Formality in Chat Reference: Perceptions of 17- to 25-Year-Old University Students

Objective – To examine the ways in which the formality of language used by librarians affects 17- to 25-year-old university students’ perceptions of synchronous virtual reference interactions (chat reference), in particular, perceptions of answer accuracy, interpersonal connection, competency, professionalism, and overall satisfaction. Methods – This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to examine the perceptions of participants. Participants reviewed and responded to two virtual reference transcripts, portraying a librarian and student asking a simple question. One transcript portrayed a librarian using traditional, formal language while the other portrayed a librarian using informal language. Five 17- to 25-year-old university students were interviewed. Data were analyzed using a phenomenological, qualitative approach to discover common themes. Results – Analysis suggests that participants perceived the formal librarian as being “robotic” and impersonal while the informal librarian was thought to be more invested in the reference interaction. Several participants viewed the formal librarian as more competent and trustworthy and questioned the effort put forth by the informal librarian, who was perceived as young and inexperienced. Participants’ perceptions of professionalism were based on expectations of social distance and formality. Satisfaction was based on content and relational factors. Several participants preferred the formal interaction based on perceptions of competency, while others preferred the informal librarian due to perceived interpersonal connection. Conclusion – Formality plays a key role in altering the perceptions of 17- to 25-year-olds when viewing virtual reference interaction transcripts. Both language styles had advantages and disadvantages, suggesting that librarians should become cognizant of manipulating their language to encourage user satisfaction.

[1]  Erving Goffman,et al.  The Nature of Deference and Demeanor , 1956 .

[2]  Jody Condit Fagan,et al.  Communication Strategies for Instant Messaging and Chat Reference Services , 2002 .

[3]  Sung-Jin Kim,et al.  Collaborative interaction behaviors in an information technology problem-solving context: cognitive movements of the helper and the helped , 2005, J. Inf. Sci..

[4]  Lynn Silipigni Connaway,et al.  Virtual Reference Service Quality: Critical Components for Adults and the Net-Generation , 2010 .

[5]  Marilyn Domas White,et al.  Evaluation of Chat Reference Service Quality: Pilot Study , 2003, D Lib Mag..

[6]  Jung-ran Park Interpersonal and Affective Communication in Synchronous Online Discourse1 , 2007, The Library Quarterly.

[7]  Kirsti Nilsen,et al.  The Library Visit Study: user experiences at the virtual reference desk , 2003, Inf. Res..

[8]  A. Forde Evolutionary Theory of Mate Selection and Partners of Trans People: A Qualitative Study Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis , 2011 .

[9]  Lynn Westbrook,et al.  Chat reference communication patterns and implications: applying politeness theory , 2007, J. Documentation.

[10]  Sherri L. Jessmer,et al.  The effect of politeness and grammar on user perceptions of electronic mail. , 2001 .

[11]  T. Groenewald A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated , 2004 .

[12]  R. Daft,et al.  Information Richness. A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design , 1983 .

[13]  Van Houlson,et al.  A Window into Our Patron's Needs , 2007 .

[14]  Rosalie J. Ocker,et al.  Politeness theory and computer-mediated communication: a sociolinguistic approach to analyzing relational messages , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[15]  Nahyun Kwon,et al.  The Effects of Librarians' Behavioral Performance on User Satisfaction in Chat Reference Services , 2007 .

[16]  S. Kvale Interviews : an introduction to qualitative research interviewing , 1996 .

[17]  Jung-ran Park Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer-mediated communication, Part 1: A theoretical framework , 2008 .

[18]  I. Seidman Interviewing as qualitative research : a guide for researchersin education and the social sciences , 1991 .

[19]  Lorri Mon,et al.  The Thank You Study , 2007 .

[20]  James A. Holstein,et al.  Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method , 2001 .

[21]  Naomi S. Baron See you Online , 2004 .

[22]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[23]  Julie Neal K Arnold,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of a Chat Service , 2005 .

[24]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  The Impacts of Emoticons on Message Interpretation in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2001 .

[25]  Catherine Sheldrick Ross,et al.  Flying a light aircraft: reference service evaluation from a user's viewpoint. , 1994 .

[26]  Joan C. Durrance,et al.  Reference Success: Does the 55 Percent Rule Tell the Whole Story?. , 1989 .

[27]  Jack M. Maness A Linguistic Analysis of Chat Reference Conversations with 18–24 Year-Old College Students , 2008 .

[28]  Pascal Lupien,et al.  Learning from Chatting: How Our Virtual Reference Questions Are Giving Us Answers , 2010 .

[29]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Mind Your P ’ s and Q ’ s : When Politeness Helps and Hurts in Online Communities , 2008 .

[30]  Corey M. Johnson Online Chat Reference: Survey Results from Affiliates of Two Universities , 2004 .

[31]  Jung-ran Park Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer mediated communication, Part 2: An application of the theoretical framework , 2008 .

[32]  Justina O. Ohaeri,et al.  Why do electronic conversations seem less polite? the costs and benefits of hedging , 1999, WACC.

[33]  Christina Haas,et al.  Young People's Everyday Literacies: The Language Features of Instant Messaging , 2011 .

[34]  Karen Cloughley Digital reference services: how do the library‐based services compare with the expert services? , 2004 .