A DECONSTRUCTIVIST METHODOLOGY FOR

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

Doris Allhutter

Institute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Strohgasse 45/5, Vienna, Austria

Keywords: Co-construction, Collective work practices, Theories-in-use, Deconstruction, Situated learning, Trading

zones.

Abstract: Grounded within qualitative research on software engineering and science and technology studies, the paper

introduces a deconstructivist methodology for software engineering. Software engineering is a socio-

technological process of negotiation embedded in organizational and societal contexts. Thus, social

dimensions such as hidden assumptions of use contexts (e.g. based on diversity aspects such as age, gender,

class or cultural diversity) implicitly inform development practices. To foster reflective competences in this

area, the paper suggests using deconstruction as a tool to disclose collective processes of meaning

construction. For this purpose, the idea of introducing a deconstructive process to software engineering is

linked to approaches of practice-based, situated and context-sensitive learning.

1 INTRODUCTION

This paper is conceptual work in progress and deals

with the question of how in/formal hierarchies and

discursive hegemonies reproduced in everyday work

practices affect software design processes. It

presents a discourse-theoretical, deconstructivist

approach to software engineering that sustainably

implements practice-based learning processes in

development teams. Theoretically based in ap-

proaches to the co-construction of society and tech-

nology, it connects qualitative software engineering

research and process improvement with science and

technology studies (STS), critical technical practice

and organisational learning.

Research on the co-construction of society and

technology describes software engineering as a

socio-technological process: system specifications

and their implementation are co-determined by the

organisational setting in which they are developed

(such as organisational structures, engineering cul-

tures, or work practices) (e.g. Rip, et al., 1995);

design decisions—although mediated by methods

and tools of software engineering—represent the

outcome of processes of negotiation and meaning

construction; in this sense everyday knowledge and

social discourses become operative in the develop-

ment process as hidden assumptions and belief

systems. For example, Akrich (1995) suggests that

engineers anticipate the interests, skills, and

behaviour of future users. They objectify these user

representations in the developed artefacts and

thereby attribute specific competencies, actions and

responsibilities to users and artefacts.

Scholars in STS have highly contributed to

strengthen the understanding of how societal dis-

courses and everyday work practices guide design

projects and pre-structure use contexts. They have

argued with the inscription of societal discourses to

software artefacts, to key concepts of computer

science as well as to processes and methods of soft-

ware engineering (e.g. McKenzie & Wajcman, 1999;

Oudshoorn & Pinch, 2003; Suchman, 2007). How-

ever, the socio-political orientation of STS has only

recently raised a growing demand for actual inter-

vention into technological development processes.

Vice versa—in order to account for a conception

of software engineering as socio-technological

activity—scholars of applied informatics advocate

the need for analytical approaches integrating socio-

scientific, qualitative methods. Whereas empirical

research in computer supported cooperative work

(CSCW) has a tradition of using qualitative ap-

proaches, also scholars in software engineering (SE)

and information systems (IS) have begun to use

qualitative methods for analysing and reflecting de-

velopment practices (see Dittrich, et al., 2009;

Trauth, 2001). As Dittrich, et al. (2007, p.355) have

207

Allhutter D. (2010).

A DECONSTRUCTIVIST METHODOLOGY FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEERING.

In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering, pages 207-213

DOI: 10.5220/0003001502070213

 SciTePress

summarized, SE researchers investigating the

influence of deploying specific methods on the

outcome of an engineering process use qualitative

methods merely for generating hypotheses, which

then serve to identify quantifiable relationships

between methods and outcome. As an exception, the

sub-field of requirements engineering is more

attentive to qualitative methods. The intervention-

oriented IS discourse seeks to initiate process

improvement and quantitatively and qualitatively to

evaluate the implemented measures. Only a few

approaches combine qualitative research with the

improvement of development methods and processes

(e.g. Dittrich, et al., 2008).

Critical technical practice suggests methodologi-

cal approaches developed to integrate social and

critical theory into technological design. Design

approaches, such as participatory design, value-

sensitive and reflective approaches combine analyti-

cal and interventionist objectives (e.g. Mathiassen,

1998; Sengers, et al., 2005). Especially the latter

approaches integrate a reflection of work practices

as an essential part of systems development. As

regards the reflection of societal questions, ‘value-

sensitive design’, introduced by Friedman, et al.

