Instant Messaging Reference in anAcademic Library: A Case Study

Most academic libraries offer some form of digital reference servicethrough e-mail or Web forms. Now many libraries are moving toward analmost-immediate form of digital reference: instant messaging. Duringthe 2000-2001 academic year, the General Libraries of the Universityat Buffalo conducted a pilot project to assess the feasibility of providingreference through instant messaging. The libraries used the popular "chatroom" format and America Online's Instant Messenger software. Thisarticle describes the project, its implementation, the software used, staff-ing issues, and publicity efforts. It also discusses the results of the projectin terms of user demographics, satisfaction levels, usage statistics, pa-tron comments, and librarian feedback. Finally, the article offers conclu-sions about offering instant messaging reference in a large academiclibrary.

r ) n t?st academic libraries offersome form of digital referenceservice. Digital reference, alsoknown as online reference,

electronic reference, and ereference, usesthe Internet to allow librarians to commu-nicate online with users beyond librarywalls. E-mail and Web forms have becon -ethe most common forms of digital refer-ence, but these impersonal methods in-volve some time delay. Many librariesnow are turning to an almost-immediate,slightly more so)phisticated form )f digi-tal reference: instant messaging. TheGeneral Libraries )f the University atBuffalo (UB) conducted a pilot project ininstant messaging reference service dur-ing the 2000-2001 acade:mic year. Thle li-braries used tihe popular "chat room" for-mat and America Online's InstantMessenger software. Throughout theproject, user deimographic and satisfac-

tion statistics, user con ments, and usagedata were c1llected. Whenl the pilot con-cluded, this information was reviewedtogether with librarian input, softwvareperformance, staffing issues, and public-itv to determine the viability of provid-ing instant messaring reference on a regu-lar basis. This article describes the project,its implementation, the software used,staffing issues, and publicity efforts. Italso discusses the results of the projectand gives conclusions.

What Is Instant Messaging?Instant messaging (IM) has become apopular communication method, espe-cially among younger people who forma large segment of the libraries' patronpopulation. Simply stated, IM is real-timeonline communication between two ormore pieople. The medium enables peopleto "chat" via the Internet by rapidlv' ex-

36

Marianne Foley is the Systemns Librarian at SUNY College at Bufifalo, e-mail: fotey@buffalostate.edu.

Instant Messaging Reference in an Academic Library 37

changing text messages. One user chatswith another user by typing a messageinto a specialized window, or "chatroom," generated by IM software. Themessage appears almost immediately onthe other user's screen. The recipientreads it and replies by typing a response.Only an Internet connection is requiredto access basic chat systems. Typically, theIM system emits sounds when a persontransmits or receives a message. Severalpeople can chat at one time because allusers see messages that appear in the chatroom. Those who want to chat privatelycreate a private chat room where only in-vited users may participate.

Some IM products allow users to sendimages and video, play games, exchangefiles, and synchronize Web browsing.Computers equipped with microphonesenable users to chat in the literal (verbal)sense, although system hardware andconnection restraints can introduce an-noying breaks in transmission. A grow-ing number of companies produce IMsoftware, and although these competingproducts function in a similar way, nosoftware standard currently exists. Fur-thermore, company mergers and acqui-sitions are common. A system that is heretoday may be gone tomorrow; free prod-ucts mutate to fee-based services.

IM presents an alternative for librar-ians seeking to reshape the delivery ofreference services.2 Because physicalboundaries do not stand in the way ofcommunication, it is possible to reach re-mote u-sers across campus and around theworld. In addition to immediacy, conve-nience, and accessibility, online referenceoffers other advantages. Patrons who areembarrassed by the nature of their ques-tion or their lack of knowledge can remainanonymous during IM reference. Interac-tive text communication accommodatesmultiple learning styles, the hearing im-paired, and people who are not nativeEnglish speakers. Complicated URLs thatprove difficult to communicate correctlyover the phone, and even at the referencedesk, can be easily transferred duringonline reference.3 Unlike e-mail and Web

forms, IM is well suited to conductingreference interviews, clarifying questions,and receiving feedback. 4 Furthermore, itnow makes telecommuting a practical al-ternative for busy reference librarians.However, IM reference is not a panacea.Visually impaired users and people whohave trouble typing quickly will preferother methods.5 Lengthy, complicatedexplanations can become unwieldy, andsometimes there simply is no replacementfor face-to-face communication with areference librarian.

Project BackgroundUB is the largest and most comprehensivecampus in the State University of NewYork system, with approximately 25,000undergraduate, graduate, and profes-sional-degree students. The administrationrequires all freshmen to have access to acomputer running W indows 98, NT orhigher, or the Apple OS 9.0 operating sys-tem. Every room, in student housing iswired with Ethernet ports, and public com-puter labs offer around-the-clock access to2,000 high-performance workstations. Theuniversity also provides more than a thou-sand high-speed modems to give students,faculty, and staff access to the Internet fromhome. In April 2000, Yahoo! Internet Lifenamed UB eleventh of the one hundred"Most Wired Universities."' 6

The UB Libraries Web site, BISON (Buf-falo Information System ONline), offersonline access to myriad resources includ-ing the library catalog, journals, e-books,research guides, course reserves, and tu-torials. As a result of the university's em-phasis on electronic resources, the Gen-eral Libraries launched an IM referenceservice during the fall 2000 semester. TheGeneral Libraries consist of LockwoodMemorial Library (for humanities and thesocial sciences), the Science and Engineer-ing Library, and the Oscar A. SilvermanUndergraduate Library.

Specifically, the General Libraries de-sired to:

* provide reference assistance to re-mote modem users witout second phonelines;

38 College & Research Libraries

o enable distance educatio-n stidentsto avoid long-distance phone charges;

* assist students in crowdedcybraries (library computer labs) who donot want to relinquish their seats to visita reference desk;

* rrake reference service more invit-ing to young people and others who regu-larly engage in real-time chat;

* provide extenided reference hours.

ImplementationTo choose an IM product, the General Li-braries reviewed more than ten chat soft-ware programs in early 2000. Manyv fea-tures were considered, including (but notlimited to) price, ease of use, privac ,& plat-forms, Web browser integration, filetransfers, document sharing, and spamprotection. Based on tbis evaluation,AOL s free and ubiquitous Instant Mes-senger software was chosen.

AOL offers two chat alterratives: Us-ers can download and install Instant Mes-senger (AIM) client software on their owncomputer or use the Web-based AIM Ex-press (Express), which requires no down-load, only a XWeb browser with Java en-abled. IM librarians and patrons wern al-lowed to choose their preferred method.Both options require users to create anAOL accotunt and then register a uniquescreen name and password. For consis-tency, one person created all librarian ac-counts, passwords, and Iuser names(UBLibrarianl, UBLibrarian2, etc.).

Before launching the service, a sched-ule was established, shifts assigned, andlibrary personnel notified of the start date.On October 23, 2000, the project went livewith the addition of an Ins.tant Messagehyperlink to top-level BISON Web pagesand an eager librarian monitoring the IMchat roomn. By clicking on the hyperlink,visitors were directed to the Instant Mes-sage page and given the option to dow n-load and install AIM soft 'Tare or to useExpress. The page also described the ser-vice, provided brief instructions, andlisted hours of operation. Furthermore,users vere cautioned that IM service wasintended to provide short answers; users

January 2002

with in-depth questions were advised tocall, e-mail, or visit the library.

The library's computer system routedthose who chose AIM directly to a chatroom named ublib; patrons who selectedExp ress had to invite themselves intoubib. After a visitor entered the ublib chatrooim, the librarian on duh, would takethe user (by clicking on the user's screenname) to a private chat session to main-tain privacy. To protect patron privacy, li-brarians did not maintain transcripts ofthe sessions.

After seven weeks of service, the fallportion of the pilot concluded on Decemr-ber 8, 2000, for the holiday intercession.Before the spring semester began, libraryadministrators assessed fall statisticsstaffing issues, patron coTnments, and li-brarian input. Due to encouraging statis-tics and positive feedback, the GeneralLibraries decided to extend IM referencethrough the spring semester. In both se-mesters, the service ended before read-ing days and final exams.

