Iterative. Apparently, it’s the
official word of SI according to Kelly Kowatch, which she said while speaking on
the importance of communicating to a community partner during a workshop I
attended on program management. As I’ve spent the last few weeks rehashing the
same details in exhaustive 501 meetings and writing for loops in Python, I can say for certain that “iterative” is
absolutely the official word of SI. It’s the word I reached for when I walked
around the poster gallery last class and I saw the group poster that compared
the reference interview to a game of Chutes & Ladders. As a reference
interview goes along and the librarian is starting to discern an answer, the
librarian tracks back and asks another open question just to make absolutely
sure they are heading down the right path. If yes, they advance on the board;
if not, they slide back to “start.” The iteration loop of a reference interview
keeps occurring, more open questions being asked, until the librarian happens
upon a break statement, a solution (hopefully), that resolves the initial
question.
I thought of how challenging it is to
follow this iterative process in a virtual reference interview, as Karen sought
to demonstrate in her presentation. Since you cannot see person in front of
you, it can be difficult to discern cues that a person is frustrated or
confused. The transcripts that Karen gave us exemplified this problem, as one
librarian failed to register the “online cues” that mark a despondent user:
short responses, large spaces of time (several minutes) between responses, a combative
tone. It then becomes difficult to assess a patron’s needs when the cues are
not recognized, as a simple reference question might be interpreted as an
academic research question. Failing to identify the nature of a question means
potentially going on a path that leads to a dead-end (a traceback error, if you
will), which leaves little room to ask an iterative question that goes back to
the source of the problem.
How can we mitigate these issues in a
virtual reference interview? It is difficult, but staying in constant
communication with the user is key. Always verifying and clarifying the
question at hand, while communicating the search process, makes for a much smoother
interaction that can potentially end in a solution. Turning the interview into
a collaboration process allows for more “ladder moments” where breakthroughs
happen and the user suddenly understands how and where they can find the
resources for their problem.
Excellent theme of "iterative" in this post! Tickled me, because I always think The Word of UMSI is "satisfice." Maybe I'm so last year. :)
ReplyDeleteHa! Iterative is a totally vogue word these days, even beyond the halls of SI. It seems to resonate with this Venn diagram of new age corporate folks, the tech crowd, and hip academics, which explains its currency here. I like what it describes, but I confess to occasionally thinking that it is wearing a little thin. Good parallels between board games, programming and reference; I think you may have the intersection of that particular Venn diagram cornered!
ReplyDeleteYour conversation on the online set of patron cues is very interesting to me. This is probably because it does sound like a research question and that is what I love. Regardless, you pulled out a very interesting distinction between difference types of reference. The access to these physical cues in person to person reference formally or informally inform the librarian with clues. While physical cues are lost you mention some other cues that may hint at ways a librarian could adjust their existing toolbox to a virtual platform. It is very interesting!
ReplyDeleteI always enjoy your posts Russel! I especially liked how you related the the reference interview to python loops in 502. We have to keep asking questions until we come across something that allows us to break the question spree. I sometimes feel that this can be exhausting for the patron especially via reference. I'm on board with your observation that constant communication will eliminate frustration or will it seem annoying to the patron via the internet? That's probably a hangup of mine. I also like your comment on missing "online cues" but I also can't help but think of girls and young women fretting over a text message and reading it in different tones to discern the cryptic meaning of a romantic interest on the other end. This seemed evident to me in the second example transcript we examined. Some of us thought the user might have been trolling the librarian and some thought the patron was generally distressed and just using more straightforward language. It's hard no doubt, but hopefully we as librarians will get the hang of it!
ReplyDelete