The hidden bias pushing women out of computer science

Hoboken, N.J., June 17, 2025 – At the dawn of computing, women were the early adopters of computational technology, working with punch cards in what was then considered secretarial work. As computer science evolved into a prestigious field focused on algorithms and theory, women became – and remained – underrepresented. Today, only 23% of bachelor's and doctoral degrees in computer science are awarded to women, and just 18% of full professors are women — fewer than in the 1980s.

A new study by Dr. Samantha Kleinberg, Farber Chair Professor of Computer Science at Stevens Institute of Technology, reveals a troubling pattern that may help explain this persistent gap: The type of research that successfully attracts women to computing is systematically devalued once they enter the field.

The Applied vs. Theoretical Divide

Research in many fields generally falls into two categories. Applied research aims to create new products, technologies or solutions to specific real-world problems — like developing algorithms to improve medical diagnoses or creating systems to address social inequities. In computing, theoretical research seeks to gain deeper insight into fundamental principles— such as proving the mathematical properties of algorithms or advancing our understanding of computational complexity.

“When you walk into a room at an applied computing conference, you’ll see a balance between women and men attendees,” Kleinberg observes. “At conferences that focus more on theory, the room looks vastly different. There are significantly fewer women than men.”

While both types of research are essential for advancing computer science, Kleinberg’s study reveals they are not valued equally by the academic community. This may reflect traditional academic preferences for theoretical work requiring deep mathematical expertise, though many researchers contribute to both areas throughout their careers. This pattern echoes prior research showing that male-dominated subfields like theory of computer science tend to have higher institutional prestige than female-represented areas like human-computer interaction. Kleinberg's work goes further by examining specific perceptions, funding decisions and citation patterns.

Uncovering Systematic Bias

That disparity, combined with her personal experiences with negative views of applied research, prompted Kleinberg to conduct a comprehensive study with collaborator Jessecae Marsh, professor of psychology at Lehigh University. They surveyed tenured and tenure-track faculty across the top 100 computer science departments in the United States to understand perceptions of researchers who engage in applied versus theoretical work.

The findings, published in the journal IEEE Access as Where the Women Are: Gender Imbalance in Computing and Faculty Perceptions of Theoretical and Applied Research, reveal significant bias against applied researchers and their work.

Faculty rated researchers engaged in applied research as less likely to publish their work in prestigious venues, receive tenure or promotion, obtain awards and get funding. More concerning, faculty rated these researchers as less brilliant, creative and technically skilled than their theory-focused counterparts — despite rating the applied work itself as equally important and worth doing.

“I wanted to understand this dynamic I was seeing," Kleinberg explains. "So we thought, let’s find out what people actually think about this research and the people who do it."

The Data Confirms the Bias

Comprehensive analysis confirmed the survey findings. Data from publications, hiring, funding and awards shows that applied research does indeed lead to worse career outcomes.

Kleinberg then used data from authors of publications and grants to test the hypothesis that women were more represented in applied research. To ensure accuracy in her analysis, rather than using tools that match first names to gender, Kleinberg manually examined over 11,000 American academics’ profiles. “I looked up all 11,524,” she shares. “There are tools to do it automatically based on first name, but they’re less accurate for Chinese names and others that are not strongly gendered, so I had to do this manually.”

Kleinberg found that women are more highly represented in applied research areas than theoretical ones, meaning this bias disproportionately affects their career prospects.

The Recruitment Paradox

The irony is striking: Universities have successfully increased women’s participation in computer science by highlighting its applications. When universities introduced interdisciplinary CS+X programs – combining computing with fields like anthropology, biology, or music – the number of women students grew significantly. These programs appeal to students who want to apply their coding and algorithm-building skills to solving real-world problems rather than pursuing computing for its own sake.

“It’s not clear whether it’s actually their interest or the culture of the field that makes theoretical work unappealing,” Kleinberg says. “It might be that women do want to do theory but feel less welcomed in those spaces.”

The research suggests academia may be pushing women away from theoretical computing into applied fields through cultural barriers, then penalizing them for that work.

Why This Matters Beyond Academia

Computer science benefits from varied perspectives and viewpoints — and suffers when there’s a lack of them. Just as early clinical trials that excluded women as subjects led to treatments that were less effective for women, computing research needs diverse voices to create algorithms and tools that work for everyone.

“I do research in health,” Kleinberg notes. “Ultimately, we want our algorithms and tools to be used by everyone and to be applied to everyone. Science is better when it reflects everybody.”

The study’s implications extend beyond gender equity. As applied computing already transforms healthcare, criminal justice and accessibility technology, systematic devaluation of this work could discourage crucial research that addresses society’s most pressing challenges.

Moving Forward

Kleinberg draws parallels with how academic institutions typically undervalue teaching and service compared to research. “It’s interesting to see the same divide when it comes to theoretical and applied research, where academics believe the work itself is worth doing, but it’s not as rewarded.”

Addressing this bias will require systemic changes in how universities evaluate research impact, train faculty to recognize unconscious bias and structure promotion and tenure decisions to value both theoretical advances and practical applications.

About the Research

The study appears in IEEE Access and was conducted with approval from Stevens Institute of Technology’s IRB. The research involved surveys of 100 faculty members from top-ranked computer science departments and analysis of publication, funding and award data across multiple venues and programs.