Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 92 references

REConnect: Participatory RE for Social Sustainability

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that requirements engineering for socially impactful systems should be re-centered on sustained human connection—trust, co-design, and empowerment—rather than automated extraction of user data.

desk verdict A useful conceptual framework with an overclaimed empirical base—send it to review, but only after the authors align the abstract with the actual evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01006 v2 pith:RWLI6WS4 submitted 2025-08-31 cs.SE

Daniela Damian , Bachan Ghimire , Ze Shi Li , Kezia Devathasan This is my paper
classification cs.SE
keywords requirementsengineeringparticipatorydesignhumanvaluescommunityengagementsocialsustainabilitygenerativeAItrustco-design
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that requirements engineering for socially impactful software has drifted toward automated, distanced elicitation—mining app reviews, classifying user feedback with AI—and that this drift systematically excludes the communities most affected. It introduces REConnect, a participatory framework whose central claim is that human connection, not extraction, is the foundation for understanding lived experiences. The framework rests on three principles: building trusting relationships, co-designing with and alongside stakeholders, and empowering users as agents of change. Drawing on three long-running community projects—a blood-donation platform in rural Nepal, a shelter navigator for women at risk of homelessness in Canada, and an Indigenous language game in the Arctic—the paper claims these principles yield requirements that are culturally grounded, socially legitimate, and sustainable beyond delivery. It then specifies how AI can assist requirements tasks while humans remain guardians of values and interpreters of AI output.

What carries the argument

The central object is the REConnect method itself: three principles—building trusting relationships, co-designing with and alongside users, and empowering users as agents of change—each operationalized by a set of nine REConnect Actions (REActions). The REActions are the load-bearing mechanism that turns the principles into practice: Contextual Stakeholder Mapping, Immersive Field Presence, Community-engaging Facilitated Workshops; Iterative Prototyping and Simulation, Community-engaged Requirement Mapping, Co-Design Artifacts within Socio-economic Context; Motivation Mapping, Engaging Empowered Stakeholders, and Capacity Building and Training. The argument works by showing, through the thre

What would settle it

A controlled comparison of two similar community projects, one following REConnect's REActions and one using conventional or AI-assisted elicitation, observed from the start and matched on prior relationships, funding, and community readiness: if the relational project does not show greater stakeholder legitimacy, adoption, or post-delivery sustainability, the causal claim fails. A shorter test: interview transcripts or project logs showing that reported trust and empowerment narratives were post-hoc rationalizations, or that requirements were actually driven by external constraints rather tha

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a method, REConnect, derived from a reflective synthesis of 26 community-engaged software projects and a deep thematic analysis of three of them: BloodSync (blood coordination in rural Nepal), Herluma (shelter bed navigation for women at risk of homelessness in Canada), and BridgingRoots (an Inuvialuktun language-learning game in the Canadian Arctic). Across these, the authors claim, requirements did not emerge from one-off elicitation events but were negotiated social artifacts produced through sustained human connection. REConnect operationalizes this through three principles—building trusting relationships, co-designing with and alongside users, and empowering use

Load-bearing premise

The framework's evidence is the project team's own retrospective accounts of three projects; the central claim that trust-building, co-design, and empowerment caused the reported adoption and legitimacy depends on those accounts being accurate and on no unseen factor—such as community readiness, funding, or prior relationships—doing the work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Requirements teams working with marginalized communities should budget for sustained field presence and repeated visits, treating trust as a precondition for requirements rather than a side effect.
  • AI tools in requirements engineering should be positioned as assistants whose outputs are interpreted, challenged, and overridden by stakeholders, with humans retaining final interpretive authority.
  • Stakeholder roles should expand beyond formal system users to include informal influencers—elders, ward leaders, frontline workers—as co-designers and co-owners of both the requirements and the system.
  • Requirements quality for socially impactful systems should be judged partly by social legitimacy, community ownership, and post-delivery sustainability, not only by completeness or correctness.
  • The REActions give practitioners a concrete checklist linking each principle to elicitation, analysis, and validation activities across the project lifecycle.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the causal story holds, the unit of analysis in requirements engineering should shift from individual requirements to the relationship itself; evaluation would then measure the capacity of a process to build trust, not just the quality of extracted needs.
  • A testable extension: in a larger sample of community-engaged projects, score adherence to the REActions and test whether it predicts adoption and sustainability beyond project type, funding, and prior relationships.
  • The framework implies a boundary condition for automation: steps requiring lived presence and motivation mapping cannot be safely delegated to AI, so organizations that skip the groundwork step would lose the context that later AI-assisted analysis depends on.
  • The principles overlap with community-based participatory research in other fields; REConnect's distinctive contribution is making them operational as requirements-specific actions and as explicit governance roles for human-AI collaboration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces REConnect, a participatory requirements engineering framework whose central thesis is that human connection—manifested as trusting relationships, co-design, and user empowerment—should be the foundation of RE for socially sustainable software. The authors claim that REConnect was derived from qualitative analysis of 26 community-engaged projects in the INSPIRE program and is illustrated through three case studies: BloodSync (rural Nepal), Herluma (Victoria, Canada), and BridgingRoots (Arctic Canada). The framework is operationalized as three principles and nine REActions, and the paper further proposes human governance roles for AI-assisted RE. The contribution is positioned against CrowdRE and automated, LLM-based elicitation, arguing for sustained relational engagement rather than large-scale automated extraction.

Significance. If the framework and its supporting evidence were empirically sound, this paper would make a valuable contribution to the human-centered and participatory RE literature. It articulates a timely critique of scale-driven CrowdRE and GenAI approaches, and it translates a vague commitment to 'human values' into concrete, actionable practices (trust-building actions, co-design actions, empowerment actions) that practitioners could adopt. The proposed human-AI governance roles (guardians of values, curators and contextualisers, inclusion amplifiers, accountability partners, co-reflectors) are a useful conceptual scaffold for future RE tool design. The paper is also honest in not claiming to eliminate AI from RE; it attempts a nuanced integration. However, these strengths are conceptual. The manuscript does not provide a verifiable qualitative analysis, does not report data or analysis procedures, and does not test the causal claims it makes. The current evidence base consists of three retrospective narratives authored by members of the program that ran the projects, which is insufficient to support the paper's central generalizability and effectiveness claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §3; §4] The abstract claims REConnect 'was derived through qualitative analysis of 26 community-engaged software projects' and that the authors 'conducted a reflective synthesis across all 26 projects, followed by in-depth thematic analysis of three illustrative projects.' The body never describes this analysis: there is no coding scheme, no corpus description, no analysis procedure, no triangulation, and no account of how the 26 projects were synthesized. Instead, §3 presents only three retrospective narratives and §4 states, 'Drawing on the three case studies... we introduce REConnect.' The 26-project basis is therefore asserted but not evidenced. Either report the qualitative analysis of all 26 projects or revise the derivation claim to reflect the actual basis (three illustrative cases). This is load-bearing because the abstract's method claim is what distinguishes the paper from a purely经验b
  2. [§3 opening; §3.1–3.3; §4] There is a circularity risk in the evidence structure. Section 3 introduces the three projects as 'three cases that have inspired our proposal,' and Section 4 then 'draw[s] on the three case studies' to present REConnect's principles and REActions. The principles are abstracted from these same cases and then the cases are cited as supporting evidence for the principles. This does not provide independent validation. The authors should either test the framework on held-out projects (e.g., other INSPIRE projects), include negative cases, or clearly frame the case studies as illustrative rather than confirmatory. As written, the case narratives cannot both inspire and validate the framework without additional evidence.
  3. [§3, first paragraph; §6] The paper makes causal claims about the necessity and effectiveness of human connection. The opening of §3 asserts that without the human-connection practices, 'the subtle elements that mattered... would not have surfaced, likely leading to a lack of system adoption.' This is a counterfactual causal claim with no comparison project, no baseline, and no control for confounds such as community readiness, prior relationships, funding, or the attention effect of the visits themselves. Similar causal language appears in the conclusion ('can yield requirements that are culturally grounded, socially legitimate, and sustainable'). The reported outcomes (adoption, legitimacy, community ownership, youth empowerment) may be attributable to these confounds rather than to the REConnect principles. The authors should either provide comparative evidence from the other 23 INSPIRE projects (e.g., project
  4. [§5.2; Table 3] The human-AI governance roles in Table 3 (guardians of values, curators and contextualisers, inclusion amplifiers, accountability partners, co-reflectors) are presented as an extension of REConnect but are not derived from the three case studies nor evaluated in any way. The mapping from REConnect steps to these roles appears plausible but is entirely speculative. This is acceptable for a proposal, but the paper should label these roles as a design proposal rather than an empirically grounded component of the framework. Otherwise, readers may mistake an unvalidated taxonomy for a tested result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The name is inconsistently capitalized: 'REConnect' (title, most sections), 'REconnect' (§4, §5.1), and 'RECOnnect' (Table 3 and §5.2). Please standardize.
  2. [§5.2, Step 5] Typo: 'each each step' should be 'each step.'
  3. [§5.2] The claim that 'GPT-5' represents the 'state-of-the-art' is vague and will date quickly. Cite a specific model version with a date or avoid this phrasing.
  4. [References] Many reference URLs include tracking parameters such as '?utm_source=chatgpt.com.' Please remove these parameters and verify that the cited sources are the canonical versions.
  5. [§3.4] The 'Summary' subsection is useful but reads as a restatement of the narratives rather than a synthesis. Consider renaming it 'Synthesis' and explicitly connecting each narrative element to a REConnect principle, which would also help address the analysis-transparency concern.
  6. [§1; Abstract] The introduction and abstract should be aligned regarding the number of projects: the abstract says 26 projects, while the introduction says 'three case studies.' If the 26-project analysis is not reported, the introduction's framing is more accurate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

REConnect's central claim is partly circular: the three principles and REActions are abstracted from the same three case narratives that are then presented as evidence that the principles yield sustainable, culturally grounded requirements.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 opening; Section 3.4; Section 4 opening]
    "First, we describe three cases that have inspired our proposal for REConnect... We present them as cases that illustrate and highlight the role and influence of the human connection during the requirements and software engineering processes... These three cases highlight the crucial role of human connection in shaping solutions that align with stakeholders' visions of societal impact. Drawing on the three case studies (BloodSync, Herluma, and BridgingRoots), we introduce REConnect..."

    The Section 3.4 'finding' that 'These three cases highlight the crucial role of human connection' is exactly the selection criterion stated at the opening of Section 3: cases were chosen to 'illustrate and highlight the role and influence of the human connection.' The three REConnect principles and REActions are then 'distilled' from those same selected narratives and presented as a framework, while the Abstract claims this framework 'can yield requirements that are culturally grounded, socially legitimate, and sustainable beyond system delivery.' The outcomes (adoption, legitimacy, sustainability) are described inside the same narratives, so those cases cannot falsify the abstraction drawn from them. This is the qualitative analogue of fitting to data and then reporting the fit as confirm

full rationale

The paper does not rely on a formal derivation, a hidden theorem, or load-bearing self-citations; its external citations to participatory design and value-based RE are legitimate background. However, the central derivation chain is co-constructed: REConnect's principles and REActions are obtained from the three case narratives, and those narratives were selected because they already illustrate the role of human connection. The Section 3.4 conclusion restates the selection criterion, and Section 4 explicitly draws on the same cases. The Abstract's promise of a 'reflective synthesis across all 26 projects' and an 'in-depth thematic analysis' is not substantiated in the body: no coding scheme, data excerpts, triangulation, negative cases, or comparison are reported. As a result, the causal claim that trust-building, co-design, and empowerment yield culturally grounded and sustainable requirements is supported only by the same cases that generated the framework. This is a partial, qualitative circularity rather than a formal mathematical one, so the score is 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

This is a qualitative position paper, so the ledger holds no numerical free parameters. The load-bearing analytic choices are qualitative: the selection of three principles out of a reported 26-project synthesis (a choice made by the authors without a described selection rule), the set of nine REActions, and the post hoc selection of the three illustrative projects. The axioms are domain assumptions about trust, narrative accuracy, causal attribution, and generalizability, none of which the paper tests. The invented entities are the REConnect framework itself and the human-AI governance roles, neither of which has independent evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • Three-principle framework structure = trust, co-design, empowerment
    The number and content of the principles were chosen by the authors from the case material (Sections 3.4, 4); no selection rule is reported, making the framework structure a hand-chosen analytic parameter.
  • Nine REActions set = three actions per principle
    The REActions are the authors' distilled operationalizations (Sections 4.1 to 4.3, Table 1); they are not derived by a rule and are not validated against practice.
  • Choice of three illustrative cases = BloodSync, Herluma, BridgingRoots
    Cases were selected after the fact as inspirations for the framework (Section 3); no selection criteria, no negative cases, and the 26-project base mentioned in the abstract is not presented in the body.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Trust is necessary for surfacing genuine, context-specific requirements in community settings
    Asserted in Section 4.1 with citations [14, 45, 82]; the paper provides no within-paper empirical support beyond the selected cases.
  • domain assumption The retrospective case narratives accurately represent project events and causal relationships
    All evidence is first-person retrospective accounts (Sections 3.1 to 3.3) from members of the program that ran the projects; no independent verification.
  • domain assumption Reported outcomes are causally attributable to the relational approach rather than confounds
    Section 3's counterfactual ('without which... would not have surfaced') assumes this causal attribution, which is untested against any baseline.
  • domain assumption A reflective synthesis of 26 projects can support generalizable RE principles
    Claimed in the abstract; not described in the body, so the generalization claim rests on an unreported analysis.
invented entities (2)
  • REConnect framework (3 principles, 9 REActions)
    purpose: Structured participatory RE method centering relationship-building, co-design, and empowerment
    Introduced in Section 4 from the same three cases used as illustration; no prospective evaluation, adoption data, or external validation.
  • Human-AI governance roles (guardians of values, curators and contextualisers, inclusion amplifiers, accountability partners, co-reflectors)
    purpose: Give humans defined authority over AI-generated requirements artifacts and prototypes
    Proposed speculatively in Section 5.2 and Table 3; no evaluation or operational test is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of REConnect: Participatory RE for Social Sustainability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RWLI6WS4

