On Reference Desks.
Robert Pierson · 1977
So far as effectiveness of reference serv ice is concerned, furniture is surely less important than are quality of reference technique and availability of appropriate collections and data banks. Even so, a good desk can make, if not all the dif ference/ ' a real difference?especially in conventional situations where people ar rive in the flesh, looking for service points readily identifiable as inquiry stations. Reference desks vary greatly. Some are conspicuous, others obscure; some are counters, others true desks; some seat several, others just one. Some require seated librarians to glance up; others ele vate them on platforms or on high chairs so that they look ahead and around, even when seated. Some are equipped with books, telephones, memo pads, statistical report forms, etc.; others are not. Such equipment may be concealed, perhaps in open wells. Or it may be on desk or counter tops and thus be, on busy days, hard to keep in order and hard to tell from handouts. Or it may be behind reference librarians, within their reach but not within inquirers' (though seen by the latter and, as people used to say, remarked). In these and other variations there is a hint of divided aim, resulting sometimes in the more or less adequate achievement of disparate goals, sometimes in clashes more or less severe. What sorts of desks do we want? We want desks small enough that one librarian can manage one of them (reaching, not stepping, for telephone, books, etc.); small enough that one ques tioner can feel that he or she and one li brarian are, for the moment, the whole of existence; yet large enough that two or more librarians may be on duty at one time and one or more inquirers may in spect materials laid out for them there. We want desks so that we may infer unuttered needs and, if necessary, maintain order but which are not so monumental as to in timidate the bashful. We want desks that effectively separate staff space from public space, yet are inviting. We want reference desks that will, if need be, function as supplementary circulation desks for such special materials as clippings or books from special collections. We want unclut tered desk surfaces; nevertheless we need records, reminders, and memo pads within reach. We want counters for the sake of efficiency, desks for the sake of image. We want furniture that is memorable, that is highly visible, that proclaims our func tion, and that can nevertheless slip into dignified obscurity when desks must be left unattended. What causes this variation, this real or apparent confusion? For one thing, there is often ambiguity, not just complexity, in reference librarians' roles. Are they to work alone, or in the presence of other reference librarians? More important, are they to point out, to recommend, to teach, or to find?or to do some of all? Are they to help many people?each one a little?or to give a great deal of help to a few? Are they to waylay inquirers, or are they to let themselves be sought out? Or now the one and now the other? Is there (to consider another possibility) sometimes a difference between what their situations are in fact and what those who designed and/or selected their furniture thought they would be? If so, is it because the reference librar ians did not understand their own situa tions and/or did not articulate their needs