ABSTRACT:

This entry argues that reference services require a guiding philosophy informed by a Christian worldview, moving beyond transactional information delivery toward relational and transformative encounters. Building on a previously published article in Library Philosophy and Practice, it draws from covenant epistemology to frame knowledge as relational rather than merely informational. Three components from Dru Johnson—genuflection, participation, and guidance—are applied to reference services. Genuflection places ultimate authority in Christ and Scripture, while directing patrons to trustworthy resources. Participation positions the librarian as an engaged partner in the patron’s research process, and guidance emphasizes the librarian’s role as a counselor, humbly accompanying patrons in their discovery and learning. By adopting this epistemological framework, faithful librarians recognize reference work as a pastoral calling, shaped by Christ’s love, that fosters transformation in patrons’ pursuit of knowledge. Ultimately, a philosophy of reference services provides both theological grounding and professional direction for serving patrons with excellence.

FULL ENTRY:

Gazing at my computer screen, I pretend to be occupied, hoping to avoid interruption as an obnoxious patron returns to the circulation desk, where I pray they won’t need professional reference services. A context like this breeds familiarity for many faithful librarians, and I feel compelled to ask, “Why should a faithful librarian provide reference service to a rude or obnoxious patron?” One might point to professional responsibility, love for one’s neighbor, or the satisfaction coming from meeting a person’s needs. While not suggesting their insignificance, a philosophy of reference services provides a larger framework addressing such queries. This entry examines knowledge as a foundation for reference services, with a particular focus on how theological perspectives inform both how we understand knowledge and its practical application. Future entries will discuss the other two presuppositions: people and relationships. Does how a librarian understands knowledge influence their approach to reference services?

This blog post stems from an article I co-authored with Bethany Radcliffe, “Reflecting Deeply: Why a Philosophy of Reference Services Should Direct Every Reference Interview.” Reviewing the literature related to this topic confirmed our suspicions: while much discussion emphasizes the importance of having a philosophy to guide a reference encounter, very little scholarly work actually focuses on developing a philosophy of reference services (Radcliffe & Trott, 2024, paras. 88–90) despite continually noting the need to develop a philosophy of reference services (Radcliffe & Trott, 2024, paras. 7, 9). For continuity, this blog entry will use the phrase “reference services,” even though I understand that “reference services” and “reference interviews” are often used interchangeably.

Before I discuss this topic further, I would like to address a few related questions: “What is a ‘philosophy’ of reference services?” and “Why should a faithful librarian be concerned about it?” In this context, by “philosophy” I mean what might also be described as a “worldview,” a term some scholars consider problematic due to its varied connotations. However, the term brings clarity: a “worldview” represents how someone views the world and, subsequently, how one views all its aspects (including one’s profession as a librarian and the professional task of reference services). A worldview/philosophy comprises the presuppositions, ideas, models, and values I use to make sense of the world around me. For example, when a stranger walks into the library, I have certain presuppositions about humanity: things I assume based on the individual’s height/or weight, skin color, clothing, and numerous other characteristics. Whether negative or positive, correct or far-fetched, driven by Scripture or influenced by ideologies countering truth, my worldview shapes such assumptions, key components influencing how I live and think, and, accordingly, drive how I conduct reference services. While the term “worldview” provides clarity, this blog entry will use the term “philosophy” to maintain continuity both with the literature reviewed and our article.

Why should I, as an individual aspiring to be a faithful librarian, be concerned about my philosophy of reference? Because I embrace the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all domains (cf. Kuyper, 1998, p. 461), including every aspect of my professional work. Therefore, I aim to develop a Christ-centered philosophy of reference services that will guide my actions, words, thoughts, and intentions. A Christian worldview should guide a faithful librarian’s motivation for providing reference services.

Entering what seems to be a sacred domain, the patron approaches a reference desk. The reference librarian defiantly turns their head, pretending to listen to a poorly articulated query. The patron voices his question with a quivering tone, hurried speech, and nervous gestures—suggesting that, for him, a seemingly simple reference query feels as daunting as addressing a large audience for the first time. However, the reference library provides a quick and abrupt answer, accompanied by an infamous finger pointing to a glaring computer screen. After this abrupt exchange, the librarian arrogantly turns their attention away from the patron and presumably gets back to their ever-so-important work. Should a faithful librarian cringe at such an exchange? While there can be goodness and excellence in performing such duties (and at times, such duties align with a patron’s needs), there are also times when the patron needs more than just a quick comment and directions. Unfortunately, in this situation, such actions left the patron frustrated, confused, and irritated. In such a context, how a librarian understands epistemology influences their response. Understanding knowledge as simply a passive exchange may justify providing a response oozing passivity; whereas embracing knowledge’s strong relational elements leads to active participation and engagement in the patron’s research endeavors. In covenant epistemology, knowledge has a relational component, and subsequently, it makes a strong distinction between knowledge and information. By embracing covenant epistemology, reference services become a relational endeavor; not merely a transaction, but a starting point for a potentially transformative journey.

In his work, Dru Johnson (2013) identifies three key components clearly distinguishing information and knowledge within covenant epistemology: genuflection, participation, and guidance. I will not repeat my work on these, as I have already developed their functionality. However, I will apply these three epistemological components to reference services and explore how they might guide a faithful librarian in providing reference services as a transformational venture.

Where do we turn for authoritative resources? In reference services, faithful librarians guide patrons to reliable and authoritative resources they have found to be trustworthy (cf. Johnson, 2013, p. 203). Genuflection asks: to whom do we bow? Or, in reference services: what primary voices do we listen to? Patrons come to librarians because the librarian knows the appropriate authoritative resources to consult for an answer to a reference inquiry: the primary voices to whom they and their patrons should listen. As an earlier entry on authority noted, a faithful librarian recognizes Jesus and Scripture as the norma normans non normata—the ultimate authorities governing all other standards without being subject to them. Faithful librarians bow to Jesus Christ and Scripture, and subsequently turn to them as authoritative resources while providing reference services. This has several implications.

When seeking reference services, patrons often recognize librarians for their expertise in authoritative resources. Suppose a faithful librarian aims to align with Jesus and Scripture as the norma normans non normata (authorities exercising control over all the other authorities, but never submit to other authorities). Does this imply I should first consult the Bible, followed by fervent prayer for every reference inquiry? Maybe. A previous entry discussed general revelation and how God’s self-revelation in the natural world reveals his authority, and such revelation is authoritative. Put simply, a faithful librarian helps people become familiar with God’s general revelation by knowing and utilizing reliable resources. By choosing authoritative sources in line with God’s general revelation, faithful librarians genuflect to God.

The second component Johnson (2013) uses to develop covenant epistemology is participation. Covenant epistemology, as the term “covenant” implies, has a distinction because it acknowledges the significant roles played by various social dynamics in any knowledge endeavor. Johnson (2013) provides an analogy by noting the differentiation between how a mere observer of tennis and a professional tennis player would watch the Wimbledon Championships (pp. 206–207). The professional tennis player knows tennis. Every time the novice observer simply sees the tennis ball hit the racket, the professional notices the players’ intricate strategies to powerfully project the ball at just the correct angle so it directs the ball towards their opponent’s weak points. Even though the professional watches the Wimbledon Championships from thousands of miles away, their observation is anything but passive; it is as if they participate simply by watching the games. This contrasts with the amateur who simply observes (leading to no participation). Covenant epistemology compels faithful librarians to move beyond passive information provision, calling them to active, participatory engagement in each patron’s research journey. By engaging fully in the learning endeavor—sharing in the patron’s frustrations and anxieties, applying professional knowledge, and guiding the process—the faithful librarian demonstrates reference work extending far beyond delivering sources. Instead, it becomes a transformative learning experience where the librarian and patron invest together, much like a skilled tennis professional watching a Wimbledon match with both expertise and deep personal commitment.

The library literature also confirms the value and immense importance of engagement in reference services. For example, Radford and Radford (2016) note the critical roles of whole-hearted involvement and participation in reference services, as communication does not merely impart information; it entails a “sacred ceremony that draws people together in fellowship and commonality” (p. 30). When reference services lack such a draw, it becomes a simple information exchange, fostering contexts with doubtful learning exchanges. Likewise, VanScoy (2013) notes the critical components of emotional connections and fully engaged practice in good reference services (p. 274). While participatory reference services are commendable, it is one thing to provide excellent service solely to deliver information exceptionally, and it is quite another to have a different motivation for embracing participation. For a faithful librarian, these service levels reflect God’s love for these patrons.

