about scholcomm
Glenn Hampson
Hi Folks,
Speaking of the scholcomm listserv, I owe you an apology for what happened Tuesday and Wednesday (again). I won’t be posting to that list again. I will probably still monitor it because so many of you are members and there’s often overlap between discussions here and there, but I think it’s best for OSI and for everyone associated with this effort that I remain invisible on scholcomm going forward.
At issue this year was the same question that came up last year about this time---the gender disparity in scholcomm posts and what affect this might have on conversations. It’s a really fascinating question that I think the OSI list would be able to discuss quite civilly, but the preference of the loudest voices on scholcomm anyway is to assume that men are silencing women---case closed. And sometimes it’s better to just leave it at that. But sometimes I don’t, unfortunately---I’m kind of defective that way. Maybe this is just too interesting to walk away from, but I should know better. In studies of other group dynamics situations like online forums---most of these studies are unfortunately dated (technology changes too fast to keep up)---there does indeed appear to be a correlation between the frequency of male comments and the infrequency of female comments. But if we allow ourselves to wear our scientist hats, there are just a ton of other inputs to consider as well. On the scholcomm site, there is anecdotal evidence to support the conclusion that men talking too much caused women to talk less. But there is also evidence from the OSI list and elsewhere that all else being equal, men don’t drown out women in online forums. The OSI list is about 30% larger than scholcomm, there’s a lot of crossover in membership, and it generates about five times the traffic, so it’s a good comparator. On this list there are slightly more men than women, but after adjusting for the types of comments posted (the “me too” variety, instructions from the moderator to the list, etc.)----which is really very critical because we all know that people communicate differently and any real community needs to respect and even embrace these differences----women post roughly as much as men.
Looking at the long tail is important too, which this scholcomm study didn’t do. Every list has top posters---this is just a normal dynamic of any conversation. It’s what happens in the tail that is significant---whether the top posters are incubating and encouraging more conversation, or whether they’re suppressing it by drowning out other comments (from both men and women, and understanding the tone and intent of messages and differences in how people react, and not just based on gender), how many other voices are heard from, what kind of substance is being discussed, what topics have traction and why, whether people feel wary of posting and if so why, and so on. There aren’t that many messages on the scholcomm list. A more thorough follow-up study should just look at each message and map out what happens. Indeed, listserv dynamics in the modern era are woefully understudied and I think this would make for a really fascinating paper. But in order to really expose what happens in an online conversation, you first need to approach this with a blank slate and not conclude in advance that of course its gender bias that’s driving disparity. As we all well know from our work environments, personality types also contribute, along with tone (yes---including mansplaining), subject matter, moderation (or lack thereof), formality/structure, attempts at summary and inclusion, the presence of bullies on the list, mob behavior, how rapidly the conversation moves, and so on----all factors that contribute to the safety of a conversation space and a tendency for list members to leave or at least stay quiet. Correlation does not equal causation, even when we “feel” we know the right answer. And the study authors acknowledge this limitation:
“[I]t is important to bear in mind that the observed correlation does not provide an explanation as to why men are more likely to interact on the listserv. Similarly, this study considered only the number of posts by individuals, which does not provide any information on the content, purpose, or effect of participation; suggestions for further research are outlined in the conclusion below.”
However, they also kind of oddly (IMHO) try to connect the dots to recommendations in how the listserv can improve by pushing back against gender overrepresentation---which (again, IMHO) is really beyond the scope of a counting exercise, so people were gleaning from this report what they wanted to hear: confirmation that men posted more messages than women, and confirmation that they should do something about it:
“Gender dynamics in online communication are not fixed; such dynamics can and should be altered to better represent the diverse makeup of the community.”
Anyway, my entire reentry into this debate was unnecessary and horribly ill-conceived to begin with. It didn’t even cross my mind that I shouldn’t comment on this study---I must still be jet lagged from the DC trip and don’t realize it. Last year my attempt to stop the mob from turning on Rick resulted in a thorough beat down on the list and on Twitter; this year my beating was more merciful, with only a few “mansplaning” jokes and a few dozen Twitter fans cheering on the carnage.
Most importantly though, I had to jump to the defense of OSI in this forum against totally false broadside (from someone who mistakenly claimed to be part of this group), and I think the risk of having to do that again---of exposing OSI and its members to this kind of hatchet job---far outweighs the benefits of my ever saying anything in this forum again.
In conclusion, I’m sorry again for my misstep here and I apologize as well for any discomfort this may have caused you. This will not happen again (at least not on the scholcomm listserv J).
I’ll add one more note here---really burying the lede: I understand that several of you were discussing the future of the OSI listserv at the OSI2017 meeting. I look forward to hearing your recommendations---it should make for an interesting conversation. Combined with the sentiments I heard about expanding OSI and the overlap between scholcomm and OSI, maybe we should also take about opening the list to everyone is scholcomm, for instance, or other such measures. I’m also kicking the idea around with Eric of starting a Science Communication Network list to roll up ideas in this space and elsewhere with specific regard to advancing scicomm---all tbd.
Sincerely,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org