so that they stand out as unique and essential
elements of the modern information ecosystem. Users of library systems should not be
required to leave one interface and go to another. Librarians should spend as much or
more time working with external systems as internal systems. Librarians should understand
end users’ pain points and what frustrates them. Users will be inspired when the high-
quality, authoritative and unique materials and services are easily found in a variety of
workflows. This is an education issue for librarians as much as it is for library users.
Look upstream
Looking upstream is about seeing user needs in a much larger context and
thinking broadly within the information profession and other professions related to
it. There are a number of factors that might be influencing people’s choices about
the systems and services they use. Legal issues related to intellectual property is
just one example of the kind of information support needed by our users.
CONCLUSION
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have been looking for ways to save time.
Even when libraries focus on the past as custodians of “cultural heritage” or “memory institutions”
it is often at the service of forwardlooking goals. The two objectives—to serve both the materials
that define our past and the people who will create our future—are not in opposition. And the
balance point is where “save the time of the reader” can be most powerfully applied as a kind of
skeleton key to unlock the potential for libraries to brilliantly impact the lives of our communities.
The second law

“Every person his or her book” clearly, connecting every user with the precise content they
need—whether from one library’s collection, the collective collection or the web collection—is of
paramount importance in distinguishing libraries from other information service providers in the
digital environment. There is no value in saving the time of the reader if we cannot pinpoint the
information the user needs. In the last eight decades evolutionary changes in technology have
impacted our world as well as our libraries. The forces reshaping the information landscape—
search engines, global connectivity, cloud computing, social networking, big data, hand-held
devices, to name but a few—are redefining once again what it means to be a teacher, a scholar,
a business person, a student, and a librarian. Nonetheless, the basic principles of Ranganathan’s
second law carry well into today’s world. In 1931, when he wrote his doctrine, Ranganathan’s
insistence on “every person” was meant to eliminate restrictions for accessing library collections.
The law also was concerned with matching a person’s information needs with the library
6
resources, which were primarily books in Ranganathan’s day. Ranganathan thought the books
in a library collection should be based on and responsive to individual demands, accompanied
by a professional, knowledgeable staff ready to guide, navigate and assist the information
seeker in the information quest. How does Ranganathan’s second law apply to the digital, Web-
transformed world where relationships with patrons, materials and programs are vastly different?
Rubin88 interprets this law first to librarians, who “should have excellent firsthand knowledge of
the people to be served,” and second to collections, which “should meet the special interests
of the community.” “Every person” means the library will serve all people in the community;
and “his or her book” refers to the content. In the following paragraphs, we will discuss the two
concepts in their original context, review research as to how they apply in today’s world, state our
interpretation of the second law in our new digital environment and make some recommendations
for how librarians can apply our interpretation to their operations. “Every person” exudes a strong
sense of public purpose, the fervent belief in access to information for all people—a central tenet
of librarianship. The efforts by librarians to bring workstations, licensed resources, web content,
information literacy and Internet connections to all segments of the population in all parts of the
world, even the most remote underscore the importance of available technology. However, the
context is shifting and is being redefined around e-content and a multitude of user segments
with differing needs of which librarians are not thoroughly knowledgeable. And in some cases,
this lack of knowledge may be driving potential users to other information service providers.
THE RISE OF E-CONTENT

Noruzi74 suggests that the second law could be “every user his or her web resource.” A major
challenge in fulfilling this is effectively managing the integration of electronic journals, e-books
and other e-resources into library collections and making that content discoverable and
accessible. Licensed e-content now is the largest collection expenditure for most academic
libraries. Locally produced e-content is getting more attention and resources as print collections
are moving into a shared environment for management and preservation. Local digital
assets and archives are being coordinated with large-scale digital archives. Stewardship of
unique assets associated with an institution, such as special collections and research data,
are being given increased priority and demand increased resourcing. Librarians also face a
challenge with how users perceive libraries’ provision of e-content. In one study, researchers
were found to “place a very high value on electronic journals, but a much lower value as yet
on libraries’ provision of other kinds of digital resources.”32 Studies also have reported that
university resources were not the first or second choice among academic communities and
were not accessed as often as open access materials.5,13,20,105 A 2005 survey found 90% of
respondents describing a search engine as a “perfect” or “good” fit for their lifestyle, whereas
only 49% did so for a library and fewer still for an online library.34 Librarians should try and
eliminate the obstacles preventing users from making effective use of electronic resources.
LIBRARIES AND BIG DATA

Thanks to federal funding agency mandates, academic libraries, especially in the U.S., are
increasingly being called upon to manage, curate, and/or preserve massive amounts of digital
assets—images, text and data. In February 2013, the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy issued a memorandum for science agencies to develop public access
policies for research outputs, including publications and data.59 Lavoie et al.67 present a
framework describing the materials generated during scholarly inquiry now being captured
before and after the dissemination of traditional published outcomes. Even though the role
of the academic library in aggregating and servicing these assets is still emerging, we see
7
libraries shifting attention from managing a narrowly defined set of materials produced at the
end of the research life cycle to managing a broader range of scholarly outputs produced
throughout the research life cycle. Kurt de Belder of the Leiden University Libraries (The
Netherlands) has described how the library has been gearing up to provide key services
related to scholarly outputs. These include virtual research environments, capacities in text
and data mining, support for data management and curation, and provisions for copyright
consultation and publication support. As the librarians move to becoming service experts,
they have been allocated time to develop their new skills. Early signs are that the shift has
been well received, with an uptake of new services, an emerging reputation of the library as
a “go-to” place and the library being included as a partner in developing funding requests33.
THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF INFORMATION SEEKING

Another major challenge facing libraries relates to developing and updating collections and
services to meet the needs of multiple generations of users with differing approaches to
information seeking. The different characteristics and information needs of Baby Boomers
and Millennials present a dichotomy for library service and system development. Research
also suggests that people are more familiar with search engines than with libraries.24,25,34
Differences in the information behaviour of Baby Boomers, Millennials and screenagers have
been reported. For example, Google is the first choice of Millennials and screenagers. Baby
Boomers, however, consult their personal libraries first. They also read more and visit libraries.
Screenagers also found online library catalogues difficult to use and so use Amazon.com as
a discovery tool and then go to the library website. There are generational differences with
Virtual Reference Services (VRS) as well. While Boomers’ problems were technical, it was
personal or hesitation to be involved in online anonymous chats for the other groups. Also,
cutting across the different groups was the problem of unfamiliarity with VRS; many did not even
know that such a service existed. In short, information-seeking and VRS research suggests
that librarians are not necessarily fully cognizant of how faculty and students use library
systems or how they view library services. A better understanding of the disparities may prove
beneficial to discovering ways to integrate library services in userpreferred environments.10,18,19
OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW

“Every person his or her book” is a demanding, and exacting task requiring knowledge of the
information needs and preferences of users in the community and anticipating and matching
what they will need in the future. Serving everyone with content requires greater care, effort and
attention today than before. In the global, interconnected world, we propose a new interpretation
of Ranganathan’s second law that keeps its principles intact but recognizes these changes
and extends a deeper sense of purpose for operating in today’s Web-dominated world. Our
modern day rephrasing of this law is: Know your community and its needs. The idea is to
extend its meaning beyond the people who come to the library and to include virtual users and
those who don’t use the library. The interpretation of the law also extends to needs beyond
physical materials and digital content into the growing demands of the diverse audiences
requiring new skills, new services, or new collaborations. For example, needs may range from
data management to device support to media expertise. Expanding programs and services to
meet some of these new needs will maximize library impact. Understanding community needs
is a critical success factor in today’s digital environment where so many information service
providers operate and community expectations for libraries are being set by experiences with
whiz-bang consumer technologies. Failing to embrace these new challenges may drive the
community elsewhere and diminish the library’s role in content management and delivery.
8
RECOMMENDATIONS
Meeting the demands of the second law requires that today’s librarians should become a part of
the communities they serve and be better informed about library communities and their needs.
We discuss four approaches for this:
• Performing traditional outreach: Traditional outreach allows librarians to keep a pulse on

what’s happening;
• Conducting user studies: User studies provide librarians with a means to take a systematic
approach to getting answers to a particular question or problem, e.g., what services are used
vs. not used;
• Developing collaborative work relationships with users (also known as embedded
librarianship) will help librarians develop a deep and shared understanding of user needs;
• Running analytics: Analytics is an application of Big Data. It is the ability to provide forward-
looking decisions based on historical data from multiple, disparate data sources. Librarians
increasingly will need to partner with institutional staff and external organizations to excel at
this activity.
All these approaches yield varied knowledge about which communities libraries are serving
and the needs of the communities. Librarians have to think about how the knowledge can
be purposefully applied to improving the library. They must know the issues facing the
community and understand, from the researchers’ perspective, why the community is facing
a particular issue. Librarians always have been needs focused.38,65,86,92,107 However, we
propose that librarians focus their engagement with faculty and students in three key ways:
• Start farther upstream in the research cycle at the point when researchers are planning their
studies;
• Focus attention on the research processes as well as the research products; and
• Consider the perspectives of those reusing as well as those producing the data.
The focus should be on understanding how the research unfolds and how the data are
generated, documented and re-used with respect to the researchers’ workflows.
CONCLUSION
Ranganathan’s second law is clearly applicable today and carries with it an expanded charge
in the new digital environment in which libraries are operating. “Every person his or her book” is
now know your community and its needs, with the reinterpretation calling for new services from
libraries and new skills from librarians along with continuing the key practices of today. Knowing
your community and its needs is a key step in developing these new programs and moving in
new directions will help libraries remain transformational places, as central to our shared future
as they have been to our shared past. The needs of the 21st century demand that librarians, who
serve the public good, develop new habits and mindsets to go along with the traditional roles
they have played. It is imperative to expand and extend the library’s presence in the community
by delivering new, needed services to changing user groups. Moving from “every person his or
her book” to know your community and its needs presents an opportunity to bring considerable
value to our communities through leadership, collaboration and a range of supporting services.
9
The new third law: books are for use
This emphasized the importance of use vis-à-vis preservation and implied that all library
procedures and actions and the attitude and behaviour of library staff should be geared to
realize this goal. However, many of the facilities considered novel during Ranganathan’s
time are commonplace today and are taken for granted. Librarians operating in today’s
increasingly complex information and technology infrastructure must provide proactive,
reliable service28 and must connect with users not merely within the physical library
building but also on the Internet so that current and prospective users know how to
reach the library and what resources exist beyond books. In this section we discuss the
opportunities and challenges of rethinking and expanding the physical and technical
infrastructure—the bricks and mortar facility and the browser-based digital doorway—
to extend access beyond books and to boost the library’s impact in the digital era.

Four simple words, “books are for use,” elicit a wide range of commentary from scholars
on what Ranganathan really meant in 1931 and its contemporary relevance. Some
emphasize the service role of the librarian, while others focus on the evolution of newer
resource formats and delivery mechanisms.4,6,16,51,52–54,64,74,102 Carr says that Ranganathan’s
first law “is, in effect, declaring that a library is a technology.”12 The perception of books
as the brand of the modern library endures.18,22,23,25,34,36 In a national survey of Americans
16 years or older, 80% responded that borrowing books is a “very important” service
libraries provide and 73% who had visited a library or bookmobile in the last year did so to
borrow print books.110 This indicates that books and book lending still are very important.
However, as librarians continue to extend their content and service offerings, they must
be careful that the library isn’t identified only as a source and provider of books.
Move beyond books

E-content and improved access are key. Libraries have never been about just books and even
at the time of Ranganathan’s writing, books were not the only materials libraries collected;
the law is not about books per se but about acquiring and making materials available for
use.54 Current scholars emphasize this point, going so far as to replace the word “books”
with terms that encompass the variety of content available including digital content.16,20,51,74
The digital content extends beyond e-journals and e-books to collections that contain such
things as older literature, sheet music, art images, biological specimens, archaeological
finds and scientific research data.22,46,47 These days, users—academics in particular—expect
everything to be accessible online and are easily frustrated when something is not.85
Research data are for use

Driven by demands to increase access to the results of state-sponsored research, librarians
have begun to develop services to ensure research data are for use.14,15,38,62,73,77 Studies by
Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and by Association of College and Research Libraries
(ACRL) report that finding relevant data and developing data management plans are among
current research data services provided by libraries.95,98 Just as Ranganathan argued that books
should be freely available to all, contemporary scholars are calling to make all content openly,
freely and easily accessible.16,51,74 As libraries move beyond books to create better access to
physical and digital materials, librarians have had to rethink the infrastructure to keep up with
10
changing times and to manage users’ social engagement with experts and peers in virtual
environments as well as Face-to-Face (FtF). Ranganathan had stressed improvements to
different aspects of the physical infrastructure. While the same holds true today, librarians also
must consider designing space for change. Information commons (or learning commons) at the
University of Southern California and the University of Iowa in the 1990s were early attempts
to provide technology-enabled spaces where students could collaborate and seek help from
library and computer services staff.68 There is no one-size-fits-all approach and more recent
reconfigurations of space have emphasized flexibility in the face of changing and, at times,
competing user needs.78,89 Some emphasize experimentation, such as the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte, that targeted the 11-day final exam period as “a key time to support—
and engage—stressed students.”58 A committee of nine library staff and faculty members
implemented changes to space and activities to BLAST the stress from students, including
bouncing ball activities, such as ping-pong and indoor sponge basketball; lounging opportunities
in comfortable seating and low tables; art activities with coloring books, Play-Doh® and puzzles,
etc. Maker spaces or creativity spaces are another example of places where students can
access specialist equipment to build, create and craft. By providing physical space and tools,
people can share resources and knowledge while engaging in hands-on experimentation.49
Change user perceptions

A major challenge is that users may not know the range of skills and services librarians
can offer and their failure to acknowledge the role librarians have in the online information-
seeking process. Users often do not recognize that the services they value are courtesy of
the library. Studies report that college and university students and faculty who value online
library catalogues and databases such as LexisNexis, PubMed and MEDLINE don’t associate
them with the library.18,23,34,36,80 Perceptions of the user community also have affected the
effectiveness of institutional repositories which remained practically empty given social,
organizational and technical barriers, including a poor understanding of faculty and student
motivations and incentives.72,90 Disciplinary data repositories face similar barriers.44,99,100

Ranganathan promoted the use of books and other library resources when the practice at the
time was to store and preserve them. He was not against the storage and preservation of books,
but he believed these activities should be conducted in order to make the resources available
for individuals to use them. It is safe to say that the core meaning of “books are for use” is about
access, and access remains a key issue more than 80 years since it first was identified by
Ranganathan. Today, freeing books from their chains takes on new meaning. Our interpretation
of the law is: Develop the physical and technical infrastructure needed to deliver physical
and digital materials as it is not just the availability of physical and digital materials that matters,
but more so the infrastructure—both physical and technical—that libraries put in place to capture
and deliver them. Today’s users often lack awareness of library offerings, whether materials,
technology, or services. The lack of awareness seems to rise in parallel with the increase in
library alternatives. There also are users who are accessing materials but don’t realize the
materials are being made available by the library. One way librarians can build user awareness
is through a revamped physical and technical infrastructure; redesigning physical space in the
library to offer creative areas open to the research and learning community as purposefully
redesigned spaces are what get people to come to the library. Once in the door, opportunities
present themselves to ramp up users’ awareness of the physical and digital resources available
in and accessible through the library. There are opportunities to introduce them to new
11
equipment and technologies and to provide assistance during use. It is also important to ensure
that users trust their virtual environment and its offerings. Trust can take on different meanings
based on the situation of use. While Millennials may want assurances about who is monitoring
Virtual Reference Services (VRS) before deciding to use them, scholars sharing and reusing
data through a digital repository may want assurances that the data are being preserved and
the repository is sustainable. Taking heed of the social dynamics at play in users’ decisions to
use and adopt technologies also must be part of the solution if libraries are to be successful.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As librarians continue to build infrastructure, it is important to build users’ awareness of
the changes as well as to maintain their trust. Although libraries enjoy a strong institutional
reputation within the communities they serve, that doesn’t necessarily translate into
increased library usage. We outline several recommendations for librarians to consider:
• Provide a warm transfer: By working FtF with individuals, library staff can help increase
trust on a personal level and can positively influence future library visits. A way to leverage
and extend the bond created between users and librarians in the physical environment is to
demonstrate online systems and services during in-person encounters.18
• Understand and internalize users’ interests: Identification plays a role in building trust in
organizations. How does an organization demonstrate that it identifies with its users? An idea
that is applicable even beyond the initial development cycle is to have users participate in
the development of library systems and services.103 Libraries also can show a commitment
to internalizing users’ interests at the point of need, e.g., by installing pop-up chat services
on library websites and in online catalogues when users are idle or their search retrieves no
sources.18 Some college and university librarians provide video introductions to themselves on
the library website or YouTube that are linked to the library website.69
• Be visible: The value librarians create across a range of activities also must be made more
visible so that librarians’ expertise is identified and eventually internalized.40 As library
services continue to evolve, we recommend incorporating explicit promotion of librarians’
expertise as faculty services specialists, as academic partners. A study found that faculty at
the University of Houston expressed surprise that librarians could offer research data services
beyond traditional library instruction (Peters and Dryden, 2011).77
• Leverage the power of social influence: The library needs to have a presence, both physically
on campus and virtually through social media and a Web presence, which can be difficult
with limited resources. People who didn’t use VRS indicated that they would try it if it were
recommended by a trusted librarian, colleague or friend.18
CONCLUSION
Despite an explosion of new formats and various delivery methods, printed books appear
to have a secure future in libraries. People still want them and actively search for them,
especially known titles. However, the library is not the first place people go for help with
their personal and academic information needs. This should not be viewed as a failure
but an opportunity. It’s an opportunity for librarians to promote and develop new ways
to engage, get to know and create relationships with their communities. The opportunity
starts with the recognition that “books are for use” encompasses more than the content
that needs to be preserved and organized for access. The library Ranganathan knew
has undergone dramatic changes in scope, mission and service models. Today, libraries
must enable users to move between two worlds—the physical and the virtual.
12
The new fourth law: every book its reader
“Every book its reader” depends entirely on the previous law “every reader his or her
book.” While librarians always have had to make collection development choices based
on both budgets and the needs, or perceived needs, of the communities they serve, doing
so from a judgmental, restrictive stance has rarely been well received in the long run.
Now that we have opened up the definition of what “book” means to include any possible
medium, including raw data and transactional information of all kinds, “every book” means,
essentially, every single, possible piece of communicative material that anyone, anywhere
might find useful. Debates about what kind of materials libraries should store and provide
access to and on issues related to how these decisions could be a form of censorship
are not new. Although controversial, Ranganathan believed the librarian cannot reduce
the content made available to the end users. Even though we do not know what materials
may be important to a particular student, researcher, author or community, librarians no
longer are legitimately able to say, “we don’t cover that topic” or “we can’t help you with
that question.” In the networked world of the Web, there are many other information options
and anyone a library turns away will seek answers elsewhere, often satisficing and taking
sources that may not be authoritative. The three values that are broadly applicable are:
• Discoverability
• Access
• Use
Librarians provide personal service in order to help maximize all of the above. We know that:
• Every book has a reader;

• Every TV show has its fans (and critics); and
• Every piece of data is useful to some researcher.
What we can do is apply modern tools to help connect the community to information and
services as efficiently and elegantly as possible.

It is difficult to determine how best to get relevant and authoritative content into the hands
of users since preferred media change over time, access points evolve and social and
cultural environments differ greatly from person to person. Today librarians are faced with
the challenge of developing and updating collections and services to meet the needs of
multiple generations of users with differing approaches to information seeking.27 Research
in the area of information-seeking behaviour suggests three broad focus areas that hold
the potential to provide a framework on which we can move forward to interpret the law:
• Understanding the flow in workflow;

• Acknowledging the role of online social interaction; and
• Paying more attention to context.
13
USER WORKFLOWS—CONNECTING THE DOTS
Addressing the learning goals of the user communities has been at the heart of library collection
development. However, in recent decades the tools with which users address their needs have
changed. Some tools are clearly more universal. For example, many information seekers,
regardless of demographics, make heavy use of Web information sources, such as Wikipedia
and Google.20,22,57,80 On the other hand, college students rate libraries significantly higher than all
respondents in terms of lifestyle fit, for both online and for physical libraries35 and journal articles
are reported as the main resource of interest to researchers.85 These are fairly consistent with
most investigations of information-seeking behaviours. When looked at from the point of matching
every book to its reader, however, these issues provide points within a workflow, not examples
of actual workflows. For example, while college students are inclined to rely more heavily on the
library, the library is the who of their flow, not the what or the how. Are they using the library for
high-speed wifi access? For meeting and social space? For access to print materials? Similarly
researchers value journal articles and the articles are the what. But how do they find them? Any
information workflow relies on some combination of these elements and to add value, we should
understand the relationships between them and how they are changing. The distance between
any information need and the right book is a function of the difference between a successful,
efficient workflow and one with dissatisfying results. Improving and enhancing the workflow
experience for users is essential to how libraries interact with their communities. Librarians are
mediators, helping to bridge the gap by connecting the dots between user requirements and
available resources. Earlier most materials used to be available only through libraries, now users
can find them directly online. Libraries need to employ new kinds of mediation that support
discovery, access and use. Archives, libraries and cultural heritage institutions have used
social networking technologies such as Facebook, Twitter and blogs with some success. For
example, the library at the University of Nevada, Reno brought their special collections to life by
creating pages for several students who attended the university in the early 1900s.42 However,
the issue is that the library’s Facebook pages, Twitter streams and blog posts are not part of the
users’ workflow in the same way as Google or Wikipedia.24,25 Several academic libraries have
increased discovery of their collections by adding links to Wikipedia.43,66,97 The approach should
be to create options that allow users to craft personal workflows that are flexible and efficient.
Social media
The role of social networking and social media in information seeking has been studied
in the past decade. This phenomenon is interesting in part because of the volume. But
we also are interested because these traces of social behaviour are both expressible and
quantifiable in very granular ways. People always have been social about their learning and
the most natural first step for information seeking is to ask the people with whom one is
already in contact.83 The tendency to trust peers and peer-based evaluations of information
sources is strong. Online social media and networking activities differ from traditional
interactions in one important way: they leave more permanent marks (think of Amazon
reviews vs. simply asking your friends for a recommendation for a good book). The former
is available for wider dissemination, can be used (essentially) forever and can be merged
with other ratings to provide an average score. Online, social interactions are another
set of important dots that information seekers will use to connect to what they need.
14
Complex Contexts
Connecting the right dots: When there is a profusion of resources and information services
available, some of them will be, for whatever reason, wrong for a particular information
seeker. It is important that the information seeker has the context to make that decision in
this increasingly complex information environment, which is exemplified in the evidence
that academic researchers increasingly reuse each other’s data.11,45–47,87,111 As information
professionals librarians need to provide services that make access to deeper, more authoritative
sources of content available in ways that users can adopt into their workflows. Connaway and
Dickey20 suggest that online library catalogues should operate more like search engines, but
that is only part of the story. “... The poor usability, high complexity, and lack of integration of
many electronic resource discovery systems have raised the … barrier to information search
and retrieval [and] distract users from focusing on the content; analysis and evaluation that
would help them learn and make sense of what they have discovered.” The ability to use a
search engine does not mean that one is able to find quality information.108 Users can’t easily
discern whether the content ranked high by a search engine is indeed relevant. Here, libraries
are at an advantage with their staff acting as what Ranganathan84 called “canvassing agents.”

It was mentioned earlier that our interpretation of Ranganathan’s third law goes back to
three areas that help connect “every book” to “its reader”: Increase the discoverability,
access and use of resources within users’ existing workflows. Factors and judgments
that influence decisions to reuse colleagues’ data are identified in a study of data reuse
within the Earthquake Engineering (EE) community.46 All three goals of this law—
discoverability, access and use—are wrapped up in issues of workflow, social connections
and context. Understanding not only what context people need but also how they get it
and what they use it for will be important in determining how to best support them:
• Finding relevant information—the discovery process, which is attached to workflow and social
connections;
• Getting it—accessibility, which is often a factor of both workflow and context; and
• Understanding and trusting it enough to be able to decide to use it and have ways of doing
so that are convenient and consistent with their goals. Here workflow, context and social
connections come into play.
Workflow appears across all three goals. The tasks that Ranganathan used to illustrate how
these could be enhanced are important. However, they are limited to what can be done within the
library’s walls and do not consider users’ workflows. For example, making a catalogue look and
behave more like Google won’t make it as popular as Google. Improving the shelving to the point
where it is as attractive and useful as any retail store display won’t get the resources in front of
users. And the largest set of journals is worthless if a researcher’s peers are Tweeting and linking
elsewhere. There also are other factors identified in the literature regarding the importance
understanding users’ workflows.80 “Every book its reader” is a simple phrase, but there are
now trillions of pieces of information and every user is no longer just a reader, but a judge,
reviewer, channel, content creator and, often, even a librarian. There are signs that libraries
have begun to adapt to a flood of new workflows and are finding new ways to support this law,
ways that adhere both to its original intent as well as new ones given the new environment.
15
RECOMMENDATIONS
For the three areas we’ve discussed throughout this chapter—discoverability, access,
use—we have some specific ideas about how to apply our interpretation:
• Increase discovery through partnerships: That there is lateral thinking among content creators
and providers with a view to maximize the reach of their materials is obvious. For example,
it is not uncommon for a publisher to provide content related to a work in different media; the
growing number of popular books that are released with video trailers on YouTube indicates
this. These also may be discussed and shared in social media. Thus, it is no longer enough
to think in terms of ‘writer to publisher to book store (or library) to reader.’ Librarians need to
consider the points at which content can intersect with users’ preferred workflows. Librarians
need to establish partnerships outside the “normal” scope of librarianship. Libraries should not
rely heavily on users coming to library-specific places for “every book” to be discovered by “its
reader.” This might manifest as:
—— Working with technology companies to expose library metadata into more and vastly
different user workflows;
—— Teaming with logistics companies to solve issues of shared print collections, such as
transportation and delivery of physical materials; and
—— Making library data compatible with other formats, such as linked data.
• Increase access through redundancy: Having materials in one format may not be enough
when serving users with widely diverse needs and workflows. Of course, traditionally libraries
often have been the only places where information seekers with barriers to accessibility can
get to relevant materials in a variety of formats. But today it is not just whether the material
can be accessed but whether it will be.79 The mere availability of some material does not
mean that it will be highly valued as an information source by audiences who have many other
options. Librarians must provide more pathways and deliver material in multiple ways. For
example:
—— When providing reading lists, librarians could link to open-source options when available;
provide access to the audio versions of the book; link to reviews on Amazon, to the
Facebook pages and Twitter accounts of authors and to Wikipedia pages with information
about the series or other works by the author;
—— Libraries can make the online library catalogue and website available on multiple platforms
and tablet- and mobile-friendly; and
—— Librarians should let users know about alternatives to the library’s offerings, such as local
book stores, subject experts, listservs, Facebook groups, etc.
• Increase use through marketing and social networking: Lack of knowledge of what the library
has to offer is one of the largest barriers to library use. Marketing research has shown that
frequency (how often a message is seen) and how recently a message has been seen
are keys to effective advertising. Simple advertising campaigns such as providing ongoing
messaging in those places where users are getting their information and engaging with
others should be considered. Advertising not only will help promote every book within users’
workflows but will also enhance the library’s brand as an information source.
16
CONCLUSION
The information that meets a user’s need always has been context dependent; but
more so in today’s complex information environment when so many people are using
so many powerful, new tools to discover, access and use information. We have come
to the point at which the provision of information resources at unheard of scales has
become somehow both incredibly useful and yet, at the same time, mundane.
• Routine Google searches turn up millions of results;

• Wikipedia hosts, as of April 2014, more than 32 million pages;
• HathiTrust provides open access to more than 11,145,244 volumes;55
• Half of all adult Facebook users have more than 200 friends in their networks;94 and
• LinkedIn, as of April 2014, has professional profiles for more than 277 million people,
which is more than the adult population of the United States.
The figures are huge; however, for a researcher about to add data to a study, an author
promoting her work on YouTube or a community loading articles online as they try to maintain
transparency about a public works program, the “book” in “every book its reader” has
moved from a record of something in the past to an active part of an important project with
goals that reach into the future. Ranganathan recommended extensive cross-referencing
to make accessible the contents of every book. In the present day context “every book”
no longer means “every one of the books of the library” but applies to content across all
kinds of formats and media. Drawing from Ranganathan’s reference to the role of librarians
as canvassing agents, we suggest that librarians work towards finding ways to connect
people to the “10% that’s not crud” from each user’s point of view. This view provides both
a sobering limitation on what we can expect from our technology and an encouraging vision
about the future importance of library staff in an expanding information environment.
The new fifth law: a library is a

growing organism
What does it mean for libraries to grow in today’s content-rich, time-poor, attention-driven
environment? Ranganathan focused his discussions of growth on the size of four factors—
books, staff, readers, and the library’s physical infrastructure—because he believed growth
and change in any one of them affected the others. In the next section, we consider recent
growth and change in these four factors. Then we discuss our interpretation of the law.
Unlike prior chapters, our interpretation of the law does not include a rephrasing of the law
itself. Instead, we propose an additional factor libraries may want to consider growing.

A number of researchers and writers have reflected on Ranganathan’s ideas of
growth and generally agree that the law is still useful, especially when enhanced
with new examples and clarifications. In the following paragraphs we examine
the four factors that Ranganathan had focused on in today’s environment.
17
The Collection
Kwanya, Stilwell and Underwood64 explain that electronic materials, digitization efforts,
services and new kinds of infrastructure for remote access all need to be included in any
definition of growth. The sheer number of books, articles, databases, movies, maps, etc.
provided by most libraries today will dwarf the collections that were available in the early
20th century. More recently there is growth in the research data, a relatively new type of
material, being generated by the academic communities. Noruzi74 suggests that providing
access to content may involve a more intense and wide ranging winnowing process on the
part of librarians adding an important editorial element to the idea of the library collection that
encompasses not just what the library owns, licenses and holds, but also what it values.
Library staff
Libraries throughout the world are facing the problem of lack of funds for creating new positions
and hiring new personnel. The roles of librarians change with changes in user needs and
demands and the technology employed. A survey conducted for Research Libraries UK
found skill gaps in nine key areas in which subject librarians could be supporting researchers’
needs3. Even though many librarians may want to hire new staff with these skills, a survey
found that the reality for most will be training existing staff. This emphasizes the importance
of continuing education programs and workshops focused on skill development.61
The infrastructure
Growth of infrastructure is not just about growth in the volume of content, but it is
growth in resources necessary to meet service demands. Changes in the information
environment necessitate rethinking the role of the library to explore how it can become
more about collaborating, learning, teaching, creating, playing, relaxing, studying and
researching with the aid of physical space, people, media and technology. We have
discussed cases in which space has been successfully repurposed into study areas,
learning commons and maker spaces. As use of the collection has shifted to electronic
resources, we have seen changes in the library’s physical and technical infrastructure.
Library space, e.g. space earlier occupied by print resources, is being repurposed.
Patron use
Kwanya, Stilwell and Underwood64 define “growth as extending beyond the simplicity of
numbers and size and incorporating complexities relating to diverse user needs and wants.”
The objective is to apply the knowledge gained about users toward improvements in existing
services as well as the creation of new services. In order to determine what collections to
maintain in which formats, how to allocate and design infrastructure and what roles and
responsibilities to assign staff and how to train them, it is imperative to know how people use the
collections and infrastructure and where they need assistance and education from the library
staff. Growth within shifting contexts means growing whatever elements of collection, staff,
infrastructure and patron use that are currently part of our users’ expectations. Definitions of
library services will change. We need to grow the ways users can engage with whatever they
value from libraries, whether papyrus rolls, maker spaces or data management instruction.
18
We agree that “a library is a growing organism.” There is a need for continual evolution of the
library based on the needs and behaviours of current and prospective users. While we offer
no reinterpretation of the law, we do want to expand what growth means in today’s highly
connected, competitive and shifting information environment. Drawing from Ranganathan’s
metaphor, we propose another major area of a library that is capable of growth:
Share of attention
Media analysts use the term to describe the total amount of time a person has available to
spend on activities and materials of choice.7,41 Television has experienced a decline in share of
attention relative to online activities such as Facebook. What portion of individuals’ time is spent
using library services and resources? We believe share of attention is essential to promoting
growth and change in libraries across all the other dimensions—collection, staff, infrastructure,
and patron use. Toward that end, we discuss three ways to think about nurturing its growth:
• Relevance;
• Visibility; and
• Unique capabilities.
These metrics suggest a dramatic difference in how libraries need to measure growth and
success. Since we have suggested that the most important of Ranganathan’s laws today is “save
the time of the reader,” we need to find ways that factor time, convenience and usefulness into
library metrics.
Relevance
Before trying to measure the relevance of any service, it is important to have a good idea
of what library resources and services are used, or not used, and more importantly, why
are they used or not used? Carr12 suggests enabling users to select materials—referred
to as Demand-Driven Acquisition (DDA)—giving the users a degree of control that entices
them to try library services and resources as another way to grow the library. The library is
just one of many information service providers and, as such, needs to consider providing
an “inside-out” library experience.40 To be considered relevant within people’s share of
attention, libraries need to be discovered not only by their local community through library
services but also by the larger Web population through external sites and services.
Visibility
Most people do not know the library services being offered or the various formats of material
available for use.34 Research suggests a library’s value can be demonstrated through
various marketing activities, such as promotion of collections and services, advertisement
of the library brand and resources and integration with external services users employ,
such as Web browsers, Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia.28 Several initiatives that have
been quite creative in raising the visibility of libraries and library resources have been
mentioned when discussing laws 1–4. We provide three additional examples below:
• Wikipedian in Residence Projects: Host Wikipedians to help contribute entries to Wikipedia

related to the institution’s resources and services to serve as a liaison between the institution
and the Wikipedia community;
19
• Slam the Boards and Enquire Initiatives: With Slam the Boards, librarians participate in
answer boards and Social Question and Answer (SQA) sites to answer questions during
pre-determined times. At the end of each answer users are told that a librarian provided
the information. The objective is to let users know that libraries and librarians are a viable
alternative for users information needs.63
• Building and Analyzing Online Audiences through Twitter: Yep and Shulman109 found
that the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey’s Bjork Library’s Twitter account served as a
gateway for information within and outside the library, which raised the library’s visibility.
Unique capabilities
What is the Unique Selling Point (USP) of libraries vis-à-vis other information service providers?
The term USP, coined by marketers and advertisers, showcases an organization’s competitive
advantage which other organizations simply cannot offer. In the past, an important USP for
libraries was that their materials were freely and centrally available in an environment where
resources were scarce and costly. While this selling point is still true, it is no longer unique.39
Libraries are unique in today’s information environment in that they have, in most cases,
a very strong community or institutionally-based physical presence. This sets them apart
from almost all online information choices. One cannot simply walk into Amazon or call up
Facebook and ask a question. Nobody from LinkedIn will sit with you and help you design
your resume. Librarians contribute an overwhelmingly positive aspect to the library brand.
They are a major USP that should be promoted as the library’s most valuable resource.
Their ability to develop ongoing relationships in person and online should be leveraged.18
Their expertise is unique, valuable, and can be applied to entirely new areas of research
support.50,70,71 Recently, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has partnered with the
Association of American Universities (AAU) and The Association of Public and Land-grant
Universities (APLU) around a SHared Access Research Ecosystem (SHARE) to ensure
compliance with funding agency mandates and to meet the needs of its stakeholders.104
Reference already has been made to librarians’ role in developing and offering research data.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Librarians need to consider how to increase the library’s share of attention in addition
to the collection, staff, infrastructure and patron use. We provided three ways to nurture
share of attention by identifying the relevance, increasing the visibility, and promoting
the unique capabilities of library services. In this context it is important to remember
that for most people the library is not the first or main choice to get information31.
Recommendations for measuring these three ways of increasing share of attention follow.
Relevance
For relevance, librarians should leverage the strengths of non-library services. Librarians
need to know what users already value as part of their workflows in order to influence or try
to change their choices and practices. Understanding the differences and user preferences
provide good cues on how to improve library services. Connaway and Radford18 suggest that
library tools should be integrated into the services and resources people use making library
services and resources conveniently discoverable and accessible. Librarians should make
sure real world use of services is being examined, rather than how librarians use it or think
their communities use it. In focus group interviews with WorldCat.org users and librarians,
20
Connaway and Wakeling19 found that librarians judge library services in light of their own
interaction with the tools rather than considering actual users’ expectations and judgments.
Visibility
Librarians should measure the ways in which users find and learn about library
services by tracking the number of clicks or views on websites and conducting
brand awareness surveys and interviews. Librarians also may want to measure
connections from services most used by users, connections to most used services,
and connections to other libraries as no one library has all the answers.
Unique capabilities
It has been mentioned earlier that unique capabilities refer to those services libraries are
providing that simply are not available anywhere else. Libraries are unique among many
information services in that they provide real, live people and physical and virtual spaces.
Users are much more likely to use and recommend services to others if a trusted librarian
introduces them.18 Google never knows if it provides the right link and Amazon can’t tell if a
book purchased for a new mother taught her something important. But a librarian has the
opportunity to interact with people making it possible to provide services and sources that meet
their needs and expectations. Librarians should measure the effectiveness of services based
on the users’ perceptions of success. Librarians also should move beyond surveys of how
library space is being used and should conduct structured observations and interviews with
the people using the space. It is not enough to know that the various spaces, whether physical
or virtual, are busy. Librarians need to understand when and how the spaces are being used.
Librarians have a unique set of skills that can be applied to a variety of services, yet many
faculty and students can’t think of librarians beyond book and journal provision. It’s not enough
to have the skills; librarians have to showcase them through instruction, consultation and
collaboration. Being nice to customers is important as it translates into positive experiences.18
It is important for librarians to incorporate basic customer service metrics as a growth goal.
Conclusion
The “inside-out” library40 is an inversion of traditional metrics in many ways. Most content is not
gathered in a centralized storage area inside the library; it is out there, and the librarians’ job is
to help users find it. In a world where Ranganathan’s fourth law, “save the time of the reader,” is
the most important, our measurements of growth need some “inside–out” thinking too. Librarians
need to change how they think about growth. A set of nice, simple, linear graphs that show how
collections, staff and infrastructure grow over time relative to the size of the communities they
serve is comforting. It’s easy to communicate, but is flawed. The process of guiding library growth
needs to be one in which experimentation is not just tolerated or accepted but actively sought out
and brought into planning processes and everyday work. The information environment and social
networking landscape we are living in is so new, so big and changes so quickly that anything less
than an experimental plan is doomed to fail, because by the time we think we understand, say,
MySpace, it’s all about Facebook. If Ranganathan’s fifth law, “a library is a growing organism,” is
to remain true, we need to decide what growth means. How do we measure it in an environment
where convenience is king and where being as invisible as possible within our users’ information
searches is a sign of success? We’ve suggested librarians consider growing share of attention.
There probably are other areas of growth that also should be considered, and we encourage the
profession to discuss and suggest additional ones, because one thing is for sure: if we don’t know
21
how to describe our growth and success, we will not know whether our results are positive or
negative. Our interpretation and reordering of Ranganathan’s five laws is given in the table below.
Ranganathan’s original conception Our interpretation and reordering
Save the time of the reader Embed library systems and services
into users’ existing workflows
Every person his or her book Know your community and its needs
Books are for use Develop the physical and technical infrastructure
needed to deliver physical and digital materials
Every book its reader Increase the discoverability, access and use
of resources within users’ existing workflows
A library is a growing organism
Conclusions
The purpose and scope of OCLC’s Research activity area “User Behavior Studies & Synthesis,”
centers on how users engage with technology and content. Ranganathan’s Five Laws of Library
Science has greatly influenced our thoughts on the work of libraries and librarians. We realized
the five laws provide a framework for our research activity area as well as a lens through which
to view the information environment. The intent here is to help interpret the five laws in the
context of currently available resources and services, and user behaviours when engaging
with them. The idea has been to suggest how libraries and librarians can better connect to
those behaviours. Our intent here is not to include all user behaviour research, which would be
virtually impossible given the significant amount of work done in the area. The objective is to
shape the direction of our research and put it within a context that would be timely and relevant
for librarians, library researchers and information scientists as they think about making changes
in practice and developing an agenda for future research. In view of the fact that it is the lack
of time, not content, that is one of the most pressing issues people face, we consider “save the
time of the reader” the most important law today; therefore, as we set up goals for our libraries
to grow and improve, we need to consider how to save users time, in more places and in ways
that are convenient and familiar to them. We have identified convenience a moving target,
dependent on the situation individuals find themselves in when they need information and on
the context of the specific situation. Surprisingly, in our studies of Virtual Reference Services
(VRS), we found that many people who were asking questions through VRS actually were sitting
in the library! Why did they choose VRS and not Face-to-Face (FtF) reference services? There
are multiple reasons—not wanting to lose their seat or table, not feeling like moving or getting
up from the chair, not wanting to leave personal belongings to get an answer to their questions,
or not feeling comfortable asking the question FtF. Regardless of the reason, in this instance,
many people saw VRS as being more convenient and faster than FtF. There is no value in
saving the time of the reader if the content needed cannot be found and accessed, which is
why “every person his or her book” is next in our list. Librarians are redefining the communities
22
they serve around e-content and a wide range of needs and demographics. Our world has been
transformed by the Web, changing the way people interact with the information environment and
making it necessary for librarians to change the way materials and programs are developed and
delivered. One size fits none, so it is important that there are multiple options for discovery and
access to resources and content based on each individual’s context and situation at the time of
his or her need. It requires a difficult balance between personalized and generalized service,
which is why we believe it is imperative to constantly collect, analyze and discuss data to help
librarians know their communities and their needs. This transitions us to the laws “books are for
use” and “every book its reader.” We believe these laws are interconnected and build on each
other. “Books are for use” pertains to the ongoing evaluation and assessment of the library’s
physical and technical infrastructure in relation to the target users’ behaviours and needs. It
involves looking beyond the content and its containers to the infrastructure that provides access
to the content. Providing content people want depends upon the reliability and integrity of the
library’s systems that make it discoverable and accessible. Our interpretation of “every book its
reader” focuses on increasing the discoverability, access and use of resources and doing so
within users’ workflows. It is dependent on the provision of resources and systems addressed
in discussions about the “books are for use” law. Interestingly, in the midst of a multitude of
technically mediated delivery channels, our findings show that human sources still play a huge
role in users’ information activities. Librarians have an opportunity to become part of users’ social
networks and to put resources in the context of users’ information needs. This brings us to the
final law, which underlies the previous four: “A library is a growing organism.” While we do not
attempt to reinterpret this law, we do discuss share of attention as another area librarians should
consider growing by elevating their relevance, visibility and unique capabilities in the eyes of
their users. We find library growth and change most readily apparent in library approaches to
exposing content created within their institutions, from digitized special collections to research
data. Not only are collections growing in size and type, but library staff is experiencing growth
by retooling existing skills, hiring new people with new areas of expertise and changing users’
perceptions of librarians’ capabilities. The infrastructure is changing as librarians work more
closely with their offices of research and information technology, researchers on their campuses,
and build external relationships with other academic institutions. Patron use also is changing with
increased demand for developing new kinds of literacy, new forms of engagement with librarians
and new services that support their research needs. Ranganathan’s laws—even taken verbatim,
with no changes or additions—are as helpful today as they were when Ranganathan formulated
these. They provide a framework that keeps us focused on the core values of librarianship
that have remained remarkably consistent across a time that has seen incredible changes in
information technology. It is equally remarkable that the laws still are as relevant to small public
libraries as they are to the largest research institutions in the world. It should be obvious to
any reader of this report that we hold Ranganathan’s work and his laws in great esteem. Our
intent is to reflect on them, not to supplant them. In all probability, others will continue to use
his laws in this way for another hundred years, and our particular thoughts at this point in time
will become helpful (hopefully) footnotes. These laws will continue to serve as a sign post.
23
NOTES
1. Aitcheson, K. 2009. “Standards and guidance in archaeological archiving: The work of the
archaeological archives forum and the institute for archaeologists.” The Grey Journal 5, no.
2: 67–71. http://www.greynet.org/images/Contents_TGJ.V5.N2.pdf.
2. Alves, J. 2013. “Unintentional knowledge: What we find when we’re not looking.” The
Chronicle of Higher Education: The Chronicle Review (23 June). http://chronicle.com/article/
Unintentional-Knowledge/139891/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en.
3. Auckland, M. 2012. Re-skilling for Research. London: Research Information Network.

http:// www.rluk.ac.uk/files/RLUK%20Re-skilling.pdf.
4. Barner, K. 2011. “The library is a growing organism: Ranganathan’s Fifth Law of library
science and the academic library in the digital era.” Library Philosophy and Practice.
http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/barner.htm.
5. Beetham, H; McGill L; Littlejohn, A. 2009. Thriving in the 21st century: Learning literacies for
the digital age (LLiDA Project). Glasgow: The Caledonian Academy, Glasgow Caledonian
University. http ://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/llida/LLiDAReportJune2009.pdf
(inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Alternative URL http://www.caledonianacademy.net/spaces/LLiDA/uploads/Main/

LLiDAreportJune09.pdf (accessed 26 October 2015).
6. Bhatt, R.K. 2011. “Relevance of Ranganathan’s Laws of Library Science in library

marketing.” Library Philosophy and Practice. http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/bhatt.htm.
7. Blanchard, O. 2006. “The continuing shift from ‘market share’ to ‘attention share’.” Corante.
http://marketing.corante.com/editorial/archives/2006/09/post_5.php.
(inaccessible 26 October 2015)
8. Brown, A.; Perrin, K. 2000. A model for the description of archaeological archives. Forth
Cumberland: English Heritage Centre for Archaeology.
http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/archives/archdesc.pdf. (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
9. Brown, D.H. 2007. Archaeological archives: A guide to best practice in creation, compilation,
transfer and curation. n.p.: Archaeological Archives Forum.
http://www.archaeologyuk.org/archives/.
10. Calhoun, K; Cantrell, J; Gallagher, P; Hawk, J. 2009. Online Catalogs: What Users and
Librarians Want: An OCLC report, OCLC, Dublin.
11. Carlson, S; Anderson, B 2007. “What are data? The many kinds of data and their
implications for data re-use.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, no. 2:
635–661. Do i:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00342.
12. Carr, P.L. 2014. “Reimagining the Library as a Technology: An Analysis of Ranganathan’s
Five Laws of Library Science within the Social Construction of Technology Framework.”
Library Quarterly 84, no. 2: 152–164.
24
13. Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research. 2008. Information
Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future: A CIBER Briefing Paper. CIBER: London.
14. Choudhury, G.S. 2008. “Case study in data curation at John Hopkins University.” Library
Trends 57, no. 2: 211–220.
15. Choudhury, G.S. 2010. “Data curation: An ecological perspective.” College & Research
Libraries News 71: 194–196.
16. Cloonan, M.V. and Dove, J.G. 2005. “Ranganathan online: Do digital libraries violate the
Third Law?” Library Journal 130, no. 6: 58–60.
17. Connaway, L.S, Radford, M.L. 2007. “Service sea change: Clicking with screenagers through
virtual reference.” Sailing into the Future: Charting our destiny: Proceedings of the Thirteenth
National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, March–April 2007,
Baltimore, edited by Hugh A. Thompson. Chicago: Association of College and Research
Libraries. http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2007/connaway-acrl.pdf.
18. Connaway, L.S; Radford, M.L. 2011. Seeking Synchronicity: Revelations and
Recommendations for Virtual Reference. OCLC Research. Dublin.
http://www.oclc.org/reports/synchronicity/full.pdf.
19. Connaway, L.S.; Wakeling, S. 2012. To Use or Not to Use WorldCat.org: An International
Perspective from Different User Groups. Unpublished report, 26 April 2012.
20. Connaway, L.S. and Dickey, T.J. 2010. The Digital Information Seeker: Report of Findings
from Selected OCLC, RIN, and JISC User Behavior Projects. Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE). http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/
reports/2010/ digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf. (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Alternative URL http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20140615023510/http://www.

jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf .
21. Connaway, L.S. and Dickey, T.J. 2010. “Towards a profile of the researcher of today: What
can we learn from JISC Projects?” Common Themes Identified in an Analysis of JISC
Virtual Research Environment and Digital Repository Projects. http://ie-repository.jisc.
ac.uk/418/2/VirtualScholar_themesFromProjects_revised.pdf.
22. Connaway, L.S.; Prabha, C. and Dickey, T.J. 2006. “Sensemaking the information
confluence: The whys and hows of college and university user satisfying of information
needs. Phase III: Focus group interview study.” Report on National Leadership Grant LG-
02-03-0062-03, Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington. Columbus: School
of Communication, The Ohio State University.
23. Connaway, L.S.; White, D.; Lanclos, D.; Le Cornu, A. 2013. “Visitors and Residents: What
motivates engagement with the digital information environment?” Information Research 18,
no. 1. http://informationr.net/ir/18-1/infres181.html.
25
24. Connaway, L.S.; Lanclos, D.M. and Hood, E.M. 2013. “I always stick with the first thing
that comes up on Google … Where people go for information, what they use, and why.”
EDUCAUSE Review Online. http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/i-always-stick-first-
thingcomesgoogle-where-people-go-information-what-theyuse-and-why. (inaccessible
October 2015).
Alternative URL http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/12/i-always-stick-with-the-first-thing-

that-comes-up-on-google---where-people-go-for-information-what-they-use-and-why
(accessed 26 October 2015).
25. Connaway, L.S.; Lanclos, D.M. and Hood, Erin, M. 2013. “I find Google a lot easier than
going to the library website. Imagine ways to innovate and inspire students to use the
academic library.” Proceedings of the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL)
2013 conference, Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries, 10–13 April,
Indianapolis, p. 293. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/
confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/Connaway_Google.pdf.
26. Connaway, L.S.; Lanclos, D.M.; White, D.; Le Cornu, A. and Hood, E.M. 2013. “User-
centered decision making: A new model for developing academic library services and
systems.” IFLA Journal 39, no. 1: 30–36.
27. Connaway, L.S.; Radford M.L.; Dickey, T.J.; De Angelis, JW. and Confer, P. 2008. “Sense-
making and Synchronicity: Information-seeking Behaviors of Millennials and Baby Boomers.”
Libri 58, no. 2: 123–135. http://www.oclc.org/resources/research/publications/library/2008/
connaway-libri.pdf.(inaccessible 26 October 2015).
28. Connaway, L.S.; Dickey, T.J.; Radford, M.L. 2011. “If it is too inconvenient I’m not going after
it: Convenience as a critical factor in information-seeking behaviors.” Library & Information
Science Research 33, no. 3: 179–190. http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/
publications/library/2011/connaway-lisr.pdf. (inaccessible 26 October 2015)
29. Connaway, L.S. 2008. “Make room for the Millennials.” NextSpace, 10: 18–19.
http://www.oclc.org/nextspace/010/research.htm.
30. Connaway, L.S. 2013. “Findings from user behavior studies: A user’s world.” ALA Midwinter
Meeting and Exhibits, 28 January 2013, Seattle.
31. Connaway, L.S. 2013. “Why the Internet is more attractive than the library.” The Serials
Librarian 64, no. 1-4: 41–56.
32. Consortium of University Research Libraries and Research Information Network. 2007.
Researchers 39.
33. De Belder, K. 2012. “Session 1: Directly supporting researchers.” Libraries rebound:

Embracing mission, maximizing impact, 5–6 June, Philadelphia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9qUoVSD7HA&feature=youtu.be.
34. De Rosa, C.; Cantrell, J.; Cellentani, D.; Hawk, J.; Jenkins, L. and Wilson, A. 2005.
Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership.
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Dublin.
26
35. De Rosa, C.; Cantrell, J.; Hawk, J. and Wilson, A. 2006. College students’ perceptions
of libraries and information resources: A report to the OCLC Membership, OCLC Online
Computer Library Center, Dublin.
36. De Rosa, C.; Cantrell, J.; Carlson, M.; Gallagher, P.; Hawk, J. and Sturtz, C. 2010. Perceptions
of libraries, 2010: Context and community. OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Dublin.
37. De Rosa, C. 2005. Perceptions of libraries and information resources: A report to the OCLC
Membership, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Dublin.
38. Delserone, L.M. 2008. “At the watershed: Preparing for research data management and
stewardship at the University of Minnesota Libraries.” Library Trends 57, no. 2: 202–210.
39. Dempsey, L. 2008. “Always on: Libraries in a world of permanent connectivity.” First Monday
14, no. 1.
http://www.firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2291/207.
40. Dempsey, L. 2012. “Thirteen ways of looking at libraries, discovery, and the catalog: Scale,
workflow, attention.” EDUCAUSE Review Online. http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/
thirteen-ways-looking-librariesdiscovery-and-catalog-scale-workflow-attention.
Alternative URL http://er.educause.edu/articles/2012/12/thirteen-ways-of-looking-at-

libraries-discovery-and-the-catalog-scale-workflow-attention (accessed 26 October 2015).
41. Dennis, S.P. 2011. “Share of Attention.” Steve Dennis’ Blog: Zen and the Art & Science of
Customercentricity. http://stevenpdennis.com/2011/06/09/share-of-attention-2/.(accessed
26 October 2015).
42. DeSantis, N. 2012. “On Facebook, librarian brings 2 students from the early 1900s to life.”
Wired Campus. http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/on-facebook-librarian-brings-
twostudents-from-the-early-1900s-to-life/34845.
43. Elder, D; Westbrook, R.N. and Reilly, M. 2012. “Wikipedia lover, not a hater: Harnessing
Wikipedia to increase the discoverability of library resources.” Journal of Web Librarianship
6, no. 1: 32–44. DOI:10.1080/19322909.2012.641808.
44. Faniel, I.M. 2009. Unrealized potential: The socio-technical challenges of a large scale
cyberinfrastructure initiative. National Science Foundation, Arlington.
http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/61845.
45. Faniel, I.M.; Kriesberg, A. and Yakel, E. 2012. “Data reuse and sensemaking among novice
social scientists.” The annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology. 26–31 October, Baltimore.
46. Faniel, I.M. and Jacobsen, TE. 2010. “Reusing scientific data: How earthquake engineering
researchers assess the reusability of colleagues’ data.” Computer Supported Cooperative
Work 19, no. 3-4: 355–375.
47. Faniel, I.; Kansa, E.; Kansa, S.W.; Barrera-Gomez, J. and Yakel, E. 2013. “The challenges
of digging data: A study of context in archaeological data reuse.” JCDL 2013 Proceedings of
the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. New York: ACM, p. 295–304.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2467696.2467712.
27
48. Fast, K.V.; Campbell, D.G. 2004. “I still like Google: University student perceptions of
searching OPACs and the web.” Proceedings of the ASIS&T Annual Meeting 41: 138–146.
49. Fisher, E. 2012. “Makerspaces move into academic libraries.” ACRL Tech Connect.
http://acrl.ala.org/techconnect/?p=2340.
50. Gabridge, T. 2009. “The Last Mile: Liaison Roles in Curating Science and Engineering
Research Data.” Research Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC
265: 15–21. http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/rli-265-gabridge.pdf.
Alternative URL http://publications.arl.org/rli265/16 (accessed 26 October 2015).
51. Glassmeyer, S. 2010. Ranganathan 2.0. AALL Spectrum 14, no. 3: 22–24.
52. Goldup, S.J. 2010. Public libraries in the digital age: Investing the implementation of
Ranganathan’s Five Laws of library science in physical and online library services. School
of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington, February 2010.
53. Gorman, M. 1995. “Five new laws of librarianship.” American Libraries 26, no. 8: 784–785.
54. Gorman, M. 1998. “The five laws of library science: Then and now. (Excerpt of Our singular
strengths by Michael Gorman).” School Library Journal 7: 20–23.
55. HathiTrust. 2014. Statistics information. Hathi Trust Digital Library.

http://www.hathitrust.org/statistics_info (accessed 28 May 2014).
56. Head, A.J. and Eisenberg, M.B. 2009. “Lessons learned: How college students seek
information in the digital age.” Project Information Literacy Progress Report. The Information
School, University of Washington.
http://projectinfolit.org/images/pdfs/pil_fall2009_finalv_yr1_12_2009v2.pdf.
57. Head, A.J. and Eisenberg, M.B. 2010. “How college students evaluate and use information
in the digital age.” Project Information Literacy progress report, The Information School,
University of Washington, Seattle.
58. Hiebert, J. and Theriault, S. 2012. “BLASTing the zombies! Creative ideas to fight finals
fatigue.” College and Research Libraries News 73, no. 9: 540–569.
59. Holdren, J.P. 2013. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.
Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.
gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf.
60. Institute for Archaeologists. 2009. Standard and guidance for the creation, compilation,
transfer and deposition of archaeological archives. n.p.: Institute for Archaeologists.
http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/node-files/Archives2009.pdf.
61. Jahnke, L.; Asher, A.; Keralis, S.D.C. 2012. “The Problem of Data.” With an introduction by
Charles Henry, Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.
28
62. Johnston, L. and Hanson, C. 2010. “e-Science at the University of Minnesota: A
collaborative approach.” International Association of Scientific and Technological University
Libraries, 31st Annual Conference. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul2010/conf/day2/3.
63. Kearns, A.J. 2012. “Slam the Boards! Predatory Reference and the Online Answer Sites.”
OCLC Webjunction. http://www.webjunction.org/documents/webjunction/Slam_the_Boards_
Predatory_Reference_and_the_Online_Answer_Sites.html.
64. Kwanya, T.; Stilwell, C.; Underwood, P.G. 2010. “Library 2.0 Principles and Ranganathan’s
Fifth Law.” Mousaion 28, no. 2: 1–16.
65. Lage, K.; Losoff, B. and Maness, J. 2011. “Receptivity to library involvement in scientific
data curation: A case study at the University of Colorado Boulder.” Portal: Libraries and the
Academy 11, no. 4: 915–937.
66. Lally, A.M. and Dunford, C.E. 2007. “Using Wikipedia to extend digital collections.” D-Lib
Magazine 13, no. 5/6. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/lally/05lally.html.
67. Lavoie, B.; Childress, E.; Erway, R.; Faniel, I.; Malpas C.; Schaffner, J. and van der Werf,
T. 2014. The Evolving Scholarly Record. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research, 2014. http://www.
oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2014/oclcresearch-evolving-scholarly-
record-2014.pdf.
68. Lippincott, J.K. 2010. “A mobile future for academic libraries.” Reference Services Review
38, no. 2: 205–213.
69. Lippincott, JK. and Duckett K. 2013. “Library space assessment: Focusing on learning.”
Research Library Issues: A Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC 284: 12–21.
http://publications.arl.org/rli284/.
70. Luce, R.E. 2008. “A New Value Equation Challenge: The Emergence of eResearch and
Roles for Research Libraries” No Brief Candle: Reconceiving Research Libraries for the 21st
Century. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.
71. National Science Foundation. 2006. “To Stand the Test of Time: Long-term Stewardship of
Digital Datasets in Science and Engineering.” A Report to the National Science Foundation
from the ARL Workshop on New Collaborative Relationships: The Role of Academic
Libraries in the Digital Data Universe. National Science Foundation, Arlington, 2006.
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/digdatarpt.pdf.(inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Alternative URL
http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/digital-data-report-2006.pdf.
72. Nelson, B. 2009. “Data sharing: Empty archives.” Nature 461, no. 7261: 160–163.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090909/pdf/461160a.pdf.
73. Newton, MP.; Miller, C.C. and Marianne, S.B. 2010. “Librarian roles in institutional repository
data set collecting: Outcomes of a research library task force.” Collection Management 36,
no. 1: 53–67. Doi: 10.1080/01462679.2011.530546.
29
74. Noruzi, A. 2004. “Application of Ranganathan’s Laws to the Web.” Webology 1, no. 2.
http://www.webology.org/2004/v1n2/a8.html.
75. Oblinger, D.G. and Oblinger, J.L. eds. 2005. “Educating the net generation.” EDUCAUSE.
http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?PAGE_ID=5989&bhcp=1.
Alternative URL https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7101.pdf (accessed October 2015).
76. Parks Canada. 2005. Archaeological recording manual: Excavations and surveys. n.p.:
Parks Canada. http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/pc/guide/fp-es/index.aspx.
77. Peters, C and Dryden, A.R. 2011. “Assessing the academic library’s role in campus-
wide research data management: A first step at the University of Houston.” Science &
Technology Libraries 30, no. 4: 387–403.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0194262X.2011.626340.
78. Pierard, C and Lee, N. 2011. “Studying space: Improving space planning with user studies.”
Journal of Access Services 8: 190–207. Doi:10.1080/15367967.2011.602258.
79. Popova, M. 2011. “Accessibility vs. Access: How the Rhetoric of ‘Rare’ is Changing in the
Age of Information Abundance.” Nieman Journalism Lab (23 August 2011),
http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/08/accessibility-vs-access-how-the-rhetoric-of-rare-is-
changing-in-the-age-of-information-abundance/.
80. Prabha, C.; Connaway, L.S. and Dickey, T.J. 2006. “Sensemaking the information
confluence: The whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information
needs. Phase IV: Semi-structured interview study.” Report on National Leadership Grant
LG-02-03-0062-03, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, The Ohio State University,
Washington, DC. Columbus, OH: School of Communication.
81. Pullinger, D. 1999. “Academics and the new information environment: The impact of local
factors on use of electronic journals.” Journal of Information Science 25, no. 2: 164–172.
82. Purcell, K.; Rainie, L.; Heaps, A.; Buchanan, J.; Friedrich, L.; Jacklin, A.; Chen, C.; and
Zickuhr, K. 2012. How teens do research in the digital world. Washington DC: PEWInternet
& American Life Project. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Student-Research.aspx .
83. Radford, M.L. and Connaway, L.S. 2008. “Seeking synchronicity: Evaluating virtual
reference services from user, non-user and librarian perspectives: IMLS final performance
report.” Report on Grant LG-06-05-0109-05, Institute of Museum and Library Services,
Washington, DC. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
84. Ranganathan, S.R. 1931. The five laws of library science. London: Edward Goldston, Ltd., 313.
85. Research Information Network. 2006. Researchers and discovery services: Behaviour,
perceptions and needs. London: Research Information Network, p. 5.
86. Research Information Network. 2008. To share or not to share: Publication and quality
assurance of research data outputs. London: Research Information Network.
30
87. Rolland, B. and Lee, C.P. 2013. “Beyond trust and reliability: Reusing data in collaborative
cancer epidemiology research.” Collaboration and sharing in scientific work. New York:
ACM, p. 435–444.
88. Rubin, R.E. 2004. Foundations of Library and Information Science. New York: Neal-
Schuman Publishers, p. 251.
89. Sadler, S. 2012. “Session 3: Exploiting space as a distinctive asset.” Presented at Libraries
rebound: Embracing mission, maximizing impact, 5–6 June, in Philadelphia, PA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmEtdVPro54&feature=youtu.be.
90. Salo, D. 2008. “Innkeeper at the roach motel.” Library Trends 57, no. 2: 98–123.
91. Savolainen, R. 1993. “The sense-making theory: Reviewing the interests of a user-centered
approach to information seeking and use.” Information Processing & Management 29, no. 1:
13–28.
92. Scaramozzino, J.M.; Ramirez, M.L. and McGaughey, K.J. 2012. “A study of faculty data
curation behaviors and attitudes at a teaching-centered university.” College and Research
Libraries 73, no. 4: 349–365. http://crl.acrl.org/content/73/4/349.full.pdf+html.
93. Simon, H.A. 1957. “A behavioral model of rational choice.” Models of man: Social and
rational. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
94. Smith, A. 2014. “6 New Facts About Facebook.” Fact Tank (3 February 2014),
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/6-new-facts-about-facebook/.
95. Soehner, C.; Steeves, C. and Ward, J. 2010. e-Science and data support services: A study
of ARL member institutions.
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/escience_report2010.pdf.(inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Alternative URL
http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/escience-report-2010.pdf
96. Sweeney, R. 2006. Millennial behaviors and demographics. http://certi.mst.edu/media/

administrative/certi/documents/Article-Millennial-Behaviors.pdf.
97. Szajewski, M. 2013. “Using Wikipedia to enhance the visibility of digitized archival assets.”
D-Lib Magazine 19, no. 3/4. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march13/szajewski/03szajewski.html.
98. Tenopir, C.; Birch, B. and Allard, S. 2012. Academic libraries and research data services:
Current practices and plans for the future. An ACRL white paper. Chicago: Association of
College and Research Libraries.
99. Van House, N.A.; Butler, M.H. and Schiff, Lisa R. 1998. “Cooperative knowledge work and
practices of trust: Sharing environmental planning data sets.” Proceedings of the 1998 ACM
Conference On Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Seattle, WA: ACM, p. 335–43.
Doi:10.1145/289444.289508.
100. Van House, N. 2002. “Digital libraries and practices of trust: Networked biodiversity
information.” Social Epistemology. A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy 16, no. 1: 99.
Doi:10.1080/02691720210132833.
31
101. Van Scoyoc, A.M. and Caroline, C. 2006. “The electronic academic library: Undergraduate
research behavior in a library without books.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy 6, no. 1: 47–58.
102. Walter, S. 2012. Ranganathan redux: “The ‘Five Laws’ and the future of college and
research libraries.” College and Research Libraries 73, no. 3: 213–215.
103. Walter, V.A. and Mediavilla, C. 2005. “Teens are from Neptune, librarians are from Pluto: An
analysis of online reference transactions.” Library Trends 54, no. 2: 209–227.
104. Walters, T. and Ruttenberg, J. 2014. “Shared Access Research Ecosystem.” EDUCAUSE
Review Online 49, no. 2: 56–57.
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/shared-access-research-ecosystem.
105. Warwick, C.; Galina, I.; Terras, M.; Huntington, P. and Pappa, N. 2008. “The Master
Builders: LAIRAH Research on Good Practice in the Construction of Digital Humanities
Projects.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23, no. 3: 383–396.
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/13810/.
106. White, D. 2011. “The learning black market.” TALL Blog (30 September),
http://tallblog.conted.ox.ac.uk/index.php/2011/09/30/the-learning-black-market/.
107. Witt, M.; Carlson, J.; Brandt, D.S. and Cragin, M. 2009. “Constructing data curation profiles.”
The International Journal of Digital Curation 4, no. 3: 93–103.
108. Wong, W.; Stelmaszewska, H.; Barn, B.; Bhimani, N. and Barn, S. 2009. “JISC user
behaviour observational study: User behaviour in resource discovery.” Final report.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/programmerelated/2010/ubirdfinalreport.aspx.
109. Yep, J. and Shulman, J. 2014. “Analyzing the Library’s Twitter Network: Using NodeXL to
Visualize Impact.” College and Research Library News 75, no. 4: 177–186.
110. Zickuhr, K.; Rainie, L. and Purcell, K. 2013. “Library services in the digital age.” Washington,
DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
http://libraries.pewinternet.org/files/legacy-pdf/PIP_Library%20services_Report.pdf.
111. Zimmerman, A.S. 2008. “New knowledge from old data: The role of standards in the sharing
and reuse of ecological data.” Science, Technology & Human Values 33, no. 5: 631–652.
Doi:10.1177/0162243907306704.
32
33
2
What is Enough? Satisficing
Information Needs
Chandra Prabha, Ph.D.

OCLC Research

OCLC Research
Lawrence Olszewski, Ph.D.

OCLC
Lillie R. Jenkins, Ph.D.

OCLC
A reprint of:
Prabha, Chandra, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Lawrence J. Olszewski, and Lillie R. Jenkins. 2007. “What is Enough?
Satisficing Information Needs.” Journal of Documentation. 63 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410710723894
© 2007 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
The current information environment is rich, characterized by a proliferation

of information sources and providers, a multiplicity of methods for accessing
information, and a redundancy of content from multiple sources. In this
“overloaded” information environment, many information users tend to experience
a sense of information inadequacy and anxiety. How do individuals navigate
this complex landscape of information? Furthermore, how do individuals
assess the information they find as being enough to satisfy their specific
need? In this complex information environment, understanding how individuals
choose to satisfy their information needs takes on new urgency. Insight into
information seeking can be gained by understanding how users seek information
sources and how they choose content to meet their needs. Yet the library and
information science literature has neglected to study how individuals decide
what and how much information is enough to meet their needs or goals.
Research on information-seeking and -searching behavior has paid ample attention to

sources of information sources used. The process of seeking and searching for information
also has received considerable attention from researchers, resulting in several models, many
of which are centered on information seeking and searching in academic or professional
settings. Though the models delineate the processes, they have not shed much light upon how
users recognize what or how much information is enough to accomplish their objectives.
The present article extends the information-seeking, -searching, and -gathering process
to include how and when individuals stop looking for information, given a goal or a task
that creates the need for information. Individuals are motivated to seek information to
satisfy their needs (Wilson, 2005). Given the information glut, how do individuals manage
information in such a way as to provide a sufficient answer? This, in essence, is what
is meant by satisficing. Satisficing, as defined by Herbert Simon (1955), may be applied
to library and information science as an information competency whereby individuals
assess how much information is good enough to satisfy their information need. Scholars
from different fields have drawn on the satisficing concept to reflect on the “contrast
between choosing what is satisfactory and choosing what is best” (Byron, 2004, p. 1).
To amplify this central thesis relating satisficing to search-stopping behavior, this

article presents examples of satisficing information needs in relation to the academic
tasks that create a need for information in the first place. Role theory and rational
choice theory provide a framework for understanding why users decide to stop
looking for more information when searching for information to meet their needs.
36
Role and rational choice theories in human
information behavior
Both role theory and rational choice theory are attempts to explain human behavior.
Role theory explains individuals’ preferences by situating their search for information
in a social context within a social system (Mead, 1934; Marks and MacDermid, 1996).
Rational choice theory, on the other hand, addresses how individuals decide how
much effort is needed to find information in order to accomplish their objectives.
ROLE THEORY
The term role has its origin in theatre as a part played by an actor, which was written on a roll
of paper (Biddle and Thomas, 1966). The term began to be used in a technical sense in the
1930s when social scientists recognized that social life is akin to theatre where actors play their
“predictable” roles (Biddle and Thomas, 1966). More cogently, role theory explains that: “When
people occupy social positions their behavior is determined mainly by what is expected of that
position rather than by their own individual characteristics” (Abercrombie et al., 1994, p. 360).
George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), Ralph Linton (1893-1953), and Jacob Moreno (1889-1974)
contributed to the development of role theory (Borgatta and Montgomery, 2000). Each attempted
to explain behavior from their distinct disciplinary perspectives. Mead, who approached it from a
philosophical perspective, viewed roles as coping strategies that individuals learn as they interact
in society. Linton, who studied from an anthropological angle, distinguished status from position
in playing a role. Moreno, who studied from the viewpoint of a psychologist, saw roles as habits
and tactics that individuals learn. In effect, “Roles provide behavioral guidelines, prescriptions
or boundaries in the form of expectations” (The Gale Group, 2001). Role theory acknowledges
the particularity of the situation including personal motivations, perceptions of information
needs and priorities for information seeking (Mead, 1934; Blumer and Morrione, 2004).
Including the information-seekers’ social role helps to understand how individuals

seek information in different roles. However, role theory does not explain individual
differences seen among those playing the same role. Rational choice theory,
on the other hand, is useful in this pursuit because it addresses how individual
incentives and intentions influence the information choices users make.
RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY

The origin of rational choice theory has been traced back to logic, mathematics and
statistics, although much of it developed in economics (Green, 2002). Rational choice
theory is based on the premise that complex social behavior can be understood in
terms of elementary individual actions because individual action is the elementary unit
of social life. Rational choice theory posits that individuals choose or prefer what is best
to achieve their objectives or pursue their interests, acting in their self-interest (Green,
2002). Stated another way, “When faced with several courses of action, people usually
do what they believe is likely to have the best overall outcome” (Scott, 2000).
Rational choice theory does not specify that all individuals work toward (or even
desire) similar goals, nor do they assess costs and benefits similarly. Rather,
actors assess “costs” and “benefits” according to their own “preferences, values or
What is Enough? Satisficing Information Needs
37
utilities” (Friedman and Hechter, 1988, p. 202). In other words, individuals “act with
the express purpose of attaining ends that are consistent with their hierarchy of
preferences.” Rational choice theory has been adopted by several fields including
anthropology, political science, psychology, consumer behaviorism, and sociology.
Sociologists use rational choice theory to explain human behavior in terms of individuals’
goals and motivations (Green, 2002). In its purest form, rational choice theory assumes
that it is possible to know and evaluate all of the possible choices. According to this theory,
individuals compare the expected benefits they derive from taking various courses of action in
pursuit of their objectives and then choose one that promises to maximize the benefits relative
to the effort or cost required. In economics, individual actions that are based on individual
preferences are defined as rational if they can consistently compare expected benefits from all
of the alternative courses of actions. In other words, individuals make a cost-benefit analysis
prior to selecting the optimal course of action to achieve a desired goal (Wikipedia, 2006).
In many real-life situations, individuals may not have at their disposal the full range of all possible
choices with which to assess and compare the benefits of each choice in relation to the effort or
cost; therefore, the premise of rational choice theory has been challenged and debated widely by
scholars. Simon (1955) proposed the concept of satisficing, recognizing that in many situations
it is neither possible to know the entire spectrum of options, nor is it possible to compare the
benefits each may offer. In practice, satisficing translates into a judgment that the information is
good enough to satisfy a need even though the full cost-benefit analysis was not performed.
Satisficing
Simon defines satisficing as a decision-making process “through which an individual decides
when an alternative approach or solution is sufficient to meet the individuals’ desired goals
rather than pursue the perfect approach” (Simon, 1971, p. 71). When individuals satisfice,
they compare the benefits of obtaining “more information” against the additional cost and
effort of continuing to search (Schmid, 2004). In fact, in many organizations, “problems are
considered resolved when a good enough solution has been found, that is the manager
satisfices as she looks for a course of action that is satisfactory” (Choo, 1998, p. 49).
Theoretically, decision makers consider all potential alternatives until the optimal solution
emerges (Stroh et al., 2002). However, such an exhaustive analysis would require additional
time and expenditure which information seekers must weigh against the likelihood that they
will find additional information of sufficient value to offset the cost of continued searching. The
consequences of putting time and effort into finding optimal solutions can be costly; therefore,
“decision makers must be willing to forgo the best solution in favor of one that is acceptable”
(Stroh et al., 2002, p. 94). In so doing, information seekers “...satisfice...and choose the one
[solution] that produces an outcome that is ‘good enough’” (Stroh et al., 2002, p. 94).
The foregoing examples suggest that users may satisfice their need for information based on
what they are able to find and thus stop looking for more information. Users may also stop
looking for information prematurely if the information systems are difficult or unusable.
The very abundance of information makes it crucial for information seekers to
decide what information is enough to meet their objectives. This paper examines the
theoretical concepts—role theory, rational choice, and satisficing—by attempting
to explain the parameters within which users navigate the complex information-rich
environment and determine what and how much information will meet their needs.
38
Previous studies and models on information
seeking and searching
STUDIES
The information-seeking and -searching research that explicitly addresses the
topic of “what is good enough” is scant, though several studies make oblique
references to the stopping stage, or to the shifting of directions for want of adequate
information. Kraft and Lee (1979, p. 50) propose three stopping rules:
1. The satiation rule, “where the scan is terminated only when the user becomes satiated by
finding all the desired number of relevant documents”;
2. The disgust rule, which “allows the scan to be terminated only when the user becomes
disgusted by having to examine too many irrelevant documents”; and
3. The combination rule, “which allows the user to be seen as stopping the scan if he/she is
satiated by finding the desired number of relevant documents or disgusted by having to
examine too many irrelevant documents, whichever comes first.”
The stopping rules suggested by these authors imply an emotional or affective response to the
nature of the retrieved documents or their surrogates and do not address the influence of role
and rational choice theories and the concept of satisficing on information-seeking behavior.
Dalton and Charnigo (2004, p. 414) found that “several [historians] mentioned that they
had called a halt to research when they felt they had enough to write, even if other
sources promised to yield additional information. Some had tailored their research
topics to minimize travel.” This study illustrates how historians satisfice their search for
information in the context of research. In another study of historians, Duff and Johnson
(2002) note that time and money are important constraints on how much information
historians can gather, which illustrates how Stroh et al. (2002) define “acceptable.”
Lack of sufficient time and money clearly leads the historians in this study to settle or
satisfice when they believe they have enough information to meet their objective.
Barrett (2005, p. 326) observes that “undergraduates employ a ‘coping strategy’ in their
search for information, often seeking to find ‘enough’ information to fulfill assignment
requirements with the ‘least cost in terms of time or social effort.’” This comment
once again exemplifies how undergraduates (information seekers in a different
role) satisfice their need for information. Barrett’s study of the information-seeking
behavior of undergraduate students excludes how graduate students satisfice.
Some attention has been given to the topic of how the situation influences users’ decisions to
determine what information is good enough (i.e., appropriate). Leckie et al. (1996, p. 185) found
that when:
39
[...] confronted with too much unevaluated information, engineers will
often select sources based on authors they already know and have
used, and lawyers will tend to use their notes from other cases, as
well as familiar digests, citators, and other ready reference sources...
It is often important that the information be obtained immediately
or within an acceptable period of time. Its usefulness and impact
will decrease if it is obtained either too early or too late.
Furthermore, they note that “the cost involved with accessing a particular source will
also affect whether a professional decides to use it. The importance of the need, time
factor, and monies available will determine how much effort and expense a professional
will spend, seeking information from any given source” (Leckie et al., 1996, p. 185).
Although lawyers, as a professional group, fall outside the academic community, this
example illustrates a practice of satisficing behavior. Meho and Tibbo (2003, p.
585) come to the following conclusion about the “ending stage” of research:
The ending stage marks the end of the research cycle of a

project. Although it is not discussed in this paper, an ending
stage was assumed as all interview questions were geared
toward discussing the entire research cycle of a project.
More importantly, they suggest that when researchers cannot find relevant information, they
“try to use alternative sources or methods” (Meho and Tibbo, 2003, p. 585). In other words,
Meho and Tibbo (2003, p. 585) report that these scientists are satisficing by “searching for
new information...or continu[ing] working with whatever information had been obtained.”
However, they do not directly address the ending stage or the factors leading to it.
A very extensive analysis of “what is good enough” is undertaken by

Zach (2005, p. 31), who found that senior arts administrators:
[...] may reach the point of making the decision to complete the
information-seeking process several times during the course of
exploring an issue; they may then cycle through some or all of the
steps one or more times before attaining the desired level of comfort
with the results of the process. Sometimes it may be that additional
information is necessary to provide greater clarity or understanding
of the issue, but often it is that the administrator simply wants
more time to process the input before taking the final step.
40
No administrator in the study applied predetermined criteria to make the decision to move
forward to the next phase. The decision was made when the administrators felt satisfied with
the inputs available to them or the decision was forced by external time constraints. Sometimes
the two primary factors—comfort and time—were in conflict with each other, in which case
they often resorted to satisficing. Administrators also agreed that the type of task or decision
influenced when they would stop the exploration process. However, the essential element
of the decision to move on was the belief that they had enough information to complete the
task or make the decision, even if they knew that more information might be available.
MODELS
Information-related actions begin with the recognition of the need for finding information to
address a situation or solve a problem, and end when the individuals resolve the situation or
abandon the pursuit. Understanding how individuals satisfice their need for information may be
viewed as recognizing how much effort individuals are willing to invest in finding information,
in relation to the trade-offs of information quality, time constraints for achieving an objective,
solving a problem, or addressing a situation. Satisficing the need for information is an integral
component of the larger body of literature on information-seeking and -searching models.
Library and information science research has identified several models for information-
seeking and -searching behavior. A benchmark model, proposed by Taylor (1968), suggests
that librarians consider users’ objectives and motivations in providing answers information
seekers will accept. Taylor’s model recognizes that individuals evaluate information in
relation to the objectives that create their need for information. Krikelas (1983, p. 13)
suggests “that the characteristic of the problem may be a more critical indicator of potential
behavior than various personal or work characteristics.” In other words, the nature of
the problem may indicate how much or what information is needed to satisfice.
Krikelas also discusses Voigt’s (1961) model, which describes three types of information
needs identified by scientists. The scientist’s first type of information need is to keep current
in relevant fields of study. The second need is the scientist’s need for “some specific piece of
information” (Voigt, 1961, p. 21). The third type of information need, which occurs with the least
frequency, is the need for an exhaustive search—the need to find all of the existing relevant
information on a specific subject or topic, as in the case of a dissertation topic (Voigt, 1961). The
exhaustive search is the type that provides the scientist with enough information to determine
that the search process can stop. The three types of needs—monitoring, finding specific
data, and searching exhaustively—require varying amounts of search effort. By connecting
the information need to the information problem, Krikelas, like Taylor, acknowledges that
individuals decide how much information is needed in relation to the nature of the problem.
Marchionini (1995) observes that the determination of when to stop looking for information
may depend on external functions like setting/context/situation or a search system or
on internal functions like motivation, task-domain knowledge, and information-seeking
ability. In other words, all or some of these factors may influence the decision about how
much information is enough. Foster (2004), like Marchionini, remarks that both external
and internal contexts serve to frame information needs, thereby framing the conditions
under which those needs become satisfied. He discovers that users’ knowledge that
they had “enough” information emerged as an iterative process of questioning whether
they had acquired sufficient material to meet the present information need.
41
Wilson (2005) generalizes a theoretical model of a continuing information-seeking cycle which
recognizes the episodic nature of information seeking. Although this model focuses on the
information-seeking process, it does not explicitly explore the conclusion stage; therefore, the
factors that individuals employ in deciding when to stop information seeking are not identified.
Kuhlthau (2005) depicts the information-search process as a sequential set of intellectual

stages: becoming aware of the lack of knowledge or understanding (initiation),
identifying a problem area or topic (selection), exploring the problem (exploration),
defining the problem (formulation), collecting relevant information (collection), and
explaining what the person learned (presentation). This model does not address the
effort required to transition through the various information-seeking stages.
Ellis (1989) proposes a behavioral model based on the analysis of a detailed description
of information-seeking activities by social scientists. In this model, the decision of whether
the information found is sufficient to meet a user’s needs is dependent upon chasing and
evaluating references as well as systemically identifying content that is of interest to the
user. Ellis characterizes six different types of information activities: starting, chaining,
browsing, differentiating, monitoring and extracting. He emphasizes the information-
seeking activities, rather than the nature of the problems or criteria used for determining
when to stop the information search process. In a subsequent article, Ellis (1997)
observes that even in the final stages of writing, individuals may continue the search for
information in an attempt to answer unresolved questions or to look for new literature.
In Dervin et al.’s (2003) sense-making approach, ending an information-seeking episode

involves the act of making sense of the situation or resolving the problem with information
gathered for that purpose. After finding that information, the information seeker will
most likely end the search episode, determining that enough information has been
found. Dervin uses the term “outcome” to denote the information-seeking objective.
Accomplishing that objective implies the conclusion of the information-seeking episode.
Since this model emphasizes the importance of the situation in seeking information and
recognizes the episodic nature of information seeking, it does not explicitly address the
factors associated with stopping behavior, although sense-making recognizes that given
the incomplete nature of reality, the information-seeking process is only ever partially
fulfilled. In that sense, satisficing is a key element in Dervin’s sense-making approach.
Findings of research on satisficing of academic

information needs
In an attempt to identify how and why academic users satisfice their information needs,
a major research project utilized online surveys and telephone, focus group and semi-
structured interviews (IMLS, 2003). In Phase III of the study, a random sample of seventy-
eight academic users participated in focus group interviews to identify how and why
they get information. A total of eight focus group interviews were conducted in spring
2005. The median number of participants per focus group was ten and focus group
participants included 31 faculty, 19 graduate students, and 28 undergraduate students.
The students and faculty were interviewed in separate groups because the students may
have felt uncomfortable freely expressing their opinions in the presence of faculty.
42
The participants were asked to recollect academic tasks that led them to perform
thorough searches. Participants then were asked what made them decide that the
information they had was enough while engaged in doing thorough searches. In
other words, what criteria did the participants employ to stop looking for information,
i.e., to satisfice? Another question asked participants to think of a time when they
were in a situation where they needed answers or solutions and they did a quick
search for the information, without a thorough evaluation of its credibility, even though
they knew there were other sources available and decided not to use them.
RESPONSES TO ENDING THOROUGH SEARCHES

Some of the criteria that the participants mentioned may be viewed as quantitative,
as exemplified by the student who stopped searching for information once he had
acquired the required number of journal sources for an assignment. Other criteria
mentioned by participants are qualitative, as exemplified by the remark that when
the same information is repeated in several sources, the search is terminated.
The criteria students and faculty use for stopping the information search are shown in the
lists below. The academic tasks or situations that prompted the information search are
also shown in order to provide a context for the criteria students and faculty mentioned.
Undergraduate and graduate students

Undergraduate and graduate students discussed writing research reports or preparing
presentations as examples of academic tasks. Responses of undergraduate and graduate
students were combined (see below).
Situations creating the need to look for information (meeting assignment requirements):
• Writing research reports; and

• Preparing presentations.
Criteria used for stopping the information search (fulfilling assignment requirements):
1. Quantitative criteria:
—— Required number of citations was gathered;
—— Required number of pages was reached;
—— All the research questions were answered; and
—— Time available for preparing.
2. Qualitative criteria:
—— Accuracy of information;
—— Same information repeated in several sources;
—— Sufficient information was gathered; and
—— Concept understood.
43
QUANTITATIVE CRITERIA
Some students concluded their search as soon they had collected the required number
of sources. One graduate student said, “We had to research a certain topic, and we had
to have ten sources, and they all had to be journal sources or peer-reviewed sources.”
Another student said that as soon as he collected enough information to write the number
of pages for the report, he stopped the search. This student said, “I don’t feel the need
to expound on the subject beyond the number of required pages.” Another student said
that when he found all the information he was trying to research and all the questions had
been answered, he stopped looking for information. For many students, the amount of time
available for doing the assignment and the relative reward (the value being in terms of the
final grade in the course) influenced when they stopped looking for more information.
QUALITATIVE CRITERIA
A graduate student who was looking for the temperature that the Chinese used for making
ceramics 500 years ago kept looking for that information until she found the answer in
a book. She was then convinced of the accuracy of the information and purchased the
title. Some students said that they knew that “it was time to stop looking for information”
when a great deal of the information was repeated in several sources. “After I’ve read
everything in the article for like the third time through, I’ll just quit. I am like, I have enough,”
remarked one undergraduate student. Some students stop looking for information once
they judge that they have sufficient information to write the assigned report, or when
they understand the concept well enough to articulate their thoughts in a report.
Faculty
Faculty referred to both teaching and scholarly or research needs as prompting them to
perform thorough searches. As shown below, faculty mentioned preparing lectures to
deliver to students, preparing and delivering presentations for classes, and designing
and conducting workshops as situations creating the need to look for information.
Situations creating the need to look for information (meeting teaching needs):
• Preparing lectures and presentations;

• Delivering lectures and presentations;
• Designing and conducting workshops;
• Meeting scholarly and research needs; and
• Writing journal articles, books and grant proposals.
Criteria used for stopping the information search (fulfilling teaching needs):
1. Quantitative criteria:
—— Time available for: preparing lectures and presentations; delivering lectures
—— And presentations; and designing and conducting workshops; and
—— Fulfilling scholarly and research needs.
44
2. Qualitative criteria:
—— Every possible synonym and every combination were searched;
—— Representative sample of research was identified;
—— Current or cutting-edge research was found;
—— Same information was repeated;
—— Exhaustive collection of information sources was discovered;
—— Colleagues’ feedback was addressed;
—— Journal reviewers’ comments were addressed; and
—— Publisher’s requirements were met.
QUANTITATIVE CRITERIA
Deadlines dictated how much time faculty invested in finding information sources. One criterion
—amount of time available—was mentioned frequently by many faculty members as affecting
their decision to stop looking for information. “Usually if there is a deadline and then I turn it in
...” said one faculty member. Another faculty member who had recently written a grant proposal
said that if an article he wanted was not easily available, he did not include it in the bibliography.
Faculty distinguished between the time available for delivering a lecture or a presentation
and the time available for preparing it. Limited by time constraints, one faculty member
stopped searching once he had enough information to produce a presentation for
class lectures. Faculty were likely to spend more time looking for information to
prepare for a two-hour seminar as opposed to a 50-minute classroom lecture.
QUALITATIVE CRITERIA
Some faculty stopped their searches when the topic had been searched “using every
possible synonym and in every combination.” Others stated that as long as “they
represent research legitimately, sampling was okay.” However, the representative sample
must include information that is current, cutting-edge, or unique to the topic. Other
faculty said that when they saw the same information repeated in several sources, they
stopped looking further. Occasionally, they found an exhaustive collection of material
on their topic in one location. For example, a music faculty member who was looking
for information to write a biography found about fifty boxes of valuable material at the
Library of Congress. Since the material covered the entire life of the individual of interest,
the faculty member decided at that point that he could stop looking for information.
A few participants sought comments on their manuscripts, including bibliographies

from their colleagues who are also experts in that field. Once the comments from
colleagues were addressed, they submitted the manuscripts to the journal publishers.
A few faculty members said they consider the search completed once they address
journal reviewers’ suggestions or publishers’ requirements. Faculty seem to apply
qualitative criteria for stopping their search for information when fulfilling scholarly
or research tasks such as writing journal articles, books or grant proposals.
In summary, the conditions that lead students and faculty to stop looking
for more information are both qualitative and quantitative in nature:
45
1. Quantitative criteria for stopping:
—— Requirements are met;
—— Time constraints are limited; and
—— Coverage of material for publication is verified by colleagues or reviewers.
2. Qualitative criteria for stopping:

—— Trustworthy information was located;
—— A representative sample of sources was gathered;
—— Current information was located;
—— Cutting-edge material was located;
—— Exhaustive search was performed; and
—— Exhaustive collection of information sources was discovered.
RESPONSES TO QUICK SEARCHES

An overwhelming number of participants went to the Internet for quick answers. Of
these, a good number preferred Google to search the Internet. They gave a number of
specific reasons for choosing the Internet. Participants valued the Internet for finding
information quickly and conveniently. They valued the opportunity the Internet affords
for familiarizing themselves with topics about which they know little. Human sources
of information (such as parents or friends) are a common information source for
undergraduate students. The objectives of the situations or problems that led them to find
information quickly rarely called for a formal or systematic approach to searching.
Role and rational choice theories in human

information behavior
As noted, the objective of the research was to discover how users decide when to stop
looking for more information. Role and rational choice theories and the concept of satisficing,
a derivative of the rational choice theory, were introduced to help place information-seeking
behavior in a larger social context. Student responses are separated from faculty responses.
UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE STUDENTS

Undergraduate and graduate students tend to view any assignment that the instructor
described as a “research report” as requiring a thorough search for information. Whenever
the research report had specific requirements such as the number of citations to journal
literature, a required number of pages, or the time allotted for class presentations,
fulfilling specific requirements took precedence over doing a “thorough” search. Some
students were indeed aware that they could search endlessly and explore the topic
in great depth but chose not to do so; instead they satisficed their information needs
by remaining within the boundaries of what was required for the assignment.
For students, the relative reward (the value being in terms of a final grade) was a key
factor in deciding the amount of time to invest in assignments and clearly suggests the
46
operation of rational choice theory. The quantitative and qualitative criteria students employ
indicate that they are acting rationally in choosing to stop looking for more information.
FACULTY
Faculty responses can be placed in two groups, qualitative and quantitative, based upon the
information-seeking task chosen. The amount of time they spent searching for information
tended to depend on the amount of time they had at their disposal when it came to giving
lectures, making presentations, or conducting workshops. However, faculty occasionally
mentioned that the time available was a factor in stopping to look for information when they
were pursuing their research and scholarly endeavors such as writing journal articles or books.
Faculty are acting rationally in juggling the amount of time they allocate to prepare for
class lectures or presentations. When pursuing scholarly endeavors, such as publishing
an article, they are acting rationally in not concluding their information search until they
receive feedback from colleagues or reviewers. The larger objective is to publish the
article, and thus they will invest whatever effort is needed to accomplish that goal.
These faculty members employ several criteria to decide how much information is enough for
their purpose. Some of the criteria are qualitative, or intrinsic, judgments, such as the credibility
of the source of information; other criteria are quantitative, or extrinsic, assessments such as
time constraints. Based upon their responses in the focus group interviews, faculty indicate that
they make rational decisions in determining when to stop their search for more information.
Discussion and conclusions

Studies of information seeking and searching make oblique inferences to satisficing in the
context of disengaging from the information-seeking process. Previous studies mention several
factors utilized by individuals when determining when to stop looking for information. These
factors include the:
• Users’ objectives or motivations for wanting the information;

