Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the disparities in competence assessment among software engineers from East Africa and Northwestern Europe, revealing significant biases in perceived versus actual performance. Through a mixed-methods approach involving programming tasks and interviews with 48 engineers, the research highlights that senior engineers in Rwanda often match the performance of their European counterparts, yet are systematically undervalued. The findings underscore the impact of regional biases on global software development and the need for more equitable evaluation practices.
Engineers in Rwanda are as capable as their European peers, yet systemic biases lead to their competence being consistently underestimated.
This paper examines fairness and accountability in global software development by focusing on how competence is assessed and valued across unequal regional contexts. We compare software engineers from East Africa (Rwanda and Uganda) and Northwestern Europe (Sweden and the Netherlands), regions that are increasingly connected but embedded in asymmetric technological, economic, and institutional structures. Despite the rapid growth of African technology ecosystems, empirical evidence on everyday engineering practice and evaluation in these contexts remains limited. We present findings from an on-site mixed-methods study with 48 software engineers across four countries. The study combines programming, system design, and code review tasks with semi-structured interviews. Our results reveal consistent gaps between measured performance and perceived competence. Senior engineers in Rwanda often performed at a level comparable to that of their European peers, yet European participants systematically underestimated the competence of East African engineers. We also observed differences in communication styles and organizational practices across regions, reflecting distinct but complementary ways of working.