5 The Reference Interview

Chapter Contents

5.1 Empathy-based Approaches to Reference Work
5.2 Building Trust with Users
5.3 Building Trust Through Collaboration
5.4 Building Trust Through Empathetic Listening
5.5 Strengthening Critical Thinking Through Metacognition
5.6 Teaching Metacognition with Socratic Questioning
5.7 Socratic Questions for Reference Interviews
Reflective Questions

5.1 Empathy-based Approaches to Reference Work

The reference desk or research help appointment are common sites of interaction between the library and learners who may represent a continuum of knowledge or beliefs, from curious learners investigating a claim to full-fledged conspiracists seeking evidence for their theories.

As we discussed further in Chapter 1, disinformation and conspiracy theories are appealing in ways that go far beyond logic or reason: they play on much deeper emotions, such as anxiety, resentment, alienation, uncertainty, anger, and fear.^[1] They use rhetorical devices that are intentionally designed to trigger these negative emotions, knowing that outrage drives engagement (i.e. rage-baiting).^[2] Belief in a particular area of disinformation or conspiracy (for example, the belief that vaccines cause autism) can also provide its adherents with a sense of belonging or connection. To turn away from that belief would thus mean a loss of community they may not have elsewhere.^[3]

By triggering feelings of powerlessness, alienation and us-versus-them, disinformation and conspiracy theories lead their adherents to lose “trust in established institutions, including universities and libraries,”^[4] placing the librarian at a disadvantage at the start of a reference interaction.

In this section, we introduce several methods of approaching a reference interaction that compliment traditional IL approaches, and can be effective with any learners, including learners invested in disinformation.

The first method puts building trust with learners at the centre of the reference interaction. To build trust with learners, a library worker should aim to create a collaborative environment centred on empathetic listening. This kind of environment helps learners grow more comfortable interacting with library workers, and can form the foundation of an ongoing relationship between the learner and the library.

The second method aims to instill metacognitive skills in learners through asking questions. Metacognition builds on critical thinking skills, providing learners with the ability to more accurately assess their own knowledge, to be more open-minded, and to shift their views. In asking questions, rather than telling learners what to think, the library worker demonstrates their respect for the learners, positioning themselves as a collaborator in a research journey, and models a technique that learners can use themselves to think through complex questions.

5.2 Building Trust with Users

The core weight of the research appointment depends on the librarian’s performance, namely, whether or not they employ interpersonal skills, practice empathy, and build trust.^[5]

Learners, even those comfortable enough to approach a reference desk or make an appointment with a library worker, can still experience feelings of library anxiety or inferiority in the presence of an expert. In taking on the role of an expert, even inadvertently, a library employee may convey an arrogant attitude that results in intimidation or antipathy.^[6] This imbalance in status between the expert and non-expert can prevent a user from being able to absorb anything discussed in the reference interaction.^[7]

In their conversations with library workers, Beene and Greer found that library learners were only receptive to fact-checking, counter-argument, or the introduction of information literacy instruction into reference encounters if the learner was either more curious than ideologically invested in a particular idea, or because the library worker had previously established a relationship based in trust with that learner.^[8]

It is therefore crucial for a library worker to be aware of this imbalance, and to be able to bring human-centred and emotionally intelligent qualities such as empathy, responsiveness, interest, friendliness, approachability, enthusiasm, sensitivity, patience, dependability, humour, flexibility, creativity, and a lack of judgment into their work with learners.^[9]

By employing techniques aimed at correcting this imbalance–considering the learner’s perspective and needs, employing active and empathetic listening methods, asking open questions, and creating a positive environment through good humour and interest–a library worker conveys a “non-expert posture” of acceptance and mutual respect.^[10] In doing so, they can build the trust necessary to offer corrections to disinformation. This trust can be strengthened even further by developing ongoing relationships with learners, encouraging them to return with further questions or research needs.^[11]

5.3 Building Trust Through Collaboration

By cultivating a “relational, interdependent, and non-hierarchical manner”^[12] in their reference interactions and aiming for an approach grounded in collaboration and dialogue,^[13] a library worker counters the feeling of imbalance between the librarian and the learner, discussed above, and replaces it with conversation, co-construction, and shared inquiry.^[14]

To ensure a collaborative reference interaction, the librarian can take the following steps:

• Convey to learners that, despite their role in the library, the librarian is not an “all-knowing expert” and that the learner brings their own knowledge and familiarity with the topic. By asking the user for brief subject overviews and suggestions for search terms in the course of the conversation, the interaction becomes more of a partnership, with the librarian as the provider of research expertise and the learner as the provider of subject insight.^[15] The librarian should be careful to not convey a judgmental attitude towards a user’s information-seeking behavior, or to provide the “answer” to their question, instead conveying to the user that they are capable of “recognizing [their] own need and of knowing when useful information has been found to serve it.”^[16]
• Avoid excessive jargon, using familiar terms when possible, providing synonyms, brief descriptions, or relatable comparisons when technical terminology is necessary, and offering explanations for how certain conclusions were reached. Matook provides the example of a librarian showing a learner that a source is relevant. In saying this, a definition of relevance could be provided (“this source matches our research topics and keywords”) and an explanation added (pointing out clues that identify the source as relevant).^[17]
• Conclude any reference interaction with sincerity and enthusiasm, finding a way to acknowledge what the learner has achieved over the course of the conversation. The librarian should express gratitude to the learner for stopping by or for making the appointment, conveying that they too got something out of the exchange.^[18]
• Extend the relationship beyond the bounds of the reference interaction, offering friendly greetings to learners on campus, or by checking in with learners who have made research appointments in the past during stressful times of the academic year, reminding them of services available from the library.^[19] As discussed above, cultivating this type of familiar relationship is often the only way to get to a place where users will accept any form of fact-checking or counter-argument.

5.4 Building Trust Through Empathetic Listening

Body-language, facial expression, tone of voice, choice of language, and empathetic listening skills are all important when faced with a learner bringing disinformation to a reference interaction.

• Establish a bond with the learner and reduce any negative preconceptions by engaging in casual conversation at the start of each reference interaction.^[20]
• Insert some “critical thinking questions into a learner’s line of reasoning to see how open-minded they seem.” If their reaction is defensive or defiant, change the approach.^[21]
• Find something to agree on. If possible, identify a shared vested interest and use that to build connection. For example, find the common ground between yourself and a learner invested in vaccine hesitancy – perhaps it’s a desire to make the best possible health decisions for a child.^[22]
• Give learners “permission to be confused.” Let learners know when search processes are difficult or frustrating and that those feelings are valid. Share your own past experiences where you struggled with a similar question as a way to open a space for users to be open about what they don’t understand.^[23]
• Monitor your body language and verbal and facial cues to avoid taking on a defensive or negative posture which can trigger the same emotion in the user. Language strategies include:
  • Starting with a compliment or positive observation
  • Replacing “you” statements with “I” statements
  • Replacing “but” with “and.”
  • Avoiding terms like “should” or “ought.”
  • When necessary finding ways to “disagree agreeably”^[24]

Beene and Greer offer the following example of these techniques in action:

Instead of “You may think that sentient reptiles control the world in a secret shadow government, but there is no evidence of that,” try, “I understand that is a terrifying thought, and you want to get as much information as possible. Let’s try and look critically at what we can find together.”^[25]

5.5 Strengthening Critical Thinking Through Metacognition

As stated above, traditional information literacy instruction is often ineffective with learners whose thoughts have been impacted by disinformation or conspiracy. In teaching someone to critically evaluate sources, for example, a learner can jump from the healthy skepticism encouraged by library professionals to a suspicion that all sources are not trustworthy. While the traditional approach to teaching information literacy has focused specifically on building critical thinking skills, the fight against disinformation requires an additional layer of skill building – that of metacognition.^[26]

There is a close relationship between critical thinking and metacognition, with each skill complementing and reinforcing the other:

Metacognition involves understanding one’s own thinking processes—being aware of how one thinks and learns. Critical thinking, on the other hand, involves analyzing, evaluating, and reasoning about information. Metacognition enables individuals to reflect on their thinking, recognize biases, and monitor their understanding of a subject. These self-awareness and monitoring processes significantly contribute to the development of critical-thinking skills. In turn, this type of thinking encourages metacognitive practices, by prompting individuals to assess the quality of their thinking, consider alternative viewpoints, and refine their cognitive strategies.^[27]

By layering metacognitive skills on top of traditional information literacy instruction, users are taught self-regulatory search skills, gaining the ability to test and evaluate their thinking by asking questions, adopting new perspectives, and becoming attentive to cognitive pitfalls.^[28]

Metacognitive skills can also help learners become attuned to the “affective dimension of information consumption and interpretation.” Library employees can prompt learners to monitor the way particular information triggers emotions such as anger and fear. In taking time to reflect on their emotional response to information, users can be taught to develop “more thoughtful, less reactionary responses.”^[29]

These skills help develop cognitive flexibility, making a person more likely to be open-minded and intellectually humble, and therefore more willing to acknowledge where they might be wrong, and less likely to overestimate their own knowledge.^[30] Metacognitive skills have been shown to increase people’s ability to detect misinformation, as well as decrease their enjoyment of partisan content.^[31]

5.6 Teaching Metacognition with Socratic Questioning

“The importance of metacognition in the process of learning is an old idea that can be traced from Socrates’ questioning methods to Dewey’s twentieth-century stance that we learn more from reflecting on our experiences than from the actual experiences themselves.”^[32]

Using Socratic questioning in a reference interaction is a way to encourage learners to challenge or disrupt their own thinking process, to contemplate alternatives to their process, and to “judge the worth of their positions and assess the value of new positions.”^[33] It encourages metacognition, pushing learners to analyze what sources they’ve found and the how and why of their own information seeking behaviours. Beene and Greer believe that integrating Socratic principles into every library interaction helps build the cognitive flexibility necessary to contend with disinformation.^[34]

The ideal Socratic question is one that does not imply a correct answer. Instead, it asks the learner to observe the complexity of their own information needs: to explore the origins of their thinking, to articulate problems with their approach, to explore the implications of their conclusions, and to consider different solutions.^[35] Socratic questioning is a format that builds trust with learners by placing the librarian in the role of non-expert and research collaborator looking to “empower, encourage, empathize, and engage.”^[36]

5.7 Socratic Questions for Reference Interviews

Rather than arguing with or correcting users who may be engaging with disinformation, library workers should repeat key phrases back to users to check their understanding, and then use Socratic questions to gradually nudge them in new directions.

Working with Learners on Assignments

Adopted from Tanner^[37]:

How did you approach your research for this assignment? How did your approach differ from other assignments?

What questions have come up during your work on this assignment that you had not considered before?

Helping Learners Evaluate Sources

Adopted from Tanner^[38]:

How did you arrive at this source of information?

What was your main reason for selecting this source and what were the main reasons you did not select other sources you found?

How confident are you in your selection? Why? What else would you need to know to increase your confidence?

Adopted from Beene and Greer^[39]:

How did you determine the credibility (competence, expertise, and trustworthiness) of this source?

How do you know this information is accurate? How could you verify it?

What information is this based on? Could it be distorted by experiences, biases, perspectives?

Adapted from Hannah^[40]

Can you confirm this information across multiple sources?

Does the source you’ve found come from a source with an identifiable code of ethics?

Can you identify the political motivations behind this source of information?

Can you identify what sources may gain (or lose) by disseminating the information?

Can you identify a purpose or goal for sharing this information?

Helping Learners Question Perspectives

Adopted from Beene and Greer^[41]:

What point of view is being represented here?

Are there points of view that are missing/excluded?

What other points of view should be considered before drawing conclusions?

What assumptions underlie this point of view?

What alternative assumptions might you make?

Helping Learners Question Conclusions

Adopted from Beene and Greer^[42]:

What is the evidence for and against your conclusion?

What conclusions have others drawn that are different, and how might they influence your own?

Are you looking at all the evidence, or just what supports your own opinion?

Are you basing your acceptance of this on fact or feeling? What evidence supports this?

Could you be misinterpreting the evidence? Are you making any assumptions?

Could you be ignoring, amplifying, distorting, or downplaying certain information to construct a narrative?

Helping Learners Think Through Consequences

Adopted from Beene and Greer^[43]:

What are the implications of acting on or believing this?

If you do this or believe this, what are the consequences?

How do the consequences impact your understanding of the topic?

Helping Learners Engage with the Emotional Component of Information

Adapted into questions from Hannah^[44]

Can you identify the emotional response you are having to this information? What makes you feel this way?

Are your beliefs altering the way I am interpreting things?

What do you care about? Does this matter for your day-to-day life?

What does this information ask you to do or believe?

Adopted from Beene and Greer^[45]:

What would happen if you thought of this another way (or the facts pointed to something else)? How would that feel?