Hurry! Hurry! R u dum? *#%@!: Virtual Reference Desk Conference

Hurry!  Hurry!  R u dum? *#%@!: Virtual Reference Desk Conference
Sarah Naper and Jack Maness

Introduction to Study
Naper and Maness discussed the AskColorado online reference service (web-based chat).  Half of their usage is K-12.  The service is staffed by public, academic, school, and special libraries.  They review transcripts regularly, and through that process they identified transcripts that contained inappropriate behavior.  Before conducting their own study, they looked at literature about problem patrons and reviewed similar studies done in other states (a Q&ANJ study from June of 2002 and an AskUsNow study from March of 2004).  Several themes they found in their literature review:
1. the nature of inappropriate behavior might change, but it has always been a concern for libraries
2. some researchers suggest an increase in inappropriate behaviors, but there is no firm research that supports these suggestions
3. inappropriate behavior is difficult to define
4. there have been very limited studies of inappropriate behavior in a digital environment
5. youth have always been a focus in terms of inappropriate behavior

Methodology
They examined transcripts from one October week in 2 consecutive years.  The categories of inappropriate use (offensive, rude, goofing around) were defined:
1. Goofing around = Patron does not have a question or reference transaction; often is just messing around with the software or typing nonsense characters; asking tangential questions
2. Rude = Patron uses mean phrases or language, is impatient, demanding, and/or disparaging to the librarian…no offensive language though
3. Offensive = Patron uses inappropriate languages, phrases such as swear words and sexual references

Naper cautioned the audience to clearly define offensive, as there is much discrepancy between what people considers offensive.

Seven members of the service categorized almost 900 transcripts from 2004 and 500 from 2003.  The coordinator and co-chairs reviewed all transcripts and standardized criteria.

Expectations of what they’d find
1. They thought they’d find similar patterns to previous studies
2. They didn’t know if there would be a change from year to year, but if there was they expected it to decrease
3. They expected a high proportion of K-12 and classroom questions

Results
It was hard to define what was inappropriate and to make things fit into their categories.  The two levels of analysis they used were important to maintain consistency and minimize subjectivity.  93.5% of the class they received were appropriate and 6.5% were inappropriate.  Within the inappropriate interactions, 2.56% were goofing around, 3.07 were rude, and 0.88% were offensive.  [To me, this actually seems a bit higher than what I’ve experienced myself.]  The number of inappropriate sessions decreased from 2003 to 2004.  63% of inappropriate users self-identified as K-12.  Maness said that this was lower than they thought it would be.  They also found that 73% of all inappropriate transactions began with legitimate questions.  [I think this is important to note, and it backs up what I’ve observed anecdotally through my own staffing of different online reference services.  Sessions often begin with seemingly real questions and degenerate into name-calling, impatience, and the user getting bored.  But if they’re asking questions like “who r u?” it’s probably because they really want to know, and it’s a good opportunity to connect with the user…]