College and Research Libraries The Influence of Reference Practices on the Client-Librarian Relationship Joan C. Durrance This paper raises questions about the influence of present reference practice on library user perceptions of the librarian as an information intermediary and on user ability to distinguish between librarians and other library staff. It discusses these questions within the context of the client-professional relationship, using data from a study of the users of three university li- braries in the Midwest. The author concludes that present reference practice hinders the devel- opment of a true client-professional relationship. n a recent editorial in College & Research Libraries, writing in the context of evaluation of refer- ence performance, Charles Martell raised a number of important questions; one of them was "How does the environment in which we work dis- courage ... [the] assessment [of reference performance]?" 1 Questions like this, which call for an examination of the basic reference model, have seldom been asked by librarians and researchers and certainly have not been answered by them. 2 One study that raises a similar question, "What effect does the environment of ref- erence service have on the reference inter- view?" was done by Mary Jo Lynch. She sketched the differences between our pro- fessional model and other models: Other professionals do not usually operate in such an atmosphere . Clients commonly make appointments to see them and even when ap- pointments are not made the professional works in a private or semiprivate place and ad- mits clients one at a time. Reference librarians, by contrast, wait in a public place for any client that may come along ... . The implications of this situation must be taken into account in any consideration of the reference interview. 3 Although her study found that library us- ers are not well served by the public prac- tice of reference she suggested that it "may be necessary because ... of the way that people use libraries. " 4 I would argue that people use libraries the way they do because they are encouraged to do so by the environment created by librarians. This paper attempts to apply empirical data to the concerns that Martell, Lynch, and others have raised. 5 It addresses these concerns by breaking them into several component questions: (1) Does present practice limit the ability of library users to distinguish between librarians and other staff members? (2) Does it make it difficult for library users to see librarians as infor- mation intermediaries? (3) Does present practice discourage library users from be- coming clients of librarians? (4) Does it make it difficult for librarians to function as professionals? This paper addresses these questions within the framework of two concerns that have reappeared with disturbing reg- ularity in the literature of librarianship. The first is the problem of librarianship as a profession, in particular the image that Joan C. Durrance is assistant professor at the School of Library Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbpr, Michigan 48109. 57 58 College & Research Libraries the public has of librarianship as a profes- sion. 6 The second concern is a component of the first: librarianships' s inability to de- velop an adequate theoretical framework. In a recent paper on professional issues, Michael Winter noted that "the lack of an adequate theoretical body of knowledge is . . . a serious obstacle to the professional development of an occupation. " 7 Winter goes on to say: The various dimensions of professionalization are interdependent . Thus problems in the knowledge base, combined as they are with low public recognition and complicated by struc- tural constraint, are probably more serious in li- brarianship than the same problems are in other disciplines. 8 A better understanding of the effect of the reference environment on the user will add to the theoretical base required for op- timum practice of reference. In addition, it will make it easier for librarians to commu- nicate more clearly their role to the public and should permit the field to evaluate ref- erence performance more effectively. The literature devoted to the evaluation of ref- erence service is both extensive and inade- quate, perhaps because it does not ade- quately analyze the limitations of present practice. 9 In a 1983 review article on reference the- ory Richard Danner found that ''despite continuing interest in the problem of ref- erence theory ... librarians have been un- able to reach a consensus on a definition of library service or on a characterization of the activity. " 10 Thelma Friedes reached a similar conclusion in her review of trends in academic libraries. 11 Danner posits that the articulation of a theory of reference service is "of crucial importance to the fu- ture of the profession" in light of current trends in the development of information technology. 12 Although for more than a decade researchers have examined the in- teraction that occurs between the librarian and the library user in the reference trans- action, the affect of present identification practices on the professional-client rela- tionship, per se, has not been adequately examined. 13 Communication concepts such as the reference interview have been defined and explained within the context of present professional practice, but with- out discussion of the effect that present January 1986 practice might have on the library user .14 Librarians have assumed that the dis- tinctions necessary to distinguish be- tween them and other staff can be made by library users. Yet, a quarter of a century ago , William Goode reported that the public's perception of librarians as clerks posed a serious problem for librarianship as it sought professional status. 15 In 1977, Peter Hernon and Maureen Pastine found that ''students perceive the role of librari- ans, clericals, and student assistants as be- ing the same. " 16 They also found that al- though 87 percent of the university students in their study thought that librar- ians and other library staff members dif- fered in their backgrounds, most students believed that librarians sat behind desks, and were older, more knowledgeable and competent than other staff. 17 The present study examines the percep- tions that library users have about library practitioners and the effect these percep- tions have on their behavior both as li- brary users and as clients. THE CLIENT PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP IN REFERENCE The perceptions library users have about the library practitioner will influ- ence the nature of the professional-client relationship that they develop. If a norm for the professional-client relationship has been developed and transmitted to library users, it is that the user should approach an anonymous staff member of unknown credentials who is behind one of several public desks and who is often simulta- neously engaged in some other activity. Since these unidentified, uncredentialed staff members rotate days and times, the library user is required to initiate contact with any one of several desk staff. If the user is referred to another source of infor- mation, the referral is likely to be to an- other location and not to a staff member. Most academic libraries adhere to this pat- tern. Certain conditions must be present be- fore a client engages a practitioner in a professional relationship. It is the argu- ment of this paper that the traditional practice of reference may transmit indis- tinct messages to library users about the role and practice of librarianship, making it difficult for library users to become cli- ents of librarians. The paper asks the ques- tion ''Does this practice produce a set of conditions conducive to the development of a true client-professional relationship?'' Method Major variables in this study include: (1) user knowledge of staff differentiation, (2) user ability to recognize specific staff members, (3) the inclination of users to look for and return to particular staff members, (4) the inclination to avoid spe- cific staff members, and (5) the criteria that are used as the basis for a decision to re- turn to or avoid a staff member. This study was conducted with users of three academic libraries that are similar in size and user composition: The Eastern Michigan University (18,880), Bowling Green State University (16,866), and the University of Toledo (21,489). Since there were no major differences in responses among the three universities, the data from all sites were combined. Interviews were conducted with 429 library users as they left each library during morning, afternoon, evening, and weekend hours for !he months of May and June 1984 . Interviewers were stationed inside near the exit gates. With the exception of the principal inyestigator, interviewers were University of Michigan graduate students in library science and political science; both male and female interviewers were used. Eight two-hour blocks were spent interviewing at each site by a rotating te~m of two; an average of thirty-two hours was spent on interviews at each in- stitution. Based on use data provided by staff at these institutions, interview hours were weighted toward more heavily used afternoon and evening hours. Each inter- view took between two and seven min- utes . The interview elicited detailed informa- tion from the user about a recently asked reference question. This question was used as a critical incident around which the interview was structured. To distin- guish between a reference and a direc- tional question, and to establish a reason- ably time frame, the interviewer inquired if the user had asked a library staff mem- ber for assistance in &etting information The Influence of Reference Practices 59 about a topic or help in locating library ma- terials within the six past months. Each li- brary user was placed into one of three cat- egories by type of assistance sought: reference question, (including title-author questions), directional-equipment re- quest, or no question. USER KNOWLEDGE OF STAFF DIFFERENTIATION Does present practice make it difficult for library users to identify librarians? This question was tested by analyzing three re- lated factors: (a) the extent to which li- brary users were aware of staff differentia- tion; (b) the categories assigned to library staff members by interviewees, coupled with the degree of uncertainty expressed; and (c) the reasons given for indicating that a staff member was a librarian, a li- brary assistant, or a student assistant. Al- though nearly 84 percent of the users were aware that several categories of library staff work in academic libraries (a finding similar to Hernon and Pastine), they were not always able to identify professional staff. When all library users who knew that dif- ferent categories of staff worked in li- braries and who had requested assistance were asked to indicate the category to which they would assign the staff member who had assisted them, the certainty dropped