This is the type of question more likely to be asked in virtual reference than at the reference desk due to embarrassment and privacy issues. Without stereotyping reactions too much, the unexpectedness of the question might surprise even a very liberal librarian. A conservative librarian might find it shocking and automatically deem it inappropriate, ending the virtual reference session before it can even begin. (There are of course numerous factors that can influence a librarian’s response to our case study question. For instance, if it is posed during a busy time period when the service encounters a higher number of inappropriate behaviors, that context alone could color it as yet another prank).

The question of personal politics or personal sense of what is and isn’t proper is an important but separate issue. As librarians, we all regularly encounter patrons whose viewpoints offend or shock us, yet we handle them without bias because our professionalism requires it. Personal professionalism is the same in the virtual environment as it is in the physical. The problem before us now is what happens when the professional standards of AskColorado as 'a library system' might conflict with the professional standards of one’s actual library system.

The QA&E accepts the question “How can I have oral sex with my boyfriend” as entirely legitimate as long as the patron gives no indication that it is otherwise a prank. Any staffer receiving this question should attempt to find authoritative, non-judgmental information on the topic.

While we accept the legitimacy of the question, some library systems that provide staffing for the service might not. To identify conflicts in service philosophy when handling sensitive questions, the QA&E recommends:

• Survey reference staff to determine differences in 'library cultures' across the state.
• Utilize reference staff listserv for quick feedback and discussion of controversial questions.
• Expand role of the CVRREPS to identify and discuss conflict issues.
• Formalize AskColorado information access policies and give them to all library directors; meet to determine any significant area of disagreement in participation.
• If there are conflicts, develop strategies to bridge the gap between individual service policies and consortium requirements.
• If no conflict issues are identified, is it simply because library directors themselves have not thought about this concern or are unfamiliar with the special situations their librarians encounter in virtual reference environments?

Every librarian within a physical library setting will eventually be faced with a question they feel they should not answer. Questions from sexuality to bomb-making to suicide can get into tricky ethical and legal dilemmas that librarians must resolve quickly. One common method of deciding if a patron’s question is appropriate is to look at their library system’s collection development policy as represented by what is on the shelf. If the library holds a book on oral sex or on sexual techniques, the librarian can presume the question is okay to handle. Similarly, if a library carries the Anarchist’s Cookbook, it should be presumed that its information on bomb making, phone tapping and other similar subjects are being made available precisely to answer those patron questions.

AskColorado’s 'collection', on the other hand, is basically the Internet itself. This reality generates a question: Should a consortium-based virtual reference seek to formalize a collection policy, perhaps in the form of a directory of websites on typically contentious topics? Should consideration for person-vetted directories like DMOZ be the recommended resource for contentious topics, rather than search engines?

For the moment, the QA&E will continue to examine these questions while we explore hypothetical scenarios and philosophical problems that might yield rich practical values that would be applicable the virtual reference setting.