Re-Envisioning Reference Services for the Libraries

0 downloads 0 Views 492KB Size Report
From 2004 to 2009, the USF Tampa Library used the Information Commons hybrid ... the first floor of the library, which include the Circulation Desk, the IT Desk, ...
Re-Envisioning Reference Services for the Libraries of the USF Tampa Campus A Report by the Re-Envisioning Reference Project Team January 5, 2011 Project Team Members: Susan Ariew, Project Manager Ardis Hanson Andy Huse Barbara Lewis Drew Smith Lily Todorinova Matt Torrence

Table of Contents Executive Summary … 3 Summary of Recommendations … 4 Background: The USF Tampa Library Reference Model … 8 Benchmarking--Literature Review: Reference Models … 11 Models and Their Incentives … 12 Staffing and Implications for Training … 14 Data Collection and Decision-Making … 18 Reference Assessment … 23 Specialized Reference -- Special Collections … 24 Specialized Reference -- FMHI Research Library … 26 Observations Based on the Data … 27 Creating a Culture of Assessment … 28 Working Towards a Culture of Integration of Services … 30 Final Summary … 31 Reference … 32

2

Executive Summary This report outlines the results of the work of the Re-Envisioning Reference Project Team of the USF Libraries, as performed between its creation in September 2010 and its completion in November 2010. The team, representing faculty in Academic Services, Special & Digital Collections, and the FMHI Library, was formed to (1) review the professional literature and best practices on the delivery and assessment of reference services, (2) collect and analyze relevant data in the Tampa and FMHI Libraries, and (3) make recommendations on how to re-envision the provision of reference services. Several specific questions were investigated: 1. How may the USF Libraries best implement responsive reference services within the framework of a Learning Commons? 2. Considering USF’s status as a Research 1 University, how may graduate students and researchers receive appropriate supports while enhancing learning outcomes for undergraduates? 3. How does this report support the SACS continuous quality improvement assessment model? The evolving nature of academic libraries, the changing needs of their patrons, diminishing human resources, and a desire for greater integration requires reassessment of how USF Libraries faculty and staff deliver reference services throughout the Tampa and FMHI Libraries. Improved reference services should effectively manage patron expectations, demonstrate high patron satisfaction, and align human resources in accordance with expectations, goals, and budgetary realities, in addition to seamlessly delivering reference across service points. Not included in this report are details about the relationship between reference and instruction. While we do believe that there is an instruction component in assisting patrons at reference points, we do not believe

3

that the scheduling of instructional sessions should be tied to the scheduling of reference service points, and that the two problems should be treated separately, given the nature of customized, embedded instructional services.

Summary of Recommendations Based on a review of the Desk Tracker statistics and trends in the literature, re-envisioning how reference services are delivered at the Tampa Library is appropriate, particularly in the context of changing the culture of our work and the changing nature of demands on professional librarian time. We see four primary areas for improvement: redefining reference as more than a desk, creating a culture of assessment, re-inventing reference training, and working towards a culture of integration of services. Redefining reference Create a clear statement of vision and values for reference service on the USF Tampa campus. Move to a staffing model that single staffs with GAs or paraprofessionals during the less busy hours of the reference desk. Assign backup/on-call for desk during hours of single staffing when the Reference Desk staff are overrun. Incorporate the Circulation Desk as part of the Reference Desk services for general library and informational questions regarding holdings. Move chat service coverage to librarians in their offices. Allow librarians to conduct chat services from home. Double staff with Librarian/GA or paraprofessional during identified peak hours (no double staffing librarians) based on Desk Tracker Stats.

4

De-link the scheduling of librarians in the evenings from the scheduling of instructional sessions. Institute a robust referral system to document referrals and to follow them up. Rework automated phone message to give additional and clearer options to patrons, such as the Circulation Desk, Writing Center, etc. Move phone to Ask Desk when the Ask Desk is staffed during the day and to the Circulation Desk for evening coverage. Promote librarian consultation services for research faculty and graduate students.

Creating a culture of assessment Appoint a Reference Assessment Project Team to: Design and implement an assessment plan for Reference. Identify assessment best practices, strategies and tools for future improvement for all aspects of reference, both in-person and virtual. Create assessment tools and pilot their use. Create documents that can be used for SACS accreditation purposes. Develop specialized services based upon assessment of Desk Tracker and surveys: a. Analyze advanced reference questions by contact type and by department. b. Encourage librarians to engage in liaison and outreach activities

Re-invent reference training

Use interviews, resumes, and previous experience as key components of GA selection, in addition to input from current GA.

