Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Sam Stormont’s well-considered column made me think about current virtual reference issues in a different way. He brings together and unifies several threads: instant messaging, the goal of convenience, technological barriers, and collaboration. These themes were hot topics at the Collaborative Virtual Reference Symposium in July 2007. I am pleased to present Sam Stormont’s column and to bring these issues to a much larger audience.–Editor
Virtual Reference (VR) has been around for at least twenty years and has grown in popularity, with more and more libraries offering some version. As librarians evaluate their chat services, a consistent question is, “Why aren’t more people using this service?” There is abundant evidence that millions of teenagers and young adults are using commercial chat and instant messenging (IM) services regularly, but that isn’t translating to the library realm.1 A lot of discussion focuses on increased marketing and promotion efforts as the way to increase use of VR services. Little has been written, however, about the influence technical barriers have had on VR and how those issues have impeded VR’s acceptance and growth.
With any emerging technology, it’s reasonable to expect an initial period of problems while the bugs are being worked out. However, VR electronic list discussions still include too much about problems and too little about features, services, and the innovative ways this technology can be used to help our users. Too much time and energy is spent writing and reading e-mails describing problems with co-browsing and working with vendors and local systems departments trying to troubleshoot the problems. At this point in VR services development, more of the glitches should have been worked out. I believe that it’s time for librarians to focus on a VR solution that emphasizes simplicity and convenience. The process of asking for help needs to be uncomplicated and easy for the user.
The earliest documented e-mail reference projects date to the mid-1980s.2 Commercial use of chat also dates to the same period.3 In the late 1990s, there was increased interest, and some experiments began with live, or real-time, reference. Those early initiatives have evolved into what is now commonly referred to as chat reference and IM reference.
A lot of different names have been used to describe VR. I will follow the guidelines established by the RUSA Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services:
Virtual reference is reference service initiated electronically, often in real-time, where patrons employ computers or other Internet technology to communicate with reference staff, without being physically present. Communication channels used frequently in virtual reference include chat, videoconferencing, Voice over IP, co-browsing, e-mail, and instant messaging.4
Comments (One comment)
These comments link to the articles to which they refer.While I agree that improvements can and should be made to the technical aspects of providing a virtual reference service (and I’m really looking forward to those improvements and innovations), it continues to concern me that much of our blame for a perceived low use of these services focuses primarily on the software. How can we definitively state that because an “…abundant evidence that millions of teenagers and young adults are using commercial chat and instant messaging (IM) services regularly, but that isn’t translating to the library realm”? I don’t understand that logic. It’s like saying billions of humans use phones, but it just isn’t translating to the library realm because our phones aren’t ringing off the hooks. What is our benchmark for sufficient usage? And how are you making the service know to your users?
Here at AskColorado we struggle to keep up with demand. We do very little marketing. Use is generated from link placement at participating library websites, library catalogs and databases, and word of mouth. Our primary users (more that 60%) are the same demographic cited as being avid IM users in the article; teenagers.
My main concern is that libraries first need to set benchmarks for sufficient use of any reference service (in-person, phone, e-mail, IM, VR) then assess usage. If you’re not happy with usage you need to look at how you are making your service available. Can users find the VR service on your website? No? Then you need to make it more visible (’Goal of Convienence’.) Try this experiment: Add Live Help links throughout your library’s website and in your library catalog. Assess usage of the service. If your numbers still do not meet your goals then perhaps you need to assess whether it is the technology preventing usage of your service.
I know it’s not as simple as I’ve explained above. My main point is to caution librarians not to discount a service based on technology alone, without looking at other factors that may impact usage of that service.
Kris Johnson / January 22nd, 2008, 11:02 am / #
Post a comment