Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 343–365 | Cite as

Using Metaphor to Analyse Qualitative Data: Vulcans and Humans in Software Development



This paper reports on an experience of using metaphor in qualitative research of software engineering in practice. Our project aimed to uncover non-technical factors affecting the adoption and evolution of Software Quality Management Systems (referred to here as ‘the quality process’). Previously we have reported the tensions we uncovered around the quality process in four companies, based on semi-structured interviews. This paper extends this work by applying metaphor to the results. We show how we were able to produce more general statements regarding the tensions and their amelioration, and then introduce results from a fifth company, which we compare against our general statements. We find that these statements are generally supported by results from this fifth company. Finally we present some reflections on our experience of using metaphor in this way.


Qualitative methods metaphor software process improvement software quality management systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, C. E. 2002. ‘One of the boys’: Black masculinity and the peer group. In: S. Taylor, (ed), Ethnographic Research: A Reader. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Aubusson, P. 2002. Using metaphor to make sense and build theory in qualitative analysis. The Qualitative Report 7(4): www.nova.edu/ssss/QR.
  3. Baddoo, N., and Hall, T. 2002a. Motivators of software process improvement: An analysis of practitioners’ views. Journal of Systems and Software 62: 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddoo, N., and Hall, T. 2002b. Software process improvement motivators: An analysis using multidimensional scaling. Empirical Software Engineering 7: 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, B. E. F. 1978. The metaphor as a mediator between semantic and analogic modes of thought. Current Anthropology 19(1): 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black, M. 1979. More about metaphor. In: A. Ortony, (ed), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–43.Google Scholar
  7. Black, S. A., and Porter, L. J. 1996. Identification of the critical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences 27(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
  8. Blackwell, A. F. 1998. Metaphor in Diagrams. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. BS5750 1987. Parts 1–3 Quality Systems, HMSO.Google Scholar
  10. Buono, A. F., and Bowditch, J. L. 1989. The Human Side of Mergers and Acquisitions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Crosby, P. B. 1979. Quality is Free. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Curtis, B., Krasner, H., and Iscoe, N. 1988. A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communications of the ACM 31(11): 1268–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Curtis, B., Hefley, W. E., and Miller, S. A. 2002. The People CMM: Guidelines for Improving the Workforce. Wesley: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. Deal, T., and Kennedy, A. 1988. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. DeMarco, T., and Lister, T. 1987. Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams. Dorset House Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Deming, W. E. 1982. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dyba, T. 2000. An instrument for measuring the key factors of success in software process improvement. Empirical Software Engineering 5: 357–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erickson, T. D. 1990. Working with interface metaphors. In: B. Laurel, (ed), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design, Boston: Addison-Wesley, pp. 65–73.Google Scholar
  19. Gentner, D. 1982. Are scientific analogies metaphors?. In: D. S. Miall, (ed), Metaphor: Problems and Perspectives, Brighton: The Harvester Press, pp. 106–132.Google Scholar
  20. Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2): 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, P. A. V., Sharp, H. C. and Woodman, M. 1993. What is behind software quality management systems?. In: M. Ross, C. A. Brebbia, G. Staples, and J. Stapleton, (eds), Software Quality Management. Southampton, UK: Computational Mechanics and Elsevier, pp. 225–232.Google Scholar
  22. Hesse, M. B. 1966. Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hirschheim, R., and Newman, M. 2001. Symbolism and information systems development: Myth, metaphor and magic. Information Systems Research 2(1): 29–62.Google Scholar
  24. Hovenden, F. M., Yates, S., Sharp, H. C., and Woodman, M. 1994. The use of ethnography with discourse analysis in the study of software quality management systems. In: M. Ross, C. A. Brebbia, G. Staples, and J. Stapleton, (eds), Software Quality Management II. Southampton, UK: Computational Mechanics Publications, pp. 557–572.Google Scholar
  25. ISO8402 1994. Quality Vocabulary.Google Scholar
  26. ISO9000 2000. Quality Management.Google Scholar
  27. Juran, J. M. (ed) 1988. Quality Control Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  28. El Emam, K., Drouin, J.-N., and Melo, W. (eds) 1997. SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. London: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, J., and Harre, R. 1982. Metaphor in science. In: D. S. Miall, (ed), Metaphor: Problems and Perspectives, Brighton: The Harvester Press, pp. 89–105.Google Scholar
  31. Oakland, J. S. 1994. Total Quality Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., and Weber, C. V. 1997. Capability maturity model for software, In: M. Dorfman, and R. H. Thayer, (eds), Software Engineering, IEEE.Google Scholar
  33. Pesot, J. 1975. Un probleme de semiologie linguistique: Mobilite du signe et monosemie profonde. Canadian Journal of Research in Semiotics 3: 5–15.Google Scholar
  34. Pimm, D. 1981. Metaphor and analogy in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics 1(3): 4–50.Google Scholar
  35. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., and Sharp, H. 2002. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Saraph, J. V., Benson, P. G., and Schroeder, R. G. 1989. An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences 20(4): 457–478.Google Scholar
  37. Seaman, C. B. 1999. Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4): 557–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seaman, C. B. and Basili, V. R. 1998. Communication and organization: an empirical study of discussion in inspection meetings. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(7): 559–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sharp, H., Robinson, H. M., and Woodman, M. 1999. In: The Role of Culture in Successful Software Process Improvement. Milan, Italy: EUROMICRO ‘99, 170–176.Google Scholar
  40. Sharp, H., Hovenden, F., and Woodman, M. 2003. Tensions in the adoption and evolution of software quality management systems. In Proceedings of PPIG/EASE 2003, UK: Keele, 297–312.Google Scholar
  41. Sharp, H., Woodman, M., and Hovenden, F. 2004. Tensions around the adoption and evolution of software quality management systems: a discourse analytic approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Systems 61(2) 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Solow, H. F., and Justman, R. H. 1996. Inside Star Trek: The Real Story. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, A., Dobson, P., and Walters, M. 1993, Changing Culture: New Organisational Approaches. 2nd edition. London: Institute of Personnel Management.Google Scholar
  44. Wu, J., Graham, T. C. N., and Smith, P. W. 2003. In: A Study of Collaboration in Software Design, International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Rome, Italy, pp. 304–313.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computing DepartmentThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.School of Computing ScienceMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK
  3. 3.Pandora’s LabSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations