During the last few years, there have been debates over what is context and how computers should act upon it. Two disparate camps of thought can be recognized. First, Real-ism, having its roots in natural sciences, believes that con-texts exist out there and that, if properly instrumented and programmed, computers can correctly recognize and adapt to them. Second, Constructivism, having its roots in human and social sciences, believes that contexts are human creations, mental and social, and that computers ought to provide resources for managing them. We reveal some fundamental differences between the two in three different application domains. We show that despite the deep-going controversies, both camps benefit from considering the alternative approach and a middle ground can be found.