[WEB4LIB] RE: What's wrong with virtual reference?

[Roy Tennant]

One of the things I found interesting about that piece is that it is 
the most over-stated, hyperbolic piece I've ever read on digital 
reference. Frankly, I don't know where the author or authors found 
articles that advocated the death of the reference desk or of telephone 
reference, and no citations help us out there. I suspect that like many 
people who are uncomfortable with a new technology, he assumes that 
those who advocate a new tool are by default advocating the death of 
the old tool. From what I've seen, that's far, far from the truth, 
although anecdotal reports of libraries cutting back on desk hours is 
disturbing.

By some odd coincidence, I had planned on revisiting digital reference 
in my "Digital Libraries" column in Library Journal for the last couple 
months, and just last night submitted the column to my editor. Here's 
the last paragraph (the rest to appear on the web and in print in 
mid-January):

"Will digital reference become an essential part of standard library 
service?
It's clearly too early to tell. That makes it all the more disturbing to
hear tales of libraries cutting back on reference desk hours as a 
result of
offering digital reference. No matter how successful digital reference
proves to be, in-person and telephone reference services will remain
important. As with any new technology or potential service, the 
essential
question must be "does it provide better service to our clientele?" If 
it
doesn't, then no technology-no matter how new and shiny-will be worth 
our
time and that of our patrons. It should come as no surprise that 
answering
such an essential question will take time, will be accompanied by a 
number
of false starts, and will be debated with inflated rhetoric on both 
sides."

Three guesses which specific source I had in mind when writing the last 
sentence. And thank you, Bernie, for providing a timely citation to 
this list!
Roy

On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 06:41  AM, Oberg, Steve wrote:

> Bernie,
>
> I wholeheartedly concur with the authors' viewpoint.  At first I 
> thought that it would be an article that simply bashed virtual 
> reference as the latest librarian fad -- which to some extent, virtual 
> reference is.  But as I read the article, it was clear that the 
> authors were not arguing against virtual reference as a whole but 
> rather against the idea that virtual reference can/should replace 
> traditional in-person reference interaction.  They argue for 
> moderation.  I think that is a very instructive point and it is a good 
> one for us to remember.
>
> I work with QuestionPoint at Taylor and pushed for us to get involved 
> in that collaborative effort as a way to "get our feet wet" in this 
> area.  Overall I think it has been a worthwhile experience and I'm 
> glad we're doing it.  However, virtual reference can never fully 
> replace in-person reference, nor should it, in my view.  It is one of 
> many tools at our disposal to help provide good service to our users.  
> One example that wasn't mentioned in this op-ed piece was provision of 
> reference service to distance education students.  While not ideal, 
> virtual reference is better than nothing for these students!  We at 
> Taylor have a College of Adult and Lifelong Learning that enrolls 
> approximately 900 part-time students and provision of a virtual 
> reference service has been of value to them.  It was one of the main 
> reasons we wanted to get our feet wet in the first place.  And what 
> about the increasing number of on-campus users who do not regularly 
> come in to the library yet heavily r!
>  ely on library resources via the Internet?  Virtual reference is 
> worth trying if only to try to reach that population.
>
> One additional point that might be worth mentioning:  The authors 
> refer to the U of I study and the finding in that study that virtual 
> reference transactions were averaging about 10 minutes, longer than 
> what it would take in-person.  It's important to remember that that 
> article, if I remember correctly, was written based on a trial period 
> experience.  Librarians using the new service were in a learning 
> process, still getting used to the new service and technology, so 
> perhaps it is a little unfair to generalize on the statement that 
> virtual reference transactions take longer than in-person reference 
> transactions.
>
> Steve
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Steve Oberg -- Electronic Resources Librarian
> Taylor University -- Zondervan Library
> http://www.tayloru.edu/library/
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sloan, Bernie [mailto:bernies at uillinois.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 5:57 PM
>> To: Multiple recipients of list
>> Subject: [WEB4LIB] What's wrong with virtual reference?
>>
>>
>> There's been a discussion on the DIG_REF list today about the
>> following
>> Op-Ed piece:
>>
>> McKinzie, Steve. Virtual reference: overrated, inflated, and not real.
>> Charleston Advisor, 4(2). October 2002.
>> http://www.charlestonco.com/features.cfm?id=112&type=ed
>>
>> I know that there are a number of Web4Lib folks who are
>> interested in this
>> topic, but who are not on the DIG_REF list. I'm curious to
>> hear what you all
>> think of this article.
>>
>> Bernie Sloan
>> Senior Library Information Systems Consultant, ILCSO
>> University of Illinois Office for Planning and Budgeting
>> 616 E. Green Street, Suite 213
>> Champaign, IL  61820
>>
>> Phone: (217) 333-4895
>> Fax:   (217) 265-0454
>> E-mail: bernies at uillinois.edu
>>
>>
>>
>
>