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

[Sloan, Bernie]

I agree with Steve Oberg that much of this Op-Ed piece discusses how virtual
reference will not replace face-to-face and telephone reference, to which I
say "This is news?" 

I am hard-pressed to think of anyone who consistently goes around predicting
that virtual reference will replace other forms. And if there is someone who
takes that position, they probably aren't taken very seriously by others.
Virtual reference complements other forms of reference. Some users prefer
face-to-face. Some users prefer telephone service. Some users prefer virtual
reference. And an individual user may prefer different forms at different
points in time, depending on the context of his or her specific information
need.

There are some good general points in this Op-Ed piece that are worth
further discussion, but they are hardly revolutionary.

A few random comments:

I am not sure what the author means in the title when he says virtual
reference is "Not Even Real"??

The author states "...almost all forms of digital reference are slow --
slower than telephone discussions, slower than one-on-one, face-to-face
interaction." Regarding face-to-face interaction I guess maybe "slow" is in
the eye of the beholder. From the perspective of the user who has to make a
trip to the library to get "face-to-face", virtual reference may not seem
quite so slow.

Also, having to do with "slowness", the piece cites a couple of studies that
say that the "average digital reference transaction runs nearly ten
minutes," and then goes on to note that virtual reference sessions take
"considerably longer than other forms of reference." OK, it's been a number
of years since I've been behind a reference desk, but if face-to-face
reference transactions take considerably less than ten minutes, what kind of
service is being provided?

Then there are some inconsistencies that you think an editor would catch.
The author notes that "virtual reference fails our users," but later says
"the service has its value."

The author concludes by saying "virtual online service modules can never
equal the potency and effectiveness of on-site, in-house, in-place and
wholly interactive traditional reference practice." Never say never. As
someone who has reviewed hundreds of virtual reference transcripts, I have
seen sessions that were potent and effective, and undoubtedly better than
some face-to-face transactions. One medium is not ALWAYS better than the
other.

Finally, a general editorial thing that maybe only bothers me because I want
to add this piece to my digital reference services bibliography. In the
table of contents and at the beginning of the article one author is listed
(Steve McKenzie), while the "about the authors" blurb at the end lists two
authors (Steve McKenzie and Jonathan D. Lauer). I want to be able to give
credit where credit is due.

Bernie Sloan

-----Original Message-----
From: Oberg, Steve [mailto:STOBERG at TAYLORU.EDU] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 8:42 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [WEB4LIB] RE: What's wrong with virtual reference?

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
> 
> 
>