Even if we have "perfect data" of every item that was taken out from
closed stacks, who cares?

My point is NOT that there can't be some utility to usage studies, but
that the real problem is what the data MEANS.  If I know that physics
journals circulate three times as frequently on a per capita basis as
compared to history journals, what do I know?  I know exactly ONE thing:
that physics journals circulate three times as frequently on a percapita
basis.

Does that mean that physicists read physics journals three times as often
as historians read history journals?  Probably.  We don't even know that
for sure, since we don't know definitively who are reading the journals.

Also, what does "using a journal" mean?  What if the average history
article is eight times as long as the average physics article.  Did the
historians "learn more" or "benefit more"?  Probably not.

What is the boundary between "browsing" and "reading"?  I've read many an
article while standing in the stacks.  Is that better or worse than
skimming twenty abstracts while spending the same amount of time in the
stacks?  Who knows?

Basically, statistics don't mean a darn thing...it is the interpretation
of the stats that matters, and that is where professional judgment and
experience come in.  Even then, we "know" very little.  Statistics can be
useful for measuring workload or planning staffing.  They can also be
helpful in allocating funds (as long as many other factors are included as
well).  But, the statistics themselves mean NOTHING, no matter how
"PERFECT" they are....

dan (not a PhD, but 60 grad credits in stats and research methodology)

Dan Lester, Network Information Coordinator
Boise State University Library, Boise, Idaho, 83725
USA
voice: 208-385-1235   fax:  208-385-1394
dlester@bsu.idbsu.edu     OR
alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Cyclops' Internet Toolbox:    http://cyclops.idbsu.edu
"How can one fool make another wise?"   Kansas, 1979.