CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Web and Library ServicesLibrary Science and AdministrationLibrary Science and Information Literacy

Service equality in virtual reference

Open access
Shachaf, Pnina, Oltmann, Shannon M., Horowitz, Sarah M.·2008·Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
DOI 10.1002/asi.20757
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research is divided about the potential of e‐service to bridge communication gaps, particularly to diverse user groups. According to the existing body of literature, e‐service may either increase or decrease the quality of service received. This study analyzes the level of service received by different genders and ethnic groups when academic and public librarians answered 676 online reference queries. Quality of e‐service was evaluated along three dimensions: timely response, reliability, and courtesy. This study found no significant differences among different user groups along any of these dimensions, supporting the argument that the virtual environment facilitates equitable service and may overcome some challenges of diverse user groups.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/asi.20757

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research on racialized bias in virtual reference demonstrates that under-serving patrons of color extends to online environments.

    “Furthermore, the work of Shachaf, Oltmann, & Horowitz (2008) and Shachaf & Horowitz (2006) on racialized bias in virtual reference demonstrates that under-serving patrons of color extends to online environments, showing that the disembodied and abstracted nature of online service delivery is not a corrective for racialized bias (Milkman, Akinola, & Chugh, 2012).”

    From In Pursuit of Antiracist Social Justice: Denaturalizing Whiteness in the Academic Library (2015) · cites this paper as Shachaf, Oltmann, & Horowitz (2008)

    The Discussion and Conclusions reports that this study found no statistically significant differences in virtual-reference service by ethnicity in academic or public libraries. It contrasts that finding with a smaller 2006 pilot study that suggested discrimination against African American and Arab patrons. Thus, this 2008 study does not demonstrate the under-serving attributed to it. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Differing communication expectations across racialized and power-differentiated identities can lead to deficient service outcomes.

    “For example, in light of the initial studies on racialized bias in reference services mentioned above (A. Curry & Copeman, 2005;Shachaf & Horowitz, 2006;Shachaf et al., 2008), it appears that differing communication expectations across racialized and power-differentiated identities can lead to deficient service outcomes.”

    From In Pursuit of Antiracist Social Justice: Denaturalizing Whiteness in the Academic Library (2015) · cites this paper as Shachaf et al., 2008

    The Limitations section suggests that different user groups may have different expectations and that differences in how they write questions could lead to differential service. But these are possibilities, not outcomes the study found: the Discussion and Conclusions reports no statistically significant differences in service quality by gender or ethnicity. The paper does not examine power-differentiated identities as such. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Arnold, J., & Kaske, N. (2005). Evaluating the quality of a chat service. Libraries and the Academy, 5(2), 177-193.
  2. Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 991-1013.
  3. Bushman, B.J., & Bonacci, A.M. (2004). You've got mail: Using e-mail to examine the effect of prejudiced attitudes on discrimination against Arabs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 753-759.
  4. Carter, D.S., & Janes, J. (2000). Unobtrusive data analysis of digital refer- ence questions and service at the Internet Public Library: An exploratory study. Library Trends, 49(2), 251-265.
  5. Cesare, S.J. (1996). Subjective judgment and the selection interview: A methodological review. Public Personnel Management, 25(3), 291-305.
  6. Crosby, F., Bromley, S., & Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of Black and White discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546-563.
  7. Daily, B.F., & Steiner, R.L. (1998). The influence of group decision support systems on contribution and commitment levels in multicultural and culturally homogeneous decision-making groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(1), 147-162.
  8. Dole, W.V., & Hurych, J.M. (2001). Values for librarians in the information age. Journal of Information Ethics, 10(2), 38-50.
  9. Douglas, K.M., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self-presentation: Computer-mediated, communication and intergroup interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 399-416. EBSCO publishing. (2007), EBSCO Academic Search Premier Ipswich, MA EBSCO Industries, Inc.
  10. Feagin, J. (1991). The continuing significance of race: Antiblack discrimi- nation in public places. American Sociological Review, 1, 101-116.
  11. Figlio, D.N. (2005). Names, expectations and the Black-White test score gap. (NBER Working Paper No. W11195). Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://ssrn.com/abstractϭ684721
  12. Gers, R., & Seward, L.J. (1985). Improving reference service: Results of a state-wide survey. Library Journal, 110(18), 32-35.
  13. Glaser, J., & Kahn, K.B. (2005). Prejudice and discrimination and the internet. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social psychology of the internet. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  14. Hernon, P., & McClure, C.R. (1986). Unobtrusive reference testing: The 55 percent rule. Library Journal, 111, 37-41.
  15. Houston, D.J. (2000). Public service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 10(4), 713-727.
  16. Koehler, W.C., & Pemberton, J.M. (2000). A search for core values: Towards a model code of ethics for information professionals. Journal of Information Ethics 9, 27-54.
  17. Madu, C.N., & Madu, A.A. (2002). Dimensions of E-quality. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19(3), 246-258.
  18. Mason, R.O. (1986). Four ethical issues of the information age. Manage- ment Information Systems Quarterly, 10, 5-12.
  19. McClure, C., Lankes, R.D., Gross, M., & Choltco-Devlin, B. (2002). Statistics, measures and quality standards for assessing digital library services: Guidelines and Procedures. ERIC Clearinghouse. Retrieved December 22, 2005, from http://quartz.syr.edu/rdlankes/tiki-download_ file.php?fileIdϭ7 O'Neill, M., Wright, C., & Fitz, F. (2001). Quality evaluation in on-line ser- vice environments: An application of the importance-performance mea- surement technique. Managing Service Quality, 11(6), 402-417.
  20. Parasuraman, A. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its im- plications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
  21. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
  22. Pomerantz, J. (2005). A linguistic analysis of question taxonomies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(7), 715-728. ProQuest LLC (2007). Dissertation Abstract online. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC. QSR. (2002). NVivo (version 2.0) [computer software].
  23. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-February 15, 2008 549 DOI: 10.1002/asi JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-February 15, 2008 DOI: 10.1002/asi · DOI
  24. Radford, M.L. (2006). Encountering virtual users: A qualitative investigation of interpersonal communication in chat reference. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1046-1059. Reference and User Services Association. (2004a). Guidelines for behav- ioral performance of reference and information service providers. Re- trieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/ referenceguide/guidelinesbehavioral.htm Reference and User Services Association. (2004b). Guidelines for imple- menting and maintaining virtual reference services. Retrieved September 20, 2005, from http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools/referenceguide/ virtrefguidelines.htm
  25. Rubin, R., & Froehlich, T. (1996). Ethical aspects of library and information science. In Encyclopedia of library and information science (Vol. 58, Suppl. 21, pp. 33-52). New York: Mercel Dekker.
  26. Saxton, M.L., & Richardson, J.V. (2002). Understanding reference transac- tions: Transforming an art into a science. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  27. Smith, M. (1997). Information ethics. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, 32, 339-366.
  28. Shachaf, P. (2005b). Bridging cultural diversity through email. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 8(2), 46-60.
  29. Shachaf, P., & Horowitz, S. (2006). Are virtual reference services color blind? Library & Information Science Research, 28(4), 501-520.
  30. Stacy-Bates, K. (2003). E-mail reference responses from Academic ARL libraries: An unobtrusive study. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 43(1), 59-70.
  31. Voss, C.A. (2003). Rethinking paradigms of service: Service in a virtual environment, International Journal of Operations & Production Manage- ment, 23(1), 88-104.
  32. Ward, D. (2003). Measuring the completeness of reference transactions in online chats: Results of an unobtrusive study. Reference and User Ser- vices Quarterly, 44(1), 46-58.
  33. Whitlatch, J.B. (1989). Unobtrusive studies and the quality of academic ref- erence services. College and Research Libraries, 50(2), 181-194.
  34. Whitlatch, J.B. (1990). Reference service effectiveness. Reference Quar- terly, 30(2), 205-220.
  35. Whitlatch, J.B. (2001). Evaluating reference services in the electronic age. Library Trends, 50(2), 207-217.
  36. Yang, Z., Jun, M., & Peterson, R.T. (2004). Measuring costumer perceived online service quality: Scale development and managerial implications. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(11/12), 1149-1174.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shachaf, P., Oltmann, S. M., & Horowitz, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Augustana College (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-01-04
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
535-550
ISSN
  • 1532-2882 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2890
DOI
10.1002/asi.20757
OpenAlex
W4234236864
Cited by
38
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • E-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II) (acceptedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Reference and User Services Association
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web and Library Services
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Administration
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
virtual reference services, e-service quality, gender differences, ethnic groups, academic librarians, public librarians, reliability, courtesy, user heterogeneity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review