ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries O ctober 1988 / 585 W hat classes have been given assignments that should have had library information included? W hat other services are needed? W hat are the repeating questions that signal that the reference librarian needs to take action, such as consultation with the professor or changes needed in the catalog form at— whether paper or elec­ tronic? Repetitive questions are important for two rea­ sons. First, even the most challenging question ceases to be fun for staff on any level after it is asked for the 25th time in two days. Second, if everyone in the class needs the information, it should be in the course syllabus or library handout. W hat reference titles need to be purchased for the questions that weren’t being asked three years ago? W hat new reference titles or databases need to be developed? W hat changes need to be requested from the vendors of CD-ROM databases to make them eas­ ier for the public to learn? W hat can be done to improve the accuracy of the answers of the reference desk staff? Are questions being referred unnecessarily to branches or special collections of other libraries? W hat training needs to be provided for reference desk staff, both new and experienced? Maybe the metaphor needed is that a reference librarian’s time at the desk should include “preven­ tive medicine.” A busy reference desk is no place for extended in­ terviews for database searching, a lengthy explana­ tion of how to do a literature search, or sensitive questions (i.e., those questions that the public feels are sensitive). It never was. Therefore, reference li­ brarians, in fairness to the public and to colleagues, need to keep “office hours” or to make individual appointments. An intense concern with reference statistics, measurement, and evaluation has marked the last twenty years. It is well to remember that statistics have to be interpreted. When the reference librari­ ans are doing their best work, the result may, even should be, a drop in the number of transactions at the reference desk because the clients know the an­ swer from signs or handouts or bibliographic in­ struction, or because the faculty includes the infor­ mation in the course. And conversely, an increase in reference statistics does not necessarily indicate more or better work. Technology today offers to librarians opportuni­ ties to retry some good ideas from the past for which the technical capability was inadequate; a lessening of time and space constraints on the li­ brarian; opportunities to deal with clients who are too shy, too immobile, or too busy to come to the reference desk; and the possibility of freeing people from dull, repetitive tasks. W hat do reference librarians need to be, what do reference librarians need to know to deal with the future? A solid concept of what kind of business reference is and an openness to rethinking refer­ ence functions in view of the new technology. Sen­ sitivity to local conditions; in reference services, there are very few programs, ideas, and systems that are effective without careful local modifica­ tions. Ability to manage the human aspects and the technical aspects of change. Ability to document the needs and expectations of our clients for the li­ brary and university administrations and for de­ signers of new products and systems. The judg­ ment, the ability, and the courage to say “yes” to the new which benefits the library’s clientele and “no” to the new which offers only novelty. W hat a time to dream things that never were and say “Why not?” W hat an exciting time to be librarians! The future of reference service: Discussion summary By Dennis Dillon R eferen ce L ibrarian University o f Texas at Austin The ensuing discussion focused primarily on three issues: technology, identifying reference problems, and the pros and cons of the reference desk. The following summary synthesizes audience and panelists’ comments on these subjects. Technology Discussion began with several people focusing on the incompatibility, expense, and amount of specialized knowledge needed to operate and maintain the various electronic information sys­ tems. This prompted the observation that libraries have never made the best or most innovative use of existing technologies and that we could do more, especially in the area of electronic mail. One member of the audience responded that we need to look more closely at the high technology of the recent past such as the telephone and the tele­ 586 / C &R L News phone answering machine, rather than lose our heads over the promise of electronic mail. Tele­ phone technology is already compatible with 200 million users all across the United States. It is inter­ esting that we are willing to spend for some forms of glitzy technology, but not for technology that is more mundane. W ith the telephone we can in­ stantly contact other libraries and research centers Specific types o f questions need special attention, not specific user groups. around the globe. A telephone brings the world to the reference desk in a way computers cannot. Most libraries can afford to have more telephone lines and answering machines collecting questions than computer terminals. Audience members men­ tioned that we could also be making better use of facsimile. Electronic mail is not the only electronic communications medium that libraries are unde­ rutilizing. But, said one member of the panel, no matter what the technology or what use we are making of it, we need to maintain a balance be­ tween the person and the machine. A person will always be needed to monitor what questions are being asked and to decide how best to answer them. Identifying the problems of reference services The discussion then turned to the area of expert systems and libraries’ increasing use of computers and electronic databases. Several audience mem­ bers pointed out that in this era of wondrous elec­ tron ic tools, we need to rem em ber th a t tools change both the way people approach and concep­ tualize problems, and the solutions which people seek or ignore. Just because new tools are available that does not mean that they are appropriate to solving our particular problems. A systems analyst in the audience again re­ minded everyone that before setting future direc­ tions for reference, we need to have a firm concep­ tual model of where the problems in reference service are. Only then can we systematically con­ ceive of possible solutions, and develop or search for the tools to correct the problems. He warned that librarians, like everyone else, often approach problems backwards, by looking at the available tools and then trying to force solutions onto them. This not only does not solve the problem , but results in bigger headaches that require even more time and money to solve. The reference desk and the future of reference The issue gathering the most impassioned com­ ments revolved around the question of whether we should continue traditional reference services, or try to arrive at a new paradigm for reference com­ posed of a mixture of reference by appointment, ex­ pert systems, a quick information desk staffed by paraprofessionals, and electronic mail. This debate arose because reference librarians are increasingly complaining about being overworked and over­ stressed; and because there is a sense that the cur­ rent reference desk does not meet all the needs of its users. Several participants stated that the quality ser­ vice was there in the current reference system, but that it just got lost in the volume of services pro­ vided, though others admitted that fatigue and other job related factors contributed to less than optimum service. There was some interest in re-examining the structure of the reference mix based on the context of the question being asked. At present, said one panelist, we level all questions out to a medium level. We do not have the easy questions answered by low-level staff and we do not have the hard questions answered through private consultation with our most highly trained staff. This quickly led to a discussion on the need to divide users into dif­ ferent categories, and carefully consider what we are trying to do with each group. In general the proposal consisted of applying the marketing con­ cept of the targeted audience. For users needing in- depth assistance, such as a faculty member work­ ing on deadline with grant money, appointments would be logical; while the freshman’s question about periodical locations could be answered at a lower level. One panelist was struck by an earlier audience comment about how people are much more careful and thoughtful when they have to write something down than when they speak. Perhaps, she said, if people did not have a desk to go to, they would think more and become more self-sufficient. They would then be more susceptible to reading library use material and to using expert systems. There are many other ways to match people and information than the current reference desk. Most librarians don’t currently have the skills to make use of existing technology in a creative way. If we take reference librarians off the desk, perhaps they will have the time to be more creative. Or, systems analysts and similar technologically trained people could be hired to design expert systems and other new solutions to the emerging reference problems. W e can be sure of one thing, said one panelist, and that is that the factors affecting reference are constantly changing. W e need to insure that we are in a position to lead rather than follow. Not everyone agreed that doing away with the traditional reference desk was a good idea. Several O ctober 1988 / 587 points were raised in its defense. Some audience members said that one problem with offering tiered reference services such as refer­ ence by appointment along with a quick answer desk is that users don’t know the context of their own questions. When they preface a reference question by saying I know this is hard, or easy, or short, or long— they are almost always wrong. Not being information professionals, they don’t know where their question fits in the information uni­ verse any more than a patient going to a physician is aware of the context and ramifications of partic­ ular symptoms. O f course, somebody else besides librarians can answer simple questions, but that is not all that is going on at the reference desk. The reference li­ brarian acts as the library’s troubleshooter and front line manager. He or she is right on the infor­ mation access and transfer scene, and not removed or insulated from user comments and questions. The reference librarian is able to observe the reali­ ties of how various library tools and research prob­ lems are actually approached and use this informa­ tion to improve library services. Several reference librarians mentioned that the question the user asks at the desk is seldom their real question. The librarian using acquired skills and experience can interpret the existence of hid­ den questions in ways that machines or inexperi­ enced staff members cannot. The existence of the hidden question is communicated non-verbally by gesture, voice inflection, gait, and general de­ meanor. In this human-to-human interaction the reference librarian through intuition gained by ex­ perience analyzes the user and attempts to discern the real question. The librarian then interprets the user’s needs in terms of how many sources are needed, at what level of complexity, and how much time the user has to devote to the problem. Unfam iliarity with the universe of information sources or inexperience at analyzing user needs would make the process break down. W e need to have high-level people at the reference desk with the knowledge and background to understand the context of the question. Reference librarians also noted the difference between bibliographic instruction in the classroom and the experience of later helping the same people at the reference desk. The one-on-one interaction at the reference desk is more relevant and earns user respect in ways that prepared m aterial on computers and handouts cannot. It was also brought up that users seldom grasp subtle differences between service points. The user simply wants to go to the nearest desk and ask for what is needed. It doesn’t matter what the desk is called, who is staffing it, or what the user thinks is the context of the question. The user does not want to be put off or referred. We will be judged simply on the service the user gets then and there when the assistance is needed the most. As for adopting a marketing strategy and target­ ing user groups for different levels of service, audi­ ence members again reinforced the standard refer­ ence librarian’s observation that it is difficult to pigeonhole users. If we want to raise the general level of service, it is not the specific user groups that need attention, but specific types of questions. There are legitimate reasons, usually political or educational, for targeting specific user groups for special attention, but doing so does not raise the general level of service; instead, it merely creates special classes of users who receive extra attention and adds yet another service responsibility to the reference librarian’s collection of duties. One panelist mentioned that with the growth of computer searching, users are already becoming used to making appointments with librarians and that perhaps we should expand upon this model. This argument was countered from the audience by a librarian who stated that in her branch library she does all of her scientific and technical searching without appointment. Her users come to the li­ brary for information, not to encounter delay, bu­ reaucracy, appointments, or frustration. They get instant service and leave thinking the library is an efficient, quick, and up-to-date operation. Several reference librarians noted that the type of questions users ask change over time, how they ask for the information changes over time, and how they want that information packaged or deliv­ ered changes over time. There is an obvious value in having persons on the firing line at the reference desk who hear how users at all levels are trying to use the library, and knows by what methods they are seeking information this year, so that publica­ tions, signs, and electronic systems can be kept rele­ vant. To have information access tools designed and written by people in the absence of first-hand experience and feedback is to court the danger of becoming irrelevant. It is the reference librarian on the reference desk who knows most intimately what users want the library to be. One panelist noted that people are happy with reference service because they like the personal in­ teraction. She compared the personal interactions of the circulation and the reference desks and noted that users obviously do not have the same positive response to all their circulation transactions that they do with their reference transactions. She said that reference is cushioned from experimenting with alternate methods of information service by its very strength, which is the positive response of its users to the personal interaction at the reference desk. But, added an audience member, one aspect of that positive user response is the immediacy of attention the user gets, and the quick resolution of their questions. Even if the reference librarian tells the user the library cannot help, that at least is an unambiguous quick resolution that allows the user to turn their information pursuit in other direc­ tions. The discussion, of course, ended with no resolu­ tio n ; bu t th e program was in v ig o ra tin g and O ctober 1988 / 589 thought-provoking and helped the participants to clarify their thinking on some of the issues involved in the many possible future directions for library reference services. The T a x R eform Act of 1 9 8 4 and A m erican research libraries By the Ad Hoc RBMS Legislative Inform ation Committee Tim othy M urray, com piler University o f D elaw are Have the new regulations had an impact? T he Tax Reform Act of 1984 placed potential new burdens on donors and libraries in the admin­ istration of noncash gifts. Since January 1, 1985, the Internal Revenue Service requires donors to maintain detailed records concerning all gifts of property, other than cash and publicly traded secu­ rities, with a value greater than $500 for which they claim a tax deduction. In addition, the regula­ tions mandate specific institutional reporting pro­ cedures for gifts of property with values greater than $5,000. Donors must also total the value of smaller gifts of similar property to more than one institution and if the aggregate is greater than $5,000, the new reporting rules, for donor and do­ nee, w ill apply. F in ally , the regulations have placed the appraisal process under greater scru­ tin y.1 lThe text of the law can be found in D eficit R e­ duction Act o f 1984. Division A: Tax Reform Act of 1984. House of Representatives Report #98-861, 98th Congress, 2nd Session (1984), pp. 206-11. Temporary implementation rules and regulations appear in F ed eral Register 49, no.252 (December 3 1 ,1 9 8 4 ). In 1988, the temporary status of the new regulations was removed and the final implemen­ tation rules and regulations are printed in F ed eral Register 53, no.87 (May 5. 1988). The relevant forms used for the new reporting procedures are Forms 8283 and 8282. Form 8283, Following the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which eliminated tax deductions based on the donation of cultural and historical documents to non-profit in­ stitutions by their creators, research libraries re­ ported significant declines in such donations di­ rectly resulting from new regulations mandated in that a ct.2 Since the 1984 regulations also defined and mandated a series of new documentation and Section B is the appraisal summary which is com­ pleted by the donee and a qualified appraiser for gifts of property with an appraised value in excess of $5,000. Form 8282 must be completed by a do­ nee to report the disposal of any donated property, for which a form 8283 was completed, within two years of its original receipt. Under the initial regu­ lations, the donee was required to complete Form 8282 for all such disposals. The final regulations have modified this requirement and the revised in­ structions for Form 8283 include the following note: “an exception applies to items having a value of $500 or less which are part of a group of similar items contributed. For these items a donee organi­ zation does not have to file Form 8282 if the donor completed and signed the statement in Part II (Sec­ tion B) of Form 8283.” 2Norman E . Tanis and Cindy Ventuleth report the continuing effects of the 1969 legislation in “The Decline in Donations? Effects of the Tax Re­ form Act of 1 9 69 .” L ib ra ry Jou rn a l 111, no. 11 (June 15, 1986): 41-44.