LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  November 2012

CODE4LIB November 2012

Subject:

Re: Survey

From:

Rosalyn Metz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:21:27 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (123 lines)

Sorry all. The original question posed by Chad was whether or not we should
be concerned about the number of women presenters at Code4Lib.  I countered
with a "Dunno?  How many women are in the community?"

If the survey finds that the "number of women that proposed a talk" =
"number of women in the community" then we might want another survey to
focus on why women aren't in this community -- at which point we would be
aiming the survey at a different group of people.

If the survey finds that the "number of women that proposed a talk" <
"number of women in the community" then we might want another survey to
focus on why women aren't getting involved in this community -- at which
point we would be aiming the survey just at this list.

So the survey I propose first seeks to take a look at gender demographics.
 Once we know that, then we can do more.  Make sense?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNlSv4SUYWo


On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Rosalyn,
>
> That could be interesting, but the real issue would be to compare those
> results with actual employment results. The members of c4l are
> self-selected and won't be representative of the actual worker-bee
> situation. (e.g. it will be heavily weighted for academic libraries, I bet).
>
> kc
>
>
> On 11/27/12 8:46 AM, Rosalyn Metz wrote:
>
>> Ok since I brought up our demographics I'll run the survey (I like
>> surveys).  Simple survey with two questions:
>>
>> 1) Do you consider yourself part of the Code4Lib Community
>> 2) What is your self-identified gender
>>
>> I'll send it out at the end of today if there are no objections to the
>> questions and then share findings next week.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Rosalyn
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>  I would really like to see such a survey. I did one at my previous place
>>> of work, the California Digital Library (nee Division of Library
>>> Automation) where I worked for over 20 years. I had kept org charts and
>>> phone lists, and was able to see that over that span of two decades the
>>> tech staff (which was most everyone there since all we did was tech
>>> development) was from 2/3 to 3/4 female. But when I said this in front
>>> of a
>>> group of employees the men were startled. I'm guessing that they saw
>>> themselves as techies, and the women as "helpers" -- even though the DBA,
>>> the data designers, and many of the programmers were women. So it's not
>>> that there aren't women in technology, it's that the women in technology
>>> are often considered to be "not doing technology" because they are women.
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> So we should survey. I believe that we will find that in library
>>> technology departments there are many "invisible" women. Sadly, women
>>> will
>>> be more present in that environment for the wrong reasons -- mainly that
>>> it's lower paying and that men are more likely to get the higher paying
>>> industry jobs. (The University of California overall staff ratio is 65%
>>> female -- as perhaps many government agencies are.)
>>>
>>> kc
>>> [1] Must read: Joanna Russ. How to suppress women's writing.
>>> http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/****9392874<http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/**9392874>
>>> <http://www.worldcat.**org/oclc/9392874<http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/9392874>>It's
>>> about writing but actually pertains to all activities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/27/12 6:57 AM, Rosalyn Metz wrote:
>>>
>>>  I think first we would need to do a survey of how many women are in the
>>>> community.  if it turns out that this community is only 17% women then
>>>> we're on target.  who knows, maybe we're actually 10% women and we're
>>>> way
>>>> above target.  in which case the real question might be "how do we get
>>>> more
>>>> women in tech."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Chad Nelson <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   Ooops. Hit the wrong key.
>>>>
>>>>> So, about our presenters...
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it a problem that only 4 of our 33 presenters are women? Or that
>>>>> only
>>>>> 16
>>>>> of 95 proposers were women?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there something this community needs to do to encourage more women
>>>>> to
>>>>> feel like they can and should speak / propose sessions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>
>>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager