Kelly Blincoe

Bianca Trinkenreich, Fabio Calefato, Kelly Blincoe et al.

Context: Software engineering (SE) researchers increasingly study Generative AI (GenAI) while also incorporating it into their own research practices. Despite rapid adoption, there is limited empirical evidence on how GenAI is used in SE research and its implications for research practices and governance. Aims: We conduct a large-scale survey of 457 SE researchers publishing in top venues between 2023 and 2025. Method: Using quantitative and qualitative analyses, we examine who uses GenAI and why, where it is used across research activities, and how researchers perceive its benefits, opportunities, challenges, risks, and governance. Results: GenAI use is widespread, with many researchers reporting pressure to adopt and align their work with it. Usage is concentrated in writing and early-stage activities, while methodological and analytical tasks remain largely human-driven. Although productivity gains are widely perceived, concerns about trust, correctness, and regulatory uncertainty persist. Researchers highlight risks such as inaccuracies and bias, emphasize mitigation through human oversight and verification, and call for clearer governance, including guidance on responsible use and peer review. Conclusion: We provide a fine-grained, SE-specific characterization of GenAI use across research activities, along with taxonomies of GenAI use cases for research and peer review, opportunities, risks, mitigation strategies, and governance needs. These findings establish an empirical baseline for the responsible integration of GenAI into academic practice.

Ahmed Fawzy, Amjed Tahir, Kelly Blincoe

AI code generation tools have expanded software creation beyond professional developers, giving rise to vibe coding, a practice in which users generate software via natural-language prompts, evaluate outputs primarily by execution. Prior work has examined how AI code generation tools support programming tasks within specific user groups, typically professional developers, leaving open the question of how vibe coding practices differ across experience levels. We address this gap by surveying 162 vibe coders belonging to three user experience groups: non-coders, novices, and professional developers. Our results show that experience selectively shapes vibe coding. Reported experiences and perceptions of code quality are broadly similar across groups, with all three recognising both the strengths and limitations of vibe coding. In contrast, motivations, interaction styles, and quality assurance practices diverge with experience. Non-developers are most motivated by accessibility, novices emphasise learning and experimentation, and professionals use vibe coding more frequently in work-related contexts. We synthesise these findings as a perception--action gap: a general awareness of risks in AI-generated code is broadly distributed, but the capacity to evaluate, debug, and verify remains experience-dependent. We show that vibe coding is partially democratising as it broadens access to software creation without equally distributing the expertise to evaluate it.

Kelly Blincoe, Sherlock A. Licorish, Judith Fuchs et al.

Software engineering (SE) conferences are vital for knowledge exchange and collaboration, yet can also involve significant barriers for researchers in geographically distant regions such as New Zealand. We identify barriers such as high travel costs, misaligned academic calendars, and limited representation, and propose strategies including hybrid participation, cost-conscious venues, and governance reforms. We make recommendations to promote equitable global participation and strengthen the SE research community.

Annie Vella, Kelly Blincoe

AI coding assistants have become prolific in recent years. Through a longitudinal mixed-methods investigation, we examined how professional software engineers perceive the effects of AI coding assistants in regard to task focus, developer experience, and productivity. Two questionnaires were administered six months apart, yielding 158 eligible participants at the first time point, 101 at the second, and a matched longitudinal cohort of 95. Participants reported spending less time on most development tasks, with 82% reporting less on writing code. We find broader shift in focus from creation to verification activities. We propose a new category of work we term supervisory engineering work, encompassing the direction, evaluation, and correction of AI output. We also identified a productivity-experience paradox: productivity perceptions held stable, with 84% reporting improvement at both time points, yet among matched participants, the proportion reporting worsened developer experience in at least one dimension nearly doubled from 14% to 27%, with flow state and cognitive load eroding while feedback loops improved. These findings suggest that AI coding assistants are impacting both the nature of software engineering work and how engineers experience it.

Bianca Trinkenreich, Fabio Calefato, Geir Hanssen et al.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) is not only transforming software engineering (SE) practice but is also poised to fundamentally disrupt how research is conducted in the field. While perspectives on this transformation range from viewing LLMs as mere productivity tools to considering them revolutionary forces, we argue that the SE research community must proactively engage with and shape the integration of LLMs into research practices, emphasizing human agency in this transformation. As LLMs rapidly become integral to SE research - both as tools that support investigations and as subjects of study - a human-centric perspective is essential. Ensuring human oversight and interpretability is necessary for upholding scientific rigor, fostering ethical responsibility, and driving advancements in the field. Drawing from discussions at the 2nd Copenhagen Symposium on Human-Centered AI in SE, this position paper employs McLuhan's Tetrad of Media Laws to analyze the impact of LLMs on SE research. Through this theoretical lens, we examine how LLMs enhance research capabilities through accelerated ideation and automated processes, make some traditional research practices obsolete, retrieve valuable aspects of historical research approaches, and risk reversal effects when taken to extremes. Our analysis reveals opportunities for innovation and potential pitfalls that require careful consideration. We conclude with a call to action for the SE research community to proactively harness the benefits of LLMs while developing frameworks and guidelines to mitigate their risks, to ensure continued rigor and impact of research in an AI-augmented future.

Valerio Terragni, Partha Roop, Kelly Blincoe

A paradigm shift is underway in Software Engineering, with AI systems such as LLMs gaining increasing importance for improving software development productivity. This trend is anticipated to persist. In the next five years, we will likely see an increasing symbiotic partnership between human developers and AI. The Software Engineering research community cannot afford to overlook this trend; we must address the key research challenges posed by the integration of AI into the software development process. In this paper, we present our vision of the future of software development in an AI-Driven world and explore the key challenges that our research community should address to realize this vision.

Peter Devine, Yun Sing Koh, Kelly Blincoe

Listening to user's requirements is crucial to building and maintaining high quality software. Online software user feedback has been shown to contain large amounts of information useful to requirements engineering (RE). Previous studies have created machine learning classifiers for parsing this feedback for development insight. While these classifiers report generally good performance when evaluated on a test set, questions remain as to how well they extend to unseen data in various forms. This study evaluates machine learning classifiers performance on feedback for two common classification tasks (classifying bug reports and feature requests). Using seven datasets from prior research studies, we investigate the performance of classifiers when evaluated on feedback from different apps than those contained in the training set and when evaluated on completely different datasets (coming from different feedback platforms and/or labelled by different researchers). We also measure the difference in performance of using platform-specific metadata as a feature in classification. We demonstrate that classification performance is similar on feedback from unseen apps compared to seen apps in the majority of cases tested. However, the classifiers do not perform well on unseen datasets. We show that multi-dataset training or zero shot classification approaches can somewhat mitigate this performance decrease. Finally, we find that using metadata as features in classifying bug reports and feature requests does not lead to a statistically significant improvement in the majority of datasets tested. We discuss the implications of these results on developing user feedback classification models to analyse and extract software requirements.

Zainab Masood, Rashina Hoda, Kelly Blincoe

Self-assignment, where software developers choose their own tasks, is a common practice in agile teams. However, it is not known why developers select certain tasks. It is important for managers to be aware of these reasons to ensure sustainable self-assignment practices. We investigated developers' preferences while they are choosing tasks for themselves. We collected data from 42 participants working in 25 different software companies. We applied Grounded Theory procedures to study and analyse factors for self-assigning tasks, which we grouped into three categories: task-based, developer-based, and opinion-based. We found that developers have individual preferences and not all factors are important to every developer. Managers share some common and varying perspectives around the identified factors. Most managers want developers to give higher priority to certain factors. Developers often need to balance between task priority and their own individual preferences, and managers facilitate this through a variety of strategies. More risk-averse managers encourage expertise-based self-assignment to ensure tasks are completed quickly. Managers who are risk-balancing encourage developers to choose tasks that provide learning opportunities only when there is little risk of delays or reduced quality. Finally, growth-seeking managers regularly encourage team members to pick tasks outside their comfort zone to encourage growth opportunities. Our findings will help managers to understand what developers consider when self-assigning tasks and help them empower their teams to practice self-assignment in a sustainable manner.

Waqar Hussain, Didar Zowghi, Tony Clear et al.

Software has always been considered as malleable. Changes to software requirements are inevitable during the development process. Despite many software engineering advances over several decades, requirements changes are a source of project risk, particularly when businesses and technologies are evolving rapidly. Although effectively managing requirements changes is a critical aspect of software engineering, conceptions of requirements change in the literature and approaches to their management in practice still seem rudimentary. The overall goal of this study is to better understand the process of requirements change management. We present findings from an exploratory case study of requirements change management in a globally distributed setting. In this context we noted a contrast with the traditional models of requirements change. In theory, change control policies and formal processes are considered as a natural strategy to deal with requirements changes. Yet we observed that "informal requirements changes" (InfRc) were pervasive and unavoidable. Our results reveal an equally 'natural' informal change management process that is required to handle InfRc in parallel. We present a novel model of requirements change which, we argue, better represents the phenomenon and more realistically incorporates both the informal and formal types of change.

Zainab Masood, Rashina Hoda, Kelly Blincoe

Scrum, the most popular agile method and project management framework, is widely reported to be used, adapted, misused, and abused in practice. However, not much is known about how Scrum actually works in practice, and critically, where, when, how and why it diverges from Scrum by the book. Through a Grounded Theory study involving semi-structured interviews of 45 participants from 30 companies and observations of five teams, we present our findings on how Scrum works in practice as compared to how it is presented in its formative books. We identify significant variations in these practices such as work breakdown, estimation, prioritization, assignment, the associated roles and artefacts, and discuss the underlying rationales driving the variations. Critically, we claim that not all variations are process misuse/abuse and propose a nuanced classification approach to understanding variations as standard, necessary, contextual, and clear deviations for successful Scrum use and adaptation

Kelly Blincoe, Olga Springer, Michal R. Wrobel

Recent studies show that gender diversity in IT teams has a positive impact on the software development process. However, there is still a great gender inequality. The aim of our study was to examine how the working atmosphere depends on the gender differentiation of IT teams. The analysis of the results of the interviews and questionnaires showed that the atmosphere in gender-differentiated teams is more pleasant compared to purely male ones. The paper also discusses the problem of gender discrimination, which, according to the results of the study, unfortunately still exists and affects the working atmosphere. Finally, we looked at ways to reduce the gender inequity, where it turned out that soft approaches such as dedicated training, workshops to show the human face of the IT industry are preferred.