WebJunction

We are about to have a big meeting with our department on the topic of "Is the Nature of Reference Changing". We are going to take a good hard look at our jobs and see what direction we are heading.

I would be interested to see if anyone else has felt the shift in what they do at the reference desk? We feel that our work at the actual reference desk is now a lot more clerical and routine in nature than it used to be (we administer the SAM system, stamp parking passes, place holds, etc) and that our bigger contribution to the library is what happens behind the scenes. Here is our actual debate question... I would love to see responses to this from other WJ members:

How does performing routine tasks at the reference and welcome desks influence how we are perceived by the public and their information seeking behavior within the library. Does performing these routine tasks prevent us from being able to answer “real” reference and readers’ advisory questions, and, more importantly, does it prevent the public from even asking us, thereby creating a vicious cycle—if we are only doing routine tasks, why do we need a librarian to do them?


Message was edited by: JanieH

Janie, let us know what conclusions your department comes to on this subject.

It's a hard balance to maintain. My experience on the reference desk went through radical swings between too busy and completely slow. I like to be accomplishing other tasks if there are no patrons demanding my attention, but I also noticed that many patrons approach the desk shyly. If I wasn't paying attention, ready to smile or vocally offer assistance or some other active solicitation, some people would walk right by.

I like the floor-walking model. I had encountered this at a community college. As a patron, I am usually inclined to try every which way to find the information myself, but when a librarian walked up to me and offered help, we got into a great conversation (I didn't recognize at the time that it was a "reference interview") which resulted in supplying resources I hadn't known about.

I'm all for breaking down the 'big desk' barriers. All the roaming reference librarians could carry PDAs so they can check the catalog or electronic resources while browsing the print collection, and maybe catch up on email correspondence during the lulls.

>> I personally am not a fan of being approached while "shopping" -- I'd rather be left to browse in peace, but I understand that I am probably in the minority. I'm also sure there are low-key ways to approach people and still respect their desire to browse in peace. >>

I asked a friend about her experience as a "roaming reference" librarian. Walking around the floor wearing her prominent badge, she found that most of the time, patrons approached her of their own volition, appreciating the convenience of not having to leave their computer or reading station and walk over to the ref desk.

I like the ref desk solution at my friend's library. The old fortress-sized barrier desk is gone and replaced with sort-of oversized individual reference podiums, where there is just enough room for the librarian and the patron to stand next to each other in front of the computer with a few books spread out on the counter. The stacks of print reference materials are open to patron browsing.

I agree that more could be done to promote the special professional services of the reference librarian, so you don't spend all of your time just showing patrons how to print or other technical questions. The undergraduate library where I interned had a separate tech support desk right next to the reference desk -- a luxury that most small libraries cannot afford.

What are others doing to showcase the valuable skills of the reference librarians?


Message was edited by: blg3
I think that is supposed to be "roving reference." (embarassed smiley)

I agree that this report is worth reading. The well-written introduction contrasts the orderliness of the library world with the chaos of the Internet and promises to "serve as a tour guide through the landscape that chaos and order inhabit together."

I have only read the section on the Library Landscape. A major theme that emerges is the increase in the amount of collaboration, largely enabled by digital collections and electronic management of all collections. ILL reduces the need to maintain redundant collections, and collaborative efforts (like WebJunction ) fuel the reality of spending less time reinventing the wheel.

As for the Reference librarian, I don't see the need diminishing. In fact, the increasing amount of unstructured information (= chaos) does seem to spawn that "desperation for a guide" you speak of. Unfortunately, many information consumers don't know they are lost or don't know how much richer their information search could be. Reference librarians need to do more to market themselves (like the Elsevier ad) as key players in the team, not just answering quick facts, but helping users to pursue more sustained investigations into the information wilderness.

I see an opportunity for collaboration with the explosion of e-learning resources. It would seem that people who are receiving an education online could really benefit from the virtual reference services of a library. Partnerships between libraries and e-learning companies would enhance the learning experience and solidify the idea that librarians have valuable tools for access to knowledge, whether digital or physical.

All that said (long-winded, I know), I would not advocate abandoning the physical presence of the reference librarian. There still are plenty of people who like to talk to a human face. Just as the libraries did not empty out when information went digital, the desire for a nuanced, real-time reference interview/exchange is not going away in the near future.

I think there have been changes, but also that these changes vary widely.

A lot simply has to do with building design ... if reference isn't obviously accessible (and friendly!) then it's going to have to take great pains to reach the "lost looking for things in the stacks" users.

If it's where people cluster needing various non-reference things done, then it needs to somehow differentiate itself.

A lot also has to do with how we think reference relates to the collection. In my mind, the reference task uses the collection but has never been tied to it ... but then I started doing online Boolean searches in 1980. It is a "mental" task rather than a "book centered" task ... you might think of it as an artifact of history that books came before databases. :-)

So reference and real estate share the same truism: location, location, location! ;)

At the UW/Seattle Odegaard undergrad library, the reference desk is smack dab in the middle of the floor directly in the line of sight for everyone climbing the open stairway to the second floor, the level with the majority of computer stations. Back in 2000, the library made a move that was "revolutionary" at the time, which was to combine the Computer Support desk and the reference desk. They are side by side, each staffed by people with the appropriate expertise. The librarians can refer technical questions to the tech support staff and they, in turn, defer to the reference staff for navigating the information environment.

I worked there for a year while I was a student and thoroughly enjoyed it. I felt like I benefited from the collaboration by observing how the tech team answered questions. I don't know if they were also observing me, but the situation definitely allowed for the staff as well as the students to learn from each other.

According to one of the full-time librarians at Odegaard, "In the effort to provide students with round-the-clock access to both traditional library services and 21st-century technology, working together has been the key to success."

I'll have to keep this in mind when we expand again (in 7 or 8 years).

Quite so ... a point which hopefully prevents useless pre-planning. :-)

Part of the problem, here, (to my way of thinking) is that there's generally a confusion about what "strategic plan" should mean.

It should be about "where you want to be" rather than "how you're going to get there."

I see a lot of strategic plans that say something on the order of "purchase product X" or "hire for position Y" when, really, they need merely say "improve reference service for business population." Otherwise you're talking about "tactics" rather than strategy.

This likely results because few people want to write two documents (a strategic plan and a tactical plan) ... and because the term "tactics" seems too often relegated to the battlefield.

Thanks for weighing in and keeping this conversation going. In the time since I opened this discussion I have seen even further changes myself -- more and more what people want help with is computer issues. I am a tech savvy librarian and for me it is okay, but for others they are finding it stressful. Also, the questions may be fewer but they are generally more involved. Somehow getting our stats to account for that is difficult.

What recent changes have others noticed?