What Do Reference Librarians Do Now?
Research Article
What Do Reference Librarians Do Now?
Monty L. McAdoo
Student Success Librarian
Baron-Forness
Library
Pennsylvania Western
University
Edinboro, Pennsylvania,
United States of America
Email: mmcadoo@pennwest.edu
Received: 24 Mar. 2022 Accepted: 14 July 2022
2022 McAdoo.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30129
Abstract
Objective – The
primary purpose of this study was to better understand the nature of
“reference” and reference transactions.
Methods – This
study looked at four years of reference transaction (RT) data recorded at a
small, state-owned university.
Results – The
data clearly indicates that the overall number of RT continues to decline. It
also reveals that, despite the use of student mentors, librarians are still
involved with a majority of RT, regardless of whether or not they require the
expertise of a librarian to resolve.
Conclusion – Continuing to be involved with RT which
do not require the knowledge or training of a librarian (e.g., directional) can
have a diminutive effect on the perceived role, work, and value of librarians.
As such, it is suggested that these sorts of questions be addressed by student
mentors or staff members. In turn, this will allow librarians to focus on those
questions and activities which do require their unique knowledge and skills.
Along similar lines, it is also suggested that librarians explore and identify
new, non-traditional ways of applying their expertise to student success
initiatives and the overall academic life of the institution. With the merger
of three libraries, data from this study has been and continues to be used to
make informed decisions about the provision of reference services in a new,
integrated library environment.
Introduction
The perceived
centrality of the library to higher education has a long history in the United
States. In Harvard College’s 1873-74 Annual
Report, President Charles Eliot was one of the first to observe “The
Library is the heart of the University” (p. 39). For nearly 150 years, this characterization
by many of the library as the “academic hub” or “intellectual center” of the
university has remained firmly entrenched in the hearts and minds of faculty
and students alike.
By extension, it is
not surprising that the perceived role and value of librarians to higher
education have remained central. The many and varied ways librarians contribute
to the information-seeking process are undeniable. Thus, for many, the
provision of “reference services” has continued to be the axle around which the
work of librarianship revolves and is central to virtually every model of
quality library service.
Recently, however, the
value of librarians is coming under increased scrutiny. For example, declining
student enrollments and other factors have resulted in budgetary constraints.
The latter is compelling librarians and campus administrators to identify and
develop greater efficiencies, especially with regard to personnel costs
(Cottrell & Bell, 2015). Bandyopadhyay and Boyd-Byrnes (2016) make a
similar observation stating “budget shortfalls and decreased demands for
reference services have forced academic librarians and library administrators
to rethink and redesign the reference service models to provide library users
with a meaningful and efficient service to cater to their information needs”
(p. 609).
As budgetary and other
expectations for greater accountability grow, librarians are not alone in being
asked to supply data which demonstrates the impact their work has on things
such as graduation rates, retention, and various other measures of student and
institutional success (Goss, 2022). To that end, quantitative measures alone
are no longer sufficient. That is, it is no longer enough to simply equate X
number of reference transactions (RT) with value.
This study examines
transaction data recorded over a four-year period in an attempt to better
understand librarians’ roles in the provision of reference services.
Literature
Review
For more than a
century, much has been written about the nature of reference service.
Historically, as suggested above, helping to ensure the information needs of an
individual are met has typically been seen as being a key (if not the primary)
role of academic librarians. A cross-section of examples include:
·
1876: Samuel Green,
often referred to as the “father of reference,” observed among other things
that “A librarian should be as unwilling to allow an inquirer to leave the
library with his question unanswered as a shop-keeper is to have a customer go
out of his store without making a purchase” (p. 79).
·
1994: Summerhill
defined “reference services” as simply “a facilitation of the connection
between researchers and the information they desire or need” (p. 74).
·
2008: Reference and
User Services Association (RUSA), a division of the American Library
Association (ALA), articulated “reference work” and “reference transactions” as
being “information consultations in which library staff recommend, interpret,
evaluate, and/or use information resources to help others to meet particular
information needs” (RUSA).
·
2016: Sosulski and Tyckoson note that,
“Whether we call it reference or research or just plain help, librarians
provide personal service to make sure that each person finds the information
that best meets his or her needs” (p. 88).
The Evolution of Reference Librarianship
Whether via a virtual
or a physical presence, the underlying notion of reference work has been that
an individual approaches a librarian for assistance because the librarian
possesses some expertise or knowledge that the individual does not. That is, it
is believed a librarian has the specialized training needed to identify,
locate, access, and retrieve information. Historically, even if individuals
were able to find information on their own, a librarian has typically continued
to be perceived as being able to do so more effectively and more efficiently.
As a direct result, the “reference desk” (i.e., where librarians have typically
provided reference service) has long served as the focal point of the academic
library. As Stevens (2013) observes, the reference desk remains “A dominant
symbol of the profession but also as an actual place where librarians “do”
reference” (p. 205).
The library has
long-served as centralized location for storing physical information (e.g.,
print, microfilm). Until fairly recently, individuals would typically need to
go to a library to get the information they needed because that was the only
place the information could be accessed. Librarians were trained and
responsible for acquiring, organizing, and providing access to the library’s collection.
Because most individuals didn’t have access to or were unfamiliar with how to
navigate the world of information, librarians served as essentially “mediators”
and, as such, were a necessary and inextricable part of addressing information
needs.
With the advent of
technology, things began to change. In the last quarter of the twentieth
century, librarians still served as mediators. However, this role was
increasingly linked with helping individuals to access and navigate various
technologies. For example, to access the desired information, individuals may
have needed a librarian from this period to load a CD-ROM or access an
electronic information service (e.g., Dialog).
As resources became more user-friendly, however, librarians often found themselves
less involved with the actual search and more involved with showing individuals
how to navigate the interfaces of resources and software applications on their
own.
In response, today,
the look, feel, and function of reference desks continues to change. For
example, many libraries now provide some form of virtual “desk” (e.g., chat,
social media, email) to meet the demands of a growing number of remote
learners. Many now staff the latter or the physical reference desk with student
workers, freeing-up librarians to perform “higher level” tasks (Clark et al.,
2020; Keyes & Dworak, 2017).
Even so, the physical
reference desk still plays a central role in many libraries. The continued
significance attached to the physical reference desk is perhaps best illustrated
by a 2008 study by Banks and Pracht which found that
only 2 libraries out of 101 respondents did not have a physical reference desk.
While speaking of the ongoing efficacy of the physical reference desk, Freides’ (1983) observation can be applied to virtual desks
as well:
The reference desk works
best for directional questions and requests for specific factual information.
It is not well designed for dealing with questions requiring interpretation or
exploration, including what is probably the most common, and most important,
type of reference inquiry in academic libraries, the open-ended, ‘information
about’ request for assistance with term papers and other classroom assignments.
(p. 467)
Challenges to the Librarian-as-Mediator Model
As noted above,
providing research or “information assistance” has been a longstanding role of
academic librarians. Whether virtual or in-person, the predominant model of and
justification for reference service typically continues to reflect the
assumption of the need for a librarian-as-mediator in the information-seeking
process.
But questions about
whether or not this is still a valid assumption have been around for years
(Ford, 1986). Numerous researchers note a decline in the number of questions
actually requiring the expertise of a librarian (Carlson, 2007; Ewing &
Hauptman, 1995; Maloney & Kemp, 2015; Stevens, 2013). In talking about the
change in the type of questions to which librarians respond, Bell (2007) states
that “doling out software help and fixing paper jams, two frequent reference
desk tasks these days squanders the talent and expertise of skilled librarians”
(p. 1).
However, as Miles
(2013) observes, “the biggest problem with traditional reference service has to
do not with the model, but with changes in the world around the reference
librarian” (p. 321). That is, the value of one-to-one interactions with a
librarian is not in dispute. But, because of the breadth and depth of changes
to the information landscape, the nature of reference services, the emphasis we
place on such, and the roles and responsibilities of reference librarians must
necessarily change as well.
To better understand
both the causes and nature of this shift, a number of changes resulting from
today’s information rich, technology-laden world need to be acknowledged
including the following.
Researcher Independence
At least part of the
decline in and changing nature of RT can be attributed to researcher
independence. As Lewis (1995) observes, “most of the tools we currently use in
the library were invented by librarians. The catalog, indexes, and abstracts,
even in computerized versions, were developed by librarians. Our new tools
though come from outside the library world” (p. 12). Today’s search interfaces
are increasingly user-friendly and internet search algorithms are increasingly
sophisticated. As a result, a growing number of individuals no longer need a
librarian to explain things such as a “controlled vocabulary” or “proximity
operators” to find the information they seek.
Declining Number of RT
Over the past decade or so, some remain
optimistic that virtual transactions will slow the decline or even result in
increases in reference transactions. However, the accuracy, extent, and
duration of these claims remain under study. For now, reports of consistent,
continued, and often large decreases in reference transactions overall continue
to emerge. Among others (Banks & Pracht, 2008;
Carlson, 2007; Stevens, 2013; Weber & Bowron,
2019), a study conducted by the American Library Association (2008) indicated a
50% decline in reference transactions between 1994 and 2008.
Nature of Questions
As with the declining
number of transactions, there are a growing number of studies which find that
the majority of questions typically being asked can be answered by staff
members or even student workers. This is not a new observation. For example,
more than 40 years ago, well before the “Information Age”, Saint Clair et al.
(1977) reported that well-trained non-professionals could handle “at least 62.l percent of all questions posed
at the reference desk” (p. 151). More recently, Ryan’s (2008) study of
nearly 7,000 transactions suggested that “89% could likely be answered by
non-librarians” (p. 389). A study by Lenkart and Yu
(2017) of more than 66,000 RT revealed the majority were directional (30.9%),
with just under 9% characterized as about research assistance and
ready-reference. In talking about
claims that reference transactions are more complex, Stevens (2013) says they
are unsubstantiated and points to several studies which indicate that “only a
small percentage [of research questions] are complex enough to require the help
of a subject specialist” (p. 206).
Response Quality
Even before the onset
of technology, the quality of service provided by reference librarians had been
questioned. Ross (1998), for example,
concluded that “the success rate for information service hovers in the
50 to 60 percent range” (p. 151). Smart technologies (e.g., Alexa, Siri) and a growing number of online sites and services are often
able to provide quicker responses of the same or even better quality than a
librarian. Shachaf (2009), for example, found that
the quality of responses generated by Wikipedia
Reference Desk were generally comparable to those of library reference
services. The risk of diminished response quality is potentially even greater
for libraries which use students or untrained professionals to staff the
reference desk.
Reference Service at the Research Site
In January, 2016,
librarians at Edinboro University of PA (EU) discontinued staffing the physical
reference desk. Instead, the physical desk was staffed with “student mentors.”
There were three main reasons this change was affected:
Decreased
Availability of Librarians
Librarians at EU have faculty status. Among
other things, this means they are not required to work when classes are not in
session (e.g., Spring Break). Since 2000, the number of librarians declined
from 11 to 8 (2016) to 6 (2019). Because of the latter and based on identified
times of need, librarians are not scheduled to work evenings or weekends. Staffing
the reference desk with student mentors was seen as a way to help to ensure
broader, more continuous assistance throughout the year.
Approachability
It was believed students might feel more
comfortable approaching someone who was more “like them.”
Increased
Professional Opportunities for Librarians
The change was seen as a way of freeing-up
librarians, using the time they formerly would have spent staffing the physical
desk to perform higher-level tasks requiring their unique skills and expertise.
During the 2016 to
2019 study period, student mentors staffed the physical desk a total of 84
hours per week during fall and spring semesters. Some of those hours were
scheduled with an on-call librarian (i.e., 27 hours per week) but the majority
were scheduled when no librarian was available for the reasons outlined above.
Student mentors login to chat at the start of their
shift under a generic, joint “Reference Desk” account. RT can be recorded
automatically (chat) or manually as outlined below. Student mentors are
expected to forward all “research” and other questions requiring a librarian’s
expertise to the on-call librarian. When no librarian is available, they submit
questions to a common queue. When on-call, librarians are responsible for
monitoring the queue and otherwise making themselves available for those
needing assistance in-person or virtually.
Research
Questions
Historically,
transaction log data has been used primarily by EU for determining periods of
high usage in order to make informed decisions about providing reference
services. To become more cost-effective and because of a significant decline in
the number of librarians and RT, maximizing the use of librarians’ time and
effort is crucial. With the merger of three libraries, this has become even
more important and concerns over optimizing the use of librarians’ time and
expertise remain central.
To that end, this
study examines RT recorded by librarians compared to those recorded by student
mentors along four dimensions:
Patron Type
Contact Type
Time Spent
Overall
“Information Search”
Query Type
Overall
“Information Search”
Data from this study
were used and continues to be used to inform decisions and to make
recommendations about the configuration of RefAnalytics (software used to
log RT as described below) and the provision of reference services locally and
in the new, integrated library environment.
Data
Collection and Analysis
Setting
EU is one of 14
state-owned universities which comprise the Pennsylvania State System of Higher
Education (PASSHE). In fall of 2022, EU merged with two other PASSHE institutions
to form Pennsylvania Western University (PennWest
University).
Data Collection
As part of the
evolution of reference services, EU librarians discontinued the use of a paper
transaction log. Starting in 2016, they began recording RT electronically via Springshare’s RefAnalytics aspect of the LibAnswers platform.
Both librarians and
student mentors are responsible for logging transactions. RefAnalytics allows individuals to log transactions manually. Transactions
occurring via the integrated chat feature can be logged automatically. When no
one is available, individuals needing assistance are able to submit their
questions via email, text message, or a link on the library’s homepage. All
submissions are automatically stored in a common queue and are responded to by
the next available librarian. While monitoring the queue is primarily the
responsibility of the on-call librarian, the queue can be checked at any time
by any librarian on-campus or off-site. Student mentors only to respond to
items in the queue which are not research-oriented (e.g., directional, hours).
Data Challenges
In attempting to better understand the role of librarians in the
provision of reference services, the researcher was limited to the available data and
the way in which it was recorded. However, prior to data analysis, a cursory
examination revealed a number of concerns associated with the data. The primary
impact(s) of each concern on recorded RT is reflected parenthetically below as
Quantity (number of RT), Type (type of RT), and Time (time spent resolving RT).
Inconsistent Coding (Quantity, Type)
The same query was often coded multiple ways.
For example, despite having a designated “Query Type” (QT) of “Printing Issue,”
examples of print-related RT were found in seven
of the nine possible QT.
Incomplete Data (Type, Time)
Many data fields were left blank making it
difficult or even impossible to determine the actual subject of the RT.
Incorrect QT (Type)
Some QT were applied incorrectly. For example,
“Looking for
a DSM5 book in reference” was
recorded as “Archives” even though the query is clearly not related to
Archives.
Multiplicity (Quantity, Type)
Sometimes two or more unrelated questions
posed by a single individual were recorded as a single transaction (e.g., “I’m having trouble printing and
need a book on feminist art.”). This resulted in slightly reducing the overall
number of actual RT.
Duplicate Entries
(Quantity)
Duplicate entries typically
occurred for one of two reasons. First, sometimes referrals from student
mentors were logged by both the student and the librarian. Other times, when a
chat got disconnected, a new, distinct RT was sometimes created instead of the
transaction being entered as a continuation of the initial RT. Duplicate
entries resulted in a slight inflation of the overall number of RT.
Data Homogenization
While chat
transactions are recorded automatically, all other questions and responses must
be entered manually. A time date stamp and the responder (i.e., student mentor
or individual librarian) are supplied automatically based on login. RefAnalytics
provides drop-down menu options for entering additional transaction data along
three criteria described in Table 1. The latter also provides the emergent
codes used to homogenize the data for this study (described below).
Table 1
RefAnalytics’ Drop-Down Menu Options’ Homogenization
Criterion
Original Options
Coded Options
Patron Type
Community, Faculty, Staff, Student, N/A
Community, Faculty, Staff, Student, Unknown
Query Type
Archives, Catalog Search, Citations, Computer Issue, Directional,
Other, Printing Issue, Reference, Remote Login, Scanning
Academic, Access, Building, Circulation,
Citation, Computer, Directional, Information Search, Instruction, Other,
Printing
Time Spent
1-5 minutes, 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, >20
1-5 minutes, 5-10, 10-15, 15-30, 30-60
Overall
In an attempt to generate a more consistent dataset which more closely
reflected the actual nature and number of recorded RT, the researcher reviewed
every RT and effected the following before analyzing the data.
For RT fields lacking
data, sometimes it was impossible to know what transpired (e.g., Time
Spent) and the field was left blank. However, for a significant number of
entries, fields could be assigned by examining the actual query or other
data. For example, the query “Can you tell me where the Writing Center is
located?” with no recorded QT was assigned a QT of “Directional.”
Inconsistently applied
and incorrectly assigned QT were corrected whenever possible.
Each aspect of
multi-part QT was converted into an individual RT and coded accordingly.
All RT for this study were then recoded and
regrouped using the options noted in Table 1.
Information Search (IS)
In order to better
understand the nature of those RT recorded with a QT of “Information Search” or
IS (i.e., those RT presumed to require a librarian), a similar review of both
the actual questions recorded and the corresponding responses was conducted.
The latter resulted in identifying seven common themes: Research, Circulation,
Access, Assignment Help (non-research), Formatting, Other, Blank/Unknown.
As with many other RT,
the lack of specificity in the way some RT were recorded sometimes made it
difficult to determine which IS transactions were “research” and which were
not. For example, does a question recorded as “Photography books” reflect
someone looking for that section of the collection to browse or someone doing
actual research on the topic who wanted multiple books? For the purposes of
this study, when the nature of an IS transaction involving searching was not
clear, the quantity of sources requested was used to assign a theme. Questions
and answers which clearly indicated more than one source was desired were coded
as “Research” and those for which a single source was sought were coded as
“Circulation.”
Dataset
The result of the
above process was a dataset of 5,194 RT recorded from January 1, 2016 through
December 31, 2019. Due to COVID and a building renovation project, data from
March, 2020 until August, 2021 was purposely excluded to help ensure a more
consistent dataset and analysis.
Results
As a record of the
work being performed by reference librarians, the library’s transaction log was
examined along various dimensions, especially the nature of transactions
recorded by student mentors versus those recorded by librarians.
Total Recorded Transactions
Table 2 provides a
historical summary of transactions recorded from 1999-2019.
Observations
Except for slight increases from 2000 to 2001 and
2016 to 2017 and another from 2007 to 2009, the overall downward trend in
recorded transactions over the past 20 years is consistent.
Since 1999, RT have declined more than
90%.
During the 4-year study period, RT
declined by approximately 26%.
Table
2
Recorded
Reference Transactions (RT): 1999-2019
Year
Recorded Reference
Transactions (RT)
1999
11,593
2000
10,072
2001
10,223
2002
8,407
2003
7,485
2004
3,768
2005
1,705
2006
1,635
2007
1,249
2008
3,800
2009
8,382
2010
6,909
2011
5,533
2012
3,597
2013
3,505
2014
3,230
2015
1,673
2016
1,441
2017
1,447
2018
1,244
2019
1,062
Patron Type
Table 3 summarizes the
five patron types which could be assigned to a transaction.
Table 3
Patron Type by
Responder a
Patron Type (PT)
Student Mentors
Student
% of PT
Librarians
Librarian
% of PT
PT % of
Overall
Community
22
12.9
149
87.1
3.4
Faculty
28
10.2
247
89.8
5.5
Staff
5
15.6
27
84.4
< 1
Student
1,507
33.7
2,966
66.3
88.9
Unknown
31
37.3
52
62.7
1.6
Total
1,593
31.6
3,441
68.4
5,034/100
a For 160 recorded
transactions (40 by student mentors, 120 by librarians), no Patron Type was
recorded. These transactions were not included as part of the above
calculations or observations below.
Observations
The overwhelming majority of RT (88.9%) were interactions
with students.
The second highest category (i.e.,
Faculty) only represented just over 5% of all RT.
Librarians were involved with almost 90% of
Faculty RT and nearly two-thirds of Student RT.
Contact Type
Contact Type (CT)
refers to the form of interaction which took place and is summarized in Table
4.
Table 4
Contact Type by
Responder a
Contact Type (CT)
Student Mentors
Student
% of CT
Librarians
Librarian
% of CT
CT % of
Overall
In-Person
1,488
36.6
2,577
63.4
78.3
All Others b
143
12.7
986
87.3
21.7
Total
1,631
31.4
3,563
68.6
5,194/100
a Student
mentor and librarian percentages differ from other tables because the latter
are missing records.
b
Includes chat, email, phone, and no determinable contact type.
Observations
Over 63% of in-person transactions and more than
87% of all other transactions were recorded by a librarian.
Despite a growing number of remote learners and
online courses and programs, more than three-quarters of all RT took place
in-person.
Time Spent
Tables 5 and 6 present
data about different aspects of Time Spent on transactions.
Time Spent: Overall
The overall
distribution of Time Spent recorded by Responder is summarized in Table 5.
Table 5
Overall Time Spent by
Responder a
Time Spent (TS)
Student
Mentors
Student % of
TS
Librarians
Librarian % of
TS
TS % of Overall
1-5 Minutes
1,317
46.9
1,492
53.1
55.9
5-10 Minutes
219
17.1
1,059
82.9
25.4
10-15 Minutes
36
9.2
356
90.8
7.8
15-30 Minutes
7
4.2
158
95.8
3.2
30-60 Minutes
11
2.9
374
97.1
7.7
Total
1,590
31.6
3,439
68.4
5,029/100
a For 165 recorded
transactions (41 by student mentors, 124 by librarians), no Time Spent was
recorded. These transactions were not included as part of the above
calculations or observations below.
Observations
55.9% of all transactions were resolved in < 5 minutes.
82.8% of RT recorded by student mentors
were resolved in < 5 minutes.
43.4% of all RT recorded by librarians
were resolved in < 5 minutes.
81.3% of all transactions were resolved in < 10 minutes.
96.6% of RT recorded by student mentors
were resolved in < 10 minutes.
74.2% of all RT recorded by librarians
were resolved in < 10 minutes.
89.1% of all transactions were resolved in < 15 minutes.
98.9% of RT recorded by student mentors
were resolved in < 15 minutes.
84.5% of all RT recorded by librarians
were resolved in < 15 minutes.
Time Spent: Information Search
Table 6 summarizes
Time Spent for transactions recorded as “Information Search.”
Table 6
Time Spent by
Responder on Information Search
Time Spent (TS)
Student
Mentors
Student
% of TS
Librarians
Librarian % of
TS
TS % Overall
1-5 Minutes
45
60.8
321
20.7
22.6
5-10 Minutes
18
24.3
541
35.0
34.5
10-15 Minutes
7
9.5
243
15.7
15.4
15-30 Minutes
2
2.7
128
8.3
8.0
30-60 Minutes
2
< 1
309
20.0
19.2
None Entered a
0
0
5
< 1
< 1
Total
74
4.6
1,547
95.4
1,621/100
a
Because of the small number involved, the five transactions for which no data
was entered for Time Spent were excluded from subsequent calculations.
Observations
22.6% of all IS transactions were resolved in < 5 minutes.
60.1% of IS RT recorded by student
mentors were resolved in < 5 minutes.
20.7% of all IS RT recorded by
librarians were resolved in < 5 minutes.
57.1% of all IS transactions were resolved in < 10 minutes.
85.1% of IS RT recorded by student
mentors were resolved in < 10 minutes.
55.7% of all IS RT recorded by
librarians were resolved in < 5 minutes.
72.5% of all IS transactions were resolved in < 15 minutes.
94.6% of IS RT recorded by student
mentors were resolved in < 15 minutes.
71.4% of all IS RT recorded by
librarians were resolved in < 15 minutes.
Query Type
Query Type (QT)
reflects the nature of a given transaction. Table 7 summarizes the distribution
of the 11 possible QT which could be assigned to transactions.
Table 7
Query Type by
Responder a
Query Type (QT)
Student
Mentors
Student % of QT
Librarians
Librarian % of
QT
QT % of Overall
Academic
219
79.1
58
20.9
5.5
Access
3
3.9
74
96.1
1.5
Building
206
50.9
199
49.1
8.0
Circulation
37
94.9
2
5.1
< 1
Citation
14
16.5
71
83.5
1.7
Computer
162
26.5
449
73.5
12.1
Directional
291
56.4
225
43.6
10.3
Information Search
74
4.6
1,547
95.4
32.2
Instruction
62
51.2
59
48.8
2.4
Printing
519
40.7
755
59.3
25.3
Other
1
16.7
5
83.3
< 1
Total
1,588
31.6
3,444
68.4
5,032/100
a For 162 recorded
transactions (43 by student mentors, 119 by librarians), no Query Type was
recorded. These transactions were not included as part of the above
calculations or observations below.
Observations
Two QT, “Information Search” and “Printing”,
accounted for 57.5% of all RT.
Librarians responded to more than 68% of all
questions, regardless of QT.
Information Search (IS)
Just under a third of all RT (32.2%) were
recorded as IS.
Virtually all IS (95.4%) were responded to by a
librarian.
An average of 405.25 IS RT were recorded
for each year of this study, representing an average of 7.8 per week or
just over one per day.
Characteristics of Information Search (IS)
Overall
Table 8 summarizes the
distribution of the seven characteristics assigned to IS RT.
Table 8
Characteristics of IS
RT
Identified Theme
#
%
Research
856
52.8
Circulation
398
24.6
Access
141
8.7
Assignment Help
(non-research)
82
5.1
Formatting
66
4.1
Other
44
2.7
Blank or Unknown
34
2.1
TOTALS
1,621
100.0
Observations
52.8% of all IS RT were associated with research.
24.6% of all IS RT were related to Circulation
(including single source and ready-reference sorts of questions).
IS Theme by Responder
IS themes were also
examined in terms of responder as shown in Table 9.
Table 9
IS Theme by Responder
IS THEME
Student
Mentors
Student
% of Theme
Librarians
Librarian % of
Theme
Theme % Overall
Research
25
2.9
831
97.1
52.8
Circulation
26
6.5
372
93.5
24.6
Access
8
5.7
133
94.3
8.7
Assignment Help (non-research)
0
0.0
82
100.0
5.1
Formatting
2
3.0
64
97.0
4.1
Other
4
9.1
40
90.9
2.7
Blank or Unknown
9
26.5
25
73.5
2.1
Total
74
4.6
1,547
95.4
1,621/100
Observations
Librarians responded to more than 95% of all RT recorded
as “Information Search.”
Librarians responded to more than 97% of all RT
characterized as “Research.”
Just over 90% of all “Other” IS RT were recorded
by a librarian.
Librarians recorded nearly three-quarters of
“Blank or Unknown” transactions.
Discussion
Total Recorded RT
Increases
The reason for the
slight increases in overall RT recorded from 2000 to 2001 and 2016 to 2017 is
unclear. However, in 2008, a new University President was inaugurated. At least
in part, a new admissions initiative he implemented may explain both the
increases and larger numbers from 2007 through 2011 as well as the gradual
decline 2009 through 2014. It is suggested that the new policy resulted in a
larger student population which, in turn, translated into a larger number of
RT. Conversely, when a new President arrived in 2010, the policy was revised.
As a result, the decline from 2009 onward may simply reflect a smaller, more
stable student population resulting from the new policy and a combination of
both the graduation of and the attrition of students admitted under the
previous one.
Decreases
No single factor can
explain the clear and dramatic decline in recorded transactions over the past
20 years. The reasons for such are likely many and varied. Certainly,
contributing to the decline is that the student population decreased from 7,079
or 6,251 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) students in 1999 to 4,646 (3,858 FTE) in
2019, which was a decrease of roughly one-third. Another is the widespread growth
of web-based forms of information. The proliferation of “Smart Devices”
enabling individuals to search for information from virtually anywhere at any
time, as well as increasingly user-friendly interfaces and more sophisticated
search algorithms have certainly played a role as well. The role (if any) of
the decline in the number of librarians and the use of student mentors is
unclear. Regardless of the reasons, a significant decline in transactions is
undeniable.
Patron Type and Contact Type by Responder
Patron Type
It is not surprising
that the largest group of individuals seeking assistance was students. What is
surprising is that, despite not being present at the physical desk, librarians
were still involved with two-thirds of all student transactions. Even though it
was surmised that students would be more likely to approach a peer than a
librarian, the data suggest this might not be the case.
Contact Type
With a growing number
of off-site learners, online courses and programs, and remote access to library
resources, it was surprising to learn that over three-quarters of all RT still
occurred in-person. It was even more surprising that just over 63% of all
in-person transactions were recorded by a librarian. Both measures would seem
to indicate that individuals still prefer a face-to-face interaction to a
virtual one.
In both cases,
particularly given that librarians no longer staff the physical desk, it is
convenient to believe that students needing help recognize the value of
librarians and consciously seek their assistance over that of their peers.
However, while there may be some merit to this assumption, there are any of a
number of other factors which might help to explain the significantly larger
number of in-person interactions that librarians recorded. One of these is
simple geography. Two librarians’ offices are essentially adjacent to the
reference desk and another librarian is in close proximity. This results in a
lot of walk-ins when the student mentor is helping someone else or otherwise
unavailable. The proximity of librarians also makes it easy for student mentors
to refer patrons. At the time, there was no way to record interactions
initiated by a student mentor and then transferred to a librarian. Such
transactions were generally recorded by the librarian.
Two other factors
which may contribute to the discrepancy revolve around the librarians
themselves. First, librarians are more aware of the need for data collection
and its various uses (e.g., scheduling). Therefore, they may be more diligent
than student mentors in terms of recording transactions. In addition, despite
employing student mentors, at least two librarians at the time continued to
advocate that ALL questions, regardless of the level, should be directed to and
addressed by a librarian. As a result, those librarians may have recorded more
transactions than the student mentors with whom they were paired.
Time Spent by Responder: Overall
In addition to
research questions, time spent addressing an individual’s need is often seen as
another measure of librarians’ worth. The underlying assumption is that
questions which can be answered by students and staff typically don’t take as
much time as those questions involving the expertise of a librarian. For
example, informing someone of when the library’s open over the weekend takes
far less time and expertise than helping someone working on a research paper to
identify suitable resources and develop a research strategy for retrieving
source material.
Assuming the above
assumption is valid, one would expect that most questions answered by student
mentors (e.g., directional) would involve less time. The data from this study
support this claim. Nearly 83% of all RT recorded by student mentors were
addressed in under 5 minutes and virtually all (i.e., 98.9%) were addressed in
under 15 minutes.
Though to a lesser
extent, the time librarians spent answering questions is similar. More than 43%
of all questions addressed by a librarian were resolved in under 5 minutes
while more than 74% and nearly 85% were resolved in under 10 and under 15
minutes respectively. While librarians tended to spend more time answering a
given question, the clear majority were addressed relatively quickly.
Time Spent by Responder on Information Search
Given the above, time
spent addressing IS questions was examined in greater detail. As noted earlier,
such questions are often seen as being more involved and necessitating the
expertise of a librarian. In turn, the implication is that they will involve more
time to resolve.
Whether or not the
data from this study support this assumption or not is unclear. Nearly
one-fifth of all IS questions were resolved by a librarian in under five
minutes. Nearly three-quarters were resolved in under 15 minutes. Admittedly,
there is no “magic number” or direct, inherent correlation between need and
time spent. Too, as observed above, many RT recorded as IS are clearly
“ready-reference,” quick answer sorts of questions. Even so, it is difficult to
argue that more in-depth needs and concerns typically associated with “research
questions” and the need for a librarian can be sufficiently addressed in 15
minutes or less.
Query Type by Responder
Overall
Even a cursory review
of the data reveals that many of the transactions which occur can be addressed
without the intervention of a librarian. The latter was one of the main
arguments for hiring student mentors to staff the reference desk. Thus, despite
the fact that many of the questions clearly did not require the expertise of a
librarian, it is somewhat surprising that librarians were involved with nearly
70% of all recorded RT.
Information Search (IS)
Of all the available
QT, “Information Search” (IS) represents the type of transaction typically seen
as “professional” and as such requiring the training and expertise of a
librarian. As Maloney and Kemp (2015) observe, such questions are seen as more
complex in that they require a “deeper collection knowledge and more time to
answer” (p. 961). That said, it is discouraging to learn that less than a third
of all RT were actually characterized as IS. Even if all recorded IS
transactions required a more in-depth consultation with a librarian, the number
of recorded IS transactions only averaged slightly more than one per day of the
period under study. This suggests that either not many students are conducting
research or that they do not have a need for a librarian when they do.
At the same time, it
is encouraging that the overwhelming majority of all recorded IS transactions
were addressed by a librarian. This would seem to reinforce the traditional
role of librarians in identifying possible sources of information, developing
search strategies, and providing other forms of information-seeking assistance.
Characteristics of Information Search
Theme and Responder
As outlined above, the
QT of IS is supposed to be assigned to questions
which are “professional,” requiring a librarian’s training and expertise. For
the most part, these questions revolve around some aspect of the research
process. Despite the various challenges associated with recording transactions,
it was somewhat surprising that only a little more than half (52.8%) of all
transactions coded as “Information Search” actually revolved around research.
At the same time, it was encouraging to note that just over 97% of “Research”
questions were addressed by a librarian. This suggests that student mentors
have a good understanding of which questions should be directed to a librarian.
However, the lingering
challenges moving forward are threefold. First, how are “professional questions”
to be determined? Where does the line get drawn between a student mentor
answering a question and making a referral to a librarian? In terms of research
transactions, that most “know one when they see one”
is not sufficient. Most seem to understand what a non-research question is. For
example, asking the location of the restroom or how late the library will be
open are questions student mentors are capable of addressing. Despite some
librarians’ aversion to such, most student mentors can be trained to answer
many traditional ready-reference sorts of questions as well as to conduct basic
searches for books and other sources of information. Even so, despite the
overwhelming majority of “research” questions being referred to a librarian,
roughly 3% were still addressed by student mentors.
The reverse is even
more problematic. That is, when a librarian is asked a “non-professional”
question (e.g., how much does it cost to make a photocopy?), should these
questions be referred to a student mentor? Common sense and the strong service
orientation of most librarians suggest not. And yet, it is clear that
librarians are often asked and address these questions even though they do not
require a librarian’s expertise or experience.
The third challenge to
emerge from the data revolves around questions which fall outside the
professional versus non-professional dichotomy. Some examples from the data
include being asked to proofread assignments, formatting citations and other
aspects of an assignment, assisting with completing a graduate school
application, and fixing problems with remote access to resources. Admittedly,
many librarians are fully capable of addressing these sorts of questions. The
question is, though, should they do so and, if so, to what degree?
Clearly articulating
and otherwise distinguishing between professional and non-professional
questions and who should address them remain key challenges moving forward.
Conclusion
This study’s title is an
intentional double-entendre. One aspect is descriptive.
Although limited to a single site, this study provides insight into the nature
of RT and the “what” of reference services. Historically, the longstanding
tradition of providing “research assistance” is an inextricable element of most
librarians’ identities. And yet, the data from this study more than suggest
that not only are the number of transactions continuing to decline but the
number actually requiring the expertise of a librarian are declining as well.
This brings-up the
second, contemplative aspect of the
title. Looking ahead, what do we do now that our role
as mediators in the information-seeking process continues to diminish? To
answer this question we must determine 1) the best way
to provide “reference service” and 2) other ways we can employ our training and
expertise to contribute to the academic life of the campus.
Moving forward,
librarians must begin by taking a serious, candid look at “reference.” It is a
given that librarians will continue to play a role in meeting individuals’ information
needs. As Buss (2016) observes, “A more reasonable approach is to evolve
reference services, not to abandon them... More appropriately, librarians
should adjust their hours, service points, and reference philosophies to meet
the needs of specific constituents” (p. 268). For example, perhaps the role of ready-reference has
forever been relegated to the online world. But, if so, this creates an
opportunity for librarians to focus even greater time and effort on research
questions.
However, it seems clear
that we cannot continue sitting at a physical desk, waiting for someone to ask
a question. As Stevens (2013) points out, the physical
desk is based on the reliance on printed information and that we must “dislodge our understanding of reference from
the desk” (p. 205). At the very least, this approach is not cost-effective.
Worse, as Friedes (1983) observed nearly 30 years ago
and as reinforced by the data from this study, staffing a physical desk may
actually be harming the profession in that librarians’ value risks being
equated more with “tech support” or “general information” than with our
expertise as information professionals.
To a large degree,
the same can be said for virtual reference services (e.g., email, chat, social
media). In part, the latter are needed to meet the growing population of remote
learners, and yet, we need to be cautious that our virtual “desk” is not just a
physical desk in disguise. That is, we have to ask if we have added a
service which truly requires a librarian or have simply added another layer or
responsibility which distracts librarians from engaging in and performing other
professional activities.
Adopting an
appointment-based model is one alternative to explore. As Summerhill (1994) notes, “An important benefit of a consultation
model is that the level of service would be clearly and directly connected to
staffing” (p. 82). Inherent in scheduling an appointment is the assumption that
an individual’s needs require the expertise of a librarian (i.e., otherwise,
why schedule an appointment?). The model offers several benefits including:
Walk-ins suppose
the availability of a librarian and, necessarily, involve a lot of idle
time. Scheduling appointments ahead of time addresses these problems.
Librarians have
the ability to prepare
materials, examples, and so on.
Appointments
provide an environment with limited distractions during which more time
and focus can be devoted to the need in-depth.
Individuals may
feel more comfortable discussing sensitive or controversial topics they
would not discuss in an open, public space.
Not unlike
doctor’s appointments, scheduling an appointment with a librarian
reinforces the professional nature of the interaction.
Meeting
one-to-one builds rapport which increases the likelihood of future
interactions.
In addition to
adopting a new perspective on the nature of reference service and how to
provide it, librarians must also explore new ways of applying our education and
expertise. Accessing,
storing, and organizing information remain central. But, as Houston (2016)
suggests, the skills of reference librarians “go beyond those included
in traditional reference training: these include consulting and advising, teaching,
interpreting, advocating, programming, and the ability to analyze the user
experience and engage in design thinking” (p. 187). Johnson (2018) also
provides a good overview of some of the existing and emergent ways we can
become involved including data curation, scholarly communication, and textbook
cost reduction initiatives.
To truly be
successful in this evolution will likely entail a less library-centric and more
information-focused perspective. The fact is that, in an age of growing
expectations for accountability, we need to identify new ways of making
contributions to both the individual and the institution. In a 2012 study, Detmering and Sproles found that responsibilities for many
entry-level library positions still reflected “traditional duties of reference,
instruction, liaison, and collection development” (p.
553). However, they also observed that many responsibilities were being listed
to accommodate emergent needs including duties such as instructional designer,
marketing consultant, and web developer.
Along those lines,
some of the many opportunities to which librarians might apply their unique
skills sets and expertise include the following:
Using our organizational skills and technologies to create and
maintain searchable databases of materials such as:
approved course and program proposals for use by faculty and
academic affairs personnel involved in curriculum development,
accreditation, and assessment
artwork and other special collections on-campus
student newspapers, yearbooks, and scholarship (e.g., theses,
capstone projects)
Participating in the development and (co-)teaching of first-year
experience courses, research courses, and courses reflecting our interests
and expertise with respect to information (e.g., information ethics, intellectual
property, mis- and disinformation)
Serving on the campus’ Institutional Research Board (IRB) and
offering to provide research assistance to faculty and students conducting
research
Advising and otherwise emphasizing and engaging in our mentorship
role with students
Forming collaborative, working partnerships with the campus’ writing
center, tutoring services, and other student success-oriented departments
and activities
Unfortunately, since
2019, a number of local factors have limited librarians’ abilities to explore
any of these opportunities in-depth. First, the number of librarians has been
reduced from six (2019) to just three. This necessitated a realignment of
duties and responsibilities. Further, in 2020, it was announced that EU was to
be merged with two sister universities in 2022. As a result, much of
librarians’ “free time” over the past couple of years has been devoted to
integrating three library operations into one.
Still, there have
been some successes. The author, for example, assumed the role of First-Year
Experience Coordinator and has conducted several internal assessments to assist
with the integration process. This study is but one of the tangible outcomes of
the latter as we begin to operate in the new, integrated environment.