• Characteristics of the information need;
• External variables such as setting, context, and situation;
• Internal variables such as motivation and searching skills; and
• Phase of the project (ending phase).
Role theory, rational choice theory, and satisficing are introduced to determine how these
concepts can contribute to a deeper understanding of human information behavior. The
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) study “Sense-making the information
confluence” (IMLS, 2003), which asked students and faculty explicitly how they decide how
much information is enough, reveals that the participants’ approaches to information sources
and strategies, and the amount of time and effort they devote to searching, correspond
directly to the perceived importance of their objectives. Although these findings support
previous research and theories, they are not generalizable because of the small sample
size. However, these results are important since the study directly asks users to explain
their information-searching behaviors in the current information environment and their
responses substantiate information behavior theories and findings from previous studies.
47
Undergraduate and graduate students tend to stop looking for information when they
find the required number of sources for an assignment. This behavior supports the
theory of Kraft and Lee (1979) that individuals find the desired number of documents
and then stop. This also supports Barrett’s (2005) findings that undergraduate
students seek to find enough information to fulfill course requirements.
Faculty as well as undergraduate and graduate students indicate that time constraints
influence when they stop looking for information. This finding corroborates the results
of the study of historians’ information-seeking behavior by Duff and Johnson (2002)
and Dalton and Charnigo (2004). They report that historians stop their information-
gathering process because of time and financial constraints. Dalton and Charnigo
(2004) also state that some historians develop research topics based on the proximity
of primary sources, a factor influenced by the limitations of time and money.
Zach’s (2005) study indicates that art administrators stop looking for information
when they feel comfortable that they can complete the task, even if they think that
additional information may be available. The comments by all participants in the focus
group interviews support this type of satisficing information-seeking behavior.
All the participants in the focus group interviews said that the first place they look for
information is the Internet, closely followed by human sources. The rationale for this
behavior is the immediacy and convenience of acquiring the information. Leckie et
al. (1996, p. 185) report that engineers and lawyers say it is very important to obtain
information immediately or “its usefulness...will decrease if it is obtained either too early
or too late.” With the ubiquitous accessibility of Internet search engines, cell phones, and
text and instant messaging, immediate access to information is the expected norm.
Role theory helps to explain why students and faculty practice different search behaviors. The
students’ criteria for stopping an information search are influenced by the requirements of their
class assignments. Faculty’s criteria for stopping an information search are based on publication
requirements and deadlines and the amount of time available for preparing and delivering
lectures and presenting papers. Time constraints are an overwhelming factor for faculty in
deciding how much effort they are willing to invest in satisficing their information needs.
In describing their information seeking and searching, participants mentioned their rationale
for choosing specific strategies and sources. The situational contexts of the participants’
information-seeking experiences affect every stage of their search—from the choice of
their first source (Google in many cases, or human resources such as family, friends, and
colleagues)—to ongoing strategies (depth of search, value judgments on resource authority,
browsing and searching) and then decisions on how much information is enough.
48
Implications for library and information science
practice and research
In order for libraries to stay relevant, their systems need to emulate Internet search engines.
Such features as simplified searching and the collocation of all types of information (e.g.,
books, journals, articles, web pages, etc.) facilitate users’ search experience which obviates the
need to understand the complexity of library systems. Both OCLC (De Rosa et al., 2005) and
Williams (2006) indicate that users want their library systems to be as easy to use as Google.
The findings of the focus group interviews also indicate that libraries need to promote the
library resources that are available to users. Both the OCLC report (De Rosa et al., 2005)
and many of the focus group interview participants (IMLS, 2003) state that they were
unaware of the full-text sources available through library-hosted databases. Those who
are aware of them tend to find them difficult to use because of the need to know specific
subject coverage of databases, a knowledge that is often difficult to comprehend when
doing interdisciplinary research. In addition, participants indicate that the inconsistent
search protocols of library web sites and online catalogs discourage effective use.
A vast amount of human computer interaction (HCI) research attempts to understand

the search process. HCI addresses how users conceptualize searching and how
the design of systems impacts users’ satisficing their information needs.
The findings from Phase III of the research project (IMLS, 2003) broaden the scope of earlier user
research, which tends to focus more on the process of information seeking and searching. This
research often portrays users’ information-seeking behaviors as static and habitual. Satisficing,
an idea introduced as early as 1955 (Simon, 1955), helps to explain how individuals make
information choices. Schmidtz (2004, p. 30) views satisficing as a “humanly rational strategy.”
49
REFERENCES
Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. 1994. The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology. 3rd ed., New
York: Penguin Group USA.
Barrett, A. 2005. “The Information-Seeking Habits of Graduate Student Researchers in the

Humanities”, Journal of Academic Librarianship 31, no. 4: 324–31.
Biddle, B.J. and Thomas, E.J. 1966. Role Theory: Concepts and Research. New York: Wiley.
Blumer, H. and Morrione, T.J. 2004. George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct. Walnut Creek,
CA: AltaMira Press.
Borgatta, E.F. and Montgomery, R.J.V. (Eds). 2000. Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York:
Macmillan Reference USA.
Byron, M. 2004. Satisficing and Maximizing: Moral Theorists on Practical Reason. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Choo, C.W. 1998. The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct
Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, M.S. and Charnigo, L. 2004. “Historians and Their Information Sources.” College and
Research Libraries 65, no. 5: 400–25.
De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Cellentani, D., Hawk, J., Jenkins, L.R. and Wilson, A. 2005. Perceptions
of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. OCLC, Dublin, OH.
Dervin, B., Foreman-Wernet, L. and Lauterbach, E. (Eds). 2003. Sense-Making Methodology

Reader: Selected Writings of Brenda Dervin. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Duff, W.M. and Johnson, C.A. 2002. “Accidentally Found on Purpose: Information-Seeking
Behavior of Historians in Archives.” Library Quarterly 72, no. 4: 472–96.
Ellis, D. 1989. “A Behavioural Model for Information Retrieval System Design.” Journal of
Information Science 15, no. 4: 237–47.
Ellis, D. 1997. “Modelling the Information Seeking Patterns of Engineers and Research Scientists
in an Industrial Environment.” Journal of Documentation 53, no. 4: 384–403.
Foster, A. 2004. “A Nonlinear Model of Information-Seeking Behavior.” Journal of the American

Society for Information Science and Technology 55, no. 3: 228–37.
Friedman, D. and Hechter, M. 1988. “The Contribution of Rational Choice Theory to

Macrosociological Research.” Sociological Theory 6, no. 2: 201–18.
50
(The) Gale Group 2006. Role Theory: Foundations, Extensions, and Applications. The
Gale Group: Chandler, AZ. http://cultures.families.com/role-theory-foundationsextensions-
applications-eos (accessed 19 June 2006) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Green, S.L. 2006. Rational Choice Theory: An Overview, Baylor University: Waco, TX.
http://business.baylor.edu/steve_green/green1.doc (accessed 25 June 2006).
IMLS. 2006. “Sense-Making the Information Confluence: the Whys and Hows of College and
University User Satisficing of Information Needs.” Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library
Services, The Ohio State University, and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.,
http://imlsosuoclcproject.jcomm.ohio-state.edu/ (accessed 28 June 2006)
Kraft, D.H. and Lee, T. 1979. “Stopping Rules and Their Effect on Expected Search Length.”
Information Processing & Management 15, no. 1: 47–58.
Krikelas, J. 1983. “Information-Seeking Behavior: Patterns and Concepts.” Drexel Library

Quarterly 19, no. 2: 5–20.
Kuhlthau, C.C. 2005. “Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process.” Fisher, K.E., Erdelez, S. and
McKechnie, L. (Eds.) Theories of Information Behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today, p. 230–4.
Leckie, G.J., Pettigrew, K.E. and Sylvain, C. 1996. “Modeling the Information Seeking
of Professionals: a General Model Derived from Research on Engineers, Health Care
Professionals, and Lawyers.” Library Quarterly 66, no. 2: 161–93.
Marchionini, G. 1995. Information Seeking in Electronic Environments, Cambridge University

Press: Cambridge.
Marks, S.R. and MacDermid, S.M. 1996. “Multiple roles and the self: a theory of role balance.”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 58, no. 2: 417–32.
Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self & Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Meho, L.I. and Tibbo, H.R. 2003. “Modeling the Information-Seeking Behavior of Social
Scientists: Ellis’s Study Revisited.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 54, no. 6: 570–87.
Schmid, A.A. 2004. Conflict and Cooperation: Institutional and Behavioral Economics. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Schmidtz, D. 2004. “Satisficing as a Humanly Rational Strategy.” Byron, M (Ed.). Satisficing and
Maximizing: Moral Theorists on Practical Reason. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 30–58.
51
Scott, J. 2006. Rational Choice Theory. University of Essex: Colchester.
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/ , scottj/socscot7.htm (accessed 20 June 2006)
Alternative URL http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/soc401rationalchoice.pdf

Simon, H. 1955. “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 69, no.
1: 99–118.
Simon, H. 1971. “Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World.” in Greenberger,

M. (Ed.). Computers, Communications and the Public Interest. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press, p. 37–72.
Stroh, L.K., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. 2002. Organizational Behavior: A Management
Challenge. 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
Taylor, R.S. 1968. “Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking in Libraries.” College and
Voigt, M.J. 1961. Scientists’ Approaches to Information. Chicago: American Library Association.
Wikipedia 2006. “Rational Choice Theory.” The Free Encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rational_choice_theory (accessed 7 May 2006).
Williams, L. 2006. “Making ‘E’ Visible.” Library Journal 23.

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6341888.html (accessed 23 June 2006)
Alternative URL http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2006/06/ljarchives/making-e-visible/

(accessed October 2015).
Wilson, T.D. 2005. “Evolution in Information Behavior Modeling: Wilson’s Model.” Fisher, K.E.,
Erdelez, S. and McKechnie, L. (Eds.). Theories of Information Behavior. Information Today:
Medford, NJ, p. 31–6.
Zach, L. 2005. “When is ‘Enough’ Enough? Modeling the Information-Seeking and Stopping
Behavior of Senior Arts Administrators.” American Society for Information Science and
52
3
“Screenagers” and Live
Chat Reference: Living Up
to the Promise
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

OCLC Research
A reprint of:
Radford, Marie L., and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. 2007. “‘Screenagers’ and Live Chat Reference: Living Up to the
Promise.” Scan. 26 (1).
© 2007 State of New South Wales through the Department of Education and Communities.
Note: This article is one of the outcomes from the project Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services
from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives. It is funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Rutgers,
the State University of New Jersey, and OCLC Online Computer Library Center. The grant website is: http://www.
oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/.The authors would like to thank Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, Patrick Confer,
Stephanie Kip, Julie Strange, Timothy Dickey, Susanna Sabolcsi-Boros, Mary Anne Reilly, and Vickie Kozo for their
help with this project.
INTRODUCTION
Much scholarly and popular literature focuses on the Millennial Generation,

born from 1979–1994 (Sweeney, 2006), also called Net Generation, Digital
Generation, or Echo Boomers (Sweeney, 2006; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005,
2006; Hallam & Partridge, 2006). This generation is second in size to the
Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964) and will eventually outnumber Boomers,
perhaps as early as 2010 (Sweeney, 2006, p. 2). Millennials have “behaviors
and characteristics that distinguish them in degree or kind from previous
generations at the same age” (emphasis in original, p. 1). Their communication
and information-seeking behaviors are distinctly different from older cohorts
and radically different from Baby Boomers. Millennials prefer electronic
interfaces that offer more choice/selectivity; flexibility/convenience; and
personalization/customization options, and demonstrate a penchant for
experiential learning, impatience, a results-oriented approach to communication
and searching tasks; and an aptitude for multi-tasking (Sweeney, 2006).
Twelve- to 18-year-old Millennials are referred to here as “screenagers” because of their

affinity for electronic communication via computer, phone, television, etc. screens (see
Rushkoff, 1996). Agosto and Hughes-Hassell (2005) found: “when these teenagers
have information needs, they turn to telephones, televisions, computers, and radios
before turning to print resources such as newspapers, books, and magazines. In fact,
books and magazines, still staples of many public and school libraries, were listed at the
bottom of their list of resources” (p. 161). Screenagers are at home in instant messaging
and chat environments to a degree unmatched by preceding generations, and exhibit
Millennial characteristics to a greater degree than the older group (19–27 year olds).
Responding to user demand and technological trends, an increasing number of libraries provide
Web-based virtual reference services (VRS) as alternatives to traditional face-to-face (FtF)
reference. VRS include asynchronous (e.g., e-mail), and synchronous (e.g., instant messaging/
chat) formats. Information seekers increasingly turn to VRS for anonymity, convenience, (Tenopir,
2004), and extended hours (Ruppel & Fagan, 2002). Yet Braun (2002) noted that libraries have
been slow to adopt instant messaging or chat that screenagers find more appealing than e-mail.
54
Literature review
The proliferation of VRS underscores the need to understand the behavior of users and
providers, examine participant satisfaction, explore the needs of specific populations,
and promote successful interactions. Interpersonal aspects have been shown to
be critical to clients’ perceptions of successful FtF reference interactions (Radford,
1993, 1998, 1999; Dewdney & Ross, 1994) and in virtual environments (Radford,
2006a; Walter & Mediavilla, 2005). VR encounters produce a complete transcript of
each interaction, allowing researchers to conduct content analyses of the dialogue
that may be too difficult and/or obtrusive to attempt during FtF encounters.
Much VRS research involves evaluations of task-related dimensions such as accuracy (see
Arnold & Kaske, 2005, Foley, 2002; Gross & McClure, 2001; Kaske & Arnold, 2002; Sloan,
2004; and White, Abels, & Kaske, 2003). More investigators are turning their attention to
the interpersonal characteristics of VRS (see Carter & Janes, 2002; Janes & Mon, 2004;
Mon, 2006; Nilsen, 2004; Radford, 2003, 2006a, 2006c; and Walter & Mediavilla, 2005).
Millennials and libraries

Millennials have unique approaches to communication and information-seeking that influence
their perception and use of libraries. They have “grown up with computers and video games
… accustomed to multimedia environments: figuring things out for themselves without
consulting manuals; working in groups; and multitasking” (Lippincott, 2005, p.13.2). Sweeney
(2006) believes: “While some in the older generations may adapt quickly, they will always be
immigrants and will never be as competent, resourceful, or ‘natural’ as the Millennial ‘natives’
born into this new culture” (p. 1). Older generations tend to search the web to complete a
given task, but Millennials see the “web as their information universe … [and] prefer the
global searching of Google to more sophisticated but more time-consuming searching
provided by the library” (Lippincott, 2005, p. 13.3, see Schacter, Chung, & Dorr, 1998). They
want easy access to full-text documents and become impatient with complex searching that
yields citations or abstracts and “want not just speedy answers, but full gratification of their
information requests on the spot” (p. 13.13, see Connaway and Prabha, Forthcoming).
Millennials make limited use of libraries and view librarians in negative terms. Radford (2006c)
found that librarians who reprimand adolescents for chat behaviors (such as flaming) can
provoke or exacerbate rude behavior, and provides recommendations for promoting positive
encounters. Research with urban teens found: “participants conveyed negative attitudes
toward libraries and librarians and reported frustration with … aspects of library service
such as strict rules, unpleasant staff, lack of culturally relevant materials, dreary physical
spaces, and limited access to technology” (Agosto & Hughes-Hassell, 2005, p. 161).
Walther and Mediavilla (2005) believe VRS will appeal to Millennials who are frequent
users of IM and social networking sites such as MySpace.com® (Hempel, 2005). Further,
Millennials “were not competent participants in the text-oriented discourse environment
created by reference librarians. When teens go online with their friends, spelling is less
important than rapid response, and capital letters and punctuation are nonexistent. The
aim is to connect. Content is almost irrelevant. Indeed when teens go online with their
“Screenagers” and Live Chat Reference: Living Up to the Promise
55
friends, the medium is the message” (Walter & Mediavilla, 2005, p. 12, see also Fagan &
Desai, 2003, and Janes, 2002). Walther and Mediavilla (2005) believe that: “Unfortunately,
the librarians we studied seem to have grafted inferior versions of the communication
styles and protocols of face-to-face reference onto some rather clunky software” (p.
14). They conclude that VRS has not yet lived up to its promise for young people.
Theoretical perspective and research questions

This research builds on the work of Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson (1967), as applied by
Radford to FtF (1993, 1999) and chat (2006a, 2006c) reference encounters. Watzlawick
et. al, (1967) proposed that all messages have two dimensions: content (information)
aspects and relational (affect, interpersonal) aspects. Research questions derived from
gaps in the literature and application of the Watzlawick et al. (1967) perspective are:
• What are teenager’s communication and information-seeking preferences?

• What relational dimensions are present in chat reference?
• What are the differences in the relational dimensions of teenaged VRS users,
other users and librarians?
• What critical factors influence decisions to use VRS?
• How is the lack of nonverbal cues compensated for in VRS?
• How does VRS users’ satisfaction with FtF reference compare to VRS?
Method
Data were collected from three focus groups and from analysis of a random sample of
431 VRS transcripts from an international service provider. Procedures for data collection,
selecting participants, data analysis, and a report of results are given below.
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS

Three focus groups were conducted with young Millennials (screenagers), in three Northeastern
states, one each from rural, suburban, and urban areas who were regular library users, but
had not used VRS. Participants were recruited by librarians from one school and two public
libraries in collaboration with public school teachers. Two (rural and urban) groups were held at
public libraries, one (suburban) at a public high school. The suburban high school participants
were from a history class. The urban and rural participants were recruited by public librarians.
Of the 33 total participants, 18 (55%)1 were female and 15 (45%) male. Ethnic
composition was: 21 (64%) Caucasian, 6 (18%) African-American, and 6 (18%)
Hispanic/Latino. Thirty-one (94%) participants were in high school and 2 (6%)
were in junior high, with ages from 12–18. Participants signed informed consent
forms and parental signatures were also obtained for those under 18.
The transcripts were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. Names were removed
for confidentiality. The transcripts were qualitatively analyzed and common themes
were identified for each question (see appendix A for focus group questions).
56
Focus group results and discussion
PREFERENCE FOR INDEPENDENT INFORMATION-SEEKING
Several common themes emerged across all three groups. These screenagers prefer
to use Google, other search engines, browse the web, ask friends, or find information
themselves, rather than ask a librarian for help (see also Agosto & Hughes-Hassell, 2005,
2006). Urban and rural teens trusted Google results above advice from librarians (see also
Schacter, Chung & Dorr, 1998). A rural teen voiced the majority opinion: “I wouldn’t really
trust my librarian. I trust Google.” Another rural teen said: “I find something on Google and
there’s enough information on it and it seems logical, I’ll just go with it.” Another usually used
Google results without verification, but would check for research papers: “Especially if it’s
something like you’re doing a paper in class and you already know the subject pretty well
and all you’re looking for are sources to validate what you, you’re putting like your argument
on paper. You validate your argument. I really don’t double check it. I’m like well ‘this is what
I’m trying to say. This is the source I’m going to use.’ But if it’s like a research paper, I’ll
double check my sources a couple of times just to make sure it’s the right information.”
Google is seen as easier and more convenient than library subscription-based databases.
Suburban teens alone trusted results from databases (such as SIRS or Galenet) above Google
or web surfing. They had been taught to use these resources in English class and have easy
access to them through their school library’s website. They agreed, however, that Google
would be used to gather background information in beginning research projects. Suburban
teens had also been taught to evaluate web content. One urban student said: “What I’ve
seen lately is that you can have a page that’s perfectly structured and everything, but yet it
can be inaccurate with, um, information … Some pages like that are biased like towards one
thing. So you have to make sure you look at everything on the page.” Many teens trusted their
ability to evaluate web resources above that of the librarian, although others understand that
librarians know where to find quality information. Valenza (2006) notes that adolescents have
an “apparent lack of concern for their ability to discern the quality of their sources … students
spend little time evaluating what they have on the screen, apparently not able to distinguish
wheat from chaff” (p. 19) and asserts that “People, teens included, stop their searching at
good enough” and frequently choose to “satisfice,” following “a path of minimum effort” (p. 20,
emphasis in original, see also Prabha, Connaway, Olszewski, and Jenkins, Forthcoming).
PREFERENCE FOR FTF INTERACTION

Unexpectedly, the majority prefer FtF interactions with the librarian to mediated communication
when they choose to ask for help. Participants had established strong relationships with their
public (urban) and school (suburban) librarians. One suburban teen noted: “Yeah. I think it’s
easier to have her right there because you can get her feedback on the articles. Like she’ll
pull up a few and then she’ll tell you like what she thinks; it’s scholarly or like what she thinks.
Then if you’re ‘This isn’t right for me,’ she can help you find what you actually need.” Another
suburban teen agreed: “As long as you’re having conversation with someone else at least
you can build a relationship. That’s just something that you can’t get through a computer
typing in stuff.” Both rural and urban screenagers reported that they were more likely to
ask their public librarians for reader’s advisory help than for school-related information.
57
Although the majority carried cell phones, they had never used their phones
to call a librarian for homework help and were largely unaware that their
library had a phone reference service. One urban female was unaware of the
library’s web page. None of the teens would ever email a librarian.
LIBRARIAN STEREOTYPES
Although they valued the interpersonal relationships with their librarians, the
urban and rural groups held negative stereotypes. This excerpt from the urban
group reveals that the adult reference librarians were viewed negatively.
Lisa:2 Yeah, like if they’re not helpful, they’ll point me in

the direction and say “Oh … (talk-over)
Joe: Yeah. Sometimes, sometimes I’ve asked them like where’s a certain book
and they’ll be like, they’ll just point at a random shelf … And then, and then I look
and there’s like three shelves next to each other and I’m like “Which one is it?”
So, it’s like you have to go and look at every book to see if the book is there.
Sarah: And you get embarrassed; you don’t want to ask them
again once you’ve already asked them … (talk-over)
Joe: … It’s like they close their eyes and they’re like that “That one right there.” (laughs)
Multiple Participants: (laughter)
Sarah: And then cause you’ve already asked them, you don’t want to feel
like you’re pestering them too much so you don’t go and ask them again.
It’s like, it’s like, you don’t want to go “So which shelf are you pointing at?”
Because, I mean, once they do their famous point, it’s just like … (laughs)
Multiple Participants: (laughter)
Sarah: … you don’t want to go near them again. That’s it. So, you’d rather
try your luck in searching it out yourself or going on the computer.
Ed: I have actually, uh, left the library and came back another day for the
book. Because they would do the point and then, … (talk-over).
It is especially poignant that Ed “actually, uh, left the library and came back another
day for the book” rather than interact with the librarian a second time to clarify
directions. Sarah refers to “their famous point” evoking one of the components
of the librarian stereotype (see Radford & Radford, 1997). Clearly, screenagers
choose to avoid possible embarrassing situations (see Goffman, 1967).
A rural teen was concerned about approaching a school librarian after an orientation
session: “they spend like the first forty-five minutes of that first day explaining everything
that you’ve heard for like four years and you know how to do it and you’re just like ‘Can
I go and do this? I know what I’m doing.’ And I’m like, if you go ahead they’ll yell at you
and it’s just like, uh, it drives you crazy.” An urban teen voiced a stereotypical view that
58
librarians: “go and use books and just do more traditional librarian kind of thing.” One
rural teen described his school librarian as mean and the school library atmosphere as
unwelcoming: “Aaaah, if it’s necessary, I’ll go. But if not, I’d rather stay away from it.”
REASONS FOR NOT USING VRS

Several reasons emerged to explain why participants had not tried VRS, although nearly
all of the participants were avid IM users, except for the urban students who use email
(see also Agosto & Hughes-Hassell, 2005). Participants used IM for socializing, not
for serious pursuits like homework help. One reason teens did not use VRS was that
they were unaware that these services existed—even though two of the locations had
free statewide VRS available 24/7. Some feared that chat librarians either would not
understand, ignore, or would not care about their information needs. One rural teen said:
“Plus I think the IMing kind of gives it a cold feeling to it like, you know. They really
don’t care. They’re just doing their job. When you can actually sit and talk to someone
face-to-face you kind of can see if they care or not, you know. If they don’t care,
you’re like ‘Well, you’re not going to help me very much anyway’ and you can move
on. But the IM, you can keep trying to ask the same person the same question like
over and over. And if they don’t care, they’re just going to keep ignoring you.”
Participants had little confidence in the multi-tasking or technical abilities of the librarians. One
rural teen said: “A librarian’s trying to do like 15 of those conversations at once they’re going
to mix up replies, mix up the … what and it, I just don’t think it’d be a very applicable …”
Reflecting Millennial impatience, a suburban teen thought VRS would be time consuming:
“I don’t really want to take the time actually to type out, like explaining what I’m doing,
what I need it for, what type of sources I need.” Others felt that asking difficult, e.g., high-
level math and science, questions would prove too complex for VRS librarians.
PRIVACY CONCERNS
Participants had serious privacy and security concerns that stem, in part, from, widespread
media attention to Internet predators. Already warned to avoid disclosing personal information
in chat rooms, teens are reluctant to engage with VRS librarians since they may possibly be
dangerous strangers or cyber stalkers. One urban screenager said; “I don’t usually like to talk to
like people I don’t know on the Internet.” A rural participant said: “I’m not going to go get tutored
on the Internet by somebody who I personally don’t know who might be some psycho serial
killer out there when I could get personal help from my home and people in my community.”
Factors influencing future use

When asked what would encourage them to try VRS, some said a trusted librarian,
teacher, or friend’s recommendation—or better marketing and publicity by service
providers—might help. One rural student said: “I like going to people I know. I would
probably try it as a last desperate resort … I’d feel a little creeped out talking to some
random person about it but okay, I’d give it a shot.” Others felt that if they could choose a
trusted librarian, or one wanting to develop a positive relationship they would try VRS.
59
Chat transcripts—data collection and analysis
Six hundred chat reference transcripts were randomly selected from a population of
approximately 479,673 from OCLC’s QuestionPoint3 service over eighteen months (July 2004
to November 2006). Four hundred ninety-two transcripts were analyzed for this paper; 431 of
these were deemed usable after eliminating system tests or technical problems. Transcripts
were first coded for educational level through user self-identification or inference. The five
education level categories were: Primary School Student (grades K–5), Secondary School
Student (screenagers, grades 6–12,), College Student (undergraduate/graduate), Adult (not in
college), and Unknown. Self-identified cases revealed their year/grade level in school or age, or
were tagged in the XML data for grade level. When such information was not expressly stated,
cues in transcripts were used to infer education level, such as context or subject of questions.
When education level was ambiguous (e.g., when an assignment could be for an advanced high
school class or an introductory college class) the educational level was coded “unknown.”
To check coding reliability, a second coder reviewed education levels for 86 (20%) of 431
transcripts. There was 92% agreement initially, but all but one disagreement was resolved after
discussion for 99% final agreement.
Once educational level had been coded, all transcripts were stripped of identifying information
(e.g., name, email address, IP address, telephone number). The “cleansed” transcripts
were then coded using Radford’s Relational Communication Category Scheme to identify
type and frequency of interpersonal communication. Qualitative analysis involved repeated
reading, identification, comparison, and categorization of issues, patterns, and themes
following the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The category scheme and coding method was applied in a manner used in previous studies
(see Radford, 1993, 1999, 2006a) and was further expanded and refined during transcript
coding for this project.4 The theoretical perspectives of Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson
(1967) and Goffman (1972, 1956) provide frameworks for category development focusing
attention on content (task) versus relational (interpersonal) aspects of communication.
See appendix B for the Radford Relational Communication Category Scheme.
Chat transcript analysis—results and discussion

In the 431 usable transcripts, 22 (5%)5 users self-identified; an additional 72 (17%)
users were inferred to be screenagers (secondary students) for a total of 94 (22%).
The remaining users were classified into: primary school students, college students,
adult (not in college) and unknown. Results for the 94 (22%) screenagers were
compared to results for 150 (35%) users with identifiably different education levels.
The educational level of the remaining 187 (43%) could not be determined.
Many interpersonal dynamics present in FtF reference interactions were found to be present in
VR. As seen in the Radford Category Scheme, facilitators that assist in relationship development
and barriers that impede relationship development were identified in the transcripts. See
Appendices C and D for examples of transcripts with Relational Facilitators and Barriers.
60
table 1 defines Facilitators and Sub-Themes used to classify the data. Greeting Rituals establish
contact with a “Hi” or “Hello” in response to a (usually) canned script sent by the system, e.g.,
“Hello and welcome to Ask-A-Librarian. I am reading your question now.” Similarly, Closing
Rituals refer to exchanges during which the user may thank the librarian and/or add a farewell
such as “good bye” and are met with similar response/script from the librarian such as “Thank you
for using Ask-a-Librarian. Please return if you need additional information.” Users and librarians
demonstrate deference by employing polite expressions, apologies, and repair strategies when
mistakes are made. Rapport Building consists of conversational give and take, self-disclosure,
inclusive language (i.e., let’s or we), use of informal language, and other strategies common
in FtF dialogue. Nonverbal communication is rerepresented by use of emoticons [e.g., ;)]
spelling of nonverbal behavior (i.e., ha ha), phrase abbreviations (i.e., LOL for Laughing Out
Loud), use of all caps (i.e., FLAMING), and other rapidly evolving text-based techniques.
TABLE 1 RELATIONAL FACILITATORS—THEMES AND DEFINITIONS6
Major theme Definition
Relational facilitators Interpersonal aspects having a positive impact

on the librarian-client interaction and enhancing
communication (Radford, 1993, 1999, 2006a).
Sub-theme Definition
Greeting ritual Hello message, marking the beginning of an interpersonal

interaction by exchanging “salutations” (see Goffman, 1972, p. 76).
Rapport building Aspects of the interaction that “involve[s] conversation encouraging

give and take, establishment of mutual understanding, and
development of relationships” (Radford, 1999, p. 25).
Deference Showing courtesy and respect. Regularly conveying

one’s appreciation and confirming the relationship
between participants (Goffman, 1956).
Rerepresentation Use of text characters or characteristics to

of nonverbal cues compensate for nonverbal cues not present in
chat (see also Walther & D’Addario, 2001).
Closing ritual A goodbye message signaling the end of interpersonal

encounters, “some form of farewell display performed
during leave-taking” (Goffman, 1972, p. 79).
61
Differences in facilitators—screenagers
compared to others
The process of comparing counts and averages of occurrences for the Facilitators
found in Screenagers’ transcripts revealed interesting differences. Screenager
transcripts had lower numbers/averages in a number of categories (see table 2).
TABLE 2 RELATIONAL FACILITATORS—LOWER NUMBERS/PERCENTAGES FOR SCREENAGERS
Number occurrences Number occurrences

Category
screenagers (n=94) others (n= 150)
Thanks 88 (.94%) 193 (1.29%)
Self disclosure 53 (.56%) 136 (.91%)
Seeking reassurance 51 (.6%) 106 (.71%)
Agreement to try suggestion 47 (.5%) 111 (.74%)
Closing ritual 34 (.36%) 79 (.53%)
Admitting lack of knowledge 9 (.10%) 32 (.21%)
Encouraging remarks 1 (.01%) 8 (.05%)
Teens typically have low levels of self-disclosure and are reluctant to admit lack of knowledge
or agree to advice, so these results are not unexpected (Radford, 2006b). They engage
in fewer closing rituals, since they are generally impatient and may suddenly leave the
chat session. However, they say “thanks” at nearly the rate of those at other educational
levels, demonstrating better manners than usually attributed to teens. Screenagers are also
enthusiastic (Sweeney, 2006), so it is also not surprising that they express their gratitude.
Screenager transcripts had higher numbers/averages in some Facilitator categories (see

table 3). Teens favor typing shortcuts and alternative spellings, having embraced the key-
stroke-conserving tactics of Instant Messaging and text messaging, as seen prominently
here (see Carter, 2003; Zlinko 2006). It is therefore not surprising that Millennials frequently
use alternate spellings, lower case, and alpha-numeric shortcuts such as “ne1” (anyone).
62
TABLE 3 RELATIONAL FACILITATORS—HIGHER NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES FOR SCREENAGERS

Category
Alternate spellings 34 (.36%) 22 (.15%)
Punctuation/repeat 27 (.29%) 33 (.22%)

punctuation
Lower case 22 (.23%) 26 (.17%)
Slang 11 (.12%) 3 (.02%)
Self-correction 10 (.11%) 6 (.04%)
Enthusiasm 9 (.10%) 10 (.07%)
Explanation for 6 (.06%) 3 (.02%)

abrupt ending
Alpha-numeric shortcuts 3 (.03%) 0
TABLE 4 RELATIONAL BARRIERS7
Major theme Definition
Relational barriers Interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation

that have a negative impact on the librarian-
client interaction and that impede communication
(see also Radford, 1993, 1999, 2006a).
Sub-theme Definition
Relational disconnect/ Failing to encourage give and take, establish

failure to build rapport mutual understanding, and engage in relationship
development (see Radford, 1999, p. 25).
Closing problems Ending the chat interaction without a closing ritual or

exchange of farewell or goodbye (see Goffman, 1972).
Negative closure Strategies “that library staff uses to end the

reference transaction, apart from providing a helpful
answer” (Ross & Dewdney, 1998, p. 154).
63
table 4 defines Barriers and Sub-Themes that emerged from the data. Screenager
transcripts had higher numbers/averages in four barrier categories (see table 5). Abrupt
Endings come with the “cyberterritory” in chat, but the “disappearing user” is puzzling for
librarians who wonder if technical problems occured, or if the user has left the computer.
Millennials, known for their multi-tasking (Sweeney, 2006), may have other chat windows
open, get involved in a phone conversation, or abruptly transfer their focus to other tasks.
Millennials are also impatient, so again this result is not unexpected (Sweeney, 2006).
The number of users who were rude/insulting or goofing around was low, reflecting
findings from analysis of a statewide VRS (Radford, 2006a) that may be viewed as
surprising since many librarians believe that teens are often rude in VRS encounters.
TABLE 5 RELATIONAL BARRIERS—HIGHER NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES FOR SCREENAGERS

Category
Abrupt endings 41 (.44%) (41 transcripts) 47 (.31%) (47 transcripts)
Impatience 12 (.13%) (8 transcripts) 4 (.03%) (3 transcripts)
Goofing around 8 (.09) (4 transcripts) 8 (.05) (1 transcript)
Rude or insulting 3 (.03) (3 transcripts) 0 (0 transcripts)
Implications of focus group and

transcript analysis
These results have many implications for school librarians working with young Millennials.
Teen’s stereotypical images of librarians and fear of being reprimanded or embarrassed
suggest that librarians need to be more aware that teens may be hesitant to ask questions.
Results suggest that teens should be encouraged, treated gently, and invited to ask for follow-
up help. Librarians might consider accompanying teens to shelves to locate materials and
checking with them often during the information seeking process. Teens clearly value FtF
interaction, so librarians may want to take extra time to get to know students, create positive
relationships, and use constructive feedback techniques (e.g., catch them being good).
Since Millennials like collaborative work, ample group space ought to be designated
wherever possible. Teens’ preference for independent information seeking needs to be
accepted and respected. However, they require guidance in becoming savvy searchers
and evaluating resources. Teens are impatient so instruction on efficient use of search
engines and library databases could be promoted as time saving in the long run.
Librarians could do much to allay teens’ fear of using VRS. Teens reveal that they would
try VRS if encouraged by trusted librarians. Demos of VRS could be given along with
discussion of what types of questions and chat behaviors are appropriate (see Radford,
Barnes, & Barr, 2006, for user guidelines). Techniques to avoid dangerous chat situations
64
could be offered. Results also suggest that students should be encouraged to enter library
phone numbers into their cell phones for quick ready reference or verification questions.
School librarians are urged to try VRS with their students or join/promote a local consortium
since these results indicate that screenagers will respond positively to these services
if encouraged to do so and treated with respect as users. This research suggests that
the above strategies would increase teen use of FtF as well as VR library services.
Conclusion
Results clearly indicate that screenagers have different communication and information
behaviors than those of previous generations. The teens’ traditional views of librarians
carry over into their decision-making process for choosing VRS. They do not think
of chat as a possible venue for homework help, worry about chat conversations with
strangers, and have been told to avoid potentially dangerous situations online, so
they need to be reassured by trusted adults or friends before they will try VRS.
Focus group interviews reveal that relational dimensions are critically important to adolescents
who are experiencing a period of rapid emotional as well as physical development (see
also Kuhlthau, 2004). Valenza (2006) notes that a blend of FtF and electronic services
may be best: “For today’s learners, libraries can be exciting hybrid experiences of
face-to-face lessons learned, reinforced with effective online supports” (p. 23).
Walter and Mediavilla (2005) recommend involving teenagers in developing and evaluating
VRS services. “It would be interesting to see what would happen if the designers of such
online reference services followed the principles of good young adult library practice
and involved the teens as active participants in both the planning and the delivery of the
services. At the moment, teens are from Neptune, librarians are from Pluto. Better services
would result if they could meet somewhere closer together in cyberspace” (p. 14).
This research project is reaching out to young Millennials to learn more about their
communication and information-seeking behaviors. One goal is to gain a greater
understanding of their preferences and needs to ensure that virtual and FtF library
services are effective and responsive. VRS offers a promising avenue to reach young
Millennials if they are encouraged and welcomed by librarians. Future relevance
and sustainability of library services may hang in the balance in this Google-
dominated information environment if VRS does not live up to this promise.
65
NOTES
1. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number for demographic data.
2. Participants’ names have been changed to protect anonymity. Participant comments appear
verbatim. Interviewer comments to call upon next speaker have been removed to heighten
readability.
3. The international VRS provider, OCLC Online Computer Library Center’s QuestionPoint, is
supported by a global network. It has been developed by OCLC and the Library of Congress
and has recently merged with 24/7 Reference developed by the Metropolitan Cooperative
Library System in Southern California. QuestionPoint is used in more than 1,000 libraries in
twenty countries; 24/7 serves approximately 500 libraries (http://www.oclc.org/questionpoint).
4. QSR NVivo 7 (QSR International 2003–2006) software was used in data analysis and coding
of the chat transcripts. NVivo enables the researchers to effectively sort large amounts of
qualitative data into themes and provides numerous report options for data reduction and
representation.
5. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number for demographic data.
6. An earlier version of this table was published in Radford (2006a, p.1049).
7. An earlier version of this table was published in Radford (2006a, p.1053).
66
REFERENCES
Agosto, D.E., & Hughes-Hassell, S. 2005. “People, places, and questions: An investigation of
the everyday life information-seeking behaviors of urban young adults.” Library and Information
Science Research 27: 141–163.
Agosto, D. E., & Hughes-Hassell, S. 2006. “Toward a model of the everyday life information
needs of urban teenagers, part 1: Theoretical model.” Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 57, no. 10: 1394–1403.
Arnold, J. & Kaske, N. 2005. “Evaluating the quality of a chat service.” portal: Libraries and the
Academy 5, no. 2: 177–193.
Braun, L. W. 2002. Teens.library: Developing Internet services for young adults. Chicago:
American Library Association.
Carter, D. S. & Janes, J. 2002. “Unobtrusive data analysis of digital reference questions and
service at the Internet Public Library: An exploratory study.” Library Trends 49, no. 2: 251–265.
Carter, K. A. 2003. “Type me how you feel: Quasi-nonverbal cues in computer-mediated

communication.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics 60, no. 1: 29–39.
Connaway, L.S. & Prabha, C. Forthcoming. “Identifying serials user’s needs: Preliminary analysis
of focus group and semi-structured interviews at colleges and universities.” Serials Librarian.
Dewdney, P. & Ross, C. S. 1994. “Flying a light aircraft: Reference service evaluation from the
user’s viewpoint.” RQ. 34, no. 2: 217–230.
Fagan, J. C. & Desai, C. M. 2003. “Communication strategies for instant messaging and chat
reference services.” B. Katz (Ed.). Digital Reference Services, p. 121–156. Binghamton, NY:
Haworth Information Press.
Foley, M. 2002. “Instant messaging reference in an academic library: A case study.” College and
Gerhardt, P. 2004, 7 September. “Homework problems? Help is a click away.” Washington Post, p. C08.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual, essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Gross, M. & McClure, C. 2001. “Assessing quality in digital reference services: Overview of key
literature on digital reference.” Information Use Management and Policy Institute, Florida State
University. http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/bld/Research_Office/VRDphaseII.LitReview.doc
(accessed 3 November 2006) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
67
Hallam, G. & Partridge, H. 2006. “Evidence based library and information practice: Whose
responsibility is it anyway?” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2006 1, no. 3.
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/107/145 (accessed 3 November)
Hempel, J. 2005. “The Myspace generation: They live online. They buy online. They play online.
Their power is growing.” Business Week, 12 December, p. 86.
Janes, J. 2002. “Live reference: Too much too fast?” NetConnect, Fall, p. 12–14.
Janes, J. & Mon, L. 2004. “The thank you study: User satisfaction with digital reference.”
Presented at the ALISE Conference, San Diego, CA, 6–9 January 2004.
Kaske, N., & Arnold, J. 2002. “An unobtrusive evaluation of online real time library reference
services.” American Library Association, Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, 15 June 2002.
http://www.lib.umd.edu/groups /digref/kaskearnoldunobtrusive.html (accessed 3 November 2006)
Kuhlthau, C. C. 2004. Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services,
(2nd Ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lippincott, J. 2005. “Net Generation students and libraries.” D. G. Oblinger, and J. L. Oblinger,
(Eds.), Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE. http://www.educause.edu/content.
asp?PAGE_ID=5989&bhcp=1 (accessed 3 November 2006) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Alternative URL https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101m.pdf

(accessed October 2015).
Metz, C., Clyman, J., & Todd, M. 2003. “IM everywhere.” PC Magazine, 11 November, 22 no. 20:
128–136.
Mon, L. 2006. User perspectives on satisfaction with digital reference services. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.
Nilsen, K. 2004. “The library visit study: User experiences at the virtual reference desk.”
Information Research 9, no. 2. Paper 171. http://InformationR.net/ir/9-2/paper171.html
(accessed 3 November 2006)
Oblinger, D.G. & Oblinger, J. L. 2005. (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE.
http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?PAGE_ID=5989&bhcp=1 (accessed 3 November 2006)
Alternative URL http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/educating-net-

generation (accessed 26 October 2015).
Oblinger, D.G. & Oblinger, J. L. 2006. “Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the Net
Generation.” CSLA Journal, Spring, 29, no. 2: 8–16.
68
Prabha, C., Connaway, L.S., Olszewski, L. & Jenkins, L. Forthcoming. “What is enough?
Satisficing information needs.” Journal of Documentation.
QSR NVivo 7. [Computer Software]. 2003–2006. Doncaster, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd.
http://www.qsrinternational.com/.
Radford, M. L. June, 2006. “Encountering virtual users: A qualitative investigation of interpersonal

communication in chat reference.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 57, no. 8: 1046–1059.
Radford, M. L. 2006. “The critical incident technique and the qualitative evaluation of the
Connecting Libraries and Schools Project.” Library Trends 54, no. 1: 46–64.
Radford, M. L. 2006. “Investigating interpersonal communication in chat reference: Dealing with

impatient users and rude encounters.” R. David Lankes, Eileen Abels, Marilyn White and Saira
N. Haque. (Eds.) The Virtual Reference Desk: Creating a Reference Future, p. 23–46. New York:
Neal-Schuman Publishers.
Radford, M. L. 2003. In synch? Evaluating chat reference transcripts. Presented at the Virtual
Reference Desk 5th Annual Digital Reference Conference, San Antonio, TX, 17–18 November 2003.
Radford, M. L. 1999. “The reference encounter: Interpersonal communication in the academic

library.” Chicago: ACRL, A Division of the American Library Association.
Radford, M. L. 1998. “Approach or avoidance? The role of nonverbal communication in the academic
library user’s decision to initiate a reference encounter.” Library Trends, Spring, 46, no. 4: 699–717.
Radford, M. L. 1993. “Relational aspects of reference interactions: A qualitative investigation

of the perceptions of users and librarians in the academic library.” Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. DAI A54/07, 2368.
Radford, M. L., Barnes, S. B., & Barr, L. 2006. Web Research: Selecting, Evaluating, and Citing.
(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Publishers.
Radford, M. L. & Radford, G. P. 1997. “Power, knowledge, and fear: Feminism, Foucault and the
stereotype of the female librarian.” The Library Quarterly, July, 67, no. 3: 250–266.
Rezabek, L.L. & Cochenour, J.J. 1998. “Visual cues in computer-mediated communication:
Supplementing text with emoticons.” Journal of Visual Literacy 18: 201–215.
Rice, R. E., & Love, G. 1987. “Electronic Emotion: Socio-emotional content in a computer-
mediated communication network.” Communication Research 14, no. 1: 85–108.
Ross, C. S., & Dewdney, P. 1998. “Negative closure: Strategies and counter-strategies in the
reference transaction.” RUSQ, winter, 38, no. 2: 151–163.
Ruppel, M. & Fagan, J.C. 2002. “Instant messaging reference: Users’ evaluation of library chat.”
Reference Services Review 30, no. 3: 183–197. http://www.lib.siu.edu/~jfagan/papers/imref.html
(accessed 3 November 2006) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
69
Rushkoff, D. 1996. Playing the future: What we can learn from digital kids. New York: Harper Collins.
Schacter, J., Chung, G. & Dorr, A. 1998. “Children’s Internet searching on complex problems:
Performance and process analyses.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
July, 49, no. 9: 840–849.
Sloan, B., ed. 2004. Digital reference services: bibliography. http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/~b-sloan/

digiref.html (accessed 3 November 2006) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Sweeney, R. 2006. Millennial behaviors and demographics. http://www.library.njit.edu/staff-folders/

sweeney/Millennials/Millennial-Behaviors-August-14-2006.doc (accessed 3 November 2006)
Tenopir, C. November 2004. “Rethinking virtual reference.” Library Journal 129, no. 18: 34.
Valenza, J. K. 2006. “They might be gurus.” Teacher Librarian 34, no. 1: 18–26.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. & Jackson, D.D. 1967. Pragmatics of human communication.
NY: Norton.
Walther, J. B. 1992. “Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational

perspective.” Communication Research 19, no. 1: 52–90.
Walther, J.B. 1994. “Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational
communication in computer-mediated interaction.” Human Communication Research 20: 473–501.
Walther, J.B., & D’Addario, K. P. 2001. “The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in
computer-mediated communication.” Social Science Computer Review 19, no. 3: 342–347.
Walter, V.A. & Mediavilla, C. 2005. “Teens are from Neptune, librarians are from Pluto: An
Zlinko, C. 9 October 2006. “Don’t say it, type it.” San Francisco Chronicle. http://www
.columbusdispatch.com/emailme/emailme.php?story=dispatch/2006/10/09/20061009-F1-00.html
70
APPENDIX A — FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS FOR NON-
U S E RS O F V I R T UA L R E FE R E N C E S E RV I C E S (AG E S 12 –18)
1. When you are stuck in a homework assignment and need information, what do you do when
you need help?
2. When you need help with homework and decide to get help from a librarian, what do you do?
—— [PROBES: do you usually go to the library, email a librarian, or call the library on the
phone? How do you decide what kind of help to try? ]
3. Do you know that you can ask librarians questions or for help using email or IM (instant
messaging)? If yes, why haven’t you tried them?
4. Would you like to try “IM”ing or chatting with a librarian for help? What would make you
interested in trying email or IM to get help from librarians?
5. What have you heard about getting librarian help or getting library resources on the Web
from your friends or teachers?
71
A P P E N D I X B — R A D F O R D R E L AT I O N A L
C O M M U N I C AT I O N C O D I N G S C H E M E
FACILITATORS —— Self Disclosure

—— Admitting Lack of Knowledge
• Greeting Ritual —— Explaining Search Strategy
• Deference —— Explaining Technical Problems
—— Agreement to Try What is Suggested or —— Offer Personal Opinion Advice, Value
To Wait Judgment
—— Apology —— Rerepresentation of Nonverbal Cues
—— Asking for Other to Be Patient —— ALL CAPS
—— Expressions of Enthusiasm —— Alpha-Numeric Shortcuts
—— Suggesting Strategy or Explanation in a —— Asterisk for Emphasis
Tentative Way
—— Ellipsis
—— Polite Expressions
—— Emoticons
—— Praise, Admiration
—— Lower Case
—— Self-Deprecating Remarks
—— Phrase Abbreviations
—— Thanks
—— Spells Nonverbal Behaviors
• Rapport Building —— Punctuation or Repeated Punctuation
—— Familiarity
• Closing Ritual
—— Humor
—— Explanation Abrupt Ending
—— Informal Language
—— Invites to Return If Necessary
—— Alternate Spelling, Abbreviated Single
—— Makes Sure User Has No More
Words
Questions
—— Slang Expressions
—— Offers to Continue Searching & E-Mail
—— Interjections Answer
—— Offering Confirmation
—— Approval
—— Empathy
—— Inclusion
—— Offering Reassurance
—— Encouraging Remarks, Praise
—— Enthusiastic Remarks
—— Repair Self Correction
—— Seeking Reassurance, Confirmation Self
Disclosure
72
BARRIERS
• Negative Closure
—— Abrupt Ending
—— Disclaimer
—— Failure to Refer
—— Ignoring Cues that User Wants More
Help
—— Premature or Attempted Closing
—— Premature Referral
—— Sends To Google
• Relational Disconnect Failure to Build

Rapport
—— Condescending
—— Derisive Use of Spelling NV Behaviors
—— Disconfirming
—— Failing to Offer Reassurance
—— Failure or Refusal to Provide Info
—— Goofing Around
—— Ignoring Humor
—— Ignoring Self-Disclosure
—— Impatience
—— Inappropriate Script or Inappropriate
Response
—— Inappropriate Language
—— Jargon, No Explanation
—— Lack of Attention or Ignoring Question
—— Limits Time
—— Mirrors Rude Behavior
—— Mistakes
—— Misunderstands Question
—— Reprimanding
—— Robotic Answer
—— Rude or Insulting
73
APPENDIX C— SAMPLE TR ANSCRIPT WITH
R E L AT I O N A L FA C I L I TAT O R S
“Mathematics in the Islamic empire”

(Note: U=User, L=Librarian)
1 U i need a good website about the accomplishments

of mathrmatics during the islamic empire
2 L [A librarian will be with you in about a minute.]
3 L [A librarian has joined the session.]
4 L [You have been conferenced with MD]
5 L (Name) welcome to (service name) I’m looking at your

question right now; it will be just a moment.
6 L Hi (name) - sorry about the delay there. This is

(name), a librarian in Baltimore County...
7 U ok
8 L Okay, we should be able to find something on that topic. Math and

Islam. Just a minute or two while I search. Please let me know if
there’s anything specific in this area that you’re looking for, okay?
9 U i don;t care about the delay i have plenty of time
10 L Thanks for understanding. We just had a very busy spell on the service
and I just finished up another call. Let’s see... searching now.
11 U i just need any certan mathematicians or the accomplishments

of mathematics during the islamic Empire
12 L Okay, to start I’m going to send you an article linked from the Math Forum:
13 L [Page sent]
14 L It should show on your screen in just a few seconds. Are you able
to see it? the title is Arabic mathematics : forgotten brilliance?
15 U thank you very much
74
16 L Great - glad you can see it! There was one other article - did you
want me to send it to you, or are you okay with just this one?
17 U yes plaese
18 L Okay, just a sec.
19 L [Page sent]
20 U i spelled please wrong
21 L The title of this 2nd page I just sent was, “The Arabic numeral system”
22 U thank you
23 L No problem on the spelling. :) Typing this fast it’s giong to happen.
24 L *going*
25 L Okay, what do you think? Will these answer your questions?
26 U yes thank you
27 L Great! Please do write us back if you need anything else.
28 L Thank you for using name service! If you have any further questions, please
contact us again. If you provided an e-mail address, you should receive a
full transcript in a few minutes. You may click the “End Call” button now.
29 U i am doing a history reseach project and i am having trouble finding things
30 U [patron - has disconnected]
31 U i am doing a history reseach project and i am having trouble finding things
32 L Oh, well if you need any more detailed info, the subscription
databases available through the Harford County home page should
help. Let me know if you’d like any assisitance in that area.
33 L [Thank you for using (service name!) If you have any further questions, please
contact us again. If you provided an e-mail address, you should receive a
full transcript in a few minutes. You may click the “End Call” button now.]
34 Note to staff: COMP [user has closed this session]
75
DISCUSSION OF RELATIONAL FACILITATORS IN “MATHEMATICS
IN THE ISLAMIC EMPIRE” TRANSCRIPT
The above example of a positive interaction demonstrates a positive interaction between
a librarian and user, with many examples of relational facilitators. Deference, for example,
is shown by the librarian in several places. Immediately as the librarian greets the user,
an apology is offered for the delay in responding to the user’s query (line 6). Later in the
transcript, the librarian thanks the user for being patient (line 10) and shares enthusiastic
comments with the user (line 16). Another excellent example that highlights a relational
facilitator in action is where the librarian reassures the user after a mistake in typing is
noted (lines 20 and 23) and crowns the reassurance with a smiley face emoticon. The
user demonstrates deference in return by in repeated use of polite expressions and
thanks (lines 15, 17, 22, & 26). In line 25 the librarian is again deferential to the user in
seeking feedback and approval. The librarian shows kindness, encouragement (line 23)
and enthusiasm (line 27) to the user, all of which are relational facilitators which build
rapport Lastly, even after the user logs off the librarian continues the positive interaction
by inviting the user to return to use the service if further help is needed (lines 32 & 33).
76
APPENDIX D — SAMPLE TR ANSCRIPT WITH
R E L AT I O N A L B A R R I E R S
“Physics”
(Note: U=User, L=Librarian)
1 U Physics
2 L [Please hold for the next available librarian. If you would like a transcript of
this session emailed to you, please type your full email address now.]
3 L [A librarian has joined the session.]
4 U when you drive forward in a bumper car at high speed and then
you slam into the car in front of you, you find yourself thrown
forward in your car. Which way is ur car accelerating?
5 L thank you for holding I was working with another patron.
6 L Is this a homework question.
7 L I’m not an expert on driving so I really can’t answer that.
8 U can u find a website or something
9 L I’m not sure what you are asking.
10 U when you drive forward in a bumper car at high speed and then
you slam into the car in front of you, you find yourself thrown
forward in your car. Which way is ur car accelerating?
11 U ....
12 U hello?
13 L Is this a homework a homework assignment. what subject is it.
14 L I really don’t understand how I can answer that for you.
15 U can i hav another librarian
16 L The information you gave you me does not help

me find any resources to help you.
77
17 L What do you mean by which way is your car accerlaerating.
Are you sure thats what your assignment asks.
18 U yes
19 L What subject is this question from?
20 U physics
21 L Okay just one moment.
22 L [Page sent]
23 L This is one site that may help.
24 L [Page sent]
25 L [Page sent - LeapStart Learning Table. Learning Starts Here!]
26 L this is another site that youmay try forhelp.
27 L When we disconnect youwill have these links in a transcript.
28 L [Page sent]
29 L This site looks to be very helpful.
30 L [Page sent - The Physics Classroom]
33 U this isn’t helpful
34 L Well I really don’t have any other resources that can assit you.
36 L I cannot answer the question for you, I don’t have the physics knowledge.
37 L Maybe you will need to ask your instructor for a clear understanding.
39 U do u kno ne1 who does
78
41 U Sorry I do not.
42 U ok
43 L I have a few patron that I ned to assist.
44 U ok bye
45 L [Thank you for using (service name)! If you have any

further questions, please contact us again.]
46 Note to staff: COMP [user has closed this session]
DISCUSSION OF RELATIONAL BARRIERS IN “PHYSICS” TRANSCRIPT

The above transcript demonstrates a negative interaction between a librarian and user with
multiple examples of relational barriers. The user initiates the chat session by providing
the subject area for the inquiry: “Physics.” However, this primary piece of information is not
attended to by the librarian who twice later asks the user to disclose this information again
(see lines 13 and 20). While the librarian could have asked probing questions or performed
a query negotiation at any moment during this encounter, no attempt was made to clarify
the user’s question other than asking about the subject and asking if this is a homework
assignment (lines 6 and 13). Other examples of relational barriers include several occasions
when the librarian avoids assisting the user and offers disclaimers (see lines 7, 34 and 36)
including lack of subject knowledge. It becomes evident that the user is dissatisfied with
the assistance from this particular librarian when he/she asks if another librarian can assist
(line 15) and again when the user provides feedback that the web resources pushed to
his/her desktop are not helpful (line 33). The librarian uses a negative closure strategy in
attempting to refer user back to their teacher (line 37). In line 39 when the user asks if the
librarian knows anyone (ne1) else who can help, the user is asking for a referral, but the
librarian refuses to provide one (line 41). As a final rebuff, the librarian provides an excuse
to leave and limits the time by saying he/she had other patrons to assist (line 43).
79
80
4
Sense-Making and Synchronicity:
Information-Seeking Behaviors of
Millennials and Baby Boomers
OCLC Research
Timothy J. Dickey, Ph.D.
OCLC Research
Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams
Patrick Confer
OCLC Research
A reprint of:
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Marie L. Radford, Timothy J. Dickey, Jocelyn DeAngelis Williams, and Patrick Confer. 2008.
“Sense-making and Synchronicity: Information-seeking Behaviors of Millennials and Baby Boomers.” Libri. 58, no. 2:
123–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/libr.2008.014
Reproduced with permission of K.G./SAUR VERLAG GMBH.
The content of this paper is based on a presentation at the international conference “i3: Information: Interactions and
Impact,” organized by the Robert Gordon University’s Department of Information Management, and held in Aberdeen,
Scotland, 25–28 June 2007.
This paper is one of the outcomes from two projects:
• “Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows of College and University User Satisficing of
Information Needs.” Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Ohio State University, and OCLC Online
Computer Library Center, Inc.
• “Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives.”
Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University, and OCLC, Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Marie L. Radford and Lynn
Silipigni Connaway, Co-Principal Investigators. URL: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/default.htm
INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM DOMAIN
In an era of staggering changes to the global information environment, library and

information science faces numerous challenges. The current digital landscape
demands that library practice both becomes more intensely user-centered in all
of its systems and services, and simultaneously return to its core philosophies
in the face of cyberspace’s limitless information sources and unregulated chaos.
The accessibility and immediate delivery of full-text content on the Internet adds
another dimension to users’ expectations and experiences in information delivery.
Libraries are vying for information seekers’ attention in the digital environment. Previously
information resources were scarce; therefore people’s attention centered on the library
where numerous resources were organized, stored, and made accessible. Now information
is abundant on the Internet and the information seekers’ attention to library sources has
become scarce (Prabha, et al. 2007; Harley, et al. 2006; OCLC 2006; “HotTopics: 2006
User Update” 2006). Traditionally, library-centered processes, systems, and services have
required users to build and adapt their workflow around them. Librarians now must build
systems and services around the users’ workflow and habits. LIS professionals desiring
to make changes have found it difficult to change libraries as quickly as other technology-
based information providers because library systems and the services constructed
around them have been in place (and deeply ingrained) for centuries. Libraries also must
serve various constituencies with differing information-seeking habits and needs.
To remain relevant in this environment, libraries must provide services that match
the information-seeking habits of a new generation, the Millennials, who “…
think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors”
(Prensky 2001a, np), along with those of one of their largest constituencies—the
Baby Boomers. These two groups display different characteristics and information
needs, presenting a dichotomy for library service and system development.
Two research projects, “Sense-making the Information Confluence: The Whys and Hows
of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs” (Dervin, Connaway and
Prabha 2003) and “Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from
User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives” (Radford and Connaway 2005), studied
the habits and needs of information seekers to identify patterns and characteristics for
discovering and accessing information. Both studies include multi-method research
designs to identify how and why individuals seek and use information. This discussion
focuses on the information-seeking habits of Millennials and Baby Boomers, reporting
the portions of the project findings relating to focus group and semi-structured interviews
and Virtual Reference Services (VRS) transcript analyses phases for each project.
82
Study population
BABY BOOMERS
After World War II ended in 1945, and there was an exponential increase in births in the
United States stretching between 1946 and 1964 (Krohn 2004; Dempsey 2007). Those born
within this period are referred to as the “Baby Boom Generation” (Gillon 2004). Boomers
are the largest growing generational demographic, representing over 25% of the US
population (Kahlert 2000). As life expectancies increase, this statistic is likely to increase.
Boomers are often divided into two cohorts. According to Campbell (2005), older Boomers
are born between 1946 and 1956 and younger Boomers were born between 1956 and
1964. (For an in-depth discussion of the two cohorts, see Schuman and Scott 1989.)
During the 1950s, the US experienced prosperity and great economic growth, while the
1960s reflected times of social upheaval and cultural change (Gillon 2004). Although difficult
to generalize, Boomers growing up in the 1950s and 1960s display certain characteristics
which may be attributed to the social, cultural, and political environments experienced
during their development (Campbell 2005). Overall, Boomers are better educated, more
technology literate and economically more advantaged than any generation before them
(Williamson, et al. 2006). Described as optimists and believers in the American Dream,
they are self-absorbed, strive to be the center of attention, and tend towards a desire
for self-gratification. Work is very important to them and they have a team orientation,
while longing for personal and spiritual growth. Boomers are concerned with their health
and believe “aging is optional” (Grossman 2000). Key characteristics are the desire to
stay young, keeping their minds busy and maintaining mental agility, to remain active
in the workforce longer, and to be in touch with technology (Dempsey 2007).
Boomers are heralding a shift in how previous generations approached work and technology.
Older individuals are populating the workforce at an increasing rate, exposing them to
technology which becomes integrated into daily life. Boomers have different requirements
for information, as they read more and use public libraries more than previous generations
(Joseph 2006). “The majority (56% of those currently ages 50–64 years, the early Boomers)
have Internet access, have used computers and the Internet in their work lives, and report
that they would miss the Internet if they could no longer use it” (Willis 2006, p. 44). During
a six-year period (2000–2006) there was an increase from 13% to 43% of older individuals
having Internet access and actively using it (Willis 2006). For Boomers, information-seeking
and e-mail are the most prominent uses for computers and the Internet (Willis 2006).
Increasingly, Boomers engage with technology in libraries. They have high expectations
for public libraries to provide the latest and best resources (Kahlert 2000). Their interests
and habits bring new demands for information and technology: “… as the World Wide
Web increasingly became a central resource for information, Boomer doggedness
would shape the culture of that medium as well, turning it into an investigative tool
for any citizen or consumer seeking the truth about the policies and products they
were asked to consume.” (Steinhorn 2006, p. 202). Although Boomers and Millennials
demonstrate different behaviors and characteristics, they do share some similarities.
Sense-Making and Synchronicity: Information Seeking Behaviors of Millennials and Baby Boomers
83
THE “MILLENNIAL” GENERATION
Born between 1979 and 2000, the “Millennial” generation (Howe and Strauss 2000) has also
been called: “Net Generation,” “Generation Y,” or “Echo Boomers.” The 76 million Millennials
may constitute the most-studied generation in history. The defining characteristic of the Millennial
mindset is that they are “digital natives” (Prensky 2001a), growing up immersed in technologies
which for them are invisible and taken for granted, “like the air” (Tapscott 1998, p. 39). Far
surpassing the general public, 20% of Millennials began using computers between the ages of
5 and 8, 72% check e-mail at least once a day, and 78% browse the Web for fun (Jones and
Madden 2002). Technology surrounds them and dominates their socialization: “over 10,000 hours
playing video games, over 200,000 e-mails and instant messages sent and received; over 10,000
hours talking on digital cell phones; over 200,000 hours watching TV … —all before the kids
leave college” (Prensky 2001b, p.1; see also Hempel 2005; Junco 2005; Gibbons 2007). Some
specific generational features pertinent to libraries and information-seeking include the following:
Immediacy. According to Sweeney (2006), “Millennials, by their own admission,

have no tolerance for delays” (p. 3). They respond quickly to communications
from others, expect the same in return (Oblinger and Oblinger 2005), and seek
information sources that are convenient (Van Scoyoc and Cason 2006).
Collaboration. Highly team-oriented, Millennials’ relational patterns tend to be non-

hierarchical and they can operate as an organism, “a single networked whole” (Rushkoff
1996). This especially applies to their online communication styles, which have evolved
around instant messaging (IM) and chat rooms (Walter and Mediavilla 2005).
Experiential learning. Preferring to learn actively and by discovery (Oblinger

and Oblinger 2005), their lifelong navigation of the Internet may give Millennials
greater critical thinking skills and judgment (Tapscott 1998).
Visual orientation. Millennials work and learn well in a visual environment

and process visual information efficiently (Rushkoff 1996). This can lead to
difficulties in interactions with current library systems (Lippincott 2005).
Multitasking. Often charged with having shorter attention spans than previous generations,
Millennials also seem to have developed a broader “attention range” to diverse inputs (Rushkoff
1996, p. 50–51). Their minds leap about in the manner of hypertext (Prensky 2001).
Results orientation. Millennials are practical, caring deeply about

concrete results, grades, and achievements (Sweeney 2006).
Confidence. Millennials have positive outlooks, and feel high levels of “self-efficacy” in the
information search process (Fields 2006; Fallows 2005). 70% of incoming college students rate
themselves highly in “learning effectively,” although approximately one third will not continue to
the second year (Indiana University 2006; Ishler 2005, p. 29). While older generations go to the
Web for specific tasks, Millennials are comfortable both on and offline (Lippincott, 2005 p. 13.3).
Researchers have begun delineating the information behaviors specific to Millennial

teenagers. Rushkoff (1996) described the non-linearity of the thinking patterns of those he
terms “children of chaos,” coining the term “screenagers” to describe those who grew up
surrounded by television and computers (p. 3). Julien (1999; 2004) studied the information-
84
seeking behaviors of teenagers, concluding that many did not know where to look for
information amid a plethora of sources, and desired emotional support during the process.
Agosto and Hughes-Hassell (2006a; 2006b) found that the everyday life information needs
of urban teenagers tended to mirror those of more advantaged, non-minority groups. One
aspect of teens’ information behaviors that seems certain is their preferences against
traditional libraries (Agosto and Hughes-Hassell 2005; Edwards and Poston-Anderson
1996) and for digital libraries, which are increasingly important to them (Valenza, 2007).
Theoretical frameworks
Sociological and communication theories are the premise for the phases of the two studies
discussed in this paper.
STUDY 1: SENSE-MAKING THE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE

The analysis of academics’ information-seeking behaviors is based on sociological theory.
Herbert Simon (1955, 1957), whose major area of research was organizational behavior,
specifically decision-making and problem solving, believed that people do not have the
capacity or cognitive ability to make optimal decisions. Instead, they make the best decisions
possible within cognitive boundaries, referred to as bounded rationality (Simon 1957).
Simon further suggests that individuals assess the amount of effort they will expend on
gathering information to solve a problem; settling for “good enough,” satisficing, instead
of pursuing the optimal solution. Simon’s term satisficing, a combination of the words
satisfy and suffice, suggests that individuals settle for what can be accomplished within
pre-determined or imposed parameters. Satisficing is a component of rational choice
theory, which also provides a framework for describing information-seeking behaviors.
Rational choice theory describes a purposive action whereby individuals judge the
costs and benefits of achieving a desired goal (Allingham 1999; Cook and Levi 1990;
Coleman and Fararo 1992). Humans, as rational actors, are capable of recognizing
and desiring a certain outcome, and of taking action to achieve it. This suggests
that information seekers rationally evaluate the benefits of information’s usefulness
and credibility, versus the costs in time and effort to find and access it.
Role theory offers a person-in-context framework within the information-seeking situation

which situates behaviors in the context of a social system (Mead 1934; Marks 1996).
Abercrombie, et al. (1994, p. 360) state, “When people occupy social positions their behavior
is determined mainly by what is expected of that position rather than by their own individual
characteristics.” Thus the roles of information-seekers in the academic environment influence
the expectations for performance and outcomes. For example, faculty would be expected
to look for information differently than undergraduate students. Faculty members are
considered researchers and experts in their disciplines, while undergraduate students are
novices and protégés, roles that place them differently within the organizational structure
of the academy (Blumer, 2004; Biddle, 1979; Mead, 1934; Marks, 1996; Marks, 1977).
STUDY 2: SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY

The Seeking Synchronicity study drew from two heuristically rich theoretical frameworks, those
of Goffman (1967) and Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967). Human conversation can
85
be analyzed in various ways, and according to Goffman (1967), interactions are comprised of
civility rituals and conventions. The analysis of interpersonal communication in VRS transcripts
parallels analysis of face-to-face (FtF) relational dynamics. As each VRS session generates
an artifact, a complete transcript of the conversation, it is possible to capture relational aspects
along with the query clarification and information exchange. Goffman draws attention to the
idea that in FtF, as well as in computer-mediated communication (CMC), each person’s goal
and obligation is to uphold the other’s “face” as well as their own. He defines “face” as the
“positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he
has taken during a particular contact” (1967, p.5) and used the term “face-work” to refer to
the strategies people use in conversation to protect one another’s positive social value.
In VRS transcripts, the cyber “face” of the librarian and user are observable in their
adherence to or neglect of interpersonal rituals, including greetings, closings, and politeness
conventions of deference, such as using “please” or “thanks” as appropriate (Goffman
1956, 1972; see also Chelton 1997). Chat text can be closely analyzed to gain insight into
the dynamics of this goal-directed interaction as participants engage in the creation and
maintenance of face during the encounter. The relational analysis of the chat transcripts
draws on Goffman’s framework to identify chat behaviors which can be classified as
positive or negative face-work and builds on previous research (Radford 2006a).
Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson’s (1967) relational theory informs the development of
the themes and coding categories for the Seeking Synchronicity study. Their seminal work
Pragmatics of Human Communication (1967) posits the dual nature of human communication
in which all messages have two dimensions, content (information) and relational (affect,
interpersonal) aspects. Relational theory formed the basis of numerous studies, including
exploring communication in virtual environments (e.g., Walther 1996). This theory has been
applied by Radford (1993, 1999) to FtF reference encounters and to developing a classification
scheme for interpersonal aspects of VRS interactions (Radford 2006a, 2006b). The research
questions addressed in this study derive from the gaps uncovered in the literature and application
of the Watzlawick et al. (1967) and Goffman (1967) perspectives. These research questions are:
• What relational dimensions are present in chat reference transcripts?

• What is the relationship between content and relational dimensions in determining the quality
of chat reference encounters?
• What are the critical factors that influence the decision to select and use virtual reference
services (VRS)? Why do non-users opt to use other means?
• Are there differences in the relational dimensions/patterns of teen-aged VRS users, other
users and librarians? If so, what are they?
• How do VRS users and librarians compensate for lack of nonverbal cues in chat reference?
86
Results and discussion of the two studies
STUDY 1: SENSE-MAKING THE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE
A three-year project (Dervin, Connaway, and Prabha 2003; Prabha et al. 2007; Connaway
2007) investigated the information-seeking behaviors and satisficing (Simon 1955, 1979)
of faculty and graduate and undergraduate students from a sample of forty-four colleges
and universities within a Midwestern region in the U.S. Seventy-eight randomly selected
participants completed sense-making focus group interviews and a subset (N=15) of the
focus group interview participants were selected for individual semi-structured interviews.
The research’s premise was to illuminate the information-seeking “hows” (activities and
practices moment-to-moment) and “whys” (choices and changing criteria for evaluation),
with emphasis on the richest possible context per episode. The findings may be parsed
among the generations, by comparing results from undergraduate students (principally
Millennials), graduate students (majority of older Millennials), and faculty (largely Boomers).
FOCUS GROUP AND SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Undergraduate students (Millennials) tend to seek academic and personal information
based on speed and convenience. When describing their information behaviors, they
overwhelmingly cited Google as a first choice, with human sources (parents and friends)
second. Many of the undergraduate students mentioned asking parents for information in
academic situations, specifically their fathers. This correlates with the “helicopter parents”
phenomenon identified in the behaviors of undergraduate students at the University of
Rochester (Carlson 2007; Gibbons 2007) and discussion of the interactions of Baby
Boomer parents with college-age children (Lum 2006; Lipka 2005). Library sources, if
mentioned, tended to be via electronic mediation and students may have been unaware
they were library sources. Finding library OPACs difficult to navigate, some use Amazon.
com as a discovery tool, and then go the library site. They do consider the authority
of electronic sources, but seem to make many choices based on convenience (cost/
benefit), concluding a search when minimum assignment requirements are met.
Graduate students, who overlap between the generations but are principally older Millennials,
reveal somewhat different information behaviors for academic situations. Google remains
high on their source list for quick searches, followed by human sources, but human sources
included academic superiors and friends. They, too, value the Internet for convenience and
currency, and access library sources electronically. Their research techniques, however,
tend to be more sophisticated and exhaustive, including citation searching, interlibrary loans,
and library databases. They may stop searching for information when reaching assignment
limits, but also consider the impossibility of truly exhausting topics. Some of the graduate
students mentioned parents as sources for personal information-seeking situations. One
of the graduate students stated, “… I just go ask my dad, and he’ll tell me how to put in
a fence, you know? So why sort through all this material when he’ll just tell me.”
Generally older and more experienced, faculty members reveal yet another stratification in
information-seeking patterns. Faculty admitted that they use Google for quick searches, but
even there it came in second, behind personal libraries. Their human sources tended to be
colleagues or other experts. They cited ease of locating information on the Internet (including
access to library sources like databases and electronic journals), but praised the physical
87
library collection, and specified the criteria of trustworthiness and authority that they apply to
non-library sources. Not only were their information-seeking processes more sophisticated,
they tend to continue searching until completely saturated with information on a topic.
STUDY 2: SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY

Seeking Synchronicity has studied the needs, behaviors, and impressions of librarians,
users, and non-users of VRS. Results from the first two phases (focus group interviews
and transcript analysis) of a four-phase project are presented here. (See Radford and
Connaway 2005 for a detailed description of the project phases.) Phase one involves
focus group interviews with users, non-users and librarians to explore their experiences
with VRS, as well as to discover non-users’ reasons for not using VRS and factors
that might prompt future use. Phase two examines VRS transcripts to reveal multiple
aspects of the interactions, including the nature of interpersonal communication.
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW RESULTS

Focus group interviews with eighteen Screenager and five graduate student non-users
reveal a number of information-seeking patterns and concerns about VRS. Screenager
non-users prefer to find information independently, asserting: “I wouldn’t really trust my
librarian. I trust Google” (Radford and Connaway 2007). Participants said some librarians
help by only pointing toward resources, evoking negative librarian stereotypes (Radford
and Radford 1997). However, Screenagers value the interpersonal communication of FtF
interactions with librarians over “cold” VRS environments. Disinclined to use VRS, they
feared encounters with Internet stalkers or “psycho-killers” masquerading as librarians.
Also, they are skeptical of the speed and convenience of the service, the accuracy of
information obtained in VRS, and the librarian’s ability to answer difficult questions.
Graduate student non-users prefer FtF interactions, preferring a personal relationship with
librarians. They favor Internet tools for information seeking, including Google and library Web
pages. They are reluctant to use VRS because their questions are complex, question the
reliability of VRS information, and worry about being logged into chat rooms. They fear appearing
stupid or being negatively judged by the librarian (Swope and Katzer 1972). Additionally,
the graduate students worry that professors may see their transcripts and make negative
judgments. One admitted: “With Internet or computer-mediated things, I always worry that they
are being saved … if the Department would get a report about what questions [I asked].”
All non-user groups would try VRS if it were recommended by a trusted librarian, colleague
or friend or if there were expanded marketing/promotion. Screenager non-users said that
the ability to choose a trusted librarian could influence future VRS usage. Graduate student
non-users would use VRS if they became confident in its use, efficiency, and speed. One
wondered: “Yeah, the utility of it. How useful is it? If it like they went there and it took twenty
minutes and I didn’t even get my question answered. I’d be like, ‘I’m not going to do that.’”
Focus group interviews with nine VRS users (a mixture of Millennials and older generations
including Boomers) also revealed information-seeking patterns. They value convenience
and appreciate saving a trip to the library by using VRS. The collaborative nature of VRS
is appreciated as noted: “It’s helpful to have another person looking for you so you get
twice as much information—which is quicker.” Users like access to a knowledgeable
professional who can guide their information search and enjoy chat’s pleasant interpersonal
88
environment and anonymity. VRS transcripts increased the utility of the service for the
users who, reflecting Millennial preferences, also applaud immediacy and opportunities to
multi-task. There is no consensus on the utility of VRS, however, as some users discuss
their preference, like Screenager non-users, for independent information-seeking.
Users also report concerns about VRS. It can seem like just another search engine, with
librarians entering search terms exactly as expressed by users. Others find that question
responses seem generic, prompting them to wonder if the librarian is paying attention, or is a
robot. Users express distrust in information received though VRS, and value FtF interactions for
reliable information. Users want accessibility improvements such as larger and movable chat
windows and automatic Web-links, but disliked the prospect of Voice Over Internet Protocol,
believing it to be “completely unnecessary.” Like the Screenager non-users, users are concerned
with the abilities and subject expertise of VRS librarians and fear overwhelming them.
TRANSCRIPT ANALYSIS RESULTS

The study included an in-depth analysis of a sample of 850 transcripts randomly selected
from over 500,000+ sessions from the QuestionPoint VRS. For this article, 492 transcripts
were analyzed, and 431 were deemed usable after discarding system tests, major technical
problems, and sessions without a discernable question. Following the theories of Goffman
(1967) and Watzlawick, et. al (1967) discussed above, each usable transcript was coded for
relational/interpersonal communication themes (Radford and Connaway 2007 for complete
relational coding scheme; see also Radford 2006a) facilitated through use of QSR NVivo
7 (QSR International 2003–2006) qualitative analysis software. The three coders had
an intercoder reliability rating of 93% after differences were discussed and resolved.
Transcripts were also coded into one of five educational/age levels: Primary School Student
(K–5), Secondary School Student (6–12), College Student, Adult (not in college), and Unknown.
For this article, the Millennial group was formed by combining Secondary School Student with
College Student groups. Coding was based on the self-identified or inferred education/age level
of the VRS user. In self-identified cases, the user mentioned their year/grade or age, or the
transcripts had grade level tags in the XML data. Other candidates for self-identification included
users who referred to children, discussed college assignments, or indicated education level
during login. When such information was unavailable, cues such as context, nature of the query,
or use of slang and abbreviations in transcripts were used to infer education/age level. Evidence
included user’s mentioning adult responsibilities, such as real estate ownership, questions about
school or college level assignments, or the use of slang, spelling, and abbreviation patterns
associated with younger users. Of the 431 users, 189 (44%) were coded as Millennials, and
48 (11%) as Adults with the remainder being Primary School or Unknown. The two coders
had an intercoder reliability rating of 99% after differences were discussed and resolved.
RELATIONAL FACILITATORS
Relational Facilitators are the interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have
a positive impact on the librarian-client interaction and that enhance communication
(Radford 2006a, Radford 1993, 1999). As shown in table 1, below, Millennials have
lower percentages than Adults for using polite expressions and for expressing gratitude.
Chat conventions for Millennials are informal and may result in fewer politeness rituals.
Millennials tend to avoid self disclosure to adults and are less likely to give personal
information or opinions than Adults who may be more self-confident (Sweeney 2006).
89
Millennials appear to seek reassurance less often than Adults (OCLC 2006; Sweeney
2006) and the findings reflect this confidence (see table 1). This reduced need for
reassurance also demonstrates the Millennials’ comfort with chat as a medium for
communication, just as the Adults’ greater need for reassurance may indicate uneasiness
with chat. The lower percentages of closing rituals for Millennials are reflected in
higher percentages of Abrupt Endings (see table 3) and below discussion.
TABLE 1 LOWER AVERAGES RELATIONAL FACILITATORS, MILLENNIAL VS. ADULT
Number per transcript Number per transcript

Facilitator category
Millennials (n=189) adults (n=48)
Thanks 113 (60%) 34 (71%)
Self-disclosure 86 (46%) 30 (63%)
Number per occurrence Number per occurrence

Seeking reassurance 108 (57%) 38 (79%)
Closing ritual 83 (44%) 25 (52%)
Polite expressions 55 (29%) 17 (35%)
(n=237 transcripts)
As seen in table 2, below, Millennials are more likely than Adults to agree to suggestions
made by librarians and to admit their lack of knowledge. This finding is surprising in
light of previous research which found a reticence on the part of young Millennials to
accept advice or disclose lack of knowledge (Radford and Connaway 2007). Here the
Millennial category includes both younger and older segments. College students, whose
typical reference questions focus on how to use databases or find articles, may be more
willing to admit they lack knowledge or to go along with librarians’ suggestions.
Millennials are more likely to engage in greeting rituals with VRS librarians, demonstrating
their tendency to make connections through online communication and their use of chat
for socializing. Adults may see the conversation as more businesslike than social and may
not be as prone to engage in politeness rituals at the start of VRS interactions. Similarly,
Millennials use more interjections, slang, and lower case which are transferred from
social chat or reflect text messaging conventions (Radford and Connaway 2007).
90
TABLE 2 HIGHER AVERAGES RELATIONAL FACILITATORS, MILLENNIAL VS. ADULT
Number per occurrence Number per occurrence

Agree to suggestion 132 (70%) 22 (46%)
Lower case 36 (19%) 5 (10%)
Greeting ritual 36 (19%) 5 (10%)
Admit lack knowledge 36 (19%) 3 (6%)
Interjections 36 (19%) 3 (6%)
Slang 14 (7%) 0
(n=237 transcripts)
RELATIONAL BARRIERS
Relational Barriers are interpersonal aspects of the chat conversation that have a negative
impact on the librarian-client interaction and that impede communication (Radford 2006a;
see also Radford 1993, 1999). As seen in table 3, Millennials have higher averages than
Adults for abrupt endings, impatience, and for being rude/insulting. The Millennials’ propensity
to forgo closing rituals and sign off abruptly reflects their comfort with the evanescence
of the relationship formed with VRS librarians and their impatience. Additionally, abrupt
signoff could be an indication of multi-tasking activities (Radford and Connaway 2007;
Sweeney 2006). The higher percentages of impatience and rude/insulting categories
confirm research findings for Millennial characteristics, including adolescent irreverence in
anonymous environments (Radford and Connaway 2007, Radford 2006b, Sweeney 2006).
TABLE 3 HIGHER AVERAGES RELATIONAL BARRIERS, MILLENNIAL VS. ADULT
Number per transcript Number per transcript

Barrier category
Abrupt endings 72 (38%) 15 (31%)
Impatience 9 (5%) 1 (2%)
Rude or insulting 3 (2%) 0
(n=237 transcripts)
As shown above, transcripts have much to reveal regarding interpersonal dimensions of

VRS and differences between the generations in communication style and preferences.
91
FINDINGS COMMON TO BOTH STUDIES
Both the Seeking Synchronicity and Sense-Making studies included graduate students
as participants in the research. There are common behaviors demonstrated by these
older Millennials and the Screenagers. The Screenagers perceived that asking a follow-
up question was “pestering” the librarian, a finding echoed in the older Mlllennials. In focus
group interviews with doctoral students, these participants expressed fear that they would
be perceived as “bothering” the librarian if they were to approach to ask a question. While
Screenagers cited “embarrassment” as a deterrent from seeking help from a librarian, the
graduate students were concerned of “looking stupid” by asking the librarian for assistance.
Both studies indicate that Screenagers and older Millennials consistently identify Google
as one of the first sources they use for quick searches and they value the Internet for its
convenience and currency. Human sources are also consistently named, but the older
Millennials mentioned friends and professors while the Screenagers mentioned parents
more frequently. The older Millennials tend to use electronic mediation to access library
sources and tend to stop searching for information when they meet the requirements of an
assignment. As one graduate student stated, “I obviously turn to electronics first, then library
second … because it’s convenient. But if I want more in-depth info, then I go to the library.”
Conclusion and implications

SENSE-MAKING THE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE
When asked to describe the ideal information system, Millennials suggested that the library
catalog be more like an Internet search engine or Amazon.com. They also wanted the library
to provide space for them to socialize and work in groups and suggested 24/7 access to a
librarian via telephone, such as a ‘lifeline” (referring to the television program, Who Wants
to be a Millionaire?) Older Millennials were most interested in expediency, desiring roaming
librarians, drive-up book drops, library delivery of print materials to their campus addresses,
and a coffee house-like environment. The faculty (the majority were Baby Boomers) wanted
a less intimidating library with better signage, and a book store like environment.
SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY STUDY

Preliminary results of the Seeking Synchronicity study make it readily apparent that Screenagers
have different communication and information behaviors in the chat reference environment
than those of previous generations (see also Agosto and Hughes-Hassell 2005, 2006) and
librarians. Comparison of patterns of interpersonal communication styles reveals differences
in relational dimensions for adolescents who are experiencing a period of rapid emotional as
well as physical development (see also Kuhlthau 2004). Valenza (2006) notes that a blend
of FtF and electronic services may be best for young people. Walter and Mediavilla (2005)
recommend involving teens in the development and evaluation of VRS to ensure that their
preferences and needs are considered. To effectively meet the needs of Millennial youth,
librarians must develop a range of services that are customizable and flexible, incorporate
regular feedback, provide trusted guidance, include the opportunity for social and interactive
learning, be visual and kinesthetic, and feature communication that is real, raw, relevant
and relational (Partridge and Hallam 2006). This project has endeavored to gain a greater
understanding of Millennial needs and behaviors to ensure that virtual and traditional library
92
services are responsive to their preferences. The stakes are high for maintaining relevance
and sustainability of reference services to today’s young users in recognition of their rapidly
changing, My Space-, Google-, and Wikipedia-dependent information environment.
Implications for libraries

Findings from the phases of these two studies imply that libraries need to include traditional print
and audiovisual sources, as well as electronic. The library website should be updated often to
include current information, personalized online services, and interactive capabilities (Storey
2005). Librarians need to create different areas for different user needs. Millennials want social
areas that also provide “multiple streams of information” (Storey 2005, 10). Boomers want more
quiet spaces that resemble the bookstore environment with access to refreshments, comfortable
seating, and good lighting. Above all, both Millennials and Boomers demand attention and want
librarians to be available to them as guides and assistants, but not as gatekeepers. As more
information about the characteristics and behaviors of the Boomer and Millennial generations
becomes available, librarians can develop services and systems that meet the needs of both.
Contemporary users are becoming increasingly disenchanted with traditional library services
and systems. Business as usual will please neither the large Millennial or Boomer populations
who are inquisitive, savvy, demanding, and increasingly independent information seekers.
Future research
SENSE-MAKING THE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE
Focus group and semi-structured interviews were preceded by large scale online survey and
telephone interviews. The analysis of the results of the surveys and telephone interviews can be
compared to similar studies of academics’ information-seeking behaviors. These comparison and
analyses can be used to develop information-seeking models that can be used for future study
of information-seeking behaviors as well as for the development of library systems and services.
SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY STUDY

The chat transcript analysis findings reported for the Seeking Synchronicity project
are preliminary results from the initial year of a two year study. Transcript analysis has
continued with a goal of analyzing a total of 800+ chat sessions. Also, nearing completion
are two further data collection phases involving 600 Web-based surveys (200 with each
participant group of users, non-users, and librarians) and 300 phone interviews (100 with
each group). The Web-based surveys and phone interviews are in progress, building on
preliminary results and probing more deeply into user/librarian preferences for modes of
communication and on issues of satisfaction. Following the conclusion of data analysis,
results will be compared to those from other related studies and a theoretical model will be
constructed encompassing content and relational dimensions in the VRS environment.
93
REFERENCES
Abercrombie, N., S. Hill, and B. Turner. 1994. The Penguin dictionary of sociology. 3rd ed. New
York: Penguin.
Agosto, DE., and S. Hughes-Hassell. 2005. “People, places, and questions: An investigation of
the everyday life information-seeking behaviors of urban young adults.” Library and Information
Science Research 27, no. 2: 141–163.
______. 2006. “Toward a model of the everyday life information needs of urban teenagers, part
1: Theoretical model.” JASIS&T 57, no. 10: 1394–1403.
______. 2006. “Toward a model of the everyday life information needs of urban teenagers, part
2: Empirical model. JASIS&T 57, no. 11: 1418–1426.
Allingham, M. 1999. Rational choice. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Biddle, BJ. 1979. Role theory: Expectations, identities and behaviors. New York: Academic Press.
Blumer, H., and TJ. Morrione. 2004. George Herbert Mead and human conduct. Walnut Creek:
AltaMira Press.
Campbell, K. 2005. “The many faces of the baby boomers.” The Christian Science Monitor 26.
January. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0126/p15s02-lihc.html (accessed 14 September 2007).
Carlson, S. 2007. “An anthropologist in the library: The University of Rochester takes a look at
students in the stacks.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, no. 50. http ://chronicle.com/
weekly/v53/i5050a02601.htm (accessed 14 September 2007) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Chelton, MK. 1997. “The ‘overdue kid:’ A face-to-face library service encounter as ritual
interaction.” Library and Information Science Research 19, no. 4: 387–399.
Coleman, JS., and TJ. Fararo, (Eds.). 1992. Rational choice theory: Advocacy and critique.
Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Connaway, LS. 2007. “Mountains, valleys, and pathways: Serials users’ needs and steps to meet
them. Part I: Preliminary analysis of focus group and semi-structured interviews at colleges and
universities.” Serials Librarian 52, no. 1/2: 223–236.
Cook, KS. and M. Levi, (Eds.). 1990. The limits of rationality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dempsey, B. 2007. “What boomers want.” Library Journal 132, no. 12: 36–39.
Dervin, B., LS. Connaway, and C. Prabha. 2003. “Sense-making the information confluence: The
whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs.”
http://imlsosuoclcproject.jcomm.ohio-state.edu (accessed 7 September 2007)
94
Edwards, S., and B. Poston-Anderson. 1996. “Information, future time perspectives, and young
adolescent girls: Concerns about education and jobs.” Library & Information Science Research
18, no. 3: 207–233.
Fallows, D. 2005. “Search engine users: Internet searchers are confident, satisfied, and trusting-
but they are also unaware and naïve.” Pew Internet and American Life Project.
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Searchengine_users.pdf (accessed 12 September 2007)
Alternative URL http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2005/PIP_

Searchengine_users.pdf.pdf (accessed 26 October 2015).
Fields, AM. 2006. “Self-efficacy and the first-year university student’s authority of knowledge: An
exploratory study.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 31: 539–545.
Gibbons, S. 2007. The academic library and the Net Gen student: Making the connections.
Chicago: American Library Association.
Gillon, S. 2004. Boomer nation: The largest and richest generation ever and how it changed
America. New York: Free Press.
Goffman, E. 1956. “The nature of deference and demeanor.” American Anthropologist 58,
no. 3: 475–499.
______. 1967. The interaction ritual, essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City: Doubleday.
______. 1972. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Book.
Grossman, T. 2000. The Baby Boomers’ guide to living forever. Golden, CO: Hubristic Press.
Harley, D., J. Henke, S. Lawrence, I. Miller, I. Perciali, D. Nasatir, C. Kaskiris, and C. Bautista.
2006. Use and users of digital resources: A focus on undergraduate education in the humanities
and social sciences. http://digitalresourcestudy.berkeley.edu/report/digitalresourcestudy_final_
report.pdf (accessed 29 July 2007) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Hempel, J. 2005. “The Myspace generation: They live online. They buy online. They play online.
Their power is growing.” Business Week: 12 December, 86.
“HotTopics: 2006 user update: How information providers can keep pace with user demands for time-
saving solutions.” Outsell Now 2 (26 May). http://now.outsellinc.com/now/ (accessed 29 July 2007)
Howe, N., and W. Strauss. 2000. Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York:
Random House.
Indiana University, Center for Postsecondary Research. 2006. NSSE: National survey of student
engagement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
95
Ishler, JLC. 2005. “Today’s first-year students.” ML. Upcraft, JN. Gardner, BO. Barefoot, and
Associates (Eds.). Challenging and supporting the first-year student A handbook for improving
the first year of college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, p. 15–26.
Jones, S., and M. Madden. 2002. “The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the
future with today’s technology.” Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.
org/pdfs/PIP_College_Report.pdf (accessed 4 September 2007) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Joseph, M. 2006. “Active, engaged, valued: Older people and public libraries in New South
Wales.” Aplis 19, no. 3: 113–117.
Julien, HE. 1999. “Barriers to adolescents’ information seeking for career decision making.”
JASIS&T 50, no. 1: 38–48.
______. 2004. “Adolescent decision-making for careers: An exploration of information behavior.”

MK. Chelton and C. Cool, (Eds.). Youth information-seeking behavior: Theories, models, and
issues. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, p. 321–352.
Junco, R. 2005. “Technology and today’s first-year students.” ML. Upcraft, JN. Gardner, BO.
Barefoot, and Associates (Eds.). Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook
for improving the first year of college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, p. 221–239.
Kahlert, M. 2000. “The impact of the baby boomers on public libraries: Myth and reality.”
Australian Public Libraries and Information Services 13, no. 1: 25–40.
Krohn, FB. 2004. “A generational approach to using emoticons as nonverbal communication.”

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 34, no. 4: 321–328.
Kuhlthau, CC. 2004. Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services,
2nd Ed. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Lipka, S. 2005. “State Legislators as Co-Pilots: Some ‘Helicopter Parents’ Play Politics to Protect
Their Children’s Interests on Campuses.” Chronicle of Higher Education 52, no. 17: A22–A23.
Lippincott, JK. 2005. “Net generation students and libraries.” DC. Oblinger and JL. Oblinger,
(Eds.). Educating the Net Generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE: p. 13.1–13.15.
http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?PAGE_ID=5989andbhcp=1
(accessed 4 September 2007) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Alternative URL https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7101M.pdf

Lum, L. 2006. “Handling ‘Helicopter Parents.’” Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 23, no. 20: 40–43.
Marks, SR. 1977. “Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time, and
commitment.” American Sociological Review 42: 921–936.
______ and SM. MacDermid. 1996. “Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance.”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 58, no. 2: 417–432.
96
Mead, GH. 1934. Mind, self & society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Oblinger, DG. and JL. Oblinger (Eds.). 2005. Educating the Net Generation (EDUCAUSE).
http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?PAGE_ID=5989&bhcp=1 (accessed 21 January 2007)
Alternative URL https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7101M.pdf .

OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. 2006. College students’ perceptions of libraries and
information resources: A report to the OCLC membership. OCLC: Dublin, Ohio.
http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/studentperceptions.pdf (accessed 12 September 2007).
Partridge, H., and G. Hallam. 2006. “Educating the Millennial generation for evidence based
information practice.” Library Hi Tech 24, no. 3: 400–419.
Prabha, C., LS. Connaway, L. Olszewski, and LR. Jenkins. 2007. “What is enough? Satisficing
information needs.” Journal of Documentation 63, no. 1: 74–89.
Prensky, M. 2001. “Digital natives, digital immigrants.” On the Horizon 9, no. 5.

