Improving the model for interactive readers' advisory service

Abstract

Readers' advisory services have seen a renaissance over the past two decades. Librarians across the country have been examining new ways to connect readers with books and to build a community of readers in their larger communities. It would be hard to find a major professional conference that did not feature at least one session on some aspect of working with readers. This revitalization of the concept of helping readers to the next book builds on a strong historical foundation of library services to readers that dates back to Samuel S. Green's 1876 paper Personal Relations Between Librarians and Readers and the work of early readers' advisors such as Helen Haines and numerous others. (1) The predominant model for readers' advisory service, both in the early days and in the current renaissance, has been a one-to-one conversation between the librarian and the reader. That the personal encounter between librarian and reader provides the best results has been taken as a given in the literature and in conference presentations too numerous to recount. In this issue, Neil Hollands examines the assumptions that underlie this model and concludes that while they may work under the most ideal conditions, there needs to be a rethinking of how readers' services are offered in libraries. In presenting his ideas for a new model for readers' advisory service, Hollands builds off of the work he has done coordinating the award-winning reading suggestion service Looking for a Good Book at the Williamsburg (Va.) Regional Library. He is an active participant in the Fiction-L electronic discussion list, and is currently working on a readers' guide to fantastic fiction for Libraries Unlimited.--Editor. The basic model for interactive readers' advisory (RA) service--impromptu face-to-face discussion between reader and librarian--is grounded in incorrect assumptions that rarely occur in the daily conditions of libraries. I do not wish to minimize the vast progress we have made in the last fifteen years, nor do I have anything but praise for the advocates, including Robert Burgin, Mary K. Chelton, Joyce G. Saricks, Kenneth Shearer, Duncan Smith, and many others, who have inspired many of us to become involved in this aspect of librarianship. We have experienced an RA renaissance--revaluing the service and delivering it to readers. Still, with small adjustments to the way we deliver service, we can make sure that more readers feel invited to the RA party. Williamsburg Regional Library (WRL) has developed a revised model for RA that begins with a reading preference form instead of face-to-face discussion. This model meets our goals of bringing quality service to as many readers as possible, providing RA in a way that fits the realities of daily practice, and designing service to provide maximum documentation and follow-up with patrons. This model can be replicated at other libraries, including those that feel unready or unable to provide RA using traditional service models. This column outlines incorrect assumptions that limit the practicality of the model of face-to-face service and describes an improved model, including ideas about 1) assembling and training an RA team; 2) designing a form; 3) delivering the form to readers; 4) receiving completed forms and routing them to advisors; 5) responding to the forms; and 6) documenting the transaction and following up. Faulty Assumptions of the Traditional Model The conventional starting point for readers' advisory, as typically described in the literature, is face-to-face discussion initiated by the reader, or sometimes, by a proactive librarian. It is easy to see how this model evolved. Traditionally, library service begins when a patron approaches a desk. Following this practice, the model for RA has been much like that of the reference interview. This model is also based on the noble idea that direct interpersonal contact is the best way to give service and encourage future interactions. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.