A Disruptive Research Playbook for Studying Disruptive Innovations
Authors: 
Margaret-Anne Storey, Daniel Russo, Nicole Novielli, 
Takashi Kobayashi, Dong WangAuthors Info & Claims
Article No.: 195, Pages 1 - 29
Abstract
As researchers today, we are witnessing a fundamental change in our technologically-enabled world due to the advent and diffusion of highly disruptive technologies such as generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR). In particular, software engineering has been profoundly affected by the transformative power of disruptive innovations for decades, with a significant impact of technical advancements on social dynamics due to its socio-technical nature. In this article, we reflect on the importance of formulating and addressing research problems in software engineering through a socio-technical lens, thus ensuring a holistic understanding of the complex phenomena in this field. We propose a research playbook with the aim of providing a guide to formulate compelling and socially relevant research questions and to identify the appropriate research strategies for empirical investigations, with an eye on the long-term implications of technologies or their use. We showcase how to apply the research playbook. Firstly, we show how it can be used retrospectively to reflect on a prior disruptive technology, Stack Overflow, and its impact on software development. Secondly, we show how it can be used to question the impact of two current disruptive technologies: AI and AR/VR. Finally, we introduce a specialized GPT model to support the researcher in framing future investigations. We conclude by discussing the broader implications of adopting the playbook for both researchers and practitioners in software engineering and beyond.
References
[1]
GitHub Copilot. 2021. https://copilot.github.com
[2]
Rabe Abdalkareem, Emad Shihab, and Juergen Rilling. 2017. On code reuse from StackOverflow: An exploratory study on Android apps. Information and Software Technology 88 (2017), 148–158. DOI:
[3]
Yasemin Acar, Michael Backes, Sascha Fahl, Doowon Kim, Michelle L. Mazurek, and Christian Stransky. 2016. You get where you’re looking for: The impact of information sources on code security. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 289–305. DOI:
[4]
Ashton Anderson, Daniel Huttenlocher, Jon Kleinberg, and Jure Leskovec. 2013. Steering user behavior with badges. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’13). ACM, New York, NY, 95–106. DOI:
[5]
Muhammad Asaduzzaman, Ahmed Shah Mashiyat, Chanchal K. Roy, and Kevin A. Schneider. 2013. Answering questions about unanswered questions of Stack Overflow. In Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE, 97–100.
[6]
Alberto Bacchelli, Luca Ponzanelli, and Michele Lanza. 2012. Harnessing stack overflow for the IDE. In Proceedings of the 2012 3rd International Workshop on Recommendation Systems for Software Engineering (RSSE). 26–30. DOI:
[7]
Marco Barenkamp, Jonas Rebstadt, and Oliver Thomas. 2020. Applications of AI in classical software engineering. AI Perspectives 2, 1 (2020), 1.
[8]
Anton Barua, Stephen W. Thomas, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2014. What are developers talking about? An analysis of topics and trends in stack overflow. Empirical Software Engineering 19, 3 (Jun 2014), 619–654. DOI:
[9]
Ohad Barzilay, Christoph Treude, and Alexey Zagalsky. 2013. Facilitating crowd sourced software engineering via stack overflow. Finding Source Code on the Web for Remix and Reuse (2013), 289–308.
[10]
Abraham Bernstein and Natasha Noy. 2014. Is This Really Science? The Semantic Webber’s Guide to Evaluating Research Contributions. Technical Report.
[11]
Trishala Bhasin, Adam Murray, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2021. Student experiences with github and stack overflow: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM 13th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). IEEE, 81–90.
[12]
Amiangshu Bosu, Christopher S. Corley, Dustin Heaton, Debarshi Chatterji, Jeffrey C. Carver, and Nicholas A Kraft. 2013. Building reputation in StackOverflow: An empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE, 89–92.
[13]
Joseph L. Bower and Clayton M. Christensen. 1995. Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review 73, 1 (1995), 43–53.
[14]
Gordon Burtch, Dokyun Lee, and Zhichen Chen. 2023. The consequences of generative AI for UGC and Online Community Engagement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2023). DOI:
[15]
Fabio Calefato, Filippo Lanubile, Maria Concetta Marasciulo, and Nicole Novielli. 2015. Mining successful answers in stack overflow. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 430–433. DOI:
[16]
Eduardo C. Campos, Martin Monperrus, and Marcelo A. Maia. 2016. Searching stack overflow for API-usage-related bug fixes using snippet-based queries. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (CASCON ’16). IBM Corp., USA, 232–242.
