首页> 外文期刊>College & Research Libraries >Using the contingent valuation method to measure patron benefits of reference desk service in an academic library
【24h】

Using the contingent valuation method to measure patron benefits of reference desk service in an academic library

机译:使用或有估值法来衡量大学图书馆中咨询台服务的顾客惠益

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The concept of "just-in-case" reference (the librarian waits at the desk just in case the patron has a question) is receiving increasing scrutiny by library administrators and reference librarians.(FN1,2) An entire symposium in the Journal ofAcademic Librarianship was dedicated to a discussion of the viability of reference services and the possible need for a new model.(FN3) But this discussion is occurring without information on the value of reference desk services to patrons. The library literature is replete with cost studies, but few studies consider the benefit to patrons of library services. This is particularly true of reference services where librarians have thoroughly studied the cost of reference transactions, but few have considered the benefits of reference services or how they might be measured. James R. Kuhlman lays out a general model for conducting cost-benefit analysis of reference services.(FN4) He underscores the importance of recognizing that the patron shares part of the cost of obtaining reference services through travel cost (including the opportunity cost of time). Kuhlman does not, however, suggest methods by which the benefit of reference services might be measured. Marjorie E. Murfin's essay contains both a thorough cost analysis of reference service and a discussion of cost-benefit analysis, again without conducting a cost-benefit analysis.(FN5) Murfin discusses the willingness-to-pay (WTP) benefit measure but rejects it. She argues that users may refuse to respond to WTP questions altogether because they refuse to consider paying for a service they were accustomed to receiving for free or believe should be free. More is said below about the basis and logic of benefit measurement in cost-benefit analysis, but the authors wish to emphasize that when they use the term WTP, they wish to convey the meaning from cost-benefit analysis--the appropriate measure of benefit to individuals.
机译:“以防万一”参考文献的概念(馆员在图书馆等候读者以防万一,如果有问题的话)正在受到图书馆管理员和参考图书馆员日益严格的审查。(FN1,2)《学术期刊》上的整个研讨会图书管理员致力于讨论参考服务的可行性以及对新模型的需求。(FN3)但是,这种讨论是在没有有关参考服务对顾客价值的信息的情况下进行的。图书馆文献中充斥着成本研究,但很少有研究认为对图书馆服务惠顾者有利。对于参考服务而言,尤其如此,因为图书馆员已经充分研究了参考交易的成本,但是很少有人考虑参考服务的好处或如何衡量参考服务。詹姆斯·库尔曼(James R.Kuhlman)提出了进行参考服务成本效益分析的通用模型。(FN4)他强调了认识到顾客通过旅行成本(包括时间机会成本)分担获得参考服务成本的一部分的重要性。 )。但是,Kuhlman没有建议可以用来衡量参考服务收益的方法。 Marjorie E. Murfin的文章既包含对参考服务的全面成本分析,也包含对成本效益分析的讨论,但又没有进行成本收益分析。(FN5)Murfin讨论了支付意愿(WTP)收益度量,但拒绝了它。她认为,用户可能会完全拒绝回答WTP问题,因为他们拒绝考虑为习惯于免费获得的服务付费或认为应该免费。关于成本收益分析中收益度量的基础和逻辑,下面将进一步介绍,但是作者希望强调,当他们使用术语WTP时,他们希望传达成本收益分析的含义-收益的适当度量对个人。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号