Name for the study of the knowledge organization?
March 5, 2007 7:06 AM Subscribe
What is the name for the study of the organization of knowledge?
I am talking about something more specific than library and information science, but not exactly the same as library classification--something not specifically tied to printed works.
Encyclopaedia Britannica's Propaedia volume takes a top-down view of knowledge (mostly as it relates to humans), and most reference works have ad-hoc categories that attempt to fill out the broad spectrum of knowledge. But what do people who create these kinds of works study?
I am talking about something more specific than library and information science, but not exactly the same as library classification--something not specifically tied to printed works.
Encyclopaedia Britannica's Propaedia volume takes a top-down view of knowledge (mostly as it relates to humans), and most reference works have ad-hoc categories that attempt to fill out the broad spectrum of knowledge. But what do people who create these kinds of works study?
Epistemology is the branch of Philosophy that studies the origins and nature of human knowledge, including what knowledge actually is, how we acquire it, the limits of human knowledge, etc. I'm not sure if that's entirely what you're looking for, but perhaps some answers (and certainly some interesting questions) can be found in reading some Epistemological works. Locke-Berkeley-Hume offers a very intriguing progression through some "Modern" epistemological theories, and Kant later tries to solve all of the problems that those three run into, so reading the four of them could definitely be worthwhile.
posted by Rallon at 7:18 AM on March 5, 2007
posted by Rallon at 7:18 AM on March 5, 2007
To clarify something from your question, library classification is not limited to printed materials.
posted by box at 7:21 AM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 7:21 AM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Just to geekify it enough for my brain, would a small portion of this be along the lines of:
I have a lot of different documents on my computer.
I store these files in a particular folder hierarchy that makes sense to me.
Someone out there is interested in studying the why and what of the way I've decided to set up my folder structure to organize these documents.
This someone is involved in (the word you're looking for).
I know you're talking on a larger, broader scale, but if we're looking at a very small scale, would that example apply to what you're thinking?
posted by Moondoggie at 7:28 AM on March 5, 2007
I have a lot of different documents on my computer.
I store these files in a particular folder hierarchy that makes sense to me.
Someone out there is interested in studying the why and what of the way I've decided to set up my folder structure to organize these documents.
This someone is involved in (the word you're looking for).
I know you're talking on a larger, broader scale, but if we're looking at a very small scale, would that example apply to what you're thinking?
posted by Moondoggie at 7:28 AM on March 5, 2007
In the early 19th century, lots of philosophers tried to classify knowledge (Diderot, d'Alembert and Bacon in particular). In fact, Diderot's encyclopedia project is probably the canonical example of such an attempt: here's the tree he came up with.
But according to Wikipedia, the contributors to the propaedia tend to mostly be experts in particular fields rather than general students of the organization of knowledge. Perhaps science is becoming to specialized for someone who's not an expert in a particular field to be able to classify everything? The project seems to have been headed by a philosopher, though: Mortimer Adler.
posted by goingonit at 7:31 AM on March 5, 2007
But according to Wikipedia, the contributors to the propaedia tend to mostly be experts in particular fields rather than general students of the organization of knowledge. Perhaps science is becoming to specialized for someone who's not an expert in a particular field to be able to classify everything? The project seems to have been headed by a philosopher, though: Mortimer Adler.
posted by goingonit at 7:31 AM on March 5, 2007
Response by poster: Maybe I can clarify by quoting the passage that set me off on this track (from this wikipedia article on the LOC system)
Although it divides subjects into broad categories, it is essentially enumerative in nature. It provides a guide to the books actually in the library, not a classification of the world.
So...where do I find information about the "classification of the world"?
About the "printed matter" statement--I realize knowledge exists outside books. What I'm driving at is: how can knowledge, in books and otherwise, be melted down to its core and put in some sort of order that's not purely alphabetical? Who studies this?
posted by mjklin at 7:33 AM on March 5, 2007
Although it divides subjects into broad categories, it is essentially enumerative in nature. It provides a guide to the books actually in the library, not a classification of the world.
So...where do I find information about the "classification of the world"?
About the "printed matter" statement--I realize knowledge exists outside books. What I'm driving at is: how can knowledge, in books and otherwise, be melted down to its core and put in some sort of order that's not purely alphabetical? Who studies this?
posted by mjklin at 7:33 AM on March 5, 2007
Response by poster: Or, on a separate tack...where would a critique of Diderot's or Britannica's system appear? Is there a scholarly journal dedicated to this?
posted by mjklin at 7:43 AM on March 5, 2007
posted by mjklin at 7:43 AM on March 5, 2007
Best answer: You may be interested in the International Society for Knowledge Organization?
posted by goingonit at 8:10 AM on March 5, 2007
posted by goingonit at 8:10 AM on March 5, 2007
On looking at your clarification, I think it's most reasonable to find such writing in and around philosophy. There are feminist criticisms of science. We also constantly have debates in contemporary analytic philosophy about "carving reality at its joints", namely if there are any joints and if so, where they are. Someone like Alan Sidelle doesn't believe at the bottom of things there are joints. Slightly more approachable might be Nelson Goodman's "grue" problem in Fact, Fiction, and Forecast or his more general treatment in Ways of Worldmaking. I take it that Heidegger was also doing something along these lines, but I'm not exactly sure what.
Of course this is all going to be fantastically abstract in a way Adler's project wasn't, but I do think the debate actually ends up where Sidelle and Goodman are. There are also famous debates about what belongs in the "canon" of Western Literature or whether we should have a canon. I would say the criticisms (usually from a post-colonial standpoint, but from others as well), have far outweighed the debate about what belongs in the canon lately. Outside of this, I think library science is your best bet.
posted by ontic at 8:17 AM on March 5, 2007
Of course this is all going to be fantastically abstract in a way Adler's project wasn't, but I do think the debate actually ends up where Sidelle and Goodman are. There are also famous debates about what belongs in the "canon" of Western Literature or whether we should have a canon. I would say the criticisms (usually from a post-colonial standpoint, but from others as well), have far outweighed the debate about what belongs in the canon lately. Outside of this, I think library science is your best bet.
posted by ontic at 8:17 AM on March 5, 2007
What about Sociology of Knowledge? Or Sociology of Scientific Knowledge? There are academics in those fields that look at how categories are created and enforced. Maybe check out this book. It's about how taxonomies are created. I'm sure there are others.
posted by unknowncommand at 8:33 AM on March 5, 2007
posted by unknowncommand at 8:33 AM on March 5, 2007
Or maybe you are interested in something like indexing. That would be more like library science.
posted by unknowncommand at 8:37 AM on March 5, 2007
posted by unknowncommand at 8:37 AM on March 5, 2007
Response by poster: That link to the ISKO pretty much nailed the people I'm looking for. As expected, they are a crack unit consisting of philosophers, librarians, and linguists who recently escaped from a maximum-security prison, and drive around the country in their black van helping the people who due to scheduling conflicts couldn't be helped by MacGyver. Here I am asking Mefites when what I really need is to be talking to their mysterious, cigar-chomping leader. "If you have a problem...if no one else can help...and if you can find them..."
Seriously though, is "knowledge organization" the best anyone can do? Haven't we invented some -ology to delineate this beast yet?
posted by mjklin at 8:52 AM on March 5, 2007
Seriously though, is "knowledge organization" the best anyone can do? Haven't we invented some -ology to delineate this beast yet?
posted by mjklin at 8:52 AM on March 5, 2007
Response by poster: ...ok, obviously ignoring "ontology", but for some reason I don't see anyone calling him or herself an ontologist creating any sort of worldwide index. I'm not being purely abstract here--I'd like to have some sort of practical result.
posted by mjklin at 9:15 AM on March 5, 2007
posted by mjklin at 9:15 AM on March 5, 2007
Another vote for taxonomy.
Sociology of knoweldge isn't quite right - people who do this kind of work study how different categories come into being, they don't do the categorization themselves. That is, they study the taxonomers, rather than engaging in taxonomy themselves.
Epistemology isn't quite right either, for similar reasons. epistemologists study different theories of knowledge and the logical foundations of different patterns of dividing the world into classifications; they don't do the classification themselves.
The classic exampe of taxonomy is Linneaus, who originated the system of classifying living organisms (order, genera, species, etc.) that is still in use today. So when you look at things like Field Guide to the Birds or classification systems of different kinds of astronomical objects, you are looking at the results of taxonomers.
posted by googly at 9:17 AM on March 5, 2007
Sociology of knoweldge isn't quite right - people who do this kind of work study how different categories come into being, they don't do the categorization themselves. That is, they study the taxonomers, rather than engaging in taxonomy themselves.
Epistemology isn't quite right either, for similar reasons. epistemologists study different theories of knowledge and the logical foundations of different patterns of dividing the world into classifications; they don't do the classification themselves.
The classic exampe of taxonomy is Linneaus, who originated the system of classifying living organisms (order, genera, species, etc.) that is still in use today. So when you look at things like Field Guide to the Birds or classification systems of different kinds of astronomical objects, you are looking at the results of taxonomers.
posted by googly at 9:17 AM on March 5, 2007
Well, Library Science DOES touch on all of these issues. But to echo what everyone else has said:
Classifications of All Knowledge: primarily philosophical questions, either Epistemology or Ontology, depending on who you ask. :-)
Different actual taxonomies of things: all over the board. There are different sorts of taxonomies in Biology than there are in Chemistry because they are describing different parts of the world. I suppose you might be able to construct a Periodic Table of Life, but that wouldn't be nearly as instructive as the Linnean classification system for species.
