Oh well, I'll bite: despite the "Are you part of the community" questions, I just couldn't bring myself to feel that having had an article published in the Code4Lib journal made me part of a community rather than part of a table of contents. :-) Certainly lurking doesn't qualify for my personal definition (I've lurked in all *sorts* of places); I felt community requires (among other things) a modicum of two-way communication. Such as if, for example, I should ever feel myself called to answer an email on the listserv....

Deborah 

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bohyun Kim
Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2012 8:56 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Gender Survey Summary and Results

I just want to say BIG thanks to Rosalyn for running this survey and putting together the summary for all of us to view.

The most interesting part to me was that 22 % (female) and 14. 8 % (male) of people bothered to take the survey even though they identified themselves as not a member of the community.  Wondering what that really means...


~Bohyun

________________________________________
From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Becky Yoose [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Gender Survey Summary and Results

<delurking from all the gender-related threads>

That was my understanding as well.

I would at least like to see the limitations of the survey addressed in the document, such as response and selection biases, at least for those folks who may not be familiar with the existence of such biases.

Interesting numbers, yes. Statistically significant? I think the biases need to be considered for answering this one.

</delurk>

Thanks,
Becky, survey non-respondent

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hmm, it's quite possible you know more about statistics than me, but...
>
> Usually equations for calculating confidence level are based on the 
> assumption of a random sample, not a volunteering self-selected sample.
>
> If you have a self-selected sample, then the equations for "how likely 
> is this to be a fluke" are only accurate if your self-selected sample 
> is representative; and there aren't really any equations that can tell 
> you how likely your self-selected sample is to be representative, it 
> depends on the circumstances (which is why for the statistical 
> equations to be completely valid, you need a random sample).
>
> Is my understanding.
>
>
> On 12/5/2012 2:18 PM, Rosalyn Metz wrote:
>
>> Ross,
>>
>> I totally get what you're saying, I thought of all of that too, but 
>> according to everything I was reading through, the likelihood that 
>> the survey's results are a fluke is extremely low.  Its actually the 
>> reason I put information in the write up about the sample size (378), 
>> population size (2,250), response rate (16.8%), confidence level 
>> (95%), and confidence interval (+/- 4.6%).
>>
>> Rosalyn
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Thanks, Rosalyn for setting this up and compiling the results!
>>>
>>> While it doesn't change my default position, "yes we need more 
>>> diversity among Code4lib presenters!", I'm not sure, statistically 
>>> speaking, that you can draw the conclusions you have based on the 
>>> sample size, especially given the survey's topic (note, I am not 
>>> saying that women aren't underrepresented in the Code4lib program).
>>>
>>> If 83% of the mailing didn't respond, we simply know nothing about 
>>> their demographics.  They could be 95% male, they could be 99% 
>>> female, we have no idea.  I think it is safe to say that the 
>>> breakdown of the 16% is probably biased towards females simply given 
>>> the subject matter and the dialogue that surrounded it.  We simply 
>>> cannot project that the mailing list is
>>> 57/42 from this, I don't think.
>>>
>>> What is interesting, however, is that the number roughly corresponds 
>>> to the number of seats in the conference.  I think it would be 
>>> interesting to see how this compares to the gender breakdown at the 
>>> conference.
>>>
>>> This doesn't diminish how awesome it is that you put this together, 
>>> though.  Thanks, again to you and Karen!
>>> -Ross.
>>> On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Rosalyn Metz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi Friends,
>>>>
>>>> I put together the data and a summary for the gender survey.  Now 
>>>> that conference and hotel registration has subsided, it's a perfect 
>>>> time for
>>>>
>>> you
>>>
>>>> to kick back and read through.
>>>>
>>>> [Code4Lib] Gender Survey
>>>> Data<
>>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/**spreadsheet/ccc?key=**
>>> 0AqfFxMd8RTVhdFVQSWlPaFJ2UTh1N**mo0akNhZlVDTlE<https://docs.google.c
>>> om/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqfFxMd8RTVhdFVQSWlPaFJ2UTh1Nmo0akNhZlVDTlE>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gender Survey Data is the raw data for the survey.  Not very 
>>>> interesting, but you can use it to view my Pivot Tables and charts.
>>>>
>>>> [Code4Lib] Gender Survey
>>>> Summary<
>>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/**document/d/1Hbofh63-**
>>> 5F9MWEk8y8C83heOkNodttASWF5juq**GLQ1E/edit<https://docs.google.com/d
>>> ocument/d/1Hbofh63-5F9MWEk8y8C83heOkNodttASWF5juqGLQ1E/edit>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gender Survey Summary is easy to read version of the above -- its 
>>>> the summary I wrote about the results.  Included is a brief intro, 
>>>> charts
>>>>
>>> (from
>>>
>>>> above), and a summary of the results.
>>>>
>>>> Let the discussion begin,
>>>> Rosalyn
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Much thanks to Karen Coyle for reviewing the summary for me 
>>>> before I sent it out.  Also if there are any typos or grammar 
>>>> mistakes, please
>>>>
>>> blame
>>>
>>>> my friend Abigail who behaved as my editor.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>


________________________________
P Please consider the environment before you print this email.
"The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use, 
distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender 
by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all attachments from your system."