done!

Yesterday was my last day at the Waltz Library, which is kind of a bummer, as I was just getting used to going there twice a week. In any case, I am wrapping up my paper, which I will be putting up in little segments here. I also will be continuing to groom it into something publishable with Laurie's help.

Waltz Reference Model

Issues:

-Heavy dependence on student workers/work study

Only 1/3 of students are graduate students with a class in music library resources.

-Understaffed on reference staff

Coverage only during “business” hours.

-No referral system in place from student workers to reference staff

Especially for undergraduate workers, define a point where the referral happens. This is complicated by the fact that many “directional” questions turn into “reference” questions.

Reference staff will jump in on questions fielded by circulation, especially “research” sounding ones, but more so the questions where people can’t find items and start to say that something can’t be found.

-Layout: circulation computers closest to webPACs

Part of the difficulty I see with this layout is the fact that so many searches by students do not begin with asking the reference staff for help, but begin with interactions with computers, be it searching the internet, databases or the library catalog. Since the closest people to the computers are the circulation staff, they seem like logical people to go to for help. Even with signage, the fact that there is such flexibility on the desk adds to the confusion of the different roles and their particular locations at the desk. So even though some users will go around to the reference staff anyway, especially if all of the circulation staff is busy, more often than not, I personally have seen people just wait there. The fact that reference staff also feels the need to jump in on queries goes to this point as well.

-Small/homemade signage

-No identification of people behind desk as to their positions

Physical Solutions:

-Position Tags

Without resorting to a lot of signage, tags give to staff identifying their position (reference or circulation) will help clear up some confusion at the desk, given the fact that there is a lot of crossover and cooperative activity on the desk. The biggest issue with these is that students might not know the difference between the two anyway. It might encourage them to go to one place or the other, but the matter of the fact is that they will more than likely approach whoever they feel most comfortable with (find footnote on personal characteristics or approachability) or they will go to whoever is closest, either reference or circulation.

The layout of the library somewhat aggravates this problem, because it is literally backwards from a “traditional” layout, where the circulation desk is closest to the door, and the reference desk is further in, or closer to either the reference collection, or better yet at a good “zone of intervention” where questions are more likely to arise.(Need footnote) Seeing that many of the users of the Waltz library are students or faculty, and are more likely to come back many times in the course of their time at CU, it makes more sense that they will learn the library fairly well. As a result, it makes more sense to move reference staff further into the library, especially near the computers, where a lot of search activity begins (higher ed. footnote).

-Update Signage

More visable signage always helps, but it’s obviously more expensive that tags. It also has the same two issues as using tags, namely the confusion about the roles of reference and circulation, as well as the fact that signage only goes so far in differentiating the two, as people will normally go for approachability based of proximity or personal criteria.

-Switch desk places

This arrangement has a faster turnaround for circulation things, especially dropoffs, but might cause congestion at the entrance, might allow for direct access to reference staff directly from the computers. Also, it would incur considerable costs for switching everything around (internet drops, more cables, drilling and patching holes). This is a workable solution to the issue, but in reality, it will be costly, and there are other possibilities that involve less of a cost but will achieve the same effect of putting the reference staff closer to the patrons. (see “person out on the floor”)

-Eliminate reference computer

This is probably a bad idea, as it takes out a computer that is already being used. The best thing about it is that it might help clear up some confusion for students and staff, because there is only one place on the desk that would have any staff at any time, making referrals, as well as collaboration between staff much easier.Some studies suggest that collaboration between staff as being either useful to the patron as well as being productive for the staff (another footnote). Part of this arrangement that allows for collaboration would help in the training of student workers, and it would also make referrals much easier.

-Put a person out on the floor at a computer

This was largely a staff suggestion, and a good one. Much like the trend of getting rid of reference desks and letting the staff be out among the patrons, this would put a reference librarian right in the middle of where many questions are generated. Hopefully this would keep students or others with questions from going straight to the circulation staff. It also has the advantage of being a somewhat lower-cost solution than many of the others.

-Build separate desks “door-circ-computers-reference-stacks” order

In a convoluted way, I’m suggesting that if there were the possibility of having separate desks, to put a new reference desk on the far side of the computers from the current one. Once again, there is separation, but it is still dependent on making sure students, etc. know the difference between reference and circulation.

Training Solutions:

-Expand reference training for student workers

-Develop guidelines for referrals

Both of these are pretty self-explanatory, but they require some investment of time, first to determine what needs to be taught, or exactly when or with what kind of question needs to be referred, as well as putting in the time to train and then reinforce it.

-Roving for reference staff

Roving requires little training, and a lot of the time it sounds like reference staff inadvertently rove when they answer a question by the computers and then stay out there to answer others that arise I their presence. To a certain extent, this reinforces the argument for placing a reference staff member at a patron computer as well. In either case, the emphasis on instruction sometimes forces staff out into the computers anyway. Granted, the amount of time spent walking back and forth between the desk and the computers probably isn’t that great, but less waiting is always nice, especially since it seems like so much is happening around the computers anyway.

To the best of my personal experience, roving will increase the numbers of questions you get, just for asking a student in the stacks if they need a hand. In a couple of articles, it seems like a lot of people think of roving as an invasive thing, comparable to annoying retail clerks who won’t leave you alone. Still, it also generates more questions, because some students who are afraid to approach the desk might be more comfortable asking for help in the stacks.

Other comments/Items of note:

-Reference staff gets pulled out to the computers, get multiple questions in a row.

-“Instructional” bent will force reference staff out onto the floor/computers in either case.

-Despite liquidity on desk, reference staff will often hand off circulation tasks to return to reference desk.

-Cordless phones?

-Emphasis on taking notes, to be dealt with later

-Reference staff will move out to circulation desks if need be.

Further Reading:

Tiered Service/Information Desks:

Virginia Massey-Burizo. From the other side of the reference desk: A focus group study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 24, Number 3, pages 208-215

Virginia Massey-Burizo. Reference encounters of a different kind: A Symposium

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 18, Number 5, pages 276-286

William L. Whitson. Differentiated Service: A new reference model. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 21, Number 2, pages 103-110

Lori Goetsch ... [et al.]. Information desks in academic research libraries. Washington, DC : Office of Management Services, Association of Research Libraries, 1995.

Roving/Floating:

Victoria Nozero and Priscilla Finley. Research and Information Services at Lied Library: Restructured, revitalized and planning for the future. Library Hi-Tech, Volume 23, Number 1, pages 66-74

Scott Carlson. Are Reference Desks Dying Out? The Chronicle of Higher Education,
Volume 53, Issue 33, Page A37, accessed from: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i33/33a03701.htm

Second to last week,,,,

For the last two weeks, I have been chugging away at the comparative paper on reference services between Penrose and Waltz. However, I really only hit my stride this week, especially becuse of some articles on the research habits of musicians that I missed the first time out on my searches of LIS databases. The paper really focuses on the impact of the community each serves on the delivery of reference services, especially the reference interview. To me, part of why the setting of the library is so important is because it answers a lot of the taboo question "why do you need this information?"

The reference interview (of which I am a certified practioner of the Effective Reference Performance program at Jefferson County) is an extremely useful tool, but a large part of its' focus is on finding a thing. Also, they tend to emphasize the librarian's knowledge over the patron's/student's/whomever's. A lot of the "alternative" therories of reference do have somewhat of a touchy-feelyness about them, but I appreciate their attemps to make the reference interview more of a "meeting of the minds." Another part of what draws my interest is the fact that they get away from the flowcharting of human behavior and decision-making, and focus more on broader theories that can be applied more liberally, and run into fewer exceptions.

There is something Aristotalian about using flowcharts to describe the way that people seek information, with branches coming off of branches as new information is processed, as the search moves forward. Instead, some of the alternative theories of reference help guide the librarian in understanding the user without trying to impose a specific model on them.

Paper Outline!

Here is the outline for my paper comparing reference services and the potential uses/impacts of reference theory at the Penrose and Waltz libraries:

Introduction:

-Setting of the Penrose Library

-Setting of the Waltz Library

Reference theory:

-Traditional reference model (Bopp/Smith, Katz)

-Reference by the numbers (Saxton/Richardson)

-Reference narrative(hermeneutics)/dialogue (Doherty, Murphy)

-“reference/instruction dichotomy”-cross purposes, different tools.

Discussion of Libqual+ (CU & DU Libqual+ surveys)

-Which questions are notable?

-Library expectations always higher than results.

Trends:

General Trends

-Decline in frequency of questions (DU research, IU IC, anecdotal)

-Increase in length of interactions

-More online sources

-Increased use of the internet first (ACRL? OCLC environmental scan?)

-Millennials/User self-sufficiency

-Emphasis on instruction

-Humanities (browsing) vs. Sciences (searching) (Survey of History Professors, Mann)

Contributions to Trends:

Penrose

-Non-subject specialized, can be more reliant on traditional reference techniques

-Instruction

-Deep integration of web resources

-Library user groups (sciences, business) need currency (Libqual+)

Waltz

-Subject specialization, takes the mystery out of “what,” emphasis on why. (Doherty, Murphy)

-Performance vs. Research-uses and users

-Need for speed

-Course reserves (Anecdotal)

-Library user groups (professors, TA’s, students) (Libqual+, Student Stats)

Conclusion

-“Reference interview” as a tool, not as a theory

-Failings of functionalism/”Stat Life” (Doherty, Murphy, Barzun)

-Importance of the “why” question. (B/S 56, Murphy)

-Reference as art.

shifting around

Since I am not able to make the MLA-Mountains-Plains meeting, I will be submitting my comparison between Penrose and Waltz as a paper. I think that I have finally come to a clear exposition on the subject. My stated goal was to write a paper that compares the way reference is provided at a general reference desk as opposed to a subject-specific one.

I started my research looking at the specifics of the reference interview, mostly because I feel that there is a shift away from it, especially in academic libraries. This doesn't stem as much from the fact that I don't think it is worthwhile. I fully stand behind using open-ended and "neutral" questions to help understand a searcher's needs. Instead, I think this is valuable as a technique, but not as a central part of reference. As we use more electronic resources, which have a much greater breadth of availability, there has been a shift away from reference towards instruction. The reference interview does not give any way to take into account the idea that searchers either want to or are more self-sufficient.

If you couple this with the trend in reference services evaluation that user satisfaction is more important than the results of a librarian-assisted searches(reference transactions), it seems that an interview practice that is dependent on the librarian's ability of find stuff as an end result is somewhat off the mark. Once again, not advocating for the "give 'em instruction and cut 'em loose" approach, but I'm weary of the model currently being taught.

Really this is a jumping off point for the paper, which also tries to assess how patrons, students, etc. ask their questions, how the enviorment effects the questions they ask, and how the respective reference staffs handle them.

Thoughts on the reference interview.

There is a lot of buzz around getting rid of the reference desk, and I think that the best I've read so far on the subject is an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (4/20/07) by Scott Carlson titled "Are Reference Desks Dying Out?"

Part of his discussion surrounds the fact that students are becoming more self-directed, which I see as a result of an increasing emphasis on instruction. Not a bad thing at all, really. The new types of "reference" he points towards are basically research consultation/instruction, in a number of settings. This is likely an extension of the whole everything 2.0 whatnot, which focuses on putting the user/patron/student in charge of their research.

Part of what has been getting to me about the reference interview, as it is presented in LIS textbooks by Katz, or Bopp/Smith is the fact that it has largely gone unexamined in light of the fact that more and more libraries and library users are becoming self-directed. Basic functions of the library are easy to figure out, and what people seem to need help with is in the area of instruction and research. First of all, naming the whole thing a "reference interview" is unhelpful, because the strategy of asking people what they need is as easily applied to determining what instruction would be helpful, not only for "reference" questions.

Secondly, no matter how hard we may try, our interviews will always color the search. End of story. Our knowledge of the subject and of it's attached sources will never match the searcher's, nor the person (teacher/professor/absent student) who designs any imposed queries. To cop some ideas from Peter Morris (author of Ambient Findability), a straight interview, conducted at a desk, lowers the findability of library resources, because the librarian is supposed to channel them and select the right one(s), which takes away from the uniqueness of the search, of the searcher's conceptions, and their results.

I think that a person's final product is very much a result of their searches for information, and too much coloring of the searches' results (I would also argue that we as librarians oversimplify complex searches to fit our sources as well) results in much less unique and personal research. There is an imperative by reference librarians to make our users conform to the tools at hand, and while this may raise the general quality of research being done, it also locks searches into preconceived notions of how information is organized, and detrimentally, how it is to be used.

scary reference!

Some reference interactions:

Asked to get "black angels" by a "disc" numer, which are LP's, patron wanted CD, so I found one handily.

Had to find 3 Stravinsky ballets on LP's for duplication because the CD they were on is a reserve item.

Finally got the bejesus scared out of me by a question. The student was looking for a finished version of Hugo Wolf's "Mailied" with words by Holty, not by Goethe. The complete works only give a fragment and the bibliography of Wolf did the same. According to the student's professor, there is a "finished version" out there. Being somewhat flustered, I suggested he check back with the professor for more information. Then I knowcked around on Google Scholar, which pointed me towards a score done by the Internationale Hugo Wolf-Gesellschaft, which has the "Mailied" in it, but it didn't specify the version, although one article claimed it was based on the Wolf fragment.

There was also an email from a researcher in Italy, who was trying to get into an ebook that had a score in it, but was confusting that subscription service with the library's Digital Sheet Music Collection, which is free.