This is in continuation to the previous post, which discussed the views of various testing experts against concept of Schools of Testing. In this post, I would publish the views, which I consolidated from software-testing yahoo group and SQAForums. I could not find corresponding web page links for the authors of most of such views. So, I would mention just the names. If as a reader, you know more about the person, whom I am quoting, please let me know, I will edit the post to include a link to the corresponding web page.
Linda (alias “ljeanwilkin”) one of the moderators – “I’ve met thousands of analysts. I don’t think I’m particularly optimistic (those that know me would agree), and I don’t think I’m particularly wrong either. Most people do what they can with what they’ve got and may lean one way or another based on their situation. Did you read some of the replies of other very experienced resources here? They’re saying the same thing I am. There’s a school of “whatever works” out there and many of us belong to it. There’s a reason (as Mr. Kaner’s article pointed out) that most QA/QC people do not want to be “typed” into a specific school. All I know is that I haven’t signed any manifestos, and I don’t plan to join any cliques . It limits me.” “I encourage everyone to read and consider everything, try things that make sense in their own environments, and to use and make up their own minds. There are kernels of Good Stuff everywhere and to limit yourself to one school often means closing your eyes to more tools for your toolbelt. I think such typing encourages people to shut down their minds, rather than opening them.”
Jake Brake one of the moderators, also supports Linda and says – “Will it change what I do? Perhaps it will in terms of me affiliating myself with a particular school – the school of solutions. I really wanted to blurt my buffers on this topic. Linda already did that and I think her responses speak well for me” =======================
Walen – a member at SQAForums, says- “In my experience. most of the time it is the attitude of the management of the shop that will direct what “school” people are in. Most tester types will keep their mouths shut and not argue. At my last location, the testers I’ve worked with tended to take the approach of “I’ll do whatever the boss tells me to until it is proven to be a stupid way of doing things. Then I’ll do it my way, because by then the project will be in a state where no one is paying much attention.” At my current location, a small group of exceptionally bright people use a group of approaches, depending on which developer or development team worked on the project or phase they are testing. I’m pretty comfortable with that approach.”
Alan A. Jorgensen – “…And I am one of those critics. I think that having a taxonomy of testing ideas is good, but the division into schools smacks of some of the same ideas that fuel prejutice, i.e., dumping someone under a label with a presumed set of associated properties. … So if you must create “schools” please clearly state 1) The precepts predominant in each school as well as precepts that overlap with other schools and 2) A “member” of a school does not necessarily adhere to nor advocate all of the precepts in that “school” and may well embrace precepts exclusive to other schools.”
Rikard – “I really like Pettichords presentation Four Schools of Testing (although I only have read it) and think that it can generate a great deal of understanding about the testing community, and your own ways of testing. But there is a big risk of segregation, and I have seen some examples on the web where the schools are used to classify testers. This is not good, and could give a less open testing community. Isn’t it more fruitful to say “I think you rely too much on process” than “You belong to the Quality School and our ideas are divergent.”? Most testers would agree that you can’t really do good testing without analytical content, cost-effective routines, improving processes, or skilled employees, and in that way everyone is encompassing the main idea of each school in some way. So the notion of schools could rather be seen as key areas that you depend differently on on different occasions, and an important aspect is to not rely too much on one area. So maybe we should only use the schools as a tool to enhance ones own understanding and not beyond that? And rather talk about Five Pillars of Testing: Content, Process, People, Tools and the Unknown. Of course proclaimed schools should continue to enhance their view of the software world, but there is no need to put tags on the rest of the testing community.”
Rikard, while suggesting not to do over-usage of the term Schools of Testing, leaves a remark – “By not over-using the schools of testing, I was hoping our school could be improved by making us less hostile to the testing community.”
John McConda a member of the Context Driven school, while trying to understand Rikard’s remark, beautifully touches upon an additional perspective – “I believe that at the heart of what Rikard is saying is a tendency I see in myself, to question “Why can’t we all just get along?” Having come to the Context-Driven school myself after being frustrated with rigid rules in testing, I have the tendency to want to include everyone in this way of thinking because it makes much more sense to me. Having tried and failed to talk in these terms to various managers and apathetic testers though, I can say that it is very difficult if not impossible to persuade members of other schools of this “radical” approach to testing, more because of ignorance and apathy than any other reason.” ———————————————————————————-
The views in this category will be concluded in the next post. As mentioned earlier, to make the length of the post manageable to be read, it has been split into three posts. This is the seventh post in the series “The Big Fight – Schools of Testing”. For my previous posts on Schools of Testing, you can check the posts under the Schools of Testing Category.