Content uploaded by Eberechukwu Monica Eze
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eberechukwu Monica Eze on Sep 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal) Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Summer 1-6-2016
Channels Students Prefer in Submi&ing Reference
Inquiries: A Survey of Undergraduate Students in
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Eberechukwu Monica Eze
ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ENUGU, NIGERIA., ezemonica33@yahoo.com
Follow this and additional works at: h7p://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac
Part of the Library and Information Science Commons
Eze, Eberechukwu Monica, "Channels Students Prefer in Submi7ing Reference Inquiries: A Survey of Undergraduate Students in
University of Nigeria, Nsukka." (2016). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Paper 1354.
h7p://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1354
1
Channels Students Prefer in Submitting Reference Inquiries: A Survey of
Undergraduate Students in University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Introduction
The emergence of modern information and communication technologies (ICTs)
has revolutionised functions and services of libraries all over the world.
Technological developments have affected not only the format and sources of
the information libraries use to provide reference services, but also where we
provide references services. Libraries and their resources have partially moved
to the virtual world of the internet. As a result, library patrons can access our
resources from outside of the physical library. In an effort to reach patrons
accessing the library via their computers, many libraries and library consortia
are extending their reference services to include virtual references (Reference
and User Services Association, 2004). Technology now allows users to submit
their queries to the library at any time at any place in the world. According to
Chow and Croxton (2012, p. 246)
In the rapidly moving world of the information age, information
seeking behaviour is increasingly multi-faceted, on demand, real time
and diverse. Despite the emergence of the internet and the availability
of a wide variety of robust search engines that can seek information
with increasing speed and accuracy, people are turning to their school,
public, and academic libraries more frequently and in larger number
than ever before.
Libraries currently answer reference questions in a variety of modes: in-
person, telephone, e-mail, instant message, in virtual worlds such as second life,
and via virtual reference software. Virtual reference is responsive to patrons’
need for convenient access to reference service. Virtual reference to reference
services initiated electronically, often in real-time, where patrons employ
computers or other internet technology to communicate with reference staff,
with being physically present (Reference & User Services Association, 2004).
Communication channels used frequently in virtual reference include chat,
video conferencing, and voice over IP, co-browsing, e-mail and instant
2
messaging. It is a goal of all references services to be of high quality.
Integration of virtual references into the mainstream of references services
implies that all services (in-person, telephone, and virtual) will be supported at a
level to ensure quality services (RUSA, 2004).
Libraries are urgently attempting to reinvent themselves and fully embrace
the challenge of meeting the needs of their users in a climate of rapid change
where information seekers have many different types of information and
communication technology. As academic libraries become fully immersed in
the twenty-first century, they are beginning to realize that to best meet users
needs, they must first look at user preferences. With the proliferation of online
resources and distance education opportunities, many libraries are attempting to
meet their users’ demands by expanding their reference services beyond the
face-to-face or telephone reference interaction (Chow & Croxton, 2012).
According to Agosto, et.al (2010) “over the past few years, reference and
information services have increasingly moved away from library reference
desks and from libraries’ print collection out into the virtual world.” (p.1)
Rather than viewing face-to-face reference, chat reference, IM reference, e-mail
reference, telephone reference, etc. as unique services, the trend seems to be to
view them all as subsets of “reference and information services” in general
(Agosto at al. 2010).
According to the Reference & Users Services Association (2004, p.6)
“Virtual reference service responsibilities should be shared among staff to
ensure continuity of service.” And that “staff should be required to demonstrate
skills in the effective use of online communication, as well as demonstrate
awareness of the common potential problem areas when conducting reference
interviews online, as compared to the face-to-face reference interview” (p. 4).
We have seen the emergence of a generation of young students who have grown
up ‘native’ in a technologically intense world. Library users have ever-
increasing amounts of digital content at their finger-tips, and many studies show
they prefer this format over print (Tenopir, 2005).
Reference libraries have considered and studied these wide-ranging
transformations - the demographics, technological pressures, and the changing
educational climate, and have experimented with and adopted new approaches
to service. One of the most significant developments in reference services these
past several years has been the emergence of real-time virtual reference (VR).
3
The present study is a case study that aims to investigate help-seeking
preferences of students. Specifically, we were interested in exploring how users
of University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) prefer to get help anywhere they are
located either on campus or off-campus. To do so, we set ourselves the
following research questions.
RQ1. To what extent are students of UNN aware of the different reference
inquiry channels?
RQ2. To what extent do students in UNN consult the Reference Librarian using
any of the channels?
RQ3.What is the most preferred channel through which students of UNN make
reference inquires.
RQ4.What is the level of students’ satisfaction with the reference answers
received?
Literature review
A majority of today’s library users are characterized as technology savvy,
visually oriented, very demanding and expect nomadic, anytime and anywhere
communication (Becker, 2009). For this reason, there are changes in the help-
seeking preferences of students. Library users prefer to access the library via the
internet and seek the help of a librarian in a digital environment. Thus, they opt
to make the use of the digital reference services over the traditional reference
service being rendered. However, use preference of the library users may be
influenced by their level of awareness on the availability and the knowledge of
the features and processes involved on the existing digital reference Services
(Grandfield & Robertson, 2008).
Several studies have been conducted in developed countries on students’
use of different channels such as traditional reference desk or face-to-face,
phone/SMS, Facebook, IM/chat and e-mail in making reference inquiries.
Presently, only few studies from developing countries like Nigeria have been
conducted on users’ preferences in reference services. The present study aims to
fill the gap. The literature review is organized under the following headings:
4
traditional reference desk or face-to-face, phone/SMS, IM/chat, e-mail and Web
2.0 tools reference services.
Traditional reference desk or Face – to – Face reference services
Studies have proven that face-to-face reference or traditional reference desk
continues to be the most used reference service and at the same time, the first
choice getting help from the library (Grandfield & Robertson, 2008; Luo, 2008;
Ruppel and Vecchione, 2012; Baro, Efe & Oyeniran, 2014). For example,
Ruppel and Vecchione (2012) reported that many of the comments (36 percent)
relate to the personalized service that traditional reference is able to offer, in
contrast to SMS and chat reference services. According to the authors,
respondents value the direct nature of traditional reference service (33 percent
of the comments). Particularly the fact that the librarians can lead patrons
directly to the physical resources they need in the library building.
Chu and Du (2013) studied social networking tools for academic libraries
and found that instant messaging was reportedly used for handling enquiry
related services and internal staff communication. IM has shown to enhance
users’ social presence and to facilitate a sense of communication which was not
provided by e-mails and conventional web 1.0 websites (Boulos and Wheelert,
2007). Chu and Du (2013) concluded that overall, participants perceived social
networking tools to be very helpful in terms of information sharing, knowledge
sharing, enhancing reference services and promoting library services.
The study by Johnson (2004) asked respondents for “their first option” if
seeking assistance from library staff in a hypothetical scenario, and
relationships were drawn between preferences noted and status of respondent. It
was found that undergraduates were most likely to choose face-to-face reference
services and faculty were more likely to prefer e-mail. Few people had used the
chat service and few people were even aware of it. Similarly, the study by Malik
and Mahmood (2013) in Pakistan revealed that the culture of providing
reference services through traditional face-to-face method was still prevailing in
most of the libraries, while modern means of communication like e-mail and IM
were being adopted but at a slow pace. The authors recommended that the
electronic means of communication like e-mail, chatting and IM should be
incorporated for delivering better reference services.
Phone or SMS reference services
5
Text messaging reference services present efficient, personalized methods for
connecting with undergraduate students. Test messaging, also known as short-
message-service (SMS), is described as “near-synchronous” because the sender
and the receiver have time to thoughtfully compose and edit a message before
sending it (Guo and Turner, 2005). SMS reference is a personal medium
because it is similar to spoken communication and is efficient due to the fact
that it can be employed anywhere cell service is available. The use of SMS text
messaging has enhanced library services via hand phones. In so many libraries,
the SMS text messaging has been incorporated into enquiry and reference
services. For example, cellular phone usage including SMS usage is very high
in places like Nigeria. Trends such as these suggest that SMS is an ideal way to
reach-out to a greater pool of potential users of reference enquiry services.
Adding the advantage of portability of the cellular phone and ease in using
SMS, it becomes clear that SMS provides an alternative and potentially ideal
mode of posting reference enquires for users on the move, or who may not have
the luxury of visiting the library due to their schedules.
In regard to this, the National Library of Singapore (NLS) launched the
SMS reference service on 11 April 2006 as an additional convenient channel for
users to post questions (Thanuskodi, 2012). Academic research is made easier
for students when reference services are offered at the point-of-need, whether it
is via the traditional reference desk, chat reference, or text messaging reference
(SMS). According to a Pew Internet & Life Project in US, 97 percent of
Americans adults aged 18-24 exchange an average of 109.5 messages during a
normal day (Smith, 2011, p. 2). Libraries that have implemented SMS reference
are able to reach students on their mobile phones and other portable devices at
the point-of-need, which will extend their relevancy to students. Patrons ask a
question with their cell phones by sending a text message to a specific number.
According to Ruppel and Vecchione, (2012, p.425) “use of SMS reference
service has grown since Boise State University libraries implemented it.” The
researchers reported that, SMS usage increased after the librarians promoted the
service through campus posters, in-house flyers and instruction librarians
promoted the SMS services in their information literacy workshops. Guo and
Turner (2005) studied college students’ perceptions of messaging systems. They
determined that while face-to-face was the most preferred communication
medium, chat and SMS communication would become more popular as students
increase their usage and familiarity with them. Albertsons’ Library at Boise
State University (BSU) expanded their reference services by implementing
6
SMS reference in July 2010 (Rupple and Vecchione, 2012). During the 2009-
2012 academic years, BSU librarians answered 946 chat reference questions,
but a year later, during 2010-2011, the total number increased to 1,683. During
the same year, librarians answered 563 SMS questions using SpringShare’s
LibAnswers software (Rupple and Vecchione, 2012).
