Section 4 illustrates informally how the dialectic approach might meet the criteria proposed in Section 2.

This methodological support takes the form of a dialectic process, and its associated products, which is conceptualised and then operationalised. In Section 3, a form of methodological support, which it is claimed may help overcome some of the problems associated with multidisciplinary practice in requirements engineering, is developed. It is also suggested that the incommensurability of conflicting paradigms is an underlying cause of the problems in multidisciplinary practice, and a number of criteria for support to overcome such problems are proposed.

In Section 2, it is argued that multidisciplinary requirements engineering practice is ineffective, and some specific problems for multidisciplinary practice are identified. This methodological support takes the form of a dialectic process, and its associated products, which is conceptualised and then operationalised.Īs an illustration of the methodological support offered to multidisciplinary practice, the operationalisation of the dialectic process is applied to requirements constructed by the use of two different requirements engineering techniques from two different disciplines (representing two different paradigms), in the domain of Accident and Emergency healthcare.

It is also suggested that the incommensurability of conflicting paradigms is an underlying cause of the problems in multidisciplinary practice, and a number of criteria for support to overcome such problems are proposed.Ī form of methodological support, which it is claimed may help overcome some of the problems associated with multidisciplinary practice in requirements engineering, is developed. It is argued that multidisciplinary requirements engineering practice is ineffective, and some specific problems for multidisciplinary practice are identified. This paper develops an approach that supports multidisciplinary practice in requirements engineering. The biosafety and social implications of the application of genetic engineering to forestry are grave enough to warrant both an immediate halt to releases of GM trees and renewed attention to the social, historical and political roots of the tree biotech boom.Formerly: Ergonomics and HCI Unit, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAP, UK. Trees’ long lives and largely undomesticated status, their poorly understood biology and lifecycles, the complexity and fragility of forest ecosystems, and corporate and state control over enormous areas of forest land on which GM trees could be planted combine to create risks which are unique. Yet in many ways, genetic modification in forestry is an even more serious issue than genetic engineering in agriculture. In these respects, the issues raised by GM trees are similar to those raised by GM crops. That entails alliance-building with groups working against or outside that tradition, from seed savers to communities battling encroachment of industrial tree farms on their land. Tackling the challenge GM trees pose means tackling the industrial and bureaucratic tradition which seeks the radical simplification of landscapes.

These processes are also riven by dilemmas and destructive tendencies which chains of technical refinements, no matter how long, are likely to be powerless to overcome. The processes through which genetically engineered trees are being developed are profoundly biased against social arrangements which promote and rely on biological diversity.

Dialectic engineering