Barriers Faced by Coding Bootcamp Students

What I read

In this text, the authors conducted research with 26 students who participated in a software development bootcamp program, and focused on the challenges these individuals faced before, during, and after their experience.

First, the authors describe the growth of bootcamps, as well as the lack of research into the experiences that bootcamp participants have in their educational journey. They explain that their hypothesis is that barriers that exist for students in traditional programs would also be faced by bootcamp participants.

They explain that they “decided to analyze our data with Communities of Practice,” and then briefly explain that these are groups of people who share concerns and passions. They selected this idea because these communities have boundaries, and indicate that this framework has been used in other papers and contexts. They indicate that they also examined personal obstacles that may impact people who are changing careers. They review existing literature related to barriers in traditional computer science education.

Next, the authors describe their method and results. They recruited participants from large and well-known bootcamps (such as General Assembly), and used semi-structured interviews to gather data. They then created “coding bootcamp trajectories” and “software development trajectories”, and identified obstacles and boundaries that emerged from the data.

The first set of results focused on the learning trajectories. For each of the 26 participants, the researchers created a graph that models their path from start to finish, and describe several elements of note for several participants. The majority of the text then focuses on barriers in the software industry, and on barriers in coding bootcamps. These results were presented in a pattern of describing something identified in the research, reporting several observations from the data, and using select quotes to support the point.

Bootcamp participants discussed the difficulties in job interviews, the role of pre-experience (such as internships or consulting), the use of portfolios, the need to network, and learning to interview. The text explores the informal and unstated boundaries that participants saw in the industry and in bootcamps, such as knowing how to learn or how to code, the confidence and identity of “being a software developer,” and belonging to the bootcamp’s community. For some, the bootcamp experience helped them negotiate these boundaries, while others felt that the bootcamp held them back. Others confronted personal obstacles while trying to enter the software industry post-bootcamp, often focused on assigning financial “blame” to the bootcamp experience and cost.

The text then describes barriers the participants encountered during the bootcamp itself. These also focused on formal and informal boundaries, as well as personal obstacles. The informal boundaries often related to breaking into a group (either defined by gender or race, or by stereotypes.) Personal obstacles focused on the amount of time the bootcamp demanded, and the need for confidence and determination in order to complete the experience.

The researchers then discuss the findings, noting that the text is “the first to explore the experiences and perspectives of bootcamp students.” Almost all of the findings are qualified as “some of the participants,” perhaps indicating the wide and diverse set of experiences (and difficulty in identifying strong patterns across these bootcamp experiences.) It’s pointed out in the discussion (and previously—briefly—in the text) that bootcamp participants encountered stigma from industry because of their bootcamp credential.

What I learned and what I think

In terms of content and findings, this paper didn’t provide me a great deal of new knowledge or insight. It was published in 2017, and mirrors a great deal of my experiences and understanding of the industry, which is a little interesting—the bootcamp phenomenon hasn’t necessarily changed a great deal in 8 years, even with Covid in the middle, and even in the face of the implosion of the tech sector.

I did notice that, while I typically have a great deal of empathy for people who (in my opinion) were played into signing up for these bootcamps, the tone and tenor of the results came across like a whole lot of whining. I don’t know if that’s a structural results of the way the paper is organized or the way they selected the material to include, or if everyone is just complaining. There is a little lack of introspection on the part of the participants on this—it’s called a bootcamp, but it was too hard or intense? I also always wonder about the use of imposter syndrome to describe the way people internalize lack of skill; they aren’t an imposter of someone who knows what they are doing: as a novice, they actually don’t know what they are doing.

In terms of style, I didn’t understand the use of the “communities of practice” framework described at the beginning of the paper, or how it was used during synthesis. I also continue to find the language academics use to rationalize their approach ridiculous (“stratified snowball sampling…….”), but if that’s the way to get something published, then there you are. I found the presentation of the findings really hard to track; it seemed like it was lacking a narrative or a thread to follow. The little trajectory graphs are awesome, visually and in terms of inclusion in the paper. I haven’t seen the use of data visualization in many papers, and when it’s there, it usually looks like trash. They were described briefly, but I wish they were used in more depth as an anchor for more discussion and analysis.

This is one of very few papers I’ve found on bootcamps that isn’t explicitly focused on perceptions of success. I will see if the authors have published more on this topic.