I.

Introduction
Virtual reference services are popular with patrons and librarians alike, and are

frequently used in academic institutions. Encompassing both e-mail and chat service,

virtual reference “involv[es] collaboration between library user and librarian, in a

computer-based medium (Dee & Allen, 2006, 69),” is an outgrowth of the increasingly

computer-based information environment, and, as a new phenomenon, has been the

topic of much review and study. This literature review will analyze current scholarship

in order to understand factors behind implementation of virtual reference into

traditional reference service.

Our institution’s reference desk is currently covered by one of five reference

librarians from 8am to 5pm every day of the week; a research assistant covers the desk

from 12pm to 2pm three days a week. Our objective in performing this literature review

was to decide, based on current literature as well as our findings, if offering

online/virtual reference would be financially and temporally feasible. We examined the

literature to see how successful, based upon user satisfaction and returning users, the

implementation of virtual reference services had been in similar institutions. We also

used existing literature to compare virtual reference and traditional reference services.

After considering all of the background and taking our own situation into account, we

will be conducting an evaluation of libraries in the area to determine their experiences

with virtual reference. At that time, a recommendation for or against virtual reference

services will be made.

II. Technology in Libraries

Technology is an important part of virtual reference. Librarians are enthusiastic

and willing to integrate technology in the library in order to improve reference services

(Diamond & Pease, 2001, 210). Virtual reference has been implemented in academic

libraries as a way to integrate new technology to better serve patrons and their

information needs. However, while librarians are eager and willing to use new

technology they still must grapple with questions regarding what technology is best

suited for virtual reference, who may use it, and the types of questions that should be

answered using this new service (Diamond & Pease, 2001, 210). According to Diamond

and Pease, who analyzed two years worth of virtual reference transactions, reference

librarians staffing virtual reference services should be prepared to answer a full range of

questions ranging from general reference, ready reference, and information literacy

skills (Diamond & Pease, 2001, 217); online reference should offer the same quality of

service to users that in-person reference has traditionally provided (Ward, 8).

Usability of a virtual reference service is a major concern of the developers of

virtual reference systems (Dee & Allen, 2006, 69). The usability of virtual reference is

determined by assessing "how easy-to-use and intuitive end-user interfaces are" (Dee &

Allen, 2006, 69). Success or failure of virtual reference depends on whether or not the

link to the virtual reference is easy to find, the amount of technical problems associated

with the service, and librarians’ instruction or lack thereof (Dee & Allen, 2006, 70). To

increase usability of virtual reference services offered, the library should promote, and

provide instruction on how to use the service (Penka, 2003, 6).

From a user survey, librarians at Milner Library at Illinois State University

determined that their patrons "value electronic reference services” (Stoffel & Tucker,

2004, 139). Even though chat reference provides instant service, patrons still

appreciated the e-mail service offered.

 Real-time chat reference appeals to younger users because it is fast, convenient

and allows the user to remain anonymous (Walter & Mediavilla, 2005, 213). Chat is a

favorite mode of reference for undergraduate students (Desai & Graves, 2006, 340).

Chatting allows patrons to co-browse - a special feature offered by virtual reference

software - allowing both the librarian and patron to view and control the same internet

screen (Desai & Graves, Co-browsing, 2006, 340). Co-browsing also allows the

librarians to send files at any time to the patron such as websites, Word documents, or

PDF files (Boyer, 2006, 122). Patrons learn how to find information by either following

what the librarian is doing or through instructions (Desai & Graves, Co-browsing, 2006,

343). In addition, virtual reference is capable of supporting information literacy

instruction (Desai & Graves, 178, 2006). A survey from Morris Library at Southern

Illinois University, indicated that patrons felt they had "learned something new from the

[IM] transaction and that IM is a good way to learn" (Desai & Graves, 2006, 187). The

patrons’ willingness to return indicates their satisfaction with the process (Desai &

Graves, 2006, 187).

Creators and designers of virtual reference systems believe that the future of

virtual reference is Voice over Internet Protocol. This technology allows librarians to

show patrons web pages, and replaces chat with voice, a process which is similar to

librarians co-browsing with patrons while talking on the phone with them (Boyer, 2006,

125). Although voice communication is not yet commonplace, technologies such as this

will pave the way for more versatility in the virtual world because most people talk much

faster than they type.

Academic libraries continue to acclimatize technology to meet the growing

reference demands of students (Cummings et al., 2007, 82). The ability for librarians to
communicate with users through different modes of technology is often cited as the

reason for the implementation of new technology and services offered to patrons

(Cummings et al, 2007, 82). Libraries must balance users' needs with the desire to

obtain technology that creates easier access to the collection and virtual reference.

III. Implementation of Virtual Reference

Expediency and ease of use are two of the most touted benefits of virtual

reference; however, the implementation of the service rarely attains these benefits. The

process can be expensive, lengthy, and slow to show results, and therefore must be

thoughtfully considered before begun. According to Jane and McMillan (2003) and

Chapman and Del Bosque (2004), the preparatory process should include, but not be

limited to, studying past and current literature, garnering support from staff and

associated boards, testing and choosing software to host the service, developing and

marketing the service, and determining when the service will run. The numerous steps

can take more than one and one-half years to complete (Jane & McMillan, 2003, 241).

Thus, the amount and time of work involved in implementing a virtual reference

service cannot be underestimated. Jane and McMillan (2003) both suggest that

libraries interested in starting such a service should strongly consider delegating a

project manager to oversee the process (p. 241). In agreement, Chapman and Del

Bosque (2004) at the University of Texas (UT) did just that, creating the position of and

hiring a "Virtual Reference Coordinator" to oversee the creation and execution of its

library's virtual reference service (p. 59). While not all institutions possess the resources

to support an additional staff member (UT's position was funded by a year-long grant,

which eventually ran out and demanded that the position be altered), the process should

be helmed by a dedicated individual.

 This manager's responsibilities should include selecting, training, and overseeing

the staff members that would man the virtual reference service. Jane and McMillan

(2003) also suggest that only librarians with reference experience should be recruited

for the service (p. 242), and Boyer (2001) found support from staff to be paramount (p.

124). Though many libraries preparing to institute a virtual reference service only train

the staff members that will work it, Chapman and Del Bosque (2004) consider it

worthwhile to at least debrief the remaining library staff on the service (p. 62). Doing so

increases the entire staff's sensitivity to the new service's demands.

Once begun, the virtual reference service can be slow to catch on; in some cases, it

can fail entirely. Jane and McMillan (2003) reported that one-quarter of the University

of Canterbury Library's first six months of virtual reference transactions were

"hang-ups" meaning the librarian's welcome message went unanswered (p. 241);

Chapman and Del Bosque (2004) experienced the same phenomenon (p. 68). Boyer

(2001) recalls that North Carolina State's initial virtual reference service had to be

completely overhauled because its inaugural program was too difficult for students to

use (p. 122).

With thoughtful, persistent marketing and the selection of user-friendly software,

libraries can go far in ensuring that their new service would be used. After the failure of

its first service, North Carolina State's virtual reference program drew a continuously

increasing patron base following its slow first month of inception; advertising in the

school paper particularly caused the number of transactions to spike (Boyer, 2001, 123).

Chapman and Del Bosque (2004) suggested creating a prominent first- or second-level

link to the service from the library's homepage; incorporating dialogue about the service

into already-existing instruction sessions, sending emails, posting signs, and

distributing flyers are additional ways that a library can market their new service (p. 66-

67).

IV. Differences Between Reference Types

A. Reference Interview vs. Reference Dialogue

Many differing opinions exist on the subject of the reference interview with some

authors finding repeated discussion of the reference interview unnecessary and others

finding it imperative to understanding users. John Doherty (2006), in his article

"Reference Interview or Reference Dialogue?, wrote that librarians are wasting time by

continually trying to revamp and update reference offerings and attempting to figure out

how to transfer the reference "interview" to the online environment (p. 101-102).

Instead, Doherty suggests that the reference "interview" should be reframed to what

would be considered a reference "dialogue." This included a shift from what was often

condescending interrogation to a dynamic, fluid conversation between equals (p. 106-

107). Doherty discusses the differences between reference types in regards to reference

"interviews." He stated that typically, the reference interview assumes that users require

assistance in determining their needs. Yet, many times, online users are more

independent and are able to better frame their questions than librarians give them credit

for (p. 107).

B. Difference (or lack thereof) in Question Types

One main difference between virtual and face-to-face reference services was the

type of questions asked by patrons. Diamond and Pease (2001) aggregated and

considered 450 questions from California State University (CSU) Chico's digital

reference service over a two year period (p. 212-213). The authors were surprised to find

such a high level of complexity in the research queries but found that all five librarians
handled all questions aptly (Diamond & Pease, 2001, 215). The questions analyzed were

email transactions that took place between August 1997 and May 1999 and included

catalog look-up and use, library policies and scope of collections, connectivity questions

and database mechanics. The study concluded that questions asked through email

virtual reference services were not largely different than questions asked during

face-to-face reference transactions. Boyer's article regarding virtual reference at North

Carolina State also concluded that the types of reference questions asked virtually were,

for the most part, typical reference questions, including how to locate items and deal

with technical difficulties.

C. Instructional Differences

In-person reference transactions usually included proper reference interviews (or

dialogues) with librarians who easily facilitated instruction with their explanations. The

in person environment lent itself to easy and simultaneous "show-and-tell" situations.

However, in the virtual environment, such instructional opportunities were not as

readily (or easily) available. Librarians had a tendency to simply give an answer rather

than showing and teaching the patron how to find the answer themselves. In a study

done by Christina M. Desai and Stephanie J. Graves (2006), virtual reference patrons

were surveyed over a seven week period. The analyzed transcripts provided ample

opportunity for the authors to determine whether and how virtual reference instruction

was taking place. The authors first discuss the new role that instruction played in

librarianship which facilitated the librarian's shift from "question answerer [to]…

'teacher/learner facilitator'" (Diamond & Pease, 2006, 176). Librarians were found to

have provided instruction - both solicited and unsolicited - in over 80% of the IM

exchanges. The authors advocate for transparent reference service, and explain the most
common IM instruction techniques, which include leading (step-by-step instruction)

and modeling (providing the answer and then outlining steps to find information)

(Diamond & Pease, 2006, 216).

D. User Satisfaction

Comparison of user satisfaction is one way to determine the differences between

virtual and face-to-face reference. A study by Nilsen (2006) measured user satisfaction

(willingness to return) as a major criterion of the service’s success and showed that

virtual reference transactions had lower rates of satisfaction than face-to-face reference

(p. 92-93). Overall statistics (face-to-face and virtual reference transactions) showed

that one third of patrons were dissatisfied with the service. The study also showed that

patrons were less satisfied with email reference than they were with chat reference.

However, the limitations to this study may have made results inconclusive as a sample.

Data from 266 face-to-face reference transactions were compared to data from only 85

virtual reference transactions (Nilsen, 2006, 92-95) .

Nilsen (2006) determined that user satisfaction has more to do with the feelings

users had from the interaction than with whether or not they received the information

they were seeking (p. 94). In the virtual reference environment, librarians had a

tendency to forgo the reference interview, send un-monitored referrals (sending the

patron URL after URL), and failed to ask follow up questions (Nilsen, 2006, 96). The

study found that many librarians assumed patrons were computer illiterate and

immediately sent them links from Google™. However, the librarians overlooked that

fact that many chat users had already tried a Google™ search and were looking for more

in depth knowledge (Nilson, 2006, 96).

V. Virtual Reference: Results of Use in Academic Libraries

 The success of virtual reference is tied directly to the attitudes of patrons who use

the service. Librarians who enjoyed and engage in the service found the percentage of

positive customers greatly increased. However, if the reference interview, follow up, and

casual atmosphere were not used patrons would view the experience as uncomfortable

and would likely not use the service again. Mediavilla (2005) found that teens and

college students had a generally negative attitude about librarians because librarians

failed to treat their question seriously and therefore teens did not use reference services.

Virtual reference services created an environment that took away the confrontational

element that teens/college students fear in librarians (Mediaville, 2006, 2). The

reference interview took place in a comfortable arena and the librarian brought the

service to the student rather than the student having to go to the service. The online

environment was a casual place for students to converse with friends and relatives and

this type of familiarity spilled over to virtual reference which made the patron more

comfortable.

Mediavilla’s (2006) use of the popular novel Men are from Mars and Women are

from Venus got to the heart of the divide between young patron and older librarian.

There was a major gap between the way teens/college students converse digitally and

how librarians converse with teen/college level patrons. Mediaville alluded to J. Janes

when she wrote,

Synchronous technologies may appeal to groups of users we don't

currently serve well, particularly the young, who are addicted to the social
nature of instant messaging and chat technologies...Teens appreciate the
service because it is anonymous, immediate, and personalized (Mediavilla,
2005, 3).

As stated previously, younger patrons were used to the conversational nature of virtual

communication with their friends and librarians must try to emulate this relationship in

order for virtual reference to be successful while remaining professional. It was a fine

line but one that must be addressed.

 As noted by Nilsen (2006), the perceived friendliness or unfriendliness of a

librarian in a virtual reference situation was sometimes caused by the lack of visual

and/or tonal clues (p. 96). Boyer (2001) also discussed this when he stated that the

anonymity of virtual reference transactions sometimes led to confusing or odd patron

behaviors which were less accepted at the traditional reference desk (rude language,

slang, quick sign offs, etc.) (p. 124). Without these visual clues, reference librarians

were essentially going into the transaction blind. In addition, Mediavilla (2005) wrote

that school assignments were treated as second class reference questions which

contributed to students feelings of alienation when they used the library. Specifically,

college students have labeled librarians as “those who like to point, those who like to

help, and those who hate kids” (Mediaville, 2005, 2). Teens and college students were

less concerned with proper grammar and spelling which adds time for librarians who

were trying to create perfect replies. College students were afraid and hesitated to

converse with the reference because the librarian looked busy. She also conceded that

virtual reference solved the common problems inherent during in-person reference.

Younger patrons appreciated virtual reference because it gave them anonymity

(Mediaville, 2005, 3).

Cummings, Cummings, and Fredikisen (2007) also found that good marketing

was directly related to the success of virtual reference because patrons will not use the

service if they do not know about it. Placing the logo for Ask a Librarian virtual

reference service logo in multiple locations both on the computer and in the library

increased the response of patrons (Cummings, et. al, 2007, 89). Their study showed

that students who used online chat socially were unaware of online chat on libraries’ or

vendors’ websites. As a result of the survey and traditional social chatter patterns, the

authors discovered that students were interested in using virtual reference in early

evening and late at night when librarians were usually not in the library. The use of the
service as a library hour extender served the library well (Cummings, et. al, 2007, 85-

89). A major conclusion the authors made was that the success of virtual reference is

based on users’ perception of the service (Cummings, et. al, 2007, 91). It was important

to create a service that is attractive to librarian's constituency as well as to make sure

there is more than one access point for the service. In the end the study showed that

even if students were aware of the service, due to the hours of operation the use of the

service would remain very low (Cummings, et. al, 2007, 91).

In contrast, Nilsen (2006) found that librarians were able to handle all types of

reference questions, yet there was some room for improvement in clarity of question

response and follow-up (p. 96-99). Diamond and Pease (2001) noticed that the success

of virtual reference would be increased if librarians specifically utilized white space and

used numbered points in virtual reference responses while maintaining a formal tone (p.

217). The white space aids in readability and when used effectively makes reading on the

computer screen clearer and faster. The authors also conceded that e-mail reference was

not the most effective media for question negotiation in order to have a clear idea of

what a patron asked (Diamond & Pease, 2001, 217). Although the Internet has increased

communication speed, e-mail reference does not have the versatility of virtual reference

(chat reference). As Kloss and Zhang (2007) discovered, patrons who evaluated the

services offered via virtual reference felt they would use the service again and were

satisfied with their transactions (p. 570). A major setback for librarians included the

difficulty in maintaining the same level of service for multiple patrons at the same time.

The librarian felt patrons failed to realize the amount of time it took to locate legitimate

sources as well as the limitations of websites. The use of e-mail along with virtual

reference gave the librarian the option of finding print sources for the patron and gave

the librarian time to locate further information (Kloss & Zhang, 2007, 569-570).

Diamond and Pease (2001) found that digital reference was not limited to
traditional ready reference type questions, but included questions which surprised many

first time virtual reference librarians (p. 213). Similarly, Christine Desai and Stephanie

Graves (2006), found that 80% of 169 virtual reference transactions included

instruction on many different levels (p. 177-178). Their basis for comparison included

six categories which included asking for instruction, asking but not receiving

instruction, did not ask for instruction but was given, neither party asked or received, no

instruction was possible and not asked but it was offered. Of the people that responded

to an accompanying survey (50 out of 169) nearly all users were happy with the service

and would use it again however the number of users remained low. The authors further

detailed that at least 62 percent of patrons were willing to be instructed and at least 30

percent were willing to accept instruction if it were offered. A staggering and impressive

96 percent of chat patrons felt they were learning which was important to note because

the ability to teach was very much a part of the virtual reference experience (Desai &

Graves, 2006, 177-179).

Although virtual reference patrons were positive about the service, the University

of Texas’ intended audience (distance learners) rarely used the virtual reference service

and overall the service is not used widely used (Chapman & Del Bosque, 2001, p. 71).

Chapman and Del Bosque also found that, although it was an initiative they would

continue, the "start-up costs often outweigh to number of questions that received”

(Chapman and Del Bosque, 2004, 58). Sadly, the authors recorded from a frustrated

librarian that,

While I am enthusiastic about the potential of chat reference as another

method of interacting with users and reaching our students, I am
disappointed that the service gets so little use, by either UTSA students or
other UT System students. It doesn't seem like the investment of time and
resources that librarians have invested are having any significant service
outcome, in terms of number of patrons using the service with the energy
being put into staffing the service (Chapman and del Bosque, 2005, 74).

In addition, Penka (2003) noted that it was important, before the implementation of
virtual reference services, to realize the needs of the patrons so that the library could

meet patrons’ needs on their own terms and in their own environment (p. 2-3). This is

definitely clear from the frustrations of the librarian. UT was given a large grant to

jump-start their virtual reference project which helped to purchase equipment. Without

the grant the project would have taken a sharply different turn and most likely would

have started on a much smaller scale.

In a world of fast food, mail delivered DVDs, and internet shopping, convenience

is important to library users. Kloss and Zhang (2003) detailed the benefits of extending

the hours of virtual reference. Virtual reference also improved the images of libraries

and they were seen as "with-it” (p. 569). Librarians also had the opportunity to teach

patrons about authoritative sources as well as sources beyond those that could be found

in search engines. They found the service an inexpensive way to extend hours (Kloss &

Zhang, 2003, 569). The resources needed for virtual reference differ greatly from those

needed for a traditional library. Access to a computer and the Internet make virtual

reference possible (even librarians at home). Although librarians consult print

resources for the most part virtual reference was completed in the online environment

with websites and other digital resources (Kloss & Zhang, 2003, 568). Virtual reference

reached different types of patrons that would not normally visit the library but still have

a lot to gain from the library. With many services continuing to grow online this type of

service improves the image of libraries (Kloss & Zhang, 2003, 569).

Washington State University Libraries experimented with virtual reference

service starting in the fall of 2002 (Cummings et al., 2007, 83). In the winter of 2004,

librarians at Washington State University scrutinized the use of chat-based reference in

order to determine the cause of the low use of this virtual reference service. The study

concluded that even though chat-based reference had a high user satisfaction and was

perceived as an adequate service it still was not used often (Cummings et al., 2007, 83).
Before implementation of chat reference it is important to take into consideration the

users, and if they will actually use the service (Cummings et al., 2007, 89). The authors

argue that "user perception of a service is a determining factor in a project's eventual

success or failure" (Cummings et al., 2007, 89). Reasoning behind the lack of use was

that patrons wanted a chat service to be available at odd hours including late evenings

and early mornings (Cummings et al., 2007, 89). Chapman & Del Bosque (2004) also

looked at statistics of chat reference services at the University of Texas. It was

discovered that distance students at the University of Texas did not use virtual reference

service in large numbers because of the hours of service; it was only available during

traditional hours (Chapman & Del Bosque, 2004, 72). Most distance students work

during the day and at night were most likely to use the service-but it was not available

then (Chapman & Del Bosque, 2004, 72). As already noted, it is important before the

implementation of virtual reference services to realize the needs of the patrons, so that

the library can "establish services in such a way to meet the patrons at that point of need

in their own environment" (Penka, 2003, 5).

Cummings, Cummings, and Fredriksen (2007) found that users liked the idea of

virtual reference and looked forward to using it but rarely ended up utilizing the service

(p. 94). Virtual reference gave users another access and communication point with

librarians and it was important to take advantage of all modes available. The authors

agree with many previous articles and found in their study that interest in the service

does not coincide with actual use. The authors also appeared to find that virtual

reference has been adopted nationwide but has yet to be fully realized in

implementation. It has not been popular with users even though patrons that used the

service were satisfied (Cummings et al., 2007, 89) .

Boyer (2001), in his article, came to the conclusion that although virtual

reference may have its pros and cons, the real reference desk solution is for libraries to
create more user-intuitive web pages so that questions could be independently answered

before consultation with a reference librarian was needed (through any means) (p. 127).

Boyer (2001) also included that in order to be effective, virtual reference services must

be available to users at extended hours and the days of libraries available from nine to

five have become obsolete (p. 125). Librarians need to be available when their patrons

need them. He explained that this was a somewhat unrealistic solution because most

libraries simply do not have the staff or budget to have a reference librarian available 24

hours a day without turning to costly consortia sharing options however it was greatly

needed. In addition, co-browsing, a feature which allowed the librarian to send the

catalog screen directly to the patron's computer browser, and the up and coming audio

option in virtual reference was touched upon as one way to bring virtual reference

services closer to the real-life interaction and instruction received in face-to-face

reference (Boyer, 2001, 125). However, Boyer staunchly believed that the future of

reference service rested not upon improving existing virtual reference services, but

avoiding these pitfalls in the first place by designing more usable websites (Boyer, 2001,

127). Librarians needed to be aware of the changing role of librarians in digital

environments and the need to continually be aware of adaptations of technology to aid

in enhancement of the digital reference experience.

VI. Conclusion

After a thorough literature review and intense evaluation of virtual reference

services, we determined that offering online or virtual reference is fiscally and

temporally feasible. While both online reference services and traditional reference

services have their strengths and weaknesses, both are an absolute necessity in today's

academic libraries. Virtual reference is convenient for patrons and is an easy way to

extend the library's hours of operation, as librarians can serve virtual reference patrons

while they are at home and reach out to patrons who cannot or prefer not to enter the
physical library.

After examining the study done by Cummings (2007) which indicated that while

patrons were eager to use chat reference, the service was not widely used due to the

hours of operation; our institution will have mornings, evenings, and weekend hours of

operations. Penka (2003) advised that it is important to realize the needs of the

patrons, in order to meet them on their own terms and environment (p. 2-3).

The usability of the virtual reference should be high and instruction should be provided

if necessary (Dee & Allen, 2006). To increase usability of virtual reference services

offered, the library should promote, and provide instruction on how to use the service

(Penka, 2003, 6). Persistent marketing and the selection of user-friendly software, as

well as a prominent link to the service from the library's homepage will ensure that the

service is effectively promoted (Chapman and Del Bosque, 2004, 60).

Prior to the implementation of virtual reference in the library, we must evaluate

software products, organize the virtual reference plan, and take care of technical details

(Chapman & Del Bosque, 2004, 60). From this research, we would be interested in

learning about the strengths and weakness of each type of technology such as co-

browsing, download versus non-downloaded software, free versus paid software, and

more. The amount of time and work involved in planning and implementing a virtual

reference service would be high but should not be underestimated.

A study by Nilsen (2006) measured user satisfaction (willingness to return) as a

major criterion and showed that virtual reference transactions had lower rates of

satisfaction than face-to-face reference (Nilsen, 2006). Nilsen determined that user

satisfaction has more to do with the feelings users had from the interaction than with

whether or not they received the information they were seeking (p. 94).

Before implementing our service, we will distribute a questionnaire on

SurveyMonkey to gauge student and fault interest in the service. If the interest is high,
and we think it will be, we will go forward with the plan. Taking a cue form the

University of Texas, we will precede our virtual reference service’s full debut with a two

month long beta period (Chapman & Del Bosque, 2004). This will enable us to get

limited user feedback, tweak the system, and fix any bugs. We will present the results

from the test period in a PowerPoint presentation to library staff. Our literature review

will guide us in shaping our eventual evaluation of the virtual reference service. We

considered both evaluative and opinion-based literature in this review. Of the literature

that included an evaluation - and the bulk of the literature did - the methods used

included user surveys and analysis of reference transaction through chat transcripts.

Because reference transactions are highly individualized, evaluation must not stop at

statistics, but also judge user satisfaction from the interactions themselves; the methods

employed in the literature were done rightly so. We will use the evaluation methods and

results from this literature to shape our own forthcoming evaluation plan into a hybrid

of patron surveys and close examination of the reference transactions. Both types of

data will help us gauge the patron's satisfaction and librarians' success with the service,

and allow us to perform a thorough evaluation.

After an evaluation and intense literature review we feel that our institution can

be successful in implementing the virtual reference service. We are well advised of the

pitfalls and problems that come with creating and starting up a virtual reference service,

and feel confident in our ability to ably overcome them to create a thriving, integral

service.

Note: Collaboration between Heather Turner, Erica St. Peter, Erin Dorney, and

Andrea Borrelli
 References

Boyer, J. (2001, September). Virtual reference at North Carolina State: The first one
hundred days [Electronic version]. Information Technology and Libraries,
20(3), 122-128. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Chapman, K. & Del Bosque, D. (2004). Ask a UT system librarian: A multi-campus

chat initiative supporting students at a distance [Electronic version]. Internet
Reference Services Quarterly, 9(3/4), 55-79. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from H.W.
Wilson database.

Cummings, J., Cummings, L. & Frederiksen, L. (2007). User preferences in reference

services: Virtual reference and academic libraries [Electronic version]. Portal:
Libraries and the Academy 7(1), 81-96. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from ProQuest
database.

Dee, C.. & Allen, M. (2006). A survey of the usability of digital, reference services on
Academic health science library web sites [Electronic version]. Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 32(1), 69-78. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from H.W.
Wilson database.

De Groote, S., Dorsch, J., Collard, S., and Scherrer, C. (2005). Quantifying cooperation:
Collaborative digital reference service in the large academic library [Electronic
version]. College & Research Libraries 66(5), 436-454. Retrieved April 5, 2007,
from H.W. Wilson database.

Diamond, W. & Pease, B. (2001). Digital reference: A case study of question types in an
academic library [Electronic version]. Reference Services Review, 29(3), 210-218.
Retrieved April 5, 2007, from Emerald database.

Doherty, J. J. (2006). Reference interview or reference dialogue? Internet Reference

Services Quarterly, 11(3), 97-109. Retrieved March 29, 2007, from EBSCO Host
database.

Graves, S. & Desai, C. (2006). Instruction via chat reference; Does co-browse help?
[Electronic version]. Reference Services Review, 34(3), 340-357. Retrieved April
5, 2007, from Emerald database.

Graves, S. & Desai, C. (2006). Instruction via instant messaging reference: What's
happening? [Electronic version]. The Electronic Library, 24(2), 174-189.
Retrieved April 5, 2007, from Emerald database.

Jane, C. & McMillan, D. (2003). Online in real-time? Deciding whether to offer a real-
time virtual reference service. [Electronic version]. The Electronic Library, 21(3),
240-246. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from Emerald database.

Kloss, L. & Zhang Y. (2003). An evaluative case study of real-time online reference
service. [Electronic version]. The Electronic Library, 21(6), 565-575. Retrieved
April 5, 2007, from Emerald database.

Nilsen, K. (2006). Comparing users' perspectives of in-person and virtual reference

[Electronic version]. New Library World 107(1222/1223), 91-104. Retrieved
 April 5, 2007, from Emerald database.

Penka, J. (2003). The technological challenges of digital reference. D-Lib Magazine

9(2). Retrieved April 5, 2007, from OCLC Computer Library Center, Inc.

Stoffel, B. & Tucker, T. (2004). E-mail and chat reference: Assessing patron satisfaction
[Electronic version]. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 120-140. Retrieved April
5, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Walter, V., & Mediavilla, C. (2005). Teens are from Neptune, librarians are from Pluto:
An analysis of online reference transaction [Electronic version]. Library Trends,
54(2), 209-227. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Ward, D. (2004). Measuring the completeness of reference transactions in online chats:

Results of an unobtrusive study [Electronic version]. References & User Services
Quarterly 44(1), 1-11. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from H.W. Wilson database.