Doing Science of Design: Artifacts-as-Phenomena My ongoing research takes an unconventional perspective on the role played by scientific methods in the field of computing. This is best understood by comparing it with the discover-then-validate model, where principles are discovered as a result of critical analysis and synthesis of the ideas of others. Science enters the research process after the innovation has already appeared and is used to validate and help iteratively improve the innovation through measurement-based hypothesis testing and comparisons. Discover-then-validate places great weight on the community to discover principles to validate. In the area of software engineering, it has long been known that clever innovations get adopted very slowly (Riddle, 1984; Shaw, 2001) and that an expensive and problematic entangling of research and practice is often necessary (Potts, 1993). The alternative that I am exploring, artifacts-as-phenomena, is to conduct scientific research into the artifacts of computing as if they were natural phenomena, incorporating into the resulting analyses data obtained from designers, administrators and users concerning their intentions and experiences. The goal is not to propose a new design methodology in the short term or even a set of useful heuristics. Instead, the goal is to develop a principled understanding of how software works.
[1]
C. P. Snow.
The two cultures : and a second look : an expanded version of 'The two cultures and the scientific revolution'
,
1963
.
[2]
Annie I. Antón,et al.
Functional Paleontology: The Evolution of User-Visible System Services
,
2003,
IEEE Trans. Software Eng..
[3]
Mary Shaw,et al.
The coming-of-age of software architecture research
,
2001,
Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2001.
[4]
Patricia Sachs,et al.
Transforming work: collaboration, learning, and design
,
1995,
CACM.
[5]
Shoshana Zuboff,et al.
In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power
,
1989
.