STS General Discussion Group

      	Previous	 	Contents	 	Next
	Issues in Science and Technology   Librarianship
	Spring 2002

	DOI:10.5062/F4XW4GRM



      

    Conference Reports
    Science & Technology Section General Discussion Group
  ALA Midwinter Conference, January 19, 2002
      Norma Kobzina
  Bioscience and Natural Resources Library
  University of California, Berkeley
nkobzina@library.berkeley.edu   
    


    The Science and Technology Section General Discussion Group on Saturday,  January 19, 2002, featured four authors of articles that appeared in the  Fall 2001 issue of ISTL: JoAnn  Sears, Auburn University; Susan Ardis, University of Texas at Austin:  Kathy Fescemyer, Pennsylvania State University: and Bryna Coonin, East  Carolina University. 

    JoAnn Sears talked about "Chat Reference Service: An Analysis of One  Semester's Data" focusing on a project at Auburn University, where chat  reference was implemented in the Fall of 2000. The library serves 23,000  students in one main building with a single reference desk. Four  reference points had been combined before the project was initiated.   Client software was installed at the reference desk, rather than in a  librarian's office or home. Prior to the Spring 2001 study, she had not  seen much in the literature about how chat reference technology was used.   Auburn's statistics showed that 55 percent of the chat reference questions  were specific, research and ready reference questions; 13 percent were  directional questions; and 32 percent dealt with policy and procedures,  including database procedures. Sixty percent of the questions were  localized to Auburn, which affected cooperative arrangements. Thirty nine  percent of the "chat" answers had specific references included. 

    Areas of further study included the breakdown of specific types of  questions, a quantitative analysis, user satisfaction, and return rate of  users. Auburn has no restrictions on who uses the service. There is the  question of how consortia are dealing with this. 

    Questions from the audience: How much traffic do they have at the  reference desk and how does this interact with normal reference? They have  two to four staff at the desk; one person could be answering the "chat"  questions. It is difficult to tell a patron at the desk that you're typing  something live, not just doing e-mail. The chat software is installed at  two terminals that are slightly away from the reference desk. 

    It is hard to measure user satisfaction. Users' IP addresses were not  recorded. Students using dial-up modems doing a search do not have to  hang up to call the library if they use chat reference. A major benefit  was having the reference collection right there. Since they had just  merged reference desks they could use colleagues who represented different  subject areas. They started the experiment from 1-9 pm and increased it to  about 77 hours/week, with four librarians. "Human Click" was free at the  time they began, but now they charge, which is a major change. Students  did not need to install anything on their own computers. 

    Susan Ardis reported on "Specialized Remote User Education: Web-Based  Tutorials for Engineering Graduate Students." Students are at two  campuses, which are spread out. Two tutorials were developed for the  groups. One tutorial teaches online patent searching; the other covers the  complexity of engineering information, standards and patents. They offered  other shortened explanatory tutorials including technical writing. FAQs  were created, e.g., how to choose a search engine. This type of  information can be dry and boring, and they wanted to make it "edgy" with  non-library oriented graphics. Susan reported a lot of use from  outsiders, since the McKinney Library is the only library in Texas with  the word "engineering" in its name. 

    The tutorials were designed to be shared with reference staff.   Development plans include a module on plagiarism and a voice-over in  Mandarin, since the technical writing students are overwhelmingly Chinese.  Her job is to market this to graduate students, advisers, etc. 

    Questions from the audience: What sort of feedback are you getting? There  is great feedback from faculty, who tell their students to use it. They  also ask for hands-on, which is not required, but merely recommended. They  raised the visibility of the librarian as someone who has something to  offer for their Dean and faculty. The URL for further information is http://www.lib.utexas.edu/engin/.

    Bryna Coonin described "Enabling Scientists: Serving Sci-Tech Library  Users with Disabilities." Her interactions with people who were limited in  their ability to work in an electronic environment sparked the idea of  determining how disabled researchers and faculty working in the sciences  access the web. Adaptive technology is often available in a large central  library but not in branches or departmental libraries. The Web  Accessibility Initiative provides guidelines for the creation of  accessible web pages, for example pages that provide scientific and  mathematical technical notation, which is hard to put into HTML. 

    She found that commercial publishers are not always providing compliant  web pages. Some vendors know they are buying material that does not  conform to guidelines. Ingenta has major problems, and JSTOR has problems  because much of their material is scanned, not born digital. Digital audio  technology is starting to help, e.g., to improve math and science  textbooks. Of eleven e-journal publishers, Kluwer was the only one that is  compliant but it is still hard to navigate. 

    Kathy Fescemyer expressed "Six Wishes of a Public Service Librarian."   Users of library provided material should realize that the information is  not free, but do not understand how we got the material in the first  place. Databases have different characteristics, but she has patrons who  know only a single database such as PubMed. If faculty do not know,  students will not find out. There is a lack of understanding of  limitations, e.g., dates of coverage. The web is free but limited. Her  question: If everything is free, why are the publishers and vendors  charging? 

    Students also are not aware of the difference between scholarly and  popular journals. Search engines retrieve material but do not indicate how  to expand or limit. There is no appreciation for the variety and depth of  information available. Are we waiting for them to come to us or are we  marketing ourselves? Her last comment was that librarians need to have a  discussion of how students and faculty search print vs. online. 

      

  

  	Previous	 	Contents	 	Next