pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04132 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.HC

Two Integration Pathways in Human-Centered Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study of Structural Gaps

Imen Benzarti , Ikram Darif , Abderrahmane Leshob , Hafedh Mili , Darine Amayed This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.HC
keywords human-centered requirements engineeringsystematic mapping studyintegration pathwayscognitive-formal pathwayparticipatory-iterative pathwaystructural gapsrequirements engineeringuser experience
0
0 comments X

The pith

Human-centered requirements engineering remains split between formal goal-based methods and participatory scenario-based methods with no connecting mechanisms.

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

The paper conducts a systematic mapping of 56 studies on human-centered requirements engineering to understand how contributions from psychology, design, and HCI are integrated into the RE process. It identifies that approaches are mostly multidisciplinary but concentrated on early elicitation phases and rarely empirically tested. The analysis uncovers two parallel pathways: one relying on cognitive models and formal specifications, the other on user participation and iterative refinement. These pathways have developed separately, resulting in a lack of ways to translate user-centered insights into formal requirements documents. This disconnection accounts for the observed fragmentation and limited progress across the full requirements lifecycle.

Core claim

HC-RE consists of two disconnected integration pathways—a Cognitive-Formal pathway using goal-based frameworks and formal modeling, and a Participatory-Iterative pathway using scenario-based frameworks and iterative design—with the primary structural gap being the absence of translation mechanisms between human-centered artifacts and formal RE specifications.

What carries the argument

The structural separation between the Cognitive-Formal (C-F) pathway and the Participatory-Iterative (P-I) pathway, identified through cross-study analysis of seven dimensions including RE phases, user involvement techniques, and contributing disciplines.

If this is right

  • 70% of approaches draw on multidisciplinary contributions from psychology, cognitive science, and HCI.
  • Only 39% of the mapped studies include empirical evaluation.
  • 48% of approaches focus exclusively on the elicitation phase of the RE lifecycle.
  • The field lacks mechanisms to operationalize user experience as a first-class concern in requirements specification.
  • A research agenda is proposed with four priority tiers to address the gaps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Bridging the two pathways could allow user emotions and social interactions to influence later RE phases like specification and validation.
  • Without translation tools, requirements engineering may continue to undervalue experiential aspects in favor of functional ones.
  • Hybrid methods that combine goal modeling with participatory scenarios could be tested to improve evaluation rates.
  • This separation points to a need for new tools that support both formal rigor and iterative user feedback in one workflow.

Load-bearing premise

The 56 primary studies provide a representative sample of the literature and that classifying them into two distinct pathways accurately reflects the field's structure without significant unaccounted overlap.

What would settle it

Finding a substantial number of studies that combine elements of both the Cognitive-Formal and Participatory-Iterative pathways or that already provide explicit translation mechanisms between user-centered artifacts and formal specifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04132 by Abderrahmane Leshob, Darine Amayed, Hafedh Mili, Ikram Darif, Imen Benzarti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of PSs by year view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of PSs by study type techniques remain underexplored. This may be due to higher implementation complexity, lack of methodological guidance, or limited tool support. 4.2.2. What application domains are covered? Among the 56 primary studies, 35 (62%) are generic and 21 (36%) are domain-specific. The most common application domains are healthcare (6 studies), e-learning (4 studies), and socio-tec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Number of PSs per Techniques used to involve users in RE process view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Number of PSs per application domain involves user participation to identify their requirements. Among the 49 RE-specific studies, 27 covered only one phase, while the remaining studies addressed two or more phases. The strong concentration on the elicitation phase suggests that human-centered approaches are primarily applied during early stages of RE, where direct interaction with users is most accessible… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: RE phases covered by the PSs Framework Type Framework Extended Not extended Goal based Contextual goal modelling [7] GRL [8] I* [9, 10] Agent-oriented goal model [11, 12] Motivational goal model [13], [14, 15] Tropos [16] [17] Scenario based Agile [18, 19, 4, 20] Scrum [21, 1, 22] Use cases [23, 24] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal analysis of the Evolution of using contributing discipline in RE process cognitive science provided the framework for modeling users’ intentions, beliefs, and desires. In 2005, the authors of [44] applied techniques from marketing engineering to identify user preferences across multiple product attributes, such as functionality, design, and price. By 2007, [24] adopted the persona technique from i… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Organizing framework for the HC-RE research agenda. Layer 1 represents the theoretical core of the C-F pathway; Layer 2 captures the artifact and process core of the P-I pathway; Layer 3 corresponds to the integration layer, where insights must be translated into formal requirements. Personas represent a promising bridge artifact, as they originate from participatory approaches but encapsulate information … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Human-centered Requirements Engineering (HC-RE) integrates user cognition, emotions, and social interactions into the RE process through contributions from disciplines such as psychology, cognitive science, design thinking, and human-computer interaction. Despite growing interest, how these multidisciplinary contributions are structured and why they remain fragmented across the RE lifecycle is not well understood. This systematic mapping study analyzes 56 primary studies across seven dimensions, including RE phases, user involvement techniques, contributing disciplines, and evaluation methods. Results show that 70\% of approaches involve multidisciplinary contributions, yet only 39% have been empirically evaluated and 48% address only the elicitation phase. A cross-study analysis reveals a structural separation between two parallel integration traditions: a Cognitive-Formal (C-F) pathway grounded in goal-based frameworks and formal modeling, and a Participatory-Iterative (P-I) pathway grounded in scenario-based frameworks and iterative design. Each pathway has developed complementary strengths, but their near-total disconnection explains the persistent lifecycle concentration and theory-practice gap observed in the corpus. The findings identify the absence of translation mechanisms between human-centered artifacts and formal RE specifications as the field's primary structural gap, provide a structured research agenda organized into four priority tiers, and establish the empirical foundation for Experience-Centered Requirements Engineering, a direction in which user experience is explicitly operationalized as a first-class concern in requirements specification.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic mapping study of 56 primary studies in human-centered requirements engineering (HC-RE). It reports that 70% of approaches involve multidisciplinary contributions, only 39% have been empirically evaluated, and 48% address only the elicitation phase. A cross-study analysis identifies two parallel integration traditions: a Cognitive-Formal (C-F) pathway grounded in goal-based frameworks and formal modeling, and a Participatory-Iterative (P-I) pathway grounded in scenario-based frameworks and iterative design. The study claims near-total disconnection between these pathways, identifies the absence of translation mechanisms between human-centered artifacts and formal RE specifications as the primary structural gap, and proposes a four-tier research agenda to support Experience-Centered Requirements Engineering.

Significance. If the mapping and classification are robust, the work could provide a useful organizing framework for the fragmented HC-RE literature by highlighting complementary strengths of the C-F and P-I pathways and directing attention to bridging mechanisms. The explicit research agenda and positioning of user experience as a first-class concern offer a concrete direction for future empirical and methodological work in requirements engineering.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods: The reported aggregate statistics (70% multidisciplinary, 39% evaluated, 48% elicitation-only) and the binary C-F vs. P-I classification rest on an unspecified search protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria, inter-rater reliability, and decision rules for pathway assignment. Without these, it is impossible to evaluate whether the 56-study sample is representative or whether the claimed near-total disconnection is an observed property of the literature rather than an artifact of the taxonomy.
  2. [Results (cross-study analysis)] Results section on cross-study analysis: The claim that the two pathways exhibit 'near-total disconnection' and that absent translation mechanisms constitute the field's primary structural gap depends on the classification being exhaustive and mutually exclusive. No counts of hybrid papers, unclassified outliers, or overlap metrics are provided, weakening the structural-gap conclusion.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the study 'analyzes 56 primary studies across seven dimensions' but does not list the dimensions explicitly; adding a concise enumeration would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback on our systematic mapping study. The comments highlight important areas for improving methodological transparency and the presentation of our cross-study analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to provide greater clarity and supporting detail without altering the core findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods: The reported aggregate statistics (70% multidisciplinary, 39% evaluated, 48% elicitation-only) and the binary C-F vs. P-I classification rest on an unspecified search protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria, inter-rater reliability, and decision rules for pathway assignment. Without these, it is impossible to evaluate whether the 56-study sample is representative or whether the claimed near-total disconnection is an observed property of the literature rather than an artifact of the taxonomy.

