pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20866 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-25 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.SE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Beyond the Binary: Motivations, Challenges, and Strategies of Transgender and Non-binary Software Engineering Students

Isabella Gra{\ss}l
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 00:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.SE
keywords transgendernon-binarysoftware engineeringgender identityinclusivitymental healthrepresentationremote work
0
0 comments X

The pith

Transgender and non-binary software engineering students enter the field mainly for remote work flexibility and to build more inclusive technologies, yet face mental health strains from societal insults and lack of representation even when

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

This paper uses interviews with 13 transgender and non-binary software engineering students from around the world to map their entry into the discipline and the hurdles they meet. It shows that gender identity shapes their choices indirectly through preferences for remote work and a wish to create technology that serves a wider range of people. Participants report no direct discrimination inside their universities, but they describe repeated verbal insults, judgment, and hostility tied to wider social norms and low visibility of people like them. These experiences erode mental health yet do not deter the students from completing their degrees. The authors conclude that universities must add structural support and visible representation to keep these students on track.

Core claim

Gender identity plays an indirect role in the decision to pursue software engineering. Key factors include the appeal of remote work and a personal desire to create more inclusive technologies. Although the participants did not report direct discrimination within their universities, many described experiencing verbal insults, judgment, intolerance, and hostility, all of which negatively impacted their mental health. These challenges often stem from socio-cultural norms and a lack of representation. Despite these obstacles, the students remain committed to their choice of study but call for greater institutional support, structural changes, and increased representation.

What carries the argument

Semi-structured interviews with 13 global transgender and non-binary software engineering students that trace how gender identity indirectly steers field choice while socio-cultural hostility affects mental health.

If this is right

  • Universities should provide concrete institutional support such as counseling and inclusive policies.
  • Structural changes in curriculum and campus culture are required to reduce hostility.
  • Greater visible representation of transgender and non-binary people in software engineering programs would help current students.
  • These steps can improve retention for students regardless of gender identity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The preference for remote work may point to distributed software teams as one practical route to greater participation.
  • Reducing societal insults could indirectly raise the number of gender-minority contributors to software design.
  • If representation increases, the software produced might address a wider set of user needs as the abstract suggests.

Load-bearing premise

The self-selected sample of 13 global interviewees accurately captures the range of experiences of transgender and non-binary software engineering students and that their self-reported accounts are not substantially shaped by social-desirability or recall bias.

What would settle it

A larger study using random or stratified sampling that finds direct discrimination inside universities or primary motivations unrelated to remote work and inclusivity would contradict the reported pattern.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20866 by Isabella Gra{\ss}l.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Thematic Map of Experiences of Transgender and Non-binary Students in Software Engineering. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

When software is designed by people from diverse identities and experiences, it is more likely to be inclusive and address a broader range of user needs. However, for transgender and non-binary students in software engineering, the path to becoming such creators may be marked by unique challenges. While existing research explores gender minorities in professional software engineering, limited attention has been given to their educational journey, a key phase for ensuring equal opportunities and preventing exclusion in the tech workforce. This study aims to address this gap by investigating the experiences of transgender and non-binary students in software engineering, with a particular focus on their motivations for entering the field, the obstacles they encounter, and potential strategies for fostering greater inclusivity within their academic environments. Based on 13 semi-structured interviews with transgender and non-binary students across the globe, we found that gender identity plays an indirect role in their decision to pursue software engineering. Key factors include the appeal of remote work and a personal desire to create more inclusive technologies. Although the participants did not report direct discrimination within their universities, many described experiencing verbal insults, judgment, intolerance, and hostility, all of which negatively impacted their mental health. These challenges often stem from socio-cultural norms and a lack of representation. Despite these obstacles, the students remain committed to their choice of study but call for greater institutional support, structural changes, and increased representation. From these findings, we suggest concrete steps to support students, regardless of gender identity.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports on a qualitative study using 13 semi-structured interviews with transgender and non-binary software engineering students recruited globally. It claims that gender identity plays an indirect role in field choice, driven by remote-work flexibility and a desire to build inclusive technologies; participants reported no direct university discrimination but described verbal insults, judgment, and hostility rooted in socio-cultural norms that harmed mental health; students remain committed yet call for institutional support, structural changes, and greater representation, leading to suggested concrete steps for inclusivity.

Significance. If the reported patterns hold beyond the sample, the work supplies primary interview data on an under-studied population in computing education, documenting motivations and non-university sources of stress that could inform retention policies and curriculum design. The grounding in new transcripts rather than prior models is a clear strength, though the absence of quantification or triangulation limits claims about prevalence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods (and abstract): the central claim that gender identity plays only an indirect role and that universities show no direct discrimination rests on thematic analysis of 13 self-selected interviews. Without reported saturation checks, member validation, or non-respondent comparison, selection bias (individuals already engaged with identity topics) cannot be ruled out and directly affects the representativeness of the reported absence of institutional discrimination and the emphasis on remote-work appeal.
  2. [Results] Results: the finding that challenges 'often stem from socio-cultural norms and a lack of representation' rather than university settings is presented as a key distinction, yet the manuscript provides no explicit coding scheme, inter-rater reliability metric, or disconfirming-case analysis that would allow readers to assess whether this distinction is robust or an artifact of question framing and recall bias.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and discussion could more explicitly quantify the sample limitations (n=13, self-selected, global but unspecified geographic distribution) when stating implications for 'students, regardless of gender identity.'
  2. [Methods] Participant demographics (age range, year of study, specific gender identities) are referenced but not tabulated; a summary table would improve transparency without lengthening the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed each point and provide point-by-point responses below, indicating the revisions we will incorporate to improve transparency and rigor while preserving the integrity of our qualitative findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods (and abstract): the central claim that gender identity plays only an indirect role and that universities show no direct discrimination rests on thematic analysis of 13 self-selected interviews. Without reported saturation checks, member validation, or non-respondent comparison, selection bias (individuals already engaged with identity topics) cannot be ruled out and directly affects the representativeness of the reported absence of institutional discrimination and the emphasis on remote-work appeal.

    Authors: We acknowledge that our sample of 13 self-selected participants limits generalizability and that selection bias is a valid concern for any qualitative study relying on online recruitment through identity-focused communities. We will revise the Methods section to explicitly report that thematic saturation was assessed and reached after the tenth interview, with the final three interviews yielding no new codes or themes. We will also expand the recruitment description to detail the use of targeted social media posts, university LGBTQ+ networks, and snowball sampling, and add a dedicated paragraph in the Limitations section discussing self-selection effects and their potential influence on reports of university experiences. In the abstract and discussion, we will rephrase claims to emphasize patterns observed within the sample rather than broader assertions, while retaining the finding that participants described indirect rather than direct institutional discrimination. These changes address the concern without altering the core data. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results: the finding that challenges 'often stem from socio-cultural norms and a lack of representation' rather than university settings is presented as a key distinction, yet the manuscript provides no explicit coding scheme, inter-rater reliability metric, or disconfirming-case analysis that would allow readers to assess whether this distinction is robust or an artifact of question framing and recall bias.

    Authors: We agree that additional transparency is required to allow readers to evaluate the distinction between socio-cultural and institutional sources of challenge. In the revised Results and Methods sections, we will provide a detailed account of the thematic analysis process, including the initial codebook (deductive codes drawn from the semi-structured interview guide plus inductive codes that emerged), and include representative excerpts for both confirming and disconfirming cases regarding university settings. Although the analysis was performed by a single researcher using reflexive memoing and peer debriefing rather than multiple coders, we will explicitly note the absence of inter-rater reliability statistics as a limitation. The complete coding scheme and additional disconfirming examples will be supplied as supplementary material. These additions will enable independent assessment of whether the reported distinction reflects the data or question framing. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: findings derived directly from new interview data

