The Future of Reference: Going, Going, Still Here

Traditional reference is dead. Or dying. Or dormant. It depends on who you ask.

It seems every other day I read something new about how "reference as we know it" is changing forever, or even more dramatically, already gone. In a recent staff meeting at my library we had a discussion about the future of reference, which began the hamster wheels in my head turning.

Locally, traditional reference is evolving (which is just a fancy way of saying changing without actually saying changing.) As a large, centralized downtown library with no branches, the library is facing a reference crossroads. The library has even been able to graph and study in various ways these demographic shifts thanks to the great work done by Civic Technologies, Inc. Civic Techonolgies, Inc. performed a large GIS study for the library and provided a detailed report on our current library users and just as important, our non-users. In addition to the report, Civic Technologies, Inc. is working on a website that will allow staff to mine the data they collected and process and create customized reports and maps to analyze specific service or program specific questions.

In terms of reference, these reports support anecdotal evidence that traditional reference service in the library is decreasing.  Traditional reference questions have been supplanted by questions which better fall under the broad category "reader's advisory." "Do you have the book _____?," "I need a movie with _____ .," are beginning to be the primary questions at our public services points. 

This trend toward reader's advisory can be seen nationally in a recent study by NoveList on how patrons viewed the importance of certain library services.  The results indicated that reader's advisory was fourth with 85.1%, only a few percentage points behind reference at 88.6%. (Free internet came in first with a whopping 98.3% of respondents ranking it as important.)  I would not be surprised to see reference fall behind reader's advisory by the next survey.

This usurpation of traditional reference should not be a surprise. Information transfer theories show that people seek information in a progressive sequence.  The sequence most people follow when seeking an answer to a question is, roughly and paraphrased mightily:

1. Search for the answer themselves
2. Ask friends and family 
3. Ask a professional--this is where libraries come in play 

There is more to the process then these three steps, but they give us a basic understanding of why traditional reference is muddling along. We also know from information theory that people rate the ease or pleasantness of  the information retrieval process higher than getting the correct answer, i.e. the "principle of least effort" and "cost-benefit paradigm." (Here is great slide show on information seeking behavior models if you need a refresher.)

Therefore Google, Bing, and other search engines have advanced enough that the first step provides an answer that is good enough for most users. Patrons find an answer using these improved search engines--maybe not the correct or best answer, but an answer-- quickly, conveniently, and that seems to work.

Let's face it, Google's automatic search feature is sometimes eerily exact.  The alternator belt on my car was squeaking, and having eliminated all the normal fixes, I did a Google search at work to find a few automotive repair forums.  I typed in "belt makes" in Google and the second automated search was "car belt makes noise" which resulted in the exact information I wanted. Most of the links were not helpful, but it is the experience that people are after, not the results.


Therefore when we combine a person's natural searching inclinations with a search mechanism that is extremely easy to use and convenient for patrons, we get our current climate of decreased reference use.  People think they are finding the correct (or even a good enough answer) and stop their search. It is therefore up to libraries to educate patrons on proper online searching methods and find ways to reach patrons during this crucial search phase.

Essentially, the new role of reference is "reference outreach."  If patrons are not coming to libraries to meet their reference needs, we need to go out into their communities--both physical and digital--and bring real, accurate reference to them.  Again this problem is not new to libraries, but the digital age and the growth of "smart" search engines has exacerbated the problem and demands a new approach.

Is reference dead? No, it is just increasingly (and rapidly) moving outside the confines of the physical library.  People still need answers to questions and are even willing to pay for them. Services such as KGB, which charges to do what libraries do for free, could not exist if reference needs were being full met.  

As information professionals we know how to get the best answer, not just an answer, we simply need to change our frame of reference. Our patrons may be content with settling for a Google search results page, but as information professionals we must not. We must continue to push the point to our patrons that we provide better reference services. We must also demonstrate that we can answer their questions where "they live." 

Therefore, what does this new reference outreach look like on a practical level? That is the big question.

Ideas, at least that might work for my library. 

• Get reference librarians into the community
• Bookmobiles--reference staff on a bookmobile, why not?
• Schools--partner with school libraries, teachers, etc. to come up with solutions for database teaching, assignments that get students into the library, etc.
• Information kiosks--should we set up a booth at the mall, with a  "Get your answers here?" banner. It is sort of extreme, but maybe.
• Instant communication tools
• IM--integrate instant messaging into every facet of the reference and library experience. If you provide a service over the telephone or in person, make sure a patron can do it over IM
• Text messaging--Outlook can send email as text messages, so can Twitter, so can chats using SMS. Mobile technology is becoming an integrated part of people's lives and we need to be on these devices.
• Email--it may be older, but email is still a standard form of communication. How good is your email reference service?
• Personalized reference--my library currently has a service which allows patrons to request an individual meeting with a reference librarian. These meetings are for typically one hour and can be on almost any topic.  How can this service be improved, expanded, etc.?

What are you and your libraries doing to address the changing nature of reference?  Are you seeing a change in reference? Do you think the information profession is giving up on reference prematurely?