5

Schedule new GAs so that they are primarily assigned to work with librarians, and pair GAs with a mentor. Create an intranet LibGuide to maintain an online training manual for paraprofessional staff and GAs. Require paraprofessional staff and GAs to keep a reference journal. Supplement weekly group training sessions by other forms of training (especially written materials and online tutorials). Focus synchronous group training on those issues that benefit from having everyone simultaneously present (such as hands-on problem solving). Avoid use of synchronous group training time as time for sharing basic information, which can be done using other methods. Use Desk Tracker statistics to feed information into the training program by identifying the kinds of complex questions that GAs should be able to answer. Design a program that includes training about assessment for all members of reference. Address the following content areas for training: research, ready reference, bibliographic, procedural/ directional/ instructional, library facility, library policy/services, phone, and ILL Conduct exit interviews with graduate assistants and paraprofessionals as part of the assessment of the quality and level of training. Provide ample opportunities for training with other units such as Special Collections, the Shimberg Library and FMHI.

6

Working towards a culture of integration of services Look at Desk Tracker data to see what training may be needed across units for competencies throughout the building. Be inclusive when working on projects that impact more than just one unit of the library by insuring representations from all stakeholder units. Encourage collaborative work across units with regard to professional development. opportunities such as presentations, poster sessions, grant and publishing opportunities. Share assessment tools and methodologies for assessing across units of the library. Continue to study and research questions about interdepartmental cooperation, collaboration, and coordination.

7

Background: The USF Tampa Library Reference Model From 2004 to 2009, the USF Tampa Library used the Information Commons hybrid model of service that combined reference support with technology support. Librarians, library staff, and graduate assistants paired up with Information Technology undergraduate students at one desk in the Information Commons. In 2009, the shared model was abandoned and both Reference and Technology Support established separate service points. Problems associated with the hybrid desk model included differences in culture and service ethics between the two units, and a lack of collaboration, which tended to cause confusion for users seeking help at the desk. In the summer of 2010, the library reference desk was relocated to the front of the library as a separate service desk near the Circulation Desk and the Writing Center. The reason for the move was partly caused by the lack of success with the hybrid model, coupled with the need for more seating in the library and the desire to move away from a very noisy space. The new reference area included a traditional desk with a smaller reference collection but still with more of a “library” identity than a technology identity. The reference desk is one of four service points on the first floor of the library, which include the Circulation Desk, the IT Desk, and a general information desk (the Ask Desk). Since this change has been very recent, the effect on service, librarian satisfaction with the move, and patron satisfaction has yet to be assessed. Not only does the reference desk model at USF Tampa library appear more traditional spatially, but staffing patterns remain traditional as well; however, these patterns are not in concert with the innovative models of reference that central to the Learning Commons concept. The focus, currently, is in providing prompt, quality service. Wait time is typically very low for patrons (both in person and via phone). The desk is open from Monday through Thursday from 9am-11pm, Friday 9am-6pm, Saturday 11am-4pm, and Sunday Noon-5pm. The total time covered at the reference desk is 115 hours per week. Reference librarians interact with patrons in a number of

8

ways: face-to-face interaction, telephone, and chat services. In addition, reference services are also provided off-desk through consultations offered by subject specialist librarians in their offices. Between August and early November 2010, USF Librarians recorded conducting 215 research consultations in their offices, which typically are more lengthy transactions. Referral services to and from the reference desk are conducted informally. There is no “referral form” or online service for transferring in-depth (or out of scope) questions to subject experts. Referrals are primarily conducted by distributing librarians’ business cards or contact information. Other units (the Writing Center, Tutoring Services, or IT) are also referred to informally. There is no current system to track follow-up appointments for these referrals. Reference desk hours are distributed between library faculty and graduate student assistants. Each librarian has approximately eight hours assigned to the desk per week, often in one- or two hour-long blocks. The librarians are also expected to cover the service desk for at least one weekend throughout the semester. During any given reference desk shift between 9am and 5pm, there are typically two librarians present, or a librarian and a graduate student assistant. Between the hours of 5pm and 9pm, there are two librarians and one GA. After 9pm, the librarians leave and only the GA is present until closing (11pm). Chat is also covered at the reference desk between 5pm-11pm. Phone reference is offered during the desk hours, but email, texting, and chat generally occur away from the desk, unless there are staffing shortages. Librarians reserve their off-desk time for email correspondence, individual consultations, collection development, preparation for classes, developing course and subject guides, blogging and other outreach activities, committee work, and professional development activities. The desk schedule is negotiated at the beginning of each semester. Weekly emails alert staff to any changes or substitutions. In the case of sickness or absence, coverage is provided by case-by-

9

case volunteers, as communicated through email. Email and phone are the existing methods of interdepartmental communication. Statistics are currently collected using Desk Tracker, which notes several components of the reference interaction: The type of user (faculty, graduate student, undergraduate student, etc.), the mode of interaction (phone, in-person, etc.), and the purpose & complexity of the question. Optional comments are also collected. The duration of the interaction is not currently noted, nor is the customer’s perceptions and level of satisfaction.

10

Benchmarking--Literature Review: Reference Models In Reference Services Without the Desk, Arendt (2010) points to several important questions to guide the process of re-envisioning reference, including: What are our reference services values? What is our “reference philosophy”? How are various service points presented and do our users understand what “reference service” means? How does reference affect other library services, such as instruction, outreach, etc.? What is the true cost of reference, in terms of staff time? These questions provided an overarching guide as we reviewed the literature. Our literature review revealed a number of trends in reference services in large academic library institutions with a Learning Commons. In addition to identifying models that seemed most suited to USF, we examined the incentives associated with re-envisioning reference. Finally, we identified peer and aspirant institutions and conducted a quick survey of their organizational and staffing patterns. Within this section we will explore models used in large academic libraries, such as the Tampa Library, and models used in specialty libraries, such as the FMHI Research Library.

11

Models and Their Incentives Overwhelmingly, we found that the tiered, “Brandeis”-like model of reference staffing is the preferred approach, regardless of library size, along with the tendency to combine multiple service points into one (or few). Two models predominated in the literature. The first model combines a Reference Services Desk services with a Technology Services Desk. Several of our benchmark institutions used this model, including University of Cincinnati, Syracuse University, and University of Houston. The second model combines Circulation and Reference Desks. Both of these models are known by a number of names: Information Desk, Research Desk, Library Services Desk, Learning Commons Tech Desk, Tech Support Desk, and Information Station (Daniels, 2008). In terms of staffing, several commonalities among institutions emerged, including 1) use of students and paraprofessionals and 2) systemized referral. The literature cites a number of the reasons as to why universities have been ultimately receptive to experimenting with these models. Budgetary issues and lack of advanced reference interactions are evident across the landscape of academic libraries (including USF Tampa), and constitute the primary incentives for changing the reference model (Dinkens, 2010; De Groote, 2007). At the University of Arizona, for example, declining reference statistics and budgetary constraints motivated the administration to create a “team” for re-examining reference, much like our own. There is also a perceptible change in how users today access and navigate information: the library is increasingly seen as a portal for electronic resources, not a repository of physical materials (Bracke, 2008). This suggests the need for us to be proactive, not reactive, to the information needs of our constituents and, largely, the traditional desk-bound model of reference is not sufficiently flexible to allow for a progressive, responsive, and “embedded” approach to serving library users. As Tim Daniels writes:

12

Libraries are moving away from the ‘just in case’ model of services (i.e. always staffing the reference desk with the most highly trained librarians ‘just in case’ someone shows up who requires their expertise) to a more practical model. Instead, librarians are meeting this demand by using a variety of personnel to provide desk services. This model can offer a single service point where the special skills and professional responsibilities of librarians are better utilized, and patrons can find help for a variety of needs. Increasingly, support is offered by highly trained non-MLIS staff (2008). According to Daniels, instead of spending time at reference desks, the priorities for professional librarians’ time and skills need to be focused on how the library’s digital resources can be embedded at the user’s point of need. Librarians should actively partner with faculty to utilize library resources through course management systems, create course guides, assessment tools, learning objects, and linking to relevant materials. He writes, “As responsibility for answering questions at the desk is now often shared amongst individuals with varying expertise, librarians are free to concentrate on core library research and instruction endeavors (Daniels, 2008). As early as 1996, Bradley wrote of the changing nature of health information and health information work. In her article, she emphasized the importance of information management and increased collaboration in health librarianship, i.e., creating and developing expert knowledge in concert with practicing professionals. Since then, the trend in health and allied health libraries has been on on-call, consultative reference and research services, which are common to many health science and allied health libraries, such as Duke University Medical Center Library (Murphy et al., 2008) Virginia Commonwealth University McCaw Library for the Health Sciences (Lubker et al., 2010), the Arizona Health Sciences Library (Freiburger and Kramer, 2009), and the University of University of Florida's Health Science Center Libraries (Ferree et al., 2009). All of these libraries use the embedded model and emphasize liaison and engagement with faculty as the best use of librarian time.

13

Staffing and Implications for Training A notable trend that emerged from our analysis of peer institutions is the use of paraprofessionals and students as the primary providers of basic reference services at academic libraries. At Arizona State, North Carolina State, University of Cincinnati, and the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, among numerous others, the “public face” of the library is not the traditional MLS librarian. Instead, non-MLS staff (students and paraprofessionals) provide basic assistance at the desk. These institutions are examples of a “tiered” approach to reference, which uses the individuals who staff the desk and do most of the virtual reference as conduits, who then transfer complex or involved questions to librarians and subject specialists through some method of robust referral. It must be noted that these libraries have not completely abandoned traditional ideas about reference services. A review of Fall 2010 statistics for the USF Tampa Library Reference Desk strongly suggests that fewer than 10% of all questions fall into the category of “advanced reference” or “research consultation” (questions that would benefit from answers from one of the library faculty, especially one with an appropriate subject matter expertise), and that the remainder of questions are primarily general information/directional (within the Library or outside of it) or “basic reference”. While individual librarians or graduate assistants might differ in the details of how they categorize “basic reference” vs. “advanced reference”, it is reasonable to assume that there is a general consensus as to how to categorize questions. For instance, a “basic” question might be of the form “Does the Library have a book with title X?” while an “advanced” question might be of the form “I’m writing a thesis about subject X. How do I get started?”. Questions that fall in the middle might involve undergraduate research papers (especially those in lower-level or general education courses), and the level of response might vary primarily due to the subject matter of the research.