(2006), suggests putting values such as human

justice and welfare in the centre.

Whereas the mentioned value-related approaches

aim at modifying the vision of technical actors to

consider diverging interest and predefined societal

values, I argue that it is crucial to focus on reflecting

cooperative work practices that (re-)constitute social

meaning and thus hegemonic values and societal

structures. This means, that engineering teams need

to consider the hidden normativity of their develop-

ment practices and ad-hoc decisions and reflect on

how these co-shape engineering processes. Thereby,

the focus shifts from balancing diverging interests to

negotiating who (in/formal hierarchies) and what

(discursive hegemonies) is given normative power

on the basis of which values. In pursuing this

objective, I focus on diversity-related questions with

regard to user-centred design. Whereas these have

been an important issue in STS, applied research has

not yet to a large extend taken into account the

ongoing discursive construction of social categories

of diversity (such as class, age, cultural diversity,

gender). A discourse-theoretical approach considers

software engineering as a situated, social process of

negotiation requiring the mediation of different

viewpoints and approaches. In this spirit, design

decisions are always based on commonly held

beliefs and assumptions on societal contexts; these

become manifest in theories-in-use, i.e. discourses

implicitly guiding work practices.

The presented methodology integrates ap-

proaches to practice-based, situated and context-

sensitive learning. Contrary to well-known knowl-

edge management concepts which aim at the

provision and use of explicit and implicit expert

knowledge (e.g. Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) these

approaches focus on theories-in-use and their un-

derlying belief systems. The paper is organized as

follows: Section 2 provides the theoretical and

methodological basis; section 3 introduces the key

concepts of the deconstructivist approach, which is

outlined in section 4; the paper closes with an out-

look to future work.

2 CO-CONSTRUCTION AND

DECONSTRUCTIVISM IN SE

The notion of software engineering as a social,

multidimensional process of negotiation emphasises

the role of implicit everyday theories and societal

discourses in engineering processes. Although the

mentioned research fields, in one way or another

frequently refer to the notion of co-construction or

'social dimensions' of software engineering, it still

remains unclear how to grasp societal aspects in

engineering practice and which to consider. Soft-

ware development requires communication across

professional boundaries and often also cooperation

across decentred working environments. This indi-

cates that diversity relations—within the engineering

team and in its discourses—are crucial success

factors. Whereas, as a consequence, diversity

management has gained in importance in multi-

national enterprises, the label 'diversity' often

remains obscured with regard to users or activates

ideas about, for example, culture specific or gender

specific requirements, attributing special (and often

stereotypical) needs and preferences to particular

user groups. Diversity-related discourses are a

central issue in researching how socio-technological

practices emerge from cultural processes of negotia-

tion and meaning construction. However, design

practice, and interestingly even user-centred design,

does hardly make use of diversity approaches. I

suggest that building reflective competences and

organising learning within development projects in

this respect has a twofold impact: Firstly, taking

account of the diversity of practitioners in terms of

their different educational backgrounds and pro-

fessional self-conceptions enables them to tap the

full potential available within the team, whereas

ENASE 2010 - International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

208

commonly hegemonic perspectives are privileged

over alternative ways of knowing. Secondly, learn-

ing how user representations and linked societal

discourses silently guide specification and imple-

mentation practices allows to overcome the pitfalls

of stereotyping and thereby to gain capacities for

action that are commonly narrowed down by hege-

monic views.

The research objective of investigating how hid-

den theories-in-use and organisational discourses

translate into collective meaning constructions

within design processes clearly poses a methodo-

logical problem. Qualitative SE researchers have

suggested a variety of approaches such as eth-

nomethodology (Rönkkö, 2007), ethnographically

informed case studies (Robinson, et al., 2007), and

grounded theory (Coleman & O’Connor, 2007).

They predominantly resort to methods like inter-

views, focus group discussions, participatory obser-

vation, and analysis of communication and design

documents. In their study on the lack of learning in

software engineering teams McAvoy and Butler

(2007) discuss the problem of how to research

hidden phenomena that even those involved are

reluctant to approve of or even unaware of due to

cognitive discrepancies. The authors suggest that

participatory observation is an appropriate method

for disclosing hidden or ignored differences between

‘espoused theories’ and theories-in-use. Whereas

participatory observation is adequate for researching

established 'ways of doing', it does not reveal the

underlying processes of attributing meaning to

them—and thus does not enable a team to reflect on

their adequateness. Therefore, I suggest that for re-

searching the social constructedness of, for example,

design decisions and their underlying belief systems

and sense-making, a deconstructivist approach is

most abundant. Based in discourse theory, decon-

structivist methodologies focus on the reproduction

of power by tracing the performativity of discourses.

