Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Readers’ advisory (RA) services have a long history in United States public libraries. Since the late nineteenth century, there always has been a component of public library services that has focused on connecting readers with books. As RA services have developed, contemporary practices have generally built on the foundations established by previous generations of readers’ advisors. In their book, Readers’ Advisory Service in North American Public Libraries, 1870-2005, Juris Dilevko and Candice F. C. Magowan look at these foundations of RA services, and then call into question the work of contemporary readers’ advisors.¹ The authors present a highly critical view of RA as it has developed in the past two decades. Among librarians who work with readers on a daily basis, Dilevko and Magowan’s work has generated controversy for its harsh critique of contemporary RA practice and theory. In the following article, Neil Hollands examines Dilevko and Magowan’s thesis and addresses the criticisms of contemporary RA theory and practice that the authors raise.–Editor

Where are we going, where have we been? Those are questions that come to mind as a contemporary librarian reads Juris Dilevko and Candice F. C. Magowan’s Readers’ Advisory Service in North American Public Libraries, 1870-2005. Their book is ostensibly a history of RA service in public libraries, but from the first sentences it is apparent that “history” will be molded to serve the authors’ arguments about what RA service should be. Dilevko and Magowan seek to revise the way in which we look at RA’s history, and, in doing so, lead a reactionary movement toward a future in which advisory is practiced as it was in the past, not as it is in the present. The authors have strong opinions, but ultimately their conclusions are wrongheaded. Nonetheless, examination of these opinions serves to remind us of the philosophy behind contemporary RA service, and thus can inform our goals for future practice.

Dilevko and Magowan’s central thesis is that contemporary literature has become commodified, concerned only with the profitability of books and their use to cross-promote other products. They believe that, beginning in the late 1960s, under the influence of the “Give ‘Em What They Want” movement, RA in public libraries was steadily co-opted by corporate culture. Readers’ advisors, they argue, have devolved into little more than marketers (perhaps knowingly, perhaps not) for dumbed-down, narcissistic literature to the detriment of readership for classics and serious nonfiction. Even worse, they claim, our emphasis on appeal factors, technological tools such as the NoveList database, and categorized book lists is leading to “McProfiling,” a deskilling of the profession that will ultimately lead to our replacement by machines and paraprofessionals.

History’s Reflection on the Present: Two Views

Instead of the current RA model, as defined by Joyce Saricks, Duncan Smith’s NoveList, the Genreflecting series, Nancy Pearl, and others, Dilevko and Magowan propose that RA be remodeled in the fashion of what they consider its glory days, 1917 to 1962, an era which they believe was “committed to systematic adult education.”² In that era, they hold, readers’ advisors were subject experts who could separate literary wheat from the chaff and design systematic reading courses in subjects that would help undereducated adults “get somewhere.” The authors seem to have no argument with early library practices that actively discouraged fiction reading unless it was focused on “great books.”

The best chapters of their book concern RA’s history to 1962. This history will remind thoughtful practitioners that many interesting approaches to advisory have historical progenitors that deserve exploration. If the authors had stopped here and drawn reasonable conclusions–that RA’s educational and therapeutic aspects deserve renewed attention; that systematic reading courses supporting self-education in practical topics might be a good addition to promotion of popular materials; that advisors might find inspiration in historical ideas, such as the belief that every librarian should be a capable readers’ advisor–this would be a valuable book for practitioners.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Some library users come in the door knowing exactly where to go, with clearly defined and communicated needs. However, many more enter the library on an exploratory mission and often stop at the first service desk that catches their eye. In many libraries, this point of first contact is a security or general information desk, not a full-service reference desk. This opens the question, are users being served effectively and their expectations being met? During the first several weeks of the fall 2003 semester, staff at the service desk closest to the front door of a large academic library recorded the specific questions asked by library patrons and their responses. This data was subjected to qualitative analysis techniques and revealed some trends in what current students are seeking when they initially come into the library. The results are useful for managers to consider in establishing appropriate staffing models (such as who should work at this desk), developing relevant training, and planning service desk and collection spatial configurations. This article presents the results from this study and explores possible factors that managers should take into consideration.

