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