Penn State, where I work, has been providing chat reference since 2001, and during the past five years has used products from several of the major VR software vendors. These products were and are full-featured services that represent the state-of-the-art in VR software. We recently decided to also offer IM as a complement to our existing VR (chat) service and see if students responded by using it. We chose the Trillian client based on reviews and experiences of other librarians. Trillian supports many popular IM programs, including AIM, MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, ICQ, and IRC. A number of libraries are using Trillian or another IM aggregator for VR (for a list, see http://liswiki.org/wiki/List_of_libraries_providing_virtual_reference_services).
The Penn State IM service was launched in April 2007 and is staffed by the same group of librarians who staff the chat service. Data is being gathered on user choice of access point. For users who choose IM, we also may begin to discern the effect lack of co-browsing has on online reference service. In addition, we can investigate the added complexity of offering IM simultaneously with chat. Will we be able to effectively multitask and handle chat and IM at the same time?
Overall, the response to using IM for reference service has been positive where it has been tried, and an increasing number of libraries are implementing it.
Collaborative Instant Messaging: Can the Logistics Be Worked Out?
A couple of years ago, Houghton called for a collaborative IM service.22 While many libraries have opted to use popular commercial IM products such as AIM on an individual basis, another emerging alternative is the use of open source software to provide a collaborative IM reference service. Enterprise IM software manages IM networks and using it would give libraries more control over content and policies.
While I agree that improvements can and should be made to the technical aspects of providing a virtual reference service (and I’m really looking forward to those improvements and innovations), it continues to concern me that much of our blame for a perceived low use of these services focuses primarily on the software. How can we definitively state that because an “…abundant evidence that millions of teenagers and young adults are using commercial chat and instant messaging (IM) services regularly, but that isn’t translating to the library realm”? I don’t understand that logic. It’s like saying billions of humans use phones, but it just isn’t translating to the library realm because our phones aren’t ringing off the hooks. What is our benchmark for sufficient usage? And how are you making the service know to your users?
Here at AskColorado we struggle to keep up with demand. We do very little marketing. Use is generated from link placement at participating library websites, library catalogs and databases, and word of mouth. Our primary users (more that 60%) are the same demographic cited as being avid IM users in the article; teenagers.
My main concern is that libraries first need to set benchmarks for sufficient use of any reference service (in-person, phone, e-mail, IM, VR) then assess usage. If you’re not happy with usage you need to look at how you are making your service available. Can users find the VR service on your website? No? Then you need to make it more visible (‘Goal of Convienence’.) Try this experiment: Add Live Help links throughout your library’s website and in your library catalog. Assess usage of the service. If your numbers still do not meet your goals then perhaps you need to assess whether it is the technology preventing usage of your service.
I know it’s not as simple as I’ve explained above. My main point is to caution librarians not to discount a service based on technology alone, without looking at other factors that may impact usage of that service.
[...] A propos des défis techniques des services de références virtuels Looking to Connect: Technical Challenges that Impede the Growth of Virtual Reference [...]