Methodologies of requirements engineering research and practice: position statement

V Gervasi; Roelf J. Wieringa; D. Zowghi; S. Easterbrook; S.E. Sim

Methodologies of requirements engineering research and practice: position statement

V Gervasi (Editor), Roelf J. Wieringa, D. Zowghi (Editor), S. Easterbrook (Editor), S.E. Sim (Editor)

Research output: Contribution to conference › Paper › peer-review

119 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In this position paper I argue that RE practice is the problem analysis part of a design problem, and that this problem analysis part is a knowledge problem in which the requirements engineer tries to build a theory of a problem domain. RE research is a knowledge problem too, in which the researcher tries to build partial theories of a class of domains. In both cases, models can help to find theories, because models are entities that are more accessible, or more understandable, than their subjects and therefore help to find a theory of their subject. I compare a number of concepts closely related to that of a model, including that of paradigm, benchmark and exemplar. Finally, I argue that the evaluation of RE theories, at whatever level, is not different from the evaluation of any other theory: They should be repeatably and intersubjectively true.

Original language	Undefined
Publication status	Published - 8 Sept 2003
Event	First International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering, CERE 2003 - Monterey Bay, United States Duration: 8 Sept 2003 → 8 Sept 2003 Conference number: 1 http://www.di.unipi.it/CERE03/

Workshop

Workshop	First International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering, CERE 2003
Abbreviated title	RE
Country/Territory	United States
City	Monterey Bay
Period	8/09/03 → 8/09/03
Internet address	http://www.di.unipi.it/CERE03/

Keywords

IR-64199
EWI-10509
SCS-Services
IS-Design science methodology

Access to Document

http://www.di.unipi.it/CERE03/cere03-wieringa.pdf

Cite this

Gervasi, V. (Ed.), Wieringa, R. J., Zowghi, D. (Ed.), Easterbrook, S. (Ed.), & Sim, S. E. (Ed.) (2003). Methodologies of requirements engineering research and practice: position statement. Paper presented at First International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering, CERE 2003, Monterey Bay, California, United States. http://www.di.unipi.it/CERE03/cere03-wieringa.pdf

@conference{ceb738c12efd40dba9e90bae56672da9,

title = "Methodologies of requirements engineering research and practice: position statement",

abstract = "In this position paper I argue that RE practice is the problem analysis part of a design problem, and that this problem analysis part is a knowledge problem in which the requirements engineer tries to build a theory of a problem domain. RE research is a knowledge problem too, in which the researcher tries to build partial theories of a class of domains. In both cases, models can help to find theories, because models are entities that are more accessible, or more understandable, than their subjects and therefore help to find a theory of their subject. I compare a number of concepts closely related to that of a model, including that of paradigm, benchmark and exemplar. Finally, I argue that the evaluation of RE theories, at whatever level, is not different from the evaluation of any other theory: They should be repeatably and intersubjectively true.",

keywords = "IR-64199, EWI-10509, SCS-Services, IS-Design science methodology",

author = "V Gervasi and Wieringa, {Roelf J.} and D. Zowghi and S. Easterbrook and S.E. Sim",

year = "2003",

month = sep,

day = "8",

language = "Undefined",

note = "First International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering, CERE 2003 ; Conference date: 08-09-2003 Through 08-09-2003",

url = "http://www.di.unipi.it/CERE03/",

}

Gervasi, V (ed.), Wieringa, RJ, Zowghi, D (ed.), Easterbrook, S (ed.) & Sim, SE (ed.) 2003, 'Methodologies of requirements engineering research and practice: position statement', Paper presented at First International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering, CERE 2003, Monterey Bay, United States, 8/09/03 - 8/09/03. <http://www.di.unipi.it/CERE03/cere03-wieringa.pdf>

Methodologies of requirements engineering research and practice: position statement. / Gervasi, V (Editor); Wieringa, Roelf J.; Zowghi, D. (Editor) et al.
2003. Paper presented at First International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering, CERE 2003, Monterey Bay, California, United States.

Research output: Contribution to conference › Paper › peer-review

TY - CONF

T1 - Methodologies of requirements engineering research and practice: position statement

AU - Wieringa, Roelf J.

A2 - Gervasi, V

A2 - Zowghi, D.

A2 - Easterbrook, S.

A2 - Sim, S.E.

N1 - Conference code: 1

PY - 2003/9/8

Y1 - 2003/9/8

N2 - In this position paper I argue that RE practice is the problem analysis part of a design problem, and that this problem analysis part is a knowledge problem in which the requirements engineer tries to build a theory of a problem domain. RE research is a knowledge problem too, in which the researcher tries to build partial theories of a class of domains. In both cases, models can help to find theories, because models are entities that are more accessible, or more understandable, than their subjects and therefore help to find a theory of their subject. I compare a number of concepts closely related to that of a model, including that of paradigm, benchmark and exemplar. Finally, I argue that the evaluation of RE theories, at whatever level, is not different from the evaluation of any other theory: They should be repeatably and intersubjectively true.

AB - In this position paper I argue that RE practice is the problem analysis part of a design problem, and that this problem analysis part is a knowledge problem in which the requirements engineer tries to build a theory of a problem domain. RE research is a knowledge problem too, in which the researcher tries to build partial theories of a class of domains. In both cases, models can help to find theories, because models are entities that are more accessible, or more understandable, than their subjects and therefore help to find a theory of their subject. I compare a number of concepts closely related to that of a model, including that of paradigm, benchmark and exemplar. Finally, I argue that the evaluation of RE theories, at whatever level, is not different from the evaluation of any other theory: They should be repeatably and intersubjectively true.

KW - IR-64199

KW - EWI-10509

KW - SCS-Services

KW - IS-Design science methodology

M3 - Paper

T2 - First International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering, CERE 2003

Y2 - 8 September 2003 through 8 September 2003

ER -