The Good, the Bad, but Mostly the Ugly: Adherence to RUSA Guidelines during Encounters with Inappropriate Behavior Online

Conclusion

In addition to the communication strategies mentioned above, other additional research also could be done to improve our online interactions with patrons. Though librarians are trained in what a reference interview is and how to locate information for patrons, we also need to learn how to do a better job of translating those skills to the online environment. Research should continue in this venue as well. Perhaps there are strategies that we can modify from the corporate world, and perhaps the advent of affordable new technologies will make these transactions easier or more effective. Indeed, perhaps there are even differences between effective practices for different types of virtual reference transactions. The best practice for a chat reference transaction may not be the same as the best practice for an instant message or e-mail reference transaction, and research to identify the nuances between these types of interactions would be valuable.

This study provides no causal understanding of how librarians’ adherence to guidelines relates to inappropriate patron behavior: There is nothing definitive in these data to understand if the librarian’s action, or inaction, leads to frustration on the part of the patron, or if the behavior of the patron causes the librarian to disengage from the interaction. But this study does show that there are areas of professional behavior that are either not well followed by librarians in these transactions or are poorly defined in professional guidelines. Regardless of the behavior of the patron, the librarian is expected to uphold the standards of the profession. Whether those standards have been adequately adapted to virtual environments is a matter for further research and discussion.

As Lee suggests, virtual librarians easily run the risk of “sounding like we are playing ‘20 questions’” when they conduct reference interviews.²⁶ And when patron behavior becomes trying, librarians face even greater challenges in achieving meaningful communication and in creating successful reference transactions. This study, especially when compared to studies on satisfaction in virtual reference, suggests that to assist virtual librarians in achieving meaningful communication, RUSA’s Management of Reference Services Committee (MARS) should consider modifying the RUSA Guidelines to provide additional guidance for librarians in remote reference contexts. The areas needing more specificity lie in the dimensions of being approachable, (1.0), expressing interest (2.0), and, to a lesser extent, how to follow-up (5.0).

As the MARS Digital Reference Guidelines ad hoc committee attests in its “Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services” that “the absence of a physically present patron and the different modes of communication may call for additional skills, effort, or training to provide quality service on par with face-to-face reference services.”²⁷ This document, however, references the RUSA Guidelines as the behavioral standard to meet in virtual reference, a standard that is centered primarily on face-to-face reference with virtual reference included in brief addenda. The proliferation and importance of virtual reference services may have reached a point where these addenda no longer suffice, and specific behavioral guidelines for virtual reference may be necessary.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend special thanks to David White, University of Northern Colorado, for his help in making technical refinements to our assessment instrument.

Jack M. Maness is Faculty Director and Assistant Professor, University of Colorado at Boulder. Sarah Naper is Government Documents Librarian, Texas State University–San Marcos. Jayati Chaudhuri is Science Reference Librarian and Assistant Professor, University of Northern Colorado Libraries, Greeley, Colorado.

Submitted for review August 8, 2008; revised and accepted for publication February 10, 2009.

Reference & User Services Quarterly, vol. 49, no. 1 pp. 151–162
© 2009 American Library Association. All rights reserved. Permission granted to reproduce for nonprofit, educational use.

