Worldviews, Research Methods, and their Relationship to Validity in Empirical Software Engineering Research

Petersen, Kai; Gencel, Çiğdem

doi:10.1109/iwsm-mensura.2013.22

Cited by 121 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…experiments). Gencel and Petersen [26] discuss how to identify and consider the threats of validity depending on different schools of thought and research methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Action research as a model for industry-academia collaboration in the software engineering context

Petersen

Gencel

Asghari

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 2014 International Workshop on Long-Term Industrial Collaboration on Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Action research is a well-established research methodology. It is following a post-positivist research philosophy grounded in critical thinking. The methodology is driven by practical problems, emphasis participatory research, and develops practically useful solutions in an iterative manner. Objective: Two objectives are to be achieved: (1) Understanding the state of the art with respect to action research usage in the software engineering literature, and (2) reflecting and providing recommendations of how to foster industry-academia collaboration through action research. Method: Based on our experience with two action research studies in close collaboration with Ericsson lessons learned and guidelines are presented. Results: In both cases presented action research led to multiple refinements in the interventions implemented. Furthermore, the close collaboration and co-production with the industry was essential to identify and describe the required refinements to provide an in-depth understanding. In comparison with previous studies, we required multiple iterations while previous software engineering studies reported mostly one iteration, or were not explicit regarding the number of iterations studied. Conclusion: We conclude that action research is a powerful tool for industry-academia collaboration. The success of the method highly depends on the researchers and practitioners working in a team. Future studies need to improve the reporting with respect to describing the type of action research used, the iterations, the model of collaboration, and the rationales for changes in each iteration.

show abstract

“…experiments). Gencel and Petersen [26] discuss how to identify and consider the threats of validity depending on different schools of thought and research methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[28]), (2) describe every cycle focusing on action planning, taking, and evaluation/learning, (3) provide a detailed reflection on validity with relevant threats for the action research methodology (cf. [26]). As highlighted by [24] action research is often written as a case study, which should be avoided.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action research as a model for industry-academia collaboration in the software engineering context

Petersen

Gencel

Asghari

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 2014 International Workshop on Long-Term Industrial Collaboration on Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gencel and Petersen [30] proposed a classification of validity threats to be discussed in empirical software engineering studies.…”

Section: Threats To Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing agile benefits and limitations in relation to practice usage

Soliński¹,

Petersen

2014

Software Qual J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. In recent years there has been significant shift from rigid development (RD) towards agile. However, it has also been spotted that agile methodologies are hardly ever followed in their pure form. Hybrid processes as combinations of RD and agile practices emerge. In addition, agile adoption has been reported to result in both: benefits and limitations.Objectives. This exploratory study (a) identifies development models based on RD and agile practice usage by practitioners; (b) identifies agile practice adoption scenarios based on eliciting practice usage over time; (c) prioritizes agile benefits and limitations in relation to (a) and (b).Methods. Practitioners provided answers through a questionnaire. The development models are determined using hierarchical cluster analysis. The use of practices over time is captured through an interactive board with practices and time indication sliders. This study uses the extended hierarchical voting analysis framework (EHV-F) to investigate benefit and limitation prioritization.Results. Four types of development models and six adoption scenarios have been identified. Overall, 45 practitioners participated in the prioritization study. A common benefit among all models and adoption patterns is knowledge and learning, while high requirements on professional skills were perceived as the main limitation. Furthermore, significant variances in terms of benefits and limitations have been observed between models and adoption patterns. Conclusions. The most significant internal benefit categories from adopting agile are knowledge and learning, employee satisfaction, social skill development, and feedback and confidence. Professional skills specific demands, scalability and lack of suitability for specific product domains are the main limitations of agile practice usage. Having a balanced agile process allows to achieve a high number of benefits. With respect to adoption, a big-bang transition from RD to agile leads to poor quality in comparison to the alternatives.

show abstract

“…Petersen and Gencel [56] reviewed existing validity classification schemes and discussed their applicability to software engineering. Concluding that the following types of validity should be taken into account: descriptive validity, theoretical validity, generalizability and interpretive validity.…”

Section: Option 1 To Adapt the Pim Notationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Model-to-Model Transformations for RIA Architectures by means of a Systematic Mapping Study

Bonhaure

González

Aquino

et al. 2017

CLEIej

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on model-to-model -M2M -transformations, as part of the ModelDriven Development -MDD -approach, for Rich Internet Applications -RIA. The main aim of this study is to identify fields that require further contributions, and/or research opportunities in the previously mentioned context. We applied mapping studies techniques, since these techniques use the same basic methodology as reviews but are more general and aimed at discovering what the research trends are, allowing to identify gaps in the literature. From an initial set of 132 papers, we selected 30 papers first. Then, thanks to experts' suggestion, we added 3 additional papers. Therefore, we considered 33 research papers. The performed analysis led to various considerations. Among the important ones, we can mention: there are many newly proposed methods, the scarcity of rigorous and formal validation of such methods, the problem of the portability of Platform Independent Models -PIM, and the low number of tools available for MDD.

show abstract

Worldviews, Research Methods, and their Relationship to Validity in Empirical Software Engineering Research

Cited by 121 publications

References 19 publications

Action research as a model for industry-academia collaboration in the software engineering context

Action research as a model for industry-academia collaboration in the software engineering context

Prioritizing agile benefits and limitations in relation to practice usage

Exploring Model-to-Model Transformations for RIA Architectures by means of a Systematic Mapping Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About