LIBR 210 – Reference and Information Services
Report 3: Virtual Reference Encounter

In the Virtual Reference Service (VRS) environment, live chat communication between patrons and librarians require as much interpersonal dynamics and relational skills as face-to-face reference encounters. Subsequently, interpersonal aspects that leave either a positive or negative impact on “perceptions of success” apply to both face-to-face and live chat reference transactions alike. (Ross, Nilsen, & Radford, 2009)

The success of live chat and other librarian/user interaction depends on what Radford calls “Relational Facilitators and Barriers” (Ross, Nilsen, & Radford, 2009). The book Conducting the Reference Interview states the method of their study in the following way: “Radford (2006) and the Seeking Synchronicity project identified Relational Facilitators and Relational Barriers by analyzing live chat transcripts” (Ross, Nilsen, & Radford, 2009). Consequently, the authors stress that: “Radford’s study emphasized the need for librarians in digital environments to develop strategies for cultivating excellent interpersonal relationships with users” (Ross, Nilsen, & Radford, 2009).

With the above in mind, I searched for live chat reference services on the Internet for a couple of institutions that came to mind. I checked both Julliard and Boston Public Library’s websites, but much to my surprise neither Julliard nor Boston Public Library’s website offered virtual reference service.

I found the search results perplexing since both institutions are well-known, reputable, and established. Due to the fact that both Juilliard and Boston Public Library’s websites are beautifully-designed, abundant in scope, with extensive archival collections, the decision not to offer virtual reference service does not appear to be based on a lack of funding but by choice. Just as each library is different, for whatever reason, both institutions made an administrative decision that live chat reference service is not conducive to their audiences’ needs.

By contrast, live chat reference is a ubiquitous online service provided by most libraries today. Pomerantz and Luo (2006) states: “With the increasing availability of computers and Internet access both within libraries and in modern society at large, online services have become among the most heavily used services libraries offer” (p. 350).

The article emphasize that virtual reference is still a prototype service and requires on-going evaluation, since “the viability of chat reference for libraries has still not been definitively established” (Pomerantz & Luo, 2006). Having said the above, it has been seven years since Pomerantz and Luo’s (2006) article and live chat reference has continued to hold its ground in the virtual reference environment. The resilience and increased use of virtual reference is stated in the following way: “Chat reference is one such service. . . . the use of which is increasing” (Pomerantz & Luo, p. 350).

 Live Chat Reference Service Encounter

As discussed in the introduction, Radford (2009) identifies the most important facilitators and provides salient descriptions for each. Logically, the first facilitator identified by Radford is the “Greeting Ritual” (Ross, Nilsen, & Radford, 2009). For the report, my live chat encounter was with Amy, the virtual reference librarian at the Nashville Public Library who responded to my information request. I believe Amy sufficiently and admirably fulfilled Radford’s (2009) first facilitator by initiating contact with a warm and friendly greeting.

Before I could finish typing my information request, Amy’s reference interview began as follows: “Hi, I’m Amy, a librarian helping to answer questions for your library. How can I help you?” In spite of the fact that it sounded as though it came right out of a textbook and a little canned, the comfortable greeting made me feel happy and welcome all the same. Although patrons may not know the protocol consciously as reference librarians do, I can understand first-hand how a warm and friendly opening helps library-users feel comfortable and welcome.

The following title: “Setting the Stage for the Reference Interview: The First Thirty Seconds” encapsulates the critical nature of initiating the reference interview on a positive note (Ross, Nilsen, & Radford, 2009). As with any other interpersonal interaction, face-to-face or virtual, the user’s first impression of the librarian sets the tone for the entire reference interview.

In my chat response to Amy, I expressed my information need stating: “Hi Amy! I’m doing school research about the Japanese American Internment during WWII. Could you please help me? Thank you!” Amy wrote back immediately: “Do you have a Nashville Public Library card, so you can do research in the library online databases?” Next, she gave me the web link of the Nashville Public Library’s online databases.

As I was typing my response, I already felt as though Amy was giving me the brush-off and making a referral before I read her next sentence stating: “If not, I can try to find other sources.” I wrote in response: “No. I am not a member of the Nashville Public Library. I got your chat reference link online.”

Defining Motivation

In an attempt to understand and discern the user’s motivation for using live chat services, Pomerantz and Luo (2006) conducted a study with a total of 68 virtual reference users as their sample size. According to their study, they found “seven overarching categories of motivation that emerged from the users’” (Pomerantz & Luo, 2006, p. 357).

For instance, I conducted arbitrary searches for the purpose of selecting a library that offers virtual reference service by Googling the term “AskALibrarian” in the search box to see what happens. According to Pomerantz and Luo’s (2006) study, my motivation for selecting the Nashville Public Library’s chat reference service is categorized as “Serendipity.” In the study results, eight out of 68 patrons or 12% selected “Serendipity” as their user motivation (Pomerantz & Luo, 2006, p. 357).

Pomerantz and Luo’s (2006) definition of “Serendipity” is described as follows: “Users came across the service online, often via a search engine, thought it might be useful in answering their questions, and gave it a try” (p. 357). On the other hand, the term “Serendipity” also means chance or luck.

The difficulty in assimilating this information appears to lie in the secondary definition of “Serendipity” described as happenstance, stumbled upon, or fluke. A chance encounter suggests passive inaction on the part of the user, which seems contradictory to the more conventional definition of having an active and self-directed drive to fulfill a personal goal or need.

Interestingly, the same article quotes Mitchell’s (1982) more accepted definition of motivation as “the degree to which an individual wants and chooses to engage in certain specified behaviors” (Pomerantz & Luo, 2006). In spite of minor semantic discrepancies, Pomerantz and Luo’s (2006) objective is to understand and categorize users’ motivations based on tracking their decision-making process, as well as, the steps they took to arrive at the specific website or source of reference.

Virtual Reference Encounter Continued

After my most recent response about not being a member of the Nashville library, I did not hear from Amy for a long period of time. More accurately, it felt like a long period of time had elapsed. Based on the transcript, I waited for exactly two minutes and 54 seconds. Cassell and Hiremath’s (2011) book explains: “Recent research shows that the same mistakes happen in virtual reference as in fact-to-face interviews, that is, the lack of the reference interview, unmonitored referrals and failure to ask follow-up questions” (p. 26). As Cassell and Hiremath (2011) describes, I thought I was abandoned in the ether without a referral due to Amy’s long silence (i.e. absence).

After the two minutes and 54 seconds had past, I typed “Can you still help me? After another vague moment of uncomfortable uncertainty, in an attempt to re-establish contact with Amy I typed the following: ““Are you still there Amy? I did not get a response. I’m in California.” Then, two seconds later Amy responded saying: “I can still help you.” Under ordinary circumstances, I would probably not have pursued the transaction any further particularly after a long pause. However, I decided to be more persistent than usual for the sake of the report. In reality, I chalk it up to my humanity, insecurity, and fear of rejection that almost made me leave the virtual reference encounter, as opposed to anything Amy did or said.

In any event, it is essential for reference librarians to remember that the user can drive a truck between the eternally long pauses in real-time chat encounters. The reason long lapses of silence and sudden breaks in communication jars our consciousness is because we are so accustomed to certain rhythms of human interaction. In particular, speaking interchangeably, meaning one person speaks after another, along with the convention where one person begins to speak when the other person is finished.

Unlike e-mail exchanges, chat transactions are synchronous and offer the same opportunity for an immediate back-and-forth exchange and clarification that is available in PtP reference transactions. (Radford, 2006, p. 13).

Unexpected long pauses interrupt the normal flow of communication and break the user’s accustomed rhythm of speech. From the library’s perspective, the reasons behind the reference librarian’s long pauses during virtual reference interviews are completely understandable, reasonable, and cost-effective.

However, having experienced what it feels like for users to engage in a real time live chat reference, I learned that during live chat encounters, keeping the user waiting and unattended during long pauses is tantamount to leaving them in an uncomfortable state of limbo. As a “secret shopper,” I attribute my first-hand experience and what I learned from the live chat encounter to Dr. Stenstrom’s teaching style as described by Ross, Nilsen, and Radford (2009) claiming: “people learn best when they are actively engaged” (p. xi).