References

1. Reference and User Services Association, “Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers” (accessed Feb. 1, 2008).
2. Jack Maness and Sarah Naper, “Assessing Inappropriate Use: Learning from the AskColorado Experience,” in Virtual Reference Service: From Competencies to Assessment, ed. R. David Lankes et al., 91–101 (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2008).
3. Andrew Breidenbaugh, “Budget Planning and Performance Measures for Virtual Reference Services,” The Reference Librarian no. 95/96 (2006): 113–24; Lauren M. Gilbert et al., “Assessing Digital Reference and Online Instructional Services in an Integrated Public/University Library,” The Reference Librarian no. 95/96 (2006): 149–72; Alice Kawakami and Pauline Swartz, “Digital Reference: Training and Assessment for Service Improvement,” Reference Services Review 31, no. 3 (2003): 227–36.
4. Van Houlson, Kate McCready, and Carla Steinberg Pfahl, “A Window into our Patron’s Needs: Analyzing Data from Chat Transcripts,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 11, no. 4 (2006): 19–39.
5. Virginia A. Walter and Cindy Mediavilla, “Teens are from Neptune, Librarians are from Pluto: An Analysis of Online Reference Transactions,” Library Trends 54, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 209–27; Pnina Shachaf and Mary Snyder, “The Relationship Between Cultural Diversity and User Needs in Virtual Reference,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 33, no. 3 (May 2007): 361–67.
6. Joseph Fennewald, “Same Questions, Different Venue: An Analysis of In-Person and Online Questions,” The Reference Librarian no. 95/96 (2006): 21–35; Lesley M. Moyo, “Virtual Reference Services and Instruction: An Assessment,” The Reference Librarian no. 95/96 (2006): 213–30.
7. Jeffrey Pomerantz, Lili Luo, and Charles R. McClure, “Peer Review of Chat Reference Transcripts: Approaches and Strategies,” Library & Information Science Research 28, no. 1 (2006): 24–48; Ian J. Lee, “Do Virtual Reference Librarians Dream of Digital Reference Questions?: A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Email and Chat Reference,” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 35, no. 2 (June 2004): 95–110.
8. David Ward, “Measuring the Completeness of Reference Transactions in Online Chats: Results of an Unobtrusive Study,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 44, no. 1 (Fall 2004): 46–56.
9. Fu Zhuo et al., “Applying RUSA Guidelines in the Analysis of Chat Reference Transcripts,” College & Undergraduate Libraries 13, no. 1 (2006): 75–88.
10. Jana Ronan, Patrick Reakes, and Marilyn Ochoa, “Application of Reference Guidelines in Chat Reference Interactions: A Study of Online Reference Skills,” College & Undergraduate Libraries 13, no. 4 (2006): 3–30.
11. Nahyun Kwon and Vicki L. Gregory, “The Effects of Librarians’ Behavioral Performance on User Satisfaction in Chat Reference Encounters,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 47, no. 2 (Winter 2007): 137–48; Pnina Shachaf and Sarah M. Horowitz, “Virtual Reference Service Evaluation: Adherence to RUSA Behavioral Guidelines and IFLA Digital Reference Guidelines” (accessed July 11, 2008).
12. AskColorado, Fast Facts About AskColorado (accessed Feb. 11, 2008).
13. AskColorado, AskColorado Usage Statistics (accessed Feb. 11, 2008).
14. AskColorado, Fast Facts About AskColorado.
15. Marie L. Radford, “In Synch?: Evaluating Chat Reference Transcripts: The Virtual Reference Desk” (accessed Oct. 9, 2009).
16. AskColorado Quality Assurance and Evaluation Subcommittee, “Are You a Robot?” and Other Serious Questions (accessed Feb. 11, 2008).
17. Maness and Naper, “Assessing Inappropriate Use.”
18. Zhuo et al., “Applying RUSA Guidelines in the Analysis of Chat Reference Transcripts.”
19. Joseph L. Fleiss, Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions (New York: Wiley, 1981).
20. Alan Bryman and Duncan Cramer, Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A Guide for Social Scientists (New York: Routledge, 2005).
21. Kwon and Gregory, “The Effects of Librarians’ Behavioral Performance”; Shachaf and Horowitz, “Virtual Reference Service Evaluation.”
22. Kwon and Gregory, “The Effects of Librarians’ Behavioral Performance,” 145.
23. Ibid.
24. Shachaf and Horowitz, “Virtual Reference Service Evaluation,” 18.
25. Marie L. Radford, “Encountering Virtual Users: A Qualitative Investigation of Interpersonal Communication in Chat Reference,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57, no. 8 (2006): 1046–59.
26. Ian J. Lee, “Do Virtual Reference Librarians Dream of Digital Reference Questions?” 105.
27. Reference and User Services Association, “Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services” (accessed May 29, 2008).

Pages: 1 2 3 4