|
Print version, chapters 1-7. Continues with ch.
8-18. Why do you ask?
|
|
The paper forms part of a larger project studying Norwegian reference transactions. All translations from Norwegian are my own. The data sets (questions) are available from the web version of the paper.
Traditionally, statistics from the cultural sector have been scarce and scattered. National statistics have focused on the sinews of the state: population, production and economic power. But as we turn from industrial to knowledge-based societies we find that education, research and cultural activities move towards the centre of political interest. The demand for systematic information increases. National statistics on education, research and media develops in precision, coverage and detail.
In general, statistics are produced for two reasons. They occur as a by-product of systems that gather data for other purposes. In libraries, lending, stocks and budgets are typical examples. Or systems are set up specifically for the purpose. Electronic counters that register the number of library visitors are a case in point.
At the national level, we need a better understanding of the services that libraries provide - or could provide - in knowledge oriented, multicultural and highly complex societies. Within libraries we need better tools for planning and managing services. Well-designed sets of indicators are navigation tools. But with a caveat. Indicators that are poorly designed and poorly understood, can wreck an organization. They point to rocks rather than to the open sea.
Let us start with magnitudes. Seen from the inside, all social institutions loom large. We magnify what is close and disregard what is distant. Library staff think, talk and dream about libraries. That is normal. Institutions are more than buildings, hierarchies and products - they are arenas of concern, interest and action. To librarians, authority files and chain indexes are intensely interesting. To outsiders, they are profoundly boring.
Teachers, nurses, lawyers and parsons do the same. Every profession inhabits a social world of its own. Italians speak of campanilismo - a deep attachment to the area where the sounds of the local bell tower - the campanile - can be heard. Professionals cling to their institutions like peasants cling to their villages.
Reference work is a small service within a small institution. I take Norway as an example, but the relative magnitudes are similar in all rich countries. Consider a random sample of one thousand employed Norwegians. Only one would be a professional librarian. A second would work in a library, but without a library education.
The two library employees would be surrounded by thirty-five persons from the educational and by seventy-five from the health and social service sector. The library sector is a tiny part of the labour market. If we take the actual numbers, the four thousand librarians and assistants in Norway would fill a small provincial town. But our 140 thousand teachers and our 300 thousand health and social workers would constitute real cities.
In Norway, there are three times as many market analysts (12 thousand), twice as many machine engineers (8 thousand) and rather more property dealers (5 thousand) than library staff. But most families see property dealers once or twice in a lifetime - while they visit the local library ten or fifteen times a year. Libraries are visible.
By law, every municipality must provide a public library. Though the sector is small, it is widely available. School and academic libraries serve people during their education. Public libraries serve people at large. The institution is ubiquitous.
Libraries provide many different services to many different users. But official statistics only reflect certain aspects of library use. Most of the data concern input - what public authorities put into libraries. Output data are limited to the number of loans, of visits, of inquiries and of special events (story hours, exhibitions, concerts, etc.)
We know that the average Norwegian visits the public library five times a year - and borrow 80% of a book each time. Since we don`t distribute books by the page, many visits must involve other activities than lending. Once patrons do borrow, they take several books. Sample studies from Bergen Public Library, the second largest public library in Norway, indicate that only every third visit results in loans.
The ratio between loans and visits is the same in academic libraries: 0.8 loans per visit. People are obviously using libraries for a variety of purposes. But we have little systematic knowledge about non-loan activities.
The customers are not invisible. Inside the library we see people - most of them young - studying hard, individually and in groups. Others consult catalogs, read newspapers, write e-mail or listen to music (through headphones). Some browse the shelves, some talk with friends, some drink coffee, and some have definitely fallen asleep. But numbers and details are lacking. What is really going on - in quantitative terms?
Statistically, we know that the number of loans is tapering off - particularly loans of printed books. The share of electronic media is increasing. But even so, the main activity associated with libraries is stagnant or in decline. I report from Norway, but hear the same story from other post-industrial countries. Lending goes down, while non-loan activities become more important.
Patterns of usage are definitely changing. But it is hard to document the change. Politicians and managers are not convinced by impressions and ad hoc reports. They demand hard data on services and activities. But it takes time, expertise and money to set up new data-gathering systems. That is why data on loans, collections and budgets are so convenient - they are collected anyhow, through the regular administrative systems.
In principle we could gather data on any library activity that can be defined and described. The technical issues are manageable. We could investigate the objective qualities and the subjective satisfactions of library use. We could report on usage patterns and user purposes. Market researchers, sociologists and statisticians statistics have methods that would measure the true amount of studying, talking, coffee drinking and sleeping in our libraries. Marketing firms, social scientists and national bureaus of statistics conduct such surveys all the time.
But the cost of data collection and the shortage of data analysts stands in our way. Collecting and processing data is expensive. Statistics are only meaningful when they are used. The results must enter the management process, or at least the research circuit, to make sense. We should collect statistics in order to act or to understand.
Today, library institutions spend too much effort on repetitive data collection and too little on data analysis. Data collection without interpretation is simply an extractive industry: dig deep, hammer hard and pick the numbers from the rubble. But the subsequent processing is superficial and descriptive rather than probing and analytical. Unprocessed data are as dull as unpolished diamonds.
I believe that library authorities could extract much more knowledge from their statistics if they would shift resources away from routine data collection. Today, they act like book collectors who hate to read. Library statistics gathering dust in libraries are collected in vain. The total statistical effort would be better spent on a balanced combination of simplified data gathering, focused sample studies and strategic analyses of the data.
Loans and visits are convenient concepts. A loan is defined by an entry in a data base. A visit is defined by crossing a barrier. Measuring reference is not that simple.
Many patrons are unaware that libraries provide something called reference. They know that library staff, like normal adults, will respond to questions. They turn to information desks when they need help. But they do not define information and assistance as a professional service that involves exceptional skills.
Borrowing a book from a library is both a social and a technical act. The social act of lending is completed when the book has been registered to the lender in the library system. The parties involved - lender and staff person - have a shared understanding of the process. They speak the same language. A loan is a loan is a loan.
Reference transactions are much more open and fluid. "Reference" is not a user-friendly term. It belongs to the technical language of librarianship. For statistical purposes, Statens bibliotektilsyn - the Norwegian Directorate for Public Libraries, defines reference as:
All questions that demand the use of library collections or the expertise of library staff. Questions may come from children or adults, and be posed personally, by letter or by phone. Routine enquiries about location, library policy and services are not counted. Instruction in the use of the catalogue is considered reference. Technical instruction - for instance how to operate a microform reader - does not count.
Reference work is interactive: it starts with questions and leads to responses. But not every verbal exchange between user and staff counts as reference. Some questions are too routine or too trivial to be included. They belong to the helping function, but not to librarianship.
This, I believe, is a crucial point. Professions are socially constructed. To survive as recognized and remunerated entities, they must occupy meaningful positions within the social division of labour.
For many generations, reference has been one of the pillars of librarianship. But the pillar is sagging. Mass education and web technology make traditional reference services less unique. Customers manage more on their own. Reference staff is threatened by disintermediation. What`s so special about reference, anyway?
The reference function needs reinforcement. A meaningful concept of reference must be linked to the special role of the library: to provide documents and skills that patrons cannot easily provide on their own.
Help desks are general service points. Anything goes. Some of the questions are routine: "what is the time?", "where is the coffee machine?", "how do I get a membership card?". Many are easy: "who wrote The Buddenbrooks?". "when was Thor Heyerdahl born", "what is graphite?". A few are demanding: "how do you carve a turkey?", "when was St. Jerome born?", "what is a buckyball?".
But the boundary between the trivial and the professional is not signposted. The average customer is not aware of the transit from Routineland to Upper Reference. Only specialists can distinguish betweeen the two. And even professionals feel the strain. Library systems in several countries struggle with the measuring problem.
Kenny Crew ... and Matthew L. Saxtion ... found a lack of agreement on the definition of reference and inconsistent operational definitions of both the independent and outcome variables. Richardson (2002a)
The Norwegian Authority excludes routine enquiries about location, library policy and services as well as technical instruction. But what about non-routine enquiries? The Authority includes questions that demand the use of library collections or the expertise of library staff. But what about questions that require the use of library collections without demanding the expertise of library staff?
To count reference transactions properly we must draw a boundary between reference and non-reference that makes it easy to classify queries as they occur at the desk. The definition must work for different people in different libraries at different times. Faced with a series of questions they must sort them - roughly - into the same boxes. They must mean and do the same thing. This is a typical problem of standardization.
For statistical purposes, the U.S. Association of Research Libraries (ARL) defines a reference transaction as
an information contact that involves the knowledge, use, recommendations, interpretation, or instruction in the use of one or more information sources by a member of the library staff.
The transaction must involve
the use of an information source, defined as printed and non-printed materials, machine-readable databases (including computer-assisted instruction), catalogs and other holdings, records and, through communication or referral, other libraries and institutions, and persons both inside and outside the library.
The ARL does not distinguish between simple and more demanding reference questions. But this is clearly an important issue when we plan work and allocate staff. Many information questions are routine in nature. Simple searches for facts or documents do not require the services of a trained librarian. They can be handled by a trainee or by a student worker with a few weeks of experience at the library in question. Most of them could, in fact, be managed by the users themselves.
Warner (2001) gives a good analysis of the conceptual and technical problems involved in staffing a reference desk. Her organization - the Briscoe Library, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio - now uses four categories of questions:
Categories (1) and (2), which comprise between 80 and 90% of the number of queries, can be handled by paraprofessionals. But note that questions in categories (3) and (4), which require trained librarians, take more time.
For planning in public libraries we would distinguish between three types of questions (Table C)
Orientation questions include general questions about the location of materials and about library systems and services. For instance:
Technical assistance with physical equipment - photocopiers, microform readers, PCs, CD players - also fall under this heading.
Many questions require the use of library resources without demanding professional expertise. Some users are unable or unwilling to find information for themselves. They dislike catalogues, avoid encyclopedias, and cannot perform the simplest search on Internet.
We define a search for facts as basic if it requires a single consultation of a basic source like Britannica or Google (information found on page one, among the first ten hits). A search for specific documents is basic if it requires a single search in the public library catalogue or from a standard web portal.
As people become more familiar with the web, they learn to handle basic reference queries on their own. Many experienced searchers believe this is happening already. The visible decline in reference demand must be caused by the web. Information literacy make users independent. In the future, we suspect, people will only ask for help if they are beginners or if they face really difficult questions. The middle range of demand tends to disappear.
Professional work is specialised. Professions demand special skills and training. These are usually acquired through accredited programs of study.
We define professional reference as questions that require more than routine use of basic library resources. They must also draw on the skills, the knowledge and the judgment provided by a library education. Some typical reference tasks are illustrated in Table D.
We would normally classify a search as demanding if the average searcher must consult several different standard sources, speak with colleagues or subject experts, apply specialized search tools or refer the question to institutions outside the library. We consider even simple subject searches to be professional reference work, since the results must be adapted to the specific needs and abilities of the user.
Defining these tasks as professional does not mean that only librarians can undertake such work. Experienced library assistants can have advanced reference skills. Nor does it mean that all librarians are, necessarily, well qualified for such tasks. But these are the kind of skills a good library education will provide. They illustrate the level of expertise we would expect from a professional librarian.
The cost is too high and the benefit too uncertain for libraries to initiate massive data collection on all activities and services. We already have decent data on loans and on library visits. Reference is a natural third.
Inquiries emerge from the world of the user - but are processed in the world of the librarian. In order to manage the flow of questions we need good categories and sorting procedures inside the libraries. In order to satisfy the users, we need much more information on the queries themselves, on the user profiles, and on their use of the answers.
In the field of lending we are swamped by data. In the field of reference we are starved. Our public library statistics give information on loans to adult and loans to children. We distinguish between fiction and non-fiction. We provide separate data on music, on spoken phonograms, on videos and on CD-roms. We lump, I admit, musical notes, photographs, microforms, multimedia sets, graphics and dias series into one category. But the total is counted. And we do this every year for every single municipal library in Norway.
| Lending | Reference | |
| Collection system | continuous | sample weeks (2) |
| Data on sub-categories | yes | no |
| Data published | yes | no (web only) |
| Data used by management | yes | rarely |
| Data used by politicians | yes | no |
Source: Statens bibliotektilsyn (Norwegian Directorate for Public Libraries)
When it comes to reference, the situation is very different. The number of inquiries is, in principle, collected by all public libraries during one typical week in mid-spring and one in mid-autumn. Multiplied by 26 this should give the annual volume of questions.
The national public library authority provides a one-page guide on counting procedures. But they suspect (rightly) that collection standards are highly variable - and thus do not publish the data in printed form. Starting with the year 2000 the data are, however, available on the web.
Reference statistics constitute a poorly developed area of library statistics. Usually, only the number of queries have been counted. Our knowledge about the core of reference work - the actual content of questions and answers - is very limited.
Today, however, the web is transforming reference work. Web technology is reducing the number of questions addressed to libraries. Academic libraries in the United States, which have the most complete time series, report a decline of more than 30% between 1997 and 2001 (ARL). Users are becoming more self-reliant. But e-mail and databases are also used to establish virtual reference services that store, index and reuse transactions. This creates new possibilities for measuring, studying and improving reference work.
We collect statistics in order to compare. We want data that reveal changes between years, differences between libraries and distinctions between countries. But comparative statistics are only meaningful when they are based on shared and meaningful concepts. If statistics of library visits cover both physical and virtual visitors, it is impossible to know what changes in the aggregate mean. If one library counts all queries, say, and another excludes directional questions, we can not compare them.
Pprofound agreement is not necessary, however. In order to get usable statistics, three things are needed:
The only recoqnized indicator that has been established so far is the number of reference questions per inhabitant per year. In the year 2000 4,45 million Norwegians asked 3,5 million questions in public libraries. This gives an annual rate of 0,8 questions per person and year. Is this high or low?
We have only scattered pieces of information from other countries. But data from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and Norway are consistent: the population at large asks slightly less than one question a year.
In 1999-2000, public libraries in Queensland, Australia, with a population of 4 million, reported 3,6 million inquiries - or 0,9 per person and year (Queensland, 2000). In Canada, the National Core Library Statistics Program (1996) registered 23 million information transactions in public libraries serving 27 million persons - or a rate of 0,87 per person and year in 1996. Similar rates were found in 1994 and 1995.
In a 1996 U.S. survey of public libraries, 14% of the households had called a library for information during the last month (***). The average U.S. household has 2,6 members. The annual rate per person would be 14% * 12 months / 2.6 persons = 56% = 0,65. Since questions on "hours of operation or directions" were excluded from the survey, the total rate must be somewhat higher, maybe 0,7 or 0,8.
Grogan (1992) reports that "every year in England and Wales some 40 million reference inquiries are made in public libraries alone". With a registered population of 51 million in 1991, this gives an annual rate of 0,8 per thousand per year.
The amount of library use varies substantially between countries, and also between libraries in a single country. Library systems that collect data on visits, would get a clearer picture of reference use by separating two aspects of behavior:
the frequency of library use - measured by visits/inhabitant
the frequency of reference consultation among library users - measured by questions/visit
Evidently,
Questions/Person = Questions/Visit * Visits/Person
which we could also write as
Visits/Person = Visits/Question * Questions/Person
For Norway, with 22 million library visits in 2000, the numerical values are:
5,0 V/P = 6,2 V/Q * 0,8 Q/P
The typical interval between questions (V/Q) is about six visits.
Since we also have statistical data on library staff, it is easy to calculate some aspects of the reference work load. In Norway, the number of public library staff in 2000, converted to full-time equivalents, was 1 900 persons. The total reference load of 3,5 million questions, corresponds to 1 800 questions per full-time staff member per year:
Questions/Employee = 3.5 million/1 900 = 1 800
But only 57% of the staff time is spent with the public (SB, statistics 2000). Since the Norwegian working year is about 1 700 hours, the average time with the public is 970 hours per year. We can write:
Q/E = Questions/Hour * Hours/Employee
which gives:
Q/H = (Q/E)/(H/E) = 1 800/970 = 1.9 questions per hour
During the time staff is available to the public, they can expect a reference question every half hour, on the average. Norwegian reference statistics are supposed to exclude administrative and orientational questions. We know from British surveys (***) that such questions may constitute 30-40% of all inquiries. If we add orientation questions, we find an average question load of three rather than two questions an hour.
In small libraries with just one or two persons at the public desk, staff would normally take care of all user oriented services at the same time. In bigger libraries, specialised information desks are normal.
Libraries or library systems that want to know more about their reference activities, could measure transaction times. Once we know the time distribution of queries, we can calculate several informative indicators.
In a British study of reference work, which included data from four public libraries, most transactions were quite brief. The average time was around two minutes
The reference output (in minutes) could be measured by:
Transaction Time/Inhabitant
If we know the number of library visits, the ratio:
TT/Visit
is more intuitive. On the input side we can measure the reference work load by:
TT/Staff hour
With about two reference questions an hour, it is clear that most transactions must be brief. Only a few questions take more than a couple of minutes and demand trained professional skills. We know that difficult questions easily take ten minutes or more. But the average librarian cannot afford to spend twenty minutes every hour on reference. The pressure from other tasks is too great.
The percentage of "information service time" that is spent on longer questions - those that take more than three minutes, say - would normally indicate the difficulty or complexity of the queries.
|
Output |
Input |
|
|
In Norway, public libraries count the number of questions during one typical week in the spring and in the autumn. Multiplied by 26 (or by 25 to take account of Christmas, Easter and other holidays) these give annual values.
The numbers are clearly rough estimates. The counting unit is problematic. The border between reference and non-reference is unclear. Library staff has not been trained in systematic data collection. Different persons and different libraries probably apply different criteria. When the work load is heavy, registration may be incomplete.
Data registration is a technical process. It could be improved by more detailed instructions and by brief local training sessions. In addition, annual totals could probably be estimated more accurately by utilizing data on visits. Statistics on visits do not depend on manual registration. Most libraries use electronic counters and collect them automatically throughout the year.
Let us compare the two estimation methods. Today we say:
Questions/Year = Questions/Week * Weeks/Year
We estimate Q/W from the two sample weeks. But the "typical weeks" in mid-spring and mid-autumn tend to be busy weeks. The estimated number of questions therefore tends to be too high (note 1).
Visits during a particular week also varies from year to year. Libraries are most attractive under moderate weather conditions. Heat and sun draw people outdoors. Tempests and heavy rain keep them at home. Local or national events - sport competitions, strikes, royal marriages - may influence the level of traffic.
The alternative estimate would be based on the formula:
Q/Year = Questions/Visit * Visits/Year
We can probably increase the precision and reduce the variability of Q/Year by estimating Q/Visit rather than Q/Week. The actual data collection could continue as before. It is only the estimation method that would be changed (note 2).
Collecting data on transaction times is not very hard. The number of queries, we have said, is measured during two typical weeks, one in the spring and one in the autumn. If the staff is equipped with stop watches, durations could be measured at the same time.
There is, by the way, no need to collect thousands of values. With a well-planned sample, a few hundred data points will be sufficient.
