- ProofTheory Mailing List
- Categories Mailing List
" <email@example.com >
h-aachen.de" <firstname.lastname@example.org h-aachen.de>
- email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thursday, December 1, 2016
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Are the proportions of male and female speakers who speak more than once at ASL conferences similar?
The answer to this question appears to be yes for the conference series for which such an analysis is possible. Here are tables of the basic data (please note that all talks mentioned in this post are invited talks):
|Annual Meetings||Logic Colloquium|
|Percentage: 2+ talks||27.84%||25%||26.55%||31.03%|
|Percentage: 2+ talks||20.51%||9.09%||23.17%||33.33%|
I used a chi-square test to determine whether women and men speak more than once at these meetings at statistically distinguishable rates.
When I carried out this analysis, I found that the p-value for the Annual Meetings is 0.9611, and the p-value for the Logic Colloquium is 0.7648. There is no reason to reject the hypothesis that multiple invitations are issued to men and women at the same rate!
However, I can't carry out this analysis for the AMS/ASL and APA/ASL meetings. The reason is that in general, a reliable chi-square analysis can't be done unless each category has at least 5 people in it. Only 2 women have given more than one talk since 1995 at an AMS/ASL meeting, and only 3 women have given more than one talk since 1998 at an APA/ASL meeting. In fact, only 9 distinct women have spoken at APA/ASL meetings in this time, so there is no way there could have been at least 5 women in both of these categories. It doesn't say anything very good about the number of women who are asked to speak at these meetings multiple times if there aren't enough for me to do a chi-square test.
Now let's ask another, related question:
Are the proportions of male and female speakers who speak n times at ASL conferences similar for each n?
In the analysis above, I didn't distinguish between speakers who spoke two, three, four, or five times: I combined all of these into a single "2+" category. Let's see what it looks like when I don't combine these categories:
|Annual Meetings||Logic Colloquium|
As you can see, I cannot analyze this data statistically for any conference: there simply aren't enough people in most of the categories. I'll just note that while 49 men have given more than two talks in any of these series, only 2 women have: 3.92% of the people who have given more than two talks in a single ASL conference series in the time frames I considered were women.
Summary: In the conference series in which enough women have given multiple talks to analyze, there is no statistically significant difference in the rates at which women and men are asked to give more than one talk. However, this analysis is only possible in two of the four series. Furthermore, when we consider not only whether male and female speakers give more than one talk but also how many invitations they receive, no series can be analyzed statistically, but women seem to be underrepresented among speakers who are invited more than twice.
It's worth noting that if I considered invited talks in all of these ASL conference series together, my findings might be different. I might look at this someday: at this point, the data in this spreadsheet is not consistently formatted, and that makes this particular analysis very difficult.
Next up: The ASL adopted its statement on women in logic at the Annual Meeting in 2012. Let's see if that seems to have had any effect on the proportion of female speakers at ASL meetings since then.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Marta Bunge wrote
In response to a previous suggestion of yours, Valeria De Paiva, I have been perusing the proportion of women among the invited speakers in the International Category Theory Conferences (CT) since the year 2000, and came up with the following figures (Women/Total): CT 2000 (0/5), CT 2006 (1/5), CT 2007 (0/8), CT 2008 (1/7), CT 2009 (0/5), CT 2010 (1/6), CT 2011 (1/6), CT 2013 (2/6), CT 2014 (2/6), CT 2015 (3/6), CT 2016 (2/6), CT 2017 (0/6). In order to know whether this an adequate proportion of women invited speakers one would need the additional information of the total number of category theorists who deserve to be so invited and of how many among those are women. Before the year 2000 there was no invited speakers list at the International CT meetings, but some speakers were given an hour as opposed to half an hour. I have not done a search for these, as the data for most of them are no longer available. There is recently an article in the journal Nature about the presence of women in science and on how to improve what seems to be an unfair situation, which I believe. I hope that someone more qualified than I can do this since I believe it is important for our field. Without a shadow of a doubt I consider Andree C. Ehresmann as someone who has done a lot for our field - not just by continuing the work of Charles Ehresmann by publishing his Oeuvres Completes and continuing with the journal Cahiers de Topologie et Geometrie Differentielle (Categoriques), but by encouraging many researchers in our field - both men and women. She certainly deserves mention as a woman and a mathematician. I leave you with that. All the best.
I need to do some more with this information.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
- Time span: I'm going back to 1993 for the very simple reason that that is the earliest meeting for which I can get a speaker list using Hofstra's level of access to the Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, where the meeting summaries are published.
- Types of talks: I am considering all plenaries (except for Gödel lectures) and tutorials. I left the tutorials out of my analysis for the Annual Meetings because they haven't been an annual occurrence. They seem to happen each year at Logic Colloquia, so I didn't see a reason to exclude them.
- Numbers v. proportions: As always, proportions!
