The title of this post is a question for me to answer and nobody else. This isn't a request for help or advice. I haven't been writing on the internet recently but something came up last week and I thought I could do some of that 'working out loud' like I used to.
The session
About six weeks ago I started a weekly 'open session' about data architecture and data strategy with my colleague Josh (data architect). The idea was to start small and see if a regular 30 minute video call with an open invite would be a useful vehicle for sharing work and progress, and testing our work with colleagues. Josh and I were alternating each week on who would take the lead, so data architecture one week and data strategy the next.
We recorded the sessions so that people who couldn't attend could watch them back when convenient [1]. For the first session I invited people who had expressed an interest in the 'data' Slack channel. Over the next few weeks the invite list started to grow organically. We had positive feedback and the quality of conversation and contributions was really good. I hadn't advertised the forum widely but was planning to because it felt like we had something credible and constructive going.
At Citizens Advice we care deeply about inclusive working practices and diverse teams. We need to make sure we represent the population and communities that we serve. Our data work must be inclusive, and I'm particularly motivated to embed this into the development of our data strategy.
The problem
At the session last week my colleague Phil made a closing remark along the lines of "could we get more people in the group who aren't white men?".
And Phil was right of course. It had occurred to me already, but I hadn't called it out. I should have called it out myself by then, 6 weeks in to the work.
My boss had watched one of the videos and thought it was good, but when I mentioned Phil's corrective he said something along the lines of "yes it did look like six white men talking about data."
There were more than six people on the call (we were getting 15-20 attendees), but yes the white men were doing the talking and yes most of the people in the overall group were white men.
This isn't to diminish the thought and enthusiasm that my colleagues have put into this forum so far. It's made the work better, no question. But there is a diversity issue, and it's mine to resolve.
The working out loud
I need to work out how we got here. I am responsible for this, after all, and it's early enough to correct it.
We have another regular forum where we talk about our data trends. That grew organically as well. I don't think there's an apparent lack of diversity on that call. Also I ran an open session on data strategy before. I don't recall a lack of diversity in that group either. And when I say 'lack of diversity' it doesn't mean it's good enough, just that it's not "six white men talking about data" bad.
Maybe there's a barrier to entry for the topics themselves. Perhaps the language is wrong. Are the words 'architecture' and 'strategy' creating a barrier to entry? Although I haven't found either of these areas of data work to be the sole preserve of white men, both in terms of my work experience and the people I look up to in the sector. Pretty much all those people I look up to aren't white men.
So no, I don't think the topics themselves are excluding people. But we could work to make them more accessible.
I suspect the forum itself isn't quite right, with the format being based on conversation and having the confidence to ask questions. There's also my role in this forum. I know the subject matter and it's a situation where I'm particularly confident. If a question is asked of me I will come up with an answer for it then. And it might not be a particularly good answer but it will probably sound like it is.
I think when it's my turn to lead the session I put myself in the centre of it too much, rather than the substance of the work. I don't think Josh does that, to his credit.
So I think it would be good to try other ways to contribute. Questions in advance. Questions afterwards. Splitting in to smaller groups for discussion. Not defaulting to answering questions myself, and listening more.
Then there's something about growing the audience. I should have acted sooner. So when I do start to publicise it more widely I need to watch how it develops. I could ask everybody on the invite list to invite one colleague who isn't a white man, for example.
Finally, while data architecture and data strategy are mine and Josh's responsibility to lead in our organisation, I will encourage other people to present and lead the discussion. This could include people from outside of the organisation.
That was pretty useful. Thanks for reading.
Footnotes
[1] If you've met me in real life you know that I can speak really slowly so watching a video where I'm talking at 1.5x speed works pretty well.