Our librarians are the most tolerant bunch when it comes to rude patrons.
A rude patron behaves something like this:
patron - FIND IT NOW!!!!!!!!
librarian - Use of this service requires polite and respectful chat. If you can abide by that requirement, I will be happy to assist you. Would you like to continue?
In this example, the conversation went on like this for another six minutes before the librarian finally disconnected the patron.
I think this is a very positive way to deal with the situation. The librarian gives the patron a second chance before refusing service.
The OCLC / 24-7 Reference Policy document gives more examples of these kinds of situations and guidelines for dealing with them in the "Rude patrons" section (isn't it odd that the only "types" of patrons they list are rude ones, k-12 students and suicidal ones?)
The idea is to let the patron know you are real and where the limits are, but once the limits are crossed, to disconnect him.
Often librarians are way too nice about all this:
patron - ya wanna have sex?
librarian - That is an inappropriate question... if you continue in that vein, I will have to disconnect you.
At the L-net advisory board meeting a few weeks ago, one person pointed out that there is a difference between a patron being merely rude and a patron being lascivious. It's nice to warn patrons, and this type of language is rude, yes, but it is also lewd and it is best to immediately disconnect someone in that situation.
In each of these cases, it wouldn't surprise me if the librarian lost a little satisfaction with her job (with virtual reference, with L-net) by having to put up with rude patrons. Neither would it surprise me if they each gained a little satisfaction, by being able to say she handled the situation professionally, by not scaring too easy, and by genuinely trying to help these patrons.
Well, the problem with rude
Well, the problem with rude and inadequate patrons is even worse when the conversation is held in person. You cannot just disconnect when you are a the reference or the circulation desk. In both cases, I think, librarians need not take such persons close to their hearts, and pay much attention to their rudeness, impoliteness and such.
the rude, the lascivious, and the downright frightening
I had an L-Net patron whose request for information on anal sodomy was obviously a test of The Faceless Librarian's tolerance, and perhaps a bit of the Freak the Norm, too. But he got the wrong guy, if he wanted to give the librarian the vapors. I treated the request seriously and found credible and appropriate advice on safe anal sex. That seemed to surprise him and satisfy him.
On a slightly different note relevant to Ms. Kite's comment above, it's important to keep the personal out of an interaction with a scary patron. I had a guy at the refdesk a couple months ago who made me wish I had a panic button. He inquired about unjust termination laws, claiming to have been let go unfairly from some 43 jobs, and asked me if I had ever been wrongly terminated. Before I could stop myself, I answered, "yes." Then he wanted to know more, but I quickly recovered and politely declined to divulge. Fortunately I found a couple books right up his alley and sent him on his merry way. Maybe my slight personal revelation put him at ease, but it made me much more uncomfortable in an already uncomfortable situation (seriously, this guy was scary.)
I know that patron!
Kevin -- I've worked with that patron too - when I last saw him, he didn't seem dangerous but he did seem to be inhabiting a different reality from mine.
I've been getting a couple of rude or abusive middle schoolers nearly every week. I'm starting to give one warning, then disconnect -- I used to try to give more warnings and just not react to the inappropriate stuff. Now I'm trying to remember that if I accept abusive behavior, I'm also teaching patrons (especially young patrons) that it's okay to cuss the librarian out. Not what I want to encourage!
All excellent points!
All excellent points!
One thing about "traditional" in-person reference is that standing/sitting behind a desk conveys an authority and implies a hierarchical relationship between librarian and patron. Some people find this intimidating as well, and I have seen and heard many librarians argue that it makes us less approachable.
There is even all kinds of talk about getting rid of the desk, see for example Steven J. Bell's article, "Who needs a Reference Desk" (PDF) in Library Issues, Vol 27 no.6, July 2007.
In chat reference, patrons can approach us easily (if they know about the service) and the hierarchy is flattened - authority is implied by providing service only, not by being behind a desk.
In these situations, am sort of saying that "patrons don't know their place". I don't mean that there needs to be a hierarchy in order for reference to be successful. It's just that in chat, we often forget that the interaction works best when the relationship is egalitarian. In that sense, we sometimes don't know our place either.
People will sometimes be rude or lascivious in order to take advantage. They are confusing equality with powerlessness. I want librarians to not put up with that. We can't throw patrons out of the building, but we can throw them off the service for a time.
And I'm glad I've finally written about something that some of us want to talk about. It only took, like, 4 years! Let that be a lesson to me.
Unfortunately this doesn't
Unfortunately this doesn't just happen online. Even in person, and yes even behind a reference desk, some people still take advantage of our status as public servants. We are constantly threatened with the "I pay your salary" cliche which is ridiculous considering we provide those same patrons with free services that would cost considerably more by going to a bookstore or purchasing a computer--that is truly what their taxes are paying for. At my public library we deal with complaints and rudeness by practically apologizing every step of the way or pretending we didn't just hear that.
Post new comment