Respondents were also asked where they most prefer to do research when working on an assignment (table 4). The preferences for research location were dramatically different for the reference desk and VR survey groups. Of the reference desk respondents, 60.7 percent prefer to conduct research in the library, while only 25.7 percent of VR respondents prefer to work in the library. The preferences are reversed for working off campus. Only 24.8 percent of desk users prefer working off campus, while 55.4 percent of the VR group said they preferred working off campus. Very few people of either group expressed a preference for working in nonlibrary spaces on campus.
The findings on preference for research location were bolstered by the results of the question regarding how often patrons visit one of the libraries at their institution. The results (table 5) clearly show that users of VR are much less likely to visit the physical library than the patrons who use the reference desk. This is not altogether surprising given that patrons who filled out the survey at the reference desk are already in the library (hence the 0 percent for reference desk survey respondents who have never visited the library), and therefore more likely to use the library. Conversely, VR services seem to be used by patrons who are less likely to be in a position to use our on-site services.
The responses of undergraduate and graduate students were compared on several questions. We wanted to see if graduate students were more or less likely than undergraduates to use the library on-site, and if these two groups had different preferences for obtaining research help. Table 6 compares undergraduate and graduate students on the question of where they prefer to do research. Although we did not have a significant number of graduate student respondents (only thirty-two), the data suggest that graduate students prefer to conduct research outside of the library buildings, whether that be elsewhere on campus (18.8 percent) or off campus (40.6 percent). A much larger proportion of the undergraduate respondents (43.8 percent) preferred to conduct their research within one of the campus libraries.
A different pattern was noted between undergraduate and graduate students when results were compared for the question of how they would prefer to get research help when off campus. Table 7 shows a comparison of the average ratings. VR was rated higher by graduate students (3.3) than by undergraduate students (2.9). It also appears that undergraduates rely on self-help strategies (the library website or Internet search engine) more than graduate students.
Discussion
In both surveys, undergraduates are overwhelmingly represented, yet graduate students are clearly a larger group proportionately in the VR survey sample than in the reference desk sample (16 percent of VR users surveyed, and 3.3 percent of reference desk users surveyed). It is important to note that graduate students, in real numbers, represent only thirty-four respondents; however, these results are consistent with other data collected by our institutions that also point to the popularity of the service among graduate students. Over the last year and a half, 10 percent of York University’s VR users have logged in as graduate students. (We were unable to obtain comparable data from our reference desks.)
The data also reflects what we know about graduate students in terms of study habits and privileges: They have more options in and around campus to study and have longer loan periods, making visits less necessary on a regular basis. This preference by graduate students to work outside the library was confirmed by the current survey. It is therefore not surprising that graduate students rated VR higher in terms of preference than undergraduates, since VR can help accommodate the needs of off-campus library users. Graduate students’ help-seeking preferences may also reflect a clearer awareness of service options, and it may be that they are more sophisticated users because they have had more exposure to library resources and services. Although our graduate data set is small, it suggests that VR may suit the needs of graduate students in a way that the physical reference desk may not.
This is an interesting result and one that is consistent with other studies that show differences in information-seeking behavior and preferences between faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates.22 Johnson’s data, for instance, also showed there to be slightly more interest for chat services among graduate students than among the other populations sampled.23 Precisely what this means in the current focus of help-seeking behavior is not known. Further study on this is needed.
The reference desk is rated highest by both VR and reference desk user respondents. This is consistent with findings by Ruppel and Fagan, and this was confirmed by the focus group participants who see the reference desk as the premier reference service offered by their libraries and who see the face-to-face personal encounter with a staff member as desirable.24 Surveyed desk users and VR users alike have moderate to low interest in telephone and e-mail reference services, but both see the library’s website and Internet search engines as options for research support. However, for desk survey respondents, choosing the library’s website and Internet search engines for off-campus assistance could be indicative of a lack of awareness of off-site options for help. After all, VR users appear to rely somewhat less on the self-help strategies of searching the library websites or Internet search engines. VR users show a preference for chat reference when either on or off campus, a preference comparable to their preference for the desk. All but one of the focus group subjects (all were VR users) preferred VR when off campus. The one exception preferred the phone.
The unfavorable rating for e-mail and telephone, particularly telephone reference, is worrisome. Most libraries have policies that position telephone reference as a lower priority to in-person reference. At many academic institutions, telephone service continues to be staffed from the reference desk (unlike chat and e-mail reference services) but does not receive the same level of service. This fact is clearly problematic both in policy and in practice. For example, focus group respondents had either not used the phone service or tended to speak poorly of it (although two participants had positive experiences). It is difficult to generalize the problems with a low preference for e-mail. This could be the result of a lack of awareness. Focus group participants generally confirmed this, and there was a perception that it is not fast enough—even though turn-around time for both universities is twenty-four hours or better.
A conclusion to be drawn from the results on preference for reference services is that VR users have a very positive perception of VR and see the service as roughly equal in preference to the reference desk as an off-campus service. In addition, those who have used VR perceive their options for obtaining help within the library differently from reference desk users; VR is seen by VR users as a prominent option for in-library help, second only to the reference desk. The majority of focus group participants noted that, in addition to using VR from home, they had used or considered using VR while in the library. Many of the focus group participants were turned off by line-ups at the desk and preferred VR use in the library for this reason. Two participants noted the staff “were intimidating” and so preferred chat reference over a face-to-face encounter, regardless of being on or off campus. As noted earlier, Ruppel and Fagan found a significant number of students thought the physical reference desk staff looked unhelpful.
Conclusions
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, and that therefore an examination of emerging preferences for different types of services would yield helpful information for strategic planning regarding resources, services, and, most importantly, the future and efficacy of VR. Specifically, we wanted to compare reference desk users to VR users in terms of their perceptions and preferences.