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. >> > >