Is the glass ceiling cracked in information technology? A qualitative analysis: part 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research is to qualitatively investigate, through a literature review of past studies and an in‐field case study, three different hypotheses regarding women working in the IT sector and their career and promotional aspirations. Design/methodology/approach An online survey was used for data collection from female employees with varying professional specializations across several IT departments within the company. Questions for the survey were designed from the findings of the literature review. Findings The results obtained have proven that married women who are intrinsically inspired to maintain their work‐family balance face higher stress and more conflicts than those who do not. In addition, the glass ceiling was still evident in today's corporations, but mainly affecting the older generation of women professionals. Also, the results slightly hinted at a ten‐year cut‐off period, after which promotional aspiration is lost. Research limitations/implications Owing to the limitations of the research conducted, further qualitative studies can be done to compare careers and promotional patterns between men and women in the IT departments, as well as those between women in IT departments and women working in other departments. Practical implications Employers should strive to provide their female employees with practical solutions to allow for an easier balancing of work‐family responsibilities, such as flexi‐time and telecommuting. At the same time, the employers should place the female employees in more opportunity‐enhancing positions within the corporation so that they can exploit or utilize their talents and increase the probability of climbing up the corporate ladder. Originality/value With a generous response rate, this paper provides a realistic perspective of professional females working within the IT domain with regard to their career and promotional aspirations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".