Toward sustaining professional development: Identifying essential competencies for chat reference service

Library & Information Science Research 30 (2008) 298–311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Library & Information Science Research

Toward sustaining professional development: Identifying essential competencies forchat reference service

Lili LuoSchool of Library and Information Science, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192, USA

E-mail address: [email protected].

0740-8188/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.lisr.2008.02.009

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Available online 16 October 2008
This study identifies the esreference personnel. A surcompetencies reported in tresults. The investigated creference competencies, re

sential chat reference competencies to enhance the professional preparation ofvey was conducted to examine practitioners' perceptions of chat referencehe literature. A prioritized competency list was produced based on the surveyompetencies could be divided into four categories: media-independent coreference competencies highlighted in the context of chat reference, reference

competencies specific to chat reference, and reference competencies not as important in chat reference.Competencies in the first three categories received ratings higher than 5.5 (out of 7) and can be defined asthe essential competencies requisite for chat reference practice. Findings from this study can be used as thebasis to design and implement training and education programs to enhance the professional preparation ofchat reference librarians.

© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Competencies are defined by Griffiths and King (1986) as acombination of knowledge, skill and attitude. They are anindispensable component in the advancement of librarianship(Jones, 2003). The need for updated competencies arises constantlyfrom the ever-changing library landscape; library reference workhas encountered many changes in the past several years. Chatreference, the human-intermediated reference service provided viaonline real-time chat, has received attention from both researchersand practitioners. In hopes of enhancing the professional develop-ment of reference personnel and better preparing them for theincreasingly popular chat reference service, this article presents astudy that explores essential competencies required to practice chatreference.

The fundamental principle of reference services stays the sameacross all media—assisting users in fulfilling their information needs.But when it comes to the process of how reference services areconducted, chat reference has set itself apart from referenceencounters via other media. In her study comparing face-to-face,email, and chat reference services, Ford (2002) listed the distin-guishing features of the three services and concluded that the mediahave a significant impact on reference service. She suggested thatlibrarians take media-specific differences into serious considerationwhen conducting library reference services. This conclusionacknowledges the contextual differences associated with reference

l rights reserved.

media and warrants a closer examination of reference competenciesin different venues. General reference competencies need to bescrutinized closely from a media-specific perspective. The need todetermine new competencies for a particular reference venue, suchas chat, must be recognized as well.

In discussing the research agenda for digital reference, Lankes(2004) proposed four significant conceptual lenses to represent “aset of clear and pressing issues in digital reference (as expressed byresearchers and the practice community)” and “broad concernsencompassing a large potential audience of scholars, fundinginstitutions, and practitioners”(p. 306). One of the four lenses is“behavior.” Professional behavior objectives are embodied incompetencies and provide performance guidelines for digitalreference. They also constitute the basis for determining trainingand education to achieve expected performance and for establishingcriteria to assess professional performance. Thus, it is critical toidentify professional competencies, devise appropriate educationand training programs to deliver them, and incorporate them inservice provision.

2. Problem statement

Determining competencies usually undergoes two stages: identi-fication and validation (Griffiths and King, 1986). Current referenceliterature abounds with studies that seek to identify chat referencecompetencies by various means, such as brainstorming by experts,reviewing the literature, and eliciting input from experiencedlibrarians. However, no research has been conducted to date onvalidating competencies identified from various sources in terms oftheir value to chat reference practice. In the hope of filling this gap in

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2008.02.009

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07408188

299L. Luo / Library & Information Science Research 30 (2008) 298–311

chat reference literature, the study seeks to answer the followingquestions:

1. What are the essential competencies that librarians need tomaster in order to provide chat reference service?

2. How do contextual variables associated with chat reference,such as length of chat reference experience, level of comfortwith chat reference, status of professional degree, work setting,chat reference servicemode and provision venue, correlate withchat reference competencies?

Those competency identification efforts have laid the groundworkfor chat reference competency research. However, most of themwereassociated with a particular project, such as a stand-alone chatreference service provided at an academic/public library or a chatreference consortium participated by a variety of libraries. As withface-to-face reference service, multiple variables can affect thedelivery of chat reference service, including work setting (e.g., public,academic, health science library); provision venue (e.g., instantmessengers, commercial chat software); and service mode (e.g.,stand-alone service, collaborative consortium). These contextualvariables may require different competencies. For example, membersof a collaborative chat reference network may not value the samecompetencies as the staff of a stand-alone service. Understanding howcompetency needs vary in different chat reference environments willproduce a contextualized view of chat reference competencies andinform professional performance in a variety of contexts. However, theexisting literature is primarily descriptive in nature and focuses onindividual cases. It lacks exploratory endeavors to examine therelationship between contextual variables and chat reference compe-tencies. Without considering the effects of the different dimensions, amore thorough understanding of chat reference competencies cannotbe achieved.

A few case-independent efforts undertaken by professionalorganizations or research initiatives (Digital Reference EducationInitiative, 2004; Reference and User Services Association [RUSA],2004b) have attempted to generate competency statements thatindicate behavioral objectives for chat reference librarians in general.However, methods employed in these efforts were either committeebrainstorming or literature reviews; no empirical research wasinvolved. Whether or not these competency statements are arepresentative list of chat reference competencies, and whether ornot they are of equal importance to the practice of chat reference, arequestions left unanswered.

The ultimate goal of competency development is to facilitatetraining/education and job performance assessment, with the ideathat scarce resources should be allocated to top items on aprioritized competency list. If the research on chat referencecompetencies does not proceed from the identification stage towardthe validation stage, training and education requirements cannot befully established. Furthermore, the professional performance ofreference personnel cannot be properly assessed. Recognizing thevoid in the literature, the study intends to fill the blank byadvancing the research beyond project-specific efforts, conducting acompetency validation study for general chat reference practice, andproducing a prioritized list of competencies applicable in multiplechat reference contexts.

3. Literature review

3.1. General reference competencies

Library reference is a continually evolving field. The constantadvancement of technologies and the social and economical transfor-mation thus incurred have impacted the development of libraryreference services in a great many ways. Over the past half a century,library reference has undergone a series of changes brought by the

advent of technologies. It has grown from print resource-orientedservices limited to a certain physical space to a diversified serviceportfolio that can reach more people with more resources and fewerrestrictions on time and space (Luo, 2007a). The library world haswitnessed the dramatic increase in the availability and accessibility ofelectronic resources and the unprecedented expansion of the mediathrough which reference services are provided.

These changes undoubtedly respond well to the evolving needs ofuser communities. At the same time, they also pose new challenges tothe work environment and require reference staff to have thenecessary knowledge and skills to stay current as informationprofessionals. Thus, the need for reference staff to acquire newcompetencies inevitably arises every time the reference field isreshaped by technological progress.

The reference literature abounds with efforts seeking to identifycompetencies requisite for providing reference service in light ofchanges in technology. From the late 1970s to the mid 1980s,libraries embraced the development of hard disc storage systemsand started offering online searches via accessing bibliographicdatabases from telecommunicating terminals. Entering the era ofelectronic online searching, reference staff was expected to be well-equipped with knowledge and skills to process online informationretrieval requests. Many researchers noticed the emerging needs forupdated reference competencies and contributed to the literature inthis regard. Since the late 1980s, mass storage and networkingtechnologies brought CD-ROMs and the Internet to libraries, andmore importantly, drove reference service to a critical point ofchange. Reference librarians no longer assumed the exclusive role of“online searcher,” and electronic information searching becameavailable to all end-users. Thus, new responsibilities occurred andreference staff was expected to master the competencies needed tokeep abreast of the increasingly service-oriented reference work.Once again, the needs for updated reference competencies wereacknowledged in the literature. The advent of another technologicalbreakthrough in the mid 1990s 173–the World Wide Web–spawnedexponential growth of remotely accessible information and openedthe public's eyes to the volume of information in a way thattraditional library services have never managed. The impact of theWeb on reference work motivated a new wave of studies to examinecompetencies required of reference librarians in the ever-more-complex information world.

The reference competencies identified in the literature can begrouped into the following areas:

• Ability to conduct an effective reference interview (Auster andChan, 2003; Bauner, 1990; Buttlar and Du Mont, 1989; Griffithsand King, 1986; Massey-Burzio, 1991; Nitecki, 1984; Nofsinger,1999; Reference and User Services Association, 2003; Waltersand Barnes, 1985);

• Knowledge of referral methods and techniques (Griffiths and King,1986; Reference and User Services Association, 2003; Waltersand Barnes, 1985);

• Knowledge of standard print and electronic sources and the primarysubject field of users served (Auster and Chan, 2003; Bauner, 1990;Buttlar and Du Mont, 1989; Griffiths and King, 1986; Kong, 1996;Smith et al., 1984; Nitecki, 1984; Nofsinger, 1999; Reference andUser Services Association, 2003; Sherrer, 1996; Stafford, andSerban, 1990);

• Communication and interpersonal skills (Auster and Chan, 2003;Bauner, 1990; Buttlar and Du Mont, 1989; Griffiths and King,1986; Kong, 1996; Smith et al., 1984; Nitecki, 1984; Nofsinger,1999; Reference and User Services Association, 2003; Sherrer,1996; Stafford, and Serban, 1990);

• Technological skills (Auster and Chan, 2003; Bauner, 1990; Kong,1996; Massey-Burzio, 1991; Nofsinger, 1999; Reference and UserServices Association, 2003; Stafford and Serban, 1990);

300 L. Luo / Library & Information Science Research 30 (2008) 298–311

• Instructional skills (Auster and Chan, 2003; Bauner, 1990; Nitecki,1984; Reference and User Services Association, 2003; Staffordand Serban, 1990; Virginia, 1991; Walters and Barnes, 1985);

• Ability to apply library policies and procedures (Auster and Chan,2003; Bauner, 1990; Reference and User Services Association,2003; Walters and Barnes, 1985);

• Personal traits or attributes (Auster and Chan, 2003; Griffithsand King, 1986; Reference and User Services Association, 2003;Sherrer, 1996);

• Analytic and critical thinking skills (Auster and Chan, 2003; Kong,1996; Nofsinger, 1999; Reference and User Services Association,2003; Sherrer, 1996);

• Management and supervisory skills (Auster and Chan, 2003;Massey-Burzio, 1991; Nitecki, 1984; Nofsinger, 1999; Referenceand User Services Association, 2003; Sherrer, 1996); and

• Commitment to user services (Griffiths and King, 1986; Nofsinger,1999; Reference and User Services Association, 2003; Sherrer,1996).

These competencies were general reference competencies whereno distinctions were made between different reference media. In late1990s, as the popularity of the Web became deeper and wider, a newreference service provision venue–online real-time chat referenceservice–was nurtured and adopted by a large number of libraries. Thecompetency literature then began to reflect a special focus on chatreference, indicating common concerns and interests in better pre-paring librarians for providing chat reference service.

3.2. Chat reference competencies

Literature on chat reference competencies can be grouped into fourmain categories:

1. Checklists of competencies created by individual projects toserve as the basis for training or education (Florida StateUniversity Ask a Librarian, 2004; Harris, 2004; Hirko and Ross,2004; Kawakami and Swartz, 2003;Maryland AskUsNow, 2003;Ontario Collaborative Virtual Reference Project, 2004; Q and ANJ.org, 2004; Salem et al., 2004; Tucker, 2004);

2. Competency statements developed by professional organiza-tions or research initiatives in the attempt to outline thecompetency areas for chat reference (Digital Reference Educa-tion Initiative, 2004; Reference and User Services Association,2004a, 2004b);

3. Discussions of competencies in monographs on implementingand managing chat reference service (Coffman, 2003; Meolaand Stormont, 2002; Ronan, 2003); and

4. Review of chat reference competencies reported in theliterature (Luo, 2007b).

The chat reference competencies identified in the above literaturemostly overlap with the general reference competencies, but theyemphasize the chat medium. However, most of the chat referencecompetency studies were restricted to a certain context. They lackedany effort to examine the relative value of each identified competencyto chat reference practice. Thus, questions such as which competen-cies remain critical in chat reference and which are no longerimportant cannot be fully answered.

4. Procedures

4.1. Study population

The study population included all chat reference practitioners—anyone who has experience working with chat reference service.Librarians who only provide email reference service were excludedfrom the study. People using chat communication applications for

purposes other than providing reference services were excluded fromthe study as well.

Among all library professionals, chat reference practitioners havethe most knowledge of and experience with chat reference. The studyaimed at eliciting input from librarians or library staff regarding themost essential competencies for chat reference. Conducting the studyamong chat reference practitioners was expected to result in the mostrelevant and valid responses for the topic.

4.2. Sampling design

Non-probability sampling techniques were used in this studybecause it is nearly impossible to identify individual members of thepopulation of chat reference practitioners. There are no up-to-datedirectories or indexes that keep track of libraries offering chat referenceservice. Thus, two non-probability sampling techniques–judgmentalsampling and snowball sampling–were used to select study subjects.

Judgmental sampling is a type of non-probability sampling inwhich the units to be observed are selected on the basis of theresearcher's judgment about which ones will be the most useful orrepresentative (Babbie, 2006). The researcher made an educatedjudgment that chat reference practitioners were likely to be membersof listservs related to reference in general and digital reference inparticular. A total number of eleven such listservs were identified, andsubjects of the study were selected from the listserv subscribers:

• Listservs for digital reference librarians: DIG_REF andlivereference

• Listservs for electronic resource librarians: ERIL-L• Listservs for discussions of library technology issues : LIS-Scitecand STS-L

• Listservs for reference librarians in general : publib, libref-l, LIS-LINK, Buslib-L, ili-l and Govdoc-L

Snowball sampling is a non-probability samplingmethodwherebyeach subject studied is asked to suggest additional study subjects(Babbie, 2006). In this study, the listserv subscribers were asked toforward the survey questionnaire to other people they know whopracticed chat reference.

4.3. Survey questionnaire

The questions on the competency survey used in this study wereestablished based on an exhaustive literature review of digitalreference competencies. Respondents rated the chat referencecompetency items on the questionnaire in terms of their essential-ness. The questionnaire used a seven-point Likert scale (1: notimportant at all; 7: very important). The intermediate points werenot labeled; equal intervals could be assumed for the scale as only thetwo ends were anchored.

A total of 30 competencies under 8 areas were listed in thequestionnaire. Sincechat referencecompetencies reported in the literaturemostly overlap with general reference competencies, the surveyedcompetencies were more or less grouped according to the generalreference competencyareas. Theeight competencyareaswere “Masteryofbasic computer techniques,” “Familiaritywith chat referenceapplications,”“Reference interview skills,” “Online communication skills,” “Familiaritywith electronic resources,” “Instructional role,” “Ability to work underpressure,” and "Customer service mentality”.

Survey participants were asked to rate both the individualcompetencies and the competency areas. This allowed the researcherto examine the competencies at both the micro- and macro-level andobtain more informative results. At the end of each competency area,participants were asked to provide up to two additional competenciesthey considered important that were not included in the survey. Theirsuggestions served as a supplemental source of important chatreference competencies. In order to ensure the least variation


among participants' understanding of the competencies, the surveyincluded a definition for each competency area and elaborated oneach individual competency.

Demographic information of participants was collected as well.The demographic variables include:

• Chat reference experience: the number of years working withchat reference;

• Level of comfort in working with chat reference service;• Whether or not participants hold a professional degree in LIS;• Length of time since receiving professional LIS degree;• Provision venue: via IM/commercial chat software/home-grownsoftware;

• Work setting: academic/public/medical libraries, etc.;• Service mode: stand-alone service/collaborative consortium.

Once the questionnaire was established, a pilot test was conductedamong a convenience sample of four chat reference librarians. Theywere asked to think aloud when they completed the survey, and theirquestions and thoughts of the questionnaire were recorded in notes.The questionnaire was revised based on the feedback from the pilottest before it was released to the public.

4.4. Data collection

The survey was Web-based and published using surveymonkey.com, a commercial online survey service. It wasmade accessible to thecommunity of chat reference practitioners. The survey was notpassword protected, and each IP address was restricted to one surveysubmission only.

One concern with Web-based surveys is that the sample mightnot be representative due to the coverage bias caused by peoplewho do not have access to the Internet or choose not to access theInternet (Crawford, Couper and Lamias, 2001; Kaye and Johnson,

Table 1Responses to the demographic questions

1999). However, if the survey is targeted to specific populationswhere Internet access is extremely convenient and the Internet isheavily used, the coverage bias is likely to be less of a concern(Solomon, 2001). In this study, the survey population was librarianswho provide reference services through real-time Web-based chatsessions. Thus, it was safe to assume they did not have difficultyaccessing the Internet.

An invitation email was sent to the 11 listservs to which referencelibrarians are most likely to subscribe. The emails called for participa-tion and possible forwarding of this email to relevant people who arenot on the lists. About 2 weeks after the initial invitation message wassent, a follow-up message went out to the listservs remindinglibrarians of the survey in an attempt to elicit more participation.

Survey participants were provided an incentive—one of therespondents was randomly selected and $100 was donated in therespondent's name to his/her library.

4.5. Data analysis

Two kinds of data analysis methods – descriptive statisticalanalysis and inferential statistical analysis – were employed toscrutinize the responses.

5. Results

5.1. Demographics of respondents

A total of 597 chat reference practitioners responded to the survey.Table 1 presents a summary of responses to the demographicquestions.

The first demographic question asked for the length of time forwhich one had worked with chat reference. More than half of therespondents had 1 to 3 years of experience with chat; the number of


respondents with less than 1 year of experience and those with morethan 3 years of experience were more or less the same.

The next question was about respondents' comfort level with chatreference. They were asked to rate their level of comfort with chatreference service on a seven-point scale (1: not comfortable at all; 7: verycomfortable). Respondents' comfort level displayed a perfect lineartrend. The majority of the respondents (87.6%, n=597) reported acomfort level equal to or greater than five, which indicated that most ofthe respondents were fairly comfortable with chat reference.

Table 2The breakdown of competency ratings

The shaded area marks competencies with ratings lower than 5.5.

The shaded area marks competencies with ratings lower than 5.5

Information onwhether or not the respondents held a professionaldegree in LIS was also collected; 87.4% of the respondents had aMasterof Library Science (M. L. S) degree in the U.S; 1.8% had the equivalent ofa M.L.S from other countries, such as B.L.S in Australia and M.A. inLibrary Science in England; 1.3% had a certificate in LIS; 1.2% were LISstudents, and 7.6% did not have any degree in LIS.

A follow-up question asked about the length of time since therespondents received their degree. Of the 552 respondents whoreported having a LIS degree of some sort, 550 answered the follow-up

Table 3ANOVA results from the competency area “Mastery of basic computer techniques”

Competency or competency area Demographic variable f value p value Scheffe's test

Mastery of basic computertechniques (competency area)

Chat reference service mode 5.136 0.002 p=0.047Both collaborative network and stand-alone service (n=82) μ=6.10 σ=1.01Stand-alone service (n=214) μ=5.66 σ=1.34p=0.006Collaborative network (n=239) μ=6.06 σ=1.08Stand-alone service (n=214) μ=5.66 σ=1.34

Chat reference provision venue 3.63 0.003 p=0.006IM only (n=89) μ=5.44 σ=1.60Commercial chat software only (n=368) μ=6.01 σ=1.09

Work setting 2.867 0.009 p=0.009Academic library (n=403) μ=5.82 σ=1.23Public library (n=86) μ=6.35 σ=0.87

Typing proficiency Chat reference provision venue 2.708 0.02 p=0.049IM only (n=97) μ=5.04 σ=1.46Commercial chat software only (n=390) μ=5.48 σ=1.09

Mastery of keyboardshortcuts

Chat reference service mode 3.429 0.017 p=0.042Collaborative network (n=252) μ=4.16 σ=1.67Stand-alone service (n=228) μ=3.73 σ=1.64

Length of time since receivingprofessional LIS degree

3.872 0.009 p=0.021More than 7 years (n=287) μ=4.24 σ=1.654–7 years (n=106) μ=3.65 σ=1.57

Technical troubleshootingskills

Chat reference service mode 5.122 0.002 p=0.002Both collaborative network and stand-alone service (n=88) μ=5.26 σ=1.30Stand-alone service (n=230) μ=4.82 σ=1.40

Chat reference provision venue 4.206 0.001 p=0.046IM only (n=97) μ=4.28 σ=1.55Commercial chat software only (n=388) μ=4.83 σ=1.44p=0.028IM only (n=97) μ=4.28 σ=1.55Both IM and commercial chat software (n=76) μ=5.07 σ=1.44

Effective use of supporting tools(including both hardware andsoftware) for chat reference

Chat reference service mode 5.79 0.001 p=0.031Both collaborative network and stand-alone service” (n=88) μ=5.47 σ=1.35Stand-alone service( n=219) μ=4.92 σ=1.65p=0.0031Collaborative network (n=246) μ=5.32 σ=1.28Stand-alone service (n=219) μ=4.92 σ=1.65


question. More than half of the respondents had had the degree formore than 7 years; one-fifth of themhadhad it for 4 to 7 years; anotherone-fifth had had the degree for 1 to 3 years; and only 5% had had thedegree for less than 1 year. This suggested that most of the surveyparticipants were fairly experienced librarians.

Chat reference can beprovided through a number of differentways—via instant messengers, commercial software, or home-grown applica-tions. The majority of respondents (66.8%, n=597) of this survey staffedchat reference services based on commercial software only; 17.1% ofthem served chat reference via instant messengers only; 0.8% employedhome-grownapplications in their chat reference services; and the restofthe respondents provided chat reference via more than one venue.

Table 4ANOVA results from the competency area “Familiarity with chat reference applications”

Competency or competency area Demographic variable f value p value

Familiarity with chat referenceapplications (competency area)

Chat referenceservice mode

9.988 0.00002

Skillfully maneuvering features of chatsoftware or instant messenger toeffectively conduct a chat session


7.956 0.00003

Chat referenceprovision venue

4.726 0.0003

Ability to critically evaluate chat softwareor instant messenger in terms ofsupporting chat reference service


4.536 0.004

Chat reference is provided across a variety of libraries. Theresponses indicated that academic libraries (73.9%, n=597) werethe predominant type of libraries offering chat reference service.

In contrast with desk reference service, it is possible for libraries toform consortia to share manpower and resources in providing chatreference service. Thus, the survey asked whether the respondentswere staffing a collaborative service, an independent service, or both.The number of collaborative services (42.5%, n=597) and that ofstand-alone services (40.5%, n=597) were about the same; 15.2% ofthe respondents staffed both modes of services, and another 1.7%indicated that they were not sure about the mode of chat referenceservice provided at their library.

Scheffe's test

p=0.025Both collaborative network and stand- alone service (n=82) μ=5.80 σ=1.13Stand-alone service (n=211) μ=5.33 σ=1.33p=0.000004Collaborative network (n=239) μ=5.93 σ=1.05Stand-alone service (n=211) μ=5.33 σ=1.33p=0.0003Both collaborative network and stand-alone service (n=86) μ=6.40 σ=0.83Stand-alone service (n=223) μ=5.80 σ=1.23p=0.011IM only (n=94) μ=5.65 σ=1.35Commercial chat software only (n=381) μ=6.13 σ=1.01p=0.01Both collaborative network and stand-alone service (n=86) μ=5.01 σ=1.63Stand-alone service (n=221) μ=4.33 σ=1.63

Table 6ANOVA results from the competency area “Online communication skills”

Competency orcompetency area

Demographicvariable

fvalue

pvalue

Scheffe's test

Understanding andappreciation of theonline culture andchat etiquette

Chatreferenceservice mode

4.099 0.007 p=0.011Bothcollaborativenetwork andstand-aloneservice (n=84)

μ=5.95 σ=1.03

Stand-aloneservice (n=221)

μ=5.41 σ=1.39


5.2. Essential competencies

In this survey, 30 competencies grouped under 8 areas were listed.Respondents rated the importance of individual competencies andcompetency areas on a seven-point scale (1: not important at all; 7:very important). Table 2 presents a breakdown of the competenciesunder each competency area and the mean ratings and standarddeviations for the competencies and competency areas.

The most highly rated competency area was “Reference interviewskills.” Respondents' ratings of this competency area were consistentwith their ratings of the individual competencies under this area. Outof eight competencies under “Reference interview skills,” five wereamong the top ten highly rated competencies of all. “Referring users toappropriate resources/services when necessary” received the highestmean rating of 6.7 (out of 7), suggesting that respondents consideredthe ability to make appropriate referrals to be the most importantcompetency for chat reference.

The second-highest rated competency area was “Familiarity withelectronic resources”, indicating the vast inventory of knowledge indatabase and Internet searching is a key element in successfully con-ducting chat reference service. Among the 6 competencies under thisarea, “Skills in selecting and searching databases and the Internetresources” and “Familiarity with subscribed library databases”received the second- and third-highest rating of all 30 competencies.However, “Knowledge of other participating libraries' resources in acollaborative chat reference project” was only in the twentieth place,and “Mastery of knowledge in as many fields as possible” received thethird-lowest rating. The low ratings suggest that respondents did notconsider having subject specialization in multiple areas a crucialcompetency for chat.

“Customer service mentality” was in the third place of the eightcompetency areas, indicating respondents' high regard for qualitieslike patience, friendliness, and enthusiasm that should be exhibitedin chat sessions. The two competencies under this area–“Under-standing of customer service ethic in order to provide good serviceto users” and “Ability to apply chat reference service policies whennecessary”–received ratings in the seventh and the sixteenth place,respectively, among all thirty individual competencies.

The mean score for the competency area “Online communicationskills” ranked fourth in all eight areas. The two competenciesassociated with this area–“Mastery of online real-time writtencommunication skills” and “Understanding and appreciation of theonline culture and chat etiquette”–were in the eighteenth andnineteenth place of the individual competency ratings.

In the fifth place of the competency area ratings was “Ability towork under pressure.” There are three competencies under this area,

Table 5ANOVA results from the competency area “Reference interview skills”

Competency orcompetencyarea

Demographicvariable

fvalue

pvalue

Scheffe'stest

Referenceinterview skills(competencyarea)

Length of timesince receivingthe professionalLIS degree

3.859 0.009 p=0.01More than7 years (n=275)

μ=6.77 σ=0.55

4–7 years(n=101)

μ=6.53 σ=0.77

Providingopinion-freeresponses

Length of timesince receivingthe professionalLIS degree


μ=6.04 σ=1.16

4–7 years(n=102)

μ=5.61 σ=1.42

Referring usersto appropriateresources/services whennecessary

Length of timeworking withchat referenceservice


μ=6.59 σ=0.80

1–3 years(n=316)

μ=6.76 σ=0.53

and their ratings differed greatly. The highest rating of the three wasthat of “Ability to think quickly and deal flexibly with unexpectedsituations in chat reference sessions,” which ranked fourth among all30 competencies; next to it was “Ability to manage multiple tasks” inthe ninth place. The last one, “Skills in time management,” received afairly low rating and ranked twenty-first. The vast divergence on theratings suggests that respondents were more concerned about how tohandle the dynamic chat environment with flexibility and multi-tasking capability than mastering time-management skills.

The two areas of technical skills–“Mastery of basic computertechniques” and “Familiarity with chat reference applications”–ranked in the sixth and seventh place, respectively. Individualcompetencies under these two areas received low ratings as well.

The least important competency area was “Instructional role.” Thetwo competencies in this area, “Ability to take the instructional role toeducate users to augment their level of information literacy” and“Ability to provide peer instructions to colleagues in obtaining chatreference skills,” also received low ratings. They ranked twenty-thirdand twenty-fifth, respectively, among all thirty competencies.

In order to determine the competencies that are essential to chatreference practice, a cut-off mean rating point of 5.51 (out of seven)was selected. The 21 competencies above this point were consideredto be the essential competencies. The clear area in Table 2 contains the21 essential chat reference competencies.

5.3. Competencies suggested by respondents

Under each competency area, respondents were asked to suggestup to two competencies that were not included in the survey. Thesewere optional questions; respondents did not have to complete themto proceed in the survey.

A total number of 58 respondents made substantive suggestions.The two most frequently suggested competencies pertain to usermanagement skills. The first one was “Ability to recognize differentgroups of users, understand the difference between them and answertheir questions using different techniques.” Twenty-three respon-dents believed that different user populations, such as high schoolstudents, college students, and adult public library users, have dif-ferent level of knowledge, experience, written communication skillsand receptiveness to instructions. Thus, chat reference librarians needto employ different reference techniques when handling questionsfrom different user groups.

The second competency, suggested by 14 respondents, was“Ability to handle the irregularities of user behavior, such as abusive,excessively demanding, rude users.” The anonymous nature of theonline chat media has made it more likely to encounter improperuser behavior in chat reference than in face-to-face reference ser-vice. Librarians should be able to deal with any kind of inappro-priate use of chat reference service professionally, politely, andeffectively.

1 The cut-off point is the point where the shape of the competency ratingdistribution curve starts to slope precipitately and this point is 5.5.

2 Scheffe's test is one of the commonly used posteriori tests for pair-wisecomparisons in ANOVA analysis. It is more conservative than Tukey's HSD procedure,but it is robust with respect to non-normality and heterogeneity of variance.

Table 7ANOVA results from the competency area “Familiarity with electronic resources”

Competency or competency area Demographic variable f value p value Scheffe's test

Familiarity with electronicresources (competency area)

Length of time working withchat reference service


Skills in selecting and searchingdatabases and the Internet resources

Length of time working withchat reference service

4.013 0.019 p=0.021–3 years (n=311) μ=6.68 σ=0.55Less than a year (n=120) μ=6.48 σ=0.81


Rapid evaluation of the qualityof information resourcesand services


Length of time since receivingthe professional LIS degree

4.767 0.003 p=0.004More than 7 years (n=275) μ=6.15 σ=1.024–7 years (n=101) μ=5.70 σ=1.25p=0.0364–7 years (n=101) μ=5.70 σ=1.251–3 years (n=106) μ=6.13 σ=0.99

Chat reference provision venue 2.395 0.037 p=0.048IM only (n=93) 5.68 1.24Commercial chat software only (n=371) 6.11 1.08

Mastery of knowledge in asmany fields as possible



A wide-ranging knowledgeof the Internet resources




Chat reference provision venue 2.632 0.023 p=0.039IM only (n=94) μ=5.96 σ=1.13Commercial chat software only (n=372) μ=6.32 σ=0.89


Ten respondents brought forward the competency “Mastery ofmultiple communication tools and ability to adapt quickly to softwarechanges.” The landscape of chat applications is constantly changing, andsometimes libraries offer chat reference service via multiple tools.Librarians are expected to be familiar with a variety of chat referencesystems–including both commercial software and instant messengers–and their upgrades. In the mean time, four respondents suggested thatlibrarians also need to have a clear sense of chat software limitations.They must understand what is realistic and what is not worth trying,given the fact that not all the features of chat software could functionwell in a chat session.

