CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42Open Source Software InnovationsGender and Technology in EducationSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

Gender and Participation in Open Source Software Development

Open access
Frluckaj, Hana, Dabbish, Laura, Widder, David Gray, Qiu, Huilian Sophie, Herbsleb, James D.·2022·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1145/3555190
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Open source software represents an important form of digital infrastructure as well as a pathway to technical careers for many developers, but women are drastically underrepresented in this setting. Although there is a good body of literature on open source participation, there is very little understanding of the participation trajectories and contribution experiences of women developers, and how they compare to those of men developers, in open source software projects. In order to understand their joining and participation trajectories, we conducted interviews with 23 developers (11 men and 12 women) who became core in an open source project. We identify differences in women and men's motivations for initial contributions and joining processes (e.g. women participating in projects that they have been invited to) and sustained involvement in a project. We also describe unique negative experiences faced by women contributors in this setting in each stage of participation. Our results have implications for diversifying participation in open source software and understanding open source as a pathway to technical careers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3555190

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Both open source and open collaboration in general are surprisingly lacking in diversity, with poor representation of non-male and non-white participants.

    “Yet both open source-and open collaboration in general-is surprisingly lacking in diversity, with poor representation of non-male and non-white participants [33, 73, 95, 109].”

    From Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software (2024) · cites this paper as [33]

    Section 2.5 reports that women are substantially underrepresented in open-source software development. The Limitations section says the study focused primarily on gender and identifies racial identity in open source as an area with almost no research; these passages do not establish poor representation of non-white participants or extend the finding to open collaboration generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Moderation work is often performed by under-represented groups, and women and trans contributors frequently perform community-oriented labor in OSS.

    “Moderation work is often performed by under-represented groups [85, 112], and women and trans contributors frequently perform community-oriented labor in OSS [33, 109].”

    From Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software (2024) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Results (§4.2.1) describe women contributors responding to users’ requests and advocating for their needs, supporting the community-oriented labor attributed to women. The paper includes three trans women (§5.3), but does not establish that trans contributors frequently perform such labor; §5.1 says its distribution across contributor groups remains unclear. The moderation-work clause has separate citations and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Trans people are often mindful of potential perceived audiences and tailor their privacy settings, profile visibility, and online behaviors.

    “As a result, trans people are often mindful of potential perceived audiences and tailor their privacy settings, profile visibility, and online behaviors [24, 61, 87, 119], all parallels to women's behavior in OSS [33].”

    From Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software (2024) · cites this paper as [33]

  • Grounded theory is a methodology that has been used in the OSS literature previously.

    “Grounded theory is a methodology that has been used in the OSS literature previously [33, 68, 102].”

    From Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software (2024) · cites this paper as [33]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 101

  1. Linda Babcock, Maria P. Recalde, Lise Vesterlund, and Laurie Weingart. 2017. Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability. American Economic Review 107, 3 (March 2017), 714-47. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141734 · DOI
  2. Richard Bagozzi and Utpal Dholakia. 2006. Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing 23 (2006), 45-61. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijresmar.2006.01.005 · DOI
  3. Sogol Balali, Igor Steinmacher, Umayal Annamalai, Anita Sarma, and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2018. Newcomers' barriers... is that all? An analysis of mentors' and newcomers' barriers in OSS projects. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 27, 3-6 (2018), 679-714.
  4. Albert Bandura. 2019. Invisible Household Labor and Ramifications for Adjustment: Mothers as Captains of House- holds. Sex Roles 81 (2019), 467-486.
  5. Sylvia Beyer, Kristina Rynes, Julie Perrault, Kelly Hay, and Susan Haller. 2003. Gender differences in computer science students. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education. 49-53.
  6. Christian Bird, Alex Gourley, Prem Devanbu, Anand Swaminathan, and Greta Hsu. 2007. Open borders? immigration in open source projects. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE, 6-6.
  7. Christian Bird, Nachiappan Nagappan, Brendan Murphy, Harald Gall, and Premkumar Devanbu. 2011. Don't Touch My Code! Examining the Effects of Ownership on Software Quality. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2025113.2025119 · DOI
  8. Chris Bogart, Christian Kästner, James Herbsleb, and Ferdian Thung. 2021. When and How to Make Breaking Changes: Policies and Practices in 18 Open Source Software Ecosystems. 30, 4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3447245 · DOI
  9. Edna Dias Canedo, Rodrigo Bonifácio, Márcio Vinicius Okimoto, Alexander Serebrenik, Gustavo Pinto, and Eduardo Monteiro. 2020. Work practices and perceptions from women core developers in OSS communities. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). 1-11.
  10. Gerardo Canfora, Massimiliano Di Penta, Stefano Giannantonio, Rocco Oliveto, and Sebastiano Panichella. 2013. YODA: Young and newcomer developer assistant. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 1331-1334.
  11. Gerardo Canfora, Massimiliano Di Penta, Rocco Oliveto, and Sebastiano Panichella. 2012. Who is going to mentor newcomers in open source projects?. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. 1-11.
  12. Marcelo Cataldo, James D Herbsleb, and Kathleen M Carley. 2008. Socio-technical congruence: a framework for assessing the impact of technical and work dependencies on software development productivity. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. 2-11.
  13. Gemma Catolino, Fabio Palomba, Damian A Tamburri, Alexander Serebrenik, and Filomena Ferrucci. 2019. 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). IEEE, 11-20.
  14. Sapna Cheryan, Sianna A Ziegler, Amanda K Montoya, and Lily Jiang. 2017. Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin 143, 1 (2017), 1.
  15. J. McGrath Cohoon and William Aspray (Eds.). 2006. Women and Information Technology: Research on Underrepresen- tation (1 ed.). Vol. 1. The MIT Press. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mtp:titles:0262033453
  16. Kevin Crowston and James Howison. 2005. The social structure of free and open source software development. First Monday 10, 2 (2005).
  17. Davor Cubranic, Gail C Murphy, Janice Singer, and Kellogg S Booth. 2005. Hipikat: A project memory for software development. Transactions on Software Engineering 31, 6 (2005), 446-465.
  18. Janice Cuny and William Aspray. 2001. Recruitment and retention of women graduate students in computer science and engineering: Report of a workshop, June 20-21, 2000. Computing Research Association.
  19. Laura Dabbish, Colleen Stuart, Jason Tsay, and Jim Herbsleb. 2012. Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In Proceedings of the conference on computer supported cooperative work. 1277-1286.
  20. Nicolas Ducheneaut. 2005. Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 14, 4 (2005), 323-368.
  21. Christina Dunbar-Hester. 2019. Hacking Diversity: The Politics of Inclusion in Open Technology Cultures. Vol. 21. Princeton University Press.
  22. Lillian T Eby, Tammy D Allen, Sarah C Evans, Thomas Ng, and David L DuBois. 2008. Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of vocational behavior 72, 2 (2008), 254-267.
  23. Fabian Fagerholm, Alejandro S Guinea, Jürgen Münch, and Jay Borenstein. 2014. The role of mentoring and project characteristics for onboarding in open source software projects. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. 1-10.
  24. Yulin Fang and Derrick Neufeld. 2009. Understanding sustained participation in open source software projects. Journal of Management Information Systems 25, 4 (2009), 9-50.
  25. Samer Faraj and Lee Sproull. 2000. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management science 46, 12 (2000), 1554-1568.
  26. Roy T Fielding. 1999. Shared leadership in the Apache project. Commun. ACM 42, 4 (1999), 42-43.
  27. Ronald Aylmer Fisher. 1992. Statistical methods for research workers. In Breakthroughs in statistics. Springer, 66-70.
  28. Brian Fitzgerald. 2006. The transformation of open source software. MIS quarterly (2006), 587-598.
  29. Denae Ford, Reed Milewicz, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2019. How Remote Work Can Foster a More Inclusive Environment for Transgender Developers. 9-12. https://doi.org/10.1109/GE.2019.00011 · DOI
  30. Denae Ford, Justin Smith, Philip J Guo, and Chris Parnin. 2016. Paradise unplugged: Identifying barriers for female participation on stack overflow. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. 846-857.
  31. Lustig K. Banks J. Ford, D. and C. Parnin. 2018. We Don't Do That Here" How Collaborative Editing with Mentors Improves Engagement in Social Q&A Communities. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2018). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-12.
  32. S. Spaeth G. Von Krogh, S. Haefliger and M. W. Wallin. 2012. Carrots and rainbows: Motivation and social practice in open source software development. MIS Quarterly 36 (2012), 649-676. Issue 2.
  33. R Stuart Geiger. 2017. Summary analysis of the 2017 github open source survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02777 (2017). · arXiv
  34. Jaco Geldenhuys. 2010. Finding the core developers. In Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. IEEE, 447-450.
  35. Marco Gerosa, Igor Wiese, Bianca Trinkenreich, Georg Link, Gregorio Robles, Christoph Treude, Igor Steinmacher, and Anita Sarma. 2021. The shifting sands of motivation: Revisiting what drives contributors in open source. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 1046-1058.
  36. Mohammad Gharehyazie, Daryl Posnett, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Vladimir Filkov. 2015. Developer initiation and social interactions in OSS: A case study of the Apache Software Foundation. Empirical Software Engineering 20, 5 (2015), 1318-1353.
  37. Tim Guilford and Marian Stamp Dawkins. 2005. Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American journal of sociology 111, 2 (2005), 447-504.
  38. Roger Guimera, Brian Uzzi, Jarrett Spiro, and Luis A Nunes Amaral. 2005. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308, 5722 (2005), 697-702.
  39. Foad Hamidi, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Gender Recognition or Gender Reductionism? The Social Implications of Embedded Gender Recognition Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173582 · DOI
  40. David Harrison, Kenneth Price, and Myrtle Bell. 1998. Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface-and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion. The Academy of Management Journal 41, 1 (1998), 96-107.
  41. Israel Herraiz, Gregorio Robles, Juan JosÉ Amor, Teófilo Romera, and Jesús M. González Barahona. 2006. The Processes of Joining in Global Distributed Software Projects. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Global Software Development for the Practitioner (Shanghai, China) (GSD '06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1145/1138506.1138513 · DOI
  42. Guide Hertel, Sven Niedner, and Stephanie Herrmann. 2003. Motivation of Software Developers in Open Source Projects: An Internet-Based Survey of Contributors to the Linux Kernel. Research Policy 32, 7 (2003), 1159-77.
  43. Oosterbeek H. Van Praag M. Hoogendoorn, S. 2013. The impact of gender diversity on the performance of business teams: Evidence from a field experiment. Management science 59 (2013), 1514-1528. Issue 7.
  44. Beth K Humberd and Elizabeth D Rouse. 2016. Seeing you in me and me in you: Personal identification in the phases of mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Review 41, 3 (2016), 435-455.
  45. Daniel Izquierdo, Nicole Huesman, Alexander Serebrenik, and Gregorio Robles. 2018. Openstack gender diversity report. IEEE Software 36, 1 (2018), 28-33.
  46. Moonkyoung Jang, Saerom Lee, Hyunmi Baek, and Yoonhyuk Jung. 2022. Do Not Just Talk, Show Me in Action: Investigating the Effect of OSSD Activities on Job Change of IT Professional. Journal of Society for e-Business Studies 26, 1 (2022).
  47. Chris Jensen and Walt Scacchi. 2007. Role migration and advancement processes in OSSD projects: A comparative case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 364-374.
  48. Corey Jergensen, Anita Sarma, and Patrick Wagstrom. 2011. The onion patch: migration in open source ecosystems. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT symposium and the 13th European conference on Foundations of software engineering. 70-80.
  49. Sandra Katz, David Allbritton, John Aronis, Christine Wilson, and Mary Lou Soffa. 2006. Gender, achievement, and persistence in an undergraduate computer science program. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 37, 4 (2006), 42-57.
  50. Bruce Kogut and Anca Metiu. 2001. Open-source software development and distributed innovation. Oxford review of economic policy 17, 2 (2001), 248-264.
  51. Victor Kuechler, Claire Gilbertson, and Carlos Jensen. 2012. Gender differences in early free and open source software joining process. In International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, 78-93.
  52. Adriaan Labuschagne and Reid Holmes. 2015. Do onboarding programs work?. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE, 381-385.
  53. Melenie J Lankau and Terri A Scandura. 2002. An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of management Journal 45, 4 (2002), 779-790.
  54. Andrew M St Laurent. 2004. Understanding open source and free software licensing: guide to navigating licensing issues in existing & new software. " O'Reilly Media, Inc. ".
  55. Amanda Lee and Jeffrey C Carver. 2019. FLOSS participants' perceptions about gender and inclusiveness: a survey. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 677-687.
  56. John Levine and Moreland. 2005. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308, 5722 (2005), 697-702.
  57. Renee Li, Pavitthra Pandurangan, Hana Frluckaj, and Laura Dabbish. 2021. Code of conduct conversations in open source software projects on Github. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1-31.
  58. Fannie Liu, Denae Ford, Chris Parnin, and Laura Dabbish. 2017. Selfies as social movements: Influences on participation and perceived impact on stereotypes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1-21.
  59. Sam A Margolis and Jacob B Angelo. 2002. Interlaboratory assessment of measurement precision and bias in the coulometric Karl Fischer determination of water. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry 374, 3 (2002), 505-512.
  60. Christopher Mendez, Hema Susmita Padala, Zoe Steine-Hanson, Claudia Hilderbrand, Amber Horvath, Charles Hill, Logan Simpson, Nupoor Patil, Anita Sarma, and Margaret Burnett. 2018. Open source barriers to entry, revisited: A sociotechnical perspective. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. 1004-1015.
  61. Courtney Miller, David Gray Widder, Christian Kästner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. Why do people give up flossing? A study of contributor disengagement in open source. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, 116-129.
  62. Audris Mockus, Roy T Fielding, and James Herbsleb. 2000. A case study of open source software development: the Apache server. In Proceedings of the international conference on Software engineering. 263-272.
  63. Audris Mockus, Roy T Fielding, and James D Herbsleb. 2002. Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 11, 3 (2002), 309-346.
  64. Wonseok Oh and Sangyong Jeon. 2007. Membership herding and network stability in the open source community: The Ising perspective. Management science 53, 7 (2007), 1086-1101.
  65. Gede Artha Azriadi Prana, Denae Ford, Ayushi Rastogi, David Lo, Rahul Purandare, and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2021. Including everyone, everywhere: Understanding opportunities and challenges of geographic gender-inclusion in oss. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2021).
  66. Huilian Sophie Qiu, Alexander Nolte, Anita Brown, Alexander Serebrenik, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. Going farther together: The impact of social capital on sustained participation in open source. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 688-699.
  67. Lilly Irani Richard Geiger, Dorothy Howard. 2021. The Labor of Maintaining and Scaling Free and Open-Source Software Projects. Proceedings of the ACM Human-Computer Interaction 5 (2021), Article 175. Issue CSCW1.
  68. Q.M. Roberson. 2019. Diversity in the Workplace: A Review, Synthesis, and Future Research Agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 6 (2019), 69-88.
  69. Jeffrey A Roberts, Il-Horn Hann, and Sandra A Slaughter. 2006. Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Management science 52, 7 (2006), 984-999.
  70. Gregorio Robles, Jesus M Gonzalez-Barahona, and Israel Herraiz. 2009. Evolution of the core team of developers in libre software projects. In Proceedings of the international working conference on mining software repositories. IEEE, 167-170.
  71. Gerald R Salancik and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative science quarterly (1978), 224-253.
  72. Kusum Singh, Katherine R Allen, Rebecca Scheckler, and Lisa Darlington. 2007. Women in computer-related majors: A critical synthesis of research and theory from 1994 to 2005. Review of Educational Research 77, 4 (2007), 500-533.
  73. Vandana Singh and Brice Bongiovanni. 2021. Motivated and Capable but No Space for Error. The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion (IJIDI) 5, 3 (2021).
  74. Vandana Singh and William Brandon. 2019. Open Source Software Community Inclusion Initiatives to Support Women Participation. In IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, 68-79.
  75. Vibha Singhal Sinha, Senthil Mani, and Saurabh Sinha. 2011. Entering the circle of trust: developer initiation as committers in open-source projects. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 133-142.
  76. Peijian Song and Chee Wei Phang. 2015. Promoting continuance through shaping members' social identity in knowledge-based versus support/advocacy virtual communities. Transactions on Engineering Management 63, 1 (2015), 16-26.
  77. Christoph Stanik, Lloyd Montgomery, Daniel Martens, Davide Fucci, and Walid Maalej. 2018. A simple nlp-based approach to support onboarding and retention in open source communities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution. IEEE, 172-182.
  78. Igor Steinmacher, Ana Paula Chaves, Tayana Uchoa Conte, and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2014. Preliminary empirical identification of barriers faced by newcomers to Open Source Software projects. In Proceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering. IEEE, 51-60.
  79. Igor Steinmacher, Tayana Conte, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and David Redmiles. 2015. Social barriers faced by newcomers placing their first contribution in open source software projects. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 1379-1392.
  80. Igor Steinmacher, Tayana Uchoa Conte, Christoph Treude, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2016. Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. 273-284.
  81. Igor Steinmacher, Marco Aurelio Graciotto Silva, Marco Aurelio Gerosa, and David F Redmiles. 2015. A systematic literature review on the barriers faced by newcomers to open source software projects. Information and Software Technology 59 (2015), 67-85.
  82. Katherine J Stewart and Sanjay Gosain. 2006. The impact of ideology on effectiveness in open source software development teams. Management Information Systems Quarterly (2006), 291-314.
  83. Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1994. Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of qualitative research 17 (1994), 273-85.
  84. Bianca Trinkenreich, Igor Wiese, Anita Sarma, Marco Gerosa, and Igor Steinmacher. 2021. Women's participation in open source software: a survey of the literature. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2021).
  85. Mariam Guizani Igor Wiese Anita Sarma Trinkenreich, Bianca and Igor Steinmacher. 2020. Hidden Figures: Roles and Pathways of Successful OSS Contributors. Proceedings of the ACM Human-Computer Interaction 4 (2020), 1-22. Issue CSCW2.
  86. Mariam Guizani Igor Wiese Anita Sarma Trinkenreich, Bianca and Igor Steinmacher. 2021. The shifting sands of motivation: Revisiting what drives contributors in open source. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.10291 (2021). · arXiv
  87. Asher Trockman, Shurui Zhou, Christian Kästner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2018. Adding sparkle to social coding: an empirical study of repository badges in the npm ecosystem. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. 511-522.
  88. Marat Valiev, Bogdan Vasilescu, and James Herbsleb. 2018. Ecosystem-level determinants of sustained activity in open-source projects: A case study of the PyPI ecosystem. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. 644-655.
  89. Bogdan Vasilescu, Vladimir Filkov, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2015. Perceptions of diversity on git hub: A user survey. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. IEEE, 50-56.
  90. Bogdan Vasilescu, Daryl Posnett, Baishakhi Ray, Mark GJ van den Brand, Alexander Serebrenik, Premkumar Devanbu, and Vladimir Filkov. 2015. Gender and tenure diversity in GitHub teams. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. 3789-3798.
  91. Jianguo Wang and Anita Sarma. 2011. Which bug should I fix: helping new developers onboard a new project. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. 76-79.
  92. Yi Wang and David Redmiles. 2019. Implicit gender biases in professional software development: An empirical study. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). IEEE, 1-10.
  93. Zhendong Wang, Yi Wang, and David Redmiles. 2018. Competence-confidence gap: A threat to female developers' contribution on github. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). IEEE, 81-90.
  94. David Gray Widder. 2019. Gender in Open Source Communities: Different Migration Patterns and Forms of Work. In 2019 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 241-242.
  95. Joan C Williams and Rachel Dempsey. 2018. What works for women at work: Four patterns working women need to know. NYU Press.
  96. P. Wurzelova, F. Palomba, and A. Bacchelli. 2019. Characterizing Women (Not) Contributing to Open-Source. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering (GE). IEEE.
  97. Bo Xu and Donald R Jones. 2010. Volunteers' participation in open source software development: a study from the social-relational perspective. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 41, 3 (2010), 69-84.
  98. Kazuhiro Yamashita, Shane McIntosh, Yasutaka Kamei, Ahmed E Hassan, and Naoyasu Ubayashi. 2015. Revisiting the applicability of the pareto principle to core development teams in open source software projects. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution. 46-55.
  99. Yue Yu, Huaimin Wang, Gang Yin, and Tao Wang. 2016. Reviewer recommendation for pull-requests in github: What can we learn from code review and bug assignment? Information and Software Technology 74 (2016), 204-218.
  100. Haiyi Zhu, Amy Zhang, Jiping He, Robert E Kraut, and Aniket Kittur. 2013. Effects of peer feedback on contribution: a field experiment in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2253-2262.
  101. Stuart H Zweben and Elizabeth B Bizot. 2016. Representation of women in postsecondary computing: Disciplinary, institutional, and individual characteristics. Computing in Science & Engineering 18, 2 (2016), 40-56.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frluckaj, H., Dabbish, L., Widder, D. G., Qiu, H. S., & Herbsleb, J. D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2022-11-07
Volume
6
Issue
CSCW2
Pages
1-31
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1145/3555190
OpenAlex
W4309617634
Cited by
42
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5
FWCI
5.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2107298)
  • Sloan Foundation (2018)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
open source software, gender diversity, developer engagement, technology careers, underrepresentation of women

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review