Key issues surrounding virtual chat reference model

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of co-browse in live chat, customers' question types, referral to subject experts, and patrons' usage patterns as experienced in the virtual reference (VR) chat reference services at Texas A&M University Libraries. Design/methodology/approach -Chat transcripts from 2005 to 2007 were sampled and analyzed by peer reviewers. Statistical data in that period were also examined. A set of methods and a pilot study were created to define the measurement components such as question types, expert handling, and co-browsing. Findings -Co-browsing is used in 38 percent of the sampled chat sessions. The Texas A&M University live chat service group considers co-browsing a useful feature. Of questions received on VR, 84 percent are reference questions. Only 8.7 percent of the total questions or 10 percent of the reference questions need to be answered by subject experts. The use of VR increases dramatically in the past two years at the Texas A&M University. The findings also reveal users' logon patterns over weekdays and weekends. Originality/value -The study contributes and advances understanding in the role VR plays in a large academic library and the role co-browsing plays in VR services. The study also provides a comprehensive method for transcript and usage data analysis. It is believed that a similar methodology may be replicated elsewhere by other institutions engaging similar services or evaluation.

Is the library open? How the pandemic has changed the provision of virtual reference services

“…Types of questions and their difficulty levels Researchers in library and information science have evaluated the types or topics of questions that their users ask in order to improve the delivery of virtual reference services. While coding schemes vary greatly, many librarians who have analyzed virtual reference transactions were interested in the occurrence of reference questions (Barrett et al, 2020;Dempsey, 2016Dempsey, , 2017Fennewald, 2006;Hervieux and Tummon, 2018;Wan et al, 2009). Fennewal (2006) and Wan et al (2009) found the majority of interactions included reference questions but that only a small number required the knowledge of a subject expert.…”

“…While coding schemes vary greatly, many librarians who have analyzed virtual reference transactions were interested in the occurrence of reference questions (Barrett et al , 2020; Dempsey, 2016, 2017; Fennewald, 2006; Hervieux and Tummon, 2018; Wan et al , 2009). Fennewal (2006) and Wan et al (2009) found the majority of interactions included reference questions but that only a small number required the knowledge of a subject expert. In contrast, Hervieux and Tummon (2018) discovered that 51% of chat interactions at their institutions were of a transactional nature and included questions about circulation, policies, and technological issues.…”

Constructing citations: reviewing chat transcripts to improve citation assistance as a service

“…Articles reporting the results of research on digital reference including chat have been published since the 1990s (Matteson et al , 2011). Topics covered in the last few years of literature have ranged from teaching or instruction in chat (Dempsey, 2016, 2017; Hervieux and Tummon, 2018; Jacoby et al , 2016; Schiller, 2016), the types of questions asked in a chat service (Bourgeois and Bealer, 2020; Brown, 2017; Chen and Wang, 2019; Mavodza, 2019; McKewan and Richmond, 2017; Ozeran and Martin, 2019; Stieve and Wallace, 2018), staffing hours or needs, patron satisfaction with the service (Brown, 2017; Mungin, 2017), the role of cobrowsing (Wan et al , 2009) and communication issues (Westbrook, 2007). Probably the largest and most prolific area has involved service quality.…”