@misc{pith2026250901006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: REConnect: Participatory RE for Social Sustainability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RWLI6WS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01006}
}
read the original abstract

Context: Software increasingly shapes daily life, making requirements engineering (RE) essential for ensuring systems contribute to community social sustainability. Yet automated elicitation practices risk distancing RE from the cultural, social, and political contexts that inform user needs, systematically excluding the communities most dependent on socially impactful software. AI-assisted RE has intensified this trend. Objective: This paper introduces REConnect, a human-centered participatory RE framework that recenters requirements work on human connection and relationality as the foundation for understanding lived experiences and ensuring alignment with community values and aspirations. Methods: REConnect was derived through qualitative analysis of 26 community-engaged software projects conducted through the INSPIRE program at the University of Victoria between 2022 and 2025, spanning rural Nepal, urban Canada, and remote Arctic Canada. We conducted a reflective synthesis across all 26 projects, followed by in-depth thematic analysis of three illustrative projects. Results: Three core principles are articulated: building trusting relationships, co-creating with and alongside stakeholders, and empowering users as agents of change. Each is operationalized through actionable REConnect Actions (REActions) embedding relationality and continuous stakeholder engagement throughout the project lifecycle. Conclusions: REConnect positions human connection as the foundation of RE for socio-technical systems aiming toward social sustainability. While AI can accelerate certain RE activities, its integration must be governed by participatory principles that preserve human agency and ensure marginalized voices are not excluded. We discuss how REConnect integrates with AI support while maintaining critical human agency in requirements engineering.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Designing for Human Rights in AI

    E. Aizenberg and J. van den Hoven. 2020. Designing for Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Values and Design Requirements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.04949 (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.04949?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Al-kfairy and et al

    H. Al-kfairy and et al. 2024. Ethical Considerations of Generative AI: Systematic Review. Informatics 11, 3 (2024), 58. https://www.mdpi.com/2227- 9709/11/3/58?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    2024

  3. [3]

    Razieh Alidoosti, Martina De Sanctis, Ludovico Iovino, Patricia Lago, and Maryam Razavian. 2023. Stakeholder inclusion and value diversity: An evaluation using an access control system. In European Conference on Software Architecture. Springer, 71–88

    2023

  4. [4]

    Almeida and M

    M. Almeida and M. Silva. 2024. Generative AI for Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06741 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06741?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Anonymous. 2024. Ethical Considerations of Generative AI in Engineering. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/rest/bitstreams/f37a30e6-55dc-4884-9f4b- db932eea7244/retrieve?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    2024

  6. [6]

    Elicitron: An LLM Agent-Based Simulation Framework for Design Requirements Elicitation

    M. Ataei, H. Cheong, D. Grandi, Y. Wang, N. Morris, and A. Tessier. 2024. Elicitron: An LLM Agent-Based Simulation Framework for Design Requirements Elicitation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16045 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16045?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Marco Autili, Martina De Sanctis, Paola Inverardi, and Patrizio Pelliccione. 2025. Engineering digital systems for humanity: A research roadmap. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 34, 5 (2025), 1–33

    2025

  8. [8]

