trends’og’nye’tanker’...

Trends og nye tanker indenfor vidensorganisation

Jens-‐Erik MaiKøbenhavns Universitet

Det Informationsvidenskabelige Akademi

Dansk BiblioteksCenter19. juni 2013

1. teori2. problemområder3. spørgsmål4. etik5. pointer

Der var engang...

“... value judgments have no place in the creation of bibliographic files.” Hagler, 1997, p. 43

“... no politics, no religion, and no morals.” Wilson, 1983, p. 190

Man har ønsket, at bibliotekskatalogen skal være:

Neutral,objektiv, fordomsfri, og sand.

“...somewhere, somehow, we can, or should try to, produce the one best classification system that will serve all purposes”

Miksa,1998, p. 81

• “the ‘putting together of like things’ is . . . the fullest and most exact” definition of classification” (Richardson 1935, 1)

• ”Classification…means putting together things or ideas that are alike” (Vickery 1975, 1)

• “classification is the act of bringing like things together” (Buchanan 1979, 9)

• “the purpose of classification is to bring related items together” (Wynar 1992, 317)

• “to group all works of a kind together” (Chan 1994, 259)• “Classification brings like things together” (Svenonius 2000, 10)

Men kan det nu også passe?

Er det et velfunderet teoretisk grundlag?

“classification theorists have discovered that it [the universe of knowledge] is a much more complex phenomenon than was previously supposed. In fact, the closer Richardson, Bliss, Sayers, Ranganathan, and those who have followed them got to the phenomenon, the more complex it appeared and the more difficult it was to describe.”

Miksa, 1998, p. 74

“From the time of Aristotle to the later work of Wittgenstein, categories were thought to be well understood and unproblematic. They were assumed to be abstract containers, with things either inside or outside the category.”

Lakoff, 1987, p. 6

A lawnmover and a plum, for instance, are alike in the sense that “they both weigh less than 10,000 kg, both did not exist 10 million years ago, both cannot hear, both can be dropped, both take up space and so on”

“similarity is too flexible to explain categorization”

Bryant, 2000, p. 57

“likeness contributes little to an explanation of classification.” Broadfield 1946, p. 3

“likeness is not a quality of things. It is a relation between them, not a ‘characteristic’ of things.” Broadfield, 1946, p. 2

“... the pursuit of understanding through the search of what something is need not be about finding the essential identity of the thing.”

Boyne, 2006, p. 23

Lad os kigge på verden -‐

Fire observationer...

English German Danish French Italian Spanish

Tree Baum

Træ

Arbre Albero Árbol

Wood Holz

Træ

Bois

Legno

Leña

Wood Holz

Skov

Bois

Legno

Madera

Woods

Wald

Skov

Bois

Bosco Bosque

Forest

Wald

Skov

Forêt Foresta Selva

Cultural relativity in word meaningsby Hjemslev, 1943, extended by Buckley, 2001

#1

“... adding cheese makes a hamburger a ‘cheeseburger’, lettuce does not make it a ‘lettuceburger’”

Zerubavel, 1991, p. 77

#2

Et andet syn på viden og vidensorganisation:

-‐ Vi ser verden fra et bestemt punkt i verden

-‐ Vores/mit/dit syn på verden er unik

-‐ Vidensorganisation er kulturelt bestemt

“... we need to explain why we choose certain attributes over others on which to base our similarity judgements and to explain in virtue of what we judge members of a category to be similar.”

Bryant, 2000, p. 57

“... our analytic ability to decontextualize is admittedly a great intellectual achievement … it clearly also entails some ‘context blindness’.”


Ex: køkkenstole.

“... in order to have a meaningful concept of anything at all, we must first understand the role that that particular kind of object plays in the world.”

