Abstract
This paper presents a critique of the interpretation of the results and some other methodological issues of the 2019 Spanish report on reading Barómetro de hábitos de lectura y compra de libros en España. It is argued that both the methodology and interpretation are essential in any field of knowledge in order to reach valid conclusions that are in accordance with reality. The critique depicts a different scenario regarding the conclusions of the analyzed Spanish report. The categories used for the frequency of reading must be reconfigured. Otherwise, it is difficult not to conclude that people in Spain are avid readers (only by reading at least once a month). On the other hand, if three out of four people in Spain do not use the library, the optimistic conclusion regarding the evaluation rating of the few people who do use libraries should be revised to include the information about those who do not use them. Also, the poor attendance and scarce interest in such use are justified by the fact that public libraries only cover 9.2% of the total reading by the population. Thereafter, two ideas are presented: the first, based on the personal experience of the author of this work, relates to how the evaluation and use of libraries in Spain could be improved by comparison with libraries in other countries; the second suggests that carrying out studies of non-users could be interesting, due to the fact that three out of four people in Spain do not use the library. In conclusion, the misinterpretation of and the definitions of the methodology in the analyzed Spanish report are related to the Pygmalion effect from the field of Pedagogy and Education. Librarians and researchers should be conscious of the real situation of both libraries and reading in Spain, beyond the optimistic conclusions of the 2019 Spanish report on reading.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
