It's a mystery

Abstract

Abstract Purpose – To explore and evaluate the evidence about the effectiveness of "mystery shopping" as a technique for service evaluation in the public library system of one country. Design/methodology/approach – A critical summary and review of the literature in this field. Interviews with public librarians in New Zealand who have used mystery shopping. Findings – Demonstrates that there were three major reasons for using this method of customer service evaluation in the libraries under consideration: improving process, improving staff behaviours, and benchmarking with similar organisations. In practice, objectives were mixed, with some data being used for process improvement, and other elements of the mystery shopping used to assess library staff performance. Staff reactions were initially negative, but changed after they saw that the assessment was positive. Research limitations/implications – This examination of a particular form of service evaluation shows that it offers a narrow, very specific description of customer service that can be used in conjunction with broader forms of assessment such as customer satisfaction surveys. Offers insights into the value of this particular form of research methodology at the same time as showing the need for it to be used in conjunction with broader research techniques. Practical implications – The paper can be used for thoughtful and practical guidance on the use of a specialised but powerful tool for library and information service evaluation. Originality/value – This paper acts as a useful source of information for practitioners with a commitment to using research techniques for real‐life service enhancement, while also establishing that there is a sound academic basis for this research method, if implemented appropriately. The suggestions for how mystery shopping can be used to best advantage by the profession in future are of particular worth.

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 — 43 citations exist upstream.

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