Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Generation 1.5 students are those who appear fully conversant in American English and culture but are still in the process of learning English when they enter college. This study, based on the findings of a 51-question survey administered to 285 students in a first-year college composition course, examines the effect and role that public libraries have in the success of Generation 1.5 college writers. The findings raise questions about the role public libraries play in preparing students for college. The article suggests reasons for heavy public library use by Generation 1.5 college students, even when academic libraries are available to them.

The current study investigates the attitudes toward public library usage held by Generation 1.5 students in a university composition course that has as its main function teaching the research paper. Generation 1.5 students are those who appear fully conversant in American English and culture but are still in the process of learning English when they enter college.¹ They exhibit reading and writing difficulties, which are especially problematic in university writing courses. The findings have implications for how public librarians and college composition instructors can help assist these students.

According to the latest census figures, there are nearly 10 million people living in the United States between the ages of 5 and 17 who are members of non-English speaking households. This represents 18.4 percent of this population, compared with 13.9 percent of the population in 1990. In California, 42.6 percent of school-aged children are members of households where English is not the primary language.² This situation is particularly acute in California’s San Joaquin Valley, where this study took place.

With the increase of Generation 1.5 student immigrant populations in the United States, it has become urgent for public libraries to identify and assist these students in their transition from high school to college. In the present study, the primary focus was on children of Mexican immigrants, a group highly represented at California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB), where this study took place.

Literature Review

Academic Literacy Skills

In the field of second language acquisition, there is a fairly long history of looking at the academic literacy needs of second language learners and the academic tasks that face second language college students. Saville-Troike, Bridgeman and Carlson, Horowitz, and Ostler for example, used surveys to assess what types of academic activities students were performing at the college level.³ Other studies, (Christison and Krahnke, Leki and Carson) have examined the students’ own perceptions of their academic needs.⁴ Other studies (Currie, Shuck) have looked specifically at the needs for writing classes.⁵

The debate has also been informed by the work of Cummins, who proposes a distinction between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP).⁶ BICS are cognitively less-demanding skills needed for daily social interaction and are employed by English language learners “when they are on the playground, in the lunch room, on the school bus, at parties, playing sports and talking on the telephone.” CALP, on the other hand, refers to the more cognitively demanding skills of “listening, speaking, reading, and writing about subject area content material.” This level of language learning, which Cummins claims may take from five to seven years to attain, is the level that is essential for students to be successful academically.⁷

Definition of Generation 1.5

The term Generation 1.5 itself comes from Rumbaut and Ima, who used the term “‘1.5’ generation” to describe refugee youth from Vietnam, Cambodia, Indochina, and Laos.⁸ They state that such students “are neither part of the ‘first’ generation of their parents, the responsible adults who were formed in their homeland, who made the fateful decision to leave it and to flee as refugees to an uncertain exile in the United States, and who are thus defined by the consequences of that decision and by the need to justify it; nor are these youths part of the ‘second’ generation of children who are born in the U.S., and for whom the ‘homeland’ mainly exists as a representation consisting of parental memories and memorabilia, even though their ethnicity may remain well defined.”⁹

In an approach somewhat parallel to Rumbaut and Ima, Reid has made the distinction “U. S. Resident ESL Writers,” also called “ear” learners, and “International Student Writers,” also called “eye” learners. According to Reid, traditional international students are made up of those who “have chosen to attend postsecondary schools in the U.S., in much the same way that U.S. college students spend a semester or a year ‘abroad.’ Many of these nonimmigrant, visa-holding students come from relatively privileged and well-educated backgrounds. They are literate and fluent in their first language, and they have learned English in foreign language classes.” These students, who Reid refers to as “eye” learners, “have learned English principally through their eyes, studying vocabulary, verb forms, and language rules.” Because they have studied English grammar extensively, they understand and can explain its rules. While they are often highly capable readers, they may exhibit poor listening and speaking abilities that are “hampered by lack of experience, nonnative English-speaking teachers, and the culture shock that comes from being immersed in a foreign culture.”¹⁰

Generation 1.5 students, in contrast to international students, are those who, according to Harklou, “enter college while still in the process of learning English.”¹¹

Reid describes these students as “ear” learners who “have learned English by being suddenly immersed in the language and the culture of the U.S.” She explains that these students learn English principally by hearing it and interacting with people in the community such as teachers, friends, and other members of the community. Television may also play a role. These students “subconsciously began to form vocabulary, grammar, and syntax rules, learning English principally through oral trial and error.”¹²

As Harklau points out, these students may have well-developed English language social skills and therefore appear to have native-like conversational skills.¹³ According to Reid, Generation 1.5 students have often graduated from American high schools and are conversant in American culture, with advanced oral and listening abilities. Because of these experiences they “understand the slang, the pop music, the behaviors, and the ‘cool’ clothes of the schools they attend. Their background knowledge of life in the U.S. is, in many cases, both broad and deep: Their personal experiences have made them familiar with class structures and expectations; they have opinions on current controversies and issues; and they recognize cultural references to, for instance, television programs, cartoon humor, and advertising.”¹⁴The term “Generation 1.5” took on new currency with the publication in 1999 of Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL, edited by Harklau, Losey, and Siegal. The volume, which gives the best definition to date of “Generation 1.5,” examines the students themselves, using “case studies and interviews to develop in-depth profiles of the backgrounds, attitudes, and college experiences of language minority students with writing.”¹⁵ It also examines “the high school and college classroom settings in which language minority students learn to write” then explores “the strengths and weaknesses of various configurations of writing programs for U.S.-educated second-language learners.”¹⁶

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
During the fall of 2004, the Head of Electronic Resources at the College of Mount St. Joseph’s Archbishop Alter Library conducted a survey using a paper-based questionnaire and administered it to several randomly chosen undergraduate courses. The goal of the study was to investigate the college’s undergraduates’ usage and attitudes toward electronic books. The study grew from the college librarians’ informal observations of students’ reactions, many times negative, to e-books over a four-year period. Results ran counter to what one might expect of undergraduates belonging to the Millennial or “net” generation. The findings show that students have mixed feelings about using e-books; students will use e-books but prefer using traditional print books. The study gives insight into where electronic and print media are in the current academic realm.

When electronic books first appeared on the commercial market in the 1990s, many information technology experts predicted that print books would become obsolete.¹ Despite the paperless-society predictions, the printed book persists into the digital twenty-first century and remains a much utilized and integral part of our research, media, and leisure cultures. At the same time, e-books (both Web-based and device-based) have experienced continued growth and an undeniable presence despite their own growing pains in recent years.

After the dot-com crash in 2000, many e-book vendors folded or merged with other companies. In fact, of the twenty-four initial e-book firms, only eight are still active.² The e-book market initially weathered this change by shifting focus away from device-based models toward Web-based databases. Currently, trends in the e-book market reflect concentrations in three areas: (1) Web-based aggregated collections with academic content, such as reference, business, and information technology; (2) audio e-books, due in large part to the combined popularity and ubiquity of Harry Potter audio books and iPods; and (3) a curious resurgence in dedicated e-book devices, such as the 2006 Sony Reader and the 2007 Kindle Reader from Amazon.³

Academic libraries have long served “as repositories of the written word, regardless of the particular medium used to store the words.”⁴ As early adopters of e-books, college and university libraries have continued adding these electronic texts and other multimedia to library collections. For students in an academic environment, Web-based electronic books such as netLibrary offer twenty-four-hour access to research orientated e-content from anywhere, whether it is a wireless laptop or a dorm-room desktop. While usage data may indicate that patrons access these e-book databases, what the data does not tell us is our students’ attitudes toward e-books.

Background

During the fall of 2004, the Head of Electronic Resources at the College of Mount St. Joseph’s Archbishop Alter Library conducted a survey that investigated undergraduates’ usage and attitudes toward e-books. The study grew from the college librarians’ informal observations of students’ reactions (often negative) to e-books over a four-year period. The Archbishop Alter Library obtained the e-book database netLibrary in 2000 through its OhioLINK membership. To replicate simultaneous use, checkout time for each netLibrary book was limited to two hours. In subsequent years, other e-book databases were added to the library’s collection, including Safari Tech Books Online, ABC-Clio Reference Books, and Oxford Reference Online. The librarians heavily marketed these resources to students, faculty, and staff. In particular, they promoted these resources with brochures, bookmarks, Web pages, campus-wide e-mail announcements, and during instruction sessions. In an effort to increase access and exposure, the library’s Technical Services Department loaded approximately thirteen thousand netLibrary e-book MARC records into FOCUS, the library’s OPAC. There is evidence showing that adding e-book titles to a library’s catalog is strongly related to an increased use of the collection.⁵ Indeed, following this addition, netLibrary usage by College of Mount St. Joseph patrons rose dramatically and remained steady through 2004 (table 1).

But while e-book usage increased from 2000 to 2004, so did students’ negative comments about the format. On the “front lines” at the library’s refer-ence desk, many of the college’s librarians began to notice during reference interviews that students who encountered e-book records while searching the library’s online catalog were reluctant to pursue them. In one instance, when a reference librarian explained to a traditional-aged patron that a par-ticular book that interested her was an e-book, the patron shook her head and replied, “But I want a real book,” and followed her comment with hand gestures indicating the opening and closing of a book. Other students had similar reactions and requested the “real book” through interlibrary loan while the e-book (that met their information need) went unused. An informal survey of the college’s librarians about their observations and interactions with students revealed that e-books were not popular with our undergraduates. Some students seemed to view e-books, unlike the popular full-text journal articles, as hard to navigate and limit-ing despite the advantage of anywhere, anytime access. Incidental comments from students highlighted their desire for material that could either be printed in its entirety (something not always al-lowed due to copyright restrictions) or checked out and easily portable.

The College of Mount St. Joseph is a small liberal arts college located in Cincinnati, Ohio. While the school serves a diverse age range that includes adult learners, a large percentage of its students belong to the often-written-about Millennial Generation or “Net Generation.”⁶ Millennial students, those born after 1981, possess “the informationage mindset.”⁷ That is, they stand out from previous generations by having grown up in a “digitally based culture” and most likely “are more comfortable working on a keyboard than writing in a spiral notebook, and are happier reading from a computer screen than from paper in hand.”⁸ All Mount students, whether Millennials or Baby Boomers, are immersed in a technology-rich environment. For instance, in the year 2000, the school “became one of the first colleges in the nation to provide students with wireless computers.”⁹ All full-time undergraduates are required to participate in the school’s wireless laptop program, and part-time and adult students have access to computer labs, software, loaner laptops, and a plethora of online library resources. Given the technology-rich environment and generational characteristics of Millennial students, the informal anecdotal findings by the librarians about patrons’ behavior toward e-books were surprising. After all, students typically are open to new media and tech-nologies. These observations, of course, raised numerous questions that netLibrary usage data could not answer. Were our students using e-books? Did they prefer using print or electronic? Did the students’ reactions observed by the librarians reflect only a small per-centage? Additionally, how were they using e-books? The formal survey that followed sought to gain a better understanding of students’ perceptions of e-books at the College of Mount St. Joseph.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
A major review of the reference collection in Bowling Green State University’s Jerome Library was made necessary by the decision to incorporate the materials from the reference collection in the science library. The process of planning and implementing this collection review is described, emphasizing how this process has been affected by changes in technology and the demands made by library users. Suggestions that may help ensure a successful review are included.

It had been five years since a complete review of the reference collection in the William T. Jerome Library at Bowling Green State University (BGSU) had been performed, but other priorities had delayed this chore. Once the decision was made to move the Ogg Science Library reference collection to Jerome Library, weeding both reference collections became a necessity before they were combined. As Pierce points out in his introduction to a Reference Librarian special issue on weeding, it is not unusual to delay weeding until a library is confronted with a space shortage.¹

In addition to identifying obsolete and unused books to be removed from the collection, other objectives were to identify missing titles and volumes, superceded volumes for which the newer edition had not yet been purchased, and titles for which newer comparable materials could be purchased. Pierce explains that this large task is common because “As unplanned collections grow, shelf and seating space shrink, and works with needed information are lost in the clutter of outdated and inappropriate materials crowding the shelves.”² In a 1982 article, Rettig equates reference collections composed of outdated information to a bibliographic Love Canal.³ Schlachter notes that the prevalence of obsolete reference sources in library collections had not improved by 1988 and at the time called for the American Library Association’s Reference and Adult Services Division to provide leadership to remedy the situation.⁴ In addition to the aforementioned tasks, Jerome Library reference staff also hoped to identify and fill any previously unidentified gaps in the collection. A properly conducted review can be an excellent method of improving the staff’s knowledge of the collection, resulting in improved reference service.

Reference librarians were concerned about the potential effects of adding the science reference collection into a space that was already rather crowded. They did not want to lose any of the seating in the reference area and did not want to replace the shelving in the reference area with compact shelving. Both had been suggested as possible solutions to the impending space problem.

Staff discussed the changes in reference services and resources brought about by improved technology and the move to online publishing. Students and faculty have developed an insatiable appetite for online resources, changing the types of questions asked and the forms those questions take. There has been a noticeable diminution in ready reference questions, although the number of these questions was easily replaced by requests for help with computer and printer problems.

As remote users proliferated, online resources replaced some of the familiar print ones. By 2005, the BGSU libraries had replaced a substantial number of print resources with online books, periodicals, and research databases. The availability of e-mail and chat reference service accelerated the migration from print to online resources.

The reference librarians had just finished a major review of standing orders and were acutely aware of how many formerly essential reference sources were now receiving little or no use. The discussions for this review included a consideration of the purpose of the reference collection. Mathews and Tyckoson identify two opposing philosophies of reference collection development. One, based on format, holds that any book that is formatted as a reference book, such as a handbook, encyclopedia, dictionary, or almanac, should be in the reference collection. The other theory is based on usage. Proponents of this theory believe the reference collection should include resources that contain the information needed to answer the reference questions expected at a particular library.⁵ The consensus among the reference librarians was that the library needed a reference collection that would conform to the second theory, based on usage.

Review of Standing Orders and Subscriptions

During the 2004–2005 academic year, the reference librarians reviewed the reference standing orders and subscriptions. Although the reference budget had increased in recent years, the cost of reference materials seemed to have risen even faster. The reference staff also did not want to allocate any portion of the reference budget to titles that were no longer used. Because of the high demand for online resources, the staff also wanted to shift some of the budget allocation from print to electronic format.

Throughout the spring semester, the reference librarians examined the standing orders and determined which titles were no longer used.

Some types of questions were not asked at the reference desk any longer, and this lack of interest resulted in cancellations of the corresponding types of books used to answer those questions. Directories were particularly affected. Even such standard sources as Congressional Yellow Book and the Washington Information Directory were receiving little use, although other directories such as the Encyclopedia of Associations and the Gale Directory of Publications still retained some usefulness. Other sources were no longer useful due to changes in the curriculum: courses were dropped or entire programs changed focus.

Some sources had been replaced by online databases, such as Facts on File and CQ Researcher. In some cases, the paper resource did not have an exact equivalent, but the type of information contained in the paper set was now available in one or more online databases, and the paper set was rarely used, such as Editorials on File and the majority of the law reporters in the collection. Of course, the libraries had replaced many paper indexes with research databases. The librarians decided to cancel some additional subscriptions to paper indexes either because most of the journals covered were included in other databases, or there was a database that was close enough in content that students and faculty had stopped using the paper index.

Harloe and Barber recommend that as many questions as possible about reference serials should be settled before a review of the reference collection takes place because these decisions can be very time-consuming.⁶ The discussions that accompanied the review of the standing orders and subscriptions were an excellent precursor to a complete review of the reference collection because they helped define and solidify a general consensus about what should and should not be in the collection. One article that was particularly useful in framing some discussions was Tyckoson’s “Facts Go Online,” where the author examined the current use of a list of core reference titles he had compiled a decade earlier and determined that most of them were now rarely used because of the increased use of the Internet and databases. As a result of his findings, Tyckson speculated on the current and future usefulness of a print reference collection.⁷

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
This article considers the teaching role of reference librarians by studying the teachable moment in reference transactions, and users’ response to that instruction. An empirical study of instruction was conducted in both virtual and traditional reference milieus, examining the following three services: Instant messaging (IM), chat, and face-to-face reference. The authors used the same criteria in separate studies of all three services to determine if librarians provided analogous levels of instruction and what factors influenced the likelihood of instruction. Methodologies employed included transcript analysis, observation, and patron surveys. Findings indicated that patrons wanted instruction in their reference transactions, regardless of medium, and that librarians provided it. But instructional techniques used by librarians in virtual reference differ somewhat from those used at the reference desk. The authors conclude that reference transactions, in any medium, represent the patron’s point-of-need, thereby presenting the ideal teachable moment.

The teachable moment, sometimes referred to as the “Aha!” moment, is defined as a “moment of educational opportunity: a time in which a person, especially a child, is likely to be particularly disposed to learn something or particularly responsive to being taught or made aware of something.”¹

Reference queries present prime examples of the teachable moment. They catch researchers at their point of need and provide opportunities for one-onone personalized instruction and hands-on learning. Reference work in academic libraries has been deeply affected by technology. One of its most noticeable effects has been on the instructional role of librarians. As more patrons access library resources remotely and fewer visit the reference desk, opportunities for face-to-face instruction decrease. As they become more computer-savvy, patrons may feel that the need for instruction also decreases. Such changes raise the following questions: To what extent are librarians instructing patrons during reference transactions? Is there a difference in the amount and type of instruction offered in virtual reference such as instant messaging (IM) or chat?

Do librarians at the reference desk provide more instruction than their virtual counterparts? Do they provide it more often? Are they taking advantage of potential teachable moments?

In today’s ideal reference model, librarians show patrons how to find information rather than simply provide answers. RUSA’s “Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service Providers” emphasizes the importance of instruction in all reference environments, including virtual reference.² We might assume that it is simpler to provide instruction faceto-face and therefore more common at the reference desk, but is this true? The authors examined this question as it relates to IM and chat reference in two recent studies. “Chat” was defined as commercial software developed for libraries, and “IM” as free or home-grown messaging software without co-browse capability. The current study builds on the two previous studies by comparing IM and chat instruction to instruction at the traditional reference desk, using the same criteria.

The purpose of the first study, conducted in 2005, was to gauge the amount of instruction being offered through IM reference.³ Using transcript analysis and a user survey, the authors determined how often librarians provided instruction and under what conditions they were most likely to provide it. They also inquired about patrons’ desire for and willingness to receive instruction as well as their perception of actual learning. The authors also developed a classification of teaching techniques employed by librarians and measured the frequency of their use.

The following summer the homegrown software for the service was replaced with commercial chat software with co-browsing capability. To test whether the co-browsing feature made a difference in the amount and type of instruction offered through chat, the authors conducted a second study, comparing the results using the new software to the original home-grown product.⁴ The same criteria and methodology were used to evaluate the likelihood and frequency of instruction, but this time the effect of co-browsing both on instruction and on patrons’ perception of learning was also studied.

The purpose of the present study is twofold. First, it compares the frequency and types of instruction that occur during reference in two mediums—traditional (in person) and virtual (IM and chat) reference. Secondly, as with the previous studies, it also gauges whether users want or are willing to accept instruction and whether they feel they learned anything from the reference transaction. The current study of the physical reference desk follows as closely as possible the methodology used in the first two studies of the virtual reference milieu.

