library.bib

@inproceedings{Johnson2013a,
abstract = {Using static analysis tools for automating code inspections can be beneficial for software engineers. Such tools can make finding bugs, or software defects, faster and cheaper than manual inspections. Despite the benefits of using static analysis tools to find bugs, research suggests that these tools are underused. In this paper, we investigate why developers are not widely using static analysis tools and how current tools could potentially be improved. We conducted interviews with 20 developers and found that although all of our participants felt that use is beneficial, false positives and the way in which the warnings are presented, among other things, are barriers to use. We discuss several implications of these results, such as the need for an interactive mechanism to help developers fix defects.},
author = {Johnson, Brittany and Song, Yoonki and Murphy-Hill, Emerson and Bowdidge, Robert},
booktitle = {ICSE '13},
doi = {10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606613},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/06606613.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {978-1-4673-3076-3},
keywords = {Companies,Computer bugs,Encoding,Interviews,Software,Standards,Teamwork,automatic code inspection,brittany,bug detection,emerson,false positives,interactive mechanism,interactive systems,program debugging,program diagnostics,software defects,software development,software engineering,software quality,static analysis tools},
language = {English},
mendeley-tags = {brittany,emerson},
month = may,
pages = {672--681},
title = {{Why don't software developers use static analysis tools to find bugs?}},
url = {http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6606613},
year = {2013}
}

@article{Mason2010,
abstract = {A number of issues can affect sample size in qualitative research; however, the guiding principle should be the concept of saturation. This has been explored in detail by a number of authors but is still hotly debated, and some say little understood. A sample of PhD studies using qualitative approaches, and qualitative interviews as the method of data collection was taken from theses.com and contents analysed for their sample sizes. Five hundred and sixty studies were identified that fitted the inclusion criteria. Results showed that the mean sample size was 31; however, the distribution was non-random, with a statistically significant proportion of studies, presenting sample sizes that were multiples of ten. These results are discussed in relation to saturation. They suggest a pre-meditated approach that is not wholly congruent with the principles of qualitative research. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs100387},
author = {Mason, Mark},
issn = {1438-5627},
journal = {Forum: Qualitative Social Research},
keywords = {Interviews,Sampling,S\"{a}ttigung,entrevistas,grounded theory,interviews size,personal interviews.,sample size,saturaci\'{o}n,saturation,tama\~{n}o de la muestra},
language = {en},
mendeley-tags = {grounded theory},
month = aug,
number = {3},
title = {{Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews}},
url = {http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027},
volume = {11},
year = {2010}
}



@book{Baker2012,
abstract = {Students conducting a piece of qualitative research frequently ask ‘how many interviews is enough?’ Early career researchers and established academics also consider this question when designing research projects. In this NCRM Methods Review paper we gather and review responses to the question of ‘how many’ from 14 renowned social scientists and 5 early career researchers. The riposte to the question of ‘how many’ from most contributors is ‘it depends’. In considering what ‘it depends upon’ however, the responses offer guidance on the epistemological, methodological and practical issues to take into account when conducting research projects. This includes advice about assessing research aims and objectives, validity within epistemic communities and available time and resources.},
author = {Baker, Sarah Elise and Edwards, Rosalind},
keywords = {grounded theory},
mendeley-tags = {grounded theory},
publisher = {National Centre for Research Methods},
title = {{How many qualitative interviews is enough?}},
url = {http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/},
year = {2012}
}


@incollection{Easterbrook2008,
abstract = {Selecting a research method for empirical software engineering research is problematic because the benefits and challenges to using each method are not yet well catalogued. Therefore, this chapter describes a number of empirical methods available. It examines the goals of each and analyzes the types of questions each best addresses. Theoretical stances behind the methods, practical considerations in the application of the methods and data collection are also briefly reviewed. Taken together, this information provides a suitable basis for both understanding and selecting from the variety of methods applicable to empirical software engineering.},
author = {Easterbrook, Steve and Singer, Janice and Storey, Margaret-Anne and Damian, Daniela},
booktitle = {Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering},
chapter = {11},
editor = {Shull, Forrest and Singer, Janice and Sj{\o}berg, Dag},
keywords = {empirical software engineering},
mendeley-tags = {empirical software engineering},
pages = {285--311},
title = {{Selecting Empirical Methods for Software Engineering}},
year = {2008}
}

@book{Olson2014,
doi = {10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8},
editor = {Olson, Judith S. and Kellogg, Wendy A.},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/Unknown - 2014 - Ways of Knowing in HCI.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {978-1-4939-0377-1},
publisher = {Springer},
title = {{Ways of Knowing in HCI}},
url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8},
year = {2014}
}

@article{Adolph2011,
author = {Adolph, Steve and Hall, Wendy and Kruchten, Philippe},
doi = {10.1007/s10664-010-9152-6},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/art\%3A10.1007\%2Fs10664-010-9152-6.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1382-3256},
journal = {Empirical Software Engineering},
keywords = {empirical software engineering,fsenier,grounded theory},
mendeley-tags = {empirical software engineering,fsenier,grounded theory},
month = jan,
number = {4},
pages = {487--513},
title = {{Using grounded theory to study the experience of software development}},
url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10664-010-9152-6},
volume = {16},
year = {2011}
}

@inproceedings{Furniss2011,
abstract = {Grounded Theory (GT) is used within HCI research, but nuances and more modern interpretations of the method are rarely discussed. This paper has two intentions: to offer guidance on practical issues when applying GT, and to clarify the space of methodological possibilities. We describe an extended GT study on understanding why practitioners choose particular usability evaluation methods. We describe five stages in this study to highlight our experiences and choices made. We draw out seven practical and methodological considerations in applying GT in a CHI context. This challenges the more traditional inductive and objective positions on GT use; it sensitizes novices of GT to these issues; and through the extended case study it provides substance for debate on issues that affect those that use qualitative methods more broadly.},
author = {Furniss, Dominic and Blandford, Ann and Curzon, Paul},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '11},
doi = {10.1145/1978942.1978960},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/p113-furniss.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {9781450302289},
keywords = {constructivist,distributed cognition,fsenier,grounded theory,method,qualitative,resilience engineering},
mendeley-tags = {fsenier,grounded theory},
month = may,
pages = {113},
title = {{Confessions from a grounded theory PhD}},
url = {http://dl.acm.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/citation.cfm?id=1978942.1978960},
year = {2011}
}

@article{Shull2008b,
abstract = {Replications play a key role in Empirical Software Engineering by allowing the community to build knowledge about which results or observations hold under which conditions. Therefore, not only can a replication that produces similar results as the original experiment be viewed as successful, but a replication that produce results different from those of the original experiment can also be viewed as successful. In this paper we identify two types of replications: exact replications, in which the procedures of an experiment are followed as closely as possible; and conceptual replications, in which the same research question is evaluated by using a different experimental procedure. The focus of this paper is on exact replications. We further explore them to identify two sub-categories: dependent replications, where researchers attempt to keep all the conditions of the experiment the same or very similar and independent replications, where researchers deliberately vary one or more major aspects of the conditions of the experiment. We then discuss the role played by each type of replication in terms of its goals, benefits, and limitations. Finally, we highlight the importance of producing adequate documentation for an experiment (original or replication) to allow for replication. A properly documented replication provides the details necessary to gain a sufficient understanding of the study being replicated without requiring the replicator to slavishly follow the given procedures.},
author = {Shull, Forrest J. and Carver, Jeffrey C. and Vegas, Sira and Juristo, Natalia},
doi = {10.1007/s10664-008-9060-1},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/art\%3A10.1007\%2Fs10664-008-9060-1.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1382-3256},
journal = {Empirical Software Engineering},
keywords = {empirical software engineering,fsenier},
mendeley-tags = {empirical software engineering,fsenier},
month = jan,
number = {2},
pages = {211--218},
title = {{The role of replications in Empirical Software Engineering}},
url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10664-008-9060-1},
volume = {13},
year = {2008}
}

@incollection{Easterbrook2008,
abstract = {Selecting a research method for empirical software engineering research is problematic because the benefits and challenges to using each method are not yet well catalogued. Therefore, this chapter describes a number of empirical methods available. It examines the goals of each and analyzes the types of questions each best addresses. Theoretical stances behind the methods, practical considerations in the application of the methods and data collection are also briefly reviewed. Taken together, this information provides a suitable basis for both understanding and selecting from the variety of methods applicable to empirical software engineering.},
author = {Easterbrook, Steve and Singer, Janice and Storey, Margaret-Anne and Damian, Daniela},
booktitle = {Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering},
chapter = {11},
editor = {Shull, Forrest and Singer, Janice and Sj\o berg, Dag},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/chp\%3A10.1007\%2F978-1-84800-044-5\_11.pdf:pdf},
keywords = {empirical software engineering,fsenier},
mendeley-tags = {empirical software engineering,fsenier},
pages = {285--311},
title = {{Selecting Empirical Methods for Software Engineering}},
year = {2008}
}

@inproceedings{Furniss2011,
abstract = {Grounded Theory (GT) is used within HCI research, but nuances and more modern interpretations of the method are rarely discussed. This paper has two intentions: to offer guidance on practical issues when applying GT, and to clarify the space of methodological possibilities. We describe an extended GT study on understanding why practitioners choose particular usability evaluation methods. We describe five stages in this study to highlight our experiences and choices made. We draw out seven practical and methodological considerations in applying GT in a CHI context. This challenges the more traditional inductive and objective positions on GT use; it sensitizes novices of GT to these issues; and through the extended case study it provides substance for debate on issues that affect those that use qualitative methods more broadly.},
address = {New York, New York, USA},
author = {Furniss, Dominic and Blandford, Ann and Curzon, Paul},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '11},
doi = {10.1145/1978942.1978960},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/p113-furniss.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {9781450302289},
keywords = {constructivist,distributed cognition,fsenier,grounded theory,method,qualitative,resilience engineering},
mendeley-tags = {fsenier,grounded theory},
month = may,
pages = {113},
publisher = {ACM Press},
title = {{Confessions from a grounded theory PhD}},
url = {http://dl.acm.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/citation.cfm?id=1978942.1978960},
year = {2011}
}

@article{Suddaby2006,
author = {Suddaby, Roy},
doi = {10.2307/20159789},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/20159789.pdf:pdf},
issn = {00014273},
journal = {The Academy of Management Journal},
keywords = {fsenier,grounded theory},
mendeley-tags = {fsenier,grounded theory},
month = aug,
number = {4},
pages = {633--642},
publisher = {Academy of Management},
title = {{From the editors: What grounded theory is not}},
url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159789},
volume = {49},
year = {2006}
}

@inproceedings{Adolph2008,
abstract = {We are engaged in a qualitative research project to understand how people manage the process of software development. This study uses grounded theory as its method of inquiry and we have learned much about what is and what is not a grounded theory. We, like many researchers have claimed to follow grounded theory methods and even to have produced a grounded theory. In reality, we often only borrow a few grounded theory practices to categorize our data. This paper presents lessons learned about using grounded theory so that both researchers and reviewers can critically evaluate investigators' claims to be producing grounded theory.},
author = {Adolph, Steve and Hall, Wendy and Kruchten, Philippe},
booktitle = {CASCON '08},
doi = {10.1145/1463788.1463806},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/a13-adolph.pdf:pdf},
keywords = {fsenier,grounded theory},
mendeley-tags = {fsenier,grounded theory},
month = oct,
pages = {1-13},
title = {{A methodological leg to stand on: Lessons learned using grounded theory to study software development}},
url = {http://dl.acm.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/citation.cfm?id=1463788.1463806},
year = {2008}
}

@book{brown2012daring,
  title={Daring Greatly},
  author={Brown, Bren{\'e}},
  publisher={Gotham},
  year={2012}
}

@article{muller2010grounded,
  title={Grounded theory method in HCI and CSCW},
  author={Muller, Michael J and Kogan, Sandra},
  journal={Cambridge: IBM Center for Social Software},
  pages={1--46},
  year={2010}
}

@article{Im2006,
abstract = {BACKGROUND: Despite the positive aspects of online forums as a qualitative research method, very little is known on the practical issues involved in using online forums for data collection, especially for a qualitative research project. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the practical issues encountered in implementing an online forum as a qualitative component of a larger study on cancer pain experience. METHODS: Throughout the study process, the research staff recorded issues ranging from minor technical problems to serious ethical dilemmas as they arose and wrote memos about them. The memos and written records of the discussions were reviewed and analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Two practical issues related to credibility were identified: (a) a high response and retention rate and (b) automatic transcripts. An issue related to dependability was the participants' forgetfulness. The issues related to confirmability were difficulties in theoretical saturation and unstandardized computer and Internet jargon. A security issue related to hacking attempts was noted as well. DISCUSSION: The analysis of these issues suggests several implications for future researchers who want to use online forums as a qualitative data collection method.},
author = {Im, Eun-Ok and Chee, Wonshik},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/tbarik/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Im, Chee - Unknown - An online forum as a qualitative research method practical issues.pdf:pdf},
issn = {0029-6562},
journal = {Nursing research},
keywords = {Adult,Computer Security,Cross-Cultural Comparison,Data Collection,Data Collection: methods,Female,Humans,Internet,Male,Neoplasms,Neoplasms: ethnology,Neoplasms: psychology,Pain,Pain: ethnology,Pain: psychology,Qualitative Research,Reproducibility of Results,United States,fsenier,grounded theory},
mendeley-tags = {fsenier,grounded theory},
month = jan,
number = {4},
pages = {267--73},
pmid = {16849979},
title = {{An online forum as a qualitative research method: practical issues.}},
url = {http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2491331\&tool=pmcentrez\&rendertype=abstract},
volume = {55},
year = {2006}
}

@article{Hoda2011,
abstract = {Software Engineering researchers are constantly looking to improve the quantity and quality of their research findings through the use of an appropriate research methodology. Over the last decade, there has been a sustained increase in the number of researchers exploring the human and social aspects of Software Engineering, many of whom have used Grounded Theory. We have used Grounded Theory as a qualitative research method to study 40 Agile practitioners across 16 software organizations in New Zealand and India and explore how these Agile teams self-organize. We use our study to demonstrate the application of Grounded Theory to Software Engineering. In doing so, we present (a) a detailed description of the Grounded Theory methodology in general and its application in our research in particular; (b) discuss the major challenges we encountered while performing Grounded Theory’s various activities and our strategies for overcoming these challenges; and (c) we present a sample of our data and results to illustrate the artifacts and outcomes of Grounded Theory research.},
author = {Hoda, Rashina and Noble, James and Marshall, Stuart},
doi = {10.1007/s10664-011-9161-0},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/art\%3A10.1007\%2Fs10664-011-9161-0.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1382-3256},
journal = {Empirical Software Engineering},
keywords = {fsenier,grounded theory},
mendeley-tags = {fsenier,grounded theory},
month = apr,
number = {6},
pages = {609--639},
title = {{Developing a grounded theory to explain the practices of self-organizing Agile teams}},
url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10664-011-9161-0},
volume = {17},
year = {2011}
}

@inproceedings{Li2015,
author = {Li, P. and Ko, A.J. and Zhu, J.},
booktitle = {ICSE '15},
keywords = {fsenier},
mendeley-tags = {fsenier},
title = {{What makes a great software engineer?}},
year = {2015},
pages = {700--710},
month = may
}

@inproceedings{Titov2008,
author = {Titov, Ivan and McDonald, Ryan},
booktitle = {WWW '08},
doi = {10.1145/1367497.1367513},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/p111-titov.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {9781605580852},
keywords = {clustering,fsenier,opinion mining,topic models},
mendeley-tags = {fsenier},
month = apr,
pages = {111--120},
title = {{Modeling online reviews with multi-grain topic models}},
url = {http://dl.acm.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/citation.cfm?id=1367497.1367513},
year = {2008}
}

@inproceedings{Vendome2015,
author = {Vendome, Christopher and Linares-V\'{a}squez, Mario and Bavota, Gabriele and {Di Penta}, Massimiliano and German, Daniel and Poshyvanyk, Denys},
booktitle = {ICPC '15},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/8159a218.pdf:pdf},
keywords = {fsenier,grounded theory},
mendeley-tags = {fsenier,grounded theory},
pages = {218--228},
title = {{License usage and changes: A large scale study of Java projects on GitHub}},
year = {2015}
}

@inproceedings{Tsay2014,
author = {Tsay, Jason and Dabbish, Laura and Herbsleb, James},
booktitle = {FSE '14},
doi = {10.1145/2635868.2635882},
file = {:D$\backslash$:/Mendeley Desktop/p144-tsay.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {9781450330565},
keywords = {GitHub,contribution,discussion,evaluation,fsenier,grounded theory,open source,social computing,social media,transparency},
mendeley-tags = {fsenier,grounded theory},
month = nov,
pages = {144--154},
title = {{Let's talk about it: Evaluating contributions through discussion in GitHub}},
url = {http://dl.acm.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/citation.cfm?id=2635868.2635882},
year = {2014}
}

@inproceedings{Nasehi2012,
abstract = {Programmers learning how to use an API or a programming language often rely on code examples to support their learning activities. However, what makes for an effective ode example remains an open question. Finding the haracteristics of the effective examples is essential in improving the appropriateness of these learning aids. To help answer this question we have onducted a qualitative analysis of the questions and answers posted to a programming Q\&A web site called StackOverflow. On StackOverflow answers can be voted on, indicating which answers were found helpful by users of the site. By analyzing these well-received answers we identified haracteristics of effective examples. We found that the explanations acompanying examples are as important as the examples themselves. Our findings have implications for the way the API documentation and example set should be developed and evolved as well as the design of the tools assisting the development of these materials.},
author = {Nasehi, Seyed Mehdi and Sillito, Jonathan and Maurer, Frank and Burns, Chris},
booktitle = {ICSM '12},
doi = {10.1109/ICSM.2012.6405249},
isbn = {978-1-4673-2312-3},
issn = {1063-6773},
keywords = {API,API documentation,API example,Best practices,Conferences,Documentation,Java,Programming,Software maintenance,StackOverflow,Web sites,application program interfaces,application programming interface,code example,documentation,fsenier,grounded theory,learning activity,learning aid,programming,programming Q and A web site,programming language,programming languages,qualitative analysis,question-and-answer,social learning},
mendeley-tags = {fsenier,grounded theory},
month = sep,
pages = {25--34},
shorttitle = {Software Maintenance (ICSM), 2012 28th IEEE Intern},
title = {{What makes a good code example?: A study of programming Q\&A in StackOverflow}},
url = {http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6405249},
year = {2012}
}