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing (accessed 4 September 2007)
Alternative URL http://marcprensky.com/articles-in-publications/ (accessed 26 October 2015).
______. 2001. “Do they really think differently?” On the Horizon 9, no. 6.
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing (accessed 4 September 2007)
QSR NVivo 7. (Computer Software). 2003–2006. Doncaster, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd.
http://www.qsrinternational.com/ (accessed 14 Sept. 2007).
Radford, ML. 1993. Relational aspects of reference interactions: A qualitative investigation of the
perceptions of users and librarians in the academic library. Ph.D. dissertation. Rutgers University.
______. 1999. The reference encounter: Interpersonal communication in the academic library.
Chicago: American Library Association.
______. 2006. “Encountering virtual users: A qualitative investigation of interpersonal

communication in chat reference.” JASIS&T 57, 8: 1046–1059.
______. 2006. “Investigating interpersonal communication in chat reference: Dealing with

impatient users and rude encounters.” RD. Lankes, E. Abels, M. White and SN. Haque (Eds.).
The Virtual Reference Desk: Creating a Reference Future. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers,
p. 23–46.
97
______, and LS. Connaway. 2005. “Seeking synchronicity: Evaluating virtual reference services
from user, non-user, and librarian perspectives.” Proposal for a research project, submitted
1 February 2005, to the National Leadership Grants for Libraries program of the Institute of
Museum and Library Services (IMLS).
http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/proposal.pdf (accessed 21 January 2007).
______, and LS. Connaway. 2007. “Screenagers and live chat reference: Living up to the
promise.” Scan 26, no. 1: 31–39.
______, and GP. Radford. 1997. “Power, knowledge, and fear: Feminism, Foucault and the
stereotype of the female librarian.” The Library Quarterly 67, no. 3: 250–266.
Rushkoff, D. 1996. Playing the future: How kids’ culture can teach us to thrive in an age of chaos.
New York: HarperCollins.
Schuman, H., and J. Scott. 1989. “Generations and collective memories.” American
Psychological Review 54: 359–81.
Simon, HA. 1955. “A behavioral model of rational choice.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 69, no.
1: 99–118.
______. 1957. “A behavioral model of rational choice.” In Models of man: Social and rational. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
______. 1979. Models of thought. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.
Steinhorn, L. 2006. The Greater Generation: In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy. New York:
Tomas Dunn Books.
Storey, T. 2005. “The Big Bang!” OCLC Newsletter 267: 7–12.
Sweeney, R. 2006. Millennial behaviors and demographics. http://library1.njit.edu/staff-folders/

sweeney/Millennials/Article-Millennial-Behaviors.doc (accessed 4 September 2007)
Swope, MJ., and J. Katzer. 1972. “The Silent Majority: Why don’t they ask questions?” Reference
Quarterly 12: 161–166.
Tapscott, D. 1998. Growing up digital: The rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Valenza, JK. 2006. “They might be gurus.” Teacher Librarian 34, no. 1: 18–26.
_______. 2007. “It’d be really dumb not to use it: Virtual libraries and high school students’
information seeking and use, a focus group investigation.” MK. Chelton and C. Cool (Eds.). Youth
information-seeking behavior II: Theories, models, and issues. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press,
p. 292–317.
Van Scoyoc, AM., and C. Cason. 2006. “The electronic academic library: Undergraduate
research behavior in a library without books.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy 6, p. 47–58.
98
Walter, VA., and C. Mediavilla. 2005. “Teens are from Neptune, librarians are from Pluto: An
Walther, JB. 1996. “Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and

hyperpersonal interaction.” Communication Research 23, no. 1: 3–43.
Watzlawick, P., J. Beavin, and DD. Jackson. 1967. Pragmatics of human communication. New
York: Norton.
Williamson, K., M. Bannister, L. Makin, G. Johanson, D. Schauder, and J. Sullivan. 2006.

“Wanting it now: Baby Boomers and the public library of the future.” Australian Library Journal
55, no. 1: 54–72.
Willis, SL. 2006. “Technology and learning in current and future generations of elders.”
Generations 2006, p. 44–48.
99
100
5
The Digital Information Seeker:
Report of Findings from Selected
OCLC, RIN and JISC User
Behaviour Projects

OCLC Research

OCLC Research
A reprint of:
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Timothy J. Dickey. 2010. The Digital Information Seeker: Report of Findings from
Selected OCLC, RIN, and JISC User Behaviour Projects. [Bristol, England]: HEFCE. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/
documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf
© 2010 HEFCE
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
There are numerous user studies published in the literature and available
on the web. There are studies that specifically address the behaviours of
scholars while others identify the behaviours of the general public. Some
studies address the information-seeking behaviours of scholars within
specific disciplines while others identify the behaviours of scholars of multiple
disciplines. There are studies that only address undergraduate, graduate,
or post graduate students or compare these individual groups’ information-
seeking behaviours to those of scholars. Still other studies address the
behaviors of young adults (Screenagers (Rushkoff 1996) and Millennials).
In the interest of analyzing and synthesizing several user behaviour studies conducted in
the US and the UK, twelve studies were identified. These twelve selected studies were
commissioned and/or supported by non-profit organizations and government agencies;
therefore, they have little dependence upon the outcomes of the studies. The studies were
reviewed by two researchers who analyzed the findings, compared their analyses, and
identified the overlapping and contradictory findings. This report is not intended to be the
definitive work on user behaviour studies, but rather to provide a synthesized document to
make it easier for information professionals to better understand the information-seeking
behaviours of the libraries’ intended users and to review the issues associated with the
development of information services and systems that will best meet these users’ needs.
The twelve studies included in this report are listed in chronological order:
• Perceptions of libraries and information resources (OCLC, December 2005),

http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/2005perceptions.htm
• College students’ perceptions of libraries and information resources (OCLC, April 2006),
http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/perceptionscollege.htm
• Sense-making the information confluence: The whys and hows of college and university user
satisficing of information needs (IMLS/Ohio State University/OCLC, July 2006),
http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/imls/default.htm
• Researchers and discovery services: Behaviour, perceptions and needs (RIN, November
2006), http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/researchers-
and-discoveryservices-behaviour-perc
• Researchers’ use of academic libraries and their services (RIN/CURL, April 2007), http://
www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/researchers-use-
academiclibraries-and-their-serv
102
• Information behaviour of the researcher of the future (CIBER/UCL, commissioned by BL
and JISC, January 2008), http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmemes/reppres/
gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf
• Seeking synchronicity: Evaluating virtual reference services from user, non-user and librarian
perspectives (OCLC/ IMLS/ Rutgers, June 2008), http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/
synchronicity/default.htm
• Online catalogs: What users and librarians want (OCLC. March 2009),
http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/onlinecatalogs/default.htm
• E-journals: Their use, value and impact (RIN, April 2009), http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/
communicatingand-disseminating-research/e-journals-their-use-value-and-impact
• JISC national e-books observatory project: Key findings and recommendations (JISC/UCL,
November 2009), http://www.jiscebooksproject.org/
• Students’ use of research content in teaching and learning (JISC, November 2009), http://
www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/aboutus/workinggroups/studentsuseresearchcontent.pdf
• User behaviour in resource discovery (JISC, November 2009), http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
whatwedo/programmes/inf11/userbehaviourbusandecon.aspx
A description of the key findings reported in each of the selected studies is

included in this document. After this, the common findings of the studies as well
as contradictory findings are discussed. The report ends with the identification
of issues that librarians must address in order to meet the needs of diverse user
groups. Some suggestions for further research and development are included.
Summaries of each of the selected studies

included in this report
A brief summary of the findings of each study is provided to give the readers a basic
overview and understanding of each study. URLs are included for each of the studies for
those who are interested in more detailed and in-depth information about the studies.
Perceptions of libraries and information resources (De Rosa 2005) and College students’
perceptions of libraries and information resources (De Rosa 2006) present two views of a
global online survey of library use. The 2005 report includes both academic and non-academic
users. The results reinforce the library’s brand as one of “books” and the overwhelming nature
of search engine use. Most users do trust library resources and information as much as they
trust search engines. They do not think of the library for accessing electronic resources.
The general population is using libraries and electronic resources of all kinds less often.
Sense-making the information confluence: The whys and hows of college and university
user satisficing of information needs (Dervin et al. 2006; Connaway, Prabha, and
Dickey 2006; Prabha, Connaway, and Dickey 2006) includes qualitative data from
undergraduate, graduate student, and faculty perspectives on information-seeking
and library systems. It offers a rich portrait of academic users’ information behaviours,
including their rational and contextual decisions, their valuation of familiarity, convenience,
and currency, and nuances to their use of Google and other search engines; each
section concludes with concrete recommendations to improve library systems.
The Digital Information Seeker: Report of Findings from Selected OCLC, RIN and JISC User Behaviour Projects
103
Researchers and discovery services: Behaviour, perceptions and needs (Research Information
Network 2006) reports on a lengthy qualitative study using telephone surveys of researchers
and librarians in UK universities, followed by in-depth interviews and focus groups with
postdoctoral researchers. The study indicates a “general satisfaction with the research discovery
services available” (ibid, p. 6). The main frustration of researchers in the sciences and arts
and humanities is accessing online journals, which is supported by librarians who report
accessing online journals as a key problem. The most utilized resources are general search
engines, internal library portals and catalogues, specialist search engines, and subject-specific
gateways; researchers see the search as an integral part of the research process and have
developed methods of searching to minimize any sort of information overload (ibid, p. 8).
Researchers’ use of academic libraries and their services (Consortium of University

Research Libraries, and Research Information Network 2007) utilizes quantitative data
and “qualitative insights” (ibid, p. 2) from researchers and librarians to provide information
about how researchers interact with academic library services in the UK. The majority of
researchers has embraced digital content and uses digital aides to find information, creating
a decrease in library visits. However, the respondents do believe librarians will play a key role
in this new information environment, and in new types of information resources. Evidence
illustrates the importance researchers place on direct access to all kinds of digital materials.
Information behaviour of the researcher of the future (Centre for Information Behaviour and
the Evaluation of Research 2008) attempts to recreate a longitudinal study from the literature
together with some new primary data mining from the British Library and JISC web sites.
The authors describe the project as a “virtual” longitudinal study … refining many popularly-
held notions of the information behaviours of the “Google generation.” The findings state that
although young people have “apparent facility with computers” and confidence in their own
ability, these are actually masking their lack of information literacy skills and performance. It
concludes with predictions that the information environment of 2017 will be that of “a unified
web culture,” e-book prominence, mass book digitization, and additional forms of publication.
Seeking synchronicity: Evaluating virtual reference services from user, non-user

and librarian perspectives (Radford, and Connaway 2008) evaluates the practice,
sustainability, and relevance of virtual reference services (VRS) to libraries, with
several complementary data collection phases from librarian providers, and both
users and non-users of VRS. Among the outcomes of the project are significant
implications for librarians’ best practices, data on user behaviour differences by age
demographics, and empirical data on the “elusive” non-users of library services.
Online catalogs: What users and librarians want (Calhoun et al. 2009) includes end-user
(both academic and the general public) focus group interviews, online pop-up surveys
for WorldCat.org users, and a Web-based survey of librarians to compare librarian
and user perspectives on metadata and interface needs in library systems. The report
identifies differences between the two respondent groups, and reinforces users’ desires
for discovery-to-delivery seamless access and for enhanced catalogue content.
E-journals: Their use, value and impact (Research Information Network 2009) encompasses
a deep log analysis of several months’ usage of ScienceDirect and Oxford Journals in UK
universities, in order to provide an analysis of how academic researchers in the UK have
responded to the growing availability of e-journals. Data indicate that e-journals are a critical
component to research institutions in the UK and prove to have a good return on investment.
104
JISC national e-books observatory project: Key findings and recommendations (JISC, and
UCL 2009) combines data from a deep log analysis report, a user survey report, focus
group interviews, and print and circulation data reports for e-book usage at UK universities.
It aims to find current attitudes towards e-books held by students and staff, and to evaluate
JISC e-book usage. Overall, “e-books are now part of the academic mainstream” (ibid, p.
5) and “libraries … are a key player in the emerging market for e-books at present. Age
and gender are also important predictors of e-book take-up” (ibid, p. 6). Most e-books
are discovered through the library catalogue and links on the library web pages.
Students’ use of research content in teaching and learning (Hampton-Reeves et al. 2009)
reports on a survey of undergraduates at three UK universities, with follow-up focus group
interviews based upon the initial data. The students generally prefer keyword searches in
a large number of tools, but do distinguish between more traditional sources of research
information (journals, library catalogues) and the potential pitfalls of the Internet.
User behaviour in resource discovery (JISC 2009) uses qualitative data gathered in focus group
and indepth user interviews to “identify, understand and compare the information-seeking”
behaviour of students and researchers in the business and economics disciplines who are
“using subscribed and free resource discovery systems available” in three UK institutions (ibid,
p. 17). The “poor usability, high complexity, and lack of integration” of many resources “acts as
a barrier to information search and retrieval” (ibid, p. 6). That level of difficulty keeps the user
from being able to concentrate on the actual content of the material. Additionally, information
literacy skills were found to be lacking. Even though users may be able to use a search engine
or other resource, they did not necessarily know how to get quality information from it.
Common findings
These studies allow us to draw several broad conclusions about the state of user studies.
Evidence produced by multiple studies is limited by the common problem that some
studies have small sample sizes and purposive samples. However, this meta-analysis
combines both quantitative and qualitative studies. Both have strengths and weaknesses
and are complementary. The qualitative, exploratory studies provide rich data portraits of
specific user groups while the large-scale quantitative studies confirm them. These rich
data portraits combined with the large-scale quantitative analyses offer several common
themes that were identified in the review of the twelve user behaviour studies.
Among the central findings are the following:
• Disciplinary differences do exist in researcher behaviours, both professional researchers

and students.
• E-journals are increasingly very important to the process of research at all levels.
• The evidence provided by the results of the studies supports the centrality of Google and
search engines.
—— Google is often used to locate and access e-journal content.
• At the same time, the entire discovery-to-delivery process needs to be supported by
information systems, including increased access to resources.
105
—— Journal backfiles are particularly problematic in terms of access.
The realities of the online environment observed above led several studies to some common
conclusions about changing user behaviours:
• Regardless of age or experience, academic discipline, or context of the information need,

speed and convenience are important to users.
—— Researchers particularly appreciate desktop access to scholarly content.
—— Users also appreciate the convenience of electronic access over the physical library.
• Users are beginning to desire enhanced functionality in library systems.
• They also desire enhanced content to assist them in evaluating resources.
• They seem generally confident in their own ability to use information discovery tools.
• However, it seems that information literacy has not necessarily improved.
—— High-quality metadata is thus becoming even more important for the discovery
process.
In addition, some common findings regarding content and resources arise:
• More digital content of all kinds and formats is almost uniformly seen as better.
• People still tend to think of libraries as collections of books.
• Despite this, researchers also value human resources in their information-seeking.
In some cases, the studies reviewed included findings which seem to

contradict one another, and for which evidence may be mixed:
• There is evidence for both broad and narrow range of tools used for scholarly research.
• There is evidence both in favour and against formal training in electronic searching.
• There are mixed conclusions on the question of whether recommendations, provided by
recommender systems, and social media are having an impact on information seeking.
In a few cases, the above findings from the studies under review offered evidence
that runs counter to popular perceptions of the current information scene.
• Many popular media claims about the “Google generation” may not be supported by all the
evidence.
• In choosing among search engines, some evidence indicates that speed may not be the most
important evaluative factor.
• The studies that addressed library OPACs provide little support for the advanced search
options which are still popular in these systems.
106
Implications for libraries
A synthesis of findings from these major user studies points toward a number of implications
for libraries. The implications below represent broad tendencies. The various user studies
themselves do take into account differences in behaviour based on age and gender of the
subjects, and context and situation of the information needs. Differences based on academic
discipline have been a common finding throughout the user behaviour studies. The studies
ask different questions of their subjects. In order to generalize findings and to present a valid
portrait of user behaviours, it is necessary to conduct longitudinal studies of large populations.
Implications for libraries which are shared by multiple studies include the following:
• The library serves many constituencies, with different needs and behaviours.
• Library systems must do better at providing seamless access to resources.
• Librarians must increasingly consider a greater variety of digital formats and content.
—— More digital resources of all kinds are better.
• Library systems and content must be prepared for changing user behaviours.
• Library systems need to look and function more like search engines, i.e., Google and Yahoo,
and Web services, i.e., Amazon.com, since these are familiar to users who are comfortable
and confident in using them.
• High-quality metadata is becoming more important for discovery of appropriate resources.
• The library must advertise its brand, its value, and its resources better within the community.
This review concludes with suggestions for future research. The studies included in this
meta analysis used both qualitative and quantitative research techniques, which complement
each other. The large-scale online and interview surveys conducted in the quantitative
studies, coupled with the rich data portraits provided by the qualitative studies, identify
key issues which can be studied using more statistically generalizable methods. A large,
random sample of specific demographic groups of information seekers should be identified
in order to conduct a wide-ranging user behaviour study to identify how individuals engage
in both the virtual and physical worlds to get information for different situations. Such an
investigation would contribute to a better understanding of how individuals navigate in multiple
information environments and could influence the design and integration of systems and
services for devices and applications, as well as cloud computing. Such a study, undertaken
at this pivotal moment in both library funding and explosion of information resources, could
provide invaluable guidance for both libraries and the field of information science.
107
REFERENCES
Calhoun, Karen, et al. 2009. Online Catalogs: What Users and Librarians Want: An OCLC
Report. Dublin, OH: OCLC. http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/onlinecatalogs/default.htm.
Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research. 2008. Information Behaviour
of the Researcher of the Future: A CIBER Briefing Paper. London: CIBER. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
media/documents/programmemes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Chandra Prabha, and Timothy J. Dickey. 2006. Sense-making the
Information Needs. Phase III: Focus Group Interview Study. Report on National Leadership
Grant LG-02-03-0062-03, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C.
Columbus, OH: School of Communication, The Ohio State University. http://imlsproject.comm.
ohio-state.edu/imls_reports/PHASE_III/PH_III_report_list.html. (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Consortium of University Research Libraries, and Research Information Network. 2007.

Researchers’ Use of Academic Libraries and Their Services: A Report. London: Research
Information Network and Consortium of University Research Libraries (CURL).
http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/researchers-use-
academic-libraries-and-their-serv.
De Rosa, Cathy. 2005. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the
OCLC Membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center. http://www.oclc.org/us/
en/reports/2005perceptions.htm.
De Rosa, Cathy. 2006. College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources:
A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center. http://
www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/perceptionscollege.htm.
Dervin, Brenda, CarrieLynn D. Reinhard, Sarah K. Adamson, Tingting T. Lu, Noelle M. Karnolt,
and Teena Berberick, eds. 2006. Sense-making the Information Confluence: The Whys and
Hows of College and University User Satisficing of Information Needs. Phase I: Project Overview,
the Three-Field Dialogue Project, and State-of-the-Art Reviews. Report on National Leadership
ohio-state.edu/imls_reports/imls_PH_I_report_list.html. (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Hampton-Reeves, Stuart, Claire Mashiter, Jonathan Westaway, Peter Lumsden, Helen Day,
Helen Hewerston, and Anna Hart. 2009. Students’ Use of Research Content in Teaching and
Learning: A Report of the Joint Information Systems Council (JISC).
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/aboutus/workinggroups/studentsuseresearchcontent.pdf.
JISC and UCL. 2009. JISC National e-Books Observatory Project: Key Findings and
Recommendations: Final Report. http://www.jiscebooksproject.org/reports/finalreport/.
108
Prabha, Chandra, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, and Timothy J. Dickey. 2006. Sense-making the
Information Needs. Phase IV: Semi-structured Interview Study. Report on National Leadership
ohio-state.edu/imls_reports/imls_PH_IV_report_list.html. (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Radford, Marie L., and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. 2008. Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating
Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-user, and Librarian Perspectives: IMLS Final
Performance Report. Report on Grant LG-06-05-0109-05, to Institute of Museum and
Library Services, Washington, D.C. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/synchronicity/reports/20080626-final.pdf.
Research Information Network. 2006. Researchers and Discovery Services:

Behaviour, Perceptions and Needs. London: Research Information Network. http://
www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessinginformation-resources/researchers-
and-discovery-services-behaviour-perc. (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Alternative URL http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/

researchers-and-discovery-services-behaviour-perc (accessed 26 October 2015).
Research Information Network. 2009. E-journals: Their Use, Value and Impact.
London: Research Information Network. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-
and-disseminating-research/ejournals-their-use-value-and-impact.
Rushkoff, Douglas. 1996. Playing the Future: How Kid’s Culture Can Teach Us to Thrive in an
Age of Chaos. New York: HarperCollins.
Wong, William, Hanna Stelmaszewska, Nazlin Bhimani, Sukhbinder Barn, and Balbir Barn.
2009. User Behaviour in Resource Discovery: Final Report. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/
programmes/inf11/userbehaviourbusandecon.aspx. (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
109
110
6
“If it is too inconvenient I’m not
going after it:” Convenience as
a Critical Factor in Information-
seeking Behaviors

OCLC Research

OCLC Research

A reprint of:
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Timothy J. Dickey, and Marie L. Radford. 2011. “‘If It Is Too Inconvenient I’m Not Going After
It’: Convenience as a Critical Factor in Information-seeking Behaviors.” Library & Information Science Research. 33
no. 3: 179–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.12.002
© 2011 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
Background and literature review
It can be argued that in the not too distant past, resources were scarce and
libraries were one of the only sources for trustworthy information. Users were
obliged to conform to library practices and standards in order to successfully
meet their information needs. Now users’ attention is scarce and resources
are abundant with the development of the Internet, web browsers and services
(blogs, chat, social media sites, etc.) and easily accessed, abundant digitized
content. This article provides an overview of findings from two multi-year grant-
funded projects for which the authors were principal investigators that address
the questions: Why do people choose one information source instead of
another? and What factors contribute to their selection of information sources?
Specifically, the emergence of the concept of “convenience” as a critical factor
in information-seeking choices among a variety of different types of people,
across a period of several years, and in a variety of contexts is explored below.
The ways people decide to get information often are dependent upon the context of the
information need. Context can be an academic or work setting, such as a class, office, or factory,
or a personal setting, such as a home or coffee shop. The literature suggests that individuals
will consult different sources and will use different forms of communication to meet their
information needs based upon the context and their individual situation. Context and situation are
sometimes used interchangeably in the information science (IS) literature (see also Cool, 2001).
Savolainen (2006) suggests that time is a significant context in information seeking. Prabha,
Connaway, Olszewski, and Jenkins (2007) reported that time can affect the thoroughness of
information seeking, the sources accessed, and the mode of inquiry context (including situation).
Librarians are finding that they must compete with other, often more convenient, familiar, and
easy-to-use information sources. The user once built workflows around the library systems and
services, but now, increasingly, the library must build its services around user workflows. In the
current information environment, there is anecdotal evidence that people will sacrifice content for
the convenience of accessing information sources. However, there has been little documented
evidence to support this assumption. This paper provides evidence that convenience is a
major factor for selecting information sources. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (2000) defines convenience as “something that increases comfort or saves work.”
In terms of information seeking, aspects of convenience include familiarity with a resource,
perceived ease-of-use, and physical proximity, though information-seeking studies to date have
tended only to deal with convenience in passing. Bawden and Vilar (2006), for example, review
the literature on the ease of use of the web and the difficulty of library systems, concluding that
“Users believe that web search is fast and easy, providing immediate access to information and
giving them what they want” (p. 349). In their IMLS-sponsored report on the use of libraries,
museums, and the Internet, Griffiths and King (2008) state that, for adult users, “The Internet
is not always chosen because it is considered the best source (74% of occurrences), but is
nearly always chosen because it is convenient or easy to use (93%) and to a lesser degree
is chosen because it does not cost much in time or money (69%)” (p. 38). Convenience/ease
112
of use is one of four main reasons adults choose information sources; other reasons include
being the “best” resource, not costing much, and providing trusted information (ibid, p. 36).
The Idaho Commission for Libraries engaged a research group to carry out state-wide focus
groups with “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001). The report (2007) states that both older and
younger digital natives (12–25 years of age) agree that the “Internet is a convenient way to
access information at or through libraries.” Sites associated with libraries were well-viewed
by digital natives, and the library was seen as having the role of providing information through
other media such as the Internet, but that the Internet does not replace libraries (ibid, p. 47).
Lombardo and Condic (2001) investigate perceptions of and knowledge of online journal
article databases by undergraduates. They found that users are not lazy when they rely on
full-text articles; they are finding ways around the inconvenience of physically accessing print
articles. Similarly, Agosto (2002) sees young people’s choices to take the simplest approach to
information gathering in terms of bounded rationality. Gross and Latham (2009), in reviewing
undergraduate perceptions of information literacy find that their subjects tend to define
information literacy as product (getting information and easy outcomes) rather than as a process
of learning. Pullinger (1999) reports on research attempting to understand why users might
opt to use online resources instead of the physical library; results indicated that the users find
libraries frustrating, and they try to avoid going there. Problems cited in this study include limited
hours, distance to the library, and the time that it takes for library research (p. 165). Fast and
Campbell (2004) compare OPAC searching and web searching. Undergraduates and graduate
students in their sample preferred using the web, with reasons including time and effort required.
Students found web searching fast and easy; there is a simplicity that appeals (ibid, p. 143).
Head and Eisenberg (2010) conducted focus group interviews and online surveys to identify
“how and why students (enrolled at six different U.S. colleges) use Wikipedia during the course–
related research process.” The authors conclude that “Wikipedia meets the needs of college
students because it offers a mixture of coverage, currency, convenience, and comprehensibility
in a world where credibility is less of a given or an expectation from today’s students.” Antell
and Engel (2006) survey university faculty and find that physical age as well as “scholarly
age” (i.e., time since last diploma) can affect use of physical library space. A more recent
study of academic researchers reinforced the current “convenience, speed, and interactivity of
searching” within electronic environments (Niu, Hemminger, Lown, Adams, Brown, et al., 2010,
p. 877). One of their minor themes focused on the convenience of the physical library. Younger
scholarly users in this study identify somewhat more with physical libraries than expected.
Theoretical foundations and methodology

The present study investigates convenience as a constant theme in different information-
seeking behaviors, by analyzing data from two multi-year IMLS-funded projects: Sense-making
the information confluence: The whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of
information needs (Sense-Making: Dervin, & Reinhard, 2006; Connaway, Prabha, & Dickey,
2006; Prabha, Connaway, & Dickey, 2006); and Seeking synchronicity: Evaluating virtual
reference services from user, non-user, and librarian perspectives (Seeking Synchronicity:
Radford & Connaway, 2008). Convenience was first explored as a factor in these data by
Connaway, Radford, and Dickey (2008) and Connaway, Radford, Dickey, Williams, and Confer
(2008). In the first study, data from non-users of virtual reference services revealed factors—
prominently including convenience—in the information-seeking behaviors of the subjects; the
second study compared data on the information behaviors of the “Millennial” generation and
If it is too inconvenient I’m not going after it:” Convenience as a Critical Factor in Information-seeking Behaviors
113
the “Baby Boomers.” Both studies especially highlighted the Millennials’ preference for Google
and human sources for quick searches for information. A more focused examination of the data
from the two projects for evidence of convenience-related findings informs the present study.
Convenience is a situational criterion in people’s choices and actions during the

informationseeking process. The concept can include their choice of an information source, their
satisfaction with the source and its ease of use, and their time horizon in information seeking. The
theoretical framework for this understanding is founded in the concepts of bounded rationality
and rational choice theory, with Savolainen’s (2006) concept of time as a context in information
seeking, and gratification theory, informing the emphasis on the seekers’ time horizons.
Much of rational choice theory developed in economics (Green, 2002); it posits that even
the most complex social behavior may be viewed in terms of discrete and elementary
individual actions. Individuals are seen as acting in their own self-interest in these individual
actions—not necessarily acting towards achieving similar goals as other individuals, but
according to their own “preferences, values or utilities” (Friedman & Hechter, 1998, p. 202).
The theory has been applied to a number of disciplines in the social sciences, and recently
emerged in information science (Prabha, Connaway, Olszewski, & Jenkins, 2007).
Similarly, gratification theory developed elsewhere in the social sciences, specifically in

research about the social world of poor people. Chatman (1991) applied it to information-
seeking behavior in this population. Specifically, she used the “prevailing finding … that
poor people seek immediate gratification because of behavioral characteristics not found
in other classes. That is, because they are more inclined toward quick arousal, pleasure,
or excitement, and they engage in activities that result in instantaneous pay-offs” (p.
442). The issue of her subjects’ narrow time horizon is a major contextual factor in their
approach to information seeking (see also Dervin, 1977, and Dervin & Vilan, 1986).
Additionally, Savolainen’s (1995) work in the area of everyday-life information seeking

(ELIS) emphasizes the importance of time as a contextual factor. He concludes one study
by calling for more “conceptual studies clarifying the nature of temporal or more broadly,
spatiotemporal factors as contextual qualifiers of information seeking” (Savolainen, 2006,
p. 124). “Limited time horizons in everyday life tend to restrict information seeking” (p. 114),
but the library and information science field lacks empirical studies of the phenomenon.
Savolainen later (2008) reported on time and access-related factors in ELIS. Both “Availability
and accessibility of information” and situational factors such as “lack of time” affected subjects’
choice of information sources (Savolainen, 2008, p. 90–91). “Ease and speed of use” and
“Quick to contact/access/convenient” were identified as major factors in similar studies
(Julien & Michels, 2004; Fischer, Naumer, Durrance, Stromsky, & Christiansen, 2006).
Thus, aspects of convenience including choice of source, ease of access and use, and
time factors can be central contextual limiters in information seeking. This centrality is
borne out by the data from the two projects analyzed here, and have not changed over
time: the first study (Sense-Making) data were collected in 2003, and are supported by data
from the second study (Seeking Synchronicity) in 2007. The importance of convenience
as a situational factor is relatively constant across demographic boundaries, as well—
between the two studies, a wide variety of information behaviors were collected.
114
In the Sense-Making study, (Dervin, & Reinhard, 2006; Connaway et al., 2006; Prabha et al,
2006) investigators studied the information-seeking behaviors of faculty, undergraduates, and
graduate students from a sample of forty-four colleges and universities within a Midwestern
region in the U.S. during a period of three years. In Phase II of the research (Phase I had been
exploratory, three hundred and seven randomly sampled subjects responded to an online
survey and telephone interview follow-up regarding five situations of their information seeking,
for a total N=1522 informants-in-situation; in Phase III, seventy-eight subjects completed
sense-making focus group interviews, and a subset of fifteen focus group participants were
randomly selected for individual semi-structured interviews in Phase IV. The research intended
to illuminate the information-seeking “hows” (moment-to-moment activities and practices) and
“whys” (rational choices and criteria for them), with emphasis on the richest possible context for
each choice. Although the Sense-Making study only included academic respondents, they were
also asked questions pertaining to their information-seeking behaviors in personal situations.
Prior analysis of these data included extensive coding of the survey responses according
to sense-making concepts (Dervin et al., 2006), analysis of the focus group and interview
data in terms of “satisficing” of information needs (Simon 1955, 1979; Prabha et al.,
2007), and parsing the focus group and interview data by generation (Millennials and
Baby Boomers, see Connaway et al., 2008). For the present study, all data were re-
examined for respondents’ use of terms such as “convenience,” “convenient,” “fast/easy/
quick,” or for indications that a specific rational choice saved them time in the process.
The Seeking Synchronicity project studied the needs, behaviors, and impressions of users,
nonusers, and librarian providers of virtual reference services (VRS) (Radford & Connaway,
2008). The respondents for this study included both academics and the general public. Both
user and non-user data will be included in this discussion. Phase I of the project incorporated
eight exploratory focus group interviews; Phase II examined a random sample of actual VRS
transcripts. In the third phase, members of each population (see table 1) responded to online
surveys, which included both quantitative (comparisons and Likert scale questions) and
qualitative (open-ended discussions about positive and negative experiences with reference
services) data; in the fourth, telephone interviews were conducted with VRS users and non-users
and results were transcribed and analyzed for themes emerging from the data. For the present
study, a wide variety of quantitative and qualitative questions which evinced data on convenience
ease of access and use, and time as a context in individual decisions were considered.
115
TABLE 1: SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY PHASE III—ONLINE SURVEYS AND PHASE IV—TELEPHONE
INTERVIEWS, DEMOGRAPHICS OF VRS USERS AND NON-USERS
Data collection phases Demographic breakdown
VRS users’ online survey (N=137) 62% female

78% Caucasian
63% suburban
64% age 29+
VRS non-users’ online survey (N=184) 68% female

72% Caucasian
58% suburban
33% 12–18; 33% 19–28; 33% 29+
VRS users’ telephone interviews (N=76) 74% female

80% Caucasian
63% suburban
71% age 29+
VRS non-users’ telephone 66% female

interviews (N=107) 70% Caucasian
55% suburban
48% age 19–28
Findings
SENSE-MAKING PHASE II—ONLINE SURVEYS
Convenience, including issues of ease of access/use and time, permeates the data in
each phase of both research projects about how different individuals make choices in
their information seeking. In the second phase of the Sense-Making project, the final
IMLS report states that, “Situation … was by far the best predictor across all information
seeking and uses measures” (Dervin & Reinhard, 2006, p. ES-3); situation in this case
includes questions of convenience such as information seeking late at night, or in a
desperate need for quick answers. “Under some conditions, the idea of options of any
kind is alien to users. They grab whatever is quickest and easiest. Under other conditions,
they reach for more but have an acute awareness of the exigencies of life-facing.” (ibid,
p. ES-4) Even the analysis based on sense-making terminology notes that 74.5% of
situations in these data were focused in the “present horizon” of time (ibid, p. ES-30).
The rather narrow terminology selected for assigning convenience codes (“convenience,”
“convenient,” “easy,” “quick,” “fast,” and various words for saving time) to the qualitative survey
responses nevertheless resulted in a large number of results in which convenience was an issue
in the respondents’ own words. Out of a total N=307 respondents, 171 used one or more of
these phrases, for a total number n=285 occurrences (see table 2). All three study populations—
faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates—used convenience-phrases, though the use
116
was most concentrated in the graduate student population. Convenience seemed to be more
of an issue with these academic library users in research-related situations: (the second,
fourth, and fifth questions on the survey, see appendix 1) than in more personal situations.
Please see table 3 for a breakdown of the analysis of convenience language by situation.
TABLE 2: SENSE-MAKING PHASE II—ONLINE SURVEY RESPONDENTS USING

CONVENIENCE PHRASES
Rank # responding with convenience phrases
Faculty 36
Graduate student 76
Undergraduate student 59
TOTAL: 171
TABLE 3: SENSE-MAKING PHASE II—ONLINE SURVEY SITUATIONS ELICITING

CONVENIENCE PHRASES
Survey question # of convenience phrases
Q1: Troublesome situation in university life 39
Q2: Situation specifically involving research 83
Q3: Troublesome situation in life outside university 11
Q4: Situation in university life where 88

you used electronic resources
Q5: Situation in life outside university where 64

you used electronic resources
TOTAL: 285
When the survey questions or telephone follow-up delved into the information sources that
respondents used in each situation, convenience most often appeared as a factor when they
were using Internet search engines, electronic databases, or the college/university libraries.
Far more often, their mentions of a source’s convenience were in cases where they answered
that the particular source helped their information search. At the same time, some of the
times they claimed that the source hindered their information search, lack of convenience
or time-saving was apparently part of the problem they experienced. These findings held
across the three populations under study, though faculty were moderately more positive in
their assessment of databases’ convenience than the two types of student, who both favored
117
search engines. See table 4 for an analysis of online survey data for convenient information
sources, and table 5 for online survey data for convenient information sources by population.
TABLE 4: SENSE-MAKING PHASE II—ONLINE SURVEY CONVENIENT INFORMATION SOURCES
Convenience Convenience
Information sources used (from Convenience
phrases where phrases where
a list provided in the survey) phrases
source helped source did not help
Internet search engine 56 52 4
Electronic databases 48 44 1
College or university libraries 17 12 5
Library catalogs 8 6 2
Own observations 6 5 1
Journal articles 6 4 2
Students, classmates 5 5 0
Public libraries 5 2 3
Newspapers 5 2 3
Government agencies 4 3 1
Personal web pages 3 3 0
Web diaries, blogs 3 3 0
Reference books 3 1 2
Professors, teachers 2 2 0
Family, friends 3 1 2
Museums 2 1 1
Internet chat rooms 3 2 0
Other non-fiction books 2 0 2
Co-workers, colleagues 1 1 0
Other professionals 1 1 1
118
TABLE 5: SENSE-MAKING PHASE II—ONLINE SURVEY TOP CONVENIENT INFORMATION
SOURCES BY POPULATION.
Convenience Convenience
Information sources used (from Convenience
phrases where phrases where
a list provided in the survey) phrases
source helped source did not help
Faculty
Search engines 10 9 1
College, university libraries 0 0 0
Graduate students
Undergraduates
Library catalogs 1 1 1 0
SENSE-MAKING PHASE III—FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS

Eight focus group interviews (two groups of graduate students and three each of undergraduates
and faculty) were organized around four specific kinds of information-seeking situations,
but since the participants otherwise had free rein in their responses, the data are less
quantifiable (see appendix 2 for the complete focus group interview questions). However,
regardless of academic rank, convenience still emerged as a major contributing factor in
individual choices as to the selection of which information strategies or resources to use.
This response was especially true for the first question in the focus group interviews: “Think
of a time when you had a situation where you needed answers or solutions and you did a
quick search and made do with it. You knew there were other sources but you decided not
to use them. Please include sources such as friends, family, professors, colleagues, etc.”
119
Participants in the nine focus group interviews centered their discussion of this question on
different kinds of information sources, but made their decisions for a quick search based on
the convenience of the source. Undergraduates tended to discuss only web-based sources
in this instance, with a heavy reliance on Google in particular. Graduate students also cited
Google as being quick and easy; one commented, “Google, I don’t have to know, I go to one
spot.” (FG-6) A the same time, if they are unable to locate an Internet source for their quick
search, they use the library as a convenient repository of information (“Even with the library,
it’s start with the imminent. I use the online resources. If I can avoid a physical trip to the
library … I’ll avoid it.” FG-6). Faculty most often cited their personal home or office library—an
incredibly convenient source—as the most often-used place to find quick information, though
many of them also spoke about Google or colleagues: “If I just have a quick thing, and I just
want an answer, I will call a colleague that has some expertise. … Instead of looking up all
the different papers of all the different methods … call them up. It’s much faster.” (FG-5)
Later in each focus group, the participants were asked, “Have there been times when you did
not use a library (university/college, public, etc.) and used other source(s) instead?” In the case
of this second question, the three academic groups did display somewhat different kinds of
information behaviors, but convenience (including temporal contexts) again factored into their
responses. Undergraduates offered specific criticisms of the library catalog as difficult to use in
this instance, though they claimed they will use online reserves from the library—after the library
closes, a clear convenience choice. They and graduate students both commented with some
frequency on how easy the web is to use, especially in comparison to library systems: “I don’t go
into the [library] system unless I have to because there’s like 15 logins, you have to get into the
research databases. Then it takes you out of that to [the local consortium] …” (FG-6) Graduate
students in one focus group interview provided further data regarding their perceptions of the
convenience of online books (“And plus they don’t get overdue!” FG-8). Faculty again mentioned
web searches as easy to use, though these searches often next lead them to the library for
authoritative and credible information, an evaluation they make in spite of convenience factors.
The third question posed to each focus group participant was, “Think of an academic situation
where you needed answers or solutions and you did a thorough search (you did not take the
first answer that you found). Describe the situation.” In response to this more thorough research
question, undergraduates continue to cite Google and Amazon as frequent, easy-to-use and
convenient sources. Use of library systems is mediated by considerations of convenience, such
as the comment, “I use [the local union catalog], but I don’t really need to come into a library,
as long as I have a computer at home.” One undergraduate cited the difficulty of the library
OPAC, claiming the best process was to discover works on Amazon and paste them more
conveniently into the OPAC to find the location of the item or into their work. Undergraduates’
views were probed to determine when they considered they had “enough” information; quite
often temporal considerations impacted their answers (“… time is a big factor for me, at
least like if depending on how much time I have to do the project or how long I wait to start
it depends on how thorough it will be and how much time I’ll spend on it,” FG-2; “I’ve always
thought that the library was a good source if you have a few months to spend on a paper.”
FG-7). Once again graduate students indicated that some of their choices were influenced by
considerations of convenience. Specifically, they credit e-books and interlibrary loans as time-
saving services. Faculty, whose professional lives are bound up with the inconvenience of
saturation research on topics, had little to offer the discussion of convenience on this question.
120
Finally, the participants were asked to imagine an ideal information system, created via a
“magic wand.” Several comments from each population speak to the convenience to which
they would aspire. Ideas from undergraduates include the ability to use keyword searching
in all books (a prophecy of Google Book Search?), a universal library catalog for all libraries,
reference staff that conveniently rove about the library (“… where they have people who walk
around and are there available to help you not always just confined behind a desk where you
have to go up and they’re like, well if you take a left after that bookcase then a right.” FG-2),
federated search in databases (speaking to both time saving and ease of use), and better
hyperlinks. Graduate students desired better book and journal delivery systems, presumably
for the convenience of receiving materials in their office (“But other times, it says you have
to actually go get the article, and I do a lot of research under a lot of supervisors and stuff.
So it’s such a drag.” FG-6). Faculty mention selective alerts for new information in their field,
termed Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI) in information science; although the
respondents did not use the term, they described the service (“… a constant perusing of what’s
available and if something is new that gets a hit, it’s automatically directed to us whether we
ask for it or not.” FG-1), as well as virtual reference services available from their computer
(“Something that I really liked about our website, was the ask a librarian icon.” FG-9).
SENSE-MAKING PHASE IV—SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

The final phase of data collection in this project involved semi-structured interviews with
a small subset of previous study participants: 5 undergraduates, 4 graduate students,
and 6 faculty members. The interviews took place in “natural environments” such as an
office, home, or dormitory. Since four of the five questions (see appendix 3) involved
relatively intense academic work, convenience was not a major factor in many participants’
discussion of their information seeking processes (see table 6). However, in the case
of the fifth situation, “Now, please take me on a tour of your favorite website where you
get answers to questions that interest you. … Help me understand what makes this
site helpful when others are not. Show me, if you can, examples of non-helpful sites,”
convenience became much more germane to the respondents (N=13 for this question).
121
TABLE 6: SENSE-MAKING: PHASE IV—SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS CITING
CONVENIENCE
Respondents citing Times convenience

Situation
convenience (N=15) is cited
Q1: Writing an academic paper, 2 2

proposal, or class assignment
Q2: Work on a current paper, 4 5

assignment, or scholarly task
Q3: Work on a current paper, assignment, 5 7

or scholarly task using electronic resources
Q4: Repetitive situation in life requiring 5 6

repeating seeking of electronic inputs
Q5: Tour of favorite website 9 15
Once again in these data, the respondents valued convenience both of place (“Mostly I
use the Internet for things like this because it’s convenient. Since I work at the computer
all the time, it’s right there so, you know, when I have a few extra minutes I’ll just type in a
search and find information and print it out if I need to”) and of time (“I would do everything
if not electronically, then somehow vacuum it to someone so they get it immediately.”).
Interestingly, one respondent even brought the concept of the convenience of books
into this website-specific question: “I like to have the piles of books all around me so I
can just grab from each place and start writing my paper or whatever I’m doing.”
SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY PHASE III—ONLINE SURVEYS

Three years after the data were collected for the Sense-Making project, analysis of the
Seeking Synchronicity research revealed a remarkably similar highlighting of convenience
factors in information-seeking behaviors. The third phase of the Seeking Synchronicity
project (online surveys) had a more narrow focus on librarian-provided reference services;
two of the three populations under study were users of virtual reference services (VRS)
and non-users of VRS (who were asked questions regarding their use of other modes
of library reference service). Convenience, in terms of general ease of information
seeking, of time issues, and of physical location, again was a major factor in both VRS
users’ and non-users’ individual decisions and choices in their information seeking.
Convenience factors scored uniformly high among both users (N=137, see 7able 7) and non-
users (N=184, see table 10). In many cases, the “frequent” users of VRS (N=59), defined for
this purpose as respondents who reported using virtual reference 4-6 times or more, rated
convenience even higher than less frequent users in their choice to use the service. Users (and
especially frequent users) rated the chat medium as the “most efficient” of all reference modes,
and rated the “convenience of my access” to VRS as excellent or very good. When asked to rate
different factors which affect their decision to use VRS, 95% of users (100% of frequent users)
122
cited convenience directly; needs for information late at night or on the weekend, at times when
the subject could not get to a library, or when there was a “desperate need for quick answers”
also rated highly in their choice. “Immediate answers” and “convenience” were among the most
highly rated specific features valued in VRS. Finally, time issues play into the users’ complaints
with the service—a slow Internet connection or slow response time on the part of the library
would tend to discourage them from using VRS, and many suggested faster software as a
desirable improvement. See Table 7 for an analysis of convenience as a factor for VRS users.
TABLE 7: SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY PHASE III—ONLINE SURVEY VRS USER RESPONDENTS

CITING CONVENIENCE AS A FACTOR IN INFORMATION SEEKING
All survey respondents Frequent VRS

VRS users:
N=137 users N=59
Comparing users’ experience among formats,
2.2 The format that is 55% chat 66% chat

most efficient is:
Comparing specific aspects of chat,
3.5 The convenience of my 85% excellent 86% excellent

access to reference help is: or very good or very good
What factors are important to you when choosing VRS?
4.2 Chat reference is convenient: 95% very important 100% very important
or important or important
4.15 I needed reference help late 74% very important 78% very important
at night or on the weekend: or important or important
4.16 I had a desperate need 72% very important 78% very important
for quick answers: or important or important
4.17 I could not get to the library: 73% very important 78% very important
What factors are important to you when choosing other formats?
5.1 The library is convenient: 76% very important 81% very important
5.2 Other formats are convenient: 78% very important 80% very important
What specific features are important to you in VRS?
123
All survey respondents Frequent VRS
VRS users:
N=137 users N=59
6.1 Immediate answers: 89% very important 92% very important

6.2 Convenience: 97% very important 98% very important

What items might discourage you from using VRS?
7.2 Slow Internet connection: 69% strongly 64% strongly

agree or agree agree or agree
7.15 Slow response time: 57% strongly 58% strongly

agree or agree agree or agree
What might improve your experience?
8.4 Faster software: 87% very important 75% very important

