软件工程中的接受行为理论和模型--映射研究

IF 3.8 2区 计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Jürgen Börstler , Nauman bin Ali , Kai Petersen , Emelie Engström
{"title":"软件工程中的接受行为理论和模型--映射研究","authors":"Jürgen Börstler ,&nbsp;Nauman bin Ali ,&nbsp;Kai Petersen ,&nbsp;Emelie Engström","doi":"10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context:</h3><p>The adoption or acceptance of new technologies or ways of working in software development activities is a recurrent topic in the software engineering literature. The topic has, therefore, been empirically investigated extensively. It is, however, unclear which theoretical frames of reference are used in this research to explain acceptance behaviors.</p></div><div><h3>Objective:</h3><p>In this study, we explore how major theories and models of acceptance behavior have been used in the software engineering literature to empirically investigate acceptance behavior.</p></div><div><h3>Method:</h3><p>We conduct a systematic mapping study of empirical studies using acceptance behavior theories in software engineering.</p></div><div><h3>Results:</h3><p>We identified 47 primary studies covering 56 theory uses. The theories were categorized into six groups. Technology acceptance models (TAM and its extensions) were used in 29 of the 47 primary studies, innovation theories in 10, and the theories of planned behavior/ reasoned action (TPB/TRA) in six. All other theories were used in at most two of the primary studies. The usage and operationalization of the theories were, in many cases, inconsistent with the underlying theories. Furthermore, we identified 77 constructs used by these studies of which many lack clear definitions.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions:</h3><p>Our results show that software engineering researchers are aware of some of the leading theories and models of acceptance behavior, which indicates an attempt to have more theoretical foundations. However, we identified issues related to theory usage that make it difficult to aggregate and synthesize results across studies. We propose mitigation actions that encourage the consistent use of theories and emphasize the measurement of key constructs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54983,"journal":{"name":"Information and Software Technology","volume":"172 ","pages":"Article 107469"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584924000740/pdfft?md5=2b39458871e60592c3bd5ed7e83cf658&pid=1-s2.0-S0950584924000740-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acceptance behavior theories and models in software engineering — A mapping study\",\"authors\":\"Jürgen Börstler ,&nbsp;Nauman bin Ali ,&nbsp;Kai Petersen ,&nbsp;Emelie Engström\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107469\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Context:</h3><p>The adoption or acceptance of new technologies or ways of working in software development activities is a recurrent topic in the software engineering literature. The topic has, therefore, been empirically investigated extensively. It is, however, unclear which theoretical frames of reference are used in this research to explain acceptance behaviors.</p></div><div><h3>Objective:</h3><p>In this study, we explore how major theories and models of acceptance behavior have been used in the software engineering literature to empirically investigate acceptance behavior.</p></div><div><h3>Method:</h3><p>We conduct a systematic mapping study of empirical studies using acceptance behavior theories in software engineering.</p></div><div><h3>Results:</h3><p>We identified 47 primary studies covering 56 theory uses. The theories were categorized into six groups. Technology acceptance models (TAM and its extensions) were used in 29 of the 47 primary studies, innovation theories in 10, and the theories of planned behavior/ reasoned action (TPB/TRA) in six. All other theories were used in at most two of the primary studies. The usage and operationalization of the theories were, in many cases, inconsistent with the underlying theories. Furthermore, we identified 77 constructs used by these studies of which many lack clear definitions.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions:</h3><p>Our results show that software engineering researchers are aware of some of the leading theories and models of acceptance behavior, which indicates an attempt to have more theoretical foundations. However, we identified issues related to theory usage that make it difficult to aggregate and synthesize results across studies. We propose mitigation actions that encourage the consistent use of theories and emphasize the measurement of key constructs.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information and Software Technology\",\"volume\":\"172 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107469\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584924000740/pdfft?md5=2b39458871e60592c3bd5ed7e83cf658&pid=1-s2.0-S0950584924000740-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information and Software Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584924000740\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information and Software Technology","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584924000740","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在软件开发活动中采用或接受新技术或工作方式是软件工程文献中经常出现的话题。因此,对这一主题进行了广泛的实证研究。方法:我们对软件工程中使用接受行为理论的实证研究进行了系统的映射研究。结果:我们确定了 47 项主要研究,涉及 56 种理论的使用。这些理论被分为六组。47 项主要研究中有 29 项使用了技术接受模型(TAM 及其扩展),10 项使用了创新理论,6 项使用了计划行为理论/合理行动理论(TPB/TRA)。所有其他理论最多在两项主要研究中使用。在许多情况下,这些理论的使用和操作与基本理论不一致。结论:我们的研究结果表明,软件工程研究人员了解接受行为的一些主要理论和模型,这表明他们在尝试建立更多的理论基础。然而,我们也发现了一些与理论使用相关的问题,这些问题使得我们很难汇总和综合各项研究的结果。我们建议采取一些缓解措施,鼓励统一使用理论,并强调对关键结构的测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Acceptance behavior theories and models in software engineering — A mapping study

Context:

The adoption or acceptance of new technologies or ways of working in software development activities is a recurrent topic in the software engineering literature. The topic has, therefore, been empirically investigated extensively. It is, however, unclear which theoretical frames of reference are used in this research to explain acceptance behaviors.

Objective:

In this study, we explore how major theories and models of acceptance behavior have been used in the software engineering literature to empirically investigate acceptance behavior.

Method:

We conduct a systematic mapping study of empirical studies using acceptance behavior theories in software engineering.

Results:

We identified 47 primary studies covering 56 theory uses. The theories were categorized into six groups. Technology acceptance models (TAM and its extensions) were used in 29 of the 47 primary studies, innovation theories in 10, and the theories of planned behavior/ reasoned action (TPB/TRA) in six. All other theories were used in at most two of the primary studies. The usage and operationalization of the theories were, in many cases, inconsistent with the underlying theories. Furthermore, we identified 77 constructs used by these studies of which many lack clear definitions.

Conclusions:

Our results show that software engineering researchers are aware of some of the leading theories and models of acceptance behavior, which indicates an attempt to have more theoretical foundations. However, we identified issues related to theory usage that make it difficult to aggregate and synthesize results across studies. We propose mitigation actions that encourage the consistent use of theories and emphasize the measurement of key constructs.

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
Information and Software Technology
Information and Software Technology 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
164
审稿时长
9.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Information and Software Technology is the international archival journal focusing on research and experience that contributes to the improvement of software development practices. The journal''s scope includes methods and techniques to better engineer software and manage its development. Articles submitted for review should have a clear component of software engineering or address ways to improve the engineering and management of software development. Areas covered by the journal include: • Software management, quality and metrics, • Software processes, • Software architecture, modelling, specification, design and programming • Functional and non-functional software requirements • Software testing and verification & validation • Empirical studies of all aspects of engineering and managing software development Short Communications is a new section dedicated to short papers addressing new ideas, controversial opinions, "Negative" results and much more. Read the Guide for authors for more information. The journal encourages and welcomes submissions of systematic literature studies (reviews and maps) within the scope of the journal. Information and Software Technology is the premiere outlet for systematic literature studies in software engineering.
×
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