Building Theories in Software Engineering

  • Dag I. K. Sjøberg
  • Tore Dybå
  • Bente C. D. Anda
  • Jo E. Hannay

In mature sciences, building theories is the principal method of acquiring and accumulating knowledge that may be used in a wide range of settings. In software engineering, there is relatively little focus on theories. In particular, there is little use and development of empirically-based theories. We propose, and illustrate with examples, an initial framework for describing software engineering theories, and give advice on how to start proposing, testing, modifying and using theories to support both research and practise in software engineering.


Software Engineering Software Engineer Building Theory Exploratory Case Study Scope Condition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdel-Hamid, T.K., Sengupta, K. and Ronan, D., Software project control: an experimental investigation of judgement with fallible information, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 19(6): 603–612, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anda, B.C.D. and Hansen, K., A case study on the application of UML in legacy development. In ISESE’2006 (Fifth ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering), J. Maldonado and C. Wohlin (eds.), Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, ACM Press, September 21–22, pp. 124–133, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anda, B.C.D., Hansen, K., Gullesen, I. and Thorsen, H.K., Experiences from using a UML-based development method in a large safety-critical project, Empirical Software Engineering, 11(4): 555–581, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arisholm, E., Briand, L.C., Hove, S.E. and Labiche, Y., The impact of UML documentation on software maintenance: an experimental evaluation, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 32(6): 365–381, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bacharach, S.B., Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation, Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 496–515, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, P., Loh, S. and Weil, F., Model-driven engineering in a large industrial context–motorola case study. In MoDELS 2005, LNCS 3713, L. Briand and C. Williams (eds.), New York, Springer-Verlag, pp. 476–491, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A., The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173–1182, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basili, V.R., Editorial, Empirical Software Engineering, 1(2), 1996.Google Scholar
  9. Basili, V.R., Shull, F. and Lanubile, F., Building knowledge through families of experiments, IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, 24(4): 456–473, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J. and Jacobson, I. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. Bunge, M., Scientific Research: The Search for a System, New York, Springer-Verlag, 1967.Google Scholar
  12. Burkhardt, J.M., Detienne, F. and Wiedenbeck, S., Object-oriented program comprehension: effect of expertise, task and phase, Empirical Software Engineering, 7(2): 115–156, 2002.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll, J. and Swatman, P.A., Structured-case: a methodological framework for building theory in information systems research, European Journal of Information Systems, 9: 235–242, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, B., Developing Sociological Knowledge: Theory and Method, 2nd edn, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Publishing, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. Dobing, B. and Parsons, J., How UML is used, Communications of the ACM, 49(5): 109–113, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewey, J., The Middle Works, 1899–1924, Vol. 15, J.A. Boydston, (ed.), Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, 1976–1983.Google Scholar
  17. Dubin, R., Theory Building, Free Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  18. Endres, A. and Rombach, D., A Handbook of Software and Systems Engineering. Empirical Observations, Laws and Theories. Fraunhofer IESE Series on Software Engineering, Pearson Education Limited, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. Feynman, R.P., QED–The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Penguin Science, Harmondsworth, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. Franck, R., The Explanatory Power of Models, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. Glaser H.G. and Strauss A.L., The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Hawthorne, NY, Aldine Publishing Company, 1967.Google Scholar
  22. Godfrey-Smith, P., Pragmatism: philosophical aspects, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 17: 11954–11958, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. Gregor, S., The nature of theory in information systems, MIS Quarterly, 30(3): 611–642, 2006.Google Scholar
  24. Gruber, T.R., A translation approach to portable ontology specifications, Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2): 199–220, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haig, B.D., An abductive theory of scientific method, Psychological Methods, 10(4): 371–388, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hannay, J.E., Sjøberg, D.I.K. and Dybå, T., A systematic review of theory use in software engineering experiments, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33(2): 87–107, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hawking, S. and Penrose R., The Nature of Space and Time, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1996.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Herbsleb, D.J. and Mockus, A., Formulation and preliminary test of an empirical theory of coordination in software engineering, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 28(5): 138–147, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hevner, A.R. and March, S.T., The information systems research cycle, IEEE Computer Society, 36(119): 111–113, 2003.Google Scholar
  30. Hevner, A., March, S.T., Park, J., and Ram, S, Design science research in information systems, MIS Quarterly, 28(1): 75–105, 2004.Google Scholar
  31. James, W., Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, New York: Longman Green and Co, 1907.Google Scholar
  32. Jørgensen, M. and Sjøberg, D.I.K., Generalization and theory-building in software engineering research. In Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE2004), IEE Proceedings, pp. 29–36, 2004.Google Scholar
  33. Kitchenham, B.A., Pfleeger, S.L., Pickard, L.M., Jones, P.W., Hoaglin, D.C., El Emam, K. and Rosenberg, J., Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering, IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, 28(8): 721–734, 2002.Google Scholar
  34. Land, L.P.W., Wong, B. and Jeffery, R., An extension of the behavioral theory of group performance in software development technical reviews, Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference Software Engineering Conference, pp. 520–530, 2003.Google Scholar
  35. Lewin, K., The research center for group dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sociometry, 8: 126–135, 1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindblom, C.E., Alternatives to validity. Some thoughts suggested by Campbell’s guidelines, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8: 509–520, 1987.Google Scholar
  37. Lindsay, R.M. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C., The design of replicated studies, The American Statistician, 47: 217–228, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lucas, J.W., Theory-testing, generalization, and the problem of external validity, Sociological Theory, 21: 236–253, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lynham, S.A., The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3): 221–241, 2002.Google Scholar
  40. MacDonald, A., Russel, D. and Atchison, B. Model-driven development within a legacy system: an industry experience report, Proceedings of the 2005 Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC’2005). IEEE Computer Society, pp. 14–22, April 2005.Google Scholar
  41. March, S.T. and Smith, G.F., Design and natural science research on information technology, Decision Support Systems, 15(4): 251–266, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Markovsky, B., The structure of theories. In Group Processes, M. Foschi and E.J. Lawler, (eds.), Nelson-Hall Publishers, Chicago, pp. 3–24, 1994.Google Scholar
  43. Merton, R.K., Social Theory and Social Structure, 3rd ed, The Free Press, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
  44. Nagel, E., The Structure of Science, Hackett, Indianapolis, 1979.Google Scholar
  45. Peirce, C.S., Collected Papers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1958.Google Scholar
  46. Petit, R.G., Lessons learned applying UML in embedded software systems designs, Proceedings of the Second IEEE Workshop on Software Technologies for Future Embedded and Ubiquitous Systems (WSTFEUS’04), Vienna, Austria, May 11–12, pp., 75–79, 2004.Google Scholar
  47. Popper, K., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchison, London, 1959.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Ramanujan, S., Scamell, R.W. and Shah, J.R., An experimental investigation of the impact of individual, program, and organizational characteristics on software maintenance effort, Journal of Systems and Software, 54(2): 137–157, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenberg, A., Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge, London, 2001.Google Scholar
  50. Ruse, M. (1995). Theory. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. T. Honderich, Oxford University Press, New York, 870–871.Google Scholar
  51. Salmon, W.C., Four decades of scientific explanation. In Scientific Explanation, P. Kitcher and W.C. Salmon, (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 13, Minnesota Press, Series, pp. 3–219, 1989.Google Scholar
  52. Sandborg, D., Mathematical explanation and the theory of why-questions, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 49(4): 603–624, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. Sauer, C, Jeffery, D.R., Land, L. and Yetton, P., The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: a behaviorally Motivated program of research, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(1): 1–14, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T., Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 2002.Google Scholar
  55. Simon, H.A., The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.Google Scholar
  56. Sjøberg, D.I.K., Dybå, T. and Jørgensen, M., The future of empirical methods in software engineering research. In Future of Software Engineering (FOSE ‘07), L. Briand and A. Wolf, (eds.), IEEE-CS Press, Minneapolis, US, pp. 358–378, 2007.Google Scholar
  57. Sjøberg, D.I.K., Hannay, J.E., Hansen, O., Kampenes, V.B., Karahasanović, A., Liborg, N.-K. and Rekdal, A.C., A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(9): 733–753, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998.Google Scholar
  59. Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M., What theory is not, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371–384, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thagard, P., Conceptual Revolutions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992.Google Scholar
  61. Tichy, W.F., Should computer scientist experiment more? 16 excuses to avoid experimentation, IEEE Computer, 31(5): 32–40, 1998.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Dijk, T.A. and Kintsch, W., Strategies of Discourse Comprehension, Academic Press, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  63. Van Fraassen, B., The Scientific Image, Oxford University Press, New York, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wagner, D.G., The growth of theories. In Group Processes, M. Foschi and E. J. Lawler, (eds.), Nelson-Hall Publishers, Chicago, pp. 25–42, 1994.Google Scholar
  65. Weber, R., Editor’s comments, MIS Quarterly, 27(3): 3–12, 2003.Google Scholar
  66. Weick, K.E., Theory construction as disciplined imagination, Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 516–531, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Whetten, D.A., What constitutes a theoretical contribution, Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 490–495, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yin, R.K., Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1984.Google Scholar
  69. Yin, R.K., Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Applied Social Research Methods Series 5, 3rd ed, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dag I. K. Sjøberg
    • 1
  • Tore Dybå
    • 1
  • Bente C. D. Anda
    • 1
  • Jo E. Hannay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Software EngineeringSimula Research LaboratoryNorway

Personalised recommendations