Technological advances in reference: a paradigm shift? (Library Trends, Vol. 50 No. 2, Fall, pp. 165‐307)

There is no doubt that advances in technology over the last ten to 15 years have led to substantial changes in reference services. The question whether these are so radical as to constitute a paradigm shift is the subject of this issue of Library Trends, in which an Introduction by the editor is followed by eight essays.

Gorman takes the eight basic values of librarianship he put forward in his admirable recent book Our Enduring Values(Gorman, 2000): stewardship, service, intellectual freedom, etc. – and relates each to reference service. He affirms the primacy of personal contact between staff and user. Tyckoson also talks in terms of values, but these are specifically concerned with reference service: accuracy, thoroughness, timeliness and authority. He analyses several models of service – traditional (librarian sitting at a desk), teaching‐library (instructing people how to find out for themselves), tiered (questions directed to different levels of staff according to their difficulty), and virtual (using technology to communicate with users). He concludes that there is no “right” model. Both refer to one Samuel Green (1876), who was perhaps the first to enunciate the essentials of reference service 125 years ago

There is a third essay that is well worth reading: that by Katz, whose lively and entertaining text draws on an unusually wide range of references. He urges the necessity of fitting new technologies into traditional reference service goals. He covers many other matters along the way, and reaches sensible and practical conclusions.

Westbrook's paper, which looks at user‐based relevance, can be dealt with quickly. Her minute sample of five people and the highly personal and individual nature of the findings make her essay virtually useless. Whitlatch argues that the same principles and techniques should be used to evaluate Internet reference services as for conventional ones, admitting that electronic services offer new opportunities for research. into them. Divlenko discusses the dangers of deprofessionalisation of reference work in the light of Pierre Bourdieu's theories of “occupational fields of struggle and species of capita ” to examine “the ideological implications of the digital reference call‐center model”. If this looks like heavy going, it is; I did not find the effort worth it.

A more useful paper by Chandler on “Reference in library and information science education” stresses the need for new skills on the part of “reference and information access professionals” – “more technological knowledge, a better understanding of user information‐seeking, new instructional techniques, and better communication skills”. She foresees a more demanding but more exciting life for reference workers.

Fritch and Mandernack, whose paper is the last in this issue, add little to what has already been said, namely that the old and new have to be blended.

Do these papers, worthy though most of them are, add up to very much? The answer to the question “Is there a paradigm shift?” is answered by the editor in her Introduction: yes and no. Technology does not make reference services in libraries obsolete, nor does it reduce them entirely to impersonal operations, many questions can be answered by many people without going to a library, but many cannot, or if they can people often prefer to use the library. The Internet adds to the tools available, and makes much information more accessible, including some that was virtually inaccessible before. However, as with most things, it is not a matter of either/or, but of the appropriate mix of both for each individual. To do some things without human intervention is sensible and often time‐ and money‐saving; to make all transactions impersonal is ultimately to dehumanise life. All this ought to be obvious enough, and I have no doubt that most persons involved in reference (or “information access”) work have already largely adjusted to the new world. But it may not be obvious to some people, and if this issue of Library Trends helps to emphasise the obvious it may do some good.