Advertisement

Requirements Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 315–328 | Cite as

The case against a positivist philosophy of requirements engineering

  • Chris HindsEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Requirements engineering is a field with a heavy practical emphasis and for the most part is quite rightly unconcerned with philosophical reflection. However, there have been exceptions. Philosophical arguments are important because they can be used to powerful effect, facilitating explicit debate on views that may previously have been implicit, and shaping the direction of thought and research within the field. Several cases from both requirements engineering and software engineering have given prominence to the philosophy of positivism. This paper will outline arguments against such a view.

Keywords

Philosophy Positivism Scientism Realism Ethnography Ethics 

References

  1. 1.
    Potts C, Newstetter WC (1997) Naturalistic inquiry and requirements engineering: reconciling their theoretical foundations. In: proceedings of the third IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 118–127Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Popper K (1979) Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis AM, Hickey AM (2002) Requirements researchers: do we practice what we preach? Requirements Eng 7:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wieringa R (2005) Requirements researchers: are we really doing research? Requirements Eng 10:304–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halfpenny P (1982) Positivism and sociology: explaining social life. Allen and Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haeberer A, Maibaum T (1998) The very idea of software development environments: a conceptual architecture for the ARTS environment paradigm. In: Thirteenth international conference on automated software engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, pp 260–269Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maibaum TSE (2000) Mathematical foundations of software engineering: a roadmap. In: ICSE—Future of SE Track, pp 161–172Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haeberer A, Maibaum T (2001) Scientific rigour, an answer to a pragmatic question: a linguistic framework for software engineering. In: 23rd international conference on software engineeringGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nissen HE, Klein HK, Hirschheim R (eds) (1991) Information systems research: contemporary approaches and emergent traditions. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ayer AJ (1959) Editor’s introduction. In: Ayer AJ (ed) Logical positivism. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, pp 3–28Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giddens A (1977) Studies in social and political theory. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Popper K (2002) The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge Classics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sorell T (1991) Scientism: philosophy and the infatuation with science. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Toulmin S (1953) The philosophy of science: an introduction. William Brendon and Son, Ltd, The Mayflower Press, Bushy Mill Lane, Watford, HertfordshireGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feyerabend P (1975) Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Humanities Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sutcliffe A, Fickas S, Sohlberg M (2005) Personal and contextual requirements engineering. In: 13th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, pp 19–30Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Denzin NK (2001) Interpretive interactionism. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schopflin G, Hosking G (eds) (1997) Myths and nationhood. C. Hurst and Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nickels T (ed) (2003) Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shrader-Frechette K (1991) Risk and rationality. University of California Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Schlick M (1959) Positivism and realism. In: Ayer AJ (eds) Logical positivism. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jirotka M, Goguen J (eds) (1994) Requirements engineering: social and technical issues. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rogers GFC (1983) The nature of engineering. MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barnes B, Edge D (eds) (1982) Science in context: readings in the sociology of science. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    (2000) The American heritage dictionary of the english language. Houton, MifflinGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petroski H (1992) To engineer is human: the role of failure in successful design. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Layton E (1974) Technology as knowledge. Technol Cult 15:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wise G (1985) Science and technology. Osris 1:229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vincenti WG (1990) What engineers know and how they know it: analytical studies from aeronautical history. John Hopkin’s University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing engineers. MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jacobson I, Booch G, Rumbaugh J (1999) The unified software development process. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fetzer J (1988) Program verification: the very idea. CACM: Commun ACM 31:1048–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Barwise J (1989) Mathematical proofs of computer system correctness. Notices Am Math Soc 36:844–851Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lamsweerde A von (2004) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a roundtrip from research to practice. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, pp 4–7Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Letier E (2001) Reasoning about agents in goal-oriented requirements engineering. Universite Catholique de LouvainGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook S (2000) Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: ICSE’00: 22nd international conference on software engineering, pp 35–46Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lamsweerde A von (2000) Formal specification: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on software engineering—the future of software engineering. IEEE, Limerick, pp 149–59Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Goguen JA (1996) Formality and informality in requirement engineering. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on requirements engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, pp 102–108Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Akkermans H, Gordjin J (2006) What is this science called requirements engineering? In: 14th IEEE international requirements engineering conference MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Maiden N, Robertson S (2005) Integrating creativity in to requirements processes: experiences with an air traffic management system. In: 13th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, pp 105–116Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wieringa R, Maiden N, Mead N, Rolland C (2006) Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion. Requirements Eng 11:102–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Davis AM, Hickey AM (2006) A new paradigm for planning and evaluating requirements engineering research. In: 2nd international workshop on comparative evaluation in requirements engineering, Kyoto, Japan, pp 7–16Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Avison D, Lau F, Myers M, Nielsen PA (1999) Action research. Commun ACM 42:94–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Benbasat I, Zmud RW (1999) Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance. MIS Quart 23:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee AS (1999) Rigor and relevance in MIS research: beyond the approach of positivism alone. MIS Quart 23:29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Robertson S, Robertson J (1999) Mastering the requirements process. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., HarlowGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cross N (1993) Science and design methodology: a review. Res Eng Des 5:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Grant DP (1979) Design methodology and design methods. Des Methods Theories 13:46–47Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schon D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Searle JR (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3:450–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Penrose R (1989) The emperor’s new mind. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Button G, Coulter J, Lee J, Sharrock W (1995) Computers, minds and conduct. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cross N, Naughton J (1981) Design method and scientific method. In: Jacques R and Powell J (eds) Design science: method. Westbury House, GuildfordGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bloor D (1976) Knowledge and social imagery. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Collins HM (1985) Chaning order: replication and induction in scientific practice. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Winch P (1990) The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Woolgar S (1988) Science: the very idea. Ellis Horwood, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kripke S (1982) Wittgenstein on rules and private language: an elementary exposition. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hamilton AG (1988) Logic for mathematicians. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Suchman LA (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Baker GP, Hacker PMS (1984) On misunderstanding Wittgenstein: Kripke’s private language argument. Synthesise 58:407–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Berger PL, Luckmann T (1971) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pinch TJ, Bijker WE (1994) The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In: Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch TJ (eds) The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 17–50Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Woolgar S (1994) Rethinking requirements analysis: some implications of recent research into producer–consumer relationships in IT development. In: Jirotka M, Goguen JA (eds) Requirements engineering: social and technical issues. Academic Press, London, pp 201–216Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bowker GC, Star SL (1999) Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hume D (1978) A treatise of human nature. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ayer AJ (2004) Language, truth and logic. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Loobuyck P (2005) Wittgenstein and the shift from noncognitivism to cognitivism in ethics. Metaphilosophy 36:381–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Heritage J (1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Goguen JA (1997) Towards a social, ethical theory of information. In: Bowker GC, Gasser L, Star SL, Turner W (eds) Social science research. Technical systems and Cooperative Work, Erlbaum, pp 27–56Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Alfred S (1967) The phenomenology of the social world. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:696–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Requirements and FoundationsOxford University Computing LaboratoryOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations