karen do you have access to my surveymonkey account!
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Michele, I think there are two threads going on. One is looking at the
> gender make-up of the c4l community. But I was hoping to be able to compare
> that to the gender makeup of the library techie community in general.
> Because if we find that c4l is -- randomly -- 42% female, we don't know
> whether that is representative of the actual workers in libraries. In fact,
> by definition, it only represents c4l, and it's not terribly meaningful if
> we can't compare it to something. It means something different if 42% of
> techie workers in libraries are female, and it means something else if 75%
> of techie workers in libraries are female.
> And then, once all of the numbers are in, you have to figure out if it
> means anything at all, but we can worry about that later.
> On 11/27/12 11:23 AM, Michele R Combs wrote:
>> I'm not sure that would work. We aren't interested in library staff,
>> we're interested in the CODE4LIB community, yes? My manager doesn't know
>> all the lists I subscribe to, or the communities I consider myself a member
>> of, so I don't see any way for a library to report reliably on behalf of
>> its staff. Pretty much by definition, if you want to know demographics for
>> a community, you have to ask the members directly.
>> Not to mention the question of including and "other" option for gender --
>> a library isn't likely to be able to determine that for its staff :)
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Joe, what I was hoping for was not a survey where individuals report
>>> on themselves, but a statistical sample of libraries where the library
>>> reports on its staff. That avoid the "self-image" issue, and the
>>> selection that individual reporting on self entails.
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet