skip to main content
10.1145/3382494.3410682acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesesemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Work Practices and Perceptions from Women Core Developers in OSS Communities

Published:23 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Background. The effect of gender diversity in open source communities has gained increasing attention from practitioners and researchers. For instance, organizations such as the Python Software Foundation and the OpenStack Foundation started actions to increase gender diversity and promote women to top positions in the communities. Problem. Although the general underrepresentation of women (a.k.a. horizontal segregation) in open source communities has been explored in a number of research studies, little is known about the vertical segregation in open source communities---which occurs when there are fewer women in high level positions. Aims. To address this research gap, in this paper we present the results of a mixed-methods study on gender diversity and work practices of core developers contributing to open-source communities. Method. In the first study, we used mining-software repositories procedures to identify the core developers of 711 open source projects, in order to understand how common are women core developers in open source communities and characterize their work practices. In the second study, we surveyed the women core developers we identified in the first study to collect their perceptions of gender diversity and gender bias they might have observed while contributing to open source systems. Results. Our findings show that open source communities present both horizontal and vertical segregation (only 2.3% of the core developers are women). Nevertheless, differently from previous studies, most of the women core developers (65.7%) report never having experienced gender discrimination when contributing to an open source project. Finally, we did not note substantial differences between the work practices among women and men core developers. Conclusions. We reflect on these findings and present some ideas that might increase the participation of women in open source communities.

References

  1. Efthimia Aivaloglou and Felienne Hermans. 2019. How is Programming Taught in Code Clubs? Exploring the Experiences and Gender Perceptions of Code Club Teachers. In Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 22, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3364510.3364514Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Guilherme Avelino, Eleni Constantinou, Marco Tulio Valente, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2019. On the abandonment and survival of open source projects: An empirical investigation. In ESEM. IEEE, 10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870181, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Guilherme Avelino, Leonardo Teixeira Passos, André C. Hora, and Marco Tulio Valente. 2016. A novel approach for estimating Truck Factors. In ICPC. IEEE Computer Society, IEEE, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sogol Balali, Igor Steinmacher, Umayal Annamalai, Anita Sarma, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2018. Newcomers' Barriers ... Is That All? An Analysis of Mentors' and Newcomers' Barriers in OSS Projects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 27, 3-6 (2018), 679--714.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Sebastian Baltes and Paul Ralph. 2020. Sampling in Software Engineering Research: A Critical Review and Guidelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07764 1 (2020), 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Yvonne Benschop. 2006. Of small steps and the longing for giant leaps. Handbook of workplace diversity 1 (2006), 274--298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Shubhasheesh Bhattacharya, Sonali Bhattacharya, and Sweta Mohapatra. 2018. Enablers for Advancement of Women into Leadership Position: A Study Based on IT/ITES Sector in India. IJHCITP 9, 4 (2018), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Hudson Borges, Andre Hora, and Marco Tulio Valente. 2016. Predicting the Popularity of GitHub Repositories. In Proceedings of the The 12th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering (PROMISE 2016). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 9, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2972958.2972966Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Valeria Borsotti. 2018. Barriers to gender diversity in software development education: actionable insights from a danish case study. In ICSE (SEET). ACM, ACM, 146--152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Amiangshu Bosu and Kazi Zakia Sultana. 2019. Diversity and Inclusion in Open Source Software (OSS) Projects: Where Do We Stand?. In ESEM. ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), IEEE, 1--11. https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870179Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Carmen Botella, Silvia Rueda, Emilia López-Iñesta, and Paula Marzal. 2019. Gender Diversity in STEM Disciplines: A Multiple Factor Problem. Entropy 21, 1 (2019), 30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Luca Botturi, Chiara Bramani, and Sean McCusker. 2012. Boys are like Girls: Insights in the Gender Digital Divide in Higher Education in Switzerland and Europe. J. UCS 18, 3 (2012), 353--376.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Danielle Brown and Melonie Parker. 2019. Google diversity annual report 2019. https://diversity.google/ (Date last accessed 16-April-2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Barbora Buhnova and Dita Prikrylova. 2019. Women want to learn tech: lessons from the Czechitas education project. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering, GE@ICSE 2019, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 27, 2019, Ivica Crnkovic, Karina Kohl Silveira, and Sara Sprenkle (Eds.). IEEE / ACM, https://doi.org/10.1109/GE.2019.00013, 25--28. https://doi.org/10.1109/GE.2019.00013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Juan Antonio Campos-Soria, Andrés Marchante-Mera, and Miguel Angel Ropero-García. 2011. Patterns of occupational segregation by gender in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30, 1 (2011), 91--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Gemma Catolino, Fabio Palomba, Damian A. Tamburri, Alexander Serebrenik, and Filomena Ferrucci. 2019. Gender Diversity and Women in Software Teams: How Do They Affect Community Smells?. In ICSE-SEIS. IEEE, 10.1109/ICSE-SEIS.2019.00010, 11--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Gemma Catolino, Fabio Palomba, Damian A. Tamburri, Alexander Serebrenik, and Filomena Ferrucci. 2020. Gender Diversity and Community Smells: Insights From the Trenches. IEEE Software 37, 1 (2020), 10--16. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2019.2944594Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Michael Christie, Maureen O'Neill, Kerry Rutter, Graham Young, and Angeline Medland. 2017. Understanding why women are under-represented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) within higher education: A regional case study. Production 27, SPE (2017), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Valerio Cosentino, Javier Luis Cánovas Izquierdo, and Jordi Cabot. 2015. Assessing the bus factor of Git repositories. In SANER. IEEE Computer Society, 10.1109/SANER.2015.7081864, 499--503.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicole Huesman Daniel Izquierdo and Allison Price. 2017. Gender diversity in the OpenStack community: A new report. https://superuser.openstack.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/OpenStack-Gender-Diversity-Report_Apr2017.pdf (Date last accessed 16-April-2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hélène de Ribaupierre, Kathryn Jones, Fernando Loizides, and Yulia Cherdantseva. 2018. Towards Gender Equality in Software Engineering: The NSA Approach. In GE@ICSE. ACM, ACM, 10--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Belle Derks, Colette Van Laar, Naomi Ellemers, and Kim de Groot. 2011. Gender-Bias Primes Elicit Queen-Bee Responses Among Senior Policewomen. Psychological Science 22, 10 (2011), 1243--1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417258 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417258 PMID: 21873568.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Charles W Dunnett. 1955. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 50, 272 (1955), 1096--1121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Mívian M. Ferreira, Marco Tulio Valente, and Kecia Aline M. Ferreira. 2017. A comparison of three algorithms for computing truck factors. In ICPC. IEEE Computer Society, IEEE, 207--217.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Denae Ford, Reed Milewicz, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2019. How remote work can foster a more inclusive environment for transgender developers. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering, GE@ICSE 2019, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 27, 2019, Ivica Crnkovic, Karina Kohl Silveira, and Sara Sprenkle (Eds.). IEEE / ACM, https://doi.org/10.1109/GE.2019.00011, 9--12. https://doi.org/10.1109/GE.2019.00011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Judit García-González, Patricia Forcén, and Maria Jimenez-Sanchez. 2019. Men and women differ in their perception of gender bias in research institutions. PLOS ONE 14, 12 (12 2019), 1--21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Abdul Rehman Gila, Jafreezal Jaafa, Mazni Omar, and Muhammad Zahid Tunio. 2014. Impact of personality and gender diversity on software development teams' performance. In 2014 International Conference on Computer, Communications, and Control Technology (I4CT). IEEE, IEEE, 261--265.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Lile Hattori and Michele Lanza. 2008. On the nature of commits. In 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering - Workshop Proceedings (ASE Workshops 2008), 15-16 September 2008, L'Aquila, Italy. IEEE, dblp computer science bibliography, https://dblp.org, 63--71. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASEW.2008.4686322Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Julie S. Hui and Shelly Diane Farnham. 2016. Designing for Inclusion: Supporting Gender Diversity in Independent Innovation Teams. In GROUP. ACM, ACM, 71--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Sonja M. Hyrynsalmi. 2019. The underrepresentation of women in the software industry: thoughts from career-changing women. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering, GE@ICSE 2019, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 27, 2019, Ivica Crnkovic, Karina Kohl Silveira, and Sara Sprenkle (Eds.). IEEE / ACM, https://doi.org/10.1109/GE.2019.00008, 1--4. https://doi.org/10.1109/GE.2019.00008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Nasif Imtiaz, Justin Middleton, Joymallya Chakrabortty, Neill Robson, Gina Bai, and Emerson R. Murphy-Hill. 2019. Investigating the effects of gender bias on GitHub. In ICSE. IEEE / ACM, 10.1109/ICSE.2019.00079, 700--711.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Daniel Izquierdo, Nicole Huesman, Alexander Serebrenik, and Gregorio Robles. 2019. OpenStack Gender Diversity Report. IEEE Software 36, 1 (2019), 28--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Antonio M. Lopez Jr., Lisa J. Schulte, and Marguerite S. Giguette. 2005. Climbing onto the shoulders of giants. In SIGCSE. ACM, 10.1145/1047344.1047477, 401--405.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Barbara A. Kitchenham and Shari Lawrence Pfleeger. 2008. Personal Opinion Surveys. In Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Springer, 10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_3, 63--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Frank Konietschke, Marius Placzek, Frank Schaarschmidt, and Ludwig Hothorn. 2015. nparcomp: An R Software Package for Nonparametric Multiple Comparisons and Simultaneous Confidence Intervals. Journal of Statistical Software, Articles 64, 9 (2015), 1--17. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v064.i09Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Amanda Lee and Jeffrey C. Carver. 2019. FLOSS participants' perceptions about gender and inclusiveness: a survey. In ICSE. IEEE/ACM, 10.1109/ICSE.2019.00077, 677--687.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Bin Lin and Alexander Serebrenik. 2016. Recognizing gender of stack overflow users. In MSR. ACM, 0.1145/2901739.2901777, 425--429.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Cristiano Maciel, Silvia Amélia Bim, and Karen da Silva Figueiredo. 2018. Digital Girls Program - Disseminating Computer Science to Girls in Brazil. In GE@ICSE. ACM, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8452748, 29--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. John Maindonald and W. John Braun. 2010. Data Analysis and Graphics Using R: An Example-Based Approach (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Dawn Nafus. 2012. 'Patches don't have gender': What is not open in open source software. New Media & Society 14, 4 (2012), 669--683.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Noelia Olmedo-Torre, Fermín Sánchez Carracedo, M. Nuria Salan Ballesteros, David López, Antoni Perez-Poch, and Mireia Lopez-Beltran. 2018. Do Female Motives for Enrolling Vary According to STEM Profile? IEEE Trans. Education 61, 4 (2018), 289--297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Marco Ortu, Giuseppe Destefanis, Steve Counsell, Stephen Swift, Roberto Tonelli, and Michele Marchesi. 2017. How diverse is your team? Investigating gender and nationality diversity in GitHub teams. J. Software Eng. R&D 5 (2017), 9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Stack Overflow. 2019. Developer Survey Results 2019. https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019 (Date last accessed 18-April-2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Gustavo Pinto, Igor Steinmacher, and Marco Aurélio Gerosa. 2016. More Common Than You Think: An In-depth Study of Casual Contributors. In IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, SANER 2016, Suita, Osaka, Japan, March 14-18, 2016 - Volume 1. IEEE Computer Society, https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2016.68, 112--123. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2016.68Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Huilian Sophie Qiu, Alexander Nolte, Anita Brown, Alexander Serebrenik, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. Going farther together: the impact of social capital on sustained participation in open source. In ICSE. IEEE/ACM, 10.1109/ICSE.2019.00078, 688--699.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Penny Rheingans, Erica D'Eramo, Crystal Diaz-Espinoza, and Danyelle Ireland. 2018. A Model for Increasing Gender Diversity in Technology. In SIGCSE. ACM, 10.1145/3159450.3159533, 459--464.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Filippo Ricca, Alessandro Marchetto, and Marco Torchiano. 2011. On the Difficulty of Computing the Truck Factor. In PROFES (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), Vol. 6759. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21843-9_26, 337--351.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Gregorio Robles, Laura Arjona Reina, Alexander Serebrenik, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Jesús M. González-Barahona. 2014. FLOSS 2013: a survey dataset about free software contributors: challenges for curating, sharing, and combining. In MSR. ACM, 10.1145/2597073.2597129, 396--399.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Karina Kohl Silveira, Soraia Raupp Musse, Isabel Harb Manssour, Renata Vieira, and Rafael Prikladnicki. 2019. Confidence in programming skills: gender insights from StackOverflow developers survey. In ICSE (Companion Volume). IEEE / ACM, 10.1109/ICSE-Companion.2019.00091, 234--235.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Vandana Singh. 2019. Women-only spaces of open source. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering, GE@ICSE 2019, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 27, 2019, Ivica Crnkovic, Karina Kohl Silveira, and Sara Sprenkle (Eds.). IEEE / ACM, https://doi.org/10.1109/GE.2019.00010, 17--20. https://doi.org/10.1109/GE.2019.00010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Igor Steinmacher, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, Tayana Uchôa Conte, and David F. Redmiles. 2019. Overcoming Social Barriers When Contributing to Open Source Software Projects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 28, 1-2 (2019), 247--290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Josh Terrell, Andrew Kofink, Justin Middleton, Clarissa Rainear, Emerson R. Murphy-Hill, Chris Parnin, and Jon Stallings. 2017. Gender differences and bias in open source: pull request acceptance of women versus men. PeerJ Computer Science 3 (2017), e111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Parastou Tourani, Bram Adams, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017. Code of conduct in open source projects. In IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2017, Klagenfurt, Austria, February 20-24, 2017, Martin Pinzger, Gabriele Bavota, and Andrian Marcus (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2017.7884606, 24--33. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2017.7884606Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Bogdan Vasilescu, Andrea Capiluppi, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2014. Gender, Representation and Online Participation: A Quantitative Study. Interacting with Computers 26, 5 (2014), 488--511.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Bogdan Vasilescu, Vladimir Filkov, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2013. Stack-Overflow and GitHub: Associations between Software Development and Crowdsourced Knowledge. In International Conference on Social Computing, SocialCom 2013, SocialCom/PASSAT/BigData/EconCom/BioMedCom 2013, Washington, DC, USA, 8-14 September, 2013. IEEE Computer Society, https://doi.org/10.1109/SocialCom.2013.35, 188--195. https://doi.org/10.1109/SocialCom.2013.35Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Bogdan Vasilescu, Daryl Posnett, Baishakhi Ray, Mark G. J. van den Brand, Alexander Serebrenik, Premkumar T. Devanbu, and Vladimir Filkov. 2015. Gender and Tenure Diversity in GitHub Teams. In CHI. ACM, 10.1145/2702123.2702549, 3789--3798.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Yi Wang and David Redmiles. 2019. Implicit Gender Biases in Professional Software Development: An Empirical Study. In ICSE - Software Engineering in Society. ACM, https://bit.ly/2Hu42MJ, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhendong Wang, Yi Wang, and David F. Redmiles. 2018. Competence-confidence gap: a threat to female developers' contribution on github. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society, ICSE (SEIS) 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27 - June 03, 2018, Valérie Issarny and Schahram Dustdar (Eds.). ACM, https://doi.org/10.1145/3183428.3183437, 81--90. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183428.3183437Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Work Practices and Perceptions from Women Core Developers in OSS Communities

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        ESEM '20: Proceedings of the 14th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)
        October 2020
        412 pages
        ISBN:9781450375801
        DOI:10.1145/3382494

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 23 October 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        ESEM '20 Paper Acceptance Rate26of123submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate130of594submissions,22%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader