>From a quick look at the article, I would agree with many of its points.
However, I would also suggest reading beyond our own domain and I am
particularly thinking of Thomas Kuhn's (1996) work on Scientific
Revolutions.
A key issue there is how our paradigms for our field of research can close
us off to other equally valid and possibly challenging perspectives. I don't
want to reduce the rigour required in research but neither do I want to
discard an alternative paradigm within my field without fully exploring its
foundations and understanding whether it has anything to contribute. If I am
to do this then I need to be able to put aside some of my own paradigm
blinkers and seek to find maybe another framework for evaluating the
solution. This what I would contend is not happening in the debate related
to agile methods.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago.
_____________________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Hanania Salzer
Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 12:38 p.m.
To: discuss@ppig.org
Subject: RE: PPIG discuss: When agile goes bad....
Errol, wrote:
"...Let's stop knocking others because their paradigm of software
development doesn't fit ours and look at ways of learning from each other's
strengths and seeing our weaknesses. ..."
Yes, Errol, but that is far from being sufficient for a scientist.
May I suggest the following paper by Roel Wieringa (from The University of
Twente, The Netherlands)?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l8rqr26x2530m71w/fulltext.html
Wieringa, R. J. (2005). Requirements researchers: are we really
doing research?. Requirements Engineering, 10(4), 304-306.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PPIG Discuss List (discuss@ppig.org)
Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
