1 / 37

Virtual Reference in CARL Libraries

Conducted in 2006, this study analyzes the Virtual Reference Services in CARL libraries, comparing with ARL data from 2002. The major highlights, impact, usage trends, software preferences, staffing, administration, service models, and user interactions are discussed. Various critical elements in selection, staffing structures, administration, service models, and future development strategies are explored. The study evaluates service hours, user demographics, scheduling, marketing strategies, evaluation methods, and implications on staff training and resource utilization. Moving forward, it examines the evolution of virtual reference services and impacts on library resources and staff development. Relevant readings and contact information for the researchers are provided for further inquiry.

harryroberts
Download Presentation

Virtual Reference in CARL Libraries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. The new generation

  3. Today’s Session • Survey of CARL libraries • Methodology • Major Highlights • Analysis of Results • Impact • Where do we go from here?

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Summary of results • 16 responses for 55% response rate • 81% yes • 19% no • ARL 53% response rate • 54% yes • 46% no

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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?

  14. Who are the users?

  15. Where are they?

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. What are they asking?

  19. 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)

  20. Evaluation • Transactions count • Review the transcripts • Web survey of users

  21. Perceptions of service • Ease of use • Number of service hours • Accuracy of answers • Evaluating service

  22. 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?

  23. 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

  24. 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/

  25. Thanks • Susan Beatty • sdbeatty@ucalgary.ca • Peggy White • pwhite@ucalgary.ca

More Related