Collaboration As the Norm in Reference Work

Feature

Collaboration as the Norm in Reference Work

The stereotype of the reference transaction All of the examples that Green provides, Jeffrey Pomerantz is more or less unchanged since Samuel however, involve precisely one librarian Swett Green’s day, as involving precisely and one user. Jeffrey Pomerantz is Associate Profes- one librarian and one user. There are Another seminal author on the top- sor, School of Information and Library many common situations in which the ic of library reference, Taylor, adopts Science, University of North Carolina at reference transaction is not a one-to-one Green’s implicit model of the reference Chapel Hill. Submitted for review July interaction, and this article will explore transaction being a one-to-one interac- 19, 2004; revised and accepted for those situations. Additionally, this arti- tion.2 Taylor’s concern was not to make publication April 19, 2005. cle argues that as network technology is a case for interaction between librarian increasingly utilized in reference work, and user, as Green’s was; rather, Taylor’s situations in which the reference transac- concern was to elucidate the steps that tion is not a one-to-one interaction are librarians must lead the user through becoming more common. Indeed, this ar- during this interaction. As with Green, ticle argues that as network technology is however, Taylor implicitly assumes that increasingly utilized in reference work, ref- there is one and only one librarian and erence work will become fundamentally a user in this interaction. collaborative effort, to the benefit of both The major textbooks on reference individual reference services and reference work similarly treat the reference trans- work in general. action as a one-to-one interaction.3 On the one hand, it is perfectly reasonable ur conception of the that textbooks would take this ap- stereotypical reference proach, since one-to-one interaction transaction comes to us is the simplest model of interpersonal more or less unchanged communication and is how many mod- Osince Samuel Swett Green’s day. Green els of dialogic communication portray discusses what he refers to as “personal that communication.4 On the other relations between librarians and read- hand, like many models, the model ers,” suggesting that the value of the of the reference transaction as a one- library to the user is heavily influenced to-one interaction is overly simplistic. by the quality of the interaction be- There are many common situations Reference & User Services Quarterly, tween the user and the librarian.1 He in which the reference transaction is vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 45–55 provides several examples of the sort not a one-to-one interaction, and this © 2006 American Library Association. All rights reserved. of personalized assistance that he sug- article will explore those situations. Permission granted to reproduce for gests a librarian should offer to a user. Additionally, as network technology is nonprofit, educational use.

volume 46, issue 1 | 45 Feature increasingly utilized in reference work, meaning is accomplished, the original tion about the user’s situation and the situations in which the reference trans- speech act achieves the status of “com- context of the question, and thereby action is not a one-to-one interaction mon ground” between the speaker and arrive at an understanding of the ques- are becoming more common. Indeed, the addressee, for the purposes of the tion. This situation and context is, this article argues that as network tech- conversation. however, not present for a user who is nology is increasingly utilized in refer- The reference transaction is not, acting as an agent. On the other hand, ence work, reference work will become however, an ordinary conversation. The in order for the agent to be in posses- fundamentally a collaborative effort. conversation that is the reference trans- sion of the question in the first place, action is complicated by the fact that the and for the principal to be comfortable Reference Work participants are not simply exchanging with the agent representing her to a Has Always Been statements; rather, one of the partici- reference service, the principal and the pants is asking a question of the other. agent must presumably have a conver- Collaborative Further, the questioner may be asking sation in order for the former to convey Tyckoson discusses the two historically a question on a topic about which he to the latter her information need. Al- predominant models of reference ser- may know little or nothing. Belkin, though this conversation is most likely vice: the model in which the librarian Oddy, and Brooks refer to this as an hidden from the librarian (because it provides an answer to the user’s ques- “anomalous state of knowledge,” and takes place prior to the reference trans- tion, and the model in which the librar- claim that “in general, the user is un- action), it must take place in order for ian teaches the user to use the library able to specify precisely what is needed the principal and the agent to have ar- and to answer her own questions.5 to resolve that anomaly.”8 What sets the rived at common ground sufficient for Regardless of which model a library reference transaction apart from an ordi- the agent to operate. or a librarian practices, however, it is nary conversation is that the participants Regardless of whether its purpose necessary for the librarian and the user attempt to achieve common ground on is question answering or instruction, to collaborate. a topic about which neither may possess the reference transaction is fundamen- The reference transaction is a col- any knowledge. In a way, it is amazing tally a collaborative effort. Collabora- laborative effort between the librarian that common ground is ever achieved tion necessarily occurs between the and the user, in the sense that all inter- in reference transactions; it is for this librarian and the user, and may also personal communication is a collabora- reason that Lynch refers to the reference occur between a principal and an agent. tive effort between the participants in transaction as a process of “mind-read- The remainder of this article, however, a communication process. The field of ing.”9 But this mind reading does occur, will focus on collaborations on the communication studies known as dis- and it is through the process of mutual other side of the reference transaction: course analysis is based on what Clark construction of meaning that it is able to between librarians, and between refer- and Wilkes-Gibbs refer to as the “con- occur. It is because the reference transac- ence services. versational model” of communication.6 tion is a conversation, and conversations According to this model, both individu- are collaborative efforts between the par- Collaboration at als involved in a conversation are active ticipants, that the reference transaction the Desk participants in constructing meaning in is able to succeed in resolving the user’s the context of the conversation. Clark anomalous state of knowledge, or in Perhaps the most familiar form of col- and Schaefer build on this idea of providing the user with the knowledge laboration between librarians in refer- mutual construction of meaning, and to resolve it herself. ence work is also one of the simplest: propose what they refer to as a contri- While the conversation that is the the referral. Childers draws a distinc- bution. A contribution is a combination reference transaction is a collaborative tion between “steering,” or providing of a speech act—that is, the utterance effort between the librarian and the directions for the user to another ser- of some meaningful content—and the user, there may also be a conversation vice, and “referring,” or making contact acceptance of that content. This ac- that leads up to the reference transac- with that other service for the user.11 In ceptance occurs when “the speaker tion. This is the case when the user in both cases, a librarian directs the user and addressees mutually believe that the reference transaction is acting as to another librarian or reference ser- the addressees have understood what an agent for another. Gross refers to vice, and collectively the librarians at the speaker meant.”7 (This situation is a reference question of this type as an these different services answer the user’s summed up most artfully by the char- “imposed query,” which is a reference question. In the case of Childers’s steer- acter of Prince Geoffrey in the 1968 film question that is “set in motion when ing, the librarians may never directly The Lion in Winter, when he states that: a person gives a question to someone collaborate with one another about the “I know. You know I know. I know you else to resolve.” 10 As Gross points out, user’s question; they may never meet or know I know. We know Henry knows, much of reference work is predicated even know that each other exists except and Henry knows we know it.”) When on the assumption that through conver- in the most abstract way. Indeed, in that mutual acceptance of the speaker’s sation, the librarian can elicit informa- such a case, the referring librarian may

46 | Reference & User Services Quarterly Collaboration as the Norm in Reference Work never even know if the user contacts tions described above: collaboration in by the New York Public Library, and the the referred-to service. Thus, a steered person, a referral made to a colleague many books by Feldman.16 Even armed referral is a collaborative effort, but only within the library, and a referral made to with such books, however, it is still up barely: it is collaborative in the sense another library or service. In the case of to the librarian to know that an answer that multiple librarians are part of a a referral, the universe of possibilities is may be found in one of those books. virtual team that works on answering that the burden is on the librarian or on And if an answer cannot be found in a question, though that team is con- the user to contact that other service. It such a book, what is a librarian to do? nected in that task only by the user. was only after the adoption of the tele- Or, more to the point, what was a librar- A referred referral, then, according to phone at the reference desk, however, ian to do in the days before Google? Childers, is one in which the librarians that it was feasible for the librarian to actually do directly collaborate with one contact the referred-to service. Most Collaboration Forums another on the user’s question. of the literature on providing refer- Hawley takes a different approach to ence service by telephone discusses the In the situation where a librarian does categorizing types of referrals, drawing telephone as a tool for the provision of not know where to find an answer, a distinction between an “intra-library” reference service.14 This literature treats and also does not know to where to referral, where the user is referred to the reference transaction as a collabora- refer the user, the best option may be another librarian within the same li- tive effort between the librarian and the to send out a message in a bottle, as brary, and an “extra-library” referral, user, as discussed above. Very little of it were. The column, titled The Ex- where the user is referred to another this literature mentions the telephone as change, which appeared in RQ from library altogether.12 In an intra-library a tool for contacting other librarians or 1965 through its entire run, and sub- referral, it can probably be assumed reference services, though this is a very sequently in Reference and User Services that the referring and the referred-to obvious use of the telephone. Indeed, Quarterly (RUSQ) through 1999, ful- librarians at least know each other, and Janes, in a 2003 Luminary Lecture at filled this function. The archives of The it allows for the possibility that they the Library of Congress (www.loc.gov/ Exchange are now available online to will actively collaborate in answering rr/program/lectures/janes.html), stated members of the Reference and User Ser- the user’s question. This is probably the that his mother, who was herself a ref- vices Association (RUSA) (http://cs.ala simplest model of true collaboration erence librarian, always said that “her .org/rusa/login/index.cfm). As a forum in reference work, when the librarians favorite reference tool was the tele- for the exchange of “tricky questions, are physically collocated, and collabo- phone.”15 It seems unlikely that Mrs. notes on unusual information sources, rate in person. Reasons for this type of Janes is alone in this. Prior to the adop- and general comments concerning ref- collaboration may vary: one librarian tion of the telephone as a reference tool, erence problems and their solutions,” may have expertise that the other does however, extra-library referrals could The Exchange allowed librarians to not have, or one librarian may simply only be steered—it would have been seek input from other librarians whom be stumped and two heads are better impossible for the librarian to make they may not even have known.17 The than one. This form of collaboration is contact with another library or service Exchange effectively allowed librarians a conversation in the sense discussed without leaving the desk. to collaborate with the whole world above, only instead of being between a In this same lecture, Janes also (or at least the whole RQ- and RUSQ- librarian and a user, it is between two mentions the example of an art ques- reading world) on answering reference librarians.13 The user is thus in the posi- tion being submitted to the Internet questions. tion of being the user of the artifacts of Public Library (IPL). In this case, Janes Approximately thirty years later, the conversation—that is, the common states, the question might be forwarded another venue for global collaboration, ground agreed upon by the librarians to the Ask Joan of Art service, because as it were, was launched: The Stumpers participating in the conversation. This a subject specialist in art would likely discussion list (domin.dom.edu/depts/ common ground will hopefully include be able to provide a better answer than gslis/stumpers). Stumpers was founded an answer to the user’s questions. In a subject generalist could. But, Janes in 1992 as a forum for librarians to post an extra-library referral, on the other points out, in this situation it would reference questions to which they are hand, the user may be either steered be up to the librarian to know that Ask unable to find answers, and thereby or referred: that is, the librarian may Joan of Art is the best service to pro- to enlist the expertise of a distributed simply tell the user to go to another vide an answer to the user. A reference network of other Stumpers subscrib- service (with contact information in service is inevitably going to receive ers (who are mostly, if not entirely li- hand, one hopes), or the librarian may questions that it cannot answer, and for brarians) in locating answers.18 In this make contact with that other service which the best alternative service for sense, Stumpers and The Exchange for the user. answering those questions is unclear. are identical in purpose. The only sig- The universe of possibilities for in- There are books that attempt to fill this nificant differences between these two teraction between librarians in referrals niche by providing answers to unusual forums are the media of collaboration— is pretty much exhausted by the situa- questions, such as The Book of Answers electronic and paper, respectively—and

