 |
 |
"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 >