The presence of a service desk within sight of the front door of the library is not a new phenomenon. Depending on the individual library layout, this may be a primary operation desk with senior staff or librarians, such as for circulation or reference. Alternately, in many libraries, the first desk a visitor to the library encounters may be a basic information desk staffed by volunteers, non-library track employees (such as a security monitor), student workers, or less-experienced library support staff. A desk may be visibly designed around a security function, but the expectations of the user coming in the door may force it into a directional assistance role, similar to that of an information desk. Though limited in role, this service point is still a user’s first contact point with a representative of the library, and they approach it with questions and expectations of assistance.

The implementation of actual information desks separate from reference desks has been around for the past forty years, with the first real assessment of information desks conducted by Jane Kleiner in 1968 and followed up with a more focused survey conducted by Larry Harrelson in 1974.¹ A 1978 study at the University of Chicago Library supported the use of non-librarian staff, and suggested that the realistic need for the desk was actually periodic, a few weeks out of every year.² As presented in the 1991 Association of Research Libraries SPEC Kit Information Desks in ARL Libraries, the more extensive use of information desks as part of structured, tiered service models is a fairly contemporary development, as assistance provided from the reference desk became increasingly more sophisticated with the multitude of electronic resources and interdisciplinary research demands.³ In this study, 45 percent of the responding eighty-nine libraries indicated having an information desk, but they did not keep statistics on the detailed nature of the questions being asked and the percentage of questions referred to other library service points. The premise behind the information desk model is that of providing tiered service with better resource utilization by having senior staff and librarians spend more time answering in-depth research questions rather than directing students to photocopiers and bathrooms.

Since these early surveys, there have been periodic assessments of the services provided by these desks and the staffing models supporting them. In 1997, a survey of two hundred library users assessed the effectiveness and user satisfaction with the tiered service model at Texas A&M University Library. The results of this study raised concerns that user expectations were not consistent with the information desk tiered service model.⁴ In 1998, an article in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association reported the use of focus groups to evaluate information desk services provided by library support staff.⁵ A subsequent article in the Journal of Academic Librarianship in 2000 presented the results of an analytical study of how library users move between different service points, including those available electronically.⁶ A recent evolution from the information desk/tiered service concept of the 1990s has been the exploration of taking the library to the students and the reconfiguration of many service points to an information commons model.⁷ However, many large libraries do not have the architectural space layout, power and data wiring configuration, and available renovation budget to immediately implement the sort of models presented in these recent studies. These libraries may be trapped in a model where the desk nearest the door is a security or basic informational/directional/referral service model, with considerable variation in staffing across institutions.

Even though in-building use may be reduced from the peaks of previous decades, many people are still coming to the library and asking questions of the first official-looking desk or person they see. As with any interpersonal interaction, this first impression has a direct impact on how the user will perceive the library as a whole and is a critical factor in exploring quality of service issues. Are users approaching this service point expecting a full response to their information needs, or are they coming up and asking directional questions with the expectation that they need to be referred to a reference or circulation desk? If a referral is the best answer for a complex question, is it being handled appropriately, with the user being directed to the service or collection they need on the first referral, or is the user being passed along to a reference desk by default, with the hope that someone there can assist the user? Is there a need for an abbreviated reference interview, or are users communicating their directional assistance needs in a precise manner? There is a significant body of literature that explores information-seeking behaviors, especially in the context of technology. Unfortunately, there is little in the professional literature that asks what contemporary, computer-literate users are seeking as they walk into the library building’s front doors. Only by assessing what users are asking at that first service point is it possible for administrators to, first, determine if expectations are being met, and, second, make the necessary changes needed to develop the most appropriate and effective spatial configuration, training tools, and staffing models to improve this service experience. This article attempts to explore this issue by presenting qualitative data gathered on almost two thousand questions asked at the desk nearest the front door of a main library in a university setting during the first several weeks of the fall semester. It then introduces some library resource management and training issues that are part of implementing service improvement initiatives at this point of initial contact. The preliminary data from this study was presented as an American Library Association Annual Conference poster session in 2004. Based on the feedback from that presentation, the issue of quantitatively identifying what current users are actually coming into the library seeking at the first point of contact, and how they ask for it, is of interest to libraries of all types and sizes.

Data Collection Environment

The data for this study was collected at the desk at the entrance to Texas A&M University’s Evans Library. This is the main library of a central library complex, with several connected buildings that serve the majority of the university population of 50,000 to 60,000 individuals. The Evans Library and adjacent Evans Annex each have six floors, with a cumulative assignable space of approximately 410,000 square feet. The two buildings are connected by a fourth-floor bridge. The sprawling campus has three smaller, subject-focused libraries on the west side of campus that serve the medical and veterinary programs, the college of business, and the political science and economics departments. Separate humanities and social sciences, and science and engineering reference units are located within the main complex, along with discreet service desks for circulation, reserves, current periodicals, interlibrary services, media (A/V) services, and microforms. Additionally, at the time of this study, the library had three tenant services, a university copy services satellite called the Copy Center, the thesis and dissertation office, and a newly created university writing center.

In this library, the desk nearest the door is called the loss prevention specialist, or LPS, desk. It is a multifunctional desk intended to answer basic facility and service directional questions, monitor incoming students for compliance with the library’s food and drink policy, and respond to any activation signals from the security gates at the exit door. After 5 p.m., the desk occupants also serve as the facility proctors and oversee any facilities maintenance emergencies or security issues. The desk was not designed to look or function as a reference desk. Intended to provide a quick directional answer and maintain attention to the entrance and exit doors, the LPS desk configuration included neither a computer workstation to search the Web site or online catalog, nor a place for a patron to sit down while asking a question. It was expected that most users with nondirectional, research, or service questions would recognize this and bypass the LPS desk to go directly to the larger, more visibly equipped circulation or reference service points. At one time, the information services and security functions at the desk were distinct, with each service having its own counter area and staffing. Senior student workers and library staff covered the information desk, and loss prevention specialists were responsible for building and security issues. However, shortly after a 1999 building renovation, the two functions were combined to a single desk and staffing model. At that time, it was believed that most questions that initiated at this desk were directional in nature and could be answered in a straightforward manner or accurately referred to the humanities and social sciences reference desk by LPS employees. Anecdotal evidence during the past few years appeared to support this assumption. Though the humanities and social sciences reference desk was some distance away, it was in a direct line of sight from the LPS desk at the opposite end of a main corridor. Figure 1 shows a layout of the library’s first floor. Obviously, the biggest challenge associated with a referral is that the user understands why they are being referred and will follow through on their request at the other service point.

The LPS unit was initiated in the mid-1990s, and staffing was originally modeled after a store greeter concept, with limited extra security patrolling responsibilities. In addition to sitting at the desk near the entrance, LPS employees patrol the building to encourage proper conduct, monitor compliance with the food and drink policy, and check perimeter exits for building access security. The basic position description and experience requirements can be seen on the Texas A&M University Human Resources Web site at http://employees.tamu.edu/managers/positions/PayPlans/ByTitle.aspx. The staff members are a very diverse group that come from a variety of backgrounds. Several of the loss prevention specialists have retired from other careers and work part-time. Very few have personal higher education experience as a student or instructor, or extensive technology skills.

1.0 Introduction

Traditionally, the United States has been a country that attracts large numbers of immigrants from all over the globe. While some libraries have established collections and programs to serve the needs of library-users whose native language is not English, little has been done on a national scale to systematically address these needs. In addition, the multilingual needs of library patrons who are language students, foreign students or bilingual citizens have been under-served by traditional library services.

It is the responsibility of libraries to provide an equitable level of service to all members of their communities regardless of ethnic, cultural, or linguistic background. Providing library materials for ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups should not be seen as an “additional” or “extra” service, but as an integral part of every library’s services. Libraries should establish goals, objectives, and policies that integrate multilingual services into their overall work plan. These guidelines should serve as models with which to assess the provision of services and materials.

2.0 Collection and Selection of Materials

Provide an effective, balanced, and substantial collection for each ethnic, cultural or linguistic group in the community. Purchase materials in the languages, dialects, etc. of the groups served.

Consider the demand and availability of materials as important factors in establishing a level of collection development. The low volume of publishing in some languages or difficulty in obtaining publications may make it impossible to provide the same amount of material in all languages. Bindings and paper quality of the materials may not be equal to the quality of materials typically purchased in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere. Libraries may find it necessary to purchase from small presses, publishers and bookstores outside the country, neighborhood bookstores, conferences, and book fairs.

