Re: Library Roles Changing, Open Access Not Compelling

[Laval Hunsucker <amoinsde@yahoo.com>]

> Moreover, we believe strongly that a well
> executed, replicable study of a large group
> of faculty is far superior to simply assuming
> that our views and judgments are universally
> (or even widely) held or to relying only on
> far less rigorous, non-representative techniques
> such as qualitative research.

With all respect:  let's be honest and fair now, and not 
exaggerative or misleading. You may well believe the above 
strongly, obviously, but, given what you've already indicated, 
your technique was not (couldn't be) entirely representative, 
either. Nor, by definition, was your study genuinely replicable. 
Furthermore, qualitative research can be as rigorous as 
quantitative, or more so (as well as, very often, a whole lot 
more profound and revealing, to say nothing of 
context-sensitive).

> At the same time, it is certainly true that people
> understand what is fundamentally important to
> them, what they need and want, what they are
> concerned about, and what problems they would
> like to solve.

It is certainly true that they don't understand this (and 
diachronically speaking, even less so), as has often been 
remarked (even by the researchers themselves), and confirmed by 
e.g. SSK investigations.

Having said that, I, as indeed earlier implied, do not in this 
case necessarily take issue with your study's findings -- only 
with how you are presently, and I think superfluously, choosing 
to come to the defense of its methodology.

Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland