arxiv: 2604.16305 · v1 · submitted 2026-01-25 · 💻 cs.SE

Recognition: no theorem link

Political and Ideological Pressure in Software Engineering Research: The Case of DEI Backlash

Sonja M. Hyrynsalmi , Chris Brown , Alexander Serebrenik , Sebastian Baltes , Letizia Jaccheri

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 10:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE

keywords software engineering researchpolitical pressureideological influenceDEI backlashdiversity equity inclusionresearch ecosystemcommunity surveyposition paper

0 comments

The pith

Political and ideological pressures are reshaping software engineering research on diversity topics across national, institutional, and personal levels.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates how recent political shifts, especially backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion work, are influencing software engineering research despite the field's self-image as neutral. It draws on community survey responses and specific case examples to trace effects at the macro level of funding and government guidance, the meso level of organizations and venues, and the micro level of individual researchers and projects. A sympathetic reader would care if these pressures are steering topic selection, limiting funding access, and altering career decisions in a field that produces widely used technology. The authors close by outlining steps the community could take to respond at each of the three levels.

Core claim

The central claim is that political and ideological pressures operate on the software engineering research ecosystem at macro, meso, and micro levels, as shown by community perceptions captured in survey responses and by documented cases of DEI backlash, and that these pressures require targeted community responses to maintain research breadth.

What carries the argument

The three-level framework of macro (national and global policy), meso (institutional and conference), and micro (individual researcher and project) analysis used to map how pressures reach SE research.

Load-bearing premise

That the survey responses and selected case examples give an accurate and representative view of the pressures without significant selection or response bias.

What would settle it

A large-scale random survey of software engineering researchers that finds no widespread self-reported changes in topic choice, funding success, or publication behavior tied to political or ideological factors.

read the original abstract

Political and ideological pressures shape global research. Recently, these pressures have become particularly visible in research related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Drastic changes in national funding and governmental guidance, especially in the US, have affected the global software engineering research ecosystem. The impacts of these pressures on research are not always direct, as they operate at multiple levels. However, what is clear is that these pressures affect every field, including software engineering (SE), despite the belief that our field is politically and ideologically neutral. In this position paper, we examine cases of political and ideological pressures on the SE research ecosystem. We investigate the community's perceptions of political and ideological pressures by analyzing community survey responses and outlining case examples of DEI backlash in SE research across three levels: macro, meso, and micro. Our research shows how recent political and ideological pressures have affected SE research across these levels, and, as a result, we propose actionable steps for the community to address these issues at different levels.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper flags real political pushback on DEI topics in SE research and maps it to macro-meso-micro levels, but the survey and case details are too thin to judge how representative the picture is.

read the letter

The central point is that recent funding and policy shifts, especially from the US, are affecting what gets studied in software engineering around diversity, equity, and inclusion. The authors lay this out across three scales and end with some community-level suggestions for handling it. That framing is the main addition here; similar position pieces exist elsewhere, but applying it directly to SE gives the local audience something concrete to discuss.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. This position paper claims that recent political and ideological pressures, especially DEI backlash and changes in US funding/guidance, have affected software engineering research at macro, meso, and micro levels. It supports this by analyzing community survey responses and selected case examples, then proposes actionable steps for the SE community to address the issues.

Significance. If the survey data and cases prove representative, the paper addresses a timely topic on external influences on SE research, which is often viewed as apolitical. It could stimulate useful community discussion on research priorities and integrity. However, the lack of methodological transparency substantially reduces its potential significance and utility as a basis for action.

major comments (1)

[Survey and case examples sections] The central claims rest on community survey responses and case examples, yet the manuscript provides no details on survey sample size, response rate, distribution channels, selection criteria, or how cases were chosen (see the sections describing the survey analysis and case examples). Without this information, representativeness cannot be assessed and the observed patterns may reflect self-selection or author bias rather than broader effects on SE research.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction could more clearly distinguish between the position-paper framing and the empirical components (survey + cases) to help readers evaluate the strength of evidence.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful review and the recommendation for major revision. We agree that greater methodological transparency is necessary to strengthen the paper's credibility and utility for the community. We will revise the manuscript to address this concern directly while preserving the position paper's focus on stimulating discussion.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Survey and case examples sections] The central claims rest on community survey responses and case examples, yet the manuscript provides no details on survey sample size, response rate, distribution channels, selection criteria, or how cases were chosen (see the sections describing the survey analysis and case examples). Without this information, representativeness cannot be assessed and the observed patterns may reflect self-selection or author bias rather than broader effects on SE research.

Authors: We accept this critique. The original submission omitted key methodological details, which limits the ability to evaluate the survey and cases. In the revised manuscript we will add: (1) exact sample size and response rate; (2) distribution channels (specific SE mailing lists, conferences, and social media used); (3) participant selection criteria and any screening questions; and (4) the explicit process and criteria used to select the case examples. We will also include a limitations subsection clarifying that the survey was designed to surface perceptions rather than produce statistically representative population estimates. These additions will allow readers to assess potential self-selection bias themselves. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on external survey data and cases, not self-referential reduction

full rationale

The manuscript is a position paper whose central claims derive from community survey responses and selected case examples at macro/meso/micro levels. No equations, fitted parameters, or formal derivations exist. Claims do not reduce to inputs by construction, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation chains. The argument structure is observational and proposes community steps based on reported patterns rather than internal consistency loops. Sampling details are absent, but that affects external validity, not circularity per the defined patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that external political pressures measurably alter research practices in SE, with no free parameters or invented entities introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Software engineering research is subject to political and ideological pressures despite common perceptions of neutrality
Stated directly in the abstract as affecting every field including SE

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5488 in / 1078 out tokens · 23899 ms · 2026-05-16T10:44:01.800499+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Technical Report

2023.FY2024 Budget Request to Congress. Technical Report. National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2024

work page 2023
[2]

Everything You Need to Know About Collision Conference 2025.Kado Networks(2025)

2025. Everything You Need to Know About Collision Conference 2025.Kado Networks(2025). https://www.kadonetworks.com/blog/collision-conference

work page 2025
[3]

Over-the-Hood

2026. “Over-the-Hood” AI Inclusivity Bugs and How 3 AI Product Teams Found and Fixed Them. Inthe ACM Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

work page 2026
[4]

Mike Allen and Sara Fischer. 2025. Exclusive: Meta kills DEI programs. https: //www.axios.com/2025/01/10/meta-dei-programs-employees-trump

work page 2025
[5]

Mike Allen and Sara Fischer. 2025. Read: Meta’s memo to employees rolling back DEI programs. https://www.axios.com/2025/01/10/meta-dei-memo-employees- programs

work page 2025
[6]

Aatish Bhatia, Amy Fan, Jonah Smith, and Irena Hwang. 2025. The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine. InNew York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/02/upshot/trump-science- funding-cuts.html

work page 2025
[7]

Shari Biediger. 2025. Major cybersecurity conference in San Antonio shelved due to ‘challenging’ U.S. policy climate.San Antonio Report(2025)

work page 2025
[8]

Hubert M Blalock Jr. 1960. Social statistics. (1960)

work page 1960
[9]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101. 11https://www.nsf.gov/updates-on-priorities#misinformation

work page 2006
[10]

Margaret Burnett. 2026. Interview with Margaret Burnett, January 3, 2026

work page 2026
[11]

Margaret Burnett, Simone Stumpf, Jamie Macbeth, Stephann Makri, Laura Beck- with, Irwin Kwan, Anicia Peters, and William Jernigan. 2016. GenderMag: A method for evaluating software’s gender inclusiveness.Interacting with Comput- ers28, 6 (2016), 760–787

work page 2016
[12]

Ronnie de Souza Santos, Cleyton Magalhaes, Ann Barcomb, and Mairieli Wessel

work page
[13]

InEuromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications

From Diverse Origins to a DEI Crisis: The Pushback Against Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering. InEuromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. Springer, 174–190

work page
[14]

Andrea Doyle. 2025. Canceled, Moving to Canada: Science Conferences Shun the U.S.Skift Meetings(2025). https://meetings.skift.com/2025/06/03/canceled- moving-to-canada-science-conferences-shun-the-u-s/

work page 2025
[15]

1996.The closed world: Computers and the politics of discourse in Cold War America

Paul N Edwards. 1996.The closed world: Computers and the politics of discourse in Cold War America. MIT press

work page 1996
[16]