Although the explanation came somewhat late in the live chat encounter with the virtual librarian Amy, she managed to do a commendable job of mitigating my state of uncertainty. Amy kindly and patiently explained the reason for the delay in her response stating: “Also, we help several people at once and I have to search for things for you, so there may be pauses in chat.” In her response, Amy did a commendable job of redeeming herself, reassuring me, and reestablishing contact.

Having stated the above, I also learned it is better to explain the librarian’s work load and other unseen circumstances upfront from the user’s perspective, before the user experiences the first awkward pregnant pause without understanding the cause.

Most people are uncomfortable with uncertainty. Having the virtual librarian explain the ground rules up front to the user is an important step towards mitigating the “relational barrier” (Radford, 2009). Albeit virtual encounters are classified as “real time” chat, it is helpful to forewarn the user about the inherent unnatural style and rhythm of communication. For example, explaining the reason for the untimely pauses will help the user feel more comfortable by being included in the behind-the-scenes and unseen circumstances.

Once the user is informed, their expectations will begin to shift and assimilate the delay in response as a part of the virtual reference encounter. Furthermore, the user will feel empowered, reassured, and in control by knowing what to expect during the virtual encounter.

More to the point, as virtual reference librarians, it is imperative to provide the reason(s) for the long pauses and potential moments of discomfort at the beginning of the virtual encounter. The concept above is articulated in Cassell and Hiremath’s (2010) book stating, “Just as in the face-to-face interview, the librarian will want to strive to make the user comfortable with the process so that the user will return to the library” (p. 26).

I asked Amy the following question: “I’m doing research about the Japanese American Internment during WWII, could you please help me?” In hindsight, I realize I may have misinterpreted Amy’s response asking me whether I am a member of the Nashville Public Library. I interpreted the virtual librarian’s question as a statement of exclusivity and a reason not to help me. For example, Amy wrote: “Do you have a membership in any type of library?” I thought Amy was asking me where I live and the school I attend for the purposes of referring me back to my own library.

In reality, Amy was trying to help me access databases from libraries. The virtual librarian’s question became clear when she stated: “Are you a college student or do you have a public library card in California? I’m asking because library databases will provide faster and more reliable information.” In my eager attempt to ask my question, perhaps I misinterpreted the line of questioning.

In my eagerness to retrieve the answer to my question, I single-mindedly continued to ask for the information I was requesting. At the same time, Amy was single-mindedly working on finding a way for me to gain access to library databases. In our virtual reference encounter, Amy and I seemed as though we were not on the same page for awhile. It was as though both of us were more concerned about getting our own intentions across, and as a result we were not really listening and communicating, but missing one another.

Radford (2006) states: “Chat transactions are synchronous and offer the same opportunity for an immediate back-and-forth exchange and clarification that is available in F+F [face-to-face] reference transactions, although in a somewhat different form because of the text-based nature of chat.” (p. 13). Radford’s (2006) statement is accurate on both accounts, since there are some distinct differences in the live chat format versus normal face-to-face communication. I learned that communication during a virtual reference interview is indeed back-and-forth, but not nearly as fluid and clear during a face-to-face interaction.

Albeit “real time,” Cassell and Hiremath’s (2010) following admonishment seems particularly salient: “The librarian should read carefully the user’ replies for clues as to whether they are communicating well since the chat is text-based with no opportunity to observe nonverbal clues” (Cassell & Hiremath, 2010, p. 26). In general, Amy was more intent on teaching and giving me information, rather than listening to me or giving me ample time to respond.

It is my opinion that what I felt from Amy sometimes is attributed to “relational barriers” identified by Radford (2006) described as “Relational Disconnect/Failure to Build Rapport.” To elaborate, Radford’s (2006) “Relational Barriers” are described in the following way: “Failing to encourage give and take, establish mutual understanding, and engage in relationship development (Radford, 1999, 25). Behavior that falls under “Relational Barriers” include being condescending, disconfirming, failing to offer reassurance, ignoring humor, mirroring rude behavior, using jargon, etc.”

