Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Radford, M.L."
  • × theme_ss:"Informationsdienstleistungen"
  1. Radford, M.L.: Approach or avoidance? : The role of nonverbal communication in the academic library user's decision to initiate a reference encounter (1998) 0.02 
    0.023258494 = product of:
  0.04651699 = sum of:
    0.04651699 = sum of:
      0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 3050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009076704 = score(doc=3050,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3050, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3050)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 3050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=3050,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3050, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3050)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a naturalistic study to examine the role of non verbal communication in academic libraries. Library users with information needs face the choice of trying to find the solution themselves or asking a librarian for assistance. This decision to approach or not approach a librarian and engage in interaction was studied through use of Mehrabian's immediacy metaphor. It was hypothesized that the non verbal behaviour of the librarian is related to the user's decision to approach. Data were collected through observation and interviews from 2 academic libraries: 1 college and 1 university. The investigator observed reference interactions for 37 hours, interviewing 155 users who approached 34 librarian volunteers during this observation period. Content analysis of data resulted in the identification of 5 categories indicated by users to have been critical in their choice to approach one librarian over another: initiation; availability; familiarity; proximity; and gender. Non verbal behaviours important in users' perceptions of approachability were identified. Eye contact was the most frequently mentioned behaviour that signalled to the user that the librarian was approachable
    Date
    22. 2.1999 19:39:57
    Type
    a
  2. Radford, M.L.: Communication theory applied to the reference encounter : an analysis of critical incidents (1996) 0.00 
    0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 6421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=6421,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 6421, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using the critical incident technique, identifies dimensions of interpersonal communication perceived to be integral to success or failure in academic refernece interactions. Such dimensions include attitude, relationship quality, information, knowledge base, and approachability. Demonstrates the value of applying communication theory to study of the reference interaction. Argues for a new model of the librarian user reference interaction that recognizes the vital imprtance of relational messages
    Type
    a
  3. Radford, M.L.: Encountering virtual users : a qualitative investigation of interpersonal communication in chat reference (2006) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 5110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=5110,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 5110, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5110)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Synchronous chat reference services have emerged as viable alternatives to the traditional face-to-face (FtF) library reference encounter. Research in virtual reference service (VRS) and client-librarian behavior is just beginning with a primary focus on task issues of accuracy and efficiency. This study is among the first to apply communication theory to an exploration of relational (socioemotional) aspects of VRS. It reports results from a pilot study that analyzed 44 transcripts nominated for the LSSI Samuel Swett Green Award (Library Systems and Services, Germantown, MD) for Exemplary Virtual Reference followed by an analysis of 245 randomly selected anonymous transcripts from Maryland AskUsNow! statewide chat reference service. Transcripts underwent in-depth qualitative content analysis. Results revealed that interpersonal skills important to FtF reference success are present (although modified) in VRS. These include techniques for rapport building, compensation for lack of nonverbal cues, strategies for relationship development, evidence of deference and respect, facesaving tactics, greeting and closing rituals. Results also identified interpersonal communication dynamics present in the chat reference environment, differences in client versus librarian patterns, and compensation strategies for lack of nonverbal communication.
    Type
    a
  4. Radford, M.L.; Connaway, L.S.; Mikitish, S.; Alpert, M.; Shah, C.; Cooke, N.A.: Shared values, new vision : collaboration and communities of practice in virtual reference and SQA (2017) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3352,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3352, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This investigation of new approaches to improving collaboration, user/librarian experiences, and sustainability for virtual reference services (VRS) reports findings from a grant project titled "Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability between Virtual Reference and Social Q&A Sites" (Radford, Connaway, & Shah, 2011-2014). In-depth telephone interviews with 50 VRS librarians included questions on collaboration, referral practices, and attitudes toward Social Question and Answer (SQA) services using the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954). The Community of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998; Davies, 2005) framework was found to be a useful conceptualization for understanding VRS professionals' approaches to their work. Findings indicate that participants usually refer questions from outside of their area of expertise to other librarians, but occasionally refer them to nonlibrarian experts. These referrals are made possible because participants believe that other VRS librarians are qualified and willing collaborators. Barriers to collaboration include not knowing appropriate librarians/experts for referral, inability to verify credentials, and perceived unwillingness to collaborate. Facilitators to collaboration include knowledge of appropriate collaborators who are qualified and willingness to refer. Answers from SQA services were perceived as less objective and authoritative, but participants were open to collaborating with nonlibrarian experts with confirmation of professional expertise or extensive knowledge.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years