Luo (2011) reported that San Jose State University survey participants used
SMS because they needed information immediately (55.6 percent), wanted to
see how the service worked (38.9 percent), did not have internet access (33.3
percent) and needed help from a librarian (16.7 percent). The participant cited
the SMS features they appreciate such as speed, convenience, but said it is a
challenge to ask a more complex question via SMS. According to Luo, “they
also can consider texting to be a more comfortable way to get help from a
librarian” (Luo, 2011, p.491). Tomaszewski (2011) reported that students prefer
SMS reference because “the convenient and unobtrusive nature of SMS makes
it all the more popular choice with students who own a cell phone” (p. 284).
One of the key differences between responding to questions asked via e-
mail and instant messaging and questions posed using text messages is the
length of the message. While email and instant messaging questions and
answers can be of any length, text messages are limited to 160 characters. With
the increased usage of mobile phones, it is time for libraries to explore the
option of using text messaging, chatting to provide access to reference services.
IM/Chat reference services
Chat reference refers to the services where the “core of the communication
between the librarians and user is an exchange of text message in real time”
(Francoeur, 2001, p. 189). Many academic libraries in U.S. provide the
opportunity to “chat” online with a reference librarian that is more resource –
intensive than e-mail reference (Lochore, 2004). Libraries prefer using free
software such as Yahoo! Messenger, Google Talk, Instant Messenger, Meebo
and many more.
Librarians in Nigeria are still behind in terms of the development of digital
reference services compared to their counter-parts abroad. Several factors
should be taken into consideration when implementing chat reference service.
These include cost of chat software, staff management, facilities and viability of
the service (Lou, 2008; Baro, Idiodi and Godfrey, 2013; Radford & Kern,
2006). It is important to note that not all the chat reference services are
7
successful. Few libraries have discontinued chat reference because of low
volume, software problems and staffing model (Radford & Kern, 2006). Ruppel
and Vecchione (2012) reported in their study that almost all of the respondents
(59) stated they would use the chat reference service again in the future. When
asked how much they like using the chat reference service, 90 percent said they
liked or loved it.
Foley (2002) in a survey asked library users their reasons for preferring
chat reference over visiting, telephoning or e-mailing the reference staff. The
participants mentioned the following reasons: convenience; hassle in making
telephone call; off campus access; and liked the instantaneous nature of online
communication. Ramos and Abrigo (2011) evaluated reference services in
selected Philippine academic libraries and asked respondents whether they have
sought help from the librarian or any library personnel through the digital
reference services. While a majority of the respondents are familiar with the
existence of digital reference services, only 65 out of 189 respondents (34%)
have asked help from the librarian using the Ask-a-Librarian, e-mail reference,
and Facebook. Ramos and Abrigo (2011) concluded in their study that a
significant increase in the number of reference transaction was observed after
integrating web 2.0 tools to its information services. They added that, IM and
Facebook were found to be most useful reference 2.0 tools in finding relevant
information. Studies have reported a less developed culture of delivering
reference services through e-mail and other electronic means of communication
due to the lack of IT skills and professional knowledge on the parts of librarians
in developing countries (Baro, Efe, and Oyeniran, 2014; Baro, Idiodi and
Godfrey, 2013).
The study by Ruppel and Fagan (2002) found that students see the benefits
of chats reference as being convenient, anonymity, speed, quality of help, and
no waiting in line. Grandfield and Robertsons (2008) employed a survey and a
focus group method in order to compare virtual reference and reference desk
users’ preferences and behaviour. The authors reported that:
The reference desk is the most preferred method of getting help in the
library despite some respondents admitting the reference desk intimidated
them, and that it was sometimes frustrating to wait in line;
Virtual references fill a need for users who prefer to work off-campus,
especially for graduate students. It seem as a significant service from
students, not just a supplement;
8
Exposure to virtual references “changes the perception of the landscape
of reference services,” which can motivate students to seek research help
using new mediums.
Librarians and patrons both appreciate the fact that instant massaging is
faster than traditional chat services and librarians also like the fact that the
software can be downloaded for free (Houghton and Schmidt, 2005). IM helps
the patrons easily and quickly get in touch with the librarian for assistance. On
the other hand, the librarian provides feedback to the patrons via the IM tool
(Houghton and Schmidt, 2005). Instant messaging is vastly being used for
online reference services in libraries. Ask a librarian service is provided by
instant messagers all over the world. A study of top 100 university libraries in
India shows that IM feature have extensive quick online reference services
using technology (Harinarayana and Raju, 2010). Instant massaging is very
popular both with librarians and patrons (Tripathi and Kumar, 2010). Reference
questions are answered immediately without the need to go to a reference desk
(Stephens, 2006).
The study by Kibbee, Ward, and Ma (2002) at the University of Illinois
revealed that nearly 90 percent of the respondents reported the completeness of
the answer to their question as very good or excellent. Nearly 85 percent found
chat service easy to use and would use it again. Reference librarians have
recognized that communicating with users through various methods, including
chat, is an extension of their services that make the user experience more
convenient. The study by Stoffel and Tucker (2004) revealed that the majority
of respondents were experienced with chat or instant messaging. Half of the
respondents indicated to have used the Milner chat reference service more than
once. Nearly eight in ten respondents (78.6 percent) indicated to have used a
web-based chat reference service prior to their ready for reference chat session.
The researchers observed that both e-mail and chat reference services of Milner
are highly valued by their patrons.
According to Sloan (2006) chat reference has been around since the mid-
1990s. It is very common now for libraries of all types to offer chat reference,
but the type of software utilized, staffing patterns, and hours of operation vary
widely. Kayongo and Jacob (2011) discovered four libraries that provide chat
9
assistance outside regular reference hours using their own staff. Libraries
offering chat outside their own reference desk hours are University of
Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Pennsylvania State University, and
University of Texas at Austin. These libraries according to Kayongo and Jacob
(2011) offer chat reference anywhere from one and a half hour (University of
Georgia) to six hours (University of Texas at Austin) after conclusion of their
in-person reference services.
In the study by Ramos and Abrigo (2011), respondents who have utilized
the digital reference services were asked to rank the five DRS according to their
preference for getting help from the librarian. The study revealed that when
respondents want to know basic information about the library, they prefer to ask
the librarian through the Ask-a-Librarian (IM) which yields the highest mean
rank of 3.49. When requesting for documents delivery, respondents referred e-
mail which yield the highest mean rank of 3.74. When asking help on how to
use online subscription, web OPAC, etc. they preferred instant messaging, with
mean rank of 3.72. When looking for specific and highly specialized resources,
the respondents preferred instant messaging with mean rank of 3.57. Finally,
when requesting for library orientation, they preferred e-mail reference with
mean rank of 3.35 (Ramos and Abrigo, 2011).
E-mail reference services
The study by Chow and Croxton (2012) examined the information seeking
preferences of 936 university faculty, staff and students in South-Eastern United
States and found that participants preferred face-to-face reference interactions
over a suite of virtual reference options. E-mail was the second most commonly
used, followed by telephone, and online chat with little interest in text
messaging or Skype video. Nilson (2004) conducted a study that looked at
perceptions of the service received at the virtual reference desk and the physical
reference desk. The research involved library science students posting as users
and then filling out a detailed questionnaire after each visit to a physical and
virtual reference desk. The author discovered that if students were not familiar
with chat technology (such as MSN messenger or yahoo Messenger), they tend
to prefer e-mail reference over virtual reference. The reason noted for this was
that a lack of familiarity may lead to a sense of intimidation or resistance.
Nearly everyone became enthusiastic about chat reference service, and preferred
it to e-mail, once they had used it.
10
The study by Stoffel and Tucker (2004) compared e-mail and chat to
determine user perceptions of their services as a means to improve reference
services. While they did not ask questions regarding preference, they did ask
users if they used other services to meet their information needs. Fewer than one
in ten used another service in the case of e-mail users, chat users responses to
this question were not noted in the article. Stoffel and Tucker concluded that
there was high satisfaction for their virtual services and that e-mail users were
slightly more satisfied than chat users. The study revealed that approximately
one-third of respondents (34.5 percent) used the e-mail reference services to
seek help with topic searches.
Web 2.0 tools reference services
Some of the Web 2.0 tools are especially suited to reference services.
Technologically-minded patrons can receive answers to their reference
questions by using Twitter, Facebook, IM, etc. The participants in Agosto, et al
(2010)’s study saw a shift toward library 2.0 in reference and information
services. That is, not only is the question answering research components of
reference services increasingly collaborative, users are playing an increasing
role in information production. Just as library 2.0 means library services
provided via the internet that encourages feedback and participation from users,
reference 2.0 means that users are acting as information providers as well as
information seekers (Agosto et al. 2010). A comparative study of the use of
Web 2.0 tools by librarians in Nigeria and South Africa revealed that 66.7% of
the librarians in South Africa use Web 2.0 tools such as IM for online reference
services (Baro, Ebiagbe and Godfrey, 2013). Another study by Baro, Idiodi and
Godfrey, (2013) also revealed that more than half of the librarians surveyed in
Nigeria (66.5%) indicated using Web 2.0 tools for online reference services.
Since many users are now fairly proficient at finding information, they are
moving toward providing information for others, by creating blogs, adding to
library collaborative blogs and wikis, reviewing materials to be posted on
library websites, answering questions, and so on, as a part of what one town hall
meeting participants in Agosto, et al. (2010)’s study called “the people’s
network” (p.2).
In summary, despite the wide variety of options, the literature suggests that
when given a choice, in-person, face-to-face interaction with a librarian is the
first choice for the majority of library users seeking assistance.
11
Methodology
The study examined the extent students of UNN use the library Facebook page,
e-mail, Phone/SMS, instant messaging, and person-to-person when seeking for
help from reference librarians. The population of this study consist of all
eligible undergraduate students using the library. Questionnaire was used for
data collection. The study collected data from respondents who represent
different departments in the university using the library. The questionnaire is
made up of 8 items, questions 1-3 asked respondents biodata, while 4-8 asked
questions covering the various research questions raised to guide the study.
The researcher personally visited the university library over a period of one
week where copies of the questionnaire were distributed to the respondents in
the library using convenient sampling technique. Out of the 300 questionnaires
administered to the respondents in the main university library, 258 completed
questionnaires were returned and were used for the analysis. Data collected was
analyzed using frequency counts and percentages and the results presented in
tables and charts.
Analysis of Results
Students’ level of study
56.6
15.5
16.3
10.8
0.8
Figure 1: Students' level of study
100 level
200 level
300 level
400 level
500 level
12
Out of the 258 respondents, the majority (146: 56.6%) of the respondents are
100 level students, followed by 200 level students with 40 (15.5%) respondents.
The breakdown by gender is as follows: 158 (61.2%) were indicated as males,
while 100 (38.8%) indicated as females (see Figures 1 and 2).
Gender of respondents
Department of respondents
Discussion of findings
Awareness of the different reference inquiry channels
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of awareness with the following
reference inquiry channels available in the UNN library: library Facebook page,
e-mail, phone/SMS, instant messaging, person-to-person (The reference desk).
The study revealed that almost all (222:86.0%) of the respondents indicated that
they are aware of the person-to-person reference channel, followed by the
phone/SMS to make reference inquiries, and the library Facebook page (Table
1). This shows that the UNN students are more aware of the person-to-person
reference channel, and the phone/SMS reference channels. The results indicate
that most of the UNN students are not aware of reference channels such as the
library Facebook page, instant messaging and e-mail. More effort is needed to
publicise the different channels used in the university library.
61.2
38.8
Figure 2: Gender distribution of respondents
Male
Female
13
Table 1: Level of awareness of the following reference inquiry channels
Channels
I know
I don’t know
Only heard
Library Facebook Page
90 (34.8%)
124 (48.1%)
44 (17.1%)
E-mail
42 (16.3%)
30 (11.6%)
186 (72.1%)
Phone/SMS
138 (53.5%)
86 (33.3%)
34 (13.2%)
Instant Messaging
22 (8.5%)
192 (74.4%)
44 (17.1%)
Person-to-person
(The reference desk)
222 (86.0%)
18 (7.0%)
18 (7.0%)
Extent of consulting reference librarian
Respondents were asked how long they have consulted a reference librarian for
information or inquiry through any of the channels. The study revealed that 98
(38.0%) of the respondents have consulted reference librarian few days ago,
followed by those who indicated consulting reference librarian a month ago
(62:24.0%) (Figure 2). Although, the majority of the students consult reference
librarian few days ago, the level of consultation is still low. Many students
prefer to use the materials or fine solution to their information needs without
consulting reference librarians. The reason might be that either they are shy or
takes it as a waste of time. For example, studies have shown that students no
longer consult the OPAC or library catalogue before using the library materials,
they go straight to the library collections on the shelves (Ampka, 2000; Eyitayo,
2009; Adedibu, 2008).
Most preferred channels through which students make reference inquiries
38.00%
16.30%
24.00%
21.70%
Figure 3: Extent of consulting Referance Librarian
Few days
ago
A week ago
A month ago
14
Respondents were asked to rate the channel through which they make reference
inquiries with a scale from 1-5, where 1 indicated least and 5 most. As expected
the majority (149: 57.8%) of the respondents indicated using the person-to-
person reference channel most, followed by 122 (47.3%) of the respondents
indicating using the phone/SMS, and the library Facebook page (89: 34.5%)
channel when making reference inquiries. Other channels such as: instant
messaging, and e-mail were indicated to be least used by the students (Table 2).
Despite the wide variety of options available to users, when given a choice,
person-to-person (the reference desk), the face-to-face interaction with a
librarian is the first choice for the majority of library users seeking help.
The finding of the high use of the traditional reference desk agrees with the
existing literature (Johnson, 2004; Ruppel and Vecchione, 2012; Chow and
Croxton, 2012; Granfield and Robertson, 2008). For example, in a study of 276
students and faculty at two public universities in the South Atlantic region,
Johnson found face-to-face and e-mail to be the most popular reference
mediums. From the present findings, it can be assumed that library users most
probably prefer face-to-face reference transactions due to the fact that the
librarians can lead users directly to the physical resources they need in the
library building.
