It's Not About Whom You Train: An Analysis of Corporate Education in Software Engineering

TL;DR

This study analyzes how sociodemographic and professional factors influence perceptions of corporate training in software engineering, highlighting the dominant role of training mandatoriness and professional experience.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence that personal variables do not significantly affect perceptions, while professional trajectory influences localized perceptions of training effectiveness.

Findings

Training mandatoriness affects most perception items.

Experience shows a non-linear pattern with low engagement between 3-6 years.

No significant gender differences in perception, indicating barriers exist before training.

Abstract

Context: Corporate education is a strategic investment in the software industry, but little is known about how different professional profiles perceive these initiatives. Objective: To investigate whether sociodemographic and professional variables influence the perception of quality and effectiveness of corporate training in Software Engineering (SE). Method: Non-parametric significance tests were applied to data from a survey with 282 Brazilian professionals, crossing 27 perception items with 9 sociodemographic variables (gender, age, education level, state, experience, professional level, company size, area of work, and nature of participation), totaling 243 combinations. Results: Of the 243 combinations tested, only 35 showed statistical significance. Training mandatoriness was the dominant factor, affecting 24 of 27 items. Length of experience revealed a non-linear descriptive pattern with a low-engagement zone between 3 and 6 years. Differences by area of work indicated an expressive gap in soft skills training for advanced technical roles. Personal profile variables and company size produced no relevant significant differences. Conclusion: Personal profile variables do not determine the perception of quality and effectiveness, while professional trajectory variables (experience, level, area of work) produce localized differences. The voluntariness of participation remains a determining factor, in line with the literature. The absence of gender differences in a sample with 23\% women suggests that barriers operate before training, in access and representation, not during the learning experience.