We already know that most orientation questions are brief. Directional questions (where do I find X?) and administrative questions (opening hours) can often be answered in a minute or less. Basic reference questions usually take a couple of minutes. If questions take longer than three or four minutes, they normally involve more complex operations and responses and should be classified as professional reference work.
To understand reference work in depth we need information on the actual flow of questions and answers, and on the search processes that lead from questions to answers. But it is very hard to collect such data from traditional reference services. The basic problem is time - which is a nicer word for money.
Information desks are busy places. Customers often queue for attention. If the queues get too long, back-up staff may be called away from office tasks to man the battle posts. If the queues disappear, they vanish. There is always work to be done.
The pressure on the desk remains high. With competing tasks at hand, there is never time for idleness. Under such circumstances, extensive data collection is a real burden. Filling forms while customers wait is not popular. Detailed forms can increase the time needed by 50 or 100%.
This means, effectively, that you need a second person to collect the data. Researchers carry out continuous data collection all the time. But the cost is high. A typical information desk (with one person) may handle 10-15 questions an hour. A full-time person costs about one euro a minute. Collecting good content data at the desk therefore costs 4-6 euro per transaction. If we want routine management statistics, with a regular flow of data on content, this is rather expensive.
Virtual reference desks, on the other hand, collect data on questions and answers automatically, as a by-product of providing the service. If VRD data are representative of reference patterns and trends in general, the data collection problem is essentially solved.
The challenge then moves from collection to analysis. We must develop categories, dimensions and indicators that allow us to interpret the data. Access to rich data on reference transactions opens up a new world of information. But we need maps to find our way in the new landscape.
Statistics on library use are often based on demographic groups, mainly sex and age. In Norway, we know that half the population (9+ years) visit public libraries at least once a year. Library use decreases with age, from 72% among children (9-15 years) to 35% among the old (67-79 years). Women use libraries more than men.
There are no surprises here. The pattern of demand corresponds with our intuition. The trends are more worrying. We have survey data on library use since 1991 (CBS, ***). The clearest changes are the following:
Total use is constant, but the visitors are turning older and more female. For an institution that needs permanent and broad-based political support this is not ideal.
The demographic data are based on national sample surveys of cultural activities. We lack corresponding data for reference activities. But we could include basic demographic data in our sample surveys of reference transactions, if we so wanted. There is hardly a need to do this on a big scale, however. Small sample studies in a few selected libraries would probably give sufficient information on the demographics of reference users.
Age and sex are useful, but superficial variables. With the information available we can, however, probe more deeply into the situations that generate questions. We focus on three broad user settings: people at work, people engaged in formal education, and people in their ordinary, informal, daily life.
The questions that arise at work are highly structured by the demands of production. Relevant information forms part of the input. Workers must solve tasks in order to accomplish productive goals. Buyers and sellers must know the markets in which they operate. Managers and trade unionists must apply rules, regulations and agreements.
I am preparing a course in sales techniques / psychology of sales and need to update myself with regard to new publications.
The questions that arise in learning situations (essay topics, explain why?) are more open, but still shaped by the demands of learning. Pupils and students are constantly faced with new information and new assigments. Modern teaching methods emphasize independent inquiry. Usually, learners must present their results. Often they will be judged by them.
Pupils, students and employees ask serious questions. Schools, colleges and work places are formal and purposive organizations. Participants must adhere to at least the basic rules. Homes and leisure settings, on the contrary, constitute a much more heterogenous environment. This is reflected in the queries. Questions from daily life span an open range of topics and concerns. They run the gamut from completely trivial to deeply existential.
Nearly all questions can (with some hesitation) be assigned to one of the user settings. Quite often, people are explicit about their situation. In other cases content and phrasing provide cues:
To analyze the information further, we need categories or classification systems that will organize the data in meaningful ways.
For people in schools, in higher education, and at work, standardized classification systems exist. Learning is organized into subjects and fields of study. Work is organized into economic sectors, trades and occupations. If we want to study the origin of questions in depth, we can sort them into established academic and economic categories.
This is basically how we approach with learners and workers. Our data set is too small for detailed sorting schemes, but we apply broad categories that follow established schemes in education and production.
Daily life is not standardized. It is true that ATL uses Dewey. All questions are classified into the ten major Dewey groups (000-100- ... -900). DDC is a standardized system. It is recognized and used by libraries throughout the world to organize books on the shelves. It is available in many languages. The system is diligently maintained and frequently updated.
But Dewey is not based on the categories people use in daily life. The basic structure of Dewey builds on the structure of academic disciplines rather than on the mental maps that people apply in their life worlds.
The categories of personal knowledge is a research arena in its own right. Philososophers, linguists and cognitive anthropologists compete for intellectual hegemony. Are classifications systems stable and recognized throughout a community, a culture, a nation or a continent? Or do they differ in fundamental ways?
As students of information behavior we would like to sort questions into classes that seem familiar or natural to library users. Which topics, concerns and activities belong together? Which must be separated? We meet similar issues in thesaurus construction, but most thesauri have specific target groups and narrow subject domains. Would it even be possible to produce a Macrothesaurus of Daily Life?
Google answers |
Kongsberg public library |
|
|
The Dewey classification provides ATL with a useful structure. Any order is better than chaos. But Dewey is adapted to librarians - who study hard to master the system - rather than to customers. I am not opposed to Dewey. But to find systems that correspond to the concepts of ordinary people, we must look at truly user-oriented services (Table H): web portals, booksellers, and libraries that apply Reader Interest Categorisation (alternative arrangement).
We are concerned with the origin of questions. What motivates people when they address a reference service? How are queries generated? We therefore distinguish between questions caused by problems - or necessity, and questions caused by interests - or desire.
Some tasks are more or less forced upon us. We must give a speech at a wedding, care for a sick child or complete our tax returns. Such situations create problem solving questions. But daily life also means leisure and freedom to choose. When we are engaged with hobbies and personal interests, we still have questions, but they are chosen rather than imposed. We may call the interest-based questions.
On the problem side we distinguish two clusters that correspond to two major professions: medicine and law. The remaining questions can largely be divided into personal and practical problems. The personal category has to do with interpersonal relationships. It is a field of ceremony, diplomacy and personal etiquette. We search for behavior that is humane, appropriate and socially correct.
The practical problems lacks the normative component. We do not seek conformity, but pragmatic methods and intelligent solutions. Practical questions are puzzles rather than dilemmas. We search for behavior that is technically efficient. Feeling is not an issue.
Interests
|
Problems
|
The final category is action-oriented. It is meant to cover the situations where people are seeking information, not for its own sake, but in order to engage in hobbies and other voluntary activities.
The broad categories in Table I take care of the great majority of questions. To be on the safe side, we also include "miscellaneous" as a possibility under both headings.
Users demand different types of assistance. In reference work we normally distinguish between factual questions, where patrons want a specific piece of information, and topical or subject-oriented questions, where they ask for a range of materials on a particular subject.
But users also request specific documents that are hard to find. We classify all questions about the identification, verification and localization of books as document queries. Libraries provide answers in all fields of knowledge, but they have a special relationship with books. Many of the questions are factual, but as long as the facts are bibliographical and demand the use of bibliographic tools, we keep them here.
We take the word document in a wide sense. It includes productions in all literary genres and in all media that libraries stock or provide access to: periodicals, poetry, quotations, maps and comics as well as photos, music, songs, movies, videos, computer games and web sites.
Other questions about books and authors are frequent in our material. People ask about author biographies, book reviews and brief summaries of the content - mainly to avoid reading the full text, I am afraid. They also request literary analyses and historical background information. Novels and their authors dominate the demand. Such questions are placed under the topical or the factual heading, as the case may be.
Public libraries also get questions that require more than the competent retrieval of relevant documents or facts. Many customers seek advice on what to read next. We treat readers` advisory services as a special category: advisory questions.