Bryant, 2000, p. 60

1. kitchen chair, milk stool, big rubber ball, tree stump, plastic crate

2. kitchen chair, coffee table, dresser, television set, bed

3. kitchen chair, electric piano, easel, cow, lunar landing pod

4. kitchen chair, book, computer, lamp, mouse (pointing device), mouse (toy), mouse (rodent), cat

5. kitchen chair, stretcher, obus form, wall

“Classification is not about equivalence but about association.”

Boyne, 2006, p. 23

Klassifikation:

-‐ enhver handling der udskiller noget fra noget andet

“... det her...” “... den der...”“... bil...” “... kat...” “... kærlighed...” “... løbe...” “... trold...”

Hvad eller hvordan er en kategori?

“... not clear-‐cut and sharply delineated but, rather, vague and often modified by such ‘hedges’ as ‘largely,’ ‘sort of,’ ‘quite,’ ‘almost,’ or ‘more or less.’”


“When I think have I already been engaged in classification, or is it vice versa? Do I think differently when I am explicitly trying to classify?”

Boyne, 2006, p. 28

Med det -‐ lad os kigge på vidensorganisation.

Lidt mere jordnært...

Vidensorganisationens problemer: (VOPer):

Tre størrelser: -‐ store VOPer -‐ mellem VOPer -‐ små VOPer

Vidensorganisationens problemer:

Tre størrelser: -‐ stor -‐ mellem -‐ lille

Størrelsen reflekterer mængden af information og forskelligheden blandt brugerne...

Jo mere information og jo mere forskellighed... jo større problem.

How much Users Examples

Big Large quantities of information

Many; varied interests, beliefs,

positions, knowledge,

expertise, etc.

Web, large academic and many

public libraries

Medium

Collections for particular, stated,

clear, objectives and specific purposes.

Particular, similar, interests, beliefs,

positions, knowledge,

expertise, etc.

Intranet, web portal, a store, some special

libraries

SmallAn individual's information

One or a few individuals; know and understand

their needs

Personal emails, documents, files,

photos, etc.

Forskellige problemer og spørgsmål:

-‐ stor: hvordan skaber vi mening i store mængder information med mange, forskellige bruger interesser?

-‐ mellem: hvordan analyserer vi et domæne for dets interesser og strukturer?

-‐ små: hvordan skaber vi systemer for enkelte individer der kan støtte deres erkendelsesinteresser?

Stor:Hvorfor? -‐ Bias, neutrality/objectivity, ethics, social theory.Hvordan? -‐ Linked data, semantic web, tagging, social web.

Mellem:Hvorfor? -‐ Nature of domains, communicative structures.Hvordan? -‐ Domain analysis, user studies.

Små: Hvorfor? -‐ Personal information needs.Hvordan? -‐ System development, keeping found things found.

Men tilgangen er afgørende...

"The ways in which [information studies’] ‘keywords’ -‐-‐ ‘information,’ ‘information users,’ and ‘information uses’ -‐-‐ are used set the limits of possible questions, issues, hypotheses, demonstrations, data, and research methodologies. These ways of talking are not neutral with respect to institutional structures."

Frohmann, 2004

Den måde vi taler om dokumenter og information er afgørende for hvilke spørgsmål vi kan stille...

“... a well-‐established tradition of library and information science theory ... understands ideas as being quasi-‐empirical objects—generated in the minds of authors—that are contained in documents and that are sought by and transferred to the minds of information seekers or users upon reading, viewing, or listening”

Day, 2008, p. 1644

“Largely unacknowledged influence of the realist view on the activity of designers and users of knowledge organization systems.”

“It is difficult to find well-‐reasoned defenses of the realist view in the literature, yet most of us ... continue to act as if we accept the realist view as the correct one.”

