Background:

Case studies are regularly published in the software engineering literature, and guidelines for conducting case studies are available. Based on a perception that the label “case study” is assigned to studies that are not case studies, an investigation has been conducted.

Objective:

The aim was to investigate whether or not the label “case study” is correctly used in software engineering research.

Method:

To address the objective, 100 recent articles found through Scopus when searching for case studies in software engineering have been investigated and classified.

Results:

Unfortunately, the perception of misuse of the label “case study” is correct. Close to 50% of the articles investigated were judged as not being case studies according to the definition of a case study.

Conclusions:

We either need to ensure correct use of the label “case study”, or we need another label for its definition. Given that “case study” is a well-established label, it is probably impossible to change the label. Thus, we introduce an alternative definition of case study emphasising its real-life context, and urge researchers to carefully follow the definition of different research methods when presenting their research.

中文翻译：

---

软件工程中的案例研究-是案例，也是研究，但这是案例研究吗？

背景：

案例研究定期发布在软件工程文献中，并且提供了进行案例研究的指南。基于“标签为案例研究”标签被分配给非案例研究的看法，因此进行了调查。

目的：

目的是调查标签“案例研究”在软件工程研究中是否正确使用。

方法：

为了实现这一目标，已经对Scopus在搜索软件工程中的案例研究时发现的100篇最新文章进行了调查和分类。

结果：

不幸的是，滥用标签“案例研究”的看法是正确的。根据案例研究的定义，将近50％的被调查文章被判定为不是案例研究。

结论：

我们要么需要确保正确使用标签“案例研究”，要么需要另一个标签来定义它。鉴于“案例研究”是一个行之有效的标签，可能无法更改标签。因此，我们引入了案例研究的另一种定义，强调案例研究的真实环境，并敦促研究人员在介绍他们的研究时仔细遵循不同研究方法的定义。