14

If the statistics are valid, it supports the idea that the Reference Desk should be staffed primarily by paraprofessionals (including library science graduate students), so long as they are appropriately trained to refer advanced questions to a librarian (where feasible, to a subject matter specialist). This model will be successful only if paraprofessionals are given sufficient training, including an awareness of when it is appropriate to answer the question themselves and when it is more appropriate to refer the question to someone more educated and experienced. The remainder of this section will discuss a model of paraprofessional employment and training for reference service, primarily geared toward library science graduate students. A model of paraprofessional employment and training must include recruitment/appointment, training, scheduling, and assessment. Given the amount of information that needs to be included and kept up to date as part of these processes, an intranet LibGuide would be an appropriate place to maintain an online training manual. According to a 2000 survey by Kay Womack and Karen Rupp-Serrano, most survey respondents indicated that they based their graduate student selection criteria primarily on previous experience, an interview, the resume, the application letter, references, and completion of the library school’s basic reference course. Of these, the interview, resume, and previous experience were considered most effective, together with input from current graduate assistants. Wu (2003) identifies three questions that should be asked regarding each GA candidate: (1) Do they have the “right” objective?, (2) Do they have the “right” personal qualifications?, and (3) Do they fit “right” into the library personnel structure? The first question reflects interest and motivation, the second question identifies good-fit personality traits, and the third question helps select GAs who may bring useful skills into the organization.

15

White’s 2005 survey of ARL libraries indicates that the average number of employed graduate students (for those institutions with LIS programs) was 5.5 (with a median of 5). Each student worked on the desk an average of 11.99 hours per week, with a median of 10. For those libraries that allow students to work alone on the desk, they worked an average of 6.5 hours per week, with a median of 6. One of the problems that immediately presents itself in training of graduate assistants is that there are likely to be few times during the week when all graduate students are going to be available at the same time. This suggests that any weekly group training sessions must be supplemented by other forms of training (especially written materials and online tutorials). Synchronous group training would need to be focused on those issues that benefit from having everyone simultaneously present (such as group discussions and hands-on problem solving) and should avoid basic information sharing (which can be done just as effectively via email or by using the intranet LibGuide). Wu points out that any training must have a “clear goal”, be “planned and systematic”, and be “tailored”, and not be “aimless”, “haphazard”, or “cookie-cutter”. White’s 2005 survey indicated that students received an average of 14.74 hours of initial training, with a median of 10 hours. White’s survey also asked respondents how they would provide training if there were no money or time constraints, and a number of respondents were interested in video and in role-play. Finally, the USF Tampa Library’s use of Desk Tracker should feed valuable information into the training program, by way of identifying the kinds of questions that GAs should be able to answer. Ashley (2006) created a scheme for categorizing questions asked at the reference desk at one of the UNC-Chapel Hill libraries (Davis Library), including: research, ready reference, bibliographic, procedural/directional/instructional, library facility, library policy/services, phone,

16

and ILL. Ashley found that 14% of questions fit the “research” category (similar to the “advanced reference/research consultation” category used at USF). Each of these categories should be addressed in a training program. Scheduling of GAs should be done in such a way that new GAs are primarily assigned to work with librarians, while more experienced GAs can work alone (or with other GAs) either in early mornings, evenings, or weekends. The 2000 survey by Womack and Rupp-Serrano indicates that most graduate assistants are used for staffing the desk, creating instructional materials, providing library instruction, and giving library orientation/tours. (In a 2010 model, it should also be considered to have graduate students staff other forms of reference, such as email, chat, and texting.) From a weekday/hour perspective, most GAs were used to staff the desk Monday thru Friday after 10am, Sunday through Friday until 11pm, Saturdays from 10am until 6pm, and Sundays after 12noon. Spencer et al (2005) suggests criteria for when a paraprofessional should seek help from a more experienced librarian: (1) when no progress had been made after 10 minutes of research, (2) when unfamiliar resources are involved, or (3) when the paraprofessional is unable to determine how to start. Spencer also recommends having each paraprofessional paired with a mentor, and having each paraprofessional keep a journal (in 2010, this could be a private blog). One final interesting item from the Womack-Rupp survey is that nearly half of the respondents indicate that they conduct exit interviews with their graduate assistants. This feedback would be extremely useful in assessing the value of the graduate student experience.

17

Data Collection and Decision-Making In November 2010, a member of the Re-Envisioning Reference Project Team interviewed administrators and librarians to collect information on the relationship between data and decisionmaking, across units within the USF Tampa Library and the FMHI Research Library, with a particular emphasis on the provision of reference services. Each interview, which was recorded and transcribed, consisted of a series of open-ended questions with the intent to understand the types of data collected in the past and how this data was used in operational decision-making. Interviewees included Nancy Cunningham, Director of Academic Services; Mark Greenberg, Director of Special & Digital Collections; Ardis Hanson, Head of the Research Library at the Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute; and Susan Silver, Chat and Graduate Assistant Coordinator. I.

The first set of questions pertained to the type of data collected during the past five years,

types of instruments used to collect the data, and how the respondents used it in deciding changes in the operations of reference services in their unit. Quantitative Data At the Reference Desk, various methods were used to record the number and types of questions being asked. Initially, mechanical clickers were used to record the count of simple, advanced, and technical questions asked during a one-week period each month. These numbers were multiplied by four to estimate the number of questions asked during the month. This method was deemed weak because the time of day that the question was asked was not recorded, there wasn’t any proof that the estimated numbers were accurate, and there was concern that the actual tallies were inaccurate. The mechanical clickers were replaced by tally sheets, which recorded the same information but included the hour in which the questions were asked. Although this was an improvement over the use of the mechanical clickers, there were still concerns about underreported or exaggerated numbers and the use of sampling for one-week per month to develop

18

monthly estimates. Although the data from these collection methods was not wholly trusted, it was used to make decisions on the hours that the Reference Desk was open, the number of staff members at the desk each hour, and the number of desk hours assigned to each staff member. An additional data collection method was used to determine how late the Reference Desk should be staffed. For a two-week period one semester, the graduate assistants who staff the desk between 8pm and desk closing at 11pm were required to record the actual questions asked and the time. This method was used to recommend that the desk should not be staffed after 9pm. Special Collections at the USF Tampa Library has also used several methods to collect data on reference transactions. Logs of email questions have been kept and reported, mechanical clickers have been used to count the number of questions asked at the Reading Room Desk, and call slips and Aleph circulation statistics have been tabulated to determine what collections were being used and infer information about the interaction with the patron. Anecdotal “data,” based on desk staff input about what patrons were asking has also been used in the process of making decisions about desk hours and staffing. However, as with the Reference Desk data, the data collection processes in Special Collections were not considered systematic or methodologically sound. For example, the customer interaction that occurred when a patron requested material, thereby triggering a call slip or an Aleph check out, should not automatically be assumed to be a reference transaction. The clicker counts were also considered unreliable. Decision-making about reference issues in Special Collections, such as staff training and required skill sets and desk scheduling, has primarily been experimental based on anecdotal input or based on internal issues like the loss of key personnel. Reference service at the FMHI Research Library is unique in that there is not a reference desk. Reference service is carried out in librarian offices, via email, and over the phone. Questions are identified as reference (under 30 minutes) or research (over 30 minutes). Tracking of

19

directional data was discontinued due to staffing issues, the low volume of those types of questions, and its considered lack of importance in the FMHI Research Library environment. In the past, each librarian used her own method to keep track of and report counts of the types of questions asked by each type of user (faculty, staff, student and level of student, community member, and affiliated faculty). Since data is recorded for each question asked, the data is considered accurate and useful. However, since there is not a reference desk, the data is used primarily for collection development, not for reference desk staffing. Qualitative Data Neither Reference nor Special Collections have conducted systematic qualitative data collection, although some customer feedback is provided via unsolicited, usually positive, emails to librarians and administrators. The FMHI Research Library also receives customer feedback in this way, but also conducts annual attitudinal and perception surveys using yes/no, Likert scale, and open-ended questions. Each year a department or unit of FMHI is surveyed about the library and library services. In addition, every two years they conduct a large survey about people’s opinions and attitudes about reference services, usually with high response rates. Questions included how often they use the library’s services, which services are most important, and what else the library should be doing. Surveys are also used to evaluate new services or to rank existing services. The FHMI Research Library has also conducted expectation analyses to improve services, which compared librarians’ perceptions of patron expectations with actual patron expectations. The perceived strength of these surveys is the feedback on patrons’ general impression of the library and its usefulness as a barometer of patron attitudes and identification of potential problem areas. The identified weaknesses are the fact that they are unable to resurvey on a data sample as often as desired and that it is opinion data.

20

II.

The next section asked the respondents to compare previous data collection efforts and

decision-making with their data collection and decision-making process using Desk Tracker. Overall, the responses regarding Desk Tracker were positive. The data collected via Desk Tracker includes the type of patron (faculty, student, community member, etc.), the transaction forum (email, phone, face-to-face, etc.), and the type of question (directional, basic reference, advanced reference, etc.). Advantages included increased staff commitment to enter accurate data, the collection of all reference transactions (not just a sampling), the system’s ease of use, the level of detail and configurability of the data that can be collected, the ability to export data, and traceability by staff member. Despite the good reviews, a few weaknesses were also identified, such as limited report output options, navigation issues, manual analysis of comments, and time-out issues. Interviewees also indicated that the use of Desk Tracker data would improve the decisionmaking process because the data was more complete/accurate and easier to access. Types of decisions that the can be made based on this data included identification of appropriate staffing at service points, training needs based on staffing changes, and potentially, collection development needs. III.

