| 1. |
- Mendez, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
Open Science in Software Engineering
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Contemporary Empirical Methods in Software Engineering. - Cham : Springer. - 9783030324889 - 9783030324896 ; , s. 477-501
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Open science describes the movement of making any research artifact available to the public and includes, but is not limited to, open access, open data, and open source. While open science is becoming generally accepted as a norm in other scientific disciplines, in software engineering, we are still struggling in adapting open science to the particularities of our discipline, rendering progress in our scientific community cumbersome. In this chapter, we reflect upon the essentials in open science for software engineering including what open science is, why we should engage in it, and how we should do it. We particularly draw from our experiences made as conference chairs implementing open science initiatives and as researchers actively engaging in open science to critically discuss challenges and pitfalls and to address more advanced topics such as how and under which conditions to share preprints, what infrastructure and licence model to cover, or how do it within the limitations of different reviewing models, such as double-blind reviewing. Our hope is to help establishing a common ground and to contribute to make open science a norm also in software engineering.
|
|
| 2. |
- Prechelt, Lutz, et al.
(författare)
-
Double-blind is good but open would be better : Perceptions of peer review in the SE community
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Software Engineering Notes. - : ACM Digital Library. - 0163-5948 .- 1943-5843. ; 45:3, s. 16-16
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Peer review in software engineering is considered, same as for other disciplines, to be a key element of the research process, yet it is often perceived as not to work fully well. To understand the pains and gains in the peer review system, we ran a survey with open and closed questions with the authors and PC members of ICSE 2014/2015/2016. We received 241 responses (29% response rate). 67% of the respondents identified themselves as professors. We analyzed the responses quantitatively and qualitatively (with open coding). All questions were optional. Agreement scales had 10 points, so mild levels of agreement could be expressed but there was no undecided middle point. The resulting article appeared in Information and Software Technology in 2018 [1] and we also disclosed the anonymized data set [2].
|
|
| 3. |
- Wagner, Stefan, PhD, 1982-, et al.
(författare)
-
Challenges in Survey Research
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Contemporary Empirical Methods in Software Engineering. - Cham : Springer Nature. - 9783030324889 ; , s. 93-125
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- While being an important and often used research method, survey research has been less often discussed on a methodological level in empirical software engineering than other types of research. This chapter compiles a set of important and challenging issues in survey research based on experiences with several large-scale international surveys. The chapter covers theory building, sampling, invitation and follow-up, statistical as well as qualitative analysis of survey data and the usage of psychometrics in software engineering surveys.
|
|
| 4. |
- Borg, Markus, et al.
(författare)
-
Requirements for Organizational Resilience : Engineering Developer Happiness
- 2024
-
Ingår i: IEEE Software. - 0740-7459. ; 41:4, s. 14-18
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Can the right requirements boost developer satisfaction and happiness? We believe they can. In keeping with this issue's theme, 'Well-Being for Resilience: Developers Thrive,' we discuss the connection between the three keywords, well-being, resilience, and thriving. How could requirements engineering foster these qualities? While there hasn't been much research on this topic, we see opportunities for future work.
|
|
| 5. |
- Graziotin, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
Happiness and the Productivity of Software Engineers
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Rethinking Productivity in Software Engineering. - Berkeley, CA : Springer. - 9781484242216 ; , s. 109-124
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Software companies and startups often follow the idea of flourishing happiness among developers. Perks, playground rooms, free breakfast, remote office options, sports facilities near the companies, company retreats, you name it. The rationale is that happy developers should be more productive and also retained.But is it the case that happy software engineers are more productive? Moreover, are perks the way to go to make developers happy? Are developers happy at all? What are the consequences of unhappiness among software engineers?These questions are important to ask both from the perspective of productivity and from the perspective of sustainable software development and well-being in the workplace. Managers, team leaders, as well as team members should be interested in these concerns.This chapter provides an overview of our studies on the happiness of software developers. You will learn why it is important to make software developers happy, how happy they really are, what makes them unhappy, and what is expected regarding happiness and productivity while developing software.
|
|
| 6. |
- Graziotin, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
What happens when software developers are (un)happy
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Systems and Software. - : Elsevier Inc.. - 0164-1212 .- 1873-1228. ; 140, s. 32-47
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The growing literature on affect among software developers mostly reports on the linkage between happiness, software quality, and developer productivity. Understanding happiness and unhappiness in all its components – positive and negative emotions and moods – is an attractive and important endeavor. Scholars in industrial and organizational psychology have suggested that understanding happiness and unhappiness could lead to cost-effective ways of enhancing working conditions, job performance, and to limiting the occurrence of psychological disorders. Our comprehension of the consequences of (un)happiness among developers is still too shallow, being mainly expressed in terms of development productivity and software quality. In this paper, we study what happens when developers are happy and unhappy while developing software. Qualitative data analysis of responses given by 317 questionnaire participants identified 42 consequences of unhappiness and 32 of happiness. We found consequences of happiness and unhappiness that are beneficial and detrimental for developers’ mental well-being, the software development process, and the produced artifacts. Our classification scheme, available as open data enables new happiness research opportunities of cause-effect type, and it can act as a guideline for practitioners for identifying damaging effects of unhappiness and for fostering happiness on the job. © 2018
|
|
| 7. |
- Lenberg, Per, 1976, et al.
(författare)
-
Behavioral software engineering - guidelines for qualitative studies
- 2017
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Researchers are increasingly recognizing the importance of human aspects in software development and since qualitative methods are used to, in-depth, explore human behavior, we believe that studies using such techniques will become more common. Existing qualitative software engineering guidelines do not cover the full breadth of qualitative methods and knowledge on using them found in the social sciences. The aim of this study was thus to extend the software engineering research community's current body of knowledge regarding available qualitative methods and provide recommendations and guidelines for their use. With the support of a literature review, we suggest that future research would benefit from (1) utilizing a broader set of research methods, (2) more strongly emphasizing reflexivity, and (3) employing qualitative guidelines and quality criteria. We present an overview of three qualitative methods commonly used in social sciences but rarely seen in software engineering research, namely interpretative phenomenological analysis, narrative analysis, and discourse analysis. Furthermore, we discuss the meaning of reflexivity in relation to the software engineering context and suggest means of fostering it. Our paper will help software engineering researchers better select and then guide the application of a broader set of qualitative research methods.
|
|
| 8. |
- Lenberg, Per, et al.
(författare)
-
Qualitative software engineering research : Reflections and guidelines
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of Software. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 2047-7473 .- 2047-7481. ; 36:6
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Researchers are increasingly recognizing the importance of human aspects in software development. Because qualitative methods are used to explore human behavior in-depth, we believe that studies using such methods will become more common. Existing qualitative software engineering guidelines do not cover the full breadth of qualitative methods and the knowledge on how to use them like in social sciences. The purpose of this study was to extend the software engineering community's current body of knowledge regarding available qualitative methods and their quality assurance frameworks and to provide recommendations and guidelines for their use. With the support of an epistemological argument and a survey of the literature, we suggest that future research would benefit from (1) utilizing a broader set of research methods, (2) more strongly emphasizing reflexivity, and (3) employing qualitative guidelines and quality criteria. We present an overview of three qualitative methods commonly used in social sciences but rarely seen in software engineering research, namely interpretative phenomenological analysis, narrative analysis, and discourse analysis. Furthermore, we discuss the meaning of reflexivity in relation to the software engineering context and suggest means of fostering it. Our paper will help software engineering researchers better select and then guide the application of a broader set of qualitative research methods. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
|
|