As Foucault (1971) and Butler (1990) have illus-

trated, powerful societal discourses, non-discursive

practices and the objectification of these discourses

and practices knit together and thereby (re-)produce

societal hegemonies and power relations. Decon-

struction questions the normativity of discourses and

practices by revealing the constructedness of seem-

ingly ‘natural’ sense-making; it aims at denaturaliz-

ing self-evident causalities which implicitly inform

meaning constructions.

As Dittrich, et al. (2008, p.236) explain, estab-

lished 'ways of doing' are produced and re-produced

through collective and mutually intelligible prac-

tices. They are understandable as meaningful be-

haviour with respect to a common frame of refer-

ence and provide a base for ad hoc reactions to situ-

ational contingencies. Reflecting work practices and

their base of implicit knowledge implies disclosing

the pre-structuring mechanism of in/formal organ-

isational hierarchies and hegemonic discourses (see

Allhutter & Hofmann 2010). Such kind of investi-

gative reflexivity demands maintaining a critical

distance to one’s own practices of constructing

meaning. For this purpose, Allhutter and Hanappi-

Egger (2005) suggest the method of 'mind scripting':

As elaborated in Allhutter (in review), this analytical

method is applied to trace the interconnectedness of

the engineers' professional know-how with practical

ways of problem-solving that are co-shaped by

societal implications and discourses. It enquires how

developers appropriate social structures, everyday

experiences and educational and professional back-

grounds and how these collective subjectivation

processes translate into inherent professional self-

conceptions and work practices that eventually

materialise in software artefacts. At the same time,

'mind scripting' is a practicable tool for a team to

deconstruct and reflect on its established practices.

Thereby, hidden belief systems that reproduce

dominant viewpoints are disclosed and underlying

values are challenged.

3 SITUATED (UN) LEARNING

Argyris (2002) has described different levels of

learning: Single-loop learning asks whether we are

doing things right; double-loop learning includes

questioning the underlying assumed causality and

addresses the question of whether we are doing the

right things. Triple-loop learning, a concept intro-

duced by Flood and Romm (1996) adds a third loop

that asks ‘Is rightness buttressed by mightiness and

vice versa?’ and thus questions underlying value

systems. The repeated questioning of learning

routines is an important prerequisite for sustainable

learning. Integrating all three levels of learning

should initiate power-critical and change-oriented

reflection processes in organisations. The notion of

‘mightiness’ may refer to formal and informal

organisational hierarchies and, as Allhutter and

Hofmann (2010) add, to hegemonic discourses or

practices. In systems development providing func-

tionality and the adequateness of the specification

(double-loop learning) are well-established activi-

ties; the third loop, i.e. questioning implicit assump-

tions and value systems, is not yet included but is

A DECONSTRUCTIVIST METHODOLOGY FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

209

important to prevent the implementation of very

specific perspectives (Hanappi-Egger, 2006).

Making use of the concept of triple-loop learning

in the context of a deconstructivist approach to soft-

ware engineering also puts forward the need to re-

flect learning processes in terms of structures and

discursive patterns of engineering teams. What we

are learning from experiences and latently guiding

discourses is deeply inscribed in embodied everyday

practices and our cultural beliefs and value systems.

At the same time, this means that learning as a social

practice strongly relies on processes of unlearning of

implicit sense-making and of consciously re-

negotiating meaning (see Hedberg, 1981). As

mentioned, theories-in-use may unconsciously rely

on societal hegemonies and power relations to

exclude alternative ways of knowing or to incite

stereotypical assumptions. As regards diversity, the

triple-loop learning perspective leads to the

following questions: Which social assumptions from

specific societal discourses do developers access in

the design process? Are these assumptions perceived

as right because they are legitimated by in/formal

hierarchies and by hegemonic value-systems?

An extremely valuable approach in this respect

has been provided by Lave and Wenger (1991)

whose concept of ‘situated learning’ uses triple-loop

learning to try and guide cooperation across

professional boundaries. The authors conceptualise

learning as a social process of participation in com-

munities of practice. Communities of practice are

groups of people who share a domain of interest.

The members of such communities create relation-

ships in order to share information, resources and

experiences. Communities of practice are learning

networks or thematic groups that are not limited by

formal structures or organizational boundaries. They

are important for knowledge creation in and between

organizations and for the emergence of learning

opportunities that are linked to performance. By

focussing on such communities, the authors con-

ceptualise learning as a process informed by societal

structures and identity constructions that help to

identify power structures as an essential factor for

learning. Also from this perspective, diversity

relations—within the organization itself and in its

discourses—can be highlighted as crucial elements

for learning processes and structures, which can—

once identified—be negotiated. Lave and Wenger do

not only focus on the structures and processes of

learning in organizations but on its 'situatedness' and

therefore on power structures which inform learning

on the personal as well as the discursive level.

Referring to their work, Bresnen, et al. (2005, p.39)

found that networks of practice create their own

logic of action. They can support or resist changes of

routines, norms and values, and therefore, power

structures. Consequently, the condition of commu-

nities of practice and their repertoire of actions must

be considered, when it comes to the negotiation of

power structures related to—for example diversity

relations.

In order to highlight the connection between

situated learning and power structures, Allhutter and

Hofmann (2010) link the concept of communities of

practice to the concept of ‘trading zones’ developed

by Kellogg, et al. (2006). ‘Trading zones’ can be

seen as real or virtual spaces of negotiation and

learning or agreed procedures of exchange, which

are more or less intentionally created by organiza-

tions and communities of practices. Such ‘trading

zones’ are determined by power structures and must

be identified when learning should be fostered in the

cross-disciplinary teams commonly used in software

engineering. The concept of ‘trading zones’ high-

lights how teams and communities of practice use

certain spaces to coordinate actions and, also, to

exchange and negotiate ideas, terms, norms,

meanings, values and performance criteria (Kellogg

et al., 2006, p.39). Another useful concept is the

concept of ‘boundary objects’ introduced by Star

and Griesemer (1989). It explains how e.g. commu-

nities of practice use objects, symbols or language

for their cooperative activities. According to Star

and Griesemer (1989, p.46), ‘boundary objects’ are

objects that are both plastic enough to adapt to local

needs and constraints of the several parties employ-

ing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common

identity across sites. They are weakly structured in

common use, and become strongly structured in

individual-site use. Such objects may be quality

standards, classification systems, databases, shared

vocabulary, etc. Communities of practice or teams

share various ‘boundary objects’ but their members

may have different definitions of these objects.

In conducting collective work, people coming

from different social worlds frequently have the ex-

perience of addressing an object that has a different

meaning for each of them. Each social world has

partial jurisdiction over the resources represented by

that object, and mismatches caused by the overlap

become problems of negotiation (Star & Griesemer,

1989, p.412). Both—‘trading zones’ and ‘boundary

objects’—are embedded in and informed by societal

power structures and hegemonies.

ENASE 2010 - International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

210

4 ‘DECONSTRUCTIVE DESIGN’

This section outlines how the mentioned concepts

can be integrated in a software engineering process.

A design process is situated within specific contexts

and (temporarily) affiliated team members bring

different viewpoints to their common goal. Such

communities of practice develop agency within a

particular societal, economic and organisational

framework. Furthermore, their socio-technological

work practices are context-specific in that teams

apply their established ‘ways of doing’ in particular

projects. Their partly shared and partly diverging

perspectives frame their boundary objects, i.e. con-

cepts guiding the engineering process such as soft-

ware quality standards.

