Widening the scope of evidence gathering in software engineering

B. Oates
{"title":"Widening the scope of evidence gathering in software engineering","authors":"B. Oates","doi":"10.1109/STEP.2003.39","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that the empirical evaluation of software engineering requires a wider range of strategies and data generation methods than has been used until now. It can learn from its sister discipline of information systems (IS). The paper summarises a range of strategies and methods that could be used. However, adoption of some of the additional strategies and methods would require software engineers to examine their assumptions about the nature of evidence and how it should be evaluated. The paper therefore explains the scientific, positivist paradigm and the interpretive paradigm. It argues for including qualitative methods and the interpretive paradigm in the empirical evaluation of software engineering. Finally the paper reflects on the implications for research and practice of having a range of available strategies and methods and two contrasting underlying philosophies.","PeriodicalId":260047,"journal":{"name":"Eleventh Annual International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eleventh Annual International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/STEP.2003.39","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This paper argues that the empirical evaluation of software engineering requires a wider range of strategies and data generation methods than has been used until now. It can learn from its sister discipline of information systems (IS). The paper summarises a range of strategies and methods that could be used. However, adoption of some of the additional strategies and methods would require software engineers to examine their assumptions about the nature of evidence and how it should be evaluated. The paper therefore explains the scientific, positivist paradigm and the interpretive paradigm. It argues for including qualitative methods and the interpretive paradigm in the empirical evaluation of software engineering. Finally the paper reflects on the implications for research and practice of having a range of available strategies and methods and two contrasting underlying philosophies.
扩大软件工程中证据收集的范围
本文认为,软件工程的实证评估需要比目前使用的更广泛的策略和数据生成方法。它可以从它的姊妹学科信息系统(IS)中学习。本文总结了一系列可以使用的策略和方法。然而,采用一些额外的策略和方法将要求软件工程师检查他们对证据本质的假设,以及应该如何对其进行评估。因此,本文对科学范式、实证范式和解释范式进行了解释。它主张在软件工程的实证评估中包括定性方法和解释范式。最后,本文反思了拥有一系列可用的策略和方法以及两种截然不同的基本哲学对研究和实践的影响。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信