Core Competency I.

Use service concepts, principles and techniques that facilitate

information access, relevance, and accuracy for individuals or groups of users.

ReIerence services are at the core oI the Library and InIormation Science
ProIession. Without ReIerence Services, the public library could be seen simply as a
building where books are available to check out. While there`s nothing wrong with a
patron coming to the library, knowing what book they want to check out and then doing
so, that type oI transaction skims the surIace oI what libraries and inIormation
organizations can provide.
Just as a library without librarians is nothing more than a house oI materials, a
librarian without a library, or patrons, is just someone who always knows how to Iind
what s/he is looking Ior. Most Library and InIormation ProIessionals (LIPs) that I have
encountered would be deeply unsatisIied with such a liIe. We desire not just to know how
to Iind materials we personally are in search oI but we want to help others Iind whatever
they are searching Ior, as well.
InIormation and good intentions alone, however, do not constitute an eIIective
LIP. Certain methods can be employed to eIIect positive outcomes Irom inIormation
seeking patrons. RUSA, the ReIerence and User Services Association (a division oI the
American Library Association), provides an 'authoritative document oIIering suggested
levels oI perIormance or adequacy (RUSA, 2011). The topics RUSA covers are so
exhaustive, in Iact, that it would be impossible to cover everything RUSA does in this
paper. Collection Development, Electronic Services, Genealogy, History, InterLibrary
Loan, ReIerence and InIormation Services, and User Populations are all addressed on the
RUSA website. For the purposes oI this Competency, the RUSA guidelines regarding
ReIerence and InIormation services are particularly noteworthy.
RUSA s 'Guidelines Ior Behavioral PerIormance oI ReIerence and InIormation
Service Providers oIIers a variety oI methods Ior making patrons Ieel comIortable and
welcome asking a LIP Ior help. These are broken down into Iive categories:
Approachability, Interest, Listening/Inquiring, Searching and Follow-up. The standards
outlined Iocus on enhancing the user`s experience (as opposed to the user`s results). Even
the section on Searching isn`t bogged down in an array oI methods or tools to use when
searching, but is more Iocused on ensuring a patron Ieels that his or her question has been
completely addressed and all the options Ior exploring that inquiry have been pursued.
All oI the guidelines in RUSA`s 'Guidelines Ior Behavioral PerIormance oI ReIerence
and InIormation Service Providers are useIul when conducting a reIerence interview
the most signiIicant part oI any reIerence interaction.

vidence #1: The Reference Interview--Above All lse
The Iirst piece oI evidence I am submitting Ior this Competency is a response
paper I wrote in LIBR 210, Reference and Information Services. It is a response to Nora
WikoII`s 2008 article, Reference transaction handoffs. Factors affecting the transition
from chat to email. Although WikoII`s piece notes the respective strengths and
weaknesses oI digital and Iace-to-Iace reIerence service, she also does a wonderIul job oI
highlighting the importance oI the reIerence interview in either setting. I`m including this
short paper and my response because it was in reading this article that I really began to
understand the importance oI the reIerence interview. Reading this paper in retrospect,
I`m slightly embarrassed by how novel I Iound some oI the points WikoII made. At the
same time, I appreciate that she articulated ideas that I was aware oI through my work on
the ReIerence Desk at the Mill Valley Public Library (MVPL) but hadn`t really thought
to put a name to. For example, in the paper I note that WikoII is concerned with the
'completeness oI a reIerence interview. She examined how and why reIerence
'transactions ended prematurely. As I illustrate in my response to her article, WikoII`s
piece helped me solidiIy some oI the concepts I had read about and (unknowingly) been
engaging in on the ReIerence Desk.
DO YOU NEED TO CHARACTERIZE YOUR REPSONSE HERE? I.E.
'MY REPSONSE FOCUS ON.

vidence #2: Reference Interview Analysis
The second piece oI evidence I am submitting was also written in LIBR 210,
Reference and Information Services. Here, I provide a more in-depth examination oI
reIerence interviews: I assess the experiences I had with three diIIerent librarians and
compare my experience to RUSA`s 'Guidelines Ior Behavioral PerIormance oI
ReIerence and InIormation Service Providers. The goal oI the assignment was to assess
our experiences oI two diIIerent reIerence transactions, using the RUSA guidelines to
illustrate what was successIul about the interviews and what wasn`t. One oI the reIerence
transactions was a Iace-to-Iace interview and the other was a digital reIerence transaction
(in my case, I participated in two live chat reIerence transactions).
This assignment was enlightening in a variety oI ways. I realized it had been a
Iew years since I had gone to the library seeking inIormationI had gotten used to being
the LIP and conducting reIerence interviews. Coming to a LIP with inIormation I
genuinely wanted to Iind (the Iinal part oI the assignment, and not relevant to this
Competency, was to create a PathIinder based on the inIormation we received during our
reIerence transactions). Being on 'the other side oI the desk allowed me to understand
not just how to Iollow the RUSA guidelines, but also to appreciate, Irom the patron`s
perspective, the value oI the guidelines, as well.
In addition to experiencing the patron`s point oI view, the ReIerence Interview
Analysis Assignment was also helpIul in highlighting the diIIerences between a virtual
reIerence transaction and a Iace-to-Iace reIerence transaction. As a Young Adult
Librarian, I have Iound that many teens are more comIortable emailing questions than
asking them Iace-to-Iace, so it was especially helpIul Ior me to experience what worked
and what didn`t work when engaging in a digital reIerence interview.

vidence #3: mail Reference Transaction
I am including an email correspondence as my third piece oI evidence Ior this
Competency. Although this is a relatively straightIorward query, it is representative oI the
kind oI email queries received at the ReIerence Desk. A short or straightIorward
reIerence transaction still demands that the LIP Iollow RUSA`s guidelines. In my
correspondence with the patron I tried to practice the essential tools oI a successIul
reIerence interview: neutral questioning, sensitivity, patience and a desire to help (Bopp
& Smith, 2001. P. 51, 56). I believe, based on the patron`s response, that she Ielt this was
a successIul reIerence transaction. It is worth noting that some patrons will not Ieel as
though the reIerence transaction is successIul, even iI the LIP has Iollowed the RUSA
guidelines and provided as much inIormation as he or she is able. In these cases, it is best
to reIer the patron to another organization or institution, iI one exists, that might be able
to more eIIectively help with the patron`s query.

Conclusion
My work at SJSU has provided me with myriad tools Ior and academic
understanding oI the applications and approaches behind the service concepts, principles
and techniques that Iacilitate inIormation access, relevance, and accuracy. My work in
LIB210, combined with a variety oI other coursework, has given me the depth oI
background needed to serve patrons in this regard. On a more practical level, my
proIessional work as a librarian at MVPL who spends many hours over the years on the
ReIerence Desk, I have developed and honed skills in this area that I will continue to
work on reIining throughout my career as an LIP.
References
Bopp, R. E., & Smith, L. C. (2001). Reference and information services. An introduction.
(3rd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited
RUSA (2011). RUSA guidelines. Retrieved Irom
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/resources/guidelines/