> What's your basis for concluding that the visual arts component provided the benefit, rather than the focus groups and direct discussion? These conclusions w

> What's your basis for concluding that the visual arts component provided the benefit, rather than the focus groups and direct discussion? These conclusions were based on semantic analysis of required feedback forms from program participants. Those with higher performance on program metrics tended to speak higher of these sessions and their importance to them. Otherwise there was nothing to determine causality. But it was sufficient for leadership to say that they were helpful. > I also think you're missing the whole point: your activities were for children, and for people who work with children. Why are we treating women like children? The tens of thousands of educators we put through our programs were primarily women ages 30 - 55. But as I said, we also ran workshops for male-dominated teams in tech in Delhi and Bangalore (educational software), which was the basis for my representational comment, but that didn't amount to more than 100 people. That's the basis for comparison, not directly with children. Their line of work or location could certainly be complicating factors in extrapolating conclusions. Simply providing some interesting research to consider. Not treating women like children here. I personally find more intimate groups to be much more conducive to actionable discussion. In that way I totally feel where you're coming from. I'm glad you found that satisfaction eventually. I can't empathize with your experience with these specific groups unfortunately since I haven't taken part and am also very new to the field, but it's saddening to hear that colleagues would take you less seriously for looking for support :'(