370 likes | 382 Views
Virtual Reference in CARL Libraries. Susan Beatty Head Information Commons University of Calgary Library Peggy White Head Science & Technology Liaison Services University of Calgary Library. The new generation. Today’s Session. Survey of CARL libraries Methodology Major Highlights
E N D
Virtual Reference in CARL Libraries Susan Beatty Head Information Commons University of Calgary Library Peggy White Head Science & Technology Liaison Services University of Calgary Library
Today’s Session • Survey of CARL libraries • Methodology • Major Highlights • Analysis of Results • Impact • Where do we go from here?
Purpose of study • Analyse Virtual Reference Service in CARL libraries • Use ARL data from 2002 survey for comparison • What has changed • What is the impact
Methodology • ARL survey 2002 • Jana Ronan Associate University Librarian • Carol Turner Director Public Services University of Florida • Replicate with CARL libraries 2006 • 29 CARL institutes both English & French • Inclusive
Summary of results • 16 responses for 55% response rate • 81% yes • 19% no • ARL 53% response rate • 54% yes • 46% no
Major highlights • Who? There has not been a major uptake in virtual reference • What? Of those providing virtual reference there is trend towards IM • How much? There has been an increase in use of virtual reference in 7/10 institutions over time
What are they using? • For IM: Microsoft Messenger MSN • For specialized software: Docutek VRL plus (Sirsi/Dynix), QuestionPoint (OCLC) and Ask A Librarian™ (Tutor.com) • ARL • Different software products – a changing marketplace
Critical Elements in Selection • Ease of use • Price (not so much for ARL) • Accessible via the web with no software required • Elements of software e.g. push technology somewhat less important, ARL somewhat more important
How long have they been using it? • 60% more than two years • 40 % 6 months to two years • ARL – the reverse • 6% more than two years • 75% 6 months to two years
Staffing • Reporting structure varied greatly from institution to institution • Generally offered by reference staff • Usually performed in the office and not on the desk • Usually part of ongoing assignments
Administration • Person who heads up the service tends to be coordinator not head – possibly whoever is available • Only 2/10 “Head of reference” • This suggests an additional role
What we did not ask • How did you train? • How long did it take? • Ongoing training? • What did your staff think of the training? • Were they prepared enough when they started? • What is the content to cover over time?
Service models • Most institutions have limited the service hours to Monday-Friday with some offering Saturday and Sunday • 8/10 place no restrictions on who can use the service • 9/10 noted that users came from in the library at times when face to face reference service was available
Scheduling • Most providers cover off 2-4 hours of virtual reference per week. • Half offer same schedule throughout the year and half reduce service during spring and summer.
Marketing • All had included mention of service in library orientations and instruction • Highlighted on library web page • Library newsletter • New to CARL: blog and course management system (e.g. Blackboard)
Evaluation • Transactions count • Review the transcripts • Web survey of users
Perceptions of service • Ease of use • Number of service hours • Accuracy of answers • Evaluating service
Moving On • What has grown out of the virtual reference service? • How has the use of resources changed? • What impact if any is there on ongoing staff training and development?
Readings • Ronan, J. & Turner, C. (2002). Chat reference: spec kit 273. Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC. • (2004). Guidelines for implementing and maintaining virtual reference services. Reference and User Services Association. Available online at http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/referenceguide/virtrefguidelines.htm
Readings • Cummings, J., Cummings, L & Frederiksen, L. (2007). User preferences in reference services: virtual reference in academic libraries. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7 (1) 81-96. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/ • Fagan, J.D. (2005). Virtual reference software comparative review. The Charleston Advisor, 6 (4). http://www.charlestonco.com/ • Houghton, S. & Schmidt, A. (2005). Web-based chat vs. instant messaging who wins? Online, July/August, 27-30. http://infotoday.com/online/
Thanks • Susan Beatty • sdbeatty@ucalgary.ca • Peggy White • pwhite@ucalgary.ca