When software engineers met research scientists: A case study

Empirical Software Engineering

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 517-536

  Segal, Judith ^a,b  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Empirical Studies of Software Development Research Group   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Agile methodologies; Case study; Scientific software; Software engineers; Tailoring methodologies

Indexed keywords

AGILE METHODOLOGIES; CASE STUDY; SCIENTIFIC SOFTWARES; SOFTWARE ENGINEERS; TAILORING METHODOLOGIES;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS; PROBLEM SOLVING;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 26044456428     PISSN: 13823256     EISSN: 15737616     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10664-005-3865-y     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Bache, E. 2003. Building software for scientists - a report about incremental adoption of XP. Poster presented at XP2003, Genoa, Italy.
2. Beck, K. 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Boehm, B. 2002. Get ready for agile methods, with care. IEEE Computer 35(1): 64-69.
4. Boehm, B., and Turner, R. 2004. Balancing Agility and Discipline. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5. Bratthall, L., and Jorgensen, M. 2002. Can you trust a single data source exploratory software engineering case study? Empirical Software Engineering 7: 9-26.
6. Cockburn, A. 2002. Agile Software Development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7. Cockburn, A., and Williams, L. 2001. The costs and benefits of pair programming. In: G. Succi and M. Marchesi, (eds.), Extreme Programming Examined. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
8. DeMarco, T., and Boehm, B. 2002. The agile methods fray. IEEE Computer 35(6): 90-92.
9. Fitzgerald, B. 1998. An empirical investigation into the adoption of system development methodologies. Information and Management 34: 317-328.
10. Glass, R. 2002. Searching for the Holy Grail of software engineering. Communications of the ACM 45(5): 15-16.
11. Glass, R. L., Vessey, T., and Ramesh, V. 2002. Research in software engineering: an analysis of the literature. Information and Software Technology 44: 491-506.
12. Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. 1999. A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23(1): 67-93.
13. Lanubile, F. 1997. Empirical evaluation of software maintenance technologies. Empirical Software Engineering 2: 97-108.
14. Lee, A. S. 1989. A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. Management and Information Systems Quarterly 13(1): 33-50.
15. Paulk, M. 2002. Agile methodologies and Process Discipline. Crosstalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering 15(10): 15-18.
16. Robinson, H., Hall, P., Hovenden, F., and Rachel, J. 1998. Postmodern software development. The Computer Journal 41(6): 363-375.
17. Robinson, H., Segal, J., and Sharp, H. 2003. The case for empirical studies of the practice of software development. In: A. Jedlitscha and M. Ciolkowski, (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop in the Workshop Series on Empirical Studies in Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 99-108.
18. Seaman, C. 1999. Methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4): 557-572.
19. Segal, J. 2004. The nature of evidence in empirical software engineering. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice (STEP) 2003, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 40-47.
20. Segal, J., Grinyer, A., and Sharp, H. 2005. The type of evidence produced by empirical software engineers. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Realizing Evidence-Based Software Engineering, ICSE-2005, http:// portal.acm.org/dl.cfm
21. Wood, W. A., and Kleb, W. L. 2003. Exploring XP for scientific research. IEEE Software 20(3): 30-36.
22. Zelkowitz, M. V., Wallace, D. R., and Binkley, D. W. 2002. Experimental validation of new software technology. In: N. Juristo and A. M. Moreno, (eds.), Lecture Notes on Empirical Software Engineering, World Scientific Publishing Co, pp. 229-263.