I really enjoyed looking at the aggregated Qualtrix data from our Customer Service Observations. Our group discussed a number of topics, including the challenges of sitting behind a screen while on a reference desk, the specifics of what makes a behavior welcoming or not, and ambiguity in the layout of libraries (especially informal quiet spaces). The common thread seemed to be us imagining how to incorporate these results specifically into academic library positions.
As we imagine the types of roles and environments we may be part of in the future (or currently in many cases), I also find it helpful when we widen the scope as a group to users, environments, and experiences. I appreciated in the discussion of the library reserve system when Alyssa raised the point that, despite our individual difficulties or frustrations with this system, it helped to widen access to important resources to students who may not be able to afford their own textbooks, and may already be working extra jobs to afford attending school. Alyssa's observation helps to complicate our understanding of what needs to be in place to constitute a successful encounter with library resources, both in terms of reference and the broader questions of engaging with the library.
I definitely continue to filter a lot of our course focus through an idea of academic library work, but I would like to try harder to imagine how these interactions would play out in public libraries engaging children and seniors perhaps, or in a very particular kind of special library. My interaction with a special collection within an academic library sort of hinted at how a small collection's culture might vary significantly from the broader library culture, but I wonder how that plays out when the collections gets way, way more specific -- and full disclosure, I have a dream Special Library job that would take place at an Experiential Train Travel library. The library would collect any and all resources related to traveling on a train, but with a special emphasis on the subjective experiences of transit (perhaps virtual reality footage from on trains!?) Anyways, I have been wondering what a virtual reference interaction might look like in a hyper-specialized collection that would draw interest perhaps from all over the world (again, dreaming here), and whether this type of interaction might question any of the premises we've discussed as a group. Perhaps that experience of sitting down with a librarian and having help thinking through a collection would look different with a collection formed around subjective/experiential content? Just a thing I'm thinking about.
I'd love to learn more about other classmates' dream library configurations and positions and how they imagine being engaging reference folks in those environments :)
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
6B: Reading Reflections (on virtual reference, accessibility, and Second Life/virtual reality)
Reading the Ross, Nilsen, and Radford chapters, I appreciated how the principles of reference interviews held up quite well in diverse contexts when librarians took the initiative to adapt their interacting style as appropriate. In working with patrons with disabilities, for example, the text mentions being aware of the different way people might communicate, and making sure that welcoming behavior is appropriate for the abilities of the user (making sure users who are deaf or hard of hearing can visually see you, keeping your mouth visible when speaking, etc.)
I wonder how technology might be used differently in order to increase the accessibility of reference interactions. The section on virtual reference emphasized how solid reference skills may transfer to a virtual chat environment, and gestured to new ways to include emerging affordances (though this section was mostly focused on texting/SMS), but I definitely was left wondering what non-text digital systems might look like. What might a more inclusive model of virtual reference look like that continues to uphold the values of quality reference interviews, but creates new opportunities for engagement for users who may have difficulties or an inability to relate via text -- and this might range from patrons who use augmentative and alternative communications to experience text (such as screen reading software) to patrons with an intellectual disability to patrons who don't natively speak the same language as the librarian in question. And in general, text-heavy interactions may not suit the learning styles of diverse patrons.
For a while, librarians were incredibly excited about the capacity for virtual reference encounters in 3D worlds populated by avatars (especially Second Life.) In a 2008 Library Review article, Nicholas Joint wrote that rather than replicate traditional reference models within virtual worlds like Second Life, librarians should instead draw inspiration from virtual worlds and construct new models that do not depend upon the traditional idea that "the location of content determined the location of reference services." The article ultimately takes a critical stance towards attempt to re-create geographic/location models in Second Life and instead points to the need for new models and ideas.
To me, this work on Second Life seems to signal that while simply adding a virtual 3d environment may not fundamentally alter the virtual reference encounter, exploring ways to interact beyond text might open up new possibilities for folks who might be excluded from overly textual encounters. Perhaps there are ways that the new wave of virtual reality might better facilitate the empathetic, discernment-focused aspect of reference conversations -- that sense of being with each other and searching together, as we have discussed in different ways in class. This line of thought might risk becoming about something other than what libraries/librarianship are meant to provide, and yet I think there could be an entire way for this type of non-text-oriented interaction to become important and helpful to connect people to libraries even more (and perhaps have a special applicability to special collections).
Joint, N. (2008). Virtual reference, second life and traditional library enquiry services. Library Review, 57(6), 416-423. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.1108/00242530810886689
I wonder how technology might be used differently in order to increase the accessibility of reference interactions. The section on virtual reference emphasized how solid reference skills may transfer to a virtual chat environment, and gestured to new ways to include emerging affordances (though this section was mostly focused on texting/SMS), but I definitely was left wondering what non-text digital systems might look like. What might a more inclusive model of virtual reference look like that continues to uphold the values of quality reference interviews, but creates new opportunities for engagement for users who may have difficulties or an inability to relate via text -- and this might range from patrons who use augmentative and alternative communications to experience text (such as screen reading software) to patrons with an intellectual disability to patrons who don't natively speak the same language as the librarian in question. And in general, text-heavy interactions may not suit the learning styles of diverse patrons.
For a while, librarians were incredibly excited about the capacity for virtual reference encounters in 3D worlds populated by avatars (especially Second Life.) In a 2008 Library Review article, Nicholas Joint wrote that rather than replicate traditional reference models within virtual worlds like Second Life, librarians should instead draw inspiration from virtual worlds and construct new models that do not depend upon the traditional idea that "the location of content determined the location of reference services." The article ultimately takes a critical stance towards attempt to re-create geographic/location models in Second Life and instead points to the need for new models and ideas.
To me, this work on Second Life seems to signal that while simply adding a virtual 3d environment may not fundamentally alter the virtual reference encounter, exploring ways to interact beyond text might open up new possibilities for folks who might be excluded from overly textual encounters. Perhaps there are ways that the new wave of virtual reality might better facilitate the empathetic, discernment-focused aspect of reference conversations -- that sense of being with each other and searching together, as we have discussed in different ways in class. This line of thought might risk becoming about something other than what libraries/librarianship are meant to provide, and yet I think there could be an entire way for this type of non-text-oriented interaction to become important and helpful to connect people to libraries even more (and perhaps have a special applicability to special collections).
Joint, N. (2008). Virtual reference, second life and traditional library enquiry services. Library Review, 57(6), 416-423. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.1108/00242530810886689
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Blog Post 5B
From Smith and Wong, Ch. 3:
This is so important and, in my experience, so easy to forget. One of my biggest challenges in doing reference work, and also qualitative interviews, is jumping too quickly to the "make connections between what somebody is telling me and start problem-solving" phase without really thoroughly understanding the issue in their own terms. As Mary Ellen Bates notes, this is at a direct detriment to the process at hand, and I have often had to go back and retroactively question my assumptions/ask new follow-up questions.
Using the open/closed question framework, one thing I hope to really internalize is not asking closed questions too early, even if I start to feel a hypothesis of "what the patron wants" forming in my head, and continuing to use open questions until that hypothesis has been verified or a new one has taken its place. This certainly relates to our previous class discussion about the extent to which we as librarians position ourselves as experts, and how to achieve partnership in research inquiries -- I forgot the term that Brian used, but something along the lines of "what we offer as reference librarians is professional discernment," which is totally accurate.
The "Conducting the Reference Interview" chapter in Ross, Nilsen, and Radford's book helped me better understand some specific strategies beyond just "open questions". Two in particular:
1) Instead of focusing on systems-centered questions, ask user-centered questions. Specifically: "What have you done so far?"
I absolutely love the phrasing of "what have you done so far?" Asking this question early has the power to really reframe the entire reference interview - rather than being oriented around the expertise of the librarian, it really draws the user into reflecting about their process and actions they may have taken or may want to take.
2) Sense-making questions: more structured than open-ended questions but still focused on understanding the user's experience of a gap in information/resources and why they care, not just delivering an answer.
This actually helped me figure out something I've been fuzzy about in interviewing and research in general: how do you probe for more specific information without over-emphasizing your own hypotheses/making the conversation or interview coalesce in a way it may not be ready for, and instead stay with the user-centric perspective?
Also, re: not asking "why" directly -- that is so on point. It reminds me of a quote that I have never been able to properly attribute because it gets garbled in search queries, but: "Why is the least philosophical question." In other words, there are much more helpful and probing and profound ways to get at the nature of things than the question why. I suppose the entire reference interview methodology proves the necessity of better questions, but I appreciated this little bit in the text in particular.
"As Mary Ellen Bates (1998, 19) has observed, 'The time you invest in the reference interview is time you don't spend later re-doing your work when you finally figure out what your client really wanted.'"
This is so important and, in my experience, so easy to forget. One of my biggest challenges in doing reference work, and also qualitative interviews, is jumping too quickly to the "make connections between what somebody is telling me and start problem-solving" phase without really thoroughly understanding the issue in their own terms. As Mary Ellen Bates notes, this is at a direct detriment to the process at hand, and I have often had to go back and retroactively question my assumptions/ask new follow-up questions.
Using the open/closed question framework, one thing I hope to really internalize is not asking closed questions too early, even if I start to feel a hypothesis of "what the patron wants" forming in my head, and continuing to use open questions until that hypothesis has been verified or a new one has taken its place. This certainly relates to our previous class discussion about the extent to which we as librarians position ourselves as experts, and how to achieve partnership in research inquiries -- I forgot the term that Brian used, but something along the lines of "what we offer as reference librarians is professional discernment," which is totally accurate.
The "Conducting the Reference Interview" chapter in Ross, Nilsen, and Radford's book helped me better understand some specific strategies beyond just "open questions". Two in particular:
1) Instead of focusing on systems-centered questions, ask user-centered questions. Specifically: "What have you done so far?"
I absolutely love the phrasing of "what have you done so far?" Asking this question early has the power to really reframe the entire reference interview - rather than being oriented around the expertise of the librarian, it really draws the user into reflecting about their process and actions they may have taken or may want to take.
2) Sense-making questions: more structured than open-ended questions but still focused on understanding the user's experience of a gap in information/resources and why they care, not just delivering an answer.
This actually helped me figure out something I've been fuzzy about in interviewing and research in general: how do you probe for more specific information without over-emphasizing your own hypotheses/making the conversation or interview coalesce in a way it may not be ready for, and instead stay with the user-centric perspective?
Also, re: not asking "why" directly -- that is so on point. It reminds me of a quote that I have never been able to properly attribute because it gets garbled in search queries, but: "Why is the least philosophical question." In other words, there are much more helpful and probing and profound ways to get at the nature of things than the question why. I suppose the entire reference interview methodology proves the necessity of better questions, but I appreciated this little bit in the text in particular.
5A: In Which I Write About 8.8 Meter Long Tapeworms
After discovering the Mütter Museum's website at the end of last class (and recovering from my viserceral reactions to some of the images on that page...) I remembered that this isn't the first time I've heard of a medical oddities museum.
6.5 years ago, when studying abroad in Tokyo, I journeyed with a few friends to the Meguro Parasitological Museum (from their website: "Try to think about parasites without a feeling of fear, and take the time to learn about their wonderful world of the Parasites.")
Friends!
Parasites!
In the 1950s, the general practitioner Satoru Kamegi donated his extensive private collection of parasites to form a small special collections museum. If memory serves, Kamegi had operated on soldiers during wartime, many of whom had been living in squalid environments and acquired large, thriving parasites. He created the collection while helping countless people. The collection contains the longest preserved tapeworm in the world -- 8.8 meters long. I saw it. It was gross.
In thinking about the Meguro Parasitological Museum and the Mütter Museum, I feel that these kinds of special collections have enormous value for all of us. We often only understand our bodies, our health, and our range of functioning in the terms of empowered social institutions that want to tell a single story of function and dysfunction. Having something like a museum of parasites, while totally gross!, helps uncover some of the gruesome realities of war and poverty. Similarly, our understanding of political figures and history so rarely engages the embodied reality of people - the disease they struggled with, the disabilities that shaped their relationship to the world. It may be uncomfortable to experience a giant tapeworm in a museum, but it also helps us collectively expand our understanding of what happens in bodies in the world.
I guess personally as somebody who's fairly squeamish and doesn't really like horror moves or gross-out humor at all, I find this kind of thing hard - but also, again, helpful in a weird way of understanding other people better. I actually had a really cute anime-y tapeworm keychain that I got at the museum and had on my phone for years. But that gets into representations and cuteness and Japanese culture, which is a whole other thing!
It's genuinely fascinating that special collections can play this kind of role, and I wonder what other work is being done in medical special collections in particular.
Sources:
http://www.kiseichu.org/Pages/english.aspx
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2001/03/11/national/strange-world-of-parasites-on-display/#.V_PInrwrK2w
http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/meguro-parasitological-museum
http://muttermuseum.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)