Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering

By Barbara A. Kitchenham, Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, L. Pickard, Peter W. Jones, David C. Hoaglin, K. E. Emam, J. Rosenberg. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 2002

1,505 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems, Information Systems and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/539dbb218dabc9fbe86fcac304522e2c95c8b429

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

In Information Systems and Management

Citations in the corpus

Evidence-based software engineering (2004, background): “[9] proposed some preliminary guidelines for formal experiments and surveys.”
Research synthesis in software engineering: A tertiary study (2011, positive): “In this context, evidence is knowledge obtained from ﬁndings derived from analysis of data obtained from observational or experimental procedures that are potentially repeatable and that meet the currently accepted standards of design, execution, and analysis (e.g., [26,49]).”
Empirical Studies of Pair Programming for CS/SE Teaching in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review (2011, background): “In order to improve the quality of empirical research, researchers can refer to available guidelines for conducting empirical research in SE [37] and for reporting controlled experiments in SE [30].”
Are Students Representatives of Professionals in Software Engineering Experiments? (2015, methodology): “According to the Goal/Question/Metric template, our research goal [24] is as follows:”
Scientiﬁc Benchmarking of Parallel Computing Systems Twelve ways to tell the masses when reporting performance results (2017, neutral): “Other ﬁelds of experimental computer science struggle with similar issues and designed basic rules speciﬁc to their environment (e.g., [8,32]).”
Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering (2005, neutral): “As already identified by Kitchenham et al. [5], reporting guidelines are necessary for all relevant kinds of empirical work, and they have to address the needs of different stakeholders (i.e., researchers and practitioners).”
Experimentation in Software Engineering (2012, neutral): “We prefer to consider ethnographic studies as a specialized type of case studies with focus on cultural practices [50] or long duration studies with large amounts of participant-observer data [98].”
Evidence-Based Software Engineering for Practitioners (2005, methodology): “By research-based evidence, we mean reports, articles, and other documents that describe a study conducted and reported according to certain guidelines (e.g. Kitchenham et al., 2002).”
Supporting Controlled Experimentation with Testing Techniques: An Infrastructure and its Potential Impact (2005, methodology): “these challenges involve issues for experiment design, and guidelines such as those provided by Kitchenham et al. [ 26 ] address those issues.”
Experiences using systematic review guidelines (2006, background): “[7] mention that in empirical research in software engineering more generally it is important to define the experimental”
Coevolving Systems and the Organization of Agile Software Development (2009, neutral): “From a research methodology perspective, although case study allows the capture of detail and the analysis of many variables, the method is criticized for difficulties of generalization and is subject to questions of external validity because of the unique characteristics of each case (Kitchenham et”
Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering (2009, neutral): “There exist guidelines for experiments ’ conduct (Kitchenham et al. 2002; Wohlin et al. 2000) and reporting (Jedlitschka and Pfahl 2005), measurements (Basili and Weiss 1984; Fenton and Pfleeger 1996; van Solingen and Berghout 1999), and systematic reviews (Kitchenham 2007), while only little is…”
Using Mapping Studies in Software Engineering (2008, background): “Some guidelines for this do exist (Kitchenham et al. 2002, Jedlitschka et al. 2008), but maybe we need stronger mechanisms to help encourage authors to comply with them—possibly a role that journal editors and others could perform?”