04/19/23 1

Realities of Virtual Reference

Presented by:

Kathy DabbourDoris Helfer

Lynn Lampert

California State University Northridge

Presented atInternet Librarian

November 17, 2004

04/19/23 2

Introduction

Decision to Start Virtual Reference

History of Virtual Reference at CSU Northridge

Volunteers only and its implications

No publicity or marketing of the service other than on the website

04/19/23 3

Introduction of Virtual Reference

Decision to Start Virtual Reference

- Attended Internet Librarian

Conference in November, 2000

- Heard about it in a presentation given by librarians from North Carolina State University

- Introduced idea at next Library’s

Executive Group Meeting..

04/19/23 4

Introduction of Virtual Reference

History of Virtual Reference at CSU Northridge

- While Executive Group was interested in the service they wanted to know about the

costs and options.

- Referred this to The Reference and

Instruction Department Librarians

discussed and approved in concept.

04/19/23 5

Introduction of Virtual Reference

History of Virtual Reference at CSU Northridge (continued)

- Database Coordinator Marcia Henry

was tasked with contacting Steve

Coffman and Susan McGlamery with

more information about the options

they offered.

04/19/23 6

Introduction of Virtual Reference

History of Virtual Reference at CSU Northridge (continued)

- Steve Coffman just gone with LSSI’s Virtual Reference service. Steve was invited to campus and asked to give us a demonstration and the costs.

04/19/23 7

Introduction of Virtual Reference

History of Virtual Reference at CSU Northridge (continued)

- Susan McGlamery - Head of Reference for MCLS and headed the 24/7 Project, a cooperative, real-time reference service, which includes public and academic libraries in the Los Angeles area. Since they were supported by Federal LSTA funding and we were members there was no cost to join the network.

04/19/23 8

Introduction of Virtual Reference

History of Virtual Reference at CSU Northridge (continued)

- Since LSSI would cost us and joining the 24/7 network would not we opted to start trying the 24/7 network since we had no additional money for implementation.

- How to implement was discussed again at both the Executive Group and Reference and Instruction meetings.

04/19/23 9

Introduction of Virtual Reference

Volunteers only and its implicationsBoth EG and RISD felt they would start on the service with volunteers willing to work on the service and that our contribution time would be limited

No publicity or marketing of the service other than on the website

Only announcement about the service was on the web site.

04/19/23 10

Introduction of Virtual Reference

Low-key introduction was done for fear of too many questions while still learning the software and the limited resources we had to put toward the implementation

04/19/23 11

Issues of Concern

24/7 Network and Its GrantOCLC purchased 24/7 in summer 2004Future costs COLD – CSU Council of Library Directors

System-wide network and funding versus local service costsBudget environmentCost benefit analysis

04/19/23 12

The Reality of Virtual Reference- The Challenges -

A Brief Review of the Literature

Virtual Reference vs. Traditional Services

Staffing and Instructional Issues

Technical Glitches

The Learning Curve for librarians and patrons – what do we know?

04/19/23 13

A Review of the Literature

Virtual Reference Services: Issues and Trends (Monograph Published Simultaneously As Internet Reference Services quarterly, 1/2). Edited by Stacey E. Kimmel and Jennifer Heise. Haworth Press, 2003

04/19/23 14

What will you find in the literature?According to JoAnn Sears of Auburn University Libraries literature prior

to 2002 consisted of:

“Studies that examine either what libraries are doing or what chat technologies are available/vendors (Francoeur 2001; Gray 2000; Breeding 2001), Implementation articles that describe projects done at a specific library/consortia (Broughton 2001; Eichler & Halperin 2000; Saunders 2001), and Forecast articles that discuss the possibilities that chat technology will offer for the future of reference services (Coffman 2001).”

Since 2002 the Literature largely looks at the benefits of the service –

Extended Coverageof in person services

Advantage of Matching Subject Specialists with Patrons

Pros and Cons in the Literature stack up like this….

04/19/23 15

Pros & Cons in Implementing & Sustaining a virtual reference service

ConsDependency on Online ResourcesHarder to TrainHarder to ManageBandwith/Connection Speed (patron)Privacy IssuesCoordination IntensiveMarketing NeededMultiple Policies Factor

ProsStaff FlexibilityEasier to Recruit??Higher MoraleStaff can conceivably work from home or remote from ref desk depending on library policyShared collections in collaborative setupReach a different population?

04/19/23 16

Administrative Challenges

Staffing Issues:Commitment to Quality Service

Training (technology & procedures)

Motivation to participate / Buy-in

Time on Task (staff needed elsewhere?)

Adequate Hardware, Software, Support

Funding (costs in poor budget climate)

Promotion and Marketing

04/19/23 17

Administrative Challenges Named in Literature

Lee, I.J. Do Virtual Reference Librarians Dream of Digital Reference Questions?: A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Email and Chat Reference. Australian Academic& Research Libraries v. 35 no. 2 (June 2004).

Smith, R.M., et. al., Virtual desk: real reference [Florida Distance Learning Library Initiative]. Journal of Library Administration v. 32 no. 1/2 (2001) p. 371-82

Barr, B., et al., Chat Is Now: Administrative Issues. Internet

Reference Services Quarterly, 8(1/2), 19-25. 2003.

04/19/23 18

Public Service Issues – Uses mentioned in the literature (including Instruction)

Office Hours – Online ChatGroup MeetingsProvide instruction to small groups of distance learners (Hope & Silveria, 2003).

Hope, C., Peterson, C. & Silveria, J. B. (2003). Reach out and teach someone: Instructional uses of virtual reference. Paper presented at Association of College and Research Libraries 11th National Conference, April 12, 2003. Retrieved June 1, 2003 from: http://home.csumb.edu/s/silveriajanie/world/ACRL.ppt.

Jaworowski, C. (2001). There's more to chat than chit-chat: Using chat

software for library instruction. Paper presented at Information Strategies 2001 conference. Retrieved June 1, 2003 from:

http://library.fgcu.edu/Conferences/infostrategies01/presentations/2001/jaworowski.htm.

04/19/23 19

Implementation and Training

How California State University Northridge implemented the Virtual Reference service.

How training is provided.

Working in a collaborative- Multiple Library Policies- Evaluation of Performance

- Supervision of service

04/19/23 20

Virtual Reference @ CSUN

Since 2001 CSUN has engaged in a virtual reference program utilizing software provided by 24/7ref.

This service was slowly added on to our already popular email reference service.

04/19/23 21

Collaborative Virtual Reference in the CSU

In 2002-3 we began the process of joining in on a CSU collaborative project to share Virtual reference hours.

Joined the MCLS 24/7 project with early adopters like CSU Pomona, CSU Los Angeles

04/19/23 22

CSU Collaborative Overall Statistics

CSU Overview Statistics: August 15, 2003 through May 24, 2004Total Number of contacts, excluding test sessions: 7993 (compare 2019 for same period in 02-03) Busiest days: Monday and Tuesday Busiest hours: 9 am to 10 pm Internal sessions (CSU to CSU): 1562 External sessions (CSU to non-CSU): 1693 Non-CSU Librarians responded to 6,675 CSU questions

04/19/23 23

How did we train (and do we continue to train) our virtual reference librarians

Several sessions provided by 24/7 trainers

One-on-one training provided by coordinator

Dissemination of training materials

Use of Intranet to provide online documentation

04/19/23 24

Issues for joining and sustainingour Ask A Librarian – Virtual Service

Training

- Learning Curve – varied for librarians

Issues included:

- Time able to spend on training

- Establishing desktop protocols for browser requirements for software

- Finding practice time for multi-tasking functionality of the software

04/19/23 25

Challenges & Learning Curve

Staff time and diversification of responsibilities

Difficult to assess librarians progress in mastering technology – often only transcripts (disjointed)

Scheduling issues (voluntary vs. required hours)

04/19/23 26

RUSA Guidelineshttp://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotocols/referenceguide/virtrefguidelines.htm

Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services –

Issues to establish from the outset that are key involve the Organization of Service:

Integration

Finances

Personnel

Marketing

Evaluation

04/19/23 27

Staffing in a Collaborative

Filling the shifts

Covering for absences /holidays outside your library

Finding tech savvy librarians willing to fiddle with glitches

Dealing with transcripts revealing level of service on both ends of the transaction

04/19/23 28

Assessment of Virtual Reference

CSUN end-user assessment

Evaluation of CSU Collaborative Project

Librarian feedback

04/19/23 29

CSUN End User Assessment Part 1

September 2002 to April 2003

Answer: No. of Responses: Percentage:

Very relevant or relevant

100 91%

Very helpful or helpful 94 86%

Very easy or easy to use

98 89%

Will use again 92 84%

CSUN Student 88 80%

Unknown status 14 13%

Faculty 7 6%

Had tech problems 106 96%

04/19/23 30

CSUN End User Assessment Part 2

September 2003 to November 2004

Answer: No. of Reponses: Percentage:

Satisfied or somewhat satisfied with answer

245 88%

Excellent or good quality staff

247 89%

Very easy or easy to use

263 95%

Very likely or maybe use service again

268 96%

College student 217 78%

State Resident 23 8%

Found on library web site

210 76%

04/19/23 31

CSUN End User Assessment Comparison of Reponses

Answer: 2002 – 2003 Percentage:

2003 – 2004 Percentage:

Difference:

Satisfaction or relevance of answer

91% 88% -3%

Helpfulness or quality of staff

86% 89% +3%

Ease of use 89% 95% +6%

Use again 84% 96% +12%

Student 80% 78% -2%

Technical problems

96% N/A N/A

Found on library web site

N/A 76% N/A

04/19/23 32

Evaluation of CSU Collaborative Project: Patron Survey Results

Question: CSU Collaborative AY 2003-04

Patron Survey

CSUN 2003-04 Patron Survey:

Difference:

Ease of use 91% 95% +4%

Use again 74% 96% +22%

Student 75% 78% +3%

Found on library web site

72% 76% +4%

04/19/23 33

Evaluation of CSU Collaborative Project: Typical Week Survey

Question Categories:

Reference Quick Look-up

Known Item

Service Policies

Technical

47% 7% 13% 12% 9%

04/19/23 34

Evaluation of CSU Collaborative Project: Typical Week Survey

Answer Appropriate:

1 (yes)

54%

2

21%

3

13%

4

5%

5 (no)

7%

Who Answered Question:CSU

25%

Academic

48%

Public

28%

04/19/23 35

Evaluation of CSU Collaborative Project: Typical Week Survey

Resources Appropriate:

Yes

69%

Partial

23%

No

8%

Campus Resources Referenced:

Yes

70%

Partial

15%

No

15%

04/19/23 36

Librarian Feedback

CTLSilhouette/Flashlight Online web-based survey Solicited via email to 131 addresses (individual, library, or listserv) 380 surveys submitted, Nov. 3-11, 2004Mostly academic librarians (69%)

24% public6.5% other

04/19/23 37

Librarian Feedback (cont.)

Question: Responses:

No. of hours per week

1-2 hours 71%

3-5 hours 20%

Total: 91%

6+ hours

9%

Ease of use Very easy 35%

Somewhat easy 56%

Total: 91%

Difficult or very difficult

8%

Comfort with software

Very comfortable 33%

Comfortable 52%

Total: 85%

Uncomfortable or very uncomfortable 15%

04/19/23 38

Librarian Feedback (cont.)

Question: Responses:Chat vs. traditional or email reference

More effective

4%

Less effective

51%

About the same36%

Don’t know9%

Chat vs. trad./email ref for teaching IL skills

More effective

6%

Less effective

71%

About the same

16%

Don’t know

7%

04/19/23 39

Librarian Feedback (cont.)

Question: Responses:

Frequency of tech. problems

Very often

5%

Often

22%

Sometimes

48%

Rarely

23%

Never

2%

04/19/23 40

Librarian Feedback (cont.)

90% provided comments½ were mixed, ¼ negative, and ¼ positiveCommon themes

Issues related to consortium (-)Technical problems (-)Match best format to type of question (+/-)Time (+/-)Distance education (+)Outreach (+)Just another service (+)

04/19/23 41

Librarian feedback (cont.)

“It's a necessary evil in today's technologically based time. I think we would lose patrons if we didn't have an electronic reference service.” “People tend to want the information instantaneously--seems to be lots of kids trying to do homework before bedtime!”“I think that librarians who do virtual ref are statistically less likely to develop Alzheimer's.”

04/19/23 42

Future assessment questions

Voluntary or required to staff VR?Time

Average amount of time spent per type of question: compare chat, email, in-person, phone—does your library have related service policies?Pressure to answer the question: compare chat, email, in-person, phone—is chat more stressful?

Explore “effective” reference and IL teaching—focus on the reference interview; distance learners?Pros/cons of consortium service?Staff training—technical only, or does it include policies, chat etiquette/style, etc.?

04/19/23 43

The Future of Virtual Reference

The State of the CSU Collaborative Service

Local decisions

Prognosis

Final Thoughts

04/19/23 44

Contact Information

Kathy Dabbourkathy.dabbour@csun.edu

Doris Helferdoris.Helfer @csun.edu

Lynn Lampert lynn.lampert@csun.edu