Justin Chrysostom
LIS518, Reference Interaction Evaluation
22MAR15
Jane Doe Reference Transcript Evaluation
The internet has created an opportunity for incredible access to vast stores of information
for an unprecedented number of library patrons. In order to efficiently fulfill a user’s information
needs in this environment, reference librarians engage and interact with users and their questions
online. As a result, several models for in-person reference interactions have been adopted and
applied to online interactions in an effort to better assess the quality and success of these
encounters. Content-relational models, ALA behavioral guidelines, and instructional frameworks
all offer approaches to better serve online patrons. The 08NOV14 Jane Doe reference interaction
highlights some of the challenges facing online reference interactions and has been evaluated
based on the guidelines of these frameworks. As a result of adherence to and implementation of
procedures outlined in reference models, the Jane Doe interaction was found to be an excellent
example of a successful online encounter between reference librarian and patron.
The content-relational model presented by Radford and Connaway (2009) illustrates
strategies for successful reference encounters. The model takes two approaches: emphasizing the
relationship between the librarian and patron, and the resulting content that develops from the
interaction. Under this evaluation platform, Jane’s transcript certainly falls under what Radford
and Connaway would consider a successful encounter.
In the relational dimension for example, Jane hits every bullet point conveying
approachability, a positive attitude, proper greetings, and familiarity. Jane’s first line in the
transcript introduces herself with her name and profession making her approachable, familiar,
and competent to the patron. From there, Jane uses exclamation points and an emoticon to instill
and maintain a friendly and encouraging atmosphere. In a text-only environment where tone of
voice and mannerisms cannot be expressed, these kinds of icons and punctuation are essential as
conveyors of emotion. A positive attitude continues to permeate the transcript as Jane responds
with lighthearted humor and eagerness to the user’s statements and anxieties: “Ha! Ask away!”,
“Never be afraid!”. Throughout the next hour, Jane responds to the user’s inquiries and provides
assistance with a familiar, non-intimidating demeanor bereft of jargon and abounding with
patience. She finally leaves the patron with well-wishes and thanks them for the lighthearted
“chat”.
In the content dimension of the Radford and Connaway model, the librarian provided the
right information. Jane helped uncover accurate and specific information, demonstrated her
knowledge, provided appropriate instruction, and certainly gave convenient and timely accessall features of a successful encounter. A major concern for online reference is that timely access:
the delay between the time a user asks a question and the time a librarian responds to the prompt.
(Norwood, 2006) Timeliness is clearly not an issue in this case, as Jane connects to the session in
16 seconds and types her first greeting seconds after that. The librarian also provides information
access through an appropriate link and specific and accurate information is sought by instructing
the user to progressively narrow results through an advanced search. At several points
throughout the session, the patron, a technical novice, runs into obstacles in the search process.
Jane demonstrates appropriate instruction by tailoring the session to the needs of the user, and
circumvents several potentially confusing issues. Rather than attempting to attack and resolve
every inconsistency and detail, she instead tells the user to “ignore that for now” so they may
continue to pursue more substantive information.
Tailored specifically to digital reference, Oakleaf and VanScoy (2010) present a strategic
framework for instruction in this unique environment. Jane’s transcript reflects their categories
of metacognition, active learning, and social constructivism; all designed to facilitate student
learning. Here, Jane applies the concept of metacognition by liberally making use of the “catch
them being good” principle, typing in “perfecto!”, and “You’re right on target!” positively
reinforcing the user’s productive actions and responses. The librarian also employs “thinking
aloud” when conveying the rationale behind “full text”, searching for multiple terms, and using
quotation marks.
One difficulty arises in the librarian’s attempt to “show, not tell”, and may be explained
by the user’s technical inexperience and “hate” for computers. At one point Jane pushes an
image to the user in an effort to provide an example of multiple search boxes. However, rather
than clarifying the concept, it muddied the waters a bit more, leading to a five minute long
exchange trying to make sense of it and leaving the user “sweating”. Ultimately the patron found
a number of sources to browse at which point Jane saw an opportunity to “chunk it up”. Because
the user met their immediate need of identifying several library sources, Jane “steps out”,
allowing the user to process the information they have, and hopefully clarifying the interaction as
one part of the user’s information seeking process (Oakleaf &VanScoy, 2010).
Regarding the active learning or constructivist principle, Jane lets the user “drive” for the
majority of the interaction. Now since Jane has no ability to directly operate the user’s interface,
this may be a reflection of the limitations of text-only instruction. By comparison, a remote
desktop session in which the librarian could see and directly operate a user’s browser, can
certainly create an entirely different dynamic, and one more susceptible to librarians taking over
and doing, rather than showing. Even in a text-only environment there’s a risk of simply telling
the user what to do, saving time but sacrificing the chance for learning. Instead, Jane guides the
patron to recognize multiple search boxes, and although it takes time, the value of letting the user
navigate this section pays off in an “aha” moment, when the user connects the idea of extra
search boxes to a narrowing of search results: “I see what you are doing”.
In the vein of social constructivism, Jane makes an effort to guide the patron to become a
“member of a community of information-literate people.” (Oakleaf &VanScoy, 2010) By “being
the welcome wagon”, the librarian makes the information search a supportive, collaborative
process, acknowledging the novice skills of the user, but assuring them that “we’ll get through
this”. Jane stays with the user until they have found an initial chunk of information, so there’s
little need to “make introductions” with other subject experts, aside from a reminder that there
are other librarians always available for help in the future. However, Jane does refer the user to
the Ebrary, an alternative source of information, which could also be considered “sharing secret
knowledge”.
In response to a changing reference environment, the Reference and User Services
Association (RUSA) recently updated their behavioral guidelines to include those specific to
remote interactions. (RUSA, 2013) In the areas of visibility, interest, listening, searching, and
follow-up, a special “remote” subsection can now be found. The transcript is a model of the
general principles, and adheres to the majority of the “remote” guidelines regarding timely,
jargon-free responses, use of appropriate technology, and follow-up encouragement. One
particular area of note in the encounter refers to a general RUSA principle -one not specific to
“remote” interactions- the Listening subsection 3.1.9: “Maintains objectivity…” The subject
matter involved in the encounter can sometimes be controversial, and the librarian did an
excellent job of refraining from interjecting value judgements one way or the other.
A noted exception to the RUSA remote recommendations stands out at 10:51:19, where
Jane comes back in to the conversation after a six minute absence, claiming a student came in
with questions. RUSA section 2.3.2 recommends a librarian “Maintains regular online or voice
contact with the patron to convey interest and provide assurance that the query is still viable and
a response is forthcoming.” (RUSA, 2013) An unexplained six minute break from a remote
reference interaction is an eternity in internet time. With no prior warning and no intermittent
messages promising a return, the user may assume a disconnection or infer that the librarian has
terminated the encounter. If Jane’s interruption was unavoidable, the user would have certainly
been better served with a brief note stating there was an interruption in the office before, rather
than after the event happened.
Although Jane’s transcript checked off many boxes in the objectives and
recommendations of these frameworks, box-checking is not always necessary or appropriate in
every case. A suitable level of instruction from a librarian does not require that the librarian
perform to the edge of one’s skillset with every interaction. Kuhlthau’s chapter (Kuhlthau, 2004)
is a good example of this, where she describes five different levels of mediation embodied by
librarians, from Organizer to Counselor. Jane can be described as an “Identifier”, the middle
level in this construct. Since she identifies a “pile” of relevant material for “the general subject
under investigation”, but does not go as far as to recommend a sequence for using them or
navigating through them, she does not meet Kuhlthau’s standards for a higher level of mediation.
(Kuhlthau, 2004)
This is not to say that Jane was derelict in her duties or responsibilities to her patron, by
not “raising the bar”. In fact, it shows how she tailored her response to an appropriate level based
on the needs of the user. In this case, going above and beyond the call of duty and acting as a
high-level “Counselor”, Jane could have injected an unnecessary and detrimental amount of
complexity and involvement in the user’s search process. The information need did not merit
such a high level of mediation and could have even precluded some of the learning opportunities
provided by her more hands-off, lower level of mediation.
Based on multiple methods of evaluation, Jane’s encounter is worthy of being
highlighted. Her transcript is almost paint-by-number: It fits almost every slot and checks off
nearly every box. Still, while there are multiple ways to examine reference interactions, there is
no one “right” way. Every interaction certainly varies depends on specific circumstances, and
Jane’s is no exception. If, for example, Jane persisted in pushing her image link as an educational
tool (a recommendation in Oakleaf &VanScoy’s framework) rather than move on after some
initial difficulty, the encounter could have become even more bogged down, further frustrating
and discouraging a user already uncomfortable with the computer and the mode of
communication. Nevertheless, the decision was a good one to include it, and the decision should
be made again even in similar circumstance, because it is a valuable tool. The nature of these
interactions necessitates the inclusion, omission, or adaptation of many of the concepts of these
models. Perhaps this is why so many of the models borrow, overlap, and complement each other.
As mentioned earlier, there are certainly minor areas that can be nitpicked, but the
encounter was strong and successful by any of these measures. These are all excellent guidelines
and Jane’s transcript proves that (or do the guidelines prove the transcript was good?). She came
across as helpful, interested, knowledgeable, patient, non-jargon-y, upbeat, and accurate. These
are traits any “afraid” 55 year old technophobe (Doe, 2014) or “hungry rat” (Keefer, 1993) is
sure to appreciate, and hopefully, come to expect.
References:
Doe, J. (2014). Reference transcript. State College, 11 August, (9:58:48-11:02:45)
Keefer, J. (1993). The hungry rats syndrome- Library anxiety, information literacy, and the
academic reference process. RQ, 32(3), 333-339.
Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Roles of mediators in the process of information seeking. In Seeking
Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services (2nd ed., pp. 107126). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Norwood, S., Zhuo, F., Love, M., & Massia, K. (2006). Applying RUSA guidelines in the
analysis of chat reference transcripts. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 13(1), 75-88.
doi:10.1300/J106v13n01_09
Oakleaf, M., & VanScoy, A. (2010). Instructional Strategies for Digital Reference: Methods to
Facilitate Student Learning. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 49(4), 380-390.
Radford, M.L., & Connaway. L.S. (2009). "Thriving on Theory: A New Model for Virtual
Reference Encounters". Presented at the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 2009 Annual Meeting, 6-11 November, Vancouver, British Columbia
(Canada).
RUSA. (2013). Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Service
Providers. Originally prepared by the RASD Ad Hoc Committee on Behavioral
Guidelines for Reference and Information Services; Approved by RUSA Board, May 28,
2013.