Reports, requests, and recipient design: The management of patron queries in online reference chats

Abstract

The related fields of ethnomethodology (EM), founded by Harold Garfinkel, and conversation analysis (CA), as epitomized by the work of Harvey Sacks, offer unique insights into the operation of virtual reference services (VRS). The tradition of phenomenology within library and information science (LIS) provides a context for this research, although EM/CA differs in important respects, providing a program for grounded empirical investigations. Relevant EM/CA research concerns include the documentary method of interpretation, trust, indexicality, instructed action, and sequential organization. Review of the LIS literature on reference interactions in both face-to-face and virtual settings reveals a tendency to impose analytic categories and classificatory schemes that obscure the extremely situated and collaborative nature of reference work; however, an EM/CA examination of transcripts from the first 4 months of a newly implemented VRS at a large university library suggests the need for a more nuanced approach. Close-order examination of two chat reference transcripts reveals the interactional complexities and nuances that characterize even the most succinct encounters. Analyzing the reference query as a service request demonstrates how librarians deploy their interactional skills to address "face" concerns and ameliorate potentially problematic aspects of the reference encounter.

Informing choice: The organization of institutional interaction in clinical midwifery care

“…CA assumes that participants manage interaction by displaying their understanding on a turn-by-turn basis within a larger sequence of talk. Epperson and Zemel (2008) observed, for example, that Radford's (2006) turn-by-turn analysis coded the presence of "rapport building" in an utterance regardless of how that utterance was taken up by the next speaker. Since CA focuses on intersubjective understandings, it is "premised on the belief that it is not possible to understand an utterance in isolation" (Epperson & Zemel, 2008, p.2280.…”

“…Epperson and Zemel (2008) observed, for example, that Radford's (2006) turn-by-turn analysis coded the presence of "rapport building" in an utterance regardless of how that utterance was taken up by the next speaker. Since CA focuses on intersubjective understandings, it is "premised on the belief that it is not possible to understand an utterance in isolation" (Epperson & Zemel, 2008, p.2280. A single turn is therefore both context-shaped, in that it responds to talk immediately preceding it, and contextrenewing, as it creates the context for the next person's talk (Heritage, 2004, p.223).…”

“…See Epperson & Zemel, 2008;Forrester, Ramsden, & Reason, 1997;Solomon, 1997;Ulvik & Salvesen, 2007;Yakel, 1997), conversation analysts have considered how speakers' talk performs a number of actions of potential interest to LIS scholars. These include "troubles telling" (Jefferson & Lee, 1992), raising new topics (Button & Casey, 1984), informing (Heritage, 1984;Schiffrin 1999), news giving (Maynard, 2003), advice giving (Heritage & Sefi, 1992;Pilnick, 2001), agreeing or disagreeing with prior talk (Kuo, 1994), claiming and challenging authority (Garcia & Parmer, 1999), managing discrepant perspectives (Lehtinen & Kääriäinen, 2005), counselling Silverman, 1997;He, 1995), negotiating (Karhila, Kettunen, Poskiparta, & Liimatainen, 2003), disclosing and responding to fears (Beach, Easter, Good, & Pigeron, 2005), presenting and discussing problems (Gill & Maynard, 2006;Robinson, 2006;Shaw & Kitzinger, 2007), repairing miscommunications (Ridley, Radford, & Mahon, 2002), making indirect requests (Gill, Halkowski, & Roberts, 2001;Weijts, Widdershoven, Kok, & Tomlow, 1993), discussing difficult or sensitive issues (Epperson & Zemel, 2008;Kinnell, 2001;Parry, 2004;Pilnick & Coleman, 2006), accounting for behavior (Fisher & Groce, 1990), making assessments (McHoul & Rapley, 2002;Jones, 2001), instructing (Epperson & Zemel, 2008), expla...…”

“…Epperson and Zemel (2008) analyzed two chat reference transcripts in depth, identifying "the interactional technologies used by librarians and users to manage chat reference encounters" (p.2276). They demonstrated how librarians and users oriented to the institutional imperatives of library instruction to manage the introduction of delicate matters such as initiating requests for help and making refusals.…”

“…They demonstrated how librarians and users oriented to the institutional imperatives of library instruction to manage the introduction of delicate matters such as initiating requests for help and making refusals. Negotiating a reference interview (Epperson & Zemel, 2008, p.2279 and communicating risk in a health-care setting (Pilnick, 2008) are interactionally complex and subtle processes. CA recognizes and acknowledges the interactional work required in accomplishing even the most mundane institutional settings.…”