Best of “As a Developer, I Want…” Student User Stories, Raw and Unfiltered

Over on Twitter, the ever amazing and amusing time sink, @AdamPridmore, @KevlinHenney, and @JensColdewey are discussing the merit of software developers as stakeholders in user stories.

Despair not! I’ve got the goods. From my Scrum student projects (I run those day-in, day-out), here is the classic one:

As a developer, I want to learn Java to be able to program and earn a top grade.

I looked through the last few feature archives (the place where stories go to rest) from my student projects. Here are some fine exemplars of developer user stories. Have fun!

Continue reading “Best of “As a Developer, I Want…” Student User Stories, Raw and Unfiltered”

Clarification of “Why I Still Teach Scrum”

Teaching Scrum at University is challenging. Students are typically at the beginning of their career and don’t understand the challenges of communication and coordination in software engineering well. In a prior post on Why I Still Teach Scrum I had made a cryptic remark to that end and through various channels was asked to clarify the remark.

Scrum is a framework that needs tailoring for the specific situation at hand. The specific challenges of teaching Scrum at a University are, in no particular order, and most certainly incomplete:

  • Comparatively little practical experience of students
  • Widely differing capabilities as the gap between students can be large
  • Transient teams as Scrum projects typically last only a semester
  • Zero-Sum-Thinking by some students as to teamwork and grade

Continue reading “Clarification of “Why I Still Teach Scrum””

Why I Still Teach Scrum

Scrum is an agile method (framework) that when instantiated can be rather ornate. Most developers, when I talk to them, tell me that when given a choice they would not be doing Scrum. While Scrum may have felt much lighter than the competition back in the nineties, today it weighs in as rather heavy.

Given this, I wanted to reflect on why I still teach Scrum (and have a blog post to point any of my students to).

Continue reading “Why I Still Teach Scrum”

Is Exploratory Data Analysis Bad?

Last weekend, I ventured into unchartered territory (for me) and attended the Berliner Methodentreffen, a research conference mostly frequented by social scientists. I participated in a workshop on mixed methods, where the presenter discussed different models of mixing methods with each other (“Methodenpluralität” in German).

She omitted one model that I thought is often used: First to perform exploratory data analysis to detect some interesting phenomenon and then to do some explanatory qualitative research to formulate hypotheses as to why this phenomenon is, was, or keeps happening.

During my question, the temperature in the room dropped noticeably and I was informed that such exploratory data analysis is unscientific and frowned upon. Confused I inquired some more why this is so, but did not get a clear answer.

Continue reading “Is Exploratory Data Analysis Bad?”

We May not Know What We are Doing…

From my excursion into qualitative research land (the aforementioned Berliner Methodentreffen) I took away some rather confusing impressions about the variety of what people consider science. I’m well aware of different philosophies of science (from positivism to radical constructivism) and their impact on research methodology (from controlled experiments to action research, ethnographies, etc.) I did not expect, however, for people to be so divided about fundamental assumptions about what constitutes good science.

One of the initial surprises for me was to learn that it is acceptable for a dissertation to apply only one method and for that method to only deliver descriptive results (and thereby not really make a contribution to theory). In computer science, it is difficult to publish solely theory development research (let alone purely descriptive results) without any theory validation attempt, even if only selective. The limits of what can be done in 3-5 Ph.D. student years are clear, but this shouldn’t lead anyone to lower expectations.

Continue reading “We May not Know What We are Doing…”

Why You Should Ask for Money When Working With Industry

In our research, we often work with industry. In software engineering research, this is a no-brainer: Industry is, where there the research data is. That’s why we go there. For many research questions, we cannot create adequately, in a laboratory setting, a situation that lets us do our research.

Once a researcher realizes this, they need to decide on whether to charge the industry partner for the collaboration. Many researchers don’t, because sales is not exactly their strength. Also, many shy away from asking for money, because it is an additional hurdle to overcome, once an interested industry partner has been found.

Continue reading “Why You Should Ask for Money When Working With Industry”

How to Slice Your Research Work for Publication

I often discuss with my Ph.D. students how to structure their work and publish the results. There are many pitfalls. It gets more difficult, if we bring in other professors, who may have a different opinion on how to structure the work. Over time, I have found there are really only two main dimensions, though:

  • Separate work into theory building and theory validation, and publish one or more papers on each topic
  • Merge work on theory building and validation for an important aspect (hypothesis) into one and publish that

Continue reading “How to Slice Your Research Work for Publication”

Why “Boring” is no Reason for Rejection

A researcher-friend recently complained to me that her research paper had been rejected, because the reviewers considered it “boring”. I recommended that she complain to the editor-in-chief of the journal, because in my book, “boring” is no acceptable reason to reject a paper. (“Trivial” may be, but that is a different issue.)

The reasoning behind rejecting a paper, because it is “boring”, is as follows: Research should be novel and provide new and perhaps even unintuitive insights. Results that are not surprising (in the mind of the reviewer, at least) are not novel and therefore not worthy of publication.

Continue reading “Why “Boring” is no Reason for Rejection”

How the Lack of Theory Building in Software Engineering Research is Hurting Us

Traditional science has a clear idea of how research is to progress, rationally speaking: First you build a theory, for example, by observation, expert interviews, and the like, and then you generate hypotheses to test the theory. Over time, some theories will stand the test of time and will be considered valid.

Sadly, most software engineering research today, even the one published in top journals and conferences, often skips the theory building process and jumps straight to hypothesis testing. Vicky the Viking, from the accordingly named TV series of way back comes to my mind: Out of the blue, some genius idea pops into the researcher’s mind. This idea forms the hypothesis to be tested in research.

Continue reading “How the Lack of Theory Building in Software Engineering Research is Hurting Us”