The document discusses findings from a local user research study conducted at Ohio University libraries in 2007-2008. Some key findings include: - Younger students owned more technology and were more likely to use emerging technologies like social networking sites, while older students used more established technologies. - Students reported high levels of technology ownership but varied use of emerging technologies by age. - The methodology included online surveys of thousands of students to understand their technology use, skills, and perceptions of the libraries. - Findings provided insights into students' familiarity with different technologies and how they used both physical and virtual library services. This helped identify needs and priorities to guide the libraries' services and approach to technology.

1. @charbooth
IL 2009 L O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C H UC Berkeley
* O b l i g a t o r y C l e v e r S u b t i t l e

2. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley

3. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley

4. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley
technolust

5. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley
us them

6. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley

7. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley
@ weelib ra rian

8. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley

9. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley

10. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley
@ wi llk urt

11. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley
@ wi llk urt

12. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley

13. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley

14. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley

15. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley
@ griffey

16. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley

17. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley

18. @charbooth
IL 2009
UC Berkeley

19. @charbooth
IL 2009 L O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C H UC Berkeley
* O b l i g a t o r y C l e v e r S u b t i t l e . . .

20. @charbooth
IL 2009 L O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C H UC Berkeley
T a k i n g t h e A s s o u t o f A s s u m p t i o n

21. @charbooth
IL 2009 L O C A L U S E R R E S E A R C H UC Berkeley
o r , P u t t i n g t h e A s s i n A s s e s s m e n t

22. the point.
* und ersta nding local patr on cultur es is essentia l
to cr ea ting used and useful (technolog y) ser vices.
envir onmenta l scan ning is a scalab le mea ns
of using data to test your notions of true/fa lse.*

23. the digital divide.
them us

24. them.

25. them.

26. us.

27. (them * us)/context = ?

28. the panacea.
LIBRARY 2.0
them us

29. the questions.
* did lib r ar y 2.0 and us/them think ing created a one-
size-fit s all app r oach to technology develop ment?
what motivates user s to integ ra te lib ra ries into
their per sonal lear ning envir onments ?*

30. our context.
Oh ioLINK participan t
20, 00 0+ stude nts be ta-toleran t cultu re
ohio
university
libraries
large cen tr al fac ility sup er wh ite
24/ 5 in fo com mons

31. the 2.0 “strategy”.
wikis
Meebo reference
browser toolbars
emerging Skype reference
services
video kiosks
social site profiles
podcasts
blogs

32. the (staff) problem.
= normal
wikis
= benign
Meebo reference = risqué
= scary
browser toolbars
emerging skype reference
services
video kiosks
social site profiles
text reference
podcasts
Second Life
blogs
video blogs

33. the (user) problem.
Meebo reference
Second… Life
video kiosks?
blogs
text reference
skype reference browser toolbars
social site profiles
video blogs
“wikis” …podcasts

34. the (user) problem.
Meebo reference
Second… Life
video kiosks?
blogs
text reference
skype reference
technolust browser toolbars
social site profiles
video blogs
“wikis” …podcasts

35. the solution.
* investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
need s/cultures of Ohio University students.

36. the solution.
* investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
need s/cultures of Ohio University students.
env ir o nm e nt al sc a n
evaluate needs
prioritize goals
challenge assumptions
understand users

37. the solution.
* investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
need s/cultures of Ohio University students.
env ir o nm e nt al sc a n
use adoption use perceptions
technology library
skills ownership skills receptivity

38. the methodology.
* investigate the actual technolog y and libr ar y
need s/cultures of Ohio University students.
env ir o nm e nt al sc a n
Survey 1 Survey 2
time f ra m e Wi nt e r Q ua r t e r 2 0 0 7- 8 Sp ri n g Q u ar t er 2 0 0 8
55 o n l in e q ues t i on s , mo s tl y
22 o n l in e q ues t i on s , m ul t i pl e
desi g n clos ed - f or m ( Li ke r t s c al e , m ul t .
choi c e a nd o p en r es po ns e
choi c e )
scop e te ch n o l og y a nd l i br a r y u s e lib r ar y us e a nd p er c e pt i on s
3,648 r es po n d ent s (1 8% o f 1,651 r es po n d ent s (8 % o f
samp l e
st ude nt bo d y ) st ude n t bo d y )
ince n ti v e 3 $100 p ri zes a w ar d ed 1 $100 p ri ze aw ar de d
prom o ti o n all- s tu d en t e ma i l , l i b r ar y b l o g all- s tu d en t e ma i l , l i b r ar y b l o g
anal y si s de s c ri pt i ve s , c ro ss ta b s cod ed v er ab a ti m r es po ns e s

