1 / 18

Digital Reference: What’s Happening…and What’s Not

Digital Reference: What’s Happening…and What’s Not. Joseph Janes Coordinator, MLIS Program The Information School of the University of Washington. What is “reference”?.

taini
Télécharger la présentation

Digital Reference: What’s Happening…and What’s Not

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Digital Reference: What’s Happening…and What’s Not Joseph Janes Coordinator, MLIS Program The Information School of the University of Washington

  2. What is “reference”? • “…readers in popular libraries need a great deal of assistance…this is particularly needed by persons unused to handling books or conducting investigations.” • Samuel Green Library Journal 1 (1876) • emphasis added

  3. How did reference evolve? • Green 1876: • people don’t know how to search • improve people, make them independent • Ryan 1996: • technological innovations as opportunity • policy, limitations, structure (what not to do) • communication with others

  4. features and aspects: the Web • “The Web as a Reference Tool: Comparisons with Traditional Sources” (w/Charles R. McClure), Public Libraries 38(1), 30-39, January/February 1999 • accuracy and speed of answers roughly comparable • Web: more sources used (3.56 v. 2.77) • attitudes: non-Web sources judged slightly more authoritative, of higher quality

  5. features and aspects: academic libraries • “Digital Reference Services in Academic Libraries” (w/David Carter and Patricia Memmott), in Reference and User Services Quarterly 39 (2), 145-150, Winter 1999 • 45% of ALs offering digital ref service • larger libraries more likely to • ½ linked from front page, mostly email/simple web form • policies: turnaround time, users, questions (each >.50) • public schools more likely to have a service, policy on questions; private schools more likely to have tech barrier

  6. features and aspects: public libraries • replication of academic library study in PLs • n = 352, stratified by population served, >10,000,  1 librarian • Web sites investigated March/April 2000 • 81% of PLs had Web sites (293) • of those, 64 had a service (12.8% weighted overall) • 56% directly linked from home page (44% not) • email/simple form most common, detailed form 25%; technology more sophisticated as size of community increases

  7. features and aspects: public libraries • lower incidence of policies • highest incidence in largest libraries (39%); lower in smaller (10%) • very few FAQ/FARQ pages (9), mostly policy • detailed form questions: where live, phone number, grade/age/level, need-by date, sources tried • also: where did you see this, company/institution, 1st time user?, library card #, branch

  8. features and aspects: public libraries • other things • if you need quicker help, call; genealogy is special (call, come in, regular mail only, go to historical society; confidentiality; how to get an email account • 2 forms exactly the same • policy on users: • community residents only, or questions about community/area/collections

  9. features and aspects: public libraries • names: diversity, jargon, inconsistency • 28 different titles at top of pages (most frequent Ask a/the Librarian) • 25 required 2 clicks to get to page, 18 different names on home pages (incl. “Feedback”, “Adult Services”, “Using the Library”) • 17: name in link is different than title of page sent to • 12: 3 different names

  10. experiences, opinions and attitudes • national survey of reference librarians • n = 1548 (cluster sample) • 5-page survey • 648 responses rec’d (RR = 42%) • preliminary results ONLY

  11. experiences, opinions and attitudes • ¾+ have used email for reference, ½ Web forms, very few other technologies (chat, MOO, video) • most likely to agree that digital technologies make reference: • more accessible, more interesting, more challenging, more fun • least likely to agree that digital technologies make reference: • cheaper, more difficult, more time consuming • very similar pattern of responses with “use of digital resources”

  12. experiences, opinions and attitudes • digital reference will best serve: • ready reference Qs • Qs from regular library users • Qs in popular culture • digital reference will most poorly serve: • research Qs • Qs from children • Qs of a personal/private nature

  13. experiences, opinions and attitudes • # of reference questions received is slightly decreasing (1/3 decreasing, ¼ staying same, ¼ increasing) • questions are getting harder (1/3 harder, 1/10 easier, ½ staying about the same) • Internet training: in current position (4/5), in degree program (3/10), in previous position (1/4) • attitudes change with experience

  14. thoughts & questions • 45% of ALs, 13% of PLs doing digital reference—should that be higher? • ½ not linked (hiding)—why? should they be? • bigger libraries have more services, more tech—resources are more important but not overwhelmingly • no FAQs—why not? • minimal interviews (25% of PLs detailed forms)—why not? • stop weaseling (time policies), confusing (name changes)

  15. themes • reaction of more stuff and greater use of stuff • reflection of setting, clientele, expectations, context • facilitation, empowerment, education of users • adoption of technology • librarians are ready (training, interesting/challenging/fun) • but don’t see panacea (no cheaper or quicker) • limitations, boundaries, policies – sticking in our toes • hiding, confusing, weaseling (yet accessibility 1st on survey) • fewer harder questions

  16. implications • maybe fewer harder questions is the answer • easier to ask questions, different kinds of questions (harder, “research” questions; ok (?) to have slower response times) • use technology as medium and tool • rethink the “reference transaction” as an ongoing process • partnerships with experts • break the boundaries of library as place yet maintain the values, heritage, knowledge there

  17. questions to ask things to think about • Why was this service developed? What were the motivations for developing it?  • Who answers the questions? How? What kinds of resources are or aren’t used? • How many staff are involved, and in what ways? • Is there a separate budget for this service? Do you know how much it costs? • Have you developed policies, limitations or restrictions on the service, the kinds of questions you’ll take, time to answer, etc.? • Have you developed guidelines for how to answer questions (how to phrase answers, formats for answering, etc.?) • How many questions did you expect to get when you started? How many are you really getting? • What kinds of questions do you get? (subject areas, in any way different from what you get at the desk or over the phone) • What kinds of users ask questions this way? (in any way different?) • What kinds of technologies do you use? Do you use any specialized software? • Are you answering questions any differently than you would on the desk or over the phone? Do you give a different level of service? • Do you evaluate the service or patron’s satisfaction with it?

  18. Green again (1876) • “there are few pleasures comparable to that of associating continually with curious and vigorous young minds, and of aiding them in realizing their ideals” • perhaps...the new model for reference is an old one, liberated by technology and grounded in tradition

More Related