The Perception and Impact of Non-inclusive Language in Software Artifacts

Abstract

Terminology such as "whitelist/blacklist," "master/slave," "man-hours," or "dummy value" has long been part of the technical vocabulary used in software artifacts, including source code, version histories, and documentation. In recent years, however, many of these expressions have been recognized as potentially non-inclusive and unwelcoming to groups historically underrepresented in software development, such as people of color, women, and individuals with disabilities. Consequently, a growing movement within the software industry has sought to replace these terms with more inclusive alternatives. Despite these initiatives, little is empirically known about how software developers perceive such terminology or how its continued use may influence their professional experiences and sense of belonging. This paper addresses the knowledge gap by examining how software developers perceive non-inclusive terminology in software and its perceived impact on team dynamics, productivity, belonging, and well-being. We surveyed open-source contributors and received 1,517 responses, of which 1,212 were complete and analyzed. On average, respondents reported low negative workplace impact overall; however, perceptions and impacts varied by demographic group. Women and non-binary participants, as well as respondents residing in the United States, were more likely to view the terms as non-inclusive. Among those who considered the terminology non-inclusive, non-binary participants reported higher overall negative impacts than male respondents, and female participants reported higher impact specifically on their sense of belonging.