I would say that one system that does a pretty ok job at what you are looking for is a folksonomy.
But yes, Library Science does study all of this. Look at some of the journals in the field and you'll quickly see what I mean.
posted by griffey at 9:22 AM on March 5, 2007
Classifications of All Knowledge: primarily philosophical questions, either Epistemology or Ontology, depending on who you ask. :-)
Different actual taxonomies of things: all over the board. There are different sorts of taxonomies in Biology than there are in Chemistry because they are describing different parts of the world. I suppose you might be able to construct a Periodic Table of Life, but that wouldn't be nearly as instructive as the Linnean classification system for species.
I would say that one system that does a pretty ok job at what you are looking for is a folksonomy.
But yes, Library Science does study all of this. Look at some of the journals in the field and you'll quickly see what I mean.
posted by griffey at 9:22 AM on March 5, 2007
Information Architecture?
posted by idiotfactory at 9:31 AM on March 5, 2007
posted by idiotfactory at 9:31 AM on March 5, 2007
Best answer: Classification theory or knowledge organization is what those of us in the field call it. I'll have a better response when I'm done with my day's taxonomizing, but in the mean time, try and find Svenonius at your local library.
posted by stet at 9:38 AM on March 5, 2007
posted by stet at 9:38 AM on March 5, 2007
I can't believe I forgot to mention Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It's philosophy, but less abstract. History and philosophy of science might be a good place to look for one piece of the puzzle you're working on.
You know now that I think about it, I am vaguely recollecting something called "noology" which may be what you want. Unfortunately the word is not by any means in common usage and gets coopted by crackpots. I think the main reason it's so tough to find things is that, other than Adler's project, there is no central organization to human knowledge. It's carried on by decentralized universities, journals, and institutes everywhere. So the best you're going to get is the aforementioned sociology of knowledge workers.
Maybe the world does need more legitimate noologists. I think you'll enjoy this video about the next 50 years in science given your interests.
posted by ontic at 12:28 PM on March 5, 2007
You know now that I think about it, I am vaguely recollecting something called "noology" which may be what you want. Unfortunately the word is not by any means in common usage and gets coopted by crackpots. I think the main reason it's so tough to find things is that, other than Adler's project, there is no central organization to human knowledge. It's carried on by decentralized universities, journals, and institutes everywhere. So the best you're going to get is the aforementioned sociology of knowledge workers.
Maybe the world does need more legitimate noologists. I think you'll enjoy this video about the next 50 years in science given your interests.
posted by ontic at 12:28 PM on March 5, 2007
Taxonomy isn't right; it's the thing itself. mjklin is asking what the study of taxonomies (and other orderings) is called. Ontology is probably a bit to general.
Set Theory is my answer. Probably a bit more mathematical that what you're looking for, but it's the formalized study of classification systems.
posted by bonehead at 1:02 PM on March 5, 2007
Set Theory is my answer. Probably a bit more mathematical that what you're looking for, but it's the formalized study of classification systems.
posted by bonehead at 1:02 PM on March 5, 2007
"Taxonomy isn't right; it's the thing itself. mjklin is asking what the study of taxonomies (and other orderings) is called."
Well, if historiography is the study of the practice and theory of history, then perhaps taxonomography is the study of the practice and theory of taxonomy?
Now, that's obviously a made-up word, but I can't find an alternative that is even occasionally used.
You might find this paper (pdf) interesting --- it discusses the differences between classification, ontology and taxonomy, but it's not quite on point.
posted by robcorr at 8:10 PM on March 5, 2007
Well, if historiography is the study of the practice and theory of history, then perhaps taxonomography is the study of the practice and theory of taxonomy?
Now, that's obviously a made-up word, but I can't find an alternative that is even occasionally used.
You might find this paper (pdf) interesting --- it discusses the differences between classification, ontology and taxonomy, but it's not quite on point.
posted by robcorr at 8:10 PM on March 5, 2007
second sociology of knowledge, as in the social construction of knowledge systems (how and on what basis ideas, knowledge, ideas, concepts etc. are developed, maintained and used).
posted by kch at 8:17 PM on March 5, 2007
posted by kch at 8:17 PM on March 5, 2007
I second checking out Svenonius. (Her book refers to the field as "Information Organization.") "Bibliographic Control" is another term that's used (although, etymologically, that does seem to give preference to books).
posted by bokinney at 9:49 PM on March 5, 2007
posted by bokinney at 9:49 PM on March 5, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by GuyZero at 7:15 AM on March 5, 2007