What wonders me most about testing...

In The Netherlands we have a large tradition in software testing. For the past 15 years a numerous kind of books have been published on this topic. There are two major parties that dominate the testing culture in the NL. All current testmethodologies (TMap and TestFrame are the most used) are based on the traditional waterfallmodel of software development (ie the V-model). Now I don't mind that.

But in discussions with testers (such as on the Dutch forum for testers www.testforum.nl) there seems to be only one belief: the fact that structured testing can only be done based on detailed, documented specifications and test execution-after-all-coding-is-done. In my opininion that is only one of the ways that testing can be done. And that for certain contexts this is not the right approach. Because when specs aren't detailed enough, or to fluid or...whatever - the testers start complaining. They become reactive rather than proactive. Current testing (from a traditional view) has no answer for common software development practices. Such as roughly defined specs, an interactive environment and close customer involvement.

And I am wondering: why don't we, as test professionals, have more answers than just one to structured testing?