The documented centrality of convenience in the information seeking of VRS users is

sustained across most demographic categories, though a very small number of significant
differences emerged. The data across three age groups—12–18, 19–28, and 29 and older—
were subjected to ANOVA with a confidence level of α=.05 (see table 8). The youngest cohort
of respondents was more likely to express a “desperate need for quick answers” than the
oldest group, and also more likely to request faster software. The middle cohort was more
likely to be discouraged by a slow Internet connection. The 29+ age group was less likely to
find VRS the most efficient format for reference help (55% awarded the honor to traditional
face-to-face reference), but these differences by age categories were not statistically
significant. Two survey questions elicited significant differences by respondent’s location
(e.g., rural, suburban, or urban, see table 9). Suburbanites were much less likely to rate
chat as the most efficient format for reference services than respondents from urban areas,
and less likely than urbanites to rate as highly the convenience of their access to reference
help (in each case, the number of rural respondents was too low for significant results).
124
TABLE 8: SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY PHASE III—ONLINE SURVEY VRS USERS, AGE DIFFERENCES.
Question 12-18 19-28 29+
VRS users N=26 N=23 N=88
Comparing experience among formats,
2.2 The format that 58% chat 56% chat 55% FtF; 39% chat
is most efficient is:
What factors are important to you when choosing VRS?
4.16 I had a 92% very important 70% very important 66% very important
desperate need for or important or important or important
quick answers:
What items might discourage you from using VRS?
7.2 Slow Internet 52% strongly 96% very important 64% very important
connection: agree or agree or important or important
What might improve your experience?
8.4 Faster software: 96% very important 70% very important 74% very important
or important or important or important
No statistically significant differences α=.05
125
TABLE 9: SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY PHASE III—ONLINE SURVEY VRS USERS, GEOGRAPHICAL
DIFFERENCES
Question Rural Suburban Urban
VRS users N=13 N=85 N=38
Comparing experience among formats,
2.2 The format that 69% chat 32% chat (56% FtF) 68% chat
is most efficient is:
Comparing specific aspects of chat,
3.5 The 92% excellent 78% excellent 97% excellent

convenience of or very good or very good or very good
my access to
reference help is:
Significant differences α=.05
Likewise among the non-users of VRS (these individuals did use libraries, they just did not use
VRS) surveyed, convenience emerged as a factor in choices in their library information seeking.
When responding to a question about the convenience of their access to face-to-face reference
services (FtF), almost half rated it excellent or very good (a much less enthusiastic endorsement
than the 95% of VRS users who rated the convenience of VRS excellent or very good). However,
when asked about the convenience of their preferred mode of obtaining reference assistance, a
large majority cited the convenience of whichever specific mode was their preference. For those
who prefer reference services by telephone or email, both physical and temporal convenience
played a negative role in their choice not to use a library, and the fear that “Chat reference
might not be offered at times I need the service” was a significant deterrent expressed as a
reason these non-users had not tried VRS; see table 10 for an analysis of convenience as a
factor for non-users of VRS. Demographic differences among these data were negligible.
126
TABLE 10: SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY PHASE III—ONLINE SURVEY VRS NON-USERS
RESPONDENTS CITING CONVENIENCE AS A FACTOR IN INFORMATION SEEKING
VRS non-users: N=184
Comparing specific aspects of FtF,
3.5 The convenience of my access to reference help is: 45% excellent or very good
Reasons for not choosing chat:
5.5 Chat reference might not be offered 60% strongly agree or agree
at times I need the service:
Comparing specific features of other formats,
(NB respondent pool then is divided by their preferred mode)
I prefer: A. FtF B. telephone C. electronic formats 137 FtF/9 telephone/38

electronic formats
4.A1 The library is convenient (those preferring library): 84% very important
or important
4.B1 The telephone is convenient (prefer telephone): 73% very important

or important
4.C1 Electronic formats are convenient (prefer electronic): 91% very important
or important
What might discourage you from using other formats?
4.B9 The library is not convenient (prefer telephone): 57% strongly agree or agree
4.B10 The library is not open at convenient 59% strongly agree or agree
hours (prefer telephone):
4.C16 The library is not convenient (prefer electronic): 67% strongly agree or agree
4.C17 The library is not open at convenient 70% strongly agree or agree
hours (prefer electronic):
127
SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY PHASE IV—TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS
The majority of the transcript data from the Phase IV telephone interviews (see appendix 4 for
the interview questions) were coded according to the principles of grounded theory, allowing
the codes to emerge from the respondents’ language. Thus, the overall percentages for the
occurrence of any single data point will be smaller. Nevertheless, codes related to convenience,
including physical and temporal convenience, emerged in response to several different interview
questions for both the VRS users and non-users. (In the following discussion and tables, code
names are as assigned by researchers to each set of transcripts as they emerged from the data.)
Convenience-related codes emerged from four questions in the telephone interviews with VRS
users (see table 11). The most important question for users’ thoughts about convenience was the
question of whether the users would recommend VRS to others (they overwhelmingly would) and
why (question 10). Fully a third of those interviewed made positive comments on the speed and
efficiency of VRS, and 22% made some reference to its convenience, including availability after-
hours, and getting answers in the online workflow. The same two aspects of their experience with
VRS also emerged in their responses to a question probing for the kind of situation when chat
is their first choice of mode for obtaining reference services (question 3); in this case specific
aspects of convenience include after-hours need, online workflow, and being at a home or office.
One negative type of data emerged from a question asking VRS users how much time they
might wait to get virtual answers from a subject specialist (question 9). Despite a majority of
respondents claiming that subject expertise was very important to them, only 42% would be
willing to wait for that expertise, and very few of them could quantify a specific amount of time
to wait. Finally, near the end of each interview (question 11), VRS users were asked to compare
their experiences of working with a librarian FtF and in the virtual space, with justification for their
response. Many did not indicate a clear preference, though among those respondents several
again mentioned the convenience and immediacy of the chat medium, and a few expressed
a negative opinion of FtF reference (“… the convenience is still better online than in person,
you don’t have to make trips to the library” UTI-24). Among the respondents who indicated a
preference for VRS, even more expressed the convenience of VRS in a positive light, and the
lack of convenience in FtF as negative. Demographic differences in these data were negligible.
128
TABLE 11: SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY PHASE IV—TELEPHONE INTERVIEW VRS USER
COMMENTS ABOUT CONVENIENCE
VRS users: N=76
When recommending chat reference (question 10), they recommend based on:
Speed and efficiency 32%
Convenience 22%
After-hours availability 7%
Getting answers in the online workflow 3%
When chat is first choice for information (question 3), they describe their reasons:
Convenient 30%
Quick help-speedy answers 18%
After-hours, can’t get to library 12%
Already at-in use of a computer 10%
Don’t have to leave home-office 7%
Reliable information-sources 7%
Easier to go on-line 4%
How much time might you wait for a specialist (question 9)?
Waiting only a specific amount of time 11%
Ten to fifteen minutes 4%
Half hour 3%
One to two hours 3%
Half a day 1%
In comparing chat to other formats (question 11),
Positive immediacy-convenience-efficiency of VRS (prefer VRS) 14%
Positive Immediacy-convenience-efficiency of VRS (no clear preference) 11%
129
VRS users: N=76
Negative immediacy-convenience-efficiency of FtF (prefer VRS) 5%
Negative immediacy-convenience-efficiency of FtF (no clear preference) 3%
Responses by VRS non-users to four questions in their telephone interviews also provided data
related to convenience as a major factor in their individual choices while seeking information (see
table 12 for results, and appendix 4 for the complete interview questions). When asked in the
most general sense to “Think about a time you needed to know something” (question 2), a large
majority responded that they would find the information themselves, potentially a very convenient
and easy choice. Almost all of the remaining interviewees (with some overlap to the “find myself”
answer) responded with some form of electronic resource; this is not explicitly a convenience
choice, but implicitly. Similarly, when asked to consider times when they chose an alternative to
the library (question 3), the largest number of respondents mentioned the Internet as a resource,
with numerous references to specific online (and implicitly more convenient) resources.
When asked to hypothesize about what might convince them to try asking a librarian for
help using a chat reference service (question 6), the single greatest factor was some form of
convenience (“It would be convenient, because if I was sitting at a computer and I could ask a
question and they would answer immediately … that would be good. Convenience is why I do
something as opposed to something else.” N-131). This included a large number of respondents
who could foresee an immediate need for answers, those who would value using VRS from
home in a variety of circumstances, and those who would use the service at a time that was
after library hours. Finally, in the follow-up to a question about the non-users’ experience
using electronic formats for personal and academic or professional purposes (question 5),
the VRS non-users were asked to give some reasons for their use. Among the less-than-
cohesive data from their responses, convenience emerged in a few cases. As with the VRS
users in the telephone interviews, significant demographic differences were not present.
130
TABLE 12: SEEKING SYNCHRONICITY PHASE IV—TELEPHONE INTERVIEW VRS NON-USER
COMMENTS ABOUT CONVENIENCE
Choices in an information source (question 2):
Start with Internet (Internet first) 30%
Start with Google (Google first) 15%
Google 11%
Wikipedia 5%
Google Scholar 4%
Start with Wikipedia (Wikipedia first) 3%
Concerning alternatives to the library, and why (question 3),
Alternative source is the Internet: 41%
Reason: personal convenience 28%
Google 11%
Databases associated with Internet (EBSCO, LexisNexis, etc.) 6%
Reason: Inconvenience of the library 5%
Google Scholar 3%
Wikipedia 3%
Expert web sites 3%
Yahoo! 2%
Reason: Internet as starting point 2%
Journals associated with Internet 1%
Online book sellers 1%
Possible reasons for trying chat include (question 6):
Convenience 62%
131
Needing immediate answers 25%
Unable to get to the library 7%
Using the service after hours 7%
Perceiving chat reference as faster than email 4%
Valuing using chat reference from home 4%
Unable to telephone the library 4%
Citing general ease of use 2%
Experiencing bad weather 2%
Avoiding a long distance call 1%
Preferring chat to holding on the phone 1%
Reasons for using electronic communication formats (question 5):
Convenience or speed 7%
Expectation of electronic formats’ immediacy 6%
More convenient than in person 1%
Expecting electronic formats convenient to access 1%
Discussion
Between the two studies, empirical data identifies convenience as central to
information-seeking behaviors. The centrality of convenience is especially prevalent
among the younger (“Millennial”) subjects in both studies, but is true across all
demographic categories—age, gender, academic role, user or non-user of VRS.
These two studies indicate that convenience is a factor for making choices in all situations,
both academic information seeking and everyday-life information seeking (though it plays
different roles in different situations). The study data on convenience come from both prompted
survey response language, and from free-response data in interviews and critical incident data
(data regarding subjects’ memories of a single successful or unsuccessful incident; Flanagan,
1954). Most importantly, the data on convenience are consistent across the longitudinal
period between the two studies, indicating that the need for convenience is not new.
132
Convenience emerges from the data around three particular aspects of the concept. Ease
of access to resources is one measure of convenience when making rational choices in
information seeking. The most convenient sources of information might be Internet search
engines, electronic databases, virtual reference, or online e-reserves, e-books, and online
booksellers; findings indicate that Google is especially important to the younger generations.
However, in addition to electronic resources which carry the convenience of desktop or
home access, data emerged about the convenience of human resources as information
sources, as well as the convenience of having a personal library on hand. Convenience
also plays into the data regarding choices to use (or not to use) the brick-and-mortar
library, or how to access library resources after hours or on the weekend. Convenience
as expressed in ease of access was a repeated complaint made against library OPACs.
This finding was reiterated in the Seeking Synchronicity study of VRS. The “magic wand”
enhancements to library systems in the Sense-Making study differed by academic role
of the participant, but these tended to relate to convenience of access to resources.
Different contexts and situations for information needs did not detract from the centrality
of convenience in making choices, though the convenience factor acted differently
depending on context: students faced with lengthy imposed academic tasks, for instance,
and professional scholars, valued the most convenient access to the library’s great store
of resources, but acknowledged that their longer academic tasks would be more involved.
In the Sense-Making study, in fact, convenience emerged as even more important to the
subjects’ discussion of academic tasks than to their discussion of everyday-life information
needs. But convenience—in this case more often associated with speed of electronic
search engines or the like—remained important in the more immediate everyday-
life situations, and this finding was also repeated in the Seeking Synchronicity study.
Convenience was a leading feature every time VRS users were asked in surveys and
interviews to evaluate reasons for choosing the service, or for recommending it to others.
Finally, the data in both studies explored time as an important situation factor in convenience
choices. The time-span of longer academic tasks featured in the “satisficing” behavior of
the Sense-Making study’s academic users, as well as the responses from the Seeking
Synchronicity respondents describing their use of VRS for academic tasks. In both
studies, the temporal context of an information need also might relate to library hours—
experiencing an information need late at night, or on weekends. The Seeking Synchronicity
study especially illuminated the kind of information need expressed as a “desperate
need for immediate answers.” Such highly time-oriented information needs were most
often expressed by younger subjects, but featured in all demographic categories.
Implications for practice and conclusion

The image of libraries as a quiet place to access books, rather than to access electronic
sources still is prevalent today (Connaway, & Dickey, 2010, p. 39). In order to entice people
to use libraries and to change their perceptions of libraries, the library experience needs
to become more like that available on the web (e.g., Google, Amazon.com, iTunes, etc.)
and to be embedded in individual workflows. The web environment is familiar to users;
therefore, they are comfortable and confident choosing to search for information there.
Librarians need to adapt or seek to purchase services and systems that are designed to
replicate the web environment so that they are perceived as convenient and easy to use.
133
Access to sources, not the discovery of sources, is the concern of information-seekers.
People lack patience to wade through content silos and indexing and abstracting
databases. They expect seamless access to resources such as full text e-journals,
online foreign-language materials, ebooks, a variety of electronic publishers’ platforms,
and virtual reference desk services (Connaway & Dickey, 2010, p. 46–47). To meet
these expectations, it is recommended that librarians should provide more authoritative,
reliable digital sources through the library systems and services, from e-journals to
curated data sets, as well as emerging services such as virtual research environments
(VREs), open source materials, non-text-based and multimedia objects, and blogs.
Librarians also must advertise the library brand and its resources better to academics,
researchers, students, and the general public. Demonstrating the library’s value can be
accomplished by identifying and promoting collections and services. One size does not
fit all for library services, which need to be offered in multiple delivery modes to meet the
different information needs of users in different situations. This versatility and flexibility
is difficult in the current economic environment, but warrants further investigation.
The development of an economic model for the allocation of resources for the different
delivery modes for library services would benefit all types of libraries. This would not
only enable optimal scheduling of human resources for services but also the allocation
of funds for both electronic and print resources based on user preferences.
There is a need for a user behavior study to address how library users find
information in different contexts and situations. Vakkari (1997) calls for “studies
which will concentrate more on contextual factors, and then combine the results with
those of studies using more individual factors” (p.463). An approach like this would
provide theoretical research that combines both the 11 individual and social factors
that influence information-seeking behaviors (Connaway & Dickey, 2010).
As seen above, in some situations information seekers will readily sacrifice content for
convenience. Convenience is thus one of the primary criteria used for making choices during
the information-seeking process. Convenience includes the choice of the information source (is
it readily available online or in print), the satisfaction with the source (does it contain the needed
information and is it easy to use), and the time it will take to access and use the information
source (how long will it take to access). In the current environment, most people do not have time
to spend searching for information or for learning how to use a new information source or access
method. In order to be one of the first choices for information, library systems and interfaces
need to look familiar to people by resembling popular web interfaces and library services
need to be easily accessible and to require little or no training to use. Convenience is a critical
factor for users across all demographic categories, and is liable to remain so going forward.
134
REFERENCES
Agosto, D. 2002. “Bounded rationality and satisficing in young people’s Web-based decision
making.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 53, no. 1: 18–27.
Antell, K., & Engel, D. 2006. “Conduciveness to scholarship: The essence of academic library as
place.” College & Research Libraries 67, no. 6: 536–560.
Bawden, D., & Vilar, P. 2006. “Digital libraries: To meet or manage user expectations.” Aslib
Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 58: 346–354.
Chatman, E. 1991. “Life in a small world: Applicability of gratification theory to information-

seeking behavior.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 42,
no. 6: 438–449.
Connaway, L. S. 2007. “Mountains, valleys, and pathways: Serials users’ needs and steps to
meet them. Part I: Preliminary analysis of focus group and semi-structured interviews at colleges
and universities.” Serials Librarian 52, no. 1/2: 223–236.
Connaway, L. S., & Dickey, T. J. 2010. The digital information seeker: Report of findings from
selected OCLC, RIN and JISC user behaviour projects. London: HEFCE on behalf of the JISC.
Connaway, L. S., Prabha, C., & Dickey, T. J. 2006. Sense-making the information confluence:
The whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs. Phase
III: Focus group interview study. Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03-0062-03,
to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Columbus, Ohio: School of
Communication, The Ohio State University. http://imlsproject.comm.ohio-state.edu/imls_reports/
PHASE_III/PH_III_report.pdf. (accessed 26 April 2010) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Connaway, L. S., Radford, M. L., & Dickey, T. J. 2008. “On the trail of the elusive nonuser: What
research in virtual reference environments reveals.” ASIS&T Bulletin 34, no. 2: 25–28.
http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Dec-07/Bulletin_DecJan08.pdf. (accessed 26 April 2010).
Connaway, L. S., Radford, M. L., Dickey, T. J., Williams, J. D., & Confer, P. 2008. “Sensemaking
and synchronicity: Information-seeking behaviors of millennials and baby boomers.” Libri 58:
123–135.
Cool, C. 2001. “The concept of situation in information science.” M. E. Williams (Ed.). Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology 35: 5–42. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
Dervin, B. 1977. “Useful theory for librarianship: Communication, not information.” Drexel Library
Quarterly 13: 16–32.
135
Dervin, B., and Reinhard, C. D. 2006. “Executive summary.” B. Dervin, C.D. Reinhard, Z.Y. Kerr,
M. Song, & F.C. Shen (Eds.). Sense-making the information confluence: The whys and hows
of college and university user satisficing of information needs. Phase II: Sense-making online
survey and phone interview study. Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03-0062-03 to
Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. School of Communication, Ohio
State University: Columbus, Ohio. http://imlsproject.comm.ohio-state.edu/imls_reports/imls_PH_
II_report_list.html. (accessed 26 April 2010) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Dervin, B., Connaway, L. S., & Prabha, C. 2006. Sense-making the information confluence:
The whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs. http://
imlsosuoclcproject.jcomm.ohio-state.edu (accessed 26 April 2010) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Dervin, B., & Vilan, M. 1986. “Information needs and uses.” Annual Review of Information
Science & Technology 21: 3–33.
Fast, K. V., & Campbell, D. G. 2004. “‘I still like Google:’ University student perceptions of searching
OPACs and the Web.” Proceedings of the 67th ASIS&T Annual Meeting 41: 138–146.
Fischer, K. E., Naumer, C., Durrance, J. C., Stromsky, L., & Christiansen, T. 2006. “Something
old, something new: Preliminary findings from an exploratory study about people’s information
habits and information grounds.” Information Research 10(2). http://informationr.net/ir/10-2/
paper223.html. (accessed 26 April 2010).
Flanagan, J. C. 1954. “The critical incident technique.” Psychological Bulletin 51: 327–358.
Friedman, D., & Hechter, M. 1998. “The contribution of rational choice theory to macro
sociological research.” Sociological Theory 6, no. 2: 201–218.
Green, S. L. 2002. Rational choice theory: An overview. Waco, TX: Baylor University. Retrieved
http://business.baylor.edu/steve_green/green1.doc. (accessed 26 April 2010).
Griffiths, J. M., & King, D. W. 2008. InterConnections: The IMLS national study on the use of
libraries, museums and the Internet: General information report. Institute of Museum and Library
Services: Washington, DC.
Gross, M., & Latham, D. 2009. “Undergraduate perceptions of information literacy: Defining,
attaining, and self-assessing skills.” College & Research Libraries 70, no. 4: 336–350.
Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. 2010. “How today’s college students use Wikipedia for course–
related research.” First Monday 15, no. 3. http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/
article/viewArticle/2830/2476. (accessed 26 April 2010).
Idaho Commission for Libraries. 2007. Perceptions of Idaho’s digital natives on public libraries:
Statewide focus group findings. Institute of Museum and Library Services: Washington, DC.
Julien, H. E., & Michels, D. 2004. “Intra-individual information behavior in daily life.” Information
Processing & Management 40, no. 3: 547–562.
136
Lombardo, S. V., & Condic, K. S. 2001. “Convenience or content: A study of undergraduate
periodical use.” Reference Services Review 29, no. 4: 327–337.
Niu, X., Hemminger, B. M., Lown, C., Adams, S., Brown, C., Level, A., McLure, M., Powers, A.,
Tennant, M. R., & Cataldo, T. 2010. “National study of information seeking behavior of academic
researchers in the United States.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science &
Prabha, C., Connaway, L. S., & Dickey, T. J. 2006. Sense-making the information confluence:
The whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs. Phase IV:
Semi-structured interview study. Report on National Leadership Grant LG-02-03-0062-03,
to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C. Columbus, Ohio: School of
Communication, The Ohio State University. http://imlsproject.comm.ohio-state.edu/imls_reports/
PHASE_IV/PH_IV_report.pdf. (accessed 26 April 2010) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Prabha, C., Connaway, L. S., Olszewski, L., & Jenkins, L. 2007. “What is enough? Satisficing
Prensky, M. 2001. “Digital natives, digital immigrants.” On the Horizon 9, no. 5.

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing. (accessed 26 April 2010) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Pullinger, D. 1999. “Academics and the new information environment: The impact of local factors
on use of electronic journals.” Journal of Information Science 25, no. 2: 164–172.
Radford, M. L., & Connaway, L. S. 2008. Seeking synchronicity: Evaluating virtual reference
services from user, non-user, and librarian perspectives: IMLS final performance report. Report
on Grant LG-06-05-0109-05, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, D.C.
Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center. http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/
synchronicity/reports/20080626-final.pdf. (accessed 26 April 2010).
Savolainen, R. 1995. “Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking in the
context of ‘way of life.’” Library & Information Science Research 17, no. 3: 259–294.
______. 2006. “Time as a context of information seeking.” Library & Information Science
Research 28, no. 1: 110–127.
______. 2008. Everyday information practices. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Simon, H. A. 1955. “A behavioral model of rational choice.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 69,
no. 1: 99–118.
______. (1979). Models of thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Vakkari, P. (1997). “Information seeking in context: A challenging metatheory.” P. Vakkari, R.

Savolainen, & B. Dervin (Eds.). Information seeking in context: Proceedings of a meeting in
Finland 14–16 August 1996, 451–463. London: Taylor Graham.
137
138
7
User-centered Decision Making:
A New Model for Developing
Academic Library Services
and Systems

OCLC Research
Donna Lanclos, Ph.D.

University of North Carolina, Charlotte
David White
University of Oxford
Alison Le Cornu, Ph.D.

The Higher Education Academy
Erin M. Hood
OCLC Research
A reprint of:
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Erin M. Hood, Donna Lanclos, David White, and Alison Le Cornu. 2012. “User-centered
Decision Making: A New Model for Developing Academic Library Services and Systems,” in World Library and
Information Congress. 78 (2012: Helsinki). Proceedings. The Hague, Netherlands: IFLA. http://conference.ifla.org/past-
wlic/2012/76-connaway-en.pdf
INTRODUCTION
There are many different ways to engage in the information environment making
physical and digital libraries one of many options available to the information
seeker. Library resources often are not the first choice of the academic
community, who often choose the more convenient, easier to use open-access
sources (Beetham, McGill, and Littlejohn 2009; Centre for Information Behaviour
and the Evaluation of Research [CIBER] 2008; Connaway and Dickey 2010;
Warwick, Galina, Terras, Huntington, and Pappa 2008). This could be attributed
to the fact that resources used to be scarce, making attention abundant. However,
attention currently is scarce because resources are abundant (Dempsey 2009,
2010). This means that “library users now have many opportunities to meet their
information needs, and they have many demands on their attention. No single site
is the sole focus of attention and convenience is important” (Dempsey 2010).
Connaway, Dickey, and Radford (2011) identified convenience as the number one factor
for individuals selecting a service or system to find information. To make it more difficult,
convenience is often determined by the situation and context of the specific information need.
In order to develop library systems and services that will meet the varied needs and
situations of today’s information seekers, it is necessary to identify how, why, and under
what circumstances individuals use the various available systems and services.
Objectives and research questions

In an attempt to identify engagement with technology and information, the Digital
Visitors and Residents (V&R) study involves working with users during a 3-year
period, and tracking the shifts in their motivations and forms of engagement as they
transition between four identified educational stages—Emerging (Late stage secondary
school – first year undergraduate); Establishing (Second/third year undergraduate);
Embedding (Postgraduates, PhD students); and Experienced (Scholars). It is based
on the V&R framework proposed by White and Le Cornu (2011) as a method of
contextualizing participants’ motivations to engage with the digital environment.
The study is based on the following key research questions:

• What are the most significant factors for novice and experienced researchers in choosing their
modes of engagement with the information environment?
• Do individuals develop personal engagement strategies which evolve over time and for
specific needs and goals, or are the educational contexts (or, in the context of this study,
“educational stages”) the primary influence on their engagement strategies?
• Are modes of engagement shifting over the course of time, influenced by emergent web
culture and the availability of “new” ways to engage, or are the underlying trends and
motivations relatively static within particular educational stages?
140
Methodology and data collection techniques
The study is comprised of four phases.
• Phase 1: recruited and interviewed 30 individuals in the Emerging educational stage: 15 from
the US and 15 from the UK. Eleven were male, 19 female. See figure 1. Since the participants
mostly were drawn from the last year of secondary/high school and first year of university, the
majority of the students were aged 18 and 19, but there was a small sample of younger (17)
and older (34, 36 and 57) interviewees. See figure 2.
• Phase 2: recruited and interviewed 30 individuals from the Establishing (second/third year
undergraduate), Embedding (postgraduates, PhD students), and Experienced (Scholars)
stages: 5 from each of the three stages from both the US and the UK. Fourteen of the Phase
1 participants agreed to submit a monthly diary for 3 months during the summer of 2011 (8 US
and 6 UK). The US participants were more faithful than the UK participants in submitting the
dairies. At the end of Phase 1, there were 7 complete sets of diaries, including videos from
one US participant from the Establishing educational stage. Several participants submitted
intermittent monthly diaries, while others have failed to submit diaries. Although a thorough
analysis of the diaries has not been completed, the team has begun to discuss whether they
have been as effective a way as anticipated. The researchers are discussing several options
in lieu of the diaries, which may include individual monthly conversations or IM sessions with
participants or video submissions.
• Phase 3 (planned for May 2011–May 2013): test the interview and diary results with an
in-depth survey of 50 participants from each of the four educational stages (total of 400
participants—200 each from the UK and US). Code, analyze, and compare data from the 4
educational stages to refine the emerging findings and explore possible trends across larger
groupings, such as the stages themselves, discipline, and socioeconomic status.
• Phase 4: (planned for January 2013–May 2013): interview a second group of 6 students (3
students from each of the two types of institutions from both the US and UK) in the Emerging
stage. This will help to determine if methods of engagement are changing over time as well as
through the educational stages.
User-centered Decision Making: A New Model for Developing Academic Library Services and Systems
141
FIGURE 1: US VS. UK PARTICIPANT
FIGURE 2: US VS. UK PARTICIPANT AGES
In the US the project worked in close partnership with the University of North Carolina, Charlotte
(UNCC) to recruit participants, from different socio-economic groups from both private and
public secondary schools as well as from the university. In the UK participants were drawn from
Oxford Brooks University, Warwick University, and secondary schools in Oxford and Leicester. It
was a purposive sample with the assumption that the students and scholars at these institutions
were typical of other institutions (Connaway and Powell 2010). Although the subjects were a
convenience sample (using contacts to connect the researchers with individuals within the 4
educational phases) and snowball sampling with participants recruiting their colleagues who fit
the demographics of the 4 educational phases (Connaway and Powell 2010), they deliberately
were selected to represent US and UK participants from various cultural, socio-economic,
and disciplinary backgrounds. See table 1 for the subjects’ disciplinary backgrounds.
142
TABLE 1: US VS. UK PARTICIPANT UNIVERSITY MAJORS
US (9 of 16) UK (7 of 16)
5 Engineering 3 Teaching
1 Political Science 1 Chemical Biology
1 Pre-Business 1 Chemistry
2 Undeclared 1 History
1 Languages
Several methods of data collection are being utilized in this study: semi-structured
interviews, diaries, and an online survey. The multi-method design enables triangulation,
which provides a cross examination of the data analysis and results. The quantitative
and qualitative methods, including ethnographic methods that devote individual attention
to the subjects, yield a very rich data set enabling multiple methods of analysis.
Interviews were selected as a technique of collecting data because they allow the interviewee
to take time to provide thoughtful answers and for the interviewer to probe, follow up, and
ask more focused questions. “It is generally believed that the interview is better at revealing
information that is complex or emotionally laden” (Connaway and Powell 2010, 172).
A set of questions was developed for the individual semi-structured interviews. The
same questions were asked of all participants. These questions were developed
based on the literature and prior research and addressed the participants’ needs and
behaviors in both personal and academic situations and contexts. See appendix A.
Because this study is longitudinal, there needed to be follow-up with research subjects
after the initial interview. Once individuals consented to be interviewed, researchers
in the project asked them if they would also be interested in keeping research diaries,
wherein they detailed their information-seeking behaviors month-to-month. The
collection of such diaries was inspired in part by Carol Kuhlthau’s (2003) work using self-
reported written records from high school students. Such documents can potentially
provide great depth and detail, but as Connaway and Powell (2010, 222) caution,
“Among their obvious disadvantages are the tendency to reveal only what the
participants choose to share with the researcher and the tendency to be incomplete (due
to factors such as time, stress, or shame) on those points of extreme difficulty which
are often most crucial to the researcher. To minimize these weaknesses, self-reported
documents are often used in careful conjunction with other data-gathering techniques.”
These diaries are not stand-alone, but are designed to provide time-depth as well as additional
detail on the behaviors described by interviewees during Phases 1 and 2 of the project.
143
The diaries are a form of ethnographic data collection techniques. The goal of ethnography
is to establish rapport with target communities, via a flexible toolkit of methods
including participant observation, structured and unstructured interviews, reliance on
selected research participants as “key informants,” and keeping diaries. The analytical
intellectual work of ethnography involves being able to engage in a particular way of
seeing (Wolcott 2008) that is informed by the ethnographer’s immersion in the reality
of other people’s existence. Such qualitative data must be approached and interpreted
in a way that recognizes and retains this richness (Connaway and Powell 2010).
Interviewees were given a choice as to which format they wanted to use in submitting
their monthly information diaries: email, follow-up face-to-face interview, blog, phone call,
or video. Initially, nearly all of the diarists chose to submit via email messages (possibly
because email was characterized as “formal” communication, and all of the Phase 1 diarists
were in the Emerging phase). In Phase 2, the researchers provided a Google doc form to
make diary submission easier (see appendix B), and they also started to get video-diary
submissions via Vimeo from at least one participant. The diaries are a form of event sampling,
which can focus participant attention on those areas which most interest researchers.
Connaway and Powell (2010) point out that instruments (like diaries) that are intended to
get people to describe what has just happened to them may be affected by distortions of
memory and retrospection. They recommend that the question under review “center on
discrete, defined events or moments so that such recording effort becomes reasonable
and recall efforts are relatively straightforward” (Connaway and Powell 2010, 222).
A code book for analyzing the interview transcripts and diaries was developed. The code
book emerged from the themes identified in the interview transcripts. Content analysis
was used to tally mentions of the specific themes identified in the code book. All five of
the researchers coded two of the same interview transcripts (1 US and 1 UK) to calculate
intercoder reliability. The US transcript received a Kappa score of 0.63 (98% agreement),
while the UK transcript received a Kappa score of 0.64 (97.78% agreement).1 The
researchers then discussed any differences to reach agreement and modified the code
book to better reflect the themes emerging from the interview transcripts. All of the interview
transcripts and diaries from Phases 1 and 2 were coded in NVivo2 for further analysis.
The questionnaire is another technique or instrument for collecting survey data from a large
number of respondents in a relatively short period of time (Connaway and Powell 2010). In the
online survey in Phase 3, the participants will be asked questions derived from the collection and
analysis of data from the semi-structured interviews and diaries during the first two phases of the
project. Since the longitudinal study sample is small, the online survey is a way to involve more
participants to validate the results of the analysis of the semistructured interviews and diaries.
144
Emerging findings
The preliminary analysis of the Emerging educational stage semi-structured interviews data suggest
• Learners’ use of technology for both their academic and personal lives can be mapped
against the concepts of V&R, where each is a mode of behavior, not necessarily a kind of
individual. The data have revealed particular characteristics of V&R modes of behavior:
—— Residents: significant online presence and usage; high level of collaborative activity online;
contributions to the online environment in the form of uploading materials, photos, videos;
high dependence on a mobile device (smart phone, laptop, etc.); more than 10 hours a
week spent online;
—— Visitors: functional use of technology, often linked to formal need (such as use of software for
specific coursework, or organising meetings through email contact); less visible/more passive
online presence, more likely to favour face-to-face interactions (even as they use the Internet
to organize/ schedule those interactions); fewer than 6 hours spent online a week;
• There are a number of “covert” online study habits. For example, Wikipedia is widely used but
almost always with a sense of guilt or an eagerness to convey awareness of its “unreliability;”
there is an assumption by students that teachers and lecturers value the authenticity of paper-
based books rather than information found online through a browser, such as Google. The
data also indicate that this assumption is unfounded;
• Some changes are made when transitioning from one stage of academic life to another. For
example, one interviewee cleared his Facebook site of his previous high school friends when
he went to University, where he replaced them with new contacts; and
• A number of interviewees spoke about the way they evaluated information and sites from the
Internet. A typical way of doing this was to judge sites by their popularity (as shown by their
placement in the Google results list), i.e., popular = correct.
The V&R theory has developed over a period of years, finding formal expression in a recent
publication by White and Le Cornu (2011). The paper suggests the following characteristics.
145
Visitors Residents
• See web as untidy garden tool shed • See web as place (park, building) where
• Defined goal or task clusters of friends and colleagues meet
• Select most appropriate tool for task • Live out a proportion of their life online
• Need to see concrete benefit from use of • Distinction between online and offline
platform increasingly blurred
• No persistent online profile • Sense of belonging to a community
• Anonymous • Have a profile in social networking
• Actively reject creation of digital identity platforms
• Caution: identity theft, privacy • Comfortable expressing their identity
using SN platforms
• Sense that online social networking is
banal and egotistical • Web is a place to express opinions, to
form and extend relationships, maintain
• Will use technology to maintain
and develop a digital identity
relationships
• Aspect of their persona remains once
• Web offers set of tools to deliver
logged off
or manipulate content (including
conversations) • See web as networks or clusters of
individuals who generate content
• Tendency to respect (and seek out)
authoritative sources • No clear distinction between concepts of
persona and content
• Thinking takes place offline
• Popularity as one important measure of
• Users, not members, of the web
reliability
• See no value of belonging online
During the past year the researchers have been able to add characteristics which seem to
accompany or elucidate each of the V&R approaches, as outlined in the table below.
Visitors Residents
• Unseen • Visible
• Instrumental • Networked
• Functional • Communicative
• Individual • Communal
Convenience is a major factor in the decisions made by students in the Emerging

educational stage. This is similar to findings of Connaway, Dickey, and Radford
(2011), in which convenience was the primary factor in choosing or getting
information. Convenience was determined by the specific context or situation, so
the solution students identified as “convenient” did not always look the same.
Analysis of the diaries is just beginning. However, they appear to confirm tendencies
identified in the interviews that participants look for convenient digital sources first
and use a wide variety of digital sources in both their academic and everyday lives.
146
Convenience and authority are not always mutually exclusive in the data set. Some of
the student participants choose the most convenient option out of a set of “legitimate”
sources (those they have been directed to by their tutors or by library staff). It also is the
case that students were generally positive about syllabus-based websites that had been
recommended to them by tutors or were being used directly as part of the curriculum.
Convenience may be why the data indicate that Google and Wikipedia are the
most popular search engine and information source respectively. While much of
the discussion below specifically refers to Google and/or Wikipedia, these are
exemplars of a search engine, and a form of crowd-sourced3 information.
Almost without exception, the participants use Google as a starting point to seek
information when they do not already know much about a topic. Many go no further,
and it was not uncommon for them simply to accept the first Google site listed.
“I always stick with the first thing that comes up on Google because I think
that’s the most popular site which means that’s the most correct.” (USS1)4
“Go to Google first thing. I mean, it’s so easy; Internet,

Google, type in book about or, you know, type in the
author and the title and see if it comes up.” (USU4)
Wikipedia would often be one of the top results returned by Google:
“My friends and I wanted to know the history of bloody Mary.

I searched ‘the history of bloody Mary’ in the Google search
box and the first website was Wikipedia.” (USU7)
Google’s “convenience” had other effects, since it presented students with a huge number of
potential avenues to pursue. Faced with the challenges of available time and evaluative skills,
a number of interviewees, when asked about what would be an “ideal” way to seek information,
expressed a deep desire for an easier and more reliable way to ascertain quickly what is “right”
and “wrong”: in other words, to validate efficiently and effectively. There was a desire amongst
participants for Google search and similar services to be more accurate and always to return
a “correct” answer at the required academic level and length. In essence, many students were
hoping that technology would evolve to become capable of returning the perfect answer and
that they would not have to critically evaluate. This notion is very much in tension with academic
notions of what it means to “learn” and how this differs from simply providing a “correct” answer.
147
“Like at first it was just Google and just research papers. And then,
I don’t have all the time, I just want a direct answer, I don’t want
to read about everyone’s problems and symptoms.” (USU2)
“Well I’d probably be like running like something like

magic laptop, that had all the answers to the world. I could
just punch in, that would be amazing.” (USU2)
The web itself and all the information available on it may be branded as “suspect” unless created
and managed by a trusted source. In the case of our Emerging interviewees, trusted sources
were generally specifically-designed discipline and exam sites, together with reputable and
well-known sites such as that of the BBC, and specialist sites such as those of a university.
One of the US participants in the Emerging educational stage discussed that his tutor thought
that Wikipedia was “too convenient.”
“The problem with Wikipedia is it’s too easy. You can go to Wikipedia,
you can get an answer, you don’t actually learn anything, you just get
an answer. Whereas if you have to do the rest of the research and,
especially, when the reason you have to have three sources, even though
the three sources may have the same sets of information, they may
have different analysis of it, and they may have somewhat conflicting
information, or information that appears to be conflicting until you do
more research, and that’s how you come to the understanding.” (USU6)
The student thinks that the reason his lecturer doesn’t like Wikipedia is that the convenience
of Wikipedia reduces students’ ability to conduct other important academic searching
and evaluation activities. US participants, in particular, seemed to consider Wikipedia at
worst as invalid, and at best as a suspect source of information. Some students believe
that their instructors think that Wikipedia is untrustworthy because it is crowdsourced.
There is evidence to suggest that on the whole Wikipedia is a high quality resource5 and useful
for what has been described as “presearch.”6 For many students in the Emerging educational
stage the academic level of Wikipedia seems appropriate. It is frequently used for school
and assessment purposes and provides the student interviewees not only with useful factual
information, but also with an initial introduction to a topic, together with further references.
148
“Probably not the best, but I think it’s the simplest and easiest
way to get going. So if I needed to produce a much more detailed
and developed essay I would probably explore further on the
Internet.” (UKS1-addressing using Wikipedia to start)
The data suggest something similar to a “learning black market” (or “grey” market) as
students make regular use of Wikipedia but are often uncomfortable about revealing this
to their teachers.7 One US interviewee expressed bluntly what their reaction would be.
“They don’t fail you but you get ridiculed in front of

everyone for sourcing Wikipedia.” (USS3)
Some participants used the references cited in a Wikipedia article, without citing the article
itself, as a way of taking advantage of the online encyclopaedia without mentioning it directly,
and some teachers seemed to authorize their students’ use of Wikipedia in this way. However,
it needs to be further investigated whether students’ perceptions that instructors’ disregard
Wikipedia and similar sites is encouraging students to hide their successful and often
sophisticated approaches towards information gathering using non-traditional online sources.
The ways in which sources such as Wikipedia and search engines such as Google are used
could be taken into account as a part of students’ information-seeking approaches. Librarians
could consider how to advise students on how to position these types of information sources and
tools within larger information-seeking strategies, which include more traditional sources. Those
who are certain they have identified inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles (or in similar sites) could
be encouraged to correct them to develop editorial skills and a part of the process of becoming
“legitimate participants” in the generation of knowledge online.8 It also will develop their
realization that knowledge is not (or no longer) a fixed, black-and-white, right-or-wrong entity.
Attention needs to be given to searching techniques. If students generally accept Google’s first
recommended source because of the source’s popularity, librarians need to equip them with
ways of evaluating these sources before the link is followed. Information about how search
engines operate (accompanied potentially by comparative exercises) also will be necessary.
Calhoun, Cantrell, Gallagher, and Hawk (2009) report that when individuals were discussing
library online catalogues, they were concerned that they had no idea how the system ranked their
retrieval results and wanted this information provided to them. However, this was not mentioned
when discussing Google’s ranking system. There seems to be an innate trust of Google.
Institutions need to be better informed about the range of critical evaluation skills that
students need to access and acquire information and sources regardless of format. This
will enable them to adapt these literacies to any technologies or formats that may become
available in the future. “Don’t trust Wikipedia” or the US tendency to warn students not “to
trust anything on a .com site” is probably unlikely to change students’ practices. The quotes
below suggest that these behaviors only may push the students’ practices underground.
149
“I feel really guilty about it. If I have absolutely nowhere else to
go I have scoured Google, there is nothing in the library then
I will have a quick look at Wikipedia and see what Wikipedia
has to say about it. Then use maybe some of its other links
or how it links onto other articles a bit like that.” (UKU3)
Librarians could consider teaching online critical evaluation skills to students very early
(possibly earlier than was typical when the institutional library was the key source of
information) in their education. The comparative information “safety” of the institutional library
has been superseded by the web, leaving students nervous as to which sources are valid.
The extent to which students successfully can complete assignments without engaging
with institutionally-provided information sources is not yet clear. However, there are
indications that the majority of information (and the learning that supports students’
use) is drawn from sources from the open web. In the Emerging group this is heavily
influenced by Wikipedia and by syllabus-based sites recommended by their tutors. One
implication of this is that institutionally-provided information services could consider
how to position themselves and what services are most needed when they are more
often than not second to the open web in students’ information-seeking practices.
The students in the study perceive institutionally-provided information as having a level

of authority or validity above and beyond sources from the open web. They regularly
check the URL of a source to assess its potential validity and often will imply that
physical books from the library are the most valid of all sources (even if for convenience
they choose not to use them). This indicates that the expert curation of links and media
(whether locally produced or not) by institutions under a trusted URL is of great value.
There is little evidence of Emerging educational stage students seeking out librarians
and other support staff specifically for advice on critically evaluating sources. Students
appear not to see staff in these roles as a route to information. One useful response
might be to suggest that staff attempt to convene an open discussion around students’
actual information-seeking habits so that they can indicate where they will be of help.
Next steps
The researchers will continue to collect and analyze the diaries. They also will administer
the online survey, and analyze these data as well as the data collected from the semi-
structured interviews with the other three educational stage participants. Semistructured
interviews with a new group of Emerging educational stage participants will be the final data
collection activity. All of the collected data will be analyzed and compared to portray the
engagement of students and faculty with technology and information over a 3-year period.
150
Conclusion
Instead of reporting general information-seeking habits and technology use, this
study explores how the subjects get their information based on the context and
situation of their needs during an extended period of time, identifying if and how
their behaviors change. The study uses both quantitative and qualitative data
collection techniques that enable triangulation of the data analysis results.
The findings from this research can inform libraries of current and perspective users’
expectations of services and systems based on their engagement and motivation
with technology. The findings also can be used to develop options for designing and
delivering digital platforms and services, which will enable educators and service
providers to make informed decisions relative to engagement and motivation for
individuals as they progress through the educational stages. The project will position
the role of the library within emergent information-seeking patterns of both students
and faculty by investigating and describing user-owned digital literacies.
151
NOTES
1. Cohen’s kappa coefficient, a measurement method used for calculating inter-coder reliability,
considers not just agreement, but what agreement may have taken place by chance.
2. NVivo 9, a qualitative software package, is a product of QSR International Pty Ltd. Further
information on NVivo can be found on their website: http://www.qsrinternational.com/
products_nvivo.aspx.
3. The term crowdsourced implies “free for all” when in fact Wikipedia has stringent
“verifiability” rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) which are closely
policed, especially on the types of articles that are likely to relate to academic assignments.
4. For anonymity, participants are designated with tags which indicate their country (UK or US),
their educational stage (S for Secondary school/High school, U for University, G for Grads, or
F for Faculty), and then an individual number.
5. Jimmy Wales recently claimed that the decline in Wikipedia editors was due to the fact
that many entries were now so accurate that only “experts” could contribute to them (http://
midea.nmc.org/2011/08/wikimania-recap/). Sir Harry Kroto, Nobel laureate in chemistry was
recently quoted as saying that in his field, Wikipedia was more accurate than the textbooks
(http://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/132464444235186176).
6. See a reference to “presearch” relating to Wikipedia and Google Scholar at: http://blogs.ubc.
ca/googlescholar/2009/02/wikipedia-google-scholar-as-pre-search/.
7. This concept of “The Learning Black Market” has been well received through blogging and
presentations at events such as NetSkills seminars and the JISC online conference. These
events have been used as opportunities to refine our thinking as well as to disseminate the
project’s activity.
8. This already is happening in some institutions. At Davidson College in North Carolina,
a psychology professor partnered with Wikipedia as a part of their Education Program
(http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Education_Program), and had her
students edit Wikipedia articles as a part of her capstone senior class (Munger, http://
www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative/having-
undergraduates-write-for-wikipedia). At University College London, for example, one lecturer
requires his students to compose and post Wikipedia articles. In so doing it would seem that
Wikipedia has been lifted from black-market territory into a “teachable moment.” This is the
sort of initiative which could usefully be developed and expanded.
152
REFERENCES
Beetham, Helen, Lou McGill, and Allison Littlejohn. 2009. Thriving in the 21st century: Learning
literacies for the digital age (LLiDA Project). The Caledonian Academy, Glasgow Caledonian
University: Glasgow. http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/llida/LLiDAReportJune2009.pdf.
Alternative URL http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/projects/llidaexecsumjune2009.pdf

Calhoun, Karen, Joanne Cantrell, Peggy Callagher, and Janet Hawk. 2009. Online catalogs: What
users and librarians want: An OCLC report. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research [CIBER]. 2008. Information
behaviour of the researcher of the future: A CIBER briefing paper. London: CIBER. http://www.
jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Timothy J. Dickey. 2010. The Digital Information Seeker: Report of
the findings from selected OCLC, RIN, and JISC user behaviour projects. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Timothy J. Dickey, and Marie L. Radford. 2011. “‘If it is too inconvenient
I’m not going after it:’ Convenience as a critical factor in information-seeking behaviors.” Library
& Information Science Research 33, no. 3: 179–90.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Ronald R. Powell. 2010. Basic research methods for librarians.
Fifth edition. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Dempsey, Lorcan. 2009. “Always on: Libraries in a world of permanent connectivity.” First
Monday 14, no. 1 (5 January). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/
view/2291/2070.
Dempsey, Lorcan. 2010. “3 switches.” Lorcan Dempsey’s Weblog (blog), 13 June 2010.
http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/002104.html.
Kuhltahu, Carol C. 2003. “Rethinking libraries for the Information Age school: Vital roles in inquiry
learning.” School Libraries in Canada 22, no. 4: 3–5.
Warwick, Claire, Isabel Galina, Melissa Terras, Paul Huntington, and Nikoleta Pappa. 2008. “The
master builders: LAIRAH research on good practice in the construction of digital humanities
projects.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23, no. 3: 383–96. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/13810/.
White, David S., and Alison Le Cornu. 2011. “Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online
engagement.” First Monday 16, no. 9. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/
article/view/3171/3049.
Wolcott, Harry F. 2008. Ethnography: A way of seeing. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
153
APPENDIX A:
Participant interview questions—Secondary/

High school and University level
1. Describe the things you enjoy doing with technology and the web each week.
This is a conversational start in order to put the interviewees at their ease. We
are trying to get a sense of their overall digital literacy so that we can set their
information seeking behaviors within a broader context. Do they socialize online?
(See probe.) Do they “contribute” online in the form of pictures, video, blogs, etc.?
[PROBES: How important is the web for your social life, do you use it to keep in
touch with your friends? What gadgets/devices/things do you use the most, is there
anything you “couldn’t live without”? How much time on average do you spend
online each week? Is there anything that bothers you about being online?]
2. Think of the ways you have used technology and the web for your studies. Describe a
typical week.
We are looking at interviewees’ use of educational technologies more specifically for
study. We hope they will start to introduce informal learning, self-directed study, peer to
peer learning, etc. We anticipate they will (or may not) mention Facebook, MySpace, etc.
[PROBES: How do you keep track of things? What systems for learning
online do you have? Can you give us any examples of when you’ve asked
your friends for help on assignments/homework online? What kind of online
resources have you found that help you with your studies? How did you find
them? What other gadgets or devices do you use for your studies?]
3. Think about the next stage of your education. Tell me what you think this will be like.
[Alternative University Student Interviews: What did you think university studies would be
like when you were in high school? How is your experience different from what you thought it
would be? Describe what you think the next stage of your education will be. Tell me what you
think this will be like.]
This will hopefully encourage them to reflect on what they envisage their role will
be in the next stage. What they imagine the next educational-stage to be like will
be something we can cross check as we follow them through the project.
[PROBES: How do you think you will use technology in the next part
of your education? If you think you will need to adapt the way you use
technology, what sort of changes do you think you’ll make?]
154
4. Think of a time when you had a situation where you needed answers or solutions and you did
a quick search and made do with it. You knew there were other sources but you decided not to
use them. Please include sources such as friends, family, teachers, TAs, tutors, coaches, etc.
Prompt for both academic and informal (domestic, personal …) examples.
[PROBES: Did you simply take the first answer/solution you were able to find? What
was the situation? What sources did you use? What led you to use them...and not
others? Did they help? How? What sources did you decide not to use? What led to this/
these decision/s? What did source A give you that you thought source B could not? Are
there situations where source B would be a better choice for you? How did you decide
when it was time to stop looking? How did you assess what was good enough?]
5. Have there been times when you were told to use a library or virtual learning environment (or
learning platform), and used other source(s) instead?
[PROBE: What made you decide not to use what you were asked to use?
What kinds of things do your instructors want you to do when you’re looking for
information? Does what you do look like that, and if not, what does it look like?]
6. If you had a magic wand, what would your ideal way of getting information be? How would
you go about using the systems and services? When? Where? How?
7. What comments or questions do you have for me? Is there anything you would like me to
explain? What would you like to tell me that you’ve thought about during this interview?
155
APPENDIX B:
Google diary questions

1. In your general use of technology for your coursework/research over the past weeks what
would you say has gone particularly well? Why?
2. What would you say has not gone as well as you’d hoped or anticipated?
3. Have you any examples of when you used technology to help you with something that wasn’t
directly to do with your studies?
4. Have you got any examples where you didn’t use technology to help with a problem
or a project?
5. Have you picked up any new ways of doing things with technology?
6. Have you found that an approach to doing something that you’ve used in the past
no longer works?
7. Have you found any new sources of useful information?
8. Is there anything else that you think would be useful for us to know about?
156
8
Visitors and Residents: What
Motivates Engagement with the
Digital Information Environment?

OCLC Research
David White
University of Oxford
Donna Lanclos, Ph.D.

Alison Le Cornu, Ph.D.

The Higher Education Academy
A reprint of:
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Donna Lanclos, David White, and Alison Le Cornu. 2012. “Visitors and Residents: What
Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment?” Information Research. http://InformationR.net/ir/18-1/
paper556.html
© 2013 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., David White, Donna Lanclos, and Alison Le Cornu.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
INTRODUCTION
We have little understanding of what motivates individuals to use particular

technologies or spaces when engaging with the information environment. As a
result people tend to adopt simplistic but culturally panicked ideas in their attempts
to grasp the problem while others delve into specifics to the extent that little
substantive conclusions can be drawn. This lack of understanding also makes the
task of facilitating digital literacy skills challenging, as any form of literacy has to
be defined against the motivations and goals of those individuals being taught.
There is now a multiplicity of ways to engage in the information environment. Both physical
and digital libraries are among the options available to the information seeker. The large
number of available open-access choices creates a competitive information environment
for schools and universities that expend a great amount of resources on the information
environment in the form of academic staff, print and digital sources and physical space
(such as laboratories, libraries and classrooms). The school or university resources are not
necessarily the first or even second choices of the students and academic community, who
often choose the more convenient, easier to use open-access sources (Beetham et al. 2009;
Centre for Information Behaviour... 2008; Connaway and Dickey 2010; Warwick et al. 2008).
Objectives
This three-year longitudinal study is conducted in four iterations of a sample of
students and scholars representing different stages of the educational lifecycle:
1. Emerging (late stage secondary school-first year undergraduate);

2. Establishing (second and third year undergraduate);
3. Embedding (postgraduates, Ph.D. students);
4. Experienced (scholars).
The design of the study is an attempt to eliminate any assumed links between age and
technological engagement by working with users over time, tracking the shifts in their motivations
and forms of engagement as they transition between these educational stages. The study
is using the visitors and residents principle proposed by White and Le Cornu (2011) as an
overarching framework to contextualize participants’ motivations to engage with the digital
environment. The findings will be used to create a matrix of implementation options, allowing
those designing and delivering digital platforms and services to make informed decisions
relative to engagement and motivation for individuals at each of the educational stages.
The quantitative and qualitative methods, including ethnographic methods and the individual
attention devoted to the subjects will yield a very rich data set enabling multiple methods of
analysis. Instead of reporting the general information-seeking habits of the Google Generation
158
and their use of technology, this study explores how the subjects get their information based
on the context and situation of their needs during an extended period of time, identifying if and
how their behaviour changes. The project is user-centred, not platform- or discipline-centred.
There is a history of research conducted on university campuses among undergraduates and
faculty, in attempts by libraries and information scientists to learn about how people search
for the information they need to live their lives, both in and out of academic environments
(e.g., Bartley et al. 2006; Connaway 2008; Connaway et al. 2008; Delcore et al. 2009;
Dervin et al. 2003; Foster and Gibbons 2007; Fister 1992; Gabridge et al. 2008; Head and
Eisenberg 2009; Jordan and Ziebell 2009; Malvasi et al. 2009; Maybee 2006; Prabha et al.
2007; Suarez 2007; Valentine 2001; White and Le Cornu 2011; Witt and Gearhart 2003).
Previous ethnographic studies of students (Bartley et al. 2006; Connaway 2007, Connaway
2008; Delcore et al. 2009; Dervin et al. 2003; Foster and Gibbons 2007; Gabridge et al.
2008; Wu and Lanclos 2011, and the Ethnographic Research in Illinois Academic Libraries
(ERIAL) Project), in addition to focusing on university students, also have tended to be limited
in time, gathering information from a given semester, or even during the course of a single
project within the semester. The literature reviewed includes no longitudinal research studying
individuals’ information use and search behaviour within a contextual framework in the
different educational stages. Another problem with previous studies is that there is very little
attention paid to where information-gathering habits originally form in students; doing research
exclusively among people who already are in university—either as students or as faculty—
does not tell researchers where and how they learned to gather and evaluate information.
The emerging stage, then, is of particular interest as it bridges what is traditionally seen
as a distinct divide between higher and tertiary education. We believe that this divide is
notional and that the student’s information-gathering techniques are unlikely to change
in the few months between secondary school and university. By including the emerging
educational stage the project will generate outputs which will enable universities to
make informed decisions for planning services and systems for entering students;
therefore, proactively planning rather than haphazardly reacting to passing trends.
Methodology and research questions

As participants transition through the educational system, they are demarcated by the
educational stages mentioned above. In addition, participants will be chosen to draw out
engagement factors relative to:
1. Cultural background: participants were recruited from matching educational-stages in both

the UK and the USA.
2. Socio-economic background: participants were recruited to represent a range of socio-
economic backgrounds.
3. Disciplinary focus: participants were recruited from the arts and humanities, social sciences
and sciences.
Selecting participants on this basis allows the researchers to distinguish generic
engagement factors from those that are specific to particular groups.
A set of questions were developed for the individual interviews with the participants. The
same questions were asked of all participants. These questions were developed based on
Visitors and Residents: What motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment?
159
the literature and previous research and addressed the participants’ needs and behaviour in
both personal and academic situations and contexts. See appendix A for the questions.
Using the visitors and residents principle as a framework, a subset of individuals from each of
the educational stages is being tracked (through the monthly interviews, review of diaries, etc.)
to identify their changing approaches to the information environment as they move through the
educational stages. The participants were given a choice of communication methods, such as
instant messenger interviews, email, Facebook, paper or electronic diaries, blogs, face-to-face,
or telephone, with the research team. The choice they make provides additional information
about the different participants’ preferred forms of communication and insight into how services
need to be presented as context and expectations shift during the educational lifecycle.
The three-year, four-phased study is based on the following key research questions:
• What are the most significant factors for novice and experienced researchers in choosing their
modes of engagement with the information environment?
• Do individuals develop personal engagement strategies which evolve over time and for
specific needs and goals, or are the educational contexts (or, in the context of this study,
educational stages) the primary influence on their engagement strategies?
• Are modes of engagement shifting over the course of time, influenced by emergent Web
culture and the availability of new ways to engage, or are the underlying trends and
motivations relatively static within particular educational stages?
PHASE 1: PILOT STAGE, MONTHS 1–6

The initial six-month pilot stage has focused on the emerging educational stage to
refine the research methodology and to establish the value of the work to the funders
and other supporters. In the USA the project worked in close partnership with the
University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC) to recruit participants from different
socio-economic groups, from both private and public secondary schools as well as
first-year university students. In the UK participants were drawn from Oxford Brooks
University, Warwick University and secondary schools in Oxford and Leicester.
PARTICIPANTS
Thirty-one individuals in the emerging educational stage (late stage secondary or high
school and first-year university) were recruited: sixteen in the USA and fifteen in the UK
and ranged in age from 16 years old to middle age. See tables 1 and 2. Of the sixteen
first-year university students, nine were in the USA and seven in the UK. Five of the
USA students had chosen an engineering major, one was in political science, one in
pre-business and two were undeclared. From the UK, three had chosen teaching, one
was in chemical biology, one in chemistry, one in history and one in languages.
Of the thirty-one participants recruited, fourteen (eight in the USA and six in the
UK) were asked to document their information-seeking activities for a three-month
period. They were closely facilitated through this process and communicated
with the research team in the medium of their choice during this period.
160
DATA
The information collected from the interviews and monthly correspondence
with the selected fourteen students provide rich data that have been
analysed and reported both quantitatively and qualitatively.
• The quantitative data include demographics; number of occurrences for different types of
technologies, sources and behaviour.
• The qualitative data provide themes that identify behaviour and sources for different contexts
and situations and include direct quotations and behaviour. Examples of direct quotations:
“...our generation isn’t technology orientated. I think it’s always a stereotype.”
(Participant UKS4)
“I just type it into Google and see what comes-up...”
(Participant UKS2)
“I always stick with the first thing that comes up on Google because I
think that’s the most popular site which means that’s the most correct.”
(Participant USAS1)
A code book was developed from the emerging themes of the interview transcripts. Then the
data were manually coded using theme analysis based on the code book and input into the
NVivo software program. This enabled the researchers to analyse and report the data not
only by themes and demographics but also by the number of respondents and percentiles.
Note: For anonymity, participants are designated with tags which indicate their
country (UK or USA), their educational stage (S for Secondary school/High school,
U for University, G for Grads, or F for Faculty) and then an individual number.
PHASE 2: MONTHS 7–12

The study has been extended to include ten participants from the other three educational
stages (five USA and five UK). Building on the principle of Phase 1, the additional participants
have been recruited from a post-1992 institution, such as Oxford Brookes University and a
Russell Group university, such as Warwick University in order to more accurately portray
typical UK students and scholars. This brings the total number of participants, including those
from the pilot phase to sixty-one. In the USA, recruiting has continued at UNC Charlotte,
161
which has a history of non-traditional students (especially returning students and transfer
students), but has recently begun recruiting larger percentages of students directly from high
school, providing an opportunity to have a broader sample of USA students and scholars.
Although the researchers only will discuss the findings from the first two phases of the
study, it is important to explain the other two phases of the study to fully understand
the scope of the project and the possible impact the findings may have on planning
services and systems for students entering universities; therefore, the following phases
are outlined to set the pilot phase in the context of the overall longitudinal study. These
phases are likely to be iteratively modified to account for ongoing findings and to ensure
that the overall study remains as relevant to the stakeholders as possible over time.

In addition to the tracking of the fourteen diarists during the second phase of the study,
an online survey will be developed and disseminated to a total of 400 students and
scholars—split equally between the USA and the UK. Fifty participants from each of the four
educational stages will be selected from each of the universities. The participants will be
asked questions derived from the collection and analysis of data collected from the sixty-one
participants during the first two phases of the project. Since the longitudinal study sample
is small, the online survey is a way to involve more participants in the study to compare
with the data collected from the individuals who participate in the three-year study.

In the third year the project will work with a second group of six students (three students from
each of the two types of universities) in the emerging stage. This will help to determine if
methods of engagement are changing over time as well as through the educational stages.
It is not anticipated that the expectations of the members of the four educational stages will be
met by the educational institutions. The educational process should, at times, be challenging
and possibly disruptive; there should be a healthy tension between the educational institution
and those it is there to serve. However, if a clear picture of student expectations, motivations
and behaviour can be identified, informed decisions can be instrumental in determining what
expectations should be challenged and the benefit to the learners that these challenges deliver.
Emerging findings
The analysis of phase 1 and 2 data is in its early stages. The development of the code
book is a major finding, since it was grounded in the data; notably, to date, the word
librarian was never mentioned by title as a source of information. However, Participant
USAU5 did so indirectly by referring to ‘a lady in the library who helps you find things.’
The project is identifying learner owned digital and information literacies that are
little understood by educational institutions. Examples of these include:
• The practice of citing the references attached to a Wikipedia article but not the article itself to
avoid potential ridicule from tutors and peers.
162
• The basic methods employed by students when assessing the validity of a source returned by
a Google search. As Participant UKS4 stated, ‘I simply just type it into Google and just see
what comes up’ and then later, ‘I knew that the Internet wouldn’t give me a wrong answer.’
This collaborates with Taylor (2012) who found that only 16% of the subjects in his study
went through a verifying stage, instead performing evaluation at the end, demonstrating
procrastination. Additionally, he found that the subjects were not as concerned with quality
and authority as with other factors such as quantity or currency.
• The manner in which emerging stage students rely on the residency of their peers in social
media, allowing them to discuss assignments the night before they are due. Participants in
the emerging educational stage often wanted to talk to a fellow student about an assignment
using Facebook. If the person they were hoping to connect with in Facebook was not online
then some participants would text the person in question to request that they login. This level
of Residency meant that students could discuss an assignment at a time that was convenient
to them. At the emerging stage that was often the night before a deadline. All the participants
who talked about this claimed that they did not ‘do’ the assignments in this manner but merely
confirmed exactly what was required from them or sought specific information such as a
maths formula or a reference.
• The importance of convenience and how the Web often will be chosen as an information
source by students even when they know higher quality sources are available elsewhere.
For example, the information is available in text books or by asking a tutor or parent, yet
Google is used instead. We suspect that convenience is a large part of why our data
indicate that Google and Wikipedia are the most popular search engine and information
source respectively. While much of the discussion below specifically refers to Google and/
or Wikipedia, we are treating these as exemplars of a search engine and a form of crowd-
sourced information. Almost without exception, our participants use Google as a starting
point to seek out information when they do not already know much about a topic. Many go no
further and it was not uncommon for interviewees simply to accept the first Google site listed.
• A portion of the emerging educational stage participants were uncomfortable about the
addictive nature of social media and the extent to which it wasted their time.
• The multi-tab environment that students have on screen represents a convergence of
the social and the academic. In this context, the mode of an activity is no longer based
on the physical space in which it occurs since any access to a network provided almost
every aspect of life to those with a Resident approach to the Web. Some participants had
developed methods of separating Resident modes of engagement from the more Visitor-style
approaches required of them to complete or revise assignments.
The researchers have been experimenting with mapping individual participant’s

data to the visitors and residents framework as a way of identifying modes of
engagement. See appendix B for an example mapping. (The numbers on the dark
blue blocks in the mapping diagram represent the time-code point in the interview
at which the participant discussed an activity or approach. A number of quotes have
been added to the maps to give a sense of the data that are being plotted and of the
character of the participant in terms of the visitors and residents continuum).
A goal of the project is to develop a method which will programmatically produce simple
mappings of this type which draw on interview and survey data to indicate engagement
trends across key groups. This prototype mapping system can be used as a tool to visually
163
communicate the modes of engagement within the visitors and residents framework as well as
a broad model of how digital and information literacies evolve across the educational stages.
The project also is attempting to define the transition points when individuals
are most likely to change their mode of participation. For example:
• A geographical move (moving country or state) is likely to encourage more resident behaviour
as individuals attempt to maintain relationships at a distance by using social media.
• Some participants begrudgingly visit resident-style platforms when they discover that their
non-participation is constricting their social or intellectual life. Often in these cases the
participant uses social media in a visitor mode.
• The specific requirements of a programme of study will occasionally encourage students to
change modes. This could occur, if students are asked to reflect on their learning in blog posts
or to improve or update a Wikipedia page. Mode changes in these circumstances tend to be
sort-lived and acted-out rather than incorporated into the participants’ on-going practice.
Conclusion
The findings from this research can inform institutions of higher education of current
and perspective students’ expectations of services and systems based on their
engagement with technology and their information-seeking behaviour in different
contexts and situations. The research uses both quantitative and qualitative data
collection methods, which enable triangulation of the data to provide a more nuanced
understanding of students’ and scholars’ engagement with technology.
Although this project is a multi-phased longitudinal study funded by four institutions, it can be
used as a model for single institutions to study and learn about their user groups. This study is
not limited to any one organization within the university community; therefore, it can be easily
adapted to many different situations. This type of research can be initiated by professionals
to collect data that can help organizations make planning decisions based on evidence.
The research findings to date and the research methodology provides others, including
those who are new to research, the opportunity to replicate all or selected phases of the
research. The more that researchers replicate the methodology used for this project, the
better chance there is of making sense of how individuals engage with technology for their
information-seeking behaviour, while transitioning between the different educational stages.
164
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors want to thank Erin Hood, Research Assistant, OCLC Research,
for her assistance in analysing the data and preparing the manuscript.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Scientist at OCLC Research.
She has experience in academic, public and school libraries, as well as library and
information science education. She can be contacted at: connawal@oclc.org.
David White co-manages Technology-Assisted Lifelong Learning (TALL), an

award-winning e-learning research and development group in the University
of Oxford. He can be contacted at: david.white@conted.ox.ac.uk.
Donna Lanclos, Ph.D., is currently the Library Ethnographer at the University of North
Carolina, Charlotte, directing projects on the ethnography of academic work in Optical
Engineering, as well as UNC Charlotte student and faculty academic work and information
gathering practices in and out of the library. She can be contacted at: dlanclos@uncc.edu.
Alison Le Cornu, Ph.D., is Academic Lead for Flexible Learning with the Higher
Education Academy in the UK. She was previously a member of the Technology-
Assisted Lifelong Learning team in the Department for Continuing Education
at Oxford University where she was co-investigator with the Visitors and
Residents project. She can be contacted at: alison@alisonlecornu.co.uk.
165
REFERENCES
Bartley, M., Duke, D., Gabridge, T., Gaskell, M., Hennig, N., Quirion, C., Skuce, S., Stout, A.
& Duranceau, E. F. (2006). User needs assessment of information seeking activities of MIT
students-spring 2006. http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/33456/userneeds-report.
pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 15 February 2013) (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.
org/6ESNylOP8) (inaccessible 26 October 2015).
Beetham, H., McGill, L. & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Thriving in the 21st century: Learning literacies
for the digital age (LLiDA Project). The Caledonian Academy, Glasgow Caledonian University:
Glasgow. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/projects/llidaexecsumjune2009.pdf (accessed
16 February 2013) (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6EThMAE7o).
Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research [CIBER]. (2008). Information
behaviour of the researcher of the future: A CIBER briefing paper. London: CIBER. http://www.
jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf (accessed 15
February 2013) (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6ESOA3gax).
Connaway, L. S. (2007). “Mountains, valleys and pathways: serials users’ needs and steps
to meet them. Part I: Preliminary analysis of focus group and semi-structured interviews at
colleges and universities.” Serials Librarian 52, no. 1/2: 223–236. http://www.oclc.org/research/
publications/archive/2007/connaway-serialslibrarian.pdf (accessed 15 February 2013) (Archived
by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6ESOGuHv4).
Connaway, L. S. & Dickey, T. J. 2010. The digital information seeker: report of the findings from
selected OCLC, RIN and JISC user behaviour projects. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/
publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf (accessed 15 February 2013)
(Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6ESOU9yX6).
Connaway, L. S., Radford, M. L., Dickey, T. J., Williams, J. D. & Confer, P. 2008. “Sense-making
and synchronicity: information-seeking behaviors of millennials and baby boomers.” Libri 58, no.
2: 123–135. http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2008/connaway-libri.pdf (accessed
15 February 2013) (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6ESOYYz2O).
Delcore, H. D., Mullooly, J. & Scroggins, M. (with Arnold, K., Franco, E. & Gaspar, J.). 2009.
The library study at Fresno State. Institute of Public Anthropology, California State University:
Fresno, CA. http://www.fresnostate.edu/socialsciences/anthropology/documents/ipa/
TheLibraryStudy(DelcoreMulloolyScroggins).pdf (accessed 15 February 2013) (Archived by
WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6ESOcM74i).
Dervin, B., Connaway, L. S. & Prabha, C. 2003. Sense-making the information confluence: the
whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs. http://www.oclc.
org/research/activities/imls.html.
Fister, B. (1992). “The research process of undergraduate students.” The Journal of Academic
Librarianship 18, no. 3: 163–169.
166
Foster, N. F. & Gibbons, S. 2007. Studying students: The undergraduate research project at the
University of Rochester. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.
Gabridge, T., Gaskell, M. & Stout, A. 2008. “Information seeking through students’ eyes: The MIT
photo diary study.” College and Research Libraries 69, no. 6: 510–522.
Head, A. & Eisenberg, M. B. 2009. Lessons learned: How college students seek information in
the digital age. The Information School, University of Washington: Seattle, WA.
Jordan, E. & Ziebell, T. 2009. Learning in the spaces: A comparative study of the use of
traditional and ‘new generation’ library learning spaces by various disciplinary cohorts. The
University of Queensland: Queensland, Australia. http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/
UQ:157791/NextGenLearningSpacesPaper.pdf (accessed 15 February 2013) (Archived by
WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6ESOiVKIz).
Malvasi, M., Rudowsky, C. & Valencia, J. M. 2009. Library Rx: Measuring and treating library
anxiety. A research study. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.
Maybee, C. 2006. “Undergraduate perceptions of information use: The basis for creating user-centred
student information literacy instruction.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 32, no. 1: 79–85.
Prabha, C., Connaway, L. S., Olszewski, L. & Jenkins, L. R. 2007. “What is enough? Satisficing
Suarez, D. 2007. “What students do when they study in the library: Using ethnographic methods
to observe student behavior.” Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship 8(3).
http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n03/suarez_d01.html (accessed 15 February
2013) (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6ESOmHTF9).
Taylor, A. 2012. “A study of the information search behaviour of the millennial generation.”
Information Research, 17, no. 1, paper 508. http://informationr.net/ir/17-1/paper508.html
(accessed 15 February 2013) (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6ESOpKfvZ).
Valentine, B. 2001. “The legitimate effort in research papers: Student commitment versus faculty
expectations.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 27, no. 2: 107–115.
Warwick, C., Galina, I., Terras, M., Huntington, P. & Pappa, N. 2008. “The master builders:
LAIRAH research on good practice in the construction of digital humanities projects.” Literary
and Linguistic Computing 23, no. 3: 383–396. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/13810/1/13810.pdf
(accessed 15 February 2013) (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6ESOurK0l).
White, D. & Le Cornu, A. 2011. “Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement.”
First Monday 16, no. 9. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/
viewArticle/3171/3049 (accessed 15 February 2013) (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.
webcitation.org/6ESRHzkxq).
Witt, S. & Gearhart, R. 2003. “Ethnography and information literacy: An assessment project.”
E. F. Avery (Ed.). Assessing student learning outcomes for information literacy instruction in
academic institutions, p. 265–278. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.
167
Wu, S. K. & Lanclos, D. (2011). “Re-imagining the users’ experience: an ethnographic approach
to web usability and space design.” Reference Services Review 39, no. 3: 369–389.
How to cite this paper

Connaway, L. S., White, D., Lanclos, D. & Le Cornu, A. 2012. “Visitors and residents: What
motivates engagement with the digital information environment?” Information Research,
18(1) paper 556. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/18-1/paper556.html.
168
APPENDIX A
Participant interview questions—Secondary/

High school and University level
1. Describe the things you enjoy doing with technology and the web each week.
This is a conversational start in order to put the interviewees at their ease. We
are trying to get a sense of their overall digital literacy so that we can set their
information seeking behaviors within a broader context. Do they socialize online?
(See probe.) Do they ‘contribute’ online in the form of pictures, video, blogs, etc.?
[PROBES: How important is the web for your social life, do you use it to keep in
touch with your friends? What gadgets/devices/things do you use the most, is there
anything you ‘couldn’t live without’? How much time on average do you spend
online each week? Is there anything that bothers you about being online?]
2. Think of the ways you have used technology and the web for your studies. Describe a typical week.
We are looking at interviewees’ use of educational technologies more specifically for
study. We hope they will start to introduce informal learning, self-directed study, peer to
peer learning, etc. We anticipate they will (or may not) mention Facebook, MySpace, etc.
[PROBES: How do you keep track of things? What systems for learning
online do you have? Can you give us any examples of when you’ve asked
your friends for help on assignments/homework online? What kind of online
resources have you found that help you with your studies? How did you find
them? What other gadgets or devices do you use for your studies?]
3. Think about the next stage of your education. Tell me what you think this will be like.
[Alternative University Student Interviews: What did you think university studies would be
like when you were in high school? How is your experience different from what you thought it
would be? Describe what you think the next stage of your education will be. Tell me what you
think this will be like.]
This will hopefully encourage them to reflect on what they envisage their role will
be in the next stage. What they imagine the next educational-stage to be like will
be something we can cross check as we follow them through the project.
[PROBES: How do you think you will use technology in the next part
of your education? If you think you will need to adapt the way you use
technology, what sort of changes do you think you’ll make?]
169
4. Think of a time when you had a situation where you needed answers or solutions and you did
a quick search and made do with it. You knew there were other sources but you decided not to
use them. Please include sources such as friends, family, teachers, TAs, tutors, coaches, etc.
Prompt for both academic and informal (domestic, personal...) examples.
[PROBES: Did you simply take the first answer/solution you were able to find? What
was the situation? What sources did you use? What led you to use them...and not
others? Did they help? How? What sources did you decide not to use? What led to this/
these decision/s? What did source A give you that you thought source B could not?
Are there situations where source B would ‘be a better choice for you? How did you
decide when it was time to stop looking? How did you assess what was good enough?]
5. Have there been times when you were told to use a library or virtual learning environment (or
learning platform), and used other source(s) instead?
[PROBE: What made you decide not to use what you were asked to use?
What kinds of things do your instructors want you to do when you’re looking for
information? Does what you do look like that, and if not, what does it look like?]
6. If you had a magic wand, what would your ideal way of getting information be? How would
you go about using the systems and services? When? Where? How?
7. What comments or questions do you have for me? Is there anything you would like me to
explain? What would you like to tell me that you’ve thought about during this interview?
170
APPENDIX B
UKU3
03:09
I would say about 80% of the people on Facebook
I know them, I either know them quite well or I know
them enough to be comfortable to have them
09:27 accessing my personal information.
I do tend to prefer working on my own but in my French
class we have all fot a study buddy but that is mainly
us doing some grammar work together, we have a little 00:28
blog and we have to do it together but we normally I hate to say it but I amm a bit of a
just do it by ourselves and check answers afterwards. Facebook addict...It is just convenient
to talk to my friends because
Personal I am quite a social person.
19:34 03:49 03:09 00:28
It tends to be if I can’t be bothered to
read a huge book on somthing I will 05:02 04:58
06:55
surf on the internet for it because Maybe not 24/7 but at least half the day
it will come in shorter pieces. I will spend either talking on the phone
...or I will just go and see a professor. 02:48
or using it for some text purposes.
12:04
Visitor 19:34 04:58 Resident
09:27
34:37 10:29
23:40 22:21
When I am writing bibliography 23:40 15:42
and I put too many websites 11:30
in it makes me feel really bad. 24:44 13:50 08:20
18:06
18:06 Institutional
For an essay I would prefere to hand
write it but now when you look at it 08:20
I would prefer to word process it because Sometimes I do maybe Google, Wikipedia
you have a word limit and you don’t some subjects. For exammple I have an Italian
want to go over that and a presentation on Tuesday and I needed to
word processor is just so much easier. research that quite a bit to make sure
I didn’t say anything stupid.
24:44
My friend in computer science he had a written
exam and he saide “My gosh I had such a bad hand cramp”
and I said “Is that because you always type?” He said
“Yes, I haven’t written a proper sentence in two years by hand.”
Example mapping of a participant’s modes of engagement using the Visitors

and Residents framework (including selected direct quotes)
171
172
9
“I always stick with the first thing
that comes up on Google. . .”
Where People Go for Information,
What They Use, and Why

OCLC Research
Donna M. Lanclos, Ph.D.

Erin M. Hood
OCLC Research
A reprint of:
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Donna M. Lanclos, and Erin M. Hood. 2013. “‘I always stick with the first thing that comes up
on Google...’ Where People Go for Information, What They Use, and Why.” EDUCAUSE Review Online.
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/i-always-stick-first-thing-comes-google-where-people-go-information-what-they-
use-and-why
© 2013 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. and Donna M. Lanclos.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
K E Y TA K E A W AY S
The Visitors and Residents project seeks to identify and recommend strategies
that IT staff and library professionals can adopt to help students and faculty
members better discover, access, and evaluate digital information.
The project team interviewed participants from four educational stages—from

emerging (high school/secondary school seniors and first-year college students)
through experiencing (faculty members)—that focus on context and motive
rather than age as a determining factor in information-seeking behaviors.
In addition to identifying how and why individuals engage with

technology to acquire the information, the project offers recommendations
on how to build relationships with community members and how
to study user behavior to better test and develop library systems.
Note: The quote in the title was made by a participant in the study reported on in
this article.1
Lynn Silipigni Connaway is a senior research scientist and Erin M. Hood is a research support
specialist at the Online Computer Library Center. Donna Lanclos is associate professor for
Anthropological Research at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, J. Murrey Atkins Library.
To better meet the needs of the academic community, education IT staff and library and
information science (LIS) professionals must know the extent to which people are engaged
with their institution’s technologies and sources. What is behind the choices that people
make about the information they consume? How do they determine whether or not a source
is authoritative? What fluencies (digital, information, and computer) are relevant to people’s
choices? What are the motives behind choosing one source or plan of action over another?
The Visitors and Residents (V&R) project, started in 2010, proposes that context and motive
matter more than age or skill level when it comes to people’s decisions about technology
and digital spaces. This new understanding of technology engagement offers a balanced
alternative to Marc Prensky’s “digital natives” metaphor.2 The V&R project’s emerging
research results uncover the contexts in which individuals use technology (in homes, at
institutions, and so on) and how this engagement changes as people transition between
educational stages, from the final year of high school to faculty positions at universities.
Although people historically have depended on institutionally provided resources and technology,
today’s affordable connectivity and devices have enabled access to the open web and its
numerous free information sources. Thus, the need for local infrastructure has declined.3
Individuals are not limited to an institution’s online catalog, but rather have access to information
174
at a much broader level, such as through web browsers and online services. Also, the
convenience of finding information online does not directly equate with the information’s quality.
The V&R project results help identify ways to aid academic community members
develop their skills in discovering, accessing, and evaluating digital information.
Here, we focus on three primary areas:
• Where people go when looking for information,

• What sources they use the most, and
• Why they choose and return to these sources instead of other sources.
We also include specific recommendations for organizations based on our preliminary research
results, which are drawn primarily from structured interviews conducted since 2010.4
The Visitors and Residents framework

The V&R project is a collaboration between the Online Computer Library Center
(OCLC) and the University of Oxford, in partnership with the University of North
Carolina, Charlotte; it has been underway for the past two years with partial
funding from JISC.5 The project outlines learners’ modes of engagement within four
educational stages and how these learners intersect with institutional services.
The V&R premise is a continuum: individuals’ modes of engagement will be more visitor or more
resident, depending on their personal motivations and context,6 and individuals frequently move
between the two modes. In visitor mode, people treat the web as a series of tools. They decide
what they want to achieve, choose an appropriate online tool, and then log off. They leave no
social trace of themselves online. In resident mode, people live a portion of their lives online and
approach the web as a place where they can express themselves and spend time with people.
When acting as residents, people visit social networking platforms, and aspects of their digital
identity maintain a presence even when they’re not online through their social media profiles.
The V&R project’s intent is to identify how and why individuals engage with
technology to acquire the information they need. To uncover the hows and whys,
we recruited individuals from four project-defined educational stages:
• Emerging: last-year high school/secondary and first-year undergraduate

college/university students
• Establishing: upper division undergraduate college/university students
• Embedding: graduate students
• Experiencing: faculty
We use these stages because they reflect the behavioral commonalities among high
school seniors and college freshmen, as well as the differences that emerge when people
transition to upper-division undergraduate status and beyond. First-year college students’
information-seeking practices seem to mimic habits they acquired in high school. Changes
“I always stick with the first thing that comes up on Google. . .” Where People Go for Information, What They Use, and Why
175
to those habits will be embedded in the practices and relationships that individuals
engage in during their remaining time in college and later on in professional contexts.
To date, findings indicate that the behavior patterns revealed in the V&R research
noticeably vary by the participants’ educational stage rather than by age, which can
vary broadly within each stage. This categorization by educational stages rather
than age contrasts with Prensky’s “natives and immigrants” paradigm. However,
the visitors and residents notion more accurately reflects the reality that individual
choices about technology and information seeking derive from context—that is, from
individuals’ educational and professional priorities—rather than from their age.
MAPPING THE V&R FRAMEWORK

During an EDUCAUSE 2012 session and two expert sessions at the 2013
American Library Association (ALA) Conference, education IT staff and LIS
professionals mapped their own activities and their perceptions of one of their
user groups’ activities onto a V&R pole map with two axes: the horizontal Visitor-
Resident (V, R) axis, and the vertical Personal-Institutional (P, I) axis.
Figure 1 shows an example of a librarian’s activities: high-level visitor mode within the
institutional context, with a great deal of Google searching, as well as some Facebook,
Flickr, and Vimeo use. Resident behavior is shown in both institutional and personal contexts
through the use of Pinterest, blogging, texting, and Google docs. Figure 2 shows the same
librarian’s perception of undergraduate engagement with a heavy emphasis on resident
mode in the personal context: Facebook, blogs, twitter, Instagram, texting, and Flickr. She
mapped e-mail for undergraduates on the visitor end of the continuum and divided it in two
to represent use of two different e-mail addresses—one institutional and one personal.
FIGURE 1. THE V&R MAP OF A LIBRARY PROFESSIONAL
176
FIGURE 2. THE SAME LIBRARIAN’S PERCEPTION OF UNDERGRADUATE ENGAGEMENT
These mapping exercises illustrate the tools/digital space that people use/inhabit, which
is less important than what they are doing in that space with that tool. That is, it is not
enough to count how many students are on Twitter or Facebook; further qualitative
inquiry is necessary to determine what they might be doing with these tools in these
environments. For example, some people use Facebook to periodically connect with
people, others post everything to their Facebook wall, and still others use Facebook as a
clearinghouse to track their events and organizations. Ideally, the analysis of what people
are doing to engage with resources should be tool-agnostic, just as IT support should
be device-agnostic (individuals on campus should be able to do their work whether they
have a Mac or a PC, a netbook, or a mobile phone). Further, an outreach/engagement
strategy that simply provides an institutional presence on Facebook or Twitter, without
providing information of interest to the academic community, is unlikely to succeed.
Research design and methods

The V&R uses both quantitative and qualitative methods for a mixed methods approach,
which can increase the validity of our findings.7 We use the qualitative methods of semi-
structured interviews, sometimes accompanied by monthly diaries and follow-up interviews,
to create a rich, descriptive longitudinal study of preselected individuals who represent the
four educational stages. Qualitative methods are fitting when the phenomena being studied
are social in nature, complex, and unquantifiable.8 It is acceptable for qualitative research to
use small samples, as it is not always necessary to generalize the data to wider populations.9
Using this type of research is best when the topic is personal, when the researcher wants
177
to go into greater detail about a small unit, or when there is little previous knowledge
about the topic.10 This method can be significantly useful in exploratory research.11
All individuals in the four educational stages participated in the semi-structured interviews,
and a subset of each stage also participated in monthly diary submissions and follow-
up interviews. (Our interview questions, along with the written diary submission
questions and outline and the diary follow-up questions, are available elsewhere.12)
The stratified, purposive, nonprobability sampling methods and the small sample size
restrict our ability to generalize on the results of these interviews and diary entries.
However, the findings offer a glimpse at how a specific group of individuals engaged
with technology and how their behaviors changed (or not) over a three-year period.
In Phase 1 of the V&R project, we conducted semi-structured interviews with participants

in the four educational stages in the US and UK.13 Including a sample of participants from
outside the US allows for a more effective answer to questions such as: Do the behaviors
occur because of the technology? Are the behaviors characteristic of people who are in
university settings? Do geographic and cultural differences between participants in the UK
and the US influence the way individuals engage with technology and get information?
In Phase 2 of the project, we selected a subset of the interviewees to participate in monthly

information diaries.14 Each diarist submitted, in the form of their choice, descriptions of the types
of activities they did online, both in academic and nonacademic settings. Diaries were primarily
submitted via e-mail messages (because they were “formal communication” with researchers),
but a few participants also submitted video logs.15 We intended the diary entries and follow-
up interviews to provide time-depth to the study. They also reveal changes that might occur
as participants transition from one educational stage to another or as new digital innovations
emerge or become more widely available in both educational and personal settings. Figure 3
shows a chart of the project’s phases and participants’ educational stages from 2010–2013.
FIGURE 3. THE VISITOR AND RESIDENTS PROJECT PHASES
178
To compare and verify the qualitative method results, we use quantitative methods.
Specifically, we are distributing an online survey of a broader population selected by the
quota sampling method; this survey will be both generalizable and comparative. For the
survey, which is scheduled to be disseminated before the end of 2013, we will choose 25
participants from each educational stage from both the US and the UK. If the sample of 100
individuals does not reach saturation, we will select another sample of 100 individuals.
Content analysis is a critical and time-consuming aspect of any qualitative research study. In
our case, it consisted heavily of coding interview transcripts and the various types of follow-up
diary submissions. Once we completed the initial interview round in V&R Phase 1, we used
the emerging themes identified in the interview data to develop a codebook for analysing
the project data.16 After each research team member tested the codebook’s first iteration, we
discussed and reached agreements on any differences and modified the codebook to better
reflect the emerging themes. After the codebook was completed and refined, we progressively
coded both the interviews and diaries through each phase. For this study, the codebook
focused on several themes, including place, sources, tools, agency, situation/context, and
contact.17 Some of the themes of interest were not present in the original interviews with the
emerging-stage students. For example, none of them mentioned “librarians.” Because we were
interested in discussing the role of librarians in information-seeking situations, we added a
code for “Librarian” so that we could talk about the relative absence of that theme in the data.
(Participants in the other educational stages did mention librarians in their individual interviews.)
Using qualitative methods with a small sample size and a quantitative method with
the large sample size gave us rich, thick data descriptions as well as numerical
analyses and comparisons. If the quantitative and qualitative data show little
variance, it will be possible to generalize all of our findings. Here, however, we
report only some of the findings from the qualitative data collection methods.
ANALYSIS
To interpret the V&R data, we must examine how individuals acquire the information-seeking
behaviors and technology-centered practices of their respective communities within and
outside of academia. We drew insights from the community of practice literature, especially
the works of Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger and Barbara Rogoff and Wenger, which outline
and analyze what happens when people learn how to be members of groups.18 The literature
describes a wide variety of groups, including vocational, educational, and recovery. Central
to Lave and Wenger’s 1991 discussion is the idea of legitimate peripheral participation:
We intend for the concept to be taken as a whole. Each of the aspects is indispensable in
defining the others and cannot be considered in isolation.... Thus, in the terms proposed
here there may very well be no such thing as an “illegitimate peripheral participant.”
The form that the legitimacy of participation takes is a defining characteristic of ways of
belonging, and is therefore not only a crucial condition for learning, but a constitutive
element of its content. Similarly, with regard to “peripherality” there may well be no such
simple thing as “central participation” in a community of practice. Peripherality suggests
that there are multiple, varied, more- or less-engaged and -inclusive ways of being
located in the fields of participation defined by a community. Peripheral participation
is about being located in the social world. Changing locations and perspectives are
part of actors’ learning trajectories, developing identities, and forms of membership.19
179
Lave and Wenger further point out that legitimate peripheral participation occurs
within social structures that involve power relations. So, different power relations can
serve as barriers to or facilitators of participation. No inevitable progress toward a
“center” exists in their structure; rather, it is an attempt to give a theoretical structure
to a changeable social phenomenon. They emphasize that their concept is not “itself
an educational form, much less a pedagogical strategy or a teaching technique.
It is an analytical viewpoint on learning, a way of understanding learning.”20
Participants in our V&R interviews engage in practices that they acquired in social matrices
of friends, family, peers, teachers, co-workers, and supervisors. Participants’ relationships
with people from whom they learn practices in turn inform the relationships they have to
those practices, the resources they choose to consult, and the resources they reject. Their
confidence in the acquired practices appears to be directly related to the strength of their
connection to the community in which they are participating. That connection has less to
do with abstract notions of best practices than it does with the familiar—not to be confused
with the convenient, although that comes into it as well—which we define as those practices
engaged in by people the participants trust, and with whom they have existing relationships.
The V&R paradigm is based on the assumption that individuals’ engagement with technology
is related to whether they regard the platforms they use as tools or places. The manner in
which individuals engage with technology and access information is influenced by context
and situation. In today’s environment, people often are inundated with information sources
and might make choices based on the source’s appearance or familiarity—or on how
much time they think accessing that information will take, which is a significant context
in information seeking.21 Time is related to convenience, which is a recurring theme in
information-seeking behavior research.22 When asked about using information systems,
individuals repeatedly state that they want to find information conveniently and quickly.23
Research also suggests that convenient service often is more important to people than quick
service.24 Convenience can be either physical or virtual, based on the particular context and
situation.25 Campus information commons—with 24/7 access to materials and facilities and
cafes—are popular because they are convenient for individuals in specific situations.26
Situation is related to context but is somewhat narrower. “Situation refers to the time-
space concept in which sense is constructed.”27 Context provides the background for that
which individuals want to understand and explain.28 “Convenience is a situational criterion
in people’s choices and actions during all stages of the information-seeking process. The
concept of convenience can include their choice of an information source, their satisfaction
with the source and its ease of use, and their time horizon in information seeking.”29
LOCATION: WHERE DO PEOPLE GO FOR INFORMATION?

When talking about places they went for information, interviewees mentioned Internet
resources, such as search engines and social media sites, far more often than physical
places. This reliance on digital spaces coexists with a persistent need to be in contact
with other people both online and face to face. Personal networks, and the relationships
that comprise them, were important factors in participants’ information-seeking
strategies across educational stages.30 This is a key point to remember when thinking
about how to attract people to institutional information and technology resources.
180
MODES AND MODE COMBINATIONS
Participants’ varied modes of digital contact combined visitor modes (texting, private messaging,
and e-mail) and resident modes (Twitter and media postings). It is therefore not enough to get
individuals to want to access services/resources; you must make such access available in a
wide variety of platforms. Representative quotes from the interview data illustrate this nicely31:
“I don’t use Twitter, partially because a lot of my friends—there’s a

certain negative connotation with Twitter that it’s online presence taken
too far, taken to the extreme among people my age, I suppose.”
—UKG2, Embedding, 0:25:47, Female, Age 22
“I get on Twitter a whole bunch …. Twitter or Facebook are

what I usually use the most to talk to my friends.”
—USS1, Emerging, 0:09:28, Female, Age 17
“No, no. I think Twitter’s a bit bizarre because it seems to be

people just declaring what they think rather than socializing really
with other people. I mean, you can choose to comment upon
what other people are saying, but in general it’s sort of like a
declaration of your status, and I don’t really see why it’s—well
I see why it’s so popular, but it’s not for me, I don’t think.”
—UKU12, Establishing, 0:03:16, Female, Age 21
Of course, even Twitter and blogs can be approached in the less-visible visitor mode
when people use them to consume rather than produce Internet content. Because
people use various platforms in a range of modes, you need a broad commitment
to multiple technology modes for information seeking and communication.
In the case of e-mail, however, people seem to conform readily to the current expectation
that e-mail is where official communication occurs. Individuals in the emerging stage
mentioned e-mail much less than individuals in the establishing stage. When these
emerging-stage students did mention using e-mail, it was to communicate with teachers
or for other school business, such as school activities and administration. Clearly, as
people move through the educational stages, they become more reliant upon e-mail
and recognize the consequences of not checking their accounts regularly.
181
“So, I find that a lot of the time, it’s easier for me just to e-mail them
[lecturers], and they would get back to me pretty … pretty quick.”
—2UKU2, Emerging, 08:29, Male, Age 18
“I talk to all of my lecturers if I don’t understand something. And they’re

usually very good at replying. Also, the good thing about Exeter
is all of them [have] contacts. Everyone has the ability to contact
everyone. So you have advertisements, um, good opportunities for
anyone and, actually, study abroad came through on the e-mails.”
—2UKU3, Emerging, 8:05, Female, Age 19
“Oh yeah. Like, if I don’t get something, I usually just e-mail them
[teachers]. And hopefully they e-mail me like maybe an hour
after—but sometimes they don’t. I just find that helpful.”
—2USS2, Emerging, 09:03, Female, Age 17
“I usually e-mail the professor or ask somebody in my class.”
—2USU3, Emerging, 11:11, Female, Age 19
DEVICES
The frequent mentions of texting, telephone calls, and private messaging by
emerging- and establishing-stage interviewees correlates with the technologies
they said they could not live without: cellphones, smart phones, and laptops. They
used these not only for communicating and contacting individuals but also for
searching the Internet and organizing their time and activities using calendars.
“It’s the cell phone … you can do so much with it, it is not something
you want to really lose or get rid of. I mean, if I break my phone
182
I’ll get a replacement the next day just because they are that
important. It’s the biggest way to get in contact with people.”
—USU3, Emerging, 00:09:23, Male, Age 19
“If I had to—if I could only pick one, it would be … it would be the
MacBook, just because these are for convenience, these are mobile
and ‘net on the go, but, really, as far as continuing to facilitate efficiency
and life, the MacBook is where it is. This is just a slightly less computer
on the go, but I can still do my homework, I can still get on Facebook,
and I can still connect and e-mail people with the MacBook.”
“I could probably live without my phone. But I could

probably not live without the computer and, you know, the
Internet. Because work and the e-mails … yes.”
—USU2, Emerging, 0:11:50, Female, Age 19
“I’d say it would have to be my phone because I keep in contact with

people on it. I’ve got things like the Internet, so I can use Facebook,
I can check my e-mails. I can download apps and stuff, I have got
a SatNav on my phone, so if I ever get lost—which happens a
lot—I can just check to see where I am and where I’m going.”
—UKU6, Emerging, 00:03:39, Female, Age 19
“My laptop. It’s got to be my laptop … yes. Everything’s on

there, like just everything that I use. All the programs that I
use and kind of all my work I like to back up on my laptop and
stuff. If it went down I’d be very, very unhappy.” (Laughter)
183
“I think my phone …. I just—it’s just the easiest way to keep in
contact with people. And also with phones these days, it’s like
a mini computer to be honest. Smart phones—so, yes.”
—UKS7, Emerging, 0:06:22, Female, Age 17
As these quotes show, the “most important” device varied from individual to individual.
Some could not live without their phones, others their laptops. Such results reinforce the
importance of device-agnostic services and resources. The results also demonstrate that,
as portable devices gain functionality traditionally available only on a laptop or desktop,
individuals will adopt the technology that is most convenient for their situation. The
individuals who participated in this study expect to use their own technology to connect with
institutional (and other) resources, and also to engage in resident modes of behavior.
NAVIGATION AND IDEAL SOLUTIONS

Also important are digital places unmediated by personal networks; ease of
navigation for such places is essential. In this typically visitor mode of engagement,
people do not seek to connect with other people, but rather with resources.
“Yes, for many journals it’s [go] directly …. I don’t go through [academic
library name] as much anymore because I have the journals I look at
bookmarked. But usually, it’s a couple of different search engines that are
used for looking for an article or just what’s new on this topic.”
I used to make regular trips to the library to read journals,

and I haven’t been to [academic library name] to read a
journal [in] many years. If I go there, it’s for meetings. “
—USF4, Experiencing, 0:22:02-0:27:15, Male, Age 54
Interviewees frequently described digital solutions in response to the questions, “If you had a
magic wand, what would be your ideal way of getting information? How would you go about
using the systems and services? When? Where? How?” (Many of the respondents seemed
to be describing a better Google—that is, a better way of identifying more accurate and
relevant information and sources). A UK university student responded in the following way:32
“My ideal way I think definitely would have to be a mixture of digital

and analogue sort of research, well finding things …. Basically sort
of what you do in the natural world like go into a library and picking
books off a shelf. But if you had a virtual reality sort of version of that
in which you didn’t have to physically necessarily go to a library or you
184
could physically go to … or you could digitally go to a library that had
everything you could possibly want but you didn’t need to necessarily
go wandering around it forever. I think that would be the best, that
would be the ideal sort of way of doing it, yes. Certainly the ease of
the Internet and the ease of everything, having everything digitally is
brilliant. I mean obviously you can store several thousand libraries
worth of information on the Internet. And to have that accessible—
but also … in a more instinctual way. … There’s a certain sort of, I
don’t know, a certain sort of nice feeling about going into a library and
picking a book off the shelf and going and sitting down and reading
it. If you could do that in a digital environment, that’d be fantastic.”
—UKU11, Establishing, 0:36:10, Male, Age 33
Both in this study and in previous studies users did not consistently associate
digital academic resources with academic libraries. People might recognize that the
resources they are using are not popular or nonacademic resources, but they seem
to be unaware (or think it is unimportant to note) that those resources are associated
with a library.33 Research also indicates that even the terminology used in libraries,
such as the phrase, “Ask a Librarian,” is not understood by library users.34
RECOMMENDATIONS: LOCATION
Institutional services and systems must be embedded within the academic community’s
workflow so that individuals are able to use critical skills for inquiry wherever they land in the
information landscape.35 Aggregating these services and systems into combined interfaces or
portals might also entice individuals to use them. Following are some suggestions for university
IT and LIS professionals who want to attract their user groups to institutional resources:
• Provide a broad range of tools. People make decisions in a variety of contexts, so the
outcome of any given task is hard to predict. If we lock our patrons into one tool or mode of
engagement (whether visitor or resident) and disregard other possibilities, we drive them away.
• Create simple and convenient interface designs. As an example of such a design, figure 4
shows Trove, the National Library of Australia’s catalog. Another example is Finna, an online
catalog that offers access to Finland’s archives, libraries, and museums (see figure 5). Overly
complex institutional interfaces will consistently drive patrons to the Internet resources they
already know and trust, even if the solutions they offer are not as effective as those their
institutions provide.
185
FIGURE 4. INTERFACE FOR TROVE, THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA’S CATALOG
FIGURE 5. THE INTERFACE OF FINLAND’S FINNA
• Remove barriers between information discovery and access. You can do this by
providing enough descriptive information about sources for individuals to easily determine
whether a particular source has the information they need.
• Promote and market services to the academic constituencies. It is not enough to only
provide services; people must know that these services are available.
These recommendations are not new, but our research results suggest that
they remain important and have yet to be adequately addressed.
Sources: what are people finding and using?

Regardless of whether people get recommendations from personal networks (online or offline) or
in digital locations such as Google, the sources they choose to use are overwhelmingly digital.
PRIMARY SOURCES
Databases were mentioned more than any kind of electronic books by a wide margin of
participants in our study. Explicit mentions of databases are particularly characteristic of
faculty and graduate students. The increase begins with undergraduates (because high
school seniors rarely have access to university-provided databases), and the higher the
participants’ educational levels, the greater the number of database mentions. For people
affiliated with universities, database use most closely mirrors the use of the free web (that
is, content not paid for by institutions or individuals) in that they do not have to pay for the
186
resource themselves (because their institutions pay for it) and because the items they find
tend to be articles—a shorter and more convenient format than books. Participants viewed
the library stereotypically, seeing it primarily as a place to access books rather than other
sources or services; this view has been reported consistently in the literature as well.36
The significant number of database mentions by our study’s participants shows how important
they are within academic and library contexts to both embedding-stage (graduate student) and
experiencing-stage (faculty) participants. Emerging- and establishing-stage participants did
not talk about databases as explicitly as graduate students and faculty did, possibly because
they did not know they were using academic databases (again underlining the importance
of marketing). The emerging participants typically talked more generally about using the
library’s digital resources, without specifically mentioning databases. They also talked about
social media such as Facebook in academic contexts. However, this was not unique to
these early stage students, as the following quote from a UK graduate student indicates:
“Our Learning and Technology group is trying to start a wiki because

it’s a useful way to develop our interests on each having a separate
page and being able to share resources. We do that through Facebook
currently. We do say, ‘Hey, this is a resource about blogging that I’d
like to pass onto you because I know you’re interested in it.’ We do
that through Facebook, but we find it’s very difficult to separate out.
There’s only one feed for different people’s interests. So, we’re looking
at developing a wiki to kind of share ideas and resources between our
different topic areas and force ourselves to develop our topic areas
in a public forum, a forum where we’d have to write out what we’re
interested in online. But the Facebook group is extremely active also, if
not for just complaining about an assignment or trying to find a particular
reading, but also sharing current news articles with each other.”
Mentions of the free web, as represented by major media sites and Wikipedia, also far
outnumbered mentions of university databases or course management systems such as
Moodle, even among graduate students.37 Wikipedia was heavily mentioned by participants
in all educational stages, including half of the faculty/scholar participants. Mentions of major
media sites were lowest among emerging students, increased with graduate students, and
then declined among faculty—a pattern that directly contrasts with that of databases.
Although some disciplines strongly rely on peer-reviewed articles, other fields consider
secondary and social media sources, such as newspaper articles and blogs, to be viable
resources.38 Helena Francke and Olof Sundin reported that educators would recommend
the Internet and sources like Wikipedia as viable options because they are so up to date for
researching “current trends, new technology, and popular phenomena.”39 This is supported
in our data by relatively high faculty mentions of Wikipedia use for orienting themselves
187
on unfamiliar topics. Laura Saunders also found that faculty are “concerned with students’
reliance on Google and Wikipedia for information.”40 This might help explain why many of
the emerging-stage participants expressed a reluctance to cite Wikipedia in their work for
fear of being ridiculed by faculty or given a lower grade. This “learning black market” (a
phrase coined by our colleague David S. White) is discussed in more detail elsewhere.41
RECOMMENDATIONS: SOURCES
Rather than perpetuating this “black market” traffic in resources, institutions should use
individual Internet practices as a guide to linking institutional resources to those on the
open web. Individuals use a broad range of tools to get information, and they engage with
technology in multiple ways. It is therefore imperative to provide a broad range of tools
and services in different media. One size cannot fit all; we should strive for a diversity of
approaches based on how individuals engage with technology and get their information:
• Converse with your academic constituencies to identify their information-seeking and

evaluation strategies in both library and open web contexts. It will then be possible to advise
them on ways to improve their strategies and to integrate both environments into a broad
information-seeking strategy.
• Use what we already know about how people use Wikipedia to link library content to
Wikipedia articles. As figure 6 shows, the University of Washington library has done this with
authoritative references and links to full text, open content in special collections, and other
resources on salmon following Wikipedia community norms. Library and other information
professionals are encouraged to add references to the most relevant resources in their
collection as they relate to a particular topic. Engaging with Wikipedia can range from
librarians attending local editathons for practical experience, to employing a Wikipedian in
Residence as many institutions have done, including OCLC.42 Lorcan Dempsey refers to this
as the “inside-out” model of managing resources.43
FIGURE 6. THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ACTIVELY LINKS ITS COLLECTIONS TO RELEVANT

WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES
External links
• Plea for the Wanderer, an NFB documentary on West Coast salmon
• Fish farms drive wild salmon populations toward extinction Biology News Net. December 13, 2007.
• Salmonid parasites University of St Andrews Marine Ecology Research Group.
• Watershed Watch Salmon Society A British Columbia advocacy group for wild salmon
• Wild Salmon in Trouble The Link Between Farmed Salmon, Sea Lice and Wild Salmon -Watershed
based on peer-reviewed scientific research, with subject background article Watching out for Wild Salm
• Aquacultural Revolution: The scientific case for changing salmon farming - Watershed Watch Salmon
scientists and First Nation representatives speak their minds about the salmon farming industry and the
populations.
• Genetic Status of Atlantic Salmon in Maine: Interim Report (2002) Online book
• University of Washington Libraries Digital Collections – Salmon Collection A collection of documents d
• Canned Salmon Recipes by Alaska Packers’ Association 900 e-book with color illustrations, availabl
• Epicurean.com Salmon Recipes Collected recipes using Salmon at epicurean.com
• Low Sodium Salmon Recipe Recipe to make smoked salmon mousse.
• Salmon-omics: Effect of Pacific Decadal Oscillation on Alaskan Chinook Harvests and Market Price
• Salmon Nation A movement to create a bioregional community, based on the historic spawning area of
188
Why people choose: source evaluation,
authority, and legitimacy
Relevance and reliability are highly important to emerging-stage students, perhaps because
they lack subject expertise. As individuals progress through their educational stages, they
become more familiar with subject-specific sources and learn how to navigate journals,
publishers, databases, and human sources (such as authors). Even without subject
expertise, however, emerging-stage participants were concerned about selecting reliable
sources and often mentioned searching for web sites from domains such as .edu, .ac,
and .gov, which they viewed as more reliable than commercial domains such as .com.
Participants also mentioned repetition of the same information from several different
sources as a measure of reliability, as the following quote exemplifies:
“And so it’s kind of time really to stop once you’ve got information
that corresponds with information from somewhere else—that’s
like if you’ve got two comparative sources that agree, then kind
of the place to stop is really within the limits of that thing.”
—UKU4, Emerging, 0:26:22, Male, Age 19
Pickard and Logan reported finding this approach more common among senior
undergraduate students than those of freshmen undergraduate students.44
Some study participants measured reliability based on a site’s appearance:
“It depends. It depends who’s made the website or what I have been
told about the website or whether I know about it at all. But—it sounds
silly—but sometimes you can just tell whether a website looks reliable
or not depending on how professional [it] looks and who’s written it.”
Similarly, according to Pickard and Logan, their “freshmen interviewees

used general terms such as ‘scholarly,’ ‘reliable,’ ‘peer-reviewed,’ ‘written by
professors,’ and ‘looks fancy’” to judge a source as scholarly or not.45
189
CONVENIENCE: THE KEY FACTOR
Not surprisingly, participants in all stages frequently mentioned convenience/ease of
use as an important factor in obtaining information. Emerging students also consistently
discussed authority/legitimacy, though mentions of this decreased among establishing
students, only to increase again among embedded and experiencing participants.
Information science has long been concerned with how individuals evaluate a source’s authority
or legitimacy, yet the issue has increasing immediacy given the numerous information sources
that are outside academic institutions or unvetted by the publishing review process. Harlan,
Bruce, and Lupton found that, among teenaged participants, authority was established if the
information came from a teacher or from a professional, popular, or helpful source—or if the
source sounded self-confident.46 Francke and Sundin reported that approaches for evaluating
credibility depended on the discipline and subject.47 Saunders observed that differences in
approaches to evaluating authority occur as students become more immersed in their fields.48
These findings support the conclusions of Connaway, Dickey, and Radford, who reported that
convenience trumps all other reasons for selecting and using a source. Convenience also
is determined by the information seeker’s context and situation.49 Immediacy’s relative lack
of importance in choosing sources is striking—and counter to assumptions about people’s
desire for immediate gratification. Connaway, Dickey, and Radford corroborate this view of
immediacy, finding that speed in getting information is less important than convenience.50
INFORMATION QUALITY
The V&R data indicate that evaluation is taking place—individuals are not
using sources without considering information quality. The factors that most
strongly influence the choice of sources, however, are issues other than quality,
such as the amount of time available and the assignment’s stakes:
“I may have to use other sources than the Internet. Right now, I use
a lot of the Internet. When you walked in, I was reading—we have a
workbook that came with our AP Biology book, and then, for AP Stats,
I bought the [Barron’s] test prep book, and I used that. I’ll probably have
to use more books in college, I’m thinking, than just the Internet. There
are some things that for college you can’t find on the Internet. You’re
doing a research paper or something, and it’s on a subject that’s further
in the past—you’d have more reliable resources outside of the Internet.”
—USS7, Emerging, 0:17:53, Female, Age 17
190
“Last semester, I was writing a paper on Brazil and there was a book
in the library that I just did not want to leave my house to go to. It is a
50-minute drive, I didn’t want to do that, but I was writing my paper and
so I used Google books instead and really they only had a section of the
book available but that was the section I used. So, you know, doing that
instead of coming here physically and going to get the whole book. And
it saved time, it saved gas, I got what I needed, and it wasn’t a big deal.”
—USG4, Embedding, 0:39:42, Female, Age 23
[Laughter] “And again … the lovely thing about the Internet

is it’s all instantly, it is all there, and so you can pick exactly
what it is that you want to watch and just shove that on.”
—UKS8, Emerging, 0:05:50.5, Male, Age 17
So, if it’s possible, I will want some, like, intelligent device to

filter everything for me. So I can just get everything that’s
essential to me. Useful to me. So I can save my time from,
you know, wasting it on filtering everything by myself.”
GATEKEEPING
When an individual is searching for information, various channels might be open
and gatekeeping can occur.51 “In the communications field, “gatekeeping” refers to a
process in which numerous messages are reduced to just a few.52 The entrance to
each channel or section of channel is called a gate [and] movement from one channel
selection to another is determined by human gatekeepers, or a set of impartial rules.”53
Positive and negative forces surround the gates; therefore, whether or not someone
passes through a gate depends on the forces surrounding or guarding the gate.
For example, a student who wants to find a work by a specific author might have several
channels available, including search engines, databases, professors, and peers. The student
might choose a search engine because it has fewer negative forces at the gate—databases
require login, and e-mailing or calling a professor or friend takes time. Essentially, the student
perceives the search engine as the easiest channel for information. Also, some channels
might have multiple gates, which increases the likelihood that the student will reject them.54
191
THE IMPORTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP
Sometimes, people turn to their personal networks to determine a source’s legitimacy.
The composition of those networks shifts as individuals move through the educational
stages, as reflected in our interview data (see table 1). Emerging-stage students consulted
parents, siblings, and friends about academic work. In Pickard and Logan’s study,
freshmen sought help from their friends/classmates and family members at a higher
rate than seniors.55 Establishing-stage students consulted roommates, classmates, and
siblings who have taken similar classes before. Graduate students consulted graduate
school peers and professors, but consulted far less than individuals in any other
educational stage. Faculty most often consulted friends, colleagues, and peers.
TABLE 1. HUMAN SOURCES MENTIONED BY MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF THE PARTICIPANTS
Participant educational stages
Human sources Emerging Establishing Embedding Experiencing
Mother X X X
Father X X X
Extended family X X
Experts/professionals
Friends/colleagues X X X X
Teachers/professors X X X
Peers X X X X
Librarians
Other X X
The lack of consistent mentions for expert/professionals and librarians by participants

across all educational stages differs slightly from the findings of Pickard and Logan;
in their study, senior college/university students “referred to ‘Reference Librarians’
and the ‘Circulation Desk.’”56 In our study the highest mentions of these sources were
from faculty/scholars, followed by emerging-stage students. However, the latter group
often did not use the term librarian, as exemplified by one of the participants:
“...a lady in the library who helps you find things.”
192
This corroborates Pickard and Logan’s findings that “...most freshmen often did
not know that reference librarians existed, much less what they did.”57
Clearly, individuals seek what they need within the relationships that surround them. As
they move through the educational stages, their networks are increasingly populated
with people who have relevant subject expertise. By the time people become faculty
members, calling a “friend” about an article almost certainly means the friend is
also an expert in the field. Relationships continue to be a major component in how
individuals get information and whom they choose for collaboration. The desire to
make contact with others also motivates people to engage with technology.58
In the V&R interviews, collaboration was most common with emerging-stage participants,
decreased sharply for both establishing and embedding participants, and then increased
for experiencing participants. This might reflect not only the need for collaboration among
emerging students, but also the emphasis on individual/isolating work for more advanced
students. The high level of faculty collaboration is an interesting contrast to the training that
graduate students apparently receive. Given that scholars need to work with colleagues in
teaching and research contexts after graduate school, the dip in collaboration as a motive
for contact in graduate school is both a red flag and an opportunity. Identifying ways to help
graduate students connect with their peers in other institutions is important because these
individuals might become professional colleagues and collaborators as they gain specialized
knowledge in their fields. Social media can be a tool for decreasing isolation among graduate
students and better preparing them to be senior scholars and knowledgeable professionals.
RECOMMENDATIONS: EVALUATION, AUTHORITY, AND LEGITIMACY

We cannot overestimate the importance of embedding services and resources within
the spaces where people build trusted relationships with individuals. Institutions
should consider digital and face-to-face community building as a cornerstone of their
enterprise-wide policies. Individuals will turn to libraries or librarians for resources
only if they are a part of the individuals’ networks. As the following recommendations
show, social media tools can be used obliquely to build such relationships.
• Ensure that your library has a diverse presence in both digital and physical spaces. Because
academic constituencies need help in a variety of situations, you should offer services in
multiple formats and at different hours of the day and night. Offer help at the time of need,
such as pop-up chat in your online library catalogs for no retrievals and on institutional web
pages within 10 seconds of visitor inactivity. Also, education IT staff and LIS professionals
should be embedded in online and physical classes, and possibly have offices in their
respective academic departments.
• Engage in interesting discussions and innovative strategies for promoting and making
collections come to life using social media. A great example here is the University of Nevada,
Reno, which offers a lively special collections presence on Facebook.59
193
Conclusions
Our recommendations here are not revenue neutral; they require expertise, time,
and resources. Given the current economic climate and the resulting shortfall
of university resources due to state budget cuts and decreasing endowments,
how can institutions recalibrate their services as outlined above?
One way is to engage with academic community members, which offers the opportunity
to better assess their needs and to provide services and systems that they’ll actually use.
Our study results indicate that individuals do contact other people when they need help
or specific information; initiating and developing relationships is therefore necessary.
As Mathews states, “By focusing on relationship building instead of service excellence,
organizations can uncover new needs and be in position to make a stronger impact.”60
However, to engage with users and potential users of our systems and services, we must be
present and available in the spaces in which they dwell. We cannot simply create a social
media account for the library; we must become an involved and interactive presence within
the social media venue. This means becoming personally involved in promoting the library
collections by spotlighting special collections, archival materials, and the digital library.
Connecting with students in the library’s physical spaces also builds relationships. For
example, at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, the J. Murrey Atkins Library stages
an exam break room with games, art supplies, snacks, comfortable chairs, and even
pillows.61 Close to where they study, the room lets students take a break from the intensity
of studying for final exams without completely losing their focus. Marketing materials and
social media engagement made it clear that the library was responsible for the break
room, associating the library staff with concern for students and their well-being.
Hosting special programs and adding links to special collections in Wikipedia can
promote the physical library, its services, and its collections. Also, embedding librarians
both physically and virtually within academic departments or classes also promotes
the library as an active participant in the learning and teaching environments.
Finally, studying user behavior can enhance the development and testing of library
systems. Our findings suggest that people prefer easy-to-use, familiar systems with a
simple interface design. To ensure that your library catalog and website interfaces best
meet users’ needs, you can analyze catalog and web logs to identify their information-
seeking and evaluation strategies. Such an analysis will also help librarians better advise
users on ways to improve their search and evaluation practices. These strategies will in
turn give you new opportunities to market institutional systems and services and encourage
users’ engagement with them. Finally—and critically, in these times—such strategies can
help libraries both assess and define their value to the larger academic institution.
194
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was part of the Digital Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement
with the Digital Information Environment? project, which was funded by JISC, University of
Oxford, and OCLC, in partnership with the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. Special
thanks to David S. White, University of Oxford, and Carrie Vass, our research assistant.
195
NOTES
1. Direct quote from USS1, Emerging, 0:21:57, Female, Age 18.

2. For more in-depth information on the methods used for this study, see Lynn Silipigni
Connaway, David White, Donna Lanclos, and Alison Le Cornu, “Visitors and Residents: What
Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment?” Information Research, vol.
18, no. 1, 2013; Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Donna Lanclos, and Erin M. Hood, “’I find Google a
lot easier than going to the library website.’ Imagine Ways to Innovate and Inspire Students to
Use the Academic Library,” Proceedings of the Association of College & Research Libraries
(ACRL) 2013 Conference, April 10–13, 2013; David White, Digital Visitors and Residents:
The Video, video presentation; David S. White and Alison Le Cornu, “Visitors and Residents:
A New Typology for Online Engagement,” First Monday, vol. 16, no. 9, 2011; and Marc
Prensky, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” On the Horizon, vol. 9, no. 5 (October 2001).
3. Lorcan Dempsey, “Thirteen Ways of Looking at Libraries, Discovery, and the Catalog: Scale,
Workflow, Attention,” EDUCAUSE Review Online, 10 December 2012.
4. In our analysis of interview data, we use frequency of mentions as a proxy for issues that
should be addressed by academic institutions. Each theme is the unit of analysis and the
frequency of occurrence merits further analytical attention; for instance, if there are many
mentions of Wikipedia, it is not enough to say, “Wikipedia is important,” but to analyze the
content of the interviews to identify why and how the interviewees were using Wikipedia.
5. JISC, Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information
Environment, David White, Oxford University, and Lynn Silipigni Connaway, OCLC Research,
Project Managers, 2011–2012.
6. Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Donna Lanclos, David White, Alison Le Cornu, and Erin M. Hood,
“User-Centered Decision Making: A New Model for Developing Academic Library Services
and Systems,” IFLA Journal, 2013, vol. 39(1): p. 30–36; Connaway, White, Lanclos, and Le
Cornu, “Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information
Environment?”; JISC, Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement.
7. Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Ronald R. Powell, Basic Research Methods for Librarians, 5th
ed., Libraries Unlimited, 2010.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid; Christine S. Davis, Heather L. Powell, and Kenneth L. Lachlan, Straight Talk about
Communication Research Methods, Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2013.
10. Davis, Powell, and Lachlan, Straight Talk about Communication.
11. Connaway and Powell, Basic Research Methods for Librarians.
12. Ibid.
13. Online are the full list of semi-structured interview questions for emerging, establishing, and
embedding; the full list of semi-structured interview questions for experiencing; and the full
list of questions for monthly diary submissions.
196
14. For more detailed information about the research methodology, see Connaway, White,
Lanclos, and Le Cornu, “Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the
Digital Information Environment?” ISIC 2012 Conference Proceedings, 2012; and Connaway,
Lanclos, and Hood, “’I find Google a lot easier … ,’”p. 289–300; the full list of diarist follow-up
interview questions is online.
15. Connaway, Lanclos, White, Le Cornu, and Hood, “User-Centered Decision Making,” p.
30–36.
16. A minimum of 85 percent in inter-coder reliability levels of agreement is emphasized for most
projects. An initial inter-coder reliability test was run to ensure high levels of agreement and
again each time another coder was trained and brought in. Looking at two transcripts (one
from the US and one from the UK), levels of agreement for the initial ICR tests were at 97.78
percent (0.6442 Kappa) for the UK transcript and 98.39 percent (0.6319 Kappa) for the US
transcript. Following ICRs for new coders maintained the same high levels of agreement.
17. The complete codebook is available online.
18. Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, University
of Cambridge Press, 1991; Barbara Rogoff, Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development
in Social Context, Oxford University Press, 1990; and Etienne Wenger, Communities of Practice:
Learning, Meaning, and Identity, University of Cambridge Press, 1998.
19. Lave and Wenger, Situated Learning, p. 35–36.
20. Ibid, p. 40.
21. Reijo Savolainen, “Time as a Context of Information Seeking,” Library & Information Science
Research, vol. 28, no. 1, 2006, p. 110–127; Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Timothy J. Dickey, and
Marie L. Radford, “’If it is too inconvenient I’m not going after it’: Convenience as a Critical
Factor in Information-Seeking Behaviors,” Library & Information Science Research, vol. 33,
no. 3, 2011, p. 179–190.
22. Connaway, Dickey, and Radford, “’If it is too inconvenient …,’” p. 179–190; Connaway, White,
Lanclos, and Le Cornu, “Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital
Information Environment?”; and Connaway, Lanclos, and Hood, “’I find Google a lot easier
…,’” p. 289–300.
23. Connaway, Dickey, and Radford, “’If it is too inconvenient …,’” p. 179–190; Connaway and
Radford, Seeking Synchronicity: Revelations and Recommendations for Virtual Reference,
OCLC Research, 2011; Connaway, Lanclos, and Hood, “’I find Google a lot easier …,’”
p. 289–300; Connaway, Lanclos, White, Le Cornu, and Hood, “User-Centered Decision
Making,” p. 30–36; and Connaway, White, Lanclos, and Le Cornu, “Visitors and Residents:
What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment?.”
24. Connaway, Dickey, and Radford, “’If it is too inconvenient …,’” p. 179–190; and Connaway,
Lanclos, and Hood, “’I find Google a lot easier …,’” p. 289–300.
25. Lynn Silipigni Connaway, “Findings from User Behavior Studies: A User’s World,”
presentation made at ALA Midwinter Meeting and Exhibits, Seattle, WA, 28 January 2012;
Connaway, Lanclos, White, Le Cornu, and Hood, “User-Centered Decision Making,” p. 30–
36; and Connaway, White, Lanclos, and Le Cornu, “Visitors and Residents: What Motivates
Engagement with the Digital Information Environment?.”
26. Connaway, “Findings from User Behavior Studies.”
197
27. Reijo Savolainen, “The Sense-Making Theory: Reviewing the Interests of a User-centered
Approach to Information Seeking and Use,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 29,
no. 1, 1993, p. 17.
28. Sanna Talja, Heidi Keso, and Tarja Pietilainen, “The Production of ‘Context’ in Information
Seeking Research: A Metatheoretical View,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 35,
no. 6, 1999, p. 751–763.
29. Connaway, Dickey, and Radford, “’If it is too inconvenient …,’” p. 180.
30. For a more detailed discussion of individuals’ interactions with humans as sources of
information, see Connaway, Lanclos, and Hood, “’I find Google a lot easier ….’”
31. Interviews were transcribed to include pauses and utterances such as “ah” and “um” (a
few of which were removed for readability here). For anonymity, we assigned participants
tags to indicate their country (UK or US) and educational stage (“S” for secondary school/
high school, “U” for university, “G” for graduate students, and “F” for faculty), and gave each
participant an identification number.
32. Institute of Museum and Library Services Research Grant, “Sense-Making the Information
Confluence: The Hows and the Whys of College and University User Satisficing of
Information Needs,” Brenda Dervin, Ohio State University, Principal Investigator, and Lynn
Silipigni Connaway and Chandra Prabha, OCLC Research, Co-Investigators, 2003–2005;
and JISC, Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement?.
33. Institute of Museum and Library Services Research Grant, “Seeking Synchronicity:
Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives,”
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, OCLC Research, and Marie L. Radford, Rutgers University, Co-
Principal Investigators, 2005–2007; Institute of Museum and Library Services Research
Grant, “Sense-Making the Information Confluence: The Hows and the Whys of College
and University User Satisficing of Information Needs,” Cathy De Rosa, Joanne Cantrell,
Diane Cellentani, Janet Hawk, Lillie Jenkins, and Alane Wilson, Perceptions of Libraries and
Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership, OCLC Online Computer Library
Center, 2005; and Cathy De Rosa, Joanne Cantrell, Matthew Carlson, Peggy Gallagher,
Janet Hawk, and Charlotte Sturtz, Perceptions of Libraries, 2010: Context and Community: A
Report to the OCLC Membership, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 2011.
34. Institute of Museum and Library Services Research Grant, “Seeking Synchronicity:
Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives,”
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, OCLC Research, and Marie L. Radford, Rutgers University, Co-
Principal Investigators, 2005–2007.
35. Lorcan Dempsey, “Always On: Libraries in a World of Permanent Connectivity,” First Monday,
vol. 14, no. 1, 2008; and Dempsey, “Thirteen Ways of Looking at Libraries.”
36. Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Timothy J. Dickey, The Digital Information Seeker: Report of
Findings from Selected OCLC, RIN and JISC User Behaviour Projects, Higher Education
Funding Council for England, 2010; Elizabeth Pickard and Firouzeh Logan, “The Research
Process and the Library: First-Generation College Seniors vs. Freshmen,” College & Research
Libraries, vol. 74, no. 4, 2013, p. 399–415; De Rosa et al., Perceptions of Libraries and
Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership; and De Rosa et al., Perceptions of
Libraries, 2010: Context and Community: A Report to the OCLC Membership.
198
37. This bias for Moodle in the data could be attributed to the fact that it is the CMS used at the
University of North Carolina, Charlotte, and students who talked about technology in their
classes would have to talk about or at least mention Moodle.
38. Ibid.
39. Helena Francke and Olof Sundin, “Negotiating the Role of Sources: Educators’ Conceptions
of Credibility in Participatory Media,” Library & Information Science Research, vol. 34, no. 3,
2012, p. 173.
40. Laura Saunders, “Faculty Perspectives on Information Literacy as a Student Learning
Outcome,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 38, no. 4, 2012, p. 231.
41. Connaway, Lanclos, and Hood, “’I find Google a lot easier ….,’” p. 289–300, and David
White, “The Learning Black Market,” TALL blog, 30 September 2011.
42. OCLC Research, “Max Klein Named OCLC Research Wikipedian in Residence,” OCLC.org.
An early case study on these efforts was provided by Ann M. Lally and Carolyn E. Dunford,
“Using Wikipedia to Extend Digital Collections,” D-Lib Magazine, vol. 13, no. 5/6, 2007.
Information professionals seeking guidance on how to get started should consult the GLAM
Wiki portal.
43. Dempsey, “Thirteen Ways of Looking at Libraries.”
44. Pickard and Logan, “The Research Process and the Library,” p. 399–415.
45. Ibid.
46. Mary Ann Harlan, Christine Bruce, and Mandy Lupton, “Teen Content Creators: Experiences
of Using Information to Learn,” Library Trends, vol. 60, no. 3, 2012, p. 569–587.
47. Helena Francke and Olof Sundin, “Negotiating the Role of Sources: Educators’ Conceptions
of Credibility in Participatory Media,” Library & Information Science Research, vol. 34, no. 3,
2012, p. 169–175.
48. Saunders, “Faculty Perspectives on Information Literacy,” p. 231.
49. Connaway, Dickey, and Radford, ‘”If it is too inconvenient …,’” p. 179–190.
50. Ibid.
51. Kurt Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, Harper, 1951.
52. Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science; and Pamela Shoemaker and Tim P. Vos, Gatekeeping
Theory (New York: Routledge, 2009).
53. Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science, p. 186; and Shoemaker and Vos, Gatekeeping
Theory, p. 80.
54. Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science; and Shoemaker and Vos, Gatekeeping Theory.
55. Pickard and Logan, “The Research Process and the Library,” p. 408.
56. Ibid., p. 403.
57. Ibid., p. 403.
58. Connaway and Radford, Seeking Synchronicity.
59. Nick DeSantis, “On Facebook, Librarian Brings 2 Students From the Early 1900s to Life,”
Chronicle of Higher Education, 6 January 2012. Joe McDonald’s Facebook page is currently
available along with Leola Lewis’s page.
199
60. Brian Mathews, Think Like a Startup: A White Paper to Inspire Library Entrepreneurialism,
white paper, The Ubiquitous Librarian, 4 April 2012.
61. Jean Hiebert and Shelly Theriault, “BLASTing the Zombies! Creative Ideas to Fight Finals
Fatigue,” College & Research Libraries News, vol. 73, no. 9, 2012, p. 540–569.
200
10
Meeting the Expectations of the
Community: The Engagement-
Centered Library

OCLC Research
A reprint of:
Lynn Silipigni Connaway. “Meeting the Expectations of the Community: The Engagement-centered Library.”
Library 2020: Today’s Leading Visionaries Describe Tomorrow’s Library, ed. Joe Janes. (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Press, 2013), 83–88.
Used by arrangement with Rowman & Littlefield. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or
printed without permission in writing from the publisher.
The library in 2020 will be engagement-centered.
In 2008, Lorcan Dempsey stated that it used to be that users built their workflows around the
library, resources were scarce, therefore, the users’ attention was abundant. He went on to say
that the library now must build its service around the users’ workflow because their attention
is scarce and the available resources are abundant. This scenario most likely will intensify. As
Mitchell Kapor said, “Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant.”1
The library of the future needs to be constantly changing or it will not survive.
Regardless of whether the library is public or academic, in order to remain relevant
in a rapidly changing global environment, it will need to provide an environment
for “innovation, productivity, collaboration, and knowledge” (Mathews 2012).
Libraries traditionally have been most concerned with access to information and content
(Mathews 2011). Accessing information is no longer an issue. Librarians can fill a niche in
the use, creation, and curation of information and content. Librarians in 2020 will be assisting
users in the creation, evaluation, and production of content. We will not only need to create
repositories for content but also to engage and motivate researchers, scholars, and business
people to contribute, share, and reuse the content. Librarians will need to develop partnerships
with the individuals who create, collect, and analyze data sets in order to provide policies,
systems, and services for the storage, access, preservation, and shared use of these data.
Something that often is difficult for library and information professionals to comprehend is
that the majority of the population does not use libraries to get information. Many people get
their information from human resources (family, teachers, professors, colleagues, peers) and
the Internet (Connaway and Dickey 2010; Head and Eisenberg 2010; Prabha, Connaway, and
Dickey 2006; Connaway, Prabha, and Dickey 2006; Connaway, Lanclos, White, Le Cornu,
and Hood 2012; Connaway, White, Lanclos, and Le Cornu 2012). Google and Wikipedia often
are the first places individuals go for information regardless of age or educational background
(Head and Eisenberg 2010; Head and Eisenberg 2009; Connaway, Lanclos, White, Le Cornu,
and Hood 2012; Connaway, White, Lanclos, and Le Cornu 2012). Why? Because people go
for what’s convenient (Connaway, Dickey, and Radford 2011; Connaway and Dickey 2010).
If this is the case, why not gear library services and systems to those who actually use
them? This also may be more efficient for the library. Andy Priestner and Elizabeth Tilley
propose this in the concept of boutique academic libraries (Priestner and Tilley 2010;
Priestner and Tilley, 2012). They equate the boutique library with the boutique hotel—
personalized service. It’s a customer-focused approach that will utilize the skills and
knowledge of professional librarians, possibly eliminating the more clerical responsibilities
of some current library positions. Subject librarians will collaboratively work with users and
develop relationships with them to create services specifically geared to their needs.
Relationships are important to both librarians and users. Research in virtual reference
services (VRS) reported that both VRS librarians and reference service users value
the relationships developed in both face-to-face (FtF) and virtual environments.
Even though VRS is more convenient, users often prefer FtF reference because of
the relationships they develop with librarians (Connaway and Radford 2011).
202
Felicia A. Smith coins the term, Helicopter Librarians, based on the concept of
Helicopter Parents. She describes Helicopter Librarianship as “a holistic approach to
a human interaction based on individuality and genuine compassion” (Smith 2012).
She stresses the importance of building relationships during instruction sessions
and reference encounters, and by embracing “new and unconventional methods” for
users to contact and interact with librarians when they need help (Smith 2012).
This may call for a new type of librarian and information professional—one who embraces
change and possesses a willingness and eagerness to try new technologies and modes of
communication and delivery of services. When users visit our online catalogs and web sites,
they often find them confusing and difficult to use (Connaway and Dickey 2010; Connaway,
Prabha, and Dickey 2006). Why not provide a pop-up chat box that asks, “What can I help
you find?”? We need to be where our users need us, when they need us. If the majority
of our users prefer to communicate via mobile phone texting, chat, or IM; to learn through
gaming; by accessing the library’s unique collections and materials via social media, such as
Facebook 2 and Wikipedia; or to meet with us FtF outside of the library, we need to be there!
Today it’s not unusual for librarians to make themselves physically available within the
academic departments, student unions, and cafeterias. This is referred to as embedded
librarianship. Kessleman and Watstein (2009, p. 385) stated that “bringing the library
and the librarian to the user, wherever they are—office, laboratory, home, or even on
their mobile device is at the forefront of what it means to be embedded.” Some academic
librarians embed themselves in both FtF and online classes, which provides them
with the opportunity to interact with the students and faculty on a regular basis.
A more innovative example of embedded librarianship was the October 2011 announcement that
the William H. Welch Medical Library at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, would
close its physical doors to patrons on 1 January 2012.3 The plan was for the library to continue to
provide resources completely online. One of the main reasons for the closing of the library was
the decrease in use and circulation of physical materials and the exponential increase in the use
of electronic materials. The librarians have been embedded within the academic departments
for the past 6 years and are available to students and faculty via email or phone (Kelley 2011).
Embedded librarianship also is an important aspect of public library engagement

with the community. Many public libraries are providing kiosks in public spaces,
such as train and bus stations and parks, for users to check-out and return print,
audio, and electronic books, magazines, newspapers, and journals.
I was visiting Washington, DC several years ago and as I walked down the street, there were
several individuals who were wearing yellow shirts, with the word information printed on
them, standing on the street corners. I decided to ask for directions (although I did not need
them). The person was very pleasant, gave me directions, and offered me a map as well. I
immediately thought that this would be a perfect venue for public librarians to engage with the
community and to communicate the library’s value, although I am not advocating yellow shirts!
A similar idea occurred to me several months ago when a friend, who is very involved in
local politics in Aspen, Colorado, called me to discuss the Pitkin County Library’s request
for funds to renovate and expand the library. Although he had no idea of the library’s impact
on the community or how the library and its services are used, he felt that the request was
Meeting the Expectations of the Community: The Engagement-Centered Library
203
unwarranted since the library occupied a beautiful space that was sufficiently staffed and
funded to meet the needs of the community. I immediately thought of the information kiosk
at the corner of the pedestrian mall in Aspen that is staffed by local volunteers and that I
often frequent to find out about daily events, restaurants, and shops. Wouldn’t this be the
perfect outpost for the library? It would give the library visibility in a bustling small town and
would demonstrate the library’s engagement with and contributions to the community.
My mother works in retail and always says that “one size fits no one.” This pertains to library
services and systems as well. No one service or system will meet the needs of every individual.
We need to develop an economic model for the allocation of resources for the various
modes of user engagement based on the specific user groups’ needs and expectations.
The library of 2020 will provide user-centered services and systems that will meet the
expectations of the community. The library staff will need to develop relationships with their
users and partner with other organizations in order to produce, store, and preserve content and
data sets and to provide personalized services. Recruiting and retaining innovative, creative
individuals who are willing to engage with users and to embrace new technologies and modes of
communication will be imperative for the success of the library of 2020. Access to the library and
its resources when and where users need them (which may involve being accessible in multiple
physical and virtual locations), will be essential since convenient access to resources, whether
human, print, or electronic is the most critical factor for users. As stated by one of our study
participants, “If it is too inconvenient I’m not going after it” (Connaway, Dickey, and Radford 2011).
Ultimately, the library must develop strategic plans and continually change and innovate in order
to respond proactively instead of reactively to community needs and engagement opportunities.
204
NOTES
1. Taken from Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/will-lion/2595497078/; http://giveupinternet.

com/2009/01/14/mitchell-kapor-getting-information-off-the-internet-is-like-taking-a-drink-
from-a-fire-hydrant-pic/.
2. The Director of Research Collections and Services at the University of Nevada, Reno
created Facebook profiles for Joe McDonald, a sophomore at the university in 1913, and his
girlfriend and future wife, Leola Lewis, to promote the library’s special collections. Although
Facebook made the library remove the profiles since the two individuals are no longer alive,
the site is still active and has attracted thousands to the special collections (DeSantis, 2012).
3. The library did not close its physical doors on 1 January 2012. The Board is still reviewing the
options to determine which will best provide services to its users.
205
REFERENCES
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Timothy J. Dickey. 2010. The Digital Information Seeker: Report
of Findings from Selected OCLC, RIN, and JISC User Behavior Projects. Bristol: HEFCE. http://
www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Timothy J. Dickey, and Marie L. Radford 2011. “‘If it is too inconvenient
I’m not going after it:’ Convenience as a Critical Factor in Information-seeking Behaviors.” Library
& Information Science Research 33, no. 3: 179–90.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Donna Lanclos, David White, Alison Le Cornu, and Erin M. Hood.
2012. “User-centered Decision Making: A New Model for Developing Academic Library Services
and Systems.” IFLA World Library and Information Congress 2012 Helsinki Proceedings:
“Libraries Now! Inspiring, Surprising, Empowering.” http://conference.ifla.org/sites/default/files/
files/papers/wlic2012/76-connaway-en.pdf.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, Chandra Prabha, and Timothy J. Dickey. 2006. Sense-making the
Information Needs. Phase III: Focus Group Interview Study. Report on National Leadership Grant
LG-02-03-0062-03, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, DC. Columbus,
OH: School of Communication, The Ohio State University.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Marie L. Radford. 2011. Seeking Synchronicity: Revelations and
Recommendations for Virtual Reference. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research. http://www.oclc.org/
reports/synchronicity/full.pdf.
Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, David White, Donna Lanclos, and Alison Le Cornu. 2012. “Visitors and
Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment?” ISIC 2012
Conference Proceedings, 5–7 September 2012, Tokyo, Japan.
Dempsey, Lorcan. 2008. “Always On: Libraries in a World of Permanent Connectivity.” First
Monday 14, no. 1. http://www.firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/
view/2291/207 (accessed 12 October 2012).
DeSantis, Nick 2012. “On Facebook, Librarian Brings 2 Students from the Early 1900s to Life.”
Chronicle of Higher Education, 6 Jan. 2012. http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/on-facebook-
librarian-brings-two-students-from-the-early-1900s-to-life/34845 (accessed 12 October 2012).
Head, Alison J., and Michael B. Eisenberg. 2010. “How Today’s College Students Use Wikipedia
for Course-related Research.” First Monday 15, no. 3. http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/
index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2830/2476 (accessed. 11 October 2012).
Head, Alison J., and Michael B. Eisenberg. 2009. Lessons Learned: How College Students Seek
Information in the Digital Age. Seattle, WA: The Information School, University of Washington.
206
Kelley, Michael 2012. “Major Medical Library Closing Its Doors to Patrons and Moving to Digital
Model.” The Digital Shift, 27 Oct. 2011. http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2011/10/research/major-
medical-library-closing-its-doors-to-patrons-and-moving-to-digital-model/
Kesselman, Martin A., and Sarah Barbara Watstein. 2009. “Creating Opportunities: Embedded
Librarians.” Journal of Library Administration 49, no. 4: 383–400.
Mathews, Brian. 2012. “Our Strategy: Be Regenerative.” The Ubiquitous Librarian. The Chronicle,
4 Oct. 2012. http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/theubiquitouslibrarian/2012/10/04/our-strategy-be-
regenerative/ (accessed 12 October 2012).
Mathews, Brian. 2010. Think Like a Startup: A White Paper to Inspire Library Entrepreneurialism.
Blacksburg: Virginia Teach University. http://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/18649
Prabha, Chandra, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, and Timothy J. Dickey 2006. Sense-making the
Information Needs. Phase IV: Semi-structured Interview Study. Report on National Leadership
Grant LG-02-03-0062-03, to Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, DC.
Columbus (Ohio): School of Communication, The Ohio State University, 2006.
Priestner, Andy, and Elizabeth Tilley. 2010. “Boutique Libraries at Your Service.” Library &
Information Update 9, no. 6: 36–39. http://personalisedlibraries.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/
boutiquelibraries.pdf (accessed 12 October 2012).
Priestner, Andy, and Elizabeth Tilley (Eds.). 2012. Personalizing Library Services in Higher
Education: The Boutique Approach. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Smith, Felicia A. 2012. “Helicopter Librarian: Expect the Unexpected Backtalk.” Library Journal,
28 Aug. 2012. http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/08/opinion/backtalk/helicopter-librarian-expect-the-
unexpected-backtalk/#_ (accessed 12 October 2012).
207
For more information about our work related to
user studies, please visit:
www.oclc.org/research/themes/user-studies.html
6565 Kilgour Place

Dublin, Ohio 43017-3395
T: 1-800-848-5878
T: +1-614-764-6000
F: +1-614-764-6096 ISBN: 1-55653-500-7
978-1-55653-500-0
www.oclc.org/research 1510/215506, OCLC

Library Science Articles PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Library Science Articles PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Library Science Articles PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Library in the Life

Individual copyright and licensing details related to the papers included

ISBNs: 1-55653-500-7 (978-1-55653-500-0)

Please direct correspondence to:

Introduction, by Lynn Silipigni Connaway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

1. Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities,

2. What is Enough? Satisficing Information Needs, by Chandra Prabha,

3. “Screenagers” and Live Chat Reference: Living Up to the Promise,

4. Sense-making and Synchronicity: Information-seeking Behaviors of Millennials and Baby

7. User-centered Decision Making: A New Model for Developing

8. Visitors and Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital

9. “I always stick with the first thing that comes up on Google. . .”

10. Meeting the Expectations of the Community: The Engagement-centered Library,

The study of user behaviors, also referred to as information behavior, information-seeking

“Perhaps the most convenient method of studying the consequences

“In order to answer the question, ‘What type of library service is

Based on our research, the following questions were asked in the

This volume contains the following contributions, which represent a decade

Connaway, Lynn Silipigni. 2014a. “The Elusive User.” Hangingtogether.org (blog).

IMLS. Institute of Museum and Library Services. https://www.imls.gov/.

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

Ixchel M. Faniel, Ph.D.

• Facebook post for a YouTube video;

First law Books are E-books are Netflix is for Blackboard is

Fifth law Library is

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities

EXAMINING THE LAW IN TODAY’S ENVIRONMENT

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities

The second law

THE RISE OF E-CONTENT

LIBRARIES AND BIG DATA

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities

THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF INFORMATION SEEKING

OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW

• Performing traditional outreach: Traditional outreach allows librarians to keep a pulse on

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities

EXAMINING THE LAW IN TODAY’S ENVIRONMENT

Move beyond books

Research data are for use

Change user perceptions

OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities

• Every book has a reader;

EXAMINING THE LAW IN TODAY’S ENVIRONMENT

• Understanding the flow in workflow;

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities

OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities

• Routine Google searches turn up millions of results;

The new fifth law: a library is a

EXAMINING THE LAW IN TODAY’S ENVIRONMENT

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities

• Wikipedian in Residence Projects: Host Wikipedians to help contribute entries to Wikipedia

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities

Ranganathan’s original conception Our interpretation and reordering

A library is a growing organism

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviours, Shifting Priorities

3. Auckland, M. 2012. Re-skilling for Research. London: Research Information Network.