The Management of University–Industry Collaborations Involving Empirical Studies of Software Enginee

  • Timothy C. Lethbridge
  • Steve Lyon
  • Peter Perry

In this chapter we will discuss some of the pragmatic considerations that we believe university researchers and companies should consider when establishing collaborative software engineering research projects; in particular, those involving empirical studies of software engineers. The chapter is illustrated using as a case study a research collaboration in which the authors are involved. We enumerate the costs, benefits, risks and risk-reducing factors that can have an impact on all the parties involved in the collaboration (the company, the faculty members and the graduate student researchers). Understanding this information is needed to help justify the research in the first place, and to manage it effectively. We then discuss many of the activities that will be needed to plan and manage the project, including such issues as attracting students, handling intellectual property, obtaining ethical approval and interacting with participants. The main objective of the chapter is to provoke some thoughts in the minds of those planning empirical research projects in software engineering.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anquetil, N. and Lethbridge, T.C. (2003), A Comparative Study of Clustering Algorithms and Abstract Representations for Software Remodularization, IEE Proceedings–Software, pp. 185–201. Winner of the Mather Premium award.Google Scholar
  2. Anquetil, N. and Lethbridge, T.C. (1999), Recovering Software Architecture from the Names of Source Files, Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice, 11, pp. 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arisholm, E., Anda, B., Jørgensen, M., and Sjøberg, D.I.K. (1999), Guidelines on Conducting Software Process Improvement Studies in Industry, 22nd IRIS Conference (Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia), Timo K. Kakola (ed.), Computer Science and information Systems Reports, Technical Reports TR-21, University of Jyvaskyla, Keuruu, Finland, pp. 87–102, 7–10.Google Scholar
  4. Baskerville R.L. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1996), A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research, Journal of Information Technology, (11), pp. 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckman, K., Khajenoori, S., Coulter, N., and Mead, N. (1997), Collaborations: Closing the Industry-Academia Gap, IEEE Software, 14(6), pp. 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Checkland, P. (1991) From framework through experience to learning: the essential nature of action research, in Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, H.-E. Nissen, H.K. Klein, and R.A. Hirschheim (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 397–403.Google Scholar
  7. Conradi, R., Dybå, T., Sjøberg, D.I.K., and Ulsund, T. (2003), Lessons Learned and Recommendations from Two Large Norwegian SPI Programmes, 9th European Workshop on Software Process Technology (EWSPT 2003), Helsinki, Finland 1–2 September, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2786, Springer-Verlag, pp. 32–45.Google Scholar
  8. Dittrich, Y. (2002), Doing Empirical Research on Software Development: Finding a Path Between Understanding, Intervention, and Method Development, Social Thinking: Software Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 243–262.Google Scholar
  9. Herrera, F. (1999), A Usability Study of the TkSee Software Exploration Tool, M.Sc. Thesis in Computer Science, University of Ottawa,, tcl/gradtheses/.
  10. Lethbridge, T.C., Sim, S., and Singer, J. (2005), Studying Software Engineers: Data Collection Methods for Software Field Studies, Empirical Software Engineering, 10(3), pp. 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lethbridge, T.C. and Singer, J. (2001), Experiences Conducting Studies of the Work Practices of Software Engineers, in Advances in Software Engineering: Comprehension, Evaluation and Evolution, H. Erdogmus and O. Tanir (eds.), Springer-Verlag, ISBN 0–387–95109–1, pp. 53–76.Google Scholar
  12. Lethbridge, T.C. (1994), Practical Techniques for Organizing and Measuring Knowledge, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ottawa,,tcl/thesis_html/thesis_ToC.html.
  13. Lethbridge, T.C. and Anquetil, N. (1997), Architecture of a Source Code Exploration Tool: A Software Engineering Case Study, University of Ottawa, Computer Science Technical Report TR-97–07.Google Scholar
  14. Liu, H. and Lethbridge, T.C. (2002), Intelligent Search Methods for Software Maintenance, Information Systems Frontiers, 4(4), pp. 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mead, N., Beckman, K., Lawrence, J., O’Mary, G., Parish, C., Perla, U., and Walker, H. (1999), Industry/University Collaborations: Different Perspectives Heighten Mutual Opportunities, Journal of Systems and Software, 49, pp. 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pfleeger, S.L. (1999), Understanding and Improving Technology Transfer in Software Engineering, Journal of Systems and Software, 47, pp. 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Potts, C. (2003), Software-Engineering Research Revisited, IEEE Software, 10(56), pp. 19–28.Google Scholar
  18. Rombach, D. and Achatz, R. (2007), Research Collaborations between Academia and Industry, Future of Software Engineering 2007, L. Briand and A. Wolf (eds.), ICSE 2007, IEEE-CS Press, 2007, pp. 29–36.Google Scholar
  19. Sayyad Shirabad, J., Lethbridge, T.C., and Matwin, S. (2003), Mining the Maintenance History of a Legacy Software System, International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), Amsterdam, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 95–104.Google Scholar
  20. Sjøberg, D.I.K., Hannay, J.E., Hansen, O., Kampenes, V.B., Karahasanović, A., Liborg, N.-K., and Rekdal, A.C. (2005) A Survey of Controlled Experiments in Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(9), pp. 733–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Singer, J. and Lethbridge T. (1998), Studying Work Practices to Assist Tool Design in Software Engineering, 6th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension. A longer version appears as: University of Ottawa, Computer Science Technical Report TR-97–08, Italy, pp. 173–179.Google Scholar
  22. Somé, S.S. and Lethbridge T. (1998), Parsing Minimizing when Extracting information from Code in the Presence of Conditional Compilation, 6th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension. A longer version appears as University of Ottawa Computer Science Technical Report TR-98–01, Italy, June, pp. 118–125.Google Scholar
  23. Trochim, W.M.K. (2007), Research Methods Knowledge Base: Introduction to Validity, http://www.socialresearchmethods. net/kb/introval.php, visited April 13, 2007.
  24. Williams, L., Layman, L., and Abrahamsson, P. (2005), Establishing the Essential Components of a Technology-Dependent Framework: A Strawman Framework for Industrial Case Study-Based Research, Workshop on Evidence-Based Software Engineering at the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) 2005, St. Louis.Google Scholar
  25. Zelkowitz, M. (1995), Assessing Software Engineering Technology Transfer within NASA, NASA/GSFC Technical Report, NASA-RPT-003–95, NASA/GSFC, January.
  26. Zelkowitz, M., Wallace, D., and Binkley, D. (1998), Culture Conflicts in Software Engineering Technology Transfer, University of Maryland Technical Report.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy C. Lethbridge
    • 1
  • Steve Lyon
    • 2
  • Peter Perry
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Mitel NetworksOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations