The reference desk continues to be the most popular method of getting help in the library, but our findings confirm that VR satisfies a niche for some users, quite likely those who prefer to work outside the library. That said, chat reference was noted as a preference comparable to the desk for VR users when in the library. Although many users have yet to try our VR services, those who use VR tend to perceive their options for getting help differently from other users. Exposure to VR changes the perception of the landscape of reference options. Far from being a novelty, VR is seen as a significant service option for those who use it.
Our focus group participants (all of whom were solicited through VR) gave us some insight into attitudes toward e-mail and phone reference services, but ultimately this study is unable to make conclusions regarding e-mail and phone users since these users were not surveyed. One can interpret our data as suggesting that exposure to VR appears to change the help-seeking choices and preferences for these users. Furthermore, since we found that those surveyed at the desk tended to rate all remote staff-based services less preferable than our library websites or even Internet search engines, all told, one might interpret this as suggesting that a lack of awareness regarding help options is a significant issue for our users.
Our results suggest that VR services seem to have a special appeal to graduate students. A greater proportion of graduate students use VR than the reference desk, and graduate students rate VR services higher in terms of preference for reference options than undergraduates. Our research also confirms that graduate students prefer to work outside the library (off campus, or on campus but not in the library). It seems reasonable to assume that the appeal of VR for graduate students is in large part because of the way VR is able to reach users outside the library. We recognize that the sample size for graduate students was small; therefore, these are tentative conclusions and point to further study.
The study did not attempt to explore all the reasons why users choose certain reference services over others. Rather, as a preliminary exploration, this study hoped to describe what people actually do and what they really prefer to do when they need assistance. Our comparison of VR users to desk users allowed us to make some comments about exposure to newer services and the impact that exposure may have on preference.
Planning Implications
This study has implications for the planning of reference service in academic communities.
- Virtual reference services should not be staffed by scaling back at the physical reference desk. The reference desk remains an important and prominent service even for those users who are already exposed to VR services.
- Libraries should respect and accommodate the use of VR within library facilities. VR users consider VR an important service point even from within campus libraries.
- VR services need to be promoted more heavily to reference desk users. These users do not generally seem to be very aware of the option of using VR when off campus.
- VR services need to be promoted more heavily to graduate students. VR seems to accommodate the behavior and preferences of graduate students who tend to work outside of the library.
Possible Directions for Future Research
Our study also suggests some future directions for research.
- A broader randomized study could look at the effect of VR services across an entire academic community or between several academic communities. Such a study could provide insight into the awareness and adoption patterns of VR by members of the community. This study could look at the preferences for reference services across the broader community.
- Further research could examine the demographics of different user groups. How do VR users compare to other types of service users in terms of their gender, age, distance from campus, disabilities, full-time or part-time status, and so on?
- Our findings suggest a relationship between preference for studying off campus and preference for VR. Kelly and Orr found a relationship between online courses and less visits to the physical library. Thus an exploration of the relationship between in-class versus online classes and VR usage would yield useful planning data to better support emerging course-delivery modes.
- Nilson and Ruppel and Fagan, as well as our focus groups, suggest negative perceptions of staff as a factor in choice-making. Satisfaction and other qualitative measures as they relate to reference service use should be explored in more depth.
- More detail could be obtained on the needs of graduate students and similarly faculty to understand better to what extent virtual VR services accommodate these groups’ specific needs.
- Expand study to e-mail and telephone users. What are the characteristics, preferences, and experiences of these users?
Diane Granfield is a Librarian at Ryerson University in Toronto. Mark Robertson is a Librarian at York University in Toronto. Submitted for review April 25, 2006; accepted for publication February 16, 2007.
References and Notes
- Marc Prensky, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf (accessed Apr. 19, 2005); Diana Oblinger, “Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the New Students,” EDUCAUSE Review 38, no. 4 (2003): 37–47, www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0342.pdf (accessed Apr. 19, 2005).
- Prensky, “Digital Natives.”
- Kathryn M. Crowe, “Collaborative Leadership: A Model for Reference Services,” The Reference Librarian 81 (2003): 60.
- Reference and User Services Association, “Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services,” www.ala.org/ala/rusa/protools/referenceguide/virtrefguidelines.cfm (accessed May 23, 2005).
- R. David Lankes, Melissa Gross and Charles R. McClure, “Cost, Statistics, Measures, and Standards for Digital Reference Services: A Preliminary View,” Library Trends 51, no. 3 (2003): 220–30; R. David Lankes, “Digital Reference Research Agenda,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55, no. 4 (2004): 301–311.
- Linda Arrett and Steve Coffman, “To Chat or Not To Chat: Taking Another Look at Virtual Reference: Part I,” The Searcher 12, no. 7 (2004): 49–56.
- So Young Rieh, “Changing Reference Service Environment: A Library Review of Perspectives from Managers, Librarians, and Users,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 25, no. 3 (1999): 185.
- Lynn Silipigni Connaway, “Physical Space for Virtual Services and Collections,” portal: Library and the Academy 4, no. 4 (2004): 130.
- For a comprehensive bibliography, see Bernie Sloan, “Digital Reference Service Bibliography,” www.lis.uiuc.edu/~b-sloan/digiref.html (accessed Apr. 29, 2005).
- Virginia Massey-Burzio, “From the Other Side of the Reference Desk: A Focus Group Study,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 24, no. 3 (998): 215.
- Carol Tenopir, “Use and Users of Electronic Library Resources: An Overview and Analysis of Recent Research Studies” Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, D.C., www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120/pub120.pdf (accessed Apr. 29, 2005); Lesley M. Moyo, “Electronic Libraries and the Emergence of New Service Paradigms,” The Electronic Library 22, no. 3 (2004): 220–230.
- Margie Ruppel and Jody Condit Fagan, “Instant Messaging Reference: Users’ Evaluation of Library Chat,” Reference Services Review 30, no. 3 (2002): 183–97.
- Ibid., 186.
- Marianne Foley, “Instant Messaging Reference in an Academic Library: A Case Study,” College and Research Libraries 63, no.1 (2002): 36–45.
- Kirsti Nilsen, “The Library Visit Study: User Experiences at the Virtual Reference Desk,” Information Research 9, no. 2 (2004), http://informationr.net/ir/9-2/paper171.html (accessed June 2, 2005).
- Bruce Stoffel and Toni Tucker, “E-mail and Chat Reference: Assessing Patron Satisfaction,” Reference Services Review 32, no. 2 (2004): 120–40.
- Linda Frederiksen, Joel Cummings, and Lara Ursin, “User Perceptions and Virtual Reference Services,” The Virtual Reference Experience: Integrating Theory into Practice (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2004): 45.
- Kimberly B. Kelley and Gloria J. Orr, “Trends in Distant Student Use of Electronic Resources: A Survey,” College and Research Libraries 64, no. 3 (2003): 176–99.
- Corey M. Johnson, “Online Chat Reference: Survey Results from Affiliates of Two Universities,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 43, no. 3 (2004): 237.
- Our Reference Desk statistics are approximate because we compile statistics on representative weeks only rather than on a continuous basis. Consequently the total reference desk statistics were estimated on the basis of this representative week in the fall of 2004.
- Johnson, “Online Chat Reference,” 237–47.
- Tenopir, “Use and Users of Electronic Library Resources”; Kelley and Orr, “Trends in Distant Student Use of Electronic Resources”; Johnson, “Online Chat Reference.”
- Johnson, “Online Chat Reference.”
- Ruppel and Fagan, “Instant Messaging Reference.”