from 84 percent who knew that different categories of staff work in li- braries to 62 percent who were sure of the category of the person who had assisted them. Over one-third were uncertain about the category. The Ability to Identify Library Staff Members by Name In most professions, those who interact directly with the client are known by name. Seventeen percent of the users who asked questions knew the staff members by name. Those who recognized or knew the name were likely to be more intensive library users than those who did not. They were more likely to report that they typi- cally used several types of materials. They were twice as likely to report regularly seeking assistance than those who didn't know the name of the staff member (19 .2 percent to 10.1 percent). Finally, they 60 College & Research Libraries were far more likely to return to the staff member they consulted (74 percent) than those who didn't recognize or know the name of a staff member (47.9 percent). A 1980 study of citizen-group leaders showed that if they knew the name of ali- brary staff member, they were likely to have a higher library success rate. 18 How- ever, the present study showed that rec- . ognition of a staff member or knowledge of the name did not assure that the library user knew the category to whiCh the staff member belonged. Nearly a third of the respondents who could recognize or name a staff member were not sure to which category he or she should be as- signed (see table 1). Rationale for Selecting Specific Staff Categories The reasons given by the 256 library us- ers who were sure of the staff member's January 1986 status fell into five categories: (1) appear- ance and environmental clues, (2) exper- tise, (3) bibliographic instruction or some other practice that facilitated identifica- tion, (4) personal knowledge and, (5) "no reason" or "don't know" (see table 2). The reasons are strong indicators that users are unsure how to differentiate be- tween librarians and other staff members . The evidence suggests that the knowledge users have about how to identify the dif- ferent categories of staffis based not on in- formation, instruction, or other assist- ance, but on appearance and supposition . Appearance and Environmental Clues Over half of the users who asked a refer- ence question relied on clues provided ei- ther by the environment or by the staff member's appearance to make a decision on staff category. Librarians were identi- fied primarily as older and as behind TABLE 1 Category Librarian Librarian, not sure* Library assistant Library assistant, not sure* Student assistant Student assistant, not sure*· Other/Don't know Totals CATEGORIES ASSIGNED TO LIBRARY STAFF MEMBERS BY THOSE WHO HAD ASKED FOR ASSISTANCE Number 115 36 28 15 47 11 50 302 Percentage 37.8 11.8 9.2 4.9 15.4 3.6 16.4 100.0 *Respondent indicated the category with hesitation , i.e., " I think she must have been a librarian," or, ''I' m pretty sure he 's a stu- dent." Reason Given Appearance Expertise ID -practice Bib. Inst. Knew Before No Reason TABLE 2 REASONS GIVEN FOR ASSUMING THAT A STAFF MEMBER SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO A PARTICULAR CATEGORY Librarian Category Selected Assistant N % N % N 80 58.8% 20 14.7% 36 61 89 .7% 6 8.8% 1 15 62.5% 5 20.8% 4 10 100% 0 0 9 39.1% 4 17.4% 10 12 38.7% 7 22.6% 12 Student Totals % 26 .5% = 136 (100%) 1.5% = 68 (100%) 16.7% = 24 (100%) 10 (100%) 43.4% = 23 (100%) 38.7% = 31 (100%) Note: All reasons given by respondents were recorded . Some respondents gave more than one reason for assigning a staff member to a particular category. This table is a combination of six cross-tabulations (one for each reason given). desks. Most younger staff were assigned to the student category. Users generally relied on appearance andlocation rather than on any other method for determining the categories to which a staff member was assigned. Expertise Expertise was associated almost exclu- sively with the librarian category. How- ever, it is interesting to note that although . sixty-eight (27 percent) of the respondents recognized expertise as a reason for as- signing a staff member to a category, li- brary users cited appearance twice as often (168 responses). Although appearance and environmental clues are only circum- stantial evidence, they are the most com- mon means used to determine profes- sional status. Personal Knowledge Twenty-three users said that they were sure of the category of the staff member who assisted them because they knew the person outside of the library . Nearly half were fellow students; the others were known in another context. The categories assigned to staff by those who are ac- quainted with one another are more likely to be accurate than the categories assigned based on appearance or expertise. Bibliographic Instruction and Other Practices That May Result in Staff Identification Only thirty-five users based their ratio- nale on what appears to be a fairly accu- rate method to identify library staff categories-previous contact through bib- liographic instruction (BI) or other prac- tices used by librarians, which may result in more accurate identification of creden- tials and/or status. The other identifica- tion practices include self-identification by or. referral to another staff member by name. These factors were mostly used to place the staff in the librarian category. All ten users who noted that the staff member had spoken to a class placed the staff memper in the librarian category. No Reason Finally, thirty-one library users said that The Influence of Reference Practices 61 they did not know and/or had no reason to think that the staff member belonged to the specific category to which they had been assigned. The first part of this paper has shown that present practice makes it difficult for library users to distinguish librarians from other library employees. It must be re- · called that users were asked these ques- tions not about any staff, but about library staff who had answered reference ques- tions. Overall, these data show that al- though library users may be aware that there is staff differentiation in libraries, they are not able to distinguish with any certainty between librarians and other li- brary employees when asking for assis- tance in obtaining information or materi- . als. The final portion of this paper returns to the questions and concerns raised in its opening paragraphs. Does present prac- tice make it difficult for library users to perceive librarians as information inter- mediaries? Does it discourage most library users from becoming'' clients'' of these in- formation intermediaries? Does it make it difficult for librarians to function as pro- fessionals '? The final portion will discuss different modes of client behavior that result from the present anonymous prac- tice of reference. It will examine the differ- ences am ,::mg four types of library users- those who do not seek assistance, those who ask only directional questions, those who seek assistance from library staff members, and those who not only seek as- sistance but also look for particular staff members when they need help. INCLINATION OF THE USER TO SEEK ASSISTANCE Given the anonymous practice of refer- ence at an open desk, any relationship de- veloped by the user and the practitioner is likely to be shaped by the user . Several variables may lead the user to recognize that a staff member may function as an in- formation intermediary, e.g., the inclina- tion of the user to seek assistance. Figure 1 outlines possible client-professional rela- tionships; table 3 shows the number of us- ers who asked a question in each category and the recency of these questions. FACTOR Library Use (Building/M 'lterials) Patterns Recognition Factor Intermediary Use Pattern Preference Factor Inclination to Return Client-determined Relationship Type of Relationship As ks No Qu es tions Building use only; Buildi~g use and matenals use Not known No questions Not applicable Not applicable No contact No relationship As ks Only Directional Questions Building use only; Materials use No indication of staff recognition Asks directional questions Goes to anyone Either return or no preference Relationship limited to single inqmry; Not professional in nature Relationship not professional TYPES OF QUESTIO NS ASKED Asks Reference Ques tio ns (Includes both reference and title /author requests) Building use; Materials use No indication of staff recognition Asks directional questions; Asks reference questions of any staff Goes to anyone May return Relationship limited to single question Aware of intervention capability of library staff Building use; Materials use User reports recognizing staff; Recogmzes only or knows name Asks directional questions; Asks reference questions of any staff, but may also seek particular staff Inclined to look for particular staff; May avoid specific staff More likely to return Prefers particular practitioners; Relationships extend over time True client-professional relationship FIGURE 1 TYPOLOGY OF CLIENT-DETERMINED RELATIONSHIPS WITH LIBRARY PRACTITIONERS BASED ON TYPE OF ASSISTANCE SOUGHT 0'1 .N The Influence of Reference Practices 63 TABLE 3 TYPES OF QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS Recency of Question Day of the Interview Less than 2 Weeks 2 Weeks to 1 Mo. 1-3 Months 4-6 Months Over 6 Months or None Total N = 426 N = 1. Users Who Do Not Seek Assistance Seventeen percent of the users in the sample made no contact with a library staff member within the six months prior to the study. Yet over half of them used the library several times a week. Half re- ported using the library as a place to study and three-fourths reported using library materials regularly. The fact that these us- ers had made no contact with library staff but reported heavy building and materials use is an indicator that they perceive the library as a useful building. But either they do not recognize that staff may function as information intermediaries or they have no need to interact with the staff. 2. Users Who Ask Only Directional or Equipment Related Que~tions Nearly one in five users had asked only directional questions. Sixty-five percent reported that their typical library use in- cluded facility use e.g., computer termi- nals and study tables. The majority were frequent users; nearly 58 percent reported using the library several times a week. Sixty-six percent reported using the li- brary as a place to study on the day of the interview and about half reforted using li- brary materials regularly. 1 These users expressed greater uncer- tainty about the different categories of staff in libraries than other users; 22 per- cent were not aware of staff differentiation in libraries. When users who asked direc- tional questions are combined with those who asked no questions, the study shows that one-third of the users had not asked any questions that required the assistance of a librarian. Users who asked directional questions differed from users who asked no ques- None Type of Question Directional Title/Au . Reference % % % % 0 23% 26% 24% 0 31 30 35 0 17 15 9 0 18 21 27 0 11 9 6 % 100% 100% 100% 71 83 110 162 tions in that they were inclined to seek, but had not made use of the professional skills of librarians. A number of studies have raised questions about those who use li- braries but do not call on the professional capabiliti.es of librarians. 