2008
DOI: 10.5860/rusq.47n4.342
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Why Isn’t Our Chat Reference Used More?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…10 Naylor used focus groups to explore why their service was so lightly used. 11 This suggests that transcript analysis, is only one dimension of examining how this service is used.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10 Naylor used focus groups to explore why their service was so lightly used. 11 This suggests that transcript analysis, is only one dimension of examining how this service is used.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…“Cyber Synergy”, funded by the Institute for Museum and Library Services, OCLC, and Rutgers University, investigated ways to better utilize librarians' subject expertise via online collaboration, which can be enabled through technologies such as live chat and microblogging. In addition, this project seeks to improve and promote VRS that are frequently underused (see Naylor, Stoffel, & Van Der Laan, ) by exploring the possibility that potential users and experts could be discovered through SQA, which could open pathways to enhanced visibility as well as a more sustainable and vibrant future for VRS.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…94 Focus group responses from Naylor et al and from Connaway et al, provide some reasons for not using chat reference, including: associating IM technology with social interaction, not academic work; an uneasiness about not knowing who they were chatting with, being turned off by the term "chat" because they associate it with their perception of chat rooms; a preference to search independently for information; doubts about the speed, convenience, accuracy, and capability of the service and the librarians providing the service; privacy concerns; and prefer face-to-face interactions. 95 Yet, Cummings et al reported that 72 percent (n = 364) respondents said they would be willing to use chat service, and 35.6 percent (n = 264) of Johnson' s respondents felt that chat reference would be a leading service in the future. 96 Some of the focus group participants in Naylor' s et al study showed enthusiasm for using chat when the service was demonstrated to them, in particular the personalized service.…”
Section: A Mission Objectives Statement Of Purposementioning
confidence: 99%
“…96 Some of the focus group participants in Naylor' s et al study showed enthusiasm for using chat when the service was demonstrated to them, in particular the personalized service. 97 Focus group participants in Connaway' s et al, study reported a willingness to use chat if it were recommended by a trusted librarian, colleague of friend. 98 Added to that, two other studies report upward trending data on chat reference.…”
Section: A Mission Objectives Statement Of Purposementioning
confidence: 99%