I chatted with a reference librarian at Springfield College today. He was very gracious in taking the time to answer my questions about the IM service. I found the service incredibly simply to use–I really like using Meebo, mostly because I don’t have to bother with a login process and it seems so seamless. I thought that chat went very well. We discussed the way the staff breaks up scheduling IM coverage. I asked if different kinds of questions come in via IM than in other formats. I was a little bit surprised to find that, in the experience of the librarian I was chatting with, questions are similar in all reference formats. A better way to put it might be that all kinds of questions come in all reference formats. They obviously range from the simplest Are-you-open? types of questions to in depth reference. I probably shouldn’t be surprised by that. It is after all, the same as my experience. I work in a special library, though, and I guess I don’t trust our experience to be ‘typical.’
One other point I discussed briefly with the librarian was the issue of print vs. online reference resources. I wanted to know if IM reference questions were most likely to be answered with online resources. This was something that I wanted to compare with my own experience. The answer was that there is a tendency to use the resource that would be the most convenient for the patron (good answer!), and because of that online resources are often the choice. This answer was balanced, though, with the information that most of the reference collection is digital rather than print.
All in all, this was a very positive experience for me. There were no technology glitches, and the interaction was very pleasant and professional. I have to say that I felt as if I would get the same level of service using IM as if I were asking questions. That’s fabulous, since that’s what I want my patrons to feel!
Filed by lauriemacpherson at 2:04 pm under Uncategorized Tagged assignment, chat, meebo
