Advertisement

Where Are Females in OSS Projects? Socio Technical Interactions

  • Ikram El AsriEmail author
  • Noureddine Kerzazi
Conference paper
  • 318 Downloads
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 568)

Abstract

Recent researches provide evidence that women are underrepresented in the field of computer science. It has been reported that less than 10% of Open Source Software (OSS) contributors in GitHub are women. Although related qualitative and quantitative studies point out the gender gap, the technical and social interaction of females within OSS still remain unexplored and largely misunderstood. As a first step towards proposing articulated actions towards diversity and inclusion, we need first to explore the gender gap in terms of activities and interactions. Thus, we propose to answer the questions: where are females in OSS projects? How they evolve? and How they contribute to the sustainability of the OSS social capital?. We particularly focus on building socio-technical networks and analyze them to explain how females contribute and interact in practice. We reflect on interactions’ graphs and examine through a preliminary study, using data from six OSS projects, possible links between existing findings and the directions we suggest for more gender diversity. We found that females are extremely underrepresented within OSS communities, but when they participate they are productive just as males, they evolve following relatively the same patterns than males and remain more involved in projects than males.

Keywords

Gender Diversity Open Source Software Social Network Analysis Socio-Technical interactions 

References

  1. 1.
    Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B.: A framework analysis of the open source software development paradigm (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nafus, D.: ‘Patches don’t have gender’: what is not open in open source software. New Media Soc. 14(4), 669–683 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Steinmacher, I., Chaves, A.P., Conte, T.U., et al.: Preliminary empirical identification of barriers faced by newcomers to Open Source Software projects, pp. 51–60 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vasilescu, B., Posnett, D., Ray, B., et al.: Gender and tenure diversity in GitHub teams. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2015, pp. 3789–3798 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Filippova, A., Trainer, E., Herbsleb, J.D.: From diversity by numbers to diversity as process: supporting inclusiveness in software development teams with brainstorming, pp. 152–163 (2017). %@ 1538638681Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Datausa.io. Demographics of Software DevelopersGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hui, J.S., Farnham, S.D.: Designing for inclusion: supporting gender diversity in independent innovation teams, pp. 71–85 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Imtiaz, N., Middleton, J., Chakraborty, J., et al.: Investigating the effects of gender bias on GitHub (2019)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foucault, M., Palyart, M., Blanc, X., et al.: Impact of developer turnover on quality in open-source software, pp. 829–841 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Reilly Iii, C.A., Caldwell, D.F., Barnett, W.P.: Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Adm. Sci. Q., 21–37 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang, Z., Wang, Y., Redmiles, D.: Competence-confidence gap. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering Software Engineering in Society, ICSE-SEIS 2018, pp. 81–90 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    James, T., Galster, M., Blincoe, K., et al.: What is the perception of female and male software professionals on performance, team dynamics and job satisfaction?: insights from the trenches, pp. 13–22 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mendez, C., Sarma, A., Burnett, M.: Gender in open source software: what the tools tell, pp. 21–24 (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Terrell, J., Kofink, A., Middleton, J., et al.: Gender differences and bias in open source: pull request acceptance of women versus men. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 3, e111 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vasilescu, B., Capiluppi, A., Serebrenik, A.: Gender, representation and online participation: a quantitative study of stackoverflow, pp. 332–338 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, W., Nie, L., Jiang, H., et al.: Developer social networks in software engineering: construction, analysis, and applications. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 57(12), 1–23 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dabbish, L., Stuart, C., Tsay, J., et al.: Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In: The conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 1277–1286 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joblin, M., Apel, S., Mauerer, W.: Evolutionary trends of developer coordination: a network approach. Empirical Softw. Eng. 22(4), 2050–2094 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Toral, S.L., Martínez-Torres, M.R., Barrero, F.: Analysis of virtual communities supporting OSS projects using social network analysis. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(3), 296–303 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robles, G., Gonzalez-Barahona, J.M., Herraiz, I.: Evolution of the core team of developers in libre software projects. In: 2009 6th IEEE International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, pp. 167–170 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kalliamvakou, E., Gousios, G., Blincoe, K., et al.: The promises and perils of mining GitHub, pp. 92–101 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin, B., Serebrenik, A.: Recognizing gender of stack overflow users, pp. 425–429 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karimi, F., Wagner, C., Lemmerich, F., et al.: Inferring gender from names on the web: a comparative evaluation of gender detection methods, pp. 53–54 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Higher School for Computer Science and System Analysis (ENSIAS)Mohammed V UniversityRabatMorocco

Personalised recommendations