volume 46, issue 1 | 47 Feature the speed with which questions may Asynchronous Digital to collaborate with others outside of the consequently be answered. Reference service as within it. Both Stumpers and The Exchange In the mid-1990s, AskA Services are unique forums. Feeney mentions The earliest digital reference services began to form into consortia. The pur- that prior to the founding of Stumpers, were developed in the mid-1980s. They pose of these consortia was to provide the LIBREF discussion list was occa- were offered, via e-mail, as outgrowths a vehicle for services to swap out-of- sionally a forum for the exchange of of existing reference-desk services in scope and overflow questions, so that 21 questions and answers between librar- academic and special libraries. These if one service received a question that ians (and sometimes still is), and such digital reference services were devel- it could not or would not answer for oped both to extend the hours of avail- exchange is common on many library some reason, it could be forwarded to ability of the reference desk, and to discussion lists dedicated to specific another service in the consortium that experiment with the new technology of topics or services, or service to par- could answer it. Digital reference ser- campus-wide networks. In the early- to ticular user groups.19 To this author’s vices that are members of these ques- mid-1990s, reference services began to knowledge, however, no other discus- tion-swapping consortia therefore not appear on the Internet that were not sion list but Stumpers has ever been only receive questions submitted di- affiliated with a library.22 Lankes refers entirely dedicated to this purpose. Simi- rectly by users, but also questions tri- to services of this type as “AskA” ser- larly, there has never been another fo- aged from other services. Pomerantz, vices, since services of this type allow rum for question-and-answer exchange Nicholson, and Lankes define triage as users to ask questions of librarians or in the print library literature like The “the assignment and routing of a ques- experts who specialize in a particular tion to a digital reference service, and Exchange. Stumpers and The Exchange subject: for example, art (Ask Joan of to a reference or subject expert within are the only existing structured forums Art), mathematics (Ask Dr. Math), or a service.”24 (as opposed to the informality of per- 23 oceanography (Ask Shamu). These There are a number of such consor- sonal and discussion-list conversations) early digital reference services, both tia, both national and local. The Met- for knowledge sharing between librar- those affiliated with libraries and ropolitan Cooperative Library System ians, outside of the institutional frame- AskAs, were standalone services, in the (MCLS, www.mcls.org) is an associa- work of their respective libraries. To a sense that submitted reference question of public, academic, and corporate certain extent, the existence of these tions were answered solely by the li- libraries in the greater Los Angeles forums is a demonstration of librarians’ brarians and experts within the library area, which as of this writing includes commitment to their users: librarians or service. forty-four full and twenty-six associate will seek out answers to difficult ques- As at the physical reference desk, members (www.mcls.org/webpublic/ tions even on their own time. More collaboration occurs between librar- libraries/libraries.cfm). As of this writ- importantly, however, these forums are ians and experts in digital reference ing the Virtual Reference Desk (VRD) communities of what Burbules refers to and AskA services. While these services has thirty-two AskA service partici- as “distributed credibility,” in which the are by nature distributed, services af- pants, which themselves span a range of members of the community pool their filiated with a library are often staffed sizes from one-person labors of love to knowledge and thereby replace “an by the same librarians as staff the refer- large, institutionally sponsored opera- individual judgment with a collective ence desk, and those unaffiliated with tions, and which geographically span intelligence.”20 These forums allow the a library often have headquarters in the United States.25 The QuestionPoint reference transaction to extend beyond a physical location. For example the service and its affiliated software is used just one librarian—they allow reference Internet Public Library (www.ipl.org) by one thousand libraries in twenty work to be a community exercise. is based in the School of Information countries.26 These three services are at the University of Michigan at Ann merely examples to illustrate the range Arbor, and many of IPL’s volunteers are in size, geography, and types of partici- students in the school. When librar- pating organizations of such question- Collaboration Online ians and experts are physically collo- swapping consortia; there are many cated, they may collaborate in person. The Stumpers discussion list was found- others both within the United States The distributed nature of these ser- ed at approximately the same time that and worldwide. vices also allows librarians and experts another new form of reference service to collaborate via mediated channels, Synchronous Digital Reference was coming into existence: the AskA such as telephone, e-mail, and instant service. AskA services are themselves messaging (IM). When such channels Synchronous digital reference services outgrowths of a slightly older form are used for collaboration, however, it have also formed consortia. A range of of reference service utilizing network- becomes less important that librarians applications have been used to provide ing technology: the digital reference and experts are physically collocated. synchronous digital reference services, service. It thus becomes as easy for librarians from IM applications such as AOL IM,

48 | Reference & User Services Quarterly Collaboration as the Norm in Reference Work to applications designed specifically paratively small percentage of the users services seems to be increasing. Consid- for chat-based reference. This latter supported. er the dramatic growth in the number category includes several applications: The author and colleagues found, of members of various consortia over Tutor.com’s Virtual Reference Toolkit further, that NCknows librarians han- the past few years: From 2002 to 2004 (www.vrtoolkit.net), the eponymous dled 45 percent, and the rest of the VRD more than doubled its number of 24/7 Reference (www.247ref.org), the 24/7 consortium of which NCknows is participants, from fifteen to thirty-two, Library of Congress and OCLC’s Ques- a member handled 55 percent of the while within that same timeframe the tionPoint (www.questionpoint.org), users who logged into the NCknows QuestionPoint service grew from “over and Docutek’s VRLplus (www.docutek. service. Even more dramatic, PLCMC 300 libraries” to one thousand.30 com), to name only the most widely librarians handled 16 percent, and the This increase in the size of question- used. For an excellent review of the fea- 24/7 network handled 84 percent of swapping consortia is a classic case of tures of these and other applications for the users who logged into PLCMC’s network effects, whereby the value of chat-based reference, see Ronan.27 (pre-NCknows) chat service. NCknows a network increases as the number of Several consortia of synchronous- and the PLCMC made out well in this: users of that network increases. An ex- reference services have been formed for a comparatively minimal investment ample of this is the telephone network: since the late 1990s. Some of these in supporting users outside of their one telephone alone is useless, but the consortia are composed of libraries us- primary user communities, these chat value of each telephone increases as the ing the same software application, such services increased several times over the number of telephones in the network as QuestionPoint, Virtual Reference volume of transactions that they were increases and it becomes possible to call Toolkit, and 24/7 Reference. Some of able to handle during their hours of more people. This rule is referred to as these consortia are composed of librar- service, in addition to dramatically ex- Metcalfe’s Law in reference to computer ies within a single state or geographic panding the number of hours that chat- networks, and Reed’s Law in reference region, such as NCknows, a consortium based reference service could be offered to social networks. Reed suggests that of libraries in North Carolina (www to their primary user community. the value of membership in a social .ncknows.org), QandA-NJ, a consortium network—such as a question-swapping of libraries in New Jersey (www.qandanj Network Effects consortium—“is the value of the set of .org), the CLEVNET (Cleveland, Ohio) optional transactions that are afforded Library Consortium’s KnowItNow24x7 The purpose of a library consortium by the system or network.”31 Thus, the (www.knowitnow24x7.net), and the is to share resources between librar- value of a question-swapping consor- Western New York Library Resources ies, to leverage scarce resources such tium is that the more other digital ref- Council’s Ask a WNY Librarian (www as materials, time, or money. There are erence services are members, the more .wnylrc.org). many arenas in which libraries form other services are available to which Joining a consortium of reference consortia: interlibrary loan, copy cata- your service can potentially triage ques- services obligates a library to support loging, software purchasing, and ven- tions. Further, the more other services users from outside its primary user dor negotiations, to name only a few.29 that specialize in particular subject ar- community, since even if all libraries Reference work, however, is not one of eas are members of the consortium, the answer questions from their own users the arenas in which libraries have tra- more questions your service can triage first, there will inevitably be times when ditionally formed consortia. Desk refer- to appropriate other services to be an- a library will answer questions from ence services have never joined forces swered by subject specialists. another library’s users. In a study of the in a consortia. Lavender, Nicholson, and Pomer- NCknows service, however, Pomerantz There is one resource that is as antz, however, discuss the difficulty and McClure found that 75 percent of scarce as any of the others—perhaps that question-swapping consortia have users of the NCknows service are from more so—but intangible, and so not had in convincing museums and other within the state of North Carolina, often thought of as a resource that may subject-specialist services to join.32 This and that 86 percent of users of the be shared in a consortium: knowledge. difficulty is caused in part by the fact chat-based reference service offered by Knowledge is, however, precisely the that museums often do not have a ref- the Public Library of Charlotte and resource that is shared in consortia of erence department as libraries do, and Mecklenberg County, North Carolina digital reference services. Although desk in part because the questions that mu- (PLCMC, www.plcmc.org) are from reference services have never formed seums do receive are often so specific within the state of North Carolina, and consortia, consortia are common to material in the museum’s collection 67 percent are from users in the Char- among digital reference services. While that no other service would be able to lotte area.28 (PLCMC is now part of the there are undoubtedly standalone digi- successfully provide answers. Lavender, NCknows service, but their chat-based tal reference services that collaborate Nicholson, and Pomerantz suggest that reference service predates NCknows by with no others, there are many that are in order to make participation in ques- two years.) Thus, while joining a con- part of such question-swapping con- tion-swapping consortia attractive to sortium obligates a library to support sortia. Furthermore, this trend towards museums and other subject-specialist other library’s users, this may be a com- collaboration between digital reference services, “modified publicity materials,

