A Holistic Look at Reference Statistics: Whither Librarians?

Abstract

Objective -Washington State University (WSU) Pullman campus librarians track a diverse set of reference statistics to gain a "holistic" look at local reference transaction trends. Our aim was to aggregate virtual, reference desk and office transaction data over the course of three years to determine staffing levels. Specifically, we asked "Where should reference librarians be to answer questions?" Methods -Using Springshare's LibAnalytics, we generated longitudinal (2012)(2013)(2014) statistics and data, to help us assess the patterns and trends of patron question numbers, types, Practice 2015, 10.4 174 communication modes, and locations in the Terrell Library. With this data, we considered current staffing patterns and how we could best address patron needs. Evidence Based Library and InformationResults -Researchers found that compiling data across modalities of location, communication, question type, and the READ Scale led to a better understanding of user behavior trends.Conclusion -Examining and interpreting a more inclusive and richer set of transaction statistics gives reference managers a better picture of how patrons are seeking help, and can serve as a basis for making staffing decisions.

Holistic information research: From rhetoric to paradigm

“…While these examples are drawn from the information behavior literature, similar rhetorical uses of holistic (i.e., to argue for more expansive perspectives, approaches, and ways of understanding), are visible across the library and information science literature. Examples can be seen in studies on information retrieval (Hu et al, 2015), information security (Soomro, Shah, & Ahmen, 2015), cybersecurity (Atoum, Otoom, & Ali, 2014), digital libraries (Zhang, 2010), digital preservation (Rafferty & Pad, 2017), library services (Mojapelo & Dube, 2017), information literacy (Nazari & Webber, 2012), library collections development (Duncan & O'Gara, 2015), serials control (Haworth Editorial Submission, 1979), quantitative evaluation (White, 1977), library accessibility (Pionke, 2017), reference services (Scales, Turner‐Rahman, & Hao, 2015), and critical librarianship (Espinal, Sutherland, & Roh, 2018). The use of holistic is motivated by different goals in these examples, from service enhancement to social justice, but the term's rhetorical role remains consistent.…”

Transformation of educational roles of library-supported mobile learning: a literature review from 2009 to 2018

“…On the other hand, libraries are not only learning centres with experiential, social, participatory and cooperative features; their interactive and sharing tools have become increasingly popular among the public, gradually forming knowledge-sharing, resourcesharing and professional learning communities (such as those for subject specialists) (Bakırcı-Taylor et al, 2019;Gore, 2014;Miller, 2014). For instance, teachers participate in designing together or collaboratively developing digital courses on digital humanities or information literacy to enhance learners' information literacy (Scales et al, 2015;Zhang et al, 2015).…”

Chatting while you work

“…Published studies include both quantitative and qualitative analyses, with a range of methodologies and coding schemas used. Common themes to the analyses include examining the efficacy of current staffing models (Bishop and Bartlett, 2013; Bravender et al , 2011; Fuller and Dryden, 2015; Scales et al , 2015), the usability of the library’s website (Fan and Welch, 2016) and the impact of discovery systems on chat reference question complexity (Copenhaver and Koclanes, 2016; Meredith, 2013). Many studies used the READ scale to categorize chat reference content (Bravender et al , 2011; Lenkart and Yu, 2017; Scales et al , 2015; Vassady et al , 2015).…”

“…Common themes to the analyses include examining the efficacy of current staffing models (Bishop and Bartlett, 2013; Bravender et al , 2011; Fuller and Dryden, 2015; Scales et al , 2015), the usability of the library’s website (Fan and Welch, 2016) and the impact of discovery systems on chat reference question complexity (Copenhaver and Koclanes, 2016; Meredith, 2013). Many studies used the READ scale to categorize chat reference content (Bravender et al , 2011; Lenkart and Yu, 2017; Scales et al , 2015; Vassady et al , 2015). Scales et al (2015) noted that while lower READ scale comprised the bulk of questions analyzed, technology questions have increased.…”

“…Many studies used the READ scale to categorize chat reference content (Bravender et al , 2011; Lenkart and Yu, 2017; Scales et al , 2015; Vassady et al , 2015). Scales et al (2015) noted that while lower READ scale comprised the bulk of questions analyzed, technology questions have increased. Modified or newly developed coding schemas also appear in the literature (Armann-Keown et al , 2015; Fuller and Dryden, 2015).…”