Filed under: Virtual Reference
The Librarian In Black (totally stole my name LOL) has a great blog entry on convincing your IT staff to allow IM into the library. It’s a shame that some libraries have to fight against this kind of thing just to be able to serve their customers better. My biggest problem with this issue is that, even if IM is such a security threat, there is never any attempt from the library IT world to solve the problem themselves. There is so much technology in libraries… the industry really supports all sorts of business: database creators, publishers, resource providers, authors, research and academia… and there a hundreds and thousands of libraries and library systems in the world. Why is it not possible for some of us to get together and create our own IM client that hooks up with all the other IM systems and that suits all our needs? And that’s goes for so many of our other tools as well. We have to put up with so many “almost good enough” systems and even more “really crappy but nothing else is better” products. We really need to start making our own. Are you with me? Ok, who can program?
Filed under: The Role of Reference
The phrase “reference service” is not used much outside of libraries. In fact, sometimes it’s not even known outside of libraries. The closest that Answers.com (which searches a collection of online dictionaries and encyclopedias) is in the results for “reference work” in which the entry from Wikipedia at the time makes the aside, “Reference work may also refer to the work that librarians perform at a library reference desk.” You have to go on to the entry for “library reference desk” to get any information about what goes on there.
Within libraries, it’s used almost without exception. Pretty much every library provides this service, but as for what that service includes, it varies widely, from involving only being available for simple questions about the libraries resources and services to lumping almost everything in the library that’s not “nailed down” such as information literacy, literature searching, marketing and promotion, creation of guides and tutorials, et cetera, with the standard question answering and research support somewhere in the middle.
The National Criminal Justice Reference Service uses it rather well. It’s not clear if there are qualified librarians behind the operation from the web site, but it does claim to be a “resource offering… information to support research, policy, and program development”. If there are librarians working there, it’s odd that they then use the term “library”, not as the name of the group providing the service but in a very narrow and common way, as the collection of resources available to and through this Reference Service and the services directly connected to the collection (e.g. donations, ILL, new purchases, etc.). The phrase is used similarly by Reference Service Press.
And sometimes it’s used to describe search engines or other online reference sites, for example Cichlid Press Reference Service or Gale Group Marketing & Advertising Reference Service.
The definition of a “reference transaction” used by the Reference and User Services Association is rather broad but for the final few words: “An information contact that involves the use, recommendation, interpretation, or instruction in the use of one or more information sources, or knowledge of such sources, by a member of the reference or information staff.” (italics added by me) This is rather broad in terms of what is actually going on, allowing such things as the use of a database or search engine by the user to be a reference transaction, except that at the end, it says it much be used, recommended, interpreted, or instructed about by specific a library staff member.
This is a fine definition for “standard” use (it was taken from the American National Standard for Library and Information Statistics (ANSI Z39-1983)) but it leaves reference service, a vital and central part of any library, hanging on why people must be included in the definition. Shouldn’t it be understood by the actions in the definition alone, that people need to do it, that a simple, somewhat organized pile of data wouldn’t cut it? At the very least, there should be something in the definition that mentions the effort taken to ensure communication and comprehension on the part of the “transactee”. When I’m at the desk, I’m not simply using, recommending, interpreting, or instructing someone in the use of “sources or knowledge of sources”. I’m entering into a conversation with the person at the other side of the desk/telephone/email/IM/etc. Before I ever get to any source of information or even knowledge of such sources, I’m trying to understand what the patron is asking for.
Just today, a person approached the desk asking if he could “use the projector screen in the study room”. At that moment, one of the non-librarians was standing such that she was the first person to whom the question was addressed. She was somewhat bewildered by the question, but being accustomed to patrons not asking questions in the “right way”, I immediately took over, asking questions and interpreting her responses to find out that she really wanted to know if there were projectors available to use. Not a huge jump of reasoning, but it’s a good (and common) example of how providing reference services is more than the above definition.
Filed under: Alternative Reference, Paraprofessionals, Reference Librarians, The Desk, The Role of Reference, Virtual Reference
“Are Reference Desks Dying Out?” An article from the Chronicle of Higher Education dated 20 April 2007. What a great opener to this blog about reference service. It speaks of virtual reference and other Web 2.0 concepts, perceptions of, need for, and the role of reference librarians, the desk itself, the role of reference services within the library, the use of paraprofessionals, the reference interview, and the librarian’s view of his/her own place. These ideas are dealt with in a rather summary fashion, not having pages and pages to go into detail on all of them, but certainly a great awareness piece to some of the major issues in reference librarianship, for both librarians and non-librarians. Let me state my understand and a few of my opinions on these various topics:
- Virtual Reference and Web 2.0
The article starts off describing an example of reference work that one of the librarians at the University of California experiences: getting text message reference questions on her cellphone while at a conference. Very 2.0 indeed. What an excellent image of technology working well and allowing the librarian work well too. I have always thought that libraries, if not always the first on the bandwagon behind a new technology, frequently are, and really should be. We are intelligent professionals in an inherently technology-dependent field — we can and should try to exploit every tool that we can find to improve and expand our abilities. Virtual reference and all these other new social/communication tools that are sprouting up everywhere are exactly the kinds of tools that can fit into our business. What is reference service if it is not social and communicative? But we have to remember too that all the tools of the past are techy solutions to many of our problems and may still be required to do our job efficiently and effectively. When implementing virtual reference it can often be added to face to face (f2f), telephone, email, regular mail, or other ways we have invited our users to come to us. It’s not an either-or situation. - The Reference Librarian
There are many questions and issues swirling around us librarians at that desk: How do others view us? How should they? Why do they need us? Do they need us? Which ones need us the most? Where do we belong? What do we do? What should we do? What shouldn’t we do? Just as with all librarians, there are problems with the image of the reference librarian, perhaps more or less so, since we are out there sitting in the middle of it all, under the gaze of any who set foot inside our walls. (I’m not going to talk much about perceptions about librarianship here, unless they deal directly with reference librarians and reference service. Please check out my other blog Buns & Shushings for coverage of perceptions.) The reference librarian’s role and usefulness is a very interesting subject to get into, being both straightforward and complex, attacked and valued, narrow and all-encompassing, overlooked and unachieved, depending on the time, the environment, the audience and the point of view. We are the center of the library, in my mind but we have a lot of work to do too. - The Desk
Sometimes an island in shark-infested waters, and sometimes a safe haven protecting one from too much, the reference desk is often a classic icon of librarianship. To do away with it seems both sacrilegious and tempting. I don’t believe it’s lost it’s value, but it is true that we need to break the chains that bind us to it conceptually. I think that we don’t use it to it’s full potential, and that we can also very often bring it with us, in a metaphorical sense. - Reference Services
The practice itself. What do we mean by it? What does it encompass? Where does reference services stop and the other parts of the library begin, such as information literacy? Or is it separate at all? I’m tempted to give simple one word descriptions of the idea — helping, answering, searching, teaching, etc. — but I think it’s more than any of them alone, or even the combination of them. And when do we get to discussing the theory, the framework, the goals, the ideals of reference services? Too often we just sit at the desk letting the service operate through us like we’re channeling the spirit of reference when we should be taking the wheel. - Paraprofessionals
I don’t know about you but the idea of letting non-librarians sit at the reference desk or even be the primary guide, funneling the users to the desk sends shivers up my spine. Is it real professional concern about the quality of the resulting service, or am I just afraid for my job? What are the pros and cons of taking us off the front lines and sending the amateurs (?) in first? - The Reference Interview
The art of “gentle prodding” and discovery and guidanc of the customer by the librarian, not to the answer, but to the question first and foremost. Are we really doing something special here? I think so. But we really should be trained and learning more about teaching skills, communication skills, and psychology to really push the envelope of “interviewing” the searcher. - Self-perceptions
It all comes back to how we feel about our own abilities, image, role, responsibilities, necessity, requirements and tools. Although apparently improving, librarians tend to have a lot of issues concerning their own view of the field they are in. Oh, you may hide it well under a protective shield of bravado, enthusiasm, and professionalism, but we are constantly being questioned (and not in a good, this-is-my-job way! LOL), doubted, threatened, and ignored, by others and by ourselves, with new technology, new laws, and old prejudices. It’s not fun and it’s not good for our health. LOL
I started this blog because I was interested in the topic and thought there really wasn’t enough discussion of the part of librarianship. I’m now starting to think that I’ve bitten off more than I can… look up. But it’s too late now, isn’t it? Here we go…
