IS530
Assignment 1
Prompt: Do an observation and analysis of a reference desk for an hour
I observed the Reference desk at Blount County Public Library in Maryville, Tennessee. The print
reference collection is about 6,000, and there are two professional reference staff by title. In addition to
that there are three part time reference staff with degrees in either library or information sciences, and
one volunteer who puts in quite a few hours a week.
Since this is the library where I work, I left the children’s department for an hour to do the
observation. It was a weekday at 2 o’clock. There are two reference desks which bookend a little room
with some desks for staff. Both desks have a hanging sign over them simply stating “Reference”. All of
the offices are glass walled and have open tops, so the two desks are very much connected. The main
desk where I did my observation regularly staffs two people and the other desk usually staffs one.
Generally speaking at least one person at the desk is a professional librarian, but not necessarily the
people who actually have the title.
During my observation I observed two reference professionals assist a number of people. There
were about 6 or 7 technology questions or tasks, and five other reference questions, in addition to a
handful of directional questions. Each interaction lasted about 5 minutes, except for one particularly
difficult question. Most of the questions were local history and genealogy related, which was
interesting. Many of the patrons were older, which I suspect had to do with the time of day. For the sake
of simplicity I am going describe only two of the reference interviews I observed.
The first question was a patron who was looking for a particular book about Blount County
history she had seen in the catalog but could not locate. The librarian was very welcoming and inviting at
the beginning of the interaction, and was familiar with the book in question. While checking the catalog
for the status of the book, she talked about how great she thought that particular title was, making her
seem not only knowledgeable about the items in the reference collection, but interested in the patron’s
query. She discovered that one of the two copies was being repaired, so we went to look with the
patron for the remaining copy. It was found (slightly out of place) in the genealogy room. The patron
exclaimed, saying she never would have found it, and the librarian talked with her a little longer about
other genealogy materials before asking her if she needed to find anything else. The whole interaction
lasted about 5 minutes.
The other reference interview I am going to detail was particularly interesting. This was another
local history/genealogy question. Someone wanted to find books on the Gillespie family. The librarian
was engaging found some books in the genealogy and local history sections, which took only a few
minutes. The patron was thrilled, looked through a book, and decided she needed to copy the whole
thing, which is illegal because of copyright. So the librarian helped her look for it online. As with many
local history books, they couldn’t find it on the web, and actually through Worldcat discovered it was
only at two other libraries in the whole country, and it was out of print. I had to leave, but the next step
of the search they were embarking on, was to find the author or publisher and ask for copying
permission for a special circumstance. It was a good example of how reference questions can be
layered.
On the area of approachability, I felt like the professional reference staff did an excellent job.
The librarians I observed were very focused on the patrons and had open body language, smiled, and
overall did a great job of setting the tone for reference interview. My only critique is one of the
librarians, while very approachable, is very soft-spoken. While it isn’t her intent, I know many patrons,
already in a heightened state of nerves, could find this communication flaw frustrating.
The next main area, interest, I thought was also handled very well. In addition to the nonverbal
signs of interest the two librarians I watched displayed, they were very good at confirming they knew
what the patron was looking for. I particularly like the one librarian’s familiarity with the local history
source that was missing. That little conversation about how great a resource it was set the tone for the
interaction, making the librarian seem knowledgeable about the collection as well as earnestly
interested.
In the area listening/inquiring I felt the two interactions were handled appropriately. Especially
with the “layered” question, the librarian used a lot of open-ended questions to get at what the patron
really needed. The arrival at the “I really just need the whole book”, was one brought about by lots of
little leading questions like, “What are you using this research for?”, “Could you possibly copy only a
section?”. Through listening and interpreting the librarian realized that what the patron really wanted
was the entire title, so then the question changed from information about the Gillespies to tracing down
a particular book.
The search for both questions followed the guidelines pretty well. Both librarians explained the
search strategies to the patrons as they were doing them, were timely, and in the case of the Gillespie
question narrowed the question to better fit their needs. And most importantly for the two interactions
I observed, they accompanied the patron on the search, which I feel is one the most important things.
For some the other interactions I observed, patrons were just given a call number and sent on their way.
I feel before doing this you should be absolutely certain your patron knows how to find the item, and
has general sense of where to go. At a conference I went to once, a speaker compared this to
bookstores putting the book in the customer’s hand, after which they are much more likely to buy it.
People are much more likely to utilize library resources if they find what they are looking for. Instruction
is important, but not so much as a successful interaction.
Both of the reference transactions I detailed had good follow-ups. The first question, ended with
the normal, “if you need anything else, let me know”, but before they got to that the librarian had told
the patron about a local genealogy group, and of a genealogy professional she could contact outside of
the library if she needed more help. For the second question, the question had led to the very specific
follow-up of finding author contact information for copying the book. However, some of the other
questions which were responded to with just a call-number, had no follow-up, as is the case with many
of the questions they receive I imagine.
Overall it was good experience, and I feel these guidelines just cemented what is common
practice at my library. However, there are many areas we could improve in, particularly the
accompanying a patron if they need it, and completing a follow-up.