The finding on the use of the Library Facebook page is due to the fact that
recent statistics have shown wide use of Facebook by Nigerians. According to
the statistics of December 2015, in Nigeria, 67 million of the population are
Internet users, out of which 6.6 million are Facebook users (Internet World
Stats, 2015). In other words, librarians and students are among the 6.6 million
Facebook users in Nigeria. A recent study by Baro, et al. (2013) revealed that
the most frequently used Web 2.0 tool is Facebook. It was used by 46.6 per cent
of the librarians in Nigeria. The authors added that 66.5 per cent of the
librarians in university libraries in Nigeria use Web 2.0 tools like the Facebook
mostly for online reference services. Farmer (2007) rightly suggested that
technology has expanded the basic philosophy of reference service and
improved John Cotton Dana’s quote “the right information to the right person at
the right time” by incorporating the “right format”. For example, e-mail,
chatting and instant messaging (IM), Facebook, Whatapp, and Twitter are now
becoming viable means of delivering reference service to remote users, thereby,
reducing physical constraints of time and space.
The present study revealed that instant messaging, and e-mail were indicated to
be least used by the students. This finding agrees with pervious findings that
chat use in academic libraries is low. For example, Horowitz, Flanagan, and
Helman (2005) found that the use of their chat reference service was small
compared to other reference services and that “the resources required for
15
training and management... were disproportionately high for the rate of use of
the service” (p.255). Similarly, Radford and Kern (2006) examined nine chat
reference services that were discontinued and reported that “low volume was
the most frequently cited reason for service discontinuation”(p.527). Baro, Efe
and Oyeniran (2014) also reported little or no use of e-mail and IM as channels
through which students make reference inquiries in Nigeria. Similarly, Rehman
and Mahmood (2010) reported a less developed culture of delivering reference
services through e-mail and other electronic means of communication due to the
lack of IT skills and professional knowledge on the part of librarians. Librarians
need to promote the use of the different reference inquiries channels through the
library web site, information literacy instruction, orientation sessions, etc.
Table 2: The most preferred channels through which students make reference
inquiries
Channels
1
2
3
4
5
Library Facebook page
61
(23.6%)
41
(15.9%)
22
(8.5%)
45
(17.4%)
89
(34.5%)
E-mail
95
(36.8%)
39
(15.1%)
34
(13.2%)
25
(9.7%)
65
(25.2%)
Phone/SMS
32
(12.4%)
9
(3.5%)
13
(5.0%)
82
(31.8%)
122
(47.3%)
Instant messaging
131
(50.8%)
52
(20.2%)
41
(15.9%)
13
(5.0%)
21
(8.1%)
Person-to-person
(The reference desk)
5
(1.9%)
10
(3.9%)
35
(13.4%)
59
(22.9%)
149
(57.8%)
1 indicates least – 5 most
Level of satisfaction with the reference answers given
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with answers
received from reference librarians through the chosen channel. More than half
(53.90%) of the respondents indicated that they are not satisfied with answers
given. In the “If not satisfied give reasons option”, some respondents gave
reasons such as:
I did not know that these channels exist in the library
I think creating awareness of the existence of the library Facebook page,
e-mail, Instant messaging and the rest of them should be made.
Sometimes librarians are reluctant to send feedbacks or negligence on the part
of the librarian
Most of the inquiries I make, I do not get a satisfactory answer.
16
Due to poor power supply.
User satisfaction, another outcome measure, is one of the most frequently used
measures in reference effectiveness literature (Saxton & Richardson, 2002).
User satisfaction relates to the degree to which users are satisfied with the
service obtained. In this present study, the users of the UNN library expressed
dissatisfaction with the services offered through the various channels. The
reason given is that, most of them are not aware of the various reference inquiry
channels used in the library, and others reported that librarians are reluctant to
provide timely feedback. Reference librarians have recognized that
communicating with users through various methods, including Facebook, is an
extension of their services that makes the user experience more convenient. The
findings of the present study on the level of user satisfaction calls for librarians
in Nigeria to be proactive in creating awareness on the various channels. They
should post attractive posts on the Library Facebook page to attract students.
This will make them like the Library Facebook page and other online channels
and make reference inquiries using them.
Connaway, Dickey, and Radford (2011) asserted, “The user once built
workflows around the library systems and services, but now, increasingly, the
library must build its services around user workflows.” Providing innovative
library services requires staff evaluation and user assessment. A point listed in
the “Facets of quality for digital reference services” states:
Digital reference services should regularly evaluate their processes
and services. Ongoing review and assessment help ensure quality,
efficiency, and reliability of transactions as well as overall user
satisfaction (Virtual Reference Desk Project, 2000).
11.60%
12.00%
53.90%
22.50%
Figure 4: Level of satisfaction with the reference answers
given
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Not satisfied
Little satisfied
17
Conclusion
The research has shown that the majority of the respondents at UNN are more
aware of the person-to-person reference channel and the phone/SMS reference
channels. It was found that the students use the person-to-person reference, the
phone/SMS, and the library Facebook page most when seeking for reference
help. From the survey results it is apparent that library patrons need awareness
campaigns on the various channels of reference services offered at UNN.
It is clear from the findings that library patrons still value face-to-face
traditional reference desk service to virtual reference service channels such as e-
mail, chat, Facebook, Twitter, IM, and Skype that are gaining wide acceptance
by librarians and library patrons. Using online services like Facebook will
enable librarians answer questions related to research assignments even outside
normal library hours. Users have become accustomed to the often instant
gratification that the Internet and advances in technology have provided.
Arising from the findings, university libraries in developing countries like
Nigeria must make policy statements regarding virtual reference services to
guide the design and delivery of virtual reference services and ensure service
continuity. Library staff should first examine who their users are and their
respective preferences and then develop library services to support them.
References
Adedibu, L.O. (2008). Catalogue use by science students in the University of
Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria. Libri, 2008, 58-62.
Agosto, D.E., Abels, E.G. Rozaklis, L. and MacDonald, C. (2009), “The Future
of Reference and Information Services in a Virtual World”, Available at:
http://vll.ipl.org/publications/Agosto_2009_The%20Future%20of%20Refe
rence%20and%20Information%20Services%20in%20a%20Virtual%20Wo
rld.pdf (accessed May 2, 2015).
Ampka, S. A. (2000). Students’ Use of Maiduguri Library: An Evaluative
Study. Gateway Library Journal, Vols 2/3, 70-80
Baro, E. E., Idiodi E. O. and Godfrey, V. Z. (2013), “Awareness and Use of
Web 2.0 Tools by Librarians in University Libraries in Nigeria”, OCLC,
Vol. 29,No.3, pp. 170-188.
18
Baro, E.E., Efe, B.B. & Oyeniran, G.K. (2014), “Reference inquires received
through different channels: the challenges reference librarians face in
universities libraries in Nigeria”, Reference Services Review, Vol.42 No.
3, pp. 514-529.
Baro, E.E, Ebiagbe, J. E. & Godfrey, V. Z. (2013), “Web 2.0 tools usage: a
comparative study of librarians in university libraries in Nigeria and
South Africa”, Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 10-20.
Becker, C. (2009), “Students Values and Research: are Millennials Really
Changing the Future of Reference and Research?” Journal of Library
Administration, Vol.49 No.4, pp.341-364.
Boulos, M.N.K. and Wheelert, S. (2007), “The emerging Web 2.0 social
software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health
care education”, Health Information and Libraries Journal, Vol. 24 No.1,
pp. 2-23.
Booth, C. (2008), “Developing Skype-Based Reference Services”, Internet
Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. Nos 2/3, pp. 148-154.
Chow, A.S. and Croxton, R.A. (2012), “Information-Seeking Behaviour and
Reference Medium Performances: Differences Between Faculty, Staff
and Students”, Reference & User Services Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp.
246-262.
Chu, S. K. and Du, H. S. (2013), “Social networking tools for academic
libraries. Journal of librarianship and information science, Vol. 45 No.1,
pp. 64-75.
Connaway, L., Dickey, T. And Radford, M. (2011), “If it is too inconvenient,
I’m not going after it:” convenience as a critical factor in information-
seeking behaviours. Library and Information Science Research, Vol. 33,
No 2, pp.179-190.
Eyitayo, S. A. (2009). Putting the library catalogue on the web: considerations
and projections. Proceedings of selected papers of the cataloguing,
classification and indexing section of the Nigerian Library Association,
49-63.
19
Farmer, LS.J. (2007), The Human Side of Reference and Information Services in
Academic Libraries: Adding Value in the Digital World. Oxford:
Chandos.
Foley, M. (2002), “Instant Messaging Reference in an Academic Library: A
Case Study”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 63 No.1, pp. 36-45.
Francoeur, S. (2001), “An analytical survey of chat reference services”,
Reference Services Review, Vol. 29 No.3, pp. 189-203.
Grandfield, D and Robertson M. (2008), “Preference for Reference: New
Options and Choices for Academic Library Users”, References & Users
Services Quarterly, Vol. 48 No.1, pp. 44-53.
Guo, Z. and Turner, T. (2005), “Messaging Media Perceptions and Preferences:
an Exploratory Study ACIS 2005 Proceedings”, Available at:
http://aisle.aisnet.org/acis2005/62 (accessed May 2, 2015)
Harinarayana, N S. and Raju, N. V. (2010), “Web 2.0 features in university
library web sites”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 28 No.1, pp. 69-82.
