Is the collaborative service always superior to the single library service? A project for evaluating the chat reference services in USA

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jia Liu
Keyword(s):  
Library Service ◽  
Reference Services ◽  
Chat Reference ◽  
Chat Reference Services

scholarly journals Undergraduate and postgraduate students in a North American University are choosing to use chat reference services for all kinds of reasons

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 96
Author(s):  
Gill Needham
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Academic Library ◽  
The United States ◽  
User Survey ◽  
Technical Problems ◽  
Postgraduate Students ◽  
Reference Services ◽  
Chat Reference ◽  
Survey Form ◽  
Chat Reference Services

A review of: Ward, David. “Why Users Choose Chat: A Survey of Behavior and Motivations.” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 10.1 (2005): 29-46. Objective – To investigate reasons why undergraduate and postgraduate students choose to use chat reference services and their satisfaction with the experience. Design – User survey. Setting – Large academic library in the United States. Subjects – A total of 341 library users took part in the survey. Of these, 79 were graduate students, 215 undergraduates, 21 staff, 5 alumni and 21 members of the public. Method – A user survey form was posted on the library website for a period of one month (March 2003). Users of the chat reference service received an automatic closing message asking them to complete the survey. Responses were fed into a database to be analysed by the research staff. Additional data was also gathered about the behaviour of all users of the chat service during that period – both responders and non-responders. Main results – The most popular reason for choosing to use a chat service was the desire for a speedy response, followed by ‘distance from the library’. Responders chose to use chat to ask a range of different kinds of questions. Nearly half (45%) were looking for a specific resource and 23% were seeking help at the beginning of their research. There were notable differences between undergraduate and graduate students. Twice as many undergraduates as graduates used the service to help them get started on their research. Graduates were three times as likely as undergraduates to be using the service to address technical problems they were having with the website. Overall satisfaction with the service was extremely high, with 77.5% rating it 5 out of 5 and 94.5% giving it 4 or 5 out of 5. Conclusion – Chat reference services are popular with users primarily because they are quick and convenient. However, users expect that these services will be able to deal with all types of questions, including help with research. This challenges an assumption by library staff that the medium is only suitable for short factual enquiries and general questions about library services. It is suggested that a detailed analysis of the chat transcripts from this period could provide a valuable addendum to the survey results.

The Value of Chat Reference Services: A Pilot Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
JoAnn Jacoby ◽  
David Ward ◽  
Susan Avery ◽  
Emilia Marcyk
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Reference Services ◽  
Chat Reference ◽  
Chat Reference Services

scholarly journals Library 4.0: Eco-Blended Library and Library Inclusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-129
Author(s):  
Rozikin Mochammad ◽  
◽  
Rindi Ardika MS ◽  
Teguh Yudi Cahyono
Keyword(s):  
Human Resources ◽  
Library Services ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Reference Services ◽  
Chat Reference ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Library Program ◽  
Digital Library Services ◽  
Education Today ◽  
Chat Reference Services

The role of libraries in education today is directed at implementing digitization, called library 4.0. There is a need for service innovation that is able to reach the needs of the digital natives. This study describes and analyzes the innovation of Library Services 4.0: Eco-Blended Libraries and Inclusion-Based Library at Universitas Negeri Malang’s Library. This research uses descriptive qualitative method. The data were obtained through interviews with librarians, observation and documentation. The results showed that in an effort to create a library ecosystem 4.0, the library has succeeded in implementing innovations. These innovations are in the form of an Eco-Blended Library program such as an e-book garden, Beringin Baca, a children's play ground, a library café, art performances, movie talk, and discussion booths. In addition, inclusion-based library is also developed with the Integrated Library Information System (SIPADU) facility digitizing collections in collaboration with Indonesia OneSearch, chat reference services, online loan and extension library collections, as well as information literacy. As a suggestion, the library needs to increase the number of human resources who might more focus on digital library services, further encouraging human resources to conduct online scientific publications and participate in online training forums or groups.

scholarly journals Adherence to RUSA’s Guidelines for Virtual Reference Services is Below Expected in Academic Libraries

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 105
Author(s):  
Annie M. Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Academic Libraries ◽  
Staff Member ◽  
Academic Library ◽  
The United States ◽  
Virtual Reference ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Reference Services ◽  
Chat Reference ◽  
Library Staff ◽  
Chat Reference Services

Objective – To evaluate the quality of academic libraries’ virtual reference services and measure compliance to the Reference & User Services Association’s (RUSA’s) Guidelines for Virtual Reference & User Services. Design – Qualitative research study evaluating virtual reference chat sessions using RUSA’s Guidelines for Virtual Reference & User Services. Setting – Virtual reference environments in public academic libraries in the United States. Subjects – Twenty virtual reference providers from public academic libraries. Methods – Initially researchers selected 1 academic library out of each of the 50 states to evaluate for quality virtual chat reference services, however because of factors including time and availability of virtual chat services to unaffiliated institutions; the sample included only 20 academic libraries. After selecting the 20 academic libraries for evaluation, researchers posed as virtual chat reference patrons using emails and aliases that had no affiliation to any particular institution. Researchers then asked the librarian or library staff a two-part question making sure to leave out any library jargon or anything that would lead the virtual chat reference operator to recognize that they are also affiliated with a library or library school. Using the RUSA Guidelines for Virtual Reference & User Services, researchers then evaluated their virtual chat reference experience for the following: Approachability; Interest; Listening/Inquiring; Searching; Follow-Up; Suggests patron call or visit the library. Main Results – When evaluated for jargon-free websites and overall usability in finding all types of reference services, 80% of the library’s websites were easy to use and jargon free, reflecting overall high usability. Evaluation of library staff’s ability to maintain “word contact” by writing prompts to convey interest in the patron’s question left some room for improvement. Sixty percent of researchers coding their virtual reference experience thought the level of contact was below expected. Information regarding question and answering procedures, question scope, types of answers provided and expected turnaround time for questions was only available in 30% of examined websites. Thirty-five percent of researchers felt that library staff members gathered enough information to answer the question without compromising privacy, however, 25% thought that staff members gathered a very small amount of information on the patron’s need, although privacy never felt compromised. When researchers evaluated the library staff member on their ability to explain how to utilize resources properly, 50% thought the instruction provided was below average. Although 15% believed they received “superior instruction.” Seventy-five percent of the researchers were not asked by a library staff member if the question received an adequate answer, 50% of reference transactions library staff did not consult a librarian or expert, and in 55% of transactions the staff member did not suggest that the patron visit or call the library. Conclusion – While the researchers received some valuable information about the need to improve virtual reference services in academic libraries, there were some flaws in their research. The question they developed was almost too clear and made it difficult for the individual answering the chat reference to adequately perform a reference interview or ask probing questions. It is possible that because researchers carefully planned out their question they set themselves up to create an interaction that would not normally occur in a virtual chat reference environment. Also, because researchers were unable to evaluate what was occurring in the environment surrounding the virtual chat reference providers it was impossible to make a judgment on the speed or length of the interaction. The researchers did come away from the study with results that point to a need to utilize the RUSA guidelines in order to conduct effective reference interviews, maintain appropriate contact with the user when engaging in chat reference, provide instruction and point patrons to quality resources as well as consult an expert on the topic if needed. They surmised that if libraries utilized these guidelines, virtual chat reference services would be improved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document