What's wrong with virtual reference?

[Robert Tiess]

re: http://www.charlestonco.com/features.cfm?id=112&type=ed

Concerning the article's mention of hype stemming primarily from "the 
profession’s longstanding infatuation with technology -- a fascination 
with gadgetry" and the following sentence, "Librarianship has yet to 
meet a technology it doesn’t like":

While some call it "gadgetry," those who actually see and implement the 
benefits of such services recognize them to be Tools. That "librarians 
like technologies" is a actually good thing: whenever those of us in the 
field can use technology to offer better services to patrons, yes, 
that's a good thing.

Digital reference is not an all-or-nothing proposition: it's just 
another tool, another form of communication, another option to give 
patrons who may or may not be able to come to libraries for face-to-face 
transactions. Let's not forget the disabled users out there and senior 
population, for example.

Like any tool, digital reference has its valid uses and its limitations: 
it cannot fix everything, but because screwdrivers can't do what hammers 
can doesn't mean stop using screwdrivers. We need all the tools to 
effectively and comprehensively do our jobs and consistently provide the 
best possible service. Yes, it can be constructive to debate tools and 
techniques, even to put some of either aside, if only temporarily, as we 
explore new and better ways to do things.

Yes, "let's be frank," but let's also use common sense about these 
"disembodied online interactions": are the "moral and emotional 
elements" truly unattainable? Necessary? Emoticons and commonplace 
ethics notwithstanding, what about these so-called "emotional" and 
"moral" elements? Considering typical digital reference is based on 
human language, are we saying we are no longer capable of communicating 
"morals" and "emotions" through words? I hope not.

Perhaps some people feel they cannot effectively provide information 
until they actually see a person and predetermine, based on that 
person's appearance, what resource(s) would be most suitable. If it was 
merely an age based issue, this could easily be solved by having 
children, young adults, and adults clicking on different options for 
age-appropriate responses, but perhaps there's more to the phenomenon of 
seeing a patron that people are willing to admit. Why else lament 
"disembodied online interactions"?

Let's get one thing straight: librarianship is neither enslaved by nor 
"infatuated" with technology, as neo-Luddites in our profession would 
have everyone believe. Dismissive talk of "gadgetry" at this point, when 
many libraries are successfully redefining themselves and expanding 
their services in light of the not-so-recent digital information 
revolution, can be counterproductive and may serve to give false 
credence to library critics who suggest the profession is out of step 
with the times or, worse, destined to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Digital reference isn't news -- it has been around for a while now, and 
many libraries have adopted it to some degree. Not all libraries use 
chat interfaces or custom live reference clients. Some use e-mail, and 
that hardly involves "a plethora of new challenges: additional software 
to master, new procedures to adopt, extra protocols to establish, 
significant new costs to explain...."

E-mail reference can be quiet efficient and better than in-person 
transactions because it gives both the patron and the librarian time to 
formulate questions and answers, which you don't necessarily get 
face-to-face. It often also provides opportunities for the query to be 
handled by the most appropriate person on staff (e.g. government related 
question handled by the Government Information librarian), versus a 
random librarian at the desk (who may, in fact be able to handle 
question perfectly). So the seemingly damnable lack of immediacy in 
e-mail reference is actually one of its strong points, as I see it.

Results will be different in different settings. Overgeneralites might 
look good in print, and people can collectively moan over "habits of 
information trolling and gathering," "decontextualizing," 
"dehumanizing," and "disembodying," but whining gets you nowhere unless 
it is followed by serious suggestions, solutions, or, at the very least, 
conclusive demonstrations why we should completely abandon one tool. 
Don't merely argue both sides, saying on one hand it's "neither 
effective nor helpful" yet paragraphs later "the service has its value."

If the article's purpose was to persuade us into seeing how "embodied" 
reference is superior to "disembodied" reference, then I have to wonder 
if such vacillations help to establish that. That the authors were 
indecisive in their own analysis and concede "we certainly need to be 
open to change" is good -- for them; at least they appear to want to be 
balanced and open-minded -- as for the purpose of the article, the 
conflicting statements undercut it and render the entire affair a waste 
of our time, because in the end all we have been told is it's good/it's 
bad: this we knew already.

So it's my own "final analysis" that simply talking about virtual 
reference "is only minimally effective" -- hey, try it. You might like 
it! Even if you don't, that doesn't mean patrons can't benefit from it. 
Set personal persuasions aside. Patrons shouldn't be deprived of choices 
and possibly better ways (for them) to get information. Let their needs 
be our guides to better service. Librarianship, at its heart, isn't 
about librarians: it's about the people we serve.

Maybe the article should have been "Virtual Reference: Overreacting, 
Inflated Rhetoric, and Not Even Really All that Bad After All!"

Robert