Evidence Summary
Though Virtual Reference Services Have Increased, They Face Challenges and Opportunities in the Wake of COVID-19
A Review of:
Gerbig, M., Holmes, K., Lu, M., & Tang, H.
(2021). From bricks and mortar to bits and bytes: Examining the changing state
of reference services at the University of Toronto Libraries during
COVID-19. Partnership, 16(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v16i1.6450
Reviewed by:
Hilary Bussell
Assistant Professor, Research and Education
The Ohio State University Libraries
Columbus, Ohio, United States of America
Email: bussell.21@osu.edu
Received: 30 Nov. 2021 Accepted: 17 Jan. 2022
2022 Bussell. 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.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30082
Abstract
Design – Survey
questionnaire.
Setting – A large public research university in
Ontario, Canada.
Subjects – Thirty-nine libraries across the three
campuses of UTL.
Methods – A Microsoft Forms survey comprised
of 37 questions was distributed in August and September 2020.
Main Results – Twenty-four libraries responded to
the survey, for a response rate of approximately 62%. UTL’s chat service saw a
200% increase in September 2020 compared to September 2019 (since UTL
participates in chat as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries
Scholars Portal, some traffic may have been from non-UT users). The option to
book a reference appointment with a librarian was available at most of the
libraries before the pandemic, and remained available during the pandemic. The
survey results suggested that the shift to remote learning resulted in a
significant expansion of virtual reference appointments; 75% of libraries
reported offering virtual reference, compared to 17% before the pandemic.
Consultations
and in-depth reference questions rose during the pandemic, with a quarter of
responding libraries reporting an increase. Librarians became a larger share of
the staff providing reference services during the pandemic, whereas the number
of libraries using library technicians or student assistants to staff their
reference services decreased. There were changes to formal reference service
hours as well, with half of responding libraries reporting a reduction;
however,
most noted that they continued to answer reference questions over email at
other times.
In
response to the survey question asking for general comments about reference
services, some respondents described worries about whether students taking only
online classes would engage with online reference services, and whether
overstressed faculty members would refer their students to librarians. Several
respondents noted positive outcomes in moving towards a primarily online
reference model, including more options to connect with students and an uptick
in reference requests.
Conclusion – The authors note several challenges and
opportunities for libraries in shifting to a remote reference model. Challenges
include confusion on the part of users about where to go for help and increased
workload for librarians. Opportunities include the chance to explore how
virtual technologies can be used to make reference services more easily
available to library users even after physical spaces have opened back up.
Commentary
This article’s findings on the challenges of conducting reference
and engaging faculty and students in a remote environment reflect other recent
research on this topic (Cohn & Hyams, 2021; Mehta
& Wang, 2020). While virtual reference services have been around for
several decades, there was a sharp increase in virtual reference activity during
the pandemic (Ayeni et al., 2021). Libraries have confronted numerous
challenges in shifting most of their reference services online, including
confusion on the part of library staff and users about how to use online
resources and difficulties in collaborating on reference questions across
library units (Ayeni et al., 2021).
Glynn’s (2006) critical appraisal checklist was used
to evaluate this article. The study’s response rate of 62% is well above the
average when surveying librarians (Vander Kooy,
2020). The use of descriptive statistics limits its generalizability to the
wider library community; however, since its objective was focused only on
understanding the local environment at UTL, this is not a source of criticism.
There are a few methodological elements that would
have been good to include, such as the survey instrument used and a description
of how the authors analyzed responses to the additional comments or feedback.
The article states that the survey was sent to each library, but it is unclear
exactly to whom it was sent. This would be useful information, particularly for
understanding the responses to the final question, which elicited reflections
on the challenges and opportunities for reference services in the wake of the
pandemic.
A notable finding is that the percentage of
librarians staffing reference services increased during the pandemic, while the
number of libraries with library technicians and student assistants performing
reference decreased. It would be interesting to dig into why these staffing
changes occurred and to compare them with staffing changes at similar
institutions; such an exploration could potentially shed light on the types of
library labour issues that have occurred in the wake of the pandemic.
This article joins a small but growing body of
research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic library services.
Much of the literature on this topic to date consists of case studies (Ayeni et
al., 2021). This article’s use of a survey may provide a general guide for
other libraries wanting to conduct a similar study at their institutions. While
the article is limited in its generalizability, its recommendations for future
research are valuable for librarians wanting to explore the impact of the
pandemic on library services. These suggestions include studies on how well the
changes to reference services met user needs as well as on the impact of the
increased workload on library workers’ wellness and mental health.
References
Ayeni, P. O., Agbaje, B.
O., & Tippler, M. (2021). A systematic review of library services provision
in response to COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice, 16(3), 67–104. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29902
Cohn, S., & Hyams, R. (2021). Our year of
remote reference: COVID19’s impact on reference services and librarians. Internet
Reference Services Quarterly, 25(4), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2021.1978031
Glynn,
L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information
research. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692154
Mehta, D., & Wang, X. (2020). COVID-19 and
digital library services – A case study of a university library. Digital Library Perspectives, 36(4),
351–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-05-2020-0030
Vander Kooy, S. A. (2020). Surveying the
surveyors: An analysis of the survey response rates of librarians. Proceedings
of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l’ACSI. https://doi.org/10.29173/cais1185