PROFESSIONAL
ARTICLE REVIEWS
Subject:
Reference Services
Birkey, Kathleen (Oct 2000) The
challenge of ever-changing online reference sources. Voice
of Youth Advocates, v. 23,
no. 4, p. 250-1.
Accessed
Plus-FS databases.
This K-12 library media specialist
highlights the challenges caused by the frequent interface revisions and
product enhancements inherent in online databases. Though, hopefully, many of them will be seen
as improvements, they still demand time investment on the part of librarians if
they with to stay current. This article
is the first in a feature called Electronic Eye that will appear in the April,
August, and December issues of VOYA. It will cover CD-ROMs, e-books,
subscription databases and free websites.
Though it cannot be comprehensive, its purpose is to “keep librarians
and teachers who help students with e-research from e-burnout.” This inaugural column covers face-lifts on
SIRS and Newsbank, It also provides a fairly lengthy review of BigChalk. The author points out that with this site and the
three free online encyclopedias that receive briefer mention, part of the
instructor’s job will be to teach students to differentiate advertising from
content.
This article and the ensuing column will
be helpful, if not exhaustive for any librarian who deals with k-12 reference
questions.
________________________________
Boyer,
Josh (2001) Virtual reference at the NCSU libraries: the first 100 days. Information
Technology and Libraries,
v.
20, no. 3, September 2001, p. 122-128. Found using Bernie Sloan’s Digital
Reference Bibliography at
http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/~b-sloan/digiref.html
and retrieved from the World Wide Web
on
url: http://www.lita.org/ital/2003_boyer.html/
This is not a horrible article, but I do
think that it fails to deliver on the promise of its title and opening
paragraph. There it notes that among average four questions per day submitted
to this new service, the most frequent query is from other librarian’s wanting
to know how it’s going. The author
promises to answer this question and provide insight from colleagues as to what
it’s like to do chat reference. Since I was most interested in this
admittedly anecdotal evidence, I was disappointed to find very little of it
included in the article.
What is provided is an overview of the
decision making process to institute chat reference, as well as that to
determine which software to use. Screen shots from both librarian and patron
viewpoint are included. Problems
co-browsing proprietary databases are noted.
The article mentions that it is difficult for librarians, many of whom
are unfamiliar with online chat, to get used to the format. The positive and negative aspects of the lack
of non-verbal cues in this environment get brief mention.
The article goes on to discuss possible
improvements to the current system in which the librarian’s are responsible for
live chat, email questions, and telephone questions at the same time. What is missed here is what to me is the most obvious point.
The live chat librarian’s should not be responsible for phone queries as
well. The article ends by promoting the
creation of FAQ from queries. Other
articles seem to indicate that queries are so varied as to make FAQ unwieldy
and unhelpful to the user.
My overall impression of the article is
that it tries to cover to many aspects of chat
reference. The lack of comprehensive
information on any topic leads me to believe that researchers would be better
off reading other articles.
_____________________________
p.
110-13. Retrieved
This
article is essentially a review of the literature, but as such, it is a good
one. I would only suggest that it could be improved by removing some
unnecessary repetitions.
·
deserve the same service as adults
·
are less able to verbalize their information needs
·
often mispronounce words or transpose them to a word they do know
·
usually use opening questions that are very broad and far from their
specific need
·
often can not supply additional information because it is an imposed
query
·
are more unfamiliar with the classification system
The
recommendations made in the literature are to: be particularly welcoming, deal
more with the child than with any accompanying adult and at their eye level,
don’t presume that the request is a school assignment, rephrase often to catch
pronunciation errors and verify understanding, ask them to repeat or spell or
write requests if necessary, narrow their broad opening request with open-ended
questions, avoid jargon, take the child to the sources, ask the child to
identify which sources look readable to them, always use a closing statement
with invitation to return, and use humor.
The issue of treating children like adults
is somewhat controversial. Some feel
obligated to take a more tutorial approach with children. Some claim that asking about the assignment
is critical to defining their question, while others feel it is an invasion of
privacy.
Included in the article is a sample transaction
that illustrates the use of open-ended questions to discover the specific
need. One of
_____________________________________
Coutts,
Brian E. and Tamara McConnell (
p. 44-9.
Accessed
databases.
The yearly articles describing the best
reference sources in print, subscription databases, and free websites are a
must read for reference librarians and those involved in acquisition of the
resources. It should be noted that this
particular article is soon to be replaced by the 2002 edition published in
April 2003. Electronic reference sources
change quickly and sometimes disappear completely, but this article should
still contain some useful information.
Experienced librarians can use it as an opportunity to review their
search habits, verifying that the sources they usually use are actually still
among the best, at least according to the articles authors. Students and new librarians will find even more
information that is new to them. There
does seem to be a bias across the board to concentrate on new resources as
opposed to ones that have been around for awhile, even though they are
constantly updated. The implied budget
for the best resources is therefore somewhat deceiving since I believe that
most libraries would have many more current resources in their collection for
which there are ongoing costs.
___________________________________
Curtis, Susan Chandler and Mann, Barbara J. (2002) Cooperative
reference: is there a consortium model? Reference
&
User Services Quarterly, v. 41, no.
4, Summer 2002, p. 344-49. Accessed on
and the First Search’s Library Literature and
Wilson Select Plus Database.
This article is a
report of an attempt by a subcommittee within the
Indications are that
most of the reference cooperatives arose from groups formed to cut resource
costs or from initially informal agreements between individual librarians who
began sharing questions through email. The
structure of the cooperatives ranges from virtually non-existent to
complex. The committee received only
four mission statements. All services
involved librarian initiated referrals rather than direct user access to
expertise of multiple institutions.
Turnaround time averages two days with some questions requiring less,
but very few requiring more. Promotion
is primarily through websites, some archives are kept, and evaluation methods
using random surveys or statistics are just being developed. Funding of the cooperative services proved
difficult to analyze. A copy of the
survey is provided.
This article is
disappointing for several reasons. As
noted by this article and others, cooperative reference is in the embryonic
stages. As such it is developing and
changing rapidly as methods are tried, evaluated, and modified. Researchers looking for current information
will be disappointed that this year-old article actually covers, for the most
part, results of a survey 2 years old at that time. Further more, the committee involved surveyed
relatively few groups, and a goodly number of those did not respond to the
survey itself, or did not respond at all.
The committee’s conclusion seems somewhat contradictory. They note that informal infrastructures are
already in place to handle questions beyond an individual library’s expertise,
and yet call for more formal agreements.
They seem to be saying that individual users need to have awareness and
access to entire cooperatives to compete with commercial AskA
services, but this is not even particularly clear in the conclusion, and
certainly is not supported by the survey or article content. The survey itself is interesting, but the
reader is given only cursory knowledge of responses received in areas such
costs, archiving, and evaluation.
_________________________________
Fritch, John W. and Scott B.
Mandernach. The emerging reference paradigm: a vision of reference services in a
complex
information environment. Library Trends. v. 50, no. 2, Fall
2001. Eighth paper
within Curry, Evelyn L.
Technological advances in reference: a
paradigm shift? Library Trends. v. 50 no. 2, Fall
2001, p. 165-305. Accessed through
LibraryLiterature and WilsonSelectPlus Jan.28, 2003.
Fritch and Mandernach have authored an
interesting and articulate article that includes an historical overview of
reference services, a discussion of how technological advances have affected
the services, the users, and society as a whole, as well as recommendations for
means to improve service in light of the changes. Paradigm, they say, can refer to either a
theoretical structure or its empirical result.
In practical ways, reference has of course changed, but like Katz they
conclude that the underlying belief systems remain the same. Unlike Katz, however, they emphasize that the
field does not have a solitary belief system.
There is tension between what they term “conservative” and “liberal”
reference. Originally reference leaned
toward the conservative, providing only direction to a source, and only with an
obvious request. As
sources became more numerous and complex, a tendency to actually provide the
answer and/or some instruction became more prevalent.
The advent of more user friendly CD-ROMs
moved the balance back in the other direction, followed by the Internet which
again makes many librarians feel that provided answers, instruction, and a
proactive stance are necessary. The
authors include a philosophical discussion about the community-reducing effects
of technology and conclude that moves to reduce library service to digital
reference only are misguided in that they ignore the visual part of
communication and the social aspect of information. The final part of the article briefly
discusses service areas to develop and strengthen in line with current
realities. They include digital
reference (perhaps with visual added), web portals, searchable FAQ files,
online tutorials, roving reference, research advisory, peer mentors, reference
exchange programs, and staff training and hiring.
_____________________________________________
Gross, Melissa. The imposed query and
information services for children. Journal of Youth
Services in Libraries, v. 13, no.
2, Winter 2000,
p. 10-17. Located in Library Literature
and retrieved from
Wilson Select Plus databases on
Gross’s article discusses some special
problems of providing reference services to children including the fact that
their reference questions are most often not self-generated, but imposed by a
third party, usually a teacher. She
notes that the approachability of the reference librarian is especially
important and that children prefer eye-level interactions and calm tones. Special needs of children include extreme
approachability, calm tones, and developmentally appropriate language and
information sources. Most do not
remember book titles or authors and their descriptions may be nothing like an
adult summary. They may lack
keyboarding, alphabetization, and spelling skills, and even more than adults,
may expect subject vocabulary to match their own.
A reference interview to glean the “real”
question becomes a challenge when the child may not understand the question,
its origins, and/or what kind of answer is needed. To feel confident with any answer, children
tend to require the exact language of any written question and supportive
visuals. Another level of difficulty
arises when the reference interview becomes three-way when a parent or other
party is involved. Gross notes that,
though the literature advises addressing the child in that situation, it is
important not to alienate the parent, and that they too need to be satisfied
with interview and outcome.
Gross advises “getting ahead of the
question” by asking to see and photocopy the question if it is identified as an
assignment, and by developing communication with teachers. However, she warns that despite the
repetitive nature of school assignments, librarians must attempt to treat each
questioner as unique. In this way one
can avoid errors like misdirecting questioners who are not actually part of the
assignment, or assuming the question is “just like last year” when it is not. Though I believe this article could have
benefited from some reorganization, the quality of its content and the rarity
of literature on the subject make it well worth reading.
____________________________________
Janes, Joe (2002) Live reference: too much, too
fast? School Library Journal Net Connect , v. 48, no. 11. Fall 2002,
p.
12-14. Retrieved from
the World Wide Web on
Buley Library.
In this article, Janes
takes a critical look at the professions headlong rush into providing live
reference services. Although he applauds
libraries that are providing or testing such services, he notes that hurriedly
implementing them is imprudent. He notes
both positive and negative aspects of the technologies.
The synchronicity of live reference is
attractive, but it can also be provided by at the desk services and over the
telephone. Some have posited that with
co-browsing capabilities, chat queries will take less time and therefore be
more cost effective. Review of actual
service data shows otherwise. The chat
services can be more interactive and therefore more personable, and mailed
transcripts can be useful to patrons as well as analyzed by institutions to
improve service. Automatically
delivering satisfaction surveys to the user is another wonderful feature. That live reference casts a
certain “hipness” over library services that
has long been lacking also can not be ignored.
However, Janes
notes, there are actually numerous problems with the technologies. Librarians using fast connections may
actually be two or three screens ahead in a co-browsing situation. It may be uncomfortable for the librarian to
bring the user along in a search in which the results are unknown. He notes
that some librarians overcome this by giving them a known quantity webpage to
look at while continuing the search on their own. Users may disappear in the middle of a
session for a variety of reasons.
Delivering chat reference can be exhausting, especially at first, and
only two solid days of training plus practice even begins to prepare the
librarians. Practioners
used to perfecting their written communication may find the telegraphic chats
disconcerting. Also, anything normally
gleaned from non-verbal information now must be gained through this telegraphic
written verbal communication, or not at all.
Janes cautions
against a headlong rush to buy live reference software. He suggests analyzing the current use of the
library’s reference services to predict how and if it will be of value to
library patrons. He suggests careful
review of available software and provides a glossary of terms used by vendors
to aid in this review.
__________________________
Jasco, Peter (2002) Cross-searching electronic
journal archives. Information Today,
v. 19, no. 6, June 2002, p. 34-5.
Retrieved
from the World Wide
Web on
Plus
databases accessed through Buley Library.
This is very readable article about an
important and complex subject. It
explains how to use customizable search engines to search multiple sources on
the Invisible Web at the same time. Mr. Jasco includes customization instructions that are far from
simple, but for individuals who often want to search a given topic over a
number of sources that are not indexed elsewhere, it
would no doubt be worth it.
The article explains that there are many
free e-journals in the field of information science. A few journals do not have searchable
archives, so even to search them individually, some
kind of proxy search must be used. Other
journals do have their own search engines, but searching them individually is a
time consuming task. Given that most
librarians do not have time to keep organized topical files using alert
services, when the need arises to search a particular topic, it is nice to have
a system ready to go that will search multiple Invisible Web sources
efficiently. The method is of course translateable to sources beyond free e-journals, and beyond
the subject field of information technology.
After testing many of the customizable
search engines available, Mr. Jasco recommends the
desktop shareware QuickSearch that is available for
$29.95, or a Web-based engine that he does not name. This focuses on QuickSearch
and promises another article about the Web engine in addition to the
availability of a customized version on his own website.
The article includes instructions for
customizing the search strings within QuickSilver to
query a dozen free e-journals. He also
includes a description of the very productive results obtained by the
customized engine searching the term “metadata,” although the tables are not
included in the Wilson Select Plus full text version. It should be noted that this method not only
produces results not available through other search engines (except by proxy
search), but it also pulls more recent results than are available in most full
text databases.
__________________________________
Katz, Bill. Long live old reference service and new
technologies. Library Trends.
v. 50, no. 2, Fall 2001. Seventh paper
within Curry,
Evelyn L. Technological advances in reference: a paradigm shift? Library Trends. v. 50 no. 2, Fall
2001, p. 165-
305. Accessed through LibraryLiterature
and WilsonSelectPlus
Note: There is a scanning error in the online
format. The conclusion, notes and
footnotes of Katz’s article actually appear after the beginning of the
Fritch/Mandernach article.
Katz’s main point in this article seems to
be that the tenets on which reference service is based are not affected by
technological changes, and that though the librarians’ sources will be
increasingly online, the job of finding, evaluating, and disseminating information
is basically the same. Though the title
would lend the reader to assume a positive bias about technology, in reality
Katz expresses ambivalence about some and downright criticism of others. His discussion of Ebook
technology is an example of the latter position. He contends that the great
majority of users want only the answer, not bibliographic instruction, and that
setting them loose as searchers both buries them in information and removes one
of the most valuable of the librarian’s contributions: evaluation. He champions 24/7 digital reference, but also
makes the point that telephone service must also be available for those without
Internet access. He doesn’t say how all
that will be paid for with today’s reduced budgets.
The rambling article also touches on the
threat of services like Ask Jeeves, the right of
patrons to use the Internet as entertainment, the sad lack of reader’s
advisories, and the mistake of charging fees for library services. Even more items are presented and some seem
to have little to do with the topic.
Katz has a readable style, though sometimes he tries too hard to be
witty. He expresses many interesting
ideas and opinions in this article, and includes others from the literature,
but most of them are arguable, and on the whole he does not take the time to
expand on, or support them. It would
seem that several more fully developed articles would have been more
appropriate.
______________________________
Mantell, Susan (2002) Working out a peaceful
coexistence. Publishers
Weekly, v. 249, no. 50,
38. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on
WilsonSelectPlus
Databases accessed through Buley Library
Mantell discusses
the state of the print resource publishing business in the face of web-based
competition and a slow economy.
Surprisingly, many publishers are doing quite well, with the emphasis in
sales being on series. These have
built-in customer demand based on past sales, and will drive future sales as
well. One of the publishers that Mantell quotes notes
that proper marketing is important. “If
you put it under the customer’s nose, it will sell.” This philosophy can be applied to many
things, including library electronic resources that the profession is offering
to the public at no charge. The
important thing is to make sure the public knows about them.
Standard reference works like
dictionaries, directories, and atlases sell well. Many users are clear that turning to one yields faster results than booting up the computer. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary sales
are up 17% for example. The use of their
website is also up 40%.
The most successful print resources, in
this day and age, are the ones like that dictionary, that use the power of
web-based resources to make available fresh content monthly to their print
customers, and use data provided by online versions to fine tune the content of
the next print volume. The online
versions provide exacting user data never available before. WWW.m-w.com
receives 65-70 million page hits a month, and in
addition gets 1000 email suggestions.
This of course helps with online version redesign, but also, knowing
what words are looked up most often means publishers know what to emphasize in
print versions as well, making them increasingly useful. Specifically, it turns out it is not the
slang, new, or technology words that the press would have them believe, but
well established vocabulary words that have difficult, multiple, or abstract
meanings. In their new volumes, this type of word will receive additional
emphasis.
This is an interesting article, with some
evidence refuting the current predictions that print resources will become
obsolete. It is true, however, that some
points wouldn’t apply if the discussion was moved beyond ready reference print
resources.