volume 46, issue 1 | 49 Feature question forms, and infrastructure will cal order (the most recent posts to break down the barriers between li- be needed.”33 In other words, as ques- come first). Each post is uniquely brarians, to extend a reference transaction-swapping consortia become more identified by an anchor tag, and it tion beyond just one librarian, and to formalized and develop standards for is marked with a permanent link foster discussion among librarians—in the various aspects of managing the that can be referred to by others short, to allow reference work to be a service, they will have a greater appeal who wish to link to it.36 community exercise. Burbules’s notion to a greater number of different types of of distributed credibility suggests that In some ways blogs are journals, digital reference services. a community of librarians may contrib- but blogs require us to reinvestigate our Early in the development of these ute a fuller and more complete answer understanding of the term. Some might question-swapping consortia, Lankes than any one single librarian might be post their private thoughts on their blog foresaw the need for standards for ex- able to do.39 (a more traditional understanding of a changing questions between services.34 Ask MetaFilter has the drawback, journal), while others might use their In a white paper, Lankes proposed however, that any registered user may blog to create journals of news events, what he called the Question Inter- contribute an answer to a question, and political happenings, or technological change Profile (QuIP), a set of metadata anyone may register—so that there is developments. Indeed, blogs of all of elements for passing information about no control over the accuracy or com- these types and more exist. a question between digital reference pleteness of the answers provided. At Blogs have the potential to take services. QuIP has evolved consider- the time of this writing, for example, on the role that The Exchange and ably since 1999, and is currently in there is a posting on Ask MetaFilter Stumpers have previously filled in the the process of being formalized as a that asks, “Can someone please explain library world: forums for knowledge standard by the National Information to me the difference between owning sharing between reference librarians, Standards Organization (NISO) and the and/or licensing proprietary software, rather than between reference services. Library of Congress, under the name of or if there is even a difference in those While blogs have not yet been utilized the Question/Answer Transaction Pro- two terms?” This posting received five for this purpose, they have a great deal tocol (QATP) (www.loc.gov/standards/ responses in the approximately twenty- of potential for collaborative-reference netref). The purpose of QATP is to four hours since it was posted, and work. Blogs have to date been used by provide a set of metadata elements that not a single one was from a copyright libraries primarily as high-tech bulletin may provide a “wrapper” for a question lawyer, or even a lawyer of any stripe, boards, as venues for publishing news- or a question-and-answer pair, contain- and none discussed current copyright letters and press releases, or making an- ing all of the information that a digital or intellectual property laws. For a nouncements about library services.37 reference service may need when re- blog to be useful for library reference Some have suggested using blogs as ceiving a question from another service. work, standards must be implemented venues for making available compiled QATP is only the first and, at this point to regulate who has the authority to an- resources, and there are many blogs in time, the most developed standard swer questions, and possibly also who maintained by librarians that are venues for managing question-swapping con- has permission to ask questions. Such in which the blogger discusses news sortia; it is likely that other standards standards already exist in desk- and and events that they consider impor- will follow. Indeed, Maxwell suggests digital reference services, however, so tant to the library community.38 Blogs that only once standards are developed implementing them for blog reference may, however, be fruitfully used by will digital reference take “the next ma- would simply be a new application of libraries for more interactive purposes, jor step in its development,” and that the same. As with question-swapping specifically for reference work where this next major step will include new consortia, in order for blogs to appeal more than one librarian may contribute methods for sharing knowledge.35 to digital reference services, they must to an answer. become more formalized and standards While there are to date no blogs that must be developed. Asynchronous Digital the author is aware of that are being Reference Redux used for library reference work, there is one blog that has created a forum for Discussion From highly standardized services, this users to post questions and answers: discussion now turns to one of the Ask MetaFilter (ask.metafilter.com). The examples discussed of synchronous least-standardized services on the Web MetaFilter’s documentation states that and asynchronous forms of reference these days: blogs. Doctorow and others the site “exists to break down the barri- work illustrate that there are several offer this definition of blogs: ers between people, to extend a weblog possibilities for collaboration in refer- beyond just one person, and to foster ence work: A blog is a web page that contains discussion among its members” (www brief, discrete hunks of informa- .metafilter.com/ about.mefi). This is the n between users, or perhaps more tion called posts. These posts are premise behind the suggestion that accurately, between potential users arranged in a reverse-chronologi- blogs may be used for library reference: (for example, the imposed query);

