The percentages I used in the description (32, 57, 59 and 33) of this section came from summing several cells in this table. However, I don't find this table particularly useful or easy to understand. I don't know if any other view or way of calculating stuff would be useful here. (If the general breakdown is set to "Frequency of facilitation" then same numbers could be retrieved even though they are currently not shown on the graph).

This and the following chart shows potential issue in data (aka how we phrased the question) because just looking at it I'd be willing to deduct that the difference between 38.2% freelancers here vs. 54.9% freelancers in employment question comes from the fact that the those 16.9% are freelancer who actually work in companies - similar how our SessionLab staff is mostly freelancers. And this might actually be a good explanation, since most of these actually did put themselves in the 2-9 company size. But before making such assumption I just wanted to get your opinion on this.

This, again, I think is tricky interpretation (and oddly formulated question). Because similar to company size question, the challenge here is that what is a company for freelancers - is it somebody they facilitate with or somebody they facilitate for?

Not sure if this chart gives us anything interesting, but it's an example of different kind of breakdowns we can do.

This is an obvious chart so I wouldn't include it, but keeping it here for now.

So I find this incredibly interesting and useful, though I find it a little difficult to parse in the current visualization when you add gender breakdown. (I wonder if this is the best way to display this? Simply noting without further investigation, just that its hard to parse currently.) This is one section where I would LOVE to see external contributions too, and perhaps its one item where more in-depth commentary would be most useful and worthy to spend time here. (I could imagine short commentary accompanying each breakdown, for example.)

Yeah, by gender should be done differently. I'll think about it.

Note that this kind of graph just takes longer to understand and then parse a "aha" moment from. This is exactly where commentary and interpretation will be key - to prevent people bouncing off the data and giving a helping hand.

Would a different kind of graph be better: maybe the classical one where each different color bare is in it's own "row" (or column if we transpose it). I was aiming for nicer looking here, but if it's a hurdle then we can change it.

- In the "facilitation challenges" section many people noted that getting enough time for sessions is a challenge, in particular as online has set the standard of about 2-hours, whilst previously live sessions were habitually longer. Majority of sessions here are short, how does it correlate with online/in person?

@deborahrm If you look at the 3 question in this section, below the first chart you'll see the possibility to correlate online/in-person with length. However, I don't see any significant correlations there.

I think seeing whether there's any correlation of co-facilitation in any particular sector or job role could be interesting for both readers and us as we think about Clara :)

@jamessmart no real differences when breaking down by role or sector.

I guess I have a hypothesis that certain methodologies would be more prevalent among highly paid facilitators, roles and sectors; and so, as an aspiring facilitator, I should go learn them. I wonder whether this kind of breakdown would be helpful? :)

For salary, it would not make sense to do this breakdown as we asked specific question for price of workshop (not how much they earn). For other breakdowns I didn't find any significant difference other than obviously design sprint being percentage wise more popular among designers.

Ouch that more people use Docs and paper for design than SessionLab :D It's interesting to see that the more experienced folks tend to use and name tools more. (this is a nice point for future marketing etc.) Part of me would like to see what tools are being used in my role/profession, but I wonder if its necessary or revelatory

A reminder: we received some feedback along the lines that it would have been helpful to have links to tools directly from the page. Would it make sense to add links to these, or more trouble than it's worth + an incentive to navigate away?

I would add links, somehow, we'll figure it out in the final version.

Also, the pen and paper is tricky to evaluate because we didn't include it in question for all stages (we had it for design phrased like this, we didn't have it for delivery and then we had paper evaluation for evaluation which we didn't (yet) merge in this final presentation).

@jamessmart how did you come to this conclusion: It's interesting to see that the more experienced folks tend to use and name tools more

So the breakdowns by experience level (and I would imagine, salary, role, and sector) are very interesting but difficult to parse. This is another one where commentary with each breakdown would be interesting - there is SO much to say here though, I almost feel like this could be a blog post (or major section of a lead magnet) in itself. (ie what challenges persist for experienced facilitators compared to beginners.) etc.

Can we also have a graph with the answers to "other challenges"? I thought they were interesting (I have no idea whether this is technically complicated, and if it is happy to write a summary paragraph instead)

Noting that sometimes when breaking down, even with the percent of responses checked, the number of each breakdown element is in sheer numbers rather than %. (So I can't see what % of women primarily facilitate.) On the breakdown front, this question I could imagine wanting to break down almost everything by. I guess the question design wise is how to achieve this - maybe having gender as a control on every other graph, rather than having every other data point available on this one.

Since in most cases it doesn't really add more value when split by gender (as the distribution usually follows the gender distribution) I would not include it on most questions. The pricing and experience are the ones where the difference was more obvious, so I would possibly keep it there.

Filip will you run me through how this worked? I'm confused 'cause I think 367 is the number of "others" before we made new categories in the excel, is it not? So now a number of those, for example, ended up in AJ&Smart or AoH but now here they are still counted as "other"?

So where we did automated calculations of these extra categories, the Other will include also those with stars. Where we did manual calculations, I think you removed the stuff from other if you used it anywhere else, so in those cases Other is the rest, excluding those. I'm not sure to what extent we need to elaborate that. I would possibly just focus on marking the categories that were not offered by default - because that gives the reader the understanding that ones that were offered by default will have slightly higher number as not everyone will bother filling in Other.

By moving responses around, the ones that we asked "for 2022" are scattered here and there (this is one of them). IMHO this is not at all a problem, the whole survey refers to 2022, we just used the wording in the questions to make it easier/clearer to answer by giving an extra boundary, but in reading I believe it becomes irrelevant. Ready to hear contrary opinions from the scientifically minded though :)

Agreed

Filip you mentioned there were some notes on the question re: pricing we should make here, I am no longer exactly sure what those were (something re: commodification, and re: how impossible it was to ask this question :)

considering the option of putting CHALLENGES before the TOOLKIT and RESOURCES section since these are part of the answer to that. Then the narrative would be: here are the challenges, here are some things that are helping to solve them (and you might now know about yet)