Perlis Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie-Mellon University. Between 19 she was a Fellow of the Center for Innovation in Learning.She is one of the founding members of the field of software architecture. For six years from 2001 to 2006, Shaw served as Co-Director of the Sloan Software Industry Center.
Perlis Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie-Mellon University. Between 19 she was a Fellow of the Center for Innovation in Learning.She is one of the founding members of the field of software architecture. For six years from 2001 to 2006, Shaw served as Co-Director of the Sloan Software Industry Center.All papers and theses written at the Business Informatics Group must be written in La Tex and must follow the rules defined in the templates above.
They usually need to discuss at least internal and external validity...
It is encouraging that recent software research papers have included discussion of threats to validity.
Shaw has co-authored seminal works on software architecture with David Garlan, particularly the 1996 book Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline’.
In 2011, Shaw and Garlan received the Outstanding Research Award from the Association of Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Software Engineering, for their lasting contributions to the promotion of software architecture.
Shaw has taught numerous undergraduate and graduate courses and has also participated in developing innovative curricula in Computer Science for college teaching from the introductory to research level.
Shaw has authored and edited seven books and over two hundred research papers and technical reports. (cum laude) from Rice University and worked in systems programming and research at the Research Analysis Corporation and Rice University. From 1992 to 1999, she served as the Asociate Dean for Professional Education. From 1984 to 1987, Mary Shaw was the Chief Scientist at Carnegie- Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute.This "threats" trend appears to be particularly pronounced in software engineering.For example, of the 95 technical track papers that appeared at ICSE 2014, I counted 54 (57%) that had a section or subsection explicitly titled "Threats to Validity" (or some small variant).But blindly requiring it will not necessarily encourage authors to engage in a deeper reflection on their work.In the worst case, it will simply lead to the waste of precious space on boilerplate gems such as: In that sense evaluating research papers based on easily-checkable writing devices would be akin to the rating system used for hotels, where the mere presence of an in-room coffee maker, no matter how crappy, is necessary to move to a different class of service.Vic Basili et al.'s 1986 classic "Experimentation in Software Engineering" is also completely un-threatening.The closest I got in terms of methodology paper is Kitchenham et al.'s "Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering".But who decided that the corresponding prose must be corralled into a specific region of the paper?An obvious alternative is to discuss the implications of design decisions together with the description of the decisions.