Although it is really the librarian’s responsibility, my next thought during the live chat encounter was that I could help Amy by making my information needs more specific, so I wrote: “I’m doing research for the Internment, but in particular about the expense or cost of the relocation and internment.” Based on my previous research about the Japanese American Internment, I was aware that the information I was requesting may be contained in a government spending type of database, rather than a conventional source for American history.

Next, Amy suddenly copied and pasted a web link in the text without explanation. Based on the courses I’ve taken from SJSU Library and Information Science program, I am able to read the web link in a way that I can identify the source of the web address. Looking at the transcripts, I can see the referral to a direct website outside of a database was to a website called Digital History. Since the suffix is .edu, I also recognized that it is a credible website associated with education.

At that point, I asked Amy: “Is that a direct web link to information?” Almost at the same time, Amy asked me again where I live and go to school. Then, she responded “Yes” to my question about the website above. During the above interaction, I was still determined to express my specific information request and asked: “Which database or subject should I look under? I am not very experienced with databases yet. Can you suggest one?” Next, I finally recognized and answered Amy’s original question: “I live in Santa Monica, CA and belong to the public library. And I am an online student at SJSU, San Jose State University.”

Next, while I was typing: “I am copying the web link you gave me so far,” Amy had already typed: “http://library.sjsu.edu/ask-librarian-0.” Immediately after, she followed up on the web link above by stating: “Next time, use this link to enter chat.”

At this juncture, no matter how I tried to interpret her statement above, it sounded like a brush off or reallocation of responsibility. However, in Amy’s defense it is also true that I cannot access any of the databases without membership to a public or academic library.

Instead of being put-off, I gave her the benefit of the doubt asking: “What is the link to?” Amy responded: “The SJSU ask a librarian service.” Then she asked condescendingly: “Are you not seeing the web pages on part of your screen?” Since I did not see anything aside from our dialog box located on the left third of the entire Nashville Library’s website designated for chat, I did not know what Amy was referring to. It was difficult to keep up with Amy to begin with, but again she quickly provided me with a web link for history databases from the King Library as follows: “http://library.calstate.edu/sanjose/databases/subject/history.” Then, immediately following Amy wrote: “These are the databases recommended for history.”

Then, a strange pattern of communication began to happen. While I was I typing my response as fast as I could because I felt rushed and wrote: “Okay. I’ll try the databases. Just one more question. Since the subject I’m researching. . . . Wow! You read my mind!” At that point, it was as if Amy was one step ahead of me and she was reading my mind. In other words, before I could finish typing my response, Amy was already answering my question.

In the period of time I was typing my most recent response, Amy had already written: “For your topic, I would start with the database called America History and Life. Go to advanced search and search for ‘Japanese Interment AND costs’” Then a few seconds after Amy clarified: ‘Japanese Interment AND economics.’ Due to the fact that the live chat was happening at such a rapid pace, I didn’t realize that Amy had already accessed and provided me with the web link to the SJSU King Library. So I responded: “Okay! American History and Life. I think maybe the nearby large LAPL (LA) system might have it!” Then Amy wrote: “Your school has it.”

At this point Amy asked patronizingly: “Did you not look at this web site?” I did not know what she was talking about. Apparently, there was some sort of a screen that showed the home pages of the web links Amy typed in the text, which I was not able to locate. I observed that instead of explaining the database names and other details in the text exchange, Amy was depending on the visual data on the screen as self-explanation. Since I did not see the screen Amy was referring to, it was comparable to receiving half the communication.

Similarly, I noticed that whenever Amy was cornered into making an admission about my underlying suspicion, her defense mechanism made her answer my question in a patronizing and pedantic tone. I noticed this pattern earlier when I was trying to pinpoint whether or not she was passing me off as a referral. In particular, when Amy dispensed the King Library’s ‘Ask a Librarian’ web link without further explanation, and added the following text “Next time, use this link to enter chat.”

Perhaps I was trying to make her admit that she was promoting a referral and asked her intentionally: “What is this web link to?” She responded by stating: “The SJSU ask a librarian service” followed immediately by her patronizing statement: “Are you not seeing the web pages on part of your screen?”

On a more positive note, I believe Amy adjusted the communication style to make up for the overlapping conversation. For example, towards the end of the virtual transaction, Amy started typing in shorter phrases and breaking them up by pushing the “enter” button, instead of writing the entire sentence before transmission. This shortened communication style like a telegraph prevents the user from having to wait so long while the librarian types entire sentences.

This brief spurt of telegraphic communication style also makes it difficult for the user to interrupt before the librarian has a chance to finish what they are saying. Most importantly, these short communication bursts prevent the user from waiting between long protracted pauses. To cite a case in point, I copied and pasted a section of Amy’s communication to illustrate the shortened transmissions. Amy wrote:

[Librarian 19:48:27]: you’re may want to give me your email (enter)
[Librarian 19:48:33]: so you can have this transcript sent to you (enter)
[Librarian 19:48:39]: and go back through the suggestions (enter)
[Librarian 19:48:42]: and web sites (enter)
[Library Patron 19:48:48]: I would appreciate a transcript then. Yes. My email is: patriciaayamethomson@gmail.com (enter)

At this point, we exchanged the proper closing transaction. At this point, I believe Amy did a fine job of closing the virtual encounter in a pleasant and effective manner. I thanked Amy for being there to help me and asked her if she was working all night. She replied: “You’re welcome” and “We’re here 24/7; you can also call or visit the library” and finally ended with a friendly “Good luck with your project!” And I concluded with: “Okay! You’re very nice! Bye!” and clicked on the close button. The transaction states: “Patron ended chat session.”

The transcripts were mentioned in several of the required readings regarding live chat reference service. However, having experienced the live chat interaction first-hand, I fully realize the enormous benefit of having an exact transcript from the reference encounter from both the user and librarian’s perspective. The benefit to the users is because they do not need to take notes of any kind to recall the information provided during the live chat encounter. This enables the patron and librarian to fully engaged and stay in the moment during the virtual reference interaction. As Radford (2006) states: “Unlike traditional FtF reference, live chat produces an artifact in the form of an exact transcript” (p. 11).

Puacz (2005) states that: “The home page can serve as a portal or gateway to ‘guide the user to the correct resources” (p. 42). Puacz emphasizes the importance of accessibility to various service libraries provide. In the case of the Nashville Public Library’s website, when the user arrives at the “Ask a Librarian” web page, the layout is somewhat confusing. At the top of the page it requests the user to enter their email address, but it is unclear for what service they require the information. For example, various methods of contact are mentioned on the same page including calling the library by phone, by email, and live chat. The various methods of contact are not clearly delineated on the contact page.

For some reason, I thought the box requiring the user’s email address was specifically for email exchanges and did not enter one. Although I did not enter my email address, I clicked on the tab to begin the virtual chat button. This is mentioned by Cassell and Hiremath (2010) as follows: “They should also try to get an email address if they want to do some follow-up or encourage the user to come to the library” (p. 26).

In spite of the fact that I provided the librarian, Amy as she requested, I did not receive a transcription of the virtual reference interview for a long time. I waited for about an hour because Amy said she would send me a transcript, and I could gather the information provided in writing. However, I did not receive a response. I had the foresight to leave the Nashville Library’s ‘Ask A Librarian’ web page open intentionally in case there were any problems.

When I went back to the web page, I noticed that the live chat encounter was already closed, but it said on the web page: “Please provide your email address and a transcription of your chat will be sent to you.” In fairness, Amy noticed and tried to correct the omission and during the live chat requested: “Do you want to give me an email address so we can send you a transcript of the chat session with all the web address? We don’t use your email for anything else.” I approved of what she added, because she is reassuring the user that the email will be kept confidential and not intended for other uses. However, perhaps the live chat system is programmed that way, but I assume Amy could not override the system to send me an email directly.

In any event, as soon as I entered my email address, within seconds I received the chat transcription. I learned that as a user, it is extremely useful to have a documented transaction report to be able to refer to the information provided long after the chat has concluded. As Cassell and Hiremath (2010) states: “A final advantage to chat reference is that the user can receive a transcript with all the information from the search” (p. 26). The transcript assures that the important information provided by the librarian during the virtual reference encounter can be used by the patron at their convenience anytime, without the information getting lost or forgotten.

Analysis

Radford (2006) mentions “Six common causes of Communication Accidents” (p. 15). Although Radford’s (2006) list refers to all reference interviews, I used her criteria to assess my live chat encounter with Amy where it applies.

1. “Not acknowledging the user. Establish immediate contact with users by acknowledging their presence. . . . and by restating the initial question” (p. 15).

After a pleasant opening “Greeting Ritual,” Amy did not restate my initial question. She immediately thought of referring me to appropriate online databases without pursuing the reference interview or proceeding to ask open-ended questions about my information request. After all, Amy’s question is not an open-ended one asking: “Do you have a Nashvile Public Library card, so you can do research in the library online databases?” The answer is either yes or no.

2.) Not listening. The inexperienced interviewer talks more than the experienced interviewer who does more listening. Librarians who are talking or thinking ahead about search strategies might be trying to help but they aren’t listening, and they will probably miss important clues. Practice active listening; or use an encourager instead of responding at length to everything the user says. To show that you are listening. . . . show that you have understood what was said by using the skills of reflecting content or summarizing (3.2.4).

In my chat encounter with Amy, the primary reason for the overlap in communication and the feeling that the interaction is not proceeding as an equal give and take is primarily due to not taking the time to listen. The experience confirms the fact it is very important for librarians to practice active listening and not responding at length to everything the user says. Amy did not show that she was listening by using the skill of reflecting content or summarizing. As a matter of fact, she did not restate any of my questions, but on the contrary kept jumping my cues.

3.) Playing twenty questions. An open or sense-making question such as, “What would you like to know about X?” will get you further in less time than playing twenty questions and asking, “Is it this? Is it that?”

Amy did not play twenty questions much less ask questions at all, except for the repeated request for my library card number, without explaining her intention. As a result, I felt that for Amy, it was more comfortable for her to be in control and taking the lead, instead of taking the time to hear what I had to say.

4.) Interrupting at inappropriate times. If you are talking or cutting off a user who is telling you something that’s relevant to the query, you’re not listening. Use encouragers to signal to users that it’s their turn to talk. When you need to redirect the conversation back to the purpose of the interview, wait until the user finishes and then employ closure.

As illustrated in the transcript, Amy’s tendency to interrupt resulted in a dialog that was non-linear, and her responses were interjected without logical order. In addition, as a result of Amy’s many interruptions, it was difficult to follow her thought process. Also, I kept missing her responses and I was busy playing catch up. Finally, Amy did not use any encouragers to signal that it is my turn to talk. I felt she kept bulldozing me through the interaction.

5.) Making assumptions. Some assumptions are necessary, such as assuming that a user would like some kind of help. But assumptions based. . . . on your own perception of the problem are usually inaccurate and may be offensive if you make them explicit. Instead of premature diagnosis, ask sense-making questions such as, “Could you tell me a little bit about how you plan to use this information?”

According to the criteria Radford (2006) addresses, I believe many of the so-called mistakes Amy made were primarily based on this criterion, assumptions. Assumptions such as she already knew what I (or the user) needs, without exploring the matter further. Also, Amy assumed I already knew what databases were. I interject a thought from Cassell and Hiremath’s (2010) that states: “Virtual reference is often misunderstood because users don’t know about its existence.” In the same way, many people do not know about the existence of databases, and I believe Amy should have asked me if I was familiar with the existence of databases.

Expressed another way, through one of Radford’s (2006) facilitators, she describes: “Showing courtesy and respect for the other’s experience, knowledge, and point of view. Regularly convening one’s appreciation and confirming the relationship between participants. Deference includes polite expressions, apologies, offering thanks, and other expressions of respect” (p.14). In my opinion, Amy did not display respect or take the time to learn about my experience, knowledge, or point-of-view.

Additionally, during the chat encounter my following statement should have given Amy a clue about my experience with databases. I explained: “Which database or subject should I look under? I am not very experienced with databases yet. Can you suggest one?”

Finally, the most important assumption seemed to be that Amy assumed that she knew what was best for me. Her myopic perspective seems to be based on her overall assumption that she possessed superior knowledge than patrons in general.

6.) Not following up. Recover from other communication accidents by following up. Ask a closed or open follow-up question such as, “Did that help you?” or ‘What other help would you like?’ Even when you’re busy, invite the user to ask for further help or give instructions” (p. 14).

Giving Amy credit where credit is due, she did follow up after what Radford

(2006) describes as recovering from a communication accident when she dropped the ball and left me in a lurch for almost three minutes. When I was perplexed about her non-reply I wrote: “Can you still help me? Are you still there Amy? I did not get a response” and she responded: “I can still help you” and explained the reason for the delay.

However, as nice as Amy was in the closing, she still did not ask me any questions whether I needed any more help, or whether the information she provided helped me or not.

Cassell and Hiremath (2010) recommend that: “Follow-up should encourage the user to use the library virtually or in person” (p. 26). In this regard, Amy wrote: “We’re here 24/7; you can also call or visit the library.”

Conclusion

At first, my overall impression immediately after the virtual reference encounter was that the interaction with Amy was fairly positive. I was not consciously aware of the fact that Amy had many areas to improve providing live chat service as a reference librarian. It was interesting to analyze the elements that were not up to par or missing from Amy’s live chat interaction until I compared it to Radford’s (2006) criteria.

I learned a great deal from the virtual chat encounter, especially how to make the user comfortable and return to virtual chat again. As Cassell and Hiremath concludes: “Marketing a virtual reference service is essential” (p. 270). Finally, I see the importance of conducting reference interviews, and I intend to work on the most recent guidelines outlined by Reference and User Services Association (RUSA). I take the guideline to heart including: “approachability, interest, listening/inquiring, searching and follow-up” (Cassell & Hiremath, 2010, p. 27).

 Addendum

Below is a text messaging reference service I received from Los Angeles Public Library System. I realize that texting is similar to F+F, virtual, and email reference service with a few exceptions. The most important thing Cassell and Hiremath (2010) states is to keep the responses short because text messaging “might get tiresome to the user,” so it is best to “respond with a small amount of information plus a request for clarification” (Ross, Nilsen, and Dewdney, 2002).

Also, I wanted to know how the librarian would respond to question about a health concern. I thought the librarian did a commendable job of designating the responsibility to a professional doctor.

Texting Messaging (IM and SMS) Transcript

(Preface) I didn’t know I was supposed to type in the <keyword> before my question. The keyword for texting LAPL system libraries is: <AskLAPL>

Texting transcript

Question: “AskLAPL Can you please refer me to some resources regarding “Adult Onset Diabetes? I appreciate your help. Thank you!” (I actually spelled “Dianetes” – which I checked after the fact. Obviously, the librarian understood me.)

1^st Response: “What you are referring to is officially called Type 2 Diabetes. Here is a place to start.” (weblink: http://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001356/)

Question: “Does it mention the symptoms?”

2^nd Response: AskLAPL (texting) “Yes, it does. But you need to consult a physician about this. Regular check ups would look out for this as well.”

References

(Note: Listed first by format and subsequently chronological order as cited in the text.)

Sheldrick Ross, C., Nilsen, K. & Radford, M. (2009). Setting the stage for the reference interview: The first thirty seconds. Conducting the reference interview: A how-to-do-it manual (2nd ed.). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

Pomerantz, J. & Luo, L. (2006). Motivations and uses: Evaluating virtual reference service from the users’ perspective [Full-text]. Science Direct: Library & Information Science Research, 28, 350-373.

Tour, D. E. (1998). Quest Line (telephone reference): A different approach to reference service. Public Libraries, 37(4), 256-258.

Puacz, J. H. (2005). Electronic vs. print reference sources in public library collections. The Reference Librarian 44(91/92), 39-51.