http://www.davidleeking.com/wp-content/themes/thesis_16

Ask-a-Librarian Services Need a Reboot

by David Lee King on January 6, 2009

Hippie discriminationWhat would you say if I told you that some libraries discriminate against a certain type of customer? That some customers, because of the way they asked a question, were purposefully pushed to the back of the line, told to wait 2-3 days for an answer, and that they couldn’t get an answer to some of their burning questions … because they’re “that kind” of customer?

You’d be furious, right?

Well … believe it or not, many libraries are doing that RIGHT NOW – today, in fact. Take a peek at these email and chat reference policies for a sec, then come back and let’s talk:

  • Note – not picking on any particular library – there are MANY MORE examples out there…
  • New York Public Library: “We will make every effort to respond to your question within two working days“
  • San Francisco Public Library: “In depth questions will be forwarded in e-mail format to subject specialists, who will try to get back to you within 2 days.” Their IM service – “The IM reference service works best for answering brief, factual questions.”
  • Hennepin County Library: “We can provide brief answers to questions or suggest locations and sources to answer your question. We will respond within 48 hours.”
  • San Diego Public Library: “If you are in a Library building, we highly recommend working with Library staff before using these online services” … “Library staff is able to provide short, factual answers.”
  • County of Los Angeles Public Library: “Send us an email or fill out the form below. Reference staff will respond to your question within 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays).
  • Houston Public Library: “You should get a response to your e-mail within 48-72 hours, excluding weekends and holidays … If you are working against a deadline, you may get a faster response by visiting or calling your local library …”
  • Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh: “Every reasonable attempt will be made by library staff to respond to reference questions within 48 hours.” … E-mail Reference Questions should be limited to those that have concise, factual answers … Individuals are limited to three Electronic Mail Reference Questions each week.” (check out this update)
  • Kansas City Public Library: “Questions sent to the Library by using this form will be answered by e-mail within 48 hours excluding holidays and weekends.” Their chat service – “AskNow! is a live, online reference service for questions that require only short, factual answers that can be found in online resources.”

Ouch! Now, let me ask you this. If I walked into any of these libraries and asked the same question in person:

  • Would I have to wait 48-72 hours for a response? No.
  • Could I ask the same question on a weekend? Most likely, assuming the library was open.
  • Would they limit my questions to THREE A WEEK??? I sure hope not!
  • Would I be limited to asking ONLY questions “that require only short, factual answers that can be found in online resources” as KCPL mentions? No.

Is this REALLY how you want to treat your customers? Especially that growing group of customers who are already using your digital branch and are taking advantage of your digital services? Please don’t tell me that you can somehow only serve those customers who actually walk into the library and up to your physical reference desk, but can’t get to the customers who call or email or IM or txt you in a timely fashion. I’m not buying that.

The problem isn’t the volume or the format of the question, but the way your reference services are arranged. Rearrange it. Now. Please.

In essence, you ARE discriminating. Discriminating against a growing, younger, web-savvy customer base. Customers who *almost* have all the tools in place to simply ignore you and your grad-degreed, professional information-retrieval services. Especially if they are treated like second class customers when they ask a question using their preferred, and handy, means of communication.

Does this make sense? Do you really want to be “that guy?” I think not. The libraries I mention above all want to do a great job, I’m sure, as do you. So let’s work on improving our online services … like now already!

******

To be fair, I checked out my library’s ask page too (and crossed my fingers, and said a little prayer before I clicked :-) . We did great! Here’s what we do:

  • We mention how good we are (“provide quick, accurate answers”)
  • We mention that the phone is the fastest way to get a response, rather than forcing customers to visit in-person (“If you want to talk with someone immediately about a question you can call us…”)
  • Instead of giving some outlandish timeframe for a response (i.e., 24-48-72 hours), we say “We will help you as quickly as we can.”

And my personal favorite – for more complex questions, we direct customers … not to the physical desk, but to email! We don’t even mention the desk or having to visit the library in person on our Ask Us page.

Why? Because those customers are already in the library, using our Digital Branch. They need to get the same treatment as any other customer with any other question.

photo by Neubie

Share:
  • del.icio.us
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Digg
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Technorati
  • BlinkList
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Netvibes
  • Ping.fm
  • MySpace
  • Print

Tagged as: , , ,

  • Mark
    Now Sikis isn't violating copyright, but he is plagerizing.
  • You won’t violate copyright but will facilitate it at your desk. By its nature VR services aren’t violating copyright, we’re not giving them someone else’s page, we’re showing them the page. At worst we’re guilty of the same stretching of the Fair Use doctrine we are when we give someone a World Book section to photocopy
  • Alison Hunt
    Re Evelyn's point about the person who gets out of pajamas...there is at least one difference between the dressed patron in the library and the eager IM'er in PJs. While it is true that both patrons are visiting a library, the dressed patron has paid a higher price in transaction costs for reference help.

    As someone who was a stay at home mom for years, operating in a noncash economy of traded labor for carpools, babysitting and--yes--taking people's kids to activities at the library, time is truly money!

    Given all that has been said, I know this is not a compelling argument for discriminating between patrons. But when a solo parent wends his or her way to our library on a school night with a 7-year-old in tow, I am very sensitive to the fact that the patron pays a price for every minute in the library--dinner delayed, the kid's routine disrupted, unfolded laundry still piled. The IM patron can be multitasking or supervising at home. The solo parent paid at least 20 minutes of travel time just to talk to a reference librarian in person. This patron is very invested in getting help.

    I know the analysis can be finessed but I'm thinking of the basics here. The larger issue, as many already said, is new technology which lowers the transaction cost of information so dramatically that libraries are pricing themselves out!

