Search results

The purpose of this article is to describe and report on testing of a computerized program presently being developed by the authors on the World Wide Web. This program is designed to locate reference information through use of FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions. A preliminary investigation of the adequacy of FAQs to cover a sample of questions in one subject area will be reported here.

Reference librarians in various library settings are often assigned responsibilities for training students, support staff, or other new professionals, a task for which they rarely have sufficient professional education. This bibliography recommends readings on topics that will assist reference librarians in understanding the philosophy of staff development. The readings listed here cover subjects such as: establishing an atmosphere that facilitates learning, assessing training needs, describing competent performance, writing clear and specific objectives, selecting appropriate training methods, maintaining skills and providing feedback, and evaluating the effectiveness of a training program.

Cooperative reference is defined as “a process through which information assistance is provided, at least in part, by referring the user or the user's questions to library/information personnel at another institution, according to a system of formally established protocols.”

The editor welcomes suggestions for reference serials—both long‐established and new titles—to be reviewed. Librarians who are interested in writing reviews for this column are invited to submit information concerning their expertise to the editor (Virginia Gilbert, Deputy Collection Development Officer, 117 Perkins Library, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706).

To judge from the published literature, recent conference topics, or any listserv where academic reference issues are discussed, reference service reforms are in the air. A steady increase in the sheer number of users seeking reference help, driven largely by the proliferation of new information technologies, has led to a questioning of the traditional structure and mission of the library reference desk. Brandeis University Libraries' approach, which has been described by Virginia Massey‐Burzio, is one example of such a reform. The essential change that the Brandeis model entailed was this: Brandeis' Main Library had included a reference desk at which one librarian at a time was assisted by one graduate student helper. Under the new model, reference services are divided in two: the graduate assistants staff an information desk, which is responsible for concerns like directional questions and quick look‐ups, while the librarians staff a research consultation office where more substantive questions are dealt with at greater length. The primary goal of this tiered approach, which we call the “research consultation model,” was to improve services to the classes of patrons who most need professional reference assistance, while also increasing professional job satisfaction in the face of the ongoing information explosion. (A more complete description of the model is given below under the heading: “Some characteristics of a research consultation model.”)

The purpose of this article is to acquaint readers with a selection of recent literature dealing with the reference interview. An attempt has been made to identify and to describe some of the important trends related to the reference interview. Two areas of recent interest are improving communications and utilizing techniques from communication sciences in interviewing; in addition, the uses of sensitivity, body language and counseling techniques are covered.

The purpose of this paper is to compare user perspectives on visits to in‐person and virtual reference services conducted by participants in the Library Visit Study, an ongoing research project.

This paper compares satisfaction rates, identifies staff behaviours that influence user satisfaction, and suggests how both face‐to‐face and virtual reference can be improved. Since 1990, participants in the Library Visit Study have been MLIS students who ask questions at in‐person and virtual reference desks, and report on their experiences. In addition to these accounts, students complete questionnaires on their experiences. Level of satisfaction with the in‐person or virtual transactions, based on the “willingness to return” criterion, are computed. Satisfaction is compared with other factors such as correctness of answers and friendliness of library staff. Underlying problems that influence satisfaction are identified. Findings – Data from 261 in‐person and 85 virtual reference transaction accounts (both e‐mail and chat) show that virtual reference results in lower satisfaction than in‐person reference. Underlying problems that are associated with user dissatisfaction were identified in face‐to‐face reference and carry over to virtual reference, including lack of reference interviews, unmonitored referrals and failure to follow‐up. Research limitations/implications – The number of virtual reference visits is relatively small (85) compared with 261 in‐person visits. Practical implications – The reasons for ongoing failures are examined and solutions that can help improve both face‐to‐face and virtual reference are identified. Education and training of reference staff can be improved by recognition of the behavioural causes of dissatisfaction in users. Originality/value – This paper provides empirical data that compare user perceptions of in‐person and virtual reference.