The last component of knowledge, Johnson argues, is guidance. In my previous discussion regarding guidance and its application to epistemology, I illustrated the concept using learning classical Hebrew as an example. I did not learn classical Hebrew in a culinary class or in a context lacking social interaction. I learned Hebrew through epistemological guidance in a college classroom with fellow students eager to learn the language from an expert on the topic.

Two components may help reference services. As noted above, reference services, particularly when provided by faithful librarians, offer guidance to patrons in a participatory manner (cf. Martin, 2009, pp. 5–6). Whether reference services entail assisting a patron through a web discovery tool, helping a faculty member use subject headings in a database, or introducing a student to print indexes, faithful librarians must guide and offer counsel through these processes. While providing reference services, faithful librarians who provide guidance and empower patrons to find what they need should have a larger objective: directing patrons away from first-order epistemological errors (cf. Johnson, 2013, p. 74). Instructing patrons on accurately using resources directs them towards listening to trusted authorities (or away from listening to voices that should not be heeded).

Secondly, faithful librarians must understand the implications accompanying guidance. One often assumes that faithful librarians are responsible for maintaining a broad knowledge base, enabling them to assist with various topics. Such responsibility challenges the faithful librarian because it requires maintaining a comprehensive understanding, aligning with every discipline a patron may bring when seeking reference services. Only a librarian with their head in the clouds has such an expectation; no librarian can maintain such an exhaustive understanding. Providing an excellent response to a reference inquiry does not necessarily entail having extensive knowledge. Instead, it involves using reference services as an opportunity to learn.

In her work, Carol Kuhlthau (2004) articulates this well in her discussion regarding a “counselor,” her last level for reference services (pp. 114–120). When elaborating on this role, Kuhlthau makes reference to Dosa and Holt’s (1978) description. Being a counselor involves an “interactive process by which an information intermediary (a) assesses the needs and constraints of an individual through in-depth interviewing; (b) determines the optimal ways available to meet such needs; (c) actively assists the client in finding, using, and if needed, applying information; (d) assures systematic follow-up to ascertain that the assistance enabled clients to achieve their goals; (e) develop systematic quality control and evaluation processes” (Dosa & Holt, 1978, p. 16).

Guidance playing an epistemological role (Johnson, 2013) aligns nicely with Kuhlthau’s (2004) and Dosa and Holt’s (1978) argument: reference services effectively meet the patrons’ needs when the librarian embraces the counselor role. An underlying assumption in a context where a faithful librarian takes on the role of counselor is that the librarian learns right alongside the patron through the interview (Kuhlthau, 2004, p. 118). In addition, when a faithful librarian adopts Kuhlthau’s (2004) and Dosa and Holt’s (1978) counselor amidst reference services, they humbly embrace the scenario, not allowing their limitations to impede reference services and the learning process it entails. The faithful librarian jointly engages in the learning process, using the knowledge they attain to counsel the patron through reference services.

“Knowledge is transformation, not mere information” (Meek, 2011, p. 6). The transformative role of knowledge leads faithful librarians to provide authoritative resources not merely as information, but as part of a pastoral role guiding patrons toward truth and transformation. Such an epistemological presupposition leads a faithful librarian to express the love of Jesus Christ through every dimension of reference services because we do not deal with an information exchange but a transformative venture.

References

Dosa, M. L., & Holt, D. (1987). Information counseling and policies. The Reference Librarian, 7(17), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v07n17_02

Johnson, D. (2013). Biblical knowing: A scriptural epistemology of error. Wipf and Stock.

Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services. Libraries Unlimited.

Kuyper, A. (1998). Abraham Kuyper: A centennial reader. Eerdmans.

Martin, P. N. (2009). Societal transformation and reference services in the academic library: Theoretical foundations for re-envisioning reference. Library Philosophy & Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/260/

Meek, E. L. (2011). Loving to know: Introducing covenant epistemology. Cascade Books.

Radcliffe, B., & Trott, G. (2024). Reflecting deeply: Why a philosophy of reference services should direct every RI. Library Philosophy & Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/8078/

Radford, M. L., & Radford, G. P. (2016). Library conversations: Reclaiming interpersonal communication theory for understanding professional encounters. ALA.

VanScoy, A. (2013). Fully engaged practice and emotional connection: Aspects of the practitioner perspective of reference and information service. Library & Information Science Research, 35(4), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.09.001