Diane Granfield and Mark Robertson
Print version (Adobe Reader required)
This exploratory study investigated the help-seeking preferences of library users at two large urban universities in Toronto. Reference desk and virtual reference users were compared in terms of their perceptions of the options now available for obtaining reference help. The premise for the study was based on the assumption that a reasonable exposure to newer reference services, such as chat and e-mail, had occurred, therefore allowing for an examination of emerging preferences for different types of services. Surveys were distributed to both reference desk and virtual reference users asking seven core questions exploring use and preference for reference services as well as habits and preferences for study location (in library, off campus, etc.). The results suggest that the reference desk continues to be the most popular method of getting help in the library, but virtual reference satisfies a niche for users who prefer to work outside the library. Those who use virtual reference tend to perceive their options for getting help differently from other users. Virtual reference users do not perceive virtual reference as a novelty or as a marginal service, but see it as a significant service option. In addition, the results show that virtual reference services may have a special appeal to graduate students since graduate students seem more likely to conduct their research outside the library. The study concludes with recommendations for planning and for future research.
“He not busy being born is busy dying.”
—Bob Dylan
Since the early 1990s, reference services have been in a period of decline and rebirth. The term “transitional” is often used to describe the service culture, the processes, and the technologies involved in providing reference assistance. Along with staggering increases in digital content, we have seen the emergence of a generation of new students who have grown up “native” in a technologically intense world, the rise of distance education and distributed course delivery, the development of the learning commons model; an eclectic student body made up of more nontraditional learners; and we have seen the decline in use of traditional reference services.1 Prensky, in his essay “Digital Immigrants, Digital Natives,” argues that our era is a uniquely pressured one:
Today’s students have not just changed incrementally from those of the past, nor simply changed their slang, clothes, body adornments, or styles, as has happened between generations previously. A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a “singularity”—an event which changes things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. This so-called “singularity” is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century.2
Reference librarians have considered and studied these wide-ranging transformations—the demographics, technological pressures, and the changing educational climate—and have experimented with and adopted new approaches to service. As Crowe noted, “While WHAT reference librarians do is not so different—we still assist users in finding and evaluating information, provide instruction in using resources, and select materials—HOW we do it, however, and the tools and resources we use have changed dramatically.”3
One of the most significant developments in reference services these past several years has been the emergence of real-time virtual reference (VR). VR for the purposes of this study is defined as a synchronous, real-time exchange “where patrons employ computers or other Internet technology to communicate with reference staff, without being physically present.”4 The terms “VR” and “chat reference services” will be used interchangeably. The emphasis in our study is on real-time or synchronous services (as opposed to other electronic services by asynchronous methods, such as e-mail reference).
VR services generally began to emerge in the early 2000s. The advent of VR was greeted by much of the library community with great optimism and a spirit of experimentation. More recently, the enthusiasm for chat services has been tempered by persistent technological challenges and questions regarding cost-effectiveness. At the same time, the community has matured to grapple with issues concerning the development of service standards and performance measures, as well as calls to adopt a comprehensive research agenda.5 One particularly noteworthy sentiment that struck a chord was voiced by Steve Coffman, one of the early and influential proponents of VR, when he questioned the ongoing relevance of synchronous Web-based services in late 2004.6 An important debate has emerged regarding the efficacy of VR compared to telephone, e-mail, and hybrid services.
We have been involved in a VR collaboration since 2001 among three Ontario universities. Catering to a student body of close to ninety thousand, we have witnessed the service grow in popularity. Despite the popularity of VR at our universities, questions regarding its cost-effectiveness persist. We continue to face questions about such issues as the length of time required to answer questions and the inconsistent performance of software and staffing models.
Like most North American academic libraries, we had experienced gradual declines in usage at our reference desks since the early 1990s. Because of the significant changes of the past decade, the decision to introduce VR services was, from our perspective, a logical, appropriate, and progressive response. A successful pilot phase segued into a relatively stable service. After four years of both e-mail and chat services, we felt the time was ripe to consider reference services in a comparative light and begin to explore, through surveys and other means, answers to the essential question, what is the best combination of services for our users when they need help? We were interested in “looking more closely at how users are dealing with their information problems and how they get help from reference librarians in technological environments.”7
Our study represents a preliminary exploration of the help-seeking preferences of a student body that increasingly prefers to be off-site using digital resources, away from the library, and for a variety of reasons is less likely to use the physical reference desk. Specifically, we were interested in exploring how users prefer to get help when on campus versus off campus, their preference for location when doing research, and the differences between reference desk users and users of our VR services. Basically, we were concerned with contributing to “informed decisions about space, services, and resources [by not only understanding] … the types of information that are being sought, but also the environment that the user is most comfortable [with]—either physical or virtual or some combination.”8
Literature Review
Since the early 2000s the burgeoning literature relating to VR has for the most part taken the form of case studies, commentary, and anecdotes.9 The empirically based literature is small but growing. A review of the empirical literature indicates that few studies have been conducted to tell us how changes in technology have informed or should inform reference services and, specifically, how these changes in technology have affected users’ help-seeking behaviors and preferences.
Massey-Burzio intimated this as far back as 1998 and called for more responsiveness “to actual user needs and preferences … [i]nstead of wasting time insisting on the value of delivering reference services the way we always have.”10 Ten years later, the study of user preferences within the reference service milieu has continued to receive little attention. Library users have ever-increasing amounts of digital content at their fingertips, and many studies show they prefer this format over print.11 That much we know. However, the literature provides a limited view of what users prefer to do in this environment when they need assistance. There have been no connections made in studies between preference for format and preference for obtaining assistance.