A study comparing acceptance rates of contributions from men and women in an open-source software community finds that, overall, women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's - but when a woman's gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often.
"There are a number of questions and concerns related to gender bias in computer programming, but this project was focused on one specific research question: To what extent does gender bias exist when pull requests are judged on GitHub?" says Emerson Murphy-Hill, corresponding author of a paper on the study and an associate professor of computer science at North Carolina State University.
GitHub is an online programming community that fosters collaboration on open-source software projects. When people identify ways to improve code on a given project, they submit a "pull request." Those pull requests are then approved or denied by "insiders," the programmers who are responsible for overseeing the project.
For this study, researchers looked at more than 3 million pull requests from approximately 330,000 GitHub users, of whom about 21,000 were women.
The researchers found that 78.7 percent of women's pull requests were accepted, compared to 74.6 percent for men.
However, when looking at pull requests by people who were not insiders on the relevant project, the results got more complicated.
Programmers who could easily be identified as women based on their names or profile pictures had lower pull request acceptance rates (58 percent) than users who could be identified as men (61 percent). But woman programmers who had gender neutral profiles had higher acceptance rates (70 percent) than any other group, including men with gender neutral profiles (65 percent).
"Our results indicate that gender bias does exist in open-source programming," Murphy-Hill says. "The study also tells us that, in general, women on GitHub are strong programmers. We don't think that's because gender affects one's programming skills, but likely stems from strong self-selection among women who submit pull requests on the site.
"We also want to note that this paper builds on a previous, un-peer-reviewed version of the paper, which garnered a lot of input that improved the research," Murphy-Hill says.
The paper, "Gender Differences and Bias in Open Source: Pull Request Acceptance of Women Versus Men," is published in the open-access journal PeerJ Computer Science. The paper was co-authored by Josh Terrell, a former undergraduate at Cal Poly; Andrew Kofink, a former undergraduate at NC State; Justin Middleton, a Ph.D. student at NC State; Clarissa Rainear, an undergraduate at NC State; Chris Parnin, an assistant professor of computer science at NC State; and Jon Stallings, an assistant professor of statistics at NC State. The work was done with support from the National Science Foundation under grant number 1252995.
Explore further:
Women accepted as better coders as long as no gender link
More information:
Josh Terrell et al, Gender differences and bias in open source: pull request acceptance of women versus men, PeerJ Computer Science (2017). DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.111

tblakely1357
2.7 / 5 (7) May 01, 2017Bart_A
2.8 / 5 (11) May 01, 2017PTTG
2 / 5 (4) May 01, 2017s86u
2.6 / 5 (5) May 01, 2017vacuumforce
3.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2017Dingbone
May 02, 2017mdblack98
3.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2017Correlation is not causation.
Without identify the types of pull requests one HUGE assumption is being made that all pull requests are equal. Nothing could be further from the truth.
rrwillsj
1.2 / 5 (5) May 02, 2017Both my wife and I found it irritating as hell, so she came up with the perfect response.
"No, not Mars or Venus."
"Women are from Luna."
"And Men are from Uranus."
"Women may be raving assholes several days a month."
"But Men are assholes everyday!"
Ensign_nemo
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2017Those are pretty small differences.
I suspect that if you compared two subsets of the data with some obviously irrelevant characteristic such as men with beards and men without beards, you'd find the same statistical fluctuations.
If we were studying particle physics this large an effect would be relevant, but people are more complex than particles. A 3, 4, or 5% variation in behavior could be mostly random chance.
Opinion polls taken with samples of 1000 people usually have margins of error of about the same magnitude as the "bias" found in this study.
anonymous8675309
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2017Echo mdblack and Ensign.
Bogus, worthless study put out there to imply exactly what some stupid ideology wants implied. The authors either have an agenda or (more likely) are pathetic puppets possessed by ideas of which they aren't even aware.
Here's some real homework: Read up on Camille Paglia and Jordan B. Peterson. Maybe I'm just possessed by their ideas but at least I have an idea of who's pulling my strings.
PTTG
1.8 / 5 (5) May 02, 2017Do the study then, and tell us.
MarsBars
2.7 / 5 (7) May 03, 2017Who needs to search in nooks and crannies when it's out there in the open for all to see?
Dingbone
May 03, 2017rrrander
2.6 / 5 (5) May 03, 2017