The Reference Librarian

ISSN: 0276-3877 (Print) 1541-1117 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wref20

Do We Still Need Reference Services in the Age of

Google and Wikipedia?

Stephen P. Buss

To cite this article: Stephen P. Buss (2016) Do We Still Need Reference Services
in the Age of Google and Wikipedia?, The Reference Librarian, 57:4, 265-271, DOI:
10.1080/02763877.2015.1134377

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2015.1134377

Published online: 23 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4023

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wref20
THE REFERENCE LIBRARIAN
2016, VOL. 57, NO. 4, 265–271
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2015.1134377

Do We Still Need Reference Services in the Age of Google

and Wikipedia?
Stephen P. Buss
Joseph W. England Library, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
With the continuing development of web resources and academic libraries; reference
Internet search utilities, the role of reference services is chan- desk; reference models;
ging in the modern library. Traditional ready reference is in reference services; research
services
decline, but the need for broad-based research support will
continue for the foreseeable future. As librarians adapt to the
evolving research environment, libraries are experimenting
with alternative models of reference services. Far-reaching
calls to adopt one model or abandon another, such as the
traditional reference desk, are off target given that each library
must adapt to its own local situation and determine how best
to serve its constituents.

Introduction
The question of whether reference services comprise an essential or even
necessary component of the librarian’s repertoire has received increased
attention in the past decade. As the Internet has blossomed into Web 2.0
and search engines such as Google have hit their stride, many people both
within and outside the profession have questioned whether we still need
reference services. As Scott Kennedy (2011) intimates by titling an article
“Farewell to the Reference Librarian,” the profession is experiencing dramatic
shifts underscored by altered titles, new positions, and re-envisioned library
spaces. These shifts are generating anxiety for many librarians, in part
because reference service has long been viewed as essential to what a librarian
is and does. When observers question the need for reference services going
forward, they are discussing not merely the merits of a particular tool or
information format but rather the future role of librarians as professionals.
Yet, before one can answer whether reference services are still needed, it
may be helpful to define exactly what is meant by reference. The Reference
and User Services Association approved new definitions of both reference
transactions and reference work in 2008. Reference transactions are defined as
follows:

CONTACT Stephen P. Buss, s.buss@usciences.edu Joseph W. England Library, Department of Information

Science, 600 S. 43rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Published with license by Taylor & Francis. © Stephen P. Buss
266 S. P. BUSS

Information consultations in which library staff recommend, interpret, evaluate,

and/or use information resources to help others to meet particular information
needs. Reference transactions do not include formal instruction or exchanges that
provide assistance with locations, schedules, equipment, supplies, or policy
statements. (Reference and User Services Association, 2008)

Reference work is defined more broadly, as “reference transactions and

other activities that involve the creation, management, and assessment of
information or research resources, tools, and services” (Reference and User
Services Association, 2008). Both of these terms invoke a variety of user
services, not just factual reference transactions like identifying the capital of
Moldova. Indeed, our users seem to understand that reference deals with
much more than just direct, informational queries. O’Neill and Guilfoyle
(2015) report that when the Regis University library asked its community
what reference meant to them, the top responses were “research” and “help.”
Ronald Solorzano (2013) notes that reference work is formed of several
interlocking components, including information provision, instruction, and
research guidance.
Thus, when questioning whether reference services have a place in the
modern library, it is important to take a broad view of the question. If
narrowly construed to “information provision,” then perhaps one could
argue credibly that reference services are no longer needed. After all, most
factual questions can be answered with a quick Google search or a dip into a
database. However, not all research questions fall into this category. Many
information needs require instruction and guidance from a professional
librarian, such as formulating a research strategy or choosing the appropriate
databases to use for a literature review. Even “factual” questions may benefit
from a librarian’s guiding hand given that many users do not understand the
finer points of Google Scholar or the advanced features of search engines.
Thus, when we account for the totality of modern reference services and the
complex nature of users’ information needs, it becomes evident that
reference is as vital today as it ever was in preceding generations.

Some perspectives from the field

To illustrate the necessity of retaining reference services, it may be profitable
to draw from current examples in the field. At the University of the Sciences
in Philadelphia (USciences), reference service is a shared responsibility of all
the librarians at the J.W. England Library. Although the library has
experienced a decline in reference transactions over the past 5 years, the
ratio of questions across different categories has remained fairly constant. For
example, approximately 44% of the questions received are brief reference
questions, requiring less than 10 min to answer. Although other writers have
posited that the number of brief reference questions would decline over time
 THE REFERENCE LIBRARIAN 267

in relation to longer consultations, that has not been the experience at

USciences. This scenario may be a byproduct of our specialized focus as a
small health sciences library with an historical focus on pharmacy education.
Many of our factual questions deal with pharmaceuticals and drug pricing
information, data points that are often straightforward to locate given the
correct tools but that are not commonly found on the open web. In addition,
some queries that could potentially be answered using the Internet are much
quicker to address using the library’s databases. For example, one recent
question dealt with the brand names used by a certain class of drugs in ten
different countries. These data might theoretically be retrievable through an
extensive web search, but it was much more efficient to use the library’s
specialized resources in this case.
USciences librarians also work with students and other campus
constituents to perform longer “research consultations” of the type currently
much-discussed in the library and information science literature. Similar to
information science professionals across the country, our librarians meet
with undergraduate students to help them find resources for their term
papers and to point out the best databases to use for finding relevant
scholarly output. Other inquiries invoke the use of the library’s special
collections and the university archives and, by their nature, necessitate
librarian intermediation. Several students recently decided to conduct
research on the first women to attend the University of the Sciences (then
Philadelphia College of Pharmacy) and spent several hours poring over
documents from the archival collections. These examples all point to the
ongoing importance of reference services in today’s library. Although some
believe that all needed information can be found on the Internet, that is not
always the case. Even when the information resides on the web, often
portions are tucked away in hard-to-find places, where the advice and
guidance of a librarian can be of vital importance for the information seeker.

Trends in reference services

Much has been written in the library and information science literature about
the declining use of reference services over the past three decades. In 2008,
the American Library Association released figures that showed a 50% decline
in reference transactions in academic libraries during the preceding 15 years.
In 1994, there were 111,649,668 transactions compared with 56,148,040
transactions in 2008 (American Library Association, Office for Research &
Statistics, 2008). To further examine this trend, Miles (2013) conducted a
survey of academic librarians at small to medium-sized institutions to see
whether their experiences coincided with the trend identified by the
American Library Association. In the course of his survey, Miles learned
that 66.4% of his respondents retained traditional services with reference
268 S. P. BUSS

desks and, of those, 77.46% felt that the number of reference transactions had
been stable or had risen over the preceding 2 years. Miles thus found a
population of libraries whose statistics seemingly contradict the overall trend
observed for academic libraries. One possible hypothesis for this
contradiction is that after a long, steady decline, reference transactions are
now bottoming out and stabilizing at a new normal. Now that many of the
quick, ready reference questions have shifted online, what remains is a stable
core of true research inquiries that will remain steady from year to year. Of
course, it will be intriguing to see whether transaction statistics bear out this
hypothesis as we approach the year 2020.
At the J.W. England Library, recent reference statistics more closely
resemble the nationwide trend observed by the American Library
Association. From 2011 through 2014, the number of reference transactions
declined from 754 to 369 per year. It is curious, however, that there was an
uptick in 2015 to 421 transactions. When looking at these types of statistics,
it is important to keep in mind that there will naturally be some variation
from year to year based on changing user needs and alterations in the
library’s own circumstances. For example, reference work might spike in
years where first-year writing courses focus more on research than on
crafting argument papers. Transactions might also be affected by the quality
of instruction provided by librarians and by course instructors. Another issue
to consider is the library’s own resources. During 2013–2014, the J.W.
England Library had a vacant position for much of the year, which made it
difficult to staff service points to the same extent as in prior years.
A larger question, however, is how can librarians use these statistics to
improve the services they provide? Keeping track of reference transactions
and other numerical data is fine, but they have no real importance unless we
can use the data to make decisions. Some individuals look at declines in
reference traffic and declare that reference as a professional service is
outmoded and superfluous. When so much information is available online,
why do we need a librarian to intermediate and get in the way? The
aforementioned American Library Association data certainly lend credence
to this view, although the experiences of Miles and other librarians should
give pause to anyone seriously advocating the total abandonment of reference
services in academic, public, or special libraries.
A more reasonable approach is to evolve reference services, not to
abandon them. This is the only serious approach, and any calls for wholesale
dissolution of reference should be viewed as mere hyperbole. More
appropriately, librarians should adjust their hours, service points, and
reference philosophies to meet the needs of specific constituents. Kennedy
(2011) discusses the University of Connecticut’s experience in reenvisioning
the library’s reference space as a learning commons and moving its print
collection into the general stacks. Although his article is titled “Farewell to
 THE REFERENCE LIBRARIAN 269

the Reference Librarian,” the approach he details is less iconoclastic than it

seems. He discusses how the library administration divided the reference
librarians into two teams with new titles and refined their foci to be more
responsive to user needs. Regis University likewise renamed its reference
professionals as “Research & Instruction Librarians” and renamed the
reference desk as the “Research Help” desk to more closely align signage
with users’ understanding (O’Neill & Guilfoyle, 2015).
Libraries nationwide have also diversified their approach to reference as
place. As Kilzer (2011) discusses, the concept of “reference as place” has been
expanding into the digital sphere now that libraries commonly supplement
or replace their physical service points with virtual real estate. She argued
that the adoption of virtual reference points on the library’s website and on
mobile platforms should be seen as enhancing rather than diminishing the
space occupied by reference within the library environment. With so many
institutions adding chat reference, LibAnswers, and similar services, it seems
almost axiomatic that a modern library will have multiple service points
where patrons can receive assistance with their inquiries. The exact mixture
of physical-to-digital presences of course varies with each local context, but
some common approaches have emerged. One of these approaches is known
as “tiered reference” where physical library services (reference, circulation,
reserves, information technology help) are consolidated into one or two
desks operated largely by students and paraprofessionals, with librarians on
call to answer more complicated research questions. Other approaches
include roving reference and embedded librarianship, where librarians are
asked to move about the library or to hold office hours at their constituents’
locations, respectively. Gibson and Mandernach (2013) describe these new
approaches to reference as possible components of a model of “research
services,” which combines traditional reference activities with more colla-
borative efforts such as data curation services and assistance with grants. All
in all, the exact approach to reference will vary depending on the size and
type of library and the resources available to the organization. What is
undeniable is that reference has become a multimodal service as librarians
seek to meet the needs of users both within and outside the building and give
them multiple options for meeting their information needs.
What, then, should become of the reference desk? Members of the
profession have been debating this question for 30 years, and the literature
on the topic is too voluminous to fully recapitulate here. Suffice to say that
some librarians have loudly declared that the reference desk should disap-
pear, and others have just as loudly replied that the desk remains a vital part
of the library’s infrastructure. Steven Bell and Sarah Watstein famously
debated this point in 2007 at Columbia University. The central contention
of “anti-deskers” is that because print reference collections have dwindled
and so much knowledge is available online, library users no longer need a
270 S. P. BUSS

central gatekeeper to help them find factual information. Rather, the role of
librarians is to assist with more complex inquiries and guide patrons through
their research in longer consultations, which is more appropriately done in
offices than at a service desk. “Pro-deskers” would argue that there is a time
and a place for many types of reference questions and an open desk staffed
by librarians can still be a vital part of the library floorplan.
At University of the Sciences, the reference desk is still very much a part of
the day to day life in the J.W. England Library. Although we have chat
reference, LibAnswers, consultations by appointment, and other options,
72% of the reference transactions still take place at the desk. For us the
desk serves multiple functions, aside from the strict answering of reference
inquiries. It also serves as a place where librarians can greet visiting alumni
and faculty members and back up other library units on the main floor. Since
each of the librarians can remote into his or her personal computer from the
reference terminal, it is also easy to multi-task during times when the floor is
less busy.
Overall, what each library chooses to do with the reference desk is a local
decision, and far-reaching prognostications on one side or the other really
have no merit. At those institutions where there is sufficient staff to operate a
consolidated service point while librarians are on call or embedded in the
field, eliminating a standalone desk may make sense. In other institutions
with high in-person traffic or users who expect immediate, serendipitous
service, it might be important to retain the reference desk. In either case,
removing or retaining the physical location does not necessarily speak to the
importance of reference service itself. As Steven Bell writes, “eliminating or
de-emphasizing the desk does not eliminate the service” (Watstein & Bell,
2008, p. 16). Librarians can and should discuss the merits of specific incarna-
tions of the library as place, but the niceties are of little importance against
the larger goal of ensuring that reference services meet our users’ needs.

Conclusion
At the end of the day, librarians can rest easy knowing that users will
continue to rely on our professional expertise for the foreseeable future.
For as much as students and community members can determine the identity
of the 22nd president with a quick Google search, they still face quandaries
like finding retrospective financial ratios for the pharmaceutical industry or
determining whether a particular open-access journal is worth reading or
publishing in. Certain questions require discretion, judgement, and advanced
techniques, and that’s where librarians come in. Although internet tools and
other resources will continue to grow in capability, there will always be new
problems and new complexities to arise that require the expertise of an
information professional. The number of straightforward, factual questions
 THE REFERENCE LIBRARIAN 271

may continue to decline, but that’s okay. Librarians are not defined by a
particular type of question or a particular locus of activity. We are defined by
an ethos of service, of collaboration and partnership, and will continue to
assist our constituents in solving their information needs. The particular
questions we face and the answers we uncover will change from age to age.
As long as people continue to be curious about their surroundings and seek
to create a better world, there will always be deficits between the information
on hand and the information required. Librarians, with our unique skills and
professional sensibilities, will be there to bridge the gulf one user at a time.

References
American Library Association, Office for Research & Statistics (2008). Academic libraries in
the United States—Statistical trends. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/research/library
stats/academic/academiclibraries
Gibson, C., & Mandernach, M. (2013). Reference service at an inflection point: Transformations
in academic libraries. Paper presented at the 2013 Association of College & Research Libraries
Conference, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/acrl/conferences/2013/
papers
Kennedy, S. (2011). Farewell to the reference librarian. Journal of Library Administration, 51
(4), 319–325. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.556954
Kilzer, R. (2011). Reference as service, reference as place: A view of reference in the academic
library. The Reference Librarian, 52(4), 291–299. doi:10.1080/02763877.2011.588539
Miles, D. B. (2013). Shall we get rid of the reference desk? Reference & User Services
Quarterly, 52(4), 320–333. Retrieved from https://journals.ala.org/rusq/article/viewFile/
2899/2972
O’Neill, K. L., & Guilfoyle, B. A. (2015). Sign, sign, everywhere a sign: What does “Reference”
mean to academic library users? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(4), 386–393.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.007
Reference and User Services Association. (2008). Definitions of Reference. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/rusa/resources/guidelines/definitionsreference
Solorzano, R. M. (2013). Adding value at the desk: How technology and user expectations are
changing reference work. The Reference Librarian, 54(2), 89–102. doi:10.1080/02763877.
2013.755398
Watstein, S. B., & Bell, S. J. (2008). Is there a future for the reference desk? A point-counterpoint
discussion. The Reference Librarian, 49(1), 1–20. doi:10.1080/02763870802103258