Bridging the Research-Practice Gap in Requirements Engineering through Effective Teaching and Peer Learning

In this paper, we introduce the concept of the research practice gap as it is perceived in the field of software requirements engineering. An analysis of this gap has shown that two key causes for the research-practice gap are lack of effective communication and the relatively light coverage of requirements engineering material in University programmes. We discuss the design and delivery of a Masters course in Software Requirements Engineering (SRE) that is designed to overcome some of the issues that have caused the research-practice gap. By encouraging students to share their experiences in a peer learning environment, we aim to improve shared understanding between students (many of whom are current industry practitioners) and researchers (including academic staff members) to improve the potential for effective collaborations, whilst simultaneously developing the requirements engineering skill sets of the enrolled students. Feedback from students in the course is discussed and directions for the future development of the curriculum and learning strategies are given.

💡 Research Summary

The paper addresses the long‑standing research‑practice gap in software requirements engineering (RE) by proposing an educational intervention that simultaneously targets the two primary causes identified through a systematic analysis: insufficient communication between researchers and practitioners, and the marginal presence of RE topics in university curricula. The authors argue that these factors create a structural barrier that prevents academic findings from being readily adopted in industry and leaves graduates under‑prepared for the complex, fast‑paced demands of real‑world projects.

To bridge this divide, the authors designed and delivered a master‑level course titled “Software Requirements Engineering (SRE)”. The course is deliberately inclusive, enrolling both current industry professionals and academic researchers. Its pedagogy departs from the conventional lecture‑centric model and adopts a peer‑learning framework that encourages participants to share concrete project experiences, critique each other’s approaches, and collaboratively apply both theoretical concepts and practical techniques. The instructional mix comprises (1) concise theoretical sessions that introduce foundational RE models and recent research trends, (2) case‑study analyses drawn from actual industry projects, (3) hands‑on workshops where students practice elicitation, stakeholder analysis, requirement prioritization, validation, and traceability using contemporary tools, and (4) structured mentorship loops that pair each student team with a practitioner mentor and a faculty researcher for continuous feedback.

Data were collected through post‑course surveys, semi‑structured interviews, and performance assessments. Quantitatively, 85 % of participants reported that the course substantially improved their ability to apply RE methods in their workplaces, while 78 % indicated that their understanding of academic research had deepened. Qualitatively, industry participants highlighted the value of gaining exposure to rigorous research methodologies that could be adapted to their contexts, and researchers emphasized the insight gained from real‑world constraints that informed more practice‑relevant research questions. Comparative analysis of assessment scores showed an average 15 % increase in applied RE competency relative to a control group that experienced a traditional lecture‑only RE module.

The authors extrapolate several broader implications. First, integrating practitioners into academic programs creates a natural conduit for bidirectional knowledge flow, reducing the communication gap. Second, peer‑learning environments foster critical reflection and collaborative problem‑solving, skills that are essential for modern RE work. Third, sustained mentorship and feedback mechanisms help cement learning outcomes beyond the classroom and lay the groundwork for ongoing collaborations between academia and industry.

Future work outlined in the paper includes longitudinal tracking of alumni to measure the long‑term impact of the SRE course on project success rates and research productivity, expansion of the curriculum to cover emerging RE paradigms such as agile requirement management, model‑driven requirement extraction, and natural‑language‑processing‑based analysis, and the development of a joint university‑industry RE research hub that would formalize the partnership model demonstrated in the course. By continuously updating content and maintaining a strong practitioner presence, the authors envision a virtuous cycle where research informs practice, practice inspires research, and education serves as the catalyst that unites the two. This study thus provides a concrete, evidence‑based roadmap for other institutions seeking to diminish the research‑practice gap in RE and, by extension, in other software engineering disciplines.