Literature Review

Studies assessing information literacy programs and traditional bibliographic instruction (BI) classes abound. But few studies have actually measured the instructional activity at the reference desk. Jacoby and O’Brien’s study touches on instruction as one aspect of assessing reference service. It surveyed undergraduates and found that nearly 64 percent of participants “learned about new resources during the reference encounter” and many also acquired strategies for finding information.⁵ Jacoby and O’Brien’s approach suggests that a change in reference philosophy has occurred. In the past, rather than being focused on effective instructional techniques, debate centered on whether librarians should be teaching at the reference desk at all.

Schiller provided one of the early arguments against instruction during reference work. In a 1965 article she argued that the primary job of librarians is to exercise professional skill by finding and providing information and by selecting new resources based on patron needs; according to this view, expecting patrons to spend t heir own time searching is a betrayal of professional responsibility.⁶ She pointed out that instructing patrons in self-service has sometimes been necessitated by a lack of resources for staffing, but also stems from a deeply rooted belief that libraries exist for patron self improvement; Schiller countered by saying that requiring patrons to submit to instruction (often cursory and dismissive) is a presumptuous imposition stemming from this moralistic attitude. As recently as 2001, Bill Katz, renowned guru of reference librarianship, agreed with Schiller’s original position that “In the ideal situation, the reference librarian finds the answers for the user, rather than showing the user how to locate information,” viewing this approach as the only way to avoid patron information overload and to achieve professional status for librarianship.⁷ Katz also asserted that at least 95 percent of library users do not want to find information for themselves and therefore should not be forced to learn.⁸ But, despite the eloquence of the above arguments, as early as 1982 Schiller had modified her thinking: “the growing complexity of libraries … new reference tools” and “heightened demands for information, have imposed new requirements for access, and bibliographic instruction has become one important mechanism for achieving them.”⁹ Technological advances in the electronic organization of information have blurred the distinction between searching and finding. Electronic database searching is an iterative process of discovery. Skill is needed to exploit database features to their fullest, and to refine the search more precisely after viewing an overwhelming number of preliminary results. Such skills can be learned and may be necessary to combat information overload; therefore instruction is beneficial and becomes an integral part of reference service.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
This article describes a content analysis of virtual reference transcripts taken from the NCknows virtual reference service. The analysis sought to determine why librarians consider some questions to be unanswerable at the time they are submitted by users. Questions were coded by a classification of question causes and by how complete the reference interview was in the transaction. The transcripts were then coded according to the reasons given for ending the chat early. The analysis showed that most reference interviews were incomplete and that the most common explanation for why librarians could not answer questions at the time was that they were already busy assisting other users. The study indicates that more North Carolina librarians should be hired to staff the service and that librarians should make a greater effort to conduct a complete reference interview so that more questions can be answered while users are still online.

Reference’s primary function is to provide users answers when and how they need them. Chat reference services assist users from anywhere with an Internet connection where librarians can send users information immediately. Occasionally librarians cannot answer questions when received because of time constraints, because necessary resources are unavailable, or because questions require referrals. Librarians may then send answers to users’ e-mails.

This paper examines why librarians staffing the NCknows chat reference service are sometimes unable to answer questions when received by focusing on three questions: (1) What types of questions are answered later through e-mail?; (2) How complete are the reference interviews?; and (3), Why do transactions end prematurely? Librarians may use the e-mail response option when questions require more time or resources than are available when the question is received. A content analysis was conducted on unfinished reference transactions of questions submitted to the NCknows reference service from January to February 2005. By minimizing situations that make certain questions difficult to answer while users are still online, NCknows will be an effective form of reference that users can rely on for their information needs.

Digital reference services help remote users locate useful information sources. These services draw questions from users who may have never used library reference, as some users are concerned about anonymity, and others cannot visit libraries. Whether it is distance, a handicap, privacy concerns, or scheduling issues that prevent users from accessing libraries, virtual reference services tear down these restrictive walls, assisting users in any location and increasingly at all times of the day.

Librarians can also send users information later. If users disconnect prematurely, librarians can send them e-mails requesting more information. Librarians also have more flexibility to respond if more time is needed to answer questions. Once users log off, they receive a transcript of the chat session that can be consulted later.

But even virtual reference services’ proponents concede that there are drawbacks. Bibliographic instruction has always been an important aspect of reference, but chat service technology often hinders librarians’ attempts to teach users search skills. Not all services permit co-browsing, while Web sites and proprietary databases often prevent it. When librarians send e-mail responses, the search process becomes solely the librarians’ responsibility. For users to learn how answers were found, librarians must type the search strategy.

Librarians staffing virtual reference services without co-browsing compensate by typing out searches, which is very time-consuming. Questions requiring only a few minutes of time at the desk may require nearly fifteen minutes for librarians to find an answer and then explain in text.¹On average, NCknows chat sessions last 13.7 minutes.²Besides the additional time required, low levels of use have been cited as another problem associated with chat reference.³

Librarians today may bemoan virtual reference’s failings, but tomorrow’s users will perceive things differently. In 2004, the University of Southern California’s Center for the Digital Future found that possibly 97.5 percent of children ages twelve to seventeen in the United States use the Internet.⁴Reference librarians should remain open-minded about digital reference’s possibilities. “Services and programs must become more responsive, more flexible, more convenient, and more personalized for users, taking into consideration many different learning styles, attitudes, belief systems, and orientations to technology.”⁵ By doing so, librarians will position themselves to serve users who are increasingly accustomed to locating information without physically visiting the library or contacting a librarian by telephone.

Collaborative Chat Reference Models

Collaborative virtual reference services comprising multiple types of libraries are more sustainable than individual chat services, as they share startup, maintenance, and staffing costs. Use statistics are understandably much higher for collaborative reference services because they reach more people representing diverse user groups. Families, students, and the elderly in rural, urban, and suburban environments enjoy access to reference services if they or their libraries have Internet access.⁶

The North Carolina State Library’s Virtual Reference Advisory Committee debated whether virtual reference should be provided by one library or by several working cooperatively. The committee chose the latter, citing cost, marketing, and service concerns. A collaborative model shares libraries’ resources, regional knowledge, and staff expertise, while costs are spread out among member libraries.⁷ On the other hand, collaboration often means compromise, and public, academic, and special libraries have to negotiate what level of service to offer.⁸

Digital Reference and the Reference Interview

Despite technological advances that have expanded reference service, it remains a relatively static practice. Many librarians view desk reference as the ideal model because verbal and nonverbal cues are present to clarify users’ information needs. Also, librarians can easily provide bibliographic instruction and show resources to users in person. After conducting the reference interview and locating potentially useful sources of information, they can then ask users if the documents are helpful. Other reference formats lack aspects of the traditional reference interview, thus rendering them less efficient forms of reference.

