Unfortunately, not exactly an atypical virtual reference exchange, or: Why e-ref needs reference interviews, too.

BLOT: (15 Aug 2010 - 10:37:36 PM)

Unfortunately, not exactly an atypical virtual reference exchange, or: Why e-ref needs reference interviews, too.

To protect the, you know, innocent: I'll go ahead and change names around to SQ (student with question) and OL (other librarian). Now, let me tell you about a virtual reference exchange that I picked because it highlights one of the dangers of the field (specifically, one of the problems with virtual reference). On Friday, I think, maybe Thursday, SQ sends us a virtual reference "question" that lists a lot of facts in a case but has a blank where "holding" is supposed to be. The subject line was something like "Need a document". OL sends SQ the basic steps to looking up the case through LexisNexis. A day or so later, SQ responds—by replying to the e-mail sent from OL—with a follow-up e-mail that says something like "Why haven't I received any help on this?" My first response was to say something like "Um, notice the help you received, that's the help you received," but what I did was basically restate what OL said, in greater detail, and asked "Didn't you follow what OL said?" I'm thinking, now, that SQ is needing helping understanding the assignment, so I point out that they are going to have to talk to the professor about that, but I try and take a stab about what they were confused on.

I get another response, saying that SQ can't pull up the document and then links to a subpage to their class website (something non-students can't visit). Either SQ is actively fishing for me to answer the assignment, is actually having trouble pulling up a class page and for some reason thinks the library should handle it, or—somewhere along the line—another question has been asked that I am not catching. I point out that I can't see the subpage, thinking maybe the subpage is saying something like "Find these documents" and then, through another quick exchange, point out that we do not have access to Westlaw. This morning, SQ sends out another e-mail with a second court case write up attached, asking for that court case document, CCs the professor in on this, and makes no mention to any of the original questions or the original case.

Including the original question, submitted through our automatic database, this gives us about five missives with SQ: (1) Court case listing minus one section, (2) a claim that we never responded sent via reply to our response, (3) a claim that no, the instructions did not work and this time some document I can't access is linked to, (4) a question about Westlaw, and (5) an e-mail to us and to professor in which SQ seems to be asking for the court case that is attached to the e-mail, already. The initial court case is not asked for after the first submission so I have no idea if SQ has moved on. Why a court case that seemed to be in hand was needed? I don't know. Why SQ said there was no response to the initial query when it was a reply to our response? I don't know.

Had this been at the desk, then it would have been a bit different, because it would have been much easier to just go "What specifically do you need?"—which was asked via e-mail but never answered. Also, it's easier to do a reference interview at the desk. This is where I sit the student down and go "What do you need done? What have you already done? How does this fit into the overall scheme? Have you tried this? Do you maybe mean this instead of that? Are you sure that this will work as a resource?" and so forth. Virtual reference's top two problems are a confusion about what it's for* and its inability to handle reference interviews. I have done an experiment where I routinely ask "Well, what do you mean by this [vague, incomplete, possibly complete but up to interpretation] question?" and, the vast majority of the time, say 95%: I get no response. None. In person, this is the equivalent to walking up to a reference librarian, saying something like "How do I look up statistics on general usage?"; the librarian asking "What do you mean by general usage?"; and then walking off without a response. If a basic, "Well, what do you mean?" question gets no response, what hope would a more complex series of questions, designed to find out exactly what is needed, have? I don't know.

But somehow, the above system doesn't work. About one in twenty students lets us know if the advice was helpful or not (almost always is, but maybe about 10% of the time they are still confused, usually over misunderstandings of things). If we ask follow-up questions, this number doesn't budge. You know, though, I think it might be worth it to work out a standard "interview" that is sent along, anyhow, because those that do answer might answer more clearly. Look at the SQ up above. What did SQ need? I have no idea. It first seemed like a case. Then it seemed like maybe another case. Now it seems like some document about a case? Maybe the student was wanting a "cheat sheet" about the first case (the second case had some specialized mark-ups) and doesn't quite understand that cases don't come like that?

Virtual reference a growing field, and one I am glad to be part of, but somehow the information flow will have to change. We need a way to change it so students like SQ get what they need while students just e-mailing us to find out hours don't have to fill a complete form to get them.

* We get medical and legal questions (not in the course of a class, mind you, but things like "How do I sue my neighbors?"), people ask us to proof-read their papers, to intepret what an assignment might mean, and people send in general knowledge questions ("What's a dietician?" "What does [insert word] mean?"). As many as 10% of queries are, to some degree, trying to coax us to do their homework. If that sounds surprising, another 10% (if not closer to 20%) are questions about bookstores or other libraries.

TAGS: Librarianism

BY WEEK: 2010, Week 32
BY MONTH: August 2010