ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. Fall 2001 50(2) 165-307 Technological Advances in Reference: A Paradigm Ship? Evelyn L. Curry /\\/If I iIll0~ UNIVERSITYOF ILLINOIS GRADUATESCHOOLOF LIBRARYAND INFORMATIONSCIENCE This Page Intentionally Left Blank Technological Advances in Reference: A Paradigm Shift? CONTENTS Tntroduction Evelyn L. Curry 165 Values for Human-to-Human Reference Michael Gorman 168 What Is the Best Model of Reference Service? David A. ljckoson 183 Faculty Relevance Criteria: Internalized User Needs Lynn Westhrook 197 Evaluating Reference Services in the Electronic Age Jo Bell Whitlatch 207 An Ideological Analysis of Digital Reference Service Models Juris Dilevko 218 Reference in Library and Information Science Education YvonneJ Chandler 245 Long Live Old Reference Services and New Technologies Bill Katz 263 The Emerging Reference Paradigm: A Vision of Reference Services in a Complex Information Environment John W Fntch nnd Scott B. Mnndprnark 286 About the Contributors 306 Introduction EVELYNL. CURRY THESOCIAL CONTEXT OF REFERENCE WORK in libraries has changed dra- matically in the past two decades-some would argue more than ever be- fore in its history of 126 years (Green 1876).Forces bringing about such change have included political, economic, cultural, and technological de- velopments that have affected libraries and information centers in a num- ber of ways. Yet the raison d’etre for reference practice-and indeed for library work in general-has remained the same: to bring together library users and the knowledge they seek. In other words, the user and his needs remain at the heart of the information profession. Computer-based reference has significantly improved library service to contemporary users-from the introduction of online and cataloging da- tabases to local and wide-area networks to electronic reference sources. The appearance of the Internet in the 1990s heralded a new era for libraries in terms of networking opportunities. More specifically “virtual reference” (or Web-based reference) has had a major impact on the referral function. This issue examines the extent to which (and how) technological advances have changed basic reference practice. A paradigm is a universally recognized scientific achievement that for a time models problems and solutions to a community of practitioners (Kuhn, 1961).It is a conceptual understanding, an agreed-upon construct for conducting the business of a profession. The structure takes some time to formulate and shifts only when the professional community agrees that significant changes in the knowledge base beg to be acknowledged and incorporated into new practical forms. Reference work in today’s libraries has been influenced by a host of Evelyn L. Curry, School of Library and Information Studies, Texas Woman’s University, Den- ton, TX 76204 LIBRARYTRENDS, Vol. 50, No. 2, Fall 2001, pp. 165-167 02001 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois 166 LIBRARY TRENDS/E’ALL 2001 related social and economic factors, chief aniong them being the increas- ing use of technolog?. This issue has three specific objectives: to examine the reference tradition within the context of recent technological advanc- es, to determine the extent to which the paradigm is shifting, and to ex- plore the implications for library practice. Gornian’s paper on “human-to-hiiman reference” sets the tone for the entire discussion. Librarianship, he argues, is based on a core set of highly regarded principles that niiist not be forgotten in the present milieu. His recent book, 01irf?nduringUiLues (2000),is an important reminder- of the service ethic to which librarians subscribe. Tyckoson continues the discourse by reviewing the histoiy of reference and the various models of reference senice delivery (e.g.,traditional, tiered, teaching, \irtd).Each model, he maintains, has its distinct advantages and disadvantages; however, the “best” template for any given library can only be measured against its community of users. M’estbrook’s user-needs analysis of a selected patron group pulls togetli- er elements of the infomiation-seeking process that determine user satis- faction with library search results. Conceptual questions she raised in her study include: To what extent does the user’s definition of relevance mesh with the librarian’s definition? What implications do these differences have for library practice? Her “internal”definition of relevance expands the clas- sic interpretation of pertinence (Lancaster and Warner, 1993). Whitlatch contributes an assessment of strategies for the evaluation of electronic reference. Useful measures, she maintains, can only he reached after study goals and objectives have been determined; those could fall into several categories: economics, the reference process, resources, products/ outcomes (user satisfaction with results). She further identifies various re- search methods (surveys, interviews, case studies and focus groups), not- ing that shifting patterns in user demands provide libraries with opportu- nities to emphasize different strategies for bringing together users and needed resources. Dilevko’s paper serves as a wake-up call for reference workers in the virtual environment whose jobs have been, and are being, phased out. His chief concern is that “call centers” are “de-skilling”the library profession. Reference librarians, he cautions, should consider how best to develop a unique knowledge niche that would allow them to differentiate themselves from potential library users, thus positioning themselves as market leaders instead of followers. Chandler outlines the library and inforniation science curriculum need- ed to prepare information professionals for the twenty-first century. She argues that, contrary to a widely held view, the library profession is not on the decline; the next few years will find librarians in high demand. Gradu- ates with technological library expertise and interpersoiial communication skills will have the strengths needed to understand the diverse user popu- CURRY/INTRODUCTION 167 lation of the new millennium. The case study she includes is her own cur- riculum at the University of North Texas School of Library and Informa- tion Sciences, where the reference course is one of several offered in the distance education (online) format. Katz paints a picture of the old reference standard versus the new tech- nologies. Providing access to the right information, he contends, is a goal in danger of tripping over the new technology. He also touches on the grow- ing digital divide between the haves and have nots. Fritch and Mandernack round out the issue with a two-part presenta- tion. The first part reviews the history of reference; the second is a template for the “paradigm shift.” The social context for reference work, they hold, is still very important. The “shift” requires an amalgamation of the tradi- tional philosophies of reference-a more deliberate blending of the con- servative and liberal views. Does the “new face” of reference constitute a paradigm shift? Accord- ing to the authors in this issue, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that reference librarians have new responsibilities in the digital era (e.g., how to achieve high tech, high touch). No, in the sense that new delivery mechanisms have not changed the basic tenets of the profession. In fact, the technological options have strengthened the base. The working title for this issue was “The Emerging Reference Para- digm.” However, after reading the authors’ contributions and reflecting on them, one might safely conclude that reference practice has an already established paradigm (though time is only one criterion in paradigm for- mulation). Reference librarianship is not in a “pre-paradigmatic state,” in classic Kuhnian terms. Rather, the model appears to be shifting as knowl- edge evolves. The traditional values of librarianship are as true as they ever were-only more so. Libraries are still sanctuaries (not repositories) for the masses, not boutiques for a privileged few. Emerging technologies offer more alternatives to the contemporary library user, and these alternatives are opportunities in disguise. Elizabeth Cady Stanton once observed: “Noth- ing strengthens the judgment and quickens the conscience like individual responsibility.”Therein lies the challenge for the profession. Librarians and information professionals are up to that challenge. REFERENCES Gorman, M. (2000). Our enduring values: I,ibmmanship in the 21st centuq. Chicago: American Library Association. Green, S. (1876). Personal relations between librarians and readers. American LibruqJournaZ, l(2-3), 74-81. Kuhn, T. S. (1961). Structure of scientiJr revolutions. 2nd ed. NeivYork: University of Chicago Press. Lancaster, F. W., & Warner, A. J. (1993).Information rptrievnl today Arlington: Information Resources Press. Values for Human-to-Human Reference MICHAELGORMAN ABSTRACT ” AND LISTS THK EIGHT VALL~ESderived by the author in an earlier work. Gives a brief history of the evolution of human-to-human reference service and discusses its future. Relates each of the author’s eight values to the practice of human-to-human reference. Concludes with some thoughts on librail. instruction. In a hubristic act in my book Our End71ri179 IhZzieJ (Gorman, 2000), I formulated eight fundamental values that 1believe should inform librari- anship. Those values, based on experience and reading in library