[17]
Kaibo Cao, Chunyang Chen, Sebastian Baltes, Christoph Treude, and Xiang Chen. 2021. Automated Query Reformulation for Efficient Search Based on Query Logs From Stack Overflow. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 1273–1285. DOI:
[18]
Preetha Chatterjee, Minji Kong, and Lori Pollock. 2020. Finding help with programming errors: An exploratory study of novice software engineers’ focus in stack overflow posts. Journal of Systems and Software 159 (2020), 110454. DOI:
[19]
Mark Chen, Jakub Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qijing Yuan, Henryk P. de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harrison Edwards, Yuri Burda, Niru Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alexander Ray, Rishita Puri, Gabriel Krueger, Mike Petrov, Hala Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Ben Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Maxim Pavlov, Alex Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Maximilian Bavarian, Carolyn Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe P. Such, David Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Eric Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William H. Guss, Alex Nichol, Andrew Paino, Nick Tezak, Jerry Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Sujith Balaji, Shivendra Jain, Will Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Joshua Achiam, Vedant Misra, Eri Morikawa, Alec Radford, Melody Knight, Miles Brundage, Matej Murati, Katja Mayer, Peter Welinder, Brian McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv:2107.03374. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374
[20]
Clayton M. Christensen and Michael Overdorf. 2000. Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review 78, 2 (2000), 66–76.
[21]
Elizabeth F. Churchill and Dave Snowdon. 1998. Collaborative virtual environments: An introductory review of issues and systems. Virtual Reality 3 (1998), 3–15.
[22]
Georgios Digkas, Nikolaos Nikolaidis, Apostolos Ampatzoglou, and Alexander Chatzigeorgiou. 2019. Reusing code from StackOverflow: The effect on technical debt. In Proceedings of the 2019 45th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA). 87–91. DOI:
[23]
James Dominic, Jada Houser, Igor Steinmacher, Charles Ritter, and Paige Rodeghero. 2020. Conversational bot for newcomers onboarding to open source projects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops) (ICSEW ’20). ACM, New York, NY, 46–50. DOI:
[24]
Steve Easterbrook, Janice Singer, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Daniela Damian. 2008. Selecting empirical methods for software engineering research. In Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Forrest Shull, Janice Singer, and Dag I. K. Sjoberg (Eds.), Springer, 285–311. DOI:
[25]
Christof Ebert and Panos Louridas. 2023. Generative AI for software practitioners. IEEE Software 40, 4 (2023), 30–38. DOI:
[26]
Emelie Engström, Margaret-Anne Storey, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, and Maria Teresa Baldassarre. 2020. How software engineering research aligns with design science: a review. Empirical Software Engineering 25 (2020), 2630–2660.
[27]
Jingchao Fang, Victoria Chang, Ge Gao, and Hao-Chuan Wang. 2021. Social interactions in virtual reality: What cues do people use most and how. In Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2021 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’21 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, 49–52. DOI:
[28]
Filipe A. Fernandes, Cláudia M. L. Werner. 2022. A scoping review of the metaverse for software engineering education: Overview, challenges, and opportunities. PRESENCE: Virtual and Augmented Reality 31 (2022), 107–146. DOI:
[29]
Felix Fischer, Konstantin Böttinger, Huang Xiao, Christian Stransky, Yasemin Acar, Michael Backes, and Sascha Fahl. 2017. Stack overflow considered harmful? The impact of copy & paste on android application security. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 121–136. DOI:
[30]
Denae Ford, Kristina Lustig, Jeremy Banks, and Chris Parnin. 2018. “We don’t do that here”: How collaborative editing with mentors improves engagement in social Q & A communities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, 1–12. DOI:
[31]
Denae Ford, Justin Smith, Philip J Guo, and Chris Parnin. 2016. Paradise unplugged: Identifying barriers for female participation on stack overflow. In Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. 846–857.
[32]
Scott Grant and Buddy Betts. 2013. Encouraging user behaviour with achievements: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 2013 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). 65–68.
