AI 中文总结
研究探讨软件工程研究中访谈样本量与饱和度问题，通过分析2016至2025年相关论文，发现样本量差异大，13至24名受访者最常见，饱和度及充足性理由多样，为该领域方法学报告实践提供见解与贡献。
AI 中文摘要
背景。基于访谈的研究在实证软件工程中广泛用于调查人类、组织和社会技术现象，但文献中关于访谈样本充足性和饱和度的报告并不一致。目的。本文研究在实证软件工程研究中如何实现访谈样本充足性和饱和度。方法。我们分析了2016年至2025年在主要软件工程场所发表的论文，重点关注访谈样本量、饱和度讨论和样本充足性理由。结果。初步发现表明样本量差异很大，从高度专业化的小样本研究到涉及大型访谈数据集的更广泛调查。少于12名受访者的研究很常见，且常与特定行业背景或受限的组织访问相关。然而，最常见的范围是13至24名受访者，这表明中等规模样本是实证软件工程研究中最常见的配置。饱和度和样本充足性理由各不相同，许多研究依赖隐含或情境推理而非明确的方法学讨论。结论。我们的发现为基于访谈的软件工程研究中的方法学报告实践提供了初步实证见解，并为有关定性严谨性和透明度的持续讨论做出了贡献。
英文摘要
Background. Interview based studies are widely used in empirical software engineering to investigate human, organizational, and socio technical phenomena, yet interview sample adequacy and saturation are reported inconsistently across the literature. Aims. This paper investigates how interview sample adequacy and saturation are operationalized in empirical software engineering research. Method. We analyzed papers published between 2016 and 2025 across major software engineering venues, focusing on interview sample sizes, saturation discussions, and sample adequacy justifications. Results. Preliminary findings indicate substantial variation in sample sizes, from highly specialized small sample studies to broader investigations involving large interview datasets. Studies involving fewer than 12 interviewees were common and frequently associated with specialized industrial contexts or constrained organizational access. However, the most recurrent range was 13 to 24 interviewees, suggesting that moderate sized samples represent the most common configuration in empirical software engineering research. Saturation and sample adequacy justification were heterogeneous, with many studies relying on implicit or contextual reasoning rather than explicit methodological discussion. Conclusions. Our findings provide initial empirical insights into methodological reporting practices in interview based software engineering research and contribute to ongoing discussions regarding qualitative rigor and transparency.
