“…However, over the past 11 years, the founders have gone our separate ways. We have developed distinctly different visions. If there ever was one context-driven school, there is not one now…”
If you haven’t done so already, I recommend starting with:
- Part I: Is Testing Dead? Dunno, but the Context-Driven School Is
- Part II: With the Context-Driven School “closed” what’s next?
Ok, so maybe not “happy” but I couldn’t resist the Monty Python reference.
James Bach stated on his latest blog update (Context-Driven Testing at a Crossroads):
“I’m the last of the founders of the Context-Driven School, as such, who remain true to the original vision. I will bear its torch along with any fellow travelers who wish to pursue a similar program.”
I’m pleased and supportive. Of course, those of you who prefer to avoid discord and controversy are probably not as please and supportive as I. James is certainly a polarizing figure to many. One reason is that James values passionate, intellectual, debate over complying with the protocols of common social contracts. I say this as a person who values the same things. I *know* that my thinking/learning style frustrates, angers, and turns off many people — it boils down to the fact that most people do not think as well when emotionally energized. I, on the other hand, think best with high amounts of adrenaline in my system. When I’m at my intellectual best, my non-verbal communication transmits aggressiveness, anger, and generally “bully behavior”. Now *I* know that I am open to new ideas, that I’m more than willing, even happy, to be proven wrong, because I *love* extending and improving my knowledge, but only my closest collaborators truly understand this. My experience is that James and I are very much the same in this regard — at least when our “social safeties” are off.
James and I have had some the best, and most valuable, professional debates of my career. Observers moved away waiting for punches to be thrown & furniture to be smashed, yet those thoughts never crossed our minds. We were passionately attacking an idea, not one another. In the end, understanding occured, smiles and hugs were exchanged & observers were confused. I learned. I was energized. I was happy. So polarizing or not, James is a brilliant thinker with amazing clarity of thought, who always (in my experience) has had well researched and well thought out positions, and he is my friend. He and I don’t always agree, but I do always appreciate the journey.
In addition to addressing his views regarding polarization, James goes on to discuss the distinction between a “School” and “Approach” — which I do believe is relevant and important. I happen to be in-line with the distinction he makes — but is not central to the topic(s) I am trying to explore through this series of blog entries.
What I’m particularly interested in exploring are:
- What’s the deal with the predominant culture in TesterLand where testers seem to reject professional affiliation, alignment, or activism in any formal manner? Is it simply an unwillingness to be labeled? Is it that folks can’t find anything they are in value-sync with to affiliate/align with? Is it just the nature of the tester to not “trust” anyone to represent *any* of their thoughts or ideas? Do they reject the idea of safety/power in numbers? These questions are not rhetorical, I truly don’t have any answers that seem to fit.
- Why is it that, even with all of the focus on educating & training testers to be able to do “better” testing by scores of organizations over the last dozen years (or more) that testing and testers are no more effective or respected than they were a dozen years ago?
The first point deserves a thread of it’s own — probably at some later date. The second point is the one that I’ve been driving toward in this series.
Ponder that while I compose Part IV: A Context-Driven Approach to Delivering Business Value
“If you can see it in your mind…
you will find it in your life.”