An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a coworker who was conducting a
little research on this. And he actually bought me lunch due to the fact that I discovered it for him…
lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the
meal!! But yeah, thanx for spending time to discuss this subject here
on your blog.
This makes sense. You are much more likely to get the good answers and insights if you include experts from the complete pool of people who know and understand the field than if you only include male experts. Choosing people to be on panels just because of their sex is limiting. You might get useful answers even with that limited pool of knowledge and talent, but your odds are better if you use the widest pool possible.
Thank you, Lauren, for the WMC Shesource shout out. We now have over 1,200 women experts in WMC SheSource and we connect journalists and conference organizers to women sources daily. We are always looking to include new voices on our list – shesource.org
When the measure of a panel meeting is the identity of its members and not its advancement of knowledge, that’s when scientific quality begins to decay.
Nick, you seem to have fallen prey to the false syllogism that men on panels = men know more about XYZ topic. You’re missing the point. I understand why you might, but I hope you’ll think a bit harder about this.
No, Courtney, you seem to be missing my point, which is that the success of a panel should be judged by its advancement of knowledge and not by the identity of its members. All male, all female, it simply doesn’t matter. When a panel is written off before it has even been heard because of the identity of its constituents, that is unacceptable.
I have been following http://allmalepanels.tumblr.com/ for a few years now. Good international coverage.
Comments are closed.