Academic Reference Service in the Web Environment
By Ann Bristow and Jian Liu
When libraries are designed
or remodeled an important focus is always the high visibility of service desks:
can students and faculty easily identify the services they seek? This design
principle is usefully applied to our digital libraries also. When the student
opens the front door -- or the home page -- how long must she explore before she
finds the service or the resource she is seeking? Once the resource is found, is
assistance readily at hand? Can she find advice on which of the hundreds of
electronic indexes and printed indexes might be the best match for the problem
at hand? There is a Reference Reading Room and an electronic reference shelf; is
there a reference librarian nearby each? Our experience at Indiana University,
Bloomington with what we have called "academic email reference service" extends
well over a decade has been reported
in C&RL News in 1992 and
1995.1 In 1998 the environment is changing so profoundly that we
believe a further report may be useful. We will offer some numbers and facts, a
few technical and design matters, and some policy issues and
questions.
Users: who and how
many?
Over a decade ago, we began
offering our help inside a campus information network restricted to our own
affiliated users. Anyone who reached us was by definition eligible to receive
our services so we were never faced with refusing anyone. This is not the nature
of the web, of course. One piece of advice we offered in 1995 was: in an open
network environment you must define your primary clientele and make it clear to
all who may see your offer of assistance who is actually eligible to use it.
Looking at other similar services from Libraries similar to ours, we find more
than a few that label their reference service with a symbol or words indicating
that it is "restricted"; some allow one to click on the offer of assistance and
then return with RESTRICTED! Our decision at present is to continue with a
policy statement that says we are open to affiliated users or to inquiries
concerning our university or unique
resources of its libraries. There is, in truth, little evidence that anyone
reads our policy statement. We do receive questions we consider inappropriate
(that is, not within the scope of our defined mission): from an unrecognized
address " my paper is due tomorrow morning, send everything you have on the
abominable snowman." It may also be true that some of these questions are also
less polite and more demanding (possibly because the service they click on is
perceived as anonymous, faceless and felt likely to be unresponsive). Some of
these inquiries are annoying but they are very few in number in our experience.
We remain concerned not to lose questions which should be addressed: the message
coming from Switzerland asking if we own any papers of Herbert J. Muller (we
do), the student who knows we own an exceptional collection in her area of
inquiry, the citizen of our state using us to find information about our
university. To the fair (and possibly growing) number who doesn’t appear to be
affiliated we return a copy of our policy statement saved as a file. That
statement is somewhat modified from its text on the web to include a phrase
saying "You do not appear to be affiliated with Indiana University, if you are,
please try us again and explain that fact." We don't discount the possibility
that increasing volume will require us to observe our own policy statement more
rigorously or to block access by IP address but we will do so with regret and
want to keep the ability to decide and discriminate as long as we
can.
One reason we are able to
continue to do this is that the use of our service has not grown as rapidly as
we thought it might. We receive about fifteen inquiries a day from Monday
through Friday and about half the number on Saturdays and Sundays. About
two‑thirds of these inquirers are affiliated. Most of these questions come to us
via our web interface, though there are still some who contact us through our
email address directly. The direct email inquirers are largely faculty and many
have been using our service regularly for almost a decade; their number has not
grown at a rate we might have anticipated given the value they place on the
service (more on this below). We believe that this slower than anticipated
growth may reflect the fact that the web itself is not "home" yet to a majority
of faculty in our setting. We further speculate that a determining factor here
will be the move of our NOTIS catalog to a web catalog within a year or so. The
network availability of our catalog was the single event that decided many
faculty in the humanities and social sciences to purchase a modem for their home
computers. The move of our catalog to the web may play a similar role in the
decision to use the web as a base for inquiries and
services.
The possibility exists of
course that our numbers have not increased as rapidly as we anticipated because
the service is not needed. We resist this conclusion, of course, but we also
believe we have some evidence to support that resistance. Last fall we did a
survey of our users roughly on the same model as the one we reported here in
1993. The replies were similarly encouraging. We divided our inquiry into two
groups: those who used the service four or more times within the preceding year
and those who used it fewer than four times. We asked two very brief and
open‑ended questions, believing this was the only approach likely to succeed in
securing cooperation in the overwhelming mass of messages people receive these
days. Our response rate was 40% from the infrequent users and 62% from the
frequent users. We were delighted and encouraged by the responses expressing
gratitude and detail on the usefulness of the service. Only a handful expressed
any criticism: one thought answers should arrive more quickly; another suggested
we check on how important the question is to the person before we go to "so much
trouble"! A faculty member in Biology responded " I like the availability of
email, because I can use it off‑hours when the reference desk is closed and I
often work at unusual hours. Also sometimes the responses to my email questions
are highly involved and would be difficult to convey verbally ‑ so much so that
I have made a mental note to myself to use email if my question does involve a
flow chart of how to access some database, for instance." A faculty member on
leave and teaching in Hong Kong responded in part "being half way around the
world, I have found that access to "LIBREF" is absolutely invaluable." The
response most pleasing to us, because it corresponds to our values and
perceptions, came from a student: "email is very useful to me but I hope you
will keep all ways of communication between reference librarian and student open
so that each student and lifestyle can fit the library."
