Sustained, deep questioning about reference service, its role, and its future accompanied the changes in the reference librarian’s role that technology, especially search technology, prompted. A number of much-discussed articles placed and kept this on the professional agenda. Some took the form of symposia in which a lead author offered a provocative view or challenge and invited librarians responded to those ideas.
Shortly before the CD-ROM boom, Miller asked ‘‘What’s Wrong with Reference?’’ (Miller, 1984). He cited a combination of burned out long- serving librarians, increasing instructional responsibilities, and integration of new technologies as sources of pressure on librarians’ ability to provide quality reference service at the desk. His wistful solution was increased staffing through new reference librarian positions. His more practical pro- posals were creating separate information desks staffed by students and cler- ical employees, use of paraprofessionals and students at the reference desk, incorporation of librarians from other departments in the desk schedule, and spinning off ‘‘ancillary activities’’ such as interlibrary loan and database
searching. Miller represented the day’s prevailing desk-centric view of ref- erence service: a service offered at a specific place in a library during sched- uled hours to those who requested it.
Miller had definitely expressed a widespread feeling among reference librarians. They wondered how to sustain desk service, reference librarians’
major duty, when newer duties such as online searching and increased em- phasis on bibliographic instruction competed for their time and attention. In one way or another, the theme of the desk as service point needing con- tinuous staffing runs through articles calling into question prevailing ref- erence practices and philosophies.
In a wide-ranging overview of trends in academic librariesFreides (1983, pp.466–467)cited the ‘‘unexamined and unarticulated yassumption that the hub ofyassistance is the reference desk, where a reference librarian, or surrogate, is available to the reader at all times. The arrangement conveys an implicit promise never to let the reader go unserved, but also pegs the service at a low level.’’ She added that ‘‘by establishing the desk as the focal point of reader assistance, libraries not only expend professional time on trivial tasks, but also encourage the assumption that the low-level, undemanding type of question handled most easily and naturally at the desk is the service norm’’
(ibid., p. 467).
So ingrained was the value accorded the reference desk some sought solutions in redesign of the desk itself. Pierson (1977) mused about the influence of desk and furniture design on service quality. Others offered illustrated designs of local solutions; the title of one article asked ‘‘The Reference Desk: Service Point or Barrier?’’ (Becket and Smith, 1986;Larason and Robinson, 1984; Morgan, 1980; Shapiro, 1987). By the mid-1980s reference desks began to sport computer terminals and OCLC terminals.
More recently thinking about the spaces in which libraries provide their services has broadened substantially to take in the whole, taking into con- sideration users’ behaviors and viewing the library building as learning space (Library as Place, 2005).
Some who sought ways to improve reference service, however, questioned the desk-centric view.
Biggs characterized existing practice as ‘‘fast fact drop-in’’ service that ought to be replaced by ‘‘gourmet information service’’ (Biggs, 1985).
Comparing reference unfavorably to other professions’ practices, Biggs ar- gued that only reference librarians should provide reference service. She also argued that the quality of this service would improve if reference desks were staffed fewer hours so that the librarians could devote more time to im- portant tasks such as learning the library’s collection in depth, learning more about applying automation to reference service, and carrying out meaningful
evaluation studies. Those invited to respond to Biggs’s proposals saw more merit in her questions than in her solutions.
In 1985 Surprenant and Perry-Holmes (1985, p. 236) sketched a sce- nario of the reference librarian of the future as an information broker whose salary ‘‘will come directly from their clientele.’’ They envisioned the librarian working ‘‘in service point offices, outside the library, where they can be close to the action in their user community’’ (ibid.). Eight rejoinders (Reference Librarian of the Future: Rejoinders, 1986) showed little sympathy for this entrepreneurial vision, especially since the scenario was ‘‘hazy’’ because it did not offer a transition path to that vision.
While recognizing the value reference librarians place on face-to-face interaction with those they serve, Ford (1986) advised that ‘‘reference li- brarians need to begin to think the unthinkable, exploring alternatives and possibly eliminating the reference desk’’ because ‘‘the present configuration does not satisfy either librarians or users.’’ She recommended expanded use of computers’ ability to provide answers to ‘‘the low-level, undemanding type of question,’’ supplemented by opportunities to consult with a reference librarian during scheduled office hours. Ford repeated and expanded this challenge in a 1988 symposium at the University of Texas at Austin (Ford, 1988; The Future of Reference Service, 1988). Respondents defended the reference desk’s success in meeting users’ need for answers to those unde- manding questions and agreed that the desk was not a suitable setting for more extended assistance. A summary of the symposium noted: ‘‘The dis- cussion, of course, ended with no resolution; but the program was invig- orating and thought-provoking’’ (Dillon, 1988).
One institution accepted Ford’s challenge. Needing a solution to the problems Miller cited, in March 1990 Brandeis University eliminated its reference desk in favor of scheduled appointments with reference librarians.
It did, however, retain an information desk staffed by students. Massey- Burzio’s ‘‘Reference Encounters of a Different Kind: A Symposium’’ stirred considerable discussion among reference librarians (Massey-Burzio, 1992).
Miller, Ford, Biggs, and others invited to respond applauded Brandeis’s willingness to experiment boldly but largely withheld judgment until its success could be demonstrated. In spirit, ‘‘the Brandeis model’’ was not an isolated effort. Tiered reference, generally using paraprofessionals in a role complementing librarians’, took various forms at other libraries. These in- cluded referral to on-call librarians and two desks, each with a distinct function and staff. The distinction between the desks was generally clearer to library staff than to users.
Others experimented with roving reference whereby reference librarians got out from behind the desk and offered assistance to users in the reference
room (Kramer, 1996). Variants on this have continued over the years. Be- cause networked access to information sources has made the notion of a reference room obsolete, in recent years the University of Texas at Dallas has taken roving campus-wide with its ‘‘Librarians on the Loose’’ program (Librarians on the Loose, 2006). Librarians at the University of Florida set up
‘‘outdoor, mobile reference stations at campus cross-roads, using quick- to-assemble kiosks, wireless access, and laptop computers’’ (Hisle, 2005).
Warm climates seem to promote such services! At some colleges and uni- versities reference librarians hold regular hours in campus buildings housing faculty offices. During these hours subject specialist librarians offer consul- tations to faculty and students.
The most concentrated questioning of reference occurred in 1992–1993.
James Rettig (1992) adopted ‘‘Rethinking Reference’’ as the theme for his year as president of ALA’s Reference and Adult Services Division; Anne Lipow conducted a ‘‘Rethinking Reference in Academic Libraries’’ institute at the University of California at Berkeley, later repeated it at Duke Uni- versity and the University of Iowa (Wetherbee and Lipow, 1993); and Jerry Campbell (1992)published an article shaking the conceptual foundations of reference. The cartoon logo for Lipow’s institutes depicted a librarian atop a desk labeled ‘‘Information.’’ The librarian’s speech bubble says ‘‘I’ve been rethinking reference.’’ The librarian grips the detonation plunger of a bomb labeled ‘‘Danger! New Paradigm.’’ Lipow’s stimulating workshops generated many ideas but no consensus, let alone an explosive new paradigm for ref- erence service.
Campbell (1992)found a lack of consensus among reference practitioners about their mission and the ways they can best fulfill that mission. ‘‘Some swear by bibliographic instruction; others swear at it. Some avow that the reference desk should be the center of the reference universe; others con- centrate on a primary constituency. Some say that when a seeker asks for a fish, we should teach her to fish; others say that we should give her a fish.
Some argue that all questions should come directly to reference professionals;
others propose an intermediary, other than a professionally staffed desk to filter out directional and routine questions’’ (ibid., p. 30). Campbell echoed Ford’s call to develop automated systems to respond to frequently asked, easily answered questions. He also noted that the reference service of 1992 was ‘‘a building-centered, old style, ‘make them come to us’ model’’ that could not survive in the technological information age in which users in- creasingly want to find and receive their information online. To assure the vitality of reference service in the future he recommended that reference librarians recast themselves as ‘‘Access Engineers.’’ Campbell’s Access Engi- neers would analyze users’ needs and the ways in which they seek and use
information. They would draw on this knowledge of users as they collab- orated with other specialists to develop systems for optimal delivery of information to end users. At the time Campbell stirred considerable con- troversy in the reference community on listservs and elsewhere. Over time, however, parts of his vision of access engineering have gained traction.
LaGuardia (1995)has identified reference librarians as ‘‘the natural designers of the new tools for information organization, access, retrieval, and distri- bution: these are the functions we do best.’’ In building their libraries’ Web sites, reference librarians have acted as access engineers.
The rapid adoption of the World Wide Web, accompanied by the proliferation of high-speed campus networks, broadband access from homes, and Wi-Fi access in public spaces, confirmed the inadequacy of the old style, building-centered model. So did data. The member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries reported a collective 34% drop-in reference transactions between 1991 and 2004. In that period the number of reference transactions rose from 1991 through 1996 but declined every year there- after (Service Trends in ARL Libraries, 1991–2004). Some saw this down- ward trend as the dying canary in the coal mine. Looked at in isolation, this was a reasonable interpretation. But looked at in the context of the information services libraries offer end users through their Web sites, the ARL data signified a shift in user behaviors more than a decline (Welch, 2005).
Despite this decline in reference transactions and growing criticism of the reference desk model, reference and information desks have survived in libraries. Why? One reason may be ‘‘that reference librarians value the service provided at the reference desk much more than do many of the users’’ (Ford, 1992).Tyckoson (1999, p. 58), simultaneously echoing and answering Miller in an American Libraries article titled ‘‘What’s Right with Reference,’’ as- serted that most efforts to reform reference ‘‘resulted in generally poorer service for most library patrons’’ and found fault with nearly every proposal of the previous fifteen years except for Miller’s wish for additional staff to accomplish a growing list of tasks. By not finding fault with the traditional desk approach, he affirmed it. Ferguson, however, offered a compelling an- swer for the desk’s durability: ‘‘It is tempting to think that the proliferation of digital technology and the emergence of the digital library will one day enable libraries to effect overnight a massive shift from print collections, traditional classrooms, and heavy reliance on fixed space for collections and services. We must, instead, recognize the need to maintain for the indefinite future a range of on-site services that embrace print collections even as we seek place and meaning in an emerging digital world’’ (Ferguson, 2000, pp. 303–305).
A panel program at the 2002 ALA Annual Conference distilled the debate. Tyckoson (2003) made a plea for respecting the value of personal interaction in reference service even as new tools replace old ones. Rettig (2003) called for services that respond to contemporary users’ values and expectations of immediacy, interactivity, personalization, and mobility.Janes (2003) recommended a sort of cafeteria approach to reference services in which each library would adopt modes of service suitable to their respective communities’ needs. He also recommended that librarians ‘‘declare victory and move on,’’ conceding that many would-be users get answers to their reference questions independently by turning to Google and the Web. He recommended that reference librarians focus on what they do better than any other group—helping people solve information problems that cannot be solved on the Web with just a few mouse clicks. Lipow (2003) predicted global collaboration among libraries to provide this sort of service to a mobile population seeking help with information needs at any time of day or night.Whitlatch (2003)called for a focus on users’ assessments of reference services so that their feedback can be used for continuous improvement of those services.