Good point -- it would not be an census. I can't envision how we would do a census on such a large and diverse group. Perhaps others have thought about this and have suggestions.
On Nov 27, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> again I worry about this being self-selecting. People who report on
> surveys are .... the people who report on surveys. A code4lib survey
> would be nice, but I'm really interested in "on the ground" troops. And
> I think the questions would have to be specific to what one does:
> - installs and fixes equipment
> - runs updates/backups on ILS
> - writes scripts
> - writes code
> - manages local network
> - modifies ILS tables for local customization
> - creates web pages
> - makes decisions on tech purchasing
> - supervises staff that runs ILS/local network
> Well, that's probably a stupid list, but a smarter list could be made.
> In other words, I would want what you actually do to define whether you
> are a techie -- not whether you consider yourself a techie (many women
> demean their own skills -- "Oh, I just push a few buttons").  I'd
> like to see it be very broad, and later we can decide if we think
> modifying ILS tables counts as being a "real techie."
>  For painful reading: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/28257411 The
> letters of Ada Lovelace.
> On 11/27/12 8:50 AM, Peter Murray wrote:
>> A friend of mine is one of the principals behind "The Survey for People Who Make Websites" from A List Apart:
>> Is that the sort of thing we'd like to do? If so, I can get some insights from him about how he develops, organizes, and runs the survey.
>> On 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. 
>>> 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.)
>>>  Must read: Joanna Russ. How to suppress women's writing.
>>> 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?
Assistant Director, Technology Services Development
[log in to unmask]
1438 West Peachtree Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
Toll Free: 800.999.8558
LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.