Benefits and Limitations of Remote Work to LGBTQIA+ Software Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The mass transition to remote work amid the COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected software professionals, who abruptly shifted into ostensibly temporary home offices. The effects of this transition on these professionals are complex, depending on the particularities of the context and individuals. Recent studies advocate for remote structures to create opportunities for many equity-deserving groups; however, remote work can also be challenging for some individuals, such as women and individuals with disabilities. Objective. This study aims to investigate the effects of remote work on LGBTQIA+ software professionals. Method. Grounded theory methodology was applied based on information collected from two main sources: a survey questionnaire with a sample of 57 LGBTQIA+ software professionals and nine follow-up interviews with individuals from this sample. This sample included professionals of different genders, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and levels of experience. Findings. Our findings demonstrate that (1) remote work benefits LGBTQIA+ people by increasing security and visibility; (2) remote work harms LGBTQIA+ software professionals through isolation and invisibility; (3) the benefits outweigh the drawbacks; (4) the drawbacks can be mitigated by supportive measures developed by software companies. Conclusion. This paper investigated how remote work can affect LGBTQIA+ software professionals and presented a set of recommendations on how software companies can address the benefits and limitations associated with this work model. In summary, we concluded that remote work is crucial in increasing diversity and inclusion in the software industry.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".