2.1 Levels for Selection

2.1.1 Provide library materials related primarily to the population of the targeted ethnic, linguistic, or cultural groups served.

2.1.2 Base materials selection on community analyses, needs assessments, and statistical data such as the U.S. Census. Appropriate aids include focus groups, interviews and questionnaires.

2.1.3 Provide a cross-section of subjects, literary genres, geographic areas and time periods appropriate to the users’ interests and needs. In order to provide information and to promote intercultural awareness and understanding, it is also desirable that library materials, reflecting the interests and experiences of the various cultural groups of the community, be available in both English and the original language, by authors from each national, linguistic and cultural group represented in the community.

2.2 Formats

2.2.1 Acquire materials in a variety of formats, which may include print, audio, audio-visual, and computer software as appropriate to diverse patron needs. When print materials are scarce, or when literacy materials are in high demand, place an emphasis on acquiring non-print materials, such as audio recordings and videos.

2.2.2 Provide literacy materials, including computers with literacy software, in the native languages of their non-English speaking patrons.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Let’s do a little experiment. Before you read the rest of this article, go to your reference desk (or information desk, or help desk, or whatever term you use for your primary, in-person service point). Look around. What do you see? Are there people in the area? Are they staff or users? What are they doing? What library materials are they reading or using? What personal materials are they reading or using? Are they alone or in groups? Is it noisy or silent?
By some accounts, what you should be witnessing is a silent, dusty, empty warehouse with rows of books in perfect order, waiting for the odd chance that someone will come in to use one of them. The computers might be in use, but only for e-mail or basic Web surfing. Because the library is an irrelevant, technological backwater, there is little demand for even this aspect of library service. The reference librarian sits waiting for that one scholar who still uses print resources to come in and ask for help. The circulation staff spends their time rearranging the books on the shelves–the library equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. And everyone reminisces about the “good old days” when people actually used the library.

My guess is that this is not at all the image that you see (unless the library is closed when you are conducting the experiment). When I go to a library–and especially a public library–I see lots of people doing lots of different things. Rather than a silent and empty reading room, the reference area is crowded and noisy. It echoes with the sound of conversations, keyboards, printers, self-checkout machines, cell phones, and the ever-present music seeping out of teenagers’ headphones. There is activity, vitality, and a sense of energy. The atmosphere is more like that of a shopping mall than a museum. Interestingly, this environment is true no matter which branch of my public library I enter. Whether at the downtown branch that serves primarily inner-city residents, or at a brand-new suburban branch, the excitement of the library is the same.

Even my academic library, which is currently undergoing a $100 million expansion (see www.maddenlibrary.org for details), retains that same atmosphere. Although some of our users may be forced to come in because of homework assignments, most are here because they see the library as a destination of choice on campus. They use the computers; read the magazines and newspapers; check out and return books; write, revise, and edit papers; and generally hang out with each other. Students interact with other students, faculty, and library staff. Our space may be small, but our users continue to take advantage of it as much as possible. My guess is that this is exactly the type of image that you see at your library.

As with Mark Twain’s death, the demise of the library has been greatly exaggerated. Much has been written about “library as place.” Those who predict the coming irrelevancy of the library have focused on only one of its key functions. They see the role of the library primarily as a source of information, which is only one of many activities that take place there. With the proliferation of alternative information sources (especially the Internet), our users are able to retrieve factual information on their own much more easily than at any time in human history. If the sole–or even primary–purpose of the library were to be a source of factual information, its future would, indeed, be rather limited.

REFORMA, the National Association to Promote Library and Information Services to Latinos and the Spanish Speaking, has taken a role in the production of this document: one committee member served as liaison to REFORMA, and the organization has given input throughout the revision process.

Although these guidelines were written by persons with professional interest in service to Spanish-speaking library users, they were written consciously for all library personnel who see a need to initiate service to this population. In that sense, the guidelines are a basic beginner’s manual intended for a hypothetical librarian serving as an administrator of a medium-to-small institution having become aware of the needs of Spanish-speaking communities within its service area. As with any guidelines, these are designed to aid in the development of that service and to remind readers of professional concerns regarding the target population.

1.0 Collection and Selection of Materials

Spanish-speaking communities in the United States have varying language skills and competencies in English and Spanish. The members of these communities have diverse needs and are entitled to access to materials that meet those needs. Use standard criteria to aid in the selection of library materials. In order to best carry out a systematic focus for collection development for these communities, develop and regularly update a Spanish Language Collection Development Policy.

1.1 Relevancy

1.1.1 Library materials for Spanish-speaking library users should meet the educational and recreational needs of the communities served. Libraries should provide appropriate and culturally relevant materials at a level that meets the needs and interests of the various user groups represented in the communities.

1.2 Language

1.2.1 The collection should also contain bilingual materials. Emphasize titles from publishers in the countries represented by the major user groups in these communities. The collection should also contain standard Spanish language titles from Spanish-speaking communities and countries. When purchasing translated works, carefully examine the languages used to insure accuracy and faithfulness to the original work.

1.3 Bibliographic Access

1.3.1 Bibliographic access to the library’s collection should include Spanish-language subject headings in the public catalog to facilitate the location of Spanish-language and bilingual materials. Also provide any locally produced access and identification aids, including lists, bibliographies, and point-of-use bibliographic instructional materials in Spanish.

1.4 Formats

1.4.1 Collect all formats including both print and non-print materials. Include all reading levels, whether educational or recreational. Supplement traditional print and audiovisual materials with electronic resources available on the Internet.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Two events this past August prompted me to think more about reference services than I have for some time. The first was being interviewed by the editor-in-chief of Arugus, a journal published by the Corporation of Professional Librarians of Quebec. I was asked to respond to several questions about the future of reference services for a forthcoming thematic issue on this topic. The second event was a two-day Penn State University Libraries reference retreat, an in-house workshop attended by approximately eighty-five librarians and staff members (with additional virtual attendees). I am using this space as a forum to share what I learned from my innovative colleagues and the incomparable Marie Radford, the keynote speaker and workshop facilitator.

Radford, an associate professor in the Rutgers University School of Communication, Information and Library Studies, is well-known to many RUSQ readers. She is a leading researcher on the topic of interpersonal communication in face-to-face and virtual reference encounters. In addition to being a highly sought-after speaker, she has published widely on virtual reference. Our understanding of the latter will be greatly enriched by her ongoing study of virtual reference services. She is the co-principal investigator of “Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives,” a study funded by a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Readers wanting to track Radford and Lynn Silipigni Connaway’s (the other principal investigator) progress on this important study may do so by visiting Radford’s page.¹

I was struck by one of the comments made by associate dean Sally Kalin in her message welcoming retreat participants. She notes a resurgence of interest in reference, reflected in part by large and enthusiastic audiences at reference-related programs at recent professional conferences. The standing-room-only crowd at the 2007 RUSA President’s Program on the future of reference and user services certainly confirms this observation.² Kalin’s hypothesis is that more libraries are recognizing that the provision of excellent public service is essential to the future of libraries. Regardless of how one feels about referring to patrons as customers, the delivery of quality reference service is good customer service.

Subsequent speakers described the current reference environment at Penn State University Libraries. Because our university is a highly complex, multisite institution, the reference climate varies considerably based on location.³ At University Park, reference statistics have been flat for the past three years after a downward trend. Librarians are spending considerably less time on desk, relying more heavily on students and other part-time reference assistants to staff desks. However, during this same period, there has been a marked increase in instruction and liaison activities, resulting in more direct (that is, bypassing the reference desk) reference encounters between patrons and subject specialists. Some samples of reference questions answered by Penn State librarians provided evidence that librarians are, indeed, answering more complex questions. While ready reference transactions have decreased, users continue to turn to librarians when the Internet fails them. Penn State librarians also are making a concerted effort to connect to users by providing both roving reference inside the library and off-site reference assistance. In sum, personal contact with users seems to be increasing. At many locations outside University Park, librarians are very involved in the daily life of faculty and students. In general, students and part-time reference assistants are relied upon less frequently to provide reference service. Throughout the Penn State system, reference is being delivered face-to-face and virtually (using e-mail, instant messaging [IM], chat, Facebook, and Second Life). This discussion of our reference climate highlighted one important shortcoming. The statistics we collect fail to capture this varied and complex reference activity.

