College and Research Libraries B E R N A R D F . V A V R E K A Theory of Reference Service Library literature has presented very few papers on reference theory. Historically, much of the literature on the subject concerned such rudimentary efforts at quantification as urging maximum, minimum, or moderate levels of reference service. The present author con- tends that reference service is the entire congeries of library ac- tivities that aid the flow of needed information to the user. F O R A C O N S I D E R A B L E time the library profession has concerned itself over the issue of whether or not there is a theo- retical basis for librarianship, and if so what is it? This unresolved question has left library science suspect. Indeed, it has then led to the further query, "What is scientific about library science?" a moot question. While the profession as a whole wor- ries about this conceptual foundation, the same syndrome exists among ref- erence librarians. There has been ex- tremely little written about reference theory. The literature reflects more smoke than fire. Because of this pre- sumable unconcern for theory, along with the fact that the referral process is taken for granted, a theoretical basis for reference service has changed rela- tively little from the latter part of the nineteenth century. What was offered at that time, purporting to be theory, was no more than a pseudo-theory—actually pseudo-theories. One does not have to look for a theory with the importance of E = mc2. No theory was offered that suggested a conceptual basis for ref- erence service. Such men as Samuel S. Green, William Warner Bishop, Pierce Butler and James Wyer, identified and Mr. Vavrek is an Instructor in the Gradu- ate School of Library and Information Sci- ences at the University of Pittsburgh. 5 0 8 / quantified that thing they called ref- erence service.1 Even judging by con- temporary standards and allowing for the emergence of this new activity called reference service, they did no more than define the service. It may have been a revolutionary idea to sug- gest that here was a service to aid the researcher with his research. But this produced little enlightenment relating to its theoretical basis. The definitions, and they must be considered in this category, were preoccupied with how much service should be given. After identifying the reference activity as aid given to a reader, it was then impor- tant to suggest variations on this theme, e.g., that it was not performing the reader's own task. It was either simply to be a gentle pat on the back or what- ever. This was the thinking and con- cern. It is logical, therefore, that what was identified as theories of reference service came out as: maximum, minimum, and moderate. Again, one can observe that these were attempts at quantification. Maximum service related to the sit- uation when the reference librarian per- formed the work for the reader. The 1 Readers interested in an excellent account of the history of reference theory are referred to Samuel Rothstein, The Development of Reference Services Through Academic Traditions, Public Library Practice and Special Librarianship ( A C R L Monograph, no. 14 [Chicago: ALA, Association of College and Research Libraries, 1 9 5 5 ] ) . Theory of Reference Service / 509 minimum theory was used to suggest a situation where the library was ac- knowledged as directly performing the teaching function. The reader was obliged to do the work for himself. The moderate theory, one that can only be dubiously defined and one which this author admits he has never really un- derstood, is supposed to refer to that service obviously falling in between maximum and minimum. This is the theory that permits confusion over when minimum theory becomes maximum. It has been suggested that under this theo- ry the librarian was in a quandary over how much service was enough. Indeed! These then are the so-called reference theories. They are entirely inadequate. One should not be tempted, however, to assume that the issue is really a se- mantic one. One will concede the am- biguity over such terms as theory and concept, but the problem lies more basically with a lack of development in this aspect of reference librarianship. Reference service, which is largely a twentieth-century phenomenon, has ex- isted without any theoretical basis from its inception. One hopes it is not too iconoclastic to suggest that the great names in the history of reference service did relatively little to provide such a basis. Even Pierce Butler in his Ref- erence Function of the Library did lit- tle. He largely reiterated the status quo. He did not expand the framework any more than did his predecessors. It has already been stated that there is little in the way of published literature on this subject. The topic reference theory is one of those that contributors to the literature toss in with a multitude of other mea culpas. The title of this paper implies that the author wishes to suggest an alterna- tive to the pseudo-theories of reference which have so far been offered. A defi- nition for the word "theory" has so far been begged. A relatively standard one, however, is a hypothesis suggested as a basis for thought on a topic. It is hoped that the following discussion will pro- vide such a basis. A statement closely resembling a theory was initially stated by Alan Rees at the Columbia Conference on Refer- ence Service.2 His view was that refer- ence service embodies all those vari- ables existing between the reader and the information. This was one of the most important, but only slightly regard- ed, views given at the Conference. The present author has reiterated this view- point in other articles but as a definition for reference service. Indeed, this is the manner in which it was offered by Rees. The temptation is strong to follow past history. But this viewpoint is not simply one of many definitions that is suggested as an explanation for that phenomenon we identify as reference service. It pro- vides a continuum. Whether or not this is testable as a hypothesis is another matter. This is a far-reaching statement and perhaps defies contradiction because of the scope of its implications. It is not the easiest to understand; but it is not an attempt at hyperbole to give it a mantle of vagueness, and then because it is difficult to understand pass it off as theory. Many students remain per- plexed by this view of reference ser- vice. What does it mean? It suggests that the entire gamut of activities which directly or indirectly affect the library must be considered as variables in the reference process. Every individual, pro- fessional as well as nonprofessional, must be considered a part of the re- ferral process. The acquisition and cat- aloging of books, the circulation rou- tines, the administrative supervision, 2 Individuals interested in a report of the Confer- ence are referred to: Winifred B. Linderman, ed. The Present Status and Future Prospects of Reference/ Information Service. Proceedings of the Conference Held at the School of Library Service, Columbia Uni- versity, March 30-April 1, 1966 ( C h i c a g o : A L A , 1 9 6 7 ) . 510 / College