Identifying Practitioners' Arguments and Evidence in Blogs: Insights from a Pilot Study

A. Williams, A. Rainer
{"title":"Identifying Practitioners' Arguments and Evidence in Blogs: Insights from a Pilot Study","authors":"A. Williams, A. Rainer","doi":"10.1109/APSEC.2016.056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: researchers have a limited understanding of how practitioners conceive of and use evidence. Objective: to investigate how to automatically identify practitioner arguments and evidence in a corpus of practitioner documents, and identify insights for further work. Method: we develop, apply and evaluate a preliminary process to identify practitioner arguments and factual stories, based on the presence of specific words, using a sample of 1,022 blog posts from a software practitioner's blog. Results: we identify unanswered questions relating to the process: selecting and scraping data, cleansing data, parsing components of arguments and stories, selecting the 'right' cases, and validating and interpreting the results. Conclusion: our work provides a foundation for more substantive research on identifying practitioners' evidence and arguments that, in turn, can support research in other areas e.g. evidence informed software practice.","PeriodicalId":339123,"journal":{"name":"2016 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2016 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2016.056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background: researchers have a limited understanding of how practitioners conceive of and use evidence. Objective: to investigate how to automatically identify practitioner arguments and evidence in a corpus of practitioner documents, and identify insights for further work. Method: we develop, apply and evaluate a preliminary process to identify practitioner arguments and factual stories, based on the presence of specific words, using a sample of 1,022 blog posts from a software practitioner's blog. Results: we identify unanswered questions relating to the process: selecting and scraping data, cleansing data, parsing components of arguments and stories, selecting the 'right' cases, and validating and interpreting the results. Conclusion: our work provides a foundation for more substantive research on identifying practitioners' evidence and arguments that, in turn, can support research in other areas e.g. evidence informed software practice.
在博客中识别从业者的论点和证据:来自一项试点研究的见解
背景:研究人员对从业人员如何构思和使用证据的理解有限。目的:研究如何在从业者文档语料库中自动识别从业者论点和证据,并为进一步的工作确定见解。方法:我们开发、应用和评估一个初步的过程来识别从业者的论点和事实故事,基于特定词汇的存在,使用来自软件从业者博客的1022篇博客文章的样本。结果:我们识别与过程相关的未解决的问题:选择和抓取数据,清理数据,解析论点和故事的组成部分,选择“正确”的案例,验证和解释结果。结论:我们的工作为识别从业者的证据和论点提供了更实质性的研究基础,反过来,可以支持其他领域的研究,例如证据告知软件实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信