Periodically, discussions break out in various software testing communities around the Web regarding the schools of software testing.
As I write this, there are discussions going in SQAForums, on the Software-Testing Yahoo! group, and various blogs that (at least up to the time I started writing this piece) reside on or are fed to Testing Reflections. In principle, I'm always pleased when these discussions break out. The point of identifying the schools in the first place was to increase the overall awareness of the diversity in ideologies, practices, and values (i.e. schools of thought) in our field and to stimulate discussion about the situational pros and cons of each. That said, the discussions that actually take place tend to drift off in one or more directions that end up being disappointing, unnecessarily confrontational, and generally not useful.
After witnessing this pattern, participating in these recent discussions, and listening to comments from those who followed the discussions for several years, I've identified several areas in which these discussions go awry. Below, I call those out and share my thoughts about each. But before I do, I would be remiss if I didn't remind folks of the following:
Now that we've got all of that out of the way, my observations:
Some people seem to be offended by the notion of schools of software testing because they didn't like the tone or bias of a particular slide deck, article
To continue reading for free, register below or login
To read more you must become a member of SearchSoftwareQuality.com
, presentation, or discussion about the schools.
Some people think because they don't fit neatly into a single school that it is their sworn duty to publicly oppose the notion of schools of testing.
Some people think that by naming and identifying schools of thought it encourages proponents of a school to act superior while vilifying the proponents of the others.
At the end of the day, if you want to debate whether the biases inherent to having testers fully integrated into the development team and reporting to the lead developer is more or less risky than the inevitable blind spots that result from completely isolating the test team from the development team when developing software for a regulated medical device, I'm all in. Interestingly, that one could find people to engage in such a debate demonstrates that there are differing schools of thought in software testing, and it suggests to me that naming and characterizing those schools of thought can only serve to help all testers and the organizations they serve make better decisions and recommendations about what ideas and practices are best for them -- at least for now.
----------------------------------------
About the author: Scott Barber is the chief technologist of PerfTestPlus, vice president of operations and executive director of the Association for Software Testing, and co-founder of the Workshop on Performance and Reliability.
