Experiences from conducting rapid reviews in collaboration with practitioners — Two industrial cases

• Published in: Information and software technology Vol. 167; p. 107364
• Main Authors: Rico, Sergio, Ali, Nauman Bin, Engström, Emelie, Höst, Martin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01-03-2024
• Subjects: Computer and Information Science; Data- och informationsvetenskap (Datateknik); Evidence Based Software Engineering; Industrial research; Industry-academia collaboration; Knowledge exchange; Knowledge management; Literature reviews; Literature studies; Natural Sciences; Naturvetenskap; Programvaruteknik; Rapid review; Rapid reviews; Research relevance; Software Engineering; Study design; Systematic method; Systematic review
• ISSN: 0950-5849; 1873-6025
• DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107364

Context: Evidence-based software engineering (EBSE) aims to improve research utilization in practice. It relies on systematic methods to identify, appraise, and synthesize existing research findings to answer questions of interest for practice. However, the lack of practitioners’ involvement in these studies’ design, execution, and reporting indicates a lack of appreciation for the need for knowledge exchange between researchers and practitioners. The resultant systematic literature studies often lack relevance for practice. Objective: This paper explores the use of Rapid Reviews (RRs), in fostering knowledge exchange between academia and industry. Through the lens of two case studies, we delve into the practical application and experience of conducting RRs. Methods: We analyzed the conduct of two rapid reviews by two different groups of researchers and practitioners. We collected data through interviews, and the documents produced during the review (like review protocols, search results, and presentations). The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: We report how the two groups of researchers and practitioners performed the rapid reviews. We observed some benefits, like promoting dialogue and paving the way for future collaborations. We also found that practitioners entrusted the researchers to develop and follow a rigorous approach and were more interested in the applicability of the findings in their context. The problems investigated in these two cases were relevant but not the most immediate ones. Therefore, rapidness was not a priority for the practitioners. Conclusion: The study illustrates that rapid reviews can support researcher-practitioner communication and industry-academia collaboration. Furthermore, the recommendations based on the experiences from the two cases complement the detailed guidelines researchers and practitioners may follow to increase interaction and knowledge exchange. © 2023 The Author(s)