Four conference types, many conversations, but not a lot of women

Lloyd Davis offers some social typing from the recent event at NESTA, run by Policy Unplugged, about collaboration and innovation supported by new technologies.  In 4 groups, types or characteristics at Uploading, Lloyd reports:

The four elements I saw coming together more than I have done at other events are People People, Geeks, Capitalists and Philosophers.
People People - who focus on the social nature of collaboration, what it means to us as individuals and as groups of people
Geeks - who focus on technological facilitation of collaboration, what machines can do for us
Capitalists - who focus on making new businesses, how to make more money out of collaboration
Philosophers - who focus on the ideas and constructing theories about what this all means for the human race
Having contributions from all of these, rather than just one dominant group was one of the things that made the conversations on the day all the more interesting and productive.  Thankfully most of those who came were aware of their shortcomings and there weren’t too many know-it-alls (my prejudice is that this is a geek trait - people people, capitalists and philosophers are willing to admit that they could know more about the tech, but some geeks insist that they also know everything about people, money and ideas) [ducks for cover]

I greatly enjoyed the event too, and certainly feel it was the mix that made it work. The format was one of short, informal presentations followed by group conversations with encouragement from facilitator Steve Moore to participants to move to another group if you weren't engaged - the rule of two feet. This approach works very well when you have a group of people who are really enthusiastic about the topic, rather than just getting out of the office for a few hours, expecting to doze through the Powerpoints.
You can find reports from Lloyd Davis on the event site, and through the nestauploading tag. There I found Deborah Khan reflecting on why one group was significantly under-represented:

Yes, it was full of blokes. Charming, fascinating,  (sure Steve will correct this) overwhelmingly over 90% of participants were men. I'm not complaining. Just observing and asking a few questions.
I'm fascinated. Is it the concept of innovation? Or social media? Or web 2.0?  Are women reluctant to engage with the technology or at least debate the merits and potential impact of the possibilities of connection?
Or did Steve just not invite many? And should it matter? And, if so, what am I going to do about it?

Deborah suggests that women are supremely skilled at the art of conversation ... but this is not so strong represented in the blogosphere.

All I know is that many of my professional women friends remain cynical. They would love to engage but lack the skills, time and find it still a bit geeky and blokey. Lucy’s question “does web 2.0 make the kids lunches” kind of sums up that eternal tension. We’d love to but it’s not right at the top of our priorities now.
What happens next is essentially our call.

Maybe it is a UK thing. I certainly find some of the liveliest bloggers in the US nonprofit tech field are women, and there are more than 7500 on the blogrolls at Blogher. Still time to sign up for the Blogher conference later this month - but if you don't make it, there will be no lack of online reports.

Technorati Tags: innovation, nestauploading, socialtech

Comments

[Lilly]

10:1 is about right when it comes to proportion of men to women in Computing. I teach students at several universities and computing (in whatever guise you want) remains male province.

Incidentally, this ratio has remained constant over several decades. And, more to the point, some of us who have been in the field for years have left - in my case it was too much TOYS FOR BOYS attitude.

[Roland]

Lloyd,

Really like your 4 types summary above. Think you've nailed it. I've been meaning to follow up on the event and I did get your message the other day but deleted by mistake before jotting down the number. Sorry.

Anyway, thanks for the social reporting.
Cheers,
Roland