Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Metaphor to Analyse Qualitative Data: Vulcans and Humans in Software Development

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports on an experience of using metaphor in qualitative research of software engineering in practice. Our project aimed to uncover non-technical factors affecting the adoption and evolution of Software Quality Management Systems (referred to here as ‘the quality process’). Previously we have reported the tensions we uncovered around the quality process in four companies, based on semi-structured interviews. This paper extends this work by applying metaphor to the results. We show how we were able to produce more general statements regarding the tensions and their amelioration, and then introduce results from a fifth company, which we compare against our general statements. We find that these statements are generally supported by results from this fifth company. Finally we present some reflections on our experience of using metaphor in this way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, C. E. 2002. ‘One of the boys’: Black masculinity and the peer group. In: S. Taylor, (ed), Ethnographic Research: A Reader. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aubusson, P. 2002. Using metaphor to make sense and build theory in qualitative analysis. The Qualitative Report 7(4): www.nova.edu/ssss/QR.

  • Baddoo, N., and Hall, T. 2002a. Motivators of software process improvement: An analysis of practitioners’ views. Journal of Systems and Software 62: 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddoo, N., and Hall, T. 2002b. Software process improvement motivators: An analysis using multidimensional scaling. Empirical Software Engineering 7: 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, B. E. F. 1978. The metaphor as a mediator between semantic and analogic modes of thought. Current Anthropology 19(1): 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, M. 1979. More about metaphor. In: A. Ortony, (ed), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, S. A., and Porter, L. J. 1996. Identification of the critical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences 27(1): 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, A. F. 1998. Metaphor in Diagrams. University of Cambridge.

  • BS5750 1987. Parts 1–3 Quality Systems, HMSO.

  • Buono, A. F., and Bowditch, J. L. 1989. The Human Side of Mergers and Acquisitions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, P. B. 1979. Quality is Free. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, B., Krasner, H., and Iscoe, N. 1988. A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communications of the ACM 31(11): 1268–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, B., Hefley, W. E., and Miller, S. A. 2002. The People CMM: Guidelines for Improving the Workforce. Wesley: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deal, T., and Kennedy, A. 1988. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMarco, T., and Lister, T. 1987. Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams. Dorset House Publishing.

  • Deming, W. E. 1982. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyba, T. 2000. An instrument for measuring the key factors of success in software process improvement. Empirical Software Engineering 5: 357–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, T. D. 1990. Working with interface metaphors. In: B. Laurel, (ed), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design, Boston: Addison-Wesley, pp. 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. 1982. Are scientific analogies metaphors?. In: D. S. Miall, (ed), Metaphor: Problems and Perspectives, Brighton: The Harvester Press, pp. 106–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2): 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A. V., Sharp, H. C. and Woodman, M. 1993. What is behind software quality management systems?. In: M. Ross, C. A. Brebbia, G. Staples, and J. Stapleton, (eds), Software Quality Management. Southampton, UK: Computational Mechanics and Elsevier, pp. 225–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M. B. 1966. Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R., and Newman, M. 2001. Symbolism and information systems development: Myth, metaphor and magic. Information Systems Research 2(1): 29–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovenden, F. M., Yates, S., Sharp, H. C., and Woodman, M. 1994. The use of ethnography with discourse analysis in the study of software quality management systems. In: M. Ross, C. A. Brebbia, G. Staples, and J. Stapleton, (eds), Software Quality Management II. Southampton, UK: Computational Mechanics Publications, pp. 557–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO8402 1994. Quality Vocabulary.

  • ISO9000 2000. Quality Management.

  • Juran, J. M. (ed) 1988. Quality Control Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Emam, K., Drouin, J.-N., and Melo, W. (eds) 1997. SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. London: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., and Harre, R. 1982. Metaphor in science. In: D. S. Miall, (ed), Metaphor: Problems and Perspectives, Brighton: The Harvester Press, pp. 89–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakland, J. S. 1994. Total Quality Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., and Weber, C. V. 1997. Capability maturity model for software, In: M. Dorfman, and R. H. Thayer, (eds), Software Engineering, IEEE.

  • Pesot, J. 1975. Un probleme de semiologie linguistique: Mobilite du signe et monosemie profonde. Canadian Journal of Research in Semiotics 3: 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimm, D. 1981. Metaphor and analogy in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics 1(3): 4–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece, J., Rogers, Y., and Sharp, H. 2002. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saraph, J. V., Benson, P. G., and Schroeder, R. G. 1989. An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences 20(4): 457–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seaman, C. B. 1999. Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4): 557–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seaman, C. B. and Basili, V. R. 1998. Communication and organization: an empirical study of discussion in inspection meetings. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(7): 559–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, H., Robinson, H. M., and Woodman, M. 1999. In: The Role of Culture in Successful Software Process Improvement. Milan, Italy: EUROMICRO ‘99, 170–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, H., Hovenden, F., and Woodman, M. 2003. Tensions in the adoption and evolution of software quality management systems. In Proceedings of PPIG/EASE 2003, UK: Keele, 297–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, H., Woodman, M., and Hovenden, F. 2004. Tensions around the adoption and evolution of software quality management systems: a discourse analytic approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Systems 61(2) 219–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solow, H. F., and Justman, R. H. 1996. Inside Star Trek: The Real Story. New York: Pocket Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A., Dobson, P., and Walters, M. 1993, Changing Culture: New Organisational Approaches. 2nd edition. London: Institute of Personnel Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Graham, T. C. N., and Smith, P. W. 2003. In: A Study of Collaboration in Software Design, International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Rome, Italy, pp. 304–313.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computing Department, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK

    Helen Sharp

  2. School of Computing Science, Middlesex University, Trent Park Bramley Road, London, N14 4YZ, UK

    Mark Woodman

  3. Pandora’s Lab, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Fiona Hovenden

Authors
  1. Helen Sharp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Woodman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fiona Hovenden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Sharp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharp, H., Woodman, M. & Hovenden, F. Using Metaphor to Analyse Qualitative Data: Vulcans and Humans in Software Development. Empir Software Eng 10, 343–365 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-005-1451-y

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-005-1451-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation