il 2006: Using Ethnographic Methods to Know your Users. Judi Briden, Katie Clark, Isabel Kaplan

I missed the first five minutes of this session so I didn’t get the background details, but from what I understood, the presenters were involved in a study to explore the way undergraduates complete their assignments, from the time they receive the assignment to the moment they hand it in. This was one of the best sessions I attended at the conference, probably because I haven’t read about any other research studies that follow the complete “life cycle” of an assignment from a library perspective and in the library literature (there’s probably all sorts of interesting stuff on the topic in the higher ed research literature, I just don’t get out from under the library literature enough).

The starting point of the research project was this question: what do undergrads really do when they write research papers? (not just when they’re in the library but during every step of the research process)

The team used a number of methods, including “retrospective interviews” where they asked students about papers they have recently completed and had the students “chart” their progress (from receiving the assignment to turning it in) on a poster. Interviews were video-recorded and transcribed. Some fascinating findings from the interviews:

• they found that very few students went to the optional library session (surprise!)
• very few students consulted a librarian – it wasn’t on the map for many of them (another surprise!)
• one student talked with her family a number of times before deciding on a paper topic. I found this fascinating in light of all the literature on millenials and their learning habits. I’ve read time & again about how millenials have closer relationships with their parents compared to previous generations, but I have never seen any research to support this claim (not that it isn’t out there, I just haven’t seen it. Back to that whole “not getting out from under the library literature” again.)

Another method the research team used was “mapping diaries” where students were asked to record where they went during an average day. These diaries included times and a sequence of events. The presenters recounted some of the data from these mapping diaries and confirmed, not surprisingly, that undergrads live by very unconventional schedules! Some observations from the mapping diary exercise:

• students are on the go all the time
• they do more than just attend class
• activities are interlaced throughout the day
• students eat meals at odd times, sometimes just snacking where they are
• they carry their belongings with them
• students use technology throughout the day and in multiple locations
• their days are a mix of activities so they need a mix of services and facilities
• there is no “average” day for a student: every day is different!

The questions that followed from these observations:

• what do students need for a day like this?
• how can the library best meet those needs?
• what makes a place attractive to students?

The research team went on to hold a “design workshop” to ask students to design the ideal library space. Some of the results were fascinating! Some of the things students asked for: windows that can open, long tables, bar stools, a place to eat with good snacks (!), meeting rooms with tables that can convert to smaller tables, a section with new books, books that are easy to find, a quiet but not silent space, semi-modern but not too weird looking (!!), a not-utilitarian space, a glassed-in super quiet silent study area, a place to be happy when you’re there, even if you’re studying (!!!), a computer lounge with wifi and nintendo, study rooms with sound proof walls, a display of old titles, mahogany shelves, sculptures, art, movies, video games on a big screen, no fluorescent lighting, a simple design with no distractions, a massage room (there’s an idea I can get behind), lots of ventilation, desk staffed by helpful people, plush carpet/big chairs/ottomans/couches for nappers. Sorry for the long list but having just undergone a building project at my library, I found ALL of these ideas thoroughly fascinating!

The team’s observations based on the design workshop results:

• students’ ideas were fanciful but practical (mostly)
• they want spaces that are flexible/convertible/convenient that can change to meet their changing needs (and I got the sense that this meant not just flexibility in the long term, but flexibility in the short term as well — like desks that can be converted depending on their needs)
• they want comfortable, ambient, pleasant spaces
• coffee and food ranked high!
• students want access to all the technology they need (including things like wifi & gaming)
• they want support – the term “helpful people” was mentioned more than once!
• they want resources: books, magazines, DVDs, etc.

When asked what kind of library website they would like, some of the answers they received included:

• a space to connect to people (chat/forums)
• links to professors’ sites
• a site that meets their course needs
• a calendar with due dates
• a site that includes entertainment

I have to admit, I practically fell off my chair in delight when I heard this wish list! With our resent preoccupation with providing 2.0 tools on our websites and “socializing” our libraries (which, as you probably know, I’m all for!), it’s just nice to continue to hear from students that these are some of the things they want too!

Another method the research team used was what they called “in search of the elusive undergrad” and involved two techniques: late-night interviews at the student centre (they put up a sign that promised free snacks (including Red Bull!) if they answered a few questions) and dorm room observations.

