The Role of Rapid Reviews in Supporting Decision-Making in Software Engineering Practice

Cartaxo, Bruno; Pinto, Gustavo; Soares, Sérgio

doi:10.1145/3210459.3210462

Cited by 67 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The “standardisation” of white literature supports the use of protocols for the SR of such literature, such as systematic literature reviews (SLRs), systematic mapping studies (SMS), some aspects of MLRs, rapid reviews, and literature studies . As a contrast, we have recently developed heuristics to help search grey literature in the absence of such “standardisation.” …”

Section: Framing the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using blog‐like documents to investigate software practice: Benefits, challenges, and research directions

Rainer

Williams

2019

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background An emerging body of research is using grey literature to investigate software practice. One frequently occurring type of grey literature is the blog post. Whilst there are prospective benefits to using grey literature and blog posts to investigate software practice, there are also concerns about the quality of such material.Objectives To identify and describe the benefits and challenges to using blog-like content to investigate software practice, and to scope directions for further research. MethodsWe conduct a review of previous research, mainly within software engineering, to identify benefits, challenges, and directions and use that review to complement our experiences of using blog posts in research. Results and ConclusionWe identify and organise benefits and challenges of using blog-like documents in software engineering research. We develop a definition of the type of blog-like document that should be of (more) value to software engineering researchers. We identify and scope several directions in which to progress research into and with blog-like documents.We discuss similarities and differences in secondary and primary studies that use blog-like documents and similarities and differences between the use of blog-like documents and the use of already established research methods, eg, interview and survey.

show abstract

Section: Framing the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using blog‐like documents to investigate software practice: Benefits, challenges, and research directions

Rainer

Williams

2019

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study however, we have one additional factor, the undecideds. We believe this additional factor emerges because RRs is now well known in medicine, while in SE there is just one study [13] reporting such approach.…”

Section: Viewpoints On Rapid Reviews In Software Engineering Compamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This shows that we, the SE research community, are producing relevant empirical evidence, but we have to find a way to introduce the studies and results in a way that fits practitioners constraints. RRs have shown to be on of the viable solutions [13]. On a different direction, Badampudi and Wohlin have recently proposed a framework to translate knowledge produced through scientific methods but targeting practitioners [3].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding RRs, to the best of our knowledge, there is only the work of Cartaxo et al [13] approaching the applicability of RRs in SE practice. In this study, a RR was conducted together with practitioners aiming to identify evidence that may support practitioners to mitigate a problem related to low customer collaboration.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another critical issue is related to time and effort needed to conduct SRs, taking from months to one year (sometimes even more) as well as demanding a joint effort of many researchers. This long collaborative effort, although invaluable for curating knowledge, is hardly acceptable for those that require empirical answers in a timely fashion, which is often the case of the SE practitioners [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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)

Self Cite

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