Social science theories in software engineering research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As software engineering research becomes more concerned with the psychological, sociological and managerial aspects of software development, relevant theories from reference disciplines are increasingly important for understanding the field's core phenomena of interest. However, the degree to which software engineering research draws on relevant social sciences remains unclear. This study therefore investigates the use of social science theories in five influential software engineering journals over 13 years. It analyzes not only the extent of theory use but also what, how and where these theories are used. While 87 different theories are used, less than two percent of papers use a social science theory, most theories are used in only one paper, most social sciences are ignored, and the theories are rarely tested for applicability to software engineering contexts. Ignoring relevant social science theories may (1) undermine the community's ability to generate, elaborate and maintain a cumulative body of knowledge; and (2) lead to oversimplified models of software engineering phenomena. More attention to theory is needed for software engineering to mature as a scientific discipline.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".