Now let's compare the regression line to the LOWESS (locally weighted scatterplot smoothing) plot:
Summary: The proportion of female speakers is consistently low here—it's only topped 20% once—but there are far fewer years in which there have been no female speakers at all than in any of the other conference series and, in fact, these meetings have a higher average number of female speakers than any of the others. This may be in part because Logic Colloquium Program Committees have historically tended to invite more speakers than other Program Committees: there were between 13 and 29 invited speakers at each Logic Colloquium I looked at, while there were never more than 13 speakers at any of the other meetings in the years I studied. The more speakers you have, the less likely it is that none of them will be women, but the proportion of speaker who are women still isn't very high.
Next up: I'll look at the number of repeat invitations issued to women and to men in each of these conference series. Are the same women asked over and over again? Are women reinvited less often than men? Let's find out.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
- Time span: My useful data only goes back to 1998, so that's where I'm starting. If people are interested, I can dig up reliable data going back farther. Please note that some of the meetings are listed as happening in a year when they didn't actually occur. Due to scheduling, sometimes there are two APA/ASL meetings in one year and none in the next; in those cases, I listed the second meeting as having occurred the next year. You'll notice that there's no data from 2013; I'll explain that soon.
- Types of talks: I am considering every talk at an APA/ASL meeting except (1) the contributed talks and (2) the talks on education. This is a departure from my norm: for the Annual Meetings and the AMS/ASL meetings, I considered only plenaries. So why am I making this change?
My goal has always been to consider the program committees' speaker selection. At the Annual Meetings and the AMS/ASL meetings, the program committee only selects the plenary speakers; while there have been some tutorials, I've chosen to look at the types of talks that occur regularly. At the APA/ASL meetings, the program committee is responsible for choosing the speakers for not only plenary talks but special sessions. The only exceptions are the sessions on education: the speakers for those are apparently chosen by one person and then approved by the committee, so I've left them out. There is no data from 2013 because the only speakers that year were in an education session.
- Numbers v. proportions: Once again, I'm considering proportions. If I were to point out that that there were three female speakers in each of 2008 and 2009, it would give a very different impression from pointing out that 37.5% of the speakers in 2009 and 23.1% of the speakers in 2008 were women.
- Number with 0 women: 11
- Number with 1-3 women: 7
Looking at a LOWESS (locally weighted scatterplot smoothing) plot helps us understand the trends in this data more easily. The high proportion of women in 2003 is treated as a clear anomaly when considered in the context of the years surrounding it in which there was no female representation at all, and the proportion of women begins to rise slowly in about 2008.
Next up: Logic Colloquium!
Friday, October 7, 2016
I used to think Freaknomics was a good program. Now I don't think so, anymore.
I disagree with this podcast very much, but it's worth reading.
A "nice" quote from the AAUW presentation:"While the pay gap has steadily narrowed over time, it is nowhere near being eliminated, and in recent years progress has actually stalled. In the 10 years between 2004 and 2014, the earnings ratio has barely budged, changing from 78 percent in 2013 to 79 percent in 2014—a change that is not significantly different."
No, The Gender Pay Gap Isn't A Myth -- And Here's Why | Huffington Post .
So according to the number of occurrences in Google search page, the gender gap is a myth. I don't buy it. Do you?
Monday, September 26, 2016
- Time span: The AMS/ASL meeting has only been an annual occurrence since 1995, so I'll take that as my starting year.
- Types of talks: The only talks I know of at AMS/ASL meetings since 1995 are plenaries, so that's easy! Again, I'm including speakers who were invited to give a talk, accepted the invitation, and then couldn't attend since the goal is to study who is invited, not who is invited and not prevented from attending.
- Numbers v. proportions: Once again, I'm going to argue for studying the proportion rather than the number. The 2 female speakers out of 10 in 2004 and the 2 female speakers out of 6 in 2009 don't demonstrate the same level of representation.
Looking at a LOWESS (locally weighted scatterplot smoothing) plot helps a lot in making sense of this data: representation was not horrible in the first two years, it tapered off to almost nothing for about a decade, and since then, there have been some better years and some very bad ones.
Next up: the APA/ASL meetings!
Saturday, September 24, 2016
- Time span: 1989 begins the era in which the Annual Meetings occur independently instead of in conjunction with either the APA or AMS, so I'm starting then.
- Types of talks: In that time span, the Annual Meetings have had plenaries, tutorials, Gödel lectures, retiring Presidential addresses, symposia, and panels. I'm restricting this analysis to plenaries because those occur every year (unlike tutorials, symposia, and panels) and because there is more than one of them each year (unlike Gödel lectures and retiring Presidential addresses). I'm also leaving off speakers in special sessions for now: I'd like to analyze speakers invited by a "universal" program committee separately from speakers invited by other members of their subfield.
There are a few instances of speakers who were unable to deliver their talks. Since the goal is to study who is invited, I'm including all speakers who accepted an invitation.
- Numbers v. proportions: It makes the most sense to me to consider proportions. In 1994, 2 women and 11 men spoke, and in 2015, 2 women and 5 men spoke. Although the number of female speakers is the same, women were certainly not represented equally well.
The R2 isn't too shabby but isn't great either: it's about 0.40. When I examined the residuals, they mostly supported a linear regression, but a few years were flagged as unusual: 2016, the only year in which we've had parity, 2009, the year with the second-highest proportion (33.33%), and 1999, the only year before 2009 in which the percentage of female speakers went over 20% (25%). In short, the unusual years are the years with a relatively high proportion of female speakers.
My next step was to apply a locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS). Here's the result:ASL statement on women in logic wasn't adopted until 2012.
Summary: The basic linear regression tells us that the proportion of female speakers is increasing by just under 1% each year. The LOWESS model suggests it's increasing faster than that now, but the trouble with LOWESS is that it lets you see trends more clearly but doesn't let you quantify them easily. It looks to me like there are a few very good years with relatively high proportions of women improving the predictions while the rest have much lower proportions (and very consistent lower proportions, too—look at those flat sections in the scatterplot!).
Next up: the AMS/ASL meetings! Let me know what other analyses you'd like to see.
Friday, September 16, 2016
- the Annual Meetings back to 1989 and
- the AMS/ASL meetings back to 1988 with the exceptions of 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1994.
- Out of 268 plenaries in 28 years, 238 (89%) were given by men and 30 (11%) by women.
- The smallest number of male speakers was 3 (in 2016, the only time the ratio has ever been 1:1); the largest was 13 (in 1997, when there were no plenaries by women).
- The smallest number of female speakers was 0 (in 9 different years and as recently as 2003); the largest was 3 (which has happened twice: 2016 and 2009).
- Out of 180 plenaries in 25 years, 155 (86%) were given by men and 25 (14%) by women.
- The smallest number of male speakers was 3 (in 1990, when there were only 3 plenaries!); the largest was 12 (in 2000, when there were no plenaries by women).
- The smallest number of female speakers was 0 (in 11 different years and as recently as 2013); the largest was 3 (which has happened once: in 2012, when the most even male:female ratio was achieved).
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
However, life is very busy right now (and when is it not very busy, you may ask...) so I will try to at least summarize some of the stuff that we (the facebook group women in logic) did so far.
The group was created in July, 8th 2015. The description reads "A group for women in Logic, philosophical, mathematical or computational. or any other kind of formal logic that you care about."
One of main information sources is the American Association of University Women (AAUW), especially the factsheet `Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing' they have at http://www.aauw.org/files/2015/03/solving-the-equation-quick-facts-nsa.pdf. It's from there that this interesting graph comes. No, I do not have any sensible explanation for why Computing and Mathematics behave so differently from the other STEM occupations and why such a sharp fall from 1984. And I do not like the explanation Planet Money gave in their `When Women Stopped Coding' podcast.
But this post is supposed to be about successes. I can remember two: the program committee for the journal
"IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications" http://www.collegepublications.co.uk/journals/ifcolog/ now has 25% of women in the editorial board, acting on Sara L. Uckelman's observation that it was only 2 into 33. Not ideal, but much better. We also complained about the BLC (British Logic Colloquium) lack of women in the program committee for 2015 and have changed it at least for one year, 2016.
We also had a good situation with WOLLIC 2015 (Four women, four men as invited speakers; ten women, ten men in the program committee and a very nice program). However, for 2016 the invited speakers situation was very good (4 female and 3 male), but the PC composition not so good: 5 women in 19 people. Keep people thinking about these numbers is important and difficult. Mostly it's not that people don't want women in PCs, they simply don't think of them. Implicit bias for every one, male and female.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Since he mentioned it after 3pm, and since the said few words were supposed to be pronounced at 5pm, I improvised. kind of. I warned him that I'd like to point out again the lack of diversity in the LiCS community and that I'd like to show two slides: Orna Kupferman's main slide, pointing out the problems from LiCS2013 (below) and Brigitte Pientka and all of us spreadsheet of invited speakers in TCS, still being compiled.
The bottomline for LiCS: 30 years, 130 invited LICS speakers, 12 female, less than 10%. This is after all the effort that the discussion in 2013 produced.
I ended up adding a joke or two and there was some discussion of the code of conduct that SIGLOG is trying to get accepted for all of our conferences. The PDF is here.
(apparently Ella Fitzgerald was having problems to find gigs, so Marilyn Monroe "convinced" a bar owner to book Ella, promising that she'd sit at the bar every night Ella sang. It was a success for both, they say, but it might be an internet folktale, who knows.)
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
There is also a Women in Logic spreadsheet with names of female logicians, organized by continent. This is an attempt at showing that there are plenty of female logicians around.
The issue of lack of recognition of the work of female logicians, mathematicians, physicists, scientists in general is a serious one. But we try to make fun of it, as much as we can.
We also mean to use this blog to organize and keep links to studies and graphs that show the extent of the problem and the tools other people have found to fight it.