One final interesting finding from these suggestions was respon-dents' contradictory opinions concerning the accuracy of spelling andgrammar in chat communications. Five of them suggested thataccurate spelling and grammar are important to the success of chatreference service, whereas two others considered that typing accuracyis not as important as typing speed and the use of chat lingo. Thisconflicting finding motivated the researcher to explore whether thereis any correlation between the responses and the demographiccharacterization of these respondents, especially the comfort levelwith chat and the length of time working with chat. No significantdifference was found.

5.4. Relationship between contextual variables and competency ratings

Answers to the survey's seven demographic questions wereexamined to determine whether respondents from different demo-graphic groups had significantly different ratings of the competency andcompetency areas. The null hypotheses (α=.05) in this analysis were:

1. Respondents with different lengths of chat reference experiencehave no significantly different ratings of the competencies andcompetency areas.

2. Respondents with different comfort levels with chat referenceservice have no significantly different ratings of the competen-cies and competency areas.

3. Respondents with different degree status have no significantlydifferent ratings of the competencies and competency areas.

4. Respondents using different chat reference software have nosignificantly different ratings of the competencies and competencyareas.

5. Respondents working in different types of libraries have nosignificantly different ratings of the competencies and competencyareas.

6. Respondents working in different service modes have nosignificantly different ratings of the competencies and compe-tency areas.

To test the hypotheses, a total number of 266 ANOVA tests wereconducted. For each ANOVA test, Scheffe's test2 was chosen as thepost-hoc analysis for pair-wise comparisons due to the unequalsample size and heterogeneity of variance of different groups for eachdemographic variable. As a result, 35 pair-wise significant differenceswere determined (α= .05). Tables 3–9 present these differences,organized by competency area.

The majority of the 35 significant differences were found betweenthe following demographic values:

• Chat reference service mode: collaborative network vs. stand-alone service (48.6%);

• Chat reference provision venue: IM application vs. commercialchat software (20%); and

Table 9ANOVA results from the competency area “Ability to work under pressure”

Competency orcompetencyarea

Demographicvariable

f value p value Scheffe'stest

Ability to workunder pressure(competencyarea)

Chatreferenceservicemode

3.519 0.015 p=0.028Collaborativenetwork(n=239)

μ=6.28 σ=0.97


μ=6.00 σ=1.05

Chatreferenceprovisionvenue

4.803 0.0003 p=0.001IM only (n=89) μ=5.73 σ=1.19Commercialchat softwareonly (n=368)

μ=6.26 σ=0.94

Ability tomanagemultipletasks


3.457 0.016 p=0.041Bothcollaborativenetwork andstand-aloneservice (n=83)

μ=6.53 σ=0.77


μ=6.17 σ=1.02

Skills in timemanagement


4.014 0.008 p=0.011Collaborativenetwork(n=238)

μ=5.71 σ=1.14


μ=5.32 σ=1.33

Table 8ANOVA results from the competency area “Instructional role”

Competency orcompetency area

Demographicvariable

f value p value Scheffe'stest

Ability to assume theinstructional roleand educate usersto augment theirlevel of informationliteracy

Length of timeworking withchat referenceservice

3.177 0.042 p=0.048Morethan3 years(n=121)

μ=5.13 σ=1.48

1–3 years(n=308)

μ=5.49 σ=1.28


• Length of time since receiving the professional LIS degree: morethan 7 years vs. 4 to 7 years (17.1%).

Findings fromtheANOVAtests indicated that librariansworkingwitha collaborative network and using commercial chat software tend toattach more importance to technical competencies, resource compe-tencies, and stress management competencies than those working witha stand-along service and using IM applications do. Librarianswithmorelibrary work experience are inclined to consider core referencecompetencies, such as reference interview skills and knowledge ofresources, to be more important than those with lesser experience do.Thus, the ANOVA results rejected the following null hypotheses:

3. Respondents with different degree status have no significantlydifferent ratings of the competencies and competency areas.

4. Respondents using different chat reference software have nosignificantly different ratings of the competencies and compe-tency areas.

5. Respondents working in different service modes have no signi-ficantly different ratings of the competencies and competencyareas.

6. Discussion

The 30 chat reference competencies surveyed in this study can begrouped into 4 categories: essential reference competencies across allreference modes; reference competencies elevated to a higher stanceof importance in chat; reference competences specific only to chat; andreference competencies not as important in chat. The first 3 categoriescover the 21 essential chat reference competencies identified in thestudy, as indicated in the clear area in Fig. 1. They also respond to thefirst research question: “What are the essential competencies thatlibrarians need to master in order to provide chat reference service?”This study also investigated the contextual variables' effect on theperceived importance of chat reference competencies to answer thesecond research question, “How do contextual variables associatedwith chat reference, such as length of chat reference experience, levelof comfort with chat reference, status of professional degree, worksetting, chat reference service mode and provision venue, correlatewith chat reference competencies?”

6.1. Essential competencies across all reference settings

Reference interview skills, indisputably, have been acknowledgedas one of the core skills in reference work. Chat reference places aspecial importance on reference interview techniques that could helplibrarians avoid a lengthy and cumbersome transaction. Such techni-ques include having the ability to make appropriate referrals andrecognizing the need to follow-up with the user. In the mean time,some traditional reference values, such as thoroughness, may bemodified in chat. Chat reference should be viewed as a convenientaccess point in a service spectrum which draws on a vast amount ofreference expertise, and in which complex questions can be handledmore efficiently and thoroughly in other service types than they canwithin a chat session. Any chat reference training should, from the

onset of the program, inform trainees of this particular characteristic ofchat reference and instruct them to learn to “let go” at a certainpoint ofa chat session involving a complex question.

A large part of reference librarians' expertise comes from knowinggeneral and subject-specific resources. In the context of chat reference,such knowledge emphasizes resources in electronic format. Librarians'familiaritywith resources on the Internet and in subscription databasesplays a critical role in delivering chat reference service since usersexpect immediately available answers in a chat reference transaction(Coffman, 2003); answers have to be provided electronically in order tobe delivered immediately. Thus, chat reference training/educationneeds to accentuate the significance of electronic resources and makesure librarians have mastered them before staffing chat sessions.

Reference service is one of many library public services that assistdifferent user populations in their information-seeking process. Com-mitment to user services has always been an essential competency inreferencework, and chat reference is no exception. As amatter of fact, itis evenmore important in chat given that there are no non-verbal cuesand users can be completely anonymous. Misunderstandings arise andinappropriate user behaviors occur in chat reference sessions, and still,librarians need to maintain a professional presence. They must havecustomer service mentality when dealing with users from all sorts ofbackgrounds and with all sorts of needs. This point needs to be clearlycommunicated to trainees in a chat reference training/educationprogram—commitment to user services is a constant in all variationsof reference service, although the chat context poses more challenges.

Reference interview skills, knowledge of resources, and customerservice mentality are the universal competencies required by thenature of library reference work. They might need a little fine-tuningin chat, but they are the core skills, knowledge, and attitudes leadingto a successful chat reference transaction.

