reference 2.0 vs library 2.0
I've been stewing on this idea for a few days now, and apparantley I'm not the only one - Bill Pardue from the Arlington Heights Memorial Library in Illinois, and of YouTube fame, raised the issue on the DIG_REF mailing list today. You can follow along on the DIG_REF archives.
Bill wrote,
Much of what I see regarding "Library 2.0" isn't really about delivering reference service. ... So far we've got VR/IM, maybe VOIP and SMS. Much as I'm fascinated by these, they are all basically new technologies to deliver the same thing.... Is there something "2.0" that actually transforms what the reference librarian does?
One of the ways I'm trying to frame library services in the context of Webrary 2.0 is by graphing the number of patrons vs. the number of librarians in any given transaction. I made the picture above to illustrate.
One thing that distinguishes library reference service is that it almost always deals with one patron at a time. In-person desk reference often has a single patron with multiple librarians (one is engaged, the others are engaged in something else and half-listening). A dozen ore more library staff can be involved in a single ILL transaction.
Very few library activities have one librarian interacting with multiple patrons. Storytime and bibliographic instruction are notable exceptions, and I think you could argue that podcasts, blogs and PR fit in, too.
Then there are the myriad library services remove the librarian almost completely: public restrooms, public access computers, search, games, study space, espresso huts, book groups.
An online reference service that embraces Webrary 2.0 should allow for multiple patrons to be served by a single transaction. There are a couple of tried-and-proven-problematic ways to do this, inside and outside of libraries:
- post an FAQ
- build a knowledgebase
- let patrons act as experts/answerers (Yahoo! Answers, Ask Metafilter)
I'd really like to try giving patrons the option to make their question and our answer public. Patrons would ask a question, get an answer, and allow it to be viewed and commented on by others. It's almost like the defunkt Google Answers model, except, we wouldn't be trying to make any money.
But no, it doesn't transform the librarian's role. It transforms the patron's. If the librarian's work is expert and confidential information services, and if we give the patron the option to make that service transparent, social and available to be found by search engines, then we have transformed reference by enabling more patrons to find and user our expertise without a direct one-on-one transaction.
There are a few ways reference librarianship can go: Bill is suggesting more in-depth work (or other transformations), I'd really like to find ways to engage more patrons all at once (even if it means transforming reference), and to be sure, some of us would just like to wait and see.
First, thank you for very
First, thank you for very informative posts, they are really interesting and helpful.
I'm a novice in 2.0 topic, and a question occured to me: do librarians have to do something to make virtual reference more 2.0, or will it happen independently? Is it really necessary to 2.0 virtual reference?
Caleb, thanks for picking up
Caleb, thanks for picking up on this. "Stewing" is definitely the right word. While the "more in-depth" direction is the thing that's making sense to me right now, I'm looking forward to a pretty broad discussion. I think a lot of people are jumping on the 2.0 bandwagon..which is fine...but at some point we'll need to start judging what the desired outcomes are. Increased stats? Better PR (for Reference? For the Library as a whole)? Artificial or not, our library makes a distinction between RA and Reference. I see a very different role for 2.0 tools in RA and Ref...but perhaps I could be convinced otherwise. Anyway, thanks again, and I'll keep checking in.
--Bill Pardue (bpardue@ahml.info)
Is it really necessary to
What a great question!
I think many of us have different ideas about what "2.0" means, and some of us already include virtual reference in that category because it can make for a rich web experience. I generally don't lump VR with 2.0 though, for the reasons that Bill gives.
But does reference need to be something it's not already? I have absolutely no idea.
My fear, I think, is that someone else will take the idea of reference service and do a better job than libraries do.
Every day, less and less information is available only in libraries, and every day, search engines and collaborative tools get better at organizing and providing access to it.
Google Answers broke down, it's true, and I read nothing but negative things about ChaCha, but I don't see library reference services mattering to most people.
OCLC's 2005 (was it really?) Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources report quantifies what we've known all along, that people do not choose libraries as their primary source of information.
I think that virtual reference leverages this fact. People come to us second or third or fourth, when search engines and friend networks have failed. They are coming to us more and more (at least here), but I don't want to just sit back and watch - Webrary 2.0 tools, and whatever comes next after them, can potentially help us reach patrons on a grand scale.
My hope, I think, is that libraries be a democratizing force in our world. Reference plays an essential role in this activity, especially one-on-one service, but I also think that the more people that libraries serve, the stronger force we will be.
My apologies for not allowing a separate space for contact info this week. I'm soliciting patrons for public comments this week (www.oregonlibraries.net/tellus) and am trying to keep them anonymous, but had to apply the rules to everything on the CMS.
hmm.... thanks. still, there
hmm.... thanks.
still, there are a lot of things to think over
ms.kite
http://u-library.blogspot.com
nonsense
Webrary 2.0? You can't be serious! No self-respecting professional should use such gibberish to refer to their work. Secondly, the public question/answer product you propose is a horrendous idea. Why would anyone find any value in a collection of recorded reference transactions? Useless to library users (what would motivate them to search such a collection?) and embarrassing to librarians. When reference products are not targeted with precision and accuracy to the specific need of the user, the whole notion of professional reference service is severely diminished. The last thing librarians need is to push more crap onto the already overwhelmed. Let's get over this ridiculous 2.0 nonsense and start delivering quality, custom-built materials that provide an analysis and viewpoint of the state of knowledge on the topic of interest as it pertains to the user's need. Innovative delivery of these products may satisfy the 2.0 fetishists, which is fine, but the quality of the content is what matters. Librarians will gain status when they understand the user's need, expertly evaluate the pertinent literature on the topic, and deliver the goods in a timely and convenient fashion. The problem is shitty, superficial, "neutral" pseudo-answers. This will be the issue even when we're beyond this embarrassing 2.0 drivel - telepathic delivery still won't cover the abominable quality of so many librarian answers.
Anonymous, I chose the
Anonymous, I chose the phrase "Webrary 2.0" to as away of expressing disdain at all of the "ridiculous 2.0 nonsense" and "2.0 fetishists". I'm sorry you didn't get the joke, especially since it sounds like you share that disdain.
You raise a good point about quality being most important. I've seen and heard plenty of bad answers, but I disagree that librarian answers are generally poor quality. Many reference transactions don't end in anything near an explicit answer, and the ones I see that do are generally good.
I think that tools based on records of reference transactions have value because librarians add that value, through skilled reference interviews and knowledge of resources and search techniques.
The "quality, custom-built materials that provide an analysis and viewpoint of the state of knowledge on the topic of interest as it pertains to the user's need" you talk about - is that like a personalized Wikipedia? It sounds like a good idea, and similar to Dave Lankes' Scapes idea.
I also see value in providing people with opportunities to collaborate, for example by letting them make public, bookmark and share transcripts of their reference transactions.
Last, I'm interested in exploring a different institutional role for libraries. Rather than be the place where you have to go to get information (which is hardly ever the case anyway), libraries can be the place where information comes from. I don't expect people to search any library-made reference tools. I expect them to find them through search engines and word of mouth.
We obviously haven't implemented anything I described in this post a year ago, but I love exploring these ideas - welcome to the conversation.
Post new comment