Abstract
BACKGROUND: A software engineering systematic map is a defined method to build a classification scheme and structure a software engineering field of interest. The analysis of results focuses on frequencies of publications for categories within the scheme. Thereby, the coverage of the research field can be determined. Different facets of the scheme can also be combined to answer more specific research questions. OBJECTIVE: We describe how to conduct a systematic mapping study in software engineering and provide guidelines. We also compare systematic maps and systematic reviews to clarify how to chose between them. This comparison leads to a set of guidelines for systematic maps. METHOD: We have defined a systematic mapping process and applied it to complete a systematic mapping study. Furthermore, we compare systematic maps with systematic reviews by systematically analyzing existing systematic reviews. RESULTS: We describe a process for software engineering systematic mapping studies and compare it to systematic reviews. Based on this, guidelines for conducting systematic maps are defined. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic maps and reviews are different in terms of goals, breadth, validity issues and implications. Thus, they should be used complementarily and require different methods (e.g., for analysis).
Highlights
As a research area matures there is often a sharp increase in the number of reports and results made available, and it becomes important to summarize and provide overview
We have studied existing systematic reviews in software engineering and characterized them
We excluded papers that were not in the area of software engineering, were not based on (Kitchenham & Charters 2007) or did not explicitly state in title or abstract that they were systematic reviews. This resulted in eight systematic reviews being included
Summary
As a research area matures there is often a sharp increase in the number of reports and results made available, and it becomes important to summarize and provide overview. Many research fields have specific methodologies for such secondary studies, and they have been extensively used in for example evidence based medicine. Until recently this has not been the case in Software Engineering (SE). In software engineering the systematic reviews have focused on quantitative and empirical studies, but a large set of methods for synthesizing qualitative research results exists (Dixon-Woods et al 2005). RESULTS: We describe a process for software engineering systematic mapping studies and compare it to systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic maps and reviews are different in terms of goals, breadth, validity issues and implications They should be used complementarily and require different methods (e.g., for analysis)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have