1. Virtual Reference in CARL Libraries Susan Beatty Head Information Commons University of Calgary Library Peggy White Head Science & Technology Liaison Services University of Calgary Library

2. The new generation

3. Today’s Session Survey of CARL libraries Methodology Major Highlights Analysis of Results Impact Where do we go from here?

4. Purpose of study Analyse Virtual Reference Service in CARL libraries Use ARL data from 2002 survey for comparison What has changed What is the impact

5. Methodology ARL survey 2002 Jana Ronan Associate University Librarian Carol Turner Director Public Services University of Florida Replicate with CARL libraries 2006 29 CARL institutes both English & French Inclusive

6. Summary of results 16 responses for 55% response rate 81% yes 19% no ARL 53% response rate 54% yes 46% no

7. Major highlights Who? There has not been a major uptake in virtual reference What? Of those providing virtual reference there is trend towards IM How much? There has been an increase in use of virtual reference in 7/10 institutions over time

8. What are they using? For IM: Microsoft Messenger MSN For specialized software: Docutek VRL plus (Sirsi/Dynix), QuestionPoint (OCLC) and Ask A Librarian™ (Tutor.com) ARL Different software products – a changing marketplace

9. Critical Elements in Selection Ease of use Price (not so much for ARL) Accessible via the web with no software required Elements of software e.g. push technology somewhat less important, ARL somewhat more important

10. How long have they been using it? 60% more than two years 40 % 6 months to two years ARL – the reverse 6% more than two years 75% 6 months to two years

11. Staffing Reporting structure varied greatly from institution to institution Generally offered by reference staff Usually performed in the office and not on the desk Usually part of ongoing assignments

12. Administration Person who heads up the service tends to be coordinator not head – possibly whoever is available Only 2/10 “Head of reference” This suggests an additional role

15. What we did not ask How did you train? How long did it take? Ongoing training? What did your staff think of the training? Were they prepared enough when they started? What is the content to cover over time?

16. Who are the users?

17. Where are they?

18. Service models Most institutions have limited the service hours to Monday-Friday with some offering Saturday and Sunday 8/10 place no restrictions on who can use the service 9/10 noted that users came from in the library at times when face to face reference service was available

19. Scheduling Most providers cover off 2-4 hours of virtual reference per week. Half offer same schedule throughout the year and half reduce service during spring and summer.

20. What are they asking?

23. Marketing All had included mention of service in library orientations and instruction Highlighted on library web page Library newsletter New to CARL: blog and course management system (e.g. Blackboard)

24. Evaluation Transactions count Review the transcripts Web survey of users

25. Perceptions of service Ease of use Number of service hours Accuracy of answers Evaluating service

34. Moving On What has grown out of the virtual reference service? How has the use of resources changed? What impact if any is there on ongoing staff training and development?

35. Readings Ronan, J. & Turner, C. (2002). Chat reference: spec kit 273. Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC. (2004). Guidelines for implementing and maintaining virtual reference services. Reference and User Services Association. Available online at http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/referenceg uide/virtrefguidelines.htm http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/referenceg uide/virtrefguidelines.htm

36. Readings Cummings, J., Cummings, L & Frederiksen, L. (2007). User preferences in reference services: virtual reference in academic libraries. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7 (1) 81-96. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_th e_academy/ http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_th e_academy/ Fagan, J.D. (2005). Virtual reference software comparative review. The Charleston Advisor, 6 (4). http://www.charlestonco.com/ http://www.charlestonco.com/ Houghton, S. & Schmidt, A. (2005). Web-based chat vs. instant messaging who wins? Online, July/August, 27-30. http://infotoday.com/online/http://infotoday.com/online/

37. Thanks Susan Beatty sdbeatty@ucalgary.ca Peggy White pwhite@ucalgary.ca