  Background: One of the most important current challenges of Software
Engineering (SE) research is to provide relevant evidence to practice. In
health related fields, Rapid Reviews (RRs) have shown to be an effective method
to achieve that goal. However, little is known about how the SE research
community perceives the potential applicability of RRs. Aims: The goal of this
study is to understand the SE research community viewpoints towards the use of
RRs as a means to provide evidence to practitioners. Method: To understand
their viewpoints, we invited 37 researchers to analyze 50 opinion statements
about RRs, and rate them according to what extent they agree with each
statement. Q-Methodology was employed to identify the most salient viewpoints,
represented by the so called factors. Results: Four factors were identified:
Factor A groups undecided researchers that need more evidence before using RRs;
Researchers grouped in Factor B are generally positive about RRs, but highlight
the need to define minimum standards; Factor C researchers are more skeptical
and reinforce the importance of high quality evidence; Researchers aligned to
Factor D have a pragmatic point of view, considering RRs can be applied based
on the context and constraints faced by practitioners. Conclusions: In
conclusion, although there are opposing viewpoints, there are also some common
grounds. For example, all viewpoints agree that both RRs and Systematic Reviews
can be poorly or well conducted.
