Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
that allow the theory to be defended in the form of Ryle's definition of a theory.
Ideally, then, the theory must be statable independent of the computer model.
In an essay that predates Naur's paper but still based on a prevailing view of
the time that programs are theories, James Moor notes:
“My claim is that this is rarely, if ever, the correct response. Even if
there is some theory behind a model, it cannot be obtained by simply
examining the computer program. The program will be a collection of
instructions which are not true or false, but the theory will be a collec-
tion of statements which are true or false. Thus, the program must be
interpreted in order to generate a theory. Abstracting a theory from the
program is not a simple matter for different groupings of the program
can generate different theories. Therefore, to the extent that a program,
understood as a model, embodies one theory it may well embody many
theories.”[9, p.221]
From this analysis arises two key concerns. Firstly, programs and models may
have multiple theories and a program or model may not refer to the same theory.
Secondly these theories must be state-able independent of the program or the
model. Then, there is an additional dichotomy: Is a program a representation of
one view of an aggregate theory or is the program a representation of a compo-
nent theory of the aggregate theory? These complexities, in the case of Naur's
Programming as theory perspective have implications, because if the program is
the only vehicle through which a theory can demonstrate that requirements of
the intended system have been met, then, that theory testing process comes too
late in the system life cycle.
4 On Methods and Theory Building
Earlier we noted that Naur had reserved considerable criticism for methods. We
develop this discussion further in this section. The tendency of methods research
in the IS discipline is to propose algorithmic steps to analysing and designing
solutions to problems. As Naur notes: “A method implies a claim that program
development can and should proceed as a sequence of actions leading to a partic-
ular kind of documented result”. In contrast, a theory building view holds that
a theory “held by a person has no inherent division into parts and no inherent
ordering”. At large, IS/SE research is embarked on a journey based on episte-
mological foundations and as a consequence has mostly neglected
techne
(the
technical know how of getting things done) and
phronosis
(wisdom derived from
socialised practices) [20]. In a more generalised form, this has correspondence to
the distinctions between explicit and tacit knowledge [12] and Naur would seem
to be arguing the case for methods research that suggests more attunement with
the effects that methods may have in the education of programmers. That is,
the creation and embedding of tacit knowledge rather than the production of
artifacts representing explicit knowledge through an algorithmic process.
