Claes Wohlin

Austen Rainer, Claes Wohlin

Context: Software practitioners are a primary provider of information for field studies in software engineering. Research typically recruits practitioners through some kind of sampling. But sampling may not in itself recruit credible participants. Objectives: To propose and demonstrate a framework for recruiting professional practitioners as credible participants in field studies of software engineering. Method: We review existing guidelines, checklists and other advisory sources on recruiting participants for field studies. We develop a framework, partly based on our prior research and on the research of others. We search for and select three exemplar studies (a case study, an interview study and a survey study) and use those to demonstrate the application of the framework. Results: Whilst existing guidelines etc. recognise the importance of recruiting participants, there is limited guidance on how to recruit the right participants. Our demonstration of the framework with three exemplars shows that at least some members of the research community are aware of the need to carefully recruit participants. Conclusions: The framework provides a new perspective for thinking about the recruitment of credible practitioners for field studies of software engineering. In particular, the framework identifies a number of characteristics not explicitly addressed by existing guidelines.

Muhammad Usman, Nauman bin Ali, Claes Wohlin

Context: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have become standard practise as part of software engineering research, although their quality varies. To build on the reviews, both for future research and industry practice, they need to be of high quality. Objective: To assess the quality of SLRs in software engineering, we put forward an appraisal instrument for SLRs. The instrument is intended for use by appraisers of reviews, but authors may also use it as a checklist when designing and documenting their reviews. Method: A well-established appraisal instrument from research in healthcare was used as a starting point to develop a quality assessment instrument. It is adapted to software engineering using guidelines, checklists, and experiences from software engineering. As a validation step, the first version was reviewed by four external experts on SLRs in software engineering and updated based on their feedback. Results: The outcome of the research is an appraisal instrument for the quality assessment of SLRs in software engineering. The instrument intends to support the appraiser in assessing the quality of an SLR. The instrument includes 16 items with different options to capture the quality. The item is assessed on a two or three-grade scale, depending on the item. The instrument also supports consolidating the items into groups, which are then used to assess the overall quality of a systematic literature review. Conclusion: It is concluded that the presented instrument may be helpful support for an appraiser in assessing the quality of SLRs in software engineering.

Claes Wohlin, Emilia Mendes, Katia Romero Felizardo et al.

Context: Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) have been adopted within Software Engineering (SE) for more than a decade to provide meaningful summaries of evidence on several topics. Many of these SLRs are now potentially not fully up-to-date, and there are no standard proposals on how to update SLRs in SE. Objective: The objective of this paper is to propose guidelines on how to best search for evidence when updating SLRs in SE, and to evaluate these guidelines using an SLR that was not employed during the formulation of the guidelines. Method: To propose our guidelines, we compare and discuss outcomes from applying different search strategies to identify primary studies in a published SLR, an SLR update, and two replications in the area of effort estimation. These guidelines are then evaluated using an SLR in the area of software ecosystems, its update and a replication. Results: The use of a single iteration forward snowballing with Google Scholar, and employing as a seed set the original SLR and its primary studies is the most cost-effective way to search for new evidence when updating SLRs. Furthermore, the importance of having more than one researcher involved in the selection of papers when applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria is highlighted through the results. Conclusions: Our proposed guidelines formulated based upon an effort estimation SLR, its update and two replications, were supported when using an SLR in the area of software ecosystems, its update and a replication. Therefore, we put forward that our guidelines ought to be adopted for updating SLRs in SE.

Erica Mourão, João Felipe Pimentel, Leonardo Murta et al.

Context: When conducting a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), researchers usually face the challenge of designing a search strategy that appropriately balances result quality and review effort. Using digital library (or database) searches or snowballing alone may not be enough to achieve high-quality results. On the other hand, using both digital library searches and snowballing together may increase the overall review effort. Objective: The goal of this research is to propose and evaluate hybrid search strategies that selectively combine database searches with snowballing. Method: We propose four hybrid search strategies combining database searches in digital libraries with iterative, parallel, or sequential backward and forward snowballing. We simulated the strategies over three existing SLRs in SE that adopted both database searches and snowballing. We compared the outcome of digital library searches, snowballing, and hybrid strategies using precision, recall, and F-measure to investigate the performance of each strategy. Results: Our results show that, for the analyzed SLRs, combining database searches from the Scopus digital library with parallel or sequential snowballing achieved the most appropriate balance of precision and recall. Conclusion: We put forward that, depending on the goals of the SLR and the available resources, using a hybrid search strategy involving a representative digital library and parallel or sequential snowballing tends to represent an appropriate alternative to be used when searching for evidence in SLRs.

Emilia Mendes, Claes Wohlin, Katia Felizardo et al.

[Context] Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) have been adopted by the Software Engineering (SE) community for approximately 15 years to provide meaningful summaries of evidence on several topics. Many of these SLRs are now potentially outdated, and there are no systematic proposals on when to update SLRs in SE. [Objective] The goal of this paper is to provide recommendations on when to update SLRs in SE. [Method] We evaluated, using a three-step approach, a third-party decision framework (3PDF) employed in other fields, to decide whether SLRs need updating. First, we conducted a literature review of SLR updates in SE and contacted the authors to obtain their feedback relating to the usefulness of the 3PDF within the context of SLR updates in SE. Second, we used these authors feedback to see whether the framework needed any adaptation; none was suggested. Third, we applied the 3PDF to the SLR updates identified in our literature review. [Results] The 3PDF showed that 14 of the 20 SLRs did not need updating. This supports the use of a decision support mechanism (such as the 3PDF) to help the SE community decide when to update SLRs. [Conclusions] We put forward that the 3PDF should be adopted by the SE community to keep relevant evidence up to date and to avoid wasting effort with unnecessary updates.

Ahmad Nauman Ghazi, Kai Petersen, Claes Wohlin et al.

Exploratory testing is neither black nor white, but rather a continuum of exploration exists. In this research we propose an approach for decision support helping practitioners to distribute time between different degrees of exploratory testing on that continuum. To make the continuum manageable, five levels have been defined: freestyle testing, high, medium and low degrees of exploration, and scripted testing. The decision support approach is based on the repertory grid technique. The approach has been used in one company. The method for data collection was focus groups. The results showed that the proposed approach aids practitioners in the reflection of what exploratory testing levels to use, and aligns their understanding for priorities of decision criteria and the performance of exploratory testing levels in their contexts. The findings also showed that the participating company, which is currently conducting mostly scripted testing, should spend more time on testing using higher degrees of exploration in comparison to scripted testing.