Member Checking in Software Engineering Research: Lessons Learned from an Industrial Case Study

Ronnie E. S. Santos, F. Silva, C. Magalhães
{"title":"Member Checking in Software Engineering Research: Lessons Learned from an Industrial Case Study","authors":"Ronnie E. S. Santos, F. Silva, C. Magalhães","doi":"10.1109/ESEM.2017.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context. Member checking can be defined as a research phase performed during a qualitative research in which the researcher compares her interpretations and understanding obtained from the data analysis with the view-points of participants to increase accuracy and consistency of results. This is an important step for any qualitative research. However, considering a sample of 66 case studies developed and published in the context of software engineering, only 10 studies briefly described the use of this technique. Method. In this article, we present a set of lessons learned obtained from planning and performing member checking to validate the results of an industrial case study performed in a large software company. Results. Member checking was effective to validate the findings obtained from the qualitative case study and was also useful to reveal important information not observed in the data analysis process. It has also shown to be effective to observe divergences among different groups of participants. Conclusion. We described how the member checking can be performed, and discussed seven lessons learned in this process. We expect that our experience can be useful to software engineering researchers while performing this research phase in case studies.","PeriodicalId":213866,"journal":{"name":"2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2017.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Context. Member checking can be defined as a research phase performed during a qualitative research in which the researcher compares her interpretations and understanding obtained from the data analysis with the view-points of participants to increase accuracy and consistency of results. This is an important step for any qualitative research. However, considering a sample of 66 case studies developed and published in the context of software engineering, only 10 studies briefly described the use of this technique. Method. In this article, we present a set of lessons learned obtained from planning and performing member checking to validate the results of an industrial case study performed in a large software company. Results. Member checking was effective to validate the findings obtained from the qualitative case study and was also useful to reveal important information not observed in the data analysis process. It has also shown to be effective to observe divergences among different groups of participants. Conclusion. We described how the member checking can be performed, and discussed seven lessons learned in this process. We expect that our experience can be useful to software engineering researchers while performing this research phase in case studies.
软件工程研究中的成员检查:从工业案例研究中获得的经验教训
上下文。成员检查可以定义为在定性研究中进行的一个研究阶段,在这个阶段中,研究人员将她从数据分析中得到的解释和理解与参与者的观点进行比较,以提高结果的准确性和一致性。这是任何定性研究的重要一步。然而,考虑到在软件工程的背景下开发和发表的66个案例研究的样本,只有10个研究简要地描述了这种技术的使用。方法。在本文中,我们展示了一组从计划和执行成员检查中获得的经验教训,以验证在大型软件公司中执行的工业案例研究的结果。结果。成员检查对于验证从定性案例研究中获得的结果是有效的,并且对于揭示在数据分析过程中未观察到的重要信息也是有用的。观察不同参与者群体之间的差异也被证明是有效的。结论。我们描述了如何执行成员检查,并讨论了在此过程中获得的七个经验教训。我们期望我们的经验对软件工程研究人员在案例研究中执行这个研究阶段是有用的。
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