The questions in the final section asked the respondents to reflect on the role of decision-

making and data in improving services and operations. There were a wide variety of areas that the interviewees would like to make data-driven decisions. Regarding reference services, the respondents indicated that, in addition to basic desk staffing/hours decisions, they want to identify skill sets required to staff various service points and to address training needs. They also want to be able to identify services that are no longer needed so that staff can be applied to more active service areas. Instruction needs, collections to enhance development efforts, and outreach and collaborative opportunities were also identified as areas that could benefit from an analysis of reference transactions.

21

The data needed to accomplish this decision-making included who are our patrons, why patrons visit the library and use various services, when are patrons coming to the library and using services, who is serving them, what materials are patrons using, level of happiness/satisfaction with the transaction and impact of the interaction, and user expectations. One caveat expressed by two interviewees was that numbers alone should not drive an organization’s decisions. The data should provide guidance and help inform decision-making. Finally, the respondents were asked about organizational factors that are significant in implementing organizational change. Concern was expressed that mandates would be made that do not reflect what the data indicates should be done or that changes would be impeded by the “that’s the way we’ve always done it” attitude. In addition, the budget, staffing, and skill sets to do extensive assessment is necessary. As one interviewee expressed, a commitment to build a culture of assessment is needed, where numbers are not threatening and where data collection is second nature and recognized as valuable.

22

Reference Assessment In order to address assessment, the USF Tampa Library Reference Unit needs to be clear about what it wants to know or what questions it wants answered. One major focus for the reenvisioning project was the question of the effectiveness of our staffing patterns, given the human resources we have and the quality of service we want to offer. In that sense, an assessment has been taking place as we addressed questions that relate to the use of human capital and the economics of our reference service. Desk Tracker statistics at USF Tampa Library (Academic Services) service points for the period of August-September 2010 gave detailed data about the volume, type, and level of transactions for that time period: Reference Desk (5125)

Ask Desk (5996)

Periodicals Desk (2673)

51% Basic Reference

61% Directional/Gen Info (library)

46% Directional/Gen Info (library)

15% Refer to library service point

23% Media

29% Directional/Gen Info (library) 10% Adv. Reference/Research Cons. 5% Directional/Gen Info (campus/other)

7% Directional/Gen Info (campus/other) 6% Refer to IT

2% Technical (non-library systems)

6% Refer to T&LS/Writing Center

2% Other

5% Other

11% Periodicals/Microforms 9% Technical 7% Other 3% Refer to Reference Desk 2% Directional/Gen Info (campus/other)

23

Specialized Reference — Special Collections Traditionally, staff, graduate assistants, and faculty manned the reference desk, usually in two-hour increments. It was not unusual for someone to work 6-9 hours on the desk each week. Frequent turnover meant constant training and shifting of schedules to cover the 49-hour desk workweek. The nature of desk service changed gradually beginning in 2004, when additional security, circulation, and other procedures replaced the minimal standards already in place. This translated into more time processing patron sign-ups and requests to increase order and security within the department. Statistics-gathering tools ranged from clickers (2000-02) to call slips (2003-2010). Although the rudimentary circulation system within Aleph (2006-2010) worked well, its capacity to gather statistics and manage users was minimal to nil. In about 2006, Special Collections implemented a primary/backup system that usually called for SAs and GAs to work primary duty, while faculty and staff served as a backup role for more specialized reference. The problem with this approach was a schedule that was even more demanding than the old model—two people had to be scheduled on the desk at a given time. It was also open to misinterpretation, where primary and backup would work the desk together, instead of the backup going about their duties and waiting to be called. This model also put more constraints on people’s schedules without any discernible benefit to patrons. Because of the issues above, Special Collections reverted to the single-person desk model again, without any set backup hours. Under this model, faculty would make themselves available for specialized reference services as they were available. The department also cut evening hours (Wednesday and Thursday, 6pm-8pm) for lack of patrons. In the summer of 2010, Special Collections began to use Aeon to circulate items and keep statistics. In the fall, all faculty and staff began using Desk Tracker to keep records of their activities

24

away from the desk. While the new systems (Aeon/Desk Tracker) solve many problems of organization and statistics, they also present a slightly higher learning curve for newcomers, especially those who have smaller time commitments on the desk. Personnel cuts in 2010 prompted a shortening of desk hours (from 9-6 to 10-5 on weekdays). These cuts made the four-person staffing model possible without interfering with anyone’s assigned duties. This shortening of hours was accompanied by “just in time” attitude to specialized reference, rather than “just in case,” meaning that faculty would be available as long as they were in the office, but otherwise patrons would be encouraged to make an appointment for a research consultation. In Fall 2010, the Special Collections director and faculty created and implemented a new desk schedule that relies on four people to staff the desk all week long: two staff and two GAs. This relatively stable lineup has several positive outcomes: frees faculty to serve as desk backups, grooms desk specialists with more experience, minimizes turnover/training, easier schedule creation, and so on. Best yet, the increase in desk hours for the four still working the desk has been minimal, with no one working more than 9-10 hours per week. This new way of staffing the desk moves Special Collections in line with a Brandeis-type model, relying on paraprofessionals and students to handle retrievals and refer patrons with more involved questions to the appropriate faculty for research consultations.

25

Specialized Reference — FMHI Research Library For the last nineteen years, the Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute (FMHI) Research Library has functioned as a special library within an academic setting. The FMHI Research Library serves approximately 500 faculty and staff. As one of the largest externally-funded units on campus ($32 million in FY 2009-2010), the FMHI Library works primarily with research faculty and staff, and graduate students. In its provision of reference services, the primary model is an embedded/liaison model of service coupled with a Brandeis model. Until 2010, there was a single point-of- service desk as patrons entered. Circulation, inter-library loan, basic reference, and basic instruction were handled by a paraprofessional. The paraprofessional triaged questions to the librarians based upon complexity or length of time required to answer the question. This approach worked successfully for the Library and its staff for nineteen years. With the retirement of the paraprofessional staff and a re-alignment of professional staff, the configuration of the service desk changed. FWS students and library volunteers primarily staff the service desk. If the students or volunteers are unable to answer a patron’s question, they ask a librarian for assistance. If it is a simple reference question or a simple instructional activity, the librarians show both the patron and the student or volunteer how to find the answer. When there are no students or volunteers to staff the desk, signs direct patrons to the librarians’ offices around the corner from the service desk. Librarians work the desk for circulation and interlibrary loan; however, most reference/research queries are more complex and are conducted in the librarians’ offices.

26

Observations Based on the Data Given that data about questions at the USF Tampa Library Reference Desk revealed that 89% of the questions were basic or non-library related, changes in scheduling seem to be in order, along with a look at number of service points being staffed and most efficient use of staff at those multiple service points. The recent changes in staffing at the Special Collections Department have freed librarians to concentrate on professional level work. The FMHI Research Library on-call model shows consistent satisfaction by research faculty and staff, since the focus is to provide the specialized services that result in continuing awards of grants and contracts. The statistics support the idea that the Reference Desk should be staffed primarily by paraprofessionals (including library science graduate students), so long as they are appropriately trained to refer advanced questions to a librarian (or, where feasible, to a subject matter specialist). According to Dean Garrison, the USF Library system is moving toward a goal of being an academic research library system, with specialized supports and services to increase the university research portfolio and graduate education. With this in mind, it is critical to re-envision the provision of reference services at the USF Tampa Library. To do so will also require the USF Library system to re-assess how it measures success of organizational change and processes.

27

Creating a Culture of Assessment Assessing other aspects of reference service may not be so straightforward. To successfully create a culture of assessment will require additional feedback from members of the USF Tampa Library Reference unit about what they believe are important factors in the quality and comprehensiveness of the service they provide. In addition, we have no real data that correlates the impacts and effects of virtual and face-to-face reference services on each other. Further, quality of service and user satisfaction are equally important to understand to effectively train staff and paraprofessionals to deliver the best services possible and to enhance the professional development of all library personnel. Questions that will require further study include: What is the best way to meet the demand of advanced reference services if it is only 10% of the business? How efficient is the referral system in getting patrons from one service point to the next or from a service point to a librarian? What kind of training is necessary to implement a paraprofessional/graduate student staffing program? There is an abundance of literature about evaluation of reference services and about the need or lack thereof for trained librarians at the reference desk. Rimland (2007) offers an extensive overview of methods and techniques (from 1994-2006) that have been used to evaluate traditional, in-person reference services, which is an excellent literature review and bibliographic analysis. Several articles analyze reference traffic and how to assess the need for a service point in the library. For example, Ahmadi (2008) offers a model for predicting traffic in the library and at the reference desk at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. The study tracked the number of patrons entering the library and the number of patrons seeking help at the reference desk during

28

selected weeks of the semester. This allowed an analysis of the effect of the entry count and reference count forecasting trends, seasonality, and random variations in traffic. Still others, such as Gerlich, Hernon, and Geoffrey, concentrate on patron satisfaction studies using various intrusive or non-intrusive observational data. These studies allowed the reenvisioning team to see the possibilities of what we at USF could use as models for assessment purposes. What is more important, however, is that the USF Tampa Library Reference unit develop a culture of assessment and put into practice principles of good practice for assessing both reference services and student learning. This means viewing assessment as an ongoing, constant process and not a one-time event (AAHE Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning). Below is a list of “Best Practices” regarding assessment from the AAHE Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning: Assessment works best when the programs it seeks to improve have clear, explicitly stated purposes (i.e. clear focused goals and objectives). Assessment requires attention to outcomes but also and equally to the experiences that lead to those outcomes. Assessment works best when it is ongoing, not episodic. Assessment makes a difference when it begins with issues of use and illuminates questions that people really care about. Assessment is most likely to lead to improvement when it is part of a larger set of conditions that promote change.

