Multi-Institutional Study on Impostor Phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation : In computing, Impostor Phenomenon (IP) has been viewed as a problem for many years, but little research has been done to show its prevalence. In 2020, IP in computing began to be explored at single institutions [ 68 ]. The results showed that IP is prevalent among undergraduate and graduate students in computing courses and that the rates of IP are higher for women. In 2022, these results were reaffirmed with a replication study including two institutions [ 82 ]. This is concerning due to the negative effects correlated with people who experience IP such as low self-esteem [ 19 , 37 ] and anxiety [ 21 , 38 ]. Objectives : This study aims to replicate these previous findings at a considerably larger scale to determine whether similar results are observed across institutions. To support future work, we conduct an exploratory analysis of student demographics, course factors, and institutional factors to gain insight into factors that may be associated with higher levels of IP among students. Methods : A survey consisting of Clance’s IP scale (CIPS) and questions on students’ demographic and background information was given at 18 institutions. Higher CIPS scores indicate more IP experiences. Differences in CIPS scores were analyzed based on students’ demographics and background information (gender, race/ethnicity, transfer status, and chosen degree program), course factors (introductory computing courses vs. non-introductory computing courses, upper- vs. lower-division), and institutional factors (size of the institution, public vs. private, teaching- vs. research-centric). Results : Our results are consistent with previous findings that IP is prevalent among students in computing courses and that women have significantly higher CIPS scores of IP than men in computing, and that traditionally marginalized race/ethnicity status in computing and chosen degree program do not have an observable impact. In terms of course factors, we do not see a difference in scores based on whether students are enrolled in a lower- or upper-division course. We see that students enrolled in introductory computing (CS1) courses have statistically significant higher scores than students outside of CS1 courses. In terms of institutional factors, students in computing courses at public institutions have statistically significantly higher scores than students at private institutions. Students at medium-sized institutions have statistically significantly higher scores than students at small or large institutions. We do not find any difference based on whether an institution is teaching- or research-centric. Discussion : These results suggest that IP is prevalent in computing courses across the entire curriculum and across different types of institutions. Differences in demographic groups are consistent with prior work in computing, specifically higher rates among women, suggesting IP may be worth further inquiry as a potential factor in the gender participation gap in computing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".