The Measurement and Evaluation of Reference Service

Abstract

A N D EVALUATION of reference service has been more often discussed than attempted. In fact, the literature of this subject has itself spawned a fair-sized literature of of which the commentaries by Berelson, Rogers, Budington, Shores, and Wheeler and Goldhor are probably the most comprehensive and discriminating. The degree of attention is a little ironic, for the reviewers have reacted to their subject with more causticity than complaisance. Much of the literature they dismiss outright, and most of the rest they find repetitive, faltering, and inconc1usive.l0-'l This criticism seems largely justified, for the characteristic tone of the literature is one of querulous diffidence. Although C a r n o v ~k y , ' ~-~~ Miles and Martin,14 and McDiarmidlj have pointed out the compelling need for quantitatively-based appraisals and offered sensible guidelines for their making, most reference librarians have remained unconvinced of the worth of such studies and uncertain in their methodology, The main incentive has seemingly come from outside the reference ranks in the form of administrators' pressure, and the mood of reluctance prevails. Certainly more time has been spent in hand-wringing over difficulties and in disparagement of results than in productive labor.