Xref: utzoo comp.edu:2179 comp.software-eng:1339 comp.lang.c++:2912 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!texbell!bellcore!dduck!duncan From: duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: "Expertise" Message-ID: <15130@bellcore.bellcore.com> Date: 4 Apr 89 12:24:17 GMT References: <354@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <7531@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <572@hsfmsh.UUCP> Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com Reply-To: duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) Distribution: usa Lines: 58 In article <572@hsfmsh.UUCP> mhyman@hsfmsh.UUCP (Marco S. Hyman) writes: >In article <7531@thorin.cs.unc.edu> coggins@coggins.UUCP (Dr. James Coggins) writes: >> ...anyone who reads Dr. Dobbs and Byte >> think he's keeping up with the latest developments in computer science? > >(You left out Computer Language and AI Expert! :-) I'm amazed at the number >of people working in this field who have never heard of the ACM or the IEEE >Computer Society. I'm a pretty active ACM and IEEE CS member, especially at the local level. I appreciate both organizations, their publications, and my involvement with them. But I also realize that large portions of people working in many fields are not aware of the publishing/research in their field. The chagrin many people express at this is because people in computing are often compared to those engaged in scientific and engineering disciplines. Most of my experience has been with people who are neither scientists nor engineers despite their competence in computing technology. Most use of computing is not scientific or engineering related. Indeed, it may be more relevant to ask how many of the people doing business data proces- sing are up on the latest Wall Street Journal or Harvard Business Review. A large portion of those in industry are not regarded as (nor do they regard themselves as) engineers or scientists. (Most users of office equipment are not readers of ACM's Transactions on Office Information Systems.) And while it can be argued that programmers, analysts, etc. "should" be aware of ACM and IEEE (and other) publications, there is very little encouragement from the industry itself for this. For example, how many organizations that pay dues for people to belong to ACM or IEEE actually expect that people will be active in a local chapter/section? How many ask people to report back to the organization on what happened at the latest meeting? How many expect their staff members to read such publications (as opposed to business trade journals OR computer trade journals)? On the other hand, what pulications attempt to get industry upper management on their mailing lists? Certainly, the ACM and IEEE don't send out little surveys to see, based on marketing qualifications, who should get subscriptions! I am suggesting that the field of data processing (and computer science) is heavily influenced by market pressures and commercial "realities." Expecting people to be interested in the more academic sources of information runs counter to what most organizations who develop software find of value to them. In most cases it is knowledge of what is available in the marketplace rather than from research which concerns most people who develop software. I may wish that it were a bit different, but I am not surprised at what people do read given the encouragement they receive for the kinds of information they bring to bear in the workplace. Thus, I find it hard to lay any blame on people for what they find valuable to read. The encouragement (or lack of it) from their companies and the market- place seems a key element in this process. If the industry itself does not seem to take professional involvement seriously, it is hard to expect those who work in industry to do so. Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (201-699-3910 (w) 201-463-3683 (h))