Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userSustaining Research Software: an SC18 Panel
110
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Daniel S. Katz
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Many science advances have been possible thanks to the use of research software, which has become essential to advancing virtually every Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) discipline and many non-STEM disciplines including social sciences and humanities. And while much of it is made available under open source licenses, work is needed to develop, support, and sustain it, as underlying systems and software as well as user needs evolve. In addition, the changing landscape of high-performance computing (HPC) platforms, where performance and scaling advances are ever more reliant on software and algorithm improvements as we hit hardware scaling barriers, is causing renewed tension between sustainability of software and its performance. We must do more to highlight the trade-off between performance and sustainability, and to emphasize the need for sustainability given the fact that complex software stacks dont survive without frequent maintenance; made more difficult as a generation of developers of established and heavily-used research software retire. Several HPC forums are doing this, and it has become an active area of funding as well. In response, the authors organized and ran a panel at the SC18 conference. The objectives of the panel were to highlight the importance of sustainability, to illuminate the tension between pure performance and sustainability, and to steer SC community discussion toward understanding and addressing this issue and this tension. The outcome of the discussions, as presented in this paper, can inform choices of advance compute and data infrastructures to positively impact future research software and future research.
rate research
Read More
Researchers are increasingly recognizing the importance of human aspects in software development and since qualitative methods are used to, in-depth, explore human behavior, we believe that studies using such techniques will become more common. Existing qualitative software engineering guidelines do not cover the full breadth of qualitative methods and knowledge on using them found in the social sciences. The aim of this study was thus to extend the software engineering research communitys current body of knowledge regarding available qualitative methods and provide recommendations and guidelines for their use. With the support of an epistemological argument and a literature review, we suggest that future research would benefit from (1) utilizing a broader set of research methods, (2) more strongly emphasizing reflexivity, and (3) employing qualitative guidelines and quality criteria. We present an overview of three qualitative methods commonly used in social sciences but rarely seen in software engineering research, namely interpretative phenomenological analysis, narrative analysis, and discourse analysis. Furthermore, we discuss the meaning of reflexivity in relation to the software engineering context and suggest means of fostering it. Our paper will help software engineering researchers better select and then guide the application of a broader set of qualitative research methods.
Modern research in the sciences, engineering, humanities, and other fields depends on software, and specifically, research software. Much of this research software is developed in universities, by faculty, postdocs, students, and staff. In this paper, we focus on the role of university staff. We examine three different, independently-developed models under which these staff are organized and perform their work, and comparatively analyze these models and their consequences on the staff and on the software, considering how the different models support software engineering practices and processes. This information can be used by software engineering researchers to understand the practices of such organizations and by universities who want to set up similar organizations and to better produce and maintain research software.
A growing number of largely uncoordinated initiatives focus on research software sustainability. A comprehensive mapping of the research software sustainability space can help identify gaps in their efforts, track results, and avoid duplication of work. To this end, this paper suggests enhancing an existing schematic of activities in research software sustainability, and formalizing it in a directed graph model. Such a model can be further used to define a classification schema which, applied to research results in the field, can drive the identification of past activities and the planning of future efforts.
A growing number of researchers suggest that software process must be tailored to a projects context to achieve maximal performance. Researchers have studied context in an ad-hoc way, with focus on those contextual factors that appear to be of significance. The result is that we have no useful basis upon which to contrast and compare studies. We are currently researching a theoretical basis for software context for the purpose of tailoring and note that a deeper consideration of the meaning of the term context is required before we can proceed. In this paper, we examine the term and present a model based on insights gained from our initial categorisation of contextual factors from the literature. We test our understanding by analysing a further six documents. Our contribution thus far is a model that we believe will support a theoretical operationalisation of software context for the purpose of process tailoring.
Research software is essential to modern research, but it requires ongoing human effort to sustain: to continually adapt to changes in dependencies, to fix bugs, and to add new features. Software sustainability institutes, amongst others, develop, maintain, and disseminate best practices for research software sustainability, and build community around them. These practices can both reduce the amount of effort that is needed and create an environment where the effort is appreciated and rewarded. The UK SSI is such an institute, and the US URSSI and the Australian AuSSI are planning to become institutes, and this extended abstract discusses them and the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
