Comments on: Three out of four people read books! http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/ K.G. Schneider's blog on librarianship, writing, and everything else Sun, 20 May 2012 03:37:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: chris http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/comment-page-1/#comment-80659 chris Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:17:06 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/#comment-80659 Does anyone know what country are those stats for ? and what the stats are for New Zealand? Does anyone know what country are those stats for ?
and what the stats are for New Zealand?

]]> By: chris http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/comment-page-1/#comment-80657 chris Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:15:55 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/#comment-80657 what country are those stats for ? what country are those stats for ?

]]> By: RfP http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/comment-page-1/#comment-54674 RfP Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:26:08 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/#comment-54674 Agreed. The National Science Foundation's <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/pdf/c07.pdf" rel="nofollow">2002 study</a> (PDF) did include serial literature--they were interested in any form of sci fi reading. Agreed.

The National Science Foundation’s 2002 study (PDF) did include serial literature–they were interested in any form of sci fi reading.

]]> By: K.G. Schneider http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/comment-page-1/#comment-49871 K.G. Schneider Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:34:59 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/#comment-49871 RfP, good comments. Let me clarify that the NEA ignored (creative/literary/narrative) nonfiction, as well as the entirety of the lively world of serial literature. Quite a few well-read people never read fiction *or* books. Who had a better reading experience, the reader who just finished Tin House, Missouri Review, and the latest Atlantic, or the person who read some drek such as "The Five People you Meet in Publix"? RfP, good comments. Let me clarify that the NEA ignored (creative/literary/narrative) nonfiction, as well as the entirety of the lively world of serial literature. Quite a few well-read people never read fiction *or* books. Who had a better reading experience, the reader who just finished Tin House, Missouri Review, and the latest Atlantic, or the person who read some drek such as “The Five People you Meet in Publix”?

]]> By: RfP http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/comment-page-1/#comment-49676 RfP Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:16:48 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/#comment-49676 I agree that the new AP/Ipsos study is weak. Its methodology just doesn't stand up to the other (larger, more rigorous) surveys out there. I compared the AP findings to the other surveys <a href="http://www.readforpleasure.com/2007/08/associated-press-poll-on-reading.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>; basically, while AP finds that 73% read, other surveys find that the number who read is much lower. The 2000 Census found that 43% of adults had read a book that year. The 2002 NEA survey (much more rigorous) found that 57% of adults read a book that year (47% read fiction), which lines up pretty well with the NSF's findings. <i>NEA report, “Reading at Risk,” which at best proved... that most people do not read literary fiction.</i> The NEA didn't look at exclusively "literary" fiction. They looked initially at "all" books, then focused on "literature"--all fiction, poetry, and plays. They explicitly state that they didn't differentiate types or judge quality of fiction. The NEA also looked at reading online. In 2002, they found that 9% of adults read online. Presumably that number will be higher in the next survey. I agree that the new AP/Ipsos study is weak. Its methodology just doesn’t stand up to the other (larger, more rigorous) surveys out there. I compared the AP findings to the other surveys here; basically, while AP finds that 73% read, other surveys find that the number who read is much lower. The 2000 Census found that 43% of adults had read a book that year. The 2002 NEA survey (much more rigorous) found that 57% of adults read a book that year (47% read fiction), which lines up pretty well with the NSF’s findings.

NEA report, “Reading at Risk,” which at best proved… that most people do not read literary fiction.

The NEA didn’t look at exclusively “literary” fiction. They looked initially at “all” books, then focused on “literature”–all fiction, poetry, and plays. They explicitly state that they didn’t differentiate types or judge quality of fiction.

The NEA also looked at reading online. In 2002, they found that 9% of adults read online. Presumably that number will be higher in the next survey.

]]> By: K.G. Schneider http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/comment-page-1/#comment-41217 K.G. Schneider Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:51:14 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/#comment-41217 GraceAnne, what a sweet observation :) GraceAnne, what a sweet observation :)

]]> By: K.G. Schneider http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/comment-page-1/#comment-41213 K.G. Schneider Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:40:46 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/#comment-41213 Laura, that's the problem with anything called "non." I mean, why don't they call fiction "nontruth?" cain't get no respect! Laura, that’s the problem with anything called “non.” I mean, why don’t they call fiction “nontruth?” cain’t get no respect!

]]> By: Laura http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/comment-page-1/#comment-41208 Laura Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:08:49 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/#comment-41208 Yeah, I've always been irked with the way the NEA defined reading. So much for my three years in a nonfiction program! Yeah, I’ve always been irked with the way the NEA defined reading. So much for my three years in a nonfiction program!

]]> By: Valerie Hawkins http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/comment-page-1/#comment-41134 Valerie Hawkins Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:23:03 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/#comment-41134 I found the methodology of the survey somewhat deceiving as well. If people aren't reading literary fiction in physical books, very well. But what about newspapers and magazines, like you said--? What about nonfiction (which is what I've been leisurely reading, more often than not)? What about people going online and reading, well, *blogs* and other online forums and networks? There's a report about online gaming--with some of the more in-depth games, you have to read these thick game manuals and sometimes other hints books. And then where should audiobooks and e-books be placed--? And also, what does this mean next to the 2007 LJ Book Buying Survey, which showed a complementary relationship between libraries buying more fiction and circulation ever rising because of patrons coming in and taking out more and more fiction books? In some ways, I think that people are reading now more than ever, so I wished the report had gone in that direction, delved a little deeper, and not been spun to say that people aren't reading *at all* if it's not books that they're choosing. I found the methodology of the survey somewhat deceiving as well. If people aren’t reading literary fiction in physical books, very well. But what about newspapers and magazines, like you said–? What about nonfiction (which is what I’ve been leisurely reading, more often than not)? What about people going online and reading, well, *blogs* and other online forums and networks? There’s a report about online gaming–with some of the more in-depth games, you have to read these thick game manuals and sometimes other hints books. And then where should audiobooks and e-books be placed–? And also, what does this mean next to the 2007 LJ Book Buying Survey, which showed a complementary relationship between libraries buying more fiction and circulation ever rising because of patrons coming in and taking out more and more fiction books? In some ways, I think that people are reading now more than ever, so I wished the report had gone in that direction, delved a little deeper, and not been spun to say that people aren’t reading *at all* if it’s not books that they’re choosing.

]]> By: Jeff http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/comment-page-1/#comment-41133 Jeff Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:12:22 +0000 http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/08/23/three-out-of-four-people-read-books/#comment-41133 Survey smurvey, 75% is no different that any other time. Reading has increased. I know in my community, five years ago, it was 75% came into a library, now its 86% and going higher. The average person checks out EIGHT books annually. Not sure what underlies all of these studies, but I read on another's blog that it is a good way to promote your library since most libraries stats are higher than stated in the report. :) Survey smurvey, 75% is no different that any other time. Reading has increased. I know in my community, five years ago, it was 75% came into a library, now its 86% and going higher. The average person checks out EIGHT books annually. Not sure what underlies all of these studies, but I read on another’s blog that it is a good way to promote your library since most libraries stats are higher than stated in the report. :)

]]>