I'd been staying out of this discussion, but the thought occurs to me that someone with access to the list of subscribers might run that against a list of traditional boy/girl names, and be able to make some guesses…. 


On Dec 5, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Jonathan Rochkind 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=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/1Hbofh63-5F9MWEk8y8C83heOkNodttASWF5juqGLQ1E/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.
>>> 
>> 
>>