Furner, 2010, p. 186-‐187

Hvilke spørgsmål kan vi stille? -‐ Information som en ressource... -‐ Information som et epistemisk fænomen...

information as bits that are be managed, moved, sought, organized and used

focus on information as objects/containers...

questions: -‐ what is the most efficient way to search for information? -‐ how do ______ use information? -‐ which roles do information play in the life of ______?

resource (quasi-‐empirical)

information as particularistic that means something to somebody, that impacts people’s lives, that is right or wrong, true or untrue, useful or not.

focus on people’s engagement with mediated information

Questions: -‐ what would a just search engine look like? -‐ which acts creates good information exchange? -‐ what are the changing roles of media in an info society? -‐ why is information important? -‐ what roles do IT play in the construction of society?

epistemic

Vidensorganisation

-‐ transmission of messages-‐ efficiency and accuracy-‐ the act of communication-‐ the message is what the sender puts into it by whatever means-‐ users as consumers

-‐ info as resource

-‐ semantic web-‐ linked data

-‐ interoperability-‐ exchange

-‐ production and exchange of meanings-‐ signification-‐ texts and culture-‐ the works of communication-‐ the message is a construction of signs

-‐ info as meaning

-‐ social web-‐ tagging

-‐ context-‐ domains

Hvis kontekst er afgørende...

Hvis betydning er vigtigt...

Hvis kategorier er konstruerede...

“The way we cut up the world clearly affects the way we organize our everyday life.”


Den måde hvorpå informationsspecialisters klassifikationer opdeler verden, påvirker hvordan mennesker organiser deres liv/arbejde/samfund/tanker...

“A common dictum is that classification should not be critical. -‐ Whatever precautions a classification may take, it will be critical. For it is a system of expressed judgments.”

Broadfield, 1946, p. 78

“... if we admit that the number of different perspectives from which the world can be viewed and described is endless, we shall expect that the library to contain competing, conflicting accounts of the world that cannot be incorporated into a single consistent story of the way things are”.

Wilson, 1983, p. 165

Skiller krav om ansvar... epistemisk og etisk.

Et par eksempler...

“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions.”

Rawls, 1999, p. 3

DDC 200 section, religion 210 Philosophy & theory of religion220 The Bible230 Christianity & Christian theology240 Christian practices & observances250 Christian pastoral practice & religious orders260 Christian organization, social work & worship270 History of Christianity280 Christian denominations290 Other religions

“We’re the first to admit that the top-‐level view of 200 Religion in the DDC is problematic” (DDC 2006)

a study “about the future structure of 200 Religion” (DDC 2006).

“historically rooted in a firm Christian tradition and each has attempted to accommodate itself to the modern world in the recent past” (McIlwaine and Mitchell 2006, p. 323).

“reduce the Christian bias” (McIlwaine and Mitchell 2006, p. 323).

“Imagine that the system’s editors decide to fix the system once for all. … They consolidate the Christian topics, pull Buddhism up a couple of integers, push Baha’i down, …The Sunnis and Shiites are upset because they’ve been put at the same level. The Jews are furious because the Jews for Jesus, whom they view as Christian predators, are listed under Judaism. Librarians are out buying razor blades in bulk and white ink by the gallon.”

Weinberger, 2007, p. 56

Alle klassifikationer er biased.

“the DDC, or any classification, is not problematic if it expresses a point of view on the subject matter that it organizes. Indeed, there is no way it can avoid doing so” (Feinberg 2011, 7).

“... we need to explain why we choose certain attributes over others on which to base our similarity judgements and to explain in virtue of what we judge members of a category to be similar.”

Bryant, 2000, p. 57

1-‐03 Basic races

1-‐034 Caucasoids

1-‐035 Mongoloids

1-‐036 Negroids

1-‐04 Mixtures of basic races

1-‐042 Caucasoids and Mongoloids

1-‐043 Mongoloids and Negroids

1-‐044 Negroids and Caucasoids

1-‐046 Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids

DDC 1996

DDC 2003

Table 5: “Racial, ethnic, national groups” becomes: “Ethnic and national groups”

Motivation: “to reflect the de-‐emphasis on race in current scholarship” (Mitchell et al., 2003 in Furner 2007, p. 156).

Race disappears.

Works on race are “classed with with the ethnic group that most closely matches” (Mitchell et al., 2003 in Furner, 2007, p. 156).

"We’re always struggling to find racial labels that answer the question ‘what are you’ with even-‐handed essences, but the labels keep catching their sleeves on disparities in the way we think about race itself. Racial classifications are like irregular verbs—they may be inconsistent, but they run too deep to be eliminated by decree”

Nunberg 2004, 16

Etisk dilemma

ALA’s Code of Ethics

#1

“Ethical dilemmas occur when values are in conflict. The American Library Association Code of Ethics states the values to which we are committed, and embodies the ethical responsibilities of the profession in this changing information environment.”

“The principles of this Code are expressed in broad statements to guide ethical decision making. These statements provide a framework; they cannot and do not dictate conduct to cover particular situations.”

I. We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests.

II. ... principles of intellectual freedom...III. ... privacy and confidentiality...IV. ... intellectual property rights...V. ... treat co-‐workers and other colleagues...VI. ... do not advance private interests...VII. We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional

duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources.

VIII.... strive for excellence in the profession...

ALA: “Do the right thing!”

“’Do the right thing’ is a moral principle we all believe in, which admits no exceptions. We should always do what is right. However, this rule is so formal that it is trivial—we believe it because it doesn’t really say anything”

Rachels and Rachels, 2012, p. 133

IFLA’s Glasgow Declaration on Libraries, Information Services and Intellectual Freedom

Glasgow Deklarationen om biblioteker, informations-‐tjenester og intellektuel frihed [Bibliotekarforbundet]

#2

“IFLA proklamerer menneskers fundamentale ret til uden restriktioner at have adgang til og viderebringe information.

IFLA ... forsvarer og fremmer intellektuel frihed ... omfatter hele rigdommen af menneskelig viden, holdninger, kreative tanker og intellektuel aktivitet.

IFLA understreger, ... et hovedansvar for biblioteks-‐ og informations professionelle ... komme til udtryk både i etiske retningslinier og demonstreres i praksis.”

“How library professionals respond to their ethical dilemmas directly affects their ability to carry out their mission.”

Fallis 2007, p. 32

IFLA erklærer at:1. ... adgang til information...2. ... bekæmpe enhver form for censur...3. ... anskaffe, bevare og tilgængeliggøre ... samfundets pluralitet og forskelligartethed afspejles. Udvælgelsen og tilgængeliggørelsen af biblioteksmaterialer og ydelser skal alene foretages ud fra professionelle overvejelser og være ua�ængig af politiske, moralske og religiøse synspunkter.

4. ... materialer, faciliteter og ydelser til rådighed så de er tilgængelige for alle brugere på lige vilkår. Der må ikke udøves nogen form for diskrimination i forhold til race, national eller etnisk oprindelse, køn eller seksuel præference, alder, handicap, religion eller politiske overbevisning.

5. ... ret til anonymitet og fortrolighed...6.... fremme principperne om intellektuel frihed...

“... no politics, no religion, and no morals.” Wilson, 1983, p. 190

DK5 -‐ Religion 20 Den kristne religion i alm. 21 Naturlig teologi 22 Bibelen 23 Dogmatik 24 Trosliv. Opbyggelse 25 Mission 26 Kirkens institutioner og arbejde 27 Kirkehistorie 28 Kristne kirker og sekter. Kirkelig enhed 29 Religionsvidenskab

IFLA & BF: “Vær neutral!”

“the librarian is professionally noncommittal”

Wilson, 1983, p. 190

Det er ikke en mulighed at forholde sig værdi-‐neutralt.

There is no view from nowhere.

“the closer the neighbours the sharper the conflict” (Broadfield 1946, 69).

Hvilken rolle spiller klassifikationssystemer i videnssamfundet?

“mark and park”? ”at fremme oplysning, uddannelse og kulturel aktivitet”?

Fire pointer:1. Det epistemologiske fundament for vidensorganisation

har ændret sig [fra naiv realisme til social og kulturel forankring].

