Building Knowledge through Families of Experiments

Experimentation in software engineering is necessary but difficult. One reason is that there are a large number of context variables and, so, creating a cohesive understanding of experimental results requires a mechanism for motivating studies and integrating results. It requires a community of researchers that can replicate studies, vary context variables, and build models that represent the common observations about the discipline. The paper discusses the experience of the authors, based upon a collection of experiments, in terms of a framework for organizing sets of related studies. With such a framework, experiments can be viewed as part of common families of studies, rather than being isolated events. Common families of studies can contribute to important and relevant hypotheses that may not be suggested by individual experiments. A framework also facilitates building knowledge in an incremental manner through the replication of experiments within families of studies. To support the framework, the paper discusses the experiences of the authors in carrying out empirical studies, with specific emphasis on persistent problems encountered in experimental design, threats to validity, criteria for evaluation, and execution of experiments in the domain of software engineering.

[1]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Evolving and packaging reading technologies , 1997, J. Syst. Softw..

[2]  Marvin V. Zelkowitz,et al.  Experimental Models for Validating Technology , 1998, Computer.

[3]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Experimenting with error abstraction in requirements documents , 1998, Proceedings Fifth International Software Metrics Symposium. Metrics (Cat. No.98TB100262).

[4]  nominatif de l’habitat,et al.  Definitions , 1964, Innovation Dynamics and Policy in the Energy Sector.

[5]  Shari Lawrence Pfleeger,et al.  Software Metrics : A Rigorous and Practical Approach , 1998 .

[6]  Paul Lukowicz,et al.  Experimental evaluation in computer science: A quantitative study , 1995, J. Syst. Softw..

[7]  A. R. Ilersic,et al.  Research methods in social relations , 1961 .

[8]  John R. Rice,et al.  The Model Problems , 1985 .

[9]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  The Experimental Paradigm in Software Engineering , 1992, Experimental Software Engineering Issues.

[10]  William L. Briggs,et al.  1. Model Problems , 2000 .

[11]  Ralph LaRossa,et al.  On Qualitative Family Research , 1985 .

[12]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Research methods in social relations , 1962 .

[13]  Adam A. Porter,et al.  Comparing Detection Methods for Software Requirements Inspections: A Replicated Experiment , 1995, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[14]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Developing techniques for using software documents: a series of empirical studies , 1998 .

[15]  Ruven E. Brooks,et al.  Studying programmer behavior experimentally: the problems of proper methodology , 1980, CACM.

[16]  L. Delbeke Quasi-experimentation - design and analysis issues for field settings - cook,td, campbell,dt , 1980 .

[17]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.

[18]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  A Controlled Experiment Quantitatively Comparing Software Development Approaches , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[19]  Robert L. Glass,et al.  Science and substance: a challenge to software engineers , 1994, IEEE Software.

[20]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[21]  J. Gilgun,et al.  Definitions, methodologies, and methods in qualitative family research. , 1992 .

[22]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Comparing the Effectiveness of Software Testing Strategies , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[23]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  An Empirical Study of Perspective-Based Usability Inspection , 1998 .

[24]  John W. Daly,et al.  Statistical power and its subcomponents - missing and misunderstood concepts in empirical software engineering research , 1997, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[25]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  The TAME Project: Towards Improvement-Oriented Software Environments , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[26]  F. T. Baker,et al.  Chief Programmer Team Management of Production Programming , 1972, IBM Syst. J..

[27]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Investigating Reading Techniques for Object-Oriented Framework Learning , 2000, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[28]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Communication and Organization: An Empirical Study of Discussion in Inspection Meetings , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[29]  P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? , 1991 .

[30]  Shari Lawrence Pfleeger,et al.  Software metrics (2nd ed.): a rigorous and practical approach , 1997 .

[31]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Investigating Reading Techniques for Framework Learning , 2000 .

[32]  Allen S. Lee A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies , 1989, MIS Q..

[33]  Margaret J. Robertson,et al.  Design and Analysis of Experiments , 2006, Handbook of statistics.

[34]  M Wood,et al.  Replication of Experimental Results in Software Engineering , 2022 .

[35]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Experimentation in software engineering , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[36]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Investigating maintenance processes in a framework-based environment , 1998, Proceedings. International Conference on Software Maintenance (Cat. No. 98CB36272).

[37]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  An Empirical Study of a Syntactic Complexity Family , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[38]  Corporate Ieee,et al.  Software engineering standards , 1987 .

[39]  Gezinus J. Hidding,et al.  Reinventing methodology: who reads it and why? , 1997, CACM.

[40]  B. A. Sheil,et al.  The Psychological Study of Programming , 1981, CSUR.

[41]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[42]  Sivert Sørumgård,et al.  An Empirical Study of Process Conformance , 1999 .