Worse Than Spam: Issues In Sampling Software Developers

Sebastian Baltes, S. Diehl
{"title":"Worse Than Spam: Issues In Sampling Software Developers","authors":"Sebastian Baltes, S. Diehl","doi":"10.1145/2961111.2962628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Reaching out to professional software developers is a crucial part of empirical software engineering research. One important method to investigate the state of practice is survey research. As drawing a random sample of professional software developers for a survey is rarely possible, researchers rely on various sampling strategies. Objective: In this paper, we report on our experience with different sampling strategies we employed, highlight ethical issues, and motivate the need to maintain a collection of key demographics about software developers to ease the assessment of the external validity of studies. Method: Our report is based on data from two studies we conducted in the past. Results: Contacting developers over public media proved to be the most effective and efficient sampling strategy. However, we not only describe the perspective of researchers who are interested in reaching goals like a large number of participants or a high response rate, but we also shed light onto ethical implications of different sampling strategies. We present one specific ethical guideline and point to debates in other research communities to start a discussion in the software engineering research community about which sampling strategies should be considered ethical.","PeriodicalId":208212,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"43","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.2962628","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

Abstract

Background: Reaching out to professional software developers is a crucial part of empirical software engineering research. One important method to investigate the state of practice is survey research. As drawing a random sample of professional software developers for a survey is rarely possible, researchers rely on various sampling strategies. Objective: In this paper, we report on our experience with different sampling strategies we employed, highlight ethical issues, and motivate the need to maintain a collection of key demographics about software developers to ease the assessment of the external validity of studies. Method: Our report is based on data from two studies we conducted in the past. Results: Contacting developers over public media proved to be the most effective and efficient sampling strategy. However, we not only describe the perspective of researchers who are interested in reaching goals like a large number of participants or a high response rate, but we also shed light onto ethical implications of different sampling strategies. We present one specific ethical guideline and point to debates in other research communities to start a discussion in the software engineering research community about which sampling strategies should be considered ethical.
比垃圾邮件更糟糕:抽样软件开发人员的问题
背景:接触专业软件开发人员是经验软件工程研究的关键部分。调查研究是调查实践状况的一种重要方法。由于抽取专业软件开发人员的随机样本进行调查是不可能的,研究人员依赖于各种抽样策略。目的:在本文中,我们报告了我们使用不同抽样策略的经验,强调了伦理问题,并激发了维护软件开发人员关键人口统计数据的需要,以简化研究的外部有效性评估。方法:我们的报告基于我们过去进行的两项研究的数据。结果:通过公共媒体联系开发者是最有效的抽样策略。然而,我们不仅描述了那些对达到大量参与者或高回复率等目标感兴趣的研究人员的观点,而且我们还揭示了不同采样策略的伦理含义。我们提出了一个具体的道德准则,并指出在其他研究社区的争论,在软件工程研究社区开始讨论哪种抽样策略应该被认为是道德的。
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