Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,493

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering

Seaman, C.B.·1999·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
DOI 10.1109/32.799955
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

While empirical studies in software engineering are beginning to gain recognition in the research community, this subarea is also entering a new level of maturity by beginning to address the human aspects of software development. This added focus has added a new layer of complexity to an already challenging area of research. Along with new research questions, new research methods are needed to study nontechnical aspects of software engineering. In many other disciplines, qualitative research methods have been developed and are commonly used to handle the complexity of issues involving human behaviour. The paper presents several qualitative methods for data collection and analysis and describes them in terms of how they might be incorporated into empirical studies of software engineering, in particular how they might be combined with quantitative methods. To illustrate this use of qualitative methods, examples from real software engineering studies are used throughout.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/32.799955

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. curtis, 1986, by the way, did anyone study any real programmers?, Empirical Studies of Programmers, 256
  2. miles, 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis An Expanded Sourcebook
  3. parra, 1997, the package-based development process in the flight dynamics division, Proc 22nd Software Eng Workshop, 21
  4. 10.1109/52.526836 · DOI
  5. gilgun, 1992, definitions, methodologies, and methods in qualitative family research, Qualitative Methods in Family Research
  6. 10.1109/32.708569 · DOI
  7. 10.2307/2393551 · DOI · Paper page
  8. hackos, 1998, User and Task Analysis for Interface Design, 258
  9. judd, 1991, Research Methods in Social Relations, 298
  10. 10.1109/52.676747 · DOI
  11. 10.1145/800027.808439 · DOI
  12. lincoln, 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry
  13. 10.1109/32.508315 · DOI
  14. basili, 1986, experimentation in software engineering, IEEE Trans Software Engineering, 12, 733, 10.1109/TSE.1986.6312975 · DOI · Paper page
  15. mcconnell, 1996, Rapid Development Taming Wild Software Schedules, 249
  16. shneiderman, 1998, Designing the User Interface Strategies for Effective Human?Computer Interaction, 146
  17. glaser, 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory Strategies for Qualitative Research
  18. taylor, 1984, Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods
  19. whyte, 1984, Learning from the Field A Guide from Experience

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Seaman, C. B.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
1999-07
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
557-572
ISSN
  • 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-3520
  • 2326-3881
DOI
10.1109/32.799955
OpenAlex
W2104577574
Cited by
1,493
References
2
FWCI
16.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.