50 | Reference & User Services Quarterly Collaboration as the Norm in Reference Work n between the librarian and the user therefore the user’s willingness to submit their questions regardless of the source, (for example, the traditional refer- another question to the same service. By reference services can no longer simply ence transaction); virtue of being online, all digital refer- provide referrals, can no longer simply n between librarians, both within a ence services are more or less equally steer users to other services. Instead, library (for example, colleagues col- accessible; just because a chat reference when making referrals, reference servic- laborating on answering a question) service is affiliated with a user’s local li- es must act as the user’s agent to make and across libraries (for example, brary does not mean that that service is contact with other reference services. Stumpers); and the one to which that user will choose Indeed, this is no more than adhering n between services (for example, to submit a question. Therefore, just as to RUSA’s Guidelines for Information question-swapping consortia). a librarian has one chance to impress a Services, which states that “Before refer- user before that user makes a judgment ring a user to an agency, expert, or other Figure 1 represents these possi- about her willingness to return to that library, information-services personnel ble collaborations, the boxes indicat- librarian, so too does a digital reference should confirm that the agency, expert, ing the participants and the arrows service have one chance to impress a or library to which the user is being re- indicating the collaborations between user before that user makes a judgment ferred can provide the information and participants. about her willingness to return to that will extend its services to that user.”45 Prior to the adoption of the tele- service. And, given the ease with which The fact that users are concerned phone as a reference tool, when all a user may locate other digital reference with finding answers regardless of the reference services were standalone ser- services, if a user is unwilling to return source also puts pressure on reference vices, a reference service could arguably to a service, it is possible that the service services to provide answers instead of get away with referring a user to anoth- has lost that user for good.43 DeSouza teaching the user to answer her own er service and then putting the burden refers to this phenomenon in the com- questions. With regard to the issue on the user to contact the referred-to mercial sector as “customer defection”: of question answering or instruction, service. These days, however, many in- service defectors are “customers who technology is a double-edged sword for formation services are available to users leave because of poor service,” while reference services: to a certain extent it online: digital reference services, help product defectors are “customers who is users’ use of technology that enables desks in organizations of all types, even switch to a competitor that offers a su- them to be so demanding of answers, search engines. As Lavender, Nicholson, perior product.”44 These two forms of but use of technology also makes it and Pomerantz state, “the typical user is defection presumably often go hand-in- more difficult to conduct the reference not concerned with a specific collection hand, the former leading to the latter. transaction that allows the librarian to within a specific library, but rather with DeSouza claims that it may be impos- collaborate with the user to resolve her his information need and consequently sible to get a product defector back as a information need.46 In a study of a chat- with getting an answer to their question customer, and it is likely so with digital based reference service, however, Hull from any collection.”40 While they were reference users as well. Once a user is found that some form of instruction oc- referring to users of reference services unwilling to return to a service, and has curred in the majority of chat sessions, in library special collections, the same is found another service or services with and frequently unintentionally—that often true of users of reference services which he is satisfied, it may be impos- is, instruction was incorporated into in general: the user is concerned with sible to get that user back. the flow of the reference transaction.47 finding an answer to his question, and Given the ease and convenience Time will tell which of the models of may not be particularly concerned with with which users may find information reference service discussed will prove where that answer comes from. Indeed, online (poor in quality though it may to be most appropriate for online- the user may not even be particularly be at times), and the fact that users reference services, or if new models will concerned with the authority and com- are concerned with finding answers to emerge. In any case, when reference pleteness of that answer, which may explain the extensive use that Web search engines are currently receiving, while Figure 1: Possible collaborations in reference work digital reference services are receiving far less use.41 Durrance suggests that a measure of the quality of the reference service provided is the user’s willingness to return to ask another question of the same librarian.42 In a digital reference service, however, the user may have no control over which specific librarian he asks a question of; an alternative to Durrance’s criterion for a digital reference service is

volume 46, issue 1 | 51 Feature services are under pressure to provide service’s archive of transactions is pub- B is invisible. Indeed, this QATP use answers to users, collaboration between lic, however, it is important that users’ case is reminiscent of Gross’s imposed services is critical. A digital reference privacy and confidentiality is main- query, though with the difference that service that can insure that its users tained, consistent with ALA’s Code of the user may be unaware that her query receive answers—even if this means Ethics.50 On the other hand, there is a has been referred. This again begs the referring the question to another service legitimate need for libraries to maintain question of whether it is appropriate for that will provide those answers—has a data about users and users’ questions a digital reference service to be a black better chance of attracting repeat users. in order to perform evaluation of the box to the user. In order to survive individually, it is service. These two needs—privacy and Users may not care about the source incumbent on digital reference services evaluation—appear at first glance to of the information they receive, but to collaborate. be incommensurate, especially in the libraries and librarians certainly do. In a sense, this is an argument for current political climate where users’ Dempsey states that all documents pro- digital reference services to be black privacy is threatened by legislation such duced by libraries should indicate the boxes to the user. If users are concerned as the USA Patriot Act, and librarians library’s “brand,” such as by utilizing more with getting their questions an- are responding by destroying library a unique graphic identity. 54 Similarly, swered than with the specific library records.51 There are, however, ways of answers from digital reference services or other source that provides those removing personally identifying data should indicate their source in some answers, then they are unlikely to be from transactions short of wholesale way, such as a header or signature particularly interested in the mechanics deletion. Nicholson and Smith outline block in e-mail. This is not suggested of how a digital reference service man- perhaps the best-developed method for to encourage services to steal users ages to provide their answer. If those cleaning digital reference transaction from one another, but rather as a simple mechanics involve forwarding a ques- data proposed to date, by “de-identi- way for services to market and brand tion to another service to be answered, fying” transactions in ways consistent themselves, so that users will come then so be it. Many users may not un- with Health Insurance Portability and to associate a specific digital reference derstand how Google operates, and are Accountability Act guidelines.52 service—or perhaps better still, digital satisfied simply that it does what it does A thorough analysis of the tension reference services in general—with use- well; so, too, many users are likely to between privacy and digital reference ful and high-quality information. care only that they receive useful and is a much longer discussion than is In a 2004 webcast on Institution- high-quality information quickly from possible here; fortunately others have al Repositories (www.arl.org/training/ a digital reference service. written such analyses.53 One issue that webcast/ir), Daniel Greenstein, the The argument for digital reference these authors have not explored, how- University Librarian for the California services being a black box to the user ever, is the degree to which de-identify- Digital Library, commented that schol- works, however, only up to a point. ing transactions may restrict a service’s arly publishing is undergoing radical One of VRD’s Facets of Quality is pri- ability to refer the user’s question to changes, and that universities must not vacy of the communication between the another service. When a referral is be afraid to experiment with new forms user and the librarian.48 To maintain made, how much information about of publication and must not be afraid to privacy, VRD recommends that digital the user must the referred-to service fail in those experiments—that failed reference services “receive consent from receive in order to accurately answer experiments are a useful method for users before sharing transaction data the user’s query? Almost certainly the learning and shaping the future. The or identifying information with a third answer to this question depends on the same is true of collaboration in digital party”—and another digital reference user’s query, but it bears future research. reference: reference services must not service is just such a third party. Janes The existence of the developing QATP, be afraid to experiment with new forms lists the most common information however, allows for investigation of this of collaboration and must not be afraid asked for by digital reference services question. One of the simplest use cases to fail in these experiments. on question-submission webforms and outlined for QATP is that “A sends the A discussion was started on May 25, “consent to share transaction data” is question to B, requesting an answer. B 2004, on the Dig_Ref discussion list on not one of them, though it would not be processes the question, determines the the topic of chat reference services that difficult to add this to a webform. 49 answer, and sends it to A who then sup- have been shut down, and the reasons Maintaining users’ privacy, how- plies the answer to the user” (www.loc that these services have been discon- ever, requires more than simply asking .gov/standards/netref/usecases-second- tinued (www.vrd.org/Dig_Ref/dig_ref for users’ consent to share transac- working-draft.html). In this use case, .shtml, Subject: “Shutting down chat tion data. VRD recommends further service A need share no transaction data reference”). Many postings have dis- that digital reference services “remove or identifying information about the cussed libraries that have shut down all identifying information from the user with service B; as far as service B is their chat reference services, for rea- question-answer sets before posting in concerned, service A is the user, while sons from lack of use to budget cuts. a public archive.” Whether or not a as far as the user is concerned, service These reasons are echoed by Coffman

52 | Reference & User Services Quarterly Collaboration as the Norm in Reference Work and Arret, who also discuss the rapid or with particular users. It is only by come more collaborative, to the benefit rise and fall of commercial reference experimenting with various technolo- of both individual services and reference services during the 1990s.55 There may gies for reference work, and, perhaps, work in general. be solutions to the problems that have engaging in some failed experiments, befallen these services; indeed, Coffman that the profession of librarianship can and Arret themselves suggest several learn which media are suitable for our References and Notes methods for improving the operation of own, and our users’ purposes. 1. Samuel S. Green, “Personal Relations chat reference services. It may, however, between Librarians and Readers,” ultimately be that chat reference service American Library Journal 1 (Nov. 1876): Conclusion 74–81. will prove not to be a viable method for 2. Robert S. Taylor, “Question-Negotiation offering reference service (though this As technology progresses and users are and Information Seeking in Libraries,” author does not believe that). Indeed, increasingly able to find information College & Research Libraries 29 (May Coffman hopes that chat will prove to for themselves online, it is increas- 1968): 178–94. be “an interim technology which will ingly important that digital reference 3. Richard E. Bopp and Linda C. Smith, Reference and Information Services: An soon give way to something much more services be able to provide answers to Introduction (Englewood, Colo.: Librar- 56 humane like voice.” While at present their users, or suffer the consequence ies Unlimited, 2001); William A. Katz, it seems unlikely that Voice Over In- that unsatisfied users may defect. In Introduction to Reference Work: Reference ternet Protocol (VoIP) will be adopted order for digital reference services to be Services and Reference Processes, vol. 2, as a medium for reference work, Coff- able to provide answers to their users, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997). 4. Herbert H. Clark and Deanna Wilkes- man raises legitimate concerns about it is ever-more important that services Gibbs, “Referring as a Collaborative Pro- chat being a somewhat cumbersome collaborate, sharing knowledge as any cess,” Cognition 22 (1986): 1–39; Herbert means of carrying on a conversation, other resource might be shared. H. Clark and Edward F. Schaefer, “Col- and consequently of conducting a ref- As technology progresses, too, there laborating on Contributions to Conver- erence transaction. E-mail is in some inevitably will be new applications that sations,” Language and Cognitive Processes 2 (1987): 19–41; Gillian L. Roberts and ways even more cumbersome for this may be useful for reference work and Janet Beavin Bavelas, “The Communica- purpose. E-mail and chat may, as Coff- for collaboration between reference ser- tive Dictionary: A Collaborative Theory man suggests, prove to be interim tech- vices, and these applications deserve a of Meaning,” in Beyond the Symbol Model: nologies for conducting reference work. trial. The applications that exist and are Reflections on the Representational Nature VoIP may never be adopted as a medi- used for collaboration between reference of Language, ed. John Stewart (State Univ. of New York Pr., 1996), 135–60. um for reference work, nor may blogs. services today—print, telephone, e-mail, 5. David A. Tyckoson, “What Is the Best If not, however, that would be a shame. chat, discussion lists—all have their pros Model of Reference Service?” Library These technologies are promising and and cons. Future technologies for collab- Trends 50 (Fall 2001): 183–96. worth experimenting with as media for orative reference—blogs, VoIP, whatever 6. Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs, “Referring as a reference work. the future brings—will have their own Collaborative Process,” 3. 7. Clark and Schaefer, “Collaborating on E-mail and chat have their prob- pros and cons. Reference services must, Contributions to Conversations,” 20. lems, but these problems make us however, continue to experiment with 8. N. J. Belkin, R. N. Oddy, and H. M. aware of issues in reference work that new technologies for collaboration. It Brooks, “Ask for Information Retrieval: may not have previously been obvious, is only through such experimentation Part I. Background and Theory,” Jour- and teach us about reference work in that the profession of librarianship will nal of Documentation 38 (June 1982): 61–71. general. Blogs, VoIP, and whatever will learn what applications are appropriate 9. Mary Jo Lynch, “Reference Interviews in be the next technology to come along for what tasks and what reference envi- Public Libraries,” The Library Quarterly will also have their problems as media ronments. As services experiment with 48 (Apr. 1978): 119–42. for reference work, but these problems new technologies, successful experi- 10. Melissa Gross, “The Imposed Query: will make us aware of yet more issues in ments will lead to certain technologies Implications for Library Service Evalua- tion,” Reference & User Services Quarterly reference work. All of these experiments being adopted by other services. Over 37 (Spring 1998): 290–99. with various media for reference work time, as successful experiments become 11. Thomas Childers, “The Test of Refer- are learning experiences, not only for established practices, standards will be ence,” Library Journal 105 (Apr. 1980): the library performing the experiment, developed for these practices, and the 924–28. but also for the profession as a whole. existence of these standards will make 12. George S. Hawley, The Referral Process in Libraries: A Characterization of Related And, in the end, it is unlikely that any the use of these technologies attractive to Factors (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, one technology will emerge as the medi- more services. In this way, as with e-mail 1987). um for conducting reference work; it is and chat-based services, consortia will 13. Tyckoson, “What Is the Best Model of far more likely that multiple technolo- form that will enable services to share Reference Service?” gies will continue to be used, each one knowledge in new ways. The progress 14. Emily Garnett, “Reference Service By Telephone,” The Library Journal 61 (Dec. good for reference work on particular of technology has allowed, and will con- 1936): 909–11; Rochelle Yates, A Librar- topics or in particular environments tinue to allow, reference services to be- ian’s Guide to Telephone Reference Service

