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

[Jerry Kuntz]

If the authors of the op-ed piece had boiled down their text to:

"The amount of publicity that Digital Reference has received in professional library literature over the past year seems out of proportion to its niche benefits."

...I suspect that we'd have less to hassle over.


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Sloan, Bernie" <bernies at uillinois.edu>
Reply-To: bernies at uillinois.edu
Date:  Fri, 6 Dec 2002 07:57:51 -0800 (PST)

>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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>---
>[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>

--
Jerry Kuntz
Electronic Resources Consultant
Ramapo Catskill Library System
jkuntz at rcls.org

--