Article
A Mixed Methods Approach to Assessing Roaming
Reference Services
Consuella Askew
Director
John Cotton Dana Library
Rutgers University–Newark
Newark, New Jersey, United
States of America
Email: consuella.askew@rutgers.edu
Received: 15 Feb. 2015 Accepted:
13 May 2015
2015 Askew. This is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective
–
The objectives of this research are threefold: a) to assess the students’
perception of the roaming service at the point of service; b) to assess the
librarians’ perception of the service; and, c) to solicit librarian feedback
and observations on their roaming experience and perceived user reactions.
Ultimately, this data was used to inform and identify best practices for the
improvement of the roaming service.
Methods
–
A combination of quantitative and qualitative survey methodologies were used to
collect data regarding patron and librarian service perceptions. Patrons and
librarians were asked to complete a survey at the conclusion of each reference
transaction. In addition at the end of the first semester of the
implementation, librarians were asked to provide feedback on the overall
program by responding to five open-ended questions.
Results
–
The findings indicate that our students typically seek assistance from the
librarians once a term (58%), but the majority (71%) indicated that they would
seek a librarian’s assistance more frequently, if one were available on the
various floors of the library. Overall, our users indicated that they were
“Satisfied” (36%) to “Very Satisfied” (43%) with the roaming service. Librarian
responses indicate overall enthusiasm and positive feelings about the program,
but cautioned that additional enhancements are needed to ensure the continued
development and effectiveness of the service.
Conclusion
–
Overall, patrons were satisfied with the service delivered by the roaming
reference librarian. The roaming librarians also provided positive feedback
regarding the delivery of service. Data collected from both groups is also in
agreement on two major program aspects needing improvement: marketing of the
service and a means by which to easily identify the roaming librarian.
Introduction
Reference service delivery
has centered on the physical service desk since the late nineteenth century
(Miles, 2013, p. 323). However, even pioneering library thinkers such as Samuel
S. Green saw the need to decentralize reference service delivery and untether
the reference librarian from the desk. In one of his classic publications
concerning patron–librarian relations, Green asserts: “One of the best means of
making a library popular is to mingle freely with its users, and help them in
every way.” (Pena & Green, 2006, p. 164). Over the years, reference service
delivery has evolved in tandem with emerging information and communications
technology. Reference librarians have expanded their reach beyond the desk by
interacting with patrons using multiple modalities such as by phone, fax, email
and now via the web, text and SMS. As noted by Askew and Ball (2014): “The use
of technology has empowered reference librarians to move away from reference
‘as place’ services and enabled them to provide focused service at point of
need” (p. 119). Today, mobile technologies such as iPads, cell phones,
smartphones, and laptops are being employed successfully to deploy roaming or
roving services in public and academic libraries to provide reference services
to the patrons where they are.
Such is the case at Florida International
University (FIU) Libraries. To better accommodate the information needs of the
students in a library building with severely limited available seating, the
Information & Research Services librarians instituted a roaming reference
service. In the literature, the terms roaming and roving have been used
interchangeably when referring to reference services physically delivered
beyond the desk. As a professional preference, the FIU reference librarians
preferred to be referred to as “roamers” rather than “rovers”. Therefore the
term “roam” and its variant forms will be used throughout this article when
referring to the FIU roaming service.
FIU Libraries Roaming Reference
The FIU Libraries system is comprised of two
libraries, the Steven and Dorothea Green Library located on the Modesto A.
