AcadEmi

Reference librarians wishing to update their services face a number of questions. Should they employ chat or instant messenger for their virtual reference service? Can they provide virtual reference around the clock, or will a few hours a week have to suffice? Is it better to join a consortium or remain independent? Will they have to hire extra staff, or might they attempt to juggle the virtual reference desk and the physical one? Naturally, these questions will be approached differently by every library.

And naturally the subject has been well-researched: these are reference librarians, after all. It’s easy to find a variety of case studies, reports, and articles online about the various services and software packages available. Usage statistics are somewhat less readily available. A few surveys have been conducted; the Global Census of Digital Reference, perhaps the most thorough, has led some early proponents of virtual reference to question its efficacy. Steve Coffman and Linda Arret, for instance, argued in an oft-cited two-part article that the high operational costs of chat services outweigh the benefits, given the low usage levels most libraries have reported. They acknowledge, however, that some programs have been quite successful, and that the key factor seems to be promotion.

The drawbacks of chat notwithstanding, even Coffman and Arret offered tentative praise for reference conducted via Instant Messenger. In fact, there are a variety of reasons to prefer IM to Chat, not least of which is cost: IM is free, easy to use, and available to anyone with internet access. Adopting this technology involves very little risk for libraries, even if most patrons eschewed virtual reference entirely. Moreover, IM comes with an automatic promotional feature: a student who adds his library’s user name to his list of buddies will be reminded of the service any time it’s available. There will be no need for him to consciously decide to log-in to his library’s home page in search of the virtual reference function. The library must still succeed in spreading the word initially, but will face less of an uphill battle.

Virtual options may not have redefined reference as dramatically as was once predicted, but IM offers too many advantages to ignore. Students who have grown up with computers have been encouraged to be self-sufficient; they are not always comfortable asking for help, and may consider approaching a reference librarian only as a last resort. They are remarkably skilled at finding information electronically, on the other hand. The key is perhaps to make virtual reference a vital component of independent research quests. Sure, some patrons will find Instant Messenger too distracting, or will simply prefer face-to-face interaction (remember how much everyone used to complain about talking to answering machines?). But the bottom line is that librarians have a free, easy way to extend reference services into more patrons’ comfort zones. Why wouldn’t they take advantage?