University of Hong Kong Featured PhD Programmes
University of Leeds Featured PhD Programmes
University of Reading Featured PhD Programmes

How does safety-critical software actually get developed?


Department of Computer Science

About the Project

Research areas: Automated and Model-Driven Software Engineering; Autonomous and self-adaptive systems; Cyber Physical Systems;
Safety of autonomous and self-adaptive systems; Software engineering; Software testing

We have lots of ideas, and in particular assumptions, about how safety-critical software is developed, but there is very little public knowledge of an ethnographic, descriptive character. We have some first-hand and second-hand experience, where researchers are (or have been practitioners), or where they teach or consult with practitioners, but we know that such unstructured knowledge is very vulnerable to distortion through all kinds of biases [1]. So much of what we do in the safety-critical software field is therefore on shaky foundations.

In this project you will study a wide variety, using surveys, interviews, and (ideally) ethnographic/contextual-inquiry methods on-site in industry. You will build a descriptive process model of how safety-critical software development really happens (see [2,3,4] for examples in related fields).

Social science research skills will be valuable for this project, as will real-world industrial experience. Competent software development skills will be necessary (otherwise, you probably won’t understand what you are observing).

References

[1] P. Ralph, ‘Toward Methodological Guidelines for Process Theories and Taxonomies in Software Engineering’ [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8267085], IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 712–735, Jul. 2019.

[2] J. Havinga, S. Dekker, and A. Rae, ‘Everyday work investigations for safety’ [https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1356394], Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 213–228, Mar. 2018.

[3] P. Ralph, ‘Software engineering process theory: A multi-method comparison of Sensemaking–Coevolution–Implementation Theory and Function–Behavior–Structure Theory’ [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584915001238], Information and Software Technology, vol. 70, pp. 232–250, Feb. 2016.

[4] J. Rooksby, M. Rouncefield, and I. Sommerville, ‘Testing in the Wild: The Social and Organisational Dimensions of Real World Practice’ [http://johnrooksby.org/papers/JCSCW_rooksby_testing.pdf], Comput Supported Coop Work, vol. 18, no. 5–6, p. 559, Dec. 2009.

Email Now

Insert previous message below for editing? 
You haven’t included a message. Providing a specific message means universities will take your enquiry more seriously and helps them provide the information you need.
Why not add a message here

The information you submit to University of York will only be used by them or their data partners to deal with your enquiry, according to their privacy notice. For more information on how we use and store your data, please read our privacy statement.

* required field

Your enquiry has been emailed successfully



Search Suggestions

Search Suggestions

Based on your current searches we recommend the following search filters.



FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2020
All rights reserved.