A Window into Our Patron's Needs

Abstract

This article provides an analysis of transcripts of chat reference transactions. The data analyzed for this study were from 631 chat reference transcripts from the University of Minnesota Libraries-Twin Cities Campus collected from January to May for both 2003 and 2004. Specifically, the patrons' statuses, the length of sessions, the type of chat transactions, and the types of questions asked were examined. The findings determined that though a majority of patrons seeking assistance from the chat reference service were undergraduates (41%), graduate students used the service a surprising amount (28%). Overwhelmingly, most students needed assistance finding specific items or wanted to know how to find a resource. However, 17% of the undergraduates using this service were seeking in-depth reference assistance. The analysis has allowed for the transformation of chat reference services (including staffing and training) and also informs decisions about library services, Web sites, and collections.

Information-Seeking Behavior and Reference Medium Preferences

“…23 This is further illustrated in a study by Houlson, McCready, and Pfahl in which analysis of 631 chat transcripts across different academic library user groups revealed that "How to Find" questions were the main type of question being asked via online chat for undergraduates (24 percent, n = 24), graduate students (10 percent, n = 36), and staff (7 percent, n = 28). 24 Two other categories, however, stand out for each user group within this study. Undergraduates' second and third top categories were "Subject Specific" (in-depth questions about a particular research topic) (17 percent, n = 66) and "Do You Own" questions (5 percent, n = 20).…”

Virtual reference/query log pairs: a window onto user need

“…One solution to this problem has been to create dual‐level categorization schemes that allow for greater flexibility and generalization of user need. Both DeGroote et al (2005) and Houlson (2006) used two‐tiered approaches in defining queries, with a result that we see with greater transparency the schemes in operation. Though at a high level many of the results are similar to some of what we have seen – Houlson's (2006) most‐used “how to find” and “do you own” categories mirror Marsteller and Kibbee's findings that known item searches predominate – understanding that the known item is most likely to be a journal article gives a “window” into user needs and, as DeGroote et al (2005) points out, may point to a need for targeted “instructional programs … to address those areas that generate the most confusion” (p. 451).…”

“…A final refinement of this literature, has also come through the use of more sophisticated analysis tools to understand the data present in the transcripts. Houlson (2006) used a relational database to extract relationships between high‐ and low‐level queries, subject matter, and departmental affiliation. DeGroote et al (2005) used cross tabulation methods via SPSS to correlate user status, subject area, and general and specific question areas.…”