Epistemology, Theory, and Methodology in Knowledge Organization: Toward a Classification, Metatheory, and Research Framework

This paper proposes a preliminary classification of knowledge organization research, divided among epistemology, theory, and methodology plus three spheres of research: design, study, and critique. This work is situated in a metatheoretical framework, drawn from sociological thought. Example works are presented along with preliminary classification. The classification is then briefly described as a comparison tool which can be used to demonstrate overlap and divergence in cognate discourses of knowledge organization (such as ontology engineering).

Ethos and Ideology of Knowledge Organization: Toward Precepts for and Engaged Knowledge Organization Drawing on The Arts and Crafts Movement, Critical Theory, and Žižek

Ethos is the spirit that motivates ideas and practices. When we talk casually about the ethos of a town, state, or country we are describing the fundamental or at least underlying rationale for action, as we see it. Ideology is a way of looking at things.It is the set of ideas that constitute one’s goals, expectations, and actions. In this brief essay I want to create a space where we might talk about the ethos and ideology in knowledge organization from a particular point of view; combining ideas and inspiration from the Arts and Crafts movement of the early Twentieth Century, critical theory in extant knowledge organization work, the work of Slavoj Žižek, and the work of Thich Nhat Hahn on Engaged Buddhism.I will expand more below, but we can say here and now that there are many open questions about ethos and ideology in and of knowledge organization, both its practice and products. Many of them in classification, positioned as they are around identity politics of race, gender, and other marginalized groups, ask the classificationist to be mindful of the choice of terms and relationships between terms. From this work we understand that race and gender requires special consideration, which manifests as a particular concern for the form of representation inside extant schemes. Even with these advances in our understanding there are still other categories about which we must make decisions and take action. For example, there are ethical decisions about fiduciary resource allocation, political decisions about standards adoption, and even broader zeitgeist considerations like the question of Fordist conceptions (Day, 2001; Tennis 2006) of the mechanics of description and representation present in much of today’s practice.Just as taking action in a particular way is an ethical concern, so too is avoiding a lack of action. Scholars in Knowledge Organization have also looked at the absence of what we might call right action in the context of cataloguing and classification. This leads to some problems above, and hints at larger ethical concerns of watching a subtle semantic violence go on without intervention (Bowker and Star, 2001; Bade 2006).The problem is not to act or not act, but how to act or not act in an ethical way, or at least with ethical considerations. The action advocated by an ethical consideration for knowledge organization is an engaged one, and it is here where we can take a nod from contemporary ethical theory advanced by Engaged Buddhism. In this context we can see the manifestation of fourteen precepts that guide ethical action, and warn against lack of action.

Lessons Learned From Loko I‘a Culture: How Hawaiian Ecological Knowledge Influences Environmental Policies

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Toward a Theory of Structure in Information Organization Frameworks

This paper outlines a formal and systematic approach to explication of the role of structure in information organization. It presents a preliminary set of constructs that are useful for understanding the similarities and differences that obtain across information organization systems. This work seeks to provide necessary groundwork for development of a theory of structure that can serve as a lens through which to observe patterns across systems of information organization.

The Weight of Language and Action: Epistemic Stance, Methodological Action,and Theoretical Perspective in Knowledge Organization

Knowledge organization (KO) research is a field of scholarship concerned with the design, study and critique of the processes of organizing and representing documents that societies see as worthy of preserving (Tennis, 2008). In this context we are concerned with the relationship between language and action.On the one hand, we are concerned with what language can and does do for our knowledge organization systems (KOS). For example, how do the words NEGRO or INDIAN work in historical and contemporary indexing languages? In relation to this, we are also concerned with how we know about knowledge organization (KO) and its languages. On the other hand, we are concerned with how to act given this knowledge. That is, how do we carry out research and how do we design, implement, and evaluate KO systems?It is important to consider these questions in the context of our work because we are delegated by society to disseminate cultural memory. We are endowed with a perspective, prepared by an education, and granted positions whereby society asks us to ensure that documentary material is accessible to future generations. There is a social value in our work, and as such there is a social imperative to our work. We must act with good conscience, and use language judiciously, for the memory of the world is a heavy burden.In this paper, I explore these two weights of language and action that bear down on KO researchers. I first summarize what extant literature says about the knowledge claims we make with regard to KO practices and systems. To make it clear what it is that I think we know, I create a schematic that will link claims (language) to actions in advising, implementing, or evaluating information practices and systems.I will then contrast this with what we do not know, that is, what the unanswered questions might be (Gnoli, 2008 ; Dahlberg, 2011), and I will discuss them in relation to the two weights in our field of KO.Further, I will try to provide a systematic overview of possible ways to address these open questions in KO research. I will draw on the concept of elenchus - the forms of epistemology, theory, and methodology in KO (Tennis, 2008), and framework analysis which are structures, work practice, and discourses of KO systems (Tennis, 2006). In so doing, I will argue for a Neopragmatic stance on the weight of language and action in KO (Rorty, 1982 ; 2000). I will close by addressing the lacuna left in Neopragmatic thought – the ethical imperative to use language and action in a particular good and moral way. That is, I will address the ethical imperative of KO given its weights, epistemologies, theories, and methods. To do this, I will review a sample of relevant work on deontology in both western and eastern philosophical schools (e.g., Harvey, 1995).The perspective I want to communicate in this section is that the good in carrying out KO research may begin with epistemic stances (cf., language), but ultimately stands on ethical actions. I will present an analysis describing the micro and the macro ethical concerns in relation to KO research and its advice on practice. I hope this demonstrates that the direction of epistemology, theory, and methodology in KO, while burdened with the dual weights of language and action, is clear when provided an ethical sounding board. We know how to proceed when we understand how our work can benefit the world.KO is an important, if not always understood, division of labor in a society that values its documentary heritage and memory institutions. Being able to do good requires us to understand how to balance the weights of language and action. We must understand where we stand and be able to chart a path forward, one that does not cause harm, but adds value to the world and those that want to access recorded knowledge.

Theory, Culture and Society Vol. 23 (2-3) Edited by Mike Featherstone

Review of May 2006 issue of journal Theory, Culture, and Society.

Three Creative Tensions in Document Interpretation Theory Set as Evidence of the Need fora Descriptive Informatics

Describes three tensions in the theoretical literature of indexing: chief sources of evidence indexing, process of indexing (rubrics and methods), and philosophical position of indexing scholarship. Following this exposition, we argue for a change in perspective in Knowledge Organization research. Using the difference between prescriptive and descriptive linguis- tics as a metaphor, we advocate for a shift to a more descriptive, rather than the customary prescriptive, approach to the theo- retical and empirical study of indexing, and by extension Knowledge Organization.

Layered Information Modeling and a Knowledge Organization Paradigm: Inherent Classification and the Design of Interoperable Systems

In knowledge technology work, as expressed by the scope of this conference, there are a number of communities, each uncovering new methods, theories, and practices. The Library and Information Science (LIS) community is one such community. This community, through tradition and innovation, theories and practice, organizes knowledge and develops knowledge technologies formed by iterative research hewn to the values of equal access and discovery for all. The Information Modeling community is another contributor to knowledge technologies. It concerns itself with the construction of symbolic models that capture the meaning of information and organize it in ways that are computer-based, but human understandable. A recent paper that examines certain assumptions in information modeling builds a bridge between these two communities, offering a forum for a discussion on common aims from a common perspective. In a June 2000 article, Parsons and Wand separate classes from instances in information modeling in order to free instances from what they call the “tyranny” of classes. They attribute a number of problems in information modeling to inherent classification – or the disregard for the fact that instances can be conceptualized independent of any class assignment. By faceting instances from classes, Parsons and Wand strike a sonorous chord with classification theory as understood in LIS. In the practice community and in the publications of LIS, faceted classification has shifted the paradigm of knowledge organization theory in the twentieth century. Here, with the proposal of inherent classification and the resulting layered information modeling, a clear line joins both the LIS classification theory community and the information modeling community. Both communities have their eyes turned toward networked resource discovery, and with this conceptual conjunction a new paradigmatic conversation can take place. Parsons and Wand propose that the layered information model can facilitate schema integration, schema evolution, and interoperability. These three spheres in information modeling have their own connotation, but are not distant from the aims of classification research in LIS. In this new conceptual conjunction, established by Parsons and Ward, information modeling through the layered information model, can expand the horizons of classification theory beyond LIS, promoting a cross-fertilization of ideas on the interoperability of subject access tools like classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and ontologies. This paper examines the common ground between the layered information model and faceted classification, establishing a vocabulary and outlining some common principles. It then turns to the issue of schema and the horizons of conventional classification and the differences between Information Modeling and Library and Information Science. Finally, a framework is proposed that deploys an interpretation of the layered information modeling approach in a knowledge technologies context. In order to design subject access systems that will integrate, evolve and interoperate in a networked environment, knowledge organization specialists must consider a semantic class independence like Parsons and Wand propose for information modeling.

Ranganathan’s Layers of Classification Theory and the FASDA Model of Classification

Describes four waves of Ranganathan’s dynamic theory of classification. Outlines components that distinguish each wave, and porposes ways in which this understanding can inform systems design in the contemporary environment, particularly with regard to interoperability and scheme versioning. Ends with an appeal to better understanding the relationship between structure and semantics in faceted classification schemes and similar indexing languages.

Collocative Integrity and Our Many Varied Subjects: What the Metric of Alignment between Classification Scheme and Indexer Tells Us About Langridge’s Theory of Indexing

As the universe of knowledge and subjects change over time, indexing languages like classification schemes, accommodate that change by restructuring. Restructuring indexing languages affects indexer and cataloguer work. Subjects may split or lump together. They may disappear only to reappear later. And new subjects may emerge that were assumed to be already present, but not clearly articulated (Miksa, 1998). In this context we have the complex relationship between the indexing language, the text being described, and the already described collection (Tennis, 2007). It is possible to imagine indexers placing a document into an outdated class, because it is the one they have already used for their collection. However, doing this erases the semantics in the present indexing language. Given this range of choice in the context of indexing language change, the question arises, what does this look like in practice? How often does this occur? Further, what does this phenomenon tell us about subjects in indexing languages? Does the practice we observe in the reaction to indexing language change provide us evidence of conceptual models of subjects and subject creation? If it is incomplete, but gets us close, what evidence do we still require?

Experientialist Epistemology and Classification Theory: Embodied and Dimensional Classification

What theoretical framework can help in building, maintaining and evaluating networked knowledge organization resources? Specifically, what theoretical framework makes sense of the semantic prowess of ontologies and peer-to-peer sys- tems, and by extension aids in their building, maintenance, and evaluation? I posit that a theoretical work that weds both for- mal and associative (structural and interpretive) aspects of knowledge organization systems provides that framework. Here I lay out the terms and the intellectual constructs that serve as the foundation for investigative work into experientialist classifi- cation theory, a theoretical framework of embodied, infrastructural, and reified knowledge organization. I build on the inter- pretive work of scholars in information studies, cognitive semantics, sociology, and science studies. With the terms and the framework in place, I then outline classification theory s critiques of classificatory structures. In order to address these cri- tiques with an experientialist approach an experientialist semantics is offered as a design commitment for an example: metadata in peer-to-peer network knowledge organization structures.

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 con- structing, 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.