MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1602020443 · doi:10.18438/b81905

Reference Services in Australian Academic Libraries are Becoming More Multifaceted

2009· article· en· W1602020443 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lotta Haglund, David Herron

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLibrary scienceDigital referenceInterlibrary loanInformation literacyReference deskService (business)PopulationComputer scienceSubject (documents)World Wide WebSociologyBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A Review of:
 Burke, L. “Models of Reference Services in Australian Academic Libraries.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 40.4 (2008): 269-86.
 
 Objective – To investigate the current organizational models for reference work in Australian academic libraries, and how these reference services are staffed.
 
 Design – Mixed methods.
 
 Setting – Academic universities in Australia.
 
 Subjects – Forty Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) member libraries.
 
 Methods – A literature study was undertaken to (1) find a definition of reference services and (2) explore the development of reference service models over time. Statistics from the CAUL member libraries were studied for trends in student population and number of academic and library staff. A web-based survey, with questions based on the findings in the literature study, was then distributed to the 40 Australian university libraries in 2006. 
 
 Respondents were asked when the library commenced different reference services in five areas: formats in which the library received and responded to reference queries, information literacy, subject specialization, liaison activities, and collection development. Respondents also answered questions about the organization of the reference department, including: whether they had a separate or integrated model; the size of the reference collections; if they had a librarian dedicated to supporting students studying in remote or distant mode; if the interlibrary loans department was part of the suite of reference services; and if they had a mission or statement of purpose for their reference services department.
 
 Main Results – Based on the literature study, the working definition of reference services (1) for the project was “all activities which assist in providing relevant and appropriate information services to patrons” (270), including:
 • All interactions with patrons to assist them in their searches for information in all media types.
 • All training by librarians of patrons to be able to access information for themselves.
 • Activities to help the library stay informed of relevant developments, such as establishing and maintaining relationships with patrons.
 
 The literature study also revealed (2) a shift from the traditional reference service model, focused on the reference desk and the services delivered from that location, to new models involving “consolidation of reference service points, establishment of tiered reference, reference by appointment, reorganization of reference departments, and limiting services to primary users” (271). 
 
 The core aspects of reference services have changed little over time, including face-to-face reference work, print collection development, bibliographic instruction, and attending meetings. In some aspects, however, there has been a shift in emphasis, e.g., in bibliographic instruction from the teaching of tools to the teaching of information literacy. In addition, reference work has come to include “going out to users,” or academic liaison work, as well as research consultation as a general way to assist undergraduate student in getting started on assignments and projects. 
 
 The Web-based survey (n=40, response rate 87.5%) showed that 32.4% of libraries have an integrated inquiry point which incorporates information queries and other queries that are not necessarily related to traditional library reference services (272, Table 1). This survey result supports the findings of the literature study in showing a trend of library services moving away from the traditional reference desk.
 
 A majority of the responding libraries still retained a separate reference department, but a significant number of libraries have developed departments incorporating reference services with other library services. Those that retained the separate department varied in how they described services to patrons, the most common name being Information Services, a more user-friendly and descriptive name.
 
 In staffing the reference service, the respondents were asked to indicate the classification level of their staff using the Higher Education Worker (HEW) scale (an Australian salary scale, based on competencies, minimum 1 / maximum 10). Staff spans a variety of levels (4-10), the most common level being HEW6, a level where all libraries had staff. This indicates that a large part of reference staff in Australian academic libraries are highly qualified.
 
 The shift in higher education, resulting in greater numbers of students and fewer staff (including librarians), has in many libraries resulted in a more flexible organization of reference services, and the utilization of staff from other sections of the library for manning the reference service point. There is also evidence of how the changing student population leads to changing demands for library facilities and services, e.g. a decrease in the traditional complex reference questions, as well as in over the counter loan transactions, and an increase in more general queries. 
 
 Conclusion – Reference services in Australian academic libraries are becoming more flexible and integrated (although the definition for integrated is still unclear), in part as the result of client demand, and in part due to decreased funding. The author sees an emerging role for reference librarians in helping patrons to navigate the increasingly complex information environment, and to assist in developing the skills to critically evaluate the information they access for authoritativeness and appropriateness.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesCommunication savante
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,887
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,797
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,331
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetLibrary Science and Information LiteracyTravaux en français237 207