X : the scientific method starts with hypothesis and then ...
— Simon Wardley #EEA (@swardley) May 30, 2019
Me : No. It starts with observation, then hypothesis (i.e. orientation) then a decision to test a hypothesis (i.e. act) and then more observation ... in a big long running OODA loop stretching over many millenia.
... it's no different from how we navigated our planet, it starts with observation .... "a hill' ... then hypothesis ... "I bet there's food behind the hill" ... then we decide to test it. That's what exploring is. Many OODA loops later come guide books and package holidays.
— Simon Wardley #EEA (@swardley) May 30, 2019
===== Tweets =====X : It's a circle, it doesn't matter where you start.
— Simon Wardley #EEA (@swardley) May 30, 2019
Me : Hmmm. Excellent point. I stand corrected. You could simply start with action ... just walk over the hill with no purpose, no reason, no hypothesis ... just for the sake of walking.
Key ingredients of distinguished papers. Relevance does not seem "relevant". Need for including stakeholders in the study design. @margaretstorey #icse19 pic.twitter.com/cWDdRvTN4x
— Carmine Vassallo (@ccvassallo) May 30, 2019
The Lise Meitner guest professor made our work on design science possible, with @eengstrom_lu @SoftEngResGrp @MartinLHost @Elizabeth_LTH and Teresa Baldassarre (Bari) Preliminary version of our paper is available here: https://t.co/MGSXLS1xMR (feedback very welcome!) https://t.co/PmKVJIR1BQ
— Margaret-Anne Storey (@margaretstorey) May 30, 2019
Slides posted! Publish or Perish: Questioning the Impact of Our Research on the Software Developer #icse2019 #icse19 @icseconf https://t.co/TQ5z7aC2xu via @SlideShare
— Margaret-Anne Storey (@margaretstorey) May 30, 2019
See comments too.I love this msg but (putting my pragmatic/skeptic hat on), I’m also a bit frustrated from hearing it for yrs now w/ no action. If all senior/tenured people (serving on hiring/tenure/program committees) think that way, who exactly is pushing the numbers game 😃 https://t.co/vlDqrZvvJh
— Sarah Nadi (@sarahnadi) May 30, 2019
===== Reviews ===== * PROKNOW-C ===== Papers ===== * [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.12742|A review of software engineering research from a design science perspective]] ===== Slides ===== * https://speakerdeck.com/robertfeldt/soft-software-engineering-challenges-and-some-hopes-for-the-future?slide=5#icse19 let’s get something straight. “Design Science” is the study of design. The research paradigm where you build and evaluate artifacts is “engineering research”. Don’t borrow stupid, political vocabulary from MIS or other reference disciplines.
— Dr. Paul Ralph (@DrPaulRalph) May 30, 2019