A habermasian perspective on the requirements process in software development (juergen habermas)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The requirements process is considered to be one of the most important parts of information systems because it is through this process that system functionality is determined. However, much research and practice has shown it to be one of the most error-prone aspects of software and implementation. Past research directed at this problem has focused on technical solutions. However, Howcroft and Wilson (2003) call for a deeper understanding of the inherent conflict within the systems arguing that far from being an intellectual diversion, this constitutes a prerequisite for improving the rather poor record of systems development (p.21). This critical ethnographic study in two information systems projects in a single organization aims to address this question by studying communication in the requirements process though the lens of Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action. The research identifies several constraints on communication including bounds on who was allowed to participate and on the extent to which participants could provide input or challenge others. Several conditions that allowed these constraints are explored: the distribution and construction of knowledge, the construction of the requirements process as a technical process, project team control over the process, the organizational motivations that were embedded in the process, the imposition of a method that brought with it assumptions not consonant with the organizational context and existing organizational relations of power which privileged some voices and marginalized others. Based on these results, a Habermas-inspired requirements approach is proposed. At one level, the results provide insight into the constraints and conditions that are at play in requirements processes. At another level, these findings are a cautionary tale of the difficulty of engaging full and equal participation. At yet another level, the findings provide a theoretical basis on which to evaluate requirements processes. Finally, these findings set the stage for a reconsideration of the requirements process, proposing one which is more equal and open, and makes possible the building of information systems which more closely meet the needs of users. Both researchers and practitioners should, therefore, find these contributions valuable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".