---
abstract: |-
The popularity of empirical methods in software engineering research is on the rise. Surveys,
experiments, metrics, case studies, and field studies are examples of empirical methods used to
investigate both software engineering processes and products. The increased application of
empirical methods has also brought about an increase in discussions about adapting these
methods to the peculiarities of software engineering. In contrast, the ethical issues raised by
empirical methods have received little, if any, attention in the software engineering literature. This
article is intended to introduce the ethical issues raised by empirical research to the software
engineering research community, and to stimulate discussion of how best to deal with these ethical
issues. Through a review of the ethical codes of several fields that commonly employ humans and
artifacts as research subjects, we have identified major ethical issues relevant to empirical studies
of software engineering. These issues are illustrated with real empirical studies of software
engineering.
altloc: []
chapter: ~
commentary: ~
commref: ~
confdates: ~
conference: ~
confloc: ~
contact_email: ~
creators_id: []
creators_name:
- family: Singer
given: Janice A.
honourific: ''
lineage: ''
- family: Vinson
given: Norman G.
honourific: ''
lineage: ''
date: 2002-12
date_type: published
datestamp: 2003-12-04
department: ~
dir: disk0/00/00/32/99
edit_lock_since: ~
edit_lock_until: ~
edit_lock_user: ~
editors_id: []
editors_name: []
eprint_status: archive
eprintid: 3299
fileinfo: /style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png;/3299/1/NRC%2D44912.pdf
full_text_status: public
importid: ~
institution: ~
isbn: ~
ispublished: pub
issn: ~
item_issues_comment: []
item_issues_count: 0
item_issues_description: []
item_issues_id: []
item_issues_reported_by: []
item_issues_resolved_by: []
item_issues_status: []
item_issues_timestamp: []
item_issues_type: []
keywords: 'software engineering, ethics, empirical studies, human subjects research, legal issues'
lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:55:24
latitude: ~
longitude: ~
metadata_visibility: show
note: this article is intended for software engineering researchers
number: 12
pagerange: 1171-1180
pubdom: FALSE
publication: IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering
publisher: ~
refereed: TRUE
referencetext: |
1. ACM Executive Council, “ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1993, pp. 99-105. See also http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html
1. American Anthropological Association, Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association, 1998. http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm
2. American Psychological Association, “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct,” American Psychologist, Vol. 47, No. 12, 1992, pp. 1597-1611. See also http://www.apa.org/ethics/code.html
3. R. Anderson, “Social Impacts of Computing: Codes of Professional Ethics,” Social Science Computing Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 453-469, 1992.
4. R. E. Anderson, D. G. Johnson, D. Gotterbarn, and J. Perrolle, “Using the New ACM Code of Ethics in Decision Making,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 98-107, 1993.
5. Archaeological Institute of America, “Code of Professional Standards,” http://www.archaeological.org/pdfs/AIA_Code_of_Professional_StandardsA5S.pdf
6. U. Becker-Kornstaedt, “Descriptive Software Process Modeling – How to Deal with Sensitive Process Information,” Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 6(4), 2001
7. Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), “CAUT Responds to Tri-Council Code”, CAUT Bulletin, November 1997. See also http://www.caut.ca/english/bulletin/97_oct/tricouncil.htm
8. Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volumes 1 & 2, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1992, 1993.
9. Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, On Being a Scientist, Second Edition, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1995.
10. B. du Toit, “Ethics, Informed Consent, and Fieldwork,” Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 274-286, 1980.
11. R. R. Faden, T. L. Beauchamp, N.M.P King, A History and Theory of Informed Consent, Oxford University Press, 1986.
12. C.E. Garza, “Studying the Natives on the Shop Floor”, Business Week, Sept. 30, 1991, pp 74 & 78.
13. C.E. Garza, “The Touchy Ethics of Corporate Anthropology”, Business Week, Sept. 30, 1991, p 78.
14. D. Gotterbarn, K. Miller, and S. Rogerson, “Software Engineering Code of Ethics is Approved,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 42, No. 10, 1999, pp. 102-107.
15. IEEE Board of Directors. IEEE Code of Ethics, IEEE, 1990. http://www.ieee.org/about/whatis/code.html
16. IEEE-CS/ACM Joint Task Force on Software Engineering Ethics and Professional Practices. Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice, 1998. See also http://www.acm.org/serving/se/code.htm
17. D.R. Jeffries and L. Votta. “Empirical Software Engineering: Guest Editor’s Special Section Introduction,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 435-437, 1999.
18. D. Johnson. Computer Ethics, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
19. J. Katz, Experimentation with Human Beings. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972.
20. P.H. Mervis & S.E. Seashore, Creating Ethical Relationships in Organizational Research", in The Ethics of Social Research, J. Sieber, ed., New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, pp. 79-104, 1982
21. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. Canberra: AusInfo, 1999. See also http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm
22. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Humans Subjects of Research, Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1978. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Publication No. (OS) 78-0012. See also http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm
23. R. Penslar. Personal Communication. 2000.
24. T. Puglisi. Quoted with permission from MCWIRB, an IRB listserv, June 9, 2001.
25. Register of Professional Archaeologists, Code of Conduct and Standards of Research Performance. http://www.rpanet.org
26. Society for American Archaeology Ethics in Archaeology Committee, Principles of Archaeological Ethics. Society for American Archaeology, 1996. http://www.saa.org/Aboutsaa/Ethics/prethic.html
27. S. Sedgley, Personal Communication. Director, Policy & Planning, Australian Research Council, 2000.
28. J. E. Sieber. Planning Ethically Responsible Research, Newbury Pk, CT: Sage Publications,1992.
29. J. E. Sieber, "Protecting Research Subjects, Employees and Researchers: Implications for Software Engineering", Empirical Software Engineering, 6(4), 2001.
30. R. Spinello. Case Studies in Information and Computer Ethics, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997.
31. Society for American Archaeology, “Principles of Archaeological Ethics,” http://www.saa.org/AboutSAA/Ethics/prethic.html
32. J. Thomas, “Introduction: A Debate about the Ethics of Fair Practices for Collecting Social Science Data in Cyberspace”, The Information Society, Vol. 12(2), pp. 107-117, 1996.
33. Tri-Council, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, Ottawa, Canada: Public Works and Government Services Canada 1998, Catalogue No: MR21-18/1998 E. See also http://www.nserc.ca/programs/ethics/english/policy.htm
34. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), “Protection of Human Subjects,” Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 46, 1990.
35. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Office for Protection from Research Risks. Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993. See also http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/irb/irb_guidebook.htm
36. D. Waskul and M. Douglass, “Considering the Electronic Participant: Some Polemical Observations on the Ethics of On-Line Research”, The Information Society, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 129-139, 1996.
37. J. Weckert and D. Adeney. Computer and Information Ethics, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing, 1997.
38. C. Whitbeck. “Teaching Ethics to Scientists and Engineers: Moral Agents and Moral Problems,” Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 299-307, 1995.
39. C. Whitbeck. Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
40. World Medical Association, “World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects,” as amended by the 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2000. See also http://www.wma.net/e/policy/17-c_e.html
relation_type: []
relation_uri: []
reportno: ~
rev_number: 12
series: ~
source: ~
status_changed: 2007-09-12 16:49:43
subjects:
- phil-ethics
succeeds: ~
suggestions: "this article is intended for software engineering researchers but the only subject topic that was in any way related was philosophy: ethics. Perhaps you can add some more general categories for software engineering or computer science.\n"
sword_depositor: ~
sword_slug: ~
thesistype: ~
title: Ethical Issues in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering
type: journalp
userid: 3938
volume: 28