Communication Skills in Software Engineering: A Multivocal Review
This multivocal literature review synthesizes fragmented academic and gray literature to demonstrate that while both sources agree on communication as a core competency in software engineering, they differ in focus, with academia prioritizing conceptualization and empirical evidence while industry literature emphasizes practical applications and emerging practices.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine Software Engineering as a massive, high-stakes orchestra. For a long time, everyone thought the only thing that mattered was how well each musician could play their instrument (the coding and technical skills). But this paper argues that even the most talented violinist will fail if they can't listen to the conductor, read the sheet music shared by the cellist, or explain why they missed a note.
The authors, a team of researchers from Brazil, decided to investigate a big question: How do the "teachers" (academics) and the "musicians on the stage" (industry professionals) talk about the importance of communication skills in software engineering?
To find the answer, they didn't just look at one type of book. They performed a "Multivocal Review," which is like gathering opinions from two different libraries:
- The Academic Library: Formal studies, scientific papers, and university research.
- The "Gray" Library: Blogs, industry reports, Stack Overflow discussions, and articles written by working developers.
Here is what they found, broken down into simple concepts:
1. The Big Agreement: Everyone Needs a Megaphone
Both the scientists and the industry pros agree on one massive point: Communication is not just a "nice-to-have" extra; it is a core requirement.
- The Academic View: They treat communication like a scientific fact. They have data showing that job postings list communication as a top skill, often beating out technical skills. They prove that teams who talk well make fewer mistakes and finish projects faster.
- The Industry View: They treat communication like a survival guide. Their blogs and articles say things like, "If you can't explain your code, you won't get promoted," or "Bad communication leads to getting fired." They focus on the immediate, real-world consequences of silence or confusion.
The Metaphor: Think of communication as the glue holding the software together. The academics have run tests proving the glue is strong; the industry workers have seen the building fall apart when the glue was missing.
2. The Same Goal, Different Lenses
While they agree on the importance of communication, they look at it through different lenses, like two photographers taking a picture of the same mountain from different angles.
The "Scientific" Angle (Academia):
- Focus: They break communication down into tiny, specific pieces. They study "synchronous vs. asynchronous" talking, "intercultural competence," and "active listening."
- Evidence: They use numbers, percentages, and surveys. They say, "80% of job ads require this."
- Goal: To create a structured curriculum to teach these skills in universities.
The "Street Smart" Angle (Gray Literature):
- Focus: They talk about the feeling and the result. They focus on "storytelling," "giving feedback without hurting feelings," and "making sure the boss understands the plan."
- Evidence: They use stories and personal experiences. They say, "I saw a project fail because no one clarified the requirements."
- Goal: To give quick, practical advice to help developers survive and thrive in their daily jobs.
3. Where They Don't Quite Match (The Nuances)
The paper points out a few small differences in how they talk about the topic:
- The "English" Factor: The academic papers are very worried about language barriers and cultural differences in global teams. They treat "speaking English" and "understanding culture" as part of the communication skill set. The industry blogs often assume everyone already speaks English and treat it as a separate skill, focusing more on the act of communicating rather than the language itself.
- The "Vibe" Factor: Industry writers talk a lot about how good communication makes the office a happier place, reduces stress, and builds trust. Academics tend to focus more on hard numbers like "productivity" and "project success," sometimes missing the emotional "morale" aspect.
4. The Takeaway
The paper concludes that there is no conflict between the two groups. They aren't fighting; they are just speaking different dialects of the same language.
- Academia provides the blueprint (the theory and the measurement).
- Industry provides the construction crew (the real-world application and the stories).
The Final Metaphor:
Imagine Software Engineering is a ship. The Academics are the naval architects who design the hull and prove that the ship can float if the communication channels are watertight. The Industry Professionals are the captains and crew who know that if the crew doesn't shout clearly over the wind, the ship hits the rocks.
The paper says: Stop arguing about whether communication matters. Both sides agree it is the most important skill. The next step is to combine the architects' blueprints with the crew's experience to build better software teams.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.