From the invalidity of a General Classification Theory to a new organization of knowledge for the millennium to come (original) (raw)
Related papers
Foundational, First-Order, and Second-Order Classification Theory
Both basic and applied research on the construction, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation of classification schemes is called classification theory. If we employ Ritzer’s metatheoretical method of analysis on the over one-hundred year-old body of literature, we can see categories of theory emerge. This paper looks at one particular part of knowledge organization work, namely classification theory, and asks 1) what are the contours of this intellectual space, and, 2) what have we produced in the theoretical reflection on constructing, implementing, and evaluating classification schemes? The preliminary findings from this work are that classification theory can be separated into three kinds: foundational classification theory, first-order classification theory, and second-order classification theory, each with its own concerns and objects of study.
The idea of organizing knowledge and the determinism in classifícation structures implicitly involve certain limits which are translated into a General Theory on the Classifícation of Knowledge, given that classifícation responds to specific parameters and structures more than to a theoretical concept. The classifícation of things is a refiection of their classifícation by man, and this is what determines classifícation structures. The classifícation and organization of knowledge are presented to us as an artificial construct or as a useful fiction elaborated by man.
“Strata” and top categories for an ontologically oriented classification
2011
In spite of its difficulty, communication between philosophy and classification – and more precisely between ontological research and knowledge organization – is conceptually very intriguing, and implies a lot of problems for scientific research. One of these, which is the object of discussion of this paper, is the theme of the “something” (the matter) of classification. After a quick examination of the debate around the alternative between classification of documents and of entities, the paper shows how every kind of rigorous classification must be supported by an ontology. An example of an ontological approach to knowledge classification is the implementation of the theory of levels of reality. Nicolai Hartmann’s idea of a stratification of the real world is individuated as a robust support to the aim. However a theory of levels needs a set of general categories, common for all the levels. The aim of exploring the fundamental or top categories is pursued through a combination of t...
Theories of knowledge organization — theories of knowledge
Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way – and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just “given” but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g. empiricism, rationalism, historicism or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.
Classification Schemes of Information Science: Twenty-Eight Scholars Map the Field
Journal of the American Society for Information …, 2007
The field of Information Science is constantly changing. Therefore, information scientists are required to regu-larly reviewand if necessaryredefine its fundamental building blocks. This article is one of a group of four articles, which resulted from a Critical Delphi study ...
Categories in Knowledge Organization
The categorial approach was formulated by Ranganathan in the 1930s in his Colon Classification and its conceptual and theoretical basis was laid down in his Prolegomena. This view influenced significantly the search for a new approach to knowledge organization that would overcome the rigidity and limitations of enumerative models. The categorical approach or the facet-analytical approach has since become the single most predominant approach in knowledge organization leading to the development of a number of special classification schemes for micro-subjects, new general classification schemes such as BSO (and revision of existing schemes, e.g. BC2), indexing systems such as PRECIS and POPSI, revision and / or development of controlled vocabularies to conform to the faceted approach, emergence of new tools such as the Thesaurofacet and Classaurus, and in recent years, facet analysis has even been used in website design. This paper explores some schemas and raises a few questions as to the relevance of these in the digital environment.
DECLASSIFYING KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION
KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION 41, 5, 2014
Classification, as is common knowledge, is simultaneously an operation (classer) and an instrument of knowledge organization (classifier), regardless of more technical or specific designations used in that area of research, although an operation that ‘naturally’ transcends the very realm of knowledge organization (KO) to which it descended from the logos. In this text, a summary of more than 35 years of work, the author presents a series of hypothesis and itineraries of declassified thought, a way of thinking based on strategies of reflexivity and pluralism that buttress the automatic, hierarchical and essentialist tendencies enhanced by totalitarian mind, whether this be harsh or subtle, which are imposed by all levels of power in order to re-orientate them towards civic commitment, re-politicization of KO practices that were never depoliticized. Declassification is a hermeneutics of KO that recuperates criticism, rhetoric, reflection, emotions, affection and even contradiction as the cornerstones of systematic knowledge production processes. The world is not only full of heterogeneous knowledge but also heterogeneous forms of knowing that must be restored and deliberated upon on an equal basis. That is the aim of declassification on putting forward an open and alternative interpretation of rethinking and practising identity, culture, memory or social sciences and KO, particularly in the new digital space of unlimited interaction.
A new paradigm in the organization of knowledge
Futures, 1994
The contemporary situation of knowledge points to a change in paradigm, if looked at from the perspective of a confluence of its essential elements, instead of as a dispersion of its often incongruous developments. The novelty comes from the emergence of the non-material order in the area of the material paradigm, for which it substitutes-only in this sense can one speak of substitution here-as an ordering paradigm of knowledge and of its transmission and circulation. Since the main models of the organization of the fields of knowledge suggested in the past century and a half were inspired by a material/energy matrix of science, we propose an alternative model strategically more adapted to the present situation and heuristically more interesting for the analysis of its problems.