CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 204Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Socio-Technical Grounded Theory for Software Engineering

Open access
Hoda, Rashina·2022·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
DOI 10.1109/tse.2021.3106280
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Grounded Theory (GT), a sociological research method designed to study social phenomena, is increasingly being used to investigate the human and social aspects of software engineering (SE). However, being written by and for sociologists, GT is often challenging for a majority of SE researchers to understand and apply. Additionally, SE researchers attempting ad hoc adaptations of traditional GT guidelines for modern socio-technical (ST) contexts often struggle in the absence of clear and relevant guidelines to do so, resulting in poor quality studies. To overcome these research community challenges and leverage modern research opportunities, this paper presentsSocio-Technical Grounded Theory(STGT) designed to ease application and achieve quality outcomes. It defines what exactly is meant by an ST research context and presents the STGT guidelines that expand GT's philosophical foundations, provide increased clarity and flexibility in its methodological steps and procedures, define possible scope and contexts of application, encourage frequent reporting of a variety of interim, preliminary, and mature outcomes, and introduce nuanced evaluation guidelines for different outcomes. It is hoped that the SE research community and related ST disciplines such as computer science, data science, artificial intelligence, information systems, human computer/robot/AI interaction, human-centered emerging technologies (and increasingly other disciplines being transformed by rapid digitalisation and AI-based augmentation), will benefit from applying STGT to conduct quality research studies and systematically produce rich findings and mature theories with confidence.

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/tse.2021.3106280

Cites

13 of 13 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies on changes in requirements and change management lack attention in research.

    “However, studies on changes in requirements [19], and change management lacks attention in research [20], [21], [22].”

    From A Framework for Emotion-Oriented Requirements Change Handling in Agile Software Engineering (2023) · cites this paper as [19]

    The References section lists a study of requirements changes in agile teams, but does not say that requirements-change or change-management research lacks attention. Searches for those terms and for claims that the topics are understudied found no passage in our copy making that assessment. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 80

  1. 10.1016/j.jss.2012.01.059 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Babchuk, Glaser or strauss? Grounded theory and adult education, 1
  3. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01859.x · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1177/104973239300300207 · DOI
  5. 10.1109/TSE.2017.2730870 · DOI
  6. 10.1007/s11135-015-0248-3 · DOI
  7. Burch, 2018, Charles sanders peirce
  8. 10.1007/s10664-017-9546-9 · DOI
  9. Charmaz, 2006, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis
  10. Charmaz, 2014, Constructing Grounded Theory
  11. 10.1145/1806799.1806842 · DOI
  12. 10.2139/ssrn.2445102 · DOI
  13. Douven, 2017, Abduction
  14. 10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_11 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1109/MS.2018.3571228 · DOI
  16. 10.1023/A:1011962213685 · DOI
  17. 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.156 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.jss.2018.11.019 · DOI
  19. 10.4135/9781529799620 · DOI
  20. Glaser, 1978, Theoretical sensitivity
  21. Glaser, 1992, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing
  22. Glaser, 1998, Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions
  23. Glaser, 1966, Awareness of Dying
  24. 10.4324/9781315135687 · DOI
  25. Glaser, 2011, Status Passage
  26. 10.1145/3379597.3387462 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.infsof.2016.04.006 · DOI
  28. Guba, 1994, Competing paradigms in qualitative research, Handbook Qualitative Res., 2
  29. Haig, 1995, Grounded theory as scientific method, Philosophy Educ., 28, 1
  30. 10.1109/TSE.2021.3051898 · DOI
  31. 10.4135/9780857020055.n14 · DOI
  32. 10.1109/ICSE.2017.21 · DOI
  33. 10.1145/1806799.1806843 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.10.009 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1007/s10664-011-9161-0 · DOI
  36. 10.1109/TSE.2012.30 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1109/MS.2018.290111318 · DOI
  38. James, 1975, Pragmatism, 1
  39. 10.1016/j.jss.2014.03.050 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02378.x · DOI
  41. 10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1416 · DOI
  42. Kitchenham, 2004, Procedures for performing systematic reviews, Keele, UK, Keele Univ., 33, 1
  43. Madampe, Towards understanding emotional response to requirements changes in agile teams, 37
  44. 10.1016/j.jss.2013.07.045 · DOI
  45. 10.4135/9781526436061.n13 · DOI
  46. 10.1007/s10664-020-09876-x · DOI
  47. 10.1109/TSE.2020.3025317 · DOI
  48. 10.1109/CHASE52884.2021.00013 · DOI
  49. Novielli, A benchmark study on sentiment analysis for software engineering research, 364
  50. Patton, 1990, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods
  51. Peirce, 1960, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, 2
  52. 10.4135/9780857025029 · DOI
  53. 10.1145/2507288.2507321 · DOI
  54. 10.1037/h0079765 · DOI
  55. 10.1177/1468794106068019 · DOI
  56. 10.1007/s10664-008-9102-8 · DOI · Paper page
  57. 10.1142/9789812389718_0037 · DOI
  58. Schreiber, 2001, Using Grounded Theory in Nursing
  59. Schwandt, 1994, Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry, Handbook Qualitative Res., 1, 118
  60. 10.1007/BF00988995 · DOI
  61. 10.1109/32.799955 · DOI
  62. 10.1109/ICSE.2017.20 · DOI
  63. 10.1177/0959354398086007 · DOI
  64. 10.1109/TSE.2016.2519887 · DOI
  65. 10.1016/j.jss.2020.110871 · DOI
  66. 10.1007/s10664-020-09899-4 · DOI
  67. Singer, 2001, Why and how research ethics matters to you, yes you!, Empir. Softw. Eng., 6, 287, 10.1023/A:1011998412776 · DOI
  68. 10.1109/TSE.2002.1158289 · DOI
  69. 10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_12 · DOI
  70. 10.1145/3180155.3180239 · DOI
  71. 10.1007/s10664-020-09858-z · DOI
  72. 10.1145/1882362.1882435 · DOI
  73. Strauss, 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research
  74. Strauss, 1994, Grounded theory methodology, Handbook Qualitative Res., 17, 273
  75. 10.1177/1609406918758086 · DOI
  76. 10.1109/ICSE.2015.54 · DOI
  77. 10.3109/0142159X.2012.704439 · DOI
  78. 10.4018/978-1-60960-100-3.ch424 · DOI
  79. 10.1007/s10664-014-9319-7 · DOI
  80. 10.1057/ejis.2011.51 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hoda, R.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Hoda, Rashina
ORCID
Hoda, Rashina
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2022-10-01
Volume
48
Issue
10
Pages
3808-3832
ISSN
  • 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-3520
  • 2326-3881
DOI
10.1109/tse.2021.3106280
OpenAlex
W3141666254
Cited by
204
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 13
FWCI
31.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
grounded theory, software engineering research, research methodology guidelines, research quality, theory development, digitalization

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