Measuring human values in software engineering

Winter, Emily; Forshaw, Steve; Ferrario, Maria Angela

doi:10.1145/3239235.3267427

Cited by 63 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Q-Sort provides quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative results from our 12-participant study are reported more fully in [37], and so are only briefly summarised here, before moving on to the insight provided by the qualitative data. The qualitative results complement the quantitative data, but also caution against generalisation, demonstrating a more complex picture.…”

Section: Values Q-sort Quantitative Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing the Study of Human Values in Software Engineering

Winter

Forshaw

Hunt

et al. 2019

2019 IEEE/ACM 12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper makes the case for the study of human values in Software Engineering (SE) as a highly important emerging area of research with significant societal implications. We offer two key principles in order to advance this research agenda: firstly, the significance of values as distinguished from, though connected to, ethics; and secondly, the need for clear theoretical frameworks for values study. We provide the emerging findings from an initial study (N=12 participants) using a Values Q-Sort tool that was designed in accordance with these two principles. We conclude with discussion around lessons learnt, ongoing challenges, and future directions. CCS CONCEPTS• Social and professional topics → Computing profession; • Software and its engineering;KEYWORDS human values, mixed methods, qualitative study, software industry ACM Reference Format:

show abstract

Section: Values Q-sort Quantitative Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing the Study of Human Values in Software Engineering

Winter

Forshaw

Hunt

et al. 2019

2019 IEEE/ACM 12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the current moment, keeping sight of the underlying ethics and fairness that drive technology initiatives is a primary concern [25]. Efforts are underway to find ways to empirically measure values in software [26]. Value sensitive design methods have arisen to help designers account for and support human values in technology products [27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

"Hopefully We Are Mostly Secure": Views on Secure Code in Professional Practice

López

Sharp

Tun

et al. 2019

2019 IEEE/ACM 12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Security of software systems is of general concern, yet breaches caused by common vulnerabilities still occur. Software developers are routinely called upon to "do more" to address this situation. However there has been little focus on the developers' point of view, and understanding how security features in their day-to-day activities. This paper reports preliminary findings of semi-structured interviews taken during an ethnographic study of professional software developers in one organization who are not security experts. The overall study aims to understand how security features in day-to-day practice, while analysis of the interview data asks whether developers are responsible for security. The study reveals that awareness around security matters is raised through several paths including processes, standards, practices and company training and that a focus on security is driven by contextual factors. Security is taken care of with policies and through safeguards, and is handled differently depending on whether a team is developing new features, and hence "looking forward", or working with existing code and hence "looking back". Developers take and share responsibility for security in the code, but suggest that their responsibility has limits, and relies on collective practice.

show abstract

“…Finally, only one software engineering study employed Q-Methodology so far [44], which aimed to understand the viewpoints of human values in software engineering. However, besides medicine, other research fields such as agriculture [19], ecology [2], etc, are taking advantage of this research method.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Software Engineering Research Community Viewpoints on Rapid Reviews

Cartaxo

Pinto

Fonseca

et al. 2019

2019 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: One of the most important current challenges of Software Engineering (SE) research is to provide relevant evidence to practice. In health related fields, Rapid Reviews (RRs) have shown to be an effective method to achieve that goal. However, little is known about how the SE research community perceives the potential applicability of RRs. Aims: The goal of this study is to understand the SE research community viewpoints towards the use of RRs as a means to provide evidence to practitioners. Method: To understand their viewpoints, we invited 37 researchers to analyze 50 opinion statements about RRs, and rate them according to what extent they agree with each statement. Q-Methodology was employed to identify the most salient viewpoints, represented by the so called factors. Results: Four factors were identified: Factor A groups undecided researchers that need more evidence before using RRs; Researchers grouped in Factor B are generally positive about RRs, but highlight the need to define minimum standards; Factor C researchers are more skeptical and reinforce the importance of high quality evidence; Researchers aligned to Factor D have a pragmatic point of view, considering RRs can be applied based on the context and constraints faced by practitioners. Conclusions: In conclusion, although there are opposing viewpoints, there are also some common grounds. For example, all viewpoints agree that both RRs and Systematic Reviews can be poorly or well conducted.

show abstract

Measuring human values in software engineering

Cited by 63 publications

References 22 publications

Advancing the Study of Human Values in Software Engineering

Advancing the Study of Human Values in Software Engineering

"Hopefully We Are Mostly Secure": Views on Secure Code in Professional Practice

Software Engineering Research Community Viewpoints on Rapid Reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About