The Debate
2007 was a hot year of debate among librarians over the future of reference services. An actual debate at the ACRL Conference was the forum for a flurry of articles and case studies championing or condemning the reference desk. Though many, maybe most librarians present, saw the ref desk as an important symbol of librarianship and a necessary service point, others staunchly advocated, if not the total deconstruction of the ref desk, at the very least a total overhaul of reference services, claiming that the desk, like the card catalog, is a symbolic artifact of the past and that librarians must change in order to remain relevant to information seekers in the digital age.
Nolen, David S. "Reforming Or Rejecting The Reference Desk: Conflict And Continuity In The Concept Of Reference." Library Philosophy & Practice. 2010, 12:2. Web. 22 Apr. 2012.
This article provides the back story to the great reference desk debate of 2007, tracing the origins of reference best practices to the 1800s and its challengers in the 1980s and ‘90s. Half of the article is dedicated to “anti-desk” articles that claim that the desk is outmoded and perhaps even ill-conceived; some claim that the future of reference lies in human-mediated reference with a tiered-model approach and an emphasis on information literacy instruction, while others call into question the very idea of the face-to-face librarian (!). The other half focuses on “champions of the desk” articles that acknowledge the need for reform while still maintaining the desk as an important service point for users with “library anxiety,” focusing on the importance of the face-to-face interaction, though some allowing for more tech-centered solutions. Nolen concludes that the two sides of the debate are not diametrically opposed, because both sides agree on the reference mission of “service to the patron community” independent of modes of service delivery.
Watstein, Sarah Barbara, and Steven J. Bell. "Is There a Future for the Reference Desk? A Point-Counterpoint Discussion." The Reference Librarian. 2008: 49,1. Web. 22 Apr 2012.
Watstein argues in favor of the desk, claiming that face-to-face interaction with patrons is critical to providing teaching-moment reference services, that though a lot of people are happy using technology, some people feel better talking to someone. Bell argues that the opportunity for the teaching-moment isn't entirely realized in the middle of large, busy library and that consultations with librarians would be better. He claims that as reference statistics decline, it is a waste of librarians' time to set at the desk answering directional questions and that technology questions can easily be answered by trained paraprofessionals. He also claims that NetGen users are more likely to use technological means to find answers to their questions, rather than ask a professional, so it is wiser for reference librarians to work in their own offices on solving reference questions using mobile technologies. Watstein counters that paraprofessionals on the desk may misinterpret reference questions and let them go unanswered and that we can't know the future of reference services, so although we should adapt to changes in technology and user behavior, we should also continue to do what we do well--covering the ref desk.