Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
to support its claims to legitimacy? By the beginning of the 1960s, clearly
discernible factions had emerged within the fl edgling programming pro-
fession. Science- and engineering-oriented programmers worked to
develop a theoretical basis for their discipline. They joined associations
like the ACM that published academic-style journals, imposed strict
educational requirements for membership, and resisted certifi cation and
licensing programs. Business data processing personnel, on the other
hand, pursued a more practice-centered professional agenda. If they
joined any professional associations at all, it was the DPMA. They read
journals like
Datamation
, which emphasized plain speech and practical
relevance over theoretical rigor. The tension that existed between these
two groups of aspiring professionals—the academic computer scientists
and the business data processors—greatly infl uenced the character and
fortunes of the various professional institutions that each faction sup-
ported. Academic computer scientists struggled to establish a legitimate
and autonomous intellectual discipline based on a sound body of theo-
retical research. Systems analysts and business programmers worked to
improve their standing within the organizational hierarchy by distancing
themselves from computer operators and other so-called technicians.
Neither group was entirely successful.
This chapter will focus on the attempts of programmers to establish
the institutional structures associated with professionalism, including
professional societies, certifi cation programs, educational standards, and
codes of ethics. It argues that the professionalization of computer pro-
gramming represented a potential solution to the looming software
crisis that appealed to programmers and employers alike. But it also
suggests that the controversy that surrounded the various professional
institutions that were established in this period reveals the deep divisions
that existed within the programming community about the nature of
programming skill and the future of the programming professions. Many
of the themes developed in previous chapters—the development of new
programming technologies or more “effi cient” management methodolo-
gies—are closely tied to questions of professional status. If skilled pro-
grammers could be replaced by automated development tools, for
example, or by more “scientifi c” management methodologies, then
they could hardly have much claim to professional legitimacy. The ques-
tion of what programming was—as an intellectual and occupational
activity—and where it fi t into traditional social, academic and profes-
sional hierarchies, was actively negotiated during the decades of
the 1950s and 1960s. Programmers were well aware of their tenuous