    Authors: The search protocol, databases, keywords, and PRISMA flow are fully detailed in Section 3 (Methodology), along with the inclusion/exclusion criteria and inter-rater reliability assessment for study selection. The decision rules for C-F versus P-I assignment are based on each study's primary framework (goal-based/formal modeling versus scenario-based/iterative design) and are illustrated with examples in the text. We agree that these elements should be more immediately accessible. We have therefore added a concise summary of the protocol and classification rules to the abstract and expanded Section 3 with a dedicated subsection on assignment criteria and reliability metrics. This revision allows readers to directly assess representativeness and confirms that the pathways were derived inductively from the corpus rather than imposed by the taxonomy. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (cross-study analysis)] Results section on cross-study analysis: The claim that the two pathways exhibit 'near-total disconnection' and that absent translation mechanisms constitute the field's primary structural gap depends on the classification being exhaustive and mutually exclusive. No counts of hybrid papers, unclassified outliers, or overlap metrics are provided, weakening the structural-gap conclusion.

    Authors: We accept that the initial presentation would be strengthened by explicit quantification. The classification scheme was constructed to be exhaustive and mutually exclusive, with every study assigned according to its dominant integration tradition; hybrids were identified separately where studies exhibited clear elements of both. In the revised manuscript we have added a new table in the Results section reporting the distribution across pathways, the count of hybrid papers, and a simple overlap assessment based on co-occurring frameworks and terminology. These additions demonstrate that hybrids are few and that the observed disconnection aligns with distinct patterns in RE phases and evaluation approaches, thereby supporting the identification of missing translation mechanisms as the primary structural gap. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical literature mapping exhibits no circularity

full rationale

This systematic mapping study derives all claims from analysis of 56 external primary studies across seven dimensions (RE phases, techniques, disciplines, evaluation). No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations exist. The C-F vs. P-I pathway classification is an interpretive taxonomy applied to the corpus rather than a self-definitional or fitted construct that reduces to the paper's inputs. No load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes are present; findings rest on the sampled literature as an external benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a systematic mapping study whose central claims rest on the representativeness of the selected literature and on standard review methodology rather than new parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The 56 primary studies constitute a representative sample of human-centered requirements engineering research
    The mapping study's conclusions about pathway separation and structural gaps depend on the completeness and lack of bias in the corpus selection.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5565 in / 1356 out tokens · 28250 ms · 2026-05-08T18:12:00.449551+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Benzarti et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 29 of 32 Two Integration Pathways in Human-Centered Requirements Engineering

    IEEE,Iso/iec/ieeeinternationalstandard-systemsandsoftwareengineering–lifecycleprocesses–requirementsengineering,ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018(E) (2018) 1–104doi:10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8559686. Benzarti et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 29 of 32 Two Integration Pathways in Human-Centered Requirements Engineering

    work page doi:10.1109/ieeestd.2018.8559686 2018

  2. [2]

    Van Lamsweerde, Requirements engineering in the year 00: A research perspective, in: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering, 2000, pp

    A. Van Lamsweerde, Requirements engineering in the year 00: A research perspective, in: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering, 2000, pp. 5–19

    2000

  3. [3]

    B.Nuseibeh,S.Easterbrook,Requirementsengineering:aroadmap,in:ProceedingsoftheConferenceontheFutureofSoftwareEngineering, 2000, pp. 35–46

    2000

  4. [4]

    Chakraborty, M

    A. Chakraborty, M. K. Baowaly, A. Arefin, A. N. Bahar, The role of requirement engineering in software development life cycle, Journal of emerging trends in computing and information sciences 3 (5) (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    F.Dalpiaz,P.Giorgini,J.Mylopoulos,Adaptivesocio-technicalsystems:arequirements-basedapproach,Requirementsengineering18(2013) 1–24

    2013

  6. [6]

    Snijders, A

    R. Snijders, A. Ozum, S. Brinkkemper, F. Dalpiaz, Crowd-centric requirements engineering: A method based on crowdsourcing and gamification, Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Tech. Rep. UU-CS-2015 4 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    G. A. Boy, Human-centered design of complex systems: An experience-based approach, Design Science 3 (2017) e8

    2017

  8. [8]

    Kasauli, E

    R. Kasauli, E. Knauss, J. Horkoff, G. Liebel, F. G. de Oliveira Neto, Requirements engineering challenges and practices in large-scale agile system development, Journal of Systems and Software 172 (2021) 110851

    2021

  9. [9]

    Hussain, H

    W. Hussain, H. Perera, J. Whittle, A. Nurwidyantoro, R. Hoda, R. A. Shams, G. Oliver, Human values in software engineering: Contrasting case studies of practice, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48 (5) (2020) 1818–1833

    2020

  10. [10]

    Sutcliffe, P

    A. Sutcliffe, P. Sawyer, N. Bencomo, The implications of ‘soft’requirements, in: 2022 IEEE 30th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), IEEE, 2022, pp. 178–188

    2022

  11. [11]

    Karolita, J

    D. Karolita, J. McIntosh, T. Kanij, J. Grundy, H. O. Obie, Use of personas in requirements engineering: A systematic mapping study, Information and Software Technology 162 (2023) 107264

    2023

  12. [12]

    Leonardi, L

    C. Leonardi, L. Sabatucci, A. Susi, M. Zancanaro, Design as intercultural dialogue: coupling human-centered design with requirement engineering methods, in: Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2011: 13th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, September 5-9, 2011, Proceedings, Part III 13, Springer, 2011, pp. 485–502

    2011

  13. [13]

    Sangiorgi, F

    D. Sangiorgi, F. Lima, L. Patrício, M. P. Joly, C. Favini, A human-centred, multidisciplinary, and transformative approach to service science: a service design perspective, Handbook of Service Science, Volume II (2019) 147–181

    2019

  14. [14]

    Hidellaarachchi, J

    D. Hidellaarachchi, J. Grundy, R. Hoda, K. Madampe, The effects of human aspects on the requirements engineering process: A systematic literature review, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48 (6) (2021) 2105–2127.doi:10.1109/TSE.2021.3055521

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2021.3055521 2021

  15. [15]

    Abelein, B

    U. Abelein, B. Paech, Understanding the influence of user participation and involvement on system success–a systematic mapping study, Empirical Software Engineering 20 (1) (2015) 28–81

    2015

  16. [16]

    Y. Wang, C. Arora, X. Liu, T. Hoang, V. Malhotra, B. Cheng, J. Grundy, Who uses personas in requirements engineering: The practitioners’ perspective, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15917 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    J. C. Grundy, Impact of end user human aspects on software engineering., in: ENASE, 2021, pp. 9–20

    2021

  18. [18]

    Petersen, S

    K. Petersen, S. Vakkalanka, L. Kuzniarz, Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update, Information and software technology 64 (2015) 1–18

    2015

  19. [19]

    Kitchenham, Procedures for performing systematic reviews, Keele, UK, Keele University 33 (2004) (2004) 1–26

    B. Kitchenham, Procedures for performing systematic reviews, Keele, UK, Keele University 33 (2004) (2004) 1–26

    2004

  20. [20]

