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
This week's readings also included a chapter on reference models/virtual reference. I found myself thinking about the same things: how would virtual reference look if it isn't text based? I don't have any solutions in mind, but I have been engaged in training efforts that are based in the virtual world (completely online training). I thought there was a noticeable benefit to adding video conferencing. It really improved the relationship between trainee and trainer. I know that Kristin has mentioned that it has been unsuccessful in the past, but perhaps there will be a place video based interactions in the future.
ReplyDeleteYes! If you remember our conversation earlier this semester, you know how I feel about second life - geeked. As you discussed in your posted, I too get excited about ideas for moving beyond text-based or traditional models for addressing patron needs. There is definitely a need for libraries to continually critically examine how services address patrons with disabilities, language limitations, or other accessibility barriers. Second life and other virtual reference options could something that the profession circles back around to considering, at some point in the future!
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to ping Professor Robert and get some insight from him about this -- he's done research on the effectiveness diverse teams in various modalities (text, voice, f2f, etc.). I also wonder if we're on the cusp of a boomerang effect -- that in our everyday worlds, most of us across socioeconomic strata, are spending so much time with technology that we crave old-fashioned connectivity: f2f, soft furniture, etc. We see this somewhat in how contemporary libraries are being built but also in the DIY/maker movement, Pinterest, etc. There's something about physical contact that we seem to crave. ?????
ReplyDelete"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..."
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting! I think one technology that has the ability to be a non-textual system is cobrowsing. Cobrowsing is similar to screensharing but limited to only the active browser the patron is using. This allows for both the librarian and patron to view the same web browser tab, which would be beneficial to so many complex reference interactions that take place virtually through instant messaging. Some libraries have experimented with this before and I think it's a technology that should be considered more seriously for libraries that provide instant messaging because it does resolve some of the issues most often associated with IM , such as no physical cues, long interactions for things that are simple to explain in person, and even the long interactions for complex issues because it should cut down on the amount of link sharing and clarification that one would have to do for a complex reference question.