MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399382354 · doi:10.1145/3639475.3640100

Navigating the Path of Women in Software Engineering: From Academia to Industry

2024· article· en· W4399382354 on OpenAlexaff
Tatalina Oliveira, Ann Barcomb, Ronnie de Souza Santos, Helda Oliveira Barros, María Teresa Baldassarre, César França

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath (computing)SoftwareComputer scienceSoftware engineeringEngineering managementEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. Women remain significantly underrepresented in software engineering, leading to a lasting gender gap in the software industry. This disparity starts in education and extends into the industry, causing challenges such as hostile work environments and unequal opportunities. Addressing these issues is crucial for fostering an inclusive and diverse software engineering workforce. Aim. This study aims to enhance the literature on women in software engineering, exploring their journey from academia to industry and discussing perspectives, challenges, and support. We focus on Brazilian women to extend existing research, which has largely focused on North American and European contexts. Method. In this study, we conducted a cross-sectional survey, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, focusing on women's experiences in software engineering to explore their journey from university to the software industry. Findings. Our findings highlight persistent challenges faced by women in software engineering, including gender bias, harassment, work-life imbalance, undervaluation, low sense of belonging, and impostor syndrome. These difficulties commonly emerge from university experiences and continue to affect women throughout their entire careers. Conclusion. In summary, our study identifies systemic challenges in women's software engineering journey, emphasizing the need for organizational commitment to address these issues. We provide actionable recommendations for practitioners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207