6.2. Reference competencies highlighted in chat

Chat reference, though retaining the principles of referenceservice, is provided in a different technological and procedural contextthan all the other reference options. The change of provision venuehas increased the importance of certain reference competencies that

Fig. 1. An analytical view of chat reference competencies.



might not be prominent in other reference modes. The ability to workunder pressure is one of them.

Every line of work has pressure. In the field of library reference, aconsiderableproportionof stress comes fromdealingwithhumanbeings,such as encountering rude users and receiving tough questions.With theadvent of chat reference, a number of new sources of pressure have comeinto the picture and aggravated the stress level. For example,1) the lack ofverbal and visual cues could make the librarian-user communicationdifficult and even cause anxiety and misunderstanding on both ends;2) the unexpected situations, like technology failure or suddendisappearance of users in the middle of a chat session, could makelibrarians panic; 3) sometimes librarians have to staff both chat sessionsand the reference desk at the same time, juggling virtual and physicaluser queries. All the pressure inherent in the chat environment requireslibrarians to be able tomulti-task, think quickly, manage time effectively,and be flexible and calmwhen dealing with difficult situations.

Another competency highlighted in chat reference is the ability tokeep users informed bynotifying them constantly ofwhat the librarianis doing. In a face-to-face reference encounter, the physical presence ofboth the librarian and the user makes it easier to communicate theprocess of searching for an answer to the user's question. However, in achat reference session, where no audio or visual cues exist and theentire communication is based on the exchange of written messages,librarians are faced with a more critical need to stay connected to theuser. Telling the user which search activities the librarian is engaged inis an effective technique to avoid making the user feel ignored.

Providing chat reference has turned a spotlight on the abovecompetencies. When a training or education curriculum is designedfor chat reference librarians, the increased importance of thesecompetencies needs to be made clear so that trainees can be betterprepared for the augmented pressure level in chat reference service.

6.3. Reference competencies specific to chat

Theway that chat reference service is delivered necessitates certaincompetencies specific to this particular reference venue. The first andforemost of these is the ability to use the chat application effectively,especially when the service is offered through complex chat software.The current popular commercial chat software on the market, such asQuestionPoint from OCLC or Virtual Reference Toolkit from Tutor.com,supports various functions including co-browsing, file-sharing, back-channel communication, and using scripted messages. Librarians can-not be assigned the task of chat reference servicewithout familiarizingthemselves with all features of a chat application.

While chat software skills ensure the technical operation of a chatsession, online communication skills produce the content of a successfultransaction. The effective exchange of written messages requires a clearunderstanding and appreciation of the online culture and chat etiquetteand the ability to use online language appropriately. This is true in boththe online environment in general and the chat context inparticular. Thereference literature indicated that general interpersonal and commu-nication skills are indispensable to the success of a reference encounter.In the specific context of chat, these skills need to be reevaluated andfine-tuned to fit in the online culture. In other words, in order tomaintain a professional and yet friendly online presence in a chatreference session, librarians need tomaster online communication skills.

In addition to changes in the technical and communicationhorizon, the advent of chat reference has generated the possibilitiesof organizational changes as well. It has enabled the formation ofconsortia in which a variety of libraries participate. This unprece-dented expansion in reference collaboration has been accompanied bythe expansion in user population—hence, the expansion in librarians'knowledge. In a chat reference consortiumwhere members take turnsstaffing a collaborative service, librarians are expected to know otherparticipating libraries' resources as well as their own so that users ofother participating libraries can be well served. Usually patrons use a

collaborative service with the expectation to be connected to alibrarian from their own library; they anticipate a conversation with aprofessional who knows the local library's resources well. Thus, inorder for users to receive the best possible service, librarians of a chatreference consortium need to expand their expertise to includeknowledge of member libraries' resources.

The above chat-specific competencies deserve special attention in atraining/education program since trainees do not have prior referenceexperience to relate to. These competencies are new to them, and theyshould be given explicit instruction on why they need thesecompetencies and how to attain them.

6.4. Reference competencies not as important in chat as in otherreference venues

Chat reference competencies under the two areas of “Basiccomputer techniques” and “Instructional role” were considered to beless important than others in terms of the role they play in the successof a chat reference transaction. Although the literature suggested thatthese two competency areas are gaining more andmore magnitude inreference practice (Auster and Chan, 2003), findings from this studyshowed otherwise.

Basic computer techniques such as typing proficiency and effectiveuse of the operating system are prerequisites to providing chatreference service. It is likely that librarians did not regard this compe-tency area highly because they do not need to develop these tech-niques in a chat reference training program; instead, they already havethese techniques as a default prerequisite skill set. Technical skills areimportant in general, but in the context of chat, they are outweighedbyother competencies that make more substantial contributions to thesuccess of a chat reference transaction.

In general, reference librarians assume the instructional rolewhen assisting users in the information-seeking process, and theyhelp users become more information literate (Grassian and Kaplo-witz, 2001). User instruction has always been viewed as a crucial partof reference service. However, when it comes to chat reference, theview becomes different. Users choose chat reference service becauseof its convenience in terms of time and space and only consider it agood option for quick, easy questions (Horowitz et al., 2005; Ruppeland Fagan, 2002). Their appreciation of chat reference's convenienceand immediacy may suggest their unwillingness to receive lengthyinstruction in their information seeking process. It is likely thatlibrarians had experienced enough sessions where instruction wasunwanted to conclude that “instructional role” was the leastimportant chat reference competency area of all.

On the other hand, the decline in users' receptiveness to instructiondoes not necessarily mean that competencies for providing userinstruction should be completely ignored in chat reference training/education. There are still users who want to learn about libraryresources and how to search for information instead of only obtaining aquick answer from the librarian. Training and education for chatreference librarians should focus more on understanding how todeterminewhen instruction is necessaryand appropriate thannegatingthe importance of instructions at all.

6.5. Different contextual emphases on chat reference competencies

Different chat reference contexts result in significantly differentratings for certain competencies and competency areas. In light of thefact that different demographic groups of librarians place differentemphasis on competencies, chat reference training programs shouldbe tailored to accommodate different needs. These context-specificdifferences could guide training programs to factor in contextualvariables such as service mode, provision venue, and length of librarywork experience, in order to make sure that different demographicgroups' competency needs are well addressed.


6.5.1. Service mode: collaborative network vs. stand-alone service

6.5.1.1. Technical competencies. The statistical analysis indicated thatlibrarians working with a collaborative network attached significantlymore importance to technical competencies, including both basiccomputer techniques and familiarity with chat reference software, thanlibrarians working with a stand-alone service did. A collaborative chatreference network involves multiple participating libraries and usuallyadopts complex commercial software as the service platform. Librariansworking with such a network are likely to face challenges posed byinsufficient technical coordination among member libraries. They mustresort to their own technical skills to solve problems caused by technicaldifficulties. In other words, the collaborative servicemode could bemoretechnically challenging than the stand-alone service mode. Thus, whenproviding training to participating librarians, collaborative chat referenceprojectsmay take into consideration the technical competencyemphasis.The technical component of a training programmay have two objectives:1) enhance trainees' awareness of the various technical problems thatmight appear during the interaction and 2) equip them with skills andresources to solve these problems should they occur.

6.5.1.2. Familiarity with electronic resources. Librarians from colla-borative networks regarded familiarity with electronic resources morehighly than librarians from stand-alone services did. In a collaborativechat reference network, the user community consists of the constitu-encyof allmember libraries. Becauseof the service expansion, librariansface a more diverse pool of questions from users, which demandsmoreskillful navigation of the electronic resources. Accordingly, trainingprovided to members of collaborative chat reference networks mayemphasize the increased diversity of user population. This emphasiswould prepare traineeswith the knowledge of electronic resources thatcould help them better respond to the diverse user needs.

6.5.1.3. Understanding online culture and chat etiquette. Understandingonline chat culture and etiquette was considered significantly moreimportant by librarians of collaborative chat reference networks thanby librarians of stand-alone services. Once again, the expansion ofservice coverage in a collaborative network may lead to the increasedexpectation for librarians to be fluent in communicating in “chat style”and motivate them to attach more importance to online communica-tion skills. As a result, training programs for chat reference personnel incollaborative networks may strengthen the online communicationcomponent. Methods like distributing lists of frequently used chatlingos and emoticons and discussing common online etiquette may beemployed for this purpose.

6.5.1.4. Ability to work under pressure. Librarians working in thecollaborative chat referencemode considered the ability toworkunderpressure, including time-management skills and multi-tasking skills,to be significantly more important to chat reference practice thanlibrarians working in the stand-alone service mode did. Collaborationin chat reference service is usually accompanied by extended servicehours and broadened user population, which in turn generates anincrease in service traffic. Hence, it is not uncommon for librarians tohandle more than one user at the same time. On the other hand,collaborative services usually use commercial chat software toaccommodate all member libraries. Technical difficulties associatedwith such software sometimes lead to unexpected situations, such assudden session disruptions and software malfunctions. These unex-pected situations could be stressful; librarians need tohandle them in acomposed and flexible way. In response to the emphasis on stressmanagement skills among members of collaborative chat referenceprojects, training programs may incorporate elements that could helptrainees better handle the pressure inherent in chat reference. Forexample, methods like role-playing difficult chat scenarios may beuseful in improving stress management skills.

6.5.2. Provision venue: commercial software vs. IM applications

6.5.2.1. Technical competencies. Librarians using commercial chatsoftware placedmore importance on technical competencies–includingboth basic computer techniques and chat software skills–than didlibrarians using IM applications. Commercial chat software tends to befarmore complex than IM applications; it takesmore time and effort forlibrarians to master commercial chat software. Software vendors oftenprovide training on commercial chat software at the beginning of theservice; they may hold regular refresher workshops to reinforce thesoftware skills. In addition, effective coordination between softwarevendor and chat reference service may ensure that software problemscan be solved without burdening the reference personnel.

6.5.2.2. Resource competencies. Librarians using commercial chatsoftware considered two specific competencies associated withelectronic resources, “A wide-ranging knowledge of the Internetresources” and “Rapid evaluation of the quality of information resourcesand services,” to be significantly more important than librarians usingIM applications did. Commercial chat software is more full-fledged thanIM applications and supports advanced features such as co-browsing,which allows librarians and users share the same view of a Web page.The convenience of this feature might increase librarians' awareness ofthe availability of Web resources and encourage them to use Webresources to respond to users' questions. Accordingly, training providedto commercial chat software users may need to emphasize knowledgeof Web resources, including both searching and evaluation.

6.5.2.3. Ability to work under pressure. Librarians using commercialchat software attached significantly more importance to the ability towork under pressure than those using IM applications. Technicaldifficulties associated with commercial chat software can sometimeslead to unexpected situations and may be a source of stress for on-duty librarians. Training programs should take appropriate proce-dures to ensure that trainees are equipped with skills to handle stress.

6.5.3. Length of time since receiving a professional LIS degree: more than7 years vs. 4–7 years

6.5.3.1. Reference interview skills. Librarians who received theirprofessional LIS degree more than 7 years ago held higher regard forthe importance of reference interview skills than librarians whoreceived their degree 4–7 years ago did. Reference interview skills area core competency area across all reference service venues. The longerlibrarians hold a professional LIS degree, the longer they might work ina library. Hence, they have more reference experience and are morecognizant of the value of reference interview skills to the success of areference transaction. Despite the difference, reference interview skillswere the most highly rated competency area in this study. The im-portance of these skills needs to be made clear in any chat referencetraining program. Methods such as reviewing chat reference transcriptsor using existing chat reference services from the user's perspectivemay help trainees better understand how reference interview skills canbe transferred from desk reference to chat reference.

6.5.3.2. Resource competencies. Three competencies in relation toreference resources gained significantlymore recognition from librarianswho received their professional LIS degree more than 7 years ago thanfrom those who received their degree only 4–7 years ago: “Rapidevaluation of the quality of information resources and services,” “Masteryof knowledge in as many fields as possible,” and “A wide-rangingknowledge of the Internet resources.” Again, the longer one holds a LISdegree, the longer one might work in a library. More library workexperience may enhance librarians' awareness of the importance of corereference competencies, such as knowledge of reference resources andthe ability to evaluate them critically, regardless of themediumviawhich

Fig. 2. Griffiths and King (1986) competency achievement model.


reference service is provided. The different views on resource compe-tencies may warrant discussions among chat reference librarians whoreceived the LIS degree at different times. Their background and workexperience may inform each other's perception of chat referencecompetencies and help them reach a higher level of service performance.

6.6. Limitations and future research

Griffith and King's (1986) model process of competency achieve-ment, as indicated in Fig. 2, involvesfive stages. This study only focuseson one of them: “Determination of competency needs and require-ments”. However, results from the study can be utilized as the basis forthe design of instructional programs for chat reference. They wouldthus inform the other stages of the competency achievement model.

The non-probability samplings techniques in the sampling designwere employed due to the unknown size of the chat reference popu-lation. One weakness of these techniques is the possibility that thesample is not representative of the population. However, there are noup-to-date directories or indexes that keep track of libraries that offerchat reference services. Researchers made efforts to establish such listswhen chat reference first started3, but they soon became outdatedbecause they were not updated frequently enough to catch up with thechanges. At the 2005ALAconference, theRUSAMARS4Virtual ReferenceCommittee decided to initiate a project that would create an onlineindex to track all chat reference services across the country (personalcommunicationwith B. Hirko, June 30, 2005). Unfortunately, this indexwas not available at the time of this study. If the extant listswere utilizedto identify individual members of the chat reference population, acritical amount of information would be missing from the lists. Chatreference service has been growing rapidly, especially in the past fewyears. But in the meantime, while more and more libraries are jumpingon the bandwagon of providing chat reference service, some earlyadopters of the service have terminated it due to low usage and otherproblems (Dee, 2003; Horowitz et al., 2005). Apparently these changesare not reflected on the outdated lists; a random sample based on theselists would not be representative of the population at all. Given the factthat little information about the chat reference population is known, thenon-probability sampling techniques were considered to be a moreappropriate sampling method in this study. Consequently, another

3 Such lists include Stephen Francoeur's Index of Chat Reference Services (not updatedsince Aug 2002), Bernie Sloan's list of Collaborative Live Reference Services (not updatedsince Aug 2004), Gerry McKeirnan's A Registry of Real-time Digital Reference Service (notupdated since March 2003), and LIS Wiki Chat Reference Directory (the list is claimedto be incomplete on the website).

4 Reference and User Services Association Machine-Assisted Reference Section.

weakness of non-probability sampling techniques is that results fromthe study cannot be generalized. However, given the large number ofresponses, conclusions from the study can be applied at least to chatreference practitioners who subscribe to the 11 listservs.

This study examined chat reference competencies from the librar-ian's perspective; they can also be studied from the user's perspective.Users' perceptions and expectations of the service performance isanother source of competency requirements for chat reference services.

For future research, an immediate follow-up studycould incorporatethe essential chat reference competencies determined in this study intothe revision of reference curriculum. It could then assess the effec-tiveness of such revisions. In the long run, research on professionaldevelopment of chat reference librarians can be furthered by effortsseeking to bridge the gap betweenwhat is covered in reference coursesandwhat is expectedof a chat referenceposition. Educational objectivescan alignwithprofessional demands,whichwouldoptimize theprocessof professional preparation for chat reference librarians. Meanwhile,users of chat reference services could be involved in competencydevelopment, since they are the ultimate beneficiary of the service.

7. Conclusion

The essential chat reference competencies determined in this studycan enrich the understanding of quality reference performance. Theycan also lay the groundwork for building training and education prog-rams to help reference personnel attain proficiency in these compe-tencies. The four types of chat reference competencies identified in thisstudy–core competencies across all reference settings, competencieshighlighted in chat, competencies specific to chat, and competenciesnot as important in chat–can serve as guidelines in establishingeffective content of chat reference training and education programs.Furthermore, the different emphases on competencies associated withtechnical skills, resources, and stress management from differentdemographic groups of librarians discovered in this study provide acontextualized perspective on delivering training and education tolibrarians who use different chat reference software, work in differentservicemodes, and have different length of libraryworking experience.Mastering chat reference competencies will lead to enhanced serviceperformance and eventually increase user satisfaction.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to extend her gratitude to Dr. JeffreyPomerantz at the School of Information and Library Science atUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for his generous help incompleting this work.


References

Auster, E., & Chan, D. C. (2003). Factors contributing to the professional development ofreference librarians. Library & Information Science Research, 25, 265−286.

Babbie, E. (2006). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Bauner, R. E. (1990). Ready reference beyond the M.L.S. Reference Library, 30, 45−59.Buttlar, L., & Du Mont, R. (1989). Assessing library science competencies: Soliciting

practitioner input for curriculum design. Journal of Education for Library andInformation Science, 30(1), 3−18.

Coffman, S. (2003). Going live: Starting and running a virtual reference service. Chicago:American Library Association.

Dee, C. (2003). Chat reference service in medical libraries: Part 2- trends in medicalschool libraries. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 22(2), 15−28.

Digital Reference Education Initiative, (2004). Rubrics for digital reference serviceproviders. Retrieved June 1, 2005, from http://drei.syr.edu/pdf/DREICompetenciesDraft092004.pdf

Florida State University Ask a Librarian (2004). FSU checklists for Ask a Librarian. RetrievedJune 1, 2005, from http://drei.syr.edu/pdf/FSU_AskaLibrarian_checklist.pdf

Ford, C. (2002). An exploratory study of the differences between face-to-face andcomputer-mediated reference interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indi-ana University at Bloomington.

Grassian, E., & Kaplowitz, J. (2001). Information literacy instruction: Theory and practice.New York: Neil Schuman.

Griffiths, J. M., & King, D. W. (1986). New directions in library and information scienceeducation. White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.

Harris, L. E. (2004). Software is not enough:Teachingandtrainingdigital reference librarians.In R. D. Lankes, J. Janes, L. C. Smith, & C. M. Finneran (Eds.), The virtual referenceexperience: Integrating theory into practice (pp. 109−120). New York: Neal-Schuman.

Hirko, B., & Ross, M. B. (2004). Virtual reference training: The complete guide to providinganytime, anywhere answers. Chicago: American Library Association.

Horowitz, L. R., Flanagan, P. A., & Helman, D. L. (2005). The viability of live onlinereference: An assessment. Portal, Libraries and The Academy, 5(2), 239−258.

Jones, R. (2003). Competencies for information professionals of the 21st century.Information Outlook, 7(10), 11−20.

Kawakami, A., & Swartz, P. (2003). Digital reference: Training and assessment for serviceimprovement. Reference Services Review, 31(3), 227−236.

Kong, L. M. (1996). Academic reference librarians: Under the microscope. ReferenceLibrary, 54, 21−27.

Lankes, R. D. (2004). The digital reference research agenda. Journal of American Societyof Information Science and Technology, 55, 301−311.

Luo, L. (2007a). Reference evolution under the influence of new technologies. (TechnicalReport No. TR-2007-03). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Luo, L. (2007b). Chat reference competencies: Identification from a literature reviewand librarian interviews. Reference Services Review, 35(2), 195−209.

Maryland AskUsNow, (2003). Behaviors for librarians providing Maryland AskUsNow!Retrieved June 1, 2005, from http://drei.syr.edu/pdf/MDBehaviorsChecklistWithExam-ples.pdf

Massey-Burzio, V. (1991). Education and experience, or, The MLS is not enough.Reference Services Review, 19, 72−74.

Meola, M., & Stormont, S. (2002). Starting and operating live virtual reference services: Ahow-to-do-it manual for librarians. New York: Neal-Schuman.

Nitecki, D. (1984). Competencies required of public services librarians to use newtechnologies. Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 21, 43−57.

Nofsinger, M. M. (1999). Training and retraining reference professionals: Corecompetencies for the twenty-first century. Reference Library, 64, 9−19.

Ontario Collaborative Virtual Reference Project, (2004). Competencies checklist for VR.Retrieved June 1, 2005, from http://drei.syr.edu/pdf/OVRP_competencies2004.pdf

Q and A NJ.org, (2004). Competencies checklist. Retrieved December 21, 2007, fromhttp://www.qandanj.org/manual/competencies.htm

Reference and User Services Association. (2003). Professional competencies forreference and user services librarians: RUSA task force on professional compe-tencies. Reference & user Services Quarterly, 42(4), 290−295.

Reference and User Services Association, (2004a). Guidelines for implementing andmaintaining virtual reference services. Retrieved December 21, 2007, from http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/referenceguide/virtrefguidelines.htm

Reference and User Services Association, (2004b). Guidelines for behavioral performanceof reference and information service providers. Retrieved December 21, 2007,from http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/referenceguide/guidelinesbehavioral.htm

Ronan, J. (2003). Chat reference: A guide to live virtual reference services. Westport, CT:Libraries Unlimited.

Ruppel, M., & Fagan, J. C. (2002). Instant messaging reference: Users' evaluation oflibrary chat. Reference Services Review, 30(3), 183−197.

Salem, J. A. J., Balraj, L. E., & Lilly, E. B. (2004). Real-time training for virtual reference. InR. D. Lankes, J. Janes, L. C. Smith, & C. M. Finneran (Eds.), The virtual referenceexperience: Integrating theory into practice (pp. 121−138). New York: Neal-Schuman.

Sherrer, J. (1996). Thriving in changing times: Competencies for today's referencelibrarians. Reference Library, 54, 11−20.

Smith, M., Marchant, M. P., & Nielson, L. F. (1984). Education for public and academiclibrarians: A view from the top. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 24, 233−245.

Stafford, C. D., & Serban, W. M. (1990). Core competencies: recruiting, training, andevaluating in the automated reference environment. Journal of Library Administration,13(1/2), 81−97.

Tucker, J. C. (2004). Developing a chat reference training program. Internet ReferenceServices Quarterly, 8(4), 11−25.

Walters, R., & Barnes, S. (1985). Goals, objectives, and competencies for referenceservice: A training program at the UCLA biomedical library. Bulletin of the MedicalLibrary Association, 73, 160−167.

http://drei.syr.edu/pdf/DREICompetenciesDraft092004.pdf

http://drei.syr.edu/pdf/DREICompetenciesDraft092004.pdf

http://drei.syr.edu/pdf/FSU_AskaLibrarian_checklist.pdf

http://drei.syr.edu/pdf/MDBehaviorsChecklistWithExamples.pdf

http://drei.syr.edu/pdf/MDBehaviorsChecklistWithExamples.pdf

http://drei.syr.edu/pdf/OVRP_competencies2004.pdf

http://www.qandanj.org/manual/competencies.htm

http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/referenceguide/virtrefguidelines.htm

http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/referenceguide/virtrefguidelines.htm

http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/referenceguide/guidelinesbehavioral.htm

http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/referenceguide/guidelinesbehavioral.htm

Documents

Toward sustaining professional development: Identifying essential competencies for chat reference service