Evidence Summary
Academic Library Patrons Value Personalized Attention and Subject Matter
Expertise in Reference Consultations
A Review of:
Rogers, E., & Carrier, H. S. (2017). A qualitative investigation of
patrons’ experiences with academic library research consultations. Reference Services Review, 45(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-04-2016-0029
Reviewed by:
Jennifer Kaari
Digital Medical Librarian
AllMedx
New York, New York, United States of America
jkaari@allmedx.com
Received: 3 Dec. 2018 Accepted: 7 Mar. 2019
2019 Kaari.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29540
Abstract
Objective – To examine the experiences of patrons with
one-on-one reference consultation services.
Design – Qualitative analysis of open-ended interviews.
Setting – Academic library at a public university in the
Southern United States.
Subjects – Students who attended a consultation with a
reference librarian.
Methods – All students who attended a reference consultation
with a librarian were invited to participate in an interview. Open-ended
interviews were conducted after informed consent was collected. Interviewers
were provided with prompts to help participants discuss their experiences but
were not intended to guide the conversation. The interviews were recorded and
then transcribed line-by-line. The transcripts were then analyzed using a
conventional, inductive model of content analysis. Transcripts were first analyzed
in an initial phase to identify basic themes, and then further examined in an
advanced analysis in light of these themes.
Main Results – 10 students agreed to participate for a response
rate of 38%. Most participants became
aware of the reference consultation service by receiving library instruction as
part of their course or through word-of-mouth recommendations from peers or
faculty. No participants were aware of consultations through library marketing
efforts or the library website. The major theme that emerged from the analysis
was that patrons chose a reference consultation because it allowed them
one-on-one attention from the librarian and because of the librarian’s
perceived subject expertise. The primary problems participants identified with the
service were that it was not adequately marketed to the students and that
students were not aware of the service. Participants intended to use the skills
and information gathered from the consultation to continue their independent
research and they also largely intended to use librarian’s services as they
continue working on their projects.
Conclusion – The authors found that the reference consultation
is a valuable service for academic libraries and that consultation with a
librarian in their office provides unique perceived benefits to the patrons
compared to a traditional reference desk interaction. Further research is
suggested to determine the value of consultations for distance or online
students, to ensure that reference consultations services are sustainable, and
to further examine student’s emotive reactions to the consultation experience.
Commentary
In a time of limited resources and increasing change
for academic libraries, establishing the value of time and resource-intensive
services is essential. The authors of this study investigate the value of
face-to-face research consultation services by examining the experiences of
patrons. This study builds on the considerable literature looking at
individualized reference consultations
by taking a qualitative approach using extensive interviews with
individual students (Faix, MacDonald, & Taxakis, 2014; Fournier &
Sikora, 2015; Magi & Mardeusz, 2013).
This study was assessed using Glynn’s critical
appraisal tool for library and information research and was found to have an
80% validity rating (2006). The research methodology is clearly described and
the outcomes are thoroughly discussed. As the interviews were intended to be
open-ended, there was no survey instrument used. However, the authors do state
that there were prompts provided to the interviewers to help guide the
discussion, and it would have been beneficial for these to be included with the
paper. In addition, full transcripts of the interviews would have also been
helpful for assessing the author’s conclusions.
The authors openly recognize that volunteer bias was a
major concern and a potential weakness in their study. Interviewers were
directed to ask participants why they agreed to the study to determine the
presence of volunteer bias. The responses did confirm that volunteer bias was a
major limit to the study; a majority expressed that they wanted to participate
because they wanted to help the librarians due to their positive experiences
with the library. The authors acknowledge that this limits their study,
although overall they feel that the results are still valid, which is supported
by the 80% rating found in the critical appraisal process.
The researchers were librarians at the institution and
they ensured that no participants were interviewed by the librarian with whom
they had a consultation. However, the fact that the interviewers were also
librarians could be another source of bias in the results and this is not
addressed by the authors. The study could possibly have been stronger if the
interviewers were a more neutral party, to ameliorate the possibility of
participant bias.
Despite the limitations, this study adds insight to
patron’s experiences with reference consultations and potentially opens up new
areas to examine in terms of both analyzing patron experience and marketing of
consultation services. Particularly notable was that the authors found that
patrons highly valued librarians’ perceived subject matter expertise, despite
the fact that librarians at this institution are hired as and marketed as
generalists. If this tension was further examined in research, it could have
considerable practical implications for the model of reference services at both
this and other institutions. This study would be useful for librarians and
library administrators in academic libraries looking for insights into how
reference consultation is structured and perceived by patrons at other
institutions as well as a basis for further research.
References
Faix, A., MacDonald, A., & Taxakis, B. (2014). Research consultation
effectiveness for freshman and senior undergraduate students. Reference Services Review, 42(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-05-2013-0024
Fournier, K., & Sikora, L. (2015). Individualized Research
Consultations in Academic Libraries: A Scoping Review of Practice and
Evaluation Methods. Evidence Based
Library and Information Practice, 10(4),
247–267. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8ZC7W
Glynn, L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information
research. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692154
Magi, T. J., & Mardeusz, P. E. (2013). Why Some Students Continue to
Value Individual, Face-to-Face Research Consultations in a Technology-Rich
World. College & Research Libraries,
74(6), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl12-363