An official website of the United States government
The rigorous, structured, and transparent review of literature on a particular topic can lead to promising insights about research directions, practical solutions, and potential policies. While the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a well- established methodology, it is rarely used in the field of engineering education. Though the use of the term “systematic” suggests a clear-cut process and there are resources available to describe the major steps of the method, the initial steps of a SLR are inherently messy—i.e., they heavily rely on the researcher’s judgement and decision-making. Unfortunately, the messiness embedded in these steps is rarely discussed or described in existing resources. In this study, we reflect on the “messiness” of initiating a SLR on broadening participation in engineering and computer science. Informed by two existing approaches to reflection, we used the STAARA (Situation-Task-Affect-Action- Result-Aftermath) framework to reflect on the ways in which we resolved important decisions associated with one overarching situation and several corresponding tasks, affects, actions; the aftermath is also discussed. This paper includes insights from our experience that can help other researchers navigate the initial steps of a SLR.
more »
« less
Reflections on the messiness of initiating a Systematic Literature Review on Broadening Participation in Engineering and Computer Science
The rigorous, structured, and transparent review of literature on a particular topic can lead to promising insights about research directions, practical solutions, and potential policies. While the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a well-established methodology, it is rarely used in the field of engineering education. Though the use of the term “systematic” suggests a clear-cut process and there are resources available to describe the major steps of the method, the initial steps of a SLR are inherently messy—i.e., they heavily rely on the researcher’s judgement and decision-making. Unfortunately, the messiness embedded in these steps is rarely discussed or described in existing resources. In this study, we reflect on the “messiness” of initiating a SLR on broadening participation in engineering and computer science. Informed by two existing approaches to reflection, we used the STAARA (Situation-Task-Affect-Action-Result-Aftermath) framework to reflect on the ways in which we resolved important decisions associated with one overarching situation and several corresponding tasks, affects, actions; the aftermath is also discussed. This paper includes insights from our experience that can help other researchers navigate the initial steps of a SLR.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1647327
- PAR ID:
- 10048496
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Education
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1-7
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The rigorous, structured, and transparent review of literature on a particular topic can lead to promising insights about research directions, practical solutions, and potential policies. While the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a well- established methodology, it is rarely used in the field of engineering education. Though the use of the term “systematic” suggests a clear-cut process and there are resources available to describe the major steps of the method, the initial steps of a SLR are inherently messy—i.e., they heavily rely on the researcher’s judgement and decision-making. Unfortunately, the messiness embedded in these steps is rarely discussed or described in existing resources. In this study, we reflect on the “messiness” of initiating a SLR on broadening participation in engineering and computer science. Informed by two existing approaches to reflection, we used the STAARA (Situation-Task-Affect-Action- Result-Aftermath) framework to reflect on the ways in which we resolved important decisions associated with one overarching situation and several corresponding tasks, affects, actions; the aftermath is also discussed. This paper includes insights from our experience that can help other researchers navigate the initial steps of a SLR.more » « less
-
The rigorous, structured, and transparent review of literature on a particular topic can lead to promising insights about research directions, practical solutions, and potential policies. While the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a well- established methodology, it is rarely used in the field of engineering education. Though the use of the term “systematic” suggests a clear-cut process and there are resources available to describe the major steps of the method, the initial steps of a SLR are inherently messy—i.e., they heavily rely on the researcher’s judgement and decision-making. Unfortunately, the messiness embedded in these steps is rarely discussed or described in existing resources. In this study, we reflect on the “messiness” of initiating a SLR on broadening participation in engineering and computer science. Informed by two existing approaches to reflection, we used the STAARA (Situation-Task-Affect-Action- Result-Aftermath) framework to reflect on the ways in which we resolved important decisions associated with one overarching situation and several corresponding tasks, affects, actions; the aftermath is also discussed. This paper includes insights from our experience that can help other researchers navigate the initial steps of a SLR.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Our systematic literature review aims to survey research on regulatory and security standard requirements as addressed throughout the Software Development Lifecycle. Also, to characterize current research concerns and identify specific remaining challenges to address regulatory and security standard requirements throughout the SDLC. To this end, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of conference proceedings and academic journals motivated by five areas of concern: 1. SDLC & Regulatory Requirement 2. Risk Assessment and Compliance requirements 3. Technical Debt 4. Decision Making Process throughout the SDLC 5. Metric and Measurements of found Software Vulnerability. The initial search produced 100 papers, and our review process narrowed this total to 20 articles to address our three research questions. Our findings suggest that academic software engineering research directly connecting regulatory and security standard requirements to later stages of the SDLC is rare despite the importance of compliance for ensuring societally acceptable engineering.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Our systematic literature review aims to survey research on regulatory and security standard requirements as addressed throughout the Software Development Lifecycle. Also, to characterize current research concerns and identify specific remaining challenges to address regulatory and security standard requirements throughout the SDLC. To this end, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of conference proceedings and academic journals motivated by five areas of concern: 1. SDLC & Regulatory Requirement 2. Risk Assessment and Compliance requirements 3. Technical Debt 4. Decision Making Process throughout the SDLC 5. Metric and Measurements of found Software Vulnerability. The initial search produced 100 papers, and our review process narrowed this total to 20 articles to address our three research questions. Our findings suggest that academic software engineering research directly connecting regulatory and security standard requirements to later stages of the SDLC is rare despite the importance of compliance for ensuring societally acceptable engineering.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
