Skip to main content
Log in

The case against a positivist philosophy of requirements engineering

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is a point notably discussed by Fetzer [34], and although many disagreed with his conclusions, even his critics acknowledged that formal methods for software engineering are a form of applied mathematics concerned with reasoning about physical systems; [35] provides an excellent summary.

  2. Of course, even the basic association between logical positivism and software engineering raises concerns. As Sect. 3 indicates, there are many aspects to real engineering that a positivist perspective may find hard to account for.

  3. Garfinkel’s breaching experiments ([63] Chap. 2) provide an powerful illustration of the way in which such persistent denial is ordinarily held to moral account.

  4. For example, under the Christological doctrine of the hypostatic union (following the Council of Chalcedon, in 451), Christ has two united natures: one divine and one human.

  5. The examples given here draw in part on the so-called ‘community view’ of language and rule use supported by [61]. However, although incisive, its relationship to Wittgenstein’s original work has been the subject of significant debate [65].

References

  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 118–127

  2. Popper K (1979) Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  3. Davis AM, Hickey AM (2002) Requirements researchers: do we practice what we preach? Requirements Eng 7:107–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wieringa R (2005) Requirements researchers: are we really doing research? Requirements Eng 10:304–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Halfpenny P (1982) Positivism and sociology: explaining social life. Allen and Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  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 260–269

  7. Maibaum TSE (2000) Mathematical foundations of software engineering: a roadmap. In: ICSE—Future of SE Track, pp 161–172

  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 engineering

  9. Nissen HE, Klein HK, Hirschheim R (eds) (1991) Information systems research: contemporary approaches and emergent traditions. Elsevier, Amsterdam

  10. Ayer AJ (1959) Editor’s introduction. In: Ayer AJ (ed) Logical positivism. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, pp 3–28

  11. Giddens A (1977) Studies in social and political theory. Hutchinson, London

    Google Scholar 

  12. Popper K (2002) The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge Classics, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sorell T (1991) Scientism: philosophy and the infatuation with science. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  14. Toulmin S (1953) The philosophy of science: an introduction. William Brendon and Son, Ltd, The Mayflower Press, Bushy Mill Lane, Watford, Hertfordshire

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  16. Feyerabend P (1975) Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Humanities Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sutcliffe A, Fickas S, Sohlberg M (2005) Personal and contextual requirements engineering. In: 13th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, pp 19–30

  18. Denzin NK (2001) Interpretive interactionism. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schopflin G, Hosking G (eds) (1997) Myths and nationhood. C. Hurst and Co., London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nickels T (ed) (2003) Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shrader-Frechette K (1991) Risk and rationality. University of California Press, California

    Google Scholar 

  22. Miller A (2002) Realism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/

  23. Schlick M (1959) Positivism and realism. In: Ayer AJ (eds) Logical positivism. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York

  24. Jirotka M, Goguen J (eds) (1994) Requirements engineering: social and technical issues. Academic Press, London

  25. Rogers GFC (1983) The nature of engineering. MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Barnes B, Edge D (eds) (1982) Science in context: readings in the sociology of science. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  27. (2000) The American heritage dictionary of the english language. Houton, Mifflin

  28. Petroski H (1992) To engineer is human: the role of failure in successful design. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  29. Layton E (1974) Technology as knowledge. Technol Cult 15:31–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wise G (1985) Science and technology. Osris 1:229–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Vincenti WG (1990) What engineers know and how they know it: analytical studies from aeronautical history. John Hopkin’s University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing engineers. MIT Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jacobson I, Booch G, Rumbaugh J (1999) The unified software development process. Addison Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fetzer J (1988) Program verification: the very idea. CACM: Commun ACM 31:1048–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Barwise J (1989) Mathematical proofs of computer system correctness. Notices Am Math Soc 36:844–851

    Google Scholar 

  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 4–7

  37. Letier E (2001) Reasoning about agents in goal-oriented requirements engineering. Universite Catholique de Louvain

  38. Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook S (2000) Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In: ICSE’00: 22nd international conference on software engineering, pp 35–46

  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 149–59

  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 102–108

  41. Akkermans H, Gordjin J (2006) What is this science called requirements engineering? In: 14th IEEE international requirements engineering conference Minnesota

  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 105–116

  43. Wieringa R, Maiden N, Mead N, Rolland C (2006) Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion. Requirements Eng 11:102–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 7–16

  45. Avison D, Lau F, Myers M, Nielsen PA (1999) Action research. Commun ACM 42:94–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Benbasat I, Zmud RW (1999) Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance. MIS Quart 23:3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lee AS (1999) Rigor and relevance in MIS research: beyond the approach of positivism alone. MIS Quart 23:29–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Robertson S, Robertson J (1999) Mastering the requirements process. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  49. Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cross N (1993) Science and design methodology: a review. Res Eng Des 5:63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Grant DP (1979) Design methodology and design methods. Des Methods Theories 13:46–47

    Google Scholar 

  52. Schon D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  53. Searle JR (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3:450–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Penrose R (1989) The emperor’s new mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  55. Button G, Coulter J, Lee J, Sharrock W (1995) Computers, minds and conduct. Polity Press, Cambridge

  56. Cross N, Naughton J (1981) Design method and scientific method. In: Jacques R and Powell J (eds) Design science: method. Westbury House, Guildford

  57. Bloor D (1976) Knowledge and social imagery. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  58. Collins HM (1985) Chaning order: replication and induction in scientific practice. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  59. Winch P (1990) The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  60. Woolgar S (1988) Science: the very idea. Ellis Horwood, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kripke S (1982) Wittgenstein on rules and private language: an elementary exposition. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hamilton AG (1988) Logic for mathematicians. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  64. Suchman LA (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  65. Baker GP, Hacker PMS (1984) On misunderstanding Wittgenstein: Kripke’s private language argument. Synthesise 58:407–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Berger PL, Luckmann T (1971) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  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 17–50

    Google Scholar 

  68. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  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 201–216

    Google Scholar 

  70. Bowker GC, Star SL (1999) Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  71. Hume D (1978) A treatise of human nature. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ayer AJ (2004) Language, truth and logic. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  73. Loobuyck P (2005) Wittgenstein and the shift from noncognitivism to cognitivism in ethics. Metaphilosophy 36:381–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Heritage J (1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  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 27–56

    Google Scholar 

  76. Alfred S (1967) The phenomenology of the social world. Northwestern University Press, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  77. Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:696–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Hinds.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hinds, C. The case against a positivist philosophy of requirements engineering. Requirements Eng 13, 315–328 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-008-0061-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-008-0061-9

Keywords

Navigation