Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19: A Climate Survey in
the Recent before Times
Kate Lambaria, Joe C. Clark, Kristina Shanton, Peter Shirts
Notes, Volume 77, Number 3, March 2021, pp. 357-379 (Article)
Published by Music Library Association
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/not.2021.0000
For additional information about this article
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/781428
[ Access provided at 4 Mar 2021 20:58 GMT from Kent State University ]
MUSIC REFERENCE SERVICES PRE-COVID-19:
A CLIMATE SURVEY IN THE
RECENT BEFORE TIMES
By Kate Lambaria, Joe C. Clark,
Kristina Shanton, and Peter Shirts
L
Providing assistance with navigating resources and connecting users
with information are core objectives of librarianship, and reference services are designed to meet these goals. Yet, the landscape is ever shifting. As technology and patron behavior change, so too do reference
service and staffing models. The economic stability of institutions can
also impact the size and scope of library reference services. In order to
provide effective reference assistance, make service improvements, and
develop new approaches, it is important to share and evaluate current
practices.
In the fall of 2019, members of the Music Library Association’s
Reference and Access Services Subcommittee (RASS) of the Public
Services Committee conducted an online survey to better understand
how libraries are providing music reference services.1 The study was
designed to answer the following questions:
1. What is the state of music reference services in academic libraries? This includes delivery methods (in person, email, phone,
chat, etc.), physical locations (branch libraries, main libraries,
dedicated reference desk, single service point, etc.), staffing
models (librarians, staff, students, referral system, etc.), and
training.
2. Is there a relationship between the type and size of institution
and how music reference services are provided?
Kate Lambaria is the Music & Performing Arts Librarian at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Joe C. Clark is the Head of the Performing Arts Library at Kent State University. Kristina
Shanton is the Music Librarian at Ithaca College. Peter Shirts is the Music Librarian at Emory University.
The authors would like to thank Kristin Yeager, Wren Murray, and past and present members of the
Reference & Access Services Subcommittee that contributed to this survey, including Donna Maher,
Matthew Vest, and Taylor Greene.
1. This survey was deployed during the fall of 2019 and a significant portion of the analysis was completed in early spring 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit the United States. The writing was
completed during the summer of 2020, at a time when libraries nationwide were providing few, if any,
services in person. COVID-19 had already forced libraries to reconsider reference in an online environment and most certainly will continue to actuate drastic changes to services when institutions open their
physical spaces to patrons. Additional research on the impacts of the virus on music reference services is
needed.
357
358
Notes, March 2021
3. Is there a relationship between reference service models and
their perceived effectiveness?
4. Are there any changes over time to music reference services?
5. Do respondents expect to make changes in reference services?
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature concerning library reference services is robust. This
review focuses on the two areas most relevant to this study: general
academic library reference service models and those specific to music.
Annual statistics from the Association of Research Libraries show a dramatic 84 percent decrease in reference transactions from 1998 to 2018.2
This decline in questions has not necessarily led to the elimination of
reference desks, but instead to changes in service and staffing models.
The following large-scale surveys of academic library practices regarding
the reference desk illustrate patterns one might expect to find—fewer
reference questions, reduced hours of operation, and fewer hours with
librarians staffing the reference desk. In 2008, Julie Banks and Carl
Pracht surveyed around one hundred libraries and found that use of a
separate reference desk was still common, with 86 percent of libraries
having one, though 62 percent of these libraries staffed the desk with
non-MLS staff at times to free up professional librarians for other tasks.3
In 2011, Dennis B. Miles surveyed 119 universities and found that 66 percent still used a reference desk model and 83 percent sometimes used
non-MLS staff.4
Although not focused specifically on investigating reference desk models, Jason Coleman, Melissa N. Mallon, and Leo Lo’s 2014 study surveyed
420 academic librarians regarding changes made to their reference operations during the previous two years. They found a comparable number
of libraries kept the same number of reference desk hours for professionals (42.1 percent) as libraries that decreased hours for professionals (41.2 percent); smaller libraries were less likely to see a decrease in
hours.5 More recently, in 2019, Samantha Kennedy, Daniel Kipnes, and
Ashley Lierman surveyed 239 universities to determine current reference
desk models and attitudes toward them. They found that 45 percent still
2. “Service Trends in ARL Libraries, 1998-2018,” ARL Statistics Survey Statistical Trends, Association
of Research Libraries, https://www.arl.org/arl-statistics-survey-statistical-trends/ (accessed 3 September
2020).
3. Julie Banks and Carl Pracht, “Reference Desk Staffing Trends: A Survey,” Reference & User Services
Quarterly 48, no. 1 (2008): 56, https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.48n1.54.
4. Dennis B. Miles, “Shall We Get Rid of the Reference Desk?” Reference & User Services Quarterly 52, no.
4 (2013): 323–24, https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.52n4.320.
5. Jason Coleman, Melissa N. Mallon, and Leo Lo, “Recent Changes to Reference Services in
Academic Libraries and Their Relationship to Perceived Quality: Results of a National Survey,” Journal of
Library Administration 56, no.6 (2016): 682–83, https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1109879.
Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19
359
used a traditional reference model, but 34 percent had transitioned to
a shared or combined service desk—a marked change from 2011.6 They
also observed that while few libraries (17 percent) exclusively use non-
librarians at the reference desk, 75 percent of surveyed librarians support having a physical reference desk.7 While these studies show some
general trends, services in individual libraries vary widely. Stephanie
Alexander and Diana K. Wakimoto surveyed the California State
University system libraries in 2017 and discovered that 73.7 percent still
use a physical reference desk staffed with librarians and only 21.1 percent use tiered or on-call models or merged service points, though a few
libraries were planning to merge service desks at the time of the survey.8
While all five of the previously-mentioned studies show that the physical reference desk was still generally in use, they also detailed ways in
which libraries were diversifying their reference models; these include
virtual reference as well as relatively new models of in-person reference
such as information/learning commons, roaming reference, tiered reference, and combined service points.9 Combining service points is a popular trend, but reference training, especially for students, has continued
to be a barrier. Alexander and Wakimoto identified training as librarians’ perceived greatest challenge to adopting new models, including
the time involved and the difficulty in helping students recognize when
questions should be passed on to professional staff.10 Coleman, Mallon,
and Lo found that while libraries made great efforts to maintain quality
with reference training, even well-trained student employees still did not
answer questions as well as those with an MLS.11
6. The remaining 21 percent had no physical desk or a form of information commons. Samantha
Kennedy, Daniel Kipnes, and Ashley Lierman, “Reframing Reference Services: Perceptions and Futures
of the Reference Desk: Findings from a Mixed-Methods Survey of United States Academic Libraries”
(Association of College and Research Libraries Together Wherever Virtual Conference, June 8, 2020),
https://youtu.be/sGHu1y8Hf7E (accessed 3 September 2020).
7. Ibid.
8. Stephanie Alexander and Diana K. Wakimoto, “Exploration of Reference Models in a
Public University System,” Reference Services Review 47, no.1 (2019): 26, https://doi.org/10.1108
/RSR-08-2018-0062.
9. For more detailed information on these newer types of reference services, see Kay Ann Cassell,
Managing Reference Today: New Models and Best Practices (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017); Lili
Lou, “Models of Reference Service,” in Reference and Information Services: An Introduction, ed. Linda C.
Smith and Melissa Autumn Wong, 5th ed. (Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited, 2016), 155–78; Aditi
Bandyopadhyay and Mary Kate Boyd-Byrnes, “Is the Need for Mediated Reference Service in Academic
Libraries Fading Away in the Digital Environment?” Reference Services Review 44, no. 4 (2016): 596–626,
https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-02-2016-0012; and Linda Frederiksen and Brandon Wilkinson, “Single
Service Points in Libraries: A Review,” Journal of Access Services 13, no. 2 (2016): 131–40, https://doi.org
/10.1080/15367967.2016.1161522.
10. Alexander and Wakimoto, “Exploration of Reference Models,” 29–30. To view one example of
extensive student reference training, see Michael LaMagna, Sarah Hartman-Caverly, and Lori Marchetti,
“Redefining Roles and Responsibilities: Implementing a Triage Reference Model at a Single Service
Point,” Journal of Access Services 13, no. 2 (2016): 53–65, https://doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2016.1161516.
11. Coleman, Mallon, and Lo, “Recent Changes to Reference Services,” 691.
360
Notes, March 2021
In summary, despite a decrease in questions, reference desks still exist
in many academic libraries, but institutions have moved or are moving to
a shared service point. In both these environments, the desk is not usually
staffed by MLS holders at all times. While there are a number of case studies of combining service points,12 there are few broad, multi-institutional
studies of the effectiveness of other new systems, and perhaps because of
this gap in the literature, librarians can be resistant to try new models.13
The literature specifically addressing music reference services is limited and focuses primarily on assessing the quality of services, including
virtual reference services, and the existence of physical reference desks
in music libraries. In her 2012 article, Kirstin Dougan outlined specific
assessment models such as LibQual+, the Wisconsin-Ohio Reference
Evaluation Program (WOREP), and the Reference Effort Assessment
Data (READ) Scale. Through implementing the various assessments,
Dougan identified several areas for improving music reference training, including general quality of service for student assistants and their
approachability and finding smaller items in larger publications, specific articles, and reviews for reference staff.14 In 2001, Beth Christensen,
Mary Du Mont, and Alan Green surveyed thirteen music libraries to
determine the quality of music reference using the WOREP as its survey
instrument and concluded that music librarians and paraprofessionals
were better at reference than students, with longer experience correlating with greater success; training was not part of this study.15 They also
identified important differences between general and music reference:
the number of known item requests are three times higher for music,
and questions about finding smaller works in larger collections occur six
times more frequently than in general reference.16
Other studies investigated virtual music reference services. Gerald
Szymanski and Mary Alice Fields, based on a survey conducted in late
2002, examined what types of virtual reference public and academic
music libraries offered. Of their forty-five responses, they found that all
used email and 77 percent used some sort of web-based form; 49 percent
used chat, but only received an average of 1.3 music-related chats per
month.17 Cassidy R. Sugimoto’s 2008 study is a rare case of evaluating
12. “Creating the Single Service Point: Current Perspectives on a Recurring Theme.” Special issue, The
Journal of Access Services 13, no. 2 (2016).
13. Alexander and Wakimoto, “Exploration of Reference Models,” 24, 30–31.
14. Kirstin Dougan, “Delivering and Assessing Music Reference Services,” The Reference Librarian 54,
no. 1 (2013): 38–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2013.734759.
15. Beth Christensen, Mary Du Mont, and Alan Green, “Taking Note: Assessing the Performance of
Reference Service in Academic Music Libraries: A Progress Report,” Notes 58, no.1 (September 2001):
39–54, https://doi.org/10.1353/not.2001.0127.
16. Christensen, Du Mont, and Green, 48–49.
17. Gerald Szymanski and Mary Alice Fields, “Virtual Reference in the Music Library,” Notes 61, no. 3
(March 2005): 634–58, https://doi.org/10.1353/not.2005.0035.
Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19
361
the quality of virtual reference. The research analyzed responses to
specific music-related chat and email reference questions at ninety-nine
academic libraries.18 The study revealed that chats were answered completely only 28 percent of the time, while email queries were answered
completely 40 percent of the time—but only 66 percent of emails were
answered at all. Some of the problems seemed to arise from the referral process, as subject specialists were not necessarily the first contact in
library-managed virtual reference services. With the remarkable pace of
technological change since 2008 and the impact this can have on the
quality of service, these surveys are outdated.19
A 2004 large-scale study by David Hursh focused on the presence of
a reference desk at 234 NASM-accredited schools with a separate music
library.20 Hursh concluded that standalone reference desks were not a
standard feature in branch music libraries (only 22 percent surveyed had
them) and that reference desks were more likely in libraries that supported large music programs with advanced non-performance degrees.
However, 70 percent of librarians who indicated that a music reference
desk was “important” did not have a desk, demonstrating an interest in
supporting this service model.21 Nara L. Newcomer and David Hursh’s
2008 follow-up was an in-depth case study at one university measuring
whether the presence of a reference desk would help students feel more
comfortable asking for assistance, even if the desk was unstaffed.22 They
found that although students wanted immediate help, the sight of an
unstaffed reference desk did not increase their chances of looking for
help elsewhere.
Finally, several case studies of new reference service models in
music libraries have been published in recent years. Lisa M. Woznicki
described an embedded reference service at Towson University that
created a librarian presence in the music building, though provided
little evidence of its success.23 Kate Lambaria and Kirstin Dougan
Johnson explored combining reference and circulation service points
at the Music and Performing Arts Library of the University of Illinois at
18. Cassidy R. Sugimoto, “Evaluating Reference Transactions in Academic Music Libraries,” Music
Reference Services Quarterly 11, no. 1 (2008): 1–32, https://doi.org/10.1080/10588160802157124.
19. To see slightly more current general virtual reference trends from 2014, see Coleman, Mallon, and
Lo, “Recent Changes to Reference Services,” 676.
20. David Hursh, “Calling All Academic Music Library Reference Desks,” Music Reference Services
Quarterly 8, no. 3 (2004): 63–81, https://doi.org/10.1300/J116v08n03_04.
21. Hursh, 73.
22. Nara L. Newcomer and David Hursh, “Calling All Academic Music Library Reference Desks:
A Follow Up Study,” Music Reference Services Quarterly 11, no. 2 (2008): 101–29, https://doi.org
/10.1080/10588160802143405.
23. Lisa M. Woznicki, “Transposing the Tradition: Providing Embedded Reference Service to Music
Students,” Music Reference Services Quarterly 20, no. 2 (2017): 69–90, https://doi.org/10.1080/10588167
.2017.1309933.
362
Notes, March 2021
Urbana-Champaign, finding that reference staff are now busier at the
combined desk and the profile of their transactions types has somewhat
changed.24 They also noted an overall decrease in interactions with
patrons as a background to their case study, even though—bucking the
general trend—the final year of their study (2017) saw a large increase.25
The focus of the study documented in this paper, however, is in general
trends within music reference services—determining how common these
new experiments in music reference services are, since the last multipleinstitution survey about all types of reference in music libraries was
Hursh’s study from almost two decades ago.
METHODOLOGY
At the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Music Library Association, members of RASS discussed a wide range of topics related to how librarians
provide reference services, from who delivers the service to what delivery
methods are used, and the impacts that other aspects of librarianship can
have on reference. As a result, a small group of subcommittee members
decided to pursue an online survey in order to get a better sense of the
current provision of music reference services in libraries. All members of
the subcommittee provided feedback on the survey questions and goals.
The survey instrument (see Appendix) was designed with consideration to the survey’s goals, past studies, and specifically, music reference
services literature. Recent library science textbooks outline service models, often dividing models between in-person and virtual, with in-person
options sometimes being driven by physical design (the physical reference desk) and others by staffing models (tiered reference services).26
For example, while many librarians may not be able to change their
physical location to something more desirable, the authors believed
that the existence of dedicated reference desks made a direct impact
on the service models implemented by libraries and should therefore be
included in the questions exploring service models, alongside models
such as tiered reference, roving reference, and scheduled consultations
that are not necessarily tied to physical locations. These questions were
intentionally designed to allow for multiple selections, as one institution may rely on several models. Previous studies explored the existence
of physical reference desks in academic music libraries in addition to
24. Kate Lambaria and Kirstin Dougan Johnson, “Changing the Venues but Not Changing Our Tune:
Service Model Transition at a Music and Performing Arts Library,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 59,
no. 1 (2019): 41, http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/rusq.59.1.7223.
25. Lambaria and Dougan Johnson, “Changing the Venues,” 33, 38.
26. Cassell, Managing Reference Today and Lou, “Models of Reference Service.”
Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19
363
staffing levels for music reference and the effectiveness of service, so
the authors also believed it important to incorporate these concepts to
better understand changes over time.27
The survey was reviewed and approved by the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign Institutional Review Board and distributed via
Qualtrics in November of 2019 to 620 librarians at institutions accredited
by the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). While this population excludes public and international libraries, the authors believed
that the benefits of being able to distribute via direct email to individuals
outweighed this drawback. This population also included those music
librarians that do not participate in the MLA-L listserv. The distribution
list was developed by visiting each institution’s library website and determining which individual was most likely to be responsible for music reference services. If available, the music specialist was selected; if no specialist
could be identified, the head of reference or user services was invited to
participate. Only one individual per institution was selected.
Two hundred and ten surveys were collected for a response rate of 34
percent and 80 percent of these submissions (n=167) were completed.
Incomplete responses were discarded. Each question was analyzed individually and by demographic in order to understand the impact that size
of institution, number of music students, available staff, and more might
have on music reference services. In addition to the analysis features in
Qualtrics, the authors used IBM’s SPSS Statistics 26 and Microsoft Excel
to conduct quantitative analysis. Percentages have been rounded to the
nearest full number. An inductive approach was used to code openended responses for themes. For those questions with “Other” responses
that allowed respondents to enter supporting text, the data is presented
as it was received and remains in the “Other” category (i.e., although
the text may have been one of the provided answer options, it was not
redistributed).
FINDINGS
Demographics
A majority (71 percent, n=119) of responses came from Masters or
Doctoral degree granting institutions. The remaining schools were
Bachelors granting, (25 percent, n=41), Associates granting (3 percent, n=5), or independent conservatories of music (1 percent, n=2).
Approximately two-thirds (65 percent, n=109) were public institutions.
Institutional enrollment among the survey respondents varied widely
27. Hursh, “Calling All Academic Music Library Reference Desks.”
364
Notes, March 2021
Table 1. Institutional and music program enrollment (FTE)
Total Student Enrollment (FTE)
< 1,000
4% (n=7)
1,000 – 4,999
28% (n=47)
5,000 – 9,999
17% (n=29)
10,000 – 19,999
23% (n=38)
20,000 – 29,999
13% (n=21)
30,000 +
15% (n=25)
Students Enrollment in Music Programs (FTE)
<100
23% (n=39)
100 – 299
31% (n=52)
300 – 499
20% (n=33)
500 – 999
8% (n=13)
1,000 +
2% (n=4)
I don’t know
16% (n=26)
(see Table 1). Almost three-quarters (73 percent, n=121) had less than
20,000 student FTE.
Enrollment in the schools/departments of music was under 500 student FTE for most, while 16 percent reported not knowing how many
were in their music programs (see Table 1). The most common population was 100–299 music student FTE, with under 100 and between 300
and 499 music student FTE as second and third respectively. Comparing
these numbers to overall NASM membership which was received
through personal email correspondence with a NASM representative,
smaller music programs (1–100 students) were underrepresented in
the survey, as they comprise 52 percent of NASM schools. Participants
with medium music student populations (101–299) were about even
with their corresponding NASM percentage, while large music programs
(300+ students) were somewhat overrepresented in the survey (30 percent of survey contributors, 14 percent of NASM’s population).28
Delivery and Service Models
Of the 166 responses to the question “where are in-person reference
services delivered?” almost two-thirds (63 percent, n=105) indicated services were delivered in their main library building and not in a dedicated
music/arts space. Eleven percent (n=18) delivered in-person reference
at a dedicated music/arts space within a main library, while 19 percent
(n=31) provided services in a branch music/arts library outside of the
main library. Of the 12 respondents who selected “Other” as the location
28. Nora R. Hamme, Accreditation and Research Associate, National Association of Schools of Music,
email message to Karl Paulnack, forwarded to authors, 10 April 2020.
Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19
365
Table 2. Delivery of in-person music reference services by institutional enrollment
Total
Branch
student
location
FTE
enrollment
< 1,000
1,000 –
4,999
5,000 –
9,999
10,000 –
19,999
20,000 –
29,999
30,000 +
Total
number
0
11% (n=5)
Dedicated
space in
main
library
building
14% (n=1)
9% (n=4)
Main
library
building
Other
Total
number
7% (n=2)
7% (n=2)
16% (n=6)
16% (n=6)
33% (n=7)
5% (n=1)
71% (n=5)
70%
(n=33)
86%
(n=25)
63%
(n=24)
43% (n=9)
14% (n=1)
11% (n=5)
7
47
0
29
5% (n=2)
38
19% (n=4)
21
46%
(n=11)
31 (19%)
17% (n=4)
38% (n=9)
0
24
18 (11%)
105 (63%)
12 (7%)
166
for reference services, several indicated their offices, in the music department, or in multiple locations (such as both main and branch libraries).
Reference service models in use varied. Respondents were instructed
to select all service models and delivery methods that applied. Forty-six
percent (n=48) of respondents who provided reference services in a
main library employed dedicated reference desks, while only 16 percent
(n=5) of branches reported using dedicated reference desks. A strong
majority of branches (84 percent, n=26) and dedicated music/arts
spaces (78%, n=14) within main libraries had combined service desks,
offering additional services beyond reference assistance at the physical
desk location. Only seven respondents (4 percent) did not indicate a reference desk presence through a dedicated or combined desk, although
this may be a result of question phrasing.
Table 2 shows that institutions with enrollment of twenty thousand and
greater were much more likely to report a branch location. This is also
true for enrollment in an institution’s music school or department, with
50 percent of institutions with enrollment of five hundred or more in
music programs having a branch location. The likelihood of a dedicated
music/arts space inside the main campus library also increased with
higher music student enrollment if no branch library existed.
Four primary modes of delivery emerged from study results: in-person,
email, phone, and chat. Almost all of the 167 participants provided
in-person and email reference, with phone consultations close behind
(see Figure 1). Chat services were also common, with institutional or
consortial chat used by 80 percent of respondents. Eighty-six percent
366
Notes, March 2021
Figure 1. Frequency of delivery methods for music reference services
(n=143) of respondents offered scheduled consultations. Just over half
(51 percent, n=85) employed a referral or tiered reference model.
About one-third (34 percent) of libraries reported offering reference
Figure
1: Frequency
of delivery
methods
forroving
musicwithin
reference
services
help
via text
message services.
Reference
help via
libraries was reported in less than 20 percent of branch and main libraries,
although branch libraries were more than twice as likely to offer said service (16 percent, n=5 of branches vs. 6 percent, n=7 of main libraries).
Responses from the “Other” category included mentions of Facebook,
ticketing systems, and video capture software.
Results showed that public institutions were more likely to offer chat
or video reference services compared to private ones, but the percentage
of each type of institution offering text reference services were comparable. Ninety-one percent of public schools had chat services compared
to 60 percent of private. The percentage of public institutions offering
video reference was three times more common than their private counterparts, at 16 percent and 5 percent respectively.
Staffing Models
All but three survey respondents (2 percent) indicated that librarians
provided music reference services. The following four staffing models
accounted for 90 percent of responses: (1) librarians only (53 percent,
n=88); (2) undergraduate students, paraprofessional staff, and librarians
(13 percent, n=21); (3) paraprofessional staff and librarians (12 percent, n=20); and (4) undergraduate students, graduate students, paraprofessional staff, and librarians (12 percent, n=20). Forty-one percent
(n=68) indicated that paraprofessional staff participated in reference
Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19
367
Table 3. Percentage of staff types by location
Undergraduate
Students
58%
56%
Branch
Dedicated
space in
main library
16%
Main
library
Graduate
Students
52%
44%
Paraprofessional
Staff
77%
67%
Librarians
5%
23%
98%
100%
100%
services. Institutions offering graduate degrees were more likely to have
undergraduate students providing reference, with 33 percent (n=39)
employing students compared to 24 percent (n=10) at Bachelor granting
schools. When examining employee type by location, data showed that
both branch locations and dedicated music/arts spaces located within
main libraries relied on students and paraprofessionals much more than
did main library reference desks (see Table 3).
The survey also asked how many individuals were providing music reference services, as well as the FTE. Cross tabulation of data showed that
as the size of the music program increased, so did the number of individuals who provided reference assistance. The mean of the number of
individuals was 6.1026 for music programs with fewer than 100 students
and went up to 13.5 for those with 1,000 or more music students. When
examining number of individuals who provided reference services by the
size of institution, the mean was not as predictable. Table 4 shows the
mean rising as institutional enrollment rises, but then decreases from
institutions with 10,000 to 19,999 students and 20,000 to 29,999 students.
The mean then rises to 9.2917 for the largest schools. When considering
the FTE of those providing reference by location, branches reported a
slightly higher mean (M=2.9393) than dedicated spaces in main libraries
(M=2.4861) or those at the main library (M=2.5217). Note that the standard deviation column shows variability of reference staffing for some
categories of institutions.
Reference Training
Approaches to reference training were mixed. Respondents were
instructed to select all training methods that applied to their institution,
and 44 percent (n=74) indicated that they used more than one method.
This compared to 21 percent (n=35) who only employed one approach.
Twelve percent (n=20) indicated there was no training (usually by selecting the “Other” response option and adding text), or no training specific to music, but half of those responses were from institutions where
368
Notes, March 2021
Table 4. Number of individuals who provide reference services by institutional size
Institutional Student
Enrollment (FTE)
< 1,000
1,000 to 4,999
5,000 to 9,999
10,000 to 19,999
20,000 to 29,999
30,000 +
Total
Mean of
Individuals
2.7143
5.5319
8.1429
7.9474
7.1500
9.2917
7.1646
Std. Deviation
1.79947
5.37244
7.97549
10.08597
6.50728
7.61851
7.59018
Number of
Institutions
7
47
28
38
20
24
165
only librarians provided reference services. Almost a quarter of respondents (23 percent, n=38) did not respond to any portion of the training
questions; again, most (82 percent, n=31) were situations where only
librarians offered reference assistance.
The most common training methods included on-the-job sessions
(n=49), online or print written documentation (n=46), shadowing
experienced reference staff (n=35), and dedicated training sessions or
workshops away from the desk (n=27). Additional popular responses
included role playing with staff (n=12), online or print quizzes (n=12),
computer training modules (n=11), and assigned readings on reference
(n=7). When analyzing the data by training methods and employee
types, a higher percentage of graduate students received all types of
training compared to undergraduate students and paraprofessionals
(see Table 5). A slightly higher percentage of undergraduates received
training compared to paraprofessional staff, who had the lowest percentage of training between the three groups.
When asked about the effectiveness of reference services using a fivepoint Likert scale ranging from “not effective” to “extremely effective,”
a majority selected either “very effective” (44 percent, n=71) or “moderately effective” (45 percent, n=74). Only 2 percent (n=4) selected
“extremely effective”, while 7 percent (n=12) selected “slightly effective” and 1 percent (n=2) selected “not effective at all.” Respondents
were given the opportunity to explain their choice in natural language.
These open-ended responses were coded for recurring themes, which
provided the criteria that respondents used to rate their models. Fiftytwo percent (n=35) of respondents that selected “very effective” considered the level of assistance and referral given to patrons to be a major
benchmark for the successful delivery of music reference services. The
next most frequent response was the level of training given to those
providing reference services (22 percent, n=15). Other recurring criteria mentioned included patron feedback; the speed of services; the
Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19
369
Table 5. Training methods used for students and paraprofessionals
Training Method
On the job
Written
documentation
Shadowing
Training/workshop
Role playing
Computer modules
Quizzes
Readings
Other
Undergraduate
(n=49)
73% (n=36)
65% (n=32)
Graduate
(n=32)
84% (n=27)
78% (n=25)
Paraprofessional
(n=68)
62% (n=42)
60% (n=41)
47% (n=23)
43% (n=21)
20% (n=10)
22% (n=11)
20% (n=10)
10% (n=5)
12% (n=6)
53% (n=17)
53% (n=17)
34% (n=11)
25% (n=8)
22% (n=7)
16% (n=5)
13% (n=4)
44% (n=30)
31% (n=21)
13% (n=9)
16% (n=11)
16% (n=11)
9% (n=6)
15% (n=10)
availability—including the number of reference hours—of services; the
presence of music specialists; faculty and student outreach; and the
level of traffic, including desk statistics and number of consultations.
Participants who reported their service as “moderately effective” also
mentioned these criteria and felt that they compare favorably. While
there were negative comments in the “very effective” responses, these
were not mentioned with any significant frequency.
When evaluating responses of those who reported their reference
model as “moderately effective,” the same criteria mentioned above
appeared, but a significant number of librarians identified these areas
as concerns. The most reported benchmark was again the level of assistance or referral, but several “moderately effective” responses reported
this with a degree of concern. Level of assistance or referral and the presence of a music specialist were the only criteria where positive remarks
outweighed the negative remarks (see Figure 2). Other areas of mixed
responses were speed or availability of services—or both, faculty and student outreach, and level of traffic. There was a clear decline in the number of librarians who viewed these criteria as satisfactory, and an increase
in those who viewed them as areas of concern. Notably, no respondents
in the “moderately effective” category considered either the level of training for those providing services or the level of staffing to be sufficient.
Survey participants in branch libraries ranked their reference services’ effectiveness much higher than those in main libraries (either
at a dedicated music space or general reference desk). Sixty-eight
percent (n=21) of respondents ranked their branch library as either
“very” or “extremely” effective. The authors were surprised to see that
dedicated music/arts spaces within the main libraries were ranked lowest for effectiveness (34 percent, n=6 “very” or “extremely” effective),
with main libraries without dedicated music spaces faring better with
370
Notes, March 2021
Positive
8
15
Level of assistance
8
2
Outreach
3
6
Music specialist
Level of training
8
Sufficient staffing
8
Traffic
Negative
1
2
Speed/availability
0
7
5
5
10
15
20
25
Number of Responses
Figure 2. Breakdown of criteria by positive or negative mentions for
moderately effective responses
43 percent (n=44) garnering a “very” or “extremely” effective rating.
Librarians rated their branch library’s service highly, and not a single
branch respondent indicated that their reference services were either
“not” or “slightly” effective (the lowest ratings). Cross tabulation of the
data revealed that there was not a meaningful difference in effectiveness
between the various staffing models. Those institutions that employed
students did not have a notable drop-off in perceived reference service
effectiveness, and survey responses showed that library reference services
that included either graduate students or paraprofessionals were ranked
the most effective (although the numbers were close).
Changes Over Time
In response to the question of whether respondents experienced an
increase or decrease in music reference transactions over the past five
years, 19 percent (n=32) reported an increase and the same amount
reported a decrease. Thirty percent (n=49) reported that transaction levels had stayed the same, while 32 percent (n=53) did not know whether
there had been a change. It is worth noting that just under half of the
respondents (48 percent, n=79) reported that they do not collect data
on how many music reference transactions occur in their libraries, so
these participants likely based their answers on anecdotal information. Branch libraries reported a higher rate of increases in reference
Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19
371
Table 6. Changes in music reference transaction and outreach or instruction over the past
five years by space/location
Music Reference Transactions
Space/Location Increased
Branch
32% (n=10)
Dedicated space 22% (n=4)
in main library
Main library
15% (n=16)
Other
17% (n=2)
Outreach and/or Instruction
Branch
65% (n=20)
Dedicated space 50% (n=9)
in main library
Main library
42% (n=44)
Other
67% (n=8)
Decreased
13% (n=4)
33% (n=6)
Stayed the same
35% (n=11)
17% (n=3)
Don’t know
19% (n=6)
28% (n=5)
18% (n=19) 30% (n=31)
25% (n=3) 33% (n=4)
37% (n=36)
25% (n=3)
0% (n=0)
11% (n=2)
29% (n=9)
33% (n=6)
6% (n=2)
6% (n=1)
7% (n=7)
25% (n=3)
45% (n=47)
8% (n=1)
7% (n=7)
0% (n=0)
transactions than main libraries or dedicated spaces in main libraries,
which reported a higher rate of decreases (see Table 6).
Approximately half (52 percent, n=87) reported collecting data on
the number of music reference transactions while 48 percent (n=80)
did not.29 Those respondents who indicated an increase in transactions
were more likely to also collect reference transaction data. Libraries that
supported smaller music programs were much less likely to collect data
on numbers of reference transactions.
The survey explored outreach and instruction, and through crosstabs the authors examined its possible impact on reference services. Of
responses from institutions that reported an increase in outreach or
instruction efforts over the past five years (49 percent, n=81), 31 percent (n=25) also reported an increase in reference transactions during
that time period, while 12 percent (n=10) reported a decrease and 22
percent (n=18) reported that reference transactions had stayed the
same. The remaining 35 percent (n=28) reported that they do not know
whether transaction frequency had changed. Of those institutions that
reported their outreach or instruction efforts had stayed the same (39
percent, n=65), 44 percent (n=28) also reported that their reference
transactions had stayed the same, while 25 percent (n=16) reported a
decrease in reference and only 9 percent (n=6) reported an increase.
Branch libraries were more likely to report an increase in outreach or
instruction than their main library counterparts.
29. Note that the survey did not ask whether respondents review their reference transaction data on a
regular basis.
372
Notes, March 2021
Respondents reported whether their reference service or staffing models had changed in the last five years. Both service and staffing models were included in the question because they are closely related and
directly impact each other. Forty-two percent (n=70) of libraries experienced change to one or both models, while 51 percent (n=85) did not.
Seven percent (n=12) selected “I don’t know.” These response trends
were consistent across library locations (main library, dedicated spaces,
and branch libraries).
Survey participants were given the opportunity to provide details as
to how their reference services have changed. Some discussed service
models specifically, while others discussed staffing. Sixty-one percent
(n=33) of respondents that reported change in service models over the
last five years moved to a tiered reference or single service point model.
Less significant reasons for change in service model included reduced
desk hours, branch closure, and more emphasis on instruction. Fiftythree percent (n=12) of the responses that reported change in staffing
models indicated a reduction in staff, and 38 percent (n=8) of those
were specific to librarian positions. Other recurring themes included an
increased reliance on student staff, and the occasional additional librarian and paraprofessional positions. Less frequently mentioned factors
included new administration and other organizational changes.
Thirty-five percent (n=58) of participants reported anticipating change
to their music reference services in the next five years. The most significant concern mentioned in open-ended responses was the predicted loss
of staff. Multiple respondents mentioned retiring staff who will likely not
be replaced, or are unlikely to be replaced with a librarian, while others
indicated concern or uncertainty with their administration’s support
of reference services as a whole. Other reasons for anticipated change
included an expected evaluation of current services, concern over unsustainable models, need for more reliance on student employees, and an
acknowledgement that services and spaces are constantly changing and
being adapted. Librarians who reported experiencing change to reference services were more likely to expect more change forthcoming in
the next five years (see Table 7). A slightly higher percentage of public
institutions have either changed their service or staffing models in the
last five years or anticipate doing so in the next five years (12 percent
and 13 percent respectively).
DISCUSSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH
Although 79 percent of respondents in Hursh’s 2004 article thought
that it was important to provide scheduled music reference desk service,
Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19
373
Table 7. Whether respondents have experienced change over the last five years or if they
expect to experience change in the next five years
Expects change
Does not expect
change
Has experienced
change
30 (43%)
40 (57%)
Has not experienced
changed
23 (27%)
62 (73%)
Does not
know
5 (42%)
7 (58%)
the majority did not have one in their academic music libraries.30 A combined service desk where staff have multiple responsibilities—such as circulation and reference—is more common, especially in branch music/
arts libraries and dedicated spaces within main libraries. Music libraries
and librarians also participate in new trends within reference service
models, such as scheduled consultations and referral or tiered reference
models, but still rely on “traditional” delivery methods of in-person,
e-mail, phone, and chat services. While in light of the COVID-19 pandemic the results of this survey no longer provide a current snapshot of
music reference services in academic libraries, they do provide a clear
picture of what occurred before, which can help libraries as they continue to change and adapt as needed in a post-pandemic environment
and future studies that will explore the impact of the pandemic.
Most librarians were generally satisfied with the effectiveness of their
reference services, but the survey responses point to several areas for
improvement. Since a significant portion of music reference takes place
at a main library reference desk (and survey respondents ranked effectiveness lower in such cases), music librarians should strive to articulate
the differences between music and other reference, and also advocate
that those answering these questions have specialized training or training that helps them understand when to refer these questions to a specialist. Staff providing services in dedicated arts spaces within libraries
may have their own special reference needs not being met, but these
needs are still unclear following this analysis. In branch libraries, which
seem the best prepared to answer music reference queries, there is more
reliance on paraprofessionals and students. There is also a clear need
to increase advertising of reference services in an effort to help patrons
understand how the library can assist them in their search for music
related information—more important, perhaps, because the survey
findings suggest that increased outreach and instruction may lead to
30. Hursh, “Calling All Academic Music Library Reference Desks,” 70–71.
374
Notes, March 2021
increased reference transactions. The open-ended responses also suggest
specific ways to improve music reference services. Despite the current
perceived high level of effectiveness, the development and assessment of
training for library staff providing music reference services (often seen
as a challenge for those in the “moderately effective” category) is one
area that libraries can focus on to improve services, perhaps now with
a stronger emphasis on how to effectively provide remote and online
services. The Music Library Association’s Basic Manual Series Volume 8,
Basic Music Reference by Alan Green and Michael J. Duffy, IV, is one
resource available to librarians responsible for developing training for
staff providing music reference services.31
With the ubiquity of reference services via e-mail and chat, more
research should be done on what constitutes effective music reference
via virtual services, especially considering the poor performance of
participants in Sugimoto’s 2008 study and the impact of COVID-19 on
services.32 It is also worth examining whether librarians go beyond tracking reference transactions to also assessing the quality of transactions.
While survey respondents signaled a sense of their services’ effectiveness, further research that assesses the quality of music reference services
is needed to help determine whether this is true. Additional areas for
future research within the realm of music reference services include
the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and how libraries rapidly transitioned their reference services to a remote environment and whether
they were effective, along with user expectations for services.
CONCLUSION
Very few previous studies on music reference services go beyond individual case studies and focus on the bigger picture, providing broader
insight into how our colleagues at other institutions provide their music
reference services. These survey results show that music reference
services do follow trends seen in general reference studies, such as an
increase in combined service points, especially within dedicated branch
libraries. Additionally, the higher the enrollment at the institution or
in the music school, the more likely a dedicated branch library exists,
a finding that many might expect. The results also show that librarians
perceive their music reference services to generally be effective, but
whether this confidence is also felt by patrons is still unknown. And
31. Alan Green and Michael J. Duffy, IV, Basic Music Reference: A Guide for Non-specialist Librarians,
Library Assistants, and Student Employees (Middleton, WI: A-R Editions, Inc. and Music Library Association,
2013).
32. Sugimoto, “Evaluating Reference Transactions.”
Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19
375
finally, there is a strong interest in developing or improving training
around music reference services.
While higher education and the library services that support them continue to evolve through the COVID-19 pandemic, understanding recent
practices can assist librarians and administrators in thinking critically.
The rapid transition to increased online teaching will lead to more
emphasis on electronic resources and therefore library interactions to
instruct patrons in their use. The need for specialized music reference
services will not diminish in a virtual environment. Instead, it will create
new demands on reference services as patrons may no longer be able to
handle the physical materials to find the information often not included
in catalog records, such as key signatures or whether the liner notes
include vocal texts and translations. The long-term effects of the pandemic will cast a long shadow over all library operations, and an appreciation of where librarians and patrons were before the pandemic should
allow all to better implement needed changes to music reference services.
ABSTRACT
In the fall of 2019, the Music Library Association’s Reference and
Access Services Subcommittee surveyed academic librarians as to the
following parameters regarding their music reference services: delivery
methods, physical locations, staffing models, approaches to training,
perceived effectiveness of services, and changes over time. Findings suggest that despite technological advances, most music reference help is
delivered through in-person, email, phone, and chat. Just over half of
respondents have only librarians addressing reference questions, while
the remainder also use students and paraprofessionals. There was no
meaningful difference in perceived effectiveness between the various
staffing models. While only 19 percent of participants are situated in
branch libraries for music, these locations experienced a higher increase
in reference transactions and more outreach and instruction over the
last five years and also ranked their reference services with more effectiveness. Additionally, respondents identified training and outreach as
integral to the effectiveness of reference services and communicated
their experiences with changes to service and staffing models.
376
Notes, March 2021
APPENDIX
For the purposes of this survey, we have defined the following:
•
Reference transactions are information consultations in which
library staff recommend, interpret, evaluate, and/or use information resources to help others to meet particular information
needs. Reference transactions do not include formal instruction or exchanges that provide assistance with locations, schedules, equipment, supplies, or policy statements. (From RUSA:
http://www.ala.org/rusa/guidelines/definitionsreference.)
• Music reference includes music-related reference transactions
provided by library staff.
• Music reference services is used to describe how libraries systematically support music reference transactions.
Service Models
Q1. Which of the following delivery methods are implemented for music
reference services at your institution? (Select all that apply.)
• In person
• Via the phone
• Via email
• Via text message
• Via institutional chat service
• Via shared consortial chat service
• Via video conferencing software
• Other (please describe):
Q2. Where are in-person music reference services primarily delivered at
your institution?
• Branch music and/or other arts library outside of a main library
building
• Dedicated music and/or other arts space inside of a main library
building
• Main library building, not in a dedicated space
• Other (please describe):
Q3. Which service model(s) does your institution use for delivering
music reference services? (Select all that apply.)
• Dedicated reference desk
• Combined service desk (e.g. circulation and reference)
• Referral or tiered reference model
• Scheduled consultations
Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19
377
• Roving reference within the library
• Reference outside of the library (e.g. office hours in music
department)
• Other (please describe):
Q4. Does your institution collect data on the number of music reference
transactions?
• Yes
• No
Q5. [If yes] Please describe how your institution collects this data (how
often, software/tools, etc.)
Q6. Over the past 5 years, has there been an increase or decrease in the
number of music reference transactions?
• Increase
• Decrease
• Stayed the same
• I don’t know
Q7. Over the past 5 years, has there been an increase or decrease in
outreach and/or instruction (including instructional tools, such as
LibGuides) for music at your institution?
• Increase
• Decrease
• Stayed the same
• I don’t know
Staffing Models
Q8. Who provides music reference services at your institution? (Select all
that apply.)
• Undergraduate student employees
• Graduate student employees
• Paraprofessional staff
• Librarians
Q9. How many staff (number of individuals) provide music reference
services at your institution?
• Undergraduate student employees
• Graduate student employees
• Paraprofessional staff
• Librarians
378
Notes, March 2021
Q10. How many full time equivalent (FTE) staff provide music reference
services at your institution?
Q11. What type of training is provided to staff that provide music reference services? (Select all that apply.)
• Dedicated training sessions or workshops
• On-the-job training sessions
• Shadowing experienced reference staff
• Role playing with staff
• Online or print documentation
• Assigned readings on reference
• Computer training modules
• Online or print quizzes
• Other (please describe):
Q12. How effective do you consider your current service/staffing model?
• Not effective at all
• Slightly effective
• Moderately effective
• Very effective
• Extremely effective
Q13. Please explain why you selected [answer to Q12].
Q14. In the last 5 years, has your service and/or staffing model changed?
• Yes
• No
• I don’t know
Q15. Please explain how your service and/or staffing model changed
and the factors that led to the change.
Q16. Do you anticipate your current model changing in the next 5 years?
• Yes
• No
Q17. Please explain why and how you anticipate your model changing.
Q18. Please include any other comments about music reference services
below.
Music Reference Services Pre-COVID-19
379
Demographics
Q19. Please select the option which best describes your institution.
• Non-degree granting institution or program
• Independent conservatory of music
• Associate’s degree granting institution
• Bachelor’s degree granting institution
• Master’s or doctoral degree granting institution
Q20. Is your institution public or private?
• Public
• Private
Q21. Total student enrollment (FTE, full-time equivalent)
• Less than 1,000 students
• 1,000 to 4,999 students
• 5,000 to 9,999 students
• 10,000 to 19,999 students
• 20,000 to 29,999 students
• 30,000 students or more
• I don’t know
Q22. Number of students enrolled in music programs (FTE, full-time
equivalent)
• Less than 100 students
• 100 to 299 students
• 300 to 499 students
• 500 to 999 students
• 1,000 students or more
• I don’t know