10B: What is Up? What is Down? The Topsy-Turvy World of Contemporary Reference

Reference at public libraries has gotten a bit more…interesting in recent years. Attempting to articulate a response to the fast-growing technological changes recently witnessed in our society, librarians have been changing everything from the design of the reference desk to deploying a legion of roving “user information service professionals” among the stacks, looking for the first sign of blood someone with a reference question. However, as Brian Kenney indicates, users have different expectations for what they now need at the library. Instead, “they want help doing things, rather than finding things.” [1] This suggestion re-conceptualizes reference as a source of instruction rather than a directory that might lead to an answer.

I was rather dazed and blown away by this assessment of reference, as it seems to counteract the narrative we have been telling ourselves in class that people need reference when Google is not enough. Excuse me while I recover from falling off the ceiling. The problem seems to be, however, is that people settle for the “bottom of the information sewer” [2] Google result anyway, even though it is not enough. Therefore, patrons are now approaching librarians asking about questions that require a process (i.e. how to write a resume), which are question the internet is not good at answering with immediacy and reliability. From what I have perceived of these “reference is dead” articles are that librarians should not be a substitute for the internet search, but rather a supplement to the creation process that a patron is trying to conduct.

Aside from my personal lamenting on the perception of digital databases [3] (“they ARE useful and necessary, they just need better UX design!!1!” I weep in a corner to myself), I had to agree with a lot of what these authors are suggesting. Distilling the idea of reference into “connecting” [4] really makes sense in how we try to engage with patrons that already have a set of tools that make answers seem like just a scroll away. “How can we help them along their journey?” instead of “how can we help them start their journey?” is a more useful frame of mind when deciding how we can “enable our communities to learn.” [5] What does this mean for the libraries of tomorrow? Like many of the authors, I have only indications, not answers. Yet, I have found this idea of service from a Library Journal article to be a compelling one when considering this question: “consider libraries as kitchens, not grocery stores.” [6] By focusing more on the creation and output of knowledge that patrons are seeking, instead of finding an item on the shelf, librarians can be more active partners in their rapidly changing communities.

--

[1] Kenney, Brian. “Where Reference Fits in the Modern Library.” Publishers Weekly. September 11, 2015. http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/68019-for-future-reference.html.

[2] pcsweeney. “Reference Is Dead, Long Live the Enabler.” PC Sweeney. Blog. April 28, 2011. https://pcsweeney.com/2011/04/28/reference-is-dead-long-live-the-eenabler/.

[3] Albanese, Andrew Richard and Brian Kenney. “The Changing World of Library Reference.” Publishers Weekly. August 26, 2016.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/71322-we-need-to-talk-about-reference.html.

[4] Ibid.

[5] pcsweeney, “Reference is Dead, Long Live the Enabler,” April 28, 2011.

[6] Hadro, Josh. “Reports of Reference Death May Be Exaggerated.” Public Library Association Conference 2012. Library Journal. March 16, 2012. http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/03/shows-events/pla/reports-of-reference-death-may-be-exaggerated-pla-2012/#_.