Undergraduate students in particular are a difficult group to convince regarding the importance of selecting the best tools to find the best information, rather than simply searching in Google, Google Scholar, Wikipedia, and similar tools every time. The majority have come straight from high school level work and expectations, most barely even knowing that sources beyond websites and books even exist, much less what they are and how to use them. Increasingly, the war is not so much about preventing them from using the “wrong” resources but rather to help them understand that they should complement their arsenal with an academic article index/database or evidence based tool or statistics database. Just making them aware of the problems of using tools that are not quite up to date, comprehensive, or transparent in the big first step – perhaps a step that we don’t always manage to finish with everyone in our sessions.

And the tool designers don’t help us out very much, do they? Even the best databases and electronic resources can have major flaws in design and functionality. There are issues of simplicity of navigation, lack of important functions, barriers to use, security of private user information, the consistency or even the existence of subject descriptor application, etc.

But perhaps it’s not the vendors’ fault. Perhaps it’s not an issue of their lack of understanding, profit margin, or business model. Perhaps there is simply an inherent contradiction in the idea of a simple to use but also effective information tool. There is no free lunch. When you search for information as we humans create it, the better the search is, the more work must be done. We can make incredibly simple searches slightly more effective, but perhaps it will always be the case that effective searches of a sufficient degree (however we want to define that) requires more thought and preparation on the part of the searcher. Google’s a very simple interface but to do a good search even there requires some planning, understanding of the tool and the information to be found, and some work to put it all together. If this is true, then the work of librarians (and perhaps teachers and professors) to convince the masses that, sometimes, easier is not better or even good enough, will continue.

Here are some articles on the issue of teaching about the use of different types of resources:

• Chucking the Checklist: A Contextual Approach to Teaching Undergraduates Web-Site Evaluation. By: Meola, Marc. portal: Libraries & the Academy, Jul2004, Vol. 4 Issue 3, p331-344, 14p; (AN 13927184 in Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts)
• Digital Resource Use and Non-Use in the Humanities and Social Sciences Academic Settings is Multifaceted. By: Haglund, Lotta. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, Jul2007, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p101-103, 3p; (AN 26868566 in Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts)
• Undergraduate research in the public domain: the evaluation of non-academic sources online. By: Dahl, Candice. Reference Services Review, 2009, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p155-163, 9p; (AN 42009105 in Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts)
• Undergraduate Use of Government Information: What Citation Studies Tell us About Instruction Strategies. By: Brunvand, Amy; Pashkova-Balkenhol, Tatiana. portal: Libraries & the Academy, Apr2008, Vol. 8 Issue 2, p197-209, 13p, 4 charts; (AN 31790012 in Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts)
• Undergraduates Prefer Federated Searching to Searching Databases Individually. By: Gore, Genevieve. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, Oct2008, Vol. 3 Issue 3, p61-63, 3p; (AN 34831097 in Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts)

Classic miscommunication at the reference desk.

The Unshelved comic above illustrates a simple example of a problem reference librarians face regularly.  Even discounting homonyms and intentional plays on words and phrases, there is frequently some potential for difficulty between the patron’s information request transmission to the librarian’s reception.  There are issues of misunderstanding, perspective, ability to hear, accents, speech impediments, facility with the chosen common language, social considerations, emotional barriers, and even the presence or non-presence of other parties.  One basic issue is the requester’s understanding of what they themselves are requesting.

Too often, the person on the other side of the desk simply does not know what exactly they need from the librarian, a situation that inevitably results in an inability to phrase any spoken request well.  There are a few good signs that will alert the librarian to such a situation:  a needlessly broad request (“I need a book on war.”), a request that is impossible to satisfy (“I need a photo of Jesus.”), or a non-request (“I have a paper to write and I was thinking about something like diabetes.”).  Recognition of this problem can be made more difficult when the patron has a higher social status to protect as well as the communication skills to disguise his/her lack of clarity such as with faculty members or professionals in a given field.  It can result in a cloud of jargon and details that are too often not helpful for the librarian.

In answer to the title question, what we do first is usually:  ask questions in return.  Questions like “Are you presenting this information?”, “What do you mean by such-and-such?”, or “Is this for a history project?” can tease out a better context and therefore understanding of what the individual is looking for.  Also, we can provide the user with possibile strategies for solving the problem or some examples of information sources to help them understand a bit more of what’s out there so they can home in on something they can use. Do these work? Not perfectly, but they certainly improve the situation beyond an initial impossibility. It is not an easy process and tends to be managed haphazardly and without consistency.

What’s really needed is a more systematic and intentional method for handling these types of situations.  There seems to be little in the literature tackling this problem (e.g. Sumati Sharma’s “A systematic approach to handle reference queries” – citation & full text) and certainly less than that in library science education in general.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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?
6. 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.
7. 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…

This blog is intended to be a collection and discussion of reference service definitions, ideas, theories, aspects, practices and selected literature.  Please feel free to contribute, positively, negatively, or neutrally.