27 Things: Survey Says ...

An extensive survey of Librarian bloggers was conducted with the intent of establishing a broad-based protocol, whose foundation was a narrowly defined user-base, within the context of a single library system. The hypothesis is that blogging is a means of adding content to the Internet at large, to the discussion of specific Internet-based tools to manage added content, and to deliberately identify the quirky personalities of those adding content. The following statistical results have an acceptable margin of error of between 1% and 25%.

The initial statement, followed by five carefully worded responses, was "I think Blogging is:"

"A great way to organize my thoughts." 62% of respondents used this reply to complete the initial statement.

"A good way to communicate what I think the world needs to know." 12% of respondents used this reply to complete the initial statement.

"A great way for someone who knows nothing to say nothing." 50% of respondents used this reply to complete the initial statement.

"Being forced upon me by work." 12% of respondents used this reply to complete the initial statement.

"For the proverbial birds." No one chose this reply to complete the initial statement.

Taking these responses in reverse order the following conclusions are drawn:

Everyone finds significance to adding content through blogging.

Those being forced to blog do so because it is a training experience, adding expertise to their ability to adequately perform work functions.

Half of the respondents determined the other half were simply creating electronic hot-air.

A handful of individuals considered some of the remote individuals adding to the global electronic discussion absolutely necessary for all, required reading for all, and consider those individuals experts on all. This conclusion is intimately linked to the previous conclusion.

The majority of respondents view blogging as a means of developing their personal understanding of the content they wish to add.

These conclusions are based upon a critical analysis of the eight people who responded. It is apparent a flaw in the gathering of the statistical data was overlook by the research team. Some respondents checked more than one reply. This anomaly, however, does not statisctically skew the results or the conclusions drawn. The standards of informal logic, using inductive reasoning, apply.

These findings are under peer-review. All peer-reviewed comments are attached.