ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

The future of reference service: Discussion summary

By Dennis Dillon Reference Librarian University of Texas at Austin

The ensuing discussion focused primarily on three issues: technology, identifying reference problems, and the pros and cons of the reference desk. The following summary synthesizes audience and panelists’ comments on these subjects.

Technology

Discussion began with several people focusing on the incompatibility, expense, and amount of specialized knowledge needed to operate and maintain the various electronic information systems. This prompted the observation that libraries have never made the best or most innovative use of existing technologies and that we could do more, especially in the area of electronic mail.

One member of the audience responded that we need to look more closely at the high technology of the recent past such as the telephone and the telephone answering machine, rather than lose our heads over the promise of electronic mail. Telephone technology is already compatible with 200 million users all across the United States. It is interesting that we are willing to spend for some forms of glitzy technology, but not for technology that is more mundane. With the telephone we can instantly contact other libraries and research centers around the globe. A telephone brings the world to the reference desk in a way computers cannot. Most libraries can afford to have more telephone lines and answering machines collecting questions than computer terminals. Audience members mentioned that we could also be making better use of facsimile. Electronic mail is not the only electronic communications medium that libraries are underutilizing. But, said one member of the panel, no matter what the technology or what use we are making of it, we need to maintain a balance between the person and the machine. A person will always be needed to monitor what questions are being asked and to decide how best to answer them.

Specific types of questions need special attention, not specific user groups.

Identifying the problems of reference services

The discussion then turned to the area of expert systems and libraries’ increasing use of computers and electronic databases. Several audience members pointed out that in this era of wondrous electronic tools, we need to remember that tools change both the way people approach and conceptualize problems, and the solutions which people seek or ignore. Just because new tools are available that does not mean that they are appropriate to solving our particular problems.

A systems analyst in the audience again reminded everyone that before setting future directions for reference, we need to have a firm conceptual model of where the problems in reference service are. Only then can we systematically conceive of possible solutions, and develop or search for the tools to correct the problems. He warned that librarians, like everyone else, often approach problems backwards, by looking at the available tools and then trying to force solutions onto them. This not only does not solve the problem, but results in bigger headaches that require even more time and money to solve.

The reference desk and the future of reference

The issue gathering the most impassioned comments revolved around the question of whether we should continue traditional reference services, or try to arrive at a new paradigm for reference composed of a mixture of reference by appointment, expert systems, a quick information desk staffed by paraprofessionals, and electronic mail. This debate arose because reference librarians are increasingly complaining about being overworked and overstressed; and because there is a sense that the current reference desk does not meet all the needs of its users.

Several participants stated that the quality service was there in the current reference system, but that it just got lost in the volume of services provided, though others admitted that fatigue and other job related factors contributed to less than optimum service.

There was some interest in re-examining the structure of the reference mix based on the context of the question being asked. At present, said one panelist, we level all questions out to a medium level. We do not have the easy questions answered by low-level staff and we do not have the hard questions answered through private consultation with our most highly trained staff. This quickly led to a discussion on the need to divide users into different categories, and carefully consider what we are trying to do with each group. In general the proposal consisted of applying the marketing concept of the targeted audience. For users needing in- depth assistance, such as a faculty member working on deadline with grant money, appointments would be logical; while the freshman’s question about periodical locations could be answered at a lower level.

One panelist was struck by an earlier audience comment about how people are much more careful and thoughtful when they have to write something down than when they speak. Perhaps, she said, if people did not have a desk to go to, they would think more and become more self-sufficient. They would then be more susceptible to reading library use material and to using expert systems.

There are many other ways to match people and information than the current reference desk. Most librarians don’t currently have the skills to make use of existing technology in a creative way. If we take reference librarians off the desk, perhaps they will have the time to be more creative. Or, systems analysts and similar technologically trained people could be hired to design expert systems and other new solutions to the emerging reference problems.

We can be sure of one thing, said one panelist, and that is that the factors affecting reference are constantly changing. We need to insure that we are in a position to lead rather than follow.

Not everyone agreed that doing away with the traditional reference desk was a good idea. Several points were raised in its defense.

Some audience members said that one problem with offering tiered reference services such as reference by appointment along with a quick answer desk is that users don’t know the context of their own questions. When they preface a reference question by saying I know this is hard, or easy, or short, or long—they are almost always wrong. Not being information professionals, they don’t know where their question fits in the information universe any more than a patient going to a physician is aware of the context and ramifications of particular symptoms.

Of course, somebody else besides librarians can answer simple questions, but that is not all that is going on at the reference desk. The reference librarian acts as the library’s troubleshooter and front line manager. He or she is right on the information access and transfer scene, and not removed or insulated from user comments and questions. The reference librarian is able to observe the realities of how various library tools and research problems are actually approached and use this information to improve library services.

Several reference librarians mentioned that the question the user asks at the desk is seldom their real question. The librarian using acquired skills and experience can interpret the existence of hidden questions in ways that machines or inexperienced staff members cannot. The existence of the hidden question is communicated non-verbally by gesture, voice inflection, gait, and general demeanor. In this human-to-human interaction the reference librarian through intuition gained by experience analyzes the user and attempts to discern the real question. The librarian then interprets the user’s needs in terms of how many sources are needed, at what level of complexity, and how much time the user has to devote to the problem. Unfamiliarity with the universe of information sources or inexperience at analyzing user needs would make the process break down. We need to have high-level people at the reference desk with the knowledge and background to understand the context of the question.

Reference librarians also noted the difference between bibliographic instruction in the classroom and the experience of later helping the same people at the reference desk. The one-on-one interaction at the reference desk is more relevant and earns user respect in ways that prepared material on computers and handouts cannot.

It was also brought up that users seldom grasp subtle differences between service points. The user simply wants to go to the nearest desk and ask for what is needed. It doesn’t matter what the desk is called, who is staffing it, or what the user thinks is the context of the question. The user does not want to be put off or referred. We will be judged simply on the service the user gets then and there when the assistance is needed the most.

As for adopting a marketing strategy and targeting user groups for different levels of service, audience members again reinforced the standard reference librarian’s observation that it is difficult to pigeonhole users. If we want to raise the general level of service, it is not the specific user groups that need attention, but specific types of questions. There are legitimate reasons, usually political or educational, for targeting specific user groups for special attention, but doing so does not raise the general level of service; instead, it merely creates special classes of users who receive extra attention and adds yet another service responsibility to the reference librarian’s collection of duties.

One panelist mentioned that with the growth of computer searching, users are already becoming used to making appointments with librarians and that perhaps we should expand upon this model. This argument was countered from the audience by a librarian who stated that in her branch library she does all of her scientific and technical searching without appointment. Her users come to the library for information, not to encounter delay, bureaucracy, appointments, or frustration. They get instant service and leave thinking the library is an efficient, quick, and up-to-date operation.

Several reference librarians noted that the type of questions users ask change over time, how they ask for the information changes over time, and how they want that information packaged or delivered changes over time. There is an obvious value in having persons on the firing line at the reference desk who hear how users at all levels are trying to use the library, and knows by what methods they are seeking information this year, so that publications, signs, and electronic systems can be kept relevant. To have information access tools designed and written by people in the absence of first-hand experience and feedback is to court the danger of becoming irrelevant. It is the reference librarian on the reference desk who knows most intimately what users want the library to be.

One panelist noted that people are happy with reference service because they like the personal interaction. She compared the personal interactions of the circulation and the reference desks and noted that users obviously do not have the same positive response to all their circulation transactions that they do with their reference transactions. She said that reference is cushioned from experimenting with alternate methods of information service by its very strength, which is the positive response of its users to the personal interaction at the reference desk. But, added an audience member, one aspect of that positive user response is the immediacy of attention the user gets, and the quick resolution of their questions. Even if the reference librarian tells the user the library cannot help, that at least is an unambiguous quick resolution that allows the user to turn their information pursuit in other directions.

The discussion, of course, ended with no resolution; but the program was invigorating and thought-provoking and helped the participants to clarify their thinking on some of the issues involved in the many possible future directions for library reference services.