Classifying for Social Diversity

Abstract

His research has long focused on facilitating interdisciplinary research and teaching. He is president of the Association for Interdisciplinary Studies. Knowledge organization has become the dominant element in that research agenda, and he has authored two books and several articles that develop classifications of things studied, theories and methods applied, types of data, ethical perspectives, research practices, and relationships. He has contributed to the Integrative Levels Classification and is developing the Basic Concepts Classification. He has argued in several places for the value of a classification grounded not in disciplines but in the things we study and the relationships among these. He is working with others on a book about interdisciplinary knowledge organization. See http://www.economics.ualberta.ca/en/ FacultyandStaff/SzostakRick.aspx Szostak, Rick. Classifying for Social Diversity. Knowledge Organization. 41(2), 160-170. 32 references.

A Pluralistic Approach to the Philosophy of Classification

“…In the latter article, she draws on feminist philosophy in order to urge an approach to classification that relies less upon hierarchy and more on a web of relationships. I have recently (Szostak 2014a) shown that the sort of approach discussed in this paper fits Olson's criteria and responds to many particular concerns she raises.…”

“…The classification evaluated here has been evaluated (favorably) with respect to other criteria as well (see Szostak, 2014a).…”

“…Fox and Reece also urge us to keep borders porous. I have showed (Szostak, 2014a) that the approach taken here could encourage both cross-group and within-group understanding. More generally, as we have seen, this approach encourages users to make connections with other literatures.…”

“…20. Szostak (2014a) showed that the classification facilitated both cross-group and withingroup understanding, responded very well to a feminist critique of classificatory practice by instantiating a web-of-relations approach, and transcended concerns regarding the arbitrary nature of existing hierarchies (by classifying relationships as relationships rather than trying to treat them as things). Along the way, several other advantages were noted: shorter schedules, expressive notation, ability to search by type of relationship, amenability to translation from other classifications, and placing works (but not concepts) in multiple hierarchies.…”

How Universal is Universality?

“…-As argued above, the disagreements between individuals or groups about the meanings attached to complex/contested terms can be greatly alleviated by breaking these into basic terminology around which a much greater degree of consensus can be achieved. -Disagreements regarding the nature of classes can be alleviated by limiting the use of hierarchy, and also by pursuing a synthetic approach (Szostak 2014). -Individuals or groups also disagree regarding which causal relationships (where "causal" is defined broadly to indicate any influence that any thing may exert on any other) are most important or the nature of particular causal relationship.…”