ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

The future of reference service: A response

By Larayne Dallas Engineering Reference Librarian University of Texas at Austin

For a reference librarian a natural corollary to the question, “What is the future of reference service?” is “What is the future of reference librarians?” With so much change in our recent pasts and with everyone expecting much more of the same, we justifiably wonder what will happen to us. My answer is that, at least for the intermediate future, reference librarians—and a need for them—will continue.

When considering research libraries and the future, despite the difficulty of predicting what will come, at least one possible scenario comes easily to mind. That is the vision of former library users working at their computer work stations, able to retrieve what they need from that location, and not having to go near a library. This is not a scenario that bodes particularly well for librarians, but I have to wonder about the likelihood of this vision coming true very soon.

For one thing, I have trouble seeing the producers of the various computer files getting together to offer their information compatibly. Only a few years ago the Wilson Company decided to go its own way in making available the computer- database version of its indexes. They did this instead of making it easier for us by offering the files through BRS or DIALOG. Also, what about the limitations of current computer equipment, and the interest of users in seeing graphics and advertisements?

Additionally, there is the question of money. Much concern has been expressed in recent years about the future and equal access to information. Usually we think of this concern as it relates to the poor, but it will be a problem extending to the middle class. Will students or even researchers be able to afford to subscribe to all the services they may need? Will students know which files they are going to need for their general-requirement courses or even for their major courses? There may eventually be networks or package deals available— perhaps through arrangements made by universities—but again I think that we are a long way from it.

And what about older materials…old journal runs, for example, and NTIS technical reports? In the library where I work, we have at least 400,000 NTIS reports on microfiche and that is, of course, only a partial set of the total available. Who is going to go to the effort of putting all those into machine-readable form? Who is going to pay for it? Even science and technology people do not ignore the past.

So it is appropriate to think of future libraries as warehouses for the materials and as an increasingly important source of computer-based files. And, librarians will still be needed to help guide users through the mists. It seems some time distant when computers can answer questions. So-called “expert systems” answer only in the sense that the questions are already known. Changes do seem inevitable— we have seen too many to think otherwise—but no matter the new formats and new materials, guidance will still be needed. Which index, which computer database, what source for materials not held are questions which will remain.

I am concerned, though, about reference librarians gaining more things to do and know, without giving up—or perhaps without being able to give up—the old. I like to think that librarians are renaissance women and men, but I do worry about quality and sanity. There are the latest DIALOG changes, those new directories, the recent developments at the main library, and that something new with the document delivery service. Sometimes I think that we are apt to get users to an answer because of the sheer bulk of materials available, but that means we have more to forget to mention. I am much taken with a phrase that Herbert White used in a recent letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education. He used it in a different context; he was speaking of the weight of pressures that are being felt especially in large libraries as staff members try to have everything on site for everybody and “feed the dinosaurs.”¹⁶ It seems that in reference we have like problems; we try to take on the present and future but still have to feed the dinosaurs of the past.

The suggestion that departmental-library-like work groups might improve reference service has the appeal of possibly improving staff and user interaction. As a librarian currently employed in a departmental library, I know that this sort of arrangement encourages regular contact and getting to know faces. On the other hand, I know that it often seems that departmental library staff members have to know about everything—what to do when the ceiling leaks, how to put paper in the reader-printers, circulation policies, demonstrating the fax machine, and so on. Librarian overload is not helped by a departmental arrangement.

But, though I find it easy to criticize the suggestions of others, I do not know what the answer is to the question to how we can best do our jobs and work out current problems.

Scheduling appointments with librarians may be a helpful device, but this would require a lot of adjustments on both sides. When I worked at the Douglas-Cook Library at Rutgers University, we did this in a limited way by making appointments with students to assist them in beginning research for term papers or other such projects. The arrangement worked well in its context. But, I do want a reference desk or some sort of desk to go to for short answers and for referral to appointments. When I was a student, the undergraduate library at the university I attended had no reference desk. I understand that the director thought reference staff members should be roaming the reference area waiting for questions, but the problem for me was that there was not a designated place to go for assistance.

I end with no firm conclusion except to note that we have a lot of possibilities. With all the work that needs to be done and all those users to serve, maybe not only will there be reference librarians in the future, but we will even find that a lot more of us are needed!

Notes

1. Herbert S. White, “Librarians, Not Users, Should Identify Needs,” Chronicle of Higher Education 34, no.23 (February 17, 1988): B3.