In
order to acquire both of this week’s reading assignments, I had to go to the
Askwith Media Library to check out the materials on closed reserve. This
process ended up being smoother and much more positive than I was initially
expecting. The staff member that checked out my items was an older gentleman
who made strides to build a rapport with me and narrate his process when
searching for the reserve items I was looking for. He explained, to the best of
his ability, his theory why the original Ross, Nilsen, and Radford text had
disappeared from reserves (apparently maybe someone thought it was a
semester-long checkout? Even though we are all librarians that know the purpose
of course reserves but OK). The staff member then checked out the items to me,
saying they were due in four hours before wishing me a wonderful day with a
smile.
I
think this interaction perfectly encapsulates the “service orientation” of the
librarian profession that Kern, Woodward, Ross, Nilsen, and Radford all argue
for. From the start of the interaction, the staff member made sure to show he was “interested, concerned, and
attentive” [1] when hearing out my inquiry, just as Kern and Woodard suggest as
best practice. I honestly thought much of the practices that these authors
laboriously detailed as essential were a matter of basic courtesy. In a sense
they are, but I personally did not see a value in a manual on interpersonal
conduct until I engaged in these intentional reference interactions myself. I
might be able to perform some of these traits with ease, but actions like
empathetic listening and displaying enthusiasm (especially when you find a
topic boring) are not always fixed talents for every person, but rather
difficult skills that are built over time. Still, I appreciated the fact that Ross,
Nilsen, and Radford in particular addressed situations where common mistakes
occur, creating the impression that we all have areas we need to approve upon.
For example, I thought it was incredibly important that they stated outright,
when addressing improvements to the reference interaction, that ““a common
problem is that too many of the librarian’s questions relate to the library system,
not to the context of the user’s information need.” [2] (p. 75) I have
constantly found in libraries and other service establishments the question of “well,
did you check this catalog?” or the non-apology like “this particular item is
out right now, sorry there’s nothing more I can do!” These questions center around
a system or process that a user might not be familiar with or honestly care
about, so I absolutely agreed with the authors that, in the best interest of
the reference interaction, librarians should focus on user-based questions that
go to the heart of what someone is asking.
Before
I close out this post, I wanted to ask one inflammatory question that involves
the debate on service orientation highlighted at the beginning of Chapter 1 in Conducting the Reference Interviews. I saw
that both of the myths that Ross, Nilsen, and Radford sought to shut down were
perpetuated and argued for by men: Dennis Grogan and Patrick Wilson in
particular. [3] It brought to mind the gendered dynamic of service and how
these suggestions of taking questions at face value or assurances that patrons
ask clear questions anyway seemed to me like a very masculine approach to
problems. The notion that “Users should figure out problems themselves!” or “Users
talk about their needs clearly all the time!” seems like a combative approach
compared to a service model that apparently might be too “soft,” “nurturing,”
or “womanly.” This all arrives at my question: do these arguments on service
reveal a gendered dynamic? If so, what does that say about a profession that is
majority female-identifying?
--
[1] Kern, M.
Kathleen and Beth S. Woodward. “The Reference Interview.” In Reference and Information Services: An
Introduction, eds. Linda C. Smith and Melissa A. Wong. (Santa Barbara, CA:
Libraries Unlimited, 2017), p. 68.
[2] Ross,
Catherine S., Kirsti Nilsen, and Marie L. Radford. Conducting the Reference Interview: A How-To-Do-It Manual for
Librarians. (New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers Inc., 2009), p. 75.
[3] Ross,
Nilsen, and Radford, Conducting the
Reference Interview, p. 5.
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the gendered dynamics of certain theories on the reference interaction. Your questions have provided a lot of food for thought. Although these two men perpetuated these combative theories, I'm not sure entirely if these theories should entirely be put down to a bias against qualities typically thought of as feminine. The only reason I say this is because Green and Dewey offer a clearer picture of what libraries are trying to do today service wise. That being said Green and Dewey offer some less than stellar view on gender equality but in terms of service they are on point. That being said I do think there is some gender dynamic issues at play here, I'm just not entirely clear on how big of an influence they are.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate you thinking about gender (or even traditional definitions of gender) for definitions of roles/behaviors!
ReplyDeleteAppreciate you thinking about gender (or even traditional definitions of gender) for definitions of roles/behaviors!
ReplyDeleteI was struck by the comment in Ross, Nilsen and Radford about librarians speaking from a system-centric rather than user-centric perspective. It seems like so much of what good librarians do is translation, so a core competency in reference must be the ability to translate on the fly from the back-end system-speak into the language of the particular user's particular search.
ReplyDeleteI agree that I also considered being attentive and interested in the patron seemed like a common sense and common courtesy. One, you cannot help the patron unless you listen. Two, they are a human being who it is your job to help. In my interactions for the Observation Paper assignment I also understood why they devote so many pages to the simplest form of interaction. It just show you how important the most basic customer service strategies are in reference service.
ReplyDelete