Academic Library Patrons Value Personalized Attention and Subject Matter Expertise in Reference Consultations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of:
 Rogers, E., & Carrier, H. S. (2017). A qualitative investigation of patrons’ experiences with academic library research consultations. Reference Services Review, 45(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-04-2016-0029
 Abstract 
 Objective – To examine the experiences of patrons with one-on-one reference consultation services. 
 Design – Qualitative analysis of open-ended interviews. 
 Setting – Academic library at a public university in the Southern United States. 
 Subjects – Students who attended a consultation with a reference librarian. 
 Methods – All students who attended a reference consultation with a librarian were invited to participate in an interview. Open-ended interviews were conducted after informed consent was collected. Interviewers were provided with prompts to help participants discuss their experiences but were not intended to guide the conversation. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed line-by-line. The transcripts were then analyzed using a conventional, inductive model of content analysis. Transcripts were first analyzed in an initial phase to identify basic themes, and then further examined in an advanced analysis in light of these themes. 
 Main Results – 10 students agreed to participate for a response rate of 38%. Most participants became aware of the reference consultation service by receiving library instruction as part of their course or through word-of-mouth recommendations from peers or faculty. No participants were aware of consultations through library marketing efforts or the library website. The major theme that emerged from the analysis was that patrons chose a reference consultation because it allowed them one-on-one attention from the librarian and because of the librarian’s perceived subject expertise. The primary problems participants identified with the service were that it was not adequately marketed to the students and that students were not aware of the service. Participants intended to use the skills and information gathered from the consultation to continue their independent research and they also largely intended to use librarian’s services as they continue working on their projects. 
 Conclusion – The authors found that the reference consultation is a valuable service for academic libraries and that consultation with a librarian in their office provides unique perceived benefits to the patrons compared to a traditional reference desk interaction. Further research is suggested to determine the value of consultations for distance or online students, to ensure that reference consultations services are sustainable, and to further examine student’s emotive reactions to the consultation experience.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,670 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».