39. findings | student technology ownership

40. findings | use of emerging technologies by age
age of respondent
1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 31+
w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%
s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%
blogs 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%
w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3%
p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1%
t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1%
wikis 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8%
f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%
m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%
f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%
y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%
t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%
d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%

41. findings | use of emerging technologies by age
age of respondent
1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 31+
w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%
*
s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%
blogs 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%
w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3%
* p o d c as t s
t e x t in g
2 9%
8 9%
2 9%
8 5%
3 5%
6 7%
3 7%
5 8%
4 1%
5 1%
*
wikis 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8%
f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%
m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%
*
f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%
y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%
t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%
*
d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%

42. findings | use of emerging technologies by age
age of respondent
1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 31+
w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%
s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%
blogs 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%
* w e b - b a s ed i m
p o d c as t s
7 1%
2 9%
6 6%
2 9%
5 9%
3 5%
5 4%
3 7%
4 3%
4 1%
* t e x t in g
wikis
8 9%
6 5%
8 5%
7 1%
6 7%
7 4%
5 8%
7 3%
5 1%
7 8%
f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%
* m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%
f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%
*
y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%
t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%
d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%

43. findings | use of emerging technologies by age
age of respondent
1 7- 1 9 2 0- 2 2 2 3- 2 6 2 7- 3 0 31+
w e b c a l li n g 1 6% 1 8% 3 1% 4 0% 3 3%
s e c o nd l i f e 5% 8% 1 2% 1 0% 1 0%
blogs 1 5% 1 6% 2 3% 2 7% 2 0%
w e b - b a s ed i m 7 1% 6 6% 5 9% 5 4% 4 3%
p o d c as t s 2 9% 2 9% 3 5% 3 7% 4 1%
t e x t in g 8 9% 8 5% 6 7% 5 8% 5 1%
wikis 6 5% 7 1% 7 4% 7 3% 7 8%
f a c e bo o k 9 4% 9 2% 7 6% 5 6% 3 5%
m y s p ac e 4 0% 3 6% 3 6% 3 4% 1 9%
f l i c kr 3% 4% 5% 1 4% 8%
y o u t ub e 6 7% 6 3% 4 8% 3 4% 2 5%
*
t w i t te r .3% .2% .7% 0% .5%
d e l i ci o us .6% .8% 2% 2% 3%

44. findings | relative technology unfamiliarity

45. findings | in-person and virtual library use
library web visits
library computer use library visits

46. findings | open-ended library assessment

47. findings | library technology receptivity

48. findings | library technology receptivity
Digital Status Academic Status
n a t i ve i m m i gr a nt u n d e rg r ad u a t e g r a d ua t e
Very r e ce p t i ve 23% 42% 23% 33%
S o m e wh a t r e c ep t iv e 53% 47% 53% 45%
N o t r e c ep t i v e 24% 11% 24% 22%

49. findings | library predisposition
Digital Status Academic Status
n a t i ve i m m i gr a nt u n d e rg r ad u a t e g r a d ua t e
* Very r e ce p t i ve
S o m e wh a t r e c ep t iv e
23%
53%
42%
47%
23%
53%
33%
45%
* N o t r e c ep t i v e 24% 11% 24% 22%
*
*
*

50. the discovery.
* generat ional assump ti ons
li brary pred isposit ion

51. local user research.
redefining
them us

52. the report + sample survey instrument.
ti nyurl.com/i i-b ooth

53. the end.
* cha r boot h | @charb ooth
e-l ea rning li brarian | uc berk eley
cboot h@li brary .berkeley .edu
bl og: infomat ional.com