- Email: [email protected]
Chat Reference Training After One Decade: The Results of a National Survey of Academic Libraries
Chat Reference Training After One Decade: The Results of a National Survey of Academic Libraries by Christopher Devine, Emily Bounds Paladino and John A. Davis Available online 21 March 2011
The first comprehensive national survey of all academic libraries in the United States which were conducting chat reference service was carried out to determine: what practices were being used to prepare personnel for chat reference service, what competencies were being taught, how and why training practices may have changed over time, and what modifications to current training practices were anticipated in the future.
INTRODUCTION Since its introduction almost 15 years ago, synchronous text-based reference service has developed to the point that it is a common, if not quite ubiquitous, feature of contemporary academic libraries. (For the purposes of this study, the somewhat inexact term “chat” will be used to refer to reference assistance that is supplied through any form of synchronous, real-time, text-based messaging). Although it has long been recognized that many aspects of traditional library reference service are directly transferable to chat reference, there is also a general belief that there are some skills, distinctively characteristic of the newer medium, which are best learned and refined through programmatic professional development.1 Both of these attitudes may indeed be found in the Reference and User Services Association's 2004 document, Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services: “Virtual reference requires of library staff many of the same communication and interpersonal skills necessary for other forms of reference. The absence of a physically present patron and the different modes of communication may call for additional skills, effort, or training to provide quality service on par with face-toface reference services.”2 The research conducted for this article attempts to bridge the gap between well-established theory and ambiguous practice and to determine by means of a comprehensive survey what American academic libraries of all sizes are doing to train their staffs for the provision of chat reference.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS The study sought to answer several basic questions: What practices are academic libraries using to prepare their staffs for chat reference service and what competencies are being taught? Have those training practices changed over time and, if so, how and why? And, finally, what modifications to current training practices are anticipated in the future?
LITERATURE REVIEW Christopher Devine, Robert Morris University, 6001 University Boulevard, Moon Township, PA 15108, USA; Emily Bounds Paladino, Robert Morris University, 6001 University Boulevard, Moon Township, PA 15108, USA ; John A. Davis, Robert Morris University, 6001 University Boulevard, Moon Township, PA 15108, USA .
While the body of literature regarding the training aspects of synchronous virtual reference is substantial, it can be parsed into four rather clearly defined groups. Articles of an anecdotal nature, which summarize the implementation and training carried out for a chat reference service at a particular library compose one set of documents. A second type is made up of books and articles that present training practices for starting new or modifying existing chat services.3 Studies which describe and analyze the skills and competencies that are necessary for the effective provision of chat reference form yet another group.4 And, finally, there are the surveys of academic libraries which, at various times, have asked one or more questions regarding the training practices that are in place for chat services.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 37, Number 3, pages 197–206
May 2011 197
When the earliest synchronous, text-based reference services appeared in connection with Multi-User Object Oriented (MOO) systems in the mid-1990s, libraries were slow to adopt the general concept.5 Although some efforts were made in subsequent years to integrate various forms of chat into academic reference work, according to Steve Coffman, by as late as September 1999, there were only five libraries, at most, that were providing real-time, virtual reference service.6 Over the course of the next year, enthusiasm for the adaptation of call center software to library reference applications and the emergence of a number of high-profile cooperative efforts combined to spark a period of remarkable growth in chat reference.7 In fact, when Stephen Francoeur conducted a survey in early 2001, he was able to identify 272 libraries—of which 148 were academic—that were providing synchronous text-based reference service.8 Although Francoeur did not query institutions regarding their training practices, he did note after studying the software systems which were being employed at that time that, “Depending on the complexity of the software product used, training may take a lot of time. For a staff that is less savvy with technology, a substantial amount of time for training may need to be set aside.”9 In a slightly later survey of 62 libraries regarding general chat reference practices, Matthew R. Marsteller and Paul Neuhaus found that in the summer of 2001 almost 25% of the libraries which responded were providing no training for the services other than that which was made available by the vendors of their chat software.10 In light of this finding, the authors dryly observed that, “We hope this means that the vendors provided very good training rather than administrators expecting their staffs to introduce a new service without any training.”11 Ultimately Marsteller and Neuhaus concluded that, “New chat services should expect to provide some in-house training. Nearly 75% of respondents trained their staffs for an hour or more beyond that supplied by the vendor.”12 At roughly the same time, Jana Ronan and Carol Turner conducted a survey of chat reference among the 124 libraries that composed, in 2002, the full membership of the Association of Research Libraries.13 Their respondents considered reference interviewing and facility with Web-based information sources to be the most important skills for conducting chat reference.14 With regard to training, Ronan and Turner noted that although the survey participants believed that their staff members possessed some of the skills needed for chat reference, 69% of respondents considered additional training in system software and chat conventions to be necessary.15 The first survey to solely focus on training for chat reference was James Cory Tucker's 2003 study of twenty public and academic
Table 2 Basic Characteristics of Independent Chat Reference Services Baccalaureate Institutions n = 41
Master's Institutions n = 65
Doctoral Institutions n = 88
Length of time that independent chat reference has been provided Less than 1 year
13 (31.7%)
20 (30.8%)
7 (8.0%)
One to 3 years
22 (53.7%)
27 (41.5%)
24 (27.6%)
Three to 5 years
4 (9.8%)
11 (16.9%)
29 (33.3%)
Five to 8 years
2 (4.9%)
6 (9.2%)
17 (19.5%)
More than 8 years
0 (0.0%)
1(1.5%)
10 (11.5%)
Method of selecting librarians for the service Librarians volunteer
8 (19.5%)
12 (18.5%)
17 (19.3%)
Librarians are assigned
30 (73.2%)
45 (69.2%)
48 (54.5%)
Librarians are assigned and volunteer
3 (7.3%)
8 (12.3%)
23 (26.1%)
Number of librarians that staff the service Less than five
25 (61.0%)
Five to ten
19 (29.2%)
5 (5.7%)
15 (36.6%)
33 (50.8%)
32 (36.4%)
Ten to twenty
1 (2.4%)
13 (20.0%)
39 (44.3%)
More than twenty
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
12 (13.6%)
Software client used for the service Docutek VRLplus
0 (0.0%)
2 (3.1%)
5 (5.9%)
Tutor.com
0 (0.0%)
3 (4.7%)
0 (0.0%)
QuestionPoint
0 (0.0%)
5 (7.8%)
7 (8.2%)
Meebo
31 (75.6%)
31 (48.4%)
38 (44.7%)
Trillian
1 (2.4%)
8 (12.5%)
8 (9.4%)
Other
9 (22.0%)
15 (23.4%)
27 (31.8%)
Note: Due to rounding, the sum of some response sets may not equal 100%.
Table 1 Participation of Academic Libraries in Chat Reference Services Baccalaureate Institutions n = 46
Master's Institutions n = 84
Doctoral Institutions n = 98
Participate in Independent Chat Reference? Yes
41 (89.1%)
65 (77.4%)
88 (89.8%)
No
5 (10.9%)
19 (22.6%)
10 (10.2%)
Participate in Cooperative Chat Reference? Yes
6 (13.0%)
27 (32.1%)
28 (28.6%)
No
40 (87.0%)
57 (67.9%)
70 (71.4%)
198 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
libraries.16 Perhaps the most interesting finding of this survey was that, although 83% of the respondents believed that training sessions for chat reference were necessary, only 20% of the libraries had actually conducted formal training sessions.17 A rather different approach was taken by Lili Luo in her 2009 survey of 286 individual chat reference practitioners. Luo's research investigated the familiarity and perceived effectiveness of 23 techniques used for training in chat reference and concluded that the most efficacious training methods appeared to be those that provided practical experience to the trainees.18 Luo also discovered that some of the most apparently effective training techniques (e.g. transcript analysis and “secret shopper” sessions) were not widely used and concluded that, “It is time to rethink training program design, shifting the emphasis from software to effective and efficient mastery of other essential chat reference competencies.”19
In a sense, the authors of the present study have sought to return to the questions that were initially posed by Joseph Janes and Chrystie Hill in 2002 after they interviewed 22 librarians regarding their experiences and views concerning digital reference service.20 The issue of training was not directly addressed in their survey but it was identified as one of several “potential areas of inquiry” for future research.21 Among the issues that James and Hill raised were: “Descriptions of training; is there any specialized training involved for the librarians administering this service? Is the training standardized? If yes, do standards in training correspond to standards in service?”22 We do not believe that these questions have yet been completely answered and it is our hope that this survey might fill some of the existing gaps in knowledge of this area.
METHODOLOGY The authors' original intent was to conduct a survey of the chat reference training practices of all libraries of all sizes and types in the United States. When the scale of that project was found to be
Table 3 Basic Characteristics of Cooperative Chat Reference Services Baccalaureate Institutions n=6
Master's Institutions n = 27
Doctoral Institutions n = 28
Length of time that cooperative chat reference has been provided Less than 1 year
1 (16.6%)
5 (18.5%)
2 (7.1%)
One to 3 years
0 (0.0%)
7 (25.9%)
7 (25.0%)
Three to 5 years
4 (66.6%)
9 (33.3%)
11 (39.3%)
Five to 8 years
1 (16.6%)
5 (18.5%)
6 (21.4%)
More than 8 years
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.7%)
2 (7.1%)
Method of selecting librarians for the service Librarians volunteer
3 (50.0%)
11 (40.7%)
17 (60.7%)
Librarians are assigned
3 (50.0%)
10 (37.0%)
4 (25.0%)
Librarians are assigned and volunteer
0 (0.0%)
6 (22.2%)
7 (14.3%)
impractical, a decision was made to focus on academic libraries associated with institutions that were categorized as “Doctorategranting Universities,” “Master's Colleges and Universities,” or “Baccalaureate Colleges” according to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.23 (In the interest of economy, this study will sometimes refer to these institutions and libraries by the respective terms: “Doctoral,” “Master's” and “Baccalaureate”). The library Web site of each institution thus classified was subsequently examined to determine if a functioning chat reference service could be identified. If so, an electronic form letter that explained the aims of the project and that requested the name of the person responsible for supervising the service was sent to the library. The names which were, in turn, received formed the set of institutions and persons that was ultimately surveyed. The survey was composed and conducted with Vovici software with an initial invitation and a single follow-up contact to non-respondents after one month.24 The survey was designed to measure, as completely as possible, all chat reference competencies and training methods that could be identified in the associated literature cited above. Because of the highly variable nature of chat reference and the types of institutions that provide it, the responses of chat services conducted independently were separated from those of services offered through cooperative projects. In addition, the survey parsed the information received by the Carnegie Classifications of the respondent institutions and by the chat reference utilities that they employed. The survey questions encompassed a full range of training topics from how long individual libraries had been providing chat reference, service staffing levels, the duration and nature of initial training and how often it was provided, to whether librarians' chat reference competencies were evaluated at the conclusion of any training offered, and whether librarian participants provided feedback about the training. Further questions involved issues related to post-initial training and modifications that may have been made to either initial or post-initial training protocols. Finally, questions which specifically focused on participation in consortium-based chat reference efforts and addressed the particular characteristics of cooperative chat reference training were also included in the survey.
PROFILE
OF
RESPONDENTS
A total of 451 survey invitations were sent to 180 Doctorate-granting Universities, 184 Master's Colleges and Universities and 87 Baccalaureate Colleges. Of these, a very favorable total of 228 responses were eventually received (50.5% return rate) of which 98 were from Doctorate-granting Universities, 84 from Master's Colleges and Universities and 46 from Baccalaureate Colleges.24
RESULTS Participation in Chat Reference
Number of librarians that staff the service Less than five
3 (50.0%)
12 (44.4%)
7 (25.0%)
Five to ten
3 (50.0%)
15 (55.6%)
13 (46.4%)
Ten to twenty
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
7 (25.0%)
More than twenty
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.6%)
Software client used for the service Docutek VRLplus
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.6%)
Tutor.com
1 (16.6%)
10 (37.0%)
2 (7.1%)
QuestionPoint
4 (66.6%)
15 (55.6%)
18 (64.2%)
Other
1 (16.6%)
2 (7.4%)
7 (25.0%)
Note: Due to rounding, the sum of some response sets may not equal 100%.
Respondents were asked if their libraries provided chat reference on either an independent basis (that is, the service was administered by the library's own institution, for the primary benefit of its own patrons and it was only staffed by librarians or other affiliated personnel from the institution) or as part of a cooperative project (i.e. the service was a consortial effort, staffed by librarians from more than one institution for the benefit of patrons who may or may not be affiliated with their own school). A great majority (85%) of all respondents reported that they provided chat reference independently. On the other hand, participation was significantly lower with regard to cooperative chat as only 26.8% of the respondents said that they provided service in that manner (Table 1).
Service Characteristics There was some relationship between the size of respondent libraries and the length of time that they had provided chat reference.
May 2011 199
Table 4 Initial Training Formats of Independent Chat Reference Services Libraries using Docutek/ Tudor/ Question Point n = 22
Libraries Libraries using using other Meebo/ utilities Trillian n = 51 n = 117
Mode of initial training An outside party conducts training onsite
3 (13.7%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
An outside party conducts training remotely
1 (4.6%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (1.9%)
An outside party taught the first training session; later sessions have been conducted in-house
6 (27.2%)
0 (0.0%)
4 (7.8%)
All training sessions have been conducted in-house
12 (54.5%)
40 (34.2%)
17 (33.4%)
Training is “on the job” under the supervision of a mentor
0 (0.0%)
25 (21.4%)
10 (19.7%)
Training is “on the job”
0 (0.0%)
services and the exclusive utilization of librarians who volunteered to work in the services was surprisingly common (Table 3). QuestionPoint was the most commonly used program for cooperative chat services (62.4% overall) although a number of libraries did report using instant messaging clients such as Spark and Meebo. It will be noted that Tables 2 and 3 (as well as Tables 6 and 7) employ non-mutually exclusive categories in the answers to some questions. The authors are confident that the survey participants—given their knowledge of the history and operation of their services—selected the responses which were most appropriate for their institutions and believe that the use of such categories in these a priori segmentation scales is adequate for the analysis that is conducted in this study.
Training Formats There were distinct variations in the modes of training among libraries providing independent services. All of the institutions employing Docutek, QuestionPoint or Tutor.com software reported the use of formal training sessions in one manner or another while only one third of the libraries utilizing Meebo or Trillian did the same (Table 4). Libraries using other utilities exhibited a distribution of formats that was somewhat similar to institutions using instant messaging programs. For libraries providing cooperative chat, perhaps the most surprising finding was that almost 20% of the institutions that utilized Docutek, QuestionPoint or Tutor.com software were conducting training on an “on the job” basis (Table 5). Libraries using other utilities were equally divided between institutions having formal sessions and those that supplied on the job training.
Initial Training Practices 52 (44.4%)
19 (37.2%)
In general, Doctoral institutions were found to have offered the service considerably longer than libraries in other groups (Table 2). While 31% of Doctoral institutions had offered chat reference service on an independent basis for more than 5 years, only 4.9% of the Baccalaureate institutions provided it for the same period of time. In addition, 11.5% of the respondents from Doctoral institutions reported having chat reference for more than 8 years. On the other hand, no Baccalaureate libraries reported that they offered the service for 8 years and the vast majority of those institutions (85.4%) had just introduced it within the past 3 years.
The responses made it clear that libraries conducting both independent and cooperative chat reference covered a wide and diverse range of topics in their training (Tables 6, 7). Hands-on practice in the use of software employed by those services was found
Table 5 Initial Training Formats of Cooperative Chat Reference Services Libraries using Docutek/Tudor/ Question Point n = 51
Libraries using other utilities n = 10
An outside party conducts training onsite
3 (5.9%)
2 (20.0%)
An outside party conducts training remotely
7 (13.8%)
1 (10.0%)
An outside party taught the first training session; later sessions have been conducted in-house
26 (50.9%)
2 (20.0%)
All training sessions have been conducted in-house
5 (9.9%)
0 (0.0%)
Training is “on the job” under the supervision of a mentor
6 (11.7%)
1 (10.0%)
Training is “on the job”
4 (7.8%)
4 (40.0%)
Mode of initial training
“…Doctoral institutions were found to have offered the service considerably longer than libraries in other groups …” Among libraries providing independent chat, 61% of the Baccalaureate libraries staffed their service with less than five librarians and only 2.4% used more than ten, as contrasted with 5.7% of the Doctoral institutions which had less than five and 57.9% that used more than ten. Most respondents indicated that they were using instant messaging software for their independent chat with Meebo being, by far, the most frequently employed single client. In fact, one hundred survey respondents reported using Meebo: a figure that was greater than the number using Docutek, QuestionPoint, Tutor.com, Trillian, Plugoo, LibraryH31p, LivePerson, Pidgin, and all others combined. The libraries providing cooperative chat reported staff sizes that were usually somewhat smaller than those observed for independent
200 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Table 6 Topics Covered in Initial Training by Independent Chat Reference Services Libraries using Docutek/Tudor/ Question Point n = 22
Libraries using Meebo/ Trillian n = 40
Libraries using other utilities n = 22
Hands on introduction to the software used in the service
22 (100.0%)
40 (100.0%)
22 (100.0%)
Role playing practice in mock virtual reference transactions
17 (77.2%)
32 (80.0%)
16 (72.7%)
Introduction to chat etiquette and conventions
17 (77.2%)
29 (72.5%)
16 (72.7%)
Best practices for conducting virtual reference interviews
17 (77.2%)
26 (65.0%)
15 (68.1%)
6 (27.2%)
1 (2.5%)
3 (13.6%)
Guidance for determining when to refer a patron to other resources
12 (54.5%)
22 (55.0%)
13 (59.0%)
Introduction to institutional chat reference policies
19 (86.3%)
28 (70.0%)
15 (68.1%)
Review and/or analysis of virtual reference transcripts
12 (54.5%)
9 (22.5%)
9 (40.9%)
Protocols for dealing with difficult or abusive patrons
9 (40.9%)
21 (52.5%)
10 (45.4%)
Protocols for dealing with patrons in crisis situations
6 (27.2%)
2 (5.0%)
2 (9.0%)
Other
2 (9.0%)
1 (2.5%)
1 (4.5%)
15 (68.1%)
37 (92.5%)
19 (86.4%)
Topics covered in initial training a
Methods of evaluating virtual resources
Length of initial training Less than four hours Four to eight hours
7 (31.9%)
3 (7.5%)
3 (13.6%)
More than eight hours
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Does the trainer assess the librarians' virtual reference competencies at the end of the training? Yes
10 (47.6%)
3 (7.5%)
2 (9.1%)
No
11 (52.4%)
37 (92.5%)
20 (90.9%)
Do the librarians evaluate the effectiveness of the training at the completion of the program? Yes
7 (31.8%)
11 (27.5%)
6 (27.3%)
No
15 (68.2%)
29 (72.5%)
16 (72.7%)
a
More than one response was possible. Sum exceeds 100%.
to be virtually universal and approximately 75% of all libraries also provided training through mock virtual reference transactions as well. Basic introductions to chat etiquette, best practices for conducting virtual reference interviews and institutional chat policies were other frequent topics of training. Longer training sessions of more than four hours were atypical but more frequently associated with libraries using Docutek, QuestionPoint or Tutor.com software. It was also generally uncommon for institutions to either evaluate the librarians' competencies at the end of the training (this was especially true for institutions using IM clients) or for the librarians themselves to evaluate the effectiveness of the training programs in which they had participated.
Modification of Initial Training Overall, 32.9% of the libraries providing independent chat reported that they had, over time, modified their training practices in some
manner (Table 8). Feedback from librarians participating in the services (51.5%) was the most frequent reason given for making modifications but the information gleaned from the employment of quality assessment measures (37.5%) was often cited as well. The changes most frequently noted in comments were the need to adapt training after a shift to a different software platform as well as a general movement toward informal, individualized training that was offered on an “as needed” basis.
Input into Initial Training Among the libraries providing cooperative service, respondents were equally divided between those that had full responsibility for determining the content and procedures of the training program and those that had only some input (Table 9). Less than 10% said that they had no input at all. Interestingly only 15% of the libraries that had less than full control over the training expressed a desire for more input.
May 2011 201
Miscellaneous Training Issues It was very uncommon among both independent (8.8%) and cooperative services (14.7%) for training to be provided for dealing with emotionally distressed patrons or other persons in crises (Tables 10, 11). The majority of libraries providing independent service (63.9%) reported that they used paraprofessional or library school students to staff their services while a similar percentage of cooperative services (60.7%) said that they never did. In both cases, when paraprofessionals and students were used to staff these services, they almost always received the same training as librarians. When there was a variance, the training given to the non-librarians was reported to be more thorough and in-depth than was typically the case.
“The majority of libraries providing independent service (63.9%) reported that they used paraprofessional or library school students to staff their services while a similar percentage of cooperative services (60.7%) said that they never did.”
Post-Initial Training Less than half (40.7%) of the independent services reported that they had provided post-initial training for their librarians, while somewhat more than half (57.4%) of the cooperative services supplied this type of training (Tables 12, 13). For both independent and cooperative chat services, advanced skills in utilizing the services' software, discussion of chat etiquette and conventions, discussion of best practices in conducting reference interviews and institutional service policies were the most frequently treated subjects of post-initial training. Of the independent services which were not providing post-initial training, 81.7% of the respondents reported that they had not identified a need for additional instruction but over 14% of libraries might have conducted such training except for human, technical, financial or time constraints.
DISCUSSION
AND
CONCLUSIONS
Behind the numbers, the general comments of the survey respondents suggested significant differences in attitudes regarding the essential nature of chat reference. Some participants emphasized what they believed were the unique aspects of providing reference service via chat: “We've included more time for ‘mock calls,’ more practice time for newbies to work with librarians who are very familiar with IM. We kind of try to emulate what a typical student might ask (and how they might ask it)” and “we emphasized the importance of certain aspects of virtual reference, such as how links are sent, specific reference interview tips for the chat medium. We also used specific chat transcripts which were good and bad examples.” Others, however, felt that chat reference was just another, non-exceptional medium for handling reference queries: “the big policy is that we treat virtual reference the same as face-to-face reference. There is a tendency to treat virtual reference as informal communications, using IM abbreviations and so on. We stress that this should be at least the equivalent of a face-to-face reference session.” This dichotomy was mirrored in the rationales for the types of training that were made available. For instance, a librarian from a Doctoral institution described an informal training program in which: “new staff are put on the service alongside experienced staff. We have a lot of chat/IM traffic, and when new people are starting, I conduct informal ‘show and tell’ training sessions with the new people. These
202 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
are announced to the whole staff, and sometimes, experienced people come to them too…Our head of reference routinely reads our transcripts and lets us know when we are slipping on something
Table 7 Topics Covered in Initial Training by Cooperative Chat Reference Services Libraries Libraries using Docutek/Tudor/ using other utilities QuestionPoint n=5 n = 41 Topics covered in initial training a Hands on introduction to the software used in the service
40 (97.6%)
5 (100.0%)
Role playing practice in mock virtual reference transactions
29 (70.7%)
5 (100.0%)
Introduction to chat etiquette and conventions
31 (75.6%)
5 (100.0%)
Best practices for conducting virtual reference interviews
30 (73.1%)
4 (80.0%)
Methods of evaluating virtual resources
9 (21.9%)
2 (40.0%)
Guidance for determining when to refer a patron to other resources
23 (56.0%)
3 (60.0%)
Introduction to institutional chat reference policies
36 (81.9%)
4 (80.0%)
Review and/or analysis of virtual reference transcripts
20 (48.7%)
4 (80.0%)
Protocols for dealing with difficult or abusive patrons
22 (53.6%)
4 (80.0%)
Protocols for dealing with patrons in crisis situations
6 (14.6%)
2 (40.0%)
Other
3 (7.3%)
0 (0.0%)
Less than four hours
29 (70.7%)
4 (80.0%)
Four to eight hours
12 (29.3%)
1 (20.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Length of initial training
More than eight hours
Does the trainer assess the librarian's virtual reference competencies at the end of the training? Yes
12 (29.2%)
1 (20.0%)
No
29 (70.8%)
4 (80.0%)
Do the librarians evaluate the effectiveness of the training at the completion of the program? Yes
14 (34.1%)
4 (80.0%)
No
27 (65.9%)
1 (20.0%)
a
More than one response was possible. Sum exceeds 100%.
Table 8
Table 10
Modification of Initial Training by Independent Chat Reference Services
Miscellaneous Training Issues of Independent Chat Reference Services
n = 194 Has there been any modification of the initial training?
n = 194 Has training for dealing with emotionally distressed or other patrons in crisis been provided?
Yes
64 (32.9%)
No
108 (55.7%)
Yes
17 (8.8%)
22 (11.4%)
No
177 (91.2%)
Unknown Of libraries that responded “Yes”
n = 64
Why was modification made to the training? a A need for modification was identified through direct observation of librarian performance, transcript analysis or some other type of quality assessment measure
24 (37.5%)
Feedback from librarians participating in the service
33 (51.5%)
Feedback from patrons
Unknown
a
124 (63.9%)
No
70 (36.1%)
Of libraries that responded “Yes”
n = 124
Yes
120 (96.7%)
No
4 (3.3%)
12 (18.7%)
1 (1.5%)
Other
Yes
Do paraprofessional and/or library school students receive the same training as the librarians who staff the service?
7 (10.9%)
Information obtained from books, articles and/or workshops concerning training for virtual reference
Are paraprofessional and/or library school students ever used to staff the service?
25 (39.0%)
More than one response was possible. Sum exceeds 100%.
regarding providing correct answers.” Another responded that, “we developed more hands on activities to give concrete examples and improve basic proficiency of IMing” and still another mentioned that their training had changed in that the, “focus shifted from how to use the client (we formerly used QuestionPoint) to how to conduct a reference interview and standards for reference service in the I.M. environment.” On the other hand, some respondents felt that the minimalistic nature of instant messaging software made training superfluous: “Training originally included the basics of using I.M. Most of our newer librarians have used I.M. before, so the basics are not as necessary.” Another participant commented that, “Trillian is so simple
that no real training is required” and a third noted that, “Meebo is not exactly difficult.” In a small number of cases, responses were received which suggested that under different conditions more training might be provided than was currently the case. A librarian from one of the Master's institutions commented that his/her library training was limited to: “how to turn on the program and how to enter the answer in the program. More training would help.” Another librarian observed that, “We really don't have the staff to conduct formal training. When there is someone new staffing the service, we just show them how it works mechanically.” A third added, “Sorry – we have had no training.” Although too much should not be read into such remarks, they do hint at the possibility that similar attitudes might be more frequently held by the librarians who provide chat reference (and perhaps those who train them) than is usually assumed to be the case.
Table 11 Miscellaneous Training Issues of Cooperative Chat Reference Services
Table 9 Input Into Initial Training by Cooperative Chat Reference Services n = 61 How much input do you personally have in determining the content and procedures of the initial training?
n = 61 Has training for dealing with emotionally distressed or other patrons in crisis been provided? Yes
9 (14.7%)
No
52 (85.3%)
Are paraprofessional and/or library school students ever used to staff the service?
Full responsibility
27 (45.0%)
Some input
27 (45.0%)
Yes
24 (39.3%)
6 (10.0%)
No
37 (60.7%)
No input Of libraries that responded “some input” or “no input”
n = 33
Would you like to have more influence in determining the content and procedures of the initial training?
Of libraries that responded “Yes”
n = 24
Do paraprofessional and/or library school students receive the same training as the librarians who staff the service?
Yes
5 (15.0%)
Yes
22 (91.6%)
No
28 (85.0%)
No
2 (8.4%)
May 2011 203
Table 12 Post-initial Training for Independent Chat Reference Services n = 194 Has post-initial training been provided for the librarians who staff the service? Yes
79 (40.7%)
No
115 (59.3%)
Of libraries that responded “Yes”
n = 79
How often has post-initial training been provided? On a regular, periodic basis
12 (15.2%)
Upon request or on an “as needed” basis
67 (84.8%)
Topics that are or have been included in post-initial training a Advanced skills in utilizing the software used in the service
51 (64.5%)
Role playing practice in mock virtual reference transactions
34 (43.0%)
Discussion of chat etiquette and conventions
52 (65.8%)
Discussion of best practices in conducting reference interviews in the virtual reference environment
58 (73.4%)
Methods of evaluating the quality of virtual resources retrieved
16 (20.2%)
Guidance for determining when and how patrons should be referred to resources outside of the virtual reference service
41 (51.8%)
Discussion of policies associated with the virtual reference service
51 (64.5%)
Review and/or analysis of chat reference transcripts
31 (39.2%)
Protocols for dealing with difficult or abusive patrons
31 (39.2%)
Protocols for dealing with patrons in crisis situations
5 (6.3%)
Other
8 (10.1%
How were the subjects for post-initial training selected? A need for this training was identified through direct observation of librarian performance, transcript analysis or some other type of quality assessment measure
23 (29.1%)
Feedback from librarians participating in the service
46 (58.3%)
Feedback from patrons
0 (0.0%)
Information obtained from books, articles and/or workshops concerning training for virtual reference
2 (2.6%)
Unknown
4 (5.0%)
Other
4 (5.0%)
Of libraries that responded “No”
n = 115
Why has post-initial training not been provided? a The need for post-initial training has not been identified
94 (81.7%)
Funding for the training has not been available
2 (1.7%)
The human or technological resources for the training have not been available
7 (6.0%)
It has not been possible to organize such sessions because of conflicting staff schedules
8 (6.9%)
Other a
12 (10.4%)
More than one response was possible. Sum exceeds 100%.