volume 46, issue 1 | 53 Feature (Hamden, Conn.: Shoe String, 1986); Routing and Assignment,” The Library 37. Doug Goans and Teri Vogel, “Build- Rosemarie Reichel, “The Telephone Quarterly 73 (Apr. 2003): 104. ing a Home for Library News with a Patron and the Reference Interview: The 25. Blythe Bennett, e-mail to the author, July. Blog,” Computers in Libraries Magazine Public Library Experience,” The Reference 2004. 23 (Nov./Dec. 2003): 21–26, www Librarian 16 (Winter 1986): 81–88. 26. Nicholas Savard, Nigel Long, and Jeff .infotoday.com/cilmag/nov03/goans 15. Timestamp 1:21:35. Penka, “Professional Reference Anywhere, _vogel.shtml (accessed Apr. 27, 2005); 16. Barbara Berliner, Melinda Corey, and Anytime, Virtually: Helping Redefine the Darlene Fichter, “Why and How to Use George Ochoa, Book of Answers: The New Role of Librarians and Libraries in the Blogs to Promote Your Library’s Services,” York Public Library Telephone Reference Internet Age” (paper, Alberta Library Marketing Library Services 17 (Nov./Dec. Service’s Most Unusual and Entertaining Conference 2004, Jasper, Alberta, Can- 2003): 1–4, www.infotoday.com/mls/ Questions (New York: Simon & Schus- ada, 2004). nov03/fichter.shtml (accessed Apr. 27, ter, 1992); David Feldman, Imponderables 27. Jana Smith Ronan, Chat Reference: A 2005). (Quill, 1987); David Feldman, When Do Guide to Live Virtual Reference Services 38. Blake Carver, “Is It Time to Get Blog- Fish Sleep? And Other Imponderables of (Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, ging?” Library Journal netConnect Everyday Life (New York: Harper, 1990); 2003). (winter 2003), www.libraryjournal.com/ David Feldman, Do Penguins Have Knees? 28. Jeffrey Pomerantz and Charles McClure, article/CA266428 (accessed Apr. 27, (New York: Harper, 1992 and several oth- “Evaluation of a Statewide Collab- 2005). See, for example: Gary Price’s ers by Feldman). orative Chat-Based Reference Service: ResourceShelf, www.resourceshelf. 17. Charles R. Anderson, Puzzles and Essays Approaches and Directions,” in Proceed- com (accessed July 10, 2006); Jes- from “The Exchange”: Tricky Reference ings of the 67th Annual Meeting of the samyn West’s librarian.net, www.librar- Questions (New York: Haworth, 2003), American Society for Information Science ian.net (accessed July 10, 2006); Jenny 165. and Technology, ed. Linda Schamber and Levine’s The Shifted Librarian, www 18. Renée Olson, “Stumped Reference Librar- Carol L. Barry (Medford, N.J.: Informa- .theshiftedlibrarian.com (accessed July ians Find Help on the Internet,” American tion Today, 2004), 102–09. 10, 2006), and others. Libraries 25 (Oct. 1994): 830–31; Ann 29. For an overview of the sorts of library 39. Burbules, “Paradoxes of the Web.” Feeney, “Internet Applications: Stumpers- consortia that exist, Bernie Sloan main- 40. Lavender, Nicholson, and Pomerantz, L,” Computers in Libraries 13 (May 1993): tains an extensive collection of links “Building Bridges for Collaborative 40–42. to online documents “dealing with the Digital Reference between Libraries and 19. Feeney, “Internet Applications: Stumpers- governance and administration of library Museums,” 106. L,” 41. consortia and cooperatives”: www.lis 41. Chris Sherman, “ComScore Launches 20. Nicholas C. Burbules, “Paradoxes of the .uiuc.edu/~b-sloan/consort.htm (accessed Search Engine Tracking System,” Apr. 19, Web: The Ethical Dimensions of Cred- July 10, 2006). 2003, searchenginewatch.com/searchday/ ibility,” Library Trends 49, no. 3 (2001): 30. Jeffrey T. Penka, “The Technological Chal- article.php/2197801/ (accessed Apr. 27, 441–53. lenges of Digital Reference: An Overview,” 2005); Joseph Janes, “The Global Census 21. Paul W. Kittle, “Putting the Medi- D-Lib Magazine 9 (Feb. 2003), www.dlib of Digital Reference” (paper, 5th Annual cal Library Online: Electronic Bulletin .org/dlib/february03/penka/02penka VRD Conference, San Antonio, Texas, Boards . . . and Beyond,” Online 9 (May .html (accessed Apr. 27, 2005); Savard, Nov. 18, 2003). Janes’s figure of 8,106 1985): 25–30; Ellen H. Howard and Long, and Penka, “Professional Reference questions submitted to digital reference Terry Ann Jankowski, “Reference Services Anywhere, Anytime.” services worldwide is probably low due Via Electronic Mail,” Bulletin of the Medi- 31. David P. Reed, “That Sneaky Expo- to the fact that his sample was one of cal Library Association 74 (Jan. 1986): nential—Beyond Metcalfe’s Law to convenience. A convenience sample is, 41–44; Frieda O. Weise and Marilyn the Power of Community Build- however, the best that anyone doing Borgendale, “EARS: Electronic Access to ing,” Context Magazine (Spring 1999), research on digital reference services can Reference Service,” Bulletin of the Medical www.contextmag.com/archives/199903/ currently do, since the makeup of the Library Association 74 (Oct. 1986): 300– DigitalStrategyReedsLaw.asp (accessed population of digital reference services 304; Christine M. Roysdon and Laura Apr. 27, 2005). is unknown. The determination of the Lee Elliott, “Electronic Integration of 32. Kenneth Lavender, Scott Nicholson, and “demographics” of the population of Library Services through a Campuswide Jeffrey Pomerantz, “Building Bridges for digital reference is an area that demands Network,” RQ 28 (Fall 1988): 82–93. Collaborative Digital Reference between future research. 22. Laura Bushallow-Wilber, Gemma DeVin- Libraries and Museums through an 42. Joan C. Durrance, “Reference Success: ney, and Fritz Whitcomb, “Electronic Examination of Reference in Special Col- Does the 55 Percent Rule Tell the Whole Mail Reference Service: A Study,” RQ 35 lections,” Journal of Academic Librarian- Story?” Library Journal 114 (Apr. 1989): (Spring 1996): 359–69; Brenda Philip, ship 31, no. 2 (2005): 106–18. 31–36. “Mayihelpyou@Theelectronicreference 33. Ibid., 116–17. 43. Mary Jane Swope and Jeffrey Katzer, desk?: An Examination of the Past, Pres- 34. R. David Lankes, Question Interchange “Why Don’t They Ask Questions?” RQ 12 ent, and Future of Electronic Mail Ref- Profile, Online Version 1.01d, May 1999. (winter 1972): 161–66. erence Service,” Mar. 20, 1997, http:// Syracuse, N.Y.: ERIC Clearinghouse on 44. Glenn DeSouza, “Designing a Customer hollyhock.slis.ualberta.ca/598/brenda/ Information & Technology, www.vrd.org/ Retention Plan,” Journal of Business Strat- emailref.htm (accessed Apr. 27, 2005). Tech/QuIP/1.01/1.01d.htm (accessed egy 13 (Mar./Apr. 1992): 24–28. 23. R. David Lankes, Building and Maintaining Apr. 27, 2005). 45. American Library Association Reference Internet Information Services: K–12 Digital 35. Nancy Kalikow Maxwell, “Establishing and User Services Association, Guidelines Reference Services (Syracuse, N.Y.: ERIC and Maintaining Live Online Reference for Information Services, 2000, section Clearinghouse on Information & Tech- Service,” Library Technology Reports 38 1.12, www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/ nology, 1998). (July/Aug. 2002): 1–78. referenceguide/guidelinesinformation 24. Jeffrey Pomerantz, Scott Nicholson, 36. Cory Doctorow et al., Essential Blogging .htm (accessed Apr. 27, 2005). and R. David Lankes, “Digital Reference (Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly and Associ- 46. Joseph Janes, “Question Negotiation in Triage: Factors Influencing Question ates, 2002). an Electronic Age,” in The Digital Ref-

