ASERL Virtual
Reference
Membership Survey Complete Results
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | ASERL received 32 responses from its 44 members
(73%). |
| All of the respondents indicated they currently provide some kind of
virtual reference service, either through email and/or a chat-based system |
| Nearly half of the respondents (47%) currently provide chat-based
reference. |
| Of those that do not currently provide chat-based reference, 35%
plan to introduce this kind of service within six months of the survey,
17% within 12 months, and one library has plans to launch this kind of
service within a year of the survey. Seven respondents either have no
plans to launch this service or did not indicate a timeline. |
| "Ask A Librarian" was the name most frequently used by ASERL libraries for their virtual reference services - 43% of respondents use this name. Other names include "Real Time Reference," Ask Zak," AskUs.Now," "InfoChat," "Live Assistance," "Live Help," "Live Ref," and "RefeXpress." |
Software choices
Chat software currently in use at ASERL libraries
| LSSI | 5 sites (33% of ASERL sites currently providing chat service) |
| HumanClick | 3 sites (20% of ASERL sites currently providing chat service) |
| LivePerson | 2 sites (13% of ASERL sites currently providing chat service) |
| AOL Instant Messenger | 1 site (7% of ASERL sites currently providing chat service) |
| Conference Room | 1 site (7% of ASERL sites currently providing chat service) |
| Live Assistance | 1 site (7% of ASERL sites currently providing chat service) |
| Live Helper | 1 site (7% of ASERL sites currently providing chat service) |
| NetAgent | 1 site (7% of ASERL sites currently providing chat service) |
| Convey | 0 sites |
| eGain | 0 sites |
Chat software currently being considered for use at ASERL libraries that don't currently provide chat service:
|
LSSI |
5 sites (29% of ASERL sites not currently providing chat service) | ||
| HumanClick | 4 sites (24% of ASERL sites not currently providing chat service) | ||
|
LivePerson |
2 sites (13% of ASERL sites not currently providing chat service) |
||
|
AOL Instant Messenger |
2 sites (12% of ASERL sites not currently providing chat service) |
||
|
Conference Room |
1 site (6% of ASERL sites not currently providing chat service) |
||
|
Live Helper |
1 site (6% of ASERL sites not currently providing chat service) | ||
|
Convey |
2 sites (12% of ASERL sites not currently providing chat service) | ||
|
eGain |
2 sites (12% of ASERL sites not currently providing chat service) | ||
| 24x7 | 2 sites (12% of ASERL sites not currently providing chat service) | ||
|
|||
Longevity of Purchase
| Among the 15 ASERL libraries that currently
provide chat-based reference service, 60% consider their software to be a
short-term purchase. Only one site that currently provides chat service
(7%) considers this to be a long-term purchase. Five sites (33%0 selected
"other/not sure" on the survey form. |
| Among the 17 ASERL libraries that do not currently provide chat-based reference service, one idicated their would likely be a short-term purchase, one site indicated they would likely make a long-term purchase, and the majrotiy (15 sites, or 88%) were not sure. |
Cost of Software
The cost of the chat-based v-Ref software currently in use in ASERL libraries varies greatly. One library uses AOL Instant Messenger which is free; another ASERL library uses NetAgent which cost $20,000 initially and requires $2,000/month service fees. The most widely used system (LSSI) costs $8,000 initially and requires $6,000 annual service fees.
Software Features
Desired Features
Of the 32 survey respondents, the most frequently requested feature for chat software was "no user plug-ins required" - selected by 75% of respondents. The ability to push web pages and pricing considerations were each selected by 65% of respondents as being important to them. The ability to work with both PC & MacIntosh computer systems was selected by 44% of respondents as important; closely followed by the ability to "escort" (also called "co-browsing"), rated as important by 41% of respondents. Other important features included ease of installation/configuration, compatibility with legacy systems, and the availability of chat session transcripts.
Required Features
When asked to indicate those features they would require of a chat software package, the results were nearly identical to the above.
V-Ref Services at ASERL Libraries
As mentioned above, all respondents provide reference service to patrons via email.
| Three sites (9% of respondents) began providing service in the late 1980s; |
| Ten sites (31%) began providing email reference between 1990-1995; |
| Fifteen sites (47%) began providing email reference between 1996 - 1999; |
| Four sites (13%) did not specify a start date. |
Also mentioned above, 15 ASERL sites currently provide chat-based reference service.
| Georgia Tech was the first site to provide service, starting in the Spring of 1999, using AOL Instant Messenger; |
| A year later, the University of Florida began their chat service using NetAgent; |
| Three ASERL libraries began service in Fall 2000; |
| Three additional sites began in Spring 2000; |
| Six ASERL libraries began in Fall 2001; |
| One site launched their service in Spring 2002. |
V-Ref Service Hours
Of the 15 ASERL libraries currently providing chat-based reference service:
| Almost all (13 sites, or 87%) provide service during daytime hours Mondays-Fridays; |
| Slightly more than half (53%) offer some service during weekday evenings (after 6 pm); |
| One-third provide some service on weekends. |
Of these libraries, nearly half indicate that afternoons were their busiest times of day; 20% reported mornings as busiest; only one site reported evenings as their busiest time.
Service Promotion/Publicity
All survey recipients were asked to describe the ways in which they publicize their virtual reference services (both email and chat-based services).
| More than ¾ of respondents (25 sites, or 78%) indicated their virtual reference service was publicized on their library's home page. | ||||||||||||
| Seventeen sites (53%) publicize their service(s) via campus newspapers/newsletters; | ||||||||||||
| Other publicity
activities include:
|
Service Response Times
Those ASERL libraries that provide chat-based reference service were asked to estimate the average length of chat sessions.
| Two sites (13%) reported average session times between 5 - 7 minutes; |
| Four sites (26%) reported average session times between 8 - 10 minutes; |
| Three sites (20%) reported average session times between 10 - 15 minutes; |
| One site reported "widely variable" session times. |
Additionally, all survey respondents were asked to estimate the response time for reference questions submitted by email.
| Approximately one of four respondents (28%) indicated they usually deliver responses in less than 24 hours; |
| Slightly more than half (53%) reported usual turnaround time as 24 hours or "next day;" |
| Three respondents (9%) reported 24 - 48 hour response times; |
| Three respondents did not provide information. |
Staffing for Virtual Reference
The survey asked respondents to provide the number of staff assigned to answer chat-based reference questions in terms of FTE. Most responses offered the number of staff trained to handle this task or the number of staff who handle this task in rotation.
| Of the two sites that reported FTE, the average was .35 FTE. |
| The ten sites that provided staff trained or staff assigned resulted in an average of 19 people who were available to respond to chat questions. |
The survey also inquired about the location of staff handling chat questions. Multiple answers were permitted.
| Librarians at 9 sites that
currently providing chat service (60% of total) work from the reference
desk; |
| All respondents indicated that chat questions were handled by
librarians working in an office or other, non-public areas of the library; |
| About one in four respondents indicated that librarians were fielding
chat questions from home or another off-site location; |
| Nearly 75%
reported that reference assistants working in the library also handled
chat questions; |
| No site reported using staff provided by a software vendor or other non-university personnel for this task. |
Training
Survey recipients were asked about the amount and types of training provided to staff who are responsible for virtual reference tasks (either chat or email service).
| Half of all survey respondents indicated they provide specific training to staff responsible for virtual reference tasks; |
| About one in four (7 of 32) indicated they do not provide specific v-ref training; |
| One site responded "sometimes/other" to this question. |
Of the 16 sites that provide specific training about virtual reference matters:
| Three (18%) spend less than one hour on training; |
| Eight (50%) spend between one and four hours on training; |
| Four (25%) spend more than one day on training; |
| Five provide additional support using websites, email tips, etc. |
| Fifteen (94%) include software orientation as part of their training topics; |
| Four (25%) cover online communication skills in their training. |
v-Ref Service Management
Survey respondents were asked about some of the operational details of their chat-based virtual reference operations. Twenty respondents answered these questions - five more than currently provide chat service. It is assumed that these five sites were replying with information that is planned for future chat service.
| Nine of the respondents (45%) require chat users to log in or provide other identifying information. |
| Of those nine sites that require user logins, all require users to supply a name; |
| Six (66%) require users to supply an email address; |
| Three (33%) require users to supply a telephone number; |
| None require users to supply a student or staff ID number; |
| Two sites (22%) indicated they require users to supply other kinds of identifying information. |
Survey recipients were also asked if users not affiliated with their university receive virtual reference services (either email or chat). Twenty-nine respondents answered this question.
| More than 80% (24 of 29) said they do provide reference services to non-university patrons; |
| Two sites (7%) indicated they do not provide reference services to outside users; |
| Three sites (10%) responded maybe, with comments indicating they would provide service if their current workload at the time the question was received would permit it. |
Respondents were also asked if they provide information from licensed databases to non-university users. Twenty-seven sites responded to this question.
| The vast majority of respondents (75%) said they do not provide information from licensed data sources to non-university users; |
| Two sites (7%) said they would provide this information; |
| Five sites (18%) responded "maybe/other;" |
Recipients were asked if they compile questions and answers from their virtual reference service into a Q&A database.
| Most sites - 75% - do not compile answers; |
| Three sites (10%) do compile Q&A data into a central file; |
| Four sites (14%) responded "sometimes/other." |
Those three sites that compile Q&A data into a central file were queried about the processes they use to keep this information up-to-date.
| One had no specific plans in place; |
| One site has a committee to review the data; |
| One site has "periodic" review of the data by a reference librarian. |
V-Ref Policies
| Fifteen sites (54% of respondents) have created policies that are specific to virtual reference; |
| Nice sites (32%) include virtual reference service as part of other, previously-existing policies; |
| Four sites (14%) do not have policies that specific govern virtual reference tasks. |
Funding of v-Ref Services
| The vast majority of respondents
(85%)
funded the initial expenses of their virtual reference operations
(software, hardware, etc.) from previously-existing library budgets; |
| Two sites - 8% of those responding to this question - received specialized
funding from their university for the initial expenses of their virtual
reference operations; |
| Two additional sites received grants from outside
sources to fund their initial v-ref expenses. |
| All sites fund their ongoing v-ref expenses (personnel, etc.) from existing library budgets. |
Statistical Analysis of v-Ref Data
Survey recipients were queried about the statistics they maintain regarding their virtual reference operations (chat and/or email). Multiple answers were permitted.
| The vast majority
of survey respondents - 88 - keep a count of the number of questions they
receive via their virtual reference service(s); |
| Nine sites (60% of site
with chat services) record the length of chat sessions. Four sites (27%)
reported they have this capability but do not use it. |
| Six sites
maintain records of the questioners' affiliation with the university
(staff, graduate student, undergraduate, non-university, etc.); |
| Five
sites record the general type of questions that are received; |
| Three
sites record the times of day questions are received. |
| Other statistical capabilities that are available but not being utilized are type of browser used by patrons, track questions by operator, and time of day (not being used by 1 site). |
Further statistical uses & analyses
| Of the 32 respondents, a majority (68%) count questions received via their v-Ref service(s) as part of their library's overall Reference Service totals. |
| Five respondents (16%) do not count v-Ref questions in their Reference stats; |
| Five sites (16%) did not respond to this question. |
| Half of survey respondents collect v-Ref statistical data by category of questioner (i.e., faculty, graduate students, undergraduates, etc.); |
| Ten sites (31%) do not track by these categories; |
| Two sites (6%) track questioners by other categories; |
| Four sites (13%) did not respond to this question. |
| Eleven of the 15 sites (73%) that have chat capabilities keep transcripts of their chat sessions; the remaining four sites (27%) do not keep chat transcripts. |
Of the 15 sites with chat v-Ref service at the time of the survey:
| Eight sites (53%) are examining the types of questions received, including review of chat transcripts; |
| Seven sites (47%) are analyzing the length of chat sessions; |
| Seven sites (47%) examine the university affiliation of their questioners; |
| Four sites (27%) analyze the time of day chat questions are received; |
| Two sites (13%) analyze the resources used to answer chat questions; |
| Two sites (13%) perform cost effectiveness analyses; |
| Two sites (13%) analyze user satisfaction data; |
| One site (6%) examines staff satisfaction data. |
All survey respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of questions they receive by the mode of transmission.
| On average, 78% of reference questions are received in person; |
| On average, 13% are received via telephone; |
| On average, 7% are received via email; |
| On average, 2% are received via chat (among those sites with chat capabilities) |
| Less than 1% of reference questions are received via "other" means. |
Further analysis of reference questions
| One average, 41% of questions received are specific to the library's collection, facility, or campus; |
| On average, 38% of reference questions received are ready reference questions; |
| On average, 29% of reference questions received are research questions; |
| On average, 13% of reference questions received are "other" types, including technical help questions. |
Consortial v-Ref Activities
| The majority of respondents (75%) are
not participating in the Collaborative Digital Reference Service (CDRS)
project operated by the Library of Congress; |
| Six respondents (19%)
currently participate in CDRS; |
| Two respondents (6%) plan to join CDRS
within six months of the survey; |
| One respondent (3%) is considering
joining the 24x7 Reference Project (sponsored by the Metropolitan
Cooperative Library System) within "a few months" of the survey.
The overwhelming majority (97%) of respondents are not participating in
the 24x7 Reference Project. |
| Further, the vast majority of respondents
(88%) were not providing v-Ref service as part of a consortia of other
libraries. Three sites (12%) indicated they had consortial plans under
consideration at the time of the survey. |
| Seven sites indicated that
shared staffing would be effective in providing virtual reference
services; |
| Four respondents indicated that the sharing of subject
expertise among consortia partners would be beneficial to virtual
reference services; |
| Three sites (9% of respondents) believed questions
that are specific to a particular library make consortial v-Ref services
ineffective; |
| One site indicated that database licensing restrictions would make consortia-provided v-Ref services ineffective; |
Overall Opinions of v-Ref Services
When asked to give their opinion:
Do you think chat-based reference services are a worthwhile and cost-effective method for providing information to patrons?
| Thirteen respondents (41%) responded affirmatively; |
| One respondent (3%of total) responded negatively; |
| Eighteen respondents (56%) did not respond. |
Additional Comments
36. What consortial activities do you think are (or are not) effective in the provision of virtual reference services? (Please describe.)
| "Consortial activities might be a good way to extend virtual
reference services to 24/7 by sharing manpower across libraries. Drawbacks
to this idea include acquainting librarians from other institutions with
local practices, services and issues of each library system in the
consortium, as well as getting access to licensed databases at other
institutions so that a librarian from UF could answer the question of a
student from USF. It might not be such an issue for say… Florida
university libraries that share a lot in common, but it would be a hurdle
for a consortium that included many library types, with different
philosophies of reference. I think that virtual reference has great
potential for large library networks to enrich reference services in
member libraries." |
| "General type reference questions can be answered by consortium
members through virtual reference services-such as What's the population
of New York City? How do I find information about the British Parlimentary
system?, How do I find a journal article on …?" |
| "Questions pertaining to a specific institution that would require
an extended amount of time to find the answer are less appropriate to be
answered through virtual service offered through a consortium - such as
How do I set up the proxy on my computer so that I can access the
Library's databases from home? Why isn't my "My Library" record
that shows me what books I have checked out working?" |
| "Consortial arrangements allow libraries to offer increase service
hours, including nights & weekends. Presently the Tampa library and
the Sarasota library of the USF system support the chat service." |
| "I am not sure I am convinced that this can be done consortially,
although consortial purchase of software would be of interest to us if
there could be a cost savings on some of the more expensive software, such
as LSSI." |
| "Effective consortial activities are covering off hours, and
covering special subjects." |
| "We currently staff our virtual reference service through a
cooperative arrangement between five library units here at Vanderbilt
(Central, Divinity, Education, Management and Science/Engineering library
units). Likewise, consortial arrangements for providing virtual reference
could offer many benefits in terms of sharing the staffing of such a
service and gaining access to subject expertise not available at a
particular institution." |
| "Many of our questions are about policies and procedures and our
local collections. These can only be answered locally." |
| "Every library needs to discuss and agree on policies and
procedures; cover longer service hours." |
| "Offering similar collections of electronic resources and having a
common document delivery service or shared (union) catalog." |
| "Not effective - questions that pertain specifically to user's
home institution." |
| "It may be possible for libraries like ours to extend the hours of
v-Ref service through cooperation with consortial partners who understand
the mission and curriculum of our university." |
| "Price breaks on software, shared staffing." |
| "Sharing hours, expertise" |
| "The ability to send homework questions to public school
libraries." |
| "Sharing responsibility for questions in order to provide coverage
for more hours and to provide better reference service through access to a
larger group of librarians with subject specialties and to specialized
collections of cooperating libraries." |
| "We believe that after our initial experimentation and evaluation, a consortial effort might prove to be the best way to go. This would allow us to provide more extensive service while sharing costs." |
38. Do you think chat-based reference services are a worthwhile and cost-effective method for providing information to patrons?
| "Yes, very much so. I think chat-based reference could in some
instances be a good alternative to staffing a reference desk, and has the
potential to be a cost-effective way to extend professional expertise out
into branch and small libraries that lack professional librarians." |
| "Through chat we are reaching some people that we might not
otherwise assist, such as people using the Web who cannot easily telephone
for assistance, including distance education students, and people within
the libraries who for some reason do not want to leave their computer to
go to a service desk." |
| "Though the service seems to be worthwhile, judging by customer
responses, the cost-effectiveness could be debatable depending on the cost
of the software, and whether or not staffing is adequate to support such a
service along with the other required library services." |
| "Communicating through chat, though immediate, is also not as fast
as talking and therefore can be somewhat cumbersome. When voice-over
technology can be used effectively along with the chat, including pushing
pages and co-browsing, the value of chat-based reference will increase
greatly." |
| "Chat reference services are very valuable for distance education
students. Chat also provides an additional means of communication for
users. With dial-up access, chat offers real time reference assistance
which is critical as users try to effectively navigate the wealth of
information available." |
| "I think chat-based reference is a worthwhile service to try out
and certainly is a nice service to be able to offer our users,
particularly if it can be integrated (staffing-wise) into other service
activities. We have not seen it catch on here yet, despite very heavy
promotion. Traffic on email and telephone service far eclipses chat. But
this is after only one semester of use. We are going to see if extending
our service hours brings in any more activity." |
| "Our health sciences library offers chat. I answer only for the
main library system." |
| "I would be interested in the result of the survey but do not
think ASERL is the appropriate group to try and coordinate virtual
reference." |
| "Another useful tool to provide reference/outreach services." |
| "I could easily check "not sure" on this question but
the future of reference will definitely have to include some type of
real-time reference (chat, web call back, voice… )" |
| "Extremely effective format of delivering Reference
Services." |
| "Meets the needs of those who cannot or choose to not come to the
library in person. Also helps position the library among Internet-based
information providers." |
| "May raise user expectations to unsupportable level." |
| "I'm concerned about the staff time involved scrambling to cover
services. We are looking into starting this service." |
| "Reports that I have seen indicate that chat based reference
service is extremely time consuming and not cost effective." |
| "The statistics presented in the literature and via online
discussions (listservs) indicate that adoption of this medium by library
users is very slow. It is premature to attempt to validate such services
as "worthwhile" or "cost-effective"." |
| "I think, in the long run, chat based reference may be cost effective but since I have not had any actual experience with it, I can't say at the moment." |
