IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/120988.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Programmed differently? Testing for gender differences in Python programming style and quality on GitHub

Author

Listed:
  • Brooke, Sian

Abstract

The underrepresentation of women in open-source software is frequently attributed to women’s lack of innate aptitude compared to men: natural gender differences in technical ability (Trinkenreich et al., 2021). Approaching code as a form of communication, I conduct a novel empirical study of gender differences in Python programming on GitHub. Based on 1,728 open-source projects, I ask if there is a gender difference in the quality and style of Python code measured in adherence to PEP-8 guidelines. I found significant gender differences in structure and how Python files are organized. While there is gendered variation in programming style, there is no evidence of gender difference in code quality. Using a Random Forest model, I show that the gender of a programmer can be predicted from the style of their Python code. The study concludes that gender differences in Python code are a matter of style, not quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Brooke, Sian, 2024. "Programmed differently? Testing for gender differences in Python programming style and quality on GitHub," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120988, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:120988
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/120988/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    gender; open-source software; computational methods; intersectional and feminist approaches; HCI;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:120988. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.