Horowitz, L. R., Flanagan, P.A. and Helman, D.L. (2005). The viability of live
online reference: an assessment. Portal: Libraries and the Academic, Vol.
5 No.2, pp. 239-258.
Houghton, S. and Schmidt, A. (2005), “Web-based chat vs instant messaging:
who wins? Online, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 26-30.
Internet World Stats (2015), “Internet Usage Statistics for Africa”, Available at:
www.Internetworldstats.com (accessed 10 June, 2015).
Johnson, M. (2004), “Online Chat Reference: Survey Results from Affiliates of
Two Universities”, Reference & User Services Quarterly, Vol. 43 No.3,
pp. 237-245
Kayongo, J. and Jacob, E.V. (2011), “Burning the Midnight oil: Librarians,
Students and Late-Night Chat Reference at the University of Notre
Dame”, Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 16 No.3, pp. 99-109.
Kibbee, J., Ward, D. and Ma, W. (2002), “Virtual service real data: results of a
pilot study”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp.25-36.
20
Lochore, S. (2004), “How good are the free DRS: a comparison of library-based
and expert services”, Library review, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 24-29.
Luo, L. (2008), “Chat reference evaluation: a framework of perspectives and
measures”, Reference services review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 71-85.
Luo, L. (2011), “Text reference service: delivery, characteristics, and best
practices”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 39 Vol. 3, pp.482-496
Malik, A. and Mahmood, K. (2013), “Infrastructure needed for digital reference
service (DRS) in university libraries: an exploratory survey in the Punjab,
Pakistan”, Library Review, Vol. 62 No.(6/7), pp. 420-428.
Nilsen, K. (2004), “The Library Visit Study: User Experiences at the Virtual
Reference Desk”, Information research, Vol. 9 No.2, pp.171-182.
Available at: http://informtionr.net/ir/9-2/paper171.html (accessed
January 15, 2015).
Radford, M. and Kern, M. (2006), “A multiple-case study investigation of the
discontinuation of nine chat reference services”, Library & Information
Science Research, Vol. 28, pp. 521-547.
Ramos, M.S. and Abrigo, C.M. (2011), “Reference 2.0 in Action: An
Evaluation of the Digital Reference Services in Selected Philippine
Academic Libraries”, World Library and Information Congress; 77th
IFLA General Conference and Assembly, Puert Rico 13-18 August, San
Juan. Available at: http://conference.ifla.org/ifla77 (accessed January
15th 2015).
Reference and User Services Association (RUSA) (2004), “Guidelines for
Implementing and Maintaining Virtual References Services”, Available
at: http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/virtrefguidelines
(accessed January 15, 2015).
Rehman, S. and Mahmood, K. (2010), “Status of reference and information
services in university libraries of Lahore, Pakistan”, Pakistan Library and
Information Science Journal, Vol.41 No. 3, pp. 2-15.
Ruppel, M. and Vecchione, A. (2012), “It’s research made easier! SMS and chat
reference perceptions”, Reference services review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp.
423-448.
21
Ruppel, M. and Fagan, J.C. (2002), “Instant Messaging Reference: Users’
Evaluation of Library Chat”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 30 No 3,
pp. 183- 197.
Saxton, M. L. and Richardson, J. V. (2002). Understanding reference
transactions: Transforming an art into a science. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Sloan, B. (2006), “Twenty years of virtual reference”, Internet Reference
Services Quarterly, Vol.11 No. 2, pp.91-95.
Smith, A. (2011), “Americans and Text Messaging, Pew Research Centre”,
Available at: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Cell-Phone-Texting-
2011.aspx (accessed January 15, 2015).
Stephens, M. (2006), “Exploring web 2.0 and libraries”, Library Technology
Reports, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp.8 -14.
Stoffel, B. and Tucker, T. (2004), “E-mail and chat reference: assessing patron
satisfaction”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 120-140.
Tenopir, C. (2005), “Use and Users of Electronic Library Resources. An
Overview and Analysis of Recent Research Studies”, Council on Library
and Information Resources, Washington, D.C. Available at:
www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120/pub120.pdf. (accessed January 15th
2015).
Thanuskodi, L. (2012), “Awareness of Library Applications among Library &
information science professionals at Annamalai University, India”,
International Journal of Library Science, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 75-83.
Tomaszewski, R. (2011), “SMS text messaging and science students: new
opportunities for librarians outreach”, Science &Technology Libraries,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 277-291.
Tripathi, M. & Kumar, S. (2010), “Use of web 2.0 tools in academic libraries:
reconnaissance of the international landscape”, The International
Information & Library Review, Vol. 42 No.3, pp.195-207.
Virtual Reference Desk Project (2000), “Facets of quality for digital reference
services”, The Virtual Reference Desk, available at: www.vrd.org/facets-
10-00.html
22