[33]
Catherine M. Hicks. 2024. Psychological Affordances Can Provide a Missing Explanatory Layer for Why Interventions to Improve Developer Experience Take Hold or Fail. Retrieved from https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/qz43x/providers/osfstorage/65b2f3ae4aa63c07d9df22ec?action=download&direct&version=5
[34]
Adrian Hoff, Christoph Seidl, Mircea F Lungu, and Michele Lanza. 2023. Preparing software re-engineering via freehand sketches in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution. IEEE.
[35]
Adrian H. Hoppe, Florian van de Camp, and Rainer Stiefelhagen. 2021. ShiSha: Enabling shared perspective with face-to-face collaboration using redirected avatars in virtual reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (Jan 2021), Article 251, 22 pages. DOI:
[36]
Xinyi Hou, Yanjie Zhao, Yue Liu, Zhou Yang, Kailong Wang, Li Li, Xiapu Luo, David Lo, John Grundy, and Haoyu Wang. 2023. Large language models for software engineering: A systematic literature review. arXiv:2308.10620. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10620
[37]
Saki Imai. 2022. Is GitHub copilot a substitute for human pair-programming? An empirical study. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE ’22). ACM, New York, NY, 319–321. DOI:
[38]
Mara Kaufeld, Martin Mundt, Sarah Forst, and Heiko Hecht. 2022. Optical see-through augmented reality can induce severe motion sickness. Displays 74 (2022), 102283. DOI:
[39]
Alexander Krause-Glau, Malte Hansen, and Wilhelm Hasselbring. 2022. Collaborative program comprehension via software visualization in extended reality. Information and Software Technology 151 (2022), Article 107007.
[40]
Veronika Krauß, Alexander Boden, Leif Oppermann, and René Reiners. 2021. Current practices, challenges, and design implications for collaborative ar/vr application development. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15.
[41]
Tobias Lorey, Paul Ralph, and Michael Felderer. 2022. Social science theories in software engineering research. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’22). ACM, New York, NY, 1994–2005. DOI:
[42]
Rafael Lotufo, Leonardo Teixeira Passos, and Krzysztof Czarnecki. 2012. Towards improving bug tracking systems with game mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE Working Conference of Mining Software Repositories (MSR ’12). Michele Lanza, Massimiliano Di Penta, and Tao Xie (Eds.), IEEE, 2–11. DOI:
[43]
Stephen Lukasik. 2011. Why the Arpanet was built. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 33, 3 (2011), 4–21. DOI:
[44]
Lena Mamykina, Bella Manoim, Manas Mittal, George Hripcsak, and Björn Hartmann. 2011. Design lessons from the fastest Q & a site in the west. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). ACM, New York, NY, 2857–2866. DOI:
[45]
Joseph E. McGrath. 1995. Methodology matters: Doing research in the behavioral and social sciences. In Readings in Human–Computer Interaction. Elsevier, 152–169.
[46]
Marshall McLuhan. 1977. Laws of the Media. ETC: A Review of General Semantics 34, 2 (1977), 173–179.
[47]
Marshall McLuhan. 2017. The medium is the message. In Communication Theory. Routledge, 390–402.
[48]
Sarah Meldrum, Sherlock A. Licorish, Caitlin A. Owen, and Bastin Tony Roy Savarimuthu. 2020b. Understanding stack overflow code quality: A recommendation of caution. Science of Computer Programming 199 (2020), Article 102516. DOI:
[49]
Sarah Meldrum, Sherlock A. Licorish, and Bastin Tony Roy Savarimuthu. 2020. Exploring research interest in stack overflow – A systematic mapping study and quality evaluation. arXiv:2010.12282. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.12282
[50]
Arpit Merchant, Daksh Shah, Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, Anurag Ghosh, and Ponnurangam Kumaraguru. 2019. Signals matter: Understanding popularity and impact of users on stack overflow. In Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference (WWW ’19). ACM, New York, NY, 3086–3092. DOI:
[51]
Joel Mokyr. 1992. The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford University Press.
[52]
Iraklis Moutidis and Hywel T. P. Williams. 2021. Community evolution on stack overflow. PLoS One 16, 6 (2021), Article e0253010.
[53]
Alessandro Murgia, Daan Janssens, Serge Demeyer, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2016. Among the machines: Human-bot interaction on social Q & A websites. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’16). ACM, New York, NY, 1272–1279. DOI:
[54]
Gail Murphy, Mik Kersten, and Leah Findlater. 2006. How are java software developers using the eclipse ide? IEEE Software 23, 4 (2006), 76–83.
[55]
Nicole Novielli, Fabio Calefato, and Filippo Lanubile. 2014. Towards discovering the role of emotions in stack overflow. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Social Software Engineering. 33–36.
[56]
OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv:2303.08774. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774
[57]
Chris Parnin and Alessandro Orso. 2011. Are automated debugging techniques actually helping programmers?. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. ACM.
[58]
Chris Parnin, Christoph Treude, Lars Grammel, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2012. Crowd Documentation: Exploring the Coverage and the Dynamics of API Discussions on Stack Overflow. Technical Report 11. Georgia Institute of Technology.
[59]
Sida Peng, Eirini Kalliamvakou, Peter Cihon, and Mert Demirere. 2023. The impact of AI on developer productivity: Evidence from GitHub. arXiv:2302.06590. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.06590
[60]
Tekla S. Perry. 2016. Virtual reality goes social. IEEE Spectrum 53, 1 (2016), 56–57. DOI:
[61]
Jaanus Pöial. 2021. Challenges of teaching programming in StackOverflow era. In Educating Engineers for Future Industrial Revolutions. Michael E. Auer and Tiia Rüütmann (Eds.), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 703–710.
[62]
Luca Ponzanelli, Alberto Bacchelli, and Michele Lanza. 2013. Seahawk: Stack overflow in the ide. In Proceedings of the 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 1295–1298.
[63]
Chaiyong Ragkhitwetsagul, Jens Krinke, Matheus Paixao, Giuseppe Bianco, and Rocco Oliveto. 2021. Toxic code snippets on stack overflow. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47, 3 (2021), 560–581. DOI:
[64]
P. Ralph, Nauman bin Ali, Sebastian Baltes, Domenico Bianculli, Jessica Diaz, Yvonne Dittrich, Neil Ernst, Michael Felderer, Robert Feldt, Antonio Filieri, Breno Bernard Nicolau de França, Carlo Alberto Furia, Greg Gay, Nicolas Gold, Daniel Graziotin, Pinjia He, Rashina Hoda, Natalia Juristo, Barbara Kitchenham, Valentina Lenarduzzi, Jorge Martínez, Jorge Melegati, Daniel Mendez, Tim Menzies, Jefferson Molleri, Dietmar Pfahl, Romain Robbes, Daniel Russo, Nyyti Saarimäki, Federica Sarro, Davide Taibi, Janet Siegmund, Diomidis Spinellis, Miroslaw Staron, Klaas Stol, Margaret-Anne Storey, Davide Taibi, Damian Tamburri, Marco Torchiano, Christoph Treude, Burak Turhan, Xiaofeng Wang, and Sira Vegas. 2020. ACM SIGSOFT empirical standards. arXiv:2010.03525. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03525
[65]
Paul Ralph, Nauman bin Ali, Sebastian Baltes, Domenico Bianculli, Jessica Diaz, Yvonne Dittrich, Neil Ernst, Michael Felderer, Robert Feldt, Antonio Filieri, Breno Bernard Nicolau de França, Carlo Alberto Furia, Greg Gay, Nicolas Gold, Daniel Graziotin, Pinjia He, Rashina Hoda, Natalia Juristo, Barbara Kitchenham, Valentina Lenarduzzi, Jorge Martínez, Jorge Melegati, Daniel Mendez, Tim Menzies, Jefferson Molleri, Dietmar Pfahl, Romain Robbes, Daniel Russo, Nyyti Saarimäki, Federica Sarro, Davide Taibi, Janet Siegmund, Diomidis Spinellis, Miroslaw Staron, Klaas Stol, Margaret-Anne Storey, Davide Taibi, Damian Tamburri, Marco Torchiano, Christoph Treude, Burak Turhan, Xiaofeng Wang, and Sira Vegas. 2020. Empirical standards for software engineering research. arXiv:2010.03525. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03525
[66]
Steven I. Ross, Fernando Martinez, Stephanie Houde, Michael Muller, and Justin D. Weisz. 2023. The programmer’s assistant: Conversational interaction with a large language model for software development. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 491–514.
[67]
Rodrigo F. Silva, Mohammad Masudur Rahman, Carlos Eduardo Dantas, Chanchal Roy, Foutse Khomh, and Marcelo A. Maia. 2021. Improved retrieval of programming solutions with code examples using a multi-featured score. Journal of Systems and Software 181 (2021), Article 111063. DOI:
[68]
Dag I. K. Sjøberg, Tore Dybå, Bente C. D. Anda, and Jo E. Hannay. 2008. Building Theories in Software Engineering. Springer London, London, 312–336. DOI:
[69]
Megan Squire. 2015. Should we move to stack overflow? Measuring the utility of social media for developer support. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’15), Vol. 2. IEEE, 219–228.
[70]
Megan Squire and Christian Funkhouser. 2014. “A bit of code”: How the stack overflow community creates quality postings. In Proceedings of the 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1425–1434. DOI:
[71]
Klaas-Jan Stol and Brian Fitzgerald. 2013. Uncovering theories in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 2013 2nd SEMAT Workshop on a General Theory of Software Engineering (GTSE). 5–14. DOI:
[72]
Margaret-Anne Storey, Neil A Ernst, Courtney Williams, and Eirini Kalliamvakou. 2020. The who, what, how of software engineering research: A socio-technical framework. Empirical Software Engineering 25 (2020), 4097–4129.
[73]
Siddharth Subramanian and Reid Holmes. 2013. Making sense of online code snippets. In Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE, 85–88.
[74]
Henry Tang and Sarah Nadi. 2021. On using stack overflow comment-edit pairs to recommend code maintenance changes. Empirical Software Engineering 26, 4 (Jul 2021), 35 pages. DOI:
[75]
John Thomas. 2007. Operationalizing McLuhan’s Tetrad to Focus on Innovation Effects. Thesis. Iowa State University. Retrieved from https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/68461
[76]
Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. LLaMA: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv:2302.13971. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971
[77]
Christoph Treude, Ohad Barzilay, and Margaret-Anne D. Storey. 2011. How do programmers ask and answer questions on the web?. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’11). Richard N. Taylor, Harald C. Gall, and Nenad Medvidovic (Eds.), ACM, New York, NY, 804–807. DOI:
[78]
Christoph Treude and Martin P Robillard. 2016. Augmenting API documentation with insights from stack overflow. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering. 392–403.
[79]
Christoph Treude and Martin P. Robillard. 2017. Understanding stack overflow code fragments. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). 509–513. DOI:
[80]
Bogdan Vasilescu, Vladimir Filkov, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2013. StackOverflow and GitHub: Associations between software development and crowdsourced knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2013 ASE/IEEE International Conference on Social Computing. IEEE, 188–195.
[81]
Stefan Wagner and Günter Ruhe. 2018. A systematic review of productivity factors in software development. arXiv:1801.06475. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.06475
[82]
C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, and A. Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer Science & Business Media.
[83]
Yuhao Wu, Shaowei Wang, Cor-Paul Bezemer, and Katsuro Inoue. 2019. How do developers utilize source code from stack overflow? Empirical Software Engineering 24, 2 (Apr 2019), 637–673. DOI:
[84]
Murat Yilmaz, Emer O’farrell, and Paul Clarke. 2023. Examining the training and education potential of the metaverse: Results from an empirical study of next generation SAFe training. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 35, 9 (2023), Article e2531.
[85]
Tianyi Zhang, Ganesha Upadhyaya, Anastasia Reinhardt, Hridesh Rajan, and Miryung Kim. 2018. Are code examples on an online Q & A forum reliable? A Study of API misuse on stack overflow. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’18). ACM, New York, NY, 886–896. DOI:
Index Terms
- A Disruptive Research Playbook for Studying Disruptive Innovations
Recommendations
Using ethnographic methods in software engineering research
ICSE '10: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 2This tutorial provides an overview of the role of ethnography in Software Engineering research. It describes the use of ethnographic methods as a means to provide an in-depth understanding of the socio-technological realities surrounding everyday ...
Managing potentially disruptive innovations in software companies
The objective of this study is to investigate the management of disruptive innovation in the software industry using the example of SaaS. Management strategies of well-established software companies are examined who successfully entered the SaaS ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
November 2024
300 pages
Copyright © 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 19 November 2024
Online AM: 15 July 2024
Accepted: 08 July 2024
Revised: 12 June 2024
Received: 21 February 2024
Published in TOSEM Volume 33, Issue 8
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Funding Sources
- The Copenhagen Symposium on Human-Centered Software Engineering AI (November 2023)
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 412Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)412
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)136
Reflects downloads up to 19 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderFull Text
View this article in Full Text.
Full TextLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in