And Our
"Answers":
We have not yet attempted an
"accuracy" study of our answers. There is another element which we believe is
more interesting than questionable notions of easily determined accuracy and
might benefit from study and analysis. A doctoral student from our School of
Library and Information Science who observed librarians in handling both in person inquiries and
electronic queries asked some pointed questions which we hope she will follow up
on in a published study. What becomes of the "reference interview" in this
environment? Obviously one can return to the user with a follow up question and
we do that occasionally ‑ but only when we simply do not have enough
information to get started. Returning with questions to the inquirer delays the
response and is discouraging to the inquirer (we believe) -- and may still
result in less than needed, prompting another question. The reference interview,
conducted by a skillful person, need not be time‑consuming and takes in many
clues from the person's volunteered and elicited responses. It is undeniable
that one misses some of these clues when reading an email query. One solution to
this problem being discussed these days is to use other technologies to enrich
the interchange by allowing the inquirer and the reference staff to view one
another in real time. This solution, however, is a costly one not only in terms
of the technology. A benefit of the email inquiry is that it can be sent at the
user's convenience and picked up by the receiver within the spaces available
while accommodating other real‑time services: the in‑library, in person inquiry
and the telephone inquiry. Many libraries have found it necessary to restrict
the use of the telephone or to provide for its answer from a location other than
the reference desk itself, creating the need to staff another service point.
Such a real‑time, face-to-face interview would require, in effect, the staffing
of yet an additional service point. The service we describe is one we can
promote because it does not have that requirement and because it does not
inconvenience or directly compete with the individual who comes to the
department in person.
Even more interesting to us than the question of the
dynamic of the interview and its effects on our answers were the questions the
doctoral student made about our choices of resources to use for answers. One
question she observed involved a request for a definition of scarification,
particularly as it pertains to African practice. Our library has a very rich
collection in African Studies, the reference collection offers several resources
which would have been likely first choices had the patron come to the
department. In this environment, however, the resource chosen was the
Encyclopedia Britannica -- or rather, Britannica Online. The student asked the
very good question: is that the resource you would have chosen if the student
has come to the department in person? The answer was: almost certainly not. We
used it because of the great attraction of being able to cut and paste a
complete answer. We are rewarded for this behavior. A pointer to the 'best'
resource, a list of relevant citations is rarely as welcome as the full text. So
we find ourselves, on occasion, behaving like the students we observe who
restrict their choices only to the indexes which include full‑text, rejecting
the more pertinent or complete index which does not include the full text (even
though our library does -- the journal is sitting on the shelf but requires
several intermediate, tiresome steps to access). We were grateful for her
observation. We will certainly continue to employ the growing number of full
text resources at our disposal but be more careful to add that there are many
other resources in our collections to complement the answer offered and that we
are in the library and ready to help.
Some Technical
Background:
We decided from the
beginning to make the web interface in which users type their questions as simple as possible, to reduce all unnecessary
steps between questions and answers. The only forms to be filled out are a
return email address and the question itself
(http://www.indiana.edu/~libweb/question.html). Behind the interface, a simple
cgi perl script processes the input and sends the question to our departmental
email address which is also displayed on the question page, so that patrons can,
if they prefer, send us email questions directly without using the web
interface. Similar scripts are fairly easy to obtain from the
net.
We could have used the
"mailto:" instead of a cgi script; but when our service started not all browsers
supported "mailto:". Even today, the standalone version of Netscape Navigator 4
does not allow "mailto:" The "mailto:" interface is also not as simple as our
interface and we would not be able to include other information, such as our
policy statement, on the same page. The script also allows us to implement error
checking -- telling the patron to go back and fill in the required email and
question fields, if either has been left blank and to provide feedback to the
successful submission of a question (re‑displaying the question and informing
the user where the question has been sent and when a response can be
expected).
Another design feature of
the cgi script not easily available from the "mailto:" interface is that each
time a question is sent, extra information is collected automatically, such as
the host address from which the question has been sent and the type of web
browser used with its version information. This extra information is often very
useful in helping us formulate helpful answers to questions such as: "why does
this database require a username and password; it didn't last time I used it?"
Some such questioners give our network "indiana.edu" address but the host
address information shows that the question was sent from an AOL account, a
local commercial ISP, or from an out of town address. Some of these people are
affiliated users but since access to most of our databases is restricted by
university IP numbers, we can identify the nature of the problem. Other common
questions we receive come from users trying to access our online catalog and
receiving an "unable to find application" error, indicating that their browser
is not configured properly to launch telnet. The information about the browser
and its version collected by the cgi script gives us a hint as to how to respond
to the problem since there are large configuration differences between Netscape
version 3 and version 4.
Some of these questions
might be referred to campus computing experts and we do that on occasion of
course. It does seem necessary, however, to work towards developing shared local
reference department expertise because so many questions are best interpreted by
those using the databases regularly and accumulating understanding of their
peculiarities in differing environments: "why do the function keys not work in
ERIC?" " why did Sociofile decide to dump me out?" "Why can't I get access to
xxx?" "Why does everything work fine except my arrow keys when I use PsycInfo."
In our department, those most technically informed help those less technically
capable by writing explanations of typical solutions which can be sent as a file
and which can also be offered prominently on our web pages, not simply within a
massive FAQ database.
We use the UNIX Pine mailer
on our departmental account to process the email questions. The Pine mailer,
though not perfect, is adequate in our environment; it allows for multiple users
to access the mailbox simultaneously, but only the latest login can make
changes. The mailer flags email messages as New, Answered or read but not
responded to (no flag), giving us some indication of the status of a particular
message. -- all very necessary in a shared environment. The mailer automatically
saves all the outgoing messages. Searching within a folder (e.g. sent mail for
March) is simple, as well as mass processing of a folder. A standard
departmental signature file that includes our email address and our URL is
automatically attached to every out‑going message and whoever answers is simply
asked to attach their name or initials (so that follow ups and/or thanks can be
returned to the person who worked on the question
initially).
Technical
innovations:
Communicating
with us via email, whether
directly or through the web interface has become an integral part of our
service; it has come close to displacing written correspondence though we do
receive five or six letters a month. Both email and regular mail share one
important characteristic: they are both forms of asynchronous communication.
That is a limitation but it may also be an advantage: students and faculty do
not need to wait in a line at the Reference Desk or get a busy signal on the
phone. We can also take advantage of the time and space allowed to consult with
one another and provide the best answer based on our collective expertise. We
have indications that our clientele understand and value this aspect of the
service.
We are watching and
informing ourselves about additional modes of communication being used in some
library environments. These include moos and other similar forms of
communication that use online chat technologies and some online video and audio
conferencing technologies. These technologies overcome the restrictions of space
between those in a discussion but not those of time: both sides have to be
present. For us, this presents additional problems for staffing in an already
stretched environment -- in addition to the challenges of hardware and software
needed at both ends of the communication.
Of most immediate interest to us is to extend the range and
possibilities of email itself. To this point we have been using email in its
most basic form: transmission of email texts only. It would be interesting to
explore the more advanced forms of email communication, MIME, for example. More
and more email programs allow for attachment of various file formats: sound,
image, motion pictures, and for multi‑lingual display and editing. Even though
we have not had much demand for multimedia email service we are actively
exploring its great potential to enhance the range of the information we can
supply to our users in response to their questions.
Policy: the responsibilities
of a centralized "Ask a Librarian" address
In some smaller settings
this may be not much of an issue. If there is one (or very few) reference
point(s) it is pretty clear who takes the questions and who has responsibility
for providing answers. In a very large campus system like that of Indiana
University, Bloomington, there are some questions to which all must be sensitive
and willing to address. There is agreement that the offer of reference service
should have a high profile and be offered throughout the site at top levels in
the web site ‑ is there agreement where those inquiries should be sent? There
may be differing opinions on this. In a large library with many service points
and many experts in different subjects and areas, there will be much shared
pride in those services and desire to demonstrate that expertise in serving users. Each
unit and many individuals may have their own web sites within the parent
organization's site. Each will likely offer an email address for further
information, comments or questions. What, however, of the top pages ‑ the "front
door" to return to the analogy with the physical library building. The choice
between offering a list of experts and service points requiring the inquirer to
choose or sending all questions to a central point seems clear in terms of user
ease. In an environment which agrees on such a centralized answering and routing
service monitoring seven days a week, the opportunity exists to position a
Reference Desk immediately adjacent to every work space: on the Libraries top
page, within the help files of every database, at the top, for instance, of the
Libraries' Internet Ready Reference page:
Can't find what you're
looking for?
"Ask a
Librarian"
If questions are routed to a
central point (as we would argue they should be) that central point must
rigorously observe certain standards: incoming messages must be checked
regularly, reliably and frequently (more frequently and reliably than any individual could possibly manage) and that central point must be willing
to route to specialists and specialized resources when necessary. Even better,
they must on occasion be willing to answer as quickly and as best they can and
copy a specialist inviting further comment or correction. This takes a high
degree of confidence and good collegial relations and it also provides a timely
service of high quality.
1. Ann Bristow "Academic
reference service over electronic mail" College and Research Libraries News
no 10 (Nov. '92) p. 631‑2+; Ann Bristow and Mary Buechley "Academic
reference service over email: an update" College and Research Libraries News
no7 (July/Aug. '95) p. 459‑62.
Portions of this article, and the
accompanying statistics, were presented at IOLUG Fall Program, October 1999, and at CIC Online Reference Services
Workshop May 2001.
Back to Electronic Reference: History and Research
