Paper detail

Practitioner-generated blog posts as evidence for software engineering research: attitudinal survey and preliminary checklist

Background: Blog posts are frequently used by software practitioners to share information about their practice. Blog posts therefore provide a potential source of evidence for software engineering (SE) research. The use of blog posts as evidence for research appears contentious amongst some SE researchers. Objective: To better understand the actual and perceived value of blog posts as evidence for SE research, and to develop guidance for SE researchers on the use of blog posts as evidence. Method: We further analyse responses from a previously conducted attitudinal survey of 44 software engineering researchers. We conduct a heatmap analysis, simple statistical analysis, and a thematic analysis. Results: We find no clear consensus from respondents on researchers' attitudes to the credibility of blog posts, or on a standard set of criteria to evaluate blog-post credibility. We show that some of the responses to the survey exhibit characteristics similar to the content of blog posts, e.g., asserting prior beliefs as claims, with no citations and little supporting rationale. We illustrate our insights with ~60 qualitative examples from the survey ~40% of the total responses. We complement our quantitative and qualitative analyses with preliminary checklists to guide SE researchers. Conclusion: Blog posts are relevant to research because they are written by software practitioners describing their practice and experience. But evaluating the credibility of blog posts, so as to select the higher-quality content, remains an ongoing challenge. The quantitative and qualitative results, with the proposed checklists, are intended to stimulate reflection and action in the research community on the role of blog posts as evidence in software engineering research. Finally, our findings on researchers' attitudes to blog posts also provide more general insights into researchers' values for SE research.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.