Empirical software engineering experts on the use of students and professionals in experiments

Abstract

[Context] Controlled experiments are an important empirical method to generate and validate theories. Many software engineering experiments are conducted with students. It is often claimed that the use of students as participants in experiments comes at the cost of low external validity while using professionals does not. [Objective] We believe a deeper understanding is needed on the external validity of software engineering experiments conducted with students or with professionals. We aim to gain insight about the pros and cons of using students and professionals in experiments. [Method] We performed an unconventional, focus group approach and a follow-up survey. First, during a session at ISERN 2014, 65 empirical researchers, including the seven authors, argued and discussed the use of students in experiments with an open mind. Afterwards, we revisited the topic and elicited experts' opinions to foster discussions. Then we derived 14 statements and asked the ISERN attendees excluding the authors, to provide their level of agreement with the statements. Finally, we analyzed the researchers' opinions and used the findings to further discuss the statements. [Results] Our survey results showed that, in general, the respondents disagreed with us about the drawbacks of professionals. We, on the contrary, strongly believe that no population (students, professionals, or others) can be deemed better than another in absolute terms. [Conclusion] Using students as participants remains a valid simplification of reality needed in laboratory contexts. It is an effective way to advance software engineering theories and technologies but, like any other aspect of study settings, should be carefully considered during the design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of an experiment. The key is to understand which developer population portion is being represented by the participants in an experiment. Thus, a proposal for describing experimental participants is put forward

Need for Sleep: The Impact of a Night of Sleep Deprivation on Novice Developers’ Performance

“…Our experiment involved basic programming skills; therefore, using of students as participants allow us to obtain reliable results [96]. Using students participants brings various advantages, such as homogeneous prior knowledge, the availability of a large sample [97], and the possibility to cheaply test experimental design and initial hypotheses [98]. Correspondingly, a threat of interaction of setting and treatment exists due to the non-real-world experimental task used.…”

An Approach for Reviewing Security-Related Aspects in Agile Requirements Specifications of Web Applications

“…Regarding subject representativeness, we used students to represent novice inspectors. Using students as participants remains a valid simplification of real-life settings needed in laboratory contexts [17]. Regarding the used objects, we also peer-reviewed the requirements specifications and the seeded defects in terms of their representativeness.…”

Using Tools to Assist Identification of Non-requirements in Requirements Specifications – A Controlled Experiment

“…However, students may inspect the documents more carefully whereas RE experts may tend to dismiss possible defects either due to them being the authors or due to process constraints (changes may induce additional costs). Falessi et al state that controlled experiments with students are as valid as experiments with experts [8].…”