    Wohlin, P

    C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M. C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, A. Wesslén, et al., Experimentation in software engineering, Vol. 236, Springer, 2012

    2012

  21. [21]

    Keele, et al., Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering, Tech

    S. Keele, et al., Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering, Tech. rep., Technical report, ver. 2.3 ebse technical report. ebse (2007)

    2007

  22. [22]

    Darif, G

    I. Darif, G. E. Boussaidi, S. Kpodjedo, C. Politowski, Controlled natural language for requirements specification: A systematic literature review, ACM Computing Surveys 58 (7) (2026) 1–36.doi:10.1145/3778169

    work page doi:10.1145/3778169 2026

  23. [23]

    C. Wohlin, Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering, in: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 2014, pp. 1–10.doi:10.1145/2601248.2601268

    work page doi:10.1145/2601248.2601268 2014

  24. [24]

    Benzarti, A

    I. Benzarti, A. Leshob, I. Darif, H. Mili, D. Amayed, Two integration pathways in human-centered requirements engineering: A system- atic mapping study of structural gaps, available at:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20029273(2026).doi:10.5281/zenodo. 20029273

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20029273(2026).doi:10.5281/zenodo 2026

  25. [25]

    M.-A.Storey,N.A.Ernst,C.Williams,E.Kalliamvakou,Thewho,what,howofsoftwareengineeringresearch:asocio-technicalframework, Empirical Software Engineering 25 (2020) 4097–4129

    2020

  26. [26]

    R. P. Buse, C. Sadowski, W. Weimer, Benefits and barriers of user evaluation in software engineering research, in: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications, 2011, pp. 643–656

    2011

  27. [27]

    153–160.doi:10.1109/APSEC.2016.031

    X.Zhou,Y.Jin,H.Zhang,S.Li,X.Huang,Amapofthreatstovalidityofsystematicliteraturereviewsinsoftwareengineering,in:201623rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), 2016, pp. 153–160.doi:10.1109/APSEC.2016.031. A. Data extraction form fields Thefollowingtablesummarizestheeightthematiccategoriesofthedataextractionformusedtocollectinformation from ...

    work page doi:10.1109/apsec.2016.031 2016

  28. [28]

    Captures context in societal participation learning and translates it into system specifications

    Iterative method for software design and development. Captures context in societal participation learning and translates it into system specifications. Mental model [37] Represents user intentions, beliefs, and desires. Enhances understanding of human behavior in sociotechnical systems. Cognitive models [38] Represents human capabilities and task performa...

  29. [29]

    Change Request

    Design thinking process to produce Epics Integrated into Scrum to produce epics. If a "Change Request" or "Problem request" occurs during a sprint, the team decides whether to start a new sprint or return to design thinking. Design thinking process

  30. [30]

    Manages problem complexity through an iterative approach

    Design thinking process to elicit needs as mock-ups. Manages problem complexity through an iterative approach. Elicitation techniques (e.g., interviews, prototyping) are sequenced to build a shared understanding and product vision. Design thinking process

  31. [31]

    Double diamond process [33] Double Diamond process for RE:

    Unified process of Scrum and design thinking Enhances Scrum with human-centered tasks. Double diamond process [33] Double Diamond process for RE:

  32. [32]

    Uses empathy, collaboration, and experimentation to align solutions with user needs and drive innovation

    gather, 2) synthesize, 3) develop, and 4) deliver. Uses empathy, collaboration, and experimentation to align solutions with user needs and drive innovation. Comics [34] Comics visualize user interactions with the software. Engages users in shaping the software vision, ensuring their needs and preferences are reflected in the final product. Table 17 Impact...

  33. [33]

    Supports design of emotive techniques for stakeholder engagement

    Explains how emotions shape goals in social settings. Supports design of emotive techniques for stakeholder engagement. Psychological models [30] Personal values in user needs Enhances persona and goal models for deeper user understanding. Taxonomy for AR systems

  34. [34]

    Addresses new requirement types for user-optimized AR systems

    Four dimensions: social, technical, teamwork, and benefits. Addresses new requirement types for user-optimized AR systems. Motivation theories [32] Recognizes users as individuals with distinct needs. Aligns RE with user motivation to encourage participation. Table 20 Impact of psychology on the human-centered RE process Data availability Thereplicationpa...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20029273

  35. [35]

    C-F Cognitive Science None (new 3-phase process) Yes

  36. [36]

    eng.) No

    C-F Cognitive Science None (situated cog. eng.) No

  37. [37]

    C-F Cognitive Science None (visual notation) No

  38. [38]

    C-F Marketing Engineering None (conjoint analysis) Yes

  39. [39]

    C-F Psychology Goal (GRL) No

  40. [40]

    C-F Psychology Goal (POSE) Yes

  41. [41]

    C-F Psychology Goal (Tropos) No

  42. [42]

    C-F Psychology None (taxonomy) No

  43. [43]

    C-F RE-internal (cultural analysis) None Yes

  44. [44]

    C-F RE-internal (decision modeling) None No

  45. [45]

    C-F RE-internal (emotional goals) Goal (agent-oriented) Yes

  46. [46]

    C-F RE-internal (emotional goals) Goal (motivational) No

  47. [47]

    C-F RE-internal (emotional goals→formal) Goal (agent-oriented) Yes

  48. [48]

    C-F RE-internal (emotional requirements) Goal (POSE) No

  49. [49]

    C-F RE-internal (human concern annota- tions) None No

  50. [50]

    C-F RE-internal (information flows) Goal (i*) Yes

  51. [51]

    C-F RE-internal (linguistic specification) None No

  52. [52]

    C-F RE-internal (people-oriented SE) Goal (Tropos) No

  53. [53]

    C-F RE-internal (semi-formal notation) None (SeeMe) Yes

  54. [54]

    C-F RE-internal (social/organizational) None (HSO process) Yes

  55. [55]

    C-F RE-internal (usage history mining) None Yes

  56. [56]

    C-F RE-internal (user segmentation) None Yes

  57. [57]

    C-F RE-internal (workload/cognitive load) Goal (i*) Yes

  58. [58]

    C-F Social Engineering None (game scenarios) Yes

  59. [59]

    C-F Psychology (personal values) None No Participatory-Iterative pathway

  60. [60]

    P-I Design Thinking None (full SE lifecycle) No

  61. [61]

    P-I Design Thinking Scenario (Scrum) No

  62. [63]

    P-I Design Thinking Scenario (Scrum) Yes

  63. [64]

    P-I Design Thinking (comics) None No

  64. [65]

    P-I Design Thinking (double diamond) None No

  65. [66]

    P-I HCI None (persona into RE) No

  66. [67]

    P-I HCI None (persona metamodel) No

  67. [68]

    P-I HCI None (scenario-based design) Yes

  68. [69]

    P-I HCI + UCD None (scenario-based) Yes

  69. [70]

    P-I Interaction Design None (SPID framework) Yes

  70. [71]

    P-I Interaction Design Scenario (use cases) No

  71. [72]

    P-I Interaction Design Scenario (use cases) Yes

  72. [73]

    P-I Large Language Models None Yes

  73. [74]

    P-I RE-internal (co-design canvas) None No

  74. [75]

    P-I UCD None (design guidelines) No

  75. [76]

    P-I UCD None (gaming, co-creation) No

  76. [77]

    P-I UCD None (new process) No

  77. [78]

    P-I UCD None (persona + scenarios) No

  78. [79]

    P-I UCD Scenario (user stories) No

  79. [80]

    P-I UCD Scenario (Agile) No

  80. [81]

    P-I UX None (SHIRA) No

Showing first 80 references.