Taking a Fresh Look: Reviewing and Classifying Reference Statistics for Data-Driven Decision Making

Abstract

This article describes the results of an extensive review of reference transactions from multiple service points at the University of Utah’s J. Willard Marriott Library. The review enabled us to better understand the types of questions asked at our service points and resulted in a new set of codes for categorizing reference transactions that focus on recording the kinds of expertise needed to answer each question. We describe the differences between our model and other scales for collecting reference questions. Our method for reviewing reference transactions and developing new codes may be useful to other libraries interested in updating how they collect reference statistics.

May I Borrow a Stapler? Is This All Students Ask at the Service Desk in a University Library?

“…From the literature review, we found inspiration for subject categories (LeMire et al, 2016;Lenkart & Yu, 2017;Radford & Connaway, 2013;Ryan, 2008), but we chose to use terminology that would fit into the context of a large Norwegian university library and that our colleagues at the service desks would be familiar with. We decided to use the following categories: Collection and Access, Counselling/Guidance 2 , Citing and Referencing, Loan, Practical questions 3 , IT questions, and Other questions 4 .…”

“…Time dedicated to the transaction is also recognized in the READ scale (Gerlich & Berard, 2007). LeMire et al (2016) chose not to use any of the existing scales because they tended to pre-assign higher value to in-depth, subject-oriented reference questions. The authors believed that, "…even 'simple' question types can give patrons valuable help and can turn into complex information searches" (p. 231).…”

“…In addition, the existing scales do not consider questions in new areas, like open-access publishing, maker spaces, and so on. The codebook developed by LeMire et al (2016) consists of nine broad categories: Library Information and Policy, Circulation/Borrowing/Reserves, Research and Reference, Locate Materials, SFX/EZProxy/Off-Campus Access, Technology, Print/Scan/Copy/Duplication, Feedback and Other. The results of their evaluation of reference desk, email, and chat transactions in a shared service point showed that 22% of the questions were in the category Library Information and Policy, 18% were in Circulation/Borrowing/Reserves, 16% in Research and Reference, 15% in Locate Materials, and 17% were in the print, technology, feedback and other categories.…”

“…There are several international studies on topics related to the library desk service, recording, and categorizing of inquiries. (Gerlich & Berard, 2007;Henry & Neville, 2008;Katz, 2002;LeMire et al, 2016, Lenkart & Yu, 2017Radford & Connaway, 2013;Ryan, 2008;Warner, 2001). But so far, there is a lack of Norwegian data in the field.…”

Unresolved Privacy and Ethics Issues Related to Learning Analytics in Higher Education and Academic Librarianship

“…A hallmark of neoliberalism in library service structures is the commodification of patrons and their data (Mathios,125 2019). Even though varied metrics such as in-house materials usage statistics (Rose-Wise & Irwin, 2016), circulation statistics (Rose-Wiles et al, 2020), and reference transaction statistics (Beirne & Aldridge, 2012;Dubnjakovic, 2012;Empey, 2010;LeMire et al, 2016;Ryan, 2008) continue to be used to gauge the value of libraries, these methods are ill-suited to establish with confidence authentic correlations between student success and the utilization of library resources and services. Thorpe et al (2016) write that "changes in student use of the library, both physically and virtually, mean that gate counts, room use counts, in-house print collection tick marks, and attendance for library instruction sessions are insufficient measures for showing student engagement with the library" (p. 373).…”