2. Betydning, fortolkning, kontekst og domæner er nu centrale begreber [fra vidensunivers til det partikulære].

3. Bibliotekarer og biblioteker har ansvar for hvordan folk tænker og agerer [fra neutrale mellemled til kognitive autoriteter].

4. Klassifikationer udtrykker et syn på verden [fra objektiv beskrivelser til aktiv konstruktion].

Tak

Jens-‐Erik Maijenserikmai.info

For mere se:

Mai, J-‐E. In press. Ethics, values and morality in contemporary library classifications. Knowledge Organization.

Mai, J-‐E. 2011. The modernity of classification. Journal of Documentation, 67 (4): 710-‐730.

Mai, J-‐E. 2010. Classification in a social world: Bias and trust. Journal of Documentation, 66 (5): 627-‐642.

Hent dem her: http://jenserikmai.info

http://jenserikmai.info

http://jenserikmai.info

Trends og nye tanker indenfor vidensorganisation

Jens-‐Erik MaiKøbenhavns Universitet

Det Informationsvidenskabelige Akademi

Dansk BiblioteksCenter19. juni 2013

Boyne, R. 2006. Classification. Theory, Culture and Society, 23 (2-‐3): 21-‐30.

Buchanan, B. 1979. Theory of Library Classification. London: Clive Bingley.

Bryant, R. 2000. Discovery and Decision: Exploring the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Scientific Classification. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.

Broadfield, A. 1946. The Philosophy of Classification. London: Grafton.

Chan, L.M. 1994. Cataloging and Classification: An Introduction. New York, NY: McGraw-‐Hill.

Day, R.E. 2008. Work and Representation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59: (10): 1644-‐1652.

DDC. 2006. A new view of religion. 025.431: The Dewey Blog. Available at: http://ddc.typepad.com, July 17, 2006.

Fallis, D. 2007. Information Ethics for the Twenty-‐First Century Library Professionals. Library Hi Tech, 25 (1): 23-‐36.

Feinberg, Melanie. 2011. Organization as Expression: Classification as Digital Media. In: Digital Media, Bill Aspray and Megan Winget (eds). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Furner, J. 2010. Philosophy and Information Studies. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, p. 161-‐200.

Furner, J. 2007. Dewey deracialized: A critical race-‐theoretic perspective. Knowledge Organization, 24 (3): 144-‐168.

Frohmann, B. 2004. Discourse analysis as a research method in library and information science. Library and Information Science Research, 16: 119-‐138.

Hagler, R. 1997. The bibliographic record and information technology, Chicago: ALA.

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McIlwaine, Ia C. and Mitchell, Joan S. 2006. The new ecumenism: Exploration of a DDC/UDC view of religion. In Budin, G., Swertz, C. and Mitgutsch, K., eds. Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the ninth international ISKO conference, Vienna, Austria, Er-‐gon: Würzburg, pp. 323-‐330.

Miksa, F. 1998. The DDC, the Universe of Knowledge, and the Post-‐Modern Library. Albany, NY: Forest Press.

Nunberg, G. 2004. Going nucular. Language, politics, and culture in confronta-‐tional times. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

Rachels, J. & Rachels, S. 2012. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 7th ed. New York: McGraw-‐Hill.

Rawls, J. 1999. A Social Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Richardson, E.C. 1935. Classification: Theoretical and Practical. New York: H.W. Wilson Co.

Svenonius, E. 2000. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vickery, B.C. 1975. Classification and Indexing in Science, London: Butterworths.

Weinberger, D. 2007. Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Times.

Wilson, P. 1983. Second-‐hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.

Wynar, B.S. 1992. Introduction to Cataloguing and Classification, 8th ed. Littleton, Co.: Libraries Unlimited.

Zerubavel, E. 1991. The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life. New York, NY: Free Press.

References

http://ddc.typepad.com




trends’og’nye’tanker’...

Documents