29

Working Towards a Culture of Integration of Services One of the questions in the initial Re-envisioning Reference charge was to investigate how Tampa, Special Collections, and FMHI Libraries can better integrate services throughout the building and across systems. This has proven to be one of the most challenging questions for the group and has only partial answers. Despite our best efforts, very little was revealed about the answer to this question either through benchmarking or a literature review, which indicates that this issue needs further study and research, possibly research that can benefit not just our own community but an external community of librarians as well. The first question to be answered is whether integration of services to patrons is a problem. The re-envisioning team did feel that by creating a more robust referral system among all units of the library whether it be referrals from the Ask Desk, Circulation, the Reference Desk, the Periodicals Desk, Special Collections, etc, that there be some way to help patrons find the right locations, resources, or experts in the library to fill their information needs, and that those doing referrals follow up in some way when needed to make sure that happens. Anecdotally, the re-envisioning group also felt that there was a need for more information sharing among units so that the awareness about resources and services meant that appropriate referrals could happen. That information sharing could take place at regular meetings for Academic Services with experts from Special Collections and FMHI participating. The Re-envisioning group also believed that having projects such as this one with faculty from other units on it brought the parties closer together and that more inter-departmental projects to solve problems and set common goals might go a long way in establishing closer and better collegial relationships among units.

30

Final Summary Reference is more than just a desk – consults, e-reference, etc. Changing the conceptual framework of how we ‘do’ reference is key to perception of improved service and satisfaction of our patrons We are invested in using the Learning Commons model, hence this redesign Best practices from peer institutions and the literature support changing our current model to the proposed model We are recommending the creation of an assessment plan that takes into account a 360degree view of reference- users, staff, professionals, and administration (library and university) that incorporates a CQI approach endorsed by SACS

31

References Ahmadi, M., Dileepan, P., Murgai, S. R., & Roth, W. (2008). An exponential smoothing model for predicting traffic in the library and at the reference desk. The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 2(37-48) Arndt, T. S. (2010). Reference service without the desk. Reference Services Review, 38(1), 71-80. Ashley, J. A. (2006). Assessing the training program for new graduate assistants: One institution's experience. Bracke, M. S., Brewer, M., & Huff-Eibl, R. (2007). Finding information in a new landscape: Developing new service and staffing models for mediated information services. College & Research Libraries, 68(3), 248-267. Bracke, M. S., Chinnaswamy, S., & Kline, E. (2008). Evolution of reference: A new service model for science and engineering libraries. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, Daniels, T. & Barratt, C.S. (2008). “What is common about learning commons? A look at the reference desk in this changing environment,” in S. Steiner and M.L. Madden (Eds), The desk and beyond: Next generation reference services (pp. 1-13). Chicago: ACRL. De Groote, S. L., Hitchcock, K., & McGowan, R. (2007). Trends in reference usage statistics in an academic health sciences library. Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA, 1(23-30). Dinkins, D., & Ryan, S. M. (2010). Measuring referrals: The use of paraprofessionals at the reference desk. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(4), 279-286.

Ferree, N., Schaefer, N., Butson, L. C., & Tennant, M. R. (2009). Liaison librarian tiers: levels of service. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 97(2), 145-148.

32

Freiburger, G., & Kramer, S. (2009). Embedded librarians: one library's model for decentralized service. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 97(2), 139-142.

Lubker, I. M., Henderson, M. E., Canevari, C. S., & Wright, B. A. (2010). Refocusing reference services outside the library building: one library's experience. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 29(3), 218-228.

Murphy, B., Peterson, R. A., Vines, H., von Isenburg, M., Berney, E., James, R. et al. (2008). Revolution at the library service desk. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 27(4), 379-393. Rimland, E. L. (2007). Do we do it good well? A bibliographic essay on the evaluation of reference effectiveness. The Reference Librarian, 47(2), 41-55. Spencer, D. B., Baker, A. L., Stoddart, R. A., Helt, S., Lee, A. R., & Tronstad, B. (2005). Striving for success: Practical advice for reference graduate assistants (and other new reference providers). The Southeastern Librarian, 53(1), 26. White, E. L. (2005). Public service training of student assistants at reference desk in ARL libraries, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Womack, K., & Rupp-Serrano, K. (2000). The librarian's apprentice: Reference graduate assistants. Reference Services Review, 28(2), 119. Wu, Q. (2003). Win-win strategy for the employment of reference graduate assistants in academic libraries. Reference Services Review, 31(2), 141.

33