    AI for All: Operationalising Diversity and Inclusion Requirements for AI Systems

    M. Bano and et al. 2023. Operationalizing Diversity and Inclusion in AI Systems Through Requirements Engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14695 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14695?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Marie Battiste. 2002. INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE AND PEDAGOGY IN FIRST NATIONS EDUCATION ALiterature REVIEW WITH RECOMMEN- DATIONS. Report prepared for the National Working Group on Education, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Ottawa, ON (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    Amel Bennaceur, Carlo Ghezzi, Jeff Kramer, Bashar Nuseibeh, Hannes Werthner, and Julian Nida-Rümelin. 2024. Responsible software engineering: Requirements and goals. Hannes Werthner· Carlo Ghezzi· Jeff Kramer· Julian Nida-Rümelin· Bashar Nuseibeh· Erich Prem· (2024), 299

    2024

  3. [11]

    Hugh Beyer and Karen Holtzblatt. 1998. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems . Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA

    1998

  4. [12]

    Hugh Beyer and Karen Holtzblatt. 1999. Contextual design. interactions 6, 1 (1999), 32–42

    1999

  5. [13]

    Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency . PMLR, 77–91

    2018

  6. [14]

    Corentin Burnay and Monique Snoeck. 2017. Trust in requirements elicitation: how does it build, and why does it matter to requirements engineers?. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing . 1094–1100

    2017

  7. [15]

    Margaret Burnett, Abrar Fallatah, Catherine Hu, Christopher Perdriau, Christopher Mendez, Caroline Gao, and Anita Sarma. 2021. Toward an Actionable Socioeconomic-Aware HCI. arXiv e-prints (2021), arXiv–2108

    2021

  8. [16]

    Rachel Burrows, Antonio Lopez-Lorca, Leon Sterling, Tim Miller, Antonette Mendoza, and Sonja Pedell. 2019. Motivational modelling in software for homelessness: Lessons from an industrial study. In 2019 IEEE 27th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) . IEEE, 297–307

    2019

  9. [17]

    Leela Damodaran. 1996. User involvement in the systems design process-a practical guide for users. Behaviour & information technology 15, 6 (1996), 363–377

    1996

  10. [18]

    Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2013. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior . Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  11. [19]

    Martin Dodge and Rob Kitchin. 2011. Code/space: software and everyday life. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Dubbeld, L.(2005). The role of technology in shaping CCTV surveillance practices. Information (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Leticia Duboc, Curtis McCord, Christoph Becker, and Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed. 2019. Critical requirements engineering in practice. IEEE Software 37, 1 (2019), 17–24

    2019

  13. [21]

    E. Ferrara. 2023. Fairness and Bias in Artificial Intelligence: Sources, Implications, and Mitigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07683 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.07683?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Maria Angela Ferrario, Will Simm, Stephen Forshaw, Adrian Gradinar, Marcia Tavares Smith, and Ian Smith. 2016. Values-first SE: research principles in practice. In Proceedings of the 38th international conference on software engineering companion . 553–562. Manuscript submitte...

    2016

  15. [23]

    Luciano Floridi. 2015. The onlife manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era . Springer nature

    2015

  16. [24]

    Batya Friedman, Peter H Kahn Jr, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren. 2013. Value sensitive design and information systems. In Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory . Springer, 55–95

    2013

  17. [25]

    Batya Friedman and Helen Nissenbaum. 1996. Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on information systems (TOIS) 14, 3 (1996), 330–347

    1996

  18. [26]

    T. K. Ghosh, A. Pargaonkar, and N. U. Eisty. 2024. Exploring Requirements Elicitation from App Store User Reviews Using Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15473 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.15473?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Eduard C Groen, Norbert Seyff, Raian Ali, Fabiano Dalpiaz, Joerg Doerr, Emitza Guzman, Mahmood Hosseini, Jordi Marco, Marc Oriol, Anna Perini, et al. 2017. The crowd in requirements engineering: The landscape and challenges. IEEE software 34, 2 (2017), 44–52

    2017

  20. [28]

    Emitza Guzman and Walid Maalej. 2014. How do users like this feature? a fine grained sentiment analysis of app reviews. In 2014 IEEE 22nd international requirements engineering conference (RE) . Ieee, 153–162

    2014

  21. [29]

    Eduardo Guzman and Walid Maalej. 2014. Sentiment Analysis of Mobile App Reviews. In 2014 IEEE 22nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). IEEE, 383–388

    2014

  22. [30]

    Maaike Harbers, Christian Detweiler, and Mark A Neerincx. 2015. Embedding stakeholder values in the requirements engineering process. In International working conference on requirements engineering: Foundation for software quality . Springer, 318–332

    2015

  23. [31]

    Diane Hassett, Amel Bennaceur, and Bashar Nuseibeh. 2023. Feel It, Code It: Emotional Goal Modelling for Gender-Inclusive Design. InRequirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2023) . Springer, 363–379. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-29786-1_23

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Phalp, Jacqui Taylor, and Raian Ali

    Mahmoud Hosseini, Keith T. Phalp, Jacqui Taylor, and Raian Ali. 2014. Towards Crowdsourcing for Requirements Engineering. In The 20th International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ 2014) - Empirical Track

    2014

  25. [33]

    Waqar Hussain, Mojtaba Shahin, Rashina Hoda, Jon Whittle, Harsha Perera, Arif Nurwidyantoro, Rifat Ara Shams, and Gillian Oliver. 2022. How can human values be addressed in agile methods? A case study on SAFe. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48, 12 (2022), 5158–5175

    2022

  26. [34]

    InfoWorld. 2025. How to Use GenAI for Requirements Gathering and Agile User Stories. https://www.infoworld.com/article/3980319/how-to-use- genai-for-requirements-gathering-and-agile-user-stories.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    2025

  27. [35]

    Timo Johann, Christoph Stanik, Walid Maalej, et al. 2017. Safe: A simple approach for feature extraction from app descriptions and app reviews. In 2017 IEEE 25th international requirements engineering conference (RE) . IEEE, 21–30

    2017

  28. [36]

    Jaap Kabbedijk, Sjaak Brinkkemper, Slinger Jansen, and Bas van der Veldt. 2009. Customer involvement in requirements management: lessons from mass market software development. In 2009 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference . IEEE, 281–286

    2009

  29. [37]

    Karkee and J

    R. Karkee and J. Comfort. 2016. Ngos, foreign aid, and development in nepal. Frontiers in Public Health 4 (2016). doi:10.3389/fpubh.2016.00177

    2016

  30. [38]

    Bhupal Bikram Kathayat. 2024. Investigating Public Trust and Ethical Leadership in Nepalese Cooperatives. Journal of Nepalese Management and Research 6, 1 (2024), 17–28

    2024

  31. [39]

    Gene Kim, Jez Humble, Patrick Debois, John Willis, and Nicole Forsgren. 2021. The DevOps handbook: How to create world-class agility, reliability, & security in technology organizations . It Revolution

    2021

  32. [40]

    Sari Kujala. 2003. User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & information technology 22, 1 (2003), 1–16

    2003

  33. [41]

    Sari Kujala, Marjo Kauppinen, Laura Lehtola, and Tero Kojo. 2005. The role of user involvement in requirements quality and project success. In 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE’05) . IEEE, 75–84

    2005

  34. [42]

    Zlatko Kurtanović and Walid Maalej. 2017. Requirements Classification of App Reviews. In 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW). IEEE, 208–213

    2017

  35. [43]

    Christopher A Le Dantec and Sarah Fox. 2015. Strangers at the gate: Gaining access, building rapport, and co-constructing community-based research. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing . 1348–1358

    2015

  36. [44]

    Jason Edward Lewis, Noelani Arista, Archer Pechawis, and Suzanne Kite. 2018. Making Kin with the Machines. Journal of Design and Science (jul 16 2018). https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/lewis-arista-pechawis-kite

    2018

  37. [45]

    Luis F Luna-Reyes, Laura J Black, Anthony M Cresswell, and Theresa A Pardo. 2008. Knowledge sharing and trust in collaborative requirements analysis. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society 24, 3 (2008), 265–297

    2008

  38. [46]

    Walid Maalej, Volodymyr Biryuk, Jialiang Wei, and Fabian Panse. 2025. On the automated processing of user feedback. In Handbook on Natural Language Processing for Requirements Engineering . Springer, 279–308

    2025

  39. [47]

    Walid Maalej and Hadeer Nabil. 2015. Bug report, feature request, or simply praise? on automatically classifying app reviews. In 2015 IEEE 23rd international requirements engineering conference (RE) . IEEE, 116–125

    2015

  40. [48]

    Linda A Macaulay. 2012. Requirements engineering. Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  41. [49]

    Ittay Mannheim, Ella Schwartz, Wanyu Xi, Sandra C Buttigieg, Mary McDonnell-Naughton, Eveline JM Wouters, and Yvonne Van Zaalen. 2019. Inclusion of older adults in the research and design of digital technology. International journal of environmental research and public health ...

    2019

  42. [50]

    Gonçalo Miguéis, João Araujo, and Ana Moreira. 2019. Towards a requirements language for modeling emotion in videogames. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP symposium on applied computing . 1878–1880

    2019

  43. [51]

    Margaret Mitchell, Avijit Ghosh, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, and Giada Pistilli. 2025. Fully autonomous ai agents should not be developed. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02649 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Davoud Mougouei, Harsha Perera, Waqar Hussain, Rifat Shams, and Jon Whittle. 2018. Operationalizing human values in software: A research roadmap. In Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM joint meeting on european software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of s...

    2018

  45. [53]

    Anirban Mukherjee and Hannah Hanwen Chang. 2025. Agentic AI: Autonomy, Accountability, and the Algorithmic Society. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00289 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. In Algorithms of oppression. New York university press

    2018

  47. [55]

    Bashar Nuseibeh. 2025. Engineering Within Boundaries When Software Has None. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 51, 3 (2025), 677–680. doi:10.1109/TSE.2025.3541189

    2025

  48. [56]

    National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, Transportation Research Board, Division on Engineering, Physical Sciences, Board on Energy, Environ- mental Systems, Committee on Assessment of Technologies, Approaches for Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium, Heavy-Duty Vehicles, ...

    2020

  49. [57]

    Committee on Patient Safety and Health Information Technology. 2012. Health IT and patient safety: building safer systems for better care. (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    Dennis Pagano and Walid Maalej. 2013. User feedback in the appstore: An empirical study. In 2013 21st IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE). IEEE, 125–134

    2013

  51. [59]

    Panday, P

    S. Panday, P. Bissell, E. v. Teijlingen, and P. Simkhada. 2017. The contribution of female community health volunteers (fchvs) to maternity care in nepal: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research 17 (2017). Issue 1. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2567-7

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    Sonja Pedell, Antonio A Lopez-Lorca, Tim Miller, and Leon Sterling. 2015. Don’t leave me untouched: considering emotions in personal alarm use and development. In Healthcare Informatics and Analytics: Emerging Issues and Trends . IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 96–127

    2015

  53. [61]

    Harsha Perera, Rashina Hoda, Rifat Ara Shams, Arif Nurwidyantoro, Mojtaba Shahin, Waqar Hussain, and Jon Whittle. 2021. The impact of considering human values during requirements engineering activities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.15293 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Colin Potts and Wendy C Newstetter. 1997. Naturalistic inquiry and requirements engineering: reconciling their theoretical foundations. In Proceedings of ISRE’97: 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering . IEEE, 118–127

    1997

  55. [63]

    Ramos Salazar and et al

    G. Ramos Salazar and et al. 2024. Generative AI Ethical Considerations and Discriminatory Biases on Diverse Students Within the Class- room. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378337666_Generative_AI_Ethical_Considerations_and_Discriminatory_Biases_on_Diverse_ Students_W...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Sam Rickman. 2024. Evaluating gender bias in Large Language Models in long-term care. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5166499/v1

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    Ronanki, C

    K. Ronanki, C. Berger, and J. Horkoff. 2023. Investigating ChatGPT’s Potential to Assist in Requirements Elicitation Processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07381 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07381?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Krishna Ronanki, Beatriz Cabrero-Daniel, and Christian Berger. 2022. Chatgpt as a tool for user story quality evaluation: Trustworthy out of the box?. In International Conference on Agile Software Development . Springer, 173–181

    2022

  59. [67]

    Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist 55, 1 (2000), 68

    2000

  60. [68]

    M. A. Sami, M. Waseem, Z. Zhang, Z. Rasheed, K. Systä, and P. Abrahamsson. 2024. AI-based Multiagent Approach for Requirements Elicitation and Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00038 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.00038?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Shalom H Schwartz. 2012. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online readings in Psychology and Culture 2, 1 (2012), 11

    2012

  62. [70]

    Vinícius CVB Segura and Simone DJ Barbosa. 2013. UISKEI++ multi-device wizard of oz prototyping. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems . 171–174

    2013

  63. [71]

    Mojtaba Shahin, Waqar Hussain, Arif Nurwidyantoro, Harsha Perera, Rifat Shams, John Grundy, and Jon Whittle. 2022. Operationalizing Human Values in Software Engineering: A Survey. IEEE Access 10 (2022), 75269–75295. doi:10.1109/access.2022.3190975

    2022

  64. [72]

    Marybeth Shinn. 2007. International homelessness: Policy, socio-cultural, and individual perspectives. Journal of Social Issues 63, 3 (2007), 657–677

    2007

  65. [73]

    Jesper Simonsen and Toni Robertson. 2013. Routledge international handbook of participatory design . Vol. 711. Routledge New York

    2013

  66. [74]

    Ian Sommerville and Pete Sawyer. 1997. Requirements engineering: a good practice guide . John Wiley & Sons, Inc

    1997

  67. [75]

    Dhruba Prasad Subedi and Dilli Ram Bhandari. 2025. Ethical Business Practices and Employee Retention in Nepal: Investigating the Mediating Role of Employee Loyalty. Victoria Journal of Management 1, 1 (2025), 51–75

    2025

  68. [76]

    Alistair Sutcliffe. 2002. User-centred requirements engineering. Springer Science & Business Media

    2002

  69. [77]

    Alistair Sutcliffe, Stephen Fickas, and M Moore Sohlberg. 2005. Personal and contextual requirements engineering. In 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE’05) . IEEE, 19–28

    2005

  70. [78]

    Sarah Thew and Alistair Sutcliffe. 2018. Value-based requirements engineering: method and experience. Requirements engineering 23, 4 (2018), 443–464

    2018

  71. [79]

    James Tizard, Tim Rietz, and Kelly Blincoe. 2024. Elicitation Revisited for More Inclusive Requirements Engineering. In Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering: Best Practices and Insights . Apress Berkeley, CA, 91–104

    2024

  72. [80]

    Tronnier and et al

    K. Tronnier and et al. 2024. Mind the Gap: Bias in Generative AI. https://www.equalvoice.ch/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/IMD_Mind-The-Gap_Bias- In-AI_Whitepaper_DIGITAL.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    2024

  73. [81]

    UNDP. 2024. Understanding the Implications of GenAI on Gender. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2024-08/report_understanding_ the_implications_of_genai_on_gender_undp_aapti_.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    2024

  74. [82]

    Tousif ur Rehman, Muhammad Naeem Ahmed Khan, and Naveed Riaz. 2013. Analysis of requirement engineering processes, tools/techniques and methodologies. International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science (IJITCS) 5, 3 (2013), 40

    2013

  75. [83]

    Mark Weiser. 1999. The computer for the 21st century. ACM SIGMOBILE mobile computing and communications review 3, 3 (1999), 3–11. Manuscript submitted to ACM REConnect: Participatory RE that Matters 23

    1999

  76. [84]

    Hannes Werthner. 2020. The Vienna manifesto on digital humanism. In Digital transformation and ethics . Ecowin, 338–357

    2020

  77. [85]

    Jon Whittle and et al. 2014. Citizen-Centered Design: A Catalyst for Innovation. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1–10. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598511

    2014

  78. [86]

    Jon Whittle, Maria Angela Ferrario, et al. 2019. Is your software valueless? How integrating human values into software engineering can transform society. IEEE Software 36, 5 (2019), 48–55. doi:10.1109/MS.2019.2927861

    2019

  79. [87]

    Jon Whittle, Maria Angela Ferrario, Will Simm, and Waqar Hussain. 2019. A case for human values in software engineering. IEEE software 38, 1 (2019), 106–113

    2019

  80. [88]

    Benjamin Wilson, Judy Hoffman, and Jamie Morgenstern. 2019. Predictive inequity in object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.11097 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Jody Wilson-Raybould. 2024. True Reconciliation: How to Be a Force for Change . McClelland & Stewart, Toronto, Canada

    2024

  82. [90]

    Dale E Zand and Richard E Sorensen. 1975. Theory of change and the effective use of management science. Administrative science quarterly (1975), 532–545

    1975

  83. [91]

    Liping Zhao, Waad Alhoshan, Alessio Ferrari, Keletso J Letsholo, Muideen A Ajagbe, Erol-Valeriu Chioasca, and Riza T Batista-Navarro. 2021. Natural language processing for requirements engineering: A systematic mapping study. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 3 (2021), 1–41

    2021

  84. [92]

    Yumei Zou, Florence Kuek, Wenqin Feng, and Xiaoli Cheng. 2025. Digital learning in the 21st century: trends, challenges, and innovations in technology integration. In Frontiers in Education, Vol. 10. Frontiers Media SA, 1562391. Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.