Dear people -- there is probably some impact on xmca of the development of the
two other discussion lists that involve xmca people, multilogues and
pre-intellectus. These have appeared in the last year. Multilogues has engaged
women and has created a supportive, intimate arena; pre-intellectus is men and
women and has followed its own drift. But these two backchannels have
undoubtedly had an impact on xmca participation, if only because of the total
amount of time that anyone has to sit at the computer in a given day. In
addition, there is a certain amount of rehearsing for xmca that goes on in
these backchannels.
Helena Worthen
Eva Ekeblad wrote:
> At 22.56 -0600 01-08-16, Diane Hodges scrobe:
> >while i love your stats analysis, what would you surmise from the
> >results, ?
> >diane
>
> Oh, I was hoping that the list would do the surmising for me.
> You know: the Internet as the oracular response to our desires for an
> answer (to Life, the Universe and Everything). I fall for that sometimes,
> just like anybody else.
>
> Perhaps women have more demanding wives than men? That would, as Bill said
> a while ago, explain everything - and explain nothing.
>
> Or perhaps - viewing xmca contribution at Phil's suggestion as a positive
> rather than a negative - perhaps, for women, posting to the xmca is
> becoming less of an enriching process for learning (and/or or a prestige-
> or esteem-building) over time?
>
> Bill picked up the spring of 96 as a time of heavy mailflow with deep
> conversations. I recognize those names, of course - many of them are still
> around, others not. From my incomplete knowledge a fairly common reason for
> decreasing participation is that people have moved on into work that gives
> less time for mailinglists, overall.
>
> For me this was the term when I finished and defended my dissertation, and
> my third year as a posting participant on the list (which, under the name
> of xlchc and others has existed since the late 80s). I think some of the
> other heavy contributors were also doctoral students in their final stages:
> you spend a lot of your time at the computer, writing, then. And you are
> often fairly isolated from people in your local surrounding in that period,
> I think - because of the intense focus on the ideas you are writing about,
> you just tend to bore your IRL locals to death if you talk about what's in
> your head. At the time, having the xmca was for me also a breathing hole
> away from the local institutional duckpond (I didn't realize the dangers of
> neglecting to learn to swim those waters). So for me, then, the xmca was a
> great source of stimulance (too much!!) and support. Somehow, during the
> past two years (which have been strange and difficult for me) it has not
> worked that way any longer. I have changed, the list has changed, the
> relation has changed... I can of course not presume to speak for others in
> this respect.
>
> Eva
>
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
> >>Hi all
> >>
> >>The message count I sent a while ago was done at the spur of the moment,
> >>spanning a period of time which wasn't compatible with the statistics I
> >>have kept earlier. But I thought it might be interesting to fill in the
> >>missing pieces in a set of message counts that I had in store, which runs
> >>over terms (six-month periods) from the start of this list under the xmca
> >>address, in the autumn of 1995. Mid-september, to be precise, so the first
> >>slot is only really four and a half months.
> >>
> >>16991 postings by 688 different contributors, all in all.
> >>
> >> au95 sp96 au96 sp97 au97 sp98 au98 sp99 au99 sp00
> >>au00 sp01
> >>postings 990 2132 1117 1273 1753 1259 1342 1509 1398 1523
> >>1185 1510
> >>contrib. 181 190 161 205 217 153 132 134 126 108
> >>86 96
> >>p/cont 5,47 11,22 6,94 6,21 8,08 8,23 10,17 11,26 11,10 14,10
> >>13,78 15,73
> >>
> >>So the number of active contributors has been shrinking, but the active
> >>contributors post, on an average, more messages.
> >>
> >>...and today I was (for some reason) inspired to go back to the
> >>spreadsheet
> >>I had prepared and look at the gender distribution. Some charts can be
> >>found at
> >>http://hem.spray.se/eva.ekeblad/weaver/stats.html
> >>
> >>What strikes me is that while the share of women contributors stays,
> >>hovering, around 40%, the share of postings BY women seems to be
> >>decreasing. It's been at most 37%, this spring term it was 26%
> >>
> >>I'll give you the average numbers of messages per contributor, as well:
> >>
> >> au95 sp96 au96 sp97 au97 sp98 au98 sp99 au99 sp00
> >>au00 sp01
> >>mm/mc 5,63 12,94 7,08 7,00 8,45 9,05 11,96 13,90 14,16 15,48
> >>16,80 19,53
> >>fm/fc 5,23 9,14 6,65 5,05 7,49 7,15 7,95 7,70 7,27 11,85
> >>9,58 10,18
> >>
> >>
> >>There also seems to be more turnover (less stability) among the women
> >>contributors, the sum-total of 734 "contributor-terms" being performed by
> >>304 different women, and a sum-total of 1055 "contributor-terms" being
> >>performed by 384 different men.
> >>
> >>So, is this another case of the concrete cage?
> >>
> >>Eva
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >"I want you to put the crayon back in my brain."
> >Homer Simpson
> >
> >diane celia hodges
> >university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
> >instruction
> >vancouver, bc
> >mailing address: 46 broadview avenue, montreal, qc, H9R 3Z2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 01:02:11 PDT