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.