Declining that Invitation: A Response to Jerry Campbell.

A Response to Jerry Campbell Jerry D. Campbell has provided a useful wake-up call for reference librarians in his recent guest column for RUSQ.[1] Not only has he reminded us to continuously improve and then promote our services, but also to aim our explanations at administrators as well as the general public. Neither group is immune from misunderstandings and enthusiasms when it comes to the Internet and its possibilities. Projecting reference services into the virtual realm is one challenge for us; a second is exploring that realm in ways that can attract the support of our institutions while preserving established principles and practices. The informed voices of working reference desk staff are crucial assets in such discussions. Those attending the American Library Association's 2000 Annual Conference heard presentations that amounted to a general response to Campbell's remarks, as did the recent Special Issue of RUSQ on Digital Reference Services.[2] A more specific response also should address the four assertions upon which his argument is based: 1. that "the 55 percent problem" is a key to the online future of reference; 2. that demand for library reference service is in decline; 3. that reference staff are "in denial" about change; and 4. that sites like Ask Jeeves suggest valid models for alternative services.[3] I have reservations about all four assertions. Assertion One: "The 55 Percent Problem" Campbell's case emphasizes the inaccuracy of traditional reference services, but there are two objections to planning online services around this allegation. First, this measurement falls short of describing some core functions at reference desks. Second, the issues raised by these studies are tangential to the novel and demanding aspects of online reference work, and thus are more likely to divert attention away from breakthrough insights, than to shed light on them. Nevertheless, a few words about this red herring. Despite its pedigree in the library and information science literature, many reference desk staff members question whether the model of reference that drives "55 percent rule" investigations really measures what they do on the job.[4] Too many real-life reference questions don't have answers, and too many reference encounters are about framing questions, not answering them. It is common for library users to bring projects to the reference desk for which "correct" answers are not available. Sometimes information exists in theory, but in practice has not been reported in any accessible form. A user may wish to see annual statistics before compiling agencies report them. For example, the Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1999 (119th edition, distributed to libraries early in 2000) still relies on 1997 data from Vital Statistics of the United States.[5] On a more abstract plane, the nature of much valid research places it on the cutting edge, where answers are not yet at hand. Reference librarians play an even more complex role when student researchers impose preconceptions on their pursuit of facts and evidence. I was once asked for "a reading list of diaries of twelfth-century Spanish shepherdesses ... and they have to be in English." Never mind whether my answer was right--how many things were wrong with this as a question? Getting the "right" answer can be secondary to teaching how to compose a valid inquiry, a skill rooted in a Socratic dialogue by which the library user learns to do better. There is a second problem with the "55 percent rule" as an opening gambit. If evidence points to such a critical failure in reference service, why wait for the advent of online public services to make it the centerpiece for rethinking reference? Raising the issue now seems too late; yet at the same time, it also may be too soon, because there is little evidence yet of accuracy in answers from online Q&A services like Ask Jeeves. …