Observations from the student union interviews:

• most students most used library resources
• students had no problem finding materials
• many encountered problems when it came to organizing and writing their papers
• most were aware of the writing centre on campus
• most went to their professors for help, not to librarians. Why? Because librarians are not “specialists”.
• when asked if they thought to seek help from a librarian most responded that they didn’t need help finding books (oh my).
• the overriding perception? Librarians = help with print resources.

Observations from dorm interviews:

• students are messy! Rooms are littered with lots of technology and gaming equipment.
• students use print and paper too
• students are multitaskers: IM, listening to music, doing an assignment, playing 5 hands of a card game in the background! (the dorm room photographs the presenters used to illustrate this and other observations were awesome!)
• there is usually chaos in the dorm: music, cell phones, gaming, facebooking, lots of socializing, IMing, lots of people moving from room to room, very communal.
• there is not much book-reading going on!

The overall findings and implications of this research? Students are procrastinators, yes, but they don’t wait until the last minute to do their research (they just write their papers at the last minute!); they do use Google, but they don’t use the first 3 results of a Google search (which is what we often bemoan, isn’t it?); students are not afraid to approach the reference desk to ask for help, but they associate librarians with books and don’t know enough about all the ways we can help them; they do not distinguish between the staff who check out their books at circ and those who answer questions at the ref desk (we have serious PR work to do!).

This is really fascinating. I did a study of teachers’ use of resources (not just of library) for the teaching of history (in preparation of our building a history portal). It was part of my dissertation and i presented abstracts of it at the recent Internet Librarian. i wasn’t as thorough or detailed as the team’s work was above. You can see the slide show here http://www.internet-librarian.com/2006Presentations/B105_Tan.pps. Would love to see the results from this team’s work

Am I really the first to comment? This is exactly on target. I LOVE this report! Everything in it makes perfect sense and should already be obvious and known to anyone who ever encounters an undergraduate. It’s why I find so many of my colleagues’ library promotional efforts embarrassing, almost infantile. Among other things, it shows once again that even though many libraries provide everything these students are asking for – ten times over – they’re still unaware of it and still prefer getting things they ask for to being told what they need. It also bolsters my argument that student workers at reference desks do “professionals” a great disservice, just by being there. As far as I can tell, true though it is (as it must be), this “scientific,” anthropological study of a term paper’s life cycle is terribly lacking in scientific method, sufficient sampling, accurate observation and imaginative speculation. Like almost all “library research,” which has never served any practical purpose in the 28 years I’ve worked as a librarian. The best libraries and librarians are focused on real human behavior, individual needs and differences and flexibility. Something there is in librarians that loves to self-criticize. Do you know an academic librarian who thinks his or her library is doing a great job? Do you know more than 2 professors who actually teach their students what’s involved in thinking, researching, reading, filtering information? Do you know any administrtators who believe in anything besides giving patrons what they demand? Here’s an hypothesis I’d like to see tested: any undergraduate student can write an excellent (original) term paper without ever using the library. That is the 80,000-lb gorilla in the room. Long live information! Reading is so much more than textual healing.

Am I really the first to comment? This is exactly on target. I LOVE this report! Everything in it makes perfect sense and should already be obvious and known to anyone who ever encounters an undergraduate. It’s why I find so many of my colleagues’ library promotional efforts embarrassing, almost infantile. Among other things, it shows once again that even though many libraries provide everything these students are asking for – ten times over – students are still unaware of it and still prefer getting things they ask for to being told what they need. It also bolsters my argument that student workers at reference desks do “professionals” a great disservice, just by being there. As far as I can tell, true though it is (as it must be), this “scientific,” anthropological study of a term paper’s life cycle is terribly lacking in scientific method, sufficient sampling, accurate observation and imaginative speculation. Like almost all “library research,” which has never served any practical purpose in the 28 years I’ve worked as a librarian. The best libraries and librarians are focused on real human behavior, individual needs and differences, and on flexibility. Something there is in librarians that loves to self-criticize. Do you know an academic librarian who thinks his or her library is doing a great job? Do you know more than 2 professors who actually teach their students what’s involved in thinking, researching, reading, filtering information? Do you know any administrtators who believe in anything besides giving patrons what they demand? Here’s an hypothesis I’d like to see tested: any undergraduate student can write an excellent (original) term paper without ever using the library. That is the 80,000-lb gorilla in the room. Long live information! Reading is so much more than textual healing.