Showing posts with label search and discovery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label search and discovery. Show all posts

The library is a good source, if you have several months. Why Library Sources Are Not the First Choice

  • Lynn Silipigni Connaway – Research Scientist, OCLC
We know that users are not looking to the library as the first choice for information. OCLC conducted a series of focus groups for 31 faculty, 19 graduate students, and 28 undergraduate students to find out why. Participants were randomly selected and paid $35 - $50 for their time, plus food.

Question: Think of a time when you had a situation and you needed answers quickly.


Answers:
[quotes were transcribed quickly and are not verbatim]


Undergrads:
I stay away from the library and library online catalog.

I call my father. He always has his cell phone, I can text him. He’ll tell me or he’ll find out. I never ask mother. My mother is a librarian. She wants to teach me how to find things. Dad will just tell me. I just want an answer.


Students tend to go to human resources first. Will ask friends, roommates, family.
When they use search engines, they go to Google first, then Yahoo (a little). They know Lexis Nexis and Jstore. Brand recognition is important. They use general JStore for science! If faculty member tells them to use a particular source, then that source has legitimacy.

Grad students use Google, their personal libraries, EBSCO (i.e., brand names). Human resources: friends, advisors, faculty. If faculty recommends a resource, then that’s the resource they want. (Librarians have to get to faculty and show what we can do for them.)


Faculty: Tend to use Google first, but they recognize Google is quick and dirty. Google is user friendly; library catalog is not. 95% of all scholarly inquiries start at Google. When you think about it, Google represents nothing but trillions of old fashioned footnotes.

One researcher in this project observed a student who wanted to find coverage of Hurricane Katrina in newspapers from developing countries. The library had Ethnic Newswatch. The student was intelligent and computer-savvy. He spent 30 minutes searching the library website but he never found Ethnic Newswatch.


Question: Have there been times when you knew the library had information you needed but you chose not to use it?


Undergrads: The library is good if you have several months.

Hard to find things in the library catalog.


I tried going to the library but had to go online


Grad students:
The library system requires like 15 logins.

A faculty member talked about book I never read. I went to Amazon and read the synopsis, reviews, etc, so I could talk about the book. Why doesn’t the library provide that?


Magic Wand question: If you had a magic want what would your ideal library be like?

Undergrads: More staff, roaming personnel.

Make the library like a coffee house.

Make the library like Home Depot where the staff wear orange vests so I know who to ask.

Librarian says go to 5th floor, but then I can’t find what I need. Why isn’t there someone on the 5th floor?

Space to work with groups.

Food and comfortable seats.

Why isn’t there a universal library card? When I go home I have to have a different library card.


The library website is alphabetical or by subject. The lists are overwhelming. How do I know what subject area to pick! If I pick chemistry, what if it’s in physics?

Why aren’t there drive –up services ? Just to return a book I get a parking ticket.


Could I call the library? That would be great cause I always have my cell phone.


When seeking personal information (e.g., travel, product reviews, cars) they want authoritative sources. For academic work, if professor says “get five articles,” five is all they want. Five is “good enough.”


Faculty: lessen the intimidation factor (faculty said this!! They don’t want anyone to know they don’t know.) Provide better signs and pathfinders. Book store environment. They don’t want virtual references unless someone has recommended it to them.

Emerging Themes:
More than 1/3 use search engines other than Google (mostly Yahoo)
Google is used to get familiar with topic. Users feel that Google is current, and that the library may not be.

Undergrads are not interested in IM for reference. IM is for friends and family, not for strangers. Also, what if the librarian doesn't know my subject area? What if the person on the other end is a serials killer?

Users still use the library, just not at first. They’ll go to Amazon and use the recommender service. They love the “look inside the book” feature. They'll search Amazon, then copy and paste to the library catalog to find the item, because the library catalog is too hard to search.

Transaction logs show that 90% of searches are keyword searches. Users do not care about advanced search features. Most searches are one word searches.


Users view commercial sources such as EBSOhost or Lexis-Nexis as provided by the university, not the library! You can’t access EBSCO if you are not at the university. We pay for it through student fees, and the university gives it to us.


Reference to the TV show, Who Wants to be a Millionaire. The game show allows contestants to have a Lifeline, someone they can call when they need extra help. Couldn’t the library provide someone like that?

Lessons:
Library systems are hard to use. Library catalogs and websites are too difficult. Mentioned this article in the Dallas Morning News.

The OPAC is Dead. Long Live the OPAC!

  • Jane Burke – Vice President and General Manager, Serials Solutions
Online resources have profoundly transformed research libraries. The paradigm shift is away from library management and toward the management of user services. Most research is done remotely, i.e., outside of the library, in offices, dorms, etc. This trend negates the research library's traditional "value add" to the research process. The library's value is not obvious when 18th century documents just show up in a dorm room, and they are not necessarily related to the library.

Serials Solutions hired a consulting firm to perform a study on how users conduct research. Students were recruited for the study through
Facebook ads, and the study was performed at
4 different universities within the last 10 months. A total of 60 undergraduates were observed conducting their own research projects. Each was paid $50 for their time. Some sessions occurred in dorms, some over coffee.

Based on this research, Jane had these observations and recommendations:

Research almost always begins off site (i.e., outside of the library). Students want to research and write at the same time. Multitasking is easy for them.


They will not tolerate learning multiple user interfaces. Three interfaces are about the most they will accommodate. Google and the university course management system are the two essential interfaces for undergrads, which leaves little room for complex library interfaces. Course management systems and Google are the lingua franca among the majority of students.

Most library ILS's were created to support the print-focused library. We perpetuate that model with a lot of instructions for users to absorb: how to access reserves, how to search the database, etc. Just to begin a search of the ILS, the user has to make several decisions: which search field? what "heading type"? start of title or keyword?

We have too many rules just to get started. The appeal of Google is that this kind of decision-making is not required. The researchers in this study observed that most user searches are single term keywords.

Digital millennials (referred to as "screenagers" in another session) don't understand different formats, nor do they care. We still bifurcate our resources; monographs, journals, and databases are treated as separate categories. We spend time teaching users the difference between the OPAC and databases, and they don't care!

On our websites, we put databases here, journals over there, and the IR is yet someplace else. To provide the kind of rich experience our users expect, we need to think of Flat Stanley. Our new discovery systems need to be flat, with content treated equally. The web is the platform through which we find content, regardless of format.

Commercial products -- Primo, Endeca, AquaBrowser, Encore, and WorldCat Local -- all treat content in a flat way (i.e., search across all formats). All use faceting and guide the user through the refinement process.

Content + Community + Technology = Discovery

We need search and discovery systems that behave the way users behave. Federated search is a good start, but we're bogged down with different metadata schemes in different resources, and speed is compromised. The good news is that publishers get it now; they understand why XML and connector technology is important (easier access drives usage), so we will see improvements here.

Jane emphatically urged the audience to give up bibliographic instruction. Our users already know how to search. The library message should emphasize the value of the content in the library, not how to search. "We have better information" is the message we need to get out there. Demonstrate the value of the expensive content that the library makes available just for its users.

Give print only the percentage of time it earns by circulation. Flip the mental switch (away from print). It will lead to the right behaviors and expectations.


The Toledo Lucas County website and discovery service was mentioned as a great example: a simple search box is prominent on the home page. Aquabrowser provides faceted search results, and the graphics and layout guide the user through the refinement process.

Change requires change. Librarians must sell their value – blatantly – to users.