Mariam Guizani, Lara Letaw, Margaret Burnett, and Anita Sarma. 2020. Gender Inclusivity as a Quality Requirement: Practices and Pitfalls.IEEE Software37 (2020), 11

work page 2020
[17]

Mariam Guizani, Igor Steinmacher, Jillian Emard, Abrar Fallatah, Margaret Bur- nett, and Anita Sarma. 2022. How to Debug Inclusivity Bugs? A Debugging Process with Information Architecture. InACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, Software Engineering in Society Track (ICSE-SEIS’22). ACM, 1–12

work page 2022
[18]

Moussaoui, Jimena Noa-Guevara, Andrew Ander- son, Puja Agarwal, Jonathan Dodge, and Margaret Burnett

Md Montaser Hamid, Fatima A. Moussaoui, Jimena Noa-Guevara, Andrew Ander- son, Puja Agarwal, Jonathan Dodge, and Margaret Burnett. 2025. Inclusive design of AI’s Explanations: Just for Those Previously Left Out?ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems(Oct. 2025). doi:10.1145/3772074

work page doi:10.1145/3772074 2025
[19]

Jordan, and Ann-Elizabeth Ostrager

Tracy Richelle High, Julia M. Jordan, and Ann-Elizabeth Ostrager. 2025. President Trump Acts to Roll Back DEI Initiatives.Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance(10 February 2025). https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/02/10/ president-trump-acts-to-roll-back-dei-initiatives/

work page 2025
[20]

Sonja Hyrynsalmi, Mary Sánchez-Gordón, Anna Szlavi, and Letizia Jaccheri

work page
[21]

InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering

The Tech DEI Backlash-The Changing Landscape of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 1582–1592

work page
[22]

Hyrynsalmi, Sebastian Baltes, Chris Brown, Rafael Prikladnicki, Gema Rodríguez-Pérez, Alexander Serebrenik, Jocelyn Simmonds, Bianca Trinkenreich, Yi Wang, and Grischa Liebel

Sonja M. Hyrynsalmi et al. 2025. Making Software Development More Diverse and Inclusive: Key Themes, Challenges, and Future Directions.ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.34, 5, Article 134 (May 2025), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3711904

work page doi:10.1145/3711904 2025
[23]

2016.Dark territory: The secret history of cyber war

Fred Kaplan. 2016.Dark territory: The secret history of cyber war. Simon and Schuster

work page 2016
[24]

Sarah Kinbar. 2023. Annual Grace Hopper Celebration conference to leave Orlando due to new Florida laws.Orlando Business Journal(2023)

work page 2023
[25]

Emerson Murphy-Hill, Alberto Elizondo, Ambar Murillo, Marian Harbach, Bog- dan Vasilescu, Delphine Carlson, and Florian Dessloch. 2024. GenderMag Im- proves Discoverability in the Field, Especially for Women. In2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 973–973

work page 2024
[26]

Conor Murray and Molly Bohannon. 2025. Here Are All The Companies Rolling Back DEI. https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/02/13/jamie-dimon- reportedly-says-hell-cut-some-stupid-dei-costs-at-jpmorgan-chase-here-are- all-the-companies-rolling-back-dei/

work page 2025
[27]

Jonathon Schwabish and Judah Axelrod. 2025. NSF Has Canceled More Than 1,500 Grants. Nearly 90 Percent Were Related to DEI.Urban Institute (2025). https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/nsf-has-canceled-more-1500-grants- nearly-90-percent-were-related-dei

work page 2025
[28]

Spencer Foundation. 2025. Updates on our review processes. https://www. spencer.org/news/updates-on-our-review-processes-oct-2025

work page 2025
[29]

Linh Thompson. 2024. Coping with DEI backlash.A vailable at SSRN 4946151 (2024)

work page 2024
[30]

Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Lingyi Zhang, Yun-Han Huang, Claudia Hilderbrand, Zoe Steine-Hanson, and Margaret Burnett. 2019. From gender biases to gender- inclusive design: An empirical investigation. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

work page 2019
[31]

The White House. 2025. Defending Women from Gender Ideology Ex- tremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/20/defending- women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to- the-federal-government/

work page 2025
[32]

The White House. 2025. Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/20/ ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/ Ac- cessed: 2025-02-18

work page 2025
[33]

Mark Zuckerberg. 2025. It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression. https://www.facebook.com/zuck/videos/1525382954801931/

work page arXiv 2025