    In the case of a walk-in and phone-in patron with simultaneous requests, the person with the tightest time constraint is the person I'd start with first. And I'm not picking on parents in particular...this is just a kind of situation we encounter often on school nights.
  • Chester Mealer
    David,

    I just came across this post and I was wondering if I could reproduce your post in our in house newsletter (complete with URL back to your site) ?
  • @Evelyn: David's right, we can't base priority on something like that. When two patrons come into the library and one has showered and one hasn't, they're still treated the same.

    We don't chose our patrons, the patrons choose us (and their method of contacting us). All we can do is serve them as well as possible - even (and this goes back to the original post) if the best we can do is responding to their emails in 1-2 days because of staff shortages. Online patrons should always be treated the same as in-person patrons, but managing the expectations of both is also important.
  • davidleeking
    Evelyn - why? the IM person has also just visited the library - your digital branch.

    There's no difference. Well, other than the pajamas.
  • Evelyn Brownwood
    Yes, somebody who gets out of his pajamas and comes into the library should get quicker service, than some IM person in his pajamas.
  • Faeriel
    At my library, a lot of folks still prefer in-person, or on-the-phone assistance...when staff-cuts and frozen positions are the norm, you still focus on the majority of your clientele's needs. People who contact email reference may have an understanding it will take a little longer for an answer-they will call if they want immediate assistance. Chat reference is conducted during business hours, as the query comes in.

    With that defense written, I see your point, especially in cities where people have the money and know-how to embrace new technologies almost immediately. In other areas of our country, this change takes place much slower. We still check out fairly regularly our VHS tapes, a nd audiobooks on tape.
  • You've given me some points to ponder since you've been dealing with VR service for a longer period of time than I have. I maybe was not clear enough in that I have no problems providing a customer with a link to information, and do so. I still have concerns about copyright with regards to cut & paste information from a source, but you've given me a different perspective to investigate. Thanks for the feedback.
  • davidleeking
    Good answer, Kirby - I was about to say much the same thing. Helping customers definitely falls under Fair Use. NOT helping customers because of the way the question was asked is definitely "UNfair Use."
  • Kirby
    Melanie,

    Me thinks you're hiding behind an otherwise altruistic and irrelevant strawman. You won't violate copyright but will facilitate it at your desk. By its nature VR services aren't violating copyright, we're not giving them someone else's page, we're showing them the page. At worst we're guilty of the same stretching of the Fair Use doctrine we are when we give someone a World Book section to photocopy.

    We've been doing this in various forms for close to 10 years, 5 of them with VR service. Other than the medium and maybe an exagerrated expectation of service turnaround with some users, it's no different than "traditional" reference. Someone else here commented that they get more VR and e-mail inquiries in a given hour than telephone inquiries. To us that's all that needs to be said. We'll think it's a serious issue when the Copright Police or the Copyright holder comes to the door.
  • Has anyone considered copyright when considering IM or e-mail reference? It makes sense to answer short, factual questions via these methods since facts considered in the public domain are not copyrighted. Detailed questions require the customer to make the decision about what information is specifically wanted after they read over the materials, and librarians cannot cut and paste detailed information without potentially violating copyright. Yes, in some cases, databases allow librarians to use an e-mail link to send information to customers, and I have done so. But this is not always the case with some electronic resources, and I will not violate copyright; the customer then has to visit the library so I can show him the information.
  • Frank
    I work at a small academic library. We have our own IM service and are also part of a province-wide program. We also do face-to-face reference and e-mail reference. Our turn-around time is quite good during the week between 8 am and 10 pm when we have a librarian working. Weekends when we have reduced hours, response time is somewhat slower.

    We don't discriminate in how quickly we answer questions from various sources -- it's all first come, first served. However, IM tends to be less suitable than other forms of contact for in-depth questions. Part of that is because of the attitude of those who use IM. they take the "instant" part of it very seriously and even if you tell them it may take a few minutes to find an answer, in a significant number of cases, they disappear before the answer arrives. Presumably, we're expected to deliver the answer in the same .12 seconds that it took Google to get 2.4 million hits.

    While on the province-wide IM service, I've had a student from another institution e-mail her whole thesis proposal and want me to discuss, in-depth, the types of resources her library has for her topic. Clearly, this type of question should be taken up face-to-face with the liaison at her home institution. But that's one of the things about virtual reference that's exciting -- you never know what kind of question you'll get.
  • davidleeking
    John -

    "Most of the quoted material comes from libraries’ e-mail reference services" - right. That's part of many library ask-us services.

    "used primarily for detailed reference questions" - Many of the examples above actually state the opposite - that even their email ref service is only for quick, factual types of questions. Hennepin and San Diego are two examples of that (just with a quick, cursory glance at the pages I provided links to).

    "Further, in almost all cases, the e-mail reference section is listed on these pages as another option only after the 24/7 instant service options is listed." Most of them offer one or both services, but NONE of these libraries state that there's some sort of tiered approach like you are suggesting.

    "feel the examples used are carefully selected" - for what it's worth, the choices were rather random. I did a Google search on "public library", picked the first 20 of those, then picked a few others off the top of my head. Then I cut the list down a lot because I had WAY TOO MANY examples.
  • John
    This is completely unfair. Most of the quoted material comes from libraries' e-mail reference services, which are used primarily for detailed reference questions that cannot be answered quickly and require time-intensive research even if in person. Almost all of these libraries have a chat reference link on the same page where customers can go for instant answers--many 24/7.

    Further, in almost all cases, the e-mail reference section is listed on these pages as another option only after the 24/7 instant service options is listed. It is about offering customers options, which is good customer service. If they need instant answers, almost all of these libraries have a service that provides that, which is of course not mentioned because it does not support the thesis.

