This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
Ethical Issues in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering
December 2002 (vol. 28 no. 12)
pp. 1171-1180

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.

[1] ACM Executive Council, “ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct,” Comm. ACM, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 99-105, 1993, see also .
[2] American Anthropological Association, Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association, 1998, .
[3] American Psychological Association, “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct,” American Psychologist, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 1597-1611, 1992, see also.
[4] R. Anderson, “Social Impacts of Computing: Codes of Professional Ethics,” Social Science Computing Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 453-469, 1992.
[5] R.E. Anderson, D.G. Johnson, D. Gotterbarn, and J. Perrolle, “Using the New ACM Code of Ethics in Decision Making,” Comm. ACM, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 98-107, 1993.
[6] Archaeological Institute of America, “Code of Professional Standards,” / AIA_Code_of_Professional_StandardsA5S.pdf .
[7] U. Becker-Kornstaedt, “Descriptive Software Process Modeling—How to Deal with Sensitive Process Information,” Empirical Software Eng., vol. 6, no. 4, 2001.
[8] Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), “CAUT Responds to Tri-Council Code,” CAUT Bull., Nov. 1997, see also tricouncil.htm.
[9] 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, vol. 1 and 2Washington, D.C.: Nat'l Academy Press, 1993.
[10] 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 ed. Washington DC: Nat'l Academy Press, 1995.
[11] B. du Toit, “Ethics, Informed Consent, and Fieldwork,” J. Anthropological Research, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 274-286, 1980.
[12] R.R. Faden, T.L. Beauchamp, and N.M.P. King, A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford Univ. Press, 1986.
[13] C.E. Garza, “Studying the Natives on the Shop Floor,” Business Week, pp. 74-78, Sept. 1991.
[14] C.E. Garza, “The Touchy Ethics of Corporate Anthropology,” Business Week, p. 78, Sept. 1991.
[15] D. Gotterbarn, K. Miller, and S. Rogerson, “Software Engineering Code of Ethics is Approved,” Comm. ACM, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 102-107, 1999.
[16] IEEE Board of Directors, IEEE Code of Ethics, IEEE 1990, .
[17] IEEE-CS/ACM Joint Task Force on Software Engineering Ethics and Professional Practices, Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice, 1998, see also
[18] D.R. Jeffries and L. Votta, “Empirical Software Engineering: Guest Editor's Special Section Introduction,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 435-437, 1999.
[19] D. Johnson, Computer Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993.
[20] J. Katz, Experimentation with Human Beings. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972.
[21] P.H. Mervis and S.E. Seashore, “Creating Ethical Relationships in Organizational Research,” The Ethics of Social Research, J. Sieber, ed., pp. 79-104, 1982.
[22] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans, Canberra: AusInfo, 1999, see also synopsese35syn.htm.
[23] 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 guidancebelmont.htm.
[24] R. Penslar, Personal Communication. 2000.
[25] T. Puglisi Quoted with Permission from MCWIRB, an IRB listserv, June 2001.
[26] Register of Professional Archaeologists, Code of Conduct and Standards of Research Performance, 2000, http:/
[27] Society for American Archaeology Ethics in Archaeology Committee, Principles of Archaeological Ethics, Soc. for Am. Archaeology, 1996, .
[28] S. Sedgley, Personal Communication, Director, Policy&Planning, Australian Research Council, 2000.
[29] J.E. Sieber, Planning Ethically Responsible Research. Newbury Park, Conn.: Sage Publications, 1992.
[30] J.E. Sieber, “Protecting Research Subjects, Employees and Researchers: Implications for Software Engineering,” Empirical Software Eng., vol. 6, no. 4, 2001.
[31] R. Spinello, Case Studies in Information and Computer Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1997.
[32] Society for American Archaeology, “Principles of Archaeological Ethics,” 1996, .
[33] J. Thomas, “Introduction: A Debate about the Ethics of Fair Practices for Collecting Social Science Data in Cyberspace,” The Information Soc., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 107-117, 1996.
[34] 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 policy.htm.
[35] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), “Protection of Human Subjects,” Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 46, 1990.
[36] 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 .
[37] D. Waskul and M. Douglass, “Considering the Electronic Participant: Some Polemical Observations on the Ethics of On-Line Research,” The Information Soc., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 129-139, 1996.
[38] J. Weckert and D. Adeney, Computer and Information Ethics. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing, 1997.
[39] C. Whitbeck, “Teaching Ethics to Scientists and Engineers: Moral Agents and Moral Problems,” Science and Eng. Ethics, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 299-307, 1995.
[40] C. Whitbeck, Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.
[41] 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

Index Terms:
Ethics, empirical studies, software engineering, legal issues.
Janice Singer, Norman G. Vinson, "Ethical Issues in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1171-1180, Dec. 2002, doi:10.1109/TSE.2002.1158289
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.