Is the Context Driven School of Testing - Dead?

Earlier this week, Scott Barber pointed out an update to the Context-Driven-Testing page which has served as a starting point for people who want to learn about Context Driven Testing. In this post Kem Caner, one of the 'big four' of the Context Driven School gives an impression that the idea of Context Driven Testing being a 'School' has perhaps reached a point where it no longer exists.  He goes on to cite differences in vision among the founders of the movement, and I'll let you read his post above to draw your own conclusions.  However, when I was asked this question, I felt that I didn't agree.   I've seen places where friends or close colleagues go their separate ways because of a polarizing my way or the high way sort of mentality.  I'm not sure that's quite what Kem is referring too.

I debated whether to post my response or thoughts to this here at all as no doubt everyone involved or outside this movement will have their own opinions and beliefs.   I decided that for posterity's sake that I would indeed.  I have discussed this a bit with some fellow testers in the MiagiDo group, and Michael Larsen another MiagiDo member recently made a post giving his view on things (In Support of Context Driven Testing).  It's worth a read, and his thoughts were a bit similar but also slightly different from my own initial response to this question which I gave a bit earlier.  What follows was my initial response to this question of whether Context Driven School of Testing is Dead as it was originally shared with others in MiagiDo.  The only changes are the addition of Italics, and  a few grammatical improvements.

I'll have to quote Monty Python on this one. 

"I'm not dead yet!" 

I read Scott Barber's post, and I read the information there.  I really chaffe a bit and comparing this to the polarization of a few figure heads within the American republican party.  Kaner mentions Gingrich, who no doubt is a polarizing figure. If you're an American, you likely either like him, or you hate him, there probably isn't  a middle ground for most Americans.  However, I think perhaps the 4 Founders have gotten a bit too caught up in their own mystique. 

I see the same thing within our American political discourse.  People at the so called top seem so polarizing, and the media tries to frame discussions a certain way, and yet most of us at the bottom, outside that top so called 'chosen' echelon are not polarizing, we are not so closed minded or resistant to having honest discussions about things.   

I think this is true also for the Context-Driven Community, whether we call it a School or not, to me is irrelevant.   The point is we are making a fundamental distinction in where our thinking begins.  I see this same problem in the US Education system.  A lot of people expect school, especially college to prepare them for everything they need to succeed in a career.  The reality is quite opposite, it's a base, a starting point.  If you get that strong base, I believe a strong education helps you succeed no matter what you apply your life too.  I feel the same here with Context-Driven School of testing. 

Listen, so the four founders of the movement disagree.  There are four gospels in the New Testament of the Christian Bible, (I use this as an example), and all four a bit different, varied, and share some similarities too.   Those guys were alive at the time right?  Yet they were not the same as each other, they had differences and disagreements no doubt. So let's be clear the entire point of our School (in my estimation) is to not have Drone or Fake testing right?  I believe the point, as I understand it, is to encourage people to use and develop their critical thinking skills, and to not be satisfied with testing that feels lacking in covering the real risks of a project. 

Let's look at this another way.  James Bach gave a talk (I believe this was at Oredev, see James videos posted at his site at www.satisfice.org if interested) about Renaissance thinking a few years ago.  He describes what was fundamentally different about it, and how it wasn't just what was happening In Italy, or Scotland, or wherever else, that there were little movements pretty much elsewhere.  Think about the artists themselves, they all approached art a bit differently, yet they don't look like carbon copies even if they've learned some of the same skills and techniques.  This is no different than how we each approach testing in the Context Driven School of testing.  We are still different then what has come before.  We are still different than the more agile-centered testers. 

We cannot deny who we are.  We've been enlightened, we've grown as a community, a school.  It would be impossible for us to try to put the genie back in the bottle now.  What's done is done, the shot has been fired and heard around the world now.  The question is, in any revolution, what will each of us do because of it.

That's my feelings on it anyways.
Hope that wasn't too preachy,
-Tim Western

So in conclusion, while there may clearly be differences between the founders of the Context Driven moment, its principals and the School of thinking that it began, I must stand up and say, hey I'm still Context Driven, I still belong to that School of testing.   Now I do think there is a risk here.  There's a risk in perhaps holding too close to the fundamentals of the school.  We need to be aware of other ways of doing things, even if we may find that our way is better.  As an engineer, a tester, or a scientist I would be looking for ways to prove my own methods wrong, just as so many other scientists have done for centuries.  Yet for now, as a Dynamic and not a Static individual, my understanding of testing, and Context Driven Testing will only grow from here out.  It isn't a one time thing to learn, but a thing I will continue to learn and grow and mature as a tester as I put the ideas I've encountered into practice, as I test them, and work through the problems I face professionally.

So what about you?  What do you think is the Context Driven School of Testing really dead?

Note:  Since I set this post up for posting Scott Barber has added a part II on his thinking With the Context-Driven School "closed" what's next? He brings up a very good point about the need for testers to focus on the value they need to provide within their contexts, which I can totally agree with as I am driven to do whatever I can to provide value on a project.

Also I will note that James Bach has also put up a response (which I just now read) If you want to know James Bach's side, I suggest you read Context Driven Testing at a Crossroads.


Edit:

Since posting this, I've found Markus Gärtner blog about this at Lessons Learned from Context-driven testing  And note that Cem Kaner has given his comments on this as well.  It's definitely worth a read.


Additionally, Cem Kaner has added another response (blog) entry at http://context-driven-testing.com/?p=23 that I encourage everyone to read.   This certainly sheds some light on some of the issues that Cem is concerned about, and feels a bit clearer to me about what the issue as he saw it is.