Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Empirical software engineering experts on the use of students and professionals in experiments
CalPoly, USA.
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, ESP.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
Oulun Yliopisto, FIN.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Journal of Empirical Software Engineering, ISSN 1382-3256, E-ISSN 1573-7616, 1-38 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

[Context] Controlled experiments are an important empirical method to generate and validate theories. Many software engineering experiments are conducted with students. It is often claimed that the use of students as participants in experiments comes at the cost of low external validity while using professionals does not. [Objective] We believe a deeper understanding is needed on the external validity of software engineering experiments conducted with students or with professionals. We aim to gain insight about the pros and cons of using students and professionals in experiments. [Method] We performed an unconventional, focus group approach and a follow-up survey. First, during a session at ISERN 2014, 65 empirical researchers, including the seven authors, argued and discussed the use of students in experiments with an open mind. Afterwards, we revisited the topic and elicited experts’ opinions to foster discussions. Then we derived 14 statements and asked the ISERN attendees excluding the authors, to provide their level of agreement with the statements. Finally, we analyzed the researchers’ opinions and used the findings to further discuss the statements. [Results] Our survey results showed that, in general, the respondents disagreed with us about the drawbacks of professionals. We, on the contrary, strongly believe that no population (students, professionals, or others) can be deemed better than another in absolute terms. [Conclusion] Using students as participants remains a valid simplification of reality needed in laboratory contexts. It is an effective way to advance software engineering theories and technologies but, like any other aspect of study settings, should be carefully considered during the design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of an experiment. The key is to understand which developer population portion is being represented by the participants in an experiment. Thus, a proposal for describing experimental participants is put forward.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer New York LLC , 2017. 1-38 p.
Keyword [en]
Experimentation, Generalization, Participants in experiments, Subjects of experiments, Threats to validity, Education, Software engineering, Surveys, Controlled experiment, Empirical Software Engineering, External validities, Software engineering experiments, Software engineering theories, Students
National Category
Software Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-14840DOI: 10.1007/s10664-017-9523-3Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85020375670OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-14840DiVA: diva2:1118952
Available from: 2017-07-03 Created: 2017-07-03 Last updated: 2017-07-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wohlin, Claes
By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
In the same journal
Journal of Empirical Software Engineering
Software Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 1 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf