The research literature on user information seeking preferences and references services presents mixed results. In a survey of 197 respondents across two Washington State University campuses, Cummings et al. found users preferred seeking library assistance through the library website (42.4 percent, n = 70), reference librarian (14.5 percent, n = 24), friend (10.9 percent, n = 18), online chat (10.3 percent, n = 17), telephone (10.3 percent, n = 17), e-mail (7.2 percent, n = 12), and other (3.6 percent, n = 6).⁷ In a separate study of 276 students and faculty at two four-year public universities in the South Atlantic region, however, Johnson found face-to-face and e-mail to be the most popular reference mediums.⁸ In this study, survey respondents listed their first choice for seeking reference help with a research project as face-to-face (66.4 percent, n = 174), followed by e-mail (20.2 percent, n = 53), telephone (9.2 percent, n = 24), and online chat reference (4.2 percent, n = 11).

Granfield and Robertson found that preference for a reference medium may be dependent upon whether an individual is seeking assistance from within the library or virtually.⁹ In a survey of 348 library users at two universities in Toronto (n = 106 virtual reference survey respondents and n = 242 reference desk survey respondents), they found virtual survey respondents (n =106) preferred online chat (4.3 average on a scale of 1–5 with 1 = lowest and 5 = highest preference), followed by the library website (3.7 average), e-mail (3.1 average), Google/search engine (3.1 average), telephone (2.9 average), and other (1.9 average). Reference desk survey respondents (n = 242), however, indicated their first choice for receiving research help if off-campus would be the library website (4.3 average), followed by Google/search engine (3.9 average), e-mail reference (2.9 average), telephone (2.6 average) and virtual [online chat] (2.6 average), and other (2.4 average); if these same respondents were already in the library their first choice for seeking research help was the library reference desk (4.3 average for virtual survey respondents, 4.4 average for reference desk respondents), followed by the library website (3.5 average for virtual survey respondents, 3.8 for reference desk respondents), and virtual reference [chat] (3.4 average).

While face-to-face, telephone, e-mail, and chat reference are becoming commonplace, text and video reference are newly emerging reference mediums in many academic libraries. Though there is little comparative data about user preferences for these services, research suggests that usage of these emerging reference mediums is limited. In a review of digital reference activity for two semesters at Southeastern Louisiana University, researchers found text messaging constituted only a small portion of digital reference activity. Of 1,447 requests for information via digital reference 66 percent (n = 954) were via chat, 28 percent (n = 410), were via -e-mail, and 6 percent (n = 83), were via text messaging.¹⁰

Usage of online video conferencing as a reference medium is beginning to emerge within academic libraries. Enhancing online reference service with audio and video capability holds the promise of duplicating the physical reference encounter.¹¹ Preliminary findings of two pilot projects at Ohio University Libraries, however, found usage of Skype video reference (a hybrid of online chat, audio, and video conferencing) was limited. Booth noted, “Although video is enabled on the desk computer most users prefer voice or chat options.”¹²

Interestingly, despite the wide variety of options, literature suggests that when given a choice, in-person, face-to-face interaction with a librarian is the first choice for the majority of library users seeking assistance.

Throughout the literature, research findings suggest that different types of reference mediums are better suited for particular types of questions. In a review of 209 instant message reference transactions at Southern Illinois University, Desai found instant messaging reference “is good for quick exchanges and anonymous sharing of information. But as in traditional face-to-face reference, patrons ask a wide variety of questions, some requiring extensive answers.”¹³ In a survey study of 345 chat users, Ward found that undergraduates saw the “chat” service as being applicable for most situations, while graduate students recommended the service noticeably more for ready reference questions.¹⁴

In a review of both chat and e-mail reference transcripts, Lee found many similarities among the questions asked using the two mediums.¹⁵ He found both chat and e-mail virtual reference received approximately the same proportion of questions about finding known items and research and reference. Differences, however, were noted between the two mediums. He found e-mail received a small, though significant, number of questions about referencing and citation, while chat received none of these questions. E-mail received a higher number of administrative questions, though a much lower number of questions about accessing databases and electronic resources.

