Marcia Keyser compiled this discussion from the Dig-Ref listserv in December, 2002. It\’s a thread based on the Charleston Advisor article, Virtual Reference: Overrated, Inflated, and Not Even Real.
The article describes virtual reference as a bad bargain, slow, difficult to administor and says \”the service allows librarians to pander to readers’ addiction to the new world of 24/7\”.
You don’t have to read the article to understand the responses. The respondents quote from it enough to keep you reading. Click below to read more….
Marcia Keyser compiled this discussion from the Dig-Ref listserv in December, 2002. It\’s a thread based on the Charleston Advisor article, Virtual Reference: Overrated, Inflated, and Not Even Real.
The article describes virtual reference as a bad bargain, slow, difficult to administor and says \”the service allows librarians to pander to readers’ addiction to the new world of 24/7\”.
You don’t have to read the article to understand the responses. The respondents quote from it enough to keep you reading. Click below to read more….
>>"But
virtual online service modules can never equal the potency and effectiveness of
on-site, in-house, in-place, and wholly interactive traditional reference
practice."
This simply isn\’t true. That\’s what virtual reference has taught me. I have
distinctly mixed feelings about the headlong rush (much less throwing money
at!) to v-ref, but one sad, sorry, enormous lesson of it all has been: for
many, many patrons we\’ve made the process of supplicating at a desk and being
grilled (aka, the reference interview) so
excruciating that removed reference is a kinder, gentler way to get their
information. And if some of us think that F2F should/must survive, we\’d better
accept and think about who we\’ve alienated, even perhaps lost from the library.
It\’s why I\’ve often referred to v-ref as patron recovery..get back the people we scared off. (And from my
casual surveys this process starts early in the information life.)
On the other hand: opposition to v-ref seems a direct function of the degree to
which online practitioners and advocates condescend to their place-based
colleagues. I\’ve seen marketing screeds for v-ref trumpeting "now we can
do real reference." Which, yes, might make
those of us who do fake reference feel defensive, hmmmm?
It\’s all responding to human inquiry and need. We should get over the divide,
accept reference as multi-format delivery and cross-fertilize the various forms
of practice. It needs to be more about the librarian and the patron, less about
the mechanics of the exchange.
————————
Morris
County Library (NJ) http://www.gti.net/mocolib1/
Sara Weissman
Blythe,
David? re: points below .do you have in VRD files
there the recent thank you note from Burcu, the
Turkish student we worked with on Moliere/Tartuffe? (Can\’t find my copy.) This young man crosses
time/space/continents/oceans and language to work with us, electronically. It
hasn\’t required face to face to develop a
relationship.
>>In-person,
genuine real time reference involves moral and emotional elements that are
essentially unattainable through disembodied online interaction.
>>
Moreover, any reference librarian can attest to the relationships that develop
over time with students or readers who come back repeatedly to the
librarian/mentor who first provided the service and inspiration to tough out a
difficult research assignment. These relationships require face-to-face contact
in a given place.
And
if chat of 10 minutes (past which it ceases to be "chat") is
exceeding in person, in phone service? the in person
patron is getting short shrift.Why? Yes, it\’s
all about balancing ..what we refer to here simply as
different formats of service.
————————
Morris
County Library (NJ) http://www.gti.net/mocolib1/
Sara
Weissman
His
(the Turkish student’s) message was:
"Thank
you for your great knowledge about Tartuffe. You really enlightened me and I am
too glad when I took the mail. I do not want to use net because everybody uses
it so it is not important. I will manage to do all these assignments by myself
except your help. I appreciate your help to me, you spend your time and repy my questions Take great care
of yourself Thanks & regards Hope to hear you from you soon"
Blythe Allison Bennett, Virtual Reference Desk
Coordinator,
Information Institute of
_
While
I agree that it is important to read, hear, and think about the views aired in
the Charleston Advisor article, and while perhaps the hyperbolic tendencies of
the authors were deliberately employed because this is an opinion piece, I feel
like they made some
logically flawed overstatements.
They
take it as an assumption that
"Traditional
reference–face-to-face interaction and over-the-phone discussion–still
provides the best all around service to our patrons. "
They
do not offer any citation to support that claim. Later in the piece they
cite an article by Diekema and Caddell
to support their contention that the educative aspects of reference service
cannot be modeled through computer-mediated communication.
I
have not read that article, but a presentation I went to last year by Chris Dede, a professor in the Technology in Education division
of the Harvard Graduate School of Education offered research that suggests a
different conclusion. He has done research with students in his course,
"Learning Media that Bridge Distance and Time" where
the
class uses different modes of technology to communicate with each other throughout
the semester.
The
students are then asked to rate the media they found most efficient and
effective to maximize their learning in the course. Forty-three per cent of the
students rated face-to-face communication the highest, but 30 per cent rated asynchronous
learning networks
highest, making a valid argument, according to the researchers, for a
distributed learning model. (Dede,
Chris; Brown-L\’Bahy, Tara; Whitehouse, Pam.
"Designing and Studying Learning Experiences That Use Multiple Interactive
Media To Bridge Distance and Time."
March 2002. Available:
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/tbrownlb/T502/index.htm)
Click "Research Findings" to see the results and discussion about
student ratings of learning media.
I
also take exception to the claim that face-to-face provides the
"best" service when I think of the following situations:
-Library
user is hearing-impaired
-Library
user feels more comfortable writing than speaking in English
-Library
user is uncomfortable with the public reference desk environment
-Library
user is the type of learner who prefers to read instructions
on
how to do something rather than hear them.
April
Levy, Reference & Instruction Librarian,
Street
I
just took a break from staffing our Live Librarian service, to check my
e-mail. Right now, because of a major snow storm, the libraries in
virtual service is basically the only game in town.
Gotta go–someone just entered the site!–Edana
Edana McCaffery Cichanowicz,
Development Coordinator, Ref Svc & New Tech
627
Sunrise
As someone who has occasionally been accused of being a cheerleader for
virtual reference services… 🙂
Much
of this Op-Ed piece discusses how virtual reference will not replace
face-to-face and telephone reference, to which I say "So what else is
new?" I am hard-pressed to think of anyone who consistently goes around
predicting that virtual reference will replace other forms, "high-flown
rhetoric" or not. And if there is someone who takes that position, they
probably aren\’t taken very seriously by others. Virtual reference complements
other forms of reference. Some users prefer face-to-face. Some users prefer
telephone service. Some users prefer virtual reference. And an individual user
may
prefer different forms at different points in time, depending on the context
of his or her specific information need.
There
are some good general points in this Op-Ed piece that are worth further
discussion, but they are hardly revolutionary.
A
few random comments:
I
am not sure what the author means in the title when he says virtual reference
is "Not Even Real"??
The
author states "…almost all forms of digital reference are slow — slower
than telephone discussions, slower than one-on-one, face-to-face
interaction." Regarding face-to-face interaction I guess maybe
"slow" is in the eye of the beholder. From the perspective of the
user who has to make a trip to the library to get "face-to-face",
virtual reference may not seem quite so slow.
Also,
having to do with "slowness", the piece cites a couple of studies
that say that the "average digital reference transaction runs nearly ten
minutes," and then goes on to note that virtual reference sessions take
"considerably longer than other forms of reference." OK, it\’s been a
number of years since I\’ve been behind a reference desk, but if face-to-face
reference transactions take considerably less than ten minutes, what kind of
service is being provided?
Then
there are some inconsistencies that you think an editor would catch. The author
notes that "virtual reference fails our users," but later says
"the service has its value."
The
author concludes by saying "virtual online service modules can never equal
the potency and effectiveness of on-site, in-house, in-place and wholly
interactive traditional reference practice." Never say
never. As someone who has reviewed hundreds of virtual reference
transcripts, I have seen sessions that were potent and effective, and
undoubtedly better than some face-to-face transactions. One medium is not
ALWAYS better than the
other.
Finally, a general editorial thing that maybe only bothers me because I
want to add this piece to my digital reference services bibliography. In the table of contents
and at the beginning of the article one author is listed (Steve McKenzie),
while the "about the authors" blurb at the end lists two authors
(Steve McKenzie and Jonathan D. Lauer). I want to be able to give credit where
credit is due.
Bernie
Sloan
Greetings,
Well,
I hadn\’t really been following this thread, but I did happen to read Bill,
Sarah, Jodie and Marcia\’s posts today and I can\’t help but notice something.
Basically, in my distorted world view, I see two types of collaborative
reference services: the small, unsung heroes who have been doing virtual
reference for years and think we do a pretty darn good job,
and
the "big deal" services and consortia who just started recently and
act like they own the copyright on the concept of virtual, collaborative
service. To make matters worse, researchers and authors on VR only write case
studies on the big consortia and top research universities, since they get all
of the publicity and perpetuate the myth that only big, rich schools can
provide sophisticated, quality services.
Such
a myopic view of reference, in my view, distorts the true picture of the
quality of current practice, as these huge organizations have far too much
bureaucracy and baggage to really affect change quickly and effectively (got a
good idea, then form an exploratory committee, after first checking with the
committee on committees to see if there is already a similar committee, then
ask for permission to conduct a year-long study…then refer a recommendation
to yet another committee, yada, yada).
So, if you judge the
quality of collaborative reference on the basis of their example, then it\’s
easy for non-practitioners to get a one-sided view that virtual or
collaborative reference is slow, impersonal and ineffective.
The
collaborative service that I coordinate is small and regional. Sure, we can\’t
provide a stable of expert PhDs at
questions, but then, our students aren\’t asking those kinds of detailed
questions, nor any question for that matter that late.
On the other hand, we provide personalized service and spend our time with the
patron, not filling out a lot of forms with meta-data nor asking catalogers to
classify our questions, just so we can send questions about the Supreme Court
to a university in
our students, we can do more than merely refer graduate students to 4-5 good
web sites. Rather, we can send full-text or take the time to provide one-on-one
instruction. We currently collaborate with 14 universities and a public library
district; together, we answer their patrons\’ questions, and vice versa. But no
one does research on these local and regional services, only the 800-pound
gorillas with their multi-million dollar budgets and 24 hour coverage.
I\’m
hoping to write a paper soon applying the lessons that I\’ve learned from my
doctoral studies on distance education to the virtual reference world. In many
ways, the issues and controversies are exactly the same. Many articles in the
distance learning literature, for example, focus on the so-called "No
significant difference" debate. Where distance education research has
bogged down over the last several years has been in over-defending online learning
and computer-mediated communication (from the attacks of luddites
and traditional-minded nay-sayers) as merely
"just as good as" face-to-face
education. This to me is missing the point. The real task should be to convince
people that online learning can be even MORE effective…assuming it matches
the learning style of the learner (big caveat – just as virtual reference isn\’t
for everyone).
Much
of the research that I\’ve read over the last year or so goes to great length to
prove that a majority of students feel just as positive toward online learning
as traditional. True, it\’s not for everyone, but it\’s highly effective for
many, especially when compared to traditional classes where the instructor
lords over and lectures at students with no consideration for individual
student needs or learning styles. The research also shows that
instructors can compensate for the lack of physical immediacy with quality (and
quick) feedback, empowerment (i.e. allowing students to take responsibility for
their own learning objectives and assessment) and a sense of community.
Students can feel "close" to another without relying on body language
or other social cues.
Likewise,
I don\’t believe librarians must be able to see a student pick his nose or yawn
just to find the best answer to a written question. I\’ve never bought the
notion that a librarian must read body language to help a student, and the
distance education research supports this view (the exact term in distance
education literature is "transactional distance"). Not every patron
or student is the same. Everyone has different learning styles, so we shouldn\’t
try to force one way of doing reference on every student.
I
heartedly agree that many students simply don\’t want to go to a library, either
because they can\’t (physical barrier) or won\’t (dispositional or time barrier).
What the nay-sayers claim is that all students should
come to the library exclusively because that\’s the only way to guarantee good,
quality service. Many people want to judge virtual reference by the standards
of face-to-face reference, and this to me is a big mistake. Traditional
reference probably isn\’t a very good standard by which to assess the quality of
a virtual service, especially since VR follows an entirely different paradigm
of service. And let\’s face it, face-to-face reference isn\’t exactly always the
cat\’s meow for many patrons (do we really believe that all librarians, by
definition, give quality service all the time).
To
me, quality has more to do with attitude, dedication and motivation than with
name recognition, budget, and fancy software. If we truly care about quality,
then let\’s give some credit to the smaller services and individuals who focus
on satisfying patrons with limited resources, and not just the ARL libraries and
mega-consortia that spend millions on expensive software, round-the-clock
coverage and international clientele who won\’t get real content (i.e.
full-text) anyway.
Think
globally, but act locally (or regionally).
Cheers,
Larry
Schankman, Distance Learning/Remote Services
Librarian,
I
can\’t agree with Jody more. There is no better sign of success for a field than
an active debate and an engaged community.
Rather
than take a point by point discussion, let me simply say that I feel that data
shows conclusively that reference can be done effectively in the digital
environment. Likewise data indicates that reference can be conducted
effectively in a face-to-face environment. I think where data fails us, is in
finding the mix between resources and service options.
I
can\’t help, however, making some specific comments about
"hyperbolic," "overdrawn and wrongheaded" praise of digital
reference (follow the footnote and guess who is cited).
I
think few would argue that digital reference is one of a spectrum of reference
options. These include modes (phone, in-person, digital, correspondence),
personnel (librarians, paraprofessionals, subject matter experts, etc), and
levels of service ("answers," referrals, instruction). I think,
however, many might argue (hopefully respectfully debate) about:
"For
all of the hype about reaching out in extraordinary ways and in unusual times,
virtual reference fails our users. It doesn¹t meet their information needs efficiently,
and it doesn¹t deepen their research capacities"
Such
debates will no doubt focus on context…effective for whom
(people with no local library service for example)? Efficient
for whom (the student who can leave their question at 2 in the morning, or in a
quick e-mail where they can get the answer later)? Deepen who\’s research capability (a shy student unwilling to ask a
question in class or to a person behind a desk)?
Do
I think digital reference is over-hyped, or over-promised for some contexts?
Yes (my own writings and speeches are often meant to be motivational versus
"fully versed" – much like an Op-Ed piece). Do I think we know when
digital reference matters, and when face-to-face works better? No…though we are getting better, and frankly without this
answer I have a hard time discussing over or under promised.
I
think many would also take (as has been done) the statement "In-person,
genuine real time reference involves moral and emotional elements that are
essentially unattainable through disembodied online interaction.
I
draw from this article two lessons:
1.
Criticism (constructive) and debate is healthy, a sign of success (at least I
was cited!) and should be promoted. I would prefer that we have this debate in
the light of data and thoughtful examination of user needs and behaviors versus
the op-ed pages.
2.
One aim of digital reference (certainly a central theme of VRD) should be as a
means for reexamining all aspects of reference: the interview, the delivery
mode, the resources, the artifacts, the values, the ethics, the costs, the
training, the research. Isn\’t digital reference just
reference…yes, but as with all sub-disciplines it has unique challenges
and
views. If criticisms of digital reference are aimed at preserving the status
quo, that is as wrong as embracing digital reference as a means to reinvent
reference with no concern with what has been learned before.
The
central concept of reference is the provision of CONTEXT to a user. If context
(instruction, explanation, translation, match to information need) were not
needed (i.e., the resources and their organizations are equally relevant and
obvious in all uses) there would be no need for the reference librarian. Let us
not forget the role of context in evaluating the importance of digital
reference. I am as to blame for glossing over this
fact as anyone else – I\’ll do better.
Larry
Schankman
One
of the elements that I see missing in this discussion is the patron who is now
using librarians to help them in their information seeking that have never used
a physical library for this purpose. That patron may never have known
what resources are available at their local library or even that there is a
local library! It isn\’t only those previous patrons who no longer (we
think) come to the reference desk but a whole new patron base whom we have had
difficulty in reaching previously.
In addition, I see collaborative virtual reference services as an excellent
marketing tool for physical libraries and reference. While I may not be
able to give as much service online as at the desk (not everything is on the
Internet, after all), I can equip patrons with the knowledge of what resources
to ask for and where to ask them, reducing the fear factor that seems to
inhibit some of our face to face patrons. Librarians rarely switch
one
method of reference for another, we simply add it. While this creates
more work load to juggle and more skills to master for us, we have always been
up to the task, since our mission has always been to provide the best
combination of services to our patrons that we could muster.
These
opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of 24/7
Reference
or Metropolitan Cooperative Library Service (MCLS).
Susan
D. Barb, 24/7 Reference Staff Supervisor,
Susan
makes a very important point. We are reaching a new audience at UF. RefeXpress exit interviews from this past year reveal that
25% of the respondents have never used the library reference desk, or have
telephoned or e-mailed for library assistance. (BTW, 37% of RefeXpress users are undergraduates, followed by graduate
students at 32%).
But
many established users are chatting for assistance too. But many people
who come to our traditional reference desk also use live reference (51%).
Why? The convenience factor. We get lots
of responses to the question, "Why did you use RefeXpress?"
that mention the convenience. They are across campus, they didn\’t want to
drive in for help, and even the weather was bad.
I
think what I objected to most in the article was the prescriptive,
"librarian-centric" tone. "Let the users come to us,
on our terms." If the customer finds utility in chat or instant
messaging, then I\’m willing to work with them. And I\’ve created new relationships
using our live reference service. There are the repeat users who you get
to know, and the ones that you meet face to face after
chatting with them online. In our service, I\’ve noted that some users even wait
for their favorite librarian\’s shift for
help. To say that you can\’t create relationships online is naive, and
shows a misunderstanding of interpersonal dynamics online.
–Jana
Ronan, RefeXpress http://refexpress.uflib.ufl.edu
And
then there are those who are at a library location who are too shy to go over
to the reference desk and have a whole new world opened up upon discovering the
Live Help (Chat; whatever named) service where a librarian provides the
information needed and also encouragement to go to the desk for help (and do
so). And you know this because the person sent you a thank you note about the
experience and the 6 books s/he took out.
Similar
valuable experiences may take place for others who do not have computers at
home.
I
refer to this as a "symbiotic" relationship.
Carol
Anshien, NYPL Telephone Reference, Project Manager,
Ask Librarians Online
I\’m
late to this particular discussion but not to the general discussion. For the
past few years I\’ve tried to emphasize to anyone who will listen that
digital/online/virtual, live/real-time/synchronous/chat-based reference service
is simply a matter of meeting customers at yet another point of need. Live,
online reference (the most popularly used terminology) is yet another service
point, not to be utilized at the exclusion of other service points, but in
conjunction with them. It\’s really that simple.
Ronna C Nemer, Reference Librarian,
Recent Comments