Faith Culas | 2026 UoA 3MT Finals | Winner
Watch on YouTubeVideo summary
The speaker begins by illustrating a common scenario where she and her husband, both software engineers, assemble the same piece of IKEA furniture yet approach the task in fundamentally different ways; while she relies on the instruction manual, he intuitively picks up screws without reading. This simple example serves as a metaphor for how diverse thinking styles exist within the tech industry, arguing that these differences are a vital form of diversity that directly influences decision-making and the products we build. When such diversity is absent in software engineering, it can lead to unintentional disadvantages for certain groups, much like historical car safety issues where crash test dummies were designed based on average male bodies, leaving women at greater risk of injury until an average female dummy was finally introduced decades later.
To investigate the roots of this lack of diversity, the researcher questions whether the very tools used in software engineering inadvertently favor specific ways of thinking while making it harder for others to thrive. She conducted controlled experiments involving eighty software engineering students, utilizing think-aloud protocols and eye-tracking studies to observe how they interact with these tools during everyday work tasks. The findings were clear: students approached problems, searched for information, and utilized tools in varied manners, yet existing software often assumes a uniform way of thinking among engineers. Consequently, these standardized tools can hinder the performance and career progression of individuals whose cognitive styles do not align with the tool's design assumptions.
The ultimate goal of this research is not to change how people think but rather to build tools that accommodate and support the diverse ways people already process information and solve problems. By identifying these gaps in current technology, the speaker advocates for a proactive approach to inclusivity, contrasting it with the passive discovery made regarding car safety dummies. She emphasizes that we should not have to wait sixty years to realize who has been left out of the design process, urging the industry to create more inclusive tools now so that diverse thinking styles can flourish and lead to better, safer technology for everyone.
Read the full video transcript
My husband and I, we're both software
engineers.
And whenever we put together an IKEA
furniture, the exact same thing happens.
We're sitting on the living room floor
surrounded by a screws, panels, and the
instruction manual which I grab on to
and start reading. My husband, he barely
even notices the manual, just picks up a
screw and says, "I think this goes
here."
They're building the same piece of
furniture,
but approaching it differently.
If people think differently when it
comes to assembling furniture, what
happens when software engineers build
software and technology that we rely on
and use every single day?
These differences in how we think are a
form of diversity, and it matters
because it shifts the decisions we make
and ultimately the products we build.
Take car safety testing for example.
Did you know that women are at greater
risk of injury in a car crash than men?
Because the decades crash test dummies
were designed mainly based on the
average male body.
It wasn't until 2022
that a dummy representing the average
woman was introduced for the first time
in 60 years.
It wasn't intentional,
but a consequence of limited diversity
in decision making. And when diversity
is missing in software engineering, the
products we build may unintentionally
disadvantage some.
So, my research asks this.
Where does this lack of diversity come
from?
What if the very tools we use in
software engineering help some ways of
thinking thrive while making it harder
for others?
To explore this, I used an established
psychological framework that models
different ways of thinking. I then ran
controlled experiments using think aloud
and eye tracking studies with 80
software engineering students to see how
they use these tools for everyday work.
What we found was clear.
The students approached the task
differently. They searched for
information differently. And they use
the tools differently.
We also found evidence that tools
support some ways of thinking better
than others.
In other words, existing tools often
assume that software engineers think the
same way.
And this can disadvantage some in how
they use these tools and perform and
eventually how they progress into
decision-making roles.
My research identifies these gaps.
The goal is not to change how people
think. The goal is to build tools that
support how differently people already
think. Because unlike the crash test
dummy, we shouldn't have to wait 60
years to discover who's been left out.
Thank you.
>> Woo!
>> [cheering]
[applause]