Maidique Campus and the Glenn Hubert Library situated on the Biscayne Bay
Campus – approximately 30 miles apart. Despite the different geographic
locations, the libraries share common service challenges that are inherent to
primarily commuter-based populations. Reference services provided across both
libraries include the traditional desk, in-depth one-on-one research
consultations, phone, email, and growing chat and texting services. Despite
this array of service options, results from a previous internal library survey
attempting to discern users’ preferred mode of interaction revealed users still
preferred face-to-face interaction. These types of interactions have become
increasingly difficult as seating in the libraries – particularly, in the Green
Library – has become even scarcer. Students are reluctant to leave their seats
to seek the assistance of a librarian at the reference desk for fear of not
being able to reclaim their seat upon their return and have taken to Twitter to
express their concerns about the lack of seating in the libraries. The number
of in-house initiated chat sessions serves as further evidence of their
reluctance to leave their study space. Growing user expectations for ubiquitous
service and the continued evolution of information and communications
technologies has dictated the need for increased flexibility and mobility in
the delivery of the libraries’ reference services. The “Ask-Us-Anywhere”
roaming reference pilot iPad program was developed in an attempt to respond to
user needs and expectations of the libraries’ reference services, with the
added benefit of providing at-point-of-need service.
A total of 12 volunteers for the pilot iPad roaming
service were recruited from across the libraries: 5 at the Hubert Library and 7
at the Green Library. In order to participate in the program, librarians agreed
to roam for two hours each weekday during the peak hours, between 10:00 a.m. to
2:00 p.m. on the day(s) of their choosing. A shared calendar was created to
facilitate the scheduling of the service across libraries. Due to limited
weekend staffing, roaming was not provided on Saturdays and Sundays. Roamers
were encouraged to roam within or outside of the library buildings and were
expected to represent the libraries at student and faculty orientations and
other events across the university. In order to receive their iPads,
participants were required to attend a training session to familiarize
themselves with the iPad and recommended software applications prior to their
first day of roaming.
The iPad 2 was selected as the device of choice for
the roamers primarily because of its easy mobility. The device allowed full
access to the web, the online catalogue and other library resources including,
research guides, library FAQs, databases, and the libraries website. Funding
for the iPads was secured through a Student Technology Fee grant awarded by the
university. Given the nature of the iPads as personal devices, as well as the
scheduling difficulties that would arise from sharing devices across campuses
and busy schedules, the program coordinators decided to assign each librarian
their own iPad. Therefore, grant funds were used to purchase 12 iPad 2s, 12
wireless keyboards, and 12 OtterBox protective cases.
To supplement the training sessions, an Ask Us Anywhere: iPad Roving/Roaming LibGuide
was created. The workshop, as well as the guide, covered the basics of device
usage, the setup of their individual accounts, network and wireless access,
installation of apps, bookmark suggestions, and how to collect service
assessment data. Guidelines for best practices on how to approach patrons and
what to do when roaming were also addressed using roaming etiquette and
techniques compiled from researching the library literature and business-related
literature (Askew & Ball, 2013).
Aim
The objectives of this research were threefold: a) to
assess the students’ perception of roaming service at the point of service; b)
to assess the librarians’ perception of the service at point-of-need; and, c) to
solicit librarian feedback and observations on their roaming experience and
user reactions. Ultimately, the findings were used to inform and identify best
practices for the improvement of the roaming service.
Review of the Literature
In its earliest form, as described by Samuel Green,
roaming reference consisted of librarians who would walk around the library to
identify and assist patrons in need. However, the proliferation of electronic
and web-based information impeded the librarian’s ability to easily access
information while away from the reference desk – and their computer work
station. Kramer (1996) notes that this challenge was resolved as libraries
increased their numbers of stand-alone OPAC terminals, which were strategically
scattered throughout the library buildings. As electronic information became
mobile in the first decade of the new millennium, tablet PCs were incorporated
into the delivery of roaming reference services with mixed results (Hibner,
2005; Smith & Pietraszewski, 2004). Next came the integration of
smartphones, particularly the iPhone, but problems with connectivity, screen
size, non-standardization, formatting, and functionality prevented the early
generations of this technology from being adopted on a long term basis (Murray,
2008). However, Apple’s introduction of the iPad in 2010 provided a mobile and
lightweight technology that librarians were quick to adopt for their roaming
services. Given its relatively short lifespan, a review of the literature
published during the years 2010-2015, reveals little has been published about
utilizing iPads for roaming reference services substantiating the findings of
Maloney and Wells (2012) who noted in their literature review, that they found
only a “handful of scholarly titles, with most focusing on roving reference”
(p. 12).
Perhaps, the most thorough iPad roaming reference
study to date was conducted by McCabe and MacDonald (2011) at the University of
Northern British Columbia. Using roaming reference as a way to address their
declining reference statistics, their librarians staffed the service for six
months, during which time they collected transaction data for query type,
location and approach. Two iterations of the roaming service were implemented:
one integrated with the traditional service desk duties and the other as a
standalone service. The latter iteration required librarians to provide roaming
service in addition to their reference desk hours. Patrons were asked to
complete an optional e-questionnaire at the end of the roaming transaction to
collect data related to past use of reference services, provide thoughts on the
service and to find out whether or not the service made them more apt to
contact a librarian for help.
The library realized an overall increase of 228 reference
questions with the roaming service; the majority of which (67%) were
research-related. The results indicated that the roving reference service with
iPads proved to be very successful when librarians were only assigned to rove,
but less successful when they combined desk hours with their roving duties.
They found that the integration of roaming and reference desk services resulted
in a 56% decline in the total number of roaming reference questions from the
previous iteration where roaming was implemented in addition to desk hours.
Although they indicated that they did collect patron data, an analysis of that
patron data was not presented.
The Youth Services (YS) division at the Boise Main
Public Library received a Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA)
Just-in-Time grant that allowed them to acquire four iPad2s for nine staff
members to provide a roving reference service (May, 2011). The intended goal
was to increase staff interaction with patrons, by giving them tools that
allowed them to move away from the reference desk. Although they kept their
traditional reference desk, the use of the desk was minimized as they added
more roving personnel.
As a result of the service, they were able to have
multiple librarians assisting multiple patrons at the same time using the staff
features of the catalogue. They also learned that their web-based public access
catalogue was not optimized to work with mobile technologies. Other complaints
such as ergonomic issues with long-term use of the device, the lack of ease
when switching back and forth between applications and cutting and pasting were
also common. Based on their experience, it was recommended that each librarian
should have her or his own device to allow for the personalization of the applications
and other customization (May, 2011, p. 14). Unfortunately, May did not provide
any assessment data regarding this program.
At the University of Warwick Library, Widdows (2011)
recounts their roving reference experiences using the mobile phone and their
trial of the iPad as a potential roving tool. The Warwick library does not have
a traditional reference service desk, but utilizes HelpDesks, which deal
primarily with circulation and account questions as a means of proving query
“triage”. The HelpDesks refer patrons to “specialists staff”, or rovers, as
needed. The rovers also provide backup support to the HelpDesks during peak
times.
Their iPad trial lasted one week (35 service hours).
Fifty-six of the total 230 HelpDesks queries were handled by the rovers and 26
of these required the use of the iPad. Widdows noted the major challenge with
using the iPad was the lack of a phone feature which prohibited the rovers from
contacting a specialist for more complex queries. As with the Boise library,
the Warwick librarians also ran into problems accessing the full features of
their web-based catalogue on the iPad. Although Widdows states that they
collected data on their roaming program, other than the few transaction
statistics shared above, there was no other data presented to illustrate an
assessment of the users’ or the rovers’ perspectives about the program.
At Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, Morris
Library, three iPads were integrated into an existing roaming program (Lotts
& Graves, 2011). Nine reference librarians shared usage of the iPads, which
were checked out in shifts. The benefits of using the iPads included the
Virtual Librarian being mobile while staffing the virtual reference service and
the multi-functionality of the iPad which was ideal for reference, enabling
access to the online catalogue, reference tools, and serving as an eBook
reader. The drawbacks noted by the authors presented some surprises. The
literature typically reflects that roaming librarians tend to prefer the
lighter, more mobile iPad, to the laptop. However, at this library, the
librarians reported feeling “uncomfortable” with the iPad as a replacement for
the laptop. In agreement with May’s recommendation, the authors thought that
each roamer should have his or her own iPad to minimize the need for continual
account management and allowing individual to customization for their specific
needs. Lotts and Graves did not present any transactional or assessment data of
any kind, they explained the omission in their “Next steps and the future”
section of the article, by saying that assessment and usage data will be
compiled and analyzed as part of their next steps in determining how the
library moves forward with their roaming service (p. 220).
Librarians at the Albin O. Kuhn Library & Gallery
collected two semesters of data about their iPad roaming service, which
operated for four hours per week in predefined campus locations (Gadsby &
Qian, 2012). The roaming locations were identified through observing traffic
patterns in their 24-hour library study space, the commuter lounge, the
University Center and academic department offices.
Using transaction data for 60 queries, they determined
that more than 75% of the service users were students, the busy times of the
week were Tuesday through Thursday from 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m., and more than
half of the questions they received were library-related. Although they mention
anecdotal feedback they received from their campus community, there was no
attempt to formalize a data collection effort to capture and analyze this
qualitative data. Furthermore, there was no mention of future assessment
efforts.
The roaming programs identified in the literature
shared a number of commonalities across library types such as: reference
librarians being able to provide services beyond the reference desk; the
provision of just-in-time service; the ability to access web-based library
resources away from the desk; and, library staff being able to access multiple
instances of their online catalogue in order to assist large crowds of users
(May, 2011; McCabe & McDonald, 2011; Widdows, 2011). The statistics
collection and tracking for these iPad roaming programs vary widely by method
and scope. The noted challenges of these programs included using mobile devices
to access full functionality of the online catalogue, unstable wifi
connectivity, and statistics recording (May, 2011; McCabe & McDonald, 2011;
Widdows, 2011).
The literature indicates that the experimenting
libraries – academic and public – have had overall positive experiences with
integrating the iPad into their roaming services. However, it also reveals that
very little assessment data has been collected on iPad roaming programs. While
three of the five articles discussed above present mostly transactional or
usage data, none provided any type of assessment data – empirical or otherwise –
to represent program effectiveness, user satisfaction or feedback. This study
attempts to fill this existing gap in the literature and create a foundation
upon which to build assessment techniques for roaming services using mobile
devices.
Methodology
Surveys were used to collect data from the user and
the librarian immediately after the roaming transaction was completed. The
survey instruments were created using Qualtrics, a web-based survey tool
licensed by the university and were bookmarked on the roamers’ iPads for easy
access. In order to encourage participation, the instruments were designed to
be very brief; the user survey consisted of four items and the librarian survey
had two items. The survey items were piloted by a small group of faculty and
students before they were put to use. To allay any concerns about privacy,
users were advised that their responses were confidential and that once they
clicked on the survey submit button, all responses would be recorded and
disappear before the iPad was handed back to the librarian. After the user
completed the survey, the librarian would then complete the corresponding
librarian survey for that transaction. The data collected from both surveys
reside behind a firewall on a secure university server.
The roaming service coordinators collected feedback
about the program from the librarians via email asking them to respond to five
questions concerning the service implementation, user reception, suggestions
for improvement and an open-ended question for any additional comments they may
have had about the program.
Results
The survey data collection period lasted 52 days
(approximately 10 weeks) for a total of 208 service hours during the beginning
of fall 2011. The roaming service and data collection efforts were conducted
during the libraries’ peak hours between 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday. During that time the reference librarians responded to a total of 2,850
(N) queries via our virtual/mobile services that include chat/IM, SMS/Text,
telephone, email, and phone. Reported roaming reference transactions totalled
168 queries (n=168), which represents
5.9% of the total number of these virtual/mobile transactions.
Quantitative Results
A deeper analysis of transaction data recorded in our
LibAnswers system provided us with useful information not only about the
program, but also about our library users. The data show that our roamers were
most often inside the library (89%), when a transaction occurred. The majority
(79%) of the service users were undergraduates. The nature of the roaming
queries were most likely to be directional/informational (73%), followed by
research-related (20%) and least likely to be technology-related (7%). The
overwhelming majority (88%) of the transactions took between one to ten minutes
to complete.
The student surveys (n=15) completed upon the conclusion of a transaction, provided
insight to user behaviour and their satisfaction levels with the service. When
asked why they were in the library on that day, the largest percentage (33%) of
users responded that they were there to check out a book or reserve an item.
The second most frequent response was that they were in the library to “study
by themselves” (27%) or to “research an assignment for a class or class
project” (27%). The third highest response showed that the reason users were in
the library that day was to check out an electronic device (21%) such as a
laptop, iPad, Kindle etc. (See Figure 1)
Figure 2 shows the majority of the respondents
indicated that they asked a librarian for assistance about once a month.
The third survey item collected data regarding user
satisfaction with elements of the roaming program using a Likert type
satisfaction scale (See Table 1) with 5=Very Satisfied and 1=Very Dissatisfied.
In particular, we wanted to know if the roaming librarians were friendly and
approachable, if they were easily identifiable and, of course, if the user
received the help they needed. Since there were no negative responses, only the
positive responses are represented in the table. Forty-seven percent of the
respondents indicated that they were “Very Satisfied” and the librarian who
assisted them was approachable and friendly; however, 20% of the respondents
indicated they were “Neutral”. Over half of the respondents (60%) indicated satisfaction
with the ease by which they could recognize the librarian as a library employee
and with the help that they received. However, only a third (33%) of the
respondents indicated being “Very Satisfied” with the ease by which they could
recognize the librarian as a library employee and 7% gave “Neutral” rating to
this same item indicating a program need.
Figure 1
Purpose of library visit.
Percentages do not equal 100%, since users were asked to check all responses
that applied to them.
Figure 2
How often user asks for librarian assistance
The last survey item asked if the respondent would be
more willing to ask for assistance if a librarian were available on the various
floors of the library, to which 73% responded “Yes”. The low number of user
responses prevents us from gathering any meaningful information from a cross
tabulation of the responses to this item with survey item #2 regarding their
frequency of asking assistance, to find out if there is a relationship between
the respondents who tended to ask a librarian for help more often and those who
would be more likely to seek assistance from a librarian posted on the various
floors of the library throughout the day.
The responses to the Librarian surveys (n=23) provided insight into their
behaviour while roaming. The librarians indicated that they typically
approached the student (74%). There seemed to be two most common roaming
locations between both campuses: the second floor of Green Library (35%) and
the third floor of Hubert Library (30%). (See Figure 3)
Table 1
User Level of Service
Satisfaction
|
Question |
Very Satisfied |
Satisfied |
Neutral |
|
Librarian was approachable and friendly |
47% |
33% |
20% |
|
Librarian was easily recognized as a library
employee |
33% |
60% |
7% |
|
I got the help I needed |
40% |
60% |
0% |
Figure 3
Roamer frequented locations
The Librarians’ response to the survey item asking
them to rank how they felt the user’s level of satisfaction was with their
assistance indicated that a little over half (52%) felt their user was
“Satisfied” with the services received, a few indicated their users were “Very
Satisfied” (22%) with their assistance.
Qualitative Results
While the quantitative data primarily focused on the
users’ behaviours, the qualitative data does the same for the librarians who
roamed. The qualitative data collected from all 12 librarians provided useful
suggestions for changes to the services from the people on the front line
interacting with the patrons. As the quantitative data showed, roamers
indicated a preference for roaming in one of two places in and around the Green
and Hubert Libraries. Surprisingly the comments for the favourite spot in the
Green Library, the third floor, differed from the recorded transaction
locations, which mostly took place on the second floor of the library where the
reference desk was located. The Green Library librarians indicated that they
liked to roam on the third and seventh floors, as these floors have no service
desk. Since the Hubert Library has fewer floors than the Green Library, the
librarians roamed in the library, as well as in the nearby academic buildings
and the student center where the students tend to congregate. One of Hubert Library
librarians shared that they roamed
…through the library and around the WUC [Wolf
University Center]. Sometimes through AC1 [Academic Center 1]…Because the
library is too small and I often find I get more questions outside of [sic]
library.
The challenges identified from the FIU experiences
were unique compared to those found in the literature and included excessive
noise levels, extreme temperatures in certain locations and poor recognition or
visibility of the service. One librarian commented on feeling a “little
intrusive” when roaming a floor where the students are quietly studying saying:
I must admit that sometimes, when it is very quiet and
students are busily engaged, I feel a little intrusive and somewhat like a
floor walker.
Figure 4
Roamers' rating of user's
service satisfaction level. Using the same Likert type satisfaction
scale as with the previous items, there were no negative responses recorded and
these are therefore not represented in this figure.
Although at the end of the comment, the concluding
sentiment was that perhaps it was “Just my hang up, of course.” Another librarian
expressed the difficulty of having students feel comfortable with approaching
them for help stating:
The most challenging aspect so far has been having the
students approach us for help. You can usually find students who need help if
you ask them, but they will not approach us themselves.
A number of free applications were suggested and
recommended for use by the roamers during the roaming service training session
and the roamers were taught how to install and use these apps on their iPad. Most
of the roamers report that rather than using the apps, they used bookmarks more
frequently instead. One of the more ambitious and tech savvy roamers indicated
using applications such as “prezi viewer, dropbox (most often), and adobe
reader” as well.
The majority of the roaming librarians agreed that the
service needed better publicity and marketing to raise the students’ awareness
of the service and help them easily identify roamers when they needed one. As
one librarian commented, the service needed to be more “high profile”. However
it became clear through other comments that along with the high profile there
was a need to implement a “consistent schedule”.
When asked to look into the future and share their
vision of our roaming service one to two years from now, all but one roamer
indicated that they saw this service existing alongside the traditional
reference desk as opposed to a standalone service. In comment after comment, it
was clearly and strongly expressed that the traditional reference desk should
continue to be a point of service for reference. Such assertions included the
following:
I believe the desk will always be needed
As a traditionalist, I like the idea of having a
reference desk. I think people need to identify a specific place where they can
go for help.
Roaming should not replace the reference desk: it’s an
extra way to help people.
However, one librarian saw things a bit differently:
I see reference increasingly decentralized, online,
ubiquitous, and continuous….
When asked to provide any additional comments they had
about the service, they unanimously presented overall positive and enthusiastic
feelings about their service experience:
I’ve enjoyed it quite a bit, and believe this and
online help are closer to the future of reference services than sitting at a
desk.
There is great potential with this service. We just
have to keep tweaking.
The students are always very happy when they receive
help right where they are.
Discussion
The reference transaction data recorded in LibAnswers
showed that the respondents who received assistance from a roamer were more
likely to be an undergraduate student and were in the library to check out a
book or reserve material. This indicates that they were more likely to interact
with library staff at the access services desk(s) than with those stationed at
the reference desk. This also means they were less likely to need to seek out a
reference librarian for research assistance. When users were provided
assistance by a roamer, it was the roaming librarian who approached the student
to initiate the reference transaction more often than not. Student responses concerning their
recognition of the roamers as a library employee validated the librarians’ suggestions
regarding the need to improve the identification of librarians while away from
the reference desk and to improve the service publicity and marketing
strategies.
Although library personnel have nametags they are not
required to wear them. The “Ask me” tag attached to the lanyards worn by the
roamers tended to hang lower than the line of sight and was therefore easily
overlooked by potential users. Alternatives discussed included creating a
button, wearing hats, or wearing other outerwear that would clearly show the
“Ask Me” logo to encourage users to approach the roamers for assistance. The
program publicity consisted of an announcement on the libraries’ website,
social network venues and advertising the service on the libraries’ internal
digital signage displays. The roamers agreed that more should be done to raise
the visibility of the program. In addition to the above, ideas included
creating a more attractive and engaging sign for the libraries’ digital
display, highlighting this service more prominently on the libraries’ homepage
as well as promoting the service in the student newspaper.
Given the students’ reluctance to ask a librarian for
help, it was encouraging to see users respond that they were most often
satisfied with the help they received from the roamers and with their overall
experience. While most (80%) of the respondents indicated that they were “Very
Satisfied” and “Satisfied” with the librarian being approachable and friendly,
20% responded “Neutral” to this item. These responses may suggest that roamers
be more aware of their body language and facial expressions when approached by
a student, or when approaching them. What was most encouraging was that the
respondents indicated they would be more likely to seek assistance from a
librarian if one were available on the various floors of the library. This
indicates that the roaming service has high impact potential and signifies a
need to redefine the program service strategy. As several roamers noted, the
service needs to be provided on a more consistent schedule and perhaps in
conjunction with the reference service desk schedule.
All of the above factors, along with the abbreviated
service hours, most likely contributed to the low response rate to the
quantitative surveys. While the data presented in this article may not be
generalizable to other libraries, it does serve as an indicator for students’
receptiveness and potential use of a fully implemented roaming service by the
FIU Libraries. Overall, the data indicates that the FIU Libraries’ roaming
service fulfilled a need and that students would use the service if were
offered as part of a suite of reference services.
Based on the librarians’ survey responses it is
noteworthy that the GL librarians, unlike the HL librarians, preferred to roam
on the floor where the reference desk is located. Especially so, since the
Green Library has eight floors - six of them providing open study spaces –
whereas, the Hubert Library only has three floors. A comparison of the service
data between the roamers and the users presented an interesting revelation. The
users reported being much more satisfied with the service they received than
the librarians perceived them to be. This suggests that as service
professionals, librarians set a higher bar for service delivery for themselves,
than is actually expected by the patrons.
Although there were a number of common challenges
cited in the literature about providing an iPad roaming service, very few of
these challenges were mirrored by the data collected from the FIU roamers. The
challenges experienced by the librarians were unique to the FIU Libraries and
included excessive noise levels, extreme temperatures in certain locations, and
poor recognition or visibility of the service. The latter challenge was further
exemplified by the statistics indicating that the librarian most often
initiated the roaming transactions.
There was quite of bit of time spent on identifying
appropriate and relevant iPad applications for the service along with the
appropriate training for their use. However, the majority of the librarians’
responses revealed that they preferred to use bookmarks instead of the apps.
This preference bears further investigation to determine why that was the case.
A subsequent iteration of the roaming service model
implemented in the following academic year which integrated the service with
the reference desk as was suggested after the pilot was considered
unsuccessful. Of particular concern with the new model was determining an easy
and reliable method of communication (i.e., realtime chat, SMS/Text, Facetime,
etc.) between the user and the librarian at the reference desk so that a roamer
can be efficiently dispatched. In the spring of 2014, the roaming service was
placed on hiatus until the Information & Research Services departments can
identify and come to a mutually agreed-upon solution.
Conclusion
Roaming reference is not new in academic libraries and
the integration of mobile technologies has provided even more opportunity for
academic librarians to become “unchained” from the traditional desk to meet
their users at the point-of-need. As reference services become more
decentralized and personalized, researching the effect of roaming services may
be valuable to inform the overall quality of service as perceived by the user.
Askew and Ball (2013) identify a need for further research to determine to what
extent does culture, language or gender impact a library user’s willingness and
comfort level to approach a librarian for help. They also state more research
is needed to determine how these same factors affect librarians’ comfort level
when approaching users. When focusing on the technologies employed in roaming
reference services such as iPads, there is need to determine what
functionalities, features and apps are most necessary or useful when responding
to queries at the point-of-need.
There are always two sides to every story. In addition
to gathering data from our patrons, there is also a need to gather data from
roaming librarians (staff) in a more formal way. Askew and Ball (2013) note:
“…academic libraries should consider not so much the ‘what’ we do, as
illustrated by the traditional reference transactional data collected, but
should also incorporate data collection to describe who we serve, how we serve
them, and where we serve them” (p. 98). Conversely, we should also take into
account what services our users tell us they want, along with how and where
they want to receive them. The two may not always be in agreement. In order to
accomplish this in a comprehensive fashion necessitates using assessment
methods and measures looking from the outside in, by obtaining data not only
about the patron, but also about the librarian to capture and reveal the
complete story.
References
Askew, C., & Ball, M. (2013). Telling the whole story: A mixed
methods approach to assessing roaming reference services. In S. Hiller, M.
Kyrillidou, A. Pappaloardo, J. Self, & A. Yeager (Eds). Proceedings of the 2012 library assessment
conference building effective, sustainable, practical assessment.
Association of Research Libraries Library Assessment Conference, Charlottesville,
VA. (pp. 91-101). Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved
from http://libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/proceedings-lac-2012.pdf
Askew, C., & Ball, M. (2014). Transforming Reference Services: More
than meets the eye. In C. Forbes & J. Bowers, (Eds.). Rethinking
Reference Services in Academic Libraries, (pp. 117-134). Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Gadsby J. & Qian, S. (2012). Using an iPad to redefine roving
reference service in an academic library. Library
Hi Tech News, 29(4), 1-5. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07419051211249446
Hibner, H. (2005). The wireless librarian: Using tablet PCs for ultimate
reference and customer service: A case study. Library Hi Tech News, 22(5), 19-22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07419050510613819
Kramer, E. H. (1996). Why roving reference: A case study in a small
academic library. Reference Services Review, 24(3), 67-80. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb049290
Lotts M., & Graves S. (2011). Using the iPad for reference service:
Librarians go mobile,” College &
Research Library News, 72(4), 217- 220.
Maloney, M. M., & Wells, V. A. (2012). “iPads to enhance user
engagement during reference interactions. Library
Technology Reports, 48(8), 11-16.
May, F. (2011). Roving reference, iPad-style. The Idaho Librarian, 61(2):
Retrieved from https://theidaholibrarian.wordpress.com
McCabe, K. M., & MacDonald, J. R. (2011). Roaming reference: Reinvigorating
reference through point of need service. Partnership: The Canadian Journal
of Library & Information Practice & Research, 6(2), 1-15. Retrieved from https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/index#.VVzVM-DbLIU
Miles, D. B. (2013). Shall we get rid of the reference desk?” Reference & User Services Quarterly, 52(4),
320-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/rusq.52n4.320
Murray, D. C. (2008). “iReference: Using Apple’s iPhone as a reference
tool. The Reference Librarian, 49(2), 167-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763870802101419
Pena, D. S., & Green, S. S. (2006). Personal relations between
librarians and readers. Journal of Access
Services, 4(1/2), 157-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J204v04n01_12
Smith, M. M., & Pietraszewski, B. A. (2004). Enabling the roving
reference librarian: Wireless access with tablet PCs. Reference Services
Review, 32(3), 249-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907320410553650
Widdows, K. (2011). Mobile technology for mobile staff: roving enquiry
support. Multimedia Information &
Technology, 37(2), 12-15. Retrieved from http://www.cilip.org.uk/multimedia-information-and-technology-group/mmit-journal-0