Two previous internal analyses (conducted by the co-authors and based on an emergent design methodology) suggest that the sample periods chosen for this study is representative of a calendar year’s worth of data. In the first of these studies, which examined and coded the entire database of stored questions and answers during its first year (June 2002 through June 2003), it was noted that February–March and October–November were the busiest periods, corresponding to the middle of the Spring and Fall semesters respectively. Further examination noted that the online service was reflective of the face-to-face interactions in number and content. Finally, it was reported that the diversity of content was similar across all months and that the October and November period was the busiest of the academic year. The second study, conducted at the end of the following academic year, agreed with these conclusions with the exception that while the online service remained consistently balanced between directional versus instructional questions, the face-to-face service desk started to see an increase in the ratio of former over the latter. This second study further confirmed that the October–November period was an excellent snapshot of the entire academic year.
In keeping with the theoretical orientation explored earlier, within this e-mail service there is no presumption that the user is not quite sure of the question, supported in part by Grogan’s conclusion that “most of the library users who put questions to the librarian know exactly what they need and ask for it clearly” and by Janes’ suggestion that this self-awareness is also mediated by lack of comfort in sharing too many details.22
The interaction in this service begins through a public online Web form (see figure 1). The first of the aforementioned internal analyses shows that many of the questions could easily fall into one of a series of categories. As an outcome of this first analysis, the service was redesigned to allow for a more phenomenological coding of the answers into the categories suggested in the study. Also, this new design allowed for the development of standard canned response forms to be used for the category thus coded. The appendix details the canned response forms used in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Due to changes in services, these forms have been revised on an ongoing basis, resulting in the deletion of some forms and the additions of others. The internal analyses suggest that the response was usually appropriate and detailed enough to conclude the interaction, although such a conclusion should be qualified in that the studies did not directly seek out user satisfaction.
This service does not engage in an interview with the user, but users do have the option of replying to the librarian and, according to internal data, overwhelmingly choose not to. What the service does do is encourage the library staff responding to the query to take the question at face value or make some a priori assumptions in respect to the information need of the user. While this latter approach is itself quite loaded in sociological terms, it is at least a first step in placing value on what the user has expressed, especially if the librarian states this assumption in the response.
Instructional versus Procedural
During the period the data were recorded for the current study, librarians were asked to select from a list of customizable responses to use in their response to the user (see the appendix). Straw notes the value in using canned messages, especially because it can release the responder from some of the more onerous procedural tasks in drafting a response.23 We argue that such a procedural focus on the canned response functionally limits the role of the librarian. While there is certainly value in standardizing the response and especially the language, customization of the canned response implies intent on the part of the librarian to instruct the user. Therefore the first step in this study was to examine the canned response forms and code them as either instructional intent (hereafter instructional) or procedural.
For example, as is seen in the appendix, nineteen canned response forms from 2005 are coded as procedural, while eight are coded as instructional. The definitions for these codes are based on the aforementioned definition and purpose of instructional interaction. The researchers independently analyzed the canned response forms used in all the periods of the study and coded each form as either Procedural or Instructional. In other words, if a review of the question suggested that instruction is intended by the librarian-responder, then it is categorized as instructional. We then came together to triangulate our individual codes and the appendix reflects our collective codes.
We acknowledge that these decisions could be seen as both binary and arbitrary. It can be argued that there is a continuum of instruction occurring in this online reference service, and that this continuum is likely reflected in the canned response forms. In saying this, the literature does not really discuss whether or not instruction occurs in any online reference services. The use of canned messages (what is hereafter referred to as the base answer forms) can affect how the librarian responder interacts with the user and whether this interaction reflects an instructional intent of the librarian. The question of whether learning is actually occurring is the basis for another study in which the user’s point of view is included. This study, however, is evaluating whether instructional intent is present for the librarians serving this single e-mail reference service.
As one reviews the text of the base answer forms one can see that they are broadly procedural and directional responses versus more abstract responses that begin to suggest some cognitive action by the user.24 It is this latter sense of intending cognitive action that is categorized as instructional. For example, if one reviews the text of the base answer form labeled “Search Articles Webfeat Advanced,” one can see areas where the librarian is expected to provide the user with information that is cognitively based. Appropriate resources are suggested, keywords are shared, Boolean operators are suggested and explained, and information about accessing databases is given. Also, words such as “may include” rhetorically imply that the user should look further than the examples provided. In terms of the theory being developed in this study, it would be in these areas that more customization should occur. The underlying, latent goal of the instructional answer forms is to provide the user with tools appropriate to a constructivist-based learning environment.
Looking at the procedural forms, however, there are no learning expectations implied. For example, the base answer form we have labeled as “Circulation Referral” is a simple response to the user that refers them to another library unit. This form is usually chosen when the user’s question specifically refers to issues that can only be handled by that unit, such as book renewal or questions about due dates. This response seems to be classified as directional but may also be instructional because it could change user behavior in any future interaction (i.e., the user would contact that unit directly for similar future questions). The Ask A Librarian service under study here, however, has been intentionally developed to be the major point of contact between all library units and library users. In other words, there is little expectation with this response that the user will learn to contact the circulation unit directly in the future. The same nonexpectation is applied to most of the other base answer forms that are categorized as procedural. However, by using the previous argument to uncover the assumptions of this answer form, it can be seen that, again, there is no clear expectation on the user to learn to do this without assistance next time.
Instructional Interaction
The operational definition of instructional interaction for this study is the level of customized content. In a procedural response, it is expected that there will be less customized content. In other words, there will be more dependence on the base answer form and its prepared content to answer the user’s question. Returning to the transactional distance theory outlined earlier and our concept of dialogue, one would expect to see the structure of the base answer form adapted in which expertise is neither assumed nor given. In other words, more customized content suggests more instructional interaction in sociocultural terms.