20 This study com- pares the behavior of those who are in- clined to see librarians as intermediaries with those who do not. 3. Users Who See Library Staff as Inter- mediaries The inclination to view the library staff member as an intermediary is a prerequi- site for the development of a professional relationship. Nearly two-thirds of the us- ers questioned, or 275 persons, had sought assistance. These users can be di- vided further into two distinct but dispro- portionately sized groups. The vast major- ity of those who asked questions (85 percent) said that they would go to any staff member when they had a question. The remaining 15 percent preferred to look for particular staff members. The principal differences between these two groups will be discussed below. a. Users Who Go To Any Staff Member Those who ask questions but who do not look for particular library staff mem- bers represent the largest category of li- brary users. These individuals conform to the client norm expected by present refer- ence practice. Nearly 62 percent reported using the library several times a week. Their library materials and building use was similar to those who asked no ques- tions or who asked only directional ques- tions. About two-thirds had used the li- brary as a place to read or study on the day of the interview. Only 13 percent reported seeking assistance regularly. These users --------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 64 College & Research Libraries ask questions but do not seek out particu- lar staff. Although they did not custom- arily look for particular staff members, 55 percent said they would return to the per- son who had assisted them if help was needed at another time. Findings show that this large group does not engage in a true client relationship. Their contact with librarians as information intermediaries is likely to be limited to single, isolated en- counters. b. Users Who Act as Clients-Those Who Seek Out Particular Staff Members All library users were asked, "When you use this library do you usually look for particular people when you need assis- tance?" Only 10 percent of all users look for particular staff. The library-use pat- terns of this minority follow: their fre- quency of use and library building and materials use patterns are not substan- tially different from the patterns shown by other users; less than 19 percent reported seeking assistance during their typical use patterns. It is not surprising to find that these and all other library users in this study report heavy materials and building use and minimal assistance seeking; li- brary users spend far less time as clients than as library users. However, those who have recognized the value of the interme- diary role do use the professional exper- tise of librarians. The next section of this paper examines the client behavior of these individuals. The Client Mode-the Inclination to Look for Particular Staff The 15 percent of users who looked for particular staff members were far less likely to say they were unsure of the cate- gory of the staff member (16.3 percent) than those who did not look for particular staff (33.7 percent). In addition, they were more likely to say that they selected a staff member on the basis of expertise (26. 8 per- cent) than those who did not look for a particular staff member (20.9 percent). They were much less likely to say that they would go to whomever was at the desk (14.6 percent) than those with no prefer- ence (27.4 percent) . Library users who looked for particular staff members were also much more likely to say that they January 1986 avoided certain staff members (22 percent) than those who did not. (8.6 percent) . Individuals who look for particular staff when they seek assistance act like the cli- ents of other professionals. They select the professional and return to him or her when they need assistance. They do not prefer to go to just anyone. In the process of selecting, they may also make a con- scious decision to avoid a particular practi- tioner. They may learn the name of the staff member with whom they have devel- oped a relationship, but if not, they will re- turn to the staff member through recogni- tion alone . Users who have learned the name of a practitioner benefit by having the ability to reestablish communication with a professional at a later time. 21 Criteria Used to Select the Library/ Information Professional Only those users who have engaged in client behavior develop criteria to select staff. They constitute a small minority of library users; in this study only forty-one qualified. In librarianship the absence of obvious credentials or specialties known to the client-such as family practice or ob- stetrics in medicine, or divorce or taxation in law-requires the clients to develop their own criteria. These criteria allow the client to develop the qualities later sought in the practi- tioner. Expertise was the criterion most of- ten used by the respondents in this study; half of those who looked for a particular staff member said that the staff member was selected for expertise or knowledge exhibited in a past encounter. Thirty-nine percent of those who looked for a particu- lar staff member said that they selected the staff member because they recognized that person. Finally, sixteen did so be- cause the staff member seemed friendly or approachable. The Inclination to Return The inclination to return is a strong indi- cator that the user has established a client relationship with a staff member. In this study, the 360 users who asked questions, and would return to the staff member who had assisted them, were more likely to know that different categories of staff worked in the library (89 percent) than those who didn't care if they returned to the staff member (79 percent). They are more than twice as likely to recognize or know the name of the staff member (26 percent) than those who didn't care (13 percent). None of those who said they would prefer to go to someone else the next time knew the name of the staff mem- ber who had assisted them. Those who re- turn are twice as likely to say that a library staff member had spoken to their class (12 percent) than those who had no prefer- ence (6 percent). Finally, they are twice as likely to cite expertise as a criterion for se- lection than those who had no preference (25 percent to 12 percent). Criteria Used to Avoid Staff Library users who avoid particular staff members have client behavior in common with those who seek out staff. They distin- guish among staff members and they ex- hibit preferences. Fourteen percent of those who asked questions reported that they avoided specific staff members. Li- brary users who sought specific · staff members were more likely to avoid partic- ular staff (22 percent) than those who did not (9 percent). The reasons for avoidance were grouped into two main categories: (1) neg- ative style of the staff member, based on past experience or perception; and (2) past experience unrelated to expertise. About half of the users avoided particular staff members because they were unpleasant to approach. Although some users avoided a particular staff member because they thought that person was a student or a nonprofessional, 56 percent of the staff members avoided were thought to be li- brarians. Forty-four percent avoided cer- tain staff members because in a past expe- rience the staff member had appeared to be too busy to deal with their inquiry, had given no help, or had given more help than the user needed. Summary and Implications The introductory section of this paper raised questions about how present refer- ence practices keep users from recogniz- ing the professionalism inherent in this ac- The Influence of Reference Practices 65 tivity. The data show that library users: (1) do not easily distinguish between librari- ans and other staff members; (2) have only a vague notion of staff differentiation; (3) are unaware of the credentials of librari- ans; and (4) environmental clues or other circumstantial evidence are used to iden- tify staff by category. Without doubt, misperceptions influ- ence the ability of librarians to practice their profession, because librarians cannot serve effectively those who understand neither their purpose nor their expertise. If users cannot distinguish between pro- fessionals and other staff, they may re- spond inappropriately to the profession. Inappropriate responses may include (1) a misunderstanding of the role of the librari- ans as an information intermediary, (2) as- suming all staff have the same credentials and provide the same level of service, (3) developing invalid criteria about whom to consult when assistance is needed, or ( 4) thinking of staff as merely custodians of material. Professional practice that places anonymous staff members behind the ref- erence desk not only lacks a theoretical ba- sis but also is dysfunctional. 22 Present practice produces users who have little contact with librarians, usually ask only directional questions, and show little preference for who answers their questions. Most users are not true clients: their relationship is limited by present ref- erence practice to an isolated encounter. A few users have overcome the constraints of the environment and developed a true client relationship with willing profes- sionals or other staff. In recent years libraries have made greater use of information desks to re- spond to the directional questions that make up such a large percentage of the ref- erence work load. These desks have been staffed by nonprofessionals or students trained to answer directional questions, to provide simple biblio8!aphic information, and to filter questions . 23 It does not appear that those who have created these desks have taken into account the limited knowledge that library users have of staff differentiation in libraries. (This statement is equally true of the presently configured reference desk.) 66 College & Research Libraries The information desk has great poten- tial as a cost-effective method for provid- ing directional information and for refer- ring true reference inquiries to the professional staff member with the appro- priate credentials at a time that is conve- nient for both the user and the librarian. Libraries need to experiment with models that underscore the professional functions of librarians and staff differentiation in li- braries. Altering the present reference configu- ration to make it more client-centered or user friendly is not a task to be undertaken lightly. Charles Martell, who recom- mends a total restructuring of the aca- demic library from its traditional func- tional design-acquisitions, cataloging, circulation, and reference-to a number of client-centered functional work groups, believes that a new client-centered ap- proach would require two to five years in the prototype development stage before the model could be evaluated. 24 However, prior to implementing a reformed· model of client-centered reference practice, plan- ners should consider research findings that will promote the development of a true client-professional relationship. Li- brarians who devise client.,centered January 1986 models need to examine the messages cur- rently sent to library users by existing ref- erence and other public service desk poli- cies and practices. A reconfigured reference service should exploit the benefits brought to the client- professional relationship by well- designed bibliographic instruction, online searching, faculty liaison, and other prac- tices that highlight the expertise of librari- ans. It should eliminate aspects of present , reference practice that confuse the public. In all likelihood, a client-centered refer- ence model will effectively use nonprofes- sionals just as other professions effec- tively use auxiliary staff. A recon- figuration may include the provision of various physical changes in the library building and in services, e.g., clearly visi- ble private or semiprivate offices for pro- fessional staff, methods for identifying in- formation intermediaries by name and general area of expertise. It might also in- clude methods that will help the user be- come a client and facilitate the client's abil- ity to find the right intermediary. Such a reconfiguration should provide the basis for more accurate assessment of reference performance. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Charles Martell, "Editorial: Performance at the Reference Desk," College & Research Libraries 46:4 (Jan. 1985). 2. See Charles A. Bunge, "Interpersonal Dimensions of the Reference Interview: A Historical Re- view of the Literature,'' Drexel Library Quarterly 20:4-23 (Spring 1984). 3. Mary Jo Lynch, "Reference Interviews in Public Libraries," Library Quarterly 48:136 (April1978). 4. Ibid. 5. A number of questions about the professional aspects of reference are raised in Mary Biggs and others, "Replacing the Fast Fact Drop-In with Gourmet Information Service: A Symposium," Journal of Academic Librarianship 2:68-78 (May 1985). 6. For a discussion of the issue, see Michael F. Winter, "The Professionalization of Librarianship." Occasional Papers no.160 (Urbana: University of IDinois, Graduate School of Library and Informa- tion Science, July 1983). 7. Ibid., p.36. 8. Ibid., p.37. 9. For a critical review of the evaluation of reference services, see Ellen Altman, ''Assessment of Ref- erence Service,'' in The Service Imperative: Essays in Honor of Margaret E. Monroe, ed. Gail A. Sch- lachter (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1982), p. 169-85. 10. Richard A. Danner, "Reference Theory and the Future of Legal Reference Service," Law Library ]oumal76:217 (Spring 1983). 11. Thelma Friedes, "Current Trends in Academic Libraries," Library Trends 31:457-74 (Winter 1983). Theme issue, entitled "Current Trends in Reference Services." 12. Danner, p .218 . The Influence of Reference Practices 67 13. See Mary Ann Swope and Jeffery Katzer, "The Silent Majority: Why Don't They Ask Questionsr' RQ 12:161-66 (Winter 1972); see Bunge for a review of the literature. 14. Social psychologist Erving Goffman has examined a number of social interactions from the per- spective of their affect on the individual. In particular, see chapter 4 of Relations in Public (New York: Harper, 1971). 15. William J. Goode, "The Librarian: From Occupation to Profession?" Library Quarterly 31:313 (Oct. 1%1). 16. Peter Hernon and Maureen Pastine, ''Student Perceptions of Academic Librarians,'' College & Re- search Libraries 38:132 (Mar. 1977). 17. Ibid. 18. Joan C. Durrance, "The Generic Librarian: Anonymity Versus Accountability," RQ 22:278-83 (Spring 1983). 19. Paul Kantor's studies show that, normally, only 20 to 25 percent of academic library users are read- ing library materials at any given time. (Interview with Paul Kantor, President of Tanatalus, Oct. 10, 1985.) 20 . In particular, see Swope and Katzer, Hernon and Pastine. 21 . Joan C. Durrance, "Citizen Groups and the Transfer of Information in a Community" (Ph.D. Diss., University of Michigan, 1980), p.170-74. 22. Several authors have called attention to the dysfunctional nature of presently configured refer- ence from the perspective of the user; see Lynch, Swope and Katzer, Hernon and Pastine, and Friedes. The findings of Haack and others suggest that the reference environment contributes to burnout. Mary Haack and others, "Occupational Burnout Among Librarians," Drexel Library Quarterly 20:46-72 (Spring 1984). 23. See Martin P. Courtois and Lori A. Goetsch, ''Use of Nonprofessionals at Reference Desks,'' Col- lege & Research Libraries 45:385-91 (Sept. 1984); Egill A. Halldorsson and Marjorie E. Murfin, "The Performance of Professionals and Nonprofessionals in the Reference Interview." College & Re- search Libraries 38:385-95 (Sept. 1977); Laura M. Boyer and William C. Theimer, Jr., "The Use and Training of Nonprofessional Personnel at Reference Desks in Selected College and University Li- braries," College & Research Libraries 36:193-200 (May 1975). 24. Charles R. Martell, The Client-Centered Academic Library: An Organizational Model (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1983), p.102.