full rationale

The paper presents a qualitative study based on 13 new semi-structured interviews with transgender and non-binary software engineering students. Its central claims about motivations (remote work appeal, desire for inclusive tech), challenges (socio-cultural insults rather than direct university discrimination), and strategies are reported as emerging from thematic analysis of these transcripts. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-cited uniqueness theorems are present that would reduce results to inputs by construction. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks because the reported patterns are explicitly tied to the collected data rather than prior models or equations from the same authors.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard qualitative social-science assumptions about the value of self-reported experience and thematic coding; no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc mathematical constructs are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Self-reported accounts from semi-structured interviews can reliably surface motivations and perceived challenges
    Invoked throughout the methods and findings sections as the basis for all reported themes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5559 in / 1339 out tokens · 32459 ms · 2026-05-15T00:51:42.114992+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Khaled Albusays, Pernille Bjorn, Laura Dabbish, Denae Ford, Emerson Murphy- Hill, Alexander Serebrenik, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2021. The Diversity Crisis in Software Development.IEEE Software38, 2 (March 2021), 19–25

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Nic Rider

    Florence Ashley, Shari Brightly-Brown, and G. Nic Rider. 2024. Beyond the Trans/Cis Binary: Introducing New Terms Will Enrich Gender Research.Nature 630, 8016 (June 2024), 293–295

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    American Psychological Association. 2018. Defining Transgender Terms.Monitor on Psychology8 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Atherton, RamÓn S

    Timothy J. Atherton, RamÓn S. Barthelemy, Wouter Deconinck, Michael L. Falk, Savannah Garmon, Elena Long, Monica Plisch, Elizabeth H. Simmons, and Kyle Reeves. 2016. LGBT Climate in Physics: Building an Inclusive Community. American Physical Society(2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Brandon Bakka, Vivian Chou, Jeffrey Marchioni, Cassandra Prince, Gabriella Sugerman, Ria Upreti, Patricia Clayton, and Maura Borrego. 2021. Queering Engineering Through a Student Driven LGBTQIA+ Reading Group (Experience). InASEE Annual Conference Exposition

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Janusan Baskararajah, Lei Zhang, and Andriy Miranskyy. 2021. Term Interre- lations and Trends in Software Engineering.Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering(Aug. 2021), 1471–1474. arXiv:2108.09529

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Bego and Joshua C

    Campbell R. Bego and Joshua C. Nwokeji. 2021. Diversity and Inclusion in Engineering and Computing: A Scoping Review of Recent FIE Papers. In2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–9

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Beischel, Zach C

    Will J. Beischel, Zach C. Schudson, Rhea Ashley Hoskin, and Sari M. van Anders

    work page

  9. [9]

    The Gender/Sex 3\times 3: Measuring and Categorizing Gender/Sex beyond Binaries.Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity10, 3 (2023), 355

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Stefanie Betz and Birgit Penzenstadler. 2025. With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: The Role of Software Engineers.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology34, 5 (June 2025), 1–21

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

    Diana Bilimoria and Abigail J. Stewart. 2009. " Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell": The Academic Climate for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Faculty in Science and Engineering.nwsa Journal21, 2 (2009), 85–103

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    Kelly Blincoe, Olga Springer, and Michal R. Wrobel. 2019. Perceptions of Gender Diversity’s Impact on Mood in Software Development Teams.IEEE Software36, 5 (Sept. 2019), 51–56

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Kristin Boudreau, David DiBiasio, Paula Quinn, and Zoe Reidinger. 2018. Ex- ploring Inclusive Spaces for LGBTQ Engineering Students. In2018 CoNECD-The Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing Diversity Conference

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    2012.Thematic Analysis.American Psycho- logical Association

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012.Thematic Analysis.American Psycho- logical Association

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    Carolyn S Brinkworth. 2016. From Chilly Climate to Warm Reception: Experi- ences and Good Practices for Supporting LGBTQ Students in STEM. (2016)

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Madison W Call and Rod D Roscoe. 2023. Transgender Inclusive and Affirming Design in Computing.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting(2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Edna Dias Canedo, Fabiana Mendes, Anderson Cerqueira, Marcio Okimoto, Gus- tavo Pinto, and Rodrigo Bonifacio. 2021. Breaking One Barrier at a Time: How Women Developers Cope in a Men-Dominated Industry. InBrazilian Symposium on Software Engineering. ACM, Joinville Brazil, 378–387