In short, as data
from this and other studies seems to suggest, the need for professional
assistance will not disappear. In that respect, the traditional reference model
is not the problem. Rather, it is the changing nature of information and higher
education which is forcing us to re-examine the provision of reference services
and new ways of employing our skill sets. The degree to which we are successful
with the latter will play a key role in determining our future and the value of
the work we do, both perceived and actual. Librarians should continue to engage
with students in the research process. However, if librarians are to avoid
increasing levels of marginalization to the point of irrelevance, it is
imperative that we focus more time and effort on the unique types and quality
of assistance only we can provide and that we identify new and better ways of
doing so.
References
American Library
Association. (2008). Academic libraries
in the United States statistical trends. ALA Office for Research &
Statistics. http://www.ala.org/research/librarystats/academic/academiclibraries
Bandyopadhyay, A., &
Boyd-Byrnes, M. K. (2016). Is the need for mediated reference service in
academic libraries fading away in the digital environment? Reference Services Review, 44(4), 596-626. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-02-2016-0012
Banks, J., & Pracht, C. (2008). Reference desk staffing trends. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 48(1),
54-59. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.48n1.54
Bell, S. J. (2007).
Who needs a reference desk? Library
Issues: Briefings for Faculty and Administrators, 27(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/125
Buss, S. P. (2016). Do
we still need reference services in the age of Google and Wikipedia? The Reference Librarian, 57(4),
265–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2015.1134377
Carlson, S. (2007,
April 20). Are reference desks dying out? The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(33), A37–A39. https://www.chronicle.com/article/are-reference-desks-dying-out/
Clark, K. T., Gabriel,
H. M., & Borysewicz, K. (2020). Development,
implementation and importance of an undergraduate peer research consultant
program at the University of North Dakota’s Chester Fritz Library. Reference
Services Review, 48(4), 579–600. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-05-2020-0036
Cottrell, T. L., &
Bell, B. (2015). Library savings through student labor. The Bottom Line, 28(3), 82-86. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-05-2015-0006
Detmering, R., & Sproles, C. (2012). Forget the desk job:
Current roles and responsibilities in entry-level reference job advertisements.
College & Research Libraries, 73(6), 543–555. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-304
Eliot, C. (n.d.). Harvard-Radcliffe Online Historical
Reference Shelf. Forty-Ninth Annual Report of the President of Harvard
College: 1873–1874. https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:427074985$41i
Ewing, K., &
Hauptman, R. (1995). Is traditional reference service obsolete? The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
21(1), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0099-1333(95)90144-2
Ford, B. J. (1986).
Reference beyond (and without) the reference desk. College & Research Libraries 47(5), 491-94. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_47_05_491
Freides, T. (1983). Current trends in academic libraries. Library
Trends, 31(3), 457-474.
Goss, H. (2022).
Student learning outcomes assessment in higher education and in academic
libraries: A review of the literature. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102485
Green, S. S. (1876,
November 30). Personal relations between librarians and readers. American Library Journal, 1(2-3), 74-81.
Houston, A. (2016).
What’s in a name? Toward a new definition of reference. Reference & User
Services Quarterly, 55(3), 186–188. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.55n3.186
Johnson, A. M. (2018).
Connections, conversations, and visibility: How the work of academic reference
and liaison librarians is evolving. Reference
& User Services Quarterly, 58(2), 91-102. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.58.2.6929
Keyes, K., & Dworak, E. (2017). Staffing chat reference with
undergraduate student assistants at an academic library: A standards-based
assessment. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 43(6), 469-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.09.001
Lenkart, J., & Yu, J. (2017). Specialized reference
services at Illinois: Reference transactional analysis and its implications for
service providers and administrators. Reference & User Services Quarterly,
56(4), 268-276. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.56.4.268
Lewis, D. W. (1995).
Traditional reference is dead, now let’s move on to important questions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
21(1), 10-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0099-1333(95)90146-9
Maloney, K., &
Kemp, J. H. (2015). Changes in reference question complexity following the
implementation of a proactive chat system: Implications for practice. College
& Research Libraries, 76(7), 959–974. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.7.959
Miles, D. B. (2013). Shall we get rid of the
reference desk? Reference & User Services Quarterly, 52(4),
320-333. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.52n4.320
Reference and User
Services Association: RUSA. (2008, September 29). Definitions of Reference. http://rusa.ala.org/blog/2008/01/31/rusa-approves-new-definition-of-reference/DocumentID:d42fff7a-8841-1ad4-c188-ee0259d6e7ad
Ross, C. S., &
Dewdney, P. (1998). Negative closure: Strategies and counter-strategies
in the reference transaction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 38(2),
151-163.
Ryan, S. M. (2008).
Reference transactions analysis: The cost-effectiveness of staffing a
traditional academic reference desk, The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(5),
389-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2008.06.002
Saint Clair, J. W., Aluri, R., & Pastine, M.
(1977). Staffing the reference desk: Professionals or nonprofessionals? The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
3(3), 149-153.
Shachaf, P. (2009). The paradox of expertise: Is the
Wikipedia Reference Desk as good as your library? Journal of Documentation,
65(6), 977-996. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410910998951
Sosulski, N. W., & Tyckoson, D.
A. (2016). A reference for that: “What are we stopping?” And “what is shifting?”
Reference & User Services Quarterly, 56(2), 87-90. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.56n2.87
Stevens, C. R. (2013).
Reference reviewed and re-envisioned: Revamping librarian and desk-centric
services with LibStARs and LibAnswers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(2),
202-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.11.006
Summerhill, K. S.
(1994). The high cost of reference: The need to reassess services and service
delivery. The Reference Librarian, 20(43),
71-85. https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v20n43_07
Weber, J. E., & Bowron,
C. R. (2019). The evolving reference desk: If we scrap it, then what? Tennessee Libraries, 69(2). https://www.tnla.org/page/69_2_Weber