Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Breaking Barriers: Investigating the Sense of Belonging Among Women and Non-Binary Students in Software Engineering (2405.03824v1)

Published 6 May 2024 in cs.SE

Abstract: Women in computing were among the first programmers in the early 20th century and were substantial contributors to the industry. Today, men dominate the software engineering industry. Research and data show that women are far less likely to pursue a career in this industry, and those that do are less likely than men to stay in it. Reasons for women and other underrepresented minorities to leave the industry are a lack of opportunities for growth and advancement, unfair treatment and workplace culture. This research explores how the potential to cultivate or uphold an industry unfavourable to women and non-binary individuals manifests in software engineering education at the university level. For this purpose, the study includes surveys and interviews. We use gender name perception as a survey instrument, and the results show small differences in perceptions of software engineering students based on their gender. Particularly, the survey respondents anchor the values of the male software engineer (Hans) to a variety of technical and non-technical skills, while the same description for a female software engineer (Hanna) is anchored mainly by her managerial skills. With interviews with women and non-binary students, we gain insight on the main barriers to their sense of ambient belonging. The collected data shows that some known barriers from the literature such as tokenism, and stereotype threat, do still exist. However, we find positive factors such as role models and encouragement that strengthen the sense of belonging among these students.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (48)
  1. Allbright. 2020. Tech lever grabbmyten. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5501a836e4b0472e6124f984/t/5ecfacb3e3e597405d52d88f/1590668482438/TECH_LEVER_GRABBMYTEN_2020_WEB.pdf.
  2. Anonymous. 2023. Breaking Barriers: Investigating the Sense of Belonging Among Women and Non-Binary Students in Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8432937
  3. Eva Bergstedt. 2018. Myt Att Flickor inte gillar teknik. https://liu.se/nyhet/myt-att-flickor-inte-gillar-teknik
  4. Amiangshu Bosu and Kazi Zakia Sultana. 2019. Diversity and Inclusion in Open Source Software (OSS) Projects: Where Do We Stand?. In 2019 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870179
  5. Gender Diversity and Women in Software Teams: How Do They Affect Community Smells?. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEIS.2019.00010
  6. LGBT professionals’ workplace experiences in STEM-related environments. Journal of Homosexuality 66, 5 (2019), 563–588.
  7. Pew Research Center. 2018. Women and Men in STEM Often at Odds Over Workplace Equity. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/
  8. Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of personality and social psychology 97, 6 (2009), 1045.
  9. Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others? Psychological bulletin 143, 1 (2017), 1–35.
  10. Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Ament Imes. 1978. The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, research & practice 15, 3 (1978), 241.
  11. McKinsey & Company. 2022. Women in tech: Repairing the career ladder — McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/repairing-the-broken-rung-on -the-career-ladder-for-women-in-technical-roles
  12. Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford law review 43, 6 (1991), 1241–1299.
  13. Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, 5 (2003), 894.
  14. Diversity in Software Engineering: A Survey about Scientists from Underrepresented Groups. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). IEEE, 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1109/CHASE58964.2023.00025
  15. Alice H Eagly and Steven J Karau. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological review 109, 3 (2002), 573.
  16. Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In The developmental social psychology of gender. Psychology Press, 123–174.
  17. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation). Article 7. https://gdpr-info.eu/
  18. Peterson Institute for International Economics. 2016. Is gender diversity profitable? Evidence from a global survey. Peterson Institute for International Economics (2016).
  19. National Center for Women & Information Technology. 2021. Women in IT: The Facts. https://www.ncwit.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/NCWIT-Women-in-IT_2021_full-report-02032021.pdf. Accessed on 22 Mar 2023.
  20. Martha Foschi. 1996. Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly (1996), 237–254.
  21. Integration or isolation: Social identity threat relates to immigrant students’ sense of belonging and social approach motivation in the academic context. Journal of social issues 79, 1 (2023), 264–290.
  22. T Gaustad. 2015. Menn som ikke liker karrierekvinner. Tankesmien Agenda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PBrx1dgPDk&ab_channel=TankesmienAgenda
  23. Litar du på Hanna eller Hans?: En studie om hur studenter upplever tillit till en chef, beroende på om chefen är en man eller kvinna.
  24. Madeline E Heilman and Julie J Chen. 2005. Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 90, 3 (2005), 431.
  25. K-12 Computer Science Education Across the U.S.. In Informatics in Schools: Improvement of Informatics Knowledge and Perception, Andrej Brodnik and Françoise Tort (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 142–154.
  26. The role of recognition in disciplinary identity for girls. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 58, 3 (2020), 420–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21665
  27. Why diversity matters. McKinsey & Company 1 (2015), 1–8.
  28. Delivering through diversity. McKinsey & Company (2018).
  29. Forbes Insights. 2011. Global diversity and inclusion: Fostering innovation through a diverse workforce. Forbes Insight, New York (2011).
  30. Credit Suisse Research Institute. 2016. The CS Gender 3000: Women in Senior Management. Credit Suisse AG (2016).
  31. Rosabeth Moss Kanter. 1993. Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books, New York.
  32. Hazel Rose Markus and Shinobu Kitayama. 2010. Cultures and Selves: A Cycle of Mutual Constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5, 4 (2010), 420–430.
  33. United Nations. 2022. Goal 4 — Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4
  34. Hannah-Hanh D Nguyen and Ann Marie Ryan. 2008. Does Stereotype Threat Affect Test Performance of Minorities and Women? A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Evidence. Journal of applied psychology 93, 6 (2008), 1314–1334.
  35. Innovation, diversity, and market growth. Harvard Business Review 96, 4 (2018), 127–133.
  36. Laurie T O’Brien and Christian S Crandall. 2003. Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29, 6 (2003), 782–789.
  37. Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review 81, 2 (2011), 172–208.
  38. The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention. Journal of educational psychology 106, 1 (2014), 315.
  39. Is the Pain Worth the Gain? The Advantages and Liabilities of Agreeing With Socially Distinct Newcomers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35 (2009), 336 – 350.
  40. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette and Leigh Plunkett Tost. 2010. Agentic Women and Communal Leadership: How Role Prescriptions Confer Advantage to Top Women Leaders. Journal of applied psychology 95, 2 (2010), 221–235.
  41. Jaruwan Sakulku. 2011. The impostor phenomenon. The Journal of Behavioral Science 6, 1 (2011), 75–97.
  42. An Integrated Process Model of Stereotype Threat Effects on Performance. Psychological review 115, 2 (2008), 336–356.
  43. Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of experimental social psychology 35, 1 (1999), 4–28.
  44. Claude M Steele and Joshua Aronson. 1995. Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans. Journal of personality and social psychology 69, 5 (1995), 797–811.
  45. STEMing the tide: using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of personality and social psychology 100, 2 (2011), 255.
  46. Gregory M Walton and Geoffrey L Cohen. 2007. A Question of Belonging: Race, Social Fit, and Achievement. Journal of personality and social psychology 92, 1 (2007), 82–96.
  47. Not Lack of Ability but More Choice: Individual and Gender Differences in Choice of Careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Psychological science 24, 5 (2013), 770–775.
  48. Women Who Tech. 2020. Women Who Tech Startup and Tech Survey 2020. https://womenwhotech.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/WomenWhoTech_StartupAndTechSurvey2020.pdf
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (3)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com