Résumé de section

  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
    nMethodologyReferences
    1Controlled ExperimentBasili, V. R., Selby, R. W., & Hutchens, D. H. (1986). Experimentation in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, (7), 733-743.
    Pfleeger, S.L. Experimental design and analysis in software engineering. Ann Software Eng 1, 219–253 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02249052
    2Proof of Concept (POC)Elliott, S. (2021). Proof of Concept Research. Philosophy of Science, 88(2), 258-280. doi:10.1086/711503.
    Kendig, C. E. (2016). What is Proof of Concept Research and how does it Generate Epistemic and Ethical Categories for Future Scientific Practice? Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 735–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9654-0
    Wieringa, R. (2014). Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering. Springer.
    3Case studyKitchenham, B., Pickard, L., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1995). Case Studies for Method and Tool Evaluation. IEEE Software, 12(4), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.391832
    Runeson, Per, and Martin Höst. "Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering." Empirical software engineering 14 (2009): 131-164.
    4Action researchMackenzie, J., Tan, P-L., Hoverman, S., Baldwin, C., Article 2: The Value and Limitations
    of Participatory Action Research Methodology, Journal of Hydrology (2012)
    5Design Science ResearchHevner, Alan R., et al. "Design science in information systems research." MIS quarterly (2004): 75-105.
    Ken Peffers , Tuure Tuunanen , Marcus A. Rothenberger & Samir Chatterjee (2007) A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research, Journal of Management Information Systems, 24:3, 45-77
    Wieringa, R. (2014). Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering. Springer.
    6InterviewTurner III, Daniel W., and Nicole Hagstrom-Schmidt. "Qualitative interview design." Howdy or Hello? Technical and professional communication (2022).
    Adams, William C. "Conducting semi‐structured interviews." Handbook of practical program evaluation (2015): 492-505.
    Rubin, Herbert J., and I. S. Rubin. "Interviewing: The art of hearing data." Thousand Oaks, CA (2005).
    Qu, Sandy Q., and John Dumay. "The qualitative research interview." Qualitative research in accounting & management8, no. 3 (2011): 238-264.
    7SurveyLinåker, Johan; Sulaman, Sardar Muhammad; Maiani de Mello, Rafael; Höst, M. (2015). Guidelines for conducting surveys in software engineering v. 1.1. June, 0–63.
    Kitchenham, B. A., & Pfleeger, S. L. (2008). Kitchenham_and_Pfleeger_2008_Personal Opinion Surveys
    De Mello, R. M., & Travassos, G. H. (2016). Surveys in Software Engineering: Identifying Representative Samples. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 08-09-September-2016(June 2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.2962632
    8Systematic literature review (SLR) Kitchenham, Barbara, and Stuart Charters. "Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering." (2007).
    Keele, Staffs. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Vol. 5. Technical report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE, 2007.
    9Systematic mapping study (SMS)Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., & Kuzniarz, L. (2015). Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology, 64, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007
    Kai Petersen, Robert Feldt, Shahid Mujtaba, and Michael Mattsson.(2008). Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE'08). BCS Learning & Development Ltd., Swindon, GBR, 68–77.
    10Multivocal literature review (MLR)Garousi, Vahid, Michael Felderer, and Mika V. Mäntylä. "Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering." Information and software technology 106 (2019): 101-121.
    Lecture notes / Supporting materials:

      • Replier Déplier

        Assignment: Presentation of a Research methodology

        Organisation: Team of 3, presentation 10-15 min
        To Do: 
        • Choose one of the research methodologies proposed
        • Download and read  the main references that describe this methodology
        • Search for your own sources to complement..
        • Present the methodology in class 
        In your presentation, cover the following: 
        • When this methodology should be applied? 
          • What kind of research problems/questions can be addressed by this methofology?
        • When this methodology should NOT be applied?
          • Feasibility constraints (e.g., sample size is too small)
        • What sort of data is used? (e.g., quanitative, quantitative, numerical, textual, etc..) How is it collected? How the data is analysed? What methods?
        • The research protocol (present the steps)
        • How the results are validated? What are the main threats to validity?
        Propose an illustrative example:
        • Use some research article that implements this methodology
          • What is the research question? 
          • What data was collected? How?
          • What analysis was made?
          • What are the results?
          • Are they validated?
        Summary:
        • What is good about this methodology? 
        • What are challenges that make the implementation fail?

Accessibilité
Tout remettre à zéro

Couleur de fond Couleur de fond

Police Police

Crénage de la police Crénage de la police

Taille de police Taille de police

1

Visibilité de l’image Visibilité de l’image

Espacement des lettres Espacement des lettres

0

Hauteur de ligne Hauteur de ligne

1.2

Surbrillance de lien Surbrillance de lien

Alignement du texte Alignement du texte

Couleur de texte Couleur de texte