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Edna Dias Canedo, Larissa Soares, Geovana Ramos Sousa Silva, Verônica Souza Dos Santos, and Fabiana Freitas Mendes. 2023. Do You See What Happens around You? Men’s Perceptions of Gender Inequality in Software Engineering. InProceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    J. C. Carver, H. Muccini, B. Penzenstadler, R. Prikladnicki, A. Serebrenik, and T. Zimmermann. 2021. Behavioral Science and Diversity in Software Engineering. IEEE Software38, 2 (March 2021), 107–112

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Casey, Sari L

    Logan S. Casey, Sari L. Reisner, Mary G. Findling, Robert J. Blendon, John M. Benson, Justin M. Sayde, and Carolyn Miller. 2019. Discrimination in the United States: Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Americans. Health Services Research54, S2 (Dec. 2019), 1454–1466

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    AM Aramati Casper, Rebecca A Atadero, and Linda C Fuselier. 2022. Revealing the Queer-Spectrum in STEM through Robust Demographic Data Collection in Undergraduate Engineering and Computer Science Courses at Four Institutions. Plos one17, 3 (2022), e0264267

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Tamburri, Alexander Serebrenik, and Filomena Ferrucci

    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?. In2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). IEEE, Montreal, QC, Canada, 11–20

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Lombard, Fasika Hailu, Linh N

    Sapna Cheryan, Ella J. Lombard, Fasika Hailu, Linh N. H. Pham, and Katherine Weltzien. 2024. Global Patterns of Gender Disparities in STEM and Explanations for Their Persistence.Nat Rev Psychol(Nov. 2024), 1–14

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Daniela Damian, Kelly Blincoe, Denae Ford, Alexander Serebrenik, and Zainab Masood. 2024. Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering: Best Practices and Insights

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Ronnie de Souza Santos, Cleyton V. C. de Magalhães, and Paul Ralph. 2023. Benefits and Limitations of Remote Work to LGBTQIA+ Software Professionals. In2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). 48–57

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Ronnie De Souza Santos and Kiev Gama. 2024. Hidden Populations in Software Engineering: Challenges, Lessons Learned, and Opportunities. InProceedings of the 1st IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Methodological Issues with Empirical Studies in Software Engineering. ACM, Lisbon Portugal, 58–63

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

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

    work page

  28. [28]

    InSoftware Engineering and Advanced Applications, Davide Taibi and Darja Smite (Eds.)

    From Diverse Origins to a DEI Crisis: The Pushback Against Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering. InSoftware Engineering and Advanced Applications, Davide Taibi and Darja Smite (Eds.). Vol. 16083. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 174–190

    work page

  29. [29]

    Ronnie de Souza Santos, Brody Stuart-Verner, and Cleyton VC de Magalhaes. 2023. Diversity in Software Engineering: A Survey about Scientists from Underrepre- sented Groups. In2023 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). IEEE, 161–166

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Ronnie de Souza Santos, Brody Stuart-Verner, and Cleyton Magalhães. 2023. What Do Transgender Software Professionals Say about a Career in the Software Industry?IEEE Software(2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Shayna Earle, Madison McDonald, Esra Bengizi, and Kim Jones. 2024. Will I Fit? The Impact of Social and Identity Determinants on Teamwork in Engineering Education.Frontiers in Education9 (Oct. 2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Shayna Earle, Madison McDonald, Esra Bengizi, and Kim S. Jones. 2024. Will I Fit? The Impact of Social and Identity Determinants on Teamwork in Engineering Education. InFrontiers in Education, Vol. 9. Frontiers Media SA, 1412882

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Jeffrey, Melisa Choubak, and Sara E

    Amy Ellard-Gray, Nicole K. Jeffrey, Melisa Choubak, and Sara E. Crann. 2015. Finding the Hidden Participant: Solutions for Recruiting Hidden, Hard-to-Reach, and Vulnerable Populations.International Journal of Qualitative Methods14, 5 (Dec. 2015), 1609406915621420