In a review of digital reference questions at an academic university, Hill et al. found text messaging reference to be a unique service well suited for short answer questions. They noted,

Most of the questions [via text reference] have been of the short-answer variety. Many have been related to the library (e.g. renewal of books) or the university (location of computer facilities). . . . However, the service also prompted short-answer reference questions . . . that are atypical of reference questions received via phone, email, and chat.¹⁶

Though this study found usage of text messaging to be limited, current trends reported by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) suggest text messaging reference may soon become a more prevalent reference medium, regardless of the type of question. Between June 2007 and June 2008, CTIA reported a 160 percent increase in the number of text messages sent (from 28.8 billion to 75 billion).¹⁷

Finally, though providing digital reference services may be an attempt to duplicate the face-to-face reference transaction, users may not approach video reference with the same intentions as they may a physical reference desk. Booth noted, “Overall trends confirmed our hypothesis that . . . [Skype] . . . would serve as a source for basic information rather than an in-depth point.”¹⁸ If basic information is the primary information seeking purpose then there may not be a need or desire for the face-to-face interaction video chat such as Skype and other similar services would provide.

While type of question may play a factor in reference medium choice, another factor to consider is the role of the user. The literature, however, suggests that regardless of age or role, information seeking behavior tends to follow the Principle of Least Effort. Poole found the Principle of Least Effort to be the strongest result in a review of a dozen information seeking studies.¹⁹ “Least effort” does not mean people choose the lazy route but rather, information seekers, in general, attempt to minimize the overall work associated with something both now and in the future. Rubin further explains that “people will seek the most convenient source to meet their information need.”²⁰ This principle is illustrated in a focus group study of 33 university faculty, undergraduates and graduate students at University of Idaho Library. In this study, Young and Von Seggern found that when considering criteria for information seeking, concern for time spent in locating information was brought up the most often across the board, regardless of university status. Study participants rated most information seeking experiences based on how much time they took and often will accept inappropriate information or information of lower quality if finding it takes less time.²¹

Though humans may follow the path of least effort, this path differs among particular types of information seekers, as depth of information needs may differ according to university status. In a study of health sciences university faculty, students, and residents, De Groote, Hitchcock, and McGowan found that “as users have become more sophisticated information seekers, their demands of librarians have evolved to require more . . . in-depth assistance rather than traditional ready reference questions.”²² This may suggest that university faculty or graduate students may choose a more robust reference medium such as e-mail to meet their research needs, while undergraduates, whose overall research needs may be posited to be of lesser depth and complexity, may choose a reference medium such as online chat or text messaging, mediums which lend themselves to quicker exchanges of less dense information. Differences in preferences between undergraduate and graduate students were found in a study conducted by Ward.²³ This is further illustrated in a study by Houlson, McCready, and Pfahl in which analysis of 631 chat transcripts across different academic library user groups revealed that “How to Find” questions were the main type of question being asked via online chat for undergraduates (24 percent, n = 24), graduate students (10 percent, n = 36), and staff (7 percent, n = 28).²⁴ Two other categories, however, stand out for each user group within this study. Undergraduates’ second and third top categories were “Subject Specific” (in-depth questions about a particular research topic) (17 percent, n = 66) and “Do You Own” questions (5 percent, n = 20). Graduate students’ second and third top categories were “Technical Difficulties” (7 percent, n = 27) and “Do You Own” (7 percent, n = 25), while staff's second and third top categories were about “Document Delivery” (4 percent, n = 15) and “Technical Difficulties” (4 percent, n = 15).

While role may influence the depth of information need, age may increasingly become a factor in reference medium choice in the not-so-distant future. Current trends suggest that as today's adolescent population enters college campuses within the next five to ten years, a shift toward seeking information or reference assistance via one's mobile device, such as using text messaging may become more common. CTIA's research report, “A Generation Unplugged,” revealed an exponential increase in text messaging among young adults aged 13 to 19 years, with the proportion of “Time Spent Talking VS. Texting” increasing in favor of texting among younger respondents.²⁵ Age may play a further role in the selection of virtual reference medium as it relates to one's comfort or intimidation with particular choices. In an online survey of 137 individuals who had used virtual reference (online chat) services in the past, Connaway and Radford found Net Generation users (age 12–28 years) rated online chat as the least intimidating method of seeking reference assistance (76 percent, n =37), followed by e-mail (14 percent, n =7), text (6 percent, n =3), face-to-face (4 percent, n =2), and telephone (0 percent, n =0). Adults (29 years or older), however, rated chat (36 percent, n =12) and e-mail (36 percent, n =12) equally least intimidating, followed by face-to-face (15 percent, n =5), telephone (12 percent, n =4), and text (0 percent, n =0) (p. 170). In this same study, researchers found the leading factors for choosing virtual reference service (online chat) were convenience, anytime/anywhere access, immediacy, and efficiency.²⁶

Current literature suggests users may select their virtual reference medium according to the type of question they have. Role may also be an influencing factor in determining reference preferences. No study, however, has examined these questions collectively and with a large enough sample size for significant statistical analysis. This study attempts to meet this need by examining the relationship between type of question, type of user, and preferences for particular reference mediums from both user and library service provider perspectives by studying five discrete groups: faculty, staff, graduate students, undergraduate students, and librarians. The purpose of the study is to seek answers to three research questions:

• RQ1: Which virtual reference mediums do library reference users prefer?
• RQ2: Are there differences in user preferences for virtual reference mediums based on type of question?
• RQ3: Are there differences in user preferences for virtual reference mediums based on type of user and type of question?

An online survey was sent via e-mail to a randomly selected group of university students (N = 2,552) with a 14.2 percent (n = 362) response rate and to all permanent faculty and staff (N = 3,840) with a 14.3 percent (n = 551) response rate. While a total of 936 participants completed some portion of the survey, the overall completion rate of the entire survey among participants was 84 percent (N =783). Demographically, study participants were 31 percent staff, 30 percent faculty, 22 percent undergraduate, and 17 percent graduate students, predominately female (71 percent to 29 percent male), and predominately white (78 percent, 12 percent black, 5 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, and 4 percent multi-racial). Age range was fairly equally distributed with 25 percent coming from the 25–34 age group, 20 percent under 24,19 percent from both 25–44 and 45–54, 16 percent from 55–64, and 2 percent were 65 and up.

A focus group (n = 13) with the university library reference department and an interview with the manager of reference services were also conducted.

An 11-item online instrument was developed by the authors to determine virtual reference user preferences of university patrons. While some questions were based off instruments from previous research studies, the survey was formulated based on the study's unique research questions. Questions 1–4 sought demographic information (university classification, gender, race, and age). Questions 5 and 6 inquired about participants’ prior experience with and knowledge of reference services at a university library. Questions 7 and 8 asked participants to rank order their virtual reference seeking preference for answering a procedural based, research question and quick, factual question. Questions 9 and 10 examined user preference from another perspective by allowing respondents to choose only one reference service for both a procedural and factual question, but this time including face-to-face reference as an option. The final question dealt with user preferences for future reference services.

The instrument was pilot tested with graduate students (n = 3) for preliminary face and construct validity and reliability, refined accordingly, and then administered via e-mail by the university's institutional research office. See appendix A for the full instrument.

Reference library staff (n = 13) also participated in a focus group. During this session, participants responded to six questions developed to ascertain their thoughts and preferences surrounding virtual reference, as well as predict future trends. Questions used included Q2, “Based upon your experience, which of the reference mediums (e-mail, telephone, online chat, Skype video, text messaging) is most popular with library patrons at XXXX?”; Q3, “Which of the five reference mediums (e-mail, telephone, online chat, Skype video, text messaging) do you prefer?”; and Q6, “Where do you think the future of virtual reference is heading?” See appendix B for the full instrument.

The interview with the reference department manager utilized a set of 18 open-ended questions to ascertain her thoughts and opinions about providing reference services.

Using Excel and SPSS 17.0, results were analyzed using qualitative factor analysis of open ended comments, descriptive statistics, differences in means across user groups through analysis of variance (ANOVA), which is used to compare one dependent variable across multiple independent groups, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), which is used to compare multiple dependent variables across multiple independent groups, Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) post hoc tests, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), linear regression curve fit, and Pearson Product Coefficient correlations.

Seventy two percent of respondents had prior experience with at least one form of reference service at the university library that was studied:

• Face-to-face reference was the most commonly used (49 percent, n = 451).
• E-mail was the second most commonly used (36 percent, n = 330).
• Telephone (24 percent, n = 218) was third.
• Online chat (15 percent, n = 142) was a distant fourth.
• No respondents had used the library's Skype video chat reference.
• Faculty members were the majority users for face-to-face, e-mail, and telephone.
• Undergraduate students were the majority users for online chat and text.

In terms of general awareness, the most well known was face-to-face reference (90 percent, n = 833) followed by e-mail (71 percent), telephone (68 percent), and online chat (53 percent). Only a minority of participants were aware that text (26 percent) and Skype (15 percent) reference services were available.

In the aggregate, for both factual and research questions combined, when participants were asked to select just one option, the most selected was (see figure 2):

• E-mail first (35 percent, n = 530).
• Telephone (33 percent, n = 513) was a close second.
• Online chat (22 percent, n = 343) was third most selected.
• Text (6 percent, n = 88) and Skype video (4 percent, n = 60) were a distant fourth and fifth.

Disaggregating the data, however, by type of question (factual and research) identified statistically significant trends and differences. Participants were asked to rank their preference for five virtual reference types from 1 to 5 (1 = highest, 5 = lowest ranked) if asking both a quick factual question and a longer research question:

• E-mail again had the highest mean ranking across both types of questions at 2.2 out of 5.
• Telephone was again second with a 2.4 average rating.
• Chat was third with a 2.5 average rating.
• Text, 3.7, and Skype, 4.2, were least preferred.

For quick factual questions specifically, however, telephone was the highest rated (see figure 3):

• Telephone was ranked the top choice by 38 percent (n = 290) of all participants.
• E-mail was the second choice selected by 27 percent (n = 209).
• Online chat was third, selected by 24 percent (n = 182).
• Text at 8 percent (n = 60) and Skype at 3 percent (n = 28) were the least preferred.

To determine whether there were statistical differences between user preferences for a particular reference medium for factual questions, a multivariate analysis or MANOVA was conducted. Overall, a statistically significant difference between user rankings and reference medium for factual questions was found, F (11, 1854) = 6.58, P < .000; Wilk's λ =0.896, partial ϵ2 = .036, which suggests that these differences were statistically significantly different enough to represent different populations. More specifically, user preference rankings were statistically significantly different across users for three reference mediums—telephone (F (3, 708) = 4.49, p < .004), e-mail (F (3, 708) = 15.00, p< .000), and text (F (3, 708) = 16.83, p < .000).

For research questions, e-mail was most preferred (see figure 4):

• E-mail was the preferred reference type 42 percent (n = 321) of all participants.
• Telephone was second at 29 percent (n = 223).
• Online chat was a distant third at 21 percent (n = 161).
• Text and Skype were a distant fourth and fifth, respectively.

Like factual questions, the differences in preferences between user groups were found to be statistically different from one another. MANOVA indicated a statistically significant difference between user rankings and reference mediums for research questions, F (11, 1934) = 6.89, P < .000; Wilk's λ = 0.895, partial ϵ2 = .036. Rankings were statistically significantly different across users for all five reference mediums—telephone (F (3, 738) = 9.01, p < .000), e-mail (F (3, 738) = 11.831, p < .000), online chat (F (3, 738) = 6.57, p < .000), Skype (F (3, 738) = 4.46, p < .004), and text (F (3, 738) = 7.96, p < .000).

Further disaggregating the data by user group (faculty, staff, undergraduate, and graduate) as shown in table 1 identified additional significant differences by question type:

• Faculty, staff, and graduate students ranked e-mail and telephone as their first and second choices, respectively.
• Undergraduate students ranked overall online chat as their top rated choice followed by telephone.
• Examining the interaction using one way ANOVA between type of user and reference medium rankings by type of question yielded statistically significant differences.

For factual questions, faculty, staff, and graduate students preferred e-mail and telephone almost equally, while undergraduates rated online chat higher. These data are further illustrated in table 2. Comparing virtual reference rankings across groups by factual question found:

• Statistical significance between group differences for user preferences for telephone (F (3,791) = 5.6), e-mail (F (3,799) = 14.50), and text (F (3,786) = 15.89) at the p < .001 level. No significant differences were found for chat and Skype (all users rated each consistently high and low, respectively).
• Fisher's LSD (least significant difference) test found that faculty, staff, and graduate student rankings were significantly higher than undergraduates with telephone (2.1 and 2.3 rankings compared to 2.6).
• Fisher's LSD test found that faculty and staff rankings were significantly higher for e-mail than undergraduate and graduate students (2.1 compared to 2.5 and 2.7 average ranking, respectively) and lower for text (4.0 and 3.8 compared to 3.2 and 3.4, respectively) within a 95 percent confidence level.

Comparing virtual reference rankings across groups by research question found:

• When seeking reference assistance for research questions, faculty, staff, and graduate students again ranked e-mail the highest while undergraduate students ranked e-mail and online chat equally high, as shown in table 3.
• One way ANOVA found user rankings for reference medium by research question were statistically significant at the p < .000 level for telephone (F(3,790) = 10.87), e-mail (F(3,798) = 10.26), chat (F(3,783) = 7.47), and text (F(3,785) = 7.21) and at the p < .05 level for Skype (F(3,772) = 3.36).
• Fisher's LSD tests found that faculty, staff, and graduate students rankings were significantly higher than undergraduates with e-mail (1.8,1.8, and 2.0, respectively compared to 2.3).
• Fisher's LSD tests found that faculty and staff rankings were significantly higher for telephone than undergraduate and graduate students (2.2,2.3, respectively compared to 2.8 and 2.6).
• Undergraduate and graduate students ranked online chat significantly higher (2.3) than faculty and staff (2.7 and 2.6, respectively) as well as text reference (3.7 and 3.8, respectively compared to 4.2 and 4.3, respectively) within a 95 percent confidence level.

Conducting a factor analysis of survey participant qualitative comments suggests that for e-mail the primary factors behind user preferences focused on (see table 4):

• Convenience, familiarity, and ease-of-use.
• Second was that e-mails provide a written record that was precise and in-depth.
• Speed and quickness of response was the third most frequently mentioned reason for using e-mail.
• For chat, telephone, and text, the major focus was on speed and quickness first.
• Convenience, familiarity, and ease-of-use were second.
• Multitasking was a third factor mentioned with using online chat.

When respondents were asked to choose only one type of reference service including face-to-face reference (see table 5):

• Traditional face-to-face reference services was found to be, in the aggregate, the preferred method of reference (29 percent, n = 474).
• E-mail (25 percent, n = 393) was a close second and still the preferred virtual reference medium.
• Telephone was third (17 percent, n = 274).
• Online chat was fourth (15 percent, n = 249).
• “Other” which was finding answers on the web (10 percent, n = 160) was fifth.
• Text (4 percent, n = 64) and Skype (< 1 percent, n = 2) were a distant sixth and seventh, respectively.

When broken down by user group, however, faculty actually preferred e-mail slightly over face-to-face. MANOVA found a significant main effect for user preference by medium, F (6, 1566) = 6.89, P < .05; Wilk's λ = 0.984, partial ϵ2 = .01.

With face-to-face as an option, type of question still had an impact on respondent preferences. Between-group differences for reference medium by factual question was statistically significant, F (3, 784) = 3.91, p < .01. Post hoc comparisons using the Fisher LSD test found that (see figure 5):

• Faculty preferred e-mail and “other” (online) as the preferred reference services at statistically significantly higher numbers than all other groups within a 95 percent confidence level.
• Staff preferred telephone and e-mail.
• Both undergraduate and graduate students preferred telephone and online chat almost equally.
• Face-to-face was ranked fourth overall for answering basic, factual questions.

For research questions, however, students and staff preferred face-to-face while faculty still preferred e-mail, as shown in figure 6. MANOVA found no significant between group differences among users as overall ratings were similar across groups. Post–hoc LSD tests also found no significant differences.

In a focus group conducted with reference librarians at the participating university library, participants indicated that online chat is “without a doubt” the most popular reference medium choice for library patrons both for quick factual questions and research questions. If individuals, however, already have established relationships with particular librarians (i.e., subject librarians or librarians embedded in classes), e-mail seems to be more popular. Usage of online chat and e-mail fluctuates depending on the time of day as well as the timeframe in which a library patron needs a response. If a student has an immediate need, they may choose online chat. If there is more flexibility, students may choose e-mail instead, which is consistent with the results from the university survey.

According to the reference department manager, telephone and e-mail reference requests have gone down. “I would say we're getting . . . maybe 30% of the calls we used to get . . . E-mail and phone have both gone down in the last 5 years definitely.”²⁸ In contrast, chat has increased substantially, “Chat has gone up a lot. And that is true even with people being contacted in their offices. They're getting more e-mail and chat than they used to.” It is important to note, however, that many reference requests are now going through specific departmental liaisons. The main reference desk does not field these requests; therefore these numbers are not reflected in the statistics.

Reviewing the reference department's statistics over the past five years supports the emergence of online chat, which increased 330 percent from 2005 (753 transactions, 3 percent of total) to 2010 (3,239 transactions, 22 percent of total). E-mail has seen a 31 percent growth since 2007, but represents only 4 percent of the total transactions. Telephone usage has decreased by 24 percent over the past two years and face-to-face, by far still the most popular reference service at 68 percent of all recorded transactions, has decreased by 21 percent overall. For all types of reference transactions, overall, the department has seen a 32 percent decrease in total since 2005.

At the university that was studied, based on participant survey responses, only four reference services that involve direct contact with a librarian are used with any degree of frequency—face-to-face (49 percent), e-mail (36 percent), telephone (24 percent), and online chat/instant messaging (15 percent). Usage metrics support these four reference mediums. While face-to-face walk up reference service is still consistent and ongoing, e-mails tend to be less general and more specific to librarians who are assigned to support various academic units, leaving online chat/instant messaging as the primary general reference service activity that takes place frequently.

In support of the findings discussed in the literature review, this study's findings suggest that user preferences for virtual reference services do indeed differ by the type of question.³⁰ User rankings differed significantly for seeking help with a factual question using telephone, e-mail, and text. Rankings for online chat and Skype were more equally dispersed. For research questions, user preferences were statistically significantly different for all five virtual reference types.

For telephone, respondents noted the convenience for asking quick factual questions. One staff member noted, “A quick fact for something simple—just call and wait for an answer.” A student noted, “I would call a member of the staff because it saves time from walking all the way down to the library to find something so simple out.”

Respondents who preferred e-mail emphasized the ability to explain themselves fully and deliberately, the digital record of the conversation, and being able to multi-task while waiting for a librarian's response. One faculty respondent explained, “I prefer to explain my questions fully and get feedback over e-mail because I often am multitasking and this option allows me to move on to another task while the librarian gets back to me.” A staff member noted, “I'd start with an email so I'd have info in writing.”

The study's findings suggest that based on university status, age, gender, and race, specific users have particular reference preferences based on type of question. Faculty, staff, and graduate students ranked telephone for factual questions at significantly higher levels than undergraduate students. Faculty and staff prefer using e-mail for factual questions at significantly higher levels than both undergraduate and graduate students while students have a significantly higher preference for using text messaging. Interestingly, all user groups rated online chat relatively high for seeking help with a factual question. Undergraduates noted the immediacy and ease-of-use for chat in comparison to other methods, “In this instance chat and telephone are the fastest way to obtain a short answer with little trouble. Sending texts is quick but sentences are still limited, while e-mails may take some time to be answered and video referencing is too much trouble just for a short answer.”

For research questions, respondent preferences differed significantly across all five virtual reference mediums. Faculty, staff, and graduate students preferred e-mail at statistically significantly higher levels than undergraduates, while undergraduate students preferred online chat at significantly higher levels than faculty and staff. Faculty and staff again emphasize that telephone and e-mail are preferred because they are more convenient for both user and librarian, quicker, and easier for them to use.

In contrast, students tend to see it the other way, finding online chat and texting to be quicker, more convenient, and allowing for an exchange of web links, “The online chat and e-mail references allow for an easy and elaborate conversation with little trouble, while telephoning may be difficult to multi task.”

There are many potential reasons to explain the reference medium preferences among types of users. Similar to the findings of De Groote et al., the findings of the current study suggest “as users have become more sophisticated information seekers, their demands of librarians have evolved to require more . . . in-depth assistance rather than traditional ready reference questions.”³¹ Considering the depth of information needs of undergraduates may be, on average, less than those of graduate students and university faculty, this may explain undergraduate trends which show a preference for online chat while upper level researchers tend to prefer mediums which allow for more in-depth assistance from a librarian such as e-mail.

No significant trends emerged for gender and virtual reference preferences except for one small significant difference where females ranked text messaging lower as a reference medium. Closer examination by age showed that this difference was largely because the younger age group preferred text (males who were 24 years or younger ranked text second overall while females who were 24 and younger ranked text third overall) but this demographic only represented 20 percent (n = 157) of the entire sample and males (n = 25) were only a small portion of this. A preference for text messaging reference among younger populations comes as no surprise when one considers CTIA's research report, “A Generation Unplugged,” which revealed an exponential increase in text messaging among young adults aged 13 to 19 years.³² Males in older age groups preferred text at much lower rates, thereby creating a statistically significant gap between female and male rankings for text. Gender was also found to be a significant covariate with text for both factual and research questions as well as selection of only one reference medium when face-to-face was included for factual questions. Females preferred almost equally—telephone (24 percent), e-mail (21 percent), online chat (20 percent), and other (18 percent), while males preferred telephone at higher levels (30 percent) and e-mail (21 percent), other (21 percent), and online chat (14 percent) at lower levels.

Age was found to be a significant factor. Younger participants ranked text messaging for reference services at significantly higher levels than all other groups. Interestingly, older participants (55–64) ranked telephone at significantly higher levels than younger age groups. Rankings for e-mail formed a perfect inverse relationship between age and rankings as the youngest group ranked it the lowest and the oldest age group ranked e-mail the highest. Controlling for age as a covariate accounted for the differences found between participant groups for telephone for both factual and research questions but not for e-mail and text.

Unexpectedly, race was found to be a statistically significant factor for participant rankings for virtual reference mediums. For factual reference questions, white participants preferred e-mail at significantly higher levels than all other races other than black participants, while Asian/Pacific Islanders and multiracial participants preferred Skype at higher levels than other racial groups. Black participants preferred online reference at lower levels than all other racial groups while preferring text at higher levels. For research questions, white participants rated e-mail higher than black participants, while black participants rated e-mail significantly lower than both white and Asian/Pacific Islander participants. There are some potential social marketing and communication questions that could be explored with these preliminary findings.

Controlling for gender, age, and race accounted for the significant differences found for telephone (older participants preferred telephone) for both factual and research questions while rankings for e-mail and text were still found to be significantly different across participants and type of question. Independent of these three factors, faculty and staff rankings for e-mail were statistically significantly higher than both undergraduate and graduate students for seeking reference help for both factual and research questions. Examining the open ended responses for faculty and staff found that e-mail was rated second to only telephone for factual questions and the top choice for research questions for five reasons: familiarity, least obtrusive, most convenient, the ability to multitask, and existence of a digital record in writing. Of significant note was that, although not one of the answer choices, the overall majority felt that locating quick factual information such as library hours would be easiest by quickly scanning the library's website.

In contrast, student rankings for text, although still ranked lower than telephone, e-mail, or online chat, were statistically significantly higher than faculty and staff for seeking reference help for factual and research questions. For students it is all about convenience and “the need for speed.”

Students also rated online chat significantly higher than faculty and staff for research questions, with comments focusing on four factors: quick and easy, convenience, familiarity, and it is free, unlike text. One respondent noted, “Online chat is easy and quick with internet access. I use it most often to communicate with people. Texting is the same concept. I also constantly check my email but its 3rd because it can take longer than online chat for a response. Telephone is fine also but I would not like to video chat with someone I don't know.”

Similarly, controlling for these three factors did not impact the significant differences found for participant preference when asked to select only one reference medium including face-to-face for factual questions.