Diversity in Software Engineering: A Survey about Scientists from Underrepresented Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technology plays a crucial role in people’s lives. However, software engineering discriminates against individuals from underrepresented groups in several ways, either through algorithms that produce biased outcomes or for the lack of diversity and inclusion in software development environments and academic courses focused on technology. This reality contradicts the history of software engineering, which is filled with outstanding scientists from underrepresented groups who changed the world with their contributions to the field. Ada Lovelace, Alan Turing, and Clarence Ellis are only some individuals who made significant breakthroughs in the area and belonged to the population that is so underrepresented in undergraduate courses and the software industry. Previous research discusses that women, LGBTQIA+ people, and nonwhite individuals are examples of students who often feel unwelcome and ostracized in software engineering. However, do they know about the remarkable scientists that came before them and that share background similarities with them? Can we use these scientists as role models to motivate these students to continue pursuing a career in software engineering? In this study, we present the preliminary results of a survey with 128 undergraduate students about this topic. Our findings demonstrate that students’ knowledge of computer scientists from underrepresented groups is limited. This creates opportunities for investigations on fostering diversity in software engineering courses using strategies exploring computer science’s history.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".