In her keynote address, Radford reiterated that it is critical that we record our interactions with users, especially as we are not having less user contact.⁴ In describing the current and future reference environment, Radford noted that users born between 1979 and 1994 are experiential learners who like to be engaged. They also want services that are customized and personalized. While they are confident of their ability to find information, research indicates that they are not necessarily adept in doing so. Radford offered great concrete tips for meeting their needs, from promoting phone reference (have students enter the reference desk number on their cell phone), to offering instruction on searching Google. While there may be a generational gap between library staff and users, Radford cautioned that there also may be generational differences between those providing reference service. While younger librarians may have stronger technology skills, they may lack the depth of experience and knowledge of resources possessed by more experienced colleagues. Consequently, she recommended that libraries pair up librarians from different generations.

Radford reinforced these differences in expectations between millennial users and librarians during her lively presentation on communication strategies on day two of the retreat.⁵ While providing excellent suggestions for facilitating communication (in both face-to-face and virtual reference encounters), Radford reminded us that the “RUSA Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers,” offer a framework for practice.⁶

One of the most interesting aspects of this retreat was the concise lightning reports on programs and initiatives. The term “lightning reports” truly conveys the fast-paced experiments that are going on across our library system. These reports profiled a range of activities that Penn State librarians are currently engaged in: Facebook and other social networking tools, Second Life, virtual reference service, Meebo (a Web site that allows you to monitor multiple IM accounts at the same time), use of library-related widgets to create an undergraduate research portal, roving services, outreach services, and the creation of a portal for patrons using mobile technologies. Details about some of these initiatives can be found on individual Web pages.⁷ In addition to these brief sessions, hour-long sessions were conducted on information trapping (guidance on how to use RSS feeds and journal alerts to build a personal research desktop) and methodologies and tools for reference evaluation and assessment.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
A BRASS Business Reference Sources Committee working group, after year-long discussions, voted for three titles to be included in the outstanding category. Four additional titles were selected as noteworthy. In order to qualify for inclusion on the list, the works must have been published since May 2006, must be a source for frequently asked business reference questions, and must be suitable for mid-size to large academic and public libraries. The outstanding titles feature a new Web-based mapping application, an encyclopedia on the burgeoning topic of industrial and organizational psychology, and an encyclopedia to help us with those challenging statistics questions. Notable titles include a standard reference that is now electronic and three books that feature common business concepts and functions–new and classic.

Outstanding Titles

Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Ed. by Steven G. Rogelberg. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2006. 2 vols. $375 (ISBN 1-4129-2470-7).
In today’s global, competitive marketplace, firms are concerned with developing, retaining, and rewarding their workforce. With the proliferation of self-service human resource management applications, workplace issues are no longer the sole purview of the human resources department. Line managers need to be aware of legal and ethical issues as well as of the latest techniques to evaluate and motivate their employees. The Encyclopedia covers more than four hundred key topics that affect the workplace environment daily.

The editor is the director of the interdisciplinary Ph.D. program in organizational science and directs the Industrial/Organizational Psychology Graduate Program at University of North Carolina Charlotte. He was a consultant in private industry. The more than three hundred contributors are academics from universities worldwide and practitioners.

Signed entries, averaging three pages, provide an overview of the topic. Illustrating the timeliness and thoroughness of the volume, the entry for “Emotional Intelligence” defines the trait- and competency-based approaches as well as the measurement of EI and its predictive validity. It also mentions the popularity of a recent trade book that led to some relabeling of existing approaches and models. Cross-references and additional readings allow the advanced researcher to further explore the topic. Attesting to the academic level of this encyclopedia, the additional readings are monographs and academic journals, not Web sites. Graphs, charts, and tables clarify complex concepts.

The target audiences are undergraduates, beginning graduate students, the general public seeking non-technical explanations, and practitioners. This title handily gets a student started on such popular research topics as corporate social responsibility and succession planning. A small business owner can find ideas for managing cyberloafing at her company.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Studies indicate that a lean reference collection is the ideal, but how does a librarian determine what to pare? A small academic library did a five-year reshelving study to guide in collection management. Dots were applied to books as they were reshelved, with different colors for each year. Data indicate that, while many items were heavily used, many others were not used at all in five years. As a result of the study, reference staff are reconsidering the nature of the reference collection, beginning to develop a collection management policy, and determining the disposition of the good, but unused, items.

The library that does a use study is attempting to know which items it currently holds will be used next year, and we know from Fussler and Simon’s study that “the single best predictor of future use of a book” is past use.¹ If the reference staff at Columbia International University (CIU) could learn which books are used, we could then create a lean, efficient reference collection by weeding unused books and utilizing the data to select new acquisitions by established use patterns. This study is an investigation into the use of a reference collection at a small academic library focused on what has been used, with an eye to weeding the unused collection of items.

The method used was suggested by Eugene Engeldinger’s challenge to make known use the primary criterion for weeding reference collections in his report of a use study done at the McIntyre Library, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire (UWEC).² The Engeldinger study involved placing one adhesive dot inside the back cover of a reference book each time it was reshelved, up to five times. At the end of five years, the dots were counted, providing the reference staff with quantitative information to supplement instinct as they made weeding decisions. The Eau Claire study was one that the reference staff at CIU’s G. Allen Fleece Library could easily replicate.

Literature Review

According to Robert Broadus, use studies are differentiated from usage studies by the study’s object. Use studies focus on the materials and how they are used. Usage studies focus on the patrons and how they use the materials.³ Use studies, of course, do not–or should not–exist in a vacuum. The professional literature indicates that the most common reason librarians performed use studies was to support collection management decisions. Use studies rightly inform these activities, but they also provide quantitative information to guide the deselecting, pruning, and weeding process. Therefore, literature supporting this research centers on use studies and weeding as each intersects the print reference collection.

Broadus examined conclusions of the library use studies he considered most consequential.⁴ He offered an annotated list of five generalizations that might be drawn from these studies. Even though the Broadus article does not address reference collection use, two of his generalizations are relevant to this study. Broadus’s first generalization suggested that a substantial percentage of many libraries’ holdings receive no recorded use. The second relevant generalization states that current use is a predictor of future use; that is, items recently used are more likely to be used in the near and distant future.

In 1981, librarians at the San Luis Obispo campus at California Polytechnic State University conducted a title-by-title review of their reference collection.⁵ The review had nine objectives, which included providing an inventory and serving “as a means of purging the reference collection of seldom-used or obsolete books… .”⁶ The results of this study were, perhaps, more dramatic than most librarians would prefer: “… the reference collection was reducible from 16,000 titles and 25,000 volumes to a manageable size of 5,540 titles and 14,331 volumes. Furthermore, librarians became more familiar with the scope and depth of the entire collection, as well as in their own subject areas, and with the location of missing items.”⁷

In 1982, Engeldinger surveyed 377 academic reference librarians about various aspects of their libraries’ practices relating to weeding the reference collection.⁸ He found that frequency of material use was a factor for 54 percent of the librarians responding. He also sought to elicit information on how frequency of use was determined. Responses were few, but virtually all who did reply offered only subjective means to assess use.

Biggs and Biggs surveyed 471 reference heads in academic libraries regarding collection development.⁹ Reference collection size was a focus “especially because our perception–which turned out to be confirmed by our findings regarding numbers and frequency of use of reference volumes–that reference collections tend to be too large for thorough exploitation by librarians in the service of information delivery.”¹⁰

Librarians at Iowa State University’s Parks Library considered the types of reference materials most necessary to meet patron information needs, as well as reference staffing and training needed.¹¹ For four weeks, the librarians tallied usage of reference books, differentiating between usage by reference staff and library patrons. Results were further distinguished by Library of Congress (LC) call number ranges. Usage was defined as “referral to, or reshelving of, a particular reference item,” despite the authors’ awareness that this method overlooked those items reshelved by the patron and undercounted those used by more than one patron but reshelved by library staff only once. The study informed the library staff about usage of books within each subject (LC classification), which, in turn, informed them regarding potential collection weaknesses.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Building genre collections is a central concern of public library collection development efforts. Even for college and university libraries, where it is not a major focus, a solid core collection makes a welcome addition for students needing a break from their course load and supports a range of academic interests. Given the widespread popularity of genre books, understanding the basics of a given genre is a great skill for all types of librarians to have.

It was, therefore, an important and groundbreaking event when the RUSA Collection Development and Evaluation Section (CODES) voted to create a new juried list highlighting the best in genre literature. The Reading List, as the new list will be called, honors the single best title in eight genre categories: romance, mystery, science fiction, fantasy, horror, historical fiction, women’s fiction, and the adrenaline genre group consisting of thriller, suspense, and adventure.

To celebrate this new list and explore the wealth of genre literature, The Alert Collector will launch an ongoing, occasional series of genre-themed articles. This column explores the romance genre in all its many incarnations.

Five librarians gathered together to write this column and share their knowledge and love of the genre. Each was asked to write an introduction to a subgenre and to select five books that highlight the features of that subgenre. The result is an enlightening, entertaining guide to building a core collection in the genre area that accounts for almost half of all paperbacks sold each year.¹

Georgine Olson, who wrote the historical romance section, has been reading historical romance even longer than the thirty years or so she has been recommending good reads to fellow readers, and is a regular contributor to NoveList, editor of Fiction Acquisition/Fiction Management: Education and Training (Haworth, 1998), and chair of the Alaska Library Association Adult Readers Roundtable. Kristin Ramsdell, who wrote the Regency romance section, works at California State University, East Bay, and won the 1996 Romance Writers of America (RWA) Librarian of the Year award. She also is the romance review columnist for Library Journal. Joyce Saricks won the RWA Librarian of the Year award in 2000 and is the author of two groundbreaking readers’ advisory titles, Readers’ Advisory Service in the Public Library and The Readers’ Advisory Guide to Genre Fiction. Lynne Welch, who wrote the paranormal romance section, reviews for Booklist, contributes to NoveList, and was the 2004 RWA Librarian of the year. Neal Wyatt, the Alert Collector editor, contributed the contemporary romance section.

Note: Romance titles are frequently republished. Publication information is given for the newest in-print version of each title listed. Out-of-print titles are indicated with o.p.–Editor

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Sam Stormont’s well-considered column made me think about current virtual reference issues in a different way. He brings together and unifies several threads: instant messaging, the goal of convenience, technological barriers, and collaboration. These themes were hot topics at the Collaborative Virtual Reference Symposium in July 2007. I am pleased to present Sam Stormont’s column and to bring these issues to a much larger audience.–Editor

Virtual Reference (VR) has been around for at least twenty years and has grown in popularity, with more and more libraries offering some version. As librarians evaluate their chat services, a consistent question is, “Why aren’t more people using this service?” There is abundant evidence that millions of teenagers and young adults are using commercial chat and instant messenging (IM) services regularly, but that isn’t translating to the library realm.¹ A lot of discussion focuses on increased marketing and promotion efforts as the way to increase use of VR services. Little has been written, however, about the influence technical barriers have had on VR and how those issues have impeded VR’s acceptance and growth.

With any emerging technology, it’s reasonable to expect an initial period of problems while the bugs are being worked out. However, VR electronic list discussions still include too much about problems and too little about features, services, and the innovative ways this technology can be used to help our users. Too much time and energy is spent writing and reading e-mails describing problems with co-browsing and working with vendors and local systems departments trying to troubleshoot the problems. At this point in VR services development, more of the glitches should have been worked out. I believe that it’s time for librarians to focus on a VR solution that emphasizes simplicity and convenience. The process of asking for help needs to be uncomplicated and easy for the user.

VR: The Early Years

The earliest documented e-mail reference projects date to the mid-1980s.² Commercial use of chat also dates to the same period.³ In the late 1990s, there was increased interest, and some experiments began with live, or real-time, reference. Those early initiatives have evolved into what is now commonly referred to as chat reference and IM reference.

A lot of different names have been used to describe VR. I will follow the guidelines established by the RUSA Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services:

Virtual reference is reference service initiated electronically, often in real-time, where patrons employ computers or other Internet technology to communicate with reference staff, without being physically present. Communication channels used frequently in virtual reference include chat, videoconferencing, Voice over IP, co-browsing, e-mail, and instant messaging.⁴