54 | Reference & User Services Quarterly Collaboration as the Norm in Reference Work

erence Research Agenda, ed. R. David User Services Quarterly 43 (Fall 2003): and Making It Real, ed. R. David Lankes Lankes, Scott Nicholson and Abby 26–36; ALA, Code of Ethics of the American et al. (New York: Neal-Schuman, 2003); Goodrum (Chicago: ACRL, 2003), 48– Library Association (Chicago: ALA, 2004), Neuhaus, “Privacy and Confidentiality in 60; Joseph Janes and Joanne Silverstein, www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/ Digital Reference.” “Question Negotiation and the Tech- codeofethics/codeethics.htm (accessed 54. Beth Dempsey, “Target your Brand,” nological Environment,” D-Lib Maga- Apr. 27, 2005). Library Journal 129 (Aug. 2004): 32–35. zine 9 (Feb. 2003), www.dlib.org/dlib/ 51. A. Clymer, “Librarians Get Advice on 55. Steve Coffman and Linda Arret, “To Chat february03/janes/02janes.html (accessed Handling Government Requests for or Not to Chat—Taking Another Look Apr. 27, 2005). Information on Readers,” New York at Virtual Reference, Part 1,” Searcher 47. Christina M. Hull, “An Analysis of Infor- Times, Dec. 12, 2002, A30; D. E. Murphy, 12 (Jul./Aug. 2004): 38–49, www mation Literacy Instruction in the Digital “Some Librarians Use Shredder to Show .infotoday.com/searcher/jul04/arret Reference Service of a Public Library Sys- Opposition to New F.B.I. Powers,” The _coffman.shtml (accessed Apr. 27, 2005); tem” (master’s thesis, University of North New York Times, Apr. 7, 2003, A12. Steve Coffman and Linda Arret, “To Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2004). 52. Scott Nicholson and Catherine Arnott Chat or Not to Chat—Taking Yet 48. Virtual Reference Desk Project, Facets Smith, “Using Lessons from Health Care Another Look at Virtual Reference, of Quality for Digital Reference Ser- to Protect the Privacy of Library Users: Part 2,” Searcher 12 (Sept. 2004), www vices, Version 5, June 2003. www.vrd Guidelines for the De-Identification of .infotoday.com/searcher/sep04/arret .org/facets-06-03.shtml (accessed Apr. Library Data based on HIPAA” (paper, _coffman.shtml (accessed Apr. 27, 27, 2005). Annual Meeting of the American Society 2005). 49. Joseph Janes, “Digital Reference Services for Information Science and Technol- 56. Steve Coffman, “We’ll Take It from in Public and Academic Libraries,” in ogy 2005, Charlotte, North Carolina, Here: Developments We’d Like to See Evaluating Networked Information Services: 2005), available as an E-print via the in Virtual Reference Software,” Informa- Techniques, Policy, and Issues, ed. Charles following service (http://eprints/rclis.org/ tion Technology and Libraries 20 (Sept. R. McClure and John Carlo Bertot (Med- archive/00005222/fullmetadata.html, 2001): 149–53, www.ala.org/Content/ ford, N.J.: Information Today, 2001), accessed July 10, 2006). NavigationMenu/LITA/LITA 184. 53. Scott D. Johnston, “Rethinking Privacy _Publications4/ITAL__Information 50. Paul Neuhaus, “Privacy and Confiden- for the Virtual Library,” in Implementing _Technology_and_Libraries/2003 tiality in Digital Reference,” Reference & Digital Reference Services: Setting Standards _Coffman.htm (accessed Apr. 27, 2005).

volume 46, issue 1 | 55