Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Anne Mertens

dblp:344/8956 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0003-1623-8817ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%
Network and information security
1 paper
Usable security · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
qualitative research
0.712023
Different Researchers, Different Results? Analyzing the Influence of Researcher Experience and Data Type During Qualitative Analysis of an Interview and Survey Study on Security Advice · CHI 2023
Usable security › security education
security advice
0.212023
Different Researchers, Different Results? Analyzing the Influence of Researcher Experience and Data Type During Qualitative Analysis of an Interview and Survey Study on Security Advice · CHI 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

survey · 1.3interviews · 1.3inter-rater reliability · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Different Researchers, Different Results? Analyzing the Influence of Researcher Experience and Data Type During Qualitative Analysis of an Interview and Survey Study on Security Advice
abstract
When conducting qualitative research it is necessary to decide how many researchers should be involved in coding the data: Is one enough or are more coders beneficial? To offer empirical evidence for this question, we designed a series of studies investigating qualitative coding. We replicated and extended a usable security and privacy study by Ion et al. to gather both simple survey data and complex interview data. We had a total of 65 students and seven researchers analyze different parts of this data. We analyzed the codebook creation process, similarity of outcomes, inter-rater reliability, and compared the student to the researcher outcomes. We also surveyed five years of SOUPS-PC members about their views on coding. The reviewers view on coding practices for complex and simple data are almost identical. However, our results suggest that the coding process can be different for the two types of data, with complex data benefiting more from interaction between coders.
Anna-Marie Ortloff, Matthias Fassl, Alexander Ponticello, Florin Martius, Anne Mertens, Katharina Krombholz, Matthew Smith 0001
CHI5