Round Table Discussion: What's Next for Reference?

Round Table Discussion: What's Next for Reference?

Facilitator: Donna Maturi, Head of Reference and Information Services, Peabody Institute Library, Danvers

Friday, May 9 1:45-3:00

The round table is something of an open forum. All in attendance gathered to discuss the status and future of reference. Is reference dead? How do we manage this new digital and physical space?

The first question was asked: Is anyone getting rid of their reference desk? One librarian commented on the increase of instruction at their public library, necessitating the reference desk as central to the instruction/learning experience.

One librarian said she was getting rid of the reference desk, or at least creating a roving reference desk since in her opinion it is no longer necessary to have a static reference desk. The librarian also stated that since the advent of wireless internet access, it is no longer necessary to work from a computer behind the desk.

Another librarian stated that her library was exploring information portals, similar to what is in place at Borders Book Stores. A colleague thought this was a good idea; it gives librarians an opportunity to take the retail approach of "Are you finding everything you need?"

Another librarian wondered if public libraries are making an effort to incorporate the reference desk into a computer lab type setting, since it sounds like the natural transition.

Donna asked if reference collections are growing, if there is a budget freeze, or if the collection is not growing from a lack of ready-reference questions. This begs another question about assessment, which has become a touchy issue, especially at academic libraries. Assessment at the academic level has budgetary implications, both for staffing and collections.

There was some discussion about the role of the full-time reference librarian. Does a reference librarian have to take on other duties as part of their job because of the diminishing use of reference services? Many positions are described as reference and another position, i.e., reference/YA librarian, or reference/ILL librarian. Is this problematic for the future of reference services?

The question quickly changed to an argument for preserving reference services as a necessary part of library operations, especially with a focus on quality against the proliferation of quantity based information available on Google.

Librarians discussed ways to attract patrons by doing some kind of database show-and-tell, or as part of general library celebrations. There is some concern about learning new databases and marketing them to the public, especially with the cost for a small public library; however, there is still a need to be current and make information access more efficient.

The greatest theme among librarians present at the round table is how to deal with decreased traffic with the library's needs to expand information options to patrons. There is a huge concern that the reference desk--and the reference librarian--are a diminishing idea. With the increase in electronic services, how do libraries reconcile electronic literacy through databases and other library services with diminishing use.

There is still an incredible sense of optimism that reference services will not go anywhere. The question is how do we project our services in the future. Many librarians are ready for the change, and eager to be relevant and embrace change and technology.

There was some discussion about eReference and the importance of electronic reference. There was some discussion about the increasing electronic presence of librarians in the future, eliminating the physical face-to-face contact in the equation. The general consensus is that reference is undergoing some changes. It is just a matter of wait and see, yet embrace whatever changes may come based on demand and the changing frontier in services and collection.

There is a real opportunity for reference staff to transition properly by building a constituency of support to make sure that reference librarians and their services do not become defensive. Instead, the theme is for reference services to become progressive and try test runs. One librarian suggested embracing change to explore new ideas such as blogs and wikis. Like any profession, changes are bound to take place, but reference librarians are in a position to make the change more easily.

Journal Journal on the Wall – Who’s the Fairest of them all- A conversation with book review editors from Publisher’s Weekly and Library Journal

A discussion on how book review journals find reviewers and choose books to review

Speakers:
Librarians: Barbara Hoffert and Kathy Mikas
Reviews Editor from Publisher’s Weekly: Jonathan Segura,
Senior Editor Library Journal: Nancy Aberman

The session was introduced using a wonderful visual, a review journal with multiple post-it notes sticking out of every page. This was a great example of working journal that librarians use to decide how to spend our meager budgets.

The editors see up to 100 books a week. They receive galleys from publishers and are expected to have the book read and reviewed within a week or two. They must quickly move the books from their offices into a reviewers hands and then into print (either electronic or paper)

The audience for these review journals is primarily libraries. The journals review across the spectrum of genres: from nonfiction to chick-lit. An editor must assign the “right” book with the “right” reviewer. Most reviewers at Library Journal are librarians.
The audience used to be the book trade and book stores. This has changed. Now it is mostly libraries and librarians. However, their reviews make it to all of the online bookstores: Amazon, Barnes and Noble etc. so the audience can be virtually anyone. This makes the writing of the reviews more difficult. Speaking to librarians entails in-depth descriptions of the story. For the general public, the reviewers cannot give up plot and story.

How they choose reviewers:
Recommendation from present reviewers
Publish a call for reviewers on their website
Some people actually contact the review journals
These are paid position – but it doesn't pay too well- so don't quit your library job!
If the person has a specialty- such as a nonfiction subject - this makes it easier for the editors
Fiction must be broken down in to sub-genres and reviewers are sought for their abilities in that area.
The editors did stress that they are always looking for reviewers!!!

Some shocking numbers:
Publishers Weekly - 1600 reviews last year between 8 reviewers
Approximately 300,000 books are published a year

A review is an educated opinion. The reviewer must answer: What is this book trying to accomplish? Why is the author important? Whether the book is recommended or not? All in 200 words or less!

RDA and FRBR: Next Bib things in Cataloging

When Library of Congress librarian Barbara B. Tillett speaks about RDA & FRBR she talks about saving time, sharing information ("interfilable and usable"), and serving the user better at the international level. Emphasis is on changing the terminology and simplifing the concepts. New elements will effect MARC21, especially the GMDs (material descriptions).

July-September 2008 - Draft due to be available.
Early 2009- First release
View/listen to a 3-minute demo of RDA Online: http://www.rdaonline.org

RDA (Resource Description and Access) will:

• replace AACR2
• simplify cataloging code
• encourage worldwide use
• provide consistency
• address current problems with types of materials
• be principle-based
• support FRBR
• be web-based ("not linear, but a we-tool")
• be multinational
• enable users
• uses "take what you see" approach

AACR2 uses old terminology and does not include the concepts for moving into a more electronic world.

Why present these standards? Because in the real world, what has been known as "cataloging" is being done by authors, publishers, students, etc. It is not all MARC21, but we need to use other schemas.

See Drafts and Docuements: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rda.html

• Informal discussion: subscribe to RDA-L
• Formal comments: http://www.ala.org/ALCTS

FRBR (Fundamental Requirements for Bibliographic Records) is a thorough examination of anything that might ever be cataloged by thinking in terms of:

• work
• expressions
• manifestions
• items

FRBR User Tasks, which are the reasons people use libraries:

• Find
• Identify
• Select
• Obtain

Change is coming. Stay tuned.