SoftwareAOL software was found to have bothadvantages and disadvantages in deliv-ering real-time reference service in a largeacademic library. On the positive side,AOL offers free software alonng with namerecognition and a system that is relativelyeasy to learn. The chat room format ac-commodates multiple users and allowslibrarians to overlap during shift transi-tions. However, the staff had no controlover AOL service and occasionally expe-rienced periods of instabilit when theycould not log in or were inexplicably dis-connected during a session. Infrequently,the entire system was unavailable, whichmeant that IM reference service had to becanceled temporarily. When this oc-curred, an explanation was posted withan apology on tlhe Instant Message Webpage. Sometimes access could be gainedthrough AIM, but not through Express,and vice versa. Occasionally, AIM usersc)uld not chat privately with Express us-ers, possibly because of "net split," anInternet failure that interrupts communi-

Instant Messaging Reference in an Academic Library 39

cation among groups of servers, but notwithin the group.7 Unlike other products,AOL chat software does not compile sta-tistics or send automated messages to in-form visitors when the librarian is busyor the service is closed.

Still, AIM has several helpful features,including the ability to easily send im-ages, colorful emoticons, and hyperlinks.The system also emits audible signalswhen someone on a buddy list (a personallist of friends with AIM screen names)enters the chat room so that the librariandoes not have to watch the screen con-tinuously. Regrettably, this sound featureproved useless because librarians couldnot add all possible patron screen namesto their buddy lists. Thus, a librarian onTM duty who chose to use AIM had tomonitor the chat room vigilantly. In con-trast, Express generates sounds when anyvisitor enters the chat room, thereby al-lowing the librarian on duty to performother tasks while waiting for questions.But Express lacks the other useful featuresof AIM described above.

Administration IssuesStaffingDuring the fall semester, twenty librar-ians and four library school studentsagreed to participate in the IM referencepilot project. Librarians contributed be-tween two and seven hours per week tomonitoring the IM chat room, and librarystudents covered the evening and week-end shifts. Only one person monitored theroom at a time. The library provided IMreference service an average of sixty-eighthours per week according to the follow-ing schedule: 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. Mondays,9 a.m. until 11 p.m. Tuesdays, 9 aim. until8 p.m. Wednesdays and Thursdays, 9 a.m.uLntil 6 p.m. Fridays, 1 p.m. until 3 p.m.Saturdays, and 2 p.m. until 11 p.m. mostSundays. [Note: For brevity, henceforth,this article will refer to both IM librariansand library students as librarians unlessa distinction is required.]

Evaluation of IM service in the fall re-vealed two specific staffing challengesthat needed to be addressed in the spring.

First, one person could not simulta-neously staff the IM chat room and aphysical reference desk because of themany distractions around a referencedesk. Because AOL chat software does notprovide a way to notify incoming patronsthat the librarian on duty is temporarilypreoccupied, an online patron could feelignored or erroneously conclude that thesystem had disconnected. As a result, li-brarians performed their IM shifts sepa-rately from their reference desk duty inthe spring.

Second, IM evening and weekendhours did not meet patron demand. Tooffer more hours, it was necessary to in-crease the size of the IM staff. Therefore,library administration requested that allreference librarians contribute one hourper week to IM reference. The IM coor-dinator also recruited more library stu-dents to give a total of thirty-eight IMstaffers. The larger staff made it possibleto offer chat reference an average of sev-enty-five hours per week with moreevening and weekend hours. It also al-lowed librarians to reduce their IM shiftsto one hour per week, while library stu-dents took night and weekend shifts ofup to five hours.

Because only one question was re-ceived before 10 a.m. in the fall, it wasdecided to open one hour later in thespring. The IM chat room was staffed be-tween 10 a.m. and 11 p.m. Mondaythrough Thursday, 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Fri-day, 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. Saturday, and 1p.m. and 11 p.m. Sunday.

TrainingBefore starting the pilot project, a few tu-torial sessions were conducted for librar-ians but were poorly attended, possiblybecause most of the librarians who par-ticipated in the fall were sufficiently fa-miliar with technology or the concept ofonline chatting to learn, it on their own.Senior librarians trained and mentoredthe library school students. Librarianswho joined the project in the springsought guidance from, and practicedwith, veteran IM librarians.

40 College & Research Libraries

In terms of policy, two guidelines wereestablished. First, IM librarians were di-rected to use only the ublib chat room tominimize visitor confusion. Second, li-brarians who provided simultaneous ref-erence service via TM and the physicaldesk were advised to give preference topatrons within the library. IM staff wereencouraged to welcome visitors with ashort greeting, keep their responses brief,and periodically send delay messagessuchi as "I'm still working on it." They alsowere advised to refer difficult questionsto a subject specialist or to encourage thepatron to call or visit the library. Other-wise, the IM librarians were free to usetheir best judgment.

As an additionial aid, a Quick LinksWeb page was maintained with links toready-reference sources such as contactinformation for the various UB Libraries,class assignments, and frequently usedBISON pages. This page was designed toallow librarians to easily copy and pasteinformation into messages. However, TMlibrarians confessed to rarely using it.

Librarian Co nmn nicationInitially, everyone communicated i nfor-mally through individual e-mails or smallmeetings, but just before launching theservice, a listserv devoted to the projectwas created. The list was used to postweekly statistical summaries and to makeannouncements. Unfortunately, it did notadequately facilitate "shift trades" in thefall, so in the spring IM staff were directedto report schedule conflicts to the IM co-ordinator who then would arrangechanges. One face-to-face meeting washeld each semester to compare notes, askquestions, and make recomrnen-dations.

PtublicityOverall, TM reference service receivedlittle promotion aside from the additionof the Instant Message hyperlink through-out BISON. The TM coordinator chose notto advertise in the fall because of theproject's experimental nature. It also wasdecided not to promote the service in bib-liographic instruction sessions to prevent

January 2002

students from sending in a flood ofcourse-specific questions. During thespring, publicity was delayed to give newIM staff time to become comfortable witithis mode of reference interaction, al-thouga in February an article appearedin a library newsletter to describe the ser-vice. Throughout March, three advertise-men-ts were placed in thte student niews-paper and flyers were distributed acrosscampus during two dayts in April.

Data CollectionPatrono SurveyDemographic and satisfaction data werecollected from patrons through an onlinequestionnaire. After a patron clicked onthe TM link, a separate browser windowopened to display the survey. Users wereasked to indicate age range, gender; thelocation trom which they sent their mes-sage, whether they were affiliated withUB, and their degree of satisfaction withIM reference. They also were asked tobriefly explain why they chose to sendan instant m-nessage instead of visiting,calling, or e-mailing a library. Once com-plete, tusers transmitted the informationby clicking a button labeled suibmit. Toencourage responses, participants wereoffered the chance to win a $25 gift cer-tificate from Media Play, a large entertaini-ment store near campus.

Librarian ReportsTo ensure patron privacy, it was decidednot to generate session transcripts. Still,in order to understand the nature of ques-tions posed during IM reference, TM staffwere asked to paraphrase the quLestionsthey received and to enter the informa-tion into an online form immediately af-ter the exchange. Unfortunately, a fewpeople completely forgot this task or sub-mitted tlhe question much later with someacknowledged loss in accuracy.

UsageWhen a user submitted a survey, the Unixsystem server recorded the data alongwith the titme and date of submission.This information was used to gauge when

Instant Messaging Reference in an Academic Library 41

and how often the service was used. Toreduce errors, a JavaScript program de-leted duplicate entries (possibly causedby a user pressing submit twice) and in-complete sum veys. A survey was consid-ered complete if it contained satisfactiondata and the location of the patron dur-ing the exchange. Because many peopleresist supplying age and gender for per-sonal reasons, it was felt that this shouldnot eliminate other valuable information.

To determine whether usage trendsexisted, the hours, days, and weekswere reviewed when surveys weresubmitted.

Unfortunately, this counting methodcan-not produce a true reflection of use be-cause it is based on when surveys weresubmitted and not the actual time that areference interview occurred. Thus, a usermight ask a question in the aftemoon butnot submit the survey until the evening.Also, no information is available aboutusers who did not complete the survey.Their demographics and satisfaction lev-els may differ greatly from those who re-sponded.

Project FindingsPatron Demographics and SatisfactionDemographic and satisfaction statisticswere assessed for fall, spring, and bothsemesters combined. Because there was

little to no difference between the semes-ters, the following values are presented forthe entire pilot project. The nonresponserate varied between 1 and 11 percent andthe sample size n differed for each charac-teristic because not all patrons completedevery survey question. Table 1 sumnarizesthze results for age, the location from whichthe visitor sent the message, and satisfac-tion level. Results worth noting include:

* The majority (70%) of respondentswere between the ages of eighteen andtwenty-five.

* More users (69%) sent their ques-tion from on-campus than from off-cam-pus.

* Of the on-campus patrons, most(25%) sent their message from a cybrary.

* There were no significant differ-ences in use by gender.

Eigh-tyfour percent of the respon-dents were affiliated with UB as students,faculty, staff, or alumni.

As for satisfaction level, 45 percent ofrespondents reported being very satisfiedwith the service. In fact, 79 percent de-clared themselves satisfied or better com-pared to 10 percent who registered somelevel of dissatisfaction. Most of the un-happy patrons had tried to access the ser-vice when it was closed.

Nature of QuestionsAs mentioned earlier, librarians para-phrased the questions they received dur-

TABLE 1Patron Dernographis and Satisfaction Levels

Age % Message sent from ... % Satisfaction Level %(n = 271) (n = 272) (n = 262)

< 18 3 Off campus 31 Very satisfied 4518-25 70 On campus 69 Moderately sa'tisfied 826-30 6 *Cybrary *25 Satisfied 2631-40 4 *Housing *18 Soimewhat dissatisfied 441-S0 8 *Computer lab *13 Very dissatisfied 651-60 4 *Office *13 No response 11>60 3 No response INo response 2

* Denotes on-campus location

42 College & Research Libraries

ing their IM shift. For evaluation pur-poses, the reported questions weregrouped into several categories. The ma-jority of questions received during IMreference fell into the infornation literacy(26%) and catalog (23%) categories. Infor-mation literacy questions required the li-brarian to explain the difference betweenthe online catalog and electronic data-bases, to suggest a database, or to offerdatabase search tips. The catalog categoryincluded questions about specific hold-ings or catalog terminology. As with ex-changes at the physical reference desk,librarians found that maniy patrons do notunderstand the distinction between theWeb-based catalog and electronic data-bases. Twelve percent of users requiredhelp navigating BISON Web pages andanother 12 percent asked for specific li-brary information such as hours, renewalpolicies, and so on. To a lesser extent, us-ers requested assistance with technicaltroubleshooting (6%), Web navigation(5%), electronic course reserves (4%), andfinding UB information (4%). Surpris-ingly, only five percent of users asked in-depth questions about a particular suLb-ject while two percent posed short, factualquestion-s (more had been expected). An-other two percent sent inquiries about thelibrary's IM service.

UsageBased on data gathered from the systemnserver, seventy-seven surveys were sub-mitted in the fall and 185 in the spring. Ifone survey is interpreted to represent onereference interview, then between teni andeleven IM interviews per week were con-ducted in the fall, on average. In the spring,the rate grew to thirteen tran-sactions perweek, on average. Based on users' screen

January 2002

names, there were very few "repeat ctus-tomers." To determine whether usagetrends existed, the hours, days, and weekswere reviewed when surveys were sub-mitted. These values reflect the time whenthe server received information, not nec-essarily wheni the user asked the ques-tion. It should be rememnbered that dupli-cate and incomplete entries as describedearlier were eliminated and that not all pa-trons may have submitted a survey.

Hourly TrendsTable 2 shows that demand for IM ser-vice was greatest between I and 5 p.m.throughout the project. As for specifichours of use, survey submissions peakedduring the 8 p.m. hour (14°%) in the falland 2 p.m. (16%) in the spring.

Daily TrendsAs table 3 shows, daily use remainedfairly consistent Monday through Thurs-day, decli-ned on Friday and Saturday, andthen increased on Sunday. To innterpret theresults correctly, it is important to con-sider that limited IM service was pro-vided durinig Thanksgiving week. In thefall, more surveys were submitted onTuesdays (20%) than any other day, whilein the spring Wednesday and Thursdayled wiith 20 percent each.

Weekly TrendsLastly, weekly trends were examinedthroughout the project. Figure 1 revealsthat survey submissions increased gradu-ally throughout the fall, excluding

TABLE 3Daily Trenids in Survey

Suibmissions

Day Fall SpringMonday 18% 16%Tuesday 20% 17%Wednesday 12% 20%Thursday 16% 20%Friday 9% 10%Saturday 8% 7%Sunday 16% 11%

Instant Messaging Reference in an Academic Library 43

Thanksgiving week, and then tapered offduring the last week of the semester.Spring showed no definitive patterns.

Patron CommentsThe survey asked patrons why they choseto use IM versus calling, e-mailing, or vis-iting the library. Figure 2 presents a smallsample of their responses. Overall, thecomments were unexpectedly positiveand very rewarding. Negative remarkstypically came from visitors who tried toaccess the service when it was closed. Oneperson remarked that the service shouldbe made "more widely known." This un-derscores the lack of publicity and sup-ports the criticism of library marketingthat the users do not know what servicesare offered.8 Apparently, the Instant Mes-sage hyperlink confused a few peoplewho thought it would open a generic chatsession rather than take them to a spe-cific library service.

LibrariansDuring the face-to-face meetings, it be-came evident that most librarians feltmore pressure answering questions dur-ing IM than at a physical reference desk.They sensed an obligation to provide anexact answer and to provide it rapidly,making it difficult to give clear answersif te response required extensive tvig.Much of this anxiety arose from servingonline patrons who cannot exhibit facial

expressions and body language for thelibrarian to interpret nor see the librarianactively working. However, these con-cerns may be misplaced because few us-ers complained that a librarian took toomuch time. On the contrary, the majorityof patrons were found to be patient, cor-dial, and very appreciative, particularlyevening visitors.

Rarely were multiple patrons in thechat room at one time. When this did oc-cur, the librarian worked with the firstvisitor and sent delay messages to thelater arrivals. In fact, many librariansnever received even one question, whichled them to conclude that chat referencecreates too much idle time for the on-dutylibrarian. Other librarians found it diffi-cult to perform IM duty from their officebecause of a variety of workday distrac-tions. A small number resented IM refer-ence duty as an extra responsibility.

Punctual shift transitions proved to bethe biggest staffing problem throughoutthe project. Although the shift scheduleremained constant through the semester,librarians (not library students) fre-quently forgot their IM shift or arrivedlate because of other commitments. Toimprove shift coordination, the IM coor-dinator e-mailed reminders to librarianson the morning of their scheduled day.However, this effort met with little suc-cess, possibly because librarians fre-quently traded shifts without informing

FIGURE 1Weekly Trends in IMhI

20

15 - - - - _ - _ _

10

5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

__ __ __ __ _ _ _ Week* Denotes Thanksgiving week* Denotes a semester break

44 College & Research Libraries January 2002

FIGURE 2

Patron Comments (Verbatim) ---- --E - - = = = A = -- --- - --- =- -==~~ ~ ~~~~~~-= ---- ----- -

Responises to the survey question: Why did you choose IM versus calling,e-mailing, or visiting the library?---

work-ing on paper.. wainted instant help...

didn't want to leave m1y office anid didn't feel like waiting onE hold--- - --- --- - -- --- ...---. ,,-- , . .

I was off campus and the commute time is 40 minutes and it was easier to im themessage than to nake the comnmute. If I had called I would have had to locate thephone number and go through being transfered to som-eone who could help me ifanyone kniew who could help and then wait for them to become availaible. E-mailingwould have taken just as long

bec'ause I thought it would be quicker, but nobody answeredlt S SEOIC ftln _ .... ... _~~~~~~ ------------------- --------

it's more fuin

It save time and it's convenient

Easy, fast and cool

Because it's cheaper to use the comnputers around campus than to call someone. Ispend most of my time on my computer in my room, i guess that it's the samethroughout school.

More direct dialect while being able to formii tmy question by typing without being onthe spot on the phone

because, i can still browsing while waiting for my answer

It was quicker theni trying to find someone and there was no line to wait

Already sittiing at my compputer - its just a clik away....I think this is a really, reallygreat idea and should be nad Ie more widely known that you can do this.

because i'mi alIready on the computer

immediacy!

I feel like I should know the answer.

most people i know are on AIM ?4/7

I aI out of state

It is easier and n iore cnvenient for an off camiipus student. I can't call if I ani on theInternet, I only have one phone line.

Very convenient-quicker than e-mail, easier than telephone

because i am a single mother, i cannot just get up and go to the library whenever iwant, plus, i can't call if i'm on line..email takes too long. i need an answer now

the coordinator. Other staffing problems dents in cybraries, used the serviceinvolved librarians using the wrong chat heavily. Although the majority of patronsroom and misunderstanding the differ- were on-campus, cominents indicatedence between AIM and Express. that the off-campus users included dis-

tance education students, another group

Conclusions tlhe project had hoped to reach. Moreover,Evaluation of the IM reference pilot user comments demonstrated their enthu-project revealed that the service achieved siasm and need for the IM reference.its goals. Statistics show that two of the Questions posed during chat referencetarget populations, young people and stu- were very similar to those received at the

Instant Messaging Reference in an Academic Library 45

reference desk; primarily, they reflectedpatrons' confusion between the onlinecatalog and electronic journals. Trendanalyses suggest that most IM referenceoccurs in the afternoon and evening andremains fairly constant Monday throughThursday, with less traffic on Friday andSaturday. Weak promotional efforts pre-vented the library from drawing generalconclusions about the effect of publicity.

Naming the real-time reference servicewith the ubiquitous term Instant Messagecaused unnecessary confusion amongusers. Perhaps one Web page that consoli-dates all electronic reference optionswould lessen perplexity and increaseawareness. Titles devoid of librarian jar-gon also may help, for example, "Ask Us"or "Have a Question?"'? Moreover, servicehours must be displayed prominently.

To alleviate many of the staffing prob-lems encountered, the IM staff probablyshould remain small, receive more for-malized training and extended practice,involve people with an interest in the vir-tual format, and perform shifts in a des-ignated IM office (to remiiove distractionsand facilitate shift transitions). To providereal-time reference service on a large scale,IM software should accommodate higlvolume, automate redundant tasks, com-pile statistics, and offer consistently reli-able access.

The experiment with IM reference ser-vice may be considered a success, despitea few problems and some growing pains.Chat reference will not supplant thelibrary's other reference services, but itoffers another way to reach and educatepatrons.

Notes1. Marshall Breeding, "Providing Virtual Reference Service," Information Today (Apr. 2001):

42-43. Available online from <http: / / www.infotoday.com>.2. Carol Simpson, "INTERNET RESOURCES: Intemet Relay Chat," Teacher Librarian1 28, no.

1 (S 2000): 18-20. Available online for WilsonWeb subscribers from Library Literature & Informa-tion Science FT, WilsonWeb <http:/ /vw,eb.hwwilsonweb.com>. (1 June 2001).

3. Phil Blank, "Live On Line Reference," Duik-e Ulniversity Libraries. 14 December 2000. Avail-able online from <http: / f www.lib.duke.edu/reference/ liveonlineref.htm>. (5 April 2001).

4. Gloria Colvin, "Remote, Accessible, and On Call: Reference Librarians Go Live," FloridaLibraries 44, no. 1 (spring 2001): 10-12. Available online for WilsonWeb subscribers from LibraryLiterature & Informationi Science FT, WilsonWeb <http:/ f vweb.hwwilsomveb.com>. (1 June 2001).

5. Blank, "Live On Line Reference."6. Rob Bernstein, Jeremy Caplan, and Eric Glover, "Amierica's 100 Most Wired Colleges 2000,"

Yahoo! Internet Life (May 2000). Available online from <http: / /www.zdnet.com/yil/content /col-lege/college2)00/larankurniversity_lo0.html>. (9 June 2001).

7. Simpson, 'INTERNET RESOURCES: Internet Relay Chat."8. Sara Weissman, "Know Your Audience," Library Journal Net Connect (spring 2001): 42.

Available online for WilsonWeb subscribers from, Library Literature & Information Science FT,WilsonWeb <http:/ /vweb.hwwilsonweb.com>. (1 June 2001).

9. Ibid.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Instant messaging reference in an academic library: acase study

SOURCE: College & Research Libraries 63 no1 Ja 2002WN: 0200103837004

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact he publisher:http://www.ala.org/.

Copyright 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.