参考学术图书馆聊天参考读者:学科馆员如何决定

IF 1.3 4区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Reference Services Review Pub Date : 2021-02-01 DOI:10.1108/RSR-10-2020-0063
Paula R. Dempsey
{"title":"参考学术图书馆聊天参考读者:学科馆员如何决定","authors":"Paula R. Dempsey","doi":"10.1108/RSR-10-2020-0063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study is to learn what factors liaison librarians in academic research libraries consider in determining whether to refer chat reference patrons to subject specialists.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nSubject specialists were asked what policies guided their decisions to refer to a specialist and then assessed unreferred chat session transcripts both within and outside their specializations to determine need for a referral.\n\n\nFindings\nFew respondents were guided by formal policies. Contrary to an initial hypothesis, subject area was not a key factor in referring chat. A broader set of criteria included reference interviewing, provision of relevant resources and information literacy instruction. Respondents valued both the depth that subject specialists can provide to reference interactions and the ability of a skilled generalist to support information literacy.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nFindings are most applicable to large, public doctoral universities with liaison librarian programs. Assignment of respondents to subject specialist categories was complicated by their broad range of background and expertise.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe study contributes new understanding of referrals to subject specialists who have potential to guide development of formal referral policies in academic library virtual reference services.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe study is the first empirical examination of chat reference referral decisions.\n","PeriodicalId":46478,"journal":{"name":"Reference Services Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Referring academic library chat reference patrons: how subject librarians decide\",\"authors\":\"Paula R. Dempsey\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/RSR-10-2020-0063\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe purpose of this study is to learn what factors liaison librarians in academic research libraries consider in determining whether to refer chat reference patrons to subject specialists.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nSubject specialists were asked what policies guided their decisions to refer to a specialist and then assessed unreferred chat session transcripts both within and outside their specializations to determine need for a referral.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nFew respondents were guided by formal policies. Contrary to an initial hypothesis, subject area was not a key factor in referring chat. A broader set of criteria included reference interviewing, provision of relevant resources and information literacy instruction. Respondents valued both the depth that subject specialists can provide to reference interactions and the ability of a skilled generalist to support information literacy.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nFindings are most applicable to large, public doctoral universities with liaison librarian programs. Assignment of respondents to subject specialist categories was complicated by their broad range of background and expertise.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe study contributes new understanding of referrals to subject specialists who have potential to guide development of formal referral policies in academic library virtual reference services.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe study is the first empirical examination of chat reference referral decisions.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":46478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reference Services Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reference Services Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2020-0063\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reference Services Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2020-0063","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的本研究的目的是了解学术研究图书馆的联络馆员在决定是否将聊天参考读者转介给学科专家时会考虑哪些因素。设计/方法/方法受试者专家被问及是什么政策指导他们决定转诊给专家,然后评估他们专业内外的未转诊聊天记录,以确定是否需要转诊。调查结果很少有受访者受到正式政策的指导。与最初的假设相反,主题领域并不是推荐聊天的关键因素。一套更广泛的标准包括参考面试、提供相关资源和信息素养指导。受访者既重视学科专家为参考互动提供的深度,也重视熟练的多面手支持信息素养的能力。研究局限性/含义研究结果最适用于有联络馆项目的大型公立博士大学。由于受访者的背景和专业知识广泛,将他们分配到学科专家类别变得复杂。实践意义该研究有助于对学科专家的转介有新的理解,这些专家有可能指导学术图书馆虚拟参考咨询服务中正式转介政策的制定。原创性/价值该研究是对聊天参考推荐决策的首次实证检验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Referring academic library chat reference patrons: how subject librarians decide
Purpose The purpose of this study is to learn what factors liaison librarians in academic research libraries consider in determining whether to refer chat reference patrons to subject specialists. Design/methodology/approach Subject specialists were asked what policies guided their decisions to refer to a specialist and then assessed unreferred chat session transcripts both within and outside their specializations to determine need for a referral. Findings Few respondents were guided by formal policies. Contrary to an initial hypothesis, subject area was not a key factor in referring chat. A broader set of criteria included reference interviewing, provision of relevant resources and information literacy instruction. Respondents valued both the depth that subject specialists can provide to reference interactions and the ability of a skilled generalist to support information literacy. Research limitations/implications Findings are most applicable to large, public doctoral universities with liaison librarian programs. Assignment of respondents to subject specialist categories was complicated by their broad range of background and expertise. Practical implications The study contributes new understanding of referrals to subject specialists who have potential to guide development of formal referral policies in academic library virtual reference services. Originality/value The study is the first empirical examination of chat reference referral decisions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Reference Services Review
Reference Services Review INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
10.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Reference Services Review (RSR ) is a quarterly, refereed journal dedicated to the enrichment of reference knowledge and the advancement of reference services. RSR covers all aspects of reference functions, including automation of reference services, evaluation and assessment of reference functions and sources, models for delivering quality reference services in all types and sizes of libraries, development and management of teaching/learning activities, promotion of information literacy programs, and partnerships with other entities to achieve reference goals and objectives. RSR prepares its readers to understand and embrace current and emerging technologies affecting reference functions, instructional services and information needs of library users.
期刊最新文献
Onboarding for liaison librarians: building community and practice Campus entrepreneurs’ research habits and needs: a five-year study Affective dimensions of academic librarians’ experiences during the Covid-19 pandemic: experiences and lessons learned for information literacy The framing of authority in the ACRL framework on information literacy: multidisciplinary perspectives on truth, authority, expertise and belief Starting in-house copyright education programs: commonalities and conclusions from two southeastern US academic libraries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1