Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Understanding Fairness in Software Engineering: Insights from Stack Exchange

Published 29 Feb 2024 in cs.SE | (2402.19038v3)

Abstract: Software practitioners discuss problems at work with peers, in-person and online. These discussions can be technical (e.g., how to fix a bug?) and social (e.g., how to assign work fairly?). While there is a growing body of knowledge exploring fairness problems and solutions in the human and social factors of software engineering, most focus has been on specific problems. This study provides fairness discussions by software practitioners on Stack Exchange sites. We present an exploratory study presenting the fairness experience of software practitioners and fairness expectations in software teams. We also want to identify the fairness aspects software practitioners talk about the most. For example, do they care more about fairness in income or how they are treated in the workplace? Our investigation of fairness discussions on eight Stack Exchange sites resulted in a list of 136 posts (28 questions and 108 answers) manually curated from 4,178 candidate posts. The study reveals that the majority of fairness discussions (24 posts) revolve around the topic of income suggesting that many software practitioners are highly interested in matters related to their pay and how it is fairly distributed. Further, we noted that while not discussed as often, discussions on fairness in recruitment tend to receive the highest number of views and scores. Interestingly, the study shows that unfairness experiences extend beyond the protected attributes. In this study, only 25 out of 136 posts mention protected attributes, with gender mainly being discussed.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (110)
  1. 2011. Is ageism in software development based on anything other than bias? https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/62002
  2. 2011. New Team Lead - How to deal with a resentful former peer. https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/90498
  3. 2011. Technical test for a senior developer. https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/76650
  4. 2012. What is the best way to divide a development team? https://pm.stackexchange.com/a/6435
  5. 2013. Are these advanced/unfair interview questions regarding Java concurrency? https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/178710
  6. 2014. When should one give source code to a client? https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/228651
  7. 2015. Donations and open source projects with multiple contributors. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/q/1600
  8. 2015. How to cleverly complain in one’s appraisal that new hires get more compensations than current ones. https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/36527
  9. 2015. Implementing performance-based bonuses. https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/47348
  10. 2015. Policies and guidance when receiving religious affiliation information on a resume. https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/42238
  11. 2016. Can we encourage our test team to collaborate with developers on automating tests? https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/312150
  12. 2016. How do I ensure fair performance ratings in the stack ranking system? https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/74885
  13. 2016. How report incompetent colleagues? https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/76598
  14. 2017. As a freelancer, what exactly is considered project work? https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/95123
  15. 2017. How to deal with coworker giving unhelpful criticism during code review? https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/89074
  16. 2018. As a new technical lead, how can I evaluate junior (software) engineers fairly? https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/110258
  17. 2018. Collaborator witholding code before deadline. https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/119750
  18. 2018. How can I address being paid less than my male colleagues with similar or lesser roles in my company? https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/116095
  19. 2019. Copyright notices and multiple developers. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/8164
  20. 2019. How, in practice, can I hire more diversely? https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/128198
  21. 2019. Is it my responsibility to learn a new technology in my own time my employer wants to implement? https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/132820
  22. 2022. Denied raise due to inability to relocate during wartime. https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/183577
  23. 2023. Merriam Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/
  24. 2023. Supplementary material to the article Understanding Fairness in Software Engineering: Insights from Stack Exchange Sites. https://figshare.com/s/ba7bf0fa9803f5bd728b
  25. 2023. Thesaurus. https://www.thesaurus.com/
  26. J. Stacy Adams. 1965. Inequity In Social Exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Academic Press, 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
  27. Syed Ahmed and Mehdi Bagherzadeh. 2018. What Do Concurrency Developers Ask about? A Large-Scale Study Using Stack Overflow. In Procs. of the 12th ACM/IEEE Int. Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (Oulu, Finland). Article 30, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3239235.3239524
  28. An Overview on Protecting User Private-Attribute Information on Social Networks. (2021), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-5728-0.ch006
  29. How employees respond to personal offense: the effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of applied psychology 86, 1 (2001), 52.
  30. Mehdi Bagherzadeh and Raffi Khatchadourian. 2019. Going Big: A Large-Scale Study on What Big Data Developers Ask (ESEC/FSE 2019). Association for Computing Machinery, 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338906.3338939
  31. Mining Questions Asked by Web Developers. In Procs. of the 11th Working Conf. on Mining Software Repositories (Hyderabad, India) (MSR 2014). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1145/2597073.2597083
  32. Automated Text Classification of News Articles: A Practical Guide. Political Analysis 29 (2020), 19 – 42. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2020.8
  33. Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of applied psychology 90, 4 (2005), 629.
  34. Tehmina Basit. 2003. Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research 45, 2 (2003), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188032000133548 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188032000133548
  35. Andrew Begel and Thomas Zimmermann. 2014. Analyze This! 145 Questions for Data Scientists in Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (Hyderabad, India) (ICSE 2014). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/2568225.2568233
  36. Debugging Hiring: What Went Right and What Went Wrong in the Technical Interview Process. In 2020 IEEE/ACM 42nd Int. Conf. on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). 71–80.
  37. State-of-the-Evidence Reviews: Advantages and Challenges of Including Grey Literature. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 3, 2 (2006), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2006.00051.x
  38. Kanika T Bhal and Namrata Gulati. 2007. Pay Satisfaction of Software Professionals in India. Vikalpa 32, 3 (2007), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920070302
  39. B.W. Boehm and R. Ross. 1989. Theory-W software project management principles and examples. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 15, 7 (1989), 902–916. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.29489
  40. Yuriy Brun and Alexandra Meliou. 2018. Software Fairness. In Procs. of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conf. and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. New York, NY, USA, 754–759. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236024.3264838
  41. Find a Location by Query. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/rest-services/locations/find-a-location-by-query
  42. How do Android developers improve non-functional properties of software? Empirical Software Engineering 27 (9 2022), 1–42. Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10664-022-10137-2/TABLES/15
  43. A team-based approach to open coding: Considerations for creating intercoder consensus. Field Methods 31, 2 (2019), 116–130.
  44. Sungjoo Choi and H. Rainey. 2014. Organizational Fairness and Diversity Management in Public Organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration 34 (2014), 307 – 331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13486489
  45. Andrew James Clements and Gail Kinman. 2021. Job demands, organizational justice, and emotional exhaustion in prison officers. Criminal Justice Studies 34 (2021), 441–458. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2021.1999114
  46. Jason A. Colquitt. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. The Journal of Applied Psychology 86 3 (2001), 386–400.
  47. Jason A. Colquitt. 2012. 526 Organizational Justice. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, Volume 1. Oxford University Press.
  48. Jason A. Colquitt and Jerome M. Chertkoff. 2002. Explaining Injustice: The Interactive Effect of Explanation and Outcome on Fairness Perceptions and Task Motivation. Journal of Management 28, 5 (2002), 591–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800502
  49. What is organizational justice? A historical overview. Handbook of Organizational Justice (2013), 25–78. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203774847-8
  50. Adding the ”in” to justice: a qualitative and quantitative investigation of the differential effects of justice rule adherence and violation. Journal of applied psychology 100, 2 (2015), 278.
  51. Jason A Colquitt and Jessica B Rodell. 2015. Measuring justice and fairness. Vol. 1. 187–202.
  52. Stack Exchange Community. 2023. Stack Exchange Data Dump. https://archive.org/details/stackexchange
  53. Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet and Josep M. Rosanas. 2013. The just design and use of management control systems as requirements for goal congruence. Management Accounting Research 24, 1 (2013), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.11.001
  54. R. Dagger. 2018. Fair Play and Cooperative Practices. Oxford Scholarship Online (2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199388837.003.0003
  55. Assessing Gender Differences in Software Developers Using the Human Capital Model. Inf. Resour. Manag. J. 18 (2005), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2005070105
  56. Morton Deutsch. 1975. Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social issues 31, 3 (1975), 137–149.
  57. Belief & Evidence in Empirical Software Engineering (ICSE ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884812
  58. Effects of Organizational Fairness on Japanese Sales Personnel. Journal of International Marketing 1 (1993), 24 – 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X9300100402
  59. Computer Science Stack Exchange. 2022a. What topics can I ask about here? Retrieved October 12, 2022 from https://cs.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
  60. DevOps Stack Exchange. 2022b. What topics can I ask about here? Retrieved October 12, 2022 from https://devops.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
  61. Stack Exchange. 2022c. Welcome to Stack Exchange. Retrieved October 20, 2022 from https://stackexchange.com/tour
  62. Software Engineering Stack Exchange. 2022d. What topics can I ask about here? Retrieved October 12, 2022 from https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
  63. Luiz Fernando Capretz. 2014. Bringing the Human Factor to Software Engineering. IEEE Software 31, 2 (2014), 104–104. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2014.30
  64. Cybersecurity Discussions in Stack Overflow: A Developer-Centred Analysis of Engagement and Self-Disclosure Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2207.01529
  65. The measurement of interrater agreement. Statistical methods for rates and proportions 2, 212-236 (1981), 22–23.
  66. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2022. Article 21 - Non-discrimination. https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/21-non-discrimination#:~:text=EU%20Charter%20of%20Fundamental%20Rights,-Previous%20title&text=1.,2.
  67. Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1707.02553
  68. Benefitting from the Grey Literature in Software Engineering Research. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1911.12038
  69. ”Was My Contribution Fairly Reviewed?” A Framework to Study the Perception of Fairness in Modern Code Reviews. In 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE). 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1145/3180155.3180217
  70. Emerging perspectives on managing organizational justice. (2002).
  71. Justice, morality, and social responsibility. IAP.
  72. The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing Research 17, 4 (1968), 364. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014
  73. Barry Goldman and Russell Cropanzano. 2015. “Justice” and “fairness” are not the same thing. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36, 2 (2015), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1956
  74. Jerald Greenberg. 1993. Stealing in the Name of Justice: Informational and Interpersonal Moderators of Theft Reactions to Underpayment Inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54, 1 (February 1993), 81–103.
  75. Jerald Greenberg. 2011. Organizational justice: The dynamics of fairness in the workplace. (2011).
  76. Destructive Criticism in Software Code Review Impacts Inclusion.
  77. Investigating the Effects of Gender Bias on GitHub. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE). 700–711. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00079
  78. Human and Social Factors of Software Engineering: Workshop Summary. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 30, 4 (jul 2005), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/1082983.1083000
  79. John Ernest Kratz and Carly Strasser. 2015. Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data. PLOS ONE 10 (2015). Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0117619
  80. Human Values Violations in Stack Overflow: An Exploratory Study. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2203.10551
  81. Human Factors Related Challenges in Software Engineering – An Industrial Perspective. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 8th Int. Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/CHASE.2015.13
  82. Gerald S. Leventhal. 1976. The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups and Organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 9. Academic Press, 91–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60059-3
  83. Gerald S. Leventhal. 1980. What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? Springer US, Boston, MA, 27–55.
  84. Beyond Fairness: A Theory of Allocation Preferences. Justice and social interaction 3, 1 (1980), 167–218.
  85. Borderline personality disorder features and sensitivity to injustice. Journal of Personality Disorders 32 (2018), 192–206. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1521/PEDI_2017_31_292
  86. H. L. MacGillivray. 1981. The Mean, Median, Mode Inequality and Skewness for a Class of Densities. Australian Journal of Statistics 23, 2 (1981), 247–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.1981.tb00784.x
  87. Hearing the voice of experts: Unveiling Stack Exchange communities’ knowledge of test smells. arXiv:2305.03431 [cs.SE]
  88. Álvaro Menezes and Rafael Prikladnicki. 2018. Diversity in Software Engineering. In Procs. of the 11th Int. Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (Gothenburg, Sweden). Association for Computing Machinery, 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1145/3195836.3195857
  89. A Multilevel Analysis of Procedural Justice Context. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19, 2 (1998), 131–141. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100190
  90. ”Jumping Through Hoops”: Why do Java Developers Struggle with Cryptography APIs?. In 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE). 935–946. https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884790
  91. A First Look at Human Values-Violation in App Reviews. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2012.10095
  92. Lilian Otaye and W. Wong. 2014. Mapping the contours of fairness:the impact of unfairness and leadership (in)action on job satisfaction, turnover intention and employer advocacy. 1 (2014), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-02-2014-0010
  93. Stack Overflow. 2022. What topics can I ask about here? Retrieved October 12, 2022 from https://stackoverflow.com/help/on-topic
  94. Expressions of Sentiments during Code Reviews: Male vs. Female. In 2019 IEEE 26th Int. Conf. on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2019.8667987
  95. Impact of Job Clarity on Nurses’ Job Satisfaction: A Moderating Role of Fairness Perception. International Business Research (2019). https://doi.org/10.5539/IBR.V12N4P187
  96. Identifying Software Engineering Challenges in Software SMEs: A Case Study in Thailand. In 2022 IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). 218–222. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER53432.2022.00036
  97. Persuading developers to ”buy into” software process improvement: a local opinion and empirical evidence. In Int. Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering. 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISESE.2003.1237993
  98. Paul Ralph and Ewan Tempero. 2018. Construct Validity in Software Engineering Research and Software Metrics. In Procs. of the 22nd Int. Conf. on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2018. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210459.3210461
  99. Quinetta M. Roberson and Ian O. Williamson. 2012. Justice in self-managing teams: The role of social networks in the emergence of procedural justice climates. Academy of Management Journal 55 (6 2012), 685–701. Issue 3. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.0491
  100. Perceived diversity in software engineering: a systematic literature review. Empirical Software Engineering 26, 5 (2021), 102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-09992-2
  101. John Rodwell and Louise Munro. 2013. Well-being, satisfaction and commitment: The substitutable nature of resources for maternity hospital nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing 69 (10 2013), 2218–2228. Issue 10. https://doi.org/10.1111/JAN.12096
  102. Karina Kohl Silveira and Rafael Prikladnicki. 2019. A systematic mapping study of diversity in software engineering: a perspective from the agile methodologies. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 12th Int. Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). IEEE, 7–10.
  103. The Third-Party Perspective of (In) justice. Oxford Library of Psychology, 235.
  104. Towards a theory of software developer job satisfaction and perceived productivity. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47, 10 (2019), 2125–2142.
  105. John Thibaut and Laurens Walker. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Erlbaum.
  106. How do programmers ask and answer questions on the web?: NIER track. In 2011 33rd Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE). 804–807. https://doi.org/10.1145/1985793.1985907
  107. Women’s Participation in Open Source Software: A Survey of the Literature. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (jan 2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3510460
  108. Hans Vandierendonck and Andre Seznec. 2011. Fairness Metrics for Multi-Threaded Processors. IEEE Computer Architecture Letters 10, 1 (2011), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/L-CA.2011.1
  109. Mark A. Wesolowski and Kevin W. Mossholder. 1997. Relational demography in supervisor–subordinate dyads: Impact on subordinate job satisfaction, burnout, and perceived procedural justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18, 4 (1997), 351–362.
  110. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.
Citations (2)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up