Thus, as a first step the team identifies a bound-

ary object crucial to its actual design process or

latently present in its work practices. The second

step is to investigate the different representations of

the boundary object that team members have con-

structed for themselves and as a collective (e.g.

different conceptions of quality). The different

perspectives reflect structural positions of team

members and socio-technologically constructed

meanings (e.g. of intangible quality criteria), which

implicitly inform work practices. Boundary objects

implicitly serve as communication mechanisms that

mostly are unreflected vehicles for commonly held

beliefs. In heterogeneous communities of practice,

they are essential for mutual knowledge creation and

knowledge transfer, thus it is useful to investigate

the different representations of the identified

boundary object that team members have construct-

ed for themselves. While diverging viewpoints may

hinder common understanding and reaching goals,

collectively shared constructions may also silence

alternative ways of knowing. Thus, reflecting on

individually and collectively shaped constructions of

meaning will open negotiations and widen scopes of

action. In order to disclose established practices and

theories-in-use, 'mind scripting' is used to decon-

struct collective processes of constructing meaning

around the boundary object (e.g. anticipated quality

requirements of particular user groups). Since

common practices need to be revealed in a process

of negotiating meaning within the group of de-

signers, ‘mind scripting’ is organised as a collective

procedure. It enables a team to research its

cooperative work practices which are informed by

their unconscious constructions of the boundary

object. Deconstruction aims at temporarily disclos-

ing an outsider's perspective to the team members

and at enquiring the sense-making that permanently

re-establishes what has implicitly been taken for

granted. Deconstructing a boundary object crucial to

situated specification and implementation practices,

and investigating how societal discourses implicitly

inform seemingly technology-centred concepts and

decisions, enables the explicit negotiation of facets

that are otherwise silenced. Furthermore, this proc-

ess helps reveal and question structures, beliefs and

value systems that reproduce dominant viewpoints.

Basically, ‘mind scripting’ works with written texts

representing memories that become operative in the

actual design process. These texts are understood as

narratives that developers use to give meaning to

their experiences and practices. The collective

deconstruction of the texts and the comparison of

their sense-making processes disclose collectively

shared meaning constructions.

In a third step, the meaning of the boundary

object and its underlying theories-in-use are re-

negotiated. After the ‘mind scripting’ engineers have

revealed the consequences of unconsciously nar-

rowing down the boundary object fundamental to

their work practices. The opening of ‘trading

zones’—that means the establishment and explicit

negotiation of ‘boundary objects’—offers a way to

integrate heterogeneous viewpoints and implicitly

shared perspectives. This procedure creates space for

negotiation and renders negotiable formerly uncon-

scious issues. Initially blurred ‘boundary objects’ to

which team members have imputed their views are

made explicit; their meaning is re-negotiated and

more clearly specified with regard to their value im-

plications. While team members or subgroups of the

team still approach the ‘boundary object’ from their

specific perspective, their understanding of their

own conceptions and of those of other members are

both broadened and specified. Eventually, for all

team members, the negotiated ‘boundary object’ still

carries diverse but transparent meanings. In this

way, they become a useful resource that enables

better communication and diversity within teams.

5 CONCLUSIONS

A deconstructivist methodology to software en-

gineering aims at reflecting collective work practices

which unconsciously reproduce hegemonic dis-

courses and unquestioned ‘ways of doing’. It pro-

vides an analytic and interventionist approach to

disclose the societal dimensions inherent to devel-

opment practices. ‘Deconstructive design’ offers a

procedure for development teams to open ‘trading

zones’, i.e. to establish a space for negotiation and to

A DECONSTRUCTIVIST METHODOLOGY FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

211

identify layers of ‘boundary objects’ that have been

silenced and are worth negotiating consciously.

Whereas ‘mind scripting’ has been used in two em-

pirical case studies with commercial development

teams, more empirical and practice-based research

needs to be done to elaborate a practicable method-

supported process implementing a sustainable

learning routine. Whereas innovation in software

engineering practice commonly tends to be nar-

rowed down by unconsciously neglecting the

implicit normativity of unreflected work practices,

such a process shall widen scopes of action and

incite cooperative process improvement. Analytical

and socio-politically oriented STS research, as well

as the value-related dimensions of critical technical

practice add to SE research by connecting crucial

societal aspects with process-oriented questions of

practice-based feasibility and applicable methods.

REFERENCES

Akrich, M., 1995. User Representations: Practices, Meth-

ods and Sociology. In: A. Rip, T. J. Misa & J. Schot

eds., 1995. Managing Technology in Society. The

Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment.

London, New York: Pinter Publishers, pp.167-84.

Argyris, C., 2002. Double loop learning, teaching, and

research. Academy of Management. Learning and

Education, 2(2), pp.206-18.

Allhutter, D., in review. Mind Scripting. A deconstructive

method in software development. Submitted to

Science, Technology and Human Values.

Allhutter, D. & Hanappi-Egger, E., 2005. Making the

Invisible Visible: Mind-Scripting as Method of De-

constructing (IT-)System Design. In Proceedings and

CD-ROM of ICWES13, KWSE.

Allhutter, D. & Hofmann, R., 2010. Deconstructive

Design as an Approach to opening Trading Zones. In:

J. Vallverdú ed., Thinking Machines and the

Philosophy of Computer Science: Concepts and

Principles. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, in print.

Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A. & Swan, J., 2005.

Organizational Routines, Situated Learning and

Processes of Change in Project-based Organizations.

Project Management Journal, 3(3), pp.27-41.

Butler, J., 1990. Gender trouble. Feminism and

Subversion of Identity. New York, London: Routledge.

Coleman, G. & O'Connor, R., 2007. Using grounded

theory to understand software process improvement: A

study of Irish software product companies.

Information and Software Technology, 49(6), pp.654-

67.

Dittrich, Y., John, M., Singer, J. & Tessem, B., 2007.

Editorial for the special issue on Qualitative Software

Engineering Research. Information and Software

Technology, 49(6), pp.531-39.

Dittrich, Y., et al., 2008. Cooperative method develop-

ment. Combining qualitative empirical research with

method, technique and process improvement.

Empirical Software Engineering, 13(3), pp.231-60.

Dittrich, Y., Randall, D. W. & Singer, J., 2009. Software

Engineering as Cooperative Work. Editorial.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18(5/6),

pp.393-99.

Flood, R. & Romm, N., 1996. Diversity Management.

Triple Loop Learning. Chichester: J. Wiley.

Foucault, M., 1971. L'archéologie du savoir. Paris:

Gallimard.

Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H. & Borning, A., 2006. Value

Sensitive Design and information systems. In: P.

Zhang & D. Galletta eds., Human-computer

interaction in management information systems:

Foundation. New York: AMIS, pp.348-72.

Hanappi-Egger, E., 2006. Gender and Software

Engineering. In: E.M. Trauth ed., Encyclopaedia of

Gender and Information Technology. Hershey,

London: Idea Group Publishing. pp.453-59.

Hedberg, B., 1981. How organizations learn and unlearn.

In: P.C. Nystrom & W.H. Starbuck eds., Handbook of

Organizational Design, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford

University Press, pp.3-27.

Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J. & Yates, J., 2006. Life

in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across

Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations.

Organization Science, 17(1), pp.22-44.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning.

Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge,

U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

McAvoy, J. & Butler, T., 2007. The impact of the Abilene

Paradox on double-loop learning in an agile team.

Information and Software Technology, 49(6), pp.552-

63.

Mathiassen, L., 1998. Reflective Systems Development.

Aalborg: Institute for Electronic Systems, Department

of Computer Science. Available at:

http://www.mathiassen.eci.gsu.edu/rsd.html [Accessed

5 August 2009].

McKenzie, D. & Wajcman, J., 1999. The Social Shaping

of Technology. 2

ed. Buckingham: Open University

press.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge-

Creating Company. How Japanese Companies Create

the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Oudshoorn, N. & Pinch, T. eds., 2003. How Users Matter:

The Co-Construction of Users and Technology.

Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Rip, A., Misa T. & Schot, J. eds., 1995. Managing

Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive

Technology Assessment. London, New York: Pinter.

Robinson, H., Segal, J. & Sharp, H., 2007. Ethnographi-

cally-informed empirical studies of software practice.

Information and Software Technology, 49(6), pp.540-

51.

ENASE 2010 - International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

212

Rönkkö, K., 2007. Interpretation, interaction and reality

construction in software engineering: An explanatory

model. Information and Software Technology, 49(6),

pp.682-93.

Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S. & Kaye, J., 2005.

Reflective Design. In Proceedings of the 4

Decennial

Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense

and Sensibility. ACM Press, pp.49-58.

Star, S. L. & Griesemer, J. R,. 1989. Institutional Ecology,

'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and

Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate

Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(4),

pp.387–420.

Suchman, L., 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations.

Plans and Situated Action. 2

ed. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Trauth, E. M., 2001. Qualitative Research in IS: Issues

and Trends. Hershey: IGI Global.

A DECONSTRUCTIVIST METHODOLOGY FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

213