A practical handbook for software development
A practical handbook for software development
Fundamentals of systems analysis: with application design
Fundamentals of systems analysis: with application design
Four paradigms of information systems development
Communications of the ACM
Structured systems analysis and design method (2nd ed.): application and context
Structured systems analysis and design method (2nd ed.): application and context
Software engineering: principles and practice
Software engineering: principles and practice
Software engineering (4th ed.)
Software engineering (4th ed.)
Object development methods
Software Engineering
Toward Objective, Systematic Design-Method Comparisons
IEEE Software
HICSS '99 Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences-Volume 7 - Volume 7
Information systems: a subject with a particular perspective, no more, no less
European Journal of Information Systems
System development (Prentice-Hall International series in computer science)
System development (Prentice-Hall International series in computer science)
Research perspectives on the objects-early debate
ITiCSE-WGR '06 Working group reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Recent articles in EJIS have discussed whether or not Information Systems is a 'discipline'. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn states that a scientific discipline can be identified by reference to its underlying belief system, the 'paradigm' or 'disciplinary matrix', to which all workers in that field must commit. An important element of Kuhn's model is the notion of 'scientific communities'. We consider here the belief system underlying Software Engineering (SE). We examine the extent to which a belief system analogous to the disciplinary matrix of a Kuhnian science can be identified in SE. Our preliminary fieldwork has comprised an examination of books used by SE students and practitioners, and in-depth interviews with a number of practitioners. The results of this study suggest that the current status of the theory of SE parallels Kuhn's 'pre-paradigm' stage of scientific development. At this early stage, theorists and practitioners are divided into schools. These schools are based on differences in the beliefs and models forming their disciplinary matrices. We conclude that the application by analogy of Kuhn's view of scientific activity to SE is justifiable. Our findings can assist both SE theorists and practitioners in improving the understanding of how and why software development projects succeed or fail. Our findings also provide a framework within which to place the beliefs, models and values which underlie SE. Such a framework can contribute to the discussion as to whether the software development-related aspects of Information Systems can be considered to be a discipline, and if so how that discipline is structured.