Political Versus Apolitical Epistemologies in Knowledge Organization

IF 0.6 4区 管理学 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Knowledge Organization Pub Date : 2020-10-28 DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-461
Birger Hjørland
{"title":"Political Versus Apolitical Epistemologies in Knowledge Organization","authors":"Birger Hjørland","doi":"10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers’ (and indexers’) political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).","PeriodicalId":46091,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knowledge Organization","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-461","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers’ (and indexers’) political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
知识组织中的政治与批判认识论
第一节提出了本文的问题:知识组织系统(KOS)和知识组织过程(KOP)本质上是中立的还是政治的,它们应该是中立的是否是一个富有成效的理想。这些问题植根于更广泛的科学和学术研究方法及其哲学假设问题中:KOS(以及一般研究)的构建背后有什么样的方法和认识论假设?第2节介绍并讨论了与中立有关的基本方法和认识论及其地位。第3节提供了女权主义学术的一个具体例子,以清楚地表明,经常声称或被认为是非政治的方法论代表了伪装成客观性的主观性。它包含四个小节:3.1女性主义的历史观,3.2心理学,3.3知识组织和3.4。认识论。总体而言,女权主义学术界认为,声称中立但支持镇压人群的方法论应被称为认识论暴力,它们反对反映科学与更大社会之间互动的社会、批判和务实的认识论。第4节讨论了研究者(和索引者)的政治态度与其范式/索引之间的关系。第5节考虑了认识论标签的争议性质,第6节得出结论,特定的KOS、算法或信息系统为谁的利益服务的问题应该始终处于信息研究和知识组织(KO)的前沿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Knowledge Organization
Knowledge Organization INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
28.60%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Research on Coronary Heart Disease Knowledge Organization Based on Follow-up Data The Systems Approach in Soil Science and Landscape Science Scope - Aims Comparative Analysis of National Classification Systems: Cases of Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) and Nippon Decimal Classification (NDC) Organization of Complex Topics in Comprehensive Classification Schemes: Case Studies of Disaster and Security
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1