  Software engineering is a socio-technical endeavor, and while many of our
contributions focus on technical aspects, human stakeholders such as software
developers are directly affected by and can benefit from our research and tool
innovations. In this paper, we question how much of our research addresses
human and social issues, and explore how much we study human and social aspects
in our research designs. To answer these questions, we developed a
socio-technical research framework to capture the main beneficiary of a
research study (the who), the main type of research contribution produced (the
what), and the research strategies used in the study (how we methodologically
approach delivering relevant results given the who and what of our studies). We
used this Who-What-How framework to analyze 151 papers from two well-cited
publishing venues---the main technical track at the International Conference on
Software Engineering, and the Empirical Software Engineering Journal by
Springer---to assess how much this published research explicitly considers
human aspects. We find that although a majority of these papers claim the
contained research should benefit human stakeholders, most focus on technical
contributions without engaging humans in their studies. Although our analysis
is scoped to two venues, our results suggest a need for more diversification
and triangulation of research strategies. In particular, there is a need for
strategies that aim at a deeper understanding of human and social aspects of
software development practice to balance the design and evaluation of technical
innovations. We recommend that the framework should be used in the design of
future studies in order to nudge software engineering research towards
explicitly including human and social concerns in their designs, and to improve
the relevance of our research for human stakeholders.