The challenge of providing “quality” chat reference – “service on par with face-to-face reference services” – for anonymous patrons in a fast-paced environment requires the effective integration of many factors: proper software, strong technical support, a well-trained and motivated staff, effective management and appropriate scheduling. Like all reference services, chat reference is community specific and the success of any particular endeavor must ultimately be measured by the satisfaction of the individuals who use it. The results of this study reveal that, after 10 years, contemporary chat reference
204 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
represents an eclectic mix of relatively old and new technologies and training methods that is now being suffused with a developing conception of best practices and competency-focused training.25 The tightly structured formal training sessions described in early literature continue to be frequently used (particularly in cooperative services) despite a strong shift toward conducting training in brief, informal intervals that is often, but not always, associated with instant messaging-based programs. All of the techniques and subject areas of instruction which formed the basis of training earlier in the decade
Table 13 Post-initial Training for Cooperative Chat Reference Services n = 61
“Like all reference services, chat reference is community specific and the success of any particular endeavor must ultimately be measured by the satisfaction of the individuals who use it.
Has post-initial training been provided for the librarians who staff the service? Yes
35 (57.4%)
No
26 (42.6%)
Of libraries that responded “Yes”
n = 35
How often has post-initial training been provided? On a regular, periodic basis
10 (28.6%)
Upon request or on an “as needed” basis
25 (71.4%)
Topics that are or have been included in post-initial training a Advanced skills in utilizing the software used in the service
26 (74.2%)
Role playing practice in mock virtual reference transactions
19 (54.3%)
Discussion of chat etiquette and conventions
25 (71.4%)
Discussion of best practices in conducting reference interviews in the virtual reference environment
25 (71.4%)
Methods of evaluating the quality of virtual resources retrieved
14 (40.0%)
Guidance for determining when and how patrons should be referred to resources outside of the virtual reference service
21 (60.0%)
Discussion of policies associated with the virtual reference service
22 (62.8%)
Review and/or analysis of chat reference transcripts
20 (57.1%)
Protocols for dealing with difficult or abusive patrons
20 (57.1%)
Protocols for dealing with patrons in crisis situations
5 (14.2%)
Other
5 (14.2%)
How much input do you personally have in determining the content and procedures of the post-initial training? Full responsibility
18 (51.5%)
Some input
13 (37.1%)
No input Of libraries that responded “Some input” or “No input”
4 (11.4%) n = 17
Would you like to have more influence in determining the content and procedures of the post-initial training? Yes
2 (11.8%)
No
15 (88.2%)
a
More than one response was possible. Sum exceeds 100%.
are still utilized to a very significant degree and there has been an expansion to include new topics such as lessons in instant messaging abbreviations and syntax and guidance for dealing with patrons in crisis situations. Indications such as these suggest that, after 10 years, chat reference and its associated training programs continue to exhibit the adaptability necessary for survival in a rapidly evolving world of information.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank the following persons for their gracious assistance in participating in a pilot evaluation of this study's survey instrument: Chloe Mills, Robert Morris University; Ann Walaskay, Oakland Community College; Judy Cantwell, Houston Community College and Gretchen Keer, Montgomery County Community College. Special thanks are due as well to Dr. Kurt E. Schimmel, Associate Dean of the School of Business and Professor of Marketing at Robert Morris University for the invaluable counsel that he supplied to this project.
APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTARY DATA Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.011.
NOTES
AND
REFERENCES
1. Jana Ronan and Carol Turner, Chat Reference, SPEC Kit 273 (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2002), pp. 22–23, See also: Marc Meola and Sam Stormont, Starting and Operating Live Virtual Reference Services: a How-to-Do-It Manual for Librarians (New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2002), p. 117. 2. American Library Association, Reference and User Services Association, Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services, June 2004, http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/ rusa/resources/guidelines/virtrefguidelines.cfm (accessed July 1, 2010). 3. Notable examples include: R. David Lankes et al., eds., Virtual Reference Service: From Competencies to Assessment (New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2008); Anne Grodzins Lipow, The Virtual Reference Librarian's Handbook (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2003); Jana Smith Ronan, Chat Reference: a Guide to Live Virtual Reference Services (Westport, Conn., Libraries Unlimited, 2003); R. David Lankes et al., eds., The Virtual Reference Experience: Integrating Theory into Practice (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2004); Buff Hirko and Mary Bucher Ross, Virtual Reference Training: the Complete Guide to Providing Anytime, Anywhere Answers (Chicago : American Library Association, 2004); Diane K. Kovacs, The Virtual Reference Handbook: Interview and Information Delivery Techniques for the Chat and E-mail Environments (New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2007); M. Kathleen Kern, Virtual Reference Best Practices: Tailoring Services to Your Library (Chicago: American Library Association, 2009). 4. Lili Luo, “Toward Sustaining Professional Development: Identifying Essential Competencies for Chat Reference Service,” Library & Information Science Research 30 (2008): 298-311; Lili Luo, “Chat Reference Competencies: Identification from a Literature Review and Librarian Interviews,” Reference Services Review 35 (2007): 195-209; Feili Tu, “Knowledge and Skills Required to Provide Health Information-Related Virtual Reference Services: Evidence from a Survey,” Journal of the Medical Library Association 95 (October 2007): 458–461, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ articlerender.fcgi?artid=2000781 (accessed June 30, 2010). 5. Elizabeth Shaw, “Real-Time Reference in a MOO: Promise and Problems,” Report, April 1996, http://www.ipl.org/div/iplhist/moo. html (accessed June 30, 2010). For descriptions of other early efforts see: Sam Stormont, “Going where the Users Are: Live Digital Reference,” Information Technology and Libraries 20 (September 2001): 129-134; Joseph Yue, “The Use of ICQ in Providing Real
May 2011 205
Time Reference Services,” (Paper presented at the Virtual Reference Desk 2nd Annual Digital Reference Conference, Seattle, WA, October 16, 2000), http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED457861. pdf (accessed June 30, 2010). 6. Steve Coffman, “We'll Take It from Here: Further Developments We'd Like to See in Virtual Reference Software,” Information Technology and Libraries 20 (September 2001): 149. 7. Karen G. Schneider, “The Distributed Librarian: Live, Online, Realtime Reference,” American Libraries 31 (November 2000): 64; Susan McGlamery and Steve Coffman, “Moving Reference to the Web,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 39 (Summer 2000): 3806; Doris Small Helfer, “Virtual Reference in Libraries: Remote Patrons Heading Your Way?” Searcher 9 (February 2001): 67-70. 8. Stephen Francoeur, “An analytical survey of chat reference services,” Reference Services Review 29 (2001): 190–191. 9. Ibid., p. 199. 10. Matthew R. Marsteller and Paul Neuhaus, “Providing Chat Reference Service: A Survey of Current Practices,” in Implementing Digital Reference Services: Setting Standards and Making It Real, edited by R. David Lankes et al., (New York:Neal-Schuman, New York, 2002), pp. 61–74. 11. Ibid., pp. 63-64. 12. Ibid., p. 73. 13. Ronan and Turner, “Chat Reference,” p. 9. 14. Ibid., p. 10. 15. Ibid. 16. James Cory Tucker, “Developing a chat reference training program,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 8 (2003): 11–25. 17. Ibid., p. 13. 18. Lili Luo, “Effective training for chat reference personnel: an exploratory study,” Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009): 210–224. 19. Ibid., p. 221.
206 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
20. Joseph Janes and Chrystie Hill, “Finger on the pulse: librarians describe evolving reference practice in an increasingly digital world,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 42 (Fall 2002): 54–65. 21. Ibid., p. 63. 22. Ibid. 23. The group of institutions designated “Doctorate-granting Universities” was made up of the following subgroups: RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity), RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity) and DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities. Similarly, the “Master's Colleges and Universities” list included schools classified: Master's/L Master's Colleges and Universities (larger programs), Master's/M: Master's Colleges and Universities (medium programs) and Master's/S: Master's Colleges and Universities (smaller programs). Finally, the group of “Baccalaureate Colleges” was composed of institutions labeled: Bac/A&S: Baccalaureate Colleges—Arts & Sciences, Bac/Diverse: Baccalaureate Colleges—Diverse Fields and Bac/Assoc: Baccalaureate/ Associate's Colleges. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. “The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.” http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/ index.asp?key=791 (accessed July 1, 2010). 24. In the tables which illustrate the study's results, the total number of cases in a few answer sets may vary slightly due to the exclusion of a very small, indeed negligible, number of item non-responses. 25. For best practices see: Kern, Virtual Reference Best Practices; Kate Shaw and Amanda Spink, “University Library Virtual Reference Services: Best Practices and Continuous Improvement,” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 40 (September 2009): 192-205; Joyce Ward and Patricia Barbier, “Best Practices in Chat Reference Used by Florida's Ask a Librarian Virtual Reference Librarians,” The Reference Librarian 51 (January/March 2010): 53-68. For competency-focused training see: Luo, “Effective Training for Chat Reference Personnel”.
The first comprehensive national survey of all academic libraries in the United States which were conducting chat reference service was carried out to determine: what practices were being used to prepare personnel for chat reference service, what competencies were being taught, how and why training practices may have changed over time, and what modifications to current training practices were anticipated in the future.
INTRODUCTION Since its introduction almost 15 years ago, synchronous text-based reference service has developed to the point that it is a common, if not quite ubiquitous, feature of contemporary academic libraries. (For the purposes of this study, the somewhat inexact term “chat” will be used to refer to reference assistance that is supplied through any form of synchronous, real-time, text-based messaging). Although it has long been recognized that many aspects of traditional library reference service are directly transferable to chat reference, there is also a general belief that there are some skills, distinctively characteristic of the newer medium, which are best learned and refined through programmatic professional development.1 Both of these attitudes may indeed be found in the Reference and User Services Association's 2004 document, Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services: “Virtual reference requires of library staff many of the same communication and interpersonal skills necessary for other forms of reference. The absence of a physically present patron and the different modes of communication may call for additional skills, effort, or training to provide quality service on par with face-toface reference services.”2 The research conducted for this article attempts to bridge the gap between well-established theory and ambiguous practice and to determine by means of a comprehensive survey what American academic libraries of all sizes are doing to train their staffs for the provision of chat reference.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS The study sought to answer several basic questions: What practices are academic libraries using to prepare their staffs for chat reference service and what competencies are being taught? Have those training practices changed over time and, if so, how and why? And, finally, what modifications to current training practices are anticipated in the future?
LITERATURE REVIEW Christopher Devine, Robert Morris University, 6001 University Boulevard, Moon Township, PA 15108, USA
While the body of literature regarding the training aspects of synchronous virtual reference is substantial, it can be parsed into four rather clearly defined groups. Articles of an anecdotal nature, which summarize the implementation and training carried out for a chat reference service at a particular library compose one set of documents. A second type is made up of books and articles that present training practices for starting new or modifying existing chat services.3 Studies which describe and analyze the skills and competencies that are necessary for the effective provision of chat reference form yet another group.4 And, finally, there are the surveys of academic libraries which, at various times, have asked one or more questions regarding the training practices that are in place for chat services.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 37, Number 3, pages 197–206
May 2011 197
When the earliest synchronous, text-based reference services appeared in connection with Multi-User Object Oriented (MOO) systems in the mid-1990s, libraries were slow to adopt the general concept.5 Although some efforts were made in subsequent years to integrate various forms of chat into academic reference work, according to Steve Coffman, by as late as September 1999, there were only five libraries, at most, that were providing real-time, virtual reference service.6 Over the course of the next year, enthusiasm for the adaptation of call center software to library reference applications and the emergence of a number of high-profile cooperative efforts combined to spark a period of remarkable growth in chat reference.7 In fact, when Stephen Francoeur conducted a survey in early 2001, he was able to identify 272 libraries—of which 148 were academic—that were providing synchronous text-based reference service.8 Although Francoeur did not query institutions regarding their training practices, he did note after studying the software systems which were being employed at that time that, “Depending on the complexity of the software product used, training may take a lot of time. For a staff that is less savvy with technology, a substantial amount of time for training may need to be set aside.”9 In a slightly later survey of 62 libraries regarding general chat reference practices, Matthew R. Marsteller and Paul Neuhaus found that in the summer of 2001 almost 25% of the libraries which responded were providing no training for the services other than that which was made available by the vendors of their chat software.10 In light of this finding, the authors dryly observed that, “We hope this means that the vendors provided very good training rather than administrators expecting their staffs to introduce a new service without any training.”11 Ultimately Marsteller and Neuhaus concluded that, “New chat services should expect to provide some in-house training. Nearly 75% of respondents trained their staffs for an hour or more beyond that supplied by the vendor.”12 At roughly the same time, Jana Ronan and Carol Turner conducted a survey of chat reference among the 124 libraries that composed, in 2002, the full membership of the Association of Research Libraries.13 Their respondents considered reference interviewing and facility with Web-based information sources to be the most important skills for conducting chat reference.14 With regard to training, Ronan and Turner noted that although the survey participants believed that their staff members possessed some of the skills needed for chat reference, 69% of respondents considered additional training in system software and chat conventions to be necessary.15 The first survey to solely focus on training for chat reference was James Cory Tucker's 2003 study of twenty public and academic
Table 2 Basic Characteristics of Independent Chat Reference Services Baccalaureate Institutions n = 41
Master's Institutions n = 65
Doctoral Institutions n = 88
Length of time that independent chat reference has been provided Less than 1 year
13 (31.7%)
20 (30.8%)
7 (8.0%)
One to 3 years
22 (53.7%)
27 (41.5%)
24 (27.6%)
Three to 5 years
4 (9.8%)
11 (16.9%)
29 (33.3%)
Five to 8 years
2 (4.9%)
6 (9.2%)
17 (19.5%)
More than 8 years
0 (0.0%)
1(1.5%)
10 (11.5%)
Method of selecting librarians for the service Librarians volunteer
8 (19.5%)
12 (18.5%)
17 (19.3%)
Librarians are assigned
30 (73.2%)
45 (69.2%)
48 (54.5%)
Librarians are assigned and volunteer
3 (7.3%)
8 (12.3%)
23 (26.1%)
Number of librarians that staff the service Less than five
25 (61.0%)
Five to ten
19 (29.2%)
5 (5.7%)
15 (36.6%)
33 (50.8%)
32 (36.4%)
Ten to twenty
1 (2.4%)
13 (20.0%)
39 (44.3%)
More than twenty
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
12 (13.6%)
Software client used for the service Docutek VRLplus
0 (0.0%)
2 (3.1%)
5 (5.9%)
Tutor.com
0 (0.0%)
3 (4.7%)
0 (0.0%)
QuestionPoint
0 (0.0%)
5 (7.8%)
7 (8.2%)
Meebo
31 (75.6%)
31 (48.4%)
38 (44.7%)
Trillian
1 (2.4%)
8 (12.5%)
8 (9.4%)
Other
9 (22.0%)
15 (23.4%)
27 (31.8%)
Note: Due to rounding, the sum of some response sets may not equal 100%.
Table 1 Participation of Academic Libraries in Chat Reference Services Baccalaureate Institutions n = 46
Master's Institutions n = 84
Doctoral Institutions n = 98
Participate in Independent Chat Reference? Yes
41 (89.1%)
65 (77.4%)
88 (89.8%)
No
5 (10.9%)
19 (22.6%)
10 (10.2%)
Participate in Cooperative Chat Reference? Yes
6 (13.0%)
27 (32.1%)
28 (28.6%)
No
40 (87.0%)
57 (67.9%)
70 (71.4%)
198 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
libraries.16 Perhaps the most interesting finding of this survey was that, although 83% of the respondents believed that training sessions for chat reference were necessary, only 20% of the libraries had actually conducted formal training sessions.17 A rather different approach was taken by Lili Luo in her 2009 survey of 286 individual chat reference practitioners. Luo's research investigated the familiarity and perceived effectiveness of 23 techniques used for training in chat reference and concluded that the most efficacious training methods appeared to be those that provided practical experience to the trainees.18 Luo also discovered that some of the most apparently effective training techniques (e.g. transcript analysis and “secret shopper” sessions) were not widely used and concluded that, “It is time to rethink training program design, shifting the emphasis from software to effective and efficient mastery of other essential chat reference competencies.”19
In a sense, the authors of the present study have sought to return to the questions that were initially posed by Joseph Janes and Chrystie Hill in 2002 after they interviewed 22 librarians regarding their experiences and views concerning digital reference service.20 The issue of training was not directly addressed in their survey but it was identified as one of several “potential areas of inquiry” for future research.21 Among the issues that James and Hill raised were: “Descriptions of training; is there any specialized training involved for the librarians administering this service? Is the training standardized? If yes, do standards in training correspond to standards in service?”22 We do not believe that these questions have yet been completely answered and it is our hope that this survey might fill some of the existing gaps in knowledge of this area.
METHODOLOGY The authors' original intent was to conduct a survey of the chat reference training practices of all libraries of all sizes and types in the United States. When the scale of that project was found to be
Table 3 Basic Characteristics of Cooperative Chat Reference Services Baccalaureate Institutions n=6
Master's Institutions n = 27
Doctoral Institutions n = 28
Length of time that cooperative chat reference has been provided Less than 1 year
1 (16.6%)
5 (18.5%)
2 (7.1%)
One to 3 years
0 (0.0%)
7 (25.9%)
7 (25.0%)
Three to 5 years
4 (66.6%)
9 (33.3%)
11 (39.3%)
Five to 8 years
1 (16.6%)
5 (18.5%)
6 (21.4%)
More than 8 years
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.7%)
2 (7.1%)
Method of selecting librarians for the service Librarians volunteer
3 (50.0%)
11 (40.7%)
17 (60.7%)
Librarians are assigned
3 (50.0%)
10 (37.0%)
4 (25.0%)
Librarians are assigned and volunteer
0 (0.0%)
6 (22.2%)
7 (14.3%)
impractical, a decision was made to focus on academic libraries associated with institutions that were categorized as “Doctorategranting Universities,” “Master's Colleges and Universities,” or “Baccalaureate Colleges” according to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.23 (In the interest of economy, this study will sometimes refer to these institutions and libraries by the respective terms: “Doctoral,” “Master's” and “Baccalaureate”). The library Web site of each institution thus classified was subsequently examined to determine if a functioning chat reference service could be identified. If so, an electronic form letter that explained the aims of the project and that requested the name of the person responsible for supervising the service was sent to the library. The names which were, in turn, received formed the set of institutions and persons that was ultimately surveyed. The survey was composed and conducted with Vovici software with an initial invitation and a single follow-up contact to non-respondents after one month.24 The survey was designed to measure, as completely as possible, all chat reference competencies and training methods that could be identified in the associated literature cited above. Because of the highly variable nature of chat reference and the types of institutions that provide it, the responses of chat services conducted independently were separated from those of services offered through cooperative projects. In addition, the survey parsed the information received by the Carnegie Classifications of the respondent institutions and by the chat reference utilities that they employed. The survey questions encompassed a full range of training topics from how long individual libraries had been providing chat reference, service staffing levels, the duration and nature of initial training and how often it was provided, to whether librarians' chat reference competencies were evaluated at the conclusion of any training offered, and whether librarian participants provided feedback about the training. Further questions involved issues related to post-initial training and modifications that may have been made to either initial or post-initial training protocols. Finally, questions which specifically focused on participation in consortium-based chat reference efforts and addressed the particular characteristics of cooperative chat reference training were also included in the survey.
PROFILE
OF
RESPONDENTS
A total of 451 survey invitations were sent to 180 Doctorate-granting Universities, 184 Master's Colleges and Universities and 87 Baccalaureate Colleges. Of these, a very favorable total of 228 responses were eventually received (50.5% return rate) of which 98 were from Doctorate-granting Universities, 84 from Master's Colleges and Universities and 46 from Baccalaureate Colleges.24
RESULTS Participation in Chat Reference
Number of librarians that staff the service Less than five
3 (50.0%)
12 (44.4%)
7 (25.0%)
Five to ten
3 (50.0%)
15 (55.6%)
13 (46.4%)
Ten to twenty
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
7 (25.0%)
More than twenty
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.6%)
Software client used for the service Docutek VRLplus
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.6%)
Tutor.com
1 (16.6%)
10 (37.0%)
2 (7.1%)
QuestionPoint
4 (66.6%)
15 (55.6%)
18 (64.2%)
Other
1 (16.6%)
2 (7.4%)
7 (25.0%)
Note: Due to rounding, the sum of some response sets may not equal 100%.
Respondents were asked if their libraries provided chat reference on either an independent basis (that is, the service was administered by the library's own institution, for the primary benefit of its own patrons and it was only staffed by librarians or other affiliated personnel from the institution) or as part of a cooperative project (i.e. the service was a consortial effort, staffed by librarians from more than one institution for the benefit of patrons who may or may not be affiliated with their own school). A great majority (85%) of all respondents reported that they provided chat reference independently. On the other hand, participation was significantly lower with regard to cooperative chat as only 26.8% of the respondents said that they provided service in that manner (Table 1).
Service Characteristics There was some relationship between the size of respondent libraries and the length of time that they had provided chat reference.
May 2011 199
Table 4 Initial Training Formats of Independent Chat Reference Services Libraries using Docutek/ Tudor/ Question Point n = 22
Libraries Libraries using using other Meebo/ utilities Trillian n = 51 n = 117
Mode of initial training An outside party conducts training onsite
3 (13.7%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
An outside party conducts training remotely
1 (4.6%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (1.9%)
An outside party taught the first training session; later sessions have been conducted in-house
6 (27.2%)
0 (0.0%)
4 (7.8%)
All training sessions have been conducted in-house
12 (54.5%)
40 (34.2%)
17 (33.4%)
Training is “on the job” under the supervision of a mentor
0 (0.0%)
25 (21.4%)
10 (19.7%)
Training is “on the job”
0 (0.0%)
services and the exclusive utilization of librarians who volunteered to work in the services was surprisingly common (Table 3). QuestionPoint was the most commonly used program for cooperative chat services (62.4% overall) although a number of libraries did report using instant messaging clients such as Spark and Meebo. It will be noted that Tables 2 and 3 (as well as Tables 6 and 7) employ non-mutually exclusive categories in the answers to some questions. The authors are confident that the survey participants—given their knowledge of the history and operation of their services—selected the responses which were most appropriate for their institutions and believe that the use of such categories in these a priori segmentation scales is adequate for the analysis that is conducted in this study.
Training Formats There were distinct variations in the modes of training among libraries providing independent services. All of the institutions employing Docutek, QuestionPoint or Tutor.com software reported the use of formal training sessions in one manner or another while only one third of the libraries utilizing Meebo or Trillian did the same (Table 4). Libraries using other utilities exhibited a distribution of formats that was somewhat similar to institutions using instant messaging programs. For libraries providing cooperative chat, perhaps the most surprising finding was that almost 20% of the institutions that utilized Docutek, QuestionPoint or Tutor.com software were conducting training on an “on the job” basis (Table 5). Libraries using other utilities were equally divided between institutions having formal sessions and those that supplied on the job training.
Initial Training Practices 52 (44.4%)
19 (37.2%)
In general, Doctoral institutions were found to have offered the service considerably longer than libraries in other groups (Table 2). While 31% of Doctoral institutions had offered chat reference service on an independent basis for more than 5 years, only 4.9% of the Baccalaureate institutions provided it for the same period of time. In addition, 11.5% of the respondents from Doctoral institutions reported having chat reference for more than 8 years. On the other hand, no Baccalaureate libraries reported that they offered the service for 8 years and the vast majority of those institutions (85.4%) had just introduced it within the past 3 years.
The responses made it clear that libraries conducting both independent and cooperative chat reference covered a wide and diverse range of topics in their training (Tables 6, 7). Hands-on practice in the use of software employed by those services was found
Table 5 Initial Training Formats of Cooperative Chat Reference Services Libraries using Docutek/Tudor/ Question Point n = 51
Libraries using other utilities n = 10
An outside party conducts training onsite
3 (5.9%)
2 (20.0%)
An outside party conducts training remotely
7 (13.8%)
1 (10.0%)
An outside party taught the first training session; later sessions have been conducted in-house
26 (50.9%)
2 (20.0%)
All training sessions have been conducted in-house
5 (9.9%)
0 (0.0%)
Training is “on the job” under the supervision of a mentor
6 (11.7%)
1 (10.0%)
Training is “on the job”
4 (7.8%)
4 (40.0%)
Mode of initial training
“…Doctoral institutions were found to have offered the service considerably longer than libraries in other groups …” Among libraries providing independent chat, 61% of the Baccalaureate libraries staffed their service with less than five librarians and only 2.4% used more than ten, as contrasted with 5.7% of the Doctoral institutions which had less than five and 57.9% that used more than ten. Most respondents indicated that they were using instant messaging software for their independent chat with Meebo being, by far, the most frequently employed single client. In fact, one hundred survey respondents reported using Meebo: a figure that was greater than the number using Docutek, QuestionPoint, Tutor.com, Trillian, Plugoo, LibraryH31p, LivePerson, Pidgin, and all others combined. The libraries providing cooperative chat reported staff sizes that were usually somewhat smaller than those observed for independent
200 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Table 6 Topics Covered in Initial Training by Independent Chat Reference Services Libraries using Docutek/Tudor/ Question Point n = 22
Libraries using Meebo/ Trillian n = 40
Libraries using other utilities n = 22
Hands on introduction to the software used in the service
22 (100.0%)
40 (100.0%)
22 (100.0%)
Role playing practice in mock virtual reference transactions
17 (77.2%)
32 (80.0%)
16 (72.7%)
Introduction to chat etiquette and conventions
17 (77.2%)
29 (72.5%)
16 (72.7%)
Best practices for conducting virtual reference interviews
17 (77.2%)
26 (65.0%)
15 (68.1%)
6 (27.2%)
1 (2.5%)
3 (13.6%)
Guidance for determining when to refer a patron to other resources
12 (54.5%)
22 (55.0%)
13 (59.0%)
Introduction to institutional chat reference policies
19 (86.3%)
28 (70.0%)
15 (68.1%)
Review and/or analysis of virtual reference transcripts
12 (54.5%)
9 (22.5%)
9 (40.9%)
Protocols for dealing with difficult or abusive patrons
9 (40.9%)
21 (52.5%)
10 (45.4%)
Protocols for dealing with patrons in crisis situations
6 (27.2%)
2 (5.0%)
2 (9.0%)
Other
2 (9.0%)
1 (2.5%)
1 (4.5%)
15 (68.1%)
37 (92.5%)
19 (86.4%)
Topics covered in initial training a
Methods of evaluating virtual resources
Length of initial training Less than four hours Four to eight hours
7 (31.9%)
3 (7.5%)
3 (13.6%)
More than eight hours
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Does the trainer assess the librarians' virtual reference competencies at the end of the training? Yes
10 (47.6%)
3 (7.5%)
2 (9.1%)
No
11 (52.4%)
37 (92.5%)
20 (90.9%)
Do the librarians evaluate the effectiveness of the training at the completion of the program? Yes
7 (31.8%)
11 (27.5%)
6 (27.3%)
No
15 (68.2%)
29 (72.5%)
16 (72.7%)
a
More than one response was possible. Sum exceeds 100%.
to be virtually universal and approximately 75% of all libraries also provided training through mock virtual reference transactions as well. Basic introductions to chat etiquette, best practices for conducting virtual reference interviews and institutional chat policies were other frequent topics of training. Longer training sessions of more than four hours were atypical but more frequently associated with libraries using Docutek, QuestionPoint or Tutor.com software. It was also generally uncommon for institutions to either evaluate the librarians' competencies at the end of the training (this was especially true for institutions using IM clients) or for the librarians themselves to evaluate the effectiveness of the training programs in which they had participated.
Modification of Initial Training Overall, 32.9% of the libraries providing independent chat reported that they had, over time, modified their training practices in some
manner (Table 8). Feedback from librarians participating in the services (51.5%) was the most frequent reason given for making modifications but the information gleaned from the employment of quality assessment measures (37.5%) was often cited as well. The changes most frequently noted in comments were the need to adapt training after a shift to a different software platform as well as a general movement toward informal, individualized training that was offered on an “as needed” basis.
Input into Initial Training Among the libraries providing cooperative service, respondents were equally divided between those that had full responsibility for determining the content and procedures of the training program and those that had only some input (Table 9). Less than 10% said that they had no input at all. Interestingly only 15% of the libraries that had less than full control over the training expressed a desire for more input.
May 2011 201
Miscellaneous Training Issues It was very uncommon among both independent (8.8%) and cooperative services (14.7%) for training to be provided for dealing with emotionally distressed patrons or other persons in crises (Tables 10, 11). The majority of libraries providing independent service (63.9%) reported that they used paraprofessional or library school students to staff their services while a similar percentage of cooperative services (60.7%) said that they never did. In both cases, when paraprofessionals and students were used to staff these services, they almost always received the same training as librarians. When there was a variance, the training given to the non-librarians was reported to be more thorough and in-depth than was typically the case.
“The majority of libraries providing independent service (63.9%) reported that they used paraprofessional or library school students to staff their services while a similar percentage of cooperative services (60.7%) said that they never did.”
Post-Initial Training Less than half (40.7%) of the independent services reported that they had provided post-initial training for their librarians, while somewhat more than half (57.4%) of the cooperative services supplied this type of training (Tables 12, 13). For both independent and cooperative chat services, advanced skills in utilizing the services' software, discussion of chat etiquette and conventions, discussion of best practices in conducting reference interviews and institutional service policies were the most frequently treated subjects of post-initial training. Of the independent services which were not providing post-initial training, 81.7% of the respondents reported that they had not identified a need for additional instruction but over 14% of libraries might have conducted such training except for human, technical, financial or time constraints.
DISCUSSION
AND
CONCLUSIONS
Behind the numbers, the general comments of the survey respondents suggested significant differences in attitudes regarding the essential nature of chat reference. Some participants emphasized what they believed were the unique aspects of providing reference service via chat: “We've included more time for ‘mock calls,’ more practice time for newbies to work with librarians who are very familiar with IM. We kind of try to emulate what a typical student might ask (and how they might ask it)” and “we emphasized the importance of certain aspects of virtual reference, such as how links are sent, specific reference interview tips for the chat medium. We also used specific chat transcripts which were good and bad examples.” Others, however, felt that chat reference was just another, non-exceptional medium for handling reference queries: “the big policy is that we treat virtual reference the same as face-to-face reference. There is a tendency to treat virtual reference as informal communications, using IM abbreviations and so on. We stress that this should be at least the equivalent of a face-to-face reference session.” This dichotomy was mirrored in the rationales for the types of training that were made available. For instance, a librarian from a Doctoral institution described an informal training program in which: “new staff are put on the service alongside experienced staff. We have a lot of chat/IM traffic, and when new people are starting, I conduct informal ‘show and tell’ training sessions with the new people. These
202 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
are announced to the whole staff, and sometimes, experienced people come to them too…Our head of reference routinely reads our transcripts and lets us know when we are slipping on something
Table 7 Topics Covered in Initial Training by Cooperative Chat Reference Services Libraries Libraries using Docutek/Tudor/ using other utilities QuestionPoint n=5 n = 41 Topics covered in initial training a Hands on introduction to the software used in the service
40 (97.6%)
5 (100.0%)
Role playing practice in mock virtual reference transactions
29 (70.7%)
5 (100.0%)
Introduction to chat etiquette and conventions
31 (75.6%)
5 (100.0%)
Best practices for conducting virtual reference interviews
30 (73.1%)
4 (80.0%)
Methods of evaluating virtual resources
9 (21.9%)
2 (40.0%)
Guidance for determining when to refer a patron to other resources
23 (56.0%)
3 (60.0%)
Introduction to institutional chat reference policies
36 (81.9%)
4 (80.0%)
Review and/or analysis of virtual reference transcripts
20 (48.7%)
4 (80.0%)
Protocols for dealing with difficult or abusive patrons
22 (53.6%)
4 (80.0%)
Protocols for dealing with patrons in crisis situations
6 (14.6%)
2 (40.0%)
Other
3 (7.3%)
0 (0.0%)
Less than four hours
29 (70.7%)
4 (80.0%)
Four to eight hours
12 (29.3%)
1 (20.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Length of initial training
More than eight hours
Does the trainer assess the librarian's virtual reference competencies at the end of the training? Yes
12 (29.2%)
1 (20.0%)
No
29 (70.8%)
4 (80.0%)
Do the librarians evaluate the effectiveness of the training at the completion of the program? Yes
14 (34.1%)
4 (80.0%)
No
27 (65.9%)
1 (20.0%)
a
More than one response was possible. Sum exceeds 100%.
Table 8
Table 10
Modification of Initial Training by Independent Chat Reference Services
Miscellaneous Training Issues of Independent Chat Reference Services
n = 194 Has there been any modification of the initial training?
n = 194 Has training for dealing with emotionally distressed or other patrons in crisis been provided?
Yes
64 (32.9%)
No
108 (55.7%)
Yes
17 (8.8%)
22 (11.4%)
No
177 (91.2%)
Unknown Of libraries that responded “Yes”
n = 64
Why was modification made to the training? a A need for modification was identified through direct observation of librarian performance, transcript analysis or some other type of quality assessment measure
24 (37.5%)
Feedback from librarians participating in the service
33 (51.5%)
Feedback from patrons
Unknown
a
124 (63.9%)
No
70 (36.1%)
Of libraries that responded “Yes”
n = 124
Yes
120 (96.7%)
No
4 (3.3%)
12 (18.7%)
1 (1.5%)
Other
Yes
Do paraprofessional and/or library school students receive the same training as the librarians who staff the service?
7 (10.9%)
Information obtained from books, articles and/or workshops concerning training for virtual reference
Are paraprofessional and/or library school students ever used to staff the service?
25 (39.0%)
More than one response was possible. Sum exceeds 100%.
regarding providing correct answers.” Another responded that, “we developed more hands on activities to give concrete examples and improve basic proficiency of IMing” and still another mentioned that their training had changed in that the, “focus shifted from how to use the client (we formerly used QuestionPoint) to how to conduct a reference interview and standards for reference service in the I.M. environment.” On the other hand, some respondents felt that the minimalistic nature of instant messaging software made training superfluous: “Training originally included the basics of using I.M. Most of our newer librarians have used I.M. before, so the basics are not as necessary.” Another participant commented that, “Trillian is so simple
that no real training is required” and a third noted that, “Meebo is not exactly difficult.” In a small number of cases, responses were received which suggested that under different conditions more training might be provided than was currently the case. A librarian from one of the Master's institutions commented that his/her library training was limited to: “how to turn on the program and how to enter the answer in the program. More training would help.” Another librarian observed that, “We really don't have the staff to conduct formal training. When there is someone new staffing the service, we just show them how it works mechanically.” A third added, “Sorry – we have had no training.” Although too much should not be read into such remarks, they do hint at the possibility that similar attitudes might be more frequently held by the librarians who provide chat reference (and perhaps those who train them) than is usually assumed to be the case.
Table 11 Miscellaneous Training Issues of Cooperative Chat Reference Services
Table 9 Input Into Initial Training by Cooperative Chat Reference Services n = 61 How much input do you personally have in determining the content and procedures of the initial training?
n = 61 Has training for dealing with emotionally distressed or other patrons in crisis been provided? Yes
9 (14.7%)
No
52 (85.3%)
Are paraprofessional and/or library school students ever used to staff the service?
Full responsibility
27 (45.0%)
Some input
27 (45.0%)
Yes
24 (39.3%)
6 (10.0%)
No
37 (60.7%)
No input Of libraries that responded “some input” or “no input”
n = 33
Would you like to have more influence in determining the content and procedures of the initial training?
Of libraries that responded “Yes”
n = 24
Do paraprofessional and/or library school students receive the same training as the librarians who staff the service?
Yes
5 (15.0%)
Yes
22 (91.6%)
No
28 (85.0%)
No
2 (8.4%)
May 2011 203
Table 12 Post-initial Training for Independent Chat Reference Services n = 194 Has post-initial training been provided for the librarians who staff the service? Yes
79 (40.7%)
No
115 (59.3%)
Of libraries that responded “Yes”
n = 79
How often has post-initial training been provided? On a regular, periodic basis
12 (15.2%)
Upon request or on an “as needed” basis
67 (84.8%)
Topics that are or have been included in post-initial training a Advanced skills in utilizing the software used in the service
51 (64.5%)
Role playing practice in mock virtual reference transactions
34 (43.0%)
Discussion of chat etiquette and conventions
52 (65.8%)
Discussion of best practices in conducting reference interviews in the virtual reference environment
58 (73.4%)
Methods of evaluating the quality of virtual resources retrieved
16 (20.2%)
Guidance for determining when and how patrons should be referred to resources outside of the virtual reference service
41 (51.8%)
Discussion of policies associated with the virtual reference service
51 (64.5%)
Review and/or analysis of chat reference transcripts
31 (39.2%)
Protocols for dealing with difficult or abusive patrons
31 (39.2%)
Protocols for dealing with patrons in crisis situations
5 (6.3%)
Other
8 (10.1%
How were the subjects for post-initial training selected? A need for this training was identified through direct observation of librarian performance, transcript analysis or some other type of quality assessment measure
23 (29.1%)
Feedback from librarians participating in the service
46 (58.3%)
Feedback from patrons
0 (0.0%)
Information obtained from books, articles and/or workshops concerning training for virtual reference
2 (2.6%)
Unknown
4 (5.0%)
Other
4 (5.0%)
Of libraries that responded “No”
n = 115
Why has post-initial training not been provided? a The need for post-initial training has not been identified
94 (81.7%)
Funding for the training has not been available
2 (1.7%)
The human or technological resources for the training have not been available
7 (6.0%)
It has not been possible to organize such sessions because of conflicting staff schedules
8 (6.9%)
Other a
12 (10.4%)
More than one response was possible. Sum exceeds 100%.
The challenge of providing “quality” chat reference – “service on par with face-to-face reference services” – for anonymous patrons in a fast-paced environment requires the effective integration of many factors: proper software, strong technical support, a well-trained and motivated staff, effective management and appropriate scheduling. Like all reference services, chat reference is community specific and the success of any particular endeavor must ultimately be measured by the satisfaction of the individuals who use it. The results of this study reveal that, after 10 years, contemporary chat reference
204 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
represents an eclectic mix of relatively old and new technologies and training methods that is now being suffused with a developing conception of best practices and competency-focused training.25 The tightly structured formal training sessions described in early literature continue to be frequently used (particularly in cooperative services) despite a strong shift toward conducting training in brief, informal intervals that is often, but not always, associated with instant messaging-based programs. All of the techniques and subject areas of instruction which formed the basis of training earlier in the decade
Table 13 Post-initial Training for Cooperative Chat Reference Services n = 61
“Like all reference services, chat reference is community specific and the success of any particular endeavor must ultimately be measured by the satisfaction of the individuals who use it.
Has post-initial training been provided for the librarians who staff the service? Yes
35 (57.4%)
No
26 (42.6%)
Of libraries that responded “Yes”
n = 35
How often has post-initial training been provided? On a regular, periodic basis
10 (28.6%)
Upon request or on an “as needed” basis
25 (71.4%)
Topics that are or have been included in post-initial training a Advanced skills in utilizing the software used in the service
26 (74.2%)
Role playing practice in mock virtual reference transactions
19 (54.3%)
Discussion of chat etiquette and conventions
25 (71.4%)
Discussion of best practices in conducting reference interviews in the virtual reference environment
25 (71.4%)
Methods of evaluating the quality of virtual resources retrieved
14 (40.0%)
Guidance for determining when and how patrons should be referred to resources outside of the virtual reference service
21 (60.0%)
Discussion of policies associated with the virtual reference service
22 (62.8%)
Review and/or analysis of chat reference transcripts
20 (57.1%)
Protocols for dealing with difficult or abusive patrons
20 (57.1%)
Protocols for dealing with patrons in crisis situations
5 (14.2%)
Other
5 (14.2%)
How much input do you personally have in determining the content and procedures of the post-initial training? Full responsibility
18 (51.5%)
Some input
13 (37.1%)
No input Of libraries that responded “Some input” or “No input”
4 (11.4%) n = 17
Would you like to have more influence in determining the content and procedures of the post-initial training? Yes
2 (11.8%)
No
15 (88.2%)
a
More than one response was possible. Sum exceeds 100%.
are still utilized to a very significant degree and there has been an expansion to include new topics such as lessons in instant messaging abbreviations and syntax and guidance for dealing with patrons in crisis situations. Indications such as these suggest that, after 10 years, chat reference and its associated training programs continue to exhibit the adaptability necessary for survival in a rapidly evolving world of information.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank the following persons for their gracious assistance in participating in a pilot evaluation of this study's survey instrument: Chloe Mills, Robert Morris University; Ann Walaskay, Oakland Community College; Judy Cantwell, Houston Community College and Gretchen Keer, Montgomery County Community College. Special thanks are due as well to Dr. Kurt E. Schimmel, Associate Dean of the School of Business and Professor of Marketing at Robert Morris University for the invaluable counsel that he supplied to this project.
APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTARY DATA Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.011.
NOTES
AND
REFERENCES
1. Jana Ronan and Carol Turner, Chat Reference, SPEC Kit 273 (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2002), pp. 22–23, See also: Marc Meola and Sam Stormont, Starting and Operating Live Virtual Reference Services: a How-to-Do-It Manual for Librarians (New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2002), p. 117. 2. American Library Association, Reference and User Services Association, Guidelines for Implementing and Maintaining Virtual Reference Services, June 2004, http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/ rusa/resources/guidelines/virtrefguidelines.cfm (accessed July 1, 2010). 3. Notable examples include: R. David Lankes et al., eds., Virtual Reference Service: From Competencies to Assessment (New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2008); Anne Grodzins Lipow, The Virtual Reference Librarian's Handbook (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2003); Jana Smith Ronan, Chat Reference: a Guide to Live Virtual Reference Services (Westport, Conn., Libraries Unlimited, 2003); R. David Lankes et al., eds., The Virtual Reference Experience: Integrating Theory into Practice (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2004); Buff Hirko and Mary Bucher Ross, Virtual Reference Training: the Complete Guide to Providing Anytime, Anywhere Answers (Chicago : American Library Association, 2004); Diane K. Kovacs, The Virtual Reference Handbook: Interview and Information Delivery Techniques for the Chat and E-mail Environments (New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2007); M. Kathleen Kern, Virtual Reference Best Practices: Tailoring Services to Your Library (Chicago: American Library Association, 2009). 4. Lili Luo, “Toward Sustaining Professional Development: Identifying Essential Competencies for Chat Reference Service,” Library & Information Science Research 30 (2008): 298-311; Lili Luo, “Chat Reference Competencies: Identification from a Literature Review and Librarian Interviews,” Reference Services Review 35 (2007): 195-209; Feili Tu, “Knowledge and Skills Required to Provide Health Information-Related Virtual Reference Services: Evidence from a Survey,” Journal of the Medical Library Association 95 (October 2007): 458–461, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ articlerender.fcgi?artid=2000781 (accessed June 30, 2010). 5. Elizabeth Shaw, “Real-Time Reference in a MOO: Promise and Problems,” Report, April 1996, http://www.ipl.org/div/iplhist/moo. html (accessed June 30, 2010). For descriptions of other early efforts see: Sam Stormont, “Going where the Users Are: Live Digital Reference,” Information Technology and Libraries 20 (September 2001): 129-134; Joseph Yue, “The Use of ICQ in Providing Real
May 2011 205
Time Reference Services,” (Paper presented at the Virtual Reference Desk 2nd Annual Digital Reference Conference, Seattle, WA, October 16, 2000), http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED457861. pdf (accessed June 30, 2010). 6. Steve Coffman, “We'll Take It from Here: Further Developments We'd Like to See in Virtual Reference Software,” Information Technology and Libraries 20 (September 2001): 149. 7. Karen G. Schneider, “The Distributed Librarian: Live, Online, Realtime Reference,” American Libraries 31 (November 2000): 64; Susan McGlamery and Steve Coffman, “Moving Reference to the Web,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 39 (Summer 2000): 3806; Doris Small Helfer, “Virtual Reference in Libraries: Remote Patrons Heading Your Way?” Searcher 9 (February 2001): 67-70. 8. Stephen Francoeur, “An analytical survey of chat reference services,” Reference Services Review 29 (2001): 190–191. 9. Ibid., p. 199. 10. Matthew R. Marsteller and Paul Neuhaus, “Providing Chat Reference Service: A Survey of Current Practices,” in Implementing Digital Reference Services: Setting Standards and Making It Real, edited by R. David Lankes et al., (New York:Neal-Schuman, New York, 2002), pp. 61–74. 11. Ibid., pp. 63-64. 12. Ibid., p. 73. 13. Ronan and Turner, “Chat Reference,” p. 9. 14. Ibid., p. 10. 15. Ibid. 16. James Cory Tucker, “Developing a chat reference training program,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 8 (2003): 11–25. 17. Ibid., p. 13. 18. Lili Luo, “Effective training for chat reference personnel: an exploratory study,” Library & Information Science Research 31 (2009): 210–224. 19. Ibid., p. 221.
206 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
20. Joseph Janes and Chrystie Hill, “Finger on the pulse: librarians describe evolving reference practice in an increasingly digital world,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 42 (Fall 2002): 54–65. 21. Ibid., p. 63. 22. Ibid. 23. The group of institutions designated “Doctorate-granting Universities” was made up of the following subgroups: RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity), RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity) and DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities. Similarly, the “Master's Colleges and Universities” list included schools classified: Master's/L Master's Colleges and Universities (larger programs), Master's/M: Master's Colleges and Universities (medium programs) and Master's/S: Master's Colleges and Universities (smaller programs). Finally, the group of “Baccalaureate Colleges” was composed of institutions labeled: Bac/A&S: Baccalaureate Colleges—Arts & Sciences, Bac/Diverse: Baccalaureate Colleges—Diverse Fields and Bac/Assoc: Baccalaureate/ Associate's Colleges. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. “The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.” http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/ index.asp?key=791 (accessed July 1, 2010). 24. In the tables which illustrate the study's results, the total number of cases in a few answer sets may vary slightly due to the exclusion of a very small, indeed negligible, number of item non-responses. 25. For best practices see: Kern, Virtual Reference Best Practices; Kate Shaw and Amanda Spink, “University Library Virtual Reference Services: Best Practices and Continuous Improvement,” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 40 (September 2009): 192-205; Joyce Ward and Patricia Barbier, “Best Practices in Chat Reference Used by Florida's Ask a Librarian Virtual Reference Librarians,” The Reference Librarian 51 (January/March 2010): 53-68. For competency-focused training see: Luo, “Effective Training for Chat Reference Personnel”.