"Forum 12 [. . .] library type (76% academic? oh my)."

Library type "academic" is probably going to dominate, because that's who
gets travel funding.  The most probable alternative might be "vendor",
because they will get funding too.

-Wilhelmina Randtke


On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Andromeda Yelton <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > I would be interested to see the gender breakdown in the CfP for
> > comparable conferences (LITA National, Access) and if Code4lib's numbers
> > are noticeably lower, meeting with those groups to determine why.
> >
>
> I would be happy to run the Forum 13 numbers after our CFP window closes in
> the spring and engage in that sort of conversation.  (I don't speak for the
> committee as a whole, of course.)
>
> FYI, for Forum 12, the (non-keynote, non-poster-session) speakers were 41%
> male, 56% female (small% I-couldn't-tell-from-names-or-find-photos).  I
> don't know about the ratio of proposers as I wasn't on that committee.  I
> don't know whether I feel good or bad about the 41/56 ratio -- I mean, it's
> kinda even (yay!) but dramatically unrepresentative of librarianship as a
> whole (boo!)
>
> I feel much twitchier when I break down the list by race (71% white, though
> that's actually less than librarianship as a whole, yikes) or library type
> (76% academic? oh my).  I am *extremely confident* that library technology
> use cases are not limited to white people in academic libraries. But if the
> conversation is limited to those use cases, the technology actually
> produced is likely to be as well.
>
> Andromeda
>