Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Lessons Learnt in Conducting Survey Research

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1702.05744 v3 pith:3MRJAMOA submitted 2017-02-19 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords learntlessonssurveysresearchsurveyconductingdesignengineering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Context: Surveys constitute an valuable tool to capture a large-scale snapshot of the state of the practice. Apparently trivial to adopt, surveys hide, however, several pitfalls that might hinder rendering the result valid and, thus, useful. Goal: We aim at providing an overview of main pitfalls in software engineering surveys and report on practical ways to deal with them. Method: We build on the experiences we collected in conducting many studies and distill the main lessons learnt. Results: The eight lessons learnt we report cover different aspects of the survey process ranging from the design of initial research objectives to the design of a questionnaire. Conclusions: Our hope is that by sharing our lessons learnt, combined with a disciplined application of the general survey theory, we contribute to improving the quality of the research results achievable by employing software engineering surveys.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Call for Critically Rethinking and Reforming Data Analysis in Empirical Software Engineering

    cs.SE 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Across three decades of software engineering research, statistical problems were common in a large sample, and expert reviewers often disagreed with the study authors' labels when judging short excerpts.

Pith tools