Project funded by: Institute of Museum and Library Services

1. Meeting the Information Needs of College and University Users: Preliminary Results of a Two-Year, Multidisciplinary User Investigation NFAIS 47th Annual Conference Philadelphia, PA February 28, 2005 Lynn Silipigni Connaway, OCLC Chandra Prabha, OCLC Brenda Dervin, OSU

2. Project funded by: Institute of Museum and Library Services $ 480,543 grant to Ohio State University Ohio State University (OSU) $209,340 in kind contribution Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) $319,412 in kind contribution Sense-Making the information confluence: The whys and hows of college and university user satisficing of information needs

3. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE: PROJECT PHASES Project duration Calendar years, 2004 and 2005 Four phases: • Literature reviews and dialogue • Sense-making surveys: online & phone • Focus group interviews • Structured observations

4. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE: STUDY POPULATIONS 44 colleges and universities 100 mile radius from Columbus 400 informants 100 each Faculty Graduate students Undergraduate students netLibrary users Samples, stratified by Carnegie institutional class codes

5. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE Situation 1 • A troublesome situation you faced in the past six months that was involved with your university/college life in some way.

6. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE Situation 2 • A situation that specifically involved research or scholarship such as • writing a paper, • preparing for class, • writing a proposal, • developing an understanding, or • executing something you created.

7. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE: USER PERSPECTIVE Situation 3 • A troublesome situation you faced in the past six months that involved your life outside the university/college in some way.

8. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE: USER PERSPECTIVE Situation 4 • A situation in your university/college life where you turned for most of your input to electronic resources, such as the web or e-mail.

9. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE: USER PERSPECTIVE Situation 5 • A situation in your life outside the university/college where you turned to electronic resources (web, e-mail, etc.) for most of your input.

10. Input from librarians

11. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE: PROJECT DIALOGUES AND LIBRARIAN SURVEYS • Local Advisory Committee • National Advisory Committee • OCLC Members’ Council • OCLC Board of Trustees

12. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE: FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS • Library director or representative from each of the 44 academic institutions • Library director or representative from geographically contingent public libraries • 79 were invited • 31 participated

13. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE: ONLINE SURVEY OF LIBRARIANS • OCLC Members Council and Board of Trustees • 126 online surveys distributed • 34 responses = 27% response rate

14. Common Threads in Librarian Responses

15. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE Information needed for development of user-centered services and collections • Who are the users? • Where are they getting their information? • Why don’t users think of the library first?

16. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE Biggest challenges of the advance of electronic information systems • Too much information, too many choices • Not knowing users’ expectations and needs • Off-site users

17. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE Biggest challenges (continued) • Non-standard search interfaces • User training • Designing systems for users – not librarians • Competing with Google, Amazon, Ask Jeeves…

18. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE Differences between how practitioners and researchers look at users • Researchers ask why questions • Practitioners are interested in how questions • Researchers see users in abstract • Practitioners see users in real-time • Pursue collaborative research • Make practitioners an integral part of research

19. SENSE-MAKINGTHE INFORMATION CONFLUENCE Differences (continued) • Overwhelming affirmative response • Theory vs. practice • “Ivory tower” vs. “real world” • Researchers’ general approach vs. practitioners’ individualized approach • Researchers – “unreality paint”

20. What have we missed? What else should be considered?

21. END NOTES Cite this presentation as:Connaway, Lynn Silipigni; Prabha, Chandra, & Dervin, Brenda (2005). Satisfying the information needs of the college and university user: Preliminary Results of a two-year, multidisciplinary user investigation. PowerPoint presentation at NFAIS 47th Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA, February 28. This presentation is one of the outcomes from the project “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 Resources, Ohio State University, and the Online Computer Library Center, the project is being implemented by Brenda Dervin (Professor of Communication and Joan N. Huber Fellow of Social & Behavioral Science, Ohio State University) as Principal Investigator; and Lynn Silipigni Connaway (OCLC Consulting Research Scientist III) and Chandra Prabha (OCLC Senior Research Scientist), as Co-Investigators. More information can be obtained at: http://imlsosuoclcproject.jcomm.ohio-state.edu/