Get documents about "Realities of Virtual Reference
Document Sample
Realities of Virtual Reference
Presented by:
Kathy Dabbour
Doris Helfer
Lynn Lampert
California State University Northridge
Presented at
Internet Librarian
November 17, 2004
2/6/2012 1
Introduction
Decision to Start Virtual Reference
History of Virtual Reference at CSU
Northridge
Volunteers only and its implications
No publicity or marketing of the
service other than on the website
2/6/2012 2
Introduction of Virtual Reference
Decision to Start Virtual Reference
- Attended Internet Librarian
Conference in November, 2000
- Heard about it in a presentation
given by librarians from North
Carolina State University
- Introduced idea at next Library’s
Executive Group Meeting..
2/6/2012 3
Introduction of Virtual Reference
History of Virtual Reference at CSU
Northridge
- While Executive Group was interested in
the service they wanted to know about the
costs and options.
- Referred this to The Reference and
Instruction Department Librarians
discussed and approved in concept.
2/6/2012 4
Introduction of Virtual Reference
History of Virtual Reference at CSU
Northridge (continued)
- Database Coordinator Marcia Henry
was tasked with contacting Steve
Coffman and Susan McGlamery with
more information about the options
they offered.
2/6/2012 5
Introduction of Virtual Reference
History of Virtual Reference at CSU
Northridge (continued)
- Steve Coffman just gone with
LSSI’s Virtual Reference service.
Steve was invited to campus and
asked to give us a demonstration and
the costs.
2/6/2012 6
Introduction of Virtual Reference
History of Virtual Reference at CSU
Northridge (continued)
- Susan McGlamery - Head of Reference for
MCLS and headed the 24/7 Project, a
cooperative, real-time reference service,
which includes public and academic
libraries in the Los Angeles area. Since
they were supported by Federal LSTA
funding and we were members there was
no cost to join the network.
2/6/2012 7
Introduction of Virtual Reference
History of Virtual Reference at CSU
Northridge (continued)
- Since LSSI would cost us and joining the
24/7 network would not we opted to start
trying the 24/7 network since we had no
additional money for implementation.
- How to implement was discussed again at
both the Executive Group and Reference
and Instruction meetings.
2/6/2012 8
Introduction of Virtual Reference
Volunteers only and its implications
Both EG and RISD felt they would start
on the service with volunteers willing to
work on the service and that our
contribution time would be limited
No publicity or marketing of the service
other than on the website
Only announcement about the service
was on the web site.
2/6/2012 9
Introduction of Virtual Reference
Low-key introduction was done for
fear of too many questions while still
learning the software and the limited
resources we had to put toward the
implementation
2/6/2012 10
Issues of Concern
24/7 Network and Its Grant
OCLC purchased 24/7 in summer 2004
Future costs
COLD – CSU Council of Library Directors
System-wide network and funding versus local
service costs
Budget environment
Cost benefit analysis
2/6/2012 11
The Reality of Virtual Reference
- The Challenges -
A Brief Review of the Literature
Virtual Reference vs. Traditional Services
Staffing and Instructional Issues
Technical Glitches
The Learning Curve for librarians and
patrons – what do we know?
2/6/2012 12
A Review of the Literature
Virtual Reference Services: Issues
and Trends (Monograph Published
Simultaneously As Internet
Reference Services quarterly, 1/2).
Edited by Stacey E. Kimmel and
Jennifer Heise. Haworth Press, 2003
2/6/2012 13
What will you find in the literature?
According to JoAnn Sears of Auburn University Libraries literature prior
to 2002 consisted of:
―Studies that examine either what libraries are doing or what chat
technologies are available/vendors (Francoeur 2001; Gray 2000; Breeding
2001),
Implementation articles that describe projects done at a specific
library/consortia (Broughton 2001; Eichler & Halperin 2000; Saunders
2001), and
Forecast articles that discuss the possibilities that chat technology will offer
for the future of reference services (Coffman 2001).‖
Since 2002 the Literature largely looks at the benefits of the service –
Extended Coverage
of in person services
Advantage of Matching Subject Specialists with Patrons
Pros and Cons in the Literature stack up like this….
2/6/2012 14
Pros & Cons in Implementing &
Sustaining a virtual reference service
Pros Cons
Staff Flexibility Dependency on Online
Easier to Recruit?? Resources
Higher Morale Harder to Train
Staff can conceivably Harder to Manage
work from home or Bandwith/Connection
remote from ref desk Speed (patron)
depending on library Privacy Issues
policy Coordination Intensive
Shared collections in Marketing Needed
collaborative setup
Multiple Policies Factor
Reach a different
population?
2/6/2012 15
Administrative Challenges
Staffing Issues:
Commitment to Quality Service
Training (technology & procedures)
Motivation to participate / Buy-in
Time on Task (staff needed elsewhere?)
Adequate Hardware, Software,
Support
Funding (costs in poor budget climate)
Promotion and Marketing
2/6/2012 16
Administrative Challenges Named
in Literature
Lee, I.J. Do Virtual Reference Librarians Dream of Digital
Reference Questions?: A Qualitative and Quantitative
Analysis of Email and Chat Reference. Australian
Academic& Research Libraries v. 35 no. 2 (June 2004).
Smith, R.M., et. al., Virtual desk: real reference [Florida
Distance Learning Library Initiative]. Journal of Library
Administration v. 32 no. 1/2 (2001) p. 371-82
Barr, B., et al., Chat Is Now: Administrative Issues. Internet
Reference Services Quarterly, 8(1/2), 19-25. 2003.
2/6/2012 17
Public Service Issues – Uses mentioned
in the literature (including Instruction)
Office Hours – Online Chat
Group Meetings
Provide instruction to small groups of distance
learners (Hope & Silveria, 2003).
Hope, C., Peterson, C. & Silveria, J. B. (2003). Reach out and teach
someone: Instructional uses of virtual reference. Paper presented
at Association of College and Research Libraries 11th National
Conference, April 12, 2003. Retrieved June 1, 2003 from:
http://home.csumb.edu/s/silveriajanie/world/ACRL.ppt.
Jaworowski, C. (2001). There's more to chat than chit-chat: Using chat
software for library instruction. Paper presented at Information
Strategies 2001 conference. Retrieved June 1, 2003 from:
http://library.fgcu.edu/Conferences/infostrategies01/presentations/2
001/jaworowski.htm.
2/6/2012 18
Implementation and Training
How California State University
Northridge implemented the Virtual
Reference service.
How training is provided.
Working in a collaborative
- Multiple Library Policies
- Evaluation of Performance
- Supervision of service
2/6/2012 19
Virtual Reference @ CSUN
Since 2001 CSUN has engaged in a
virtual reference program utilizing
software provided by 24/7ref.
This service was slowly added on to
our already popular email reference
service.
2/6/2012 20
Collaborative Virtual Reference in
the CSU
In 2002-3 we began the process of
joining in on a CSU collaborative
project to share Virtual reference
hours.
Joined the MCLS 24/7 project with
early adopters like CSU Pomona,
CSU Los Angeles
2/6/2012 21
CSU Collaborative Overall Statistics
CSU Overview Statistics: August 15, 2003
through May 24, 2004
Total Number of contacts, excluding test
sessions: 7993 (compare 2019 for same period in
02-03)
Busiest days: Monday and Tuesday
Busiest hours: 9 am to 10 pm
Internal sessions (CSU to CSU): 1562
External sessions (CSU to non-CSU): 1693
Non-CSU Librarians responded to 6,675 CSU
questions
2/6/2012 22
How did we train (and do we continue to train)
our virtual reference librarians
Several sessions provided by 24/7
trainers
One-on-one training provided by
coordinator
Dissemination of training materials
Use of Intranet to provide online
documentation
2/6/2012 23
Issues for joining and sustaining
our Ask A Librarian – Virtual Service
Training
- Learning Curve – varied for librarians
Issues included:
- Time able to spend on training
- Establishing desktop protocols for
browser requirements for software
- Finding practice time for multi-tasking
functionality of the software
2/6/2012 24
Challenges & Learning Curve
Staff time and diversification of
responsibilities
Difficult to assess librarians progress
in mastering technology – often only
transcripts (disjointed)
Scheduling issues (voluntary vs.
required hours)
2/6/2012 25
RUSA Guidelines
http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotocols/referenceguide/virtrefguidelines.htm
Guidelines for Implementing and
Maintaining Virtual Reference Services –
Issues to establish from the outset that are
key involve the Organization of Service:
Integration
Finances
Personnel
Marketing
Evaluation
2/6/2012 26
Staffing in a Collaborative
Filling the shifts
Covering for absences /holidays
outside your library
Finding tech savvy librarians willing
to fiddle with glitches
Dealing with transcripts revealing
level of service on both ends of the
transaction
2/6/2012 27
Assessment of Virtual Reference
CSUN end-user assessment
Evaluation of CSU Collaborative
Project
Librarian feedback
2/6/2012 28
CSUN End User Assessment Part 1
September 2002 to April 2003
Answer: No. of Responses: Percentage:
Very relevant or
100 91%
relevant
Very helpful or helpful 94 86%
Very easy or easy to
98 89%
use
Will use again 92 84%
CSUN Student 88 80%
Unknown status 14 13%
Faculty 7 6%
Had tech problems 106 96%
2/6/2012 29
CSUN End User Assessment Part 2
September 2003 to November 2004
Answer: No. of Reponses: Percentage:
Satisfied or somewhat 245 88%
satisfied with answer
Excellent or good 247 89%
quality staff
Very easy or easy to 263 95%
use
Very likely or maybe 268 96%
use service again
College student 217 78%
State Resident 23 8%
Found on library web
2/6/2012 210 76% 30
site
CSUN End User Assessment
Comparison of Reponses
Answer: 2002 – 2003 2003 – 2004 Difference:
Percentage: Percentage:
Satisfaction or 91% 88% -3%
relevance of
answer
Helpfulness or 86% 89% +3%
quality of staff
Ease of use 89% 95% +6%
Use again 84% 96% +12%
Student 80% 78% -2%
Technical 96% N/A N/A
problems
Found on library
2/6/2012 N/A 76% N/A 31
web site
Evaluation of CSU Collaborative
Project: Patron Survey Results
Question: CSU CSUN 2003-04 Difference:
Collaborative Patron Survey:
AY 2003-04
Patron Survey
Ease of use 91% 95% +4%
Use again 74% 96% +22%
Student 75% 78% +3%
Found on library 72% 76% +4%
web site
2/6/2012 32
Evaluation of CSU Collaborative
Project: Typical Week Survey
Question Categories:
Reference Quick Known Service Technical
Look-up Item Policies
47% 7% 13% 12% 9%
2/6/2012 33
Evaluation of CSU Collaborative
Project: Typical Week Survey
Answer Appropriate:
1 (yes) 2 3 4 5 (no)
54% 21% 13% 5% 7%
Who Answered Question:
CSU Academic Public
25% 48% 28%
2/6/2012 34
Evaluation of CSU Collaborative
Project: Typical Week Survey
Resources Appropriate:
Yes Partial No
69% 23% 8%
Campus Resources Referenced:
Yes Partial No
70% 15% 15%
2/6/2012 35
Librarian Feedback
CTLSilhouette/Flashlight Online web-
based survey
Solicited via email to 131 addresses
(individual, library, or listserv)
380 surveys submitted, Nov. 3-11,
2004
Mostly academic librarians (69%)
24% public
6.5% other
2/6/2012 36
Librarian Feedback (cont.)
Question: Responses:
No. of hours 1-2 hours 71% 6+ hours
per week 3-5 hours 20% 9%
Total: 91%
Ease of use Very easy 35% Difficult or very
Somewhat easy 56% difficult
Total: 91% 8%
Comfort with Very comfortable 33% Uncomfortable or
software Comfortable 52% very uncomfortable
Total: 85% 15%
2/6/2012 37
Librarian Feedback (cont.)
Question: Responses:
Chat vs. More Less About the Don’t
traditional effective effective same know
or email 4% 51% 36% 9%
reference
Chat vs. More Less About the Don’t
trad./email effective effective same know
ref for 6% 71% 16% 7%
teaching IL
skills
2/6/2012 38
Librarian Feedback (cont.)
Question: Responses:
Frequency Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Never
of tech. 5% 22% 48% 23% 2%
problems
2/6/2012 39
Librarian Feedback (cont.)
90% provided comments
½ were mixed, ¼ negative, and ¼ positive
Common themes
Issues related to consortium (-)
Technical problems (-)
Match best format to type of question (+/-)
Time (+/-)
Distance education (+)
Outreach (+)
Just another service (+)
2/6/2012 40
Librarian feedback (cont.)
―It's a necessary evil in today's
technologically based time. I think we
would lose patrons if we didn't have an
electronic reference service.‖
―People tend to want the information
instantaneously--seems to be lots of kids
trying to do homework before bedtime!‖
―I think that librarians who do virtual ref are
statistically less likely to develop
Alzheimer's.‖
2/6/2012 41
Future assessment questions
Voluntary or required to staff VR?
Time
Average amount of time spent per type of question:
compare chat, email, in-person, phone—does your library
have related service policies?
Pressure to answer the question: compare chat, email,
in-person, phone—is chat more stressful?
Explore ―effective‖ reference and IL teaching—
focus on the reference interview; distance
learners?
Pros/cons of consortium service?
Staff training—technical only, or does it include
policies, chat etiquette/style, etc.?
2/6/2012 42
The Future of Virtual Reference
The State of the CSU Collaborative
Service
Local decisions
Prognosis
Final Thoughts
2/6/2012 43
Contact Information
Kathy Dabbour
kathy.dabbour@csun.edu
Doris Helfer
doris.Helfer @csun.edu
Lynn Lampert
lynn.lampert@csun.edu
2/6/2012 44
