Users' preferences for answer forms to reference questions in libraries

ABSTRACT

Reference service is one of the significant user support services in libraries, and in the service, the librarian provides appropriate information to a user's needs. Studies of a social question and answer (Q&A) site revealed preferences held by users for an answer in terms of subject relevance or prediction. In order to provide a higher quality service, we investigated users' preferences for answers given in libraries. To understand what users prefer for answers, we defined four "answer forms" from the perspectives of the "amount of information" and "whether it includes any explanations of information resources or not." Respondents ranked four answers, which were developed from the answer forms in response to reference questions. The purpose was to discover their preferred way to be answered in the reference service. Results indicated that people prefer an answer, which provides multiple information resources and attached explanations of the resources, rather than an answer that only gives information resources without offering explanations. In addition, we found relationships between answer preferences and user attributes, such as age and frequency of library use.

References

1. Chu, F. 1996. Framing reference encounters, RQ, 36(1), 93--101.
2. American Library Association. 2008. "Definitions of Reference". January 14, 2008. http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/definitionsreference. (accessed 2016-07-19)
3. Katz, W. 2002. Reference services and reference processes (8th ed.) McGraw-Hill. (125--127)
4. Chua Alton, Y.K. and Banerjee S. 2013. So fast so good: An analysis of answer quality and answer speed in community Question - answering sites. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(10), 2058--2068.
5. Kim, S. and Oh, S., 2009. Users' relevance criteria for evaluating answers in a social Q&A site. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 716--727.
6. Blooma, M.J., Hoe-Lian Goh, D. and Yeow-Kuan Chua, A., 2012. Predictors of high-quality answers. Online Information Review, 36(3), 383--400.
7. Katz, W. 2002. Reference services and reference processes (8th ed.) McGraw-Hill. (156--157)
8. Crawford, G.A., 1994. A conjoint analysis of reference services in academic libraries. College and Research Libraries, 55, 257--257.
9. Furusawa, T., Matsubayashi, M., Satoh, T. 2016, June. Expectation of the General People for Answer Forms to a Reference Question. Proceedings of 2016 Japan Society of Library and Information Science Spring Conference. 51--54.
10. Ikeya, N., 1990. The Reference Librarians' Use of Knowledge and Decision Making: The Analysis of User/Librarian Interaction. Library and information science, 28, 81--103.
11. Cavanagh, M.F., 2006. Re-conceptualizing the 'Reference Transaction'---the Case for Interaction and Information Relationships at the Public Library Reference Desk. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Sciences, 30(1/2), 1--19.
12. Cavanagh, M.F., 2013. Interpreting reference work with contemporary practice theory. Journal of Documentation, 69(2), 214--242.
13. Granfield, D. and Robertson, M., 2008. Preference for reference: new options and choices for academic library users. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44--53.
14. Sears, J., 2001. Chat reference service: An analysis of one semester's data. Issues in science and technology librarianship, 32, 200--6.
15. Radford, M.L., 2006. Encountering virtual users: A qualitative investigation of interpersonal communication in chat reference. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1046--1059.
16. Marsteller, M. and Neuhaus, P., 2001, June. The chat reference experience at Carnegie Mellon University. In Presentation at the American Library Association Annual Conference.
17. Broughton, K.M., 2003. Usage and user analysis of a real-time digital reference service. The Reference Librarian, 38(79--80), 183--200.
18. Kibbee, J., Ward, D. and Ma, W., 2002. Virtual service, real data: results of a pilot study. Reference services review, 30(1), 25--36.
19. Rourke, L. and Lupien, P., 2010. Learning from chatting: How our virtual reference questions are giving us answers. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5(2), 63--74.
20. Ismail, L., 2010. What net generation students really want: Determining library help-seeking preferences of undergraduates. Reference Services Review, 38(1), 10--27.
21. Shah, C. and Pomerantz, J., 2010, July. Evaluating and predicting answer quality in community QA. In Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (411--418). ACM.
22. Blooma, M. J., Chua, A. Y. K., Goh, D. H. L. 2010. Selection of the best answer in CQA services. In Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG), April, 2010 Seventh International Conference (534--539). IEEE.
23. Ishikawa, D., Sakai, T., Seki, Y., Kuriyama, K., Kando, N. 2011. Automatic Prediction of High-Quality Answers in Community QA. Journal of Japan Society of Information and Knowledge, 21(3), 362--382
24. National Diet Library. 2005. Collaborative Reference Database. http://crd.ndl.go.jp/reference/. Retrieved July 31, 2016
25. Rowlands I., Nicholas D., Williams P., Huntington P., Fieldhouse M., Gunter B., Tenopir C. 2008, July. The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib proceedings, 60(4) 290--310

Index Terms

• Information systems

  • Information retrieval