Sérgio Soares

Fernando Kamei, Gustavo Pinto, Igor Wiese et al.

Context: Over the last years, Grey Literature (GL) is gaining increasing attention in Secondary Studies in Software Engineering (SE). Notably, Multivocal Literature Review (MLR) studies, that search for evidence in both Traditional Literature (TL) and GL, is particularly benefiting from this raise of GL content. Despite the growing interest in MLR-based studies, the literature assessing how GL has contributed to MLR studies is still scarce. Objective: This research aims to assess how the use of GL contributed to MLR studies. By contributing, we mean, understanding to what extent GL is providing evidence that is indeed used by an MLR to answer its research question. Method: We conducted a tertiary study to identify MLR studies published between 2017 and 2019, selecting nine MLRs studies. Using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we identified the GL used and assessed to what extent these MLRs are contributing to MLR studies. Results: Our analysis identified that 1) GL provided evidence not found in TL, 2) most of the GL sources were used to provide recommendations to solve problems, explain a topic, and classify the findings, and 3) 19 different GL types were used in the studies; these GLs were mainly produced by SE practitioners (including blog posts, slides presentations, or project descriptions). Conclusions: We evidence how GL contributed to MLR studies. We observed that if these GLs were not included in the MLR, several findings would have been omitted or weakened. We also described the challenges involved when conducting this investigation, along with potential ways to deal with them, which may help future SE researchers.

Fernando Kamei, Igor Wiese, Crescencio Lima et al.

Context: Grey Literature (GL) recently has grown in Software Engineering (SE) research since the increased use of online communication channels by software engineers. However, there is still a limited understanding of how SE research is taking advantage of GL. Objective: This research aimed to understand how SE researchers use GL in their secondary studies. Method: We conducted a tertiary study of studies published between 2011 and 2018 in high-quality software engineering conferences and journals. We then applied qualitative and quantitative analysis to investigate 446 potential studies. Results: From the 446 selected studies, 126 studies cited GL but only 95 of those used GL to answer a specific research question representing almost 21% of all the 446 secondary studies. Interestingly, we identified that few studies employed specific search mechanisms and used additional criteria for assessing GL. Moreover, by the time we conducted this research, 49% of the GL URLs are not working anymore. Based on our findings, we discuss some challenges in using GL and potential mitigation plans. Conclusion: In this paper, we summarized the last 10 years of software engineering research that uses GL, showing that GL has been essential for bringing practical new perspectives that are scarce in traditional literature. By drawing the current landscape of use, we also raise some awareness of related challenges (and strategies to deal with them).

Fernando Kamei, Igor Wiese, Gustavo Pinto et al.

Background: The use of Grey Literature (GL) has been investigate in diverse research areas. In Software Engineering (SE), this topic has an increasing interest over the last years. Problem: Even with the increase of GL published in diverse sources, the understanding of their use on the SE research community is still controversial. Objective: To understand how Brazilian SE researchers use GL, we aimed to become aware of the criteria to assess the credibility of their use, as well as the benefits and challenges. Method: We surveyed 76 active SE researchers participants of a flagship SE conference in Brazil, using a questionnaire with 11 questions to share their views on the use of GL in the context of SE research. We followed a qualitative approach to analyze open questions. Results: We found that most surveyed researchers use GL mainly to understand new topics. Our work identified new findings, including: 1) GL sources used by SE researchers (e.g., blogs, community website); 2) motivations to use (e.g., to understand problems and to complement research findings) or reasons to avoid GL (e.g., lack of reliability, lack of scientific value); 3) the benefit that is easy to access and read GL and the challenge of GL to have its scientific value recognized; and 4) criteria to assess GL credibility, showing the importance of the content owner to be renowned (e.g., renowned author and institutions). Conclusions: Our findings contribute to form a body of knowledge on the use of GL by SE researchers, by discussing novel (some contradictory) results and providing a set of lessons learned to both SE researchers and practitioners.

Bruno Cartaxo, Gustavo Pinto, Sergio Soares

Integrating research evidence into practice is one of the main goals of Evidence-Based Software Engineering (EBSE). Secondary studies, one of the main EBSE products, are intended to summarize the best research evidence and make them easily consumable by practitioners. However, recent studies show that some secondary studies lack connections with software engineering practice. In this chapter, we present the concept of Rapid Reviews, which are lightweight secondary studies focused on delivering evidence to practitioners in a timely manner. Rapid reviews support practitioners in their decision-making, and should be conducted bounded to a practical problem, inserted into a practical context. Thus, Rapid Reviews can be easily integrated in a knowledge/technology transfer initiative. After describing the basic concepts, we present the results and experiences of conducting two Rapid Reviews. We also provide guidelines to help researchers and practitioners who want to conduct Rapid Reviews, and we finally discuss topics that my concern the research community about the feasibility of Rapid Reviews as an Evidence-Based method. In conclusion, we believe Rapid Reviews might interest researchers and practitioners working in the intersection between software engineering research and practice.

Bruno Cartaxo, Gustavo Pinto, Baldoino Fonseca et al.

Background: One of the most important current challenges of Software Engineering (SE) research is to provide relevant evidence to practice. In health related fields, Rapid Reviews (RRs) have shown to be an effective method to achieve that goal. However, little is known about how the SE research community perceives the potential applicability of RRs. Aims: The goal of this study is to understand the SE research community viewpoints towards the use of RRs as a means to provide evidence to practitioners. Method: To understand their viewpoints, we invited 37 researchers to analyze 50 opinion statements about RRs, and rate them according to what extent they agree with each statement. Q-Methodology was employed to identify the most salient viewpoints, represented by the so called factors. Results: Four factors were identified: Factor A groups undecided researchers that need more evidence before using RRs; Researchers grouped in Factor B are generally positive about RRs, but highlight the need to define minimum standards; Factor C researchers are more skeptical and reinforce the importance of high quality evidence; Researchers aligned to Factor D have a pragmatic point of view, considering RRs can be applied based on the context and constraints faced by practitioners. Conclusions: In conclusion, although there are opposing viewpoints, there are also some common grounds. For example, all viewpoints agree that both RRs and Systematic Reviews can be poorly or well conducted.

Silvio Meira, Vanilson Burégio, Paulo Borba et al.

Since the early days of computers and programs, the process and outcomes of software development has been a minefield plagued with problems and failures, as much as the complexity and complication of software and its development has increased by a thousandfold in half a century. Over the years, a number of theories, laws, best practices, manifestos and methodologies have emerged, with varied degrees of (un)success. Our experience as software engineers of complex and large-scale systems shows that those guidelines are bound to previously defined and often narrow scopes. Enough is enough. Nowadays, nearly every company is in the software and services business and everything is - or is managed by - software. It is about time, then, that the laws that govern our universe ought to be redefined. In this context, we discuss and present a set of universal laws that leads us to propose the first commandment of software engineering for all varieties of information systems.