    I agree that language could be modified but feel the examples used are carefully selected to create the impression that these libraries through up elays and barriers to virtual users, which just isn't true. In fact, the majority of these libraries chat services make library services more accessible to online customers than anyone else rather than placing barriers to that service.
  • davidleeking
    Patricia - I think we both agree that libraries should define the scope of their virtual reference services. The disagreement is in HOW those services are defined.

    Remember - I'm a branch manager (a "virtual" branch manager, but a branch manager nonetheless). When customers enter my digital branch to ask a question, their question needs to be treated the same as if I walked into the physical library and asked a question. That's how my library handles it, anyway.
  • Patricia
    Well David, I disagree with you.Thats okay it does not make you wrong nor does it make me right. We are two individuals with different ways of doing things. There is nothing wrong with that.

    I just say libraries should define the scope of their virtual reference services and should not be afraid to do so. If you don't agree with that, thats okay.
  • davidleeking
    Patricia - sounds more like simple inappropriateness to me. In those situations, either at the desk or at the virtual desk, you simply tell the patron to stop, that what they just said was inappropriate... and then do whatever your policy is on that type of behavior.

    People are inappropriate in both settings. That is not a reason to favor one type of reference transaction over another.
  • Patricia
    Richard to answer your question, when a patron comes into a physical library they can see what what resources a library has available but that cannot be done with virtual reference. Also patrons can tell lots by actually looking at a librarian from their body language. Let me give you an example I have had patrons in virtual reference ask questions that they dare not ask me in a faced to face reference situation. The look that I would give them would stop them dead in their tracks. Virtual reference sometimes provides a barrier that patrons sometimes feel they can hide behind.

    I truely feel that this 24-48 hour thing really involves what some librarians think answering a reference question is. My rule is rememer the word "refer".
  • Patricia,

    That's all valid. The question seems to me (David being the one who brought it up way back when...) why do we feel it necessary to condition one set or type of service when we don't do it with others (the more traditional desk and phone services?) We wouldn't post a sign at the desk telling users beforehand what we might or might not be able to help them with and how.

    We have no problem informing a VR, e-mail or telephone user that we've reached the limits of what we can do for them in this medium, and that they're next best alternative is ... Just as we inform people at the desk of the resources they can use to fulfill their needs. Those who like or require hand-holding, do so regardless of the medium or location they're using. As long as we know how to say "when" and do so equally, relative to the place and time, then I don't see a real service difference.
  • davidleeking
    Patricia - I agree - each library needs to define what they do locally, and they need to do that both in-person and digitally.
  • Patricia
    As a refenece librarian that does lots of virtual reference. I have to agree with the post by Madlibrarian. We should define the scope of our 24/7 reference services, they should not be designed to do research. No you should not handled long indepth research questions on line, just like you don't at the reference desk.

    Librarians are not there to just answer questions. The job of a reference librarian is to show patrons how to do research that does not mean do it for them.

    I also which people would stop using the term customer service when it comes to librarians. If you want to be a customer service rep go get a job as one.
  • davidleeking
    Madlibrarian - "Have you ever worked as a virtual reference librarian answering guestions?"

    Yes, I have.

    "You can not answer the in depth research question that patrons want to ask on line."

    Why not? If they ask a question, do you not just simply reply and answer, or ask for clarification?
  • madlibrarian
    Richard,

    Hold up a minute there who said anything about "Whatever the cause of your anger or resentment, I don’t think it needs to be directed at the blog owner". I'm not angry or resenting anything.

    As a person who has been working in virtual reference since 2001, I think I have an expert opinion. I have conducted many survey's of the types of quesitions and what I said is very true.

    Please don't speak for me, I not angry at anyone and I accept your apology for thinking so.
  • madlibrarian
    What I think needs to happen is that libraries just need to be honest with their patrons and let them know the limitations of their virtual reference service. "Reference" does not mean to give the answer to an indepth research project. Reference simply means to refer.

    Libraries need to stop being afraid to tell patrons what the service is meant for. Being that it is an online service you have to be very frank with patrons. When patrons walk into a library and stand at a desk they get answers from looking at a librarian and they know just how far to push with trying to get the librarian to do their research for them.

    Remember its the librarian job to provide reference and assist a patron with finding information but that does not mean you have to answer all research questions but doing the research for the patron, I think this is what causes the problem. "Refer"

    My theroy is don't ask me any question online that you would not ask me at the reference desk. Live by this and you will not have to use the 24-48 hour line.
  • Madlibrarian,

    I disagree with you, and we do all the above. We get as many (or as few) inappropriate questions (whatever that means) via VR or e-mail as we do in person. The reality today is I get more questions in the same hour via VR than I do on the telephone. Whatever the cause of your anger or resentment, I don't think it needs to be directed at the blog owner.

    Richard
    Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
  • madlibrarian
    Have you ever worked as a virtual reference librarian answering guestions? No, just like I thought. Some of the questions that are asked are not questions that you should ask during a virtual reference session nor in person at a reference desk. The questions do not tend to be the same. You can not answer the in depth research question that patrons want to ask on line. And patrons don't have the nerve to look you in the eye and ask you the same stupid yes, I said stupid questions when they are standing in front of you. So before you speak take a survey of the questions that are getting that I will get back to you in 24-48 and see if you get those at the reference desk.
  • davidleeking
    Everyone - here's what I emailed to "Otis" -

    You're certainly welcome to comment here - but this type of attack "What a bunch of clueless morons" needs to stop. I won't tolerate name calling on my site.

    And an fyi - "Otis" gave a fake email address (and I'm guessing a fake name, too)... his email came from memphislibrary.org ...

    And to answer your complaint, "Otis" - yes, you CAN have it both ways. Many libraries are successfully doing email/IM/in-person reference from the same desk. It's just one of many models.
  • Otis Rundell
    What a bunch of clueless morons.

    The bare facts is that the librarians you see manninig the desk are the same librarians who have had online reference service piled on top of thier workload. You can't have it both ways. If you want that librarian to be dedicated to serving online, then take them off the desk and vice versa.

    You can't get blood from a stone.
  • I think I agree with everybody. :-) I agree with David and the other contributors who say that posting long turnaround times and limiting reference questions is lousy customer service, but I also agree with those who say that they would rather see a realistic timeframe than none at all. (I guess the best we can do is be polite and welcoming in our description of response times, and at least take a stab at answering every question that comes our way, in whatever form it comes.)

    The single most important thing we can do, in person, on our web pages, or in other interactions, is to make the patron feel respected. Obviously there will be times when we won't be able to provide an answer instantly, or even find the information at all, but I hope that we can make the patron understand that we believe that s/he is worthy of our attention. We should keep asking ourselves, "How would I feel if somebody said this to me?"
  • Meg
    To be honest, while I don't like just bluntly stating "We'll get back to you within 48 hours," I dislike even more when a business or entity says, "We'll get back to you as soon as possible." That often means I never get a response. I prefer to have an honest timeframe within which I can expect an answer, so if I do not receive one, I know something is wrong.

    As soon as possible? That can be five months from now. I want transparency in my library services. I'd prefer it say "as soon as possible, but may take up to..." with an honest estimate.

    Also, I don't know about you, but the questions we sometimes get via e-mail are not things we do for people if they come in in person. We'll show them how to research something, but sometimes we get genealogy requests via email where someone wants us to research something, scan it in as a pdf, and mail them back the results. This can take hours and is not an effective use of staff time. In those cases, we generally do a quick search to see what we can find and explain that if they come in, they can do the search and we would be glad to assist them in any or all of those steps, but we simply cannot provide such an in-depth service for them electronically.

    I also admit I've told people to come in and I'll show them how to use a database, though that is always after at least 15 minutes on the phone with them attempting to walk them through something they are not understanding. Some things just need to be done in person for certain patrons, because no matter how many times you say, "Okay, now do you see the words 'XYZ' at the top of the page?", they just won't see them, even though they are there. Granted, most of these people would not qualify as digital natives, but they are certainly trying to be, and I respect that. However, I have to have a certain efficiency to my interactions if I'm going to get all my patrons served.

    So while I see what you're getting at, I also think that people need to have some reasonable standards for what they ask for electronically and what work it involves on our end. Just as I cannot spend 30 minutes with one patronn in person when the reference desk is busy, I cannot spend 30 minutes with that person via e-mail.

    And yes, I do generally prioritize based on how people use the library--in person, phone, email. It is bad customer service to pick up a ringing phone in front of someone standing there waiting to be served unless it is to politely inform the caller that you have a patron and would they please hold. (Although if someone approaches the desk after said patron, I will either ring for help or ask the second in-person patron to wait as "I've had a patron on hold for several minutes." Generally they understand.) The e-mail person may well have sent their question and logged off, so that gets done in between other questions. Seldom have I sent a question back and had an immediate response.

    We don't offer IM currently. We were going to, but the county experiment with it failed miserably as few people used it for anything other than "Hey, let's offensively and anonymously spam the librarian at the other end!" So the implementation of that is currently being rethought. I can't even imagine throwing that into the pot at the reference desk, which sometimes counts as completely insane as it is. Someone in an office would have to be assigned to handle that, I think.
  • davidleeking
    Jude, you said "The biggest problem with email reference is that you can’t do a reference interview."

    Why? I certainly have done it successfully, as well as helped plan talks, conferences, and even discussed edits on my book via email.

    Businesses run via email.

    All the "reference interview" is ... is a back and forth email discussion, clarifying and expanding the question - and of course that can be done via email, chat, phone, IM, txt ... oh yeah. In-person, too.
  • Nice. Before I was a librarian, I sold books in a couple of the nations best independent bookstores. My favorite, which has since unfortunately been gobbled up by a national chain, had an awesome training program that involved explicit instruction in the values of the company from the smallest interactions to the largest. In the training, one important thing we emphasized to new hires was to never put a phone caller on hold for longer than two minutes at a time. Even if you had to go across the huge store and scour several shelves to find an item, be sure to check in with the customer every two minutes. Customers in the store can see that you're busy and that there are many things that demand your attention. Those who are not physically with you can't see that at all. In fact, when you are not "with them", they are effectively abandoned in limbo.

    I hope that this message reaches "Jill" and other librarians like her.

    Scot Colford
    Web Services Manager
    Boston Public Library
  • Todd
    After scanning the points made in this discussion, it seems that one idea may have been left unspoken: librarians fear that if we do not clearly put the in-person patron first, it undermines the reason for the library's brick-and-mortar presence, and may provide additional justification for closing them. Taking the fear another step, librarians would then be relegated to 24/7 "library call centers," where we answer reference questions, or synchronously teach virtual patrons how to search our databases, or check out e-books online.
    As a regular patron of our local public library, I expect to be given priority treatment when I am in-person, as opposed to on the phone or IM. Yet there are those who cannot come to a library for a variety of reasons (disability, etc.), and deserve the same respect and prompt service. I will think on this more, since I will complete my MLS in May.
  • Jude
    The biggest problem with email reference is that you can't do a reference interview. I wouldn't offer email reference for that reason alone. Virtual chat reference is superior (as long as the software works well).
  • Geri
    So, what's your turnaround time on your questions? Does it beat the "48 hours" commitment from another library. If a library is closed on Sundays and a email is sent Saturday night and many of us don't have the luxury of having sufficient staff or other services to provide 24-7 reference service. I don't believe providing a honest expectation of response is discriminating against those patrons. Test the waters - tell the next person standing in front of you at the reference desk - sorry I can't help you until I finish responding to this email question and see how that's viewed.

    You raise some good points and some issues that should be considered.

    It would be interesting to look at turnaround times for the libraries that say "as soon as possible" vs. the libraries that state 24 hours or 48 hours...I bet there's little difference.
  • davidleeking
    Richard - wow! You guys rock.
  • At least no one can say we're recalcitrant blockheads. Semantics noted and changed. http://www.carnegielibrary.org/research/ask/
  • tim
    This is the perfect opportunity to UNshamelessly plug the Tulsa City-County Library's reference features that provide email & phone reference for every hour they're open along with IM chat support 50 hours per week.
  • davidleeking
    C. Adams - "Why does every question have to be answered right NOW?" You're right... so let me ask you this - do you have a sign at your reference desk stating that questions asked there will be responded to within 24-48 hours? [ok - I'm obviously being obviously obtuse here to make a point]. I seriously doubt it...

    You also said: "Librarians actually DO have other things to do with their time after all." Really? Then what should they be doing besides answering questions, since that takes up a large part of a public services librarian's day?

    Again, I'm just taking what was said at face value here... OF course they have other job duties. But that's not really the issue... As I said before - a question is a question is a question. The problem's not format - the problem is how we treat different formats of questions.

    Ahniwa - yes. I whole-heartedly agree with you! It's ultimately the same job - just done in a different way, to meet the needs of a growing customer base. Simply good business.
  • Your post motivated me to look at the ask a site for Florida--a state wide electronic reference service--staffed by librarians from libraries across the state, we all take turns covering the hours...

    http://www.askalibrarian.org/

    The only things I see are there to give patrons some guidance about what to expect--
    "We will respond to your question as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience! E-mail assistance is available 24/7."

    "While all of our librarians are glad to assist you, they may not have access to your personal library record, which means they may not be able to tell you if you have overdue materials or owe fees."

    This year we also got a new online system to interface with patrons, and so far it seems to be working great--one feature it offers is screen sharing during a chat...makes quick work of those sessions where the patron just isn't getting where to go/click/look for things.
  • Hi David,

    I have to disagree with the basic idea that it is the "Ask-a-Librarian" services that need a reboot, and say that, instead, it is reference services in general that should be reconfigured. And I think that they are, slowly, doing just that.

    The reference desk model is ineffective. Chat questions take twice as long to answer? That extra time is countered by the fact that you don't have to sit at a public desk, waiting, just to be visible in case someone comes up with a question. Chat questions can come from a patron who is anywhere (a plus for them) and can find you anywhere (mostly, a plus for you). I know librarians that have answered questions for their patrons while in the airport waiting to travel to/from some conference or another.

    Reference services should be ubiquitous and they should be available at the point of need. And the point of need is often NOT in the library, but in student dorm rooms, people's houses and workplaces, even on the road and while out shopping. If we as librarians reconfigure our reference priorities to de-emphasize "the desk", we'll have more resources to increase coverage and improve services virtually. Obviously we can't get rid of the desk; face-to-face communication is still and always will be the most effective in most cases, but we can change from an 80%desk/20%virtual model to a 20%desk/80%virtual model and our patrons will come out ahead.

    So I guess maybe I agree with you, David, in the end, though I think it's the idea of reference service in general that needs a change, and that will in turn affect a change in the online reference services that you're talking about.

    A quick note: All of the libraries you listed (except Kansas City) offer 24/7 access to a reference librarian through a cooperative of some sort (mostly QuestionPoint, it looks like). In this sense, we're discriminating not against our virtual patrons, but against our physical patrons, who don't get to ask a questions whenever they want. Both services have pros and cons, both are needed: it's the balancing act between them that's interesting.
  • Something about this discussion was nagging at me, and I just realized what it was this morning. In my library's case, I think what we need to change might be the language that describes our e-reference-type services rather than the services themselves. We are responding to these questions very quickly already.

    More importantly, I believe what limits the type of questions we can handle via phone or e-reference is not the written policy but the nature of the questions themselves. It seems to me that some needs just can't be met as well from a distance. If someone is doing a research paper, unless they want only online resources, they will need to visit a library and look at some books. Does that make sense?
  • C. Adams
    Why does every question have to be answered right NOW? Honestly, if you need an answer right away, there's this lovely invention called a telephone. They're even available without wires nowadays. If you can't wait 2 days for a response to a long-winded, detailed question, then try picking up the phone and explaining it...in my experience, most questions do NOT take 2 days to answer, but isn't it better to give a max time in the event that a question needs more thorough research? Librarians actually DO have other things to do with their time after all.
  • Ask-a-Librarian service has to be taken very seriously, the problem arises when we offered this service for the name sake only. It needs to have a joint venture of fellow professionals and not to be treated as part time job.
  • I think I'm just echoing many of the other comments here, but here's my two cents. My library gives equal billing to our various contact methods on the main reference page, but on our email form we state we "strive to respond to questions within 1 business day. For immediate assistance during library hours, please visit the reference desk or call us at 978-256-5521 x111."

    We check email regularly during the work day, but in-person patrons definitely come first - if there is a line of three people, I am helping them even before I answer the phone.

    I'm totally on board with treating online patrons with as much respect and promptness as a non-online patron. It's staff shortages that prevent us from checking the inbox constantly - and unfortunately, there is no way I could realistically dedicate someone for chat reference (so happily that is provided for us).

    That being said, one thing I do like about email is that those patrons easily take priority outside of library hours. It is not at all uncommon for me to check the reference inbox at night, on weekend or during holidays, and reply to patrons within hours. They are always astounded at that response, and usually say how happy they are that they didn't have to wait until we were open again (I just need to be careful about raising unsustainable expectations).
  • davidleeking
    Richard - "when davidleeking.com burped, hiccuped and/or crashed" - well, I DID eat at a Thai place today... :-) Sorry you had commenting troubles!

    I think you're right - "changing corporate and institutional culture" is the biggest hurdle we face - you can even see that in a couple of the responses above.
  • Ehh.

    I have two responses. The first is direct, the second is more oblique and technology tinged. We're one of the offending libraries and I agree that the wording is wrong-headed at this point. More outdated than any deliberate attempt to create a second class user. Having said that, this is my second response since my forst one got lost when davidleeking.com burped, hiccuped and/or crashed. I have the luxury of writing this because in the middle of an excellent VR session with a bright 11 year old, Questionpoint flat-lined and hasn't been resuscitated yet. I've only had one patron/customer ever do that to me in-person.

    We all have some kind of service hierarchy in place, deliberate or not. People here and now trump telephone callers who for the time being trump the e-mailers and VR patrons who in turn keep trumping each other. We posted the "factual" limits and the 48 hour turnaround to buy ourselves wiggle room and to avoid the open-ended questions that used to be (and still are sometimes) the fare of e-mail reference.

    We have been staffing to meet what we see as a service obligation in these areas, and part of the reality is changing corporate and institutional culture. Even with that in mind and some of the more progressive librarians around, there's still a serious disconnect between the in-person inquiry and the virtual one. The missing nuances of body language, tone and inflection can make a 15 minute reference interview at the desk into a 2 day "hurry up and wait" exchange of e-mails or follow-up VR.

    I agree with the observation that our language leaves something to be desired, but my jury is still out on the current practical ability to provide all service to all people all the time.

    RK
  • Sheli
    Great post David! I totally see your point. I'm the kind of person that will try to find the answer myself and not ask a question in real life, until I've exhausted all other options. Calling any type of customer service gives me an anxiety attack. I seriously once cried on the phone w/ OCLC. So, I might be an extreme example, but I don't think I'm alone in that I want to do everything online from home.

    I do try and urge our reference department to take IM reference more seriously. I shared your post about the Meebo widget in the catalog with them a year ago. Still, we don't have IM on our catalog or our website. We do have IM on our Myspace and our FB pages, which reference is supposed to log on to. Only two librarians participate, and they rarely log in. It seems they don't "have the time" to serve this population. Our problem isn't even our policies, it's that they don't want to even try. It's frustrating when you want to try new things, and your encouraged to try new things by superiors, but its your peers that don't want to extend themselves.

    As my cousin once said, "I'm not just going to drive to the library and hope for the best. I'm going to check online first!"
  • I typed a witty response and lost it somehow. In a nutshell, this whole discussion made me rethink my opinion. As a building manager and a reference librarian, I was initially resistant. I think this comes from the fact that many libraries are doing all they can to help patrons who come in the door and call. E-reference adds additional work to staff who are already, sometimes, stretched to the limit. This leads to poor service all around, not to mention low morale. Restructuring would definitely help.

    For what it's worth, our policy about phone reference also requires that questions be of the short, ready-reference sort. More food for thought. I will pass this discussion along to the Asst. Director. Thanks for raising this important issue.

    From, a fellow UTK SIS alum
  • Patricia
    What really burns are the pages that suggest the Ask a Librarian service is just a service for quick factual info. Joe Janes and many others have said for years and years that "ready reference" in libraries is dead. People go to Google, they don't need us for that type of info anymore. Are library reference desks, digital or otherwise, really still getting a lot of ready reference questions? Not in my experience. Then why limit your service to only those questions?

    People have much more complex questions, and trying to prevent them from submitting them through your website is such a questionable practice. Are they afraid they won't be able to do a reference interview online? Offer them some optional form elements like why they need the info, what grade/class it's for, etc. People are very often willing to elaborate, if you explain to them why you need the info. You could even ask them what their deadline is for the info - and be pleasantly surprised by how often people with complex problems expect to wait a few days for in-depth replies. My thanks to you for bringing this topic up, the points you make are ones that too often get overlooked.
  • davidleeking
    FYI - y'all might be interested in this blog post - from a library director that understands what I was getting at... (thank you, Katherine!).
  • Another random datapoint: a new French ask-a service is promising a response in 72 hours by email, or (I think coming soon) a chat service Mon-Fri 1-6pm.

    To the issue at large: given a customer and an email in front of me, I'll answer the customer - because it looks better, because I can answer face-to-face quicker than I can answer by email, and because when one sends an email one expects to wait a little longer.

    I think an email turn-around time should be measured in hours rather than days though. Using one hand. Preferably same morning or same afternoon, but say 4 business-hours as a maximum. If the query is too complicated for that then you do what you'd do in a face-to-face situation, ie write back to them and say "This is what I know so far, I can keep looking and get back to you within [timeframe], does that suit you?"

    As for whether IM suits some types of questions less than others - maybe, but I think that should be for the customer to decide. I've seen transcripts where the librarian hears the question and unilaterally says "You'll have to come in to talk to someone in person" - my memory may exaggerate a bit but not much, and it's horridly rude. I think librarians should say "This will take about half an hour by IM or you could come in and it'd only take 5 minutes - which suits you better?"