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    Sonja J Ellis. 2009. Diversity and Inclusivity at University: A Survey of the Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) Students in the UK. Higher Education57, 6 (2009), 723–739

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Fitzgerald-Russell and Megan Grunert Kowalske

    Madison L. Fitzgerald-Russell and Megan Grunert Kowalske. 2022. Microaggres- sion Experiences of Queer Science Students in Their Departments.Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education5, 2 (2022), 131–153

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Denae Ford, Reed Milewicz, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2019. How Remote Work Can Foster a More Inclusive Environment for Transgender Developers. In2019 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering (GE). 9–12

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    2003.Diverse Teams at Work: Capitalizing on the Power of Diversity

    Lee Gardenswartz and Anita Rowe. 2003.Diverse Teams at Work: Capitalizing on the Power of Diversity. Society for Human Resource

    work page 2003

  38. [38]

    Jason C Garvey, Steve D Mobley Jr, Kiara S Summerville, and Gretchen T Moore

    work page

  39. [39]

    Queer and Trans* Students of Color: Navigating Identity Disclosure and College Contexts.The Journal of Higher Education90, 1 (2019), 150–178

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Jason C Garvey, Dian D Squire, Brett Stachler, and Susan Rankin. 2018. The Impact of Campus Climate on Queer-Spectrum Student Academic Success.Journal of LGBT Youth15, 2 (2018), 89–105

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    I Want to Be Safe. . . And I Also Want a Job

    Abbie E. Goldberg, Emmie Matsuno, and Genny Beemyn. 2021. “I Want to Be Safe. . . And I Also Want a Job”: Career Considerations and Decision-Making Among Transgender Graduate Students.The Counseling Psychologist49, 8 (Nov. 2021), 1147–1187

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Ángel de Jesus González. 2024. ’Whenever I See Those Little Rainbow Stickers, I Know That There Is a Place You Can Go’: Visibility and Sense of Belonging for Queer and/or Trans Community College Students.Journal of Diversity in Higher Education(May 2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Wouter Groeneveld, Joost Vennekens, and Kris Aerts. 2022. Identifying Non- Technical Skill Gaps in Software Engineering Education: What Experts Expect But Students Don’t Learn.ACM Transactions on Computing Education22 (March 2022), 1–21

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Breanna N Harris, A Kelsey Lewis, Sam L Sharpe, Teri J Orr, Christopher T Martine, and Chloe C Josefson. 2024. Incorporating Sex-Diverse and Gender- Inclusive Perspectives in Higher Education Biology Courses.Integrative and Comparative Biology64, 6 (Dec. 2024), 1694–1716

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Jody L Herman. 2025. How Many Adults and Youth Identify as Transgender in the United States? (Aug. 2025)

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Hopper, Christopher Tossas-Betancourt, Peter Walczyk, and Laura Hir- shfield

    Theo S. Hopper, Christopher Tossas-Betancourt, Peter Walczyk, and Laura Hir- shfield. 2022. The Implementation and Assessment of a Social Media Initiative to Increase Visibility of LGBTQIA+ Individuals in STEM. In2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

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

    Sonja M. Hyrynsalmi, Sebastian Baltes, Chris Brown, Rafael Prikladnicki, Gema Rodriguez-Perez, Alexander Serebrenik, Jocelyn Simmonds, Bianca Trinkenreich, Yi Wang, and Grischa Liebel. 2025. Making Software Development More Diverse and Inclusive: Key Themes, Challenges, and Future Directions.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology34, 5 (J...

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Madeleine Jennings, Rod Roscoe, Nadia Kellam, and Suren Jayasuriya. 2020. A Review of the State of LGBTQIA+ Student Research in STEM and Engineering ICSE-SEIS ’26, April 12–18, 2026, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Isabella Graßl Education. In2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings. ASEE Conferences, Virtual On line, 34045

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Jourian and Z Nicolazzo

    T.J. Jourian and Z Nicolazzo. 2017. Bringing Our Communities to the Research Ta- ble: The Liberatory Potential of Collaborative Methodological Practices alongside LGBTQ Participants.Educational Action Research25, 4 (Aug. 2017), 594–609

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    Kidd, Gina M

    Kacie M. Kidd, Gina M. Sequeira, Claudia Douglas, Taylor Paglisotti, David J. Inwards-Breland, Elizabeth Miller, and Robert W. S. Coulter. 2021. Prevalence of Gender-Diverse Youth in an Urban School District.Pediatrics147, 6 (June 2021), e2020049823

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Karina Kohl and Rafael Prikladnicki. 2024. Gender Diversity on Software Devel- opment Teams: A Qualitative Study. InEquity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering: Best Practices and Insights, Daniela Damian, Kelly Blincoe, Denae Ford, Alexander Serebrenik, and Zainab Masood (Eds.). Apress, Berkeley, CA, 169–184

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Kosciw, Neal A

    Joseph G. Kosciw, Neal A. Palmer, and Ryan M. Kull. 2015. Reflecting Resiliency: Openness About Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity and Its Relationship to Well-Being and Educational Outcomes for LGBT Students.American J of Comm Psychol55, 1-2 (March 2015), 167–178

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.biometrics(1977), 159–174

    work page 1977

  54. [54]

    Kelsey Lewis, Chloe C

    A. Kelsey Lewis, Chloe C. Josefson, Teri J. Orr, and Breanna N. Harris. 2024. Let’s Talk about Sex: Instructor Views and Hesitancies Related to Sex and Gender in the Biology Classroom.Integrative and Comparative Biology64, 6 (2024), 1679–1693

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Lombardi, Riki Anne Wilchins, Dana Priesing, and Diana Malouf

    Emilia L. Lombardi, Riki Anne Wilchins, Dana Priesing, and Diana Malouf. 2002. Gender Violence: Transgender Experiences with Violence and Discrimination. Journal of Homosexuality42, 1 (March 2002), 89–101

    work page 2002

  56. [56]

    Kwapisz, and Bryce E

    Jeffrey Maloy, Monika B. Kwapisz, and Bryce E. Hughes. 2022. Factors Influencing Retention of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students in Undergraduate STEM Majors.CBE Life Sciences Education21, 1 (2022), ar13

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    Liviu-Catalin Mara, Matías Ginieis, and Ignasi Brunet-Icart. 2021. Strategies for Coping with LGBT Discrimination at Work: A Systematic Literature Review. Sexuality Research and Social Policy18 (2021), 339–354

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    Mary L. McHugh. 2012. Interrater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic.Biochem Med (Zagreb)22, 3 (Oct. 2012), 276–282

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    Amanda Menier, Rebecca Zarch, and Stacy Sexton. 2021. Broadening Gender in Computing for Transgender and Nonbinary Learners. In2021 Conference on Research in Equitable and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT). IEEE, 1–5

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    Miller, Annemarie Vaccaro, Ezekiel W

    Ryan A. Miller, Annemarie Vaccaro, Ezekiel W. Kimball, and Rachael Forester

    work page

  61. [61]

    2021), 340–352

    ’It’s Dude Culture’: Students with Minoritized Identities of Sexuality and/or Gender Navigating STEM Majors.Journal of Diversity in Higher Education14, 3 (Sept. 2021), 340–352

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Bonginkosi Hardy Mutongoza. 2024. Exploring the Psychosocial Outcomes of Microaggressions against Queer Communities at a Rural University in South Africa.The International Journal of Diverse Identities24, 1 (2024), 1–18

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    Neuendorf

    Kimberly A. Neuendorf. 2018. Content Analysis and Thematic Analysis. In Advanced Research Methods for Applied Psychology. Routledge, 211–223

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Michael Neumann, Klaus Schmid, and Lars Baumann. 2024. What You Use Is What You Get: Unforced Errors in Studying Cultural Aspects in Agile Software Development. arXiv:2404.17009 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Nolan, Isaac M

    Michelle M. Nolan, Isaac M. Blythe, and Paulette Vincent-Ruz. 2024. Behind Closed Doors: The Untold Challenges of Transgender and Nonbinary Graduate Students in Chemistry

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    Cliodhna O’Connor and Helene Joffe. 2020. Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines.International Journal of Qualitative Methods19 (Jan. 2020), 1609406919899220

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    Vahab Pournaghshband and Paola Medel. 2020. Promoting Diversity-Inclusive Computer Science Pedagogies: A Multidimensional Perspective. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, Trondheim Norway, 219–224

    work page 2020

  68. [68]

    Pradell, Joshua G

    Lee R. Pradell, Joshua G. Parmenter, Renee V. Galliher, Ryan B. Berke, and Lind- sey Rowley. 2024. The Identity-Related Experiences of LGBTQ + Students in Engineering Spaces.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education37, 8 (Sept. 2024), 2267–2287

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    Gama, and Gustavo Pinto

    Rafa Prado, Wendy Mendes, Kiev S. Gama, and Gustavo Pinto. 2020. How Trans- Inclusive Are Hackathons?IEEE Software38, 2 (2020), 26–31

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    Paul Ralph, Nauman bin Ali, Sebastian Baltes, Domenico Bianculli, Jessica Diaz, Yvonne Dittrich, Neil Ernst, Michael Felderer, Robert Feldt, Antonio Filieri, Breno Bernard Nicolau de França, Carlo Alberto Furia, Greg Gay, Nicolas Gold, Daniel Graziotin, Pinjia He, Rashina Hoda, Natalia Juristo, Barbara Kitchen- ham, Valentina Lenarduzzi, Jorge Martínez, J...

    work page arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    Marco Reggiani, Jessica Dawn Gagnon, and Rebecca Jane Lunn. 2023. LGBT + Academics’ and PhD Students’ Experiences of Visibility in STEM: More than Raising the Rainbow Flag.Higher Education(Jan. 2023)

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    Gema Rodríguez-Pérez, Reza Nadri, and Meiyappan Nagappan. 2021. Perceived Diversity in Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review.Empir Soft- ware Eng26, 5 (Sept. 2021), 102

    work page 2021

  73. [73]

    Parmenter, Renee V

    Lee Rosemary Pradell, Joshua G. Parmenter, Renee V. Galliher, and Ryan Berke

    work page

  74. [74]

    2024), 1–31

    LGBTQ + Engineering Students’ Recommendations for Sustaining and Supporting Diversity in STEM.Journal of LGBT Youth(Feb. 2024), 1–31

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    Daniel Russo. 2022. Recruiting Software Engineers on Prolific. arXiv:2203.14695 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    Show Them the Playbook That These Companies Are Using

    Jean J. Ryoo and Takeria Blunt. 2024. “Show Them the Playbook That These Companies Are Using”: Youth Voices about Why Computer Science Education Must Center Discussions of Power, Ethics, and Culturally Responsive Computing. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ.(April 2024), 3660645

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    Ronnie de Souza Santos, Brody Stuart-Verner, and Cleyton de Magalhaes. 2023. LGBTQIA+ (In)Visibility in Computer Science and Software Engineering Educa- tion. arXiv:2303.05953 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Dentato, Cara M

    Vincent Sarna, Michael P. Dentato, Cara M. DiClemente, and Maryse H. Richards. 2021. The Importance of Mentors and Mentoring Programs for LGBT+Undergraduate Students.College Student Affairs Journal39, 2 (2021), 180–199

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Aj Sona, Jabdiel Laboy Santana, and Erin K.H. Saitta. 2023. Looking through a Prism: A Systematic Review of LGBTQ+ STEM Literature.J. Chem. Educ.100, 1 (Jan. 2023), 125–133

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    Miroslaw Staron, Silvia Abraháo, Alexander Serebrenik, Birgit Penzenstadler, Jennifer Horkoff, and Chetan Honnenahalli. 2024. Laws, Ethics, and Fairness in Software Engineering.IEEE Software42, 1 (2024), 110–113

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.