pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16315 · v1 · submitted 2026-02-08 · 💻 cs.SE

Be a Partner, not a Bystander in Software Engineering Practice: Bridging the Gaps between Academia and Industry

Mohammad Masudur Rahman , Mehil B. Shah This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 06:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords software engineeringacademia-industry gapresearch impactsurvey studyposition paperAI in software engineeringcollaboration reforms
0
0 comments X

The pith

The software engineering community is deeply concerned about the impact and relevance of its research to industry practices.

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

This position paper argues that software engineering researchers and practitioners need to shift from bystanders to active partners to close the divide between academic findings and real-world software development. It backs the argument with survey responses from the SE community that demonstrate widespread concern over research relevance, especially given recent AI breakthroughs such as large language models and their rapid industry adoption. The authors use this evidence to issue specific calls for action and reforms aimed at nurturing a stronger symbiotic relationship. If the position holds, these steps would produce a future in which academic work more directly shapes and responds to industry needs rather than drifting apart.

Core claim

By conducting an empirical study using survey responses from the SE community, the paper provides evidence that the software engineering community is deeply concerned about its research impact and relevance to industry practices. It proposes new calls for action and reforms in SE to bridge identified gaps and envisions a new future where academia and industry maintain, nurture, and periodically re-examine their symbiotic relationship, particularly in response to major AI advancements.

What carries the argument

Survey responses from the SE community, which supply the empirical evidence for community concerns and serve as the basis for the proposed calls for action and reforms.

If this is right

  • Academic research will more directly influence and be shaped by professional software practices.
  • Conferences will better enable mutual influence between academicians and practitioners.
  • Reforms will help the field adapt to large-scale AI adoption such as LLMs in software development.
  • Periodic re-examination will keep the symbiotic relationship between research and industry active rather than allowing drift.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Changes to academic incentives, such as tenure criteria that reward industry collaboration, may be needed to make the proposed partnership practical.
  • Similar surveys in adjacent fields could reveal whether the concern about research relevance is specific to software engineering or more widespread.
  • Successful reforms could increase industry funding and data access for academic SE projects, creating a feedback loop of practical validation.

Load-bearing premise

The survey responses accurately capture the broader software engineering community's views and the proposed reforms will successfully bridge the gaps between academia and industry.

What would settle it

A larger follow-up survey of software engineering researchers and practitioners that finds low levels of concern about research impact and relevance to industry would undermine the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16315 by Mehil B. Shah, Mohammad Masudur Rahman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Percentage of survey responses focusing on research impact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Percentage of respondents focusing on research im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Software engineering conferences bring together thousands of academicians and software practitioners so that academic research and professional practices can influence each other. In essence, a symbiotic relationship exists between the research community and the software industry, which must be maintained, nurtured and re-examined periodically. Given the major AI breakthroughs (e.g., LLMs) and large-scale adoption of AI by the software industry, a re-examination of the relationship between academia and the SE industry is highly warranted. In this position paper, we argue that the software engineering community is deeply concerned about its research impact and relevance to industry practices. By conducting an empirical study using the survey responses from the SE community, we not only provide compelling evidence supporting our position but also propose new calls for action and reforms in SE, and thus envision a new future for the software engineering community.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. This position paper argues that the software engineering community is deeply concerned about the impact and relevance of academic research to industry practices. It supports the claim via an empirical survey of SE community members, proposes calls for action and reforms to bridge academia-industry gaps, and envisions a renewed symbiotic relationship, especially in light of AI/LLM advancements.

Significance. If the survey evidence proves representative and the proposed reforms are actionable, the paper could usefully focus community attention on improving research relevance and collaboration. However, absent methodological transparency the claimed evidence base remains unverifiable, limiting the work's potential contribution to ongoing SE impact discussions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that survey responses provide 'compelling evidence' that the SE community is 'deeply concerned' about research impact rests on an empirical study whose sample size, response rate, recruitment method (conferences, mailing lists, social media), completion rate, and any bias controls are not reported, preventing assessment of whether responses reflect the broader community or a self-selected subset already interested in academia-industry gaps.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit methods subsection detailing survey instrument design, distribution channels, and any post-stratification steps before presenting results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and recommendation for major revision. We agree that methodological transparency is essential to substantiate the survey-based claims in this position paper and will revise the abstract accordingly to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that survey responses provide 'compelling evidence' that the SE community is 'deeply concerned' about research impact rests on an empirical study whose sample size, response rate, recruitment method (conferences, mailing lists, social media), completion rate, and any bias controls are not reported, preventing assessment of whether responses reflect the broader community or a self-selected subset already interested in academia-industry gaps.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current abstract does not include these methodological details, which limits readers' ability to assess the survey's representativeness. The full manuscript describes the empirical study (including recruitment via conferences, mailing lists, and social media, along with steps to address self-selection bias) in the dedicated survey section, but the abstract summarizes only the high-level findings. We will revise the abstract to explicitly report the sample size, response rate, completion rate, recruitment methods, and bias controls. This change will make the evidence base verifiable without altering the position paper's core argument. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: position paper rests on external survey data with no self-referential derivations or load-bearing self-citations

full rationale

The paper is a position piece that presents an argument about academia-industry gaps in software engineering and supports it via an empirical survey of the SE community. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations exist. The central claim is justified by citing survey responses as independent evidence rather than by redefining terms or renaming results to match inputs. No self-citation chain is invoked to establish uniqueness or force an ansatz. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (the survey data), producing a score of 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This position paper contains no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities; it relies on empirical survey responses and domain assumptions about community concerns.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5444 in / 966 out tokens · 36383 ms · 2026-05-16T06:56:08.767506+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    FoSE 2026 Replication Package

    2026. FoSE 2026 Replication Package. https://github.com/RAISEDAL/FoSE2026- Replication-Package

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    FoSE survery

    2026. FoSE survery. https://zenodo.org/records/18217799

    work page arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Future of Software Engineering

    2026. Future of Software Engineering. https://conf.researchr.org/track/icse- 2026/icse-2026-future-of-software-engineering

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    Grant cuts, arrests, lay-offs: Trump made 2025 a tumultuous year for science

    2026. Grant cuts, arrests, lay-offs: Trump made 2025 a tumultuous year for science. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-04051-y

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    How to Create a Position Paper: Structure, Process, and Exam- ples

    2026. How to Create a Position Paper: Structure, Process, and Exam- ples. https://www.yomu.ai/blog/how-to-create-a-position-paper-structure- process-and-examples

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    ICSE history

    2026. ICSE history. https://www.icse-conferences.org/history.html

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    ICSE Proceedings

    2026. ICSE Proceedings. https://dl.acm.org/conference/icse/proceedings

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    NATO Software Engineering Conferences

    2026. NATO Software Engineering Conferences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ NATO_Software_Engineering_Conferences

    work page 2026

  9. [9]

    Software crisis

    2026. Software crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_crisis

    work page 2026

  10. [10]

    Victor Basili, Lionel Briand, Domenico Bianculli, Shiva Nejati, Fabrizio Pastore, and Mehrdad Sabetzadeh. 2018. Software Engineering Research and Industry: A Symbiotic Relationship to Foster Impact.IEEE Software35, 5 (2018), 44–49

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2012. ImageNet classifi- cation with deep convolutional neural networks. InProc. NIPS. 1097–1105

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    Keith Morrison and Greetje van der Werf. 2012. Editorial.Educational Research and Evaluation18, 5 (2012), 399–401

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Owens, Ryan A

    Deonna M. Owens, Ryan A. Rossi, Sungchul Kim, Tong Yu, Franck Dernoncourt, Xiang Chen, Ruiyi Zhang, Jiuxiang Gu, Hanieh Deilamsalehy, and Nedim Lipka

    work page

  14. [14]

    M., Rossi, R

    A Multi-LLM Debiasing Framework. arXiv:2409.13884

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    Barrie Thompson

    J. Barrie Thompson. 2001. ICSE2001 workshop to consider global aspects of software engineering professionalism.SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes26, 6 (2001), 40–44

    work page 2001

  16. [16]

    Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. InProc. NIPS. 6000–6010

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Kun Wang and Yongjian Ke. 2024. Social sustainability of communities: A sys- tematic literature review.Sustainable Production and Consumption47 (2024), 585–597. A Used Prompts Prompt 1a: We are trying to investigate if the community is concerned about the impact or practical relevance of software engineering research. Analyze each row from the document an...

    work page 2024