    (Of course I like multitasking so even if it took me 30min to answer an IM question I'd be getting at least 20min worth of other stuff done at the same time too; I guess other librarians might be more inconvenienced. Still. It's customer service, isn't it?)

    Re giving email addresses - I find it's more effective to get the student's email address so that the appropriate librarian can contact them directly. Otherwise the student has already dredged up the courage to contact one librarian and now they've got to do it all over again - library anxiety doubled, and often they just don't bother and muddle through by themselves.
  • Lisa Hinchliffe
    Hmmm ... in my experience sometimes people have to wait for their answer in person too. For example, not all of our services and special collections are open as many hours as others. We can intake your query (maybe even refine it a bit and clarify, do a bit of pre-searching to identify the specific item needed, etc.) but we don't give an answer unless this counts as an answer: we'll pass this along tomorrow morning when that service opens and/or here are the hours when you could come back. If that counts as an answer, everyone with a "we received your question and we're working on it" auto-reply is doing the same.
  • While I understand your objection to some of the limitations on chat and email reference services, the one from KCPL requesting that people only ask short, factual questions makes a lot of sense to me. It is impossible - really, impossible - to handle a complex research question as efficiently and thoroughly on chat as in person. The reference interview takes much longer, it's harder to tell what the patron really needs, and there's a lot of "hang on while I find this resource... okay now let me walk you through how to find this resource... okay now are you at this resource?... okay do you see the button that says 'advanced search'?..." Reference interactions that would take 5-10 minutes at the desk take a half an hour or more on chat, and the fact that it takes so long can be visibly frustrating to patrons who hoped for a quick answer before running off to class. It's not a bad idea for a library to decide, "These are the kinds of questions we can answer effectively in this medium. Let's not waste our time on the ones we can't."

    As a librarian at a large research university that serves many many undergradutes I have no choice but to do my best to handle difficult reference questions over chat, but in the end many of these exchanges conclude with a "Here's the email address of someone who can help you more thoroughly and effectively via email/phone/an in person meeeting." Sometimes, non-speedy non-digital modes of communication are really the most effective way to deliver services, and I don't think there's anything wrong with a library recognizing that fact in its policies.
  • Sam
    Oh, and I came to this post via your update on Twitter - if you like to keep track of that kind of info (I'm always interested to know how in/effective a given technique is)
  • Sam
    We have email reference, but not IM or Chat reference yet - i looked over our "Ask-A-Librarian" page, which has a form to fill out and some instructions on how to phrase questions, etc. "It is designed to answer brief, factual questions or to provide suggestions to help you find the answer. Visit our FAQ for more details about this service." The FAQ is pretty extensive, and gives a little more information on the way the service works. The reality of the service is that many questions are answered quite quickly, even those that require some research. I think some of the factors that increase the time between the question being asked and the question being answered have to do with the way that questions get routed and queued - a few librarians working their way through a list of incoming questions from a variety of sources, etc. On the desk, it can be an odd customer service quandary to make a person wait while you answer an email that does not require an immediate answer, simply because you received the email first.

    My overall thoughts about your article and assertion is that I agree - but I think that many of the issues can be resolved with simple rewording of the message we send to our patrons, possible the inclusion of auto-response emails during closed hours to let people know that we're working on it, what our hours of operation are, etc. Possibly followed up by an actual response at the earliest possible time either with an answer or to let people know that we're working on it. I suppose now I'll have to bring this up in a meeting... Thanks for a great, thoughtful post!
  • I have to disagree with Steven Harris on this. Commercial entities prioritize in-person customers over anything else. This is something I have quite a bit of experience with. What makes the commercial entities out there different from libraries is that they separate roles. Online inquiries are handled by one staff. Telephone inquiries are often centralized at one response center. Local brief inquiries as well as walk-ins are handled in the front-line stores.

    The source of consternation here is that libraries centralize almost all of this activity at the reference desk. This is a model at least two publicly-traded companies have been fleeing from to the point of even outsourcing their online storefront operations. Even Apple doesn't run its stores the way ref desks are set up. Outside of fidelity to tradition, having the ref desk as the focus point for all reference activity regardless of medium isn't doing libraries any favors.

    If online reference, telephone reference, and in-person reference can be differentiated in our libraries things could change. Three different modalities of interaction require overlapping but not equal skill sets. Rather than trying to force it all to happen at the desk, have those watching the desk work on cataloging in between patrons if they're watching tumbleweeds blow by. Physical separation of staff between these separate functions would reduce the consternation over acceptable minimum service levels, I imagine.
  • Jenny Reiswig
    I'm really conflicted about the issue of online ask-a services outside the hours when our reference folks are available. I do agree it looks very bad to give such long turnaround times. I work in a biomedical library in an academic setting and it's a hot topic for us about whether it's "better" service to have an email question answered by "one of us" when we're back at work on Monday vs picked up by someone at another random library in our network at the time it comes in. Snobbery maybe, but also recognizing that if someone went to all the trouble of finding how to contact the AskA service at the medical library (not easy to do from the main library page but that's another story), they really want to talk to us. And especially in the case of researchers, we like the opportunity to build that relationship. But I agree we're not making the best use of aska services. What I'd like to see are some more specialized networks that leverage the subject matter and resource expertise among our librarians as opposed to just trying to cover a lot of hours with everyone trying to answer everything. Or failing that, at least better tools for dealing with handoffs of any kind of online question (email, chat, IM, txt) when the person who started an answer decides they need to punt to the person's "home" library or expert for whatever reason. Using our current tools, that process is a confusing mess.
  • Jill
    While I'm an advocate of good customer service no matter how, when, or where you provide the service, I can't agree entirely with your points.

    Unfortunately many libraries jumped on the virtual reference bandwagon without forethought and appropriate planning for how they would staff the service, what hours they would provide the service, the best system for the service, etc. What has resulted because of our professions overwhelming urge to try the latest buzz are libraries who have set up something that where they can't provide a high level of service.

    As to defining parameters for the service, I don't see this as a bad thing. Unless you have a staff member dedicated to monitoring virtual reference at a location away from a public service desk, in-person patrons should absolutely take precedence over a virtual patron. Common sense dictates that you pay attention to the person who is physically in the same space as you. Not that the virtual patron's question is any less important, but you do need to set some guidelines of who to help first.

    As to defining what types of questions are appropriate (ones that can be answered with short, factual answers) is again something that needs to be up to the individual library. Virtual reference has some inherent issues that can make it difficult to conduct an effective reference interview. Yes, it can be done, but it can often be time-consuming. As libraries become short on money, we also are becoming short on staff, hence short on the amount of time we can devote to the various balls we try to keep in the air.

    While it's nice to say "We'll get back to you as soon as possible", some patrons want a definitive time frame. Some questions are timely and if they can't wait 48 hours, perhaps this will encourage them to pick up the phone during the library's hours when they are more likely to get a quick response. I'm the only librarian (although I do have paraprofessional staff) at my library and it could well take me 48 hours to get back to someone with a query if I'm out of the library. While I'd imagine most libraries try to get back to patrons quickly, it isn't always possible.

    I have a great deal of respect for you David, but I think you might be a bit out of touch in regards to what those of us in public services deal with on a daily basis. Many librarians are working in short-staffed situations trying to maintain the same level of customer service and number of services that they could with a full staff. It's simply not possible.
  • I have no problem with asynchronous service taking more time--the library isn't always open--but don't agree that walk-in customers should have priority. I think the only reason libraries prioritize in this way is because we are uncomfortable making a person wait when we are facing them live. It's easier to ignore an online patron. But I can't see how the question online is any less urgent. We've done the same thing with telephone reference for years. Busy at the reference desk? Let the phone ring! I realize, of course, that many libraries don't have a lot of resources, but the reference desks I've seen lately are not especially busy. I think we have the time and resources to do better.
  • Jane
    At the college I work for we have a chat based Ask-a-librarian, so you get help the minute you ask your question.
  • davidleeking
    Stephen - good thoughts! A couple of points:

    "Not every library is blessed like your own with a digital branch staff." True... but my DB staff build the site - they don't answer questions. That's the public services librarians jobs, and anyone who writes a blog post (anyone staff member can do that).

    "Whatever local decisions are made, they have to be made to best serve the local community first since it pays the bills." Exactly my point. I would hazard a guess that by limiting or prioritizing service the way most libraries are doing (see my post), they are NOT "best serving the local community." Instead of truly serving their local community, they are ONLY serving the ones that actually walk into the building - and that's a small, small percentage of the total local community.

    Want to truly serve the local community? Get out of the building, introduce local businesses and organizations to the ask a librarian service, "the best-kept-secret that actually needs to be promoted to the population at large" as you rightly say - and see what happens.
  • Ask A Librarian services are basically invisible out there. Even when LISTen did the piece recently on Mahalo Answers, this type of library service was just not heard of. This is regrettably a best-kept-secret that actually needs to be promoted to the population at large.

    Prioritizing reply service, though, is hardly bad customer service. On Black Friday you are not likely to reach anybody at a retail outlet by telephone as they have to deal with customers physically present. When you have to allocate human capital on a variety of fronts, you have to make hard choices. Not every library is blessed like your own with a digital branch staff. Whatever local decisions are made, they have to be made to best serve the local community first since it pays the bills.
  • davidleeking
    Ryan - interesting points. Here are my additions:

    "The reality for many libraries is that they are not open everyday at all hours" - right. I'm not expecting 24/7 service. Just normal service during working hours - there should be no difference between in-person and email/chat/IM/phone.

    "libraries should focus on the in-person client first..." Not sure I agree (or even understand) your "until they are pervasive and overwhelming" point. Simply stated - why? When I was a ref librarian, we took the next question - be that in-person, on the phone, or email. And that was in the 90's. A question is a question, and a customer is a customer.

    "A good 90% of the so-called “online clients” are actually in-person clients..." Ours aren't. I doubt your statistic holds true with other libraries, either (though I certainly can't prove it).
  • I think I may agree with the general idea that online service should be better, but your line of reasoning is less than pragmatic.

    The reality for many libraries is that they are not open everyday at all hours. If you give a question on a saturday after 5pm (when many libraries close) in the summer (when they are closed Sundays and possibly Mondays), the best a library can offer is 48 hour service schedule. This is not discrimination in any way -- just the practical reality of the service. An increase in the service commitment will require an increase in resources, plain and simple.

    I also think that until online "aska" services are pervasive and overwhelming (and they are not according to any statistic that I have seen), libraries should focus on the in-person client first. A good 90% of the so-called "online clients" are actually in-person clients who go to the library website to find out such things as library hours, place a hold, book a computer and so on. Most "online customers" are online in order to make their in-person experience more convenient. Thus, resources need to be put into keeping the library circulation line-ups as short as they can be.

    Finally, despite those elongated promises, the reality is that most online reference questions are answered much more quickly than the 48 hour promise and most "online customers" understand this service commitment. Heck, I had a question for a domain name purchasing company and it took them a good 2 weeks to get back to me -- and you know what? I was fine with that. Why? Because they had a note telling me that it might take them that long to answer.
  • Heidi
    I hadn't thought much about these statements of limitations, but after reading your post, I agree. We need to make sure we provide outstanding customer service online as well as in person.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: