skip to main content
survey

Women’s Participation in Open Source Software: A Survey of the Literature

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 August 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Women are underrepresented in Open Source Software (OSS) projects, as a result of which, not only do women lose career and skill development opportunities, but the projects themselves suffer from a lack of diversity of perspectives. Practitioners and researchers need to understand more about the phenomenon; however, studies about women in open source are spread across multiple fields, including information systems, software engineering, and social science. This article systematically maps, aggregates, and synthesizes the state-of-the-art on women’s participation in OSS. It focuses on women contributors’ representation and demographics, how they contribute, their motivations and challenges, and strategies employed by communities to attract and retain women. We identified 51 articles (published between 2000 and 2021) that investigated women’s participation in OSS. We found evidence in these papers about who are the women who contribute, what motivates them to contribute, what types of contributions they make, challenges they face, and strategies proposed to support their participation. According to these studies, only about 5% of projects were reported to have women as core developers, and women authored less than 5% of pull-requests, but had similar or even higher rates of pull-request acceptances than men. Women make both code and non-code contributions, and their motivations to contribute include learning new skills, altruism, reciprocity, and kinship. Challenges that women face in OSS are mainly social, including lack of peer parity and non-inclusive communication from a toxic culture. We found 10 strategies reported in the literature, which we mapped to the reported challenges. Based on these results, we provide guidelines for future research and practice.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Alexandre J. H. de O., Kruchten Philippe, Pedrosa Marcello L. G. do E., Neto Humberto R. de Almeida, and Moura Hermano P. de. 2014. State of the art of agile governance: A systematic review. Int. J. Comput. Sci. & Inf. Technol. 6, 5 (2014), 121.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Alves Vander, Niu Nan, Alves Carina, and Valença George. 2010. Requirements engineering for software product lines: A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 8 (2010), 806820.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Ampatzoglou Apostolos, Bibi Stamatia, Avgeriou Paris, Verbeek Marijn, and Chatzigeorgiou Alexander. 2019. Identifying, categorizing and mitigating threats to validity in software engineering secondary studies. Inf. Softw. Technol. 106 (2019), 201230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] 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 Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 396–399. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. [5] Bacchelli Alberto and Bird Christian. 2013. Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 712721.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Balali Sogol, Steinmacher Igor, Annamalai Umayal, Sarma Anita, and Gerosa Marco Aurelio. 2018. Newcomers’ barriers... is that all? An analysis of mentors’ and newcomers’ barriers in OSS projects. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 27, 3–6 (2018), 679714.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Banaji Mahzarin R. and Dasgupta Nilanjana. 1998. The consciousness of social beliefs: A program of research on stereotyping and prejudice. (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Beecham Sarah, Baddoo Nathan, Hall Tracy, Robinson Hugh, and Sharp Helen. 2008. Motivation in software engineering: A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50, 9–10 (2008), 860878.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. [9] Bitergia. 2016. Gender-diversity Analysis of the Linux kernel technical contributions. Retrieved from https://blog.bitergia.com/2016/10/11/gender-diversity-analysis-of-the-linux-kernel-technical-contributions.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] Blincoe Kelly, Springer Olga, and Wrobel Michal R.. 2019. Perceptions of gender Diversity’s impact on mood in software development teams. IEEE Softw. 36, 5 (2019), 5156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Bosu Amiangshu and Carver Jeffrey C.. 2013. Impact of peer code review on peer impression formation: A survey. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. IEEE, 133142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. [12] Bosu Amiangshu, Carver Jeffrey C., Bird Christian, Orbeck Jonathan, and Chockley Christopher. 2016. Process aspects and social dynamics of contemporary code review: Insights from open source development and industrial practice at Microsoft. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 43, 1 (2016), 5675.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [13] Bosu Amiangshu and Sultana Kazi Zakia. 2019. Diversity and inclusion in open source software (OSS) projects: Where do we stand? In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). IEEE, 111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Burnett Margaret, Fleming Scott D., Iqbal Shamsi, Venolia Gina, Rajaram Vidya, Farooq Umer, Grigoreanu Valentina, and Czerwinski Mary. 2010. Gender differences and programming environments: Across programming populations. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. 110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Burnett Margaret, Stumpf Simone, Macbeth Jamie, Makri Stephann, Beckwith Laura, Kwan Irwin, Peters Anicia, and Jernigan William. 2016. GenderMag: A method for evaluating software’s gender inclusiveness. Interact. Comput. 28, 6 (2016), 760787.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Burnett Margaret M., Beckwith Laura, Wiedenbeck Susan, Fleming Scott D., Cao Jill, Park Thomas H., Grigoreanu Valentina, and Rector Kyle. 2011. Gender pluralism in problem-solving software. Interact. Comput. 23, 5 (2011), 450460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. [17] Butler Judith. 1999. Gender is burning: Questions of appropriation and subversion. Cultural Politics. 11 (1999), 381–395.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Canedo Edna Dias, Bonifácio Rodrigo, Okimoto Márcio Vinicius, Serebrenik Alexander, Pinto Gustavo, and Monteiro Eduardo. 2020. Work practices and perceptions from women core developers in OSS communities. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). 111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. [19] Catolino Gemma, Palomba Fabio, Tamburri Damian A., Serebrenik Alexander, and Ferrucci Filomena. 2019. Gender diversity and women in software teams: How do they affect community smells? In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). IEEE, 1120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. [20] Cazan Ana-Maria, Cocoradă Elena, and Maican Cătălin Ioan. 2016. Computer anxiety and attitudes towards the computer and the internet with Romanian high-school and university students. Comput. Hum. Beh. 55 (2016), 258267.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [21] Cosentino Valerio, Izquierdo Javier L. Cánovas, and Cabot Jordi. 2017. A systematic mapping study of software development with GitHub. IEEE Access 5 (2017), 71737192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [22] Silva Fabio Q. B. da and França A. César C.. 2012. Towards understanding the underlying structure of motivational factors for software engineers to guide the definition of motivational programs. J. Syst. Softw. 85, 2 (2012), 216226. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Dasgupta Nilanjana. 2011. Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychol. Inq. 22, 4 (2011), 231246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Dasgupta Nilanjana and Stout Jane G.. 2014. Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Polic. Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 1, 1 (2014), 2129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Gilder Dick de and Wilke Henk A. M.. 1994. Expectation states theory and the motivational determinants of social influence. Eur. Rev. Social Psychol. 5, 1 (1994), 243269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] Deci Edward L. and Ryan Richard M.. 1987. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 53, 6 (1987), 1024.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] Canedo Edna Dias, Tives Heloise Acco, Marioti Madianita Bogo, Fagundes Fabiano, and Cerqueira José Antonio Siqueira de. 2019. Barriers faced by women in software development projects. Information 10, 10 (2019), 309.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Dohmen Thomas, Falk Armin, Huffman David, Sunde Uwe, Schupp Jürgen, and Wagner Gert G.. 2011. Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 9, 3 (2011), 522550.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Ducheneaut Nicolas. 2005. Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 14, 4 (2005), 323368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Dybå Tore and Dingsøyr Torgeir. 2008. Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50, 9–10 (2008), 833859.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. [31] Dybå Tore and Dingsøyr Torgeir. 2008. Strength of evidence in systematic reviews in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. 178187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. [32] Earley Christopher P. and Mosakowski Elaine. 2000. Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 1 (2000), 2649.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Elberzhager Frank, Rosbach Alla, Münch Jürgen, and Eschbach Robert. 2012. Reducing test effort: A systematic mapping study on existing approaches. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 10 (2012), 10921106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. [34] Fatourou Panagiota, Papageorgiou Yota, and Petousi Vasiliki. 2019. Women are needed in STEM: European policies and incentives. Commun. ACM 62, 4 (2019), 5252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] Felizardo Katia Romero, Ramos Amanda Möhring, Melo Claudia de O., Souza Érica Ferreira de, Vijaykumar Nandamudi L., and Nakagawa Elisa Yumi. 2021. Global and Latin American female participation in evidence-based software engineering: A systematic mapping study. J. Brazil. Comput. Societ. 27, 1 (2021), 122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Feller Joseph and Fitzgerald Brian. 2000. A framework analysis of the open source software development paradigm. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems (AIS), 5869.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Ford Denae, Behroozi Mahnaz, Serebrenik Alexander, and Parnin Chris. 2019. Beyond the code itself: How programmers really look at pull requests. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). IEEE, 5160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Fossatti Mariana. 2020. Gender, diversity, and inclusion in open source communities. XRDS: Crossr., ACM Mag. Students 26, 4 (2020), 4648.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] França A. César C., Gouveia Tatiana B., Santos Pedro C. F., Santana Celio A., and Silva Fabio Q. B. da. 2011. Motivation in software engineering: A systematic review update. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering. IET, 154163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Frey Bruno S.. 1997. On the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation. Internat. Journal Industr. Organiz. 4, 15 (1997), 427439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. [41] Gallego M. Dolores, Bueno Salvador, Racero F. José, and Noyes Jan. 2015. Open source software: The effects of training on acceptance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 49 (2015), 390399.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Garcia-Holgado Alicia, Diaz Amparo Camacho, and Garcia-Penalvo Francisco J.. 2019. Engaging women into STEM in Latin America: W-STEM project. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. 232239.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] Ghosh Rishab, Glott Ruediger, Krieger Bernhard, and Robles Gregorio. 2002. Free/libre and open source software: Survey and study. Part iv: “Survey of developers”. http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS/report/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. [44] Glass Christy and Cook Alison. 2016. Leading at the top: Understanding women’s challenges above the glass ceiling. Leadersh. Quart. 27, 1 (2016), 5163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Greenwald Anthony G. and Banaji Mahzarin R.. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 102, 1 (1995), 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. [46] Group GRADE Working. 2004. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj 328, 7454 (2004), 1490.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. [47] Guinea Alejandro Sánchez, Nain Grégory, and Traon Yves Le. 2016. A systematic review on the engineering of software for ubiquitous systems. J. Syst. Softw. 118 (2016), 251276.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. [48] Gurbuz Havva Gulay and Tekinerdogan Bedir. 2018. Model-based testing for software safety: A systematic mapping study. Softw. Qual. J. 26, 4 (2018), 13271372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. [49] Haas Linda and Hwang Philip C.. 2009. Is fatherhood becoming more visible at work? Trends in corporate support for fathers taking parental leave in Sweden. Fathering: J. Theor., Res. Pract. Men Fath. 7, 3 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. [50] Hars Alexanders and Ou Shaosong. 2004. Working for free motivations of participating in open source software projects. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2531.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. [51] Hartzel Kathleen. 2003. How self-efficacy and gender issues affect software adoption and use. Commun. ACM 46, 9 (2003), 167171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. [52] Hattori Lile P. and Lanza Michele. 2008. On the nature of commits. In Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering-Workshops. IEEE, 6371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. [53] Heilman Madeline E.. 2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57, 4 (2001), 657674.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [54] Heilman Madeline E.. 2012. Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organiz. Behav. 32 (2012), 113135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. [55] Henshaw Alexis Leanna. 2016. Where women rebel: Patterns of women’s participation in armed rebel groups 1990–2008. Int. Femin. J. Polit. 18, 1 (2016), 3960.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. [56] Hertel Guido, Niedner Sven, and Herrmann Stefanie. 2003. Motivation of software developers in open source projects: An Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Res. Polic. 32, 7 (2003), 11591177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. [57] Huffman Ann Hergatt, Whetten Jason, and Huffman William H.. 2013. Using technology in higher education: The influence of gender roles on technology self-efficacy. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 4 (2013), 17791786.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. [58] Kay Matthew, Matuszek Cynthia, and Munson Sean A.. 2015. Unequal representation and gender stereotypes in image search results for occupations. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 38193828.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. [59] Kazmi Adela. 2014. Women managers in different types of organisations: A representative research review. J. Entrepren. Manag. 3, 1 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. [60] Kitchenham Barbara and Charters Stuart. 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. 2 (2007). Retrieved on June 2022 https://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/525444systematicreviewsguide.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. [61] Kitchenham Barbara, Pretorius Rialette, Budgen David, Brereton O. Pearl, Turner Mark, Niazi Mahmood, and Linkman Stephen. 2010. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering—A tertiary study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 8 (2010), 792805.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. [62] Kofink Andrew. 2015. Contributions of the under-appreciated: Gender bias in an open-source ecology. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Systems, Programming, Languages and Applications: Software for Humanity. 8384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. [63] Krause Jana, Krause Werner, and Bränfors Piia. 2018. Women’s participation in peace negotiations and the durability of peace. Int. Interact. 44, 6 (2018), 9851016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. [64] Lakhani Karim R. and Wolf Robert G.. 2003. Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Retrieved on June 2022 https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/8733c45a525ebcede867a9fb282398ca_lakhaniwolf.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. [65] Lee Amanda and Carver Jeffrey C.. 2019. FLOSS participants’ perceptions about gender and inclusiveness: A survey. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 677687.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. [66] Lee Jackie F. K.. 2018. Gender representation in Japanese EFL textbooks—A corpus study. Gend. Educ. 30, 3 (2018), 379395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. [67] Maheshwari Greeni. 2021. A review of literature on women’s leadership in higher education in developed countries and in Vietnam: Barriers and enablers. Educ. Manag. Admin. Leadersh. (2021). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. [68] Makarova Elena and Herzog Walter. 2015. Trapped in the gender stereotype? The image of science among secondary school students and teachers. Equal., Divers. Inclus.: Int. J. 34, 2 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. [69] Marques Maíra R., Quispe Alcides, and Ochoa Sergio F.. 2014. A systematic mapping study on practical approaches to teaching software engineering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. [70] McCullough Laura. 2011. Women’s leadership in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Barriers to participation. In Forum on Public Policy Online, Vol. 2011. ERIC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. [71] Melaku Tsedale M., Beeman Angie, Smith David G., and Johnson W. Brad. 2020. Be a better ally. Harv. Bus. Rev. 98, 6 (2020), 135139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. [72] Mendez Christopher, Padala Hema Susmita, Steine-Hanson Zoe, Hilderbrand Claudia, Horvath Amber, Hill Charles, Simpson Logan, Patil Nupoor, Sarma Anita, and Burnett Margaret. 2018. Open source barriers to entry, revisited: A sociotechnical perspective. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering. 10041015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. [73] Menezes Álvaro and Prikladnicki Rafael. 2018. Diversity in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. 4548.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. [74] Molleman Eric and Slomp Jannes. 2006. The impact of team and work characteristics on team functioning. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Industr. 16, 1 (2006), 115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. [75] Moreno Lourdes, González Yolanda, and Martínez Paloma. 2014. Women in computer science: Survey on the perception of the women’s participation in STEM studies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. 12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. [76] Mourão Erica, Pimentel João Felipe, Murta Leonardo, Kalinowski Marcos, Mendes Emilia, and Wohlin Claes. 2020. On the performance of hybrid search strategies for systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 123 (2020), 106294.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. [77] Mullangi Samyukta and Jagsi Reshma. 2019. Imposter syndrome: Treat the cause, not the symptom. Jama 322, 5 (2019), 403404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. [78] Munir Hussan, Wnuk Krzysztof, and Runeson Per. 2016. Open innovation in software engineering: A systematic mapping study. Empir. Softw. Eng. 21, 2 (2016), 684723.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. [79] Nafus Dawn. 2012. “Patches don’t have gender”: What is not open in open source software. New Media Societ. 14, 4 (2012), 669683.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. [80] Nakakoji Kumiyo, Yamamoto Yasuhiro, Nishinaka Yoshiyuki, Kishida Kouichi, and Ye Yunwen. 2002. Evolution patterns of open-source software systems and communities. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution. ACM, 7685.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. [81] Østergaard Christian R., Timmermans Bram, and Kristinsson Kari. 2011. Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation. Res. Polic. 40, 3 (2011), 500509.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. [82] Overflow Stack. 2018. Stack overflow annual developer survey. Retrieved from https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. [83] Padala Susmita Hema, Mendez Christopher John, Dias Luiz Felipe, Steinmacher Igor, Hanson Zoe Steine, Hilderbrand Claudia, Amber Horvath, Charles Hill, Logan Dale Simpson, Margaret Burnett, et al. 2022. How gender-biased tools shape newcomer experiences in OSS projects. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 48, 1 (2022), 241–259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. [84] Pantic Katarina and Clarke-Midura Jody. 2019. Factors that influence retention of women in the computer science major: A systematic literature review. J. Wom. Minor. Sci. Eng. 25, 2 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. [85] Petersen Kai, Feldt Robert, Mujtaba Shahid, and Mattsson Michael. 2008. Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) 12. 110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  86. [86] Petersen Kai, Vakkalanka Sairam, and Kuzniarz Ludwik. 2015. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Inf. Softw. Technol. 64 (2015), 118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. [87] Pinto Gustavo Henrique Lima, Filho Fernando Figueira, Steinmacher Igor, and Gerosa Marco Aurélio. 2017. Training software engineers using open-source software: The professors’ perspective. In Proceedings of the IEEE 30th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T). IEEE, 117121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. [88] Ramakrishnan Aditi, Sambuco Dana, and Jagsi Reshma. 2014. Women’s participation in the medical profession: Insights from experiences in Japan, Scandinavia, Russia, and Eastern Europe. J. Wom. Health 23, 11 (2014), 927934.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  89. [89] Roberts Jeffrey A., Hann Il-Horn, and Slaughter Sandra A.. 2006. Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Manag. Sci. 52, 7 (2006), 984999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. [90] Robles Gregorio, Reina Laura Arjona, Serebrenik Alexander, Vasilescu Bogdan, and González-Barahona Jesús M.. 2014. FLOSS 2013: A survey dataset about free software contributors: Challenges for curating, sharing, and combining. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 396399.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. [91] Robles Gregorio, Reina Laura Arjona, González-Barahona Jesús M., and Domínguez Santiago Dueñas. 2016. Women in free/libre/open source software: The situation in the 2010s. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, 163173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  92. [92] Robson Neill. 2018. Diversity and decorum in open source communities. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 986987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. [93] Rodríguez-Pérez Gema, Nadri Reza, and Nagappan Meiyappan. 2021. Perceived diversity in software engineering: A systematic literature review. Empir. Softw. Eng. 26, 5 (2021), 138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. [94] Ryan Richard and Deci Edward. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Amer. Psychol. 55, 1 (2000), 68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  95. [95] Sharan F.. 2016. ASF Committer Diversity Survey. Retrieved from https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/ASF+Committer+Diversity+Survey+-+2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. [96] Silva Fernando Selleri, Soares Felipe Santana Furtado, Peres Angela Lima, Azevedo Ivanildo Monteiro de, Vasconcelos Ana Paula L. F., Kamei Fernando Kenji, and Meira Silvio Romero de Lemos. 2015. Using CMMI together with agile software development: A systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 58 (2015), 2043.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  97. [97] Silva Jefferson, Wiese Igor, German Daniel M., Treude Christoph, Gerosa Marco Aurélio, and Steinmacher Igor. 2020. A theory of the engagement in open source projects via summer of code programs. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 421431.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. [98] Silva Jefferson De Oliveira, Wiese Igor Scaliante, German Daniel M., Steinmacher Igor Fabio, and Gerosa Marco Aurélio. 2017. How long and how much: What to expect from Summer of Code participants? In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE, 6979.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  99. [99] Silva Jefferson O., Wiese Igor, German Daniel M., Treude Christoph, Gerosa Marco A., and Steinmacher Igor. 2020. Google Summer of Code: Student motivations and contributions. J. Syst. Softw. 162 (2020), 110487.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. [100] Silveira Karina Kohl and Prikladnicki Rafael. 2019. A systematic mapping study of diversity in software engineering: A perspective from the agile methodologies. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). IEEE, 710.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  101. [101] Singh Anil, Bhadauria Vikram, Jain Anurag, and Gurung Anil. 2013. Role of gender, self-efficacy, anxiety and testing formats in learning spreadsheets. Comput. Hum. Beh. 29, 3 (2013), 739746.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  102. [102] Spencer Donna. 2009. Card Sorting: Designing Usable Categories. Rosenfeld Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. [103] Spichkova Maria, Schmidt Heinz, and Trubiani Catia. 2017. Role of women in software architecture: An attempt at a systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Software Architecture. 3134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  104. [104] Steinmacher Igor, Conte Tayana, Gerosa Marco Aurélio, and Redmiles David. 2015. Social barriers faced by newcomers placing their first contribution in open source software projects. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 13791392.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  105. [105] Steinmacher Igor, Conte Tayana Uchoa, Treude Christoph, and Gerosa Marco Aurélio. 2016. Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering. 273284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  106. [106] Terrell Josh, Kofink Andrew, Middleton Justin, Rainear Clarissa, Murphy-Hill Emerson, Parnin Chris, and Stallings Jon. 2017. Gender differences and bias in open source: Pull request acceptance of women versus men. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 3 (2017), e111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  107. [107] Tourani Parastou, Adams Bram, and Serebrenik Alexander. 2017. Code of conduct in open source projects. In Proceedings of the IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 2433.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  108. [108] Trainer Erik H., Chaihirunkarn Chalalai, Kalyanasundaram Arun, and Herbsleb James D.. 2014. Community code engagements: Summer of Code & hackathons for community building in scientific software. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Supporting Group Work. 111121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  109. [109] Trinkenreich Bianca, Guizani Mariam, Wiese Igor, Sarma Anita, and Steinmacher Igor. 2020. Hidden figures: Roles and pathways of successful OSS contributors. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 4, 180 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. [110] Trinkenreich Bianca, Guizani Mariam, Wiese Igor Scaliante, Conte Tayana, Gerosa Marco, Sarma Anita, and Steinmacher Igor. 2021. Pots of gold at the end of the rainbow: What is success for open source contributors. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (2021). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  111. [111] Turkle Sherry. 2005. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  112. [112] Vasilescu Bogdan, Filkov Vladimir, and Serebrenik Alexander. 2015. Perceptions of diversity on GitHub: A user survey. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. 5056.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. [113] Vasilescu Bogdan, Posnett Daryl, Ray Baishakhi, Brand Mark G. J. van den, Serebrenik Alexander, Devanbu Premkumar, and Filkov Vladimir. 2015. Gender and tenure diversity in GitHub teams. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 37893798.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  114. [114] Krogh Georg Von, Haefliger Stefan, Spaeth Sebastian, and Wallin Martin W.. 2012. Carrots and rainbows: Motivation and social practice in open source software development. MIS Quart. 36, 2 (2012), 649676.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  115. [115] Krogh Georg Von, Spaeth Sebastian, and Lakhani Karim R.. 2003. Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: A case study. Res. Polic. 32, 7 (2003), 12171241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  116. [116] Wu Deborah J., Park Jiyoung, and Dasgupta Nilanjana. 2020. The influence of male faces on stereotype activation among women in STEM: An ERP investigation. Biol. Psychol. 156 (2020), 107948.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  117. [117] Wurzelová Pavlina, Palomba Fabio, and Bacchelli Alberto. 2019. Characterizing women (not) contributing to open-source. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering (GE). IEEE, 58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  118. [118] Ye Yunwen and Kishida Kouichi. 2003. Toward an understanding of the motivation of open source software developers. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 419429.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  119. [119] Zlotnick Frances. 2017. GitHub Open Source Survey 2017. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

PRIMARY STUDIES

  1. [PS1] Vasilescu Bogdan, Filkov Vladimir, and Serebrenik Alexander. 2015. Perceptions of diversity on GitHub: A user survey. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. IEEE, 5056.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [PS2] Mani A. and Mukherjee Rebeka. 2016. A study of FOSS 2013 survey data using clustering techniques. In Proceedings of the IEEE International WIE Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (WIECON-ECE). IEEE, 118121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [PS3] Imtiaz Nasif, Middleton Justin, Chakraborty Joymallya, Robson Neill, Bai Gina, and Murphy-Hill Emerson. 2019. Investigating the effects of gender bias on GitHub. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 700711.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [PS4] Terrell Josh, Kofink Andrew, Middleton Justin, Rainear Clarissa, Murphy-Hill Emerson, Parnin Chris, and Stallings Jon. 2017. Gender differences and bias in open source: Pull request acceptance of women versus men. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 3, e111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [PS5] Robles Gregorio, Reina Laura Arjona, González-Barahona Jesús M., and Domínguez Santiago Dueñas. 2016. Women in free/libre/open source software: The situation in the 2010s. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, 163173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [PS6] Canedo Edna Dias, Bonifácio Rodrigo, Okimoto Márcio Vinicius, Serebrenik Alexander, Pinto Gustavo, and Monteiro Eduardo. 2020. Work practices and perceptions from women core developers in OSS communities. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). 111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [PS7] Wurzelová Pavlina, Palomba Fabio, and Bacchelli Alberto. 2019. Characterizing women (Not) contributing to open-source. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering (GE). IEEE, 58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [PS8] Singh Vandana. 2019. Women participation in open source software communities. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Software Architecture. 9499.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. [PS9] Bosu Amiangshu and Sultana Kazi Zakia. 2019. Diversity and inclusion in open source software (OSS) projects: Where do we stand? In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). IEEE, 111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [S10] Kofink Andrew. 2015. Contributions of the under-appreciated: Gender bias in an open-source ecology. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Systems, Programming, Languages and Applications: Software for Humanity. 8384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [130] Trinkenreich Bianca, Guizani Mariam, Wiese Igor, Sarma Anita, and Steinmacher Igor. 2020. Hidden figures: Roles and pathways of successful OSS contributors. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 4, 180 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [PS12] Izquierdo Daniel, Huesman Nicole, Serebrenik Alexander, and Robles Gregorio. 2018. OpenStack gender diversity report. IEEE Softw. 36, 1 (2018), 2833.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. [PS13] Paul Rajshakhar, Bosu Amiangshu, and Sultana Kazi Zakia. 2019. Expressions of sentiments during code reviews: male vs. female. In Proceedings of the IEEE 26th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 2637.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [PS14] Huang Yu, Leach Kevin, Sharafi Zohreh, McKay Nicholas, Santander Tyler, and Weimer Westley. 2020. Biases and differences in code review using medical imaging and eye-tracking: Genders, humans, and machines. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 456468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [PS15] Asri Ikram El and Kerzazi Noureddine. 2019. Where are females in OSS projects? Socio technical interactions. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises. Springer, 308319.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [PS16] Prana Gede Artha Azriadi, Ford Denae, Rastogi Ayushi, Lo David, Purandare Rahul, and Nagappan Nachiappan. 2021. Including everyone, everywhere: Understanding opportunities and challenges of geographic gender-inclusion in OSS. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (2021).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [PS17] Vasilescu Bogdan, Serebrenik Alexander, and Filkov Vladimir. 2015. A data set for social diversity studies of GitHub teams. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE, 514517.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [PS18] Balali Sogol, Steinmacher Igor, Annamalai Umayal, Sarma Anita, and Gerosa Marco Aurelio. 2018. Newcomers’ barriers... is that all? an analysis of mentors’ and newcomers’ barriers in OSS projects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 27, 3–6 (2018), 679714.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [PS19] Parra Esteban, Haiduc Sonia, and James Rebecca. 2016. Making a difference: An overview of humanitarian free open source systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C). IEEE, 731733.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. [PS20] Moon Eunyoung. 2013. Gendered patterns of politeness in free/libre open source software development. In Proceedings of the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 31683177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [PS21] Lee Amanda and Carver Jeffrey C.. 2019. FLOSS Participants’ perceptions about gender and inclusiveness: A survey. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 677687.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [PS22] Nafus Dawn. 2012. “Patches don’t have gender”: What is not open in open source software. New Media & Society 14, 4 (2012), 669683.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [PS23] Kuechler Victor, Gilbertson Claire, and Jensen Carlos. 2012. Gender differences in early free and open source software joining process. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, 7893.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [PS24] Calvo Dafne. 2021. The (in) visible barriers to free software: Inequalities in online communities in Spain. Stud. Commun. Sci. 21, 1 (2021), 163–178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [PS25] Parker Shawn W.. 2000. Opening up to open source. Richm. J. Law Technol. 6, 5 (2000), 24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [PS26] Vedres Balazs and Vasarhelyi Orsolya. 2019. Gendered behavior as a disadvantage in open source software development. EPJ Data Sci. 8, 1 (2019), 25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [PS27] Qiu Huilian Sophie, Li Yucen Lily, Padala Susmita, Sarma Anita, and Vasilescu Bogdan. 2019. The signals that potential contributors look for when choosing open-source projects. Proc. ACM Hum.-comput. Interact. 3, CSCW (2019), 129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. [PS28] Powell Whitney E., Hunsinger D. Scott, and Medlin B. Dawn. 2010. Gender differences within the open source community: An exploratory study. J. Inf. Technol. 21, 4 (2010), 2937.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [PS29] Mendez Christopher, Padala Hema Susmita, Steine-Hanson Zoe, Hilderbrand Claudia, Horvath Amber, Hill Charles, Simpson Logan, Patil Nupoor, Sarma Anita, and Burnett Margaret. 2018. Open source barriers to entry, revisited: A sociotechnical perspective. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering. 10041015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [PS30] Mendez Christopher, Sarma Anita, and Burnett Margaret. 2018. Gender in open source software: What the tools tell. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering. 2124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. [PS31] Padala Susmita Hema, Mendez Christopher John, Dias Luiz Felipe, Steinmacher Igor, Hanson Zoe Steine, Hilderbrand Claudia, Horvath Amber, Hill Charles, Simpson Logan Dale, Burnett Margaret, et al. 2020. How gender-biased tools shape newcomer experiences in OSS projects. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [PS32] Wang Zhendong, Wang Yi, and Redmiles David. 2018. Competence-confidence gap: A threat to female developers’ contribution on GitHub. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). IEEE, 8190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [PS33] Tourani Parastou, Adams Bram, and Serebrenik Alexander. 2017. Code of conduct in open source projects. In Proceedings of the IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 2433.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [PS34] Robson Neill. 2018. Diversity and decorum in open source communities. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 986987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [PS35] Vasilescu Bogdan, Posnett Daryl, Ray Baishakhi, Brand Mark G. J. van den, Serebrenik Alexander, Devanbu Premkumar, and Filkov Vladimir. 2015. Gender and tenure diversity in GitHub teams. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 37893798.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [PS36] Catolino Gemma, Palomba Fabio, Tamburri Damian A., Serebrenik Alexander, and Ferrucci Filomena. 2019. Gender diversity and women in software teams: How do they affect community smells? In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). IEEE, 1120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. [PS37] Fossatti Mariana. 2020. Gender, diversity, and inclusion in open source communities. XRDS: Crossr., ACM Mag. Students 26, 4 (2020), 4648.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. [PS38] Qiu Yixin, Stewart Katherine J., and Bartol Kathryn M.. 2010. Joining and socialization in open source women’s groups: An exploratory study of KDE-Women. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, 239251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. [PS39] Barcomb Ann, Stol Klaas-Jan, Fitzgerald Brian, and Riehle Dirk. 2022. Managing episodic volunteers in free/libre/open source software communities. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 48, 1 (2022), 260–277. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. [PS40] Gallego M. Dolores, Bueno Salvador, Racero F. José, and Noyes Jan. 2015. Open source software: The effects of training on acceptance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 49 (2015), 390399.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. [PS41] Beach Jesse. 2014. Open source, open heart. XRDS: Crossr., ACM Mag. Students 20, 4 (2014), 2427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [PS42] Singh Vandana. 2019. Women-only spaces of open source. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering (GE). IEEE Computer Society, 1720.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [PS43] Canedo Edna Dias, Tives Heloise Acco, Marioti Madianita Bogo, Fagundes Fabiano, and Cerqueira José Antonio Siqueira de. 2019. Barriers faced by women in software development projects. Information 10, 10 (2019), 309.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [PS44] Zacchiroli Stefano. 2020. Gender differences in public code contributions: A 50-year perspective. IEEE Softw. 38, 2 (2020), 4550.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. [PS45] Robles Gregorio, Reina Laura Arjona, Serebrenik Alexander, Vasilescu Bogdan, and González-Barahona Jesús M.. 2014. FLOSS 2013: A survey dataset about free software contributors: Challenges for curating, sharing, and combining. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 396399.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. [PS46] Qiu Huilian Sophie, Nolte Alexander, Brown Anita, Serebrenik Alexander, and Vasilescu Bogdan. 2019. Going farther together: The impact of social capital on sustained participation in open source. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’19). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 688699. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [PS47] Singh Vandana and Brandon William. 2019. Open source software community inclusion initiatives to support women participation. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, 6879.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. [PS48] Singh Vandana and Brandon William. 2020. How do the women of Open Source support each other? In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. [PS49] Vasilescu Bogdan, Capiluppi Andrea, and Serebrenik Alexander. 2014. Gender, representation and online participation: A quantitative study. Interact. Comput. 26, 5 (2014), 488511.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. [PS50] David Paul A. and Shapiro Joseph S.. 2008. Community-based production of open-source software: What do we know about the developers who participate? Inf. Econ. Polic. 20, 4 (2008), 364398.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. [PS51] Gerosa Marco, Wiese Igor, Trinkenreich Bianca, Link Georg, Robles Gregorio, Treude Christoph, Steinmacher Igor, and Sarma Anita. 2021. The shifting sands of motivation: Revisiting what drives contributors in open source. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 10461058.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Women’s Participation in Open Source Software: A Survey of the Literature

        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

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
          ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology  Volume 31, Issue 4
          October 2022
          867 pages
          ISSN:1049-331X
          EISSN:1557-7392
          DOI:10.1145/3543992
          • Editor:
          • Mauro Pezzè
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          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: 22 August 2022
          • Online AM: 23 April 2022
          • Accepted: 1 January 2022
          • Revised: 1 December 2021
          • Received: 1 May 2021
          Published in tosem Volume 31, Issue 4

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • survey
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Full Text

        View this article in Full Text.

        View Full Text

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format