Nonetheless, it can be difficult for librarians to conduct reference interviews at the desk, even using the many subtle verbal and nonverbal cues available. The chat reference setting compounds this difficulty, as librarians must rely solely on what users write. For this reason, chat has been called an “austere mode of communication” in which “there are no changes in voice, no facial expressions, no body language.”⁹ Important clues are certainly lost in the transition from desk or telephone reference to digital reference. For instance, librarians may need to ask chat reference users their grade level to determine how complex or detailed the materials sought should be, although that would be apparent to the librarian if students were to approach the reference desk in person. Perhaps more importantly, librarians quickly sense when users are stressed or pressed for time, based on their tone of voice or how quickly they talk, whereas the persona and typing style of a rushed user might be interpreted as poor chat etiquette. Additionally, librarians can tell when users they speak with do not understand something or need clarification about something, as a user’s silence or pauses can communicate much about the user’s state of understanding. But the chat format may encourage candor, especially concerning certain topics, as many chat services allow users to remain anonymous.¹⁰

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Most frequently, this column looks at potential new directions in readers’ advisory theory and practice, offering tools that readers’ advisors can use in their day to day work as well as expanding the theoretical foundations of that practice. This issue, we step back and take a broader view, looking at the challenges and opportunities that arise in making readers’ advisory services an integral part of library-school education. Connie Van Fleet is a professor at the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Oklahoma. One of her major fields of research is the “interaction of practitioners and educators in the library and information science professions.” She also has a strong interest in readers’ advisory work, and is coauthor of African-American Literature: A Guide to Reading Interests (Libraries Unlimited, 2004). In this column, Van Fleet makes a strong case for the importance of readers’ advisory studies in the curriculum of library and information studies programs, and suggests where both library educators and library practitioners can collaborate more actively to develop a strong foundation of readers’ advisory theory and practice.—Editor

No one who keeps abreast of current trends in libraries and information science can doubt that readers’ advisory is an important service area that is expanding its conceptual base and growing in practice. This is an area of education that is rich in the use of experiential learning pedagogies, critical analysis, and interdisciplinary foundations. Nevertheless, there are special challenges, as well as opportunities, in teaching readers’ advisory. Although individual programs may offer excellent courses of study that prepare librarians to meet the needs of readers, marginalization of this area in schools of library and information studies persists. But the trends of the past several years give rise to cautious optimism.

Two columns that appeared in the winter 2000 issue of RUSQ provide an excellent springboard for a discussion of current issues of education for readers’ advisory. “Time to Turn the Page: Library Education for Readers’ Advisory Services” by Dana Watson and the RUSA CODES Readers’ Advisory Committee examined the content and availability of readers’ advisory–related courses in ALA-accredited programs.¹ Duncan Smith contributed “Talking with Readers: A Competency Based Approach to Readers’ Advisory Service,” the first offering in the Readers’ Advisory column, which Danny P. Wallace and I created when we assumed editorship of RUSQ.²

Content and Methods of Readers’ Advisory Courses

The content of readers’ advisory services (and courses) has expanded as we (the readers’ advisory community) explored what actually happens in libraries and found out more about what people want to read. We have moved from offering only genre fiction guidance to offering guidance for leisure reading, including mainstream fiction and nonfiction titles. For teachers of readers’ advisory, life has never been so good. We have an expanded research base and a growing number of resources to support our work. We enjoy active and enthusiastic partnerships with intelligent, lively, and creative librarians.

As Burgin and Shearer point out, readers’ advisory courses that are considered integral to the curriculum are most often associated with individual faculty.³Perhaps this accounts for the enthusiasm for the course that is evident in most syllabi. In any event, these courses reflect the nature of education for a profession, combining a conceptual framework with practical applications. Almost all readers’ advisory courses in MLIS programs are designed to address three levels of learning: knowledge, basic skills and techniques, and attitude.

Faculty usually ground courses in interdisciplinary research, addressing such topics as motivations for and the impact of reading, the social nature of reading, and cultural contexts and implications of stories. Studies of various types of literature (genre, mainstream fiction, and nonfiction) extend beyond familiarity and appeal factors to analysis of underlying themes and literary criticism.

These underlying theories and analyses serve as the foundation for the basic readers’ advisory skill set. Duncan Smith, using a “practice audit” approach to model development in which librarians observed taped interviews of librarians and readers, identifies four areas of competencies: (1) background in fiction and nonfiction, (2) understanding people as readers and readers as people, (3) the appeal of books, and (4) the readers’ advisory transaction.⁴ These are congruent with the outlines of basic texts frequently used in readers’ advisory courses: Saricks’s classic Readers Advisory Service in the Public Library; Genreflecting, the book whose original publication in 1982 is often credited as the impetus for the readers’ advisory revolution, Saricks’s Readers’ Advisory Guide to Genre Fiction, and Burgin and Shearer’s The Readers’ Advisor’s Companion.⁵

Readers’ advisory courses in MLIS programs all address skills for professional practice. Typically, students read in a variety of genres (both fiction and nonfiction), identify appeal factors, and write annotations that demonstrate that ability. Courses, whether face to face or online, generally include opportunities for students to practice talking with colleagues about books. Students may present booktalks, give presentations, create readers’ advisory tools or develop awareness materials such as bookmarks, brochures, or Web sites. Most will learn to guide a book discussion.

Refl ecting the close association of readers’ advisory education with practice, most readers’ advisory courses include assignments that require students to interact directly with readers or readers’ advisors. These may include unobtrusive observations, in which students act as patrons and ask questions of librarians, or shadowing activities, in which students interview readers’ advisors or observe them in action. In some courses, students may interview readers to determine how they think about the reading experience. In my own courses, students conduct a readers’ advisory interview, select materials for the reader, and conduct a second interview to get the reader’s reaction to their selections. They then analyze the exchange to determine what was effective and what aspects of the process they would change.

The growing number of resources is another exciting element of readers’ advisory service. There are a number of fine print sources that are useful to readers’ advisors and enjoyable to readers. The Genreflecting Series, for instance, now includes entries devoted to mainstream and nonfiction materials, as well as those focused on special audiences. In addition to several excellent subscription databases (NoveList from EBSCO, The Online Readers’ Advisor from Libraries Unlimited, among others), there are myriad Web sites to support reading guidance. Despite this, the literature suggests that librarians tend to rely on personal knowledge rather than use readers’ advisory sources.⁶ Readers’ advisory courses require students to become familiar with a variety of sources, both print and online. Most require comparison and critical analysis of several sources, a practice that not only enhances the students’ working knowledge of the specific sources but also instills a critical approach that will serve them throughout their professional careers.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Imagine a reference survey instrument that is very simple to administer, requires only a pencil to fill out, and gathers data specifically on whether users get the help they need and are satisfied with reference service, and whether in the process they learn about how to find and evaluate information. If you are interested, read on. This third article in the new Management column is written by Jonathan Miller about the reference survey he and his colleagues developed at the University of Pittsburgh. I first met and heard Miller at the 2006 American Library Association (ALA) Annual Conference when he presented his research at the Reference Research Forum. I found it a fascinating and practical approach to obtaining user input; a survey that combined some of the strengths of the Wisconsin Ohio Reference Evaluation Project (WOREP) survey while overcoming some of the shortcomings of that standard workhorse instrument. I was especially interested because this new survey was developed to build upon the survey data libraries gathered from LibQUAL+. LibQUAL+ does not specifically measure reference quality; this survey provides a way of gathering useful evaluation of reference service.

A future column will be about a mid-life librarian who changed careers from a special librarian to an academic librarian, including a discussion of the ups and downs of such a change and the energizing effect of the change. This is of timely interest to administrators and managers because within the next few years a large number of librarians will retire, opening up many higher level positions. Mid-career librarians will be in the prime position to apply for these jobs, if they are willing to make some career changes.

For future columns I am looking for articles on new approaches to managing reference service, such as outreach services in non-library locations, or the use of expert systems, or using instant messaging (IM) as a way of communicating with high school or college students. If you have experiences with any of these or other practical ideas for providing reference service, please e-mail me.—Editor

This research grew from my concern as a public services librarian-manager to find a quick and easy way to evaluate reference service. Most, perhaps all, libraries measure how much reference assistance we provide. Usually we simply count the number of transactions, sometimes classifying these transactions by complexity (directional, ready reference, and so on) or in terms of medium (in-person, phone, and online). Sometimes we even collect information on how long it takes to complete the transaction. As a profession we have developed a variety of definitions of what constitutes a reference transaction to help with the collection of data.¹RUSA has developed reference behaviors guidelines that I have found to be very useful during training and development of reference providers (my preferred, if awkward, term for all those employees—librarians, staff, interns, and student employees—who may provide reference service).²It is more difficult to measure the quality of the reference service we provide, particularly if we want to avoid overburdening our reference providers and our users. The LibQUAL survey of library service quality asks about “employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions,” “employees who deal with users in a caring fashion,” and “employees who understand the needs of their users.”³All of these statements could be related to reference providers, but LibQUAL does not single out individual library services, such as reference. Instead, quite rightly, it asks for users’ perceptions of library service quality as provided by the whole library. These perceptions could be formed on the basis of interactions with any library personnel with whom the user interacts.

Reference Evaluation Literature

The literature on reference evaluation is huge, and this column is not the place to review it. But two works in particular helped me understand some of the underlying issues of reference evaluation and amply repay review by anyone interested in evaluating reference service. Saxton and Richardson’s 2002 book is an excellent evaluation study.⁴They also critically evaluate earlier reference research. Jo Bell Whitlatch’s 2000 book provides a very thorough practical guide to reference evaluation.⁵

The research that is most relevant to the work presented here combines the users’ and the providers’ assessment of the reference transaction. The idea of gathering data from both the user and the provider has been used by a number of researchers, including Whitlatch in 1990.⁶ The most prominent research in this area is the Wisconsin Ohio Reference Evaluation Project (WOREP.) The Reference Transaction Assessment Instrument (RTAI) that grew out of WOREP was developed by Charles Bunge, Marjorie Murfin, and Gary M. Gugelchuk.⁷ WOREP and the RTAI are currently available at http://worep.library.kent.edu. The great benefit of the RTAI is that it is standardized, it is statistically valid and reliable, the results are machine readable (thus saving time and resources on data entry), and the results can be compared to other reference service units. But the instrument itself is daunting, especially from the provider’s perspective. As one colleague put it upon seeing a copy, “it looks like the SAT.” It takes some minutes to complete (minutes that the provider might not have and that the user may be unwilling to invest), and asks for a level of detail about the interaction that may be greater than the user in particular is able to provide. The challenge that we faced was to combine the power of evaluations from both sides of the reference desk in evaluating reference service and yet not overwhelm providers or users of the service.

Developing a Method

Rather than developing an evaluation method at a single reference desk, we brought together a variety of academic library reference operations in Pittsburgh, including public and private, large and small, and libraries that support a wide range of users working in many subject areas and at many levels. Thus the questionnaire we developed has been tested in a variety of settings, all academic, but representing different libraries with varying models of reference service and users. The specific libraries involved were the Hillman Library Information Desk and the Engineering Library at the University of Pittsburgh, the Hunt Library, Engineering and Science Library, and Arts Library of Carnegie Mellon University, and the Chatham College Library. We formed a working group of representatives from each library to develop and test the instrument and analyze the results.

The first step was to agree on the outcomes of reference service. Since our aim was to develop an easy and quick way of measuring the quality of our service, our outcomes were necessarily simple and general. They were certainly not detailed or specific enough to meet the requirements of formal social scientific research. They were:

1. The user gets the information they need.
2. The user learns something about how to find information.
3. The user learns something about how to evaluate information.
4. The user is satisfied with the interaction.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
This interview highlights one reference librarian’s creative approach to marketing librarians’ services. The goal of the Slam the Boards project, initiated by Bill Pardue, is to increase public awareness of the reference assistance that librarians can provide.—Editor

Bill Pardue is a virtual services reference librarian at Arlington Heights Memorial Library, a public library in Illinois. He recently spear-headed an innovative grassroots campaign, Slam the Boards, which encourages librarians from around the world to visit online answer boards such as Yahoo! Answers on a given day for the purpose of providing accurate and reliable reference services. By identifying themselves as librarians on these boards, the participants hope to make the public aware of the reference services that information professionals can provide. The first Slam the Boards was held on September 10, 2007, and has turned into a monthly event. Pardue has created a wiki with detailed information about the event, found at http://answerboards.wetpaint.com.

Tell me about how Slam the Boards was conceived.

It started as a loose idea that became firmer over time. I had been hearing that a lot of people were going to sites such as Yahoo! Answers, so I decided I needed to look into it to see what kind of opportunities were there. I thought it would be a good idea for librarians to go in, identify themselves as librarians and let people know we can help. One of my colleagues suggested we should have a lot of librarians doing this, not just a trickle. Then Caleb Tucker-Raymond [a virtual reference librarian in Oregon] had the idea to pick one day when this would happen.

What does the name signify?

It’s a basketball term that refers to going for a rebound. I wanted to find a name that incorporated the word “boards” and reflected the idea that we were taking aggressive action.

What did you hope to achieve with Slam the Boards?

I wanted to achieve two things. First, I wanted to get librarians more involved. We need to figure out how we can get ourselves where the patrons are. Second, I wanted to let the public know what we do. There’s a lack of awareness that librarians answer these questions every day.

OCLC did a study in 2005 that found the public’s perception is that libraries equal books. Reference services are not even on the public’s radar screen. People know about libraries, but not librarians. We all believe there’s a role for us, but we’ve failed to market ourselves appropriately.

I have no illusions that this will change the world, but it’s one way of doing it. Let’s go out there and find questions, look for opportunities, go out in the community and show off our services. I like to call it “proactive reference” or [laughing] “predatory reference.”

How did you spread the word and elicit support?

This was strictly a grassroots effort. I put the word out through discussion boards that I belong to, and then people started mentioning it in their blogs. Then there was an item in American Libraries Direct, and some newsletters picked it up.

What was the response from fellow librarians?

The majority of people I heard from were really excited about it and thought it was a fun idea. There were a few naysayers. At least one librarian/blogger took a more cynical view and said, “Oh right, we should give away skills for free to people who don’t appreciate us.” But that’s just not the point!

Tell me about the day of the first Slam the Boards event. What sites were involved?

Yahoo! is the big one. Something like 96% of the business goes there. I tried to go to other sites as well, like Amazon’s Askville, Ask MetaFilter, AnswerBag. With some of the sites that don’t require registration, there’s more frivolity. Some of the questions are just liberal-baiting or conservative-baiting, not serious questions. I ended up answering about twenty-five questions throughout the day, and I know of one librarian who answered twenty-five by noon. Some others answered two or three questions, whatever they had time for.

How many librarians participated? Where were they from?

There were one hundred people who signed up on the wiki saying that they would participate. I would guess, though, that it was as many as two hundred or three hundred. I’d say that it’s in the range of possibility that we answered one thousand questions that day. We had librarians from England, New Zealand, Sweden, and all over the U.S.

Was the event a success?

I did feel it was a success. I don’t have anything quantitative, but most of the e-mails I received from people who participated said they were glad they had done it.

Is there an opportunity for teaching information literacy through this event?

I think so. One of the reasons we’re better at this is that we give real answers. There are some people who will provide an answer like, “Just Google it.” I think we have an obligation as librarians to give sourced answers, so I tried to provide links to where the answer was from. I tried to approach it the same way I would if it was by e-mail or VR, and ask myself, “Is my mission to just answer this, or to teach you?” It’s always a gut decision.

What was the most memorable question that you responded to?

One of the good ones was, “What determines the difference between a lake and a pond?” I was able to find a great site that had a glossary of terms that defined things like lakes and ponds.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Building collections in religious studies is an important and often perplexing duty for many librarians. How much coverage is enough and to what depth? What titles offer appropriate information for the believer, researcher, and critic alike? And how are librarians that are not well versed in a particular faith best able to approach a collection-building project? Tierney V. Dwyer earned a master’s degree in library science from Indiana University’s School of Library and Information Science in Bloomington. She wrote this guide when she was attending Unitarian Universalism services. Her guide to Unitarian Universalism resources offers assistance to academic librarians seeking to build a deep and reflective collection and to public librarians looking for one or two titles to represent this fascinating religion, a faith that Ralph Waldo Emerson and Louisa May Alcott practiced and that continues to guide and inspire a wide range of worshipers.—Editor

Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religious faith grounded in the principles of its founding religions: Unitarianism and Universalism. Unitarianism began in the sixteenth century in Poland and Transylvania, where a number of Christians rejected the idea of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God). These Unitarians declared that they believed in the oneness, or unity, of God. In seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe and America, other Christian reformers discovered what they deemed to be little biblical support for the Christian concept of hell. These reformers came to believe in a universally loving God and felt that God would grant all human beings salvation—they became known as the Universalists. Both of these religions existed independently around the world until 1961, when the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church in America joined together to form the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). The UUA, headquartered in Boston, is the loosely governing body of the Unitarian Universalist Church, overseeing more than one thousand congregations in North America. But Unitarian Universalism is not limited to the United States and Canada—Unitarian Universalist (UU) congregations can be found today on nearly every continent, and many of them work under the auspices of the International Council of Unitarians and Universalists (ICUU).

In a given UU church today, one is likely to find Christians of all denominations, Jews, Wiccans, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and people from other religions. The adherents of these faiths are free to practice their religion individually while still taking part in the pluralistic UU church community. While respecting the religious texts and prophets of other faiths, the UUs do not hold these texts as dogma or regard prophets as holy beings. They embrace the teachings of other faiths to enhance their own understanding of the world and of spirituality. Numbers in UU congregations are steadily growing, and the religion is gaining more visibility in mass media and among the academic and research communities. Information on this faith, however, is very scattered and often difficult to find.

This guide identifies and describes some of the most important and current sources on the topic. It is designed primarily as a guide for academic libraries planning to build, or evaluate an existing, collection on UU and its members. But, with the growing interest in the UU faith, public libraries will find some of the selected texts useful in providing a basic introduction to the subject.

Bibliographies

Harris, Mark W. “Bibliography,” Historical Dictionary of Unitarian Universalism. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 2004. (ISBN: 0-8108-4869-4).
Harris’ “Bibliography” is a comprehensive record of history sources. Although the bibliography is not annotated, it begins with several pages of background information on resources, provides a table of contents, and indexes its items by the following headings: Periodicals and Yearbooks, Published Primary Sources, Biography, Histories (sub-categorized by region, time period, etc.), and Worship.

Robinson, David. “Bibliographic Essay,” The Unitarians and the Universalists. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985 (ISBN: 0-313-20946-4).
Although dated, this important source on American Unitarianism and Universalism provides excellent commentary on the quality of the listed materials and contains an exhaustive list of further sources.

Wright, Conrad. American Unitarian and Universalist Historical Scholarship: A Bibliography of Items Published 1946–1995. Cambridge, Mass.: Unitarian Universalist Historical Society, 2001 (No ISBN available).
This bibliography focuses primarily on scholarly items pertaining to the history of Unitarianism and Universalism in the United States. Although it was published in 2001, its scope is limited to the years 1946–1995. It is indexed by author, topic, and subject.

Encyclopedias and Dictionaries

Harris, Mark W. Historical Dictionary of Unitarian Universalism. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 2004 (ISBN: 0-8108-4869-4).
Considered by many to be the most authoritative reference work on UU, the dictionary contains a lengthy chronology and introduction as well as entries on important people, places, causes, issues, countries, and time periods.

Jones, Lindsay, ed. Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. s.v. “Unitarian Universalist Association,” by John C. Godbey. 15 vols. (ISBN: 0-0286-5733-0).
This lengthy entry on UU provides an explanation of the UUA including background, history, and beliefs of both Unitarianism and Universalism. Formation and views of the UU church and discussion of the UUA’s membership in the International Association for Religious Freedom is also included.

Keller, Rosemary Skinner, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Marie Cantlon, eds. Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press, 2006. s.v. “Unitarian Universalist Movement, Women,” by Cynthia Grant Tucker. 3 vols. (ISBN: 0-2533-4685-1).
This source is unique in its specific focus on the role and history of women in the UU faith. It profiles important women like Judith Sargent Stevens Murray and Margaret Fuller in the history and formation of both the Unitarian and Universalist church. It discusses the emergence of female clergy and women’s groups (which eventually consolidated into the Unitarian Universalist Women’s Federation in 1963). The entry contains a lengthy bibliography.

Print version (Adobe Reader required)
For many of us reference librarians, one of the greatest rewards we get from what we do is the immediate and direct feedback that we receive from our users. Because we help people, we are on the receiving end of their gratitude when we are able to give them what they want. We get a strong feeling of achievement and pride in being able to meet user needs and we get satisfaction from the “feel good” nature of reference service. As reference librarians, we may have to put up with inadequate staffing, insufficient resources, mechanical failures, and evening and weekend shifts, but the feedback that we get from our users often makes up for those annoyances.

No other branch of librarianship enjoys this same reward. Circulation staff also interact daily with the public, but too often that interaction is adversarial in nature, centering on overdue fines and lost books. Technical services and systems staff build the tools that we use when helping patrons, but they do not receive much feedback about that work. Rarely does the public—or even other library staff—acknowledge the hard work that is done in those areas. “Wow—you really nailed that subject heading!” or “What a great author entry!” are not phrases often heard in the halls of the library. Similarly, praise for Web design, authority control, open URL linking, metasearch configuration, and OPAC maintenance is rare. Although users are grateful for all of these features, they do not have the same real-time interaction with their creators that they have with reference librarians. We reference librarians are seen as the good guys of the library, riding in on a white horse, providing the book or the Web site that will save the day for our users. The positive reinforcement that we get from that image is why many of us became reference librarians in the first place.

Having been a reference librarian for three decades (as of summer 2008), I realize that I have helped thousands of patrons over the past thirty years. By my rather crude and conservative estimate (five reference transactions per hour, ten hours per week, forty weeks of the year [not counting time for vacation, conferences, etc.], for thirty years), I have participated in somewhere between sixty and seventy thousand reference transactions. That’s a lot of people.

In those thousands and thousands of transactions, some stand out in my mind. Doubtless you have had a similar experience. Whether you have been a reference librarian for five months or fifty years, you will have experienced some transactions that are simply more memorable than others. I would like to share four real reference transactions that I experienced as a reference librarian. Your mileage may vary, but each of you has probably had experiences similar to those that I am about to mention. The key to this group of stories is not the subject being searched, the methodology used to find the answer, or even the technology involved (which was pretty much nonexistent in these examples), but in how the patrons reacted to what I did. As you read each of these scenarios, think about similar experiences from your own reference work.

1. Why is Germany in Europe? Yes, someone really asked me this question. One reason that I remember it is because it was one of the very first questions that I was ever asked, way back before I even became an official, degree-carrying reference librarian. It was 1977 or 1978, and I was working as a graduate reference assistant at the University of Illinois. An undergraduate student came to the reference desk and asked this question. I immediately thought of a cute, clever, and accurate response, which I proceeded to tell her: “Because our side won World War II, which means that Europe is not in Germany.”

Fortunately, she did not dismiss me for what I was: a smartass, overconfident graduate student. When I asked her for more information, I found out what she really wanted. It turns out that she misspoke when she said Germany (she was studying German history) and wanted to know why Russia (then the Soviet Union) was considered to be a European country. After all, the greater land mass of Russia is in Asia, so shouldn’t we call it an Asian country? What cultural biases have led us to classify Russia as part of Europe instead of Asia? And while we are at it, why are Europe and Asia even considered two separate continents, since they are joined together by the Ural mountains? These complex questions were all buried in her initial question, which I had trivialized.

Needless to say, Mr. Smartass was humbled by the experience. Searches for books (no Web sites to search back in the 1970s!) on geographic naming standards, Russian history and culture, and even continental drift all factored into the search for an answer. This experience taught me two important lessons: that cute and clever was not the appropriate response, and that questions are often much more complex than they seem. In the end, she was somewhat satisfied with the transaction, even though we never really found an answer. Although I still liked my initial response, I knew that it did not help solve the problem.

2. This example occurred about a decade later. A man came to the desk and wanted help with his family history. He had a photocopy of a document in German that referred to a specific town or village. He wanted to find out where that village was located and had so far been unsuccessful. Quick checks of atlases and gazetteers proved that he was right—the place name that he had was not listed. He was in a hurry and I offered to keep looking and call him when I found something.

Subsequent searching, consultation with a librarian who read and spoke German, work in the map collection, and some historical geographic sources revealed the answer. This town was near the German/Polish border and had changed nationalities several times over the years. The name that the patron had was the old German name (written in Old German script), whereas modern maps used the Polish name. In addition, the village had since been subsumed by the growth of a nearby city. Once we knew where it was, we found an old map that showed the town with the name in German and a current map that showed it in Polish. I was very proud that I was able to use my reference skills—and get the appropriate help—to figure out the answer.

A few days later, the patron came back. I showed him the map and started to explain the reason why we could not easily find his town. He took a quick look at the map, said “thanks,” and was out the door. Three hours of research resulted in less than three seconds of use. I was stunned by how little the patron cared about the effort that was made on his query and at how little he seemed to really care about the answer. The lesson that I learned from this question was that a strong effort on my part did not always lead to high satisfaction on the patron’s part.

3. This example involved a young man in his late twenties or early thirties who was starting his own business. He was interested in information on writing business plans, getting funding, government regulations, and everything else that he needed to start up his company. Because he had a day job, he only came to the library at night and he happened to come in on whatever evening shift I was working at the time. We worked together over a period of about a year and developed the rapport that makes a great partnership. Little by little, I helped him find the information he needed to start his company. What was interesting about this prolonged transaction was the product that he was going to produce, which was liquor. But this was not just any liquor. He wanted to produce a high-end product and had a brilliant marketing scheme. Since the state of Vermont always seemed to be associated with quality, wholesomeness, and purity (at least to New Yorkers, where I was working at the time), he was creating “made in Vermont” liquors. His company actually got off the ground, and he sold several different types of liquor, including a maple-based vodka. I don’t know if it is still in business, but it was rewarding to see his plan grow from idea to product.