沟通软件工程中研究设计的权衡取舍

IF 6.6 2区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Martin P. Robillard, Deeksha M. Arya, Neil A. Ernst, Jin L.C. Guo, Maxime Lamothe, Mathieu Nassif, Nicole Novielli, Alexander Serebrenik, Igor Steinmacher, Klaas-Jan Stol
{"title":"沟通软件工程中研究设计的权衡取舍","authors":"Martin P. Robillard, Deeksha M. Arya, Neil A. Ernst, Jin L.C. Guo, Maxime Lamothe, Mathieu Nassif, Nicole Novielli, Alexander Serebrenik, Igor Steinmacher, Klaas-Jan Stol","doi":"10.1145/3649598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Reflecting on the limitations of a study is a crucial part of the research process. In software engineering studies, this reflection is typically conveyed through discussions of study limitations or threats to validity. In current practice, such discussions seldom provide sufficient insight to understand the rationale for decisions taken before and during the study, and their implications. We revisit the practice of discussing study limitations and threats to validity and identify its weaknesses. We propose to refocus this practice of self-reflection to a discussion centered on the notion of <i>trade-offs</i>. We argue that documenting trade-offs allows researchers to clarify how the benefits of their study design decisions outweigh the costs of possible alternatives. We present guidelines for reporting trade-offs in a way that promotes a fair and dispassionate assessment of researchers’ work.</p>","PeriodicalId":50933,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Communicating Study Design Trade-offs in Software Engineering\",\"authors\":\"Martin P. Robillard, Deeksha M. Arya, Neil A. Ernst, Jin L.C. Guo, Maxime Lamothe, Mathieu Nassif, Nicole Novielli, Alexander Serebrenik, Igor Steinmacher, Klaas-Jan Stol\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3649598\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Reflecting on the limitations of a study is a crucial part of the research process. In software engineering studies, this reflection is typically conveyed through discussions of study limitations or threats to validity. In current practice, such discussions seldom provide sufficient insight to understand the rationale for decisions taken before and during the study, and their implications. We revisit the practice of discussing study limitations and threats to validity and identify its weaknesses. We propose to refocus this practice of self-reflection to a discussion centered on the notion of <i>trade-offs</i>. We argue that documenting trade-offs allows researchers to clarify how the benefits of their study design decisions outweigh the costs of possible alternatives. We present guidelines for reporting trade-offs in a way that promotes a fair and dispassionate assessment of researchers’ work.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3649598\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3649598","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对研究局限性的反思是研究过程的重要组成部分。在软件工程研究中,这种反思通常是通过对研究局限性或有效性威胁的讨论来传达的。在当前的实践中,这种讨论很少能提供足够的见解,让人理解在研究之前和研究过程中所做决定的理由及其影响。我们重新审视了讨论研究局限性和有效性威胁的做法,并找出了其不足之处。我们建议将这种自我反思的做法重新聚焦到以权衡概念为中心的讨论上。我们认为,记录权衡可以让研究人员澄清其研究设计决策的收益如何大于可能的替代方案的成本。我们提出了报告权衡的指导原则,以促进对研究人员的工作进行公平、冷静的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Communicating Study Design Trade-offs in Software Engineering

Reflecting on the limitations of a study is a crucial part of the research process. In software engineering studies, this reflection is typically conveyed through discussions of study limitations or threats to validity. In current practice, such discussions seldom provide sufficient insight to understand the rationale for decisions taken before and during the study, and their implications. We revisit the practice of discussing study limitations and threats to validity and identify its weaknesses. We propose to refocus this practice of self-reflection to a discussion centered on the notion of trade-offs. We argue that documenting trade-offs allows researchers to clarify how the benefits of their study design decisions outweigh the costs of possible alternatives. We present guidelines for reporting trade-offs in a way that promotes a fair and dispassionate assessment of researchers’ work.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
164
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Designing and building a large, complex software system is a tremendous challenge. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) publishes papers on all aspects of that challenge: specification, design, development and maintenance. It covers tools and methodologies, languages, data structures, and algorithms. TOSEM also reports on successful efforts, noting practical lessons that can be scaled and transferred to other projects, and often looks at applications of innovative technologies. The tone is scholarly but readable; the content is worthy of study; the presentation is effective.
×
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