_________________________________
Morgan,
Eric Lease (1999) What’s more important: the questions or the answers. Computers
in libraries, vol. 19, no. 5,
May 1999,
p. 38-41. Retrieved from the WilsonSelectPlus
database on the World Wide Web, item #1835910
Though there are some interesting ideas in
Morgan’s article, I think it is unfocused and poorly organized. In the first place, the thrust of the article
seems to be a proposal that the field implement models of computer based
reference assistants. Neither the title
nor the beginning of the article points to or supports this discussion. Perhaps
a better title would be: A Solution to Understaffed Reference Desks. That, I am sure, would draw readers.
In the beginning of the article he makes
some rather obvious points about browsing vs. focused searching. He goes on to spotlight the creator-based
rather than use-based nature of classification schemes and search engine
design, but then goes on to say it couldn’t be any other way. He returns briefly to browsing, and then
states that he has a two-part suggestion to address the problem, which unfortunately
he has failed to define. I can see ways that the
points in his article could be tied together, but he has failed to do so.
His first suggestion for improvement is to
better market library services. If this
is to be said, I would think it should follow his second suggestion so that the
reader could be clear exactly what services he is proposing be marketed.
The last part of the article is actually
very strong. He suggests computer based
reference assistants as the first step in a mediated search. He states that models for this kind of system
have been in the literature for more than ten years, and lists examples, but
notes that nothing has yet been implemented.
He outlines exactly how such a system would work through a web browser,
using a reference librarian as backup if it failed to generate satisfactory
information. The librarian’s time
investment would be further reduced because the computer assistant would have
completed much of the reference interview already.
I can see some problems with this idea,
not the least of which is my strong doubt that many users would be willing to
go through the rather lengthy interactive process he describes. However, it is an idea worth proposing, discussing,
and modifying, since understaffing is a real problem, causing horrors as
discussed in the Ross article. It is too
bad the idea was not presented in a more cohesive article.
___________________________________
Notess, Greg R. (2002) Internet search engine
update. Online (
p. 18. Retrieved from
the World Wide Web on
Select
Plus databases accessed through Buley Library.
This is a regular column in the
semi-monthly issues of Online. It
contains brief notations of recent changes at the major search engines. I think this column, or another like it,
would be mandatory reading for reference librarians. It would be immense help to find out about at
least some changes before you had to figure them out in the middle of a user
query. As a busy librarian I would
appreciate the concise nature of this column.
Because search engines change quickly, this column should be read
immediately upon publication to have any guarantee of accuracy. The one cited is the most recent available
through Library Literature, and since it’s about 6 months old it has lost some
value. That said,
the following paragraph summarizes its content.
In this issue there are brief notations
about All The Web, AltaVista, Ask Jeeves,
Google, Iktomi, Lycos, Teoma, Wisenut, and Yahoo. The engines are included in alphabetical
order rather than in an order that might attempt to indicate the importance of
the change. One change noted here is
AltaVista’s default change to AND, and its implementation of Prisma which suggests terms to widen and narrow a
search. Changes noted at Iktomi are the purchase of a categorizing company, but a
concurrent reduction of work force that makes swift integration unlikely. This issue also notes the beta availability
of two new engines, OpenFind and Gigablast. I know from examining Ixquick
that Gigablast is now one of the engines the metasearch engine polls.
“OpenFind.com premiered in beta with a huge
database, claiming over 3 billion pages, but it is still very much a work in
progress. Many of the 3 billion records are duplicates or spam. But OpenFind does offer sorting by date and size. GigaBlast.com
is much smaller but offers a very simple interface with instant indexing of
submissions, an advanced search, date sorting, cached pages, and excellent
reporting of both the date spidered and the last
modified date. Both engines bear watching, and each may offer some advantages
to the professional searcher.”
___________________________________
Peterson,
Janet Walker (2003) Stretch your budget! How to select
web-based subscription resources. Computers in
Libraries, v. 23, no. 2, Feb 2003, p. 20-24. Retrieved
through Buley Library and the EBSCO Academic Elite
on
Ms. Peterson is the head librarian in a
k-12 school of 800 students. She has
written a practical article outlining the steps she has taken to expand the
number of subscription bases available to her students from 10 in 1998 to 30 in
2003 without any increase in budget. Her
10 tips can be used by any type of library.
The first is to develop a plan for evaluating databases in such areas as
relevance, access methods, redundancy, stability, frequency of updates, and
ease of use. The second is to analyze
the needs of your users. In her case it
was most important that the databases enhance the curriculum, could be used by
students to meet their exact needs, and could be accessed from home. A third tip is to compare the benefits the
library gains by purchasing databases as opposed to other types of
resources. Space saving is a universal
benefit. She also notes that databases
don’t require maintenance like old CD-Rom towers, don’t require uploads to each
workstation, and can run on many operating systems and browsers. The fourth tip, and possibly most important
as a budget stretcher, is to research and join consortiums available to your
library. In her case an annual fee to
the Texas Library Connection provided her students with $36,000 worth of
reference sources, discounts on resource upgrades, access to a statewide union
catalog, and resource training. Joining
Amigos Library Services provided discounts on electronic resources, e-jounals, e-books, e-dictionaries and encyclopedias,
supplies, conferences, and training.
Peterson’s fifth and sixth tip could
perhaps have been combined. They are to
compare products and comparison shop.
Things analyzed would be those developed in your planning process. Here she mentions in particular looking in
minute detail at search capabilities, full text and graphics availabilities,
and technical support. She describes
loading the entire journal lists of databases being considered into Excel and
from there to Access. Then you can
easily look for the titles you want to have available in each database. Tip number seven is to ask for trials and
schedule them at a time when teachers and students will be able to use and
evaluate the resource in their research.
The eighth tip is to negotiate purchases. In some of her own purchases if there was a
price increase at the level of 800 students, she was able to have it
waived. Other savings were gained
through group discounts offered when a number of schools coordinated their time
of purchase.
Tips nine and ten come into play when the
library has purchased the resources. It
is important to promote them, and they must be evaluated for use. To implement evaluation it is best to
purchase databases that offer use statistics.
The final part of the article includes evaluative information on five
common databases that is current as of November 2002. The parameters covered are tech support,
administrative privileges, browser requirements, home access availability,
print/email/download capabilities, and the availability of tutorials. This last section will soon be outdated of
course, but it is currently helpful on the databases covered, and the overall
strategies in the article have long-lasting value.
______________________________________
Proctor,
Edward (2002) Boolean operators and the naïve end-user: moving to AND. Online,
(
4,
July/Aug. 2002, p. 34-7. Retrieved from
the World Wide Web on
Literature
and Wilson Select Plus databases accessed through Buley
Library.
This article notes that since AltaVista
has recently changed their default setting to AND, all the major search engines
now use that setting. However,
site-specific engines are just as likely to still be using OR. Examples given are the websites for the Field
Museum of Natural History in Chicago, the San Diego Zoo, and the J. Paul Getty
Museum. This setting makes the sites
effectively unusable to the naïve searcher who is likely to respond to an
overly large result set by adding a term.
With an OR default, this of course only serves to increase the results.
The article notes that one can override
this problem by using a site specific search at Google,
but since that too is far beyond most users, Mr. Proctor advises doing
reprogramming so that subject sites recommended by and searched through the
library website are automatically searched using AND as the default. An addendum to the article includes complete
instructions for reprogramming www.newsindex.com
Though I think the basic premises of the
article are correct, I take issue with one point of argument that actually
weakens his case, and with the solution proposed. The reason that AND is so important as a default is that it aids in reducing the
result set. In one section of the
article Mr. Proctor states that users frequently attempt to increase
result sets by adding a word. He is
using the point to illustrate the non-intuitive nature of Boolean Logic, and it
does that. However, it also weakens his
main argument that AND should be the universal default. In those particular instances, the user would
actually benefit from OR as the default.
Mr. Proctor’s solution also includes
negative aspects. I believe his
reprogramming would be invisible to the user.
Since he has just argued that search engines should post their defaults,
to fix something without letting the user know what you have done seems a
contradiction. What happens when the
user goes directly to the site rather than using the library portal? Searches done will suddenly not perform as
expected and the user will not know why.
I think a better solution would be to
leave the “reprogramming” in the hands of the user. Clicking on a suggestion in the library
resources lists could make the URL appear in a box next to the words “Search
This Site.” That would be followed by
three choices “Find Results With All the Words
(Boolean AND)” or “Find results With Any of the Words (Boolean OR)” or “Take Me
to the Site, I Will Use Its Default Settings.”
Even something this simple would include simple Boolean instruction and
at the same time clarify that the library portal has the capability of
controlling a site search, that the user can choose how that control is
exercised, and if the user instead chooses to go to the site, the issue of
default settings is an important one and hints that it has to do with the other
two choices offered. With constant
review, the default setting of each suggested resource could also be noted on
the library site in simple annotation.
___________________________________
(No
Author) Reference Materials Online (Feb 2002) Teacher Librarian, v. 29, no. 3, p. 1/3p. Retrieved February 15,
2003 through Buley Library and the EBSCO
database.
The worst
thing about this article in EBSCO’s online
presentation is that there is definitely part of the content missing, and it is
not immediately obvious. The reader has
to pay attention to the fact that the citation lists 3 pages, while the content
provided is far less. My guess would be that the print version includes
snapshots of the listed webpages, but it is hard to
tell. The abstract is also
misleading. It states; “presents
information on several reference materials online. AskA+ Locator; Atlapedia
Online; Biography.” Even with added graphics, “information” would lead
one to expect more of the article than there is. There are also 8 websites listed rather than
just the 3 in the abstract. After
reading other electronic source review articles, the reader will probably find
this column lacking search descriptions and a clearer rating. A positive
endorsement can actually only be assumed by the column’s title, Bookmark It,
which is very unobtrusive on the electronic presentation. With some exploration
of their own, the intended audience may find the brief listings of some
help. I was particularly intrigued by a
Junior Thinkquest entry called “”Do we” really know
Dewey?”
________________________
Rettig, James (2002) Old borders, new borders,
bridges, and new relationships: Transforming academic reference
service. College & Research
Library News, v. 63, no. 11, December 2002, p. 790-3. Retrieved
World
Wide Web using the FirstSearch Library Literature and
WilsonSelectPlus databases accessed through Buley
Library.
Mr. Rettig takes
a look at the current state of reference and provides analogies that offer the
reader a fresh look at problems and some possible solutions. Also included is a look at the visibility of
the librarian in the various situations.
The division between print and electronic has existed for some
time. In the early days of Dialog and
CD-ROMs, the librarian’s role as intermediary was secure. Now users are as likely as not to go directly
to a search engine. There is an
analogous border there between the unstructured Web and the scholarly electronic
sources libraries have to offer.
These developments have affected the visibility
of the reference librarians in the buildings themselves as well. No longer is the large reference desk a
given. Some academic libraries have
merged it with other serves in a multipurpose desk. Others have merely made the furniture smaller
and “friendlier.”
The advent of chat resources puts the
“touch” back in reference services, making librarians hopefully more used by
these web oriented patrons, and more visible as the intermediary. However, in the present state of chat
services, the print vs. electronic border still exists because chat librarians
almost exclusively offer the user just information gleaned from electronic
resources. This may have to do with the
location of these services, but Rettig notes what is
really needed is another “bridge.”
Vendors must make the services capable of pushing a print page as easily
as they push webpages.
Rettig also says
that librarians and faculty are building bridges, but this is the only part of
his article that is really limited to academic libraries.
In the current literature, a doom and
gloom tone is often apparent. Rettig is refreshingly positive and notes that solutions
are out there. Borders illuminate the
problems and bridges are the way to solve them.
____________________________
Richardson,
Jr., John V. (2003) Reference is better than we thought. Library Journal,
v. 127, no.7,
2 pages. Retrieved on
accessed through Buley Library.
The intent of this article and the study on
which it is based, is to refute the low levels of accuracy/satisfaction that
have been reported in past studies of reference services. While this seems good news, several weaknesses
in the article and the study make it seem it may be too soon to celebrate. In the first place,
Finding fault with past studies for only
considering ready reference queries, he lauds his own study, co-authored with
Saxton, for its large random sample of 9,274 queries. Only by reading the additional box describing
the study, does the reader learn that 5,754 of those queries were discarded
because they were unrecorded, or simple directional
questions or internal referrals. Of the
3,500 that were actually considered for accuracy, 50% were the ready reference
type, 10% were research questions, and 40% were FAQ. It hardly seems impressive that one could
boost reference accuracy scores by including FAQ! I would also be interested to know more about
their “panel of experts” making the judgements of
accuracy. Without any information, the
possibility of bias looms large. Though
there may indeed be problems of methodology in past studies, the profession
should probably still be concerned about their findings until someone comes up
with data more impressive than reported here.
__________________________________
Ronan,
Jana (2001) Chat reference: an exciting new facet of digital reference
services. ARL no. 219, December 2001,
p. 4-6.
Retrieved from the World Wide Web on
Select
Plus databases accessed through Buley Library.
I find this article, even though it was
written in 2001, to be an excellent introduction to chat reference. Ms. Ronan begins by describing a chat query
from a librarian’s point of view, including logging on and interacting with
another librarian. Without underlining
it, she provides an example of an excellent reference interview, complete with
a personalized greeting, ways of discovering things about the user and their
capabilities, database and authentification
instruction, and closure that includes an invitation to return.
She goes on to briefly discuss the
beginnings of chat reference and its availability as of December 2001, noting
the Alliance Library System in Illinois as a 24/7 service. She notes some of the different systems
available and mentions collaboration as one means of handling the expense and
the staffing. She directs readers to the
Teaching Librarian for a more in depth discussion of software.
The
·
user’s don’t need anything beyond a java-enable browser
·
ability to push webpages and escort users
through them
·
private librarian to librarian messaging outside the chat system
·
database of phrases, handouts, and webpages
available in two clicks
·
transcripts auto-emailed to user
·
easy statistic compilation
·
accompanying email model that improved email reference as well
·
voice over IP capability
Ms. Ronan continues with a description of
a reference interview from the user’s point of view, and notes that the
questions received through the chat system are no different from those received
through another medium. She ends by
underlining the extreme importance of training issues as libraries move to
offer this mode of reference.
Ms. Ronan’s excellent article moves from
anecdotes to technical information and back again, providing the reader with
much information while maintaining article balance and readability.
______________________________
Ross,
Catherine Sheldrick (1998) Negative closure:
strategies and counter-strategies in the reference transaction.
Reference &
User Services Quarterly, v. 38, no. 2, p. 151-63. Retrieved
database on the World Wide Web
From a pool of 100 MLS student initiated
reference transactions, Ross has extracted the ones judged unsuccessful for
this analysis. She suggests that one
possibility is that they were in fact skillful from the librarian’s point of
view, if the desired outcome was simply to bring the interview to a close. She delineates mindsets that might prompt
this focus: 1) that users should not be given answers, but be taught to find
their own, 2) that certain classes of users like students deserve less help, 3)
that their institution has tacit guidelines for the appropriate time for each
transaction, or 4) that their institution discourages involving colleagues for
help. The guidelines for time per
transaction would of course come when a limited number of librarians must
handle a large number of user queries.
If the end of the transaction is the
primary outcome desired, then various behaviors noted make sense. Some of them were: little verbal interaction,
not defining the question, failing to encourage return, sending users to the
stacks with general call numbers, or better yet sending them to another floor
or building, implying the user should have done more before asking, claiming
the information is not in the library or does not exist at all, and so on. Ross gives plenty of actual examples from the
students’ reports horrible enough to make one cringe at the unprofessional
behavior. She also notes that some staff
may want to help, but are simply not experienced enough to know what search
strategies to use.
Noting that the MLS students were probably
more tenacious than most users, Ross lists counter-strategies they used to
prevent closure, many of which involved providing answers to unasked questions,
or suggesting search strategies themselves. In some cases the interviews became
antagonistic- a win-lose situation. Others
developed into win-win cooperative searches.
In some cases, the students simply gave up and tried another
librarian.
Ross recommends that the user be taken to
the referred source unless it’s completely impractical, and in that case that
they at least always receive an invitation to return to the desk. She suggests that staff need a lot of
training to cope with difficult and unfamiliar questions, and that issues of
inadequate staffing may be partially relieved with roving and tiered service.
This article is a wonderful way to move
away from the theoretical concepts of reference to a study of what actually
happens in the field. Ross has made a
well-reasoned analysis of her data, and proposed a unique conclusion: the rules
of reference are failing to be met because at least some librarians are playing
by new rules which have little to do with the users information need.
___________________________________
Tenopir,
Carol. (1998) Plagued by our own successes. Library
Journal,
Buley Library and the EBSCO Academic Elite Database on
In this
article Ms. Tenopir gives an overview of the issues
and concerns of electronic reference as expressed by responses of surveyed
reference departments in Academic and Research Libraries member libraries. Three surveys were done between 1991 and
1997. In the last, the survey asked: "Please comment on how
your library's use of electronic reference services has changed over the past
two to three years and how the job of the reference staff has changed. We would
be especially interested in your views on whether new technologies help or
hinder reference services."
One area of comment concerned changes in
instruction. Although in the 1991
survey, some predicted a reduction in instruction, the latest survey clearly
indicates that the need for instruction has in fact increased. There is need for basic technology
instruction for many users, and even those who are fairly proficient need help
in the location and use of appropriate resources.
The technological explosion has also
created a rise in expectations of both users and librarians. Users tend to expect librarians to have the
same mastery over electronic resources that they exhibited in the past with
print resources. Faculty and students
tend to expect speedy access to full-text documents. The vastly larger universe of information
available from any desktop may make librarians feel they should go farther and
create more comprehensive citations for each question, and the users may expect
it as well. Some librarians find the
ever-changing array of WWW resources, electronic databases, vendors, and
software add an unacceptable level of stress to their
jobs, while other just find their jobs more exciting.
Tenopir remains
on top of the issues in reference through her surveys and research. She is adept at writing readable and
informative articles, though it should be noted that much of the information
gathered by her surveys leans toward the anecdotal.
____________________________________
Reference Portals and the
Future of Reference
A Literature Review
At their most basic, “portals gather a
variety of useful information resources into a single one-stop web page… that
allows users to customize their information sources by selecting and using
information they personally find useful.” (
Crawford (2002) thinks that the
customization goes too far when the software takes over and modifies current
searches based on past use. In this the
user is no longer in control. The first
issue has to do with confidentiality.
Beyond that, the software, in its modifications may make information
that actually would be useful in a particular search unreported in results
based on the fact that the user did not use the particular source in a past
search. This brings to mind instances
using Microsoft Word, when the software makes a guess, “correcting” text. The user in that case can turn off controls,
or work around them, but in the instance of automatically customizing software,
the user may be completely unaware of sources being discarded from
consideration. Some customization
packages provide pushed information. In
that case, the user is more likely the victim of an overabundance of
information, rather than too little.
Imagine your inbox full of library Spam!
It is hardly the way to win users back to the library from search
engines.
Even when the customization remains
completely within the user’s control, early results with MyLibrary
indicate that few patrons are willing to take the time to even set up a
profile, and if they do, they will not do it very carefully, so that there
results will be forever (or until they modify the profile) shifted from what
would actually be the most useful to them. (Crawford, 2002) This system also allows users to make the
library their homepage with other links or content they want as well. The ideal system would allow the library link
as a building block in a MyCampus or My Worldview
homepage.
Others believe that true portals do not
merely provide access to particular resources in one place. Cox and Yeates of
UK/s LITC expect portals “to integrate the diverse license and varied
electronic holdings of libraries for users, through the whole process of
discovery and searching, to final deliver, regardless of the contents’ format,
the metadata standard in use, publisher issues, or authentification
mechanism.” (
Professionals with the most vision foresee
that the “core feature of any portal will be integrated, cross-database
searching of the local catalog, other library catalogs, selected websites,
locally licenses full text and abstracting/indexing databases and public domain
or publicly accessible abstracting and indexing sources.” (
Dorman (2003) prefers the term “questmaster” to portal because the latter implies a doorway
that one leaves behind, whereas the complex systems being described actually
remain in the search process guiding the user and manipulating results. Dorman reviews some current vendor products
and recommends Chameleon iPortal by VTLS particularly
because it allows libraries to configure almost every aspect of design, feel,
and content. This branding is essential
to keeping the library in the public eye.
Another aspect of portals used to attract
and keep users is the capability of dynamic content. Block (2002) describes the use of eMPower software in the SOLINET network of libraries based
in
Distance courses also use these kinds of
Content and Course Management Systems to allow faculty to provide and
manipulate content within a course. Both
faculty and students will come to expect courseware to be seamlessly connected
with all aspects of the University portal and that of the Library. Blackboard and WebCT
have actually been developed with little input from libraries, but users within
courseware should be able to access library information, and if using library
resources should be able ti export it to
courseware. (
The development of library portals has for
the most part been in response to users preference for
the convenience provided by large search engines like Google
and Ask. Libraries are trying to win users back by producing something just as
convenient. However, the institutions
want to retain the focus on reliable information and organized information,
areas where they are superior to the search engines. They also should perhaps focus on software
that allows in-depth and complex searches, another area in which search engines
do not excel. (Jackson 2002)
Balas (2001) offers LibrarySpot
as an example of an excellent portal.
Without maligning the information available there, I think that Balas is
missing an important point. The familiar library organizations offered there
are a comfort to librarians, but are not necessarily what the new generations
of users want. I agree with Jackson and Preece (2002) when they point out that students have little
patience with traditional library organizational structure.
So how do the new portals and other
innovations modify the roles of reference librarians and departments? (
Whitlatch (1998)
quotes
Email reference systems have never been
particularly successful. There is too
much lag time to satisfy patrons used to instantaneous results on the Web. Anhang and Coffman
(2002) debate the possible demise of reference librarians, noting that the chat
systems that are at least supplementing if not replacing email systems, are also not heavily used. Even with the inclusion of web center-based
software that allows co-browsing, libraries have not been successful in
promoting these services in a way that even approaches the success of the major
search engines. Perhaps the answer to
draw users to library portals is to embed data that ensures they appear in the
top Google results.
Coffman’s position (Anhang
and Coffman, 2002) is that reference services can be transformed to be viable
in the new millennium. He points to the
possibilities of Voice Over Internet Protocol and in Library
Technology Report (2002) new systems are predicted that allow the
manipulation of sound, pictures, and data in ways not even imagined now. There is the danger that Libraries will not
integrate new capabilities in a timely manner.
Library Journal (2002) points out that it should already be obvious that
many users are using wireless phones to access information, but that very few
chat systems include Wireless Appliance Protocols.
Coffman (2001) and Quint
(2002) also both underline dangerous implications for libraries that started
with the explosion of web-based education.
Online students never access university libraries in a physical sense,
leading some universities to wonder if any of their students need to. Some regions have removed library
requirements for accreditation. Coffman
predicts that most campuses will continue to have libraries, but they will be
more like warehouses run by paraprofessionals.
The reference staff will only be available online, but because that is
true, they will available to any student, anywhere, and in many cases anytime
This anytime motif extends beyond academic
libraries of course. Public libraries
and mixed consortiums also offer 24/7 reference service. Librarians used to traditional hours resist
unusual shifts leading to the use of multi-time zone or even international
systems. Librarians should be careful
that they don’t send institutions seeking to fill information needs directly to
vendors who will hire only professionals or paraprofessionals willing to work
odd hours. Some 24/7 systems already use
vendor coverage for added peak or off-hour service. Coffman (Anhang and
Coffman, 2002) does note that
Personally, I think those that predict the
end of library reference services are overstating the case. Anhang (Anhang and Coffman, 2002) for example belittles the 70,100
live questions handled by the Cornell chat systems in a month, comparing it to
the 4 million questions addressed to Ask Jeeves in
one day, or the even larger numbers fielded by Google. Coffman similarly notes that the top seven
search engines combined field about 300 million questions per day, while a
whole year passes before the colleges and universities in this country field
that many. I would point out that
regardless of the difference in size, those academic
libraries are serving actual users. 70,100 questions in a month does not seem
such a small amount to me.
I agree with Coffman when he says that
libraries can adapt, and my prediction is that they, led by the most visionary
and technologically proficient members of the profession will do so rather than
face extinction. This review of the
literature has led me to expect the following trends for reference services in
the future:
·
Fairly universal 24/7 services
·
More cooperatives and consortiums to provide that level of service.
·
Increased use of co-browsing chat systems
·
Replacement of the current typing interactions of such systems with
audio and visual
·
Access to these systems available through wireless devices
·
Increased percentage of total reference use being remote through
web-based systems, perhaps even approaching 100%
·
Increased detachment of library location from user location
·
Decreased use of print resources by users, although increased use of
scanning and visual techniques may mean that physical formats are still used at
the librarian end of the interaction
·
Increased multi-lingual services
·
Reference portals that integrate information retrieval from many
sources and are hopefully seen as superior to commercial systems that will also
be available.
·
Increased dynamic content on those portals
·
Increased tension between providing animations and graphics to look
up-to-date and the need to provide access to users with older systems
·
Systems that teach and guide users
·
Systems that are customizable by users
·
Software that assumes user need and intent.
Information in this review taken from the following articles. Unless noted otherwise, all of the articles
were retrieved on
Anhang, Abe, and
Coffman, Steve (2002) The great reference debate. American
Libraries, v. 33, no. 3,
p. 50, 5 pages. (Academic Search Premier)
Balas, Janet L. (2001) Extending a welcome to
the library and to the Internet. Computers in Libraries,
v.
21, no. 2, p. 43, 3 pages. (Academic Search Premier Item: 4078320)
Block,
Debbie Galante (2002) eM-power-ing
SOLINET: Southeaster Library’s portal transformation.
EContent , v. 25, no. 11, Nov. 2002,
p. 28-32. (Library Literature BBPI03000168).
Campbell,
Jerry D. (2000) Clinging to traditional reference services. Reference &
User Services
Quarterly, v. 39, no. 3, Spring 2000, p. 223+, 4 pages. Retrieved in October 2002 from
iCONN.
Coffman,
Steve (2001) Distance education and virtual reference: Where are we headed?
American Libraries, v.
21, no. 4. p. 20, 6 pages. (Academic Search
Premier)
Crawford, Walt (2002) Talking ‘bout MyLibrary. American
Libraries, v. 33. no. 4, April 2002, p. 91.
(Library Literature BEDI02010491)
Dorman,
David (2003) Technically speaking. American
Libraries, v. 34, no. 3, p. 60, 3 pages.
(Academic Search Premier)
Dougherty,
Richard M. (2002) Reference around the clock: Is it in your future? American
Libraries,
v. 33, no. 5, May 2002, p. 44, 46.
Gottesman, Laura (2002) Complementing the desk: Teleconference looks to the
future of reference.
Library of Congress Information
Bulletin, v. 61, no. 6, June 2002, p. 113. (Library Literature
BLIB02100683)
Jackson,
Mary E. (2002) The advent of portals. Library
Journal, v. 127, no. 15,
(Library Literature BLIB02100924)
Academic Librarianship, v. 28, no. 3, May 2002, p.
160-2. (Library Literature BEDI02017930)
Library Journal (2003) Planning for alternate futures. vo.
128, no. 5,
(Academic Search Premier Item:
9268538)
Library Technology Reports (2002)
Future of live online reference service. v. 38, no. 4, p. 71, 2 pages.
(Academic
Search Premier)
Moen,
William E. and Murray, Kathleen R. (2002) Designing and demonstrating a
resource discovery
service for the
Library of Texas.
(Library Literature BLIB02101412)
Quint, Barbara (2002) The digital library of the future. Information Today,
v. 19, no. 7, Jul/Aug 2002,
p. 8, 3 pages.
(Academic Search Premier)
Whitlatch, Jo Bell (1998)
Enhancing the quality of reference services for the 21st century. Reference
& User Services Quarterly, v. 38, no. 1, p. 15. Retrieved Oct. 2002 using iCONN.
p. 387, 8 pages. Retrieved Oct. 2002 from iCONN.