CUWL Reference Coordinators Committee                     Approved (as revised). CUWL RCC March 3, 2005

Teleconference Meeting via WisLine

Thursday January 13, 2005

1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

 

Minutes (revised)

 

Members Present

UW-Colleges                Mark Rozmarynowski

UW-Eau Claire             Mimi King
UW-Green Bay             Anne Kasuboski
UW-La Crosse             Randy Hoelzen
UW-Madison                Steve Frye (joined at 2:15)
UW-Milwaukee            Linda Kopecky

UW-Oshkosh                Sarah Neises (left at 2:30)
UW-Parkside                Cynthia Bryan

UW-Platteville              John Leonard Berg

UW-River Falls             Brad Gee

UW-Stevens Point         Patti Becker
UW-Stout                     Jana Reeg-Steidinger
UW-Superior                Ella Cross
UW-Whitewater           Barbara Bren
UW System Admin       Paul Moriarty

CUWL RCC Chair Jana Reeg-Steidinger called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.  RCC Secretary Linda Kopecky took the minutes.  Meeting materials were previously distributed as email attachments. 

Paul Moriarty took the role call.

 

1.      Minutes and agenda updates

The minutes of the previous RCC meeting on October 8, 2004 were approved as distributed. (Motion: Mimi; Second: Sarah).  Jana called attention to the additional agenda item regarding Academic and Statistical Universe, as announced via e-mail.

 

 

2.      Tutorials

Jana led discussion on the North Carolina State University Libraries LOBO/Library Online Basic Orientation research tutorial. http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/risd/staff/moakleaf/lobo_for_librarians.html (Dick Cleek, Colleges CIO, proposed it to RCC for consideration). The product is available to any library that wants to adapt it. 

Mark mentioned that Macromedia’s RoboDemo software has been renamed Captivate; there appear to be no major changes to the software but it seems more user friendly and intuitive than the previous version.

 

 

3.       Virtual Reference Survey Results and Discussion

All of the UW libraries responded to the RCC survey.  Responses were mixed so a conclusive recommendation cannot yet be made to CUWL.  Discussion on the concept of shared chat reference service included the following:

·         To be successful, each library must have staff buy-in before committing staff to any new and/or time-consuming service.

·         Libraries that had withdrawn participation in the Ask Wisconsin consortia reported too small a local response for their local staff effort and time. 

·         A few who participated in a shared chat system report dissatisfaction at not being able to accurately respond to local questions (passwords, procedures, etc).  Some libraries devote staff time to regular review of chat sessions initiated by their local users, as a quality control measure.

·         A successful chat service requires sufficient regular hours to build a client base.  Participating in a consortia service is one way to stretch reference staffing to offer this new service without expanding local staff.

·         Many reference librarians enjoy providing the chat service.

 

UW-Stevens Point will try a chat service via Digi-Net’s eLibrarian software (see http://elibrarian.digi-net.com/FAQ.html).

 

Jana announced that CUWL has requested the RCC respond to the Charge regarding Virtual Reference Service for the CUWL meeting May 6-7.  Based on survey results and meeting discussion, represented libraries are divided as to further explore a CUWL-service (or a service involving a subset of libraries) or not.  If pursued, the RCC would need to recommend a basic level of service, suggested service hours, and a model for collaboration.  The RCC agreed that participation should not be compulsory for all CUWL libraries since other reference-response methods are presently serving the needs of individual campuses.  In an informal poll, four campuses indicated a tentative interest in a future consortia product; three indicated possible interest.

 

Subcommittees were formed to further review specified aspects of virtual reference service:

Subcommittee 1, to review existing models for shared service.  What libraries or library types are involved?  Which appear to be most successful, and why?

Members (all currently offering char service):  Sarah; Steve; Barbara; Brad

 

Subteam 1, to summarize why campus-only service works best for some members

Members:  Cindy – with input from Steve

 

Subteam 2, to further explore options for a CUWL-only chat consortia.

Members:  Linda; Ella

 

Subcommittee 2, to report on alternatives to chat service and to share ideas for expanding/marketing other mechanisms for service to remote users (e.g., toll free telephone reference; email service).

Members: Mimi, Patti, Randy, John

 

Jana will work with the subteams to utilize WisLine to meet independently on their topics; Paul will also participate in the subgroups as possible. Reports are aimed for next RCC meeting on March 3^rd.

 

Summary:  RCC might support group purchase of software for cost savings and to enable optional shared service. Subcommittees will further investigate issues and report back to RCC.

 

Deadlines:  Draft reports to be discussed in March for submission to CUWL prior to the shared CDC/RCC meeting in April.

 

 

3.A.  Future of reference.  Paul shared that CUWL is beginning to work on strategic directions for 2005-2006.  One large issue is the future of library services, and how might reference services be changing in the next few years (to 2007, for example).  RCC could attempt to identify possible changes, and recommend areas we would like to see transformed in some way.  Initial thoughts included the following:

·         System wide implementation of MetaLib may change how users will approach beginning research; it is difficult to predict if it will place more (or less) demands on the reference staff. 

·         There are other new avenues of service to explore besides interactive chat. 

·         Reference needs are directly tied to course integrated library instruction and on many campuses staff are developing more course-specific pages to serve targeted needs.

 

Rather than create a separate subcommittee, it was agreed the entire RCC should start thinking about the future of reference needs. 

 

4.       LexisNexis’ Academic Universe and Statistical Universe.  CUWL CDC has requested RCC review the strengths and weaknesses of LexisNexis’ Academic Universe and Statistical Universe for the purpose of recommending renewal or non-renewal of these resources (subscriptions expire J30 June).  Anne and Ella volunteered to coordinate review of Statistical Universe.  Cindy and Barbara will coordinate review of Academic Universe.  Paul will send the database usage statistics to the RCC listserv.

Brief discussion:  (pro) Both Academic Universe and Statistical Universe contain information that is not available anywhere else; Statistical Universe is a valuable access point to federal document collections.    (con)  The products are difficult to search; Academic Universe full-text is HTML and not the PDF; SFX/MetaLib is not yet linking directly to Lexis products at the article/piece level.

Estimated 2005/06 renewal pricing is $232,000 for Academic Universe and $54,000 for Statistical Universe (base edition with ASI-only).    Results from the Spring 2004 vote to renew: Statistical: 8-renew; 6-cancel and Academic: 13-renew; 1-cancel..

5.       General Discussion Topics

 

Reference Desk Scheduling—Discussion of reference desk staffing patterns at member libraries, including number of continuous hours per staff and summer scheduling changes.  Most of those who have staff badges include first name only.  Cordless telephones and Family Band radios are used in many libraries, to allow staff to help users throughout the building.  Jana and others will share via the listserv specific brands with which they’ve had success in multi-storied buildings.

 

Scheduling Software – Discussion of methods and systems currently used to keep track of desk schedules and room requests.  Members are primarily using calendar software (e.g., Oracle, GroupWise) to input individual schedules and reservations.  Scheduling software exists for other professions and systems that might allow desk schedules to be generated based on specific requirements (e.g., staff with training in a certain area) as well as availability.  Linda will post to the listserv names of some scheduling software products.

 

Discussion topics held over for future meetings:

 

• Specialized print indexes-to keep or not to keep.

 

• LibQUAL+ ™ survey results as an evaluation of reference service.

 

• How to keep reference [print] collections up-to-date as vital resources in academic communities.

 

• Distance education impact on reference service.

 

• Reference’s potential role in new student academic orientation programs.

 

• Marketing the library in this world of Google and remote access.

 

 

The next meeting will be via WisLine teleconference on Thursday, 3 March; 1:00-3:00PM.  The meeting was adjourned at 2:56 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Linda A. Kopecky