female male prefer not to tell - acm sigchi - special interest … · 2017-01-20 · 46.81% 88...

46.81% 88

51.60% 97

1.60% 3

Q1 I am aAnswered: 188 Skipped: 0

Total 188

Female

Male

Prefer not totell

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answer Choices Responses

Female

Male

Prefer not to tell

1 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

43.78% 81

1.08% 2

11.35% 21

43.78% 81

Q2 I am a:Answered: 185 Skipped: 3

Total 185

Student

Practicioner

Industryresearcher

Academicresearcher

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Student

Practicioner

Industry researcher

Academic researcher

2 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

48.09% 88

51.91% 95

Q4 I consider CSCW to be my primaryconference home:

Answered: 183 Skipped: 5

Total 183

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

3 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

72.45% 71

55.10% 54

20.41% 20

35.71% 35

38.78% 38

23.47% 23

26.53% 26

21.43% 21

19.39% 19

Q5 In addition to CSCW’14, I have attended(check all that apply):


Total Respondents: 98

CSCW 2013 (SanAntonio, TX)

CSCW 2012(Bellevue, WA)

CSCW 2011(Hangzhou,...

CSCW 2010(Savannah, GA)

CSCW 2008 (SanDiego, CA)

CSCW 2006(Banff, Canada)

CSCW 2004(Chicago, IL)

CSCW 2002 (NewOrleans, LA)

CSCW 2000(Philadelphi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


CSCW 2013 (San Antonio, TX)

CSCW 2012 (Bellevue, WA)

CSCW 2011 (Hangzhou, China)

CSCW 2010 (Savannah, GA)

CSCW 2008 (San Diego, CA)

CSCW 2006 (Banff, Canada)

CSCW 2004 (Chicago, IL)

CSCW 2002 (New Orleans, LA)

CSCW 2000 (Philadelphia, PA)

4 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

81.99% 132

33.54% 54

16.15% 26

3.11% 5

10.56% 17

13.04% 21

15.53% 25

29.81% 48

17.39% 28

5.59% 9

Q6 Other conferences I typically attend orsubmit to (check all that apply):



CHI

GROUP

ECSCW

CTS

UIST

Ubicomp

DIS

iConference

ICWSM

ICIS

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


CHI

GROUP

ECSCW

CTS

UIST

Ubicomp

DIS

iConference

ICWSM

ICIS

5 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

73.53% 125

89.41% 152

36.47% 62

38.82% 66

12.94% 22

Q7 I saw the following CSCW’14 publicityitems (check all that apply):



Email

Web site

Facebook group

Twitter stream

Fliersdistributed ...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Email

Web site

Facebook group

Twitter stream

Fliers distributed at affiliated conferences

6 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

71.34% 117

33.54% 55

20.12% 33

14.63% 24

5.49% 9

9.15% 15

9.15% 15

4.88% 8

26.83% 44

1.22% 2

13.41% 22

7.93% 13

Q8 The following role(s) best describe myparticipation at CSCW’13 (check all that

apply):Answered: 164 Skipped: 24


Attendee

Presenter:Paper

Presenter:Poster / Dem...

Non-presentingco-author (a...

Panelist

Session Chair

StudentVolunteer

DoctoralColloquium...

WorkshopParticipant ...

Sponsor

CommitteeMember – CSC...

CommitteeMember – CSC...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Attendee

Presenter: Paper

Presenter: Poster / Demo / Video

Non-presenting co-author (any category)

Panelist

Session Chair

Student Volunteer

Doctoral Colloquium Participant / Mentor

Workshop Participant / Organizer

Sponsor

Committee Member – CSCW 2014

Committee Member – CSCW 2015

7 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

36.93% 65

52.84% 93

10.23% 18

Q9 The majority of my CSCW’14 costs werepaid by:


Total 176

A grant /fellowship /...

My company /university

Myself

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


A grant / fellowship / scholarship

My company / university

Myself

8 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

27.75% 48

19.65% 34

0.58% 1

28.90% 50

23.12% 40

Q10 For me to receive funding / support toattend CSCW conferences:


Total 173

I must have acontribution...

I mustparticipate ...

I must beinvolved in...

I must receiveapproval of ...

I managefunding...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


I must have a contribution that is published in the ACM Digital Library

I must participate in a way that is listed in the proceedings, but need not be published in the ACM Digital Library

I must be involved in some organizational role

I must receive approval of my management / professor / organization

I manage funding decisions on my own

9 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

96.81% 91

35.11% 33

17.02% 16

19.15% 18

Q11 I stayed at the Marriott Waterfrontconference hotel because (check all that

apply):Answered: 94 Skipped: 94


It wasconveniently...

It helpedsupport the...

It offeredattractive...

It was costeffective...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


It was conveniently located

It helped support the conference

It offered attractive perks (e.g., free wifi, ...)

It was cost effective compared with other lodging options

10 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

Q13 Please rate the following statementsalong the following scale:


3.51%6

39.77%68

20.47%35

29.82%51

6.43%11 171 3.04

16.37%28

59.06%101

13.45%23

9.36%16

1.75%3 171 3.79

22.54%39

56.65%98

14.45%25

6.36%11

0.00%0 173 3.95

38.51%67

51.72%90

8.05%14

1.15%2

0.57%1 174 4.26

50.00%86

37.79%65

8.72%15

3.49%6

0.00%0 172 4.34

36.57%64

56.00%98

6.86%12

0.57%1

0.00%0 175 4.29

16.18%28

30.64%53

38.15%66

12.14%21

2.89%5 173 3.45

12.50%22

45.45%80

25.57%45

11.93%21

4.55%8 176 3.49

On average,6-7 parallel...

On average,there was th...

Having talkslots of equ...

The 9:00 dailystart time w...

The two-hourlunch break ...

A half-hourwas an...

The LastingImpact Award...

The annualtiming of th...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

StronglyAgree

Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree

Total WeightedAverage

On average, 6-7 parallel sessions was a good number

On average, there was the right amount of time for Q&A forpapers

Having talk slots of equal length for all papers was appropriate

The 9:00 daily start time was good.

The two-hour lunch break was useful.

A half-hour was an appropriate length for coffee breaks

The Lasting Impact Award should be a plenary session (nocompeting tracks)

The annual timing of the conference (mid-winter) works well forme.

11 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

Q15 Please rate the following conferencesessions along the following scale:


11.49%20

36.21%63

16.09%28

9.20%16

6.90%12

20.11%35 174 2.76

4.68%8

18.13%31

11.11%19

2.92%5

3.51%6

59.65%102 171 1.39

5.23%9

23.26%40

16.86%29

13.37%23

5.81%10

35.47%61 172 2.02

24.86%43

61.85%107

9.83%17

1.16%2

0.00%0

2.31%4 173 4.03

10.59%18

31.76%54

12.35%21

4.12%7

1.18%2

40.00%68 170 2.26

2.91%5

16.28%28

9.30%16

2.33%4

1.16%2

68.02%117 172 1.13

5.92%10

24.85%42

14.79%25

4.14%7

1.18%2

49.11%83 169 1.83

2.99%5

2.40%4

4.19%7

0.00%0

0.00%0

90.42%151 167 0.37

11.90%20

47.62%80

10.12%17

4.17%7

1.19%2

25.00%42 168 2.90

16.86%29

55.81%96

11.05%19

2.33%4

0.00%0

13.95%24 172 3.45

OpeningPlenary (Mar...

ClosingPlenary...

Lasting ImpactAward (Jonat...

Paper sessions(overall)

Panels(overall)

CSCWhat’s Next

CSCW Town Hall

DoctoralColloquium

Posters,demos, and...

Posters

Demos

Videos

Mid-day breaks

Welcomereception...

Thematic grouplunches...

InteractivityReception...

FacebookReception...

Conferencereception...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Excellent Good Neutral Fair Poor Didn’t attend Total Weighted Average

Opening Plenary (Mary Flanagan)

Closing Plenary (Patrick Meier)

Lasting Impact Award (Jonathan Grudin)

Paper sessions (overall)

Panels (overall)

CSCWhat’s Next

CSCW Town Hall

Doctoral Colloquium

Posters, demos, and videos short talks

Posters

12 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

7.60%13

37.43%64

11.11%19

3.51%6

1.17%2

39.18%67 171 2.29

4.17%7

22.02%37

9.52%16

1.79%3

0.60%1

61.90%104 168 1.42

24.40%41

52.98%89

16.07%27

1.19%2

0.60%1

4.76%8 168 3.85

28.90%50

27.17%47

2.89%5

0.00%0

0.00%0

41.04%71 173 2.62

25.86%45

13.22%23

4.60%8

0.57%1

1.15%2

54.60%95 174 1.98

23.84%41

43.02%74

4.65%8

0.00%0

0.58%1

27.91%48 172 3.06

29.89%52

27.01%47

7.47%13

0.00%0

3.45%6

32.18%56 174 2.83

46.82%81

27.75%48

7.51%13

2.31%4

1.73%3

13.87%24 173 3.74

Demos

Videos

Mid-day breaks

Welcome reception (Sunday)

Thematic group lunches (Monday)

Interactivity Reception (Monday)

Facebook Reception (Monday)

Conference reception (Tuesday)

13 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

Q16 Please rate the following workshopsalong the following scale:


2.61%4

3.92%6

1.31%2

0.00%0

0.00%0

92.16%141 153 0.33

0.66%1

2.63%4

1.32%2

0.00%0

0.00%0

95.39%145 152 0.18

1.97%3

0.00%0

1.32%2

0.00%0

0.00%0

96.71%147 152 0.14

2.67%4

1.33%2

1.33%2

0.00%0

0.00%0

94.67%142 150 0.23

1.96%3

1.31%2

1.31%2

0.00%0

0.00%0

95.42%146 153 0.19

1.97%3

1.97%3

1.32%2

0.00%0

0.00%0

94.74%144 152 0.22

2.63%4

1.32%2

1.32%2

0.00%0

0.00%0

94.74%144 152 0.22

0.65%1

1.31%2

1.31%2

0.00%0

0.00%0

96.73%148 153 0.12

0.65%1

1.31%2

1.31%2

0.00%0

0.00%0

96.73%148 153 0.12

2.63%4

1.32%2

0.66%1

0.00%0

0.00%0

95.39%145 152 0.20

3.29%5

1.32%2

1.32%2

0.00%0

0.00%0

94.08%143 152 0.26

2.61%4

2.61%4

1.31%2

0.00%0

0.00%0

93.46%143 153 0.27

Workshop 1:Sharing, Re-...

Workshop 2:Structures f...

Workshop 3:Designing wi...

Workshop 4:Cross-Cultur...

Workshop 5:Designing...

Workshop 6:Back to the...

Workshop 7:Co-creating ...

Workshop 9:The Fourteen...

Workshop 10:Collaboratio...

Workshop 11:Global Softw...

Workshop 12:Feminism and...

Workshop 14:OCData...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Excellent Good Neutral Fair Poor Didn’tattend


Workshop 1: Sharing, Re-use and Circulation of Resources inCooperative Scientific Work

Workshop 2: Structures for Knowledge Co-creation BetweenOrganisations and the Public

Workshop 3: Designing with Users for Domestic Environments

Workshop 4: Cross-Cultural Studies of Collaborative Systems

Workshop 5: Designing Futures for Peer-to-Peer Learning @ CSCW

Workshop 6: Back to the Future of Organizational Work: Crowdsourcingand Digital Work Marketplaces

Workshop 7: Co-creating & Identity-making in CSCW: Revisiting Ethicsin Design Research

Workshop 9: The Fourteenth International Workshop on CollaborativeEditing Systems

Workshop 10: Collaboration and Coordination in the Context of InformalCare (CCCiC 2014)

Workshop 11: Global Software Development in a CSCW Perspective

Workshop 12: Feminism and Social Media Research

Workshop 14: OCData Hackathon: Online Communities DataHackathon

14 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

Q18 Consider the following potentialinnovations for CSCW’15. Rate them along

the following five-point scale:Answered: 171 Skipped: 17

4.17%7

11.31%19

19.64%33

26.79%45

38.10%64 168 2.17

51.18%87

34.71%59

13.53%23

0.59%1

0.00%0 170 4.36

34.12%58

39.41%67

24.12%41

2.35%4

0.00%0 170 4.05

8.59%14

20.25%33

61.96%101

8.59%14

0.61%1 163 3.28

25.00%42

33.33%56

39.88%67

1.79%3

0.00%0 168 3.82

13.94%23

21.82%36

53.33%88

9.70%16

1.21%2 165 3.38

15.98%27

20.71%35

21.89%37

26.04%44

15.38%26 169 2.96

22.02%37

23.21%39

23.81%40

21.43%36

9.52%16 168 3.27

Require30-second vi...

Have papersopenly...

Thematicdinner group...

Reinstitutethe Open Spa...

Continue TownHall meeting

Reinstitutemorning fitn...

Stoppublishing...

Stop includingconference s...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

StronglyAgree

Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree


Require 30-second video abstracts for all papers (e.g., CHI 2014)

Have papers openly available to anyone in the world on the ACM DL from2 weeks before until 2 weeks after CSCW

Thematic dinner groups for newcomers

Reinstitute the Open Space unconference/hack space track

Continue Town Hall meeting

Reinstitute morning fitness activities

Stop publishing proceedings on USB memory sticks

Stop including conference swag (e.g., bags, trinkets)

15 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

Q23 Please answer these questions abouthow likely you are to attend CSCW:


42.35%72

31.76%54

21.76%37

2.94%5

1.18%2 170 4.11

41.18%70

31.18%53

21.76%37

4.12%7

1.76%3 170 4.06

17.86%30

20.24%34

41.07%69

11.31%19

9.52%16 168 3.26

CSCW 2015(Vancouver)

CSCW 2016 (SanFrancisco Ba...

CSCW 2017(Tentatively...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Very likely Likely Unsure Unlikely Very Unlikely Total Weighted Average

CSCW 2015 (Vancouver)

CSCW 2016 (San Francisco Bay Area)

CSCW 2017 (Tentatively, Brazil)

16 / 18

CSCW 2014 Survey

Country Percent Number Austria 1,14% 2 Belgium 1,14% 2 Brazil 0,57% 1 Canada 4,55% 8 China 0,57% 1 Denmark 2,27% 4 France 1,14% 2 Germany 5,68% 10 India 1,14% 2 Ireland 0,57% 1 Israel 0,57% 1 Japan 1,70% 3 Korea, South 2,27% 4 Netherlands 0,57% 1 Qatar 0,57% 1 Singapore 0,57% 1 Sweden 0,57% 1 Switzerland 0,57% 1 Taiwan 0,57% 1 United Arab Emirates 0,57% 1 United Kingdom 4,55% 8 United States of America 68,18% 120

TOTAL 176

0,00%10,00%20,00%30,00%40,00%50,00%60,00%70,00%80,00%

Country

Country

Q3 My work location is (for USA please alsogive state):


CSCW 2014 Survey

17 / 18

State (for US only)

Country Percent Number California 12,70% 16 District of Columbia 0,79% 1 Florida 0,79% 1 Georgia 5,56% 7 Illinois 6,35% 8 Indiana 1,59% 2 Maryland 12,70% 16 Massachusetts 4,76% 6 Michigan 6,35% 8 Minnesota 3,17% 4 New Jersey 7,14% 9 New Mexico 0,79% 1 New York 10,32% 13 North Carolina 0,79% 1 Ohio 0,79% 1 Pennsylvania 15,87% 20 Texas 1,59% 2 Utah 0,79% 1 Virginia 2,38% 3 Washington 3,97% 5 Wisconsin 0,79% 1

TOTAL 126

0,00%2,00%4,00%6,00%8,00%

10,00%12,00%14,00%16,00%18,00%

State (US)

Country

CSCW 2014 Survey

18 / 18

female male prefer not to tell - acm sigchi - special interest … · 2017-01-20 · 46.81% 88...

Documents