Thus, help-seeking preference studies or studies that compare different reference services are in somewhat uncharted territory. The focus of the literature review was to find studies of VR that looked at descriptive indicators of these services in a comparative light. Three strains of literature emerged: studies that compare the use of different types of reference services from a user perspective; studies of what users actually prefer to do when they need assistance with library research; and studies of preference for location when doing research.
Comparative Studies
Motivated by research on library anxiety and related studies, Ruppel and Fagan were interested in exploring whether a reference service using instant messaging (IM) software to chat with students would solve some users’ aversion to the desk.12 Their review of more than three decades of literature has shown us that “many patrons chose not to ask for help because they are or expect to be dissatisfied, embarrassed, or do not believe librarians are ready or willing to help them.13 They surveyed 340 users with the intention of comparing perceptions of VR with the physical reference desk. Their results revealed much about student experiences with the two modes of assistance. Users indicated that the top advantage of the IM reference service was convenience and not having to get up from their workstation or give up their computer, and 15 percent of the users liked the anonymity. An astonishing 29 percent thought staff did not look helpful at the physical reference desk and 17 percent did not want to go to the library building to do their research. In spite of these negative perceptions, the physical reference desk had a clear advantage for most users because of the “personal touch.”
Foley conducted a survey (with a relatively small return rate) that asked users why they used Internet messaging rather than visiting, telephoning, or e-mailing reference staff.14 Though this study did not extrapolate about choice-making, it did hint at some of the reasons why IM may be preferred over other modes of reference: convenience, phone reference is a hassle, the user can’t be online at the same time as they receive help, they are not on campus often, and they liked the instantaneous nature of the exchange.
Nilsen conducted a study that looked at perceptions of the service received at the virtual reference desk and the physical reference desk.15 The research involved library science students posing as users and then filling out a detailed questionnaire after each “visit” to a physical and VR desk. One interesting dicovery was that if students were not familiar with chat technology (such as MSN Messenger or Yahoo! Messenger), they tended to prefer e-mail reference over VR. The reason noted for this was that a lack of familiarity may lead to a sense of intimidation or resistance. Nearly everyone became enthusiastic about chat reference service, and preferred it to e-mail, once they had used it. A final and unfortunate conclusion was that the physical reference desk and the VR desk gave “equally poor service.” This conclusion was based on data involving the reference interview (or lack thereof). Though a discussion of the quality of the reference interaction is beyond the scope of this article, such a study would provide some insight into what users might prefer to do to get help through the lens of service quality and satisfaction measures: an important consideration for future research.
Stoffel and Tucker compared e-mail and chat to determine user perceptions of their services as a means to improve reference services.16 They surveyed patrons following their use of the services and admittedly had low response rates, particularly from chat reference users. That said, some of the conclusions are useful for our purposes. While they did not ask questions regarding preference explicitly, they did ask users if they used other services in tandem to meet their information needs—at least with regards to the specific questions each user posed. Fewer than one in ten used another service in the case of e-mail users; chat user responses to this question were not noted in the article. Stoffel and Tucker concluded that there was high satisfaction for their virtual services and that e-mail users were slightly more satisfied than chat users.
Use Studies and Library Visits Studies
In the face of claims that synchronous Web-based reference services are here to stay, Frederiksen, Cummings, and Ursin asked whether it was reasonable to claim that library users “expect, or will use, online help delivered by a library Web site.”17 Surveys were administered to the general university population as well as to users of the reference desk asking questions regarding the use of chat software (AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, or MSN) for chat and preferred chat features. They also asked the users whether they would think of using chat for research help, and a final question on whether they had heard of the library’s Ask a Librarian chat service. Questions were not asked about the respondents’ current use of any of the library’s other reference services. Their survey attempted to find whether there is a connection between use of chat and a possible link to comfort and openness to a library chat service. Sixty-one percent of people who do not chat would nevertheless consider using chat for research help. Eighty-three percent of respondents were not aware of the chat reference service. The authors concluded that marketing the chat service would be well worth the effort. They also mused about the potential problems of widespread adoption; the perception of chat as a frivolous leisure activity, for example, presents a marketing challenge for a serious library service.
A needs assessment survey was conducted at the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) by Kelley and Orr to examine trends in student use of the library and its resources and services.18 This survey is of particular interest because of its focus on comparing and contrasting different types of users—students taking online course versus in-classroom students, undergraduate versus graduate students—and because of its various cross-tabulations with print and electronic resource preferences. UMUC has an interesting demographic because it has a high proportion of distance education students and so signals characteristics of a population that is more dependent on remote services and digital content. Only 32 percent of the respondents had visited the library in the past year and they were more likely to visit the library if they were studying in a classroom. While the study did not ask about reference services per se, respondents indicated that “access to staff” was significantly less important than a number of other library offerings, such as access to electronic resources and off-campus access to the catalogue.
The study that bears some similarity to the present research was conducted by Johnson, who performed a survey to investigate “university affiliates’ awareness of, use of, and interest in reference services, with a particular focus on online chat reference (synchronous digital reference).”19 The survey instrument asked directly for “their first option” if seeking assistance from library staff in a hypothetical scenario, and relationships were drawn between preferences noted and status of respondent. It was found that undergraduates were most likely to choose face-to-face reference services and faculty were more likely to prefer e-mail. Few people had used the chat service and few people were even aware of it. Of the three people that used chat, only one said they would use it again. This particular campus had only one year’s experience with VR, and it is not surprising that marketing and promotion formed an important part of their conclusions.
Methodology
This study consisted of two surveys, one in-person and one online, carried out during the fall of 2004. The surveys were distributed to library users at two universities in Toronto: Ryerson University with a full-time equivalent (FTE) student population of eighteen thousand and York University with a student body of thirty-eight thousand (FTE). Both universities are located in a large urban environment and most of the students reside off campus. Ryerson and York Universities, as noted previously, have been collaborative partners providing a chat reference service since 2001. The service has provided text-based interactions with page pushing and sharing, and co-browsing of licensed databases.