Thanks for the second link, Luiz. So one indicator for your assertion that there's much room for improvement is the marginal or marginalised role of human factors in software practices (which is certainly my impression).
That, in itself, doesn't indicate a realistic sense of what can actually be expected by way of improvements. But is there much to indicate anything unique about software practices vis-a-vis culture and psychological development? I can think of three, (1) perhaps there's a case for arguing that some software practices have the depth of a vocation which has yet to have any ethical-professional basis of regulation. (2) Perhaps programers, as a sociological force, can be analogised to the weavers who read literature as they worked, such as the open source movement. (3) The kinds of psychological tensions that programmers are exposed to through the employment of culturally and historically new forms of production. >From my perspective the medium that fosters such transformations (or that inhibits them by its lack in my experience) is that elusive medium we sometimes call culture. Companies and (so called) educational institutions can be equally poor at fostering that. With respect to your referencing human factors, I would add Vladimir Zinchenko to your mentioning of key influencers within human factors work harbouring from the 70's (and earlier). In 1979 Zinchenko was writing about the necessity to include scope for psychological development within the engineering of jobs as part of the assessments required in human factors / ergonomics. Zinchenko stems for a psychological school which studies personality as it is related (genetically) to culture and human activity -- not so much the psychology of rocket science as the rocket science of psychology (IMHO). Nice chatting, Huw On 7 February 2015 at 21:07, Luiz Fernando Capretz <lcapr...@uwo.ca> wrote: > Dear Huw, > > Thank you for your relevant question; I don't see it as criticism at all. > There should be no dogmas in science. > > Your statement is right, NT types are abundant among software developers. > But ST types are even more prevalent. Given that there are more ST than NT > types among the general population, the percentage of NT software engineers > stands out. > > Nevertheless, there are significant discrepancies in the distributions and > percentages of software engineers across the 16 MBTI types. Moreover, the > software engineering profession has diversified enormously in the last 20 > years, compared to mainly computational programming of 30-40 years ago, > thus attracting myriad types of people performing specialized jobs. Those > discrepancies tend to be exacerbated. > > Now, trying to answer your question.... > I am an advocate for cross-disciplinary research and borrowing > perspectives from other areas, which give us the potential to address > important issues in software engineering, thus should be encouraged. > Please take a look at: > http://www.eng.uwo.ca/people/lcapretz/Capretz-HF-IEEE-v2.pdf > > However, when it comes to human beings, things get really complicated. > Psychology is there to help us. > > Regards, > > Luiz Fernando Capretz > http://www.eng.uwo.ca/people/lcapretz/ > > > > On 06/02/2015 5:30 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Thank you for sharing your work, Luiz. > > It's interesting that MBTI remains a strong typological schema. If I > recall my MBTI distributions correctly, the high percentages of "NT" > personalities represents an impressive concentration. > > Perhaps for the sake of this quiet list-serve, are you able to elaborate > on a question I was considering whilst skimming your paper, please. In > your final considerations, you (collectively) write: > > "the amount of research on the effects and influences of personality in > the field is relatively small. The evidence is weak and in many cases > inconclusive. More research is required if we want results that can > influence the practice of software development." > > My question is, what influence does personality research in the contexts > of various practices have, i.e. are there examples of transformative > contributions? I have witnessed personality-based knowledge being usefully > applied at an interpersonal (consulting) level, but the impression I have > is that perhaps you have something broader in mind (such as interviewing > for personality types etc)? > > I intend no criticism in the question, I'm merely curious. > > Best, > Huw > > On 6 February 2015 at 20:03, Luiz Fernando Capretz <lcapr...@uwo.ca> > wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> >> I thought you’d be interested in a systematic literature review on human >> factors and personalities in software engineering along the past 40 years. >> >> >> >> I am providing you with the following article link, which allows free >> access to the article: >> >> http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1QQJw2f~UVqMl5 >> >> Please use this link to download a personal copy of your article if you >> are interested in that topic; you are also welcome to email the link to >> other colleagues. >> >> Anyone who clicks on the link until 14th/March/2015 - no sign up or >> registration is needed - just click and read! >> >> Luiz Fernando Capretz, Ph.D., P.Eng. >> Professor of Software Engineering >> Assistant Dean (IT & e-Learning) >> Western University >> Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering >> Thompson Engineering Building (TEB 345) >> London, Ontario, Canada - N6A5B9 >> http://www.eng.uwo.ca/people/lcapretz/ >> Tel